Moderator: Cartographers
khazalid wrote:i found the reaction to WM recently quite abhorrent
khazalid wrote:very much so, yes.
i'll reiterate again though, i dont mean this as a personal attack on any of the cartographers and i found the reaction to WM recently quite abhorrent
cairnswk wrote:khazalid wrote:very much so, yes.
i'll reiterate again though, i dont mean this as a personal attack on any of the cartographers and i found the reaction to WM recently quite abhorrent
khazalid...care to expand on my maps and why you find them 'off'.
Not taking this as personal attack btw...but it might be helpful if some of you guys and gals who are having problems/issues/challengnes with maps would visit the map foundry to give your two cents worth when the maps are veing developed.
khazalid wrote:there is a clear pattern emerging in the development of a great deal of the newer maps, and this sentiment is commonly shared, amongst the upper echelons of players at least. what it basically amounts to is style over substance.
khazalid wrote:from the outside looking in you are all trying to outdo each other, if not with increasingly flash graphics then with increasingly elabourate playing schemes (i know some really liked AoM, and a little experimentation is of course a good thing, but aside from that an awful lot of the newer maps have weird and quite frankly superfluous shit in them that categorically detracts from the gameplay).
khazalid wrote:i suppose this is an attempt to bridge the gap between 'us' and 'you'
khazalid wrote:common line of counter argument being something along the lines of: if you dont like it then dont play it
AndrewB wrote:1.b. Font selection.
i was made well aware of the color issues in my first map and those issues for the colour blind. I don't believe any of my maps fall into this area.Color selections. Map designers must make sure that their color do no clash with armies colors, and be nice and pleasant for eye.
....A touch of reality for those player who might CHOSE to use that feature. There were anti-aircraft batteries at PH, and they were used. Just because player chose not to use them doesn't mean you can qualify them as superfluous.2.a All those bombardments are not adding much playbility-wise. What was achieved with the myriads of bombardments in the Pearl Harbour map?
2.b. Every map needs to have its essence. Which can be chock points, or critical holdings etc. In the Battle of Actium there is no such thing. Everything can attack pretty much everything... Millions of possible pathways. Boring, very not interesting.
2.c. Battle of Australia. Why all middle part of map is always neutral? Is there a need for so much of it? How often do they actually get conquered during the game play? And if not often, why are there at all then?
2.d. Continent bonuses. In order to make a map, suited to play risk in no cards games, you have to make sure that bonuses are relevant and are feasible to hold. In Battle of Actium, all the continents are huge. Very tough to play no cards.
Don't you mean "than" rather than "when"...2.e. Some maps are plain obscure: Omaha Beach, Rail USA, Pearl Harbour, Bamboo Jack. Last map is not a map, but some kind of treasure hunting manuscript. There are more words there when countries names.
But there are new maps, which actually fit well into those requirements:
Italy, France, Montreal v2, Portugal. Nice and crisp, straightforward, yet interesting game play. Can we have more of those?
Nephilim wrote:but khaz is right: keep in mind that substance/excellent gameplay is far more important than originality for its own sake. gimmicks and gadgets are fun, but ultimately they are fluff compared to excellent playability.
one other note: i would like to see a bit more stringent vetting process when it comes to graphics. i like the look of the new canada map, but it is small and hard to see. same goes for midkemia, it might turn out to be a great map, but the words and everything else are so tiny. and berlin looks interesting, but the colors and lines make it difficult to see as well. ummm, bamboo jack is currently blowing my mind so i'll get back to you on that one......
just think about playability, attractive visuals that are also easy to view, and retain your creative drive in the entire process! go cartography goons!
rebelman wrote:I hope these comments are taken as honest constructive contributions in advancing this process - as that is what they are.
cairnswk wrote:
I have also posted a topic in GD that is call Maps Stats etc. In there are links to the development atlas. and the Foundry. I think some people use it but they don't comment in that post as when i went looking for it this last weekend, i found it down on page 5 in order to update the fortnightly stats.
rebelman wrote:All your above points were extremely reasonable and I concur in the main - i agree with you its the early stages is when you guys need input but as of now things are being seen late in the game probably too late by most community members outside here.cairnswk wrote:
I have also posted a topic in GD that is call Maps Stats etc. In there are links to the development atlas. and the Foundry. I think some people use it but they don't comment in that post as when i went looking for it this last weekend, i found it down on page 5 in order to update the fortnightly stats.
I have looked at this thread regularly and never realised it had links in it - I assumed it just showed map movements and like most pure stats threads people only post errors or omissions - maybe the name on this thread could be changed to "maps news" and be made a stickie that way it would attract far more attention also coleman could post his newsletter in that thread as well. In effect there would be one active thread then in general discussion that would draw people into the foundry.
Actually it is a 1983 video game. And it is clean and stylish for a 1983 based video game. That is why it looks like that.d.gishman wrote:I enjoy most of the maps, but ill admit some styles dont fit right with me... the ones that look like an old 1993 videogame.. i dont want the mention any names here
I prefer maps that are clean and stylish
I know you were never threatening me rebelman and I appreciate that. My concern was the sudden "problem" with the colors when the same probtem has always existed (I ans several others actually think the old map is WORSE).rebelman wrote:khazalid wrote:i found the reaction to WM recently quite abhorrent
As someone who has been highly critical of the new canada map today on a number of threads at no stage was I critical of WM, if anything I was complimentary of him and I did not post in the flame wars thread as I too was unimpressed by the comments in there. I'm assuming Khaz was not referring to me but in case other people interpret it that way, I wanted to clarify.
I agree with this. I want to make my maps look as good as possible. Fitting them into the theme from which the come. I have changed many graphical issues pointed out by members.oaktown wrote:But I don't think that anybody who has closely followed the production of a map could say that style is more important than game play. It takes weeks to work out the play of a map - identifying dead-ends and bottlenecks, working out bonuses, creating balance at the start of the game, location of unpassable borders, readability of titles, placement of army counts and shadows, use of bombardments/neutrals/one-way attacks, etc. So while as mapmaker I may have final say over style issues, I am at the mercy of the foundry when it comes to game play.
Out-do is not the right word. When I see someone elses stuff I want to learn how to make it better. If I only wanted to outdo other peoples work, I would not have posted the last 5 maps I did for download so everyone could pick them apart. I think there is a much more community driven attitude in the foundry. Sure I like my maps to look good. But I don't want anyone elses to look bad.oaktown wrote:]I don't get the sense that anybody is trying to out-do each other... we're all pretty friendly, and the bulk of the graphics help/suggestions that I've received has come from the other mapmakers. I think would be more fair to say that we are all trying to come up with something original, both in form and function. Classic has been done - in many variations - and I don't want to redo it again. I want people to play my map because it is BETTER than classic.
Instead of typing it all over again, I will just say. I agreeoaktown wrote:Well, that can be said and has been said, and with the increasing number of maps in play it becomes more and more valid, but I would never use this argument. I want people to want to play my maps.
Rather, I would use this counter-argument: if you hate the look and play of a map that has gone through a three to six month foundry process, why didn't you make your opinion known before it went live? As a foundry regular I find it a bit insulting that people never check in here and then 1) criticize the maps the foundry produces and 2) ridicule the people who are working on them.
Because really, what does it take to be a foundry-goer? You click the link, look at some maps, leave your opinions, and you're done... you've just helped steer the direction of a new map. And I guess if anybody hates the map, you are in part responsible. It's like politics: if you don't show up to vote, you have no right to complain later about the guy who won.
So let's drop the "you and us" talk... WE are all users of the site, but only some of us choose to participate in the democratic foundry process.
It's funny, but the users of other forums have branded the foundry-goers as a strange and exclusive breed. I'm guilty of not spending time in the other forums, so if that makes me strange, so be it. I figure if I want to discuss the merits of Ron Paul I can do so in the real world.
The reason i asked is that the colors on the old map are hard, if not harder, to read than the new map. Several people have said this. While I am not saying the numbers are like reading black font on white paper, they are easier to read than the old one. I am not trying to be a pain here but this map went though TONS of criticism and I actually redid the entire thing from scratch after the competition was over. So I am not trying to put our junk and make it harder for people to play.rebelman wrote:Again even with this latest issue on the canada map instead of accepting our detailed honest input the map maker openly challenged me as to why I couldn't see it.
rebelman wrote:As an outsider I tried commenting on several maps here some weeks ago and I was met with such a reaction from cartographers it prompted me to write a report in the "abuse" forum.
I was told at the time I was overreacting and the foundry loves input from "outsiders" (a foundry regular's word at the time not mine - as I don't think calling us outsiders is fair or reasonable)
rebelman wrote:Again even with this latest issue on the canada map instead of accepting our detailed honest input the map maker openly challenged me as to why I couldn't see it.
rebelman wrote:1/ When new people comment on maps (even if its a dopey comment) welcome their input and bear in mind they may not be too clued in on photoshop etc. There next comment (which will come if they get a positive reaction) may not be so dopey and after a while this guy/girl might not just be making comments they might be making a map.
rebelman wrote:2/ Don't just wait for others to visit it here - leave the foundry and seek input from outside. gimil and unit_2 have used live chat, DiM has used his sig (useing your sig is not much good, if you never leave the foundry). i made a simple suggestion several weeks ago that fell on deaf ears that i believe would help this - have a stickie thread in general discussion with hyperlinks to all maps in the foundry especially those not quenched yet - maybe with a brief description next to each link. i'm not sure why this was ignored when I previously suggested it but in this context I am throwing it out there again.
Kugelblitz22 wrote:AndyDufresne wrote:The best way to decide, is be active in the Foundry Process.
--Andy
There has to be a better way than that...
The map foundry sucks.
I don't have the time it takes to slog through hundreds of pages quibbling over map minutia.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users