Conquer Club

Special thanks to keiths31 for also contributing to this idea

Concise description:

• Separate "Basic" and "Gimmick" Map Styles

Specifics/Details:

• Two separate lists for different map styles
  
• Names for the different lists are open to suggestions - "Basic" or "Standard" for geography style maps with little difficulty, and "Gimmick" or "Advanced" for the more 'involved' game-styles.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• The foundry as of late has been pumping out a lot of non-basic maps styles. Not everyone enjoys playing difficult maps. Having separate drop-downs will make it easier to know what kind of map you're choosing to play - is this an easier map? or a more difficult one?
  
• This will be a benefit to newer players, who aren't familiar with the maps. Separating them will help new players make a more informed decision when choosing a map to play.
  
• I personally won't often use Random Map, because I don't want to randomly draw Hive, or Das Schloss, for instance. If this suggestion were implemented, you could choose between "Random - Basic" or "Random - Advanced"

I believe we're getting to the point where we really could use some organization of our maps. There are 173 maps available as of January 10th, 2011. I really think it would be a benefit to begin organizing the maps in such a way as to make things easier for all players, when deciding which maps to play.

I haven't played it, but isn't Hive just a really large geographic-style map?

Serbia wrote:[*]I personally won't often use Random Map, because I don't want to randomly draw Hive, or Das Schloss, for instance. If this suggestion were implemented, you could choose between "Random - Basic" or "Random - Advanced"[/list]

It sure as hell better also include a choice of "Random - All" for those of us that aren't afraid of our own shadows.

Army of GOD wrote:I haven't played it, but isn't Hive just a really large geographic-style map?

Pretty much, yup.

It's got no bombardments or other special features except "naming challenges" - which aren't really a challenge, it's all alphanumeric in sequence. It's different in that it contains several always-start-neutral hub regions that can reach across the map, but play-wise they don't differ much from say, Iceland's Polar Cap or Dakar and similar long-reach regions on Classic.

Its only claim to "gimmick" might be that it doesn't have the typical extra-troop-for-every-multiple-of-three-above-9 deploy. It's simply hard on the eyes (bright yellows) and big, so will not be completed in 3 rounds. Many Hive games are completed in as many rounds as say, Soviet Union or Cairns Coral Coast, though.

So, if this map were to be classified in different drop-downs, it would probably be put in the "easy" list, based on lack of features, along with other large maps with no real "features" - like World 2.1.

Here's a thought, though.. the search features have browse ability, so people can actually look at a map before they join. Also, there's an ongoing project to make a guide for each map. Maybe people can take advantage of these tools to look before they leap; and avoid "Random" if they're afraid they'll land on Stalingrad instead of Brazil.

The problem I see with this is deciding what is the difference between 'Gimmick' and 'Basic.' For example, would American Civil War and Berlin 1961 be considered Gimmicks because they have one or two territories that can bombard other territories, but are otherwise basic geography maps. I bring this up because there are several maps like this (basic geography maps with a single 'gimmick'), San Marino, Malta, Chicago, Circus Maximus, are just a few off the top of my head.

I agree that this would help for new members to get to know their way around. It's hard not to get lost in the list of maps!

I wonder sometimes if the foundry is losing touch a bit from the people of CC. There is a tendency in the foundry to produce ever more complex maps and to not allow any new maps that are just standard game play.

When someone tries to do a standard game play map they get comments like this one:

natty_dread wrote:Personally, I think, we are already starting to have enough standard gameplay maps. I mean, they're starting to repeat themselves. It's starting to be like we have a lot of instances of the same map with different skins on it... ok, the gameplay isn't exactly the same, but there's only so many medium-sized standard-gameplay maps you can make before all the options have been explored.

So while I think that yes, CC could use more city maps and other smaller regional maps, I'd love to see some innovative gameplay designs. We just got a new XML feature, and while not every new map should instantly jump on it, it gives us some new tools to work with. The gameplay doesn't even need to be tweaked that much, just adding an interesting "twist" on it can be sufficient.

TL,DR: I'd like to see the map go forward, but the more you can deviate from the "standard" gameplay model, the better.

or

Evil DIMwit wrote:
I'm all for conquering Philly -- I live here -- but if you can think of even a little gimmick, that'd go far in justifying this map to the rest of the world.
.

Yet I suspect that most of the players on CC prefer the standard gameplay maps. Maybe its time for the foundry to come out of the ivory tower.

Not a surprise here that I agree with Serbs and bart.

Not everyone needs that extra challenge when playing. Some just want to play a classic style game. Having separate drop down menus wouldn't be hard to implement and it won't do any harm to the rest of the population. It is an easy fix without any fallout.

There seems to be some discussion centering on Hive... perhaps a bad choice of an example on my part. And perhaps instead of two simple categories, we could search maps based on a range of types: small, medium, large, bombardment, win conditions, etc. Any given map would be likely to fit into several categories.

Main point being, we've gotten large to the point where it would be a help to the community at large to place tags on maps.

And I'm terrified of my own shadow - my nickname is Groundhog.

Serbia wrote:There seems to be some discussion centering on Hive... perhaps a bad choice of an example on my part. And perhaps instead of two simple categories, we could search maps based on a range of types: small, medium, large, bombardment, win conditions, etc. Any given map would be likely to fit into several categories.
Main point being, we've gotten large to the point where it would be a help to the community at large to place tags on maps.

We've already had a number of suggestions regarding exactly this. I don't know whether they've been accepted/rejected/undecided or not.

Map Categorisation is a debate that has been raging in the background for a number of years - I would love to see map categories incorporated into the site somehow...

Agreed with MrBenn. We've got all the information readily available to do a comprehensive categorization of all the maps on CC, and there have been suggestions of "My Favorites" or some sort of "Map Difficulty" listing over the years. I'd love to see all of the above get added, as there are some maps that I'd like to play ever so often (I've played every single one, just look at my crossmaps), while others I would prefer to avoid like the plague thanks to my lack of good luck/good strategy on them. So instead of the contentious one-dimensional sort here (as easy as it would be to implement), why not a sort that can also cater to any sort of player on CC?

Perhaps a sort function would be good... Standard, Historical, Battles, Advanced Gameplay, Standard Gameplay, Fantasy, Europe, Asia, ect.

Maps would not be mutually exclusive. So Waterloo would fit under Europe, Battles, Advanced Gameplay, Historical.

Industrial Helix wrote:Perhaps a sort function would be good... Standard, Historical, Battles, Advanced Gameplay, Standard Gameplay, Fantasy, Europe, Asia, ect.
Maps would not be mutually exclusive. So Waterloo would fit under Europe, Battles, Advanced Gameplay, Historical.

This is probably the best fix, yes.

Industrial Helix wrote:Perhaps a sort function would be good... Standard, Historical, Battles, Advanced Gameplay, Standard Gameplay, Fantasy, Europe, Asia, ect.

Maps would not be mutually exclusive. So Waterloo would fit under Europe, Battles, Advanced Gameplay, Historical.

This is what I'm getting at. And then, I'd like to see a "random map - within a range" option combined with that. (so if you want a random map without the possibility of randomly drawing Das Schloss, you're still cool)

We've got 176 maps... someone make a sort list happen.

Serbia wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:Perhaps a sort function would be good... Standard, Historical, Battles, Advanced Gameplay, Standard Gameplay, Fantasy, Europe, Asia, ect.

Maps would not be mutually exclusive. So Waterloo would fit under Europe, Battles, Advanced Gameplay, Historical.

This is what I'm getting at. And then, I'd like to see a "random map - within a range" option combined with that. (so if you want a random map without the possibility of randomly drawing Das Schloss, you're still cool)

Don't be a groundhog, Serbia! You can do it! I have faith in you!

Good idea. Someone call lack.

grifftron wrote:Good idea. Someone call lack.

Anyone call him yet?

just give us a check box "add map to favorites". the favorites list would simplify game searches and creation, and could be visible on our profiles. This might also give map devs an easy way to poll map popularity.

As far as separating "basic" and "advanced" maps, would it be possible to rate them based on complexity (and or other factors, such as popularity), and then sort them by that rating at search/creation?

"As far as separating "basic" and "advanced" maps, would it be possible to rate them based on complexity (and or other factors, such as popularity), and then sort them by that rating at search/creation?"
These is mine one year old sugestion, not bring to much attention, its look that people dont like to give rating to maps.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=107286&start=0