[Vacation] Allegheny Forest,PA,USA. [I]

[seamusk]

Not sure what it takes but here is the criteria for getting sticked and idea stamped.

Stage I: Feasibility
At this starting stage, a mapmaker needs to show that his map is feasible for eventual quenching. This includes a decent draft and some general support from both Foundry regulars and people who don't usually come to the Foundry (referred to as unregulars from here on).
Starts: Upon topic creation
Post Content:
- Simple Feedback: Feedback is typically very generic, giving comments about the present graphics and the rare comment on gameplay. It's enough to get a second or third version released, but not much more.

Feedback is well beyond this stage. Feedback has elevated to detailed gameplay and graphics. All of the initial feedback has been addressed. Making more comprehensive upgrades usually associated with stage 2, 3 and 4.

- Idea Support: Small comments about "I like it", and "that's a cool map" from unregulars.

This map has this in at least equal amounts to maps that have moved on to stage 2.

- Anti-support: Noob-bashing and/or general nay-saying about the map's core idea. The map creator's responses to Anti-support determine if the map gets to Stage II.

No one has said that the map isn't feasible. A handful of folks have expressed limited interest but this has been outweighed by expressed interest for some time, from both regulars and unregulars. This map has met these criteria for 10 to 14 days.

Stage II: Formulation
The mapmaker has proven the idea is feasible, and now needs to take more detailed comments and formulate new versions off of them. The longer it takes for the map's design direction to formulate, the longer it takes to get to Stage III.
Starts: Advanced Idea sticky

The more detailed commentary and formulation of new versions has been going on for about 10 to 14 days.

Post Content:
- Graphics Feedback: Typically of the "I like it" , "I don't like it" variety after the mapmaker has released a new version. Sometimes feedback is more lengthy, though.

Have a quantity of levels of feedback on graphics. Including folks interested enough to play test games.

- Small Gameplay Feedback: Not much is discussed about gameplay in comparison to the graphics, but bonus numbers and territory name ideas/corrections may be posted.

Have had some of this.

- Checklist Feedback: The goldmine for an Advanced Idea. A few Foundry people will take a long, hard look at the map and then ticking off things to fix or consider.

Have had these I think.

- Move to Foundry Support: Some regular posters will feel their immediate concerns met, and then advocate throwing an Idea stamp on the map and moving it onward. This is the gateway to Stage III.

Have met any expressed concerns from regular posters, particularly those that are consistent with stage 1 and stage 2 critiques.

[AndyDufresne]

I believe one issue holding you back could be the graphics of the latest updates. If you can get a better working map, that will move you along faster.


--Andy

[seamusk]

I believe one issue holding you back could be the graphics of the latest updates. If you can get a better working map, that will move you along faster.


--Andy

eh? The graphics stamp isn't supposed to happen until later. Under which criteria is the graphics holding me back?

[AndyDufresne]

Indeed, the graphics stamp does come later, but to get out of the Map Ideas, we usually like to make sure the cartographer has the skill set demonstrated to get the map moved further on through the stages. Basically: Try create a cleaner image that shows us the direction you want to take the graphics (they don't have to be finished of course).

Does that make sense?


--Andy

[seamusk]

Indeed, the graphics stamp does come later, but to get out of the Map Ideas, we usually like to make sure the cartographer has the skill set demonstrated to get the map moved further on through the stages. Basically: Try create a cleaner image that shows us the direction you want to take the graphics (they don't have to be finished of course).

Does that make sense?


--Andy

A little bit. Heck, I "created a cleaner image that shows [you] the direction [i]want to take the graphics." But even so, that isn't the criteria for an idea stamp or pin. Which is and has been my point. The criteria, which I have met better than others that have recently been stamped and pinned, is not actually followed so much as personal subjectives.

[AndyDufresne]

I appreciate your fire, but I think you most certainly can do better with your working image. Spend a little time on it, and continue to show us your dedication, and we'll get you moved along.


--Andy

[seamusk]

I think you most certainly can do better with your working image.

Of course I can. But that isn't the criteria. The criteria, particularly for stage one, would appear on any objective read to require very little graphics wise.

Here is a review of the criteria according to the handbook:

1)The map, first and for most, must have some sort of clear plan of how production will go

For most should read foremost btw. A clean plan of production has been laid out. Continuously updated map versions, continuously udpated to do lists, I've made most of the requested corrections, etc...

2) Have a playable image. If we quenched it people should be able toplay on it. Ths should included the following:
Territory names
Working legends
Speculative Bonuses
Tentative Border Divisions

All there. We're playing on it right now.

3) The working image needs to be beyond rough draft state. This means that you must provide the following:
A working image done in some kind of graphic software. Pencil drawn images and images done on paint will not be accpected.
Two quality updates must be provided.

Way beyond the minimum required there.

4) Have honest and interested discussion. Not just you and three friends.

yeppers

[AndyDufresne]

"Beyond rough draft" may be too loose, but I'm guessing that is why you are currently still in the Map Ideas. The look of the map, pixelation, uneven lines, cluttered in some areas (though a generally clean and readable legend, which is nice), still seems to suggest rough draft.

In any case, more time should be spent on the map, than on arguing or stating your case!


--Andy

[seamusk]

"Beyond rough draft" may be too loose, but I'm guessing that is why you are currently still in the Map Ideas. The look of the map, pixelation, uneven lines, cluttered in some areas (though a generally clean and readable legend, which is nice), still seems to suggest rough draft.

In any case, more time should be spent on the map, than on arguing or stating your case!

You are kidding me right? You saw that first draft so you KNOW that I've put more time into the map than making my case. But if those are the issues than explain them.

What is pixelated? What lines are uneven? What is cluttered in some areas? And given that other maps have all of these issues and are stages ahead, what relevance does it have? This is not a "rough draft" and it meets the criteria.

[AndyDufresne]

Lets not threadjack the topic. Lets save the posts for development.


--Andy

[Daviedoo]

deploy on kane attack and advance all, attack 4 then 5 if i make it

[seamusk]

I've updated the map. I'm still fixing things. This is the first draft of the thinner territory boundaries. Input is appreciated as always.

Version 1.5 Map - June 2, 2008

Click image to enlarge.

[Coleman]

Sorry if you've already heard this a million times but it is going to be really hard to get this map moving without a graphics update/overhall. It just isn't up to the site's standards of graphical quality.

I understand if you don't want to get to that just yet, but maybe showing your skills on a small section of the map. Giving a taste of what you plan to do outside of ideas would be a good idea. Until then I'm not comfortable suggesting this for movement, and I have no intention of seeding false hopes. The graphics standard of the site is quite high, I know I can't do it.

[cptbighead]

maps can always be better. as far as a very high standard on this site. some of these maps look like they were done with crayolas.
i like the map. i like the idea. people just have nothing better to do with themselves the complain about someone news work.

[Coleman]

maps can always be better. as far as a very high standard on this site. some of these maps look like they were done with crayolas.
i like the map. i like the idea. people just have nothing better to do with themselves the complain about someone news work.

I assume you are referring to Small World (is that what we called it?) where the theme was a kid made it with crayolas.

I like the map too, it's just that the foundry can't pass it unless the graphics are up to the latest standards, or go along with the theme. I'm not sure how the graphics of this map are excused by the theme, so they need to improve before it makes it on the site.

[seamusk]

To be totally honest the standards aren't consistent at all. Not saying my graphics shouldn't be better. In fact, the trail and rivers are still under re-construction. I through some quick highlights in the water but that isn't the end product at all. I'm not digging the black private lands either now that we have thinner boundary lines. Are the territory boundaries clear enough?

[Coleman]

To be totally honest the standards aren't consistent at all. Not saying my graphics shouldn't be better. In fact, the trail and rivers are still under re-construction. I through some quick highlights in the water but that isn't the end product at all. I'm not digging the black private lands either now that we have thinner boundary lines. Are the territory boundaries clear enough?

Yeah, everyone's style is different so it's hard to really set a standard. The best we have right now is what gimil's team says is good versus what his team says is bad.

I think the borders are clear but the two color territories confused me slightly, but only for a few seconds.

You also have these brown on white territory labels, I feel like maybe if you made each continent have it's own label it would help set things apart, and the shared territories could have a special label design to make it even more obvious what's going on there.

Just my thoughts though.

Edit: My bad, the castles are the shared areas in a lot of places. Still the uniform brown on white oval/circles across the whole map isn't something I am sure is the best way to do that.

[seamusk]

I think the borders are clear but the two color territories confused me slightly, but only for a few seconds.

They are a bit better now. I lightened the boundary points so that they didn't look so much like territory boundaries. I've been thinking that later in the process I'd take more time to do real fine blending or something.

You also have these brown on white territory labels, I feel like maybe if you made each continent have it's own label it would help set things apart, and the shared territories could have a special label design to make it even more obvious what's going on there.

Let me make sure I follow. Are you thinking that each continent should maybe have a different color text? Or different labels all together? I've been thinking the brown is too light for a bit now but had kind of forgotten to do anything about it. I also have been thinking that the zeros before the single digits are unnecessary.

[cptbighead]

not referring to doodle. some of them arent that great. like africa. i could be wrong but isnt one of the last things to do before the map gets passed in to update graphics. its a good map good idea. so its a lil challenging. everything should not be easy. might even put some fun into the site. so this way you dont lose to a bad strat wit crap dice. need to think bout the moves you make on this map.

[seamusk]

not referring to doodle. some of them arent that great. like africa. i could be wrong but isnt one of the last things to do before the map gets passed in to update graphics. its a good map good idea. so its a lil challenging. everything should not be easy. might even put some fun into the site. so this way you dont lose to a bad strat wit crap dice. need to think bout the moves you make on this map.

I think there is a real danger of having too many maps that are basically the same map with a different theme pasted on top. I think a part of this is that it is easier to design a balanced map. Takes less mind numbing staring maybe.

[cptbighead]

I think there is a real danger of having too many maps that are basically the same map with a different theme pasted on top. I think a part of this is that it is easier to design a balanced map. Takes less mind numbing staring maybe. [/quote]
agreed. most of the maps are knock offs of classic. same theme with dif colors and names.

[wcaclimbing]

If you get some awesome graphics going, it pretty much guarantees that you will be getting a bunch of comments for this map. Good graphics bring the map more attention.

Like what Coleman said, can you just do a small sample of the graphics, and make them the best they could possibly be? That way we would know what to expect and you wouldn't get so many graphics complaints. Basically, just make something that says "hey, look what I can do" to show off your graphics.

Thats what I did with Oasis. Graphics took forever, but I provided little updates along the way and it kept people from complaining. The pic in my signature was one of the first updates. Just post something small to make people happy.

[seamusk]

hey thanks climbing. I'm working on more graphics stuff right now. It will probably be a couple of days before the next draft but it should look a lot different.

[seamusk]

and yet another map udpate. I'm not really done with the update but I thought this would be a good time to check and see if folks liked this direction or not.

Version 1.6 Map - June 3, 2008

Click image to enlarge.

[rocky mountain]

first off, the colours are too similar. i like the (is it?) drop shadow.
the trees are too big and look like they are impassibles in some places (or are they? i can't tell if they're supposed to be or not...) and look kinda cluttered.
the red map symbols (ranger stations, wilderness trees, etc.) look out of place, and don't go with the newer colour scheme.
the bridges are A LOT better, but hard to see behind the trees.
i liked the old trail better than these dots.
the new rivers are blocking some of the red map symbols, especially in the lower right.
the bottom left text box needs to be a different colour.
why does the top river have to be outlined when the others are not?
the graphis have greatly improved (in my opinion)
good job and good luck!