Mappy New Year!

by **Skeleton Power!** on Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:17 pm

What about a baseball stadium or football stadium? Concession stands, locker rooms, field (s), stands, etc. could be the bleachers...

just a thought! Keep up the good work...

by **Mutley.** on Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:23 pm

Mappy New Year to you too!

by **fumandomuerte** on Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:30 pm

qwert wrote:new update-new restrictions.
I dont expected nothing new-just change names of subforums.
Only thing what will be great its new aloved size limits for small maps, but this not going to hepend.

Even though I hope to see you back in the foundry =D>

by **Qwert** on Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:40 pm

Even though I hope to see you back in the foundry

double

This is not map foundry,its Announcements :lol:

by **the.killing.44** on Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:23 pm

qwert wrote:
Even though I hope to see you back in the foundry

double
This is not map foundry,its Announcements

…why does that matter?

by **fumandomuerte** on Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:24 pm

qwert wrote:
Even though I hope to see you back in the foundry

double
This is not map foundry,its Announcements

That's why I wrote I hope.

by **natty dread** on Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:46 pm

I like most of the changes, but bunching the map ideas and drafts in the same melting pot is really awful. All the well-developed, working drafts get lost in an endless swamp of ideas thrown about like apes throw shit... 99% of which will never be followed through anyway.

So why? There are some really good drafts there. Buried under the rubble.

To be constructive, I propose that the working drafts (those with an image with territories, territory names, continents, legend, etc) would be stickied in the melting pot forum. I think this solution would satisfy everyone.

by **edbeard** on Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:24 pm

so am I understanding correctly that one can receive idea and gameplay stamps and have very basic graphics?

seems like a good idea to me. get the gameplay done and have the graphiciticians work do their job without gameplay updates.

also good in that I can get the gameplay done and turn it over to someone who'd rather just do graphics (and the opposite).

by **ppgangster** on Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:26 am

It's really interesting to see all of you guys from the foundry reply here and almost no one else... lol what a change! I feel like I'm in a Foundry forum post right now!

by **luxCRUSADER** on Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:23 am

Excellent changes here !

Congrats to the "round table" for pulling this off ...

I feel the stench is leaving the room ... cuz person(s) responsible have opened the window ... LOL ...

Thank God that a "round table" is involved amongst the decision making ... this is something that I have always believed was needed to prevent tyranny ... King Arthur would be proud of this Map Foundry

Good Luck m8's =D>

by **soundman** on Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:18 pm

natty_dread wrote:I like most of the changes, but bunching the map ideas and drafts in the same melting pot is really awful. All the well-developed, working drafts get lost in an endless swamp of ideas thrown about like apes throw shit... 99% of which will never be followed through anyway.

So why? There are some really good drafts there. Buried under the rubble.

To be constructive, I propose that the working drafts (those with an image with territories, territory names, continents, legend, etc) would be stickied in the melting pot forum. I think this solution would satisfy everyone.

I have to agree. I went in there to check on some of the maps I've been following and found 16 pages of topics!

It took quite a bit of searching to find the maps I wanted to see.

by **AgentSmith88** on Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:01 am

As an unbiased observer, I wonder why there needs to be a limit to the amount of maps one can work on. I'm working on the assumption that this is to keep people from taking on too much and not working on certain maps. If you enforce the rule that a map needs to have some develpment over 2 weeks then you shouldn't have a problem. You're working to keep maps from stalling, which is good. However, I think you implemented 2 different strategies to combat this and you probably only need 1.

by **ender516** on Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:51 pm

AgentSmith88 wrote:As an unbiased observer, I wonder why there needs to be a limit to the amount of maps one can work on. I'm working on the assumption that this is to keep people from taking on too much and not working on certain maps. If you enforce the rule that a map needs to have some develpment over 2 weeks then you shouldn't have a problem. You're working to keep maps from stalling, which is good. However, I think you implemented 2 different strategies to combat this and you probably only need 1.

I am not an unbiased observer, but I completely agree.

by **Industrial Helix** on Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:01 pm

AgentSmith88 wrote:As an unbiased observer, I wonder why there needs to be a limit to the amount of maps one can work on. I'm working on the assumption that this is to keep people from taking on too much and not working on certain maps. If you enforce the rule that a map needs to have some develpment over 2 weeks then you shouldn't have a problem. You're working to keep maps from stalling, which is good. However, I think you implemented 2 different strategies to combat this and you probably only need 1.

To be honest, I think new map makers, myself included, have the tendency to start a map and get it going in the melting pot (as its called now) and then get a little over-zealous and make like 4 more maps before even quenching the first. Then the melting pot is filled with maps that will never see completion, bogging down that forum and sucking up the mapmaker's creative and work energy. As for map-makers who are more experienced, I don't see how this does anything but hinder them.

by **MrBenn** on Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:56 pm

AgentSmith88 wrote:As an unbiased observer, I wonder why there needs to be a limit to the amount of maps one can work on. I'm working on the assumption that this is to keep people from taking on too much and not working on certain maps. If you enforce the rule that a map needs to have some develpment over 2 weeks then you shouldn't have a problem. You're working to keep maps from stalling, which is good. However, I think you implemented 2 different strategies to combat this and you probably only need 1.

The foundry is a continually evolving process... you may well be right in the long-term - although there are several issues that the changes are aimed to resolve, some of them short-term goals. It is probable that there will be further tinkering with things while we adjust to the new system.

Thanks for your thoughts ;-)

by **MrBenn** on Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:04 pm

edbeard wrote:so am I understanding correctly that one can receive idea and gameplay stamps and have very basic graphics?

seems like a good idea to me. get the gameplay done and have the graphiciticians work do their job without gameplay updates.

also good in that I can get the gameplay done and turn it over to someone who'd rather just do graphics (and the opposite).

In theory, yes.

With the design brief concept, we'll be looking to check that a mapmaker has a clear idea of the sort of thing they are hoping to achieve with their map, as well as assessing whether or not the concept has enough support, and whether or not the map satisfies the "uniqueness" requirements.

The initial focus on gameplay development means that hopefully there will be more thought into how maps might play if they were to make it through the forge.

by **Bruceswar** on Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:43 am

2 maps... that is just plain stupid if you ask me. So what if there is 200 or 1 million dead maps in the bin, let people try as many as they like at one point. Some can handle 10 at a time, while others only 1. Let the map maker decide!