Map Complexity List

[TaCktiX]

But consider the overall gameplay of the map. It's a MUCH different playstyle than your average map, and we're including that in its complexity. Winning a game of Conquer Man requires an entirely different sort of strategy than a standard map.

[chipv]

Ok, this list is looking good so far, one way borders is definitely not classic. Are we agreed on Ink's post swapping those maps around?

Tacktix, when you're happy, could you modify the head post please?

Thanks

[chipv]

Any more comments or shall I just take ZeakCytho's list?

[yeti_c]

It's probably fair - we can continue arguing it - and you can update Filters when ever you fancy!!!

C.

[cairnswk]

Good Work guys, but....

Just hold on a cotton pickin' minute, til i've had my say boys.

Rail USA -> Moderate, there is nothing complex about this map except that it is linear attacking.
Bamboo Jack -> Moderate, once again there is nothing complex about this map and certainly it does not contain any gimmicks.
Egypt: Valley of the Kings -> Moderate, there is no amount of insane gimmicks in this map nor by mechanics is it more difficult that a moderate map, in fact if you rate this map as complex then i would say you don't understand it and probably haven't played it.
Philippines -> Moderate, it has port attacks, and is not like classic, certainly not in the same vain as CCC or Classic or other similar maps.
Battle of Actium -> Complex, by sheer nature is more complex than being Moderate.

The rest of TaCktiX list i have no problems with although others might, but i have not played all those maps so I in fairness cannot comment on some.

[TaCktiX]

In my usual pattern of coming up with bigger and grander schemes than most people think necessary, I decided to throw out my old list and start from scratch on a new system entirely. I've come up with a rating scale of 0-5 based on 5 different criteria: Gameplay (actually 3 scales, subdividing simple, moderate, and complex from 0-5, I'm approximately measuring the "pick up and play"-ability of the map, higher = harder), Visuals (does the map's image sometime cause confusion on what goes where, and how badly), Gimmicks (is it a simple no-gimmick map, or does it have some non-Classic gameplay to it, and to what extent), Bonuses (how easy to acquire and keep, and how important "the drop" is to getting an easy bonus), and Flexibility (how many game settings is this map HORRIBLE to play on? Is it fairly niche? Fewer settings that are viable means a higher number).

I haven't finished all the data, and after a bit I gave up on personally assigning the Flexibility because of my lack of comprehensive settings experience on every single map. I'd like input on ANY and ALL of these statistics. Hopefully we can end up with a good metric for the overall complexity of a map, and give it a lovely "star rating" that we could petition Lack to add. We could also use this as one-half of a difficulty star rating with player ratings of the map being the other "half" of it.

Map Name: Classic
Gameplay: 1/5 0/5 0/5 (it's Simple, duh)
Visuals: 0 (thanks to the army circles change, it's impossible to confuse borders, bonuses, or army counts)
Gimmicks: 0 (duh)
Bonuses: 1 (Fairly easy to take bonuses, with difficult ones sprinkled in)
Flexibility: 1.5 (1v1 this map was not made for, 3 player settings tend to be drop-shoots, everything else does very well on it)
Total: 3.5
Average: 0.5

Map Name: Africa
Gameplay: 3/5 0/5 0/5 (Large continents, with only one 2-fer, can screw yourself out of the game with crap dice in the early rounds)
Visuals: 0
Gimmicks: 0
Bonuses: 1.5 (as said before, very few small bonuses, hard to get)
Flexibility: ?
Total: ?
Average: ?

I'll post more in a spreadsheet format later, but that gives you an idea.

[chipv]

FYI,

This is a modified version of ZeakCytho's complexity ranking list:

---1---
Classic
Australia
Canada
Doodle Earth
France
Germany
Ireland
Portugal
USA
---2---
Africa
Ancient Greece
Arctic
Brazil
Caribbean Islands
Hong Kong
Iberia
Iceland
Indochina
Middle East
North America
South America
U.S. Senate
---3---
Asia
High Seas
Middle Earth
Mongol Empire
Puget Sound
WWII Australia
---4---
Montreal
Cairns Coral Coast
---5---
Luxembourg
CCU
Discworld
---6---
Malta
Philippines
British Isles
Soviet Union
---7---
World 2.1
Europe
BeNeLux
Alexander's Empire
Chinese Checkers
---8---
Scotland
Italy
Netherlands
Egypt: Lower
Egypt: Nubia
---9---
Egypt: Upper
American Civil War
---10---
WWII Eastern Front
WWII Iwo Jima
---11---
Tamriel
---12---
Great Lakes
Siege!
---13---
NYC
Sydney Metro
---14---
Greater China
Midkemdil
---15---
Texan Wars
San Francisco
Crossword
King Of The Mountains
---16---
Duck And Cover
Dust Bowl
---17---
D-Day: Omaha Beach!
Extreme Global Warming
Space
---18---
Madness
Circus Maximus
---19---
8 Thoughts
---20---
Berlin 1961
---21---
Draknor - Level 1
---22---
WWII Western Front
---23---
Rail USA
---24---
Solar System
---25---
WWII Ardennes
Rail Europe
---26---
Battle Of Actium
Egypt: Valley Of The Kings
---27---
Bamboo Jack
USApocalypse
---28---
Feudal War
---29---
Age Of Merchants
City Mogul
Conquer 4
---30---
Age Of Realms 1
---31---
Imperium Romanum
Prohibition Chicago
---32---
Operation Drug War
WWII Gazala
Pearl Harbor
---33---
Arms Race!
---34---
New World
---35---
Age Of Realms 2
---36---
Age Of Realms 3
---37---
Supermax: Prison Riot!
Poker Club
---38---
Treasures Of Galapagos
---39---
Das Schloss
---40---
Battle For Iraq!
---41---
Conquer Man
---42---
Waterloo

This is being used in the Games Filter Script together with the original tag list TaCktiX kindly provided in the first post.
Yeti has helped fill in the gaps so this list is a complete list as of today.

[t-o-m]

---35---
Age of Realms 2
---36---
Age of Realms 3

I would have said aor 3 before aor 2, because aor 3 is simply 1 terit bonuses, however aor 2 has 2 terit bonuses spread out, and 3 terit bonuses to also figure out and an extra bonus if you hold the two bonuses together.

[yeti_c]

---35---
Age of Realms 2
---36---
Age of Realms 3

I would have said aor 3 before aor 2, because aor 3 is simply 1 terit bonuses, however aor 2 has 2 terit bonuses spread out, and 3 terit bonuses to also figure out and an extra bonus if you hold the two bonuses together.

Gonna disagree with that AOR2's bonuses are the same throughout the map.

AOR3's are all different depending on location - thus you have to adapt to each area differently.

C.

[cairnswk]

FYI,

This is a modified version of ZeakCytho's complexity ranking list:

.....

This is being used in the Games Filter Script together with the original tag list TaCktiX kindly provided in the first post.
Yeti has helped fill in the gaps so this list is a complete list as of today.

Chipv....please explain something on this. I'd like to understand why my maps are in some of the positions they are.

[t-o-m]

---35---
Age of Realms 2
---36---
Age of Realms 3

I would have said aor 3 before aor 2, because aor 3 is simply 1 terit bonuses, however aor 2 has 2 terit bonuses spread out, and 3 terit bonuses to also figure out and an extra bonus if you hold the two bonuses together.

Gonna disagree with that AOR2's bonuses are the same throughout the map.

AOR3's are all different depending on location - thus you have to adapt to each area differently.

C.

Im going to disagree with that

Although there are many different things in AoR 3, with reading the legend breifly you can understand what to do.

With aor 2 i think you need experience to know what to do, its harder because you need to read the log a lot more thoroughly to know what is where, whereas aor 3, you can easily tell because of unique features with each castle.

[chipv]

FYI,

This is a modified version of ZeakCytho's complexity ranking list:

.....

This is being used in the Games Filter Script together with the original tag list TaCktiX kindly provided in the first post.
Yeti has helped fill in the gaps so this list is a complete list as of today.

Chipv....please explain something on this. I'd like to understand why my maps are in some of the positions they are.

I haven't the faintest idea which maps are yours, cairns.
Read the thread or even the post you quoted to see how the list was compiled.

In any case, arguing about whose maps are placed where is going to get us nowhere, the idea is to present a new starter with the maps in a reasonable order of complexity. If you have a genuine reason for re-ordering the maps , aside from a personal point of view, then by all means present it but if the only problem you have is that your owns maps appear too complex or too simple then that on its own is not constructive.
I have no idea what issue you have with the list otherwise, this is surely a step forward.

[cairnswk]

... the idea is to present a new starter with the maps in a reasonable order of complexity...this is surely a step forward.

I agree this might be a step forward for a new starter, but having 42 categories is pure madness.
Try to cut it down at least 12 or less.
Why Italy & Egypt:Lower are in group 8 i'll never know. Nothing too complicated about them.
Cairns Coral Coast should be in your group 2
San Francisco could be in your group 6
King of the Mountains needs to be in a higher category.
Madness in possibly the same category.
Rail Europe is surely much harder to play than Egypt:VOTK which should be down in your group 12
There is nothing really complicated about Bamboo Jack, it should be in a lower your category
Treasures of Galapagos should be in a much lower category, it is no different in strategy than the Philippines since it is based on the same concept of airports/naval bases.
and i agree Das Schloss and Waterloo would be the hardest maps on the site.

I don't have time now, but will try to so a list for you this weekend, from my viewpoint.

[ZeakCytho]

... the idea is to present a new starter with the maps in a reasonable order of complexity...this is surely a step forward.

I agree this might be a step forward for a new starter, but having 42 categories is pure madness.
Try to cut it down at least 12 or less.
Why Italy & Egypt:Lower are in group 8 i'll never know. Nothing too complicated about them.
Cairns Coral Coast should be in your group 2
San Francisco could be in your group 6
King of the Mountains needs to be in a higher category.
Madness in possibly the same category.
Rail Europe is surely much harder to play than Egypt:VOTK which should be down in your group 12
There is nothing really complicated about Bamboo Jack, it should be in a lower your category
Treasures of Galapagos should be in a much lower category, it is no different in strategy than the Philippines since it is based on the same concept of airports/naval bases.
and i agree Das Schloss and Waterloo would be the hardest maps on the site.

I don't have time now, but will try to so a list for you this weekend, from my viewpoint.

There aren't 42 "categories"- the idea was to put the maps in order, with each getting 1 rank. However, a number of maps are "tied", and so there are 42 "ranks" in the end. The reason Italy and Lower Egypt are farther down is because of capital bonuses and autodeploys, something more complicated than anything found in the groups above them, though not very complicated. CCC has 1-way attacks, so it's lower. San Francisco has 1 way attacks and a territory you can't attack out of. KOTM has non-contiguous continents and one-way attacks. Egypt: VOTK and Rail Europe should probably be flipped. Galapagos is conquest gameplay, while the Philippines is not, thus the Philippines is much simpler.

Hope that clears some things up.

[cairnswk]

.....
There aren't 42 "categories"- the idea was to put the maps in order, with each getting 1 rank. However, a number of maps are "tied", and so there are 42 "ranks" in the end. The reason Italy and Lower Egypt are farther down is because of capital bonuses and autodeploys, something more complicated than anything found in the groups above them, though not very complicated. CCC has 1-way attacks, so it's lower. San Francisco has 1 way attacks and a territory you can't attack out of. KOTM has non-contiguous continents and one-way attacks. Egypt: VOTK and Rail Europe should probably be flipped. Galapagos is conquest gameplay, while the Philippines is not, thus the Philippines is much simpler.

Hope that clears some things up.

To some extent...but you never mentioned Bamboo Jack nor Madness.

[DiM]

i see you guys are back on deciding map complexity.

first of all i think the list is totally wrong.

the AoM map is placed 29th??? more complex than Feudal? and AoR1 is 30th?
WF?? feudal and AoR1 are almost identical.
and AoM is a normal map with very few gimmicks. there are just 1 way borders and 1 terit starting as neutral (the pirates). the continents are just plain continents like any other map.
it's like receiving a bonus on classic for holding Alaska Ukraine and South Africa.
for example CCC has 1 way borders but is in no way harder than classic because those borders are clearly explained in the legend and it would take a complete retard not to understand it.

but my main question is WHY?
it's impossible to judge a map by the number of gimmicks by the number of terits or by any arbitrary specification. the only fair way to judge the complexity of maps is to allow people to vote for maps.
add a ratings system like this:
1. visibility
2. understanding of connections
3. understanding of the legend
4. singles strategy
5. team strategy
6. supports various settings (term assassin, etc)
7. etc

then each player gets to rate the categories above ranging from very easy to very complex

furthermore various tags can be made (just like the ratings sistem): assassin map; best on fog; best on sunny; perfect for doubles; weird bonuses; difficult movement; etc.

the point is that if you make a map complexity list like any of the ones that have been tried you will fail miserably because no list accurately describes how a map plays, how difficult it is to get a bonus, expand or play team games on it. the only people that can actually decide these things are the ones playing the map and voting.

[yeti_c]

I told Chipv the other day that this topic would never work...

a) Because no-one can ever decide.
b) Because Mapmakers always complain that their maps aren't complex and are just simple.



C.

[chipv]

i see you guys are back on deciding map complexity.

first of all i think the list is totally wrong.

the AoM map is placed 29th??? more complex than Feudal? and AoR1 is 30th?
WF?? feudal and AoR1 are almost identical.
and AoM is a normal map with very few gimmicks. there are just 1 way borders and 1 terit starting as neutral (the pirates). the continents are just plain continents like any other map.
it's like receiving a bonus on classic for holding Alaska Ukraine and South Africa.
for example CCC has 1 way borders but is in no way harder than classic because those borders are clearly explained in the legend and it would take a complete retard not to understand it.

but my main question is WHY?
it's impossible to judge a map by the number of gimmicks by the number of terits or by any arbitrary specification. the only fair way to judge the complexity of maps is to allow people to vote for maps.
add a ratings system like this:
1. visibility
2. understanding of connections
3. understanding of the legend
4. singles strategy
5. team strategy
6. supports various settings (term assassin, etc)
7. etc

then each player gets to rate the categories above ranging from very easy to very complex

furthermore various tags can be made (just like the ratings sistem): assassin map; best on fog; best on sunny; perfect for doubles; weird bonuses; difficult movement; etc.

the point is that if you make a map complexity list like any of the ones that have been tried you will fail miserably because no list accurately describes how a map plays, how difficult it is to get a bonus, expand or play team games on it. the only people that can actually decide these things are the ones playing the map and voting.

A disappointing post. Not very constructive either, rather surprisingly. The goal is to present a rough order of complexity from the point of view of a novice not an expert. If a new member joins and wants to go through the maps in order of complexity what is our answer - no-one knows?? I have already said that to avoid petty quibbling, it is is fine to have maps rated equally complex, that should be enough to get a good enough list. Allowing people to vote for maps introduces clear bias, that's equally unsatisfactory - what does a beginner have to do to get hold of a structured series of maps to build their skill level up? You don't have to burrow down into excruciating detail to try and separate maps also. I invite once again, constructive appraisals which does not mean analysing two adjaecent maps in minute detail - any glaring discrepancies should be pointed out.

[TaCktiX]

In my usual pattern of coming up with bigger and grander schemes than most people think necessary, I decided to throw out my old list and start from scratch on a new system entirely. I've come up with a rating scale of 0-5 based on 5 different criteria: Gameplay (actually 3 scales, subdividing simple, moderate, and complex from 0-5, I'm approximately measuring the "pick up and play"-ability of the map, higher = harder), Visuals (does the map's image sometime cause confusion on what goes where, and how badly), Gimmicks (is it a simple no-gimmick map, or does it have some non-Classic gameplay to it, and to what extent), Bonuses (how easy to acquire and keep, and how important "the drop" is to getting an easy bonus), and Flexibility (how many game settings is this map HORRIBLE to play on? Is it fairly niche? Fewer settings that are viable means a higher number).

I haven't finished all the data, and after a bit I gave up on personally assigning the Flexibility because of my lack of comprehensive settings experience on every single map. I'd like input on ANY and ALL of these statistics. Hopefully we can end up with a good metric for the overall complexity of a map, and give it a lovely "star rating" that we could petition Lack to add. We could also use this as one-half of a difficulty star rating with player ratings of the map being the other "half" of it.

I refer back to this post up the page. It would address every major concern about complexity, and be able to do so formulaically. Then again, nobody ever responds to ANY of my calls for "hey, input please", so why should I expect things to change all of a sudden?

[yeti_c]

In my usual pattern of coming up with bigger and grander schemes than most people think necessary, I decided to throw out my old list and start from scratch on a new system entirely. I've come up with a rating scale of 0-5 based on 5 different criteria: Gameplay (actually 3 scales, subdividing simple, moderate, and complex from 0-5, I'm approximately measuring the "pick up and play"-ability of the map, higher = harder), Visuals (does the map's image sometime cause confusion on what goes where, and how badly), Gimmicks (is it a simple no-gimmick map, or does it have some non-Classic gameplay to it, and to what extent), Bonuses (how easy to acquire and keep, and how important "the drop" is to getting an easy bonus), and Flexibility (how many game settings is this map HORRIBLE to play on? Is it fairly niche? Fewer settings that are viable means a higher number).

I haven't finished all the data, and after a bit I gave up on personally assigning the Flexibility because of my lack of comprehensive settings experience on every single map. I'd like input on ANY and ALL of these statistics. Hopefully we can end up with a good metric for the overall complexity of a map, and give it a lovely "star rating" that we could petition Lack to add. We could also use this as one-half of a difficulty star rating with player ratings of the map being the other "half" of it.

I refer back to this post up the page. It would address every major concern about complexity, and be able to do so formulaically. Then again, nobody ever responds to ANY of my calls for "hey, input please", so why should I expect things to change all of a sudden?

You didn't tell us what statistics you had come up with!?

You know what the foundry is like - You may have the best idea in the world - but without an image no-one's gonna comment!!

C.

[Incandenza]

I'm sorry, but having 42 different classes/ranks/whatever is completely insane. There's way too many hairs that can be split, as exemplified by cairns and DiM above both arguing about the placement of their respective maps.

What's wrong with how edbeard did this? Three categories: simple (no gimmicks at all, pure classic), moderate (one or a few gimmicks), and complex (difficult gameplay or many gimmicks). I'm sure I'm not doing it proper justice, but you get the idea. That way there's nice simple clumps, instead of these hyper-specific lists. There's no ranking map-by-map, no "should feudal be higher or lower than AoR 2" questions. Just a few maps on the margins between Medium and Complex, which means people are arguing about the placement of 3-5 maps, instead of the placement of every last bleeding one of them.

[ZeakCytho]

I'm sorry, but having 42 different classes/ranks/whatever is completely insane. There's way too many hairs that can be split, as exemplified by cairns and DiM above both arguing about the placement of their respective maps.

What's wrong with how edbeard did this? Three categories: simple (no gimmicks at all, pure classic), moderate (one or a few gimmicks), and complex (difficult gameplay or many gimmicks). I'm sure I'm not doing it proper justice, but you get the idea. That way there's nice simple clumps, instead of these hyper-specific lists. There's no ranking map-by-map, no "should feudal be higher or lower than AoR 2" questions. Just a few maps on the margins between Medium and Complex, which means people are arguing about the placement of 3-5 maps, instead of the placement of every last bleeding one of them.

This isn't instead of the 3-category system.

The premise was that, with chipv's new script, you can sort maps on the game finder list alphabetically or by number of territories. Wouldn't it be great if you could sort by some sort of complexity rating too?

The 3-category system is being used for default tags in that script. The list in this thread is to sort any tag - default or user made - by complexity.

The list we have is not perfect, but it's a very useful feature for the script.

[MrBenn]

Hmmm... It seems like this debate keeps going round and round

I'm an advocate of the 3 or 4 category system (Simple, Moderate, Challenging (More Challenging)), although I think the purpose of this topic is to go beyond that categorisation...

I strongly believe that a mapmaker isn't the best person to critique the complexity of their own map, as they will generally have one of the better understandings of how the gameplay works.

In any case, I don't feel very qualified to be able to comment on the complexity of all the maps in play...

[TaCktiX]

I feel qualified to comment on various aspects of a map's complexity with exception to its flexibility in game modes. I could write up a full matrix of all the stuff I covered before and I doubt it would be argued with that heavily. Thing is, I'm not confident in writing on any map's flexibility.

[DiM]

i see you guys are back on deciding map complexity.

first of all i think the list is totally wrong.

the AoM map is placed 29th??? more complex than Feudal? and AoR1 is 30th?
WF?? feudal and AoR1 are almost identical.
and AoM is a normal map with very few gimmicks. there are just 1 way borders and 1 terit starting as neutral (the pirates). the continents are just plain continents like any other map.
it's like receiving a bonus on classic for holding Alaska Ukraine and South Africa.
for example CCC has 1 way borders but is in no way harder than classic because those borders are clearly explained in the legend and it would take a complete retard not to understand it.

but my main question is WHY?
it's impossible to judge a map by the number of gimmicks by the number of terits or by any arbitrary specification. the only fair way to judge the complexity of maps is to allow people to vote for maps.
add a ratings system like this:
1. visibility
2. understanding of connections
3. understanding of the legend
4. singles strategy
5. team strategy
6. supports various settings (term assassin, etc)
7. etc

then each player gets to rate the categories above ranging from very easy to very complex

furthermore various tags can be made (just like the ratings sistem): assassin map; best on fog; best on sunny; perfect for doubles; weird bonuses; difficult movement; etc.

the point is that if you make a map complexity list like any of the ones that have been tried you will fail miserably because no list accurately describes how a map plays, how difficult it is to get a bonus, expand or play team games on it. the only people that can actually decide these things are the ones playing the map and voting.

A disappointing post. Not very constructive either, rather surprisingly. The goal is to present a rough order of complexity from the point of view of a novice not an expert. If a new member joins and wants to go through the maps in order of complexity what is our answer - no-one knows?? I have already said that to avoid petty quibbling, it is is fine to have maps rated equally complex, that should be enough to get a good enough list. Allowing people to vote for maps introduces clear bias, that's equally unsatisfactory - what does a beginner have to do to get hold of a structured series of maps to build their skill level up? You don't have to burrow down into excruciating detail to try and separate maps also. I invite once again, constructive appraisals which does not mean analysing two adjaecent maps in minute detail - any glaring discrepancies should be pointed out.

sorry but i can't be constructive on an idea that has started from the wrong premises.
perhaps a categorization on 3-4 categories is the best because it offers a rough indication of complexity and at the same time it doesn't have the intention of a flawless categorisation. anything beyond that goes into subjective speculation and doesn't even scratch the surface of what complexity is and fails miserably just because the set goal is impossible to be achieved.
there are a LOT of factors that need to be taken into account and no formula can do that.
for example doodle can be called as a simple map. few terits, no gimicks, clear borders, easy to understand legend, but have 7 colonels and a new player try an assassin game.
how complex do you think the new recruit will think the map is? well my bet is that he's gonna think it's too damn complex because he'll never win cause he won't know shit about the strategy in such a game.
doodle is an easy to understand map but due to it's size the strategies are more complex than classic and paired with a more difficult gametype (assassin) this map can be damn hard.
tell me what formula explains this to a noob?
and doodle is not the only case, many maps play totally different and have huge complexity gaps between various game types.
for example a 1v1 sunny game on AoR1 is dead simple but a fog 6player assassin on the same map can be a huge burden on the strategy skills of a noob.