I recently had a hizzy-fit here.
Though I admit I used language that isn't warranted by the situation, it was largely due to the condescending attitude and insults by natty_dread, and I think I have valid concerns. I've been asked to post them here, and I'll try to make them clear in the following.
I'd like to start with the rules themselves, and then move on to how these rules are enforced. I will be quoting from this thread, which is the only real source I've been able to find. If there are other, more clear and/or offical sources, I posit that they need to be displayed much more prominently.
I'm at odds in particular with how a map starts it life. Unless I'm much mistaken, the initial progression of a map through the foundry is as follows:
1) Map Ideas, which is "a place to discuss possible maps, or to develop your own idea before posting a draft."
The caption on the forum itself is "Have an idea for a map? Discuss ideas and concepts here."
2) Drafting Room is the parent forum of 'Map Ideas', and is "where a mapmaker posts the first visual implementation of a map, and gameplay is developed into something playable. Many drafts never reach the next stage, but when a map seems as if it's going somewhere, and meets certain requirements, it will be stickied. Once a map advances beyond a rough draft and graphics work has begun plus the map meets another set of requirements, it receives the Draft Stamp."
The caption reads: "Map suggestions, ideas and drafts... They all start life on the Drawing Board. "
This is an unnecessary obfuscation of the process. Note how the explanations on each forum are almost identical.
The distinction between these two fora might be clear to people who have been here a long time, but to someone new these fora are all but identical. Even if the latter has mention of a 'visual representation', my hizzy fit (above), is clear evidence that graphics has to be much more than a 'representation' before the veterans will even comment on it. There are no clear distinction between what constitutes an idea and what constitutes a draft, and it's confusing to the newcomer who really has no clue what is expected of him in each forum.
Further, the phrasing about the drafting room is very unfortunate and unclear in my eyes. What does it mean that "graphics work has begun"? It's anyone guess, until someone like natty comes along and points out that your sketch could have been done better by a monkey with its own feces. Then, a map has to become 'stickied' (which has no clear significance), by "seeming as if it's going somewhere, and meeting certain requirements". What are the requirement, I ask.
Then, to rub salt in the wound, it simply states that maps has to "meet another set of requirements" to move on, at which an explanation is never even attempted.
These two problems - that the two fora are identical (or seemingly so) and that no newbee could hope to know what is expected of his draft - are quite severe and I believe they are a major contributor to so many projects ending up abandoned. New cartographers simply get disheartened and confused by the unclear expectations.
To solve this problem, I propose that either forum is merged with the other. In my eyes there simply is no need for two forums that serves the same purpose. Furthermore, an experienced mapmaker should sit down and work out a very clear and concise set of rules which would explain at what point the map would be moved on to the gameplay forum. These rules should be very precise in their formulation of how specific the map must be in the areas of graphics and gameplay.
Strongly related to these rules are of course the enforcement of them, and this pertains to all stages of the map. I've been reading the entire Foundry Forum diligently for maybe a couple of weeks now, and each and every day I slap my forehead in exasperation, reading lengthy discussions of tiny, insignificant details on graphics in both the gameplay and drafitng room. Likewise there's extensive discussion of gameplay in the graphics forum, extending way into XMl and final forge.
Now, I get that these are overlapping issues and you can't separate them entirely, but I find it especially problematic and prolific with graphics discussions in the gameplay forum. It simply offends my sense of order as it should anyone who puts on his socks before his shoes.
It's detrimental to any process to mingle up the various steps, and downright stupid when you've taken the time to actually define these steps (even if those definitions are just adding to the confusion).
To solve this problem, I respectfully ask that the admin step up and stop the untimely addressing of issues that aren't at hand, and I urge the mapmakers to reject the early interference of people who address their own feelings of inadequacy, by demanding changes to 'graphics' that need be nothing more than schematics.
Finally, I find that in order for a map to be promoted through the process "the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.", is prone to nepotism and exclusion on grounds of personal bias of a few people.
Considering that less than 1% of the members frequent the foundry, and that even less actually make their opinions know, it's complete idiocy to think that the feedback (e.i. personal preferences) of these few people should be any indication of how popular the map will be.
Even if it did, I posit that whether a map is deemed (through personal bias), to see a lot of action or not, is not the best criteria for promoting a map at all. The paramount concern here is whether or not the mapmaker has made it clear that he is prepared to spend the time required to see the map through the process. Whether this will be a long time or a short time is of no concern to the end product and certainly not to how popular the map will be. CC should be as all-encompassing as possible, and I for one find it perfectly acceptable that a map only appeals to a niche of the members. I see plenty of people who plays only a very limited set of maps, and while I don't understand why, I respect their choice to do so. Their enjoyment of a few maps are of no less value than mine is of a lot of them.
Well, I guess this should get the ball rolling. If not, nothing short of another hizzy fit will
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Please, let's keep it clean and to the point.
Thanks for your time.