District of Columbia [8/3] V1 Pg1

[Peter Gibbons]

Thanks for the replies above. It sounds like they only place we really disagree is on the inclusion of the Anacostia and maybe Rock Creek, so we'll see what the foundry says as this develops!

On the DC flag/Capitol thing... (and I hope I describe this well)... what about having a shadowed image of the Capitol dome be the full background and then overlay the DC flag on it, but in shield form? Then the map would be on top of that.

Or maybe the flag as the background with the Capitol sort of embossed/engraved into the flag?

Or, a third option... the flag as the background, but in an actual flag/wavy fashion... but you have the saturation level of the flag taper off as you head toward the right side of the map, where it bleeds into an image of the Capitol dome.

I think I like the third one the best, but not sure how difficult that is to pull off!

[koontz1973]

What can you do to make this map stand out from the many other city maps we already have?

This map is intentionally basic. I'm biased but I think it stands out strictly because it's DC - a map of which doesn't exist. But I'm of the mindset - and this may be an unpopular proposition - that it doesn't need to stand out in gameplay. I hope the location and design will make it special. But I'd rather add it to the canon of straightforward city maps. My favorite thing about CC is the variety of maps that follow the standard theme - I'd be pleased as punch if there were a classic map of all the major cities.

Not going happen. Whilst this is a simple map and it may stay a simple map (as it is your first one), D.C. is nothing special. Never been their myself and have no intention to. A place that has under 700 thousand people living their does not merit a map just because it holds a few places of interest to a minority.

Lets get some landmarks onto the map. How about the river? We also need to be seeing some impassables. A lot can be incorporated into the map and still make it simple. Not every map needs to be complicated, but not every map needs to be made.

[Peter Gibbons]

Not going happen. Whilst this is a simple map and it may stay a simple map (as it is your first one), D.C. is nothing special. Never been their myself and have no intention to. A place that has under 700 thousand people living their does not merit a map just because it holds a few places of interest to a minority.

I thought the concern expressed above by Seamus was overblown, but I guess I was wrong. And I must say this is a really arrogant and foolish approach. First of all, Washington is the capital of the most powerful nation in the world. For that alone, it probably merits a map if this site has city maps.

Second of all, your condescending language makes no sense. "Just because it holds a few places of interest to a minority." Excuse me? Name me a place that holds places of interest to the majority? I bet I can find 51% of a sample that could give a crap about NYC, London, Copenhagen, Philadelphia and many of the other cities on this map. What a joke of a comment.

Third, we're talking about a site that has San Marino, Luxembourg, Puget Sound, Quad Cities, Greenland and Charleston as maps (all with under 700,000 people, I might add), all with very simple gameplay and no real special features (aside from Greenland). Quad-effing-Cities!!! I mean, Quad Cities is a map with NO special features. And you're going to tell me there's no place for Washington, DC?!?!

[I should note, by the way, that Quad Cities is a GREAT map. As is Charleston. Two of the best on the site, in my opinion. And they are nothing but simple gameplay maps of cities that are 1/5th the size of DC and 1/1,000,000th as important geo-politically]

Lets get some landmarks onto the map. How about the river? We also need to be seeing some impassables. A lot can be incorporated into the map and still make it simple. Not every map needs to be complicated, but not every map needs to be made.

The thing is, I actually agree with you that the Anacostia River and Rock Creek Park could help improve the gameplay. But his post alone makes me want to encourage the mapmaker to forge ahead without incorporating them. EDIT: and definitely no landmarks--icons on the map look stupid in my opinion and I imagine some others share the opinion. I think it's a shame they got added to North America, for example. I don't know why this is a point that gets harped on. NYC plays fine without landmarks on the map. So does London. Why does Washington have to have them?

The last sentence above is more condescening bullcrap. Why are the foundry moderators looking to discourage or make things more difficult for a mapmaker? The foundry has bled mapmakers, bled ideas, lacked creativity and become a far less busy place over the past year or so. Along comes a mapmaker with a great draft, a clear idea of what he wants to do and the first basic response is "do it differently or we won't allow you to make the map because Washington DC isn't important enough to have a map in our eyes." Unbelievable. For the first time on this site, I'm genuinely shocked by the response. I really hope this post was just your misguided personal opinion and not site policy.

[koontz1973]

Peter, you make think my advice was condescending, but I was only following up on a comment by ManBungalow that was not addressed:

What can you do to make this map stand out from the many other city maps we already have?

And he is right, what makes this worthy of a map. Just because we want it, does not mean we will get it. I am here to help get the best possible map made. You mentioned a few maps from yesteryear that got made, but these where all made when we had far fewer maps. You also mentioned Quad cities, this is a great map and it is unique in theme and location, whilst still being easy on gameplay, it does have a couple of extra features added to it like auto deploys, trapped territs and what not.

[Shape]

Hm, well, I didn't read any condescension in koontz's post. At any rate, I think both you, koontz, and you, Peter Gibbons, have valid points. Now, I think there is room for a classic-style D.C. map. However, after looking at the maps Peter Gibbons listed, NYC has some flavor in the graffiti'd sign and Statue of Liberty icon for Liberty Island, and it has extra gameplay elements, London has a great aesthetic with a picture of London and Big Ben set in the background, Copenhagen also has additional gameplay elements and the objectives themselves add flavor, and Philadelphia, I think, is the best example, oozing with flavor that represents the Philadelphian culture in aesthetics and gameplay. So, what I mean to say, is although these maps may not attract people solely on the basis of the location depicted on the map, but each adds key features both graphically and gameplay-wise to increase the appeal of the map to a wider audience. I think this should be the goal of this D.C. map. As for the other maps you listed, Quad Cities does a fantastic job of setting the scene with that blurb of history and it's a very pretty map, Luxembourg's appeal, I think, stems from it's smallness (much like Doodle Earth), and Luxembourg, Greenland and San Marino are each countries, which I think is a different case, as these are more familiar to a wider audience than a city would be. I will concede that Puget Sound is a very unappealing map, and Charleston to some extent as well, but I don't think these are the examples to go by.

-Shape

[brhiba]

The last four responses have really blown this thing wide open. So I'm not going to quote any particular comments here. I just have to say - Peter Gibbons and I are in complete, total, and utter agreement. koontz1973, I know you have good intentions - all of your feedback thus far has been constructive. However, I disagree almost entirely with your most recent sentiments.

Let's move forward from here with the understanding that the mapmaker has a lucid vision of the map -- an idea that is not only clear and well-formed, but is flexible and open to suggestions.

[koontz1973]

I disagree almost entirely with your most recent sentiments.

Why do you disagree? I have no problem with you disagreeing, but as stated in the guidelines:

4. All sound advice must be followed unless a logical rebuttal by the cartographer or another member of the community is provided.

None has been given. brhiba, sorry, but with over 200 maps now, and the majority of these mid sized classic maps (like this one), another one is not going to stand out in the crowd.
Answer this for me.
Why would I want to play this map when I have a lot of others to play?

[Peter Gibbons]

Peter, you make think my advice was condescending, but I was only following up on a comment by ManBungalow that was not addressed:

"Not going to happen" isn't the best way to respond to a brand new mapmaker when coming from a figure of authority. And the dismissive comments about DC made absolutely no sense, especially when juxtaposed against all the maps that are on this site.

And he is right, what makes this worthy of a map. Just because we want it, does not mean we will get it.

I just don't get this. Why is there a limit on maps. There are several dozen maps on this site that I think are horrible. I avoid them at all costs (and bang my head against the keyboard when they come up on random). What is the problem, exactly, of adding a new map if the mapmaker wants to do it and there appears to be support in the foundry? Conversely... why did the foundry have a Papua New Guinea contest on a map with normal gameplay? Who, exactly, demanded Papua New Guinea as a region that needed to be represented? You can't have it both ways. I personally loved that contest and love the resulting map from it. But how can the moderators of the foundry push PNG on the community in one breath and then say Washington D.C. doesn't deserve a map--when a new mapmaker wants to do it--in the next breath?

I am here to help get the best possible map made. You mentioned a few maps from yesteryear that got made, but these where all made when we had far fewer maps.

I just don't understand how this is a problem. What, exactly, constitutes "yesteryear?" Was there a great event on the CC timeline that divides the periods when classic gameplay maps were acceptable from when they became unacceptable?

You also mentioned Quad cities, this is a great map and it is unique in theme and location, whilst still being easy on gameplay, it does have a couple of extra features added to it like auto deploys, trapped territs and what not.

It is a great map. But I don't know how in the world it's unique in theme. It's on a green field with some bright colors and a few bridges. And of course it's "unique" in location. But so is Washington D.C. This map above has trapped territories. So all he needs is to make the Capitol a +1 auto-deploy and it's golden?

I kid, of course. But I truly don't understand the point that's being made here. I apologize for coming off so forceful last night, but I feel really strongly about this. I came to this site because I loved classic Risk and I loved the ability to play classic Risk on 100+ different maps. I'd love it even more to play on 200+ different maps (before someone gets cute, I realize how many maps there are--but not all of them are classic-style play and that's my point). I don't need bombardments and decaying territories and auto deploys and killer neutrals and convoluted unique connections and the sort (they are fine in some maps, but my point is I don't need them to enjoy a map). Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think I'm the only one that feels this way. And it bothers me that the foundry--with seemingly no justification or reason--is limiting development of such maps. If there is an upper limit, due to technical issues, of how many maps this site can host, then I would understand. But I've never heard that argument. And, barring that argument, the rule seems arbitrary and I think it's counterproductive.

Also, just so we're clear. Shape listed a bunch of maps (the ones I listed) and went through and pointed out how they are unique or have something special. It should be noted that, in all those cases, it's something in the background that's not part of play. If London is "unique," for example, because it has Big Ben woven into the background, then this map will be unique when the mapmaker weaves the Capitol into the background. If we're merely talking about graphical features to frame the map, then I'll back down and apologize for this little flare-up. I actually think that's a great point (and one of the reasons I've advocated--with no response--for revamps of Hong Kong and Montreal, which are two of the best gameplay maps on this site but have no graphical flare). But I get the impression that that is NOT what the foundry leaders are talking about. If the argument here is that the gameplay of a DC map needs all sorts of bells and whistles to pass muster in the foundry, I think the leaders here are making a big mistake.

[isaiah40]

There are some very valid points from both sides here! brhiba read through my Miami (I know shameless map plug )map thread. You'll see where I started out, but now it has totally changed. Mapmakers always start out with a firm idea of where they want to take a map,

I would suggest making the National Mall area an inset and adding in some of the Landmarks to give the map some DC flare.

[greenoaks]

the supporters of this map seem confused. this is not a Washington DC map, this is a map of the District Of Columbia. no one outside of that district cares about it. however, we all know and pay attention to Washington. this map is made of the wrong region.

if you zoom in & make it of Washington DC, you'll get support.

[RjBeals]

If you step back and look at CC, there are no hard "rules" about what the subject of map should be. (cough.... 4-star meats?)... It's just that each map should bring something unique to the site. That's subjective in itself. At the time of creation, Charleston has a lot of support. It was made like 5 years ago. There weren't hundreds of maps on the site at that point. That one, along with a few others (my first map Italy in this group), do not add much uniqueness to the site. I may not get the same support today as I did then. But now with so many maps, the general thought is that maps should be more unique in gameplay and graphics.

I don't know - it's been hashed out over and over in these foundry threads. But overall, it seems that if you start a map, no matter what it is, and you generate community involvement, and support, you make an effort to apply feedback, you make consistent updates that are actual improvements, and you have an overall good attitude, you will eventually have a quenched map. That's what's nice about this site.

---------------------------------------------
edit. On topic. This map needs a lot of work. Looks like a landgrab map. I like the "zoom into the DC area" comment. You could use national monuments & buildings in the gamplay.

[Peter Gibbons]

the supporters of this map seem confused. this is not a Washington DC map, this is a map of the District Of Columbia. no one outside of that district cares about it. however, we all know and pay attention to Washington. this map is made of the wrong region.

if you zoom in & make it of Washington DC, you'll get support.

Uh, what?

There is only one city in the District of Columbia. It's called Washington. It's the same place. I'm not confused. I live here.

[Peter Gibbons]

If you step back and look at CC, there are no hard "rules" about what the subject of map should be. (cough.... 4-star meats?)... It's just that each map should bring something unique to the site. That's subjective in itself. At the time of creation, Charleston has a lot of support. It was made like 5 years ago. There weren't hundreds of maps on the site at that point. That one, along with a few others (my first map Italy in this group), do not add much uniqueness to the site. I may not get the same support today as I did then. But now with so many maps, the general thought is that maps should be more unique in gameplay and graphics.

I don't know - it's been hashed out over and over in these foundry threads. But overall, it seems that if you start a map, no matter what it is, and you generate community involvement, and support, you make an effort to apply feedback, you make consistent updates that are actual improvements, and you have an overall good attitude, you will eventually have a quenched map. That's what's nice about this site.

Good comment and I do hope this is still true. Taking your point about Charleston to its logical conclusion... it would be a shame if a map like Charleston wasn't made today because we have "too many" maps. It's one of the best on the site. We shouldn't dismiss potential new quality just because we have a lot of quantity. I understand having high standards and a thorough process. I just don't think it makes sense to limit a new mapmaker, region or graphical style just because there's an arbitrary decision that we have "enough" classic gameplay maps.

[koontz1973]

Enough non map stuff guys. If you want to talk about the merrits of what maps should or should not get made today, you are more than welcome to take it over to discussions. I even set up a thread to discuss some of the issues raised in here.

brhiba, you have been given a lot of feedback on the map and more is sure to come. Now lets see what you do with it?

[Seamus76]

Enough non map stuff guys. If you want to talk about the merrits of what maps should or should not get made today, you are more than welcome to take it over to discussions. I even set up a thread to discuss some of the issues raised in here.

brhiba, you have been given a lot of feedback on the map and more is sure to come. Now lets see what you do with it?

I agree.

I'm all for simple maps, but as a group I'm sure we can come up with something cool, different, and still simple at the same time. I am here to help.

Last off-topic comment though, I do think the point should be that we are all here to make the best maps possible, whether they be simple or complex, and we are all on the same side.

Looking forward to the next update.

[thecycle23]

Man I would love to see this map. A reasonably simple, classic map of one of the coolest cities in the world? Yes, please.

I agree you probably don't need to put a bunch of monuments on here, but there's probably a way to bridge the gap between this one and the "tourist" version you mentioned. Like you, I live in D.C. (Cathedral Heights!), and after all, there are tons of cool things in the neighborhoods.

I think if you're looking for ways to add some gameplay quirks, my two immediate thoughts were to go ahead and add the metro, similar to how it's set up on the NYC map, and to make the National Mall an impassable border, again, like Central Park is on the NYC map.

Overall, I love this idea, and I'm like you. I say the more classic-style, medium-size maps the better. The Classic map is what drew me here, and I'd love more variety in the choices. (Not that there isn't variety now, but a map of Washington, D.C., just seems like a no-brainer.)

[Industrial Helix]

I agree thst a map of DC is needed asnd I like where you're going with it. However I feel like the absence of the buildings that house the 3 branches of government is a mistake. I'd like to see them added as a sort of collection bonus. Hold Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court for +3 would be pretty fun. DC is powerful and cool because it is the seat of the US government. Skipping over that fact makes this map less attractive.

[koontz1973]

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled. The map is moved to the ideas subforum. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Cartographer Assistants will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.