i know i'm retired from the foundry activities but this subject is very interesting and i can't help posting.
first of all i completely disagree with map grouping by complexity. there are so many negative aspects that i'll deal with them at the end of this post.
now onto the main issue, categorizing maps.
complexity, theme or terit count fail as a way to categorize them simply because they either aren't objective or they don't offer enough info to make for an accurate sorting.
what i would like is a feedback system doubled with a rating system for all maps and that would be the perfect way. the best maps will always be on top and thus new people are guaranteed a pleasurable experience. rating and feedback can only be given once when a game on that map has been finished but it can be edited at a later date if another game has been finished.
this is actually the best way because people can read the feedbacks and get valuable info and they see the rating.
this might actually be the hardest to implement but again it would be best, heck even lux delux has map ratings.
and now onto the complexity of maps. this can never be transformed into an accurate formula because by nature complexity is subjective. i consider all maps simple because i read the legends i study the xml and follow the foundry and thus i understand all of them perfectly. but a person that starts a map and doesn't even read the legend or look at the map won't even understand the one way attack in british isles and say it's a complex map.
so complexity is subjective. now let's get onto the formula.
it's first major flaw is the terit count. basically if i make a wheel of fortune map that has 1000 terits it will be the most complex map ever even if it ends in round 1 and it is simple as hell
second flaw. continents. some maps indeed don't have continents like circus maximus but as far as AoM and AoR i can guarantee they have continents. in fact Age of Merchants has 180 continents and Age of Realms: Might has 199 thus bringing the results of your formula to:
- Code: Select all
Map Terr Cont Gimm Complexity
Age of Merchants 58 180 2 33.38
Age of Realms: Might 93 199 2 37.38
let's be serious for a moment are those 2 maps really 30+ times more complex than doodle earth?
clearly NO. a map can be very complex even if it has 18 terits and no gimmicks and no bonuses and no nothing. it all depends on the strategies a map let's you use and how the gameplay goes.
i don't know if you guys saw my riddler map idea (check the sig) but i think we could safely say that would be the most complex map ever, but if you put it through the formula i bet it will probably get an average score. would that be a correct representation? no.
another problem with sorting maps by complexity is the natural desire of all map makers to attain the highest score in complexity and my bet is we'll have a boom in gimmicky maps which as we already know is a common source of people's complaints that classic maps are no longer made. do we really want to go that way? to have gimmicky maps just for the sake of it?
if you look at the maps i made they have only the basic gimmicks like 1 way attacks and starting neutrals for Age of Merchants (both missed in coleman's analysis) and starting neutrals plus objective for Age of Realms: Might.
strategic resources, conquest gameplay, those aren't gimmicks they don't exist in the xml. they are just continents (different ones but still just continents) and starting neutrals.
so you see, to obtain something complex or simple you don't need gimmicks. for example san francisco has 3 xml gimmicks compared to just 2 for AoM and yet if you ask anybody on the site san francisco would be considered an easier more classic style map.
anyway i'm just babbling too much here, the point is nobody will be able to measure complexity accurately because complexity depends on so much subjective factors. 1 of them being even the graphic representation.
for example crosswords is a very simple map. and yet people consider it complex because of the graphic layout, they can't get around the down and across terits and thus the gameplay is slowed down. get the xml from crosswords and make a geography map with those exact borders and people will suddenly think it's the easiest map ever.
edit// i somehow forgot to add this:
another problem with sorting by complexity is that naturally easier maps will get more games. since it's a ranking game when you see eay you immediately assume points are gained easier from easy maps and thus all new players will probably start doodle earth games.
i mean who would want their first game to be on an map rated insanely difficult?
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
But, most of this work gets done when the bonuses are calculated... so maybe you could incorporate some sort of 'typical' bonus for each map, and use this to determine the impact that the territory count has on ease? (ie high bonus + low terrs = easier; low bonus + high terrs = harder)
