Map Organization Project [Ver 3 - Pg 13]

[Coleman]

Name other radical changes.

Also, from now on lets just call Gimmicks Gameplay Features. I like that a lot more and wish I'd thought of it.

I know we can't agree on categories very well, but I think I came up with something even DiM would agree with.

We can obviously count the number of established Gameplay Features that deviate from classic.

I'd say make a 0-1 Gameplay Feature category called Classic Maps and then have 2 and up be Complex Maps. (With the exception of Circus Maximus or any maps where a Radical Feature is the only feature)

2 categories, and new players should be able to be sure that anything beyond Classic Maps might give them trouble.

[DiM]

i rarely agree with things and most times i have something to comment.

the idea is interesting and does have the advantage of keeping things in a simpler format than all kinds of categs BUT read bellow.


you say 2 categs:


0-1: classic, portugal asia, etc
0-2: conquerman pearl harbor, etc

if this is right then where will you put maps with 1 gimmick? like the british isles. it's a very "classic" map but has a 1 way border. just 1 but it is still a gimmick. it wouldn't be fair to put it in the same categ with pearl harbor

if you want:

0-1: classic, portugal asia, etc
0-2: british isles
0-3: conquerman
...
0-8: pearl harbor


then we're back at the same thing where too many categs clutter the screen.


i'll be back later after some shopping.

[Coleman]

For DiM (British Isles is Fine, it's only odd Feature is that one way border so it is Classic enough to not be put in Complex)

Classic Maps (40)

Classic, Africa, Alexander’s Empire, Ancient Greece, Arctic, Asia, Australia, Battle For Australia, BeNeLux, Brazil, British Isles, Cairns Coral Coast, Canada, Caribbean Islands, CCU, Discworld, Doodle Earth, Europe, Extreme Global Warming, France, Germany, Great Lakes, Hong Kong, Indochina, Ireland, Italy, Middle Earth, Middle East, Mongol Empire, Montreal, North America, Portugal, Puget Sound, South America, Space, Tamriel, USA, U.S. Senate, WWII Eastern Front, WWII Iwo Jima

Complex Maps (24)

Age of Merchants, Age of Realms: Might, Bamboo Jack, Battle Of Actium, Berlin 1961, Chinese Checkers, Circus Maximus, Conquer Man, Crossword, D-Day: Omaha Beach!, Duck and Cover, King Of The Mountains, Madness, Pearl Harbor, Philippines, Rail USA, San Francisco, Siege!, Solar System, USApocalypse, Valley Of The Kings, World 2.1, WWII Western Front, 8 Thoughts

Thoughts on some controversial placement that I view as correct

I think San Francisco is correctly placed as Alkatrez could cause a brand new player to say, "What the hell!?", it clocks in at 3 features anyway.

I also think World 2.1 is correctly placed because it does technically have 2 features and we do lose some new players when they realize how long that game is going to take up one of their 4 spots.

Thoughts on some controversial placement I'm not sure is correct

I don't think Philippines is complex, but it has 2 features. They are really tame features though, and well explained on the map.

Extreme Global Warming only has the dead space feature, but that impassible equator can contribute a bit of confusion. I could create a feature to include it I suppose, "Odd Impassible or Complex Borders" maybe?

Space only uses Double Dipping, but it does it in such a way that consistently confuses new players. I could arbitrarily move it like I did Circus Maximus if nobody thinks that would be wrong of me. If I add Complex Borders via Extreme Global Warming I could say Space has that, and Circus Maximus as well.

Edit: Added bonus People saying we make too many complex maps and we are flooding the site with them can shut up since there are 38-40 classic maps, there are 2 more on the way, and they outnumber our complex maps 2:1. I think splitting them up this way would also help solve the frequency of that complaint by the purists as complex maps will no longer be mixed in with their precious classic maps.

[Qwert]

You forget future category
-map with large dimension size(i hope that you apply these)

[Coleman]

You forget future category
-map with large dimension size(i hope that you apply these)

Me too, I push for it at every available opportunity, and I'll probably tuck it into my pm to lack even if you, mibi, and I are the only people in here that think it is a good idea.

[mibi]

the screen will only be cluttered if we let lack's 5 year old reptilian brother code the changes. I said we decide what information we want to be available and then work on ways to make it fit the simplicity in the UI. We have two separate issues here and shouldn't mix them together.

There are about 500 methods to display information, I am sure Lack can achieve form and function. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

[DiM]

You forget future category
-map with large dimension size(i hope that you apply these)

Me too, I push for it at every available opportunity, and I'll probably tuck it into my pm to lack even if you, mibi, and I are the only people in here that think it is a good idea.

don't forget about me. i've been dreaming about huge maps forever.

world 3.0, the 300 terit map (called evolver) and the life in prison map are all waiting for size upgrades as well as some xml features.

[DiM]

For DiM (British Isles is Fine, it's only odd Feature is that one way border so it is Classic enough to not be put in Complex)

Classic Maps (40)

Classic, Africa, Alexander’s Empire, Ancient Greece, Arctic, Asia, Australia, Battle For Australia, BeNeLux, Brazil, British Isles, Cairns Coral Coast, Canada, Caribbean Islands, CCU, Discworld, Doodle Earth, Europe, Extreme Global Warming, France, Germany, Great Lakes, Hong Kong, Indochina, Ireland, Italy, Middle Earth, Middle East, Mongol Empire, Montreal, North America, Portugal, Puget Sound, South America, Space, Tamriel, USA, U.S. Senate, WWII Eastern Front, WWII Iwo Jima

Complex Maps (24)

Age of Merchants, Age of Realms: Might, Bamboo Jack, Battle Of Actium, Berlin 1961, Chinese Checkers, Circus Maximus, Conquer Man, Crossword, D-Day: Omaha Beach!, Duck and Cover, King Of The Mountains, Madness, Pearl Harbor, Philippines, Rail USA, San Francisco, Siege!, Solar System, USApocalypse, Valley Of The Kings, World 2.1, WWII Western Front, 8 Thoughts

Thoughts on some controversial placement that I view as correct

I think San Francisco is correctly placed as Alkatrez could cause a brand new player to say, "What the hell!?", it clocks in at 3 features anyway.

I also think World 2.1 is correctly placed because it does technically have 2 features and we do lose some new players when they realize how long that game is going to take up one of their 4 spots.

Thoughts on some controversial placement I'm not sure is correct

I don't think Philippines is complex, but it has 2 features. They are really tame features though, and well explained on the map.

Extreme Global Warming only has the dead space feature, but that impassible equator can contribute a bit of confusion. I could create a feature to include it I suppose, "Odd Impassible or Complex Borders" maybe?

Space only uses Double Dipping, but it does it in such a way that consistently confuses new players. I could arbitrarily move it like I did Circus Maximus if nobody thinks that would be wrong of me. If I add Complex Borders via Extreme Global Warming I could say Space has that, and Circus Maximus as well.

Edit: Added bonus People saying we make too many complex maps and we are flooding the site with them can shut up since there are 38-40 classic maps, there are 2 more on the way, and they outnumber our complex maps 2:1. I think splitting them up this way would also help solve the frequency of that complaint by the purists as complex maps will no longer be mixed in with their precious classic maps.

true, british isles is classic but if we go strictly by the presence of gimmicks then it is complex.
also i don't know what's so complex about circus maximus. in my opinion it is actually the simplest map on the site. no bonuses no impassables. one way attacks that go round and round. prety straight forward action to me and in my opinion only a dumb person could get confused by that map.

sorting by gimmicks is kinda strange because you could have 10 gimmicks on a map and still make it very very simple and easy to understand for everybody and you could have no gimmicks and make it complex as hell.

for example aom is considered by many a complex map but not because of the xml gimmicks but rather because of the strange new gameplay.

also i find a bit strange your selection of maps.
why is duck and cover complex but eastern front is not?
why is bamboo jack complex? it has no bombardments no one ways nothing. in fact if we're talking about gimmicks italy is more compelx since it has the city bonuses.

also why is crossword complex? again it has no gimmicks.

why is siege complex? it has just 3 one way borders. hardly on the same level as pearl harbor.

also 8 thoughts and space should be in the same category.

why is age of realms: might complex? it has just starting neutrals. nothing complex about that in my opinion.

and there are more controversies i find in the list but is no use debating them all. the idea is that you can't judge a map by gimmicks only. furthermore you simply can't just categorize a map as easy or complex unless you make a study on a representative amount of people gather the results and draw some conclusions. you say crosswords is complex i say it's not maybe if we ask 2000 people we'll get a clear idea. or maybe not.
it's really hard (impossible imho) to say some are classic and some are complex.

[Coleman]

Or you could read the whole topic...

I'm going by 0 to 1 features for classic. Since British Isles only has one it is not complex. This is pitifully obvious.

I'm going by 2+ or any 1 radical (yellow) feature for complex.

Circus Maximus is complex arbitrarily. It is the only one I currently have that doesn't fit my definition for complex vs classic. I set it to complex simply because it is quite the breakaway from Classic risk, which means it could alienate new players, which means we don't want it with the Classic maps. I think it is simple too, but I'm used to the site, a new player would probably be confused by it initially.

Age of Merchants may be complex for a different reason then most maps, but either way it falls into complex just the same. I'm not looking for 20 flavors of complex, I want maps that may confuse or alienate new players to be under complex and maps that won't to be in classic.

Duck and Cover has Bombardments and Double Dipping, that's 2, which is more than 1, so it is complex.

Bamboo Jack has buildings, which is classified as a radical feature, so it is complex. (Iraq will also have buildings if we manage to get it quenched, and the British map with castles is also going to have buildings)

Crossword has complex naming (frequent mis-deploys as a result) which is a radical feature so it is listed as complex. This is good, most new players don't like crossword and are confused by it.

Siege is complex because it has one way borders and double dipping (gate + camps bonus and throne + walls bonus) which is 2, and that is more than 1.

To make Space and 8 Thoughts in the same category I have to add "Complicated Borders" as a feature, which I'll probably do if you are the only one likely to complain about it.

Age of Might is complex because it has Conquest Gameplay, which is a radical feature and it would freak new players out who have only played classic risk (you know, the people we are designing this for). If that isn't enough for you it also has Dead Space, Ranged Attacks, Strategic Resources, and a Victory Condition.

It's not hard or impossible, you are just stubborn. Thankfully so am I, let's dance.

[yeti_c]

Coleman is teh sex0r!! - what I mean is - I agree with what Coleman is saying here...

C.

[Herakilla]

Coleman is teh sex0r!! - what I mean is - I agree with what Coleman is saying here...

C.

do i have to shoot you b4 you go even farther?

[DiM]

what??? since when complicate borders, complex naming, strategic resources and dead space are considered strange?

and where does age of might have ranged attacks?

the strategic resources you claim to be so confusing and gimmicky are nothing more than simple continents. on classic map you get a bonus for holding peru venezuela brazil and argentina. they form a continent called south america. on age of merchants you get a bonus for holding santiago chino and fajone. they form a continent called coffee and tobacco to local market. wtf is so complicated and strategic?

dead space is a gimmick? come on classic has deadspace. it's that big red space called asia that everybody passes through but nobody holds.

complex naming is also a gimmick nowadays? who's to decide what names are complex and what aren't? for example siege has some pretty simple names and yet i always deploy in the wrong spot.

or what about iceland and scandinavia in classic. common mistake of confusing and missdeploying. let's consider classic as complex also.

conquest gameplay is a radical feature? it's not a feature it's just a gameplay. just like aom has a different gameplay. it's merely a simple derivation from the classic style.

i admit i've reread the thread just now and i'm amazed to see how you guys managed to turn something really simple into brain surgery. you keep adding all kinds of nonexistant gimmicks and features just for the sake of complicating things. next thing you'll do is add a strange colors feature, no army shields feature, name glow feature. or why not geography skew feature. look i'm confused because on the portugal map north isn't up as i learned in school. please put portugal as complex.
or the multilanguage feature. the italy map has bonus for cita. what is cita? i don't know. i'm confused. this map is so darn complex.


i remembered. the most laughable feature of all. BUILDINGS!!!
come on. bamboo jack has a RADICAL feature called BUILDINGS.
they're terits. plain and simple terits that link to other terits and so on. nothing radical nothing complicated. he could have put those buildings on the map change the graphics a bit and voila no more building just some terits. but it wouldn't have been possible because of the size restriction plus it looks much better now.

[yeti_c]

I disagree...

I think all of those gimmicks are necessary for newer players to be aware of...

Don't forget the idea is for helping newbies... not experienced people...

And Conquest gameplay is Radical - there is only 1 map with that gameplay...

C.

PS
Ranged Attack - Some territories on the map are connected without touching.

[Coleman]

what??? since when complicate borders, complex naming, strategic resources and dead space are considered strange?

Nobody said they are strange, we are saying that they are considered complex enough to confuse a player that has never played anything besides Classic Risk.

and where does age of might have ranged attacks?

The docks are connected by a rule, not physically on the map, so it is a ranged attack.

the strategic resources you claim to be so confusing and gimmicky are nothing more than simple continents. on classic map you get a bonus for holding peru venezuela brazil and argentina. they form a continent called south america. on age of merchants you get a bonus for holding santiago chino and fajone. they form a continent called coffee and tobacco to local market. wtf is so complicated and strategic?

We know this, new players do not.

dead space is a gimmick? come on classic has deadspace. it's that big red space called asia that everybody passes through but nobody holds.

Arguably true, functionally not. It has a bonus if you manage it, dead space never has a bonus no matter what you hold it with, thus it is non-standard.

complex naming is also a gimmick nowadays? who's to decide what names are complex and what aren't? for example siege has some pretty simple names and yet i always deploy in the wrong spot.

You mis-deploy on siege? We decide what is complex and what isn't. That's the whole point of this. Anything that isn't <name> is complex naming. Plains 1 ect could really go either way, nobody has argued about it yet. Instead we have these odd arguments with you.

or what about iceland and scandinavia in classic. common mistake of confusing and missdeploying. let's consider classic as complex also.

Anyone who mis-deploys there probably has a low IQ or some other birth defect.

conquest gameplay is a radical feature? it's not a feature it's just a gameplay. just like aom has a different gameplay. it's merely a simple derivation from the classic style.

Your definition of simple isn't uniform with everyone else's. You just said it is a derivation from the classic style, I guess that would classify it as not classic, and since our two options are classic and complex it is complex.

i admit i've reread the thread just now and i'm amazed to see how you guys managed to turn something really simple into brain surgery. you keep adding all kinds of nonexistant gimmicks and features just for the sake of complicating things.

No, we need everything that is not a classic feature clearly defined for the Information Pages so that there is no chance anyone is confused if they bother to read up.

look i'm confused because on the portugal map north isn't up as i learned in school. please put portugal as complex. or the multilanguage feature. the italy map has bonus for cita. what is cita? i don't know. i'm confused. this map is so darn complex.

Careful, I might take you seriously. Any real complaint like this posted anywhere on the forums once the Information Pages are in place can be added to our Glossary of Gameplay Features and added to the Information Page of that map.

i remembered. the most laughable feature of all. BUILDINGS!!!
come on. bamboo jack has a RADICAL feature called BUILDINGS.
they're terits. plain and simple terits that link to other terits and so on. nothing radical nothing complicated. he could have put those buildings on the map change the graphics a bit and voila no more building just some terits. but it wouldn't have been possible because of the size restriction plus it looks much better now.

Buildings is a complex feature, it caused several WTF posts on release and it probably will again as more new people come unless we make it easy for them to learn about them.

People had trouble understanding how they connected with the map, if they were needed along with the continents, how they connected to the continents, ect.

You keep changing the nature of your argument. First our suggestions were pointless and not helpful for newbies, now that we have tried to dumb everything down as far as we possibly can you are saying it is too confusing and unnecessary for old timers. I think you are just trying to filibuster this as long as you can to avoid change.

[yeti_c]

Nice usage of Filibuster!!

C.

PS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

[DiM]

I disagree...

I think all of those gimmicks are necessary for newer players to be aware of...

Don't forget the idea is for helping newbies... not experienced people...

And Conquest gameplay is Radical - there is only 1 map with that gameplay...

C.

PS
Ranged Attack - Some territories on the map are connected without touching.

that's ranged attack?

i disagree ranged attack is something i asked for in the new xml features. look up in that thread. what we have there is a normal attack. it's just that graphically those countries aren't next to eachother.

if that's ranged attack then midkemia is full of ranged attacks since it uses roads not borders.
if that's ranged attack then it means portugal has them italy has them and basically any map that has a water route has ranged attacks. yes that means even classic has ranged attacks because i don't see brazil and north africa on the same land mass and yet they connect.

and yes the idea is to help new people you're right, but don't you see all you guys keep doing is creating even more confusion?

instead of doing something simple and helpful all you do is create more and more complex sorting and grouping and invent gimmicks that aren't real. seriously just add a star rating feedback system and info link. it will offer all the info needed.

a new guy can click the info link and read basic info about the map. or he can read the feedback and see what experiences other players have had on the map. and on top of that they'll see a star rating. do you think they really want to see ranged attacks buildings complex naming and who knows what else you guys come up with? i really really doubt it.

[DiM]

Nice usage of Filibuster!!

C.

PS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

live and learn.

thanks for the link

[yeti_c]

Most of those water route links have a line or an arrow - thus making them "touch"...

Things like the Ports in AOM, the Docks in AOR, The Ghosts & Diamonds in Conquerman are "ranged attacks" and they require understanding from legend text to realise what is going on...

Perhaps "Ranged Attacks" isn't the best phrase... Perhaps we should go for "Non Obvious Attacks" or "Described Attacks"

C.

[yeti_c]

Nice usage of Filibuster!!

C.

PS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

live and learn.

thanks for the link

From his usage I could work it out - but I had to check it's full meaning!!!

C.

[DiM]

big quote here

i'm not trying to resist change i want a change. a simple and effective change that will help both new and old people. the feedback+info link+star rating combo is what i want.

and no i'm not changing my pov. at first your sorting wasn't helpful because it didn't offer the info needed (ie #of terits, complexity rating, etc)

then you guys went overboard and complicated things so much that even an old member will have trouble understanding what you talk about.

you have got to find a balance. a middle solution that offers the most info in the easiest way possible. and so far in my opinion you are going from 1 extreme to another without accomplishing anything.


also make sure you read my post above about ranged attacks and then move classic to complex cause it has ranged attacks.

[Coleman]

if that's ranged attack then midkemia is full of ranged attacks since it uses roads not borders.

Wrong the roads connect them. Same with your other complaints, graphics show the territories connect, not a rule.

and yes the idea is to help new people you're right, but don't you see all you guys keep doing is creating even more confusion?

If everything is defined accurately in a glossary then no, I don't see how we are creating more confusion.

instead of doing something simple and helpful all you do is create more and more complex sorting and grouping and invent gimmicks that aren't real. seriously just add a star rating feedback system and info link. it will offer all the info needed.

We already have cleared that we will propose a star rating and feedback system, you don't need to argue for it anymore, it's a completely pointless waste of your time to do so, nobody disagrees with you there.

The only way I want to sort maps now is into 2 (or 3 if we ever okay large maps) categories. Maps a classic risk veteran will understand easily and maps that they won't.

a new guy can click the info link and read basic info about the map. or he can read the feedback and see what experiences other players have had on the map. and on top of that they'll see a star rating. do you think they really want to see ranged attacks buildings complex naming and who knows what else you guys come up with? i really really doubt it.

I really really don't doubt it. If anyone has a WTF moment about any territory using a non-standard risk feature it will be fully explained in the information pages along with a link to the glossary of these features. If you think we should write out the definition of a feature every single time it appears on a map instead of saying something like Ranged Attacks with a link you're crazy.

[DiM]

Most of those water route links have a line or an arrow - thus making them touch...

Things like the Ports in AOM, the Docks in AOR, The Ghosts & Diamonds in Conquerman are "ranged attacks" and they require understanding from legend text to realise what is going on...

Perhaps "Ranged Attacks" isn't the best phrase... Perhaps we should go for "Non Obvious Attacks" or "Described Attacks"

C.

are you serious?

"non obvious attacks" "described attacks"

you amaze me with your ability to complicate well beyond necessary.

soon you'll even start nitpicking on the way continents are displayed.

look ireland has a small classy glow on borders making the continents full white except the glow on borders. that's not how the classic map is so if it's not classic then it's complex.

btw what you're telling me is that if i add a bunch of lines going back and forth through the age of merchants map and thus destroy the image i will actually make it more simple since the attacks are no loger ranged since they have a "classic" line?

on the contrary, i believe it will make the map even more complicated with all the cluttering from the lines.

[yeti_c]

DiM - you're arguing for arguings sake here - you know full well that having an attack line is easier to understand than something written somewhere else on the map saying "All Docks attack each other"...

I was merely suggesting a different name - if you can come up with a better one - feel free - if not - then STFU.

If you'd've drawn all those lines over AOM it wouldn't've gotten through the Foundry.

C.

[DiM]

if that's ranged attack then midkemia is full of ranged attacks since it uses roads not borders.

Wrong the roads connect them. Same with your other complaints, graphics show the territories connect, not a rule.

read above post

and yes the idea is to help new people you're right, but don't you see all you guys keep doing is creating even more confusion?

If everything is defined accurately in a glossary then no, I don't see how we are creating more confusion.

you're making things way too complicated. soon you'll ask lack to add the CC manual in the shop and it will be twice the size of the encyclopedia britannica. thorow that info in the path of a newcomer and he'll be so scared he'll leave the site in an instant. he's here to have fun and enjoy a simple game not read thousands of pages of complex gimmicks you create.

instead of doing something simple and helpful all you do is create more and more complex sorting and grouping and invent gimmicks that aren't real. seriously just add a star rating feedback system and info link. it will offer all the info needed.

We already have cleared that we will propose a star rating and feedback system, you don't need to argue for it anymore, it's a completely pointless waste of your time to do so, nobody disagrees with you there.

The only way I want to sort maps now is into 2 (or 3 if we ever okay large maps) categories. Maps a classic risk veteran will understand easily and maps that they won't.

i thought you want this instead of map rating plus info link and feedback. my bad.

a new guy can click the info link and read basic info about the map. or he can read the feedback and see what experiences other players have had on the map. and on top of that they'll see a star rating. do you think they really want to see ranged attacks buildings complex naming and who knows what else you guys come up with? i really really doubt it.

I really really don't doubt it. If anyone has a WTF moment about any territory using a non-standard risk feature it will be fully explained in the information pages along with a link to the glossary of these features. If you think we should write out the definition of a feature every single time it appears on a map instead of saying something like Ranged Attacks with a link you're crazy.

believe it or not you can make 1000 pages of explanations and post them all over the site with links images and even video tutorials and people will still come on the forum and ask if hawaii is part of the oceania bonus on world 2.1.

just look at how frequent people ask what is a set of cards and when can they cash in or what are the values in escalating and those are clearly explained in the instructions.

[DiM]

DiM - you're arguing for arguings sake here - you know full well that having an attack line is easier to understand than something written somewhere else on the map saying "All Docks attack each other"...

I was merely suggesting a different name - if you can come up with a better one - feel free - if not - then STFU.

If you'd've drawn all those lines over AOM it wouldn't've gotten through the Foundry.

C.

exactly my point because those lines would have made the map really confusing whereas a simple explanation sorts all problems. BUT according to you and coleman the map is actually more complex because it has that explanation instead of lines. this is what puzzles me. you actually manage to make things more confusing with your strange inventions.