Moderator: Community Team
I do honestly hope that's the case. However, to point out how I view things (as only one member, I realize). I read all of the newsletters already. However, I notice that there's a new newsletter because it's posted on the home page (which I check every time I log in). So if there's no new newletter notice posted there, I'd never venture into the NEWSLETTERS forum (so I'd miss these sorts of opinion pieces). I strongly suspect I'm not the only one to use that method of newsletter-reading.TaCktiX (emphasis added) wrote:It is an opinion segment being run by the CC Newsletter. All Newsletter activities will now take place in this forum, and since they all have their own dedicated place to exist, readership will likely go up, at least of the Foundry and Tournament Newsletters. With the reorganization people who "don't read" the Newsletter will at least check the forum out, and might start reading.
There's a difference between naivete and optimism, you apparently missed it
MrBenn wrote:The biggest concern of mine, is that while there are lots of people having a look at maps in development, comparatively few people make any comments on them; and commentary / community feedback should be the lifeblood of the foundry.
If every person who made a suggestion or started a draft was to regularly contribute to a single map, then people on all sides would have a much better experience.
I will break down the bolded parts.oaktown wrote:There are 342,000+ registered Conquer Club users, of which about 1,000 are online at any given moment. This poll had 43 votes, 10 of which were negative, so I'm not sure we should make very much of the results.
Is the Foundry always a loving place full of rainbows and daisies? No. It is a collection of individuals who have big egos and who are very competitive. But guess what: this is a website for people who want to play games of world domination: we ALL have big egos and we are ALL very competitive. Once you accept that you can love it for what it is.
In the three years that I've been active in the Foundry I've seen a handful of people leave the place angry, and it's usually because they were uncomfortable accepting criticism from the community. I'll admit that bad attitudes run both ways; since we're all complete strangers to one another we don't always give criticism in a constructive manner. But the list of users that have had good foundry experiences far out-numbers the list of users who have stormed out.
The Foundry and the CC mapmaking process will always be imperfect because it relies on the availability, talent, intelligence, and common sense of a collection of individuals who have lives outside of CC. Until the site administration comes to the realization that they'd be better off just paying a few select individuals (including me of course) to make all of their maps in secret the mapmaking process will always be an imperfect one.
TaCktiX wrote:It is an opinion segment being run by the CC Newsletter. All Newsletter activities will now take place in this forum, and since they all have their own dedicated place to exist, readership will likely go up, at least of the Foundry and Tournament Newsletters. With the reorganization people who "don't read" the Newsletter will at least check the forum out, and might start reading.Woodruff wrote:Why was this thread moved to NEWSLETTERS? It seems far more appropriate to the General Discussion to me. This thread isn't going to be seen by those who don't read the newsletters...so I guess their opinions aren't important?
Hey Bruce, thanks for the response. You say that the "Foundry" needs to realize that "they" have a problem, yet you've been a fairly regular poster the Foundry for about six months now. Your voice is as much a part of the Foundry as that of any other individual. I think that it is exactly this "us" and "them" attitude that needs to be erased somehow. And I'm not putting the blame here on you - for some reason you've been around for six months yet you still feel that the "Foundry" is some big thing that you can't be a part of.Bruceswar wrote:Once the Foundry realizes they are on a super high horse and tries to correct the problems it has with its members, maybe a broader range of people will visit and post more. Until then, the foundry will always suffer the same problems as it does not.
I disagree.Bruceswar wrote:The foundry as a whole has a pretty bad rep when it comes to CC.
MrBenn wrote:I disagree.Bruceswar wrote:The foundry as a whole has a pretty bad rep when it comes to CC.
While some CC members have a bad experience, the days when people would rip a map idea (and the creator) into shreds have long gone. The general experience currently is one of mild indifference or ignorance... People/maps very rarely get laid into now, and are much more likely to stagnate.
again... you ask for opinions, and just can not accept that what people are saying is valid. moving the foundry up the list of forums is not going to solve the problem. not one person in this thread has stated, "i just don't like it because it is hard to find." it is the attitude, moderation and overall air of arrogance in the foundry that is the problem... people are not making this stuff up. disagree all you want, but the foudry does indeed have a bad rep...-0MrBenn wrote:I disagree.Bruceswar wrote:The foundry as a whole has a pretty bad rep when it comes to CC.
While some CC members have a bad experience, the days when people would rip a map idea (and the creator) into shreds have long gone. The general experience currently is one of mild indifference or ignorance... People/maps very rarely get laid into now, and are much more likely to stagnate.
Top Score:2403natty_dread wrote:I was wrong
<ahem> Excuse me? I believe that some have done so, and gotten the same sort of response that owenshooter and bruceswar are..gimil wrote:Perhaps rather than everyone sitting here and complaining someone starts quoting some evidence for their concerns so that the 'blind elite' can see what the problems are?
Sure, but I'd also say that 92% of CC users don't go into any of the forums at all.Bruceswar wrote:You do realize at least 95% of CC does not go into the foundry.
It makes me wonder if anyone is actually reading the thread or not. <sigh>oaktown wrote:Sure, but I'd also say that 92% of CC users don't go into any of the forums at all.Bruceswar wrote:You do realize at least 95% of CC does not go into the foundry.
In my three years in the Foundry I've been a part of this same discussion probably a dozen times, so none of the concerns or suggestions I've seen in this thread are entirely new. We've made a lot of changes over the past three years that have made the mapmaking and decision making processes more transparent. Some of the biggest (and most annoying) egos have left. More "official" voices have been brought on in the hopes of providing more coverage. We have stamps with specific requirements (there used to be neither). We have separate sub-forums for maps in different stages of development. Folks get PM'd when maps are ready to advance and in need of feedback. There is more moderation and more users are receiving warnings for poor behavior. More users are receiving thanks for good behavior. Fewer maps slip through the cracks. More maps are in development. Feedback is still critical, yet overall more constructive.
The Foundry is, in my opinion, functioning and getting along better now than it has in the past two years. But one big problem remains, and it is a problem that no new Foundry rule will ever fully correct:
Some individuals don't always work well with others.
This problem manifests itself in two ways:If somebody has had a negative Foundry experience, it is probably because they have either been the victim of somebody else's poor posting etiquette, or because they fit the second description. Those who fit the second category probably think that I am an elitist foundry snob for saying so and are thinking about how to draft a self-righteous response to me right now.
- Users sometimes leave posts that are mean-spirited, belittling, and not constructive in nature.
- Some mapmakers can not deal with the fact that they are not receiving the kind of feedback they desire.
no, they truly aren't listening to what those of us with valid issues with the foundry have to say. instead of truly allowing people to express opinions, they are continually debating what peoples experiences, perceptions, personal dealings with the foundry REALLY mean. it is all just a big misunderstanding, and now that it has been moved up the forum list, all will be righted and their traffic will increase. it is amazing that every comment is meant with a stiff rebuke. "give us your opinions... but only if they are positive!"... again, i am personally delving back in, and am on week 3 of the experience... i have even considered following a map from beginning to end to truly give the foundry a real try... as of yet, i have seen very little change in the foundry from what my prior perceptions were...-0Woodruff wrote:It makes me wonder if anyone is actually reading the thread or not. <sigh>
Who is "they"? And who is "us"? I've read this entire thread, and I've done nothing to keep anyone from espressing their opinions, as you accuse. Rather I'm just trying to make the point that the "Foundry" is me, and it is you owenshooter, and it is you too Woodruff. Everyone who has ever participated in the Foundry is responsible for making it what it is today. The Foundry has no personality of its own, but your experiences within the Foundry will be shaped by those with whom you interact. By extension the more you participate the more you shape other people's experiences. And if you don't participate you can't have any influence on how the Foundry is perceived.owenshooter wrote: they truly aren't listening to what those of us with valid issues with the foundry have to say.
well, i believe the thread was begun for an article in the newsletter which was not written due to time constraints upon Insomnia Red... sooo, the opinions were allegedly for a piece in the newsletter about people's opinion from other forums about the forum, not about getting "anywhere"... i do applaud the sister thread in the foundry, which is really interesting, and i look forward to this article if/when it is ever written. whew... so, not a thread about open debate about the perception of the foundry by the community at large, but a thread about communities opinions concerning the foundry... at least, that is what my perception is... and oaktown, you know you are my hero, period.-0oaktown wrote: Alternatively any CC user is welcome to keep posting their opinions, positive or negative, but if all we are going to do is exchange opinions about whether it the Foundry is good or evil I don't see how we are going to get anywhere.
This post addresses your second paragraph. I have read through the thread and agree with a lot of what is being said. I have tried to read through the map foundry on occasion and 1. much of it is so far over my head (the technical part of map making) and 2. when somebody makes a legitimate suggestion they are shot down often with the response "well why didn't you say that 2 months ago". I think the problem is that only people who frequently visit the map foundry forum are taken seriously. Newcomers are shunned until they are either a. they post enough that they are begun to be accepted, or b. they are shooed away and never return. The map-makers are not at fault as they are doing their best to please the most of the CC community they can; that is by producing maps. Helping along newcomers merely slows down this process. At this moment in time I don't have a solution to this problem, but I think as long as most people are being reasonable (some people won't even recognize that their is a problem), it is impossible not to make progress on the dilema. Those are my two cents, and I hope that people will address my points so that I can continue to contribute to the discussion.oaktown wrote:Who is "they"? And who is "us"? I've read this entire thread, and I've done nothing to keep anyone from espressing their opinions, as you accuse. Rather I'm just trying to make the point that the "Foundry" is me, and it is you owenshooter, and it is you too Woodruff. Everyone who has ever participated in the Foundry is responsible for making it what it is today. The Foundry has no personality of its own, but your experiences within the Foundry will be shaped by those with whom you interact. By extension the more you participate the more you shape other people's experiences. And if you don't participate you can't have any influence on how the Foundry is perceived.owenshooter wrote: they truly aren't listening to what those of us with valid issues with the foundry have to say.
Anyway, I'm always open to discussing suggestions as to how to make the place better (and I've spent many, many hours doing so). If anybody has some concrete suggestions I'd be happy to discuss them. Alternatively any CC user is welcome to keep posting their opinions, positive or negative, but if all we are going to do is exchange opinions about whether it the Foundry is good or evil I don't see how we are going to get anywhere.
Well, what's wrong with saying that? I mean, the map has been there for x months and thus approved by the foundry as suitable for live play, so when someone comes in in the final stages or even post-development, and states that there's a glaring flaw on something deemed "finished" — that's where the flaw of the post lies.pimphawks70 wrote:"well why didn't you say that 2 months ago".
That is understandable. So correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem appears to be that the general community refrains from making their suggestions until it is too late? If a problem is at least established, then people can work towards solving it...the.killing.44 wrote:Well, what's wrong with saying that? I mean, the map has been there for x months and thus approved by the foundry as suitable for live play, so when someone comes in in the final stages or even post-development, and states that there's a glaring flaw on something deemed "finished" — that's where the flaw of the post lies.pimphawks70 wrote:"well why didn't you say that 2 months ago".
So the way we say "come and comment!" is a bit flawed in itself. More people should comment earlier on, to be honest. It is the comments asking for something major at the end or in Beta that throw people off and that's where the posts deemed spiteful (and yes, I'll admit some are) come into play.
.44
Well that's the thing. The majority of people do not enter the process until they see the map out of the foundry — a.k.a. up for live play. So that's where the problem lies — people do not look at the maps until they are in Beta, and thus don't enter the process early enough to not have that response. Which is where my second paragraph comes in.pimphawks70 wrote:That is understandable. So correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem appears to be that the general community refrains from making their suggestions until it is too late? If a problem is at least established, then people can work towards solving it...the.killing.44 wrote:Well, what's wrong with saying that? I mean, the map has been there for x months and thus approved by the foundry as suitable for live play, so when someone comes in in the final stages or even post-development, and states that there's a glaring flaw on something deemed "finished" — that's where the flaw of the post lies.pimphawks70 wrote:"well why didn't you say that 2 months ago".
So the way we say "come and comment!" is a bit flawed in itself. More people should comment earlier on, to be honest. It is the comments asking for something major at the end or in Beta that throw people off and that's where the posts deemed spiteful (and yes, I'll admit some are) come into play.
.44
hmmmm... A way to draw more people in early in the map making process.the.killing.44 wrote:Well that's the thing. The majority of people do not enter the process until they see the map out of the foundry — a.k.a. up for live play. So that's where the problem lies — people do not look at the maps until they are in Beta, and thus don't enter the process early enough to not have that response. Which is where my second paragraph comes in.pimphawks70 wrote:That is understandable. So correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem appears to be that the general community refrains from making their suggestions until it is too late? If a problem is at least established, then people can work towards solving it...the.killing.44 wrote:Well, what's wrong with saying that? I mean, the map has been there for x months and thus approved by the foundry as suitable for live play, so when someone comes in in the final stages or even post-development, and states that there's a glaring flaw on something deemed "finished" — that's where the flaw of the post lies.pimphawks70 wrote:"well why didn't you say that 2 months ago".
So the way we say "come and comment!" is a bit flawed in itself. More people should comment earlier on, to be honest. It is the comments asking for something major at the end or in Beta that throw people off and that's where the posts deemed spiteful (and yes, I'll admit some are) come into play.
.44
.44
So the phrase "better late than never" does NOT apply to the Foundry? It seems odd to me that a mapmaker wouldn't want ANY input that could make the map better, whether it's "on time or not" seems irrelevant. Yes, I can see that it might be irritating, but it's still useful input.the.killing.44 wrote:Well, what's wrong with saying that? I mean, the map has been there for x months and thus approved by the foundry as suitable for live play, so when someone comes in in the final stages or even post-development, and states that there's a glaring flaw on something deemed "finished" — that's where the flaw of the post lies.pimphawks70 wrote:"well why didn't you say that 2 months ago".
So the way we say "come and comment!" is a bit flawed in itself. More people should comment earlier on, to be honest. It is the comments asking for something major at the end or in Beta that throw people off and that's where the posts deemed spiteful (and yes, I'll admit some are) come into play.
.44
Well, it's not "you're too late, you missed out;" rather "you're viewing what is looked at as 'as done as possible.' Think before you post." The things that are brought up are just things that are infinitely better brought up earlier on in the process and now that the map is seen as "done," the major things that have been brought up have been put to rest, or one would think. But it's the timing of it all — when a mapper sees these comments asking for something, maybe not major in technicality but in the morals, what have you (lack of a good word in my mind atm), it's just that it's late and a kind of "where've you been" feel sweeps across the board (no pun intended).Woodruff wrote:So the phrase "better late than never" does NOT apply to the Foundry? It seems odd to me that a mapmaker wouldn't want ANY input that could make the map better, whether it's "on time or not" seems irrelevant. Yes, I can see that it might be irritating, but it's still useful input.the.killing.44 wrote:Well, what's wrong with saying that? I mean, the map has been there for x months and thus approved by the foundry as suitable for live play, so when someone comes in in the final stages or even post-development, and states that there's a glaring flaw on something deemed "finished" — that's where the flaw of the post lies.pimphawks70 wrote:"well why didn't you say that 2 months ago".
So the way we say "come and comment!" is a bit flawed in itself. More people should comment earlier on, to be honest. It is the comments asking for something major at the end or in Beta that throw people off and that's where the posts deemed spiteful (and yes, I'll admit some are) come into play.
.44
