yeti_c wrote:natty_dread wrote:yeti_c wrote:I wonder if CC has Map overload?
C.
Is that even possible?
I don't see why we shouldn't have as many maps as people want to make them, as long as the maps are good and playable.
Yes...
If you have too many maps - then you don't have people playing games on them...
Your extreme example is 20,000 maps <> 20,000 users... some people start games - but they never get filled...
At the moment on last count I think it was 144...
So 20,000 users over 144 maps = 140 users per map...
It's not exactly 1to1 - but is it getting too close?
C.
This is only a problem if users always start games on their favourite map and never look first for a game to join. I usually use the Game Finder first to see if an acceptable game is nearly full, thereby reducing my wait time to the first turn. I have my favourite set of options (standard automatic sequential escalating sunny casual, thank you Saved Searches Greasemonkey script). With this I can find different sized games on any map. This way, I occasionally join a game on a map that is completely new to me, but admittedly, I go for familiar maps most of the time. Only when I have been waiting quite a while do I start a game of my own.
yeti_c wrote:One thing that needs to change though - is the woeful effort of displaying our maps for choosing.
If you are referring to the "browse maps" page, I quite agree. Now that an entry in the Map Portal Database is required, eventually this sort of information could be used to guide the user's choice of map. Popping up the map image without details of starting positions and neutral counts just doesn't cut it any more, if it ever did. Luckily, the ambitious can use the Map XML Wizard to explore existing maps as thoroughly as those under development.