Map Complexity [Public Discussion/Review]

[koontz1973]

@koontz

Doodle isn't simpler gameplay wise. A mistake on doodle means your game is over. A mistake on World 2.1 and you are ok. Doodle should be at the same level as Classic.

This is why I said we need someone else apart from us to decide which maps go into which category. You say doodle is game over if you make a mistake, so it is on the same level as classic, but Eurasia mini has only 26 territs. So a mistake on that is not game over then so how do you rate that one?

No matter how we rate the maps, you will never get everyone to agree on every maps rank.

[ender516]

@koontz

Doodle isn't simpler gameplay wise. A mistake on doodle means your game is over. A mistake on World 2.1 and you are ok. Doodle should be at the same level as Classic.

This is why I said we need someone else apart from us to decide which maps go into which category. You say doodle is game over if you make a mistake, so it is on the same level as classic, but Eurasia mini has only 26 territs. So a mistake on that is not game over then so how do you rate that one?

No matter how we rate the maps, you will never get everyone to agree on every maps rank.

This is exactly why I think user ratings should be reported separately from site-calculated ratings. Those things which not up for debate, like the number of territories and the XML features used, should be easily discernible by a user browsing the database. Ratings given to maps by users can be examined by other users. Being able to see all the ratings that a user has given to various maps could help you decide whether that user thinks the same way as you do, or not, allowing you to take those ratings as gospel, or with a grain of salt.

[MrBenn]

Map Size should not be a large consideration of complexity - it should be a separate measure/scale.

[DoomYoshi]

Map Size should not be a large consideration of complexity - it should be a separate measure/scale.

Bingo.

[MrBenn]

As I said before, World 2.1 is more difficult than Doodle and Classic; not because of its larger size, but because of it's non-standard (although very intuitive) bonus/continent structure.

[Nola_Lifer]

Complexity should be measured in how much time it takes to understand a map. That is including reading the legend and understand the subtleties of the map. KISS! Keep it simple silly. 3 categories. Yes our mind might understand ratings as a bigger spectrum than 3, but you want this to be user friendly and to the point.

[gimil]

Sorry to bump an older thread but I wanted to put my 2p worth in.

With such a large variety of maps and a large player base, there is no system that will please everyone no easy way to categories all maps. If there is a desire to have maps ranked based on complexity it should probably be done on an open source platform. Give the community the tools to rank the maps on their own accord.

I think the best way to achieve this is by implementing a system identical to player ratings. After every game you can choose to rate (or change a previous rating) of a map based on how complex you thought a map was to play.

With this system you get a rating based on what the larger gaming community think about a map with little effort instead of some poor individual who has to collate and input date on the large collection of maps but also those complexity levels are decided by the whole gaming community, not just those who read topics like this in the foundry.

[ender516]

I quite agree. I wonder, though, if such ratings might be related to the settings used for the map. In my mind, the ultimate system would allow the user to enter a rating for the game they just played, using stars for some qualities and tags for others (and possibly text like the old feedback system). This would be recorded against all the settings for the game including the map. Then a database explorer would allow users to see the specialized ratings for a map with a given collection of settings, or the summarized ratings with some or all settings set to "don't care". It would be so nice to see the rating for a map based on, say, just 1v1 games, or just trench, or foggy doubles. Knowing how many ratings are folded into any results extracted would be useful.

[gimil]

I quite agree. I wonder, though, if such ratings might be related to the settings used for the map. In my mind, the ultimate system would allow the user to enter a rating for the game they just played, using stars for some qualities and tags for others (and possibly text like the old feedback system). This would be recorded against all the settings for the game including the map. Then a database explorer would allow users to see the specialized ratings for a map with a given collection of settings, or the summarized ratings with some or all settings set to "don't care". It would be so nice to see the rating for a map based on, say, just 1v1 games, or just trench, or foggy doubles. Knowing how many ratings are folded into any results extracted would be useful.

Sure, there isn't any reason (in terms of coding) that wouldn't allow such a system to exist. The thing about great websites these days is that they let users do all the work in tagging, rating and organising content. Facebook lets you tag photos of your and your friends which automatically sorts those photos to appear on a tagged persons page. eBay lets you review and rate every sale you are involved in, sorted out good sellers and buyers from the bad. Hell, wikipedia is success for doing nothing (in a manner of speaking), they let everyone else upload, edit and polish content on just about whatever you want.

Why can CC do this with its maps?

[Armandolas]

If we want to simplify things for beginers then we should make it simple:
Basic, advanced, Complex.
Those 3 definitions must be simple too:
Basic is the normal risk game with standard attacks and borders (classic)
Advanced are maps with winning conditions, one way assaults or something that is different the classic gameplay attack(ex.3rd crusade / conquer 4 )
Complex are maps with Starting points, Bombardments, assaults on non-connected territories or killer neuts(ex.trafalgar / monsters )

So Doodle is 100% Basic, does not matter if its more strategic than classic or not. Its gameplay is ONLY basic.Normal attacks, normal borders, easy to understand bonus, etc).
Its a classic map with the rules of risk. Why complicate things?

Then a size selector its important too , and again should be simple to decide : Small / Medium / Large

Some people tend to forget that this kind of changes are not the people that has been around CC for some time, but for the newcomers. So we should try to think this as if it was the 1st time we come to visit the site and want to find a game

Make it Simple!!!

[Fazeem]

I think this falls into this category but mine is a question on the matter. Could a Map based on starting points have different victory conditions for starting points on the same map? SO based on where they start they have to either completely dominate or complete different conditions based on where they hold from the beginning?

[isaiah40]

I think this falls into this category but mine is a question on the matter. Could a Map based on starting points have different victory conditions for starting points on the same map? SO based on where they start they have to either completely dominate or complete different conditions based on where they hold from the beginning?

Yes you can. Pirates and Merchants (now abandoned) used this idea.

[Aleena]

As far as classifying a game as

Simple
Standard
Complex
ect...

which is all subjective based on the comprehensive level of the player whom is trying to play that game....
I like the idea of having a filter system, and a game tag like this on the games.. (Think 3 tier tag is too small of a field)
Like the added Extreme and maybe one more...

1) Easy
2) Simple - Standard
3) Moderate
4) Complex
5) Extreme

I think basing it off the Classic Map is a good measuring tool - but the Classic Map is a Simple Map in my opinion and should be labeled so...

As for the rest - why can they not be added to the voting system at the end of the game...
You just finished a game - you have 3 players and a map to rate.

This way each map's rating will be based on an average opinion from all the players whom played it previously - and not just based on a few features or a few people's opinions. I think a game still can be classified as Easy or Simple even if it has a feature in it like Bombardment or autodeploy - it really depends on how it is used and where it is placed...

And as the community grows (if we as a community rate the maps as we play them) - the ratings will reflex the average comprehensive ability of the community and not just that of a few...

[ViperOverLord]

I'd consider a number scale for difficulty to take away the subjective nature of the terms.

Possibilities are:

1-5 with increments of 1 (or 0.5).
1-10 with increments of 1 (or 0.5).