Whats your beef with the foundry?

[FreeMan10]

<snip> the day I joined (admitedely not that long ago). <snip>

As far as I can tell, <snip>

I have no idea what your talking about CA's are not assigned to mape

Seems I haven't read all the rules yet.

I don't remember which map it is that is waiting on bad_speler, but what's waiting on him? Is it his map? If so, should it be marked vacation or abandoned (if not already)?

OK, newbie wandering off to get hoof-in-mouth disease looked into...

[DiM]

there's no need for surveys. if people want a certain map they come and post an idea then it is up for grabs. any map maker can look in the ideas thread and do something from there. that's the best survey.

i constantly check the ideas thread but so far i haven't found anything i might be interested in doing.

glad to hear it DiM and i'm sure you are not alone in doing this but in gemeral people on this site are unaware they can do that ie post ideas that others will make (assuming the idea appeals to them)

well, frankly it's not my fault people choose to visit the flame forum or the clubhouse instead of coming to the foundry. when i joined CC i instantly went to the forums and one of my first stops was the foundry. nobody directed me there besides my curiosity. i came i saw i read i suggested gave feedback and finally started making my own maps. anybody can do this if they want to. advertising people to come here is wrong. if we do this then soon we'll have to advertise other parts of the forum.
i can already see a big banner on the front page. "wanna curse and say f*ck as much as you want? come join us in flame wars"

seriously now, if people want to get involved they know where to find the foundry. it's right on the front page of the forum. the fact that fewer people come here than those that go to flames is a clear indicator that this is their desire.

[FreeMan10]

Ditto what DiM said, except for the 'started making maps' part.

Let the 80% do their 20% of the work, leave it to the 20% to do the 80% of the work. You're not going to change a law of nature.

[Elijah S]

I guess I'll put my two cents in...

One of the biggest problems that I see is that the Foundry is overwhelmed with ideas, many which, frankly, just suck.

With about 80 maps in play, the average player has a wide variety of maps to choose from and therefore just stays away from the Foundry without a real need to contribute to discussions or critiques of ongoing projects.
The attitude is that the mapmakers are producing maps at a good rate, as we see anywhere between 5 - 10 maps make it through Final Forge every couple of months. -So what is average Joe's need to provide input when the supply is being met?

The Foundry, in my opinion, is a pretty self-contained group who are raising the bar and making better, more appealing, maps all the time.
So soliciting members for input really isn't needed.
If someone is curious or wants to comment or make suggestions, the Map Foundry is easy to find.

On the other hand, I do agree with Rebelman in that some of the Foundry regulars can be pretty condescending.
In short, I think there should be a way to reduce the clutter of threads and newcomers should be treated in a manner that's more welcoming.

[Lone.prophet]

people thake things way to serious, its the internet so let iit flow if you dont like someone.

i problebly got allot of trouble on my head if i wrote what i really wanted to write

[benny profane]

people thake things way to serious, its the internet so let iit flow if you dont like someone.

i problebly got allot of trouble on my head if i wrote what i really wanted to write

are you saying that this isn't what you really wanted to write to qwert?:

see ur being a complete asshole

[Lone.prophet]

^^ lol they should really kick you out for that useless post

[gimil]

Some people take this site way to seriously *cough*

[Lone.prophet]

someone like you? or you meant someone else?

[gimil]

someone like you? or you meant someone else?

[sarcasim][/sarcasim]

[laci_mae]

Things that bug me about the foundry:

1. This thread contains an entire page of posts that are entirely off topic.
2. As threads about maps expand, it is difficult to determine which comments pertain to which version of the map. This is important for 2 reasons: a) anyone wandering through the foundry for the first time is overwhelmed by the incoherency of the information sparsely distributed through the thread and b) those who stick around and honestly try to give thoughtful comments have a hard time remembering which map is on which page/version/contingency point.
3. Mapmakers do not (and, realistically cannot) respond to every comment that is made because the a) comments are made by people who haven't bothered to read the thread (see point 2) or b) criticisms are put forth at a time that is not appropriate in the map's life
4. People make criticisms but do not offer suggestions.

My suggestions:
1. Find a way to break up the comments so that it is easy to determine if the point is still under discussion or if that version of the map has been passed.
2. Archive the posts so that only posts that are still pertinent are included in the thread. (Possibly with a similar format as the new game log that only loads the last 50 moves.)
3. Use a sticky or announcement to discuss the process that maps go through during formation, including which aspects are important in which phase. The current "How to make a map handbook" is informative, but it is aimed at mapmakers. Possibly the information could be paralleled with a focus on being a good map reviewer.

Best,
LMR

[TaCktiX]

I'd say the thing that LEAST bugs me is someone popping onto a map thread and saying "dude, I'd really like to play this." Nothing creates map pride better.

That said, I dislike it when people don't make suggestions. I recently posted a beta image of a map called Trench Warfare. People made about a page's worth of comments. I took them, and completely redesigned the map. And the only comments I've gotten on the 2nd version are some from a guy wondering why I didn't use his background (which is the wrong color I'm going for, I want dusty gray or brown). I feel like I have to release a fully pimped out version of a map just to get gameplay discussion. I wish people would comment on the idea and the setup, and not just ignore it because "well, it looks bad right now, I'll come back later." As far as I can tell, more starting mapmakers are likely to quit because of the expectation of "instant graphical uberness."

[DiM]

I'd say the thing that LEAST bugs me is someone popping onto a map thread and saying "dude, I'd really like to play this." Nothing creates map pride better.

That said, I dislike it when people don't make suggestions. I recently posted a beta image of a map called Trench Warfare. People made about a page's worth of comments. I took them, and completely redesigned the map. And the only comments I've gotten on the 2nd version are some from a guy wondering why I didn't use his background (which is the wrong color I'm going for, I want dusty gray or brown). I feel like I have to release a fully pimped out version of a map just to get gameplay discussion. I wish people would comment on the idea and the setup, and not just ignore it because "well, it looks bad right now, I'll come back later." As far as I can tell, more starting mapmakers are likely to quit because of the expectation of "instant graphical uberness."

this is not actually a problem it's more of a result of years of experience. hundreds of people came to the foundry posted an idea, got comments and then the idea died because the original poster didn't have any skills to make the map. at first it was ok since the foundry was small but now the foundry has dozens of ongoing nice looking maps that need comments and people will stick to those and not waste time on graphicless ideas.

i think it is a normal situation. for example i don't have time to post everywhere and so i concentrate my comments on a few maps that look promising and have a high chance of making it. an idea no matter how awesome it is won't interest me if it doesn't show me the poster has the capacity to take it to the end.

the only times i will post in a thread where there's no image or there's a shitty image is when the guy already has experience at map making and i know he can provide graphics. for example if cairnswk posts an idea and an image made in paint i will comment.

[DiM]

Things that bug me about the foundry:

1. This thread contains an entire page of posts that are entirely off topic.
2. As threads about maps expand, it is difficult to determine which comments pertain to which version of the map. This is important for 2 reasons: a) anyone wandering through the foundry for the first time is overwhelmed by the incoherency of the information sparsely distributed through the thread and b) those who stick around and honestly try to give thoughtful comments have a hard time remembering which map is on which page/version/contingency point.
3. Mapmakers do not (and, realistically cannot) respond to every comment that is made because the a) comments are made by people who haven't bothered to read the thread (see point 2) or b) criticisms are put forth at a time that is not appropriate in the map's life
4. People make criticisms but do not offer suggestions.

1.
2. how's that difficult?? take a look at any of my threads for example. i have the whole update history in the first posts with full explanations of what i did in each update. easy to follow and simple to see if something has been solved or not. also in the title i have the page where the latest update is shown. so go to that page and see it and then you'll see all the comments that follow it. and i'm not the only one with this kind of organisation in the thread.
3. actually map makers respond to all comments even if they are good bad or simply stupid.
4. i hate this part too. i don't expect people to tell me like this: i don't like the outer glow you used, please make a spread of 4 px instead of 6 and up the opacity to 81% instead of 75% and then play with the jitter a little."
it would be nice but it's impossible. instead it would be fine if people said "i don't like the glow because it hurts my eyes, make it less bright" it would be more helpful than the classic "the glow sucks"

My suggestions:
1. Find a way to break up the comments so that it is easy to determine if the point is still under discussion or if that version of the map has been passed.
2. Archive the posts so that only posts that are still pertinent are included in the thread. (Possibly with a similar format as the new game log that only loads the last 50 moves.)
3. Use a sticky or announcement to discuss the process that maps go through during formation, including which aspects are important in which phase. The current "How to make a map handbook" is informative, but it is aimed at mapmakers. Possibly the information could be paralleled with a focus on being a good map reviewer.

Best,
LMR

1. there is such a system. look at my answer in #2 above
2. nope. this would require way too much modding to decide what comments are pertinent what comments are jokes and so on.
3. there's no recipe for being a good map reviewer. and that's the beauty of it. people have all sorts of ways of reviewing a map and so they can cover much more angles and help the map maker. if you make a guid and tell them look at this and then that and then post this and that, then it won't really help anybody. i guess the only sensible thing i would put in a map reviewer guide would be " read the thread, use your brain and don't post stupid things"

[laci_mae]

1.
2. how's that difficult?? take a look at any of my threads for example. i have the whole update history in the first posts with full explanations of what i did in each update. easy to follow and simple to see if something has been solved or not. also in the title i have the page where the latest update is shown. so go to that page and see it and then you'll see all the comments that follow it. and i'm not the only one with this kind of organisation in the thread.
3. actually map makers respond to all comments even if they are good bad or simply stupid.
4. i hate this part too. i don't expect people to tell me like this: i don't like the outer glow you used, please make a spread of 4 px instead of 6 and up the opacity to 81% instead of 75% and then play with the jitter a little."
it would be nice but it's impossible. instead it would be fine if people said "i don't like the glow because it hurts my eyes, make it less bright" it would be more helpful than the classic "the glow sucks"

1. there is such a system. look at my answer in #2 above
2. nope. this would require way too much modding to decide what comments are pertinent what comments are jokes and so on.
3. there's no recipe for being a good map reviewer. and that's the beauty of it. people have all sorts of ways of reviewing a map and so they can cover much more angles and help the map maker. if you make a guide and tell them look at this and then that and then post this and that, then it won't really help anybody. i guess the only sensible thing i would put in a map reviewer guide would be " read the thread, use your brain and don't post stupid things"

All points taken and agreed. I just see things like font color being battled out when the map really needs some vast improvements in gameplay. I see clearly, though, that this is inevitable in this environment. I believe that a good reviewer guide could be constructed which would illustrate the general flow of the map life-cycle. Perhaps, I will attempt to draft one, and post it for critiques. I definitely understand that the focus should be on giving thoughtful suggestions and not discouraging newcomers from commenting.

I also agree that you and many others keep the thread title and 1st slide updated. I would like to see this move toward a more unified format as not all include the v# or have superfluous information.

And, finally, I would like to see us encourage one another to indicate in message (or subject line) the version to which we are referring.

Best,
LMR

[cairnswk]

for example if cairnswk posts an idea and an image made in paint i will comment.

Now DiM!!! You know that ain't never gonna happen Bad example.
How about if cairnswk posts an image that doesn't show good graphical ability to start, but has the potential to improve it, then you'll comment.

[cairnswk]

I just see things like font color being battled out when the map really needs some vast improvements in gameplay. I see clearly, though, that this is inevitable in this environment. I believe that a good reviewer guide could be constructed which would illustrate the general flow of the map life-cycle. Perhaps, I will attempt to draft one, and post it for critiques. I definitely understand that the focus should be on giving thoughtful suggestions and not discouraging newcomers from commenting.

I also agree that you and many others keep the thread title and 1st slide updated. I would like to see this move toward a more unified format as not all include the v# or have superfluous information.

And, finally, I would like to see us encourage one another to indicate in message (or subject line) the version to which we are referring.

Best,
LMR

Laci Mae...thanks for suggestions....your positiveness is applauded, but having now had 10 maps quenched and moving onto numbers 11, 12, 13 & 14 in development, and done a short stint as a CA last year, i think while it is good to recommend some fixed processes be in place, every mapmaker is going to have a different approach and the guidelines that exist already are "flexible" enough to allow people to place their comments without feeling intimidated by the overall largess of the Foundry.

Also every commentor is going to want to comment on different aspects "as they see it" when they visit a map, as sometimes one comment is all they will make.

That doesn't mean there is no room for improvement. I have often advocated for a more fixed process for maps in development such as having a Font stage, a colour stage etc. etc. but i don't know if that would improve the existing process or simply be more of a nightmare administratively for the CAs, and frighten/discourage people from making comments.

This entire process also revolves around the fact that not every mapmaker has the same time as myself and Dim to work on their maps and the process for the development may stop/start/stop/start several times over.

Whatever you do, don't stop your comments from coming. There will be something in there that will be taken on board and run with at some stage. I encourage you to continue.

[rabbiton]

So tell me what do you dislike about the foundry? Why? What should be done to make it better?

my beef: 90% of effort appears to be put into look and feel, 10% on gameplay. if anything, it should be the other way around.

to me the look and feel is important but ultimately maps are all just nodes, connecting to each other in different ways, with different continent boundaries, and sometimes different gameplay rules. after the first game that is all that matters really.

there are many maps that look great, have interesting themes, yet aren't played much... why? playability. it seems a shame for the map-maker as much as anything.

to summarize: what you need is user-testing. i can't imagine it's that hard to implement compared to the value it will return. i'd suggest lobbying the management.

[DiM]

to summarize: what you need is user-testing. i can't imagine it's that hard to implement compared to the value it will return. i'd suggest lobbying the management.

a testing facility has been suggested soooooo many times and so far nothing.

that's why some map makers test them at home with friends.

[pepperonibread]

to summarize: what you need is user-testing. i can't imagine it's that hard to implement compared to the value it will return. i'd suggest lobbying the management.

a testing facility has been suggested soooooo many times and so far nothing.

that's why some map makers test them at home with friends.

What about us mapmakers that don't have any friends

[DiM]

to summarize: what you need is user-testing. i can't imagine it's that hard to implement compared to the value it will return. i'd suggest lobbying the management.

a testing facility has been suggested soooooo many times and so far nothing.

that's why some map makers test them at home with friends.

What about us mapmakers that don't have any friends

play with yourself

seriously, for CC mogul i playtested it with my friends but i also playtested it by myself. just take turns and try to simulate a game where you play for several players.

[InkL0sed]

This issue comes up again.

I'll make the same response, to which nobody ever responded, as last time: why doesn't someone with those kind of capabilities set up a separate site to test games?

[DiM]

This issue comes up again.

I'll make the same response, to which nobody ever responded, as last time: why doesn't someone with those kind of capabilities set up a separate site to test games?

it's probably very hard to do it otherwise it would have been done by now.

think about it, you basically need to make a CC copy. yes no forums or the huge number of players but still you need a lot of work

[InkL0sed]

This issue comes up again.

I'll make the same response, to which nobody ever responded, as last time: why doesn't someone with those kind of capabilities set up a separate site to test games?

it's probably very hard to do it otherwise it would have been done by now.

think about it, you basically need to make a CC copy. yes no forums or the huge number of players but still you need a lot of work

If I knew how, I would at least try.

Yes, no doubt it's a lot of hard work, but it would definitely be worth it. Map making is also a lot of work.

[rabbiton]

to summarize: what you need is user-testing. i can't imagine it's that hard to implement compared to the value it will return. i'd suggest lobbying the management.

a testing facility has been suggested soooooo many times and so far nothing.

that's why some map makers test them at home with friends.

i think it's the least lackattack should do to:

1. support his mapmakers that do enormous amounts of work for free, and
2. produce better maps for all users

further, i don't see that it's especially complex. you need:

1. a db flag on each map to indicate status ('test' in this case)
2. simple logic to hold test maps out of live play
2. the special ability for some individuals to set up games on test maps
3. simple logic that stops maps in test status from issuing points, or changing stats

maybe i'm missing something but in the scheme of things, for the value it would return, it seems a no-brainer