Conquer Club

Since the change it appears that the most posting is done in the "melting pot"...

Posting done in the finer tuning sections seems to be less forthcoming.

C.

That is probably because people feel like they have more to do in the melting pot, there is much more they can see to change and there is more of a chance that it will be changed.

yeti_c wrote:Since the change it appears that the most posting is done in the "melting pot"...

Posting done in the finer tuning sections seems to be less forthcoming.

C.

If that really is the case, and if it continues, then I'll consider locking down the Melting Pot for a little while... In order to keep things moving, the focus really should be on maps already in production

MrBenn wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Since the change it appears that the most posting is done in the "melting pot"...

Posting done in the finer tuning sections seems to be less forthcoming.

C.

If that really is the case, and if it continues, then I'll consider locking down the Melting Pot for a little while... In order to keep things moving, the focus really should be on maps already in production

That seem a little extreme... I'd certainly welcome more comments on the maps in later development, but I'm not sure if this is the right way.

For one, it would keep mapmakers from updating maps in the melting pot.

For another thing, "forcing" people to focus on certain parts of the forum may just cause a counter-reaction, where people get pissed off and stop visiting the foundry alltogether.

I don't have any better solutions though, so if it needs to be done then I guess it needs to be done.

Sure it's extreme, but it's still an option.

It's not going to happen in the immediate future, but it's something I'd consider if people continue to focus on undeveloped ideas instead of helping to keep maps moving

There are less maps getting discussion in Final Forge---because there are only two maps that haven't yet reached BETA in it. And they both have had a slower development, which no doubt contributed to the lack of posting for the whole forum (if nothing is going on in a forum, people will routinely skip over it, since it is often easier to respond to something, either an update or another poster, and when both are lacking, less people are likely to go in and start digging to create a post).

In the past when there were 5-10 maps in Final Forge, there was more activity---because...there were more maps wanting feedback!


--Andy

MrBenn wrote:

yeti_c wrote:Since the change it appears that the most posting is done in the "melting pot"...

Posting done in the finer tuning sections seems to be less forthcoming.

C.

If that really is the case, and if it continues, then I'll consider locking down the Melting Pot for a little while... In order to keep things moving, the focus really should be on maps already in production

Or you might considering just moving more maps up the line.

porkenbeans wrote:Or you might considering just moving more maps up the line.

To be fair a lot of maps have been moving out of the melting pot recently. A lot more than was moved under the old system, for sure.

One thing is that now that we have design briefs, no maps will get moved unless they have a design brief submitted.

MrBenn wrote:Sure it's extreme, but it's still an option.

It's not going to happen in the immediate future, but it's something I'd consider if people continue to focus on undeveloped ideas instead of helping to keep maps moving

In my opinion, it's not only extreme, it's counter to the spirit of developing maps which have community support.

If a map moves on in the Foundry, but people stop commenting on it, I think it means one of two things: the map is not really interesting, and it should be binned, or the map has no problems to be fixed, and it should move on to the next stage. The problem is, how do you tell which is which?

But to block activity in the Melting Pot because too many people find it to be the most interesting part of the Foundry? I can only quote the doctor speaking at the end of "The Bridge On The River Kwai": "Madness, madness..."

ender516 wrote:

MrBenn wrote:Sure it's extreme, but it's still an option.

It's not going to happen in the immediate future, but it's something I'd consider if people continue to focus on undeveloped ideas instead of helping to keep maps moving

In my opinion, it's not only extreme, it's counter to the spirit of developing maps which have community support.

If a map moves on in the Foundry, but people stop commenting on it, I think it means one of two things: the map is not really interesting, and it should be binned, or the map has no problems to be fixed, and it should move on to the next stage. The problem is, how do you tell which is which?

But to block activity in the Melting Pot because too many people find it to be the most interesting part of the Foundry? I can only quote the doctor speaking at the end of "The Bridge On The River Kwai": "Madness, madness..."

2ND.

ender516 wrote:If a map moves on in the Foundry, but people stop commenting on it, I think it means one of two things: the map is not really interesting, and it should be binned, or the map has no problems to be fixed, and it should move on to the next stage. The problem is, how do you tell which is which?

I don't think that's an absolute truth.

There's definitely something going on, with people mostly wanting to comment on melting pot maps... (my article on the melting pot may actually make it worse, but it was written before this problem... I hope the next article on the gp workshop will balance it somewhat though)

For example, there's a few maps that were getting real good and steady flow of comments while being in the melting pot and once moved in the gp workshop the comments stop...

I think part of the reason why maps in the workshops don't get comments is, that the melting pot is a lot easier to approach... With the workshops, it's either "comment on GAMEPLAY" or "comment on GRAPHICS" depending on the forum... but the melting pot threads have no such restrictions. Thus the layperson finds it easier to comment on projects in the melting pot.

Also: If we as mapmakers want comments on our maps we need to take a common responsibility of making the average person - who puts in the effort to come and comment on unfinished maps he will very probably never get to play - feel welcome in the foundry. Even if his comments are stupid, or have been dealt with in the thread earlier... No mapmaker should be rude to the average person, the average person is who keeps the foundry running.

natty_dread wrote:

ender516 wrote:If a map moves on in the Foundry, but people stop commenting on it, I think it means one of two things: the map is not really interesting, and it should be binned, or the map has no problems to be fixed, and it should move on to the next stage. The problem is, how do you tell which is which?

I don't think that's an absolute truth.

So what then is a third possibility?

natty_dread wrote:There's definitely something going on, with people mostly wanting to comment on melting pot maps... (my article on the melting pot may actually make it worse, but it was written before this problem... I hope the next article on the gp workshop will balance it somewhat though)

For example, there's a few maps that were getting real good and steady flow of comments while being in the melting pot and once moved in the gp workshop the comments stop...

This may be because (I suspect) most people feel qualified to comment on graphics ("I may not know art, but I know what I like!") but far fewer feel they understand the nuances of game play in the abstract manner required when forced to analyse it without actually testing it.

natty_dread wrote:I think part of the reason why maps in the workshops don't get comments is, that the melting pot is a lot easier to approach... With the workshops, it's either "comment on GAMEPLAY" or "comment on GRAPHICS" depending on the forum... but the melting pot threads have no such restrictions. Thus the layperson finds it easier to comment on projects in the melting pot.

This suggest to me that we might consider a non-linear approach to map development. Once a map escapes the Melting Pot, why not have two threads, one in each workshop? Let people comment where their interests lie, and they wouldn't have to read through stuff that doesn't interest them, or wait for game play discussions to end before continuing the graphics discussions which start in the Melting Pot.

natty_dread wrote:Also: If we as mapmakers want comments on our maps we need to take a common responsibility of making the average person - who puts in the effort to come and comment on unfinished maps he will very probably never get to play - feel welcome in the foundry. Even if his comments are stupid, or have been dealt with in the thread earlier... No mapmaker should be rude to the average person, the average person is who keeps the foundry running.

Absolutely true. Of course, once such a person starts making regular appearances around here, and is part of the Foundry family, it is perfectly all right to tell him or her just how big a tool he or she is. After all, the reason we have families is so we don't have to argue with strangers.

This may be because (I suspect) most people feel qualified to comment on graphics ("I may not know art, but I know what I like!") but far fewer feel they understand the nuances of game play in the abstract manner required when forced to analyse it without actually testing it.

That is exactly why I'm hoping chipv will implement an accurate gameplay simulator in his XML wizard...

Many of the observations, and subsequent theories expressed in this thread are indeed, most insightful. I like enders assessment, in that a "non linear" structure is a much better approach when attempting to organize the creative process.

The Foundry structure seems to be created by a person that has a very mathematical, and analytical type mind. The problem as I see it, lies in the fact, that the Artistic Mind, and it's creative process does not thrive, and is not as productive when a rigged procedure is imposed on his or her creativity. The creative mind must be allowed to think, live, and breath, outside of the box. It is simply the nature of the Creative process. You can not make an "Assembly Line Artist", and then expect to get new and original maps. Artists are all different in the way they work. Some have a detailed game play worked out before they even start to think about the graphics. While others start with the graphics.

The compartmentalization has in a very short time, clearly shown what I have always believed to be true. And that is, most people are interested in the graphics and set up, and could not care less, about the aspects of game play, such as bonus amounts and neutral counts etc. (boring).

By setting things up in this rigged, non creative inducing manner, we have insured two things.

1.) The creative process will be somewhat smothered.

2.) Participation will fall off when a map is moved out of the melting pot.

I will say what has been said to me as a mapmaker- "Go back to the drawing board". It's just not working. ender has pointed the way. "non-linear" is the key thing, to keep in mind.

EDIT:
Just a quick idea off the top of my head.
Maybe it might work better if there was only two basic "Shops". One for Graphics and one for the nuts and bolts "Game Play".

Artists could submit drafts and once they are far enough along, and have the required support, then the "nuts and bolts pros can do their thing. The map can then be kicked back and forth as many times as it takes until both Shops are satisfied. Then it's Final Forge and Beta testing time.

It is simple and easy to understand. It also keeps people involved as a volley type atmosphere is achieved. A little more like a tennis match instead of a relay race, where after the baton is passed, the runner then takes a nap..

porkenbeans wrote:The compartmentalization has in a very short time, clearly shown what I have always believed to be true. And that is, most people are interested in the graphics and set up, and could not care less, about the aspects of game play, such as bonus amounts and neutral counts etc. (boring).

Which is why the Gameplay is now being sorted out before the graphics... to ensure that the game play is considered important - and to make it so that the artist doesn't waste hours of time making pretty graphics on a map that doesn't play well...

C.

Yeah generally I think it's good that gameplay is focused on in an early stage. However we need to figure out a way to get the average person interested in gameplay development.

Please read my last post edit. Would this make more sense ?

porkenbeans wrote:Please read my last post edit. Would this make more sense ?

Not really - that is the way we had before - except with 2 forums instead of 1...

We must make our members more realise that Gameplay is more important than GFX... (a few games developers should take note too)

C.

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:Please read my last post edit. Would this make more sense ?

Not really - that is the way we had before - except with 2 forums instead of 1...

We must make our members more realise that Gameplay is more important than GFX... (a few games developers should take note too)

C.

Gameplay is NOT more important than Graphics. And you will never succeed in making people believe that. You can with a little effort, fix any map in the way of gameplay. The very first thing a car buyer looks at is how it looks, then after if they are so inclined, they look under the hood to see how it works. You are attempting to turn it around. The problems you are now seeing is a direct result in this major flaw in reasoning.

porkenbeans wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:Please read my last post edit. Would this make more sense ?

Not really - that is the way we had before - except with 2 forums instead of 1...

We must make our members more realise that Gameplay is more important than GFX... (a few games developers should take note too)

C.

Gameplay is NOT more important than Graphics. And you will never succeed in making people believe that. You can with a little effort, fix any map in the way of gameplay. The very first thing a car buyer looks at is how it looks, then after if they are so inclined, they look under the hood to see how it works.

You are wrong - Gameplay is much more important than graphics - you need to understand this before you get a map through the system.

C.

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:

yeti_c wrote:

porkenbeans wrote:Please read my last post edit. Would this make more sense ?

Not really - that is the way we had before - except with 2 forums instead of 1...

We must make our members more realise that Gameplay is more important than GFX... (a few games developers should take note too)

C.

Gameplay is NOT more important than Graphics. And you will never succeed in making people believe that. You can with a little effort, fix any map in the way of gameplay. The very first thing a car buyer looks at is how it looks, then after if they are so inclined, they look under the hood to see how it works.

You are wrong - Gameplay is much more important than graphics - you need to understand this before you get a map through the system.

C.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The evidence speaks for itself. Of course gameplay is important, and the better this aspect has been worked out, the better the map. But you can not tell me that any map can be fixed if the gameplay pros take their scalpel to it.

The plain fact is, people will come to participate in the development of a map, but only a very few will stick around to offer feedback on the gameplay. Now matter how you wished they would like delving into the nuts and bolts, they will never be "taught" to like this part of the map process. Please stop trying to cram something down everyone's throat. You have unrealistic goals. The Foundry will continue to see less and less people as a result of this type of thinking. Any businessman knows that you first must find out what the people want, and then give it to them. NOT tell them what they should want. and then try to teach it to them.

In the grand scheme of Conquer Club, Game play is probably more important. We all come here to play a game. But we do like to make sure that the game we play is on a pretty/thematic background.

The compartmentalization has in a very short time, clearly shown what I have always believed to be true. And that is, most people are interested in the graphics and set up, and could not care less, about the aspects of game play, such as bonus amounts and neutral counts etc. (boring).

It is always easy for any person to comment on something they visually perceive---since humans by nature are dominated by their visual perception. It is one of the primary interactions we have with the world/reality around us.

Investigating game play, because it is not often completely visually based (I.e. there is often some sort of cognitive process going on, calculating bonus zones, drops, borders, etc) means that there will always be a portion of the population that won't go past any further than what they are able to immediately perceive ("Oooh, this color doesn't look right next to that one.")

So I wouldn't write off humanity as simply "being bored" with the mechanics/game play of a map, it's just that the way everyone is wired from a cognitive and perception stand-point that makes it easier for us to comment on things we immediately visually perceive---namely the graphics.


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:In the grand scheme of Conquer Club, Game play is probably more important. We all come here to play a game. But we do like to make sure that the game we play is on a pretty/thematic background.

The compartmentalization has in a very short time, clearly shown what I have always believed to be true. And that is, most people are interested in the graphics and set up, and could not care less, about the aspects of game play, such as bonus amounts and neutral counts etc. (boring).

It is always easy for any person to comment on something they visually perceive---since humans by nature are dominated by their visual perception. It is one of the primary interactions we have with the world/reality around us.

Investigating game play, because it is not often completely visually based (I.e. there is often some sort of cognitive process going on, calculating bonus zones, drops, borders, etc) means that there will always be a portion of the population that won't go past any further than what they are able to immediately perceive ("Oooh, this color doesn't look right next to that one.")

So I wouldn't write off humanity as simply "being bored" with the mechanics/game play of a map, it's just that the way everyone is wired from a cognitive and perception stand-point that makes it easier for us to comment on things we immediately visually perceive---namely the graphics.


--Andy

It really depends what you are considering IS important.

As an example, you take two maps. One is a gameplay masterpiece, but it really looks like a turd. The other is a very striking and beautiful map, but its gameplay is flawed in some respect. You take and introduce them to the CC lineup. Which map do you suppose will see the most games ? Now tell me, What is your definition of "more important" ?

I'll just refer you back to the visual perception argument.


--Andy

porkenbeans wrote:As an example, you take two maps. One is a gameplay masterpiece, but it really looks like a turd. The other is a very striking and beautiful map, but its gameplay is flawed in some respect. You take and introduce them to the CC lineup. Which map do you suppose will see the most games ? Now tell me, What is your definition of "more important" ?

Your shortsightedness is your undoing here...

Also - remember that no-map at CC looks "like a turd"... so your comparison is flawed...

Here's your answer though - compare Feudal war to 95% of the maps here... it's not the best looking map (no offence Gimil but I know you'd agree with me here - hence your attempt to revamp it) - yet has great gameplay - and gets a hell of a lot of play.

C.