Conquer Club

A day people was used to listen CAs mainly for two reasons:

1. CAs were supposed to be users that know about mapmaking and they knew what to suggest or ask
2. CAs were supposed to be the eyes and the voice of the site, they make sure people respect "the rules" according to the criteria of this site (guidelines)

There was a time in which people was well aware that mapmaking was a privilege and not a right, the process was created to have a balance between what the site want (rules and mods requests) and what the people want.
When I came here and I developed my first map, I've followed every single word CAs and FAs had said to me.
After a while people started to ignore FAs, so we removed them.
Now it seems to me that is going to happen the same with CAs
What's wrong?

Sorry if my word sounds totally wrong for someone, but I'm done in this way and I like to speak with people directly and honestly.
So, I'm wrong or lately lot of people wants to not have (don't like) a process anymore?
Like mapmaking is become right for everyone?
I'm wrong or nobody listen CAs anymore (except when they agree or give minor suggestions) and when they use not kind words for a map or for something about a map...."everyone" comes to throw shit against them?
When CC has become like landgrab, where everyone is able to draw and upload maps in 10 mins? Is really that shit the thing you all want?
When CC has become a place in which you read a CAs post and you can tell him to shut up because his words don't fit your artistic view of a map?

When and why we passed from democracy to anarchy?

Let me state clear that I'm not pointing my finger against someone, just I have the feeling that the people doesn't like the idea there someone that can tell them what they have to do, what is acceptable or not, what this site (as business) like or not.....
From my point of view every place has rules and limits...and people there to ensure that those criteria are followed.

I'm not complaining just for the sake, but I feel there's a much less respect for the people who spend their time here to help.... like they (we) are just a group of "ball busters"

Please discuss (without fight, please keep it a discussion and not a flame fest )

Thanks in advance for your time and thoughts
Nobodies

some thoughts in no specific order:

1. many map makers have the impression that any project they start should automatically lead to a quenched map if they put enough effort in it regardless of it's quality. this is wrong. i don't care if a map has 100 updates or if the map maker spent 2 years working on it. if it's crap it should be binned or at least completely overhauled.
2. some CAs/FAs don't have influence. i don't mean to hurt anybody's feelings but there was a time when a CA = veteran mapmaker. a CA was a person that had proven his talent at mapmaking both graphically as well as gameplay-wise. furthermore that person was a true foundry regular. a person that posted a lot, gave tons of feedback and visited all the map threads regularly. how many of the current CAs can claim to fulfil at least one of the above conditions?
3. not all people are adepts of improvement. i'm tired of reading words like "map X has the same problem as mine and it was quenched so mine should get quenched too". this has become a very common excuse for many map makers. if a crappy map was quenched that doesn't mean that all maps after that one can be crap too.
4. "shoddy" maps. i might be wrong on this one but i feel like some people aren't even trying to make great maps. they seem to be happy with whatever the map looks/plays as long as it gets quenched. i get the impression that they do the bare minimum and nothing else. and sure enough the maps turn out to be huge failures (in terms of games played). i believe that such maps dilute the overall experience of the site and i'm a firm believer they are truly detrimental. if removing crappy maps is an unacceptable solution, at least sorting the maps according to popularity should be done otherwise good maps will be lost among hundreds of "shoddy" ones.
5. we need a competition CA. a person that's active and capable of organizing proper contests and not just map making contest but all kinds of graphical ones ranging from avatar designs to layer battles and who knows what else. this will not only help map makers improve their skills but perhaps even attract some other people to the foundry.

DiM wrote:1. many map makers have the impression that any project they start should automatically lead to a quenched map if they put enough effort in it regardless of it's quality. this is wrong. i don't care if a map has 100 updates or if the map maker spent 2 years working on it. if it's crap it should be binned or at least completely overhauled.

To be honest, I thought this was how at least a quarter of the maps made it out of the foundry in the first place and always felt it was part of the process that needed to be changed. I couldn't agree more that if a map is crap it should be binned, regardless of the time spent working on it.

I think DiM made some good points, particularly this one:

DiM wrote:2. some CAs/FAs don't have influence. i don't mean to hurt anybody's feelings but there was a time when a CA = veteran mapmaker. a CA was a person that had proven his talent at mapmaking both graphically as well as gameplay-wise. furthermore that person was a true foundry regular. a person that posted a lot, gave tons of feedback and visited all the map threads regularly. how many of the current CAs can claim to fulfil at least one of the above conditions?

This has been the main issue with the CAs, as it seemed other commenters carried the weight of the discussion, while a CA would only 'pop-up' for their fortnightly review and say a few things, perhaps even things that make a large chunk of the discussion thus far completely irrelevant/meaningless. I've always thought the role of the CAs should be to assist a mapmaker in creating a quality map in both gameplay and graphics in an expeditious manner. Whether 40 people or none are commenting on a map, it's the CAs' role to guide the discussion and to help the mapmaker achieve what s/he wants while achieving the balanced gameplay/quality graphics required for stampage. I think a flexible CA is a good CA, and when the need to be stubborn arises, the CA holds his/her ground and is abundantly clear as to why. When a CA comes off as "this is wrong, change this, this, and this to this, this, and this", especially if they're petty things, it can really turn mapmakers off. For example, MarshalNey and Evil DIMwit I always thought were great CAs, because they were always had good analyses, kept the mapmaker's goals in mind for the gameplay, and gave extensive reasoning for their proposed changes, while being open to alternatives. They never acted like they knew everything, or that their word was law - they more came along side the mapmaker as a guide to lend a hand, not an officer that commanded them, or even a teacher that schooled them.

To address your points specifically:

thenobodies80 wrote:A day people was used to listen CAs mainly for two reasons:

1. CAs were supposed to be users that know about mapmaking and they knew what to suggest or ask
2. CAs were supposed to be the eyes and the voice of the site, they make sure people respect "the rules" according to the criteria of this site (guidelines)

I think you're leaving out a few factors, as the one I quoted DiM on, though I don't think it's necessary for a CA to be a veteran mapmaker, they just need to be a veteran map commenter (I mean, heck, Andy was Foreman and he's never made a map). For example, I can see iancanton being a great CA if he commented more. While I don't know what goes on in private, his advice seems sparse and generally focused on a single map. I believe that may be more of a reason why the former CAs were listened to, than the reasons you posted - they were actively involved in map discussions as exactly what they're titled - Cartography Assistants.

thenobodies80 wrote:There was a time in which people was well aware that mapmaking was a privilege and not a right, the process was created to have a balance between what the site want (rules and mods requests) and what the people want.
When I came here and I developed my first map, I've followed every single word CAs and FAs had said to me.
After a while people started to ignore FAs, so we removed them.
Now it seems to me that is going to happen the same with CAs
What's wrong?

Think of when this happens and to whom. Then ask yourself that question, and see if you can't answer it yourself. I can guarantee this happens in certain circumstances more than others and with certain CAs more than others.

thenobodies80 wrote:Sorry if my word sounds totally wrong for someone, but I'm done in this way and I like to speak with people directly and honestly.
So, I'm wrong or lately lot of people wants to not have (don't like) a process anymore?

I'll be frank with you, it's really irritating when conversation has gone on for a long time in a map thread without a blue name, then once all the rest of us have hammered things out, we're stuck twiddling our thumbs until a CA says something, not infrequently with points that have already been discussed and comments that completely refute a large chunk that we had been discussing and ironing out. What I mean to say is, it seems there are several times when a CA comes in a good few days late with their comments.

thenobodies80 wrote:Like mapmaking is become right for everyone?

The short answer is yes, people seem to think so. They may press forward anyway, not getting any official dissent from a CA, later finding themselves in a proverbial stalled state with no chance of getting anywhere, because the CAs have simply ignored it because they are passively sending it to the Recycling Box.

thenobodies80 wrote:I'm wrong or nobody listen CAs anymore (except when they agree or give minor suggestions) and when they use not kind words for a map or for something about a map...."everyone" comes to throw shit against them?

Again, do a little research. There is a reason for this. Many, if not, all of which I've already stated.

thenobodies80 wrote:When CC has become like landgrab, where everyone is able to draw and upload maps in 10 mins? Is really that shit the thing you all want?

Come on, nobodies, that is a complete exaggeration. If you want us to be honest, at least be a little more sensitive.

thenobodies80 wrote:When CC has become a place in which you read a CAs post and you can tell him to shut up because his words don't fit your artistic view of a map?

This brings up more than one issue, I think. Remember, there is a large subjective portion of graphics, and though there is an objective 'quality factor', it is not uncommon for the two to mix in one's head. This is when it's very important to keep the mapmaker's preferences in mind, because I wouldn't be at all surprised if you could find a way for their view on graphics to be made into quality graphics that match/mesh with their graphical goals.

thenobodies80 wrote:When and why we passed from democracy to anarchy?

Right there is flawed thinking. This was never a democracy to begin with. It was a faulty republic at best. Currently it has the impression of an oligarchy, which can really turn people off when the governing officials of the Foundry stroll in with their comments, seemingly neglectful of what conversation has taken place up to that point. The process should be more of a republic, where the CAs act as knowledgeable representatives, where the only power they seem to have is the somewhat bureaucratic action of saying, "The discussion has basically ended for gameplay/graphics," and stamping the map as a way of moving the focus of discussion to the next item on the table.

thenobodies80 wrote:Let me state clear that I'm not pointing my finger against someone, just I have the feeling that the people doesn't like the idea there someone that can tell them what they have to do, what is acceptable or not, what this site (as business) like or not.....

This is correct. And this is exactly the way you should not be coming off to mapmakers.

thenobodies80 wrote:From my point of view every place has rules and limits...and people there to ensure that those criteria are followed.

Sure, but how you go about ensuring those criteria is vital.

thenobodies80 wrote:I'm not complaining just for the sake, but I feel there's a much less respect for the people who spend their time here to help.... like they (we) are just a group of "ball busters"

You should not expect respect, you should work to earn it. You should know by now that volunteering (perhaps particularly on CC) is thankless with occasional perks. If you don't want to volunteer, you can leave. Otherwise, suck it up. I've gotten a bunch of flak since I've become "Chief Executive", but I love my position, so I consider it a minor side-effect that I just have to deal with. It happens. If you want it to stop, you need to make it so. As I said, earn people's respect.

-Sully

well, what i do know is that after a certain period where CC only had great maps, some less then decent maps came out that feel unfinished to me, and should have never be released in their current state, which is sad.

removing the CA completely will only make the map quality worse, and i prefer to have good quality maps.

Victor Sullivan wrote:

thenobodies80 wrote:When and why we passed from democracy to anarchy?

Right there is flawed thinking. This was never a democracy to begin with. It was a faulty republic at best. Currently it has the impression of an oligarchy, which can really turn people off when the governing officials of the Foundry stroll in with their comments, seemingly neglectful of what conversation has taken place up to that point. The process should be more of a republic, where the CAs act as knowledgeable representatives, where the only power they seem to have is the somewhat bureaucratic action of saying, "The discussion has basically ended for gameplay/graphics," and stamping the map as a way of moving the focus of discussion to the next item on the table.

democracy? the foundry never existed as a democracy. the CAs were imposed upon us by the higher power, they were not elected.
right now we have an oligarchy where the elite (CAs) seems to be losing its power.

to be honest i'd rather see a meritocracy but for various reasons that won't happen.

however i would not mind an oligarchy as long as the leaders are all dedicated and put the good of the foundry above everything else. unfortunately with CAs that barely make a few posts per month or that have little/no experience in making a map or post exclusively in their own map threads while ignoring everything else.

one more thing, the CAs (or at least some of them) don't have balls. they're so afraid of saying something bad about a map that they'll rather ignore it and hope somehow it goes away on itself. this is unacceptable.
the foundry needs tighter rules and harsher enforcers. encourage everybody to come to the drafting room and start a map but let only 1% pass through. and that 1% that passes through should be assisted by the cartography assistants every step of the way and pushed forward whenever possible. right now lots of poor maps get to the main foundry and then stay there for months upon months. no map should take more than 2 months from start to finish even with the laziest map maker. i saw maps that were still in production 6-9 months after they received a graphics badge. in 6-9 months times change and in my opinion the graphic standards increase. is it ok to take back that badge and make the map maker scratch everything and start over? situations like this should never happen. if you can't commit to updating your map on a regular basis then you should not start map making. just like if you can't commit to posting regularly and giving feedback on many maps you should not volunteer to be a CA.

Well, I have a few things to say.

thenobodies80 wrote:A day people was used to listen CAs mainly for two reasons:

1. CAs were supposed to be users that know about mapmaking and they knew what to suggest or ask
2. CAs were supposed to be the eyes and the voice of the site, they make sure people respect "the rules" according to the criteria of this site (guidelines)

And where are the CA:s now? I don't see many CA:s posting on map threads out there.

A lot has already been said and I agree with a lot of it.

thenobodies80 wrote:There was a time in which people was well aware that mapmaking was a privilege and not a right, the process was created to have a balance between what the site want (rules and mods requests) and what the people want.

There was also a time when the CA:s were well aware of what their job entailed. Now, it seems like CA:s are too busy to take any part in the discussion. They ignore everything for weeks, then march in and say "do this and do that" and expect their words to be followed. Gob forbid the mapmaker wants to discuss those orders, or even dispute them, or even if he just wants to know the reason for them... shouldn't this also be the CA:s job? Participate in the discussion, be actively interested in and ecouraging to the mapmaking process?

thenobodies80 wrote:So, I'm wrong or lately lot of people wants to not have (don't like) a process anymore?
Like mapmaking is become right for everyone?

No one has been calling for elimination of the foundry process, that I know, but how is the process supposed to work when (some of) the CA:s don't participate at all?

thenobodies80 wrote:When CC has become like landgrab, where everyone is able to draw and upload maps in 10 mins? Is really that shit the thing you all want?

I wish you could argue honestly... CC has never become like landgrab. Just because mapmakers might want more from the CA:s than the occasional "do this, do that", if mapmakers might want some participation and guidance instead of only edicts and orders, doesn't mean that CC is going to turn into a landgrab-style free-for-all.

mmmm...okay so the issue are the CAs. No problem I can fix this issue easily.

But there's a thing I don't understand...WHY when I did the survey I collected exactly the opposite results? With the exception of few votes, everyone here told that CAs activity was at least adequate....(considering that where it wasn't in that way I already did an action to solve the issue?)

So where's the truth? Here or the survey? I don't have it here, but I'll post the results this evening when back at home.

In any case the lack of activity is something we discussed and for what is worth I'm going to change some things about the CAs activity.
Said that, what is a worth amount of time a CAs should spend on a map project? (considering we're not paid and we can't stay online all time)

Do you like the idea to have your maps officially assigned to a specific CAs for each stage of development after the drafting stage? I think you'll be followed more closely in that way and more frequently/costantly.
Obivously CAs would discuss things between them behind the scenes, but you'll have just one person as reference that will help you to go through the mapmaking process. (one for each stage)

What do you think? Because I'm really interested in changing things and I'm going to chnage them really soon, but I don't want to make drastic changes or take hard decisions without having heard your thoughts before.

Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote:mmmm...okay so the issue are the CAs. No problem I can fix this issue easily.

Well, not entirely, but I'd say they're at least part of the problem. I don't think you can pinpoint the problem to either CA:s alone or mapmakers alone, and I don't even think there should be such distinction... CA:s and mapmakers shouldn't be isolated from each other into two groups.

thenobodies80 wrote:But there's a thing I don't understand...WHY when I did the survey I collected exactly the opposite results? With the exception of few votes, everyone here told that CAs activity was at least adequate....(considering that where it wasn't in that way I already did an action to solve the issue?)

Well I can see several reasons for that, but the point is the activity isn't the only issue with CA:s here... that's simplifying things a bit too much. Rather I think the issue is a lack of discourse between CA:s and mapmakers, there isn't enough discussion on a level playing field - I think the problem is a certain lack of transparency in the process, CA:s isolating themselves and the process from the mapmakers... in turn, mapmakers see CA:s as a separate entity, one that doesn't participate and discuss with the mapmakers as equals, but rather as a governing entity.

Certainly, the CA:s should have a measure of authority in the foundry, and certainly mapmakers should listen to them - but perhaps mapmakers should also have a measure of authority regarding the CA:s... I guess what I'm trying to say is CA:s should be less an entity "above and beyond" mapmakers, and more a part of the whole - an unit with equal standing with the mapmakers.

In fact, let me just put it this way: the authority the CA:s have over mapmakers & the foundry should be the kind of authority that is born from respect and trust. It should be an authority granted to them by the foundry collective, one that they keep earning with their actions.

So far you've been doing a good job trying to listen to the mapmakers and their concerns, I think. If we could have honest two-way discourse like this in all of the foundry, between CA:s and mapmakers, things would probably improve much.

thenobodies80 wrote:Do you like the idea to have your maps officially assigned to a specific CAs for each stage of development after the drafting stage? I think you'll be followed more closely in that way and more frequently/costantly.

I think it's worth a shot, provided that the CA:s who agree to follow a map can truly commit themselves to it... I'd hate to see an unequal situation where some maps get assigned an active CA who follows & participates in the discussion, while others get the short stick and get a CA who barely visits once a week...

I think a good guideline would be that CA:s should put at least as much attention to the maps as mapmakers do. If a mapmaker makes updates every day, the CA assigned to the map should at least check the thread once a day.

disclaimer: i'm not trying in any way to offend anybody and i appreciate every person's work whether a CA or a mapmaker. i understand that both are voluntary "jobs" and that each of us has their own personal life that comes along with a real job family friends and so on that are more important than CC. while i do understand that real life issues take priority over CC, as they always should, i don't agree to using this as a continuos excuse for lack of activity. if a CA has some personal issues and needs to lay low for a while that's perfectly understandable and nobody can say anything but when that "lay low" stage transforms into a permanent stage then that CA must make room for somebody else. same for a map maker. if you have personal issues and can update your map once every 2 months then you should not expect people to come flocking to your thread piling up feedback posts. instead you should expect your map to be binned right away.
that being said i must repeat that despite using names i do not mean to hurt anybody's feelings, i merely try to explain my thoughts.

thenobodies80 wrote:mmmm...okay so the issue are the CAs. No problem I can fix this issue easily.

no, the issue is not just with the CAs. the issue is with the whole foundry, from the CAs to the map makers and the foundry givers.
however the CAs can be the solution

thenobodies80 wrote:But there's a thing I don't understand...WHY when I did the survey I collected exactly the opposite results? With the exception of few votes, everyone here told that CAs activity was at least adequate....(considering that where it wasn't in that way I already did an action to solve the issue?)

So where's the truth? Here or the survey? I don't have it here, but I'll post the results this evening when back at home.

i don't know your poll results and i honestly can't even remember what i voted or what the questions were
but if you got an "adequate" for CA activity i'm willing to bet that's an average. for example i'm satisfied with you and isaiah. i like the amount of posts, i like how you try to get in as many maps as possible and how your response time is among the best.
that being said i'm deeply disappointed with redbaron, iancanton or oliverfa. they barely post in the foundry and when they do it's almost always related to something rather minor or they make a very small 10 words post. when was the last time they wrote a wall of text analysing a map?
even gimil isn't what he used to be. i liked the days when he posted furiously in tons of maps and gave tons of pertinent feedback.

thenobodies80 wrote:In any case the lack of activity is something we discussed and for what is worth I'm going to change some things about the CAs activity.
Said that, what is a worth amount of time a CAs should spend on a map project? (considering we're not paid and we can't stay online all time)

Do you like the idea to have your maps officially assigned to a specific CAs for each stage of development after the drafting stage? I think you'll be followed more closely in that way and more frequently/costantly.
Obivously CAs would discuss things between them behind the scenes, but you'll have just one person as reference that will help you to go through the mapmaking process. (one for each stage)[/quote]

i don't think there's a need for a specific CA to be assigned. the way the foundry works right now is a big turnoff for CAs. i'm glad i'm not a CA because this way i'm free to ignore maps i don't like. frankly there are too many maps in the main foundry that should not be there at all. we have 25 maps in the main foundry at this very moment and that's because a few days ago i pmed you to weed out 5-6 of them that had not been updated in 1-2 months. and i think i pmed you about such maps in the past too and i believe i pmed gimil too. the main foundry is too cluttered and needs to be weeded regularly. but before the weeding the maps must go through a very careful selection process in the drafting room. as i said in my other posts anybody should be encouraged to enter the drafting room but only few may step further in the main foundry.
one good example is the cow map. that never should have left the drafting room. and it's funny that i actually like the graphics but the whole idea and theme devalues all other maps.plus the map has 1 month since last update and no feedback in 2 weeks. this should be binned and dana should be encouraged to put his graphic skills to better use.
or gondwanaland. not only it's been more than 1 month since the last update but the map looks bad. not to mentinon it was started more than a year ago. it's clear that the map maker can't commit to taking this project all the way to the end. so what's the point? the map should be put on vacation right now because of lack of update but he'll probably come back in a few more months and make another update to revive it.
things progress constantly. a map started a year ago has the graphics from a year ago. you can't expect to keep reviving it and not to expect major complains about the graphics being obsolete.
and that's not all, we have maps that have been started in 2009 or 2010. maps that have been in production for 1-2 years. i look at early drafts and they're very similar to what the map looks now. really? 2 years and no major improvement?
maps like these should not exist. if a map maker can't finish that map in 1-2 years it's clear that there's a big problem. either he can't commit to it and keeps vacationing it over and over. or there's not enough interest and he keeps reviving it hoping that the "next time" people will be more interested.
this way any crap will pass through because every time you revive your map a few people are bound to comment and give a little feedback. do this for a whole year and then you can come screaming that you deserve to be quenched cause you worked for such a long time.
i won't even start rambling about the papua fiasco because i still have a very sour taste in my mouth after the "contest".

point is the main foundry can be easily weeded down to 15 maps or so. with 15 maps the feedback givers can be more focused on the maps that have the highest chance of ever getting quenched, the CAs won't be spread so thin and they'll also be able to concentrate better and help maps develop.
the amount of feedback in the foundry is at an all time low. we need to concentrate that little amount into maps that are actually going forward not on maps that will most likely be binned and revived months later or even never.

thenobodies80 wrote:What do you think? Because I'm really interested in changing things and I'm going to chnage them really soon, but I don't want to make drastic changes or take hard decisions without having heard your thoughts before.

those are my thoughts. i'm pretty sure that many people won't like them and they'll hate me a bit more than they do now but to quote the most famous words on CC:
"suck it up cupcake"

if a person can't handle being a CA or a mapmaker then he/she should not be one.

a long time ago i used to be a gm on a mmo game and we had "public relations" problems. basically almost everybody hated our guts. so one of the guys in the team came up with the idea of chatting to increase our status with the players. so each of us had an hour each week (or more if time permitted) when we came in the chat and talked to the people and organized contests and so on. it actually turned out to be a lot of fun. what if the CAs did the same? answering questions, discussing the process of map making, sharing tips, etc. perhaps it would bring the foundry people closer, increase the feedback.
i don't know, it might work or it might not but it's worth considering it. i for one would surely participate in such discussions.

DiM wrote:a long time ago i used to be a gm on a mmo game and we had "public relations" problems. basically almost everybody hated our guts. so one of the guys in the team came up with the idea of chatting to increase our status with the players. so each of us had an hour each week (or more if time permitted) when we came in the chat and talked to the people and organized contests and so on. it actually turned out to be a lot of fun. what if the CAs did the same? answering questions, discussing the process of map making, sharing tips, etc. perhaps it would bring the foundry people closer, increase the feedback.
i don't know, it might work or it might not but it's worth considering it. i for one would surely participate in such discussions.

viewtopic.php?f=127&t=159417

Then get on and share with me all your map secrets.

even gimil isn't what he used to be. i liked the days when he posted furiously in tons of maps and gave tons of pertinent feedback.

Cheeky shit!

For the most part though I can't really defend myself here. Yes I am not adding as much content to this forum as I used to do. But i am only human and can only contribute with the time I have available. Gone are the days of being a student where I would only have 3-6 hours days and could afford to spend time; on CC, getting pissed, chatting up girls and make maps... And that was just week days . Although my quantity isn't the same as it used to be I hope that the quality of my posts is still good. If it is not I want people to tell me...I can't fix that if I don't know it is a problem.

I want to talk a bit just now about what I think the role of the CA should be (and what it used to be). I always wanted to be seen as a member of the map making community first. When I come into a map thread I speak as an experienced map maker first, someone who has probably 'seen it all' when it comes to this place. If I come into your thread and make a comment, that comment is based of my knowledge and experience and is posted with the intention of making your map better...pushing it to be the best it can be. Why? because as a member of this community I want the foundry to be the best it can be. But I am not a divine authority...anything I have to say can be rebuttled as easily as any other member of the community.

The CA should be a solid contributor to map threads and their word should carry weight...but that weight comes from experience and knowledge not title and colours. The colour should be a sign of that persons value to the community...not their authority. What we say should be respected...if we are good enough to earn that respect. Yes we should lead the map making process and play a valuable part...but not control it.

Now I can't speak for myself and won't point fingers or name name's but this is what a CA should be doing...leading the community to make high quality maps. Only taking 'control' to maintain the goal of producing high quality maps. If I had my way all the CA's would operate like this but all I can do is speak for myself on this one.

But the community are also part of the problem here as well as the CA's. Map making has always been a Private for the talents. Anyone can try and make a map not everyone is capable. Since coming back from my CC hiatus there has been a general attitude of anyone and everyone can make a map...just do what you can and we will quench it. This is horrendous. It used to be a case of you can make a map if you want...but you will have to work hard to make it worthwhile having on this site. People like me and DiM used to work painstakingly hard to get our maps approved and through the foundry system, gaining community support and approval. Now people seem to treat the system more like a train..sauntering from A to B like this is a train journey with a guaranteed destination at the end. This is also horrendous. Map making is a marathon that should only be complete by those with the commitment and talent to see it through. DiM said somewhere recently that he loves opera...but he doesn't get bitchy at the opera house because they don't let him sing there. Map making is and should be the same. Just like the xFactor....come along and give it a bash. But don't be surprised if your not talented enough or up for it. I don't know how the system became so open to anyone..whether that is the result of a (bad) conscious decision by the CA's or the CA's gave in to community pressure from people who wanted to make a map even though they weren't good enough. Regardless we need to get away from this and start producing maps based again based on high quality. Not the current 'this will do' standard.

Also it is all very well saying that CA's should be looking at every map. I don't do that. Why? Because when I log on here I look at the active maps at the top of the foundry. Why? Because they are the ones that are most recently updated and active. The ones where my valuable time is best invested. If you are producing updates I will more than likely look at them. You are giving me something to look at and comment on. If you post an update I give feedback and you don't produce another update for a month tuff. I ain't going to hunt your map looking for you to update...it is your responsibility to keep it active not mine. If you want me to see your map...put it where ill see it, at the top.

Anyway I think I may have rambled a little more than I ment to and the time I spent writing this would of probably been better spent commenting on maps.... But to sum up what I am trying to say. 'We' (everyone) need to get t an understanding about the way things should be. The foundry is here to produce high quality maps...anyone can try and produce a map. But getting one quenched is a privilege that someone earns through having the talent, commitment and mental competence to travel the journey through the foundry. The CA's should be the leaders of this community helping competent map makers (not everyone) get on to quench town.

great post.
i raise a bacon mug filled with melted cheese in your honour.
hear hear

gimil wrote:The foundry is here to produce high quality maps...anyone can try and produce a map. But getting one quenched is a privilege that someone earns through having the talent, commitment and mental competence to travel the journey through the foundry.

Oh absolutely I agree with this, standards should be enforced. But that also requires active participation from both CA:s and other mapmakers. If we as mapmakers see the CA:s giving too lax treatment to a map, it's up to us to show up and point out what can be done to make it better. And the CA:s in turn should recognize this and require that the mapmaker takes this feedback in account.

Yes, there are some quenched maps that aren't as high quality as others. We can all do our part to ensure that the maps that get quenched in the future will be of the highest possible quality.

For that matter, that is one of the reasons why I chose to revamp my first map - to do a little something to improve the standards of CC maps. Maybe it's not much, but it's at least one map with better (graphical) quality in the maps roster.

I also try to give graphical feedback to maps, whenever I have the chance. Particularly, I try to share what I've learned to newer mapmakers, and even older ones if I feel it's something that might benefit their project.

natty_dread wrote:

gimil wrote:The foundry is here to produce high quality maps...anyone can try and produce a map. But getting one quenched is a privilege that someone earns through having the talent, commitment and mental competence to travel the journey through the foundry.

Oh absolutely I agree with this, standards should be enforced. But that also requires active participation from both CA:s and other mapmakers. If we as mapmakers see the CA:s giving too lax treatment to a map, it's up to us to show up and point out what can be done to make it better. And the CA:s in turn should recognize this and require that the mapmaker takes this feedback in account.

You my friend...are spot on here.

You hit some great points there, with your big ol' post, gimil. I can't make a map worth shit, but I love the Foundry, so I make myself useful that way. And hey, look, I've been able to even find a good graphics artist to team up with I'm like Simon Cowell: he can't sing worth shit, but he can critique it, and critique it well, and in a sexy British accent, no less

-Sully

Thanks for the comments, your thought will help us to improve the system and also ourselves while we do our "job".

Now, just to throw more fuel on the fire I would like to hear also your thoughts about other data I've collected with the survey.
For now let me start with the first one, the drafting room:



1. It seems that about 50% of people who voted find hard to understand when maps topics are changed to "sticky" while they are in the drafting room.

What exactly is hard to understand for you all?
And, in your opinion, when the sticky option is used or should be used?

2. A lower percentage, but in any case 3 person on 10 find unclear what you have to do to receive the draft stamp. Personally I think that the draft stage is one of the most important passages of the whole process. It's clear that a good map must be developed on a solid idea and usually the draft stamp is the key to enter into the "real" foundry process. So I think it's really important that everyone has clear in mind why some maps "are allowed to go further" and soem other fall at the beginning. Again what is unclear about the stamp? In your opinion what are the criteria to give that stamp? Finally in your opinion what are the criteria that should be used? The current criteria match your idea of a working draft?

Discuss

Obviously thanks again for your thoughts.

Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote:in your opinion, when the sticky option is used or should be used?

I always thought it was to alert the people that a map is about to be stamped, so if they have concerns or comments they should give them now.

However, if any concerns are brought up, they stamp shouldn't be given before the mapmaker has addressed them adequately.

thenobodies80 wrote:Finally in your opinion what are the criteria that should be used? The current criteria match your idea of a working draft?

In the past, one of the criteria for giving a draft stamp - particularly for new mapmakers - was that the mapmaker had to show that he had sufficient graphical skill, or at least that he is willing to work to get to that level of skill, to get the map through the later stages.

I think this is one thing that has become a bit lax, which has led to a lot of clutter in the main foundry. It also leads to lots of unfinished projects, which is not good for the foundry - people invest time in the gameplay part, and then the map stalls when the mapmaker notices he isn't able to bring the graphics up to par... people get frustrated for giving all that feedback for nothing.

New mapmakers should be guided in the beginning, and encouraged to learn, but they should not be given a draft stamp just because a CA likes the idea - only after they show they are able to develop their graphical skills to an adequate level they should be allowed to advance.

Other criteria are the usual... the map has enough support, it is sufficiently unique, etc.

natty_dread wrote:In the past, one of the criteria for giving a draft stamp - particularly for new mapmakers - was that the mapmaker had to show that he had sufficient graphical skill, or at least that he is willing to work to get to that level of skill, to get the map through the later stages.

This is it exactly. When I entered Rorke's Drift into the drafting forum, what I thought was great, was utter rubbish. It took around 10-15 updates, 2 complete redraws and a overhaul of the graphics to get the sticky, let alone the stamp. As I had read the rules, and understood them, I was willing to put that time in. It does seem that a lot of new map makers are not reading the rules so are complaining when after the second or third draft, they still have not got a sticky or been moved. Might be an idea, when a new map maker posts a map, for the mods to make sure they understand this and the map will not be moved till they can prove themselves.

As for sticky and stamp, what I thought I knew, sometimes does not happen (cairnswks New Zealand) and sometimes it happens to fast, my Jakarta map for instance.

Consistency has to be applied to all maps. New and old map makers.

Do you like the idea to have your maps officially assigned to a specific CAs for each stage of development after the drafting stage? I think you'll be followed more closely in that way and more frequently/costantly.
Obivously CAs would discuss things between them behind the scenes, but you'll have just one person as reference that will help you to go through the mapmaking process. (one for each stage)

What do you think? Because I'm really interested in changing things and I'm going to chnage them really soon, but I don't want to make drastic changes or take hard decisions without having heard your thoughts before.

This. I think this is a fantastic idea. One of my number 1 frustration has always been trying to please all of the CA's when they all want to see something different from the map I'm working on. There have been times (one specific that I can remember) where one CA stickied my map and said it was ready for the forge, and then another came on and demanded a complete graphic overhaul. I would vastly prefer working with 1 CA who is completely up to date on my map and is aware of what I want to do with it rather than trying to juggle the opinions of a team of people.

The CA should be a solid contributor to map threads and their word should carry weight...but that weight comes from experience and knowledge not title and colours. The colour should be a sign of that persons value to the community...not their authority. What we say should be respected...if we are good enough to earn that respect. Yes we should lead the map making process and play a valuable part...but not control it.

I agree with this. I've always liked the analogy of the CA's being a gentle stream that guides you to the final forge and not a raging torrent that bears down against you.


Uh, I want to comment more but I'm at work, so I'll read more later.

Any chance of seeing the results to the rest of the questions?

Sure