Conquer Club

show: Less than 35 regions

show: 35-65 region count

show: 66-99 region maps

show: +100 regions maps

23 maps with 34 or less regions.
135 maps with 35-65 region count.
50 maps with66-99 regions count.
21maps with 100+ regions.
Thanks to thenobodies80 for compiling this list for us here.

Been having an interesting discussion with a couple of others over maps and with me asking for something extra to be added to their maps. For goodness sake, do we really need to add to the huge list of mid sized maps that we already have (over half the maps with 30 region count). Yes, but can we stop the endless amount of maps that come out the same. It has got to the point that all we make is Model T Fords.
You can have the map as long as it can be done plain. No wonder no one comes here. If I want plain, I would play one of the other 135 maps like it. You have to give me a reason to play yours. That is all I ask for, a reason. And just incase anyone spots that I have 3 maps in that list of mid sized maps (highlighted), no one can say they are normal. Jakarta is the most normal map I have ever done and even that has a small twist to it.
A twist can be anything from:

• trapped territs
• auto deploys
• decays
• killer neutrals
• played with reinforcements

All of these are very easy to explain and code. But all of these can bring something to a map to set it apart from the rest. Someone asked recently, why play Jakarta over Eurasia mini? The answer is very simple. Eurasia Mini is in the second smallest category (less than 35 regions).

So I ask this:

Do we need more maps within the 35-65 region count that have no twists?

Nice list koontz.

I'd like to point out firstly that not all maps in the 35-65 bracket (for example) are the same. Many are standard, others are not.

eg. Conquer 4, Woodboro, 13 Colonies, Poker Club, Crossword are in that category
The net 'utility' of games on those maps is debatable, but not totally dependent on the number of regions.

I guess there's an overall bell curve for number of regions on a map. We have some with few regions, and some with lots, but mostly several sometimes.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, a minute of your time to look at this essential graph:



And so, I would like to suggest releasing more interesting maps. The number of regions may well be a contributing factor to how interesting a map is in context, but not the only variable.

I like ManBungalow's analysis.

-Shape

ManBungalow wrote:I'd like to point out firstly that not all maps in the 35-65 bracket (for example) are the same. Many are standard, others are not.

True, but the majority of those maps are normal classic play.

ManBungalow wrote:And so, I would like to suggest releasing more interesting maps.

That is all I have asked for. Something interesting. If you try to make a map within the largest group, make it so people will play it.

Shape wrote:I like ManBungalow's analysis.

-Shape

So do I.

Shape wrote:I like ManBungalow's analysis. -Shape

Agree.

I'd also like to see how the number of current games matches up to that list. I have a hunch that the vast majority of games are being played on maps within that mid-range, or what might be considered more standard.

I think people who have been on the site for a period of time are bored with the current maps, and are looking for some thing new, but "standard". Koontz you say "If I want plain, I would play one of the other 135 maps like it.", but if that theory were true then Three Kingdoms of China won't get any play because it doesn't have anything special. No auto-deploy, no killer neutrals, nothing at all really. But personally I think that map is going to be pretty popular when it comes out, and to me it's because of the simplicity of the gameplay.

You said, "So I ask this: Do we need more maps within the 35-65 region count that have no twists?" And I say yes, why not. As long as there are people willing to make maps, you'll always have some who make standard, others more complicated, and still other both. And as long as there are people on the site they will always want something new, and the vast majority of them will want something standard.

I think we need all areas of the globe covered at a variety of scales. I would support more regular maps that are a)an area of the globe that is not well covered or b) a historical battle.

Especially b) I think we are a bit lacking in historical battles.

I think, too, that countries offer much more than, say, cities or counties (assuming standard nothing-special gameplay), since countries offer more interesting shapes (ha) and are more recognizable to a wider audience. Cities and counties are more specified and offer less in geographic familiarity and tend to have more geometric shapes than natural, more unique shapes.

-Shape

Seamus76 wrote:I'd also like to see how the number of current games matches up to that list. I have a hunch that the vast majority of games are being played on maps within that mid-range, or what might be considered more standard.

If the majority of maps are made in this size, the majority of games would also be played on this size. But look at some others stats. Most popular map on the site according to the 200 map celebration is World 2.1. This is classic play but outside of the mid range maps. 2 of the most played maps on the site are Doodle Earth and Luxembourg. Both maps are in the small range. Last years maps awards. The one map that cleaned up was nattys Eurasia pack. The small one and the large one both won lots and neither is in the mid range. So whilst most games may be made at this size, that can be explained as having the most maps.

Following are some lists. The first one is a list from Coleman 2 years ago. Using this to compare this to the updated list from this year. It is the top ten maps against games made.

• Classic
• Doodle Earth
• Luxembourg
• Feudal War
• Arms Race!
• World 2.1
• Peloponnesian War
• British Isles
• New World
• Age Of Realms 2: Magic

Classic map will always skew results as it is the one map we all look for and the one most played. But only two maps from this top 10 are in the mid range. Arms Race and British Isles. Only British Isles is classic style gameplay and has the twist of the one way attacks. Arms race can in no way be classed as normal classic style play.
Updated list by nobodies.

• Classic
• Doodle Earth
• Feudal War
• World 2.1
• Luxembourg
• British Isles
• Arms Race!
• USA
• Age Of Realms 1
• Age Of Realms 2

As you can see, not a lot of movement over the two years. What was popular two years ago is popular now. Only USA seems to of made a huge leap from 24th to 8th (why I have no idea). The two casualties from the lists are Peloponnesian War (13th) and New World(11th). So now the only popular map that is mid ranged and plain is USA. The only two losses are large maps and they have been replaced by USA and another large map (Age Of Realms 1).
Last list I promise and this is the most interesting. This list is made from games per day, not total games.

• Classic
• Doodle Earth
• Feudal War
• Luxembourg
• World 2.1
• Arms Race!
• British Isles
• Age Of Realms 1
• Age Of Realms 2
• Peloponnesian War

Surprise, no USA, no plain maps, and only two mid ranged maps.

Seamus76 wrote:but if that theory were true then Three Kingdoms of China won't get any play because it doesn't have anything special.

Three kingdoms has a couple of twists to it. The auto deploys on the capitals and the collection bonus for the cities. But I guarantee, if 3 kingdoms had been made back in 2008 when gimil had it, we had less than 100 maps, it would be a more popular map than it would be today. Today, your map will have to go up against over double the amount of maps. So yes, it will get less games played on it. I very much doubt anyone can deny that.

Seamus76 wrote:You said, "So I ask this: Do we need more maps within the 35-65 region count that have no twists?" And I say yes, why not. As long as there are people willing to make maps, you'll always have some who make standard, others more complicated, and still other both. And as long as there are people on the site they will always want something new, and the vast majority of them will want something standard.

Right now and this is personal opinion, the more we produce, the more we hurt ourselves. If every map coming out of the foundry is the same, why would anyone want to play it or even comment on it? People keep complaining that no one comes here any more, is it any wonder. Now go to the main foundry and look at the threads.
A couple of interesting things to look at:
Ethopia - 6 pages of comments - 9 months in the foundry
3 Kingdoms of China - 11 pages of comments - 4 months in the foundry.
Which one do you think has more community support and will get played more?
USA2.1 or Miami from isaiah. One large, one mid sized. Take a guess on what you think will be the more popular map?

Personally, I have nothing against classic maps, look at the ones I play.

DoomYoshi wrote:I think we need all areas of the globe covered at a variety of scales. I would support more regular maps that are a)an area of the globe that is not well covered or b) a historical battle.

Especially b) I think we are a bit lacking in historical battles.

Problem with (a) is the lazy man approach. Pick a country, split it up and do some nice graphics. We can get a million maps like this very quickly. But would you want to play a million maps like this?
(b) on the other hand, only Oneyed has done this over the last year. This is a new map maker that has a passion for maps and history. Not only that, he wants to make his maps the best experience on the site.

koontz1973 wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:I think we need all areas of the globe covered at a variety of scales. I would support more regular maps that are a)an area of the globe that is not well covered or b) a historical battle.

Especially b) I think we are a bit lacking in historical battles.

Problem with (a) is the lazy man approach. Pick a country, split it up and do some nice graphics. We can get a million maps like this very quickly. But would you want to play a million maps like this?

Sure, I would. I think different classic style maps can offer different things. Again, like I said above, countries specifically can offer more interesting gameplay structure. Thyseneal (though not a country - is it based off of a book or something? I'm not well read with regards to popular novels, haha) has a very neat layout - certainly you're going to play that differently from, say, Classic. I'm playing Madagascar, American Civil War, and Eurasia Mini, and each, though classic-style in gameplay (at least for the most part), offers a little something different.

-Shape

forget the mid-sized debate. we don't need any more maps period. if the foundry is going to produce more maps they need to be something special.

District Of Columbia. really, who gives a shit. some players from there might but the rest of the world doesn't. Washington DC sure. that is a place we know from literature and movies. it is a global city. it has globally recognised buildings & institutions. those elements could be worked into an interesting map of any size.

but to say 'hey, we don't have one of this region so lets make one' is a problem. we end up with bland maps covering bland regions that don't interest the majority of us.

greenoaks wrote:if the foundry is going to produce more maps they need to be something special.

Well said.

greenoaks wrote:District Of Columbia. really, who gives a shit. some players from there might but the rest of the world doesn't. Washington DC sure. that is a place we know from literature and movies. it is a global city. it has globally recognised buildings & institutions. those elements could be worked into an interesting map of any size.

but to say 'hey, we don't have one of this region so lets make one' is a problem. we end up with bland maps covering bland regions that don't interest the majority of us.

Shape wrote:I'm playing Madagascar, American Civil War, and Eurasia Mini, and each, though classic-style in gameplay (at least for the most part), offers a little something different.

-Shape

Yep, and only one is in the mid range. 2 out of your 3 games are on small maps. I know that this is such a small sample, but lets take it as it is. If two thirds of your games are played on small maps, would you not want more maps at that size to play?

koontz1973 wrote:

Shape wrote:I'm playing Madagascar, American Civil War, and Eurasia Mini, and each, though classic-style in gameplay (at least for the most part), offers a little something different.

-Shape

Yep, and only one is in the mid range. 2 out of your 3 games are on small maps. I know that this is such a small sample, but lets take it as it is. If two thirds of your games are played on small maps, would you not want more maps at that size to play?

Sure, I think that there's more of a need for smaller maps than mid-sized maps, but all the same, I still think there's room for both. I agree that new maps should be unique, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in additional gameplay mechanics. I think new layouts, as I mentioned, can contribute to a unique experience so long as the region mapped is reasonably well-known to the CC populace (again, I think there is room for more countries, not so much cities or counties or other smaller divisions).

-Shape

koontz1973 wrote:

Seamus76 wrote:I'd also like to see how the number of current games matches up to that list. I have a hunch that the vast majority of games are being played on maps within that mid-range, or what might be considered more standard.

If the majority of maps are made in this size, the majority of games would also be played on this size. But look at some others stats. Most popular map on the site according to the 200 map celebration is World 2.1. This is classic play but outside of the mid range maps. 2 of the most played maps on the site are Doodle Earth and Luxembourg. Both maps are in the small range. Last years maps awards. The one map that cleaned up was nattys Eurasia pack. The small one and the large one both won lots and neither is in the mid range. So whilst most games may be made at this size, that can be explained as having the most maps.

Following are some lists. The first one is a list from Coleman 2 years ago. Using this to compare this to the updated list from this year. It is the top ten maps against games made.

• Classic
• Doodle Earth
• Luxembourg
• Feudal War
• Arms Race!
• World 2.1
• Peloponnesian War
• British Isles
• New World
• Age Of Realms 2: Magic

Classic map will always skew results as it is the one map we all look for and the one most played. But only two maps from this top 10 are in the mid range. Arms Race and British Isles. Only British Isles is classic style gameplay and has the twist of the one way attacks. Arms race can in no way be classed as normal classic style play.
Updated list by nobodies.

• Classic
• Doodle Earth
• Feudal War
• World 2.1
• Luxembourg
• British Isles
• Arms Race!
• USA
• Age Of Realms 1
• Age Of Realms 2

As you can see, not a lot of movement over the two years. What was popular two years ago is popular now. Only USA seems to of made a huge leap from 24th to 8th (why I have no idea). The two casualties from the lists are Peloponnesian War (13th) and New World(11th). So now the only popular map that is mid ranged and plain is USA. The only two losses are large maps and they have been replaced by USA and another large map (Age Of Realms 1).
Last list I promise and this is the most interesting. This list is made from games per day, not total games.

• Classic
• Doodle Earth
• Feudal War
• Luxembourg
• World 2.1
• Arms Race!
• British Isles
• Age Of Realms 1
• Age Of Realms 2
• Peloponnesian War

Surprise, no USA, no plain maps, and only two mid ranged maps.

Seamus76 wrote:but if that theory were true then Three Kingdoms of China won't get any play because it doesn't have anything special.

Three kingdoms has a couple of twists to it. The auto deploys on the capitals and the collection bonus for the cities. But I guarantee, if 3 kingdoms had been made back in 2008 when gimil had it, we had less than 100 maps, it would be a more popular map than it would be today. Today, your map will have to go up against over double the amount of maps. So yes, it will get less games played on it. I very much doubt anyone can deny that.

Seamus76 wrote:You said, "So I ask this: Do we need more maps within the 35-65 region count that have no twists?" And I say yes, why not. As long as there are people willing to make maps, you'll always have some who make standard, others more complicated, and still other both. And as long as there are people on the site they will always want something new, and the vast majority of them will want something standard.

Right now and this is personal opinion, the more we produce, the more we hurt ourselves. If every map coming out of the foundry is the same, why would anyone want to play it or even comment on it? People keep complaining that no one comes here any more, is it any wonder. Now go to the main foundry and look at the threads.
A couple of interesting things to look at:
Ethopia - 6 pages of comments - 9 months in the foundry
3 Kingdoms of China - 11 pages of comments - 4 months in the foundry.
Which one do you think has more community support and will get played more?
USA2.1 or Miami from isaiah. One large, one mid sized. Take a guess on what you think will be the more popular map?

Personally, I have nothing against classic maps, look at the ones I play.

These stats are a bit skewed... Take Arms race for example. HighlanderAttack loves that map. Alone he has played 6137 results on 62 pages: 6137! That is more games than 99% of CC has ever played and he has done this all on one map. Vs the total of 249340 results on 2494 pages: So one player has played 2.5% of all the games on this map. That means the people who love these maps tend to play more than the person who like say Hong Kong, since many maps are similar and yet there is only one arms race.

On a personal level. AOR 1 is a good map for collecting medals. I do not like the map yet... I have played the map 107 times and that will go up again when I soon medal hunt some more.


One of CC's largest problems is now that medals combined with maps / settings are causing people to play maps and settings they never would have before. Thus a newer player finds sooo many shit type of games open for play, where as before medals people would just play what they liked and you saw many more normal types of games.

I seriously joined a speed game with these settings just the other day...
Standard
Manual
Freestyle Cuban Missile Crisis (Random)
Cuban Missile Crisis Nuclear
Adjacent


I would have never in a million years joined that game if I was not medal hunting and I highly doubt it would be put up if not.

Is this a foundry problem? In part, but this is also a medal issue as well. It is safe to say the average player does not care about medals in the since they need all gold or all platinum. Those of us crazy to play enough games will get them by default and with some medal hunting the rest can be had. Most people just wanna play a game on map they know and like. CC loses more players to the fact that people are medal hunting and make crappy games so they get crappy games on the join a game page. Just one of the many issues CC faces.
Trench

Brucewar, so if you take out Arms race as you suggest from the stats, it goes even worse for mid sized games. That is one less in the top 10.

Medal hunting is just that, and I would dispute that it is a foundry problem. People would medal hunt on 10 maps or 10 thousand maps.

koontz1973 wrote:Brucewar, so if you take out Arms race as you suggest from the stats, it goes even worse for mid sized games. That is one less in the top 10.

Medal hunting is just that, and I would dispute that it is a foundry problem. People would medal hunt on 10 maps or 10 thousand maps.

If someone is medal hunting on Classic, that is far less worse than someone who is medal hunting on Waterloo. The former is a map people will find easy to understand, where as Waterloo is hard to understand for the normal user who is new. The more maps and settings, the more you have the more crappy maps / settings you will have on the first page of join a game. Look at say 2007. There was 59 maps when I joined. Most all were simple, yet for your average player who just clicked on join a game, there was usually an easy map to play on the first page. There were no nukes, trench and manual coupled with freestyle on Baseball. It was much easier to find a game.

So is that a map problem or a settings problem? I agree that now we have a lot of settings and more are sure to come over time. Like trench and nukes when they came out, lots of games got made with those settings, on certain maps. We have medal hunters and always will whilst we have medals, but how does that go for or against mid range maps?

koontz1973 wrote:So is that a map problem or a settings problem? I agree that now we have a lot of settings and more are sure to come over time. Like trench and nukes when they came out, lots of games got made with those settings, on certain maps. We have medal hunters and always will whilst we have medals, but how does that go for or against mid range maps?

it doesn't.

i have made some great suggestions for additional game settings but i think settings are like maps, only the best should be added. as much as i would like one of mine to be included on this site if i had to choose just one it would not be one of mine, Conquest deployment anyone ?.

just because we can add a new setting/map/etc doesn't mean we should. the Suggestions forum develops many great ideas but they don't get automatically added to the site. the Foundry needs to exercise the same restraint/quality control.

I quite like that idea greenoaks. One of the type of maps we have very few of are the feudal search and destroy types. With that idea, we double the maps without doubling the maps. Not sure how it would work though or the amount of work it would take for normal maps or maps we already have.

Bruceswar wrote:The former is a map people will find easy to understand, where as Waterloo is hard to understand for the normal user who is new.

No kidding! O.o

-Shape

greenoaks wrote:just because we can add a new setting/map/etc doesn't mean we should. the Suggestions forum develops many great ideas but they don't get automatically added to the site. the Foundry needs to exercise the same restraint/quality control.

In theory you have my full support here. It's a life that I think that someone should be in charge to restrict the map that can be done.
But it is a problem, because not everyone is happy to have someone who can tell him/her that his idea can't become a map, at least on CC.
A simple solution could be say: hey you're the foreman...it's up to you! Take your responsabilities!
But If you come out with a such idea, some will call you tyrant, oppressor, etc etc...

It doesn't matter if you act or speak for teh love of the foundry, when it comes that you don't allow someone else map, you appear to his eyes like the worst asshole on earth.

The point is that people should come here and post things like: "your map sucks" or "no one cares about your city, draw your map, print it and play it with your friends, but not here on CC"

Do you understand what I mean? Recently RjBeals has said to me a thing that rarely I hear (and see done) these days. I take the liberty to post it here, because it should be how the foundry should work and if it works in that way the bland and "nothing-to-add" map" wouldn't be made...

RjBeals wrote:The foundry can (and should be) a critical place

Everyone will say (as usually) that's up to the CAs to stop the bad maps...but I say that people should have the balls to speak, have a sharper tongue, say what you said in the columbia district map thread. Obviously this must be done not just for the sake of being unfriendly but to obtain better maps and moreover don't made those who are absolutely shitty ideas.

If we continue to think and speak like every idea could have its own niche to fit...then nothinig will change. Imo people and CAs should start to post only into maps that are worth or that have potential behind them and also mapmakers should wait and post maps which can really add something new to the site, even if it means do not post a new map idea for months.

But again, this is really hard to do if no one cares about what we do here.
Many appreciate what we do, but too few takes some mins to go here and post.
I have always said that it's not necessary to post a full gameplay analysis to give an input to a mapmaker.
The foundry, by its nature must work under the big law of "only the strongest/best will survive".
Useless maps should be left in a corner and die.
It's sad but true.

Said that (and to not make a totally off topic post), let me say that size doesn't matter for the quality of a map.
A map is a good map when size, theme and gameplay mesh together to create something unique and special.
If they do this, then imo we can also have 200 mid size maps!

Nobodies

point taken.

generally if i don't like a map i ignore the thread. in the Suggestion forum if i don't like a sug i'll say so, repeatedly (sorry qwert). i'll try to be more vocal (positive & negative) here.

thenobodies80 wrote:In theory you have my full support here. It's a life that I think that someone should be in charge to restrict the map that can be done.
But it is a problem, because not everyone is happy to have someone who can tell him/her that his idea can't become a map, at least on CC.
A simple solution could be say: hey you're the foreman...it's up to you! Take your responsabilities!
But If you come out with a such idea, some will call you tyrant, oppressor, etc etc...

It doesn't matter if you act or speak for teh love of the foundry, when it comes that you don't allow someone else map, you appear to his eyes like the worst asshole on earth.

The point is that people should come here and post things like: "your map sucks" or "no one cares about your city, draw your map, print it and play it with your friends, but not here on CC"

Really? That seems kinda harsh. I feel like one should be able to post gently and/or give constructive criticism without the appearance of being insensitive or tyrannical. I think the discussion in the D.C. thread was fairly constructive, and I don't believe koontz came off particularly dictatorial. I was reading A How To Guide: Giving and Receiving Feedback in the Guides forum yesterday and I think point number 3 seems applicable:

3. You need thick skin. Virtually all mapmakers, at some time or another, come off as harsh. Part of the foundry rules state that mapmakers have to answer every piece of feedback, either accepting the idea presented, or refuting it logically. This means either implementing the ideas or giving valid reasons as to why the idea is not a good one for the map. The most common reason they'll come off as harsh is when someone airs an idea that doesn't fit with the mapmaker's plan for the map at all. This often gets blown out of proportion, as the person giving feedback gets very offended and says that the foundry is exactly like they heard it was ("a bunch of insensitive jerks") and never comes back. Mapmakers tend to attack the idea like they're attacking the person, but they're not. Often, the very shooting down of an idea is seen as harsh no matter how it comes out. Just remember it's part of the process.

It also seems like there's a trend here with the second bolded section, so perhaps things are more delicate than I realize. Some other pieces I found from the guides forum:
[Official] Conquer Club Mapmaker Handbook - General Mapmaking Rules

General Rules

1. A map should be ‘inherently unique either in gameplay, location, or theme’.
2. Gameplay features must be compatible with the game engine's currently usable XML.
3. A map's content must be the original work of the cartographer unless consent to use copyrighted works is gained. This is your responsibility.
4. All sound advice must be followed unless a logical rebuttal by the mapmaker or another member of the community is provided.
5. To proceed through the foundry the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.

Good Foundry Conduct

We know everyone has their own way of doing things. Below is our advice to you on good foundry conduct when it comes to posting map updates or posting feedback for a map you have interest in.

Good Conduct When Posting Feedback on a Map
If you have a map you're interested in and you intend to give it feedback, probably the best way to help the map maker when you post each piece of feedback is to remember the following three points:

1. State what your concerns are.
2. State why these are your concerns.
3. Most importantly, state what you believe is a good or possible solution to your concerns.

The closer to these three basic points you are, the better received your feedback will generally be, and the better the map will be as a result.
A comprehensive guide to giving and receiving feedback is contained within the Foundry Feedback Guidelines.

I mean, all you have to do is point to your own rule book to show people that this is the standard set for all mapmakers, not just them, right? I mean, if the blue guys/gals are following the established rules, I don't see how a mapmaker would be justified in complaining about tyranny. Sounds like if you're reasonable and logical in your demonstrating that the map in question does not comply with point 1 under General Rules, then it shouldn't be a problem. I do think that simply saying a map sucks doesn't follow these guidelines.

Nobodies wrote:

RjBeals wrote:The foundry can (and should be) a critical place

Everyone will say (as usually) that's up to the CAs to stop the bad maps...but I say that people should have the balls to speak, have a sharper tongue, say what you said in the columbia district map thread. Obviously this must be done not just for the sake of being unfriendly but to obtain better maps and moreover don't made those who are absolutely shitty ideas.

If we continue to think and speak like every idea could have its own niche to fit...then nothinig will change. Imo people and CAs should start to post only into maps that are worth or that have potential behind them and also mapmakers should wait and post maps which can really add something new to the site, even if it means do not post a new map idea for months.

But again, this is really hard to do if no one cares about what we do here.
Many appreciate what we do, but too few takes some mins to go here and post.
I have always said that it's not necessary to post a full gameplay analysis to give an input to a mapmaker.
The foundry, by its nature must work under the big law of "only the strongest/best will survive".
Useless maps should be left in a corner and die.
It's sad but true.

Sure, it'd be cool to see this place abuzz with people, and I don't see why it shouldn't be - I think it's cool But you blue guys/gals do have more responsibility around these parts than the common user, as you (and correct me if I'm wrong) volunteered for a position, so I feel like you guys do have a higher calling, and if no one is willing to say that a map is bad, it should fall to the ones in charge around here. And, too, like the D.C. map, the map should be nipped in the bud before too much is invested in it.

Nobodies wrote:Said that (and to not make a totally off topic post), let me say that size doesn't matter for the quality of a map.
A map is a good map when size, theme and gameplay mesh together to create something unique and special.
If they do this, then imo we can also have 200 mid size maps!

Nobodies

I agree

I'm not as familiar with the workings around here, so many of my comments may be ill-informed, so please enlighten/correct me where necessary/possible.

-Shape

Guidelines are under review, some info can be not totally updated.

Anyway....you don't have to take my words literally....with "your map sucks" i was trying to make clear that maybe have more sharped tongues could be a good thing.
Obviously what i posted is a bit harsh, i don't think I will post something like that in a map thread to discourage someone to continue with a map project, but in the same time I'm pretty sure that I will make clear that if a map should not have a future, then the mapmaker should be well aware of this.

In past, also before your uncle's time here, CAs were able to not support a map and a map was able to reach the live stage anyway with the support of the community. On the opposite, always during the old days, the CAs were able to support a map but have to kill it because the community didn't want it.
That's the right and correct balancing of things.

Today, if CAs do nothing, then nothing will happen. There's too much expectation to those who are supposed to be here to facilitate the foundry process.

As said I have no problem to say to someone to stop with a map project, but i can't force him without the community support (apart if the map has something against the guidelines or it is a big no no for CC). These days if a mapmaker is stubborn and patient enough, he can see its map quenched anyway.

Shape wrote:1. A map should be ‘inherently unique either in gameplay, location, or theme’.

Btw the above rule can be circumvented easily. And follow it ensure only to not have double maps, not to have quality ones.

Shape wrote:But you blue guys/gals do have more responsibility around these parts than the common user, as you (and correct me if I'm wrong) volunteered for a position, so I feel like you guys do have a higher calling, and if no one is willing to say that a map is bad, it should fall to the ones in charge around here. And, too, like the D.C. map, the map should be nipped in the bud before too much is invested in it.

When and if I have to "kill" a map, i try to do into the earlier stage. This exactly to not ask to the mapmaker to put to much effeort into it for nothing. As said the problem is that in most of cases it ends that it's only like "the evil foundry foreman doesn't like my map"....when it's not in this way. If a mapmaker has potential but he is trying to develop a bad map it's my role to go there and tell that to him. I usually act like a father that has to scold one of his children. He doesn't like to do that, but it needs to do that.
Certainly in some cases I can be wrong...I'm not God and I'm well aware of this...but must be said that it's been a while that I do this "job" and I have seen many maps. I can say I have a bit of knowledge and experience on this type of things.

But now think you are the mapmaker, I (or another CA) posted "bad words" in your map topic...
Nobody else says a word about it.....then now imagine...what could you think?

"Nobodies is an idiot, he doesn't like my map, but it's just him so I continue."

I think in most of cases is human to think something like that. Now imagine the same thing, but with the support of the community on a side or on another...in any case it will be clear what the destiny of that map should be.

Now, it's true that rarely CAs take a clear and strong position for a map...but like i said in my previous post, this is because we're easily labelled as tyrant in that case...and i say this because it already happened in more than a single occasion. This is not good because the next time a CA, a person who spend his free time to help people here, will be more afraid to espress his judgment on a map.


But now I'm at work and usually I write really bad post when at work....so sorry if the above is not totally clear....I try to explain everything in a better way this evening, when back at home.

Nobodies