Conquer Club

There has been a foundry debate before about quantity and quality, but this time, I'm more concerned about the quality and quantity of comments in map threads...

There was a time when a page of posts would mean a page full of feedback. It is beginning to be more and more common to see a page full of comments that, while vaguely related to the map, do little to help the mapmaker in the grand scheme of things...

A little bit of banter is a good thing, but it can detract from the development of a map, and can put other people off posting... I hereby challenge folk to put more of an emphasis on the quality of their posts

PS. I have a plan for something new up my sleeve... watch this space

MrBenn wrote:watch this space

watching.... watching.... watching.... watching...


Yea I have also noticed this. Whenever I post comments I try to make sure that they are productive (which is why I dont post in every thread, if its really good, then more than likely it needs less work.)

MrBenn is the whole reason my posts have improved

As a mapmaker (as many of us are) the posts that I most appreciate are those that tell me:
1) what somebody sees wrong with my map, and
2) something I could do to address the issue.

While it is nice to have my ego stroked now and again with comments that say "Can't wait to play it, quench it now!" such comments don't actually help the map get quenched. In fact, those comments often slow things down because it sends the (usually) mistaken impression that the map is finished. It is the critical and constructive posts that drive a map to be better.

Of course, constructive criticism is only constructive if the mapmaker accepts it and works with it.

...which is why if I post at all on a topic it's to give Attack Plan-level comments. Hence why my Foundry posting isn't that heavy.

A downfall of mine is only posting on maps that interest me. I guess I'm a seasoned member who really should have a broader focus. I've joined the advanced draft feedback group - that Benn has created, and It's actually brought me to several advanced draft maps that I've totally ignored. My focus will always be on graphics. I pretty much stink at gameplay. But I think when I do post, I try to give constructive feedback. I even go as far as creating a mock-up image to illustrate my comments - as sometimes images speak louder than words.

(edit)
The first sentence above is not what I meant to say. I should say, that I tend to post more when a map is in early development, and when a map-maker is in need of some graphical advise. There's plenty of very cool maps that do interest me, that I don't visit or comment in. Like i almost never visited WM's USA Map Pack thread. Same for some of Oaks maps. I pop in to check out the maps occasionally, but didn't post feedback. My limited time in the foundry posting could be spent better commenting on those less seasoned map makers.

sailorseal wrote:MrBenn is the whole reason my posts have improved

Anyway, I try to keep my comments as helpful as possible. A thing that does get on my nerves is that I posted a huge page of feedback on a Belgium map that has been recycled, so selection of maps to comment on does make a lot of sense.

But yes, there are members who just go around with loads of 's and Co. up their sleeves wanting maps quenched …

Watching …

.44

Few members has the knowledge to give high quality suggestions. Too many do the quantity.

As newbie member:
I joined the list and i 'll suggest in the best way i can.
I think that is a good idea.
Benn, Can this method assure that all members continue to suggest after the first time they did.
But can be a good way to encurage newbie to partecipate in the whole foudry and not to focus only on own maps.

As mapmaker i love old members suggestions and CA ones. They can change a flat map in a good one with few words.
And if you note, when a CA or a "respectable name" suggest in your thread, a flow of suggestions come, and all we know how visibility is important in foundry. Obviously all other good suggestion are welcomed.
I hate who gives false suggestions (similar to orders) or useless, but i can't rule about what a member has to write on the thread of my map.

RjBeals wrote:A downfall of mine is only posting on maps that interest me. I guess I'm a seasoned member who really should have a broader focus. I've joined the advanced draft feedback group - that Benn has created, and It's actually brought me to several advanced draft maps that I've totally ignored. My focus will always be on graphics. I pretty much stink at gameplay. But I think when I do post, I try to give constructive feedback. I even go as far as creating a mock-up image to illustrate my comments - as sometimes images speak louder than words.

(edit)
The first sentence above is not what I meant to say. I should say, that I tend to post more when a map is in early development, and when a map-maker is in need of some graphical advise. There's plenty of very cool maps that do interest me, that I don't visit or comment in. Like i almost never visited WM's USA Map Pack thread. Same for some of Oaks maps. I pop in to check out the maps occasionally, but didn't post feedback. My limited time in the foundry posting could be spent better commenting on those less seasoned map makers.

lol Rj I have to agree with you, I pretty much stink at gameplay. lol last time I tried to give gameplay help I didn't really address any problems

well i will try to now be more active to give feedback, and to try to give full picture of things how i see.

RjBeals wrote:A downfall of mine is only posting on maps that interest me. I guess I'm a seasoned member who really should have a broader focus. I've joined the advanced draft feedback group - that Benn has created, and It's actually brought me to several advanced draft maps that I've totally ignored. My focus will always be on graphics. I pretty much stink at gameplay. But I think when I do post, I try to give constructive feedback. I even go as far as creating a mock-up image to illustrate my comments - as sometimes images speak louder than words.

(edit)
The first sentence above is not what I meant to say. I should say, that I tend to post more when a map is in early development, and when a map-maker is in need of some graphical advise. There's plenty of very cool maps that do interest me, that I don't visit or comment in. Like i almost never visited WM's USA Map Pack thread. Same for some of Oaks maps. I pop in to check out the maps occasionally, but didn't post feedback. My limited time in the foundry posting could be spent better commenting on those less seasoned map makers.

I AM good at gameplay, so I try to give both gameplay and graphics comments when I do. I'll accept PM petitions for me to get back into the swing of things.

There are now over 60 maps in various stages of the Foundry... are they all of the same quality? Which ones stand out for you as being head-and-shoulders above the rest?

I'm a big fan of the recently revamped Midgard map - excellent work by RJ and WM
Greenland and Long Island stand out to me as quality-looking maps by new mapmakers...

MrBenn wrote:There are now over 60 maps in various stages of the Foundry... are they all of the same quality? Which ones stand out for you as being head-and-shoulders above the rest?

I'm a big fan of the recently revamped Midgard map - excellent work by RJ and WM
Greenland and Long Island stand out to me as quality-looking maps by new mapmakers...

I agree with Benn all the way!

Also I am a HUGE fan of Ocenia

i love england and jamaica

I'd have to say that its Quality over quantity every time, i only post about specific things on maps, and always give a reason behind my thoughts, if you let people know why you say what you say they are more inclined to take it on board, that dosen't mean they agree\disagree, but a little reasoning goes a long way.