Conquer Club

I just want to find out the results, kind of curious

I'd say its 75% for me, just because I'm more interested in graphics than gameplay.

Of course, I wouldn't support a map where gameplay was an absolute disaster, but if they have good graphics, I'd be more inclined to help them solve their gameplay problems.

wcaclimbing wrote:I'd say its 75% for me, just because I'm more interested in graphics than gameplay.

Of course, I wouldn't support a map where gameplay was an absolute disaster, but if they have good graphics, I'd be more inclined to help them solve their gameplay problems.

Can you explain to the public why?
(Thanks for answering)

sailorseal wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:I'd say its 75% for me, just because I'm more interested in graphics than gameplay.

Of course, I wouldn't support a map where gameplay was an absolute disaster, but if they have good graphics, I'd be more inclined to help them solve their gameplay problems.

Can you explain to the public why?
(Thanks for answering)

Why don't you tell us why you voted 10% ?

People only play ugly maps for the medals (or easy points, in some cases). Graphics need to be carefully worked out and improved as the map makes its way through the foundry.

samuelc812 wrote:

sailorseal wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:I'd say its 75% for me, just because I'm more interested in graphics than gameplay.

Of course, I wouldn't support a map where gameplay was an absolute disaster, but if they have good graphics, I'd be more inclined to help them solve their gameplay problems.

Can you explain to the public why?
(Thanks for answering)

Why don't you tell us why you voted 10% ?

Well I put ten because if I see a good idea i will support it until it reaches AD then in my opinion it needs good graphics or to the bin it goes

sailorseal wrote:Well I put ten because if I see a good idea i will support it until it reaches AD then in my opinion it needs good graphics or to the bin it goes

But if the person isn't going to be able to provide quality graphics, why waste your time helping a map that won't make it through the foundry?

For me, the graphics are almost irrelevant. I'm all about the gameplay. I say ALMOST irrelevant, because sure...aesthetic qualities are nice. But gameplay takes huge priority for me, personally. If graphics are considered even equal in importance to the gameplay, then I'd say that's a serious failure in the site's priorities (again, in my opinion).

wcaclimbing wrote:

sailorseal wrote:Well I put ten because if I see a good idea i will support it until it reaches AD then in my opinion it needs good graphics or to the bin it goes

But if the person isn't going to be able to provide quality graphics, why waste your time helping a map that won't make it through the foundry?

I don't know that for a fact until it happens

Not a single person judges a map solely on graphics

sailorseal wrote:Not a single person judges a map solely on graphics

Well I certainly hope not…

.44

Well, if a map is a good Idea but has crappy graphics it is sometimes worth it staying around. The long island map this is in the main foundery now started out with really crappy graphics but then once sailorseal stoped doing the graphich it got better fast.




~Mr.Walrus

captainwalrus wrote:Well, if a map is a good Idea but has crappy graphics it is sometimes worth it staying around. The long island map this is in the main foundery now started out with really crappy graphics but then once sailorseal stoped doing the graphich it got better fast.




~Mr.Walrus

Thanks

sailorseal wrote:Not a single person judges a map solely on graphics

Someone does...apparently.

you have to consider the question: "When you are chosing to support a map what percentage is based on graphics?" (or something like that).

I assume that this refers to the early stages of map production, at which point I tend to tell mapmakers NOT to focus on graphics - if the map idea is good and the gameplay is sound, the graphics can come later. And even if the initial mapmaker doesn't have a clue how to make the map look decent I would still support a good map idea and hope that it finds its way through.

I took on the graphics of the Scotland map because I thought that balsiefen had made a really good map, but he had clearly hit a roadbock in the graphics department. If another map hit the Drafting Room that needed an artist and it presented the kind of challenge that fit my skill set and interests, I'd volunteer to see it through. If I had any free time, that is.

But the initial reviews of maps are largely graphics-driven in my view.

oaktown wrote:...I assume that this refers to the early stages of map production, at which point I tend to tell mapmakers NOT to focus on graphics - if the map idea is good and the gameplay is sound, the graphics can come later.

I'm reversing this order for my latest map.

lol ive noticed

I'd have to say its 50/50 with graphics and gameplay, sometimes i'll see something that makes me go ohhhhhh but when you really look at the map sometimes it dosn't gell.. and other times something looks poo, but after a while you can see where its heading, so you try to give the carto a few ideas.

Balance is the key.

It's a tough call...

My first instinct is to try and talk about gameplay; but good graphics seem to attract more comments... It comes down to the fact that graphics are easier to comment on than gameplay, as gameplay anomalies are a lot harder to spot than a fuzzy border or rogue pixel...

MrBenn wrote:It's a tough call...

My first instinct is to try and talk about gameplay; but good graphics seem to attract more comments... It comes down to the fact that graphics are easier to comment on than gameplay, as gameplay anomalies are a lot harder to spot than a fuzzy border or rogue pixel...

There was a great quote by Oaktown I think, some CA, on this subject

I think it was something like
"Graphics are easier to comment on then Game Play, therefore a map with greater graphics will equal, will equal greater comments"

Sorry oak if you didn't say it

If the gameplay of a new map is off, you can work with the mapmaker to improve it. Bonus here, attack route there, remove that bombardment, etc.

If the graphics of a new map are bad, that mapmaker has a bumpy road ahead of him/her. I can't make a few suggestions and suddenly turn somebody into a photoshop whiz. To the new mapmaker who just doesn't have a clue about how to make a map look good, I'd say keep working on the map and hope that you find some serious help inb the graphics department.

If the basic premise (idea) of a new map is bad, there's really nothing you can do. This map needs to be scrapped. Perfect bonuses and good design will not make Plasagna World a good map. Worst case scenario is that the mapmaker insists on continuing with Plasagna World, makes a decent looking map, and more or less works out the gameplay. This is where the community really needs to step up and tell it like it is, even if the mapmaker and his two best friends insist that the map rocks.

And I don't know exactly what I said about graphics v. gameplay, but I do believe that it is easier to step into a map thread for the first time and decide what you love/hate about the graphics than what you love/hate about the way the map will play. Whether or not the mapmaker actually has the skills to implement the graphics suggestions is another matter.

oaktown wrote:even if the mapmaker and his two best friends insist that the map rocks.

Oak was that necessary?

sailorseal wrote:

oaktown wrote:even if the mapmaker and his two best friends insist that the map rocks.

Oak was that necessary?

That's actually a jab at a guy from last summer who thought he was hot s*** and we were all keeping him down.

honestly, my comment was not directed at anybody or any situation in particular. We've had many such occasions in the past in which a couple of buddies got together one night, had too much to drink, and posted a really terrible idea. If there has been a similar instance recently I assure you i wasn't aware, as I spend very little time around the drafts these days.