Conquer Club

I have a complaint on the behavior of the draft room leadership.
The Prince of the City map was moved to discontinued without the appropriate time from feedback.

I have challenged the draft stamp makers interpretation of the Draft Guidelines and they have taken that challenge as a lack of understanding of foundry processes and a right to block the map.

I am also challenging the use of the forum support criteria as an effective veto to support the draft stamp holder's personal tastes. As long as the holder can find one comment he can use this as an excuse to block the map even if it directly conflicts with other feedback on the map and its impossible to please both. I have listed the support the map does have that has been disregarded.

Allowing the draft stamp holder to unevenly decide what constitutes forum support, (rather than say a petition of x posters or x+ y posters where y is the number of posters opposing the map), allows the draft stamp holders to block maps they don't like by calling for unanimous support whenever they don't like a map ( against non-territory maps, non color blind friendly, or maps with simple rules).

Secondly. both new draft stamp staff have taken any questioning on the draft stamp criteria as hostile and assume it is an unwillingness to consider feedback and gives them a right to move the map to the bin. This is an abuse of power. They are effectively behaving like a police officer who arrests anyone who disputes a 'speeding ticket' for 'disturbing the peace'.

Third, they are refusing to answer a point I have made: the draft criteria does not require that a map needs to have theme merged totally into the graohics. The part of criteria on theme says- is the map interesting or original . That has not been disputed. Even my critics have said the map is interesting but they require more changes.

If a map is not considered by the Foundry community to offer something original and/or interesting in terms of gameplay, graphics, and theme, its production will not be encouraged.

I am fine with further graphics changes, but not in draft.

Fourth, they are interpreting the specified basic image as the requirement to stay in draft, not to be declared a draft and move on. I disagree. The piece on what constitutes a working draft is clearly what is the criteria to get a draft stamp.

Lastly, there is a clear threat that if I offend people they can block my map. That suggests a spirit of retaliation that I feel is totally inappropriate in someone who gets to decide what map goes forward or not. I shouldn't need to k*ss *ss to Mr Benn or Oaktown or nobody80 to get fair consideration. If they don't like the map or me, they should still pass it if it has a reasonable body of support and will be played.

The fact that this is normal practice (along with the 'p.s. I have the graphics stamp' so you have to listen to me behaviour seen elsewhere) explains why maps are being advanced pretty much by the same clique and are definitely losing originality.

Don't blame me, but actually your are only working on losing support and good feedback. People don't like to spend time on reading about "flames". Actually you "lose" Mr.Benn, now oaktown,who is the next?
I'm saying to you if you lose feedback you will lose your map:

I'm happy to see this discussion moved back to Prince in The City, if Prince in the City is moved back to new drafts.

I question the ethics of foundry officials of moving a map to discontinued to hide the dispute. I specifically said I do not request the map to be moved to dead early to cover up the discussion.

Stop running the foundry like a personal graphics club. If it will create played games - volunteer efforts should be encouraged not discouraged.


----------------

Drafting Room Guidelines

'Drafting Room'

To be considered a Working Draft a project must be more than just an idea; a Draft should have a clear thematic focus, a plan for how the gameplay will work, and a basic image which should include:
1. Territory Labels - temporary names or numbers will suffice, and are always open to change.
2. Borders/Paths/Impassables - it should be made clear where territories do/do not connect.
3. Bonus Areas - where combinations/groups of territories will award a bonus, this should be indicated on the map.
4. Legend - speculative bonus values and explanations of any attack rules or gameplay features.Draft images should not be larger than 630x600px (small image) or 840x800px (large image).

While in the drafting room, it is expected that a mapmaker will demonstrate:
a. significant knowledge of graphics tools and techniques,
b. the willingness to consider and respond appropriately to critical feedback
c. the ability to make multiple changes based on ongoing feedback
d. a solid understanding of the Foundry standards and process.

A Draft will not be considered for promotion to the Main Foundry without the support of CC users. If a map is not considered by the Foundry community to offer something original and/or interesting in terms of gameplay, graphics, and theme, its production will not be encouraged.

Merciless Wong wrote:(along with the 'p.s. I have the graphics stamp' so you have to listen to me behaviour seen elsewhere) explains why maps are being advanced pretty much by the same clique and are definitely losing originality.

Okay. I will attempt to explain this to you, although I'm not sure whether I'm talking to you or a brick wall:
This comment came after the announcement of "Foundry Staff Changes." There, it was stated that some other graphics stampers were coming in, and I am one of them. So, I felt the need to inform the maker of the map (Benn) as well as anyone else. The way stamping graphics are, unlike what you may believe (can cannot be deterred from, apparently), the opinion of the stamper is not the final say. Say for example that 7 people have expressed that they like the sign, and I am the only one who doesn't. I am not to hold back the stamp just for my personal opinion.

.44

Merciless Wong wrote:Third, they are refusing to answer a point I have made: the draft criteria does not require that a map needs to have theme merged totally into the graohics. The part of criteria on theme says- is the map interesting or original . That has not been disputed. Even my critics have said the map is interesting but they require more changes.

...

The fact that this is normal practice (along with the 'p.s. I have the graphics stamp' so you have to listen to me behaviour seen elsewhere) explains why maps are being advanced pretty much by the same clique and are definitely losing originality.

I haven't been following your thread, so I may not be talking on the right subject here, but I think I know what kind of problem you are running into. I read through the last two pages of it, and I'd like to address one of the problems I think you've been having.

While I've been here, there has been a sort of unwritten rule that basically requires a new mapmaker to show some believable proof that they will be able to produce a high quality map. If people don't believe that you have the skill to get the map to the graphics quality that the foundry is looking for, I don't think they will push you through the drafts forum until they can see that you have the skill to make it. One of the comments I read was about you not showing your graphics skills with your first few updates, which makes me think you still might have to prove your skills before you'll be able to move easily through the foundry.

I support that strategy, because it helps keep the main foundry less cluttered. It helps to keep the maps that won't be finished because of a lack of graphics skill in the drafts forum so they don't end up taking up space in the rest of the foundry. Not to say that you don't have the skills, just that you might not have proven that you DO have the skills to make it through.

To your comment about 'maps being advanced by the same clique of people', I believe they go faster because the foundry staff KNOW that those people will be able to work through the foundry efficiently and will be able to reach the graphical standard required. They have been able to consistently produce high quality graphics, so they are moved on to the next stage a bit more quickly because the CA's know that they will be able to handle it.

Its not really the end of the world if you are in the drafts forum for a while. The main foundry really isn't that special. Just relax, enjoy the foundry, and keep posting updates. Eventually, you will move through the foundry and have the map finished in the end.

To be honest if you spent this amount of time on your map, it would be on it's way to draft.

Look this is not going to change anything the only way to get your map a stamp is to work on it

Ok, speaking as someone who is moving a map through the foundry.....

It is hard work, you WILL get knockbacks, you might not agree with them but you will get them. Many times someone has ventured into my forum post and said they don't like something. I have disagreed but we look for a new solution anyway. Sometimes we find a better way and sometimes we don't. The idea is to give a reason why something shouldn't change. If you just give the attitude of "Well, this is my map and I'll do what I like", well, your gonna fail. Lack and the moderators need to keep up a certain quality of maps to reflect the site.

If you disagree with something, explain why you disagree. Talk it over, if you at least try something different, people will be fine with it. A good example is the sea texture in my map. Many people like it, many people hate it. But I have changed it many times to try and please people, I have at last found something I like and it is NOT changing again. People are fine with that, if I recall correctly, MrBenn is one of those that does not like the sea (I could be wrong), but I wouldn't for one minute fear that he will keep it from being stamped, that is not his job, and he has probably accepted (I hope) the fact that the sea is staying.

However, I cannot stress enough that if your map does not meet the sites 'criteria' for graphics, then it will NOT be put live. It will go into the bin.
Don't be in a rush to get through the foundry, it takes a long time!

Keep trying, just when you think you've got something 'perfect', your wrong it isn't but it could be.....keep going.

Premier2k

the.killing.44 wrote:

Merciless Wong wrote:(along with the 'p.s. I have the graphics stamp' so you have to listen to me behaviour seen elsewhere) explains why maps are being advanced pretty much by the same clique and are definitely losing originality.

Okay. I will attempt to explain this to you, although I'm not sure whether I'm talking to you or a brick wall:
This comment came after the announcement of "Foundry Staff Changes." There, it was stated that some other graphics stampers were coming in, and I am one of them. So, I felt the need to inform the maker of the map (Benn) as well as anyone else.
.44

I really am suprised you needed to remind anyone of your new role. And I am more suprised how you needed to do it just when you requested some changes. And am even more suprised that it was all a joke?

That's not my issue by the way if the person who was offended is satisfied. I just cited it as part of the general environment issue and am happy to leave the matter. You bear the reputation impact of your own jokes.

the.killing.44 wrote:The way stamping graphics are, unlike what you may believe (can cannot be deterred from, apparently), the opinion of the stamper is not the final say. Say for example that 7 people have expressed that they like the sign, and I am the only one who doesn't. I am not to hold back the stamp just for my personal opinion.
.44

Having said that I agree that the opinion of the stamper should not be the final say.

But this isn't happening in practice. I listed several instances of support for a good clean map - yet I'm being told to head back and do the Renaissance style backdrop I originally started with which I abandoned due to forum support.

On top of that, my next moderator and others in this forum have spelled out that this is a political process of clique support or that there is an unaccepted unwritten rule allowing experienced mapmakers (who by coincidence are all friends of the stampholders) to match a different standard.

If AndyDufresne or the owners of Conquer Club are endorsing this process - I would to like it put it into the open. Many volunteers who want a chance to play their own designs can go elsewhere and pay for service elsewhere. If the politics is not official policy then lets move to a or petition or poll-based standard for support instead of Moderator total power.


From nobody 80

Don't blame me, but actually your are only working on losing support and good feedback. People don't like to spend time on reading about "flames". Actually you "lose" Mr.Benn, now oaktown,who is the next?
I'm saying to you if you lose feedback you will lose your map:

wcaclimbing wrote:While I've been here, there has been a sort of unwritten rule that basically requires a new mapmaker to show some believable proof that they will be able to produce a high quality map. If people don't believe that you have the skill to get the map to the graphics quality that the foundry is looking for, I don't think they will push you through the drafts forum until they can see that you have the skill to make it. One of the comments I read was about you not showing your graphics skills with your first few updates, which makes me think you still might have to prove your skills before you'll be able to move easily through the foundry.

I support that strategy, because it helps keep the main foundry less cluttered.........

To your comment about 'maps being advanced by the same clique of people', I believe they go faster because the foundry staff KNOW that those people will be able to work through the foundry efficiently and will be able to reach the graphical standard required. They have been able to consistently produce high quality graphics, so they are moved on to the next stage a bit more quickly because the CA's know that they will be able to handle it.

Merciless Wong wrote:I really am suprised you needed to remind anyone of your new role. And I am more suprised how you needed to do it just when you requested some changes. And am even more suprised that it was all a joke?

First, suggested not requested. Second, please find anywhere but in the Stamp usergroup forum where it said I was stamping the England map for graphics. Third, "it" did not refer to "all," but to joking that danfrank was the maker.

Merciless Wong wrote:But this isn't happening in practice. I listed several instances of support for a good clean map - yet I'm being told to head back and do the Renaissance style backdrop I originally started with which I abandoned due to forum support.

Backdrop has two meanings. Firstly, backdrop the literal image that is in the background, which was very very rightly abandoned. Second, backdrop the story behind the map, which can translate into the actual background of the map and should go on the map.

.44

I thought it was in the England map. I note the (lol) and the but in a highly political environment.
It is enough.

If this isn't, why is everyone advising me (in public and in private) this is a political
process and to keep your support, keep 'the masses' or to submit before the unwritten rule of new map-maker abuse (I hope I don't have to list a selection of Mr Benn's most insulting feedback again).

The politics may make things easier for the moderators, but it certainly isn't producing new maps with repeat play.
For all the high graphical standards the ex-Star Chamber crowd espouses, classic shapes kills every other map in play popularity and plenty of players have raised objections to 'classic art' as not having any art or not having anything to do with war.

the.killing.44 wrote:

danfrank wrote:the grey posts and highway sign stay

Good to know you're the decision maker.
I just noticed, obviously Thames = Thames Valley but for clarity's sake maybe it's best just to keep it as Thames in the legend as well?
I hold true to my sentiment of the road sign.

.44

P.S. don't think this is blackmail or anything (lol) but I'll be stamping this one for Graphics

Merciless Wong wrote:I thought it was in the England map. I note the (lol) and the but in a highly political environment.
It is enough.

Uh, yeah … that's where I felt the need to "remind" (meaning re-say) Benn that I was stamping it, but for the first time …

The politics may make things easier for the moderators, but it certainly isn't producing new maps with repeat play.
For all the high graphical standards the ex-Star Chamber crowd espouses, classic shapes kills every other map in play popularity and plenty of players have raised objections to 'classic art' as not having any art or not having anything to do with war.

All former classic games have been reset to Classic: Shapes. You'd have to go from October 14th-present to find how it "kills" any other map. And yes, it will have more games still, but many prefer it over that piece of crap Shapes, imo.

.44

But back to topic:

Does anyone dispute the politics or the double standard/'unwritten rule'

Is the political nature of stamp approval official policy?

Is the double standard forum policy?

Should amateur be warned in that 'x% of maps are made by a small group of y persons and z% of maps are killed in draft' ?

Killing- I am happy for your issue to be split off into a new thread. But no one will ever comment frankly as long as you hold that graphics stamp. There's also a thread to discuss Classic Art so no sense you posting stuff Mr Benn says from there here.

Merciless Wong wrote:Does anyone dispute the politics or the double standard/'unwritten rule'

Yes and no. I dispute that the process is entirely political, and I don't think that there is an explicit double standard, but I will accept that there are many unwritten "rules" at work in the Foundry. The Foundry isn't so much a set of strict standards and policies as it is a community that has grown and changed over the years. The expectations of the Foundry can certainly be confusing, overwhelming, and extremely frustrating at first.

Since I've already disputed the political nature of the process and the double standard, I'll skip right to your last question...

Merciless Wong wrote:Should amateur be warned in that 'x% of maps are made by a small group of y persons and z% of maps are killed in draft' ?

Yes. A good % of maps are made by a small number of people, and most maps die in the early stages, and newbs should be aware of this. That said, there isn't a conspiracy to shut down new mapmakers or to keep the Foundry an elite club; instead, most mapmakers become displeased with how long it takes for a map to progress through the Foundry and quit. Or, more commonly, they just make crappy maps.

Most of my maps take over six months to complete; the last map I quenched took almost a year. The map I currently have in Drafts has been around since October and it hasn't advanced. If I had a free pass out of the Drafting Room I would have used it months ago. Meanwhile new mapmakers go postal after a few weeks, and complain about how fast my maps move. I find this somewhat insulting.

In writing the Mapmakers Guide (which will still require a ton of time and work to complete) I was hoping to to create a document that let new mapmakers know what they were in for, and what it takes to successfully navigate the Foundry. In addition to being able to make a decent map, you have to be patient, you have to be open to criticism (sometimes very harsh criticism), and you have to work well with others. The reality is that most people don't possess these traits, and so most people never complete a map.

But by not giving that data, a lot of people burn a good month of hobby time before they work out that the consensus is maps take 6 months to a year....

There were no explicit time limits in the guide to making a map.
And as you said there are a lot of unwritten rules that mean the draft guidelines do not give any idea what getting a map out of draft takes.
I read the guidelines, basic image seemed doable.

That one 'requires forum support' requirement is effectively a 6 month to a 1 year requirement that kills 90% of newbie maps. You guys should just admit that without near professional Photoshop skills or special relationships in CC, 90% of maps fail and those that don't should expect 6 months or more.
I didn't see that written down.

You may want it that way because you don't have to see ugly maps but I'm not sure the broader CC community agrees. They vote with their feet and play Classic Shapes.

I have found a CC competitor with an automated map process for vanilla maps and am testing it out.
They just approve everything and let the play statistics rank the maps.

You probably haven't read the Mapmaker's Guide, which we only posted a few weeks ago and is still a work in progress. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. We've written in more than one place that you should be prepared for a long process...

Before you embark on this journey, here's a friendly warning: your first map is going to require a lot of work, will receive a lot of criticism, and will take a really long time. ConquerClub maps tend to be more complex and detailed than those at other sites, and while we pride ourselves in our quality many first-time mapmakers are overwhelmed by the expectations. It is quite possible that your first draft - or even your second or third drafts - won't be very good, and many mapmakers don't have the patience to see their map through the weeks and months that it can take to go through the process. But your map has a strong chance of making it through the process if you respect and understand the process.

I think that paragraph pretty much sums up what you're going through, Wong.

Merciless Wong wrote:I have found a CC competitor with an automated map process for vanilla maps and am testing it out.
They just approve everything and let the play statistics rank the maps.

Yes, there are a number of sites that offer a similar product, yet have fewer (or no) requirements for posting a map. The reason I stay here is that the map quality is generally higher than at other sites - in fact, we've caught at least one site ripping our maps off. But quality comes with a price: less flexibility and a much greater commitment of time and resources to create a map. I won't fault anybody for splitting for another site that offers a product that is closer to what you're looking for.

Map makers guide says "and many mapmakers don't have the patience to see their map through the weeks and months that it can take to go through the process."

It should be "6 months to a year for new contributors" based on what I've heard. There is something wrong with CC when you count the huge numbers of first timers ceasing their efforts.

I think the forum needs a section for Complaints Against Moderators, preferably one that foundry moderators can't see in for genuine feedback.

I have a thread called Moderator Complaints where I outline my objections to the political nature of the map making process - creating a safe zone where the 'clique' that approves maps or delibrately tests a new map-maker is frozen out would go along way to deterring moderator bullying or heavy-handedness.

--------------------------

You can also consider an unmoderated map creation process (using a tool like Strategy Games Online does) as a separate map channel. Promote the maps to the main foundry that get played a lot.
Have a box in game finder for those who do not want to see unmoderated maps.

----------------------
<Reply to post below>
Sailorsea, did you have to bump the thread to ask why I bumped it?????

Merciless Wong wrote:It should be "6 months to a year for new contributors" based on what I've heard.

I would happily change that line to more explicitly state how long a typical map takes. Thanks for the input - without input the Guide will never improve. I will not, however, write that this time period is only for new contributors because that would be false. That first map can be the hardest (which I why I often recommend that novices start with a relatively straightforward map), but any map by any mapmaker can take a long time to wrap up.

Merciless Wong wrote:There is something wrong with CC when you count the huge numbers of first timers ceasing their efforts.

I would argue that there is something right with CC when you look at all of the really bad maps that don't get made because the community holds our work to a high standard. Yes, some good projects are lost because mapmakers grow tired of the process, but it has been my experience that the vast majority of the maps that fail weren't good enough projects in the end anyway - and I count among these the many drafts that I have made a discontinued.

The Foundry is the way that it is now after three years of community input as to the policies and and requirements that we want to see. It won't change overnight, because no community - however functional or disfunctional - can just undo three years of beliefs and practices. There have been movements to circumvent the process, but they've never caught on because in the end they didn't have wide enough support. Likewise, every few months somebody feels wronged by the Foundry and has to make a choice as to how to proceed. You are now faced with such a choice - throw yourself into the process with a new sense of what the process will be like, or take your map to one of the other sites that you've already mentioned in this thread. I'm sure that most of us would respect either of these choices.

Merciless Wong wrote:I think the forum needs a section for Complaints Against Moderators, preferably one that foundry moderators can't see in for genuine feedback.

I have a thread called Moderator Complaints where I outline my objections to the political nature of the map making process - creating a safe zone where the 'clique' that approves maps or delibrately tests a new map-maker is frozen out would go along way to deterring moderator bullying or heavy-handedness.

--------------------------

You can also consider an unmoderated map creation process (using a tool like Strategy Games Online does) as a separate map channel. Promote the maps to the main foundry that get played a lot.
Have a box in game finder for those who do not want to see unmoderated maps.

Did you have to bump this for that?

I quenched The Citadel in roughly 8 months, from the date of the first draft posting. It would have actually been done a month and a half sooner had I not naively thought that the school I attended would actually pay attention to my efforts and license it. Listening to feedback and steadily improving will cause success. Complaining about political bias and the like accomplishes nothing other than pissing others off and generally chasing people AWAY from your map.

I haven't heard a lot of denials the process is political.

Complaining about political bias and the like accomplishes nothing other than pissing others off and generally chasing people AWAY from your map.

Yes and no. I dispute that the process is entirely political, and I don't think that there is an explicit double standard, but I will accept that there are many unwritten "rules" at work in the Foundry. The Foundry isn't so much a set of strict standards and policies as it is a community that has grown and changed over the years. The expectations of the Foundry can certainly be confusing, overwhelming, and extremely frustrating at first.

While I've been here, there has been a sort of unwritten rule that basically requires a new mapmaker to show some believable proof that they will be able to produce a high quality map. If people don't believe that you have the skill to get the map to the graphics quality that the foundry is looking for, I don't think they will push you through the drafts forum until they can see that you have the skill to make it. One of the comments I read was about you not showing your graphics skills with your first few updates, which makes me think you still might have to prove your skills before you'll be able to move easily through the foundry.

I heard a lot of advice to just give in... but why bother?

Not as if CC has a monopoly on playing on custom maps anyway. I can get P of the C played immediately on Land Grab. If its played often and gets good ratings, I might post it as evidence that the map would have the support of the play community and not the 50 or so people who make up the foundry.

Good luck beating Classic Shapes.

This is fast turning into a pointless thread. You don't listen to anyone and are too convinced about your own self importance. I've looked at your map and it could do with quite a few changes. So, if you are unhappy with conquer club then by all means find another site and give them your 'amazing map', I'm sure Conquer Club will survive without your input.

Long live the quality maps!

Premier2k

Merciless Wong wrote:Not as if CC has a monopoly on playing on custom maps anyway. I can get P of the C played immediately on Land Grab. If its played often and gets good ratings, I might post it as evidence that the map would have the support of the play community and not the 50 or so people who make up the foundry.

LandGrab has completely different standards than CC.
Even if your map becomes popular on Landgrab, it would still have to pass through the foundry process to become a playable map.

So... have fun on Landgrab.

oaktown wrote:

Merciless Wong wrote:It should be "6 months to a year for new contributors" based on what I've heard.

I would happily change that line to more explicitly state how long a typical map takes. Thanks for the input - without input the Guide will never improve. I will not, however, write that this time period is only for new contributors because that would be false. That first map can be the hardest (which I why I often recommend that novices start with a relatively straightforward map), but any map by any mapmaker can take a long time to wrap up.

So can I confirm that line in the guide will be changed to specify "weeks and months (6 months to a year for a new contributor without existing professional graphics experience) " ?

Merciless Wong wrote:So can I confirm that line in the guide will be changed to specify "weeks and months (6 months to a year for a new contributor without existing professional graphics experience) " ?

It takes almost everyone 6 months to a year to complete a map, not just new mapmakers.
Even the most experienced guys take a long time.

Merciless Wong wrote:So can I confirm that line in the guide will be changed to specify "weeks and months (6 months to a year for a new contributor without existing professional graphics experience) " ?

I won't use your language because it's inaccurate, but I've changed the text in the working file to make the language more explicit (below - bold text indicates changes). The change will be reflected the next time the Guide is updated.

mapmaker's guide wrote:Before you embark on this journey, here's a friendly warning: your first map is going to require a lot of work, will receive a lot of criticism, and will take a really long time. ConquerClub maps tend to be more complex and detailed than those at other sites, and while we pride ourselves in our quality many first-time mapmakers are overwhelmed by the expectations. It is quite likely that your first draft (or even your second or third drafts) won't be very good, and many mapmakers don't have the patience to see their map through the weeks and months that it will take to go through the process - even the most straightforward maps take from four to six months to complete, and veterans CC mapmakers have spent a year or more perfecting a complex map. But if you respect and understand the process your map has a good chance of making it through.

Merciless Wong wrote: I can get P of the C played immediately on Land Grab. If its played often and gets good ratings, I might post it as evidence that the map would have the support of the play community and not the 50 or so people who make up the foundry.

This is the second time you've mentioned that you can get your map up for play at Landgrab, and again I say that if that's what you want to do I completely respect your decision. What I can't respect is you holding this over our heads like it's some kind of threat. If you want to take your map elsewhere and play it, please do so. If you want to use Land Grab as a play test site for a map you intend to develop here, I'd support that idea. But as both you and wcaclimbing have said, Land Grab has different standards and expectations - CC won't adopt a map for use solely on the basis that people liked it at Land Grab.

And let's put the Classic Shapes discussion to rest right now: the map looks like crap, and everybody knows it. But we're stuck with it as our default "Classic" map. Classic Art was thrown together in 24 hours as an alternative to the much-hated Shapes, and now we're stuck with that too. Nobody will ever presume to try and "beat" the popularity of the classic gameplay, so throwing that in our faces is going to get you nowhere.

What you don't get is the fact that this is a business. My individual contribution is irrelevant. But....

The impact of having the map making function controlled by a narrow (but talented) group of graphics-focused people is:

-Slower map creation
-Bias in map creation towards complicated maps and more and more geographic subdvision
-Lots of volunteers who spend 1-10 hours then discover that the process is closed to them (or idiots like me who spend 20-30 because they've always wanted to learn a proper graphics software) and who can walk
-Some really great maps (of the type favored by the forum) produced for free

I will report to you on the alternative you don't want discussed - simply because if it gains market share (and the network effects of having a broader base of players), it is a problem for the owners of Conquer Club - who may want to consider copying a play popularity based process for vanilla maps as a separate line to the Foundry.

If some of the dead maps around here (with creator permission) end up elsewhere and do well.. the broader CC community and owners should be rightly concerned about the direction of the Foundry.

I am waiting for AndyDufresne to respond on the political issue and on the points of order I have raised with regard to Moderator powers .I have received 1 new warning from Mr Benn, been edited for flaming and got a 24 hour ban (before the warning) so far which seems somewhat unjustified - given that I was totally correct in accusing the forum of having 'unwritten rules' with regard to new map makers on standards and quality.

I am not suprised the posts are somewhat one-sided against me. Like I said. Anyone who agrees with me would keep it to themselves to protect their maps. I have gotten some pm support for my position here. At the very least, the forum is putting its 'unwritten rule' into the guidebook and in the open.

-------------------------

I just noticed Cairnswk put his maps into holiday, I have to say with amateurs getting wailed on for no graphics and guys like him getting wailed on for too complicated - I think there is a clear problem with the politics.

cairnswk wrote:Yes, i don't feel like making big changes simply because the foundry process doesn't give consideration to the mapmaker, and work with them.
This map has been in the foundry since Oct last year and was moved to Main Foundry circa 27 Dec. I think there has been plenty of time for everyone to get in here and have some say.
If nobody wants to comment on it (except only a handful of people) then don't expect me to greet you with Roses and perfume when at the 12th hour you "pop-in" on the Foundry Process request. If i have attitude, then it probably comes from the fact that as I stated above, mapmakers are not given enough courtesy.