Conquer Club

Foundry asks for your opinions

For quite some time now, discussions relating the future and the present of the foundry have been half-hearted. So in order to revive the foundry and restructure the mapsystem the members of the foundry convened. I won't inform you as of yet of any details, but rest assured plans are/will be set in motion. Hopefully everything will be wrapped up as swiftly and successfully as possible.

Obviously anything relating to the future of maps lies vehemently close to the hearts of most CC-players. In order not to trample any feet, to make a decision in the interest of the entire community, we are making this topic. We are asking you to give us your opinion. do you think we should do with the current map database? Some people have suggested to delete maps, whilst others hold dear to even the most unpopular of maps.

Other ideas talked about limiting maps in some way or another. A rotational system is thus the first thing that springs to mind. Do you think it acceptable to seasonally rotate certain(more than before) maps in and out of activity? If so, which maps? Should we keep them available for Clanwars? Speedgames? Tournaments?

Feel free to conjure new ideas and provide us with your insights.


Yours respectfully,

The Foundry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
suggested ideas so far by foundry and community:

• map deletion
• seasonal map rotation
• survival of the fittest: popular new betas replace old unpopular quenched maps
• map rating system(both maps and settings) to be self-propagating
• recommended games page for new players
• become more strict on new maps
• textual explanations for maps(for complex maps that have bad legends)
• autojoin function
• map cathegories: have a random map function that picks out of one cathegory

------I know this was being looked into a few months back. I think it was Blake...That said he was waiting for activity in such areas of the site.. So I am not surprise..even with recent events. BUT I WILL SAY,HOLY CRAP I fell like Moses..THE GODS have Stepped down to ask ..US..The regular joes our opinion ..I almost fell over. I said in a post...With maps like USA.. 9 of them...The Age of Realms 3,Europe 2,Etc..Why were Classic Art and Shapes deleted? When they could have joined THE CLASSIC MAP set.....Well I think maybe maps should be put along side Rank... The Higher your rank..The more advanced the maps will be open to you...Maybe don't delete. But when CC hits..300 stop making them. If one is made after that..One gets cut ..Like Art and Shapes....I know the settings are a lot to swallow.But as people get better. They will learn to tolerate them..If you go down in rank...You lose maps you can play on...For both freemiums and premiums alike. Thank You Kindly High Command ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)....

ConfederateSS wrote:But when CC hits..300 stop making them. If one is made after that..One gets cut

That's not actually a bad idea. It would certainly keep CC open for classical maps.

waauw wrote: Some people have suggested to delete maps, whilst others hold dear to even the most unpopular of maps.

Other ideas talked about limiting maps in some way or another. A rotational system is thus the first thing that springs to mind. Do you think it acceptable to seasonally rotate certain(more than before) maps in and out of activity? If so, which maps? Should we keep them available for Clanwars? Speedgames? Tournaments?

There have been many good suggestions that might actually help the foundry. Why is deleting or restricting maps the one idea that is presented here? What does that even have to do with the foundry? Is there anyone out there who actually thinks that the problems with the foundry (or the site) will be solved by preventing people from playing Halloween Hollows in July?

CC does not have too many maps, any more than Amazon has too many products. But if Amazon only showed people a tiny picture of their products, with no ratings, and no way to filter, sort or search, and when you clicked on the tiny picture, all you got was a bigger picture, then it would probably have about as many users as CC has now.

So my suggestions would be:

• Fix the map browser so that people can sort, search and filter to easily find maps they are interested in playing.
• Allow maps to be rated (after completion of a game), and store the rating along with the game settings to gather meaningful information about which maps play well with which settings.
• Once that's done, the focus of the foundry should shift from a graphics-first approach to gameplay-first.
• To support that, provide a way for mapmakers to upload unfinished maps and allow them to be played by anyone with any settings for no points.
• These maps should be available in a separate area, with a warning that they may be broken, and players should be able to quit at any time.

Well said degaston, as always!

degaston wrote:

waauw wrote: Some people have suggested to delete maps, whilst others hold dear to even the most unpopular of maps.

Other ideas talked about limiting maps in some way or another. A rotational system is thus the first thing that springs to mind. Do you think it acceptable to seasonally rotate certain(more than before) maps in and out of activity? If so, which maps? Should we keep them available for Clanwars? Speedgames? Tournaments?

There have been many good suggestions that might actually help the foundry. Why is deleting or restricting maps the one idea that is presented here? What does that even have to do with the foundry? Is there anyone out there who actually thinks that the problems with the foundry (or the site) will be solved by preventing people from playing Halloween Hollows in July?

CC does not have too many maps, any more than Amazon has too many products. But if Amazon only showed people a tiny picture of their products, with no ratings, and no way to filter, sort or search, and when you clicked on the tiny picture, all you got was a bigger picture, then it would probably have about as many users as CC has now.

So my suggestions would be:

• Fix the map browser so that people can sort, search and filter to easily find maps they are interested in playing.
• Allow maps to be rated (after completion of a game), and store the rating along with the game settings to gather meaningful information about which maps play well with which settings.
• Once that's done, the focus of the foundry should shift from a graphics-first approach to gameplay-first.
• To support that, provide a way for mapmakers to upload unfinished maps and allow them to be played by anyone with any settings for no points.
• These maps should be available in a separate area, with a warning that they may be broken, and players should be able to quit at any time.

+10000

the keys and legends on several of the more complex maps must be made more legible and easier to understand.

new gimmicks should be discouraged in all subsequent maps in favour of clarity and gameplay, unless it can be shown to be beneficial or genuinely interesting to the majority of the site. (pirate and merchants springs to mind as being a good example of the latter).

the 'join a game' page needs subdivided, so that farmer settings (fog, trench, adjacent on hive or something) are kept separate from classic flat rates. this also solves the problem of having 50-60 pages of crap to sift through. these subdivisions will be map complexity (2 tiers is enough - classic gameplay and everything else) and fortifications (unlim, chained and parachute / adj and trench). and finally, into singles and teams.

a 'recommended games' page should be available on the CP of all new players with friendly, accessible settings similar to what players experience on the board game. this should be programmable - if someone creates a game within the requisite parameters ir is automatically added to the list of 'recommended' games.

degaston wrote:There have been many good suggestions that might actually help the foundry. Why is deleting or restricting maps the one idea that is presented here? What does that even have to do with the foundry? Is there anyone out there who actually thinks that the problems with the foundry (or the site) will be solved by preventing people from playing Halloween Hollows in July?

The foundry is responsible for the activation and classification of maps. Map restrictions have been suggested with the argument that games fill up slower because the decreasing population is spread thin among the large number of maps. In order to retain more new recruits, games must start quicker.

degaston wrote:CC does not have too many maps, any more than Amazon has too many products. But if Amazon only showed people a tiny picture of their products, with no ratings, and no way to filter, sort or search, and when you clicked on the tiny picture, all you got was a bigger picture, then it would probably have about as many users as CC has now.

So my suggestions would be:

• Fix the map browser so that people can sort, search and filter to easily find maps they are interested in playing.
• Allow maps to be rated (after completion of a game), and store the rating along with the game settings to gather meaningful information about which maps play well with which settings.
• Once that's done, the focus of the foundry should shift from a graphics-first approach to gameplay-first.
• To support that, provide a way for mapmakers to upload unfinished maps and allow them to be played by anyone with any settings for no points.
• These maps should be available in a separate area, with a warning that they may be broken, and players should be able to quit at any time.

Thank you for your insights. I will add a compilation list in the first post of suggested solutions. Rest assured we will discuss anything suggested and take into account popularity and arguments. Know also that several of the points you mentioned have already been internally discussed and will/may get implemented in the near future.

Uploading unfinished maps however seems unlikely. There is another online risk website out there who does this and as I understand the system has serious flaws:

• Trolls have been uploading and infringing copyrighted works.
• they have about 1300 maps of which about 90% horrible quality
• it would further dilute the the population among an even larger map database
• It would be incompatible with a policy that pursues either or both graphical and/or gameplay excellence

I really like your idea of a map-ratingsystem. What do you think would be the necessary variables for this?

khazalid wrote:the keys and legends on several of the more complex maps must be made more legible and easier to understand.

a 'recommended games' page should be available on the CP of all new players with friendly, accessible settings similar to what players experience on the board game. this should be programmable - if someone creates a game within the requisite parameters ir is automatically added to the list of 'recommended' games.

Unfortunately we can't change the graphics of maps. Only the original mapmaker can do that.

As for recommended games. Do you have any maps/settings you have in mind in particular?

I agree with most of what both degaston and khazalid said, apart from one point. I do not think gameplay should take precedent over graphics. There are several maps that have been quenched for some time that look absolutely horrendous, the most suitable example in my opinion would be Philadelphia. I actually like how this map plays, and it's the only one of its kind, but it looks absolutely horrific. I do think there needs to be both more guidance but also stricter guidelines in creating maps; ideally we want the best of the best.

Rating maps sounds like a great idea, as does organising all maps into categories. The latter could be done in different ways, such as fictional, warfare, geographic, but then also standard gameplay, medium and hard, or something along those lines.

Recommended games could perhaps be based off the most commonly placed maps and settings, along with highly rated maps. An obvious example would be Classic on default settings, or perhaps World 2.1, no spoils, chained, fog. I also think there should be no maps which are restricted for special events, especially Halloween Hallows which never was until recently. They can still be made 'special' for the annual events, but allowing them to be played any time would make sense so people actually know them.

A random simple only map choice when hosting games sounds good to me. Random currently encapsulates some of the extreme maps which only make sense if you play them a few times.

Khazalid made a point about being able to filter the join games list, which I understood was the purpose of the Game Finder tab? Maybe just a point of confusion.

WingCmdr Ginkapo wrote:A random simple only map choice when hosting games sounds good to me. Random currently encapsulates some of the extreme maps which only make sense if you play them a few times.

Khazalid made a point about being able to filter the join games list, which I understood was the purpose of the Game Finder tab? Maybe just a point of confusion.

it is the point of the game finder tab, but the volume of options on the game finder tab is pretty overwhelming for a new recruit, let alone the jargon. zombie? nuclear? parachute? polymorphic? we're talking about people who played risk on the classic world map with friends and family casually, possibly even years prior.

hence i think it is necessary to have some subdivisions within 'join a game'. in any event, having around 60 pages of games clumped together to wade through makes absolutely no sense.

waauw wrote:

khazalid wrote:the keys and legends on several of the more complex maps must be made more legible and easier to understand.

a 'recommended games' page should be available on the CP of all new players with friendly, accessible settings similar to what players experience on the board game. this should be programmable - if someone creates a game within the requisite parameters ir is automatically added to the list of 'recommended' games.

Unfortunately we can't change the graphics of maps. Only the original mapmaker can do that.

As for recommended games. Do you have any maps/settings you have in mind in particular?

board game settings: classic maps, flat rate, singles, between 4-8 players, no fog, chained / unlim. that should be easily codeable. when a game within these parameters is created it is automatically added to the list. the list of 'recommended' games will appear for the first month or so before 'join games' or 'start a game' screen is displayed. you could even keep it there permanently with a checkable box that says 'do not show me recommended games again'.

khazalid wrote:the keys and legends on several of the more complex maps must be made more legible and easier to understand.

As waauw said, they're not going to change finished maps, but maybe they could provide a link that opens a text page discussing the gameplay and strategy for each map, but that would be low on my list of priorities. The information is out there in the forum anyway, and the best way to learn a map is just to play it. Allowing no points games would help by letting people learn how to play a map without having their points farmed by more experienced players.

khazalid wrote:new gimmicks should be discouraged in all subsequent maps in favour of clarity and gameplay, unless it can be shown to be beneficial or genuinely interesting to the majority of the site. (pirate and merchants springs to mind as being a good example of the latter).

I completely disagree on this one. I don't care for 1v1 games, so I have no interest in playing a map like Promontory Summit, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't have been created, or that it should be removed from the site. Some people like complicated maps, or maps with a "gimmick", others don't. There's no reason that the site can't cater to both groups.

Pirates and Merchants seems to be a perfect example of what is wrong with the foundry. DiM was trying to do something unique that hadn't been tried before. Unfortunately, the foundry process requires that the mapmaker receive both the "gameplay" and graphics stamps before anyone can play a single game on the map. The map looks very nice, but once people started playing it and found significant gameplay issues, who can be surprised that he wasn't eager to go back to step 2 when he thought he was on step 5. If he had been able to test the gameplay first, the problems might have been found and corrected before he put all that work into the graphics. The Great War is another map that I suspect is following the same path.

My map (Whodunnit?) is also pretty unique. I managed to get it onto the Beta site so that I could play it before getting the gameplay, graphics and beta stamps. It works, but I'm not satisfied with it yet. Some of the things I'd like to try would require major changes to the map, so I really regret all the time that I spent working on the graphics. I'd like to finish it, but I have no interest in wasting time and effort by trying to do it under the current foundry process. It simply does not work for maps that are unique or complicated.

khazalid wrote:the 'join a game' page needs subdivided, so that farmer settings (fog, trench, adjacent on hive or something) are kept separate from classic flat rates. this also solves the problem of having 50-60 pages of crap to sift through. these subdivisions will be map complexity (2 tiers is enough - classic gameplay and everything else) and fortifications (unlim, chained and parachute / adj and trench). and finally, into singles and teams.

I don't have a problem with something like the "basic" and "advanced" game start pages that have been suggested before. The Game Request feature allows you to avoid sifting through all the crap, but I don't know how much it's being used - it doesn't seem like they've promoted it much. Again, no points games could eliminate the potential for farming, but who knows - it might cause all the farmers to leave.

khazalid wrote:a 'recommended games' page should be available on the CP of all new players with friendly, accessible settings similar to what players experience on the board game. this should be programmable - if someone creates a game within the requisite parameters ir is automatically added to the list of 'recommended' games.

I think Game Requests could mostly cover this. Maybe they could add a quick start button that would request a game with "standard" settings.

IF it would be possible to say have a link on maps for the legend? u click it and can read it ... some maps Legend are really hard to read! Or if u just said ALL legends must be typed in the same easy to read way ...

I have no problem with more maps! But it would be nice to be able to sort through them in some easier way.

OH and bann all rail maps;)

Game requests are different though, because they're just no points games for new players against more experienced.

i'm not suggesting maps are removed from the database; i'm suggesting that in future, gimmicky maps should be discouraged if they are lacking in clarity and gameplay. a map should be fairly intuitive with a key / legend, but many of the current maps are anything but. conquer 500 anyone?

khazalid wrote:i'm not suggesting maps are removed from the database; i'm suggesting that in future, gimmicky maps should be discouraged if they are lacking in clarity and gameplay. a map should be fairly intuitive with a key / legend, but many of the current maps are anything but. conquer 500 anyone?

I tend to agree, although I really like Conquer 500 and actually think the legend is pretty clear.

hmm and u might link all strat discussions to the specifik map so click legend, another link click strat page? And so on, ive said it before i dont know shit about coding but hey ive got loads of ideas and i love to shoot holes in other peoples suggestions:)

waauw wrote:

degaston wrote:There have been many good suggestions that might actually help the foundry. Why is deleting or restricting maps the one idea that is presented here? What does that even have to do with the foundry? Is there anyone out there who actually thinks that the problems with the foundry (or the site) will be solved by preventing people from playing Halloween Hollows in July?

The foundry is responsible for the activation and classification of maps. Map restrictions have been suggested with the argument that games fill up slower because the decreasing population is spread thin among the large number of maps. In order to retain more new recruits, games must start quicker.

So, the suggested plan is:

Phase 1: Restrict or eliminate some maps.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Games start quicker / Profit!

Which maps are they going to eliminate to fix the problem? If you remove unpopular maps that only a few people play, then that can't really have much of an impact on how quickly games start. If you restrict some of the more popular maps, then you're going to drive away more players than you can bring in. I don't think this idea has any chance of achieving what you want.

I made a suggestion a while back that I think could have a chance of getting games to start quicker. There was a lot of support from people who read it, and I didn't see any negative comments, but nothing ever came of it:

degaston in 'Unlimited Wait-Lists & Maximum Game Limit' wrote:Everyone has a limit to the amount of time they can spend here, and the number of active games they feel comfortable playing. In the case of freemium (unpaid) players, they are limited to 4. As it exists now, the "Join A Game" feature makes it very difficult for players to get optimal use from the site. Depending on what type of game you are looking for, there may be thousands of games waiting for players, but unless you find a game with only one open slot, you will have to choose one (or a few) to join and wait for it to fill. If you join too many, then when they all eventually fill, you will be overloaded with active games. If the ones you choose to join don't fill up quickly, you will be left waiting with fewer than your desired number of games, while other games that you would have been willing to play are filled. This is an even bigger problem for freemiums, who must be very selective about which games they join if they don't want to potentially wait a very long time for their game to start.

waauw wrote:Uploading unfinished maps however seems unlikely. There is another online risk website out there who does this and as I understand the system has serious flaws:

• Trolls have been uploading and infringing copyrighted works.
  This could be handled by having mapmakers request permission to be allowed upload privileges, which could be revoked if they upload copyrighted materials. They could also be required to host the files themselves.
• they have about 1300 maps of which about 90% horrible quality
  These maps should not show up in a standard game search, and should be in a completely separate section from the finished maps. They could be automatically deleted after some period of inactivity, and players should be notified that they are unfinished, and only for testing purposes.
• it would further dilute the the population among an even larger map database
  Or it could get people interested in, and excited about, the future of the site. If the games are for no points, and the maps are unpolished, and may have gameplay problems, then I think people would treat them as an extra feature rather than a substitute for games on finished maps. As long as they don't count these games against a freemium's game limit.
• It would be incompatible with a policy that pursues either or both graphical and/or gameplay excellence
  I believe that this would be more compatible with both gameplay and graphical excellence than the current system. By testing the gameplay before finishing the graphics, you avoid the problem that currently exists where mapmakers resist making gameplay changes because it would mean throwing out a lot of graphics work. If the gameplay is tested on a quick and dirty map, then trying out different possibilities is very easy. Once the gameplay has been tested and verified, the mapmaker can create quality graphics with confidence that it will not be a wasted effort. The foundry can still set it's graphical standards as high as it wants. If the person who came up with the idea is not capable of producing the map to acceptable standards, then they could allow someone else to take over.

waauw wrote:I really like your idea of a map-ratingsystem. What do you think would be the necessary variables for this?

Keep it simple - 1 to 5 stars for how much you liked the map with the settings that were used, and allow comments. Store the rating along with all of the game settings. Where this could become really useful is if you can sort maps by rating in the map browser. As you select various settings, the list could be re-ordered based on the ratings given for games that were played with that setting.

iAmCaffeine wrote:Game requests are different though, because they're just no points games for new players against more experienced.

I think you're thinking of guide games. Take a look at the Game Request tab on the Start Games page. It's very similar to the Game Matchmaker suggestion I made a while back. I think this shows that they really need to put a little effort into advertising the improvements that they do make.

iAmCaffeine wrote:

khazalid wrote:i'm not suggesting maps are removed from the database; i'm suggesting that in future, gimmicky maps should be discouraged if they are lacking in clarity and gameplay. a map should be fairly intuitive with a key / legend, but many of the current maps are anything but. conquer 500 anyone?

I tend to agree, although I really like Conquer 500 and actually think the legend is pretty clear.

I think this proves my point that you're never going to improve how quickly games start by removing or restricting maps. You'll only make people angry.

Dont most other online game platforms, autojoin you to games if you select from certain grouped options? So clicking "join random simple" would add you to a 4-8player random simple map game with players within your skill level.

My suggestion is to bring back isaiah40 based on the solutions posted above, or at least revisit some of his thoughts from a while back. He's been talking about this exact stuff for well over a year, even made a prototype version of a rating and sorting system.

For the game finder and/or the join game, it would be very nice if map could be sorted into some categories.
at least those would be nice :

classic style map : all non conquest maps with absolutely no special feature like bombardement/killer neutral/conditional border and with obvious border - more or less all maps allowed for NR
conquest maps / non conquest map
small maps ( less then 40 territs) / medium map / (40-100) / big map (100+)


Then could also implement a random that chose only within one category. Like random with all maps, random for only conquest maps, random for only "classic style maps".

I think this would really help.
I have platinum cross map medal, I am on CC since few years and played more than 10k games. Also spend some time in the foundry to discover beta maps quite early.
But still some time I am lost when looking for a map in the game finder or start game menu. There is just so many I can't remember all.
A sorting of the map is THE must imo.


And just to add to what I have been said before, I am also 100% against deleting any maps ( or restricting their access), there is a couple I hate and I won't care if they disappear, but I also know there is some I love but most people don't and would be so pissed if they disappear. So no let's skip.


Considering the problem of the game filling, I think this has more to do with how the "join a game" page is organized rather than with the huge amount of maps available.
I have made a suggestion to change it recently, might not be the best possibility, but this page need some improvement for sure.
Alternative would be something like the matchmaker from degaston, that would be nice.