Moderator: Cartographers
porkenbeans wrote:Version 12-
The big criteria that the upper echelons of CC power want out of new maps is they want the mods to start filtering the new maps and seriously consider whether or not CC would be a better place because of a new map.
natty_dread wrote:The big criteria that the upper echelons of CC power want out of new maps is they want the mods to start filtering the new maps and seriously consider whether or not CC would be a better place because of a new map.
...what? This is the first I've heard of such a thing.
MarshalNey wrote:... the question doesn't seem fair exactly. It's the silly and ubiquitous interview question, "Why do you think we should hire you?" or even better, "Why do you want this job?"
Seriously, how in the world does one expect an honest answer to that question? The question almost assumes a certain type of self-promoting, bombastic response designed to put others at ease rather than give any meaningful insight.
MarshalNey]As for the Foundry, my response would be, "Why wouldn't CC be a better place with another unique quality map?" Is there something I'm missing perhaps, some space limitation restrictions...?[/quote]
Well, you're assuming two major things in this statement a) unique and b) quality. Unfortunately not all drafts meet these requirements. With Reconquista and a number of other maps waiting for advancement, I think they do meet both requirements and ought to advance. But I'm asking to make sure that both the mapmakers and foundry mods are on the same page.
[quote="MarshalNey]
But even beyond that, there's no reason not to advance it to the next forum. The benefits and "uniqueness" of the map are already in the design brief and evident in the concept. The Melting Pot is the "concept" stage of mapmaking I was lead to believe. If it flunks in the gameplay forum, fine, but graphics shouldn't hold a map back until the third stage.
Of course, if what you stated about the graphics was a just a critique for guidance, and not a reason for holding this map back, then please ignore the above paragraph.
Anyway, congrats Helix on the position; I'm glad it's you and I can gripe like this without feeling awkward [/quote]
Right, my comments on the graphics were just for general guidance and in this specific case will have little to no impact on whether it advances or not. In hindsight I probably should have posted twice instead of lumping it to look like 1 statement rather than 2. One was meant as an observer of the map and the other as melting pot mod. I think I will try harder to differentiate the two as I really want avoid letting the blue name tag blind people as to what I mean.
[quote="theBastard wrote:IĀ“m little confused , but I will try to explain some my opinions. and IĀ“m confused because you was the first who gived me support and help with this map .
I agree with some MarshallĀ“s notices, so maybe I say something similar. the first big problem here is huge graphic requests. IĀ“m not long time here, but I saw some good ideas which were dead after first draft. and why? because many people have not graphics knowledge. I understand that everybody can be better and better, also quality of maps, but is this realy necessary?
the good graphic makers are rare and if they work on any projects they have not enough time, because too huge requests (or too many notices). this is for example my problem with Baltic Crusade map - I work on new version, but IĀ“m afraid it will not looks as map makers want. I think the most important should be gameplay or difference of map.
nobody can wants from skilled map makers that they work on forinsic maps/ideas, but it should be great when cartographers or gameplay makers will look around Melting Pot: Map Ideas and sort here interesting ideas (without skilled graphic makers) and work on them with skilled guys...
to the HelixĀ“s question: because its awesome . now seriously, it could shows to players something from history. there are few medieval maps, no one from Iberia. the gameplay idea is (I think) unique, there is no map with so many settlements, there is no map where "land" is realy only land for knights foots, and I think also bonuses are quite different from other maps. and at the last but not least - you like it
Industrial Helix wrote:Like I said to Marshal, I just meant the graphics comments to be as a general observer of the map, by no means were those supposed to be a criteria for what this map needs to pass. Sorry for the confusion.
Industrial Helix wrote:But you're answer is pretty spot on, I think. I think the strong emphasis on autodeploy really takes the map where no map has gone before. The biggest concern I have about its uniqueness is that it highly resembles your on going Baltic Crusades. However, its like there are a million maps utilizing this formula you've got and sufficient differences exist between the two maps that they don't simply repeat each other.
Industrial Helix wrote:As I mentioned before, I want to make sure we're on the same page. That what I believe you intend and understand matches what you really do intend and understand. I'll be running this by my partner and I'd expect some movement within a few days.
porkenbeans wrote:Bast is the author, and I am the artist
The map belongs to Bast.natty_dread wrote:One person must assume copyright of the map. It is CC policy.
Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users