Help Please - Map Gameplay Tags

[cairnswk]

Magnificent effort.

Ok, we're bound to have arguments over Naming confusion but please post any corrections here and / or additions when they come.

I am writing the new code for this to go into the database now so we'll get a good look soon. (Easy to edit after).

naming confusion....->My word you will. Especially from me. i just found this thread.

May i suggest that i accept that some of my maps (and others have naming confusion as you call it) however, because the word confusion has negative connotations, perhaps you would consider using "naming challenges".

If i wanted to be a real bad guy and "confuse" players with my difficult maps, then you could accuse me of being confusing, however, i prefer to "challenge" players to use their gray matter and think about some situations before they "jump in" the deep end.

These tags were not my idea, you can dispute this with Coleman.
Also the tags applied to your maps were clearly not my decision if you read the whole thread.

The same thing happened with complexity tags when you were extremely and unnecessarily rude to me.

I think you have made a very good point, though and I will change the tag.

Chipv, regardless of who made what decisions, you are now taking this project and running with it.
If i have been rude to you, then i can say i am sorry and it wasn't meant that way, but i also found it very rude that decision appears to be made by people on this site with no consideration given to the map-makers; simply because people like yourself decide to do something (which is good in itself), but you don't bother to consult with anyone before making these gigantic decisions.

I made the maps, i put my time and effort into them, I think i deserve a say in what gets said about the map, and that doesn't appear to happen too often.

Thank you though, for considering the change to the tags.
Perhaps you'd like the discuss this with the rest of the community before taking the decision to make the change.

[chipv]

Magnificent effort.

Ok, we're bound to have arguments over Naming confusion but please post any corrections here and / or additions when they come.

I am writing the new code for this to go into the database now so we'll get a good look soon. (Easy to edit after).

naming confusion....->My word you will. Especially from me. i just found this thread.

May i suggest that i accept that some of my maps (and others have naming confusion as you call it) however, because the word confusion has negative connotations, perhaps you would consider using "naming challenges".

If i wanted to be a real bad guy and "confuse" players with my difficult maps, then you could accuse me of being confusing, however, i prefer to "challenge" players to use their gray matter and think about some situations before they "jump in" the deep end.

These tags were not my idea, you can dispute this with Coleman.
Also the tags applied to your maps were clearly not my decision if you read the whole thread.

The same thing happened with complexity tags when you were extremely and unnecessarily rude to me.

I think you have made a very good point, though and I will change the tag.

Chipv, regardless of who made what decisions, you are now taking this project and running with it.
If i have been rude to you, then i can say i am sorry and it wasn't meant that way, but i also found it very rude that decision appears to be made by people on this site with no consideration given to the map-makers; simply because people like yourself decide to do something (which is good in itself), but you don't bother to consult with anyone before making these gigantic decisions.

I made the maps, i put my time and effort into them, I think i deserve a say in what gets said about the map, and that doesn't appear to happen too often.

Thank you though, for considering the change to the tags.
Perhaps you'd like the discuss this with the rest of the community before taking the decision to make the change.

cairns if you want your tags changed just post them - that IS what this thread is for. It is a consultation and by no means finished, please read it carefully.

What tags do you want on your maps and you shall have them immediately.

This thread IS a consultation and no final decision has been made.

[chipv]

Ok, about to update with all corrections and addition but I do agree with cairns about renaming Naming Confusion - clearly negative.

Naming Challenges has been suggested , perhaps Complex Naming, Similar Names, I don't mind so long as we're all agreed.

[Night Strike]

Complex Naming

It's actually what I was going to type when submitting tags until I saw how you wrote it on your list.

[Incandenza]

My vote would be with Complex Naming, but we need to make sure there's a consistent application thereof, i.e. 3 or more terits with similar names.

[cairnswk]

well look, i really don't agree with complex naming either.
I don't think any map has names that are too complex to follow.
and i'm not just looking at my own maps either.
i still think that "name challenges" is more positive than anything suggested so far.
sorry guys.

[Incandenza]

I don't think any map has names that are too complex to follow.

No, but if the tags are going to serve the intended purpose, it would behoove us to indicate that a player might want to pay more attention to the terit names of, say, Conquer Man or Ardennes or Waterloo than they would need to on Classic. It's a degree of difference between two given terit names thing, i.e. potential confusion of Alaska/Alberta < Derlon 01/Derlon 02. Plus on the aforementioned maps it's a volume issue (not like a one-time Nunavut/Nunavik or that horrible palindrome that used to be on the Philippines map and cost me a game many moons ago).

[chipv]

well look, i really don't agree with complex naming either.
I don't think any map has names that are too complex to follow.
and i'm not just looking at my own maps either.
i still think that "name challenges" is more positive than anything suggested so far.
sorry guys.

Yes, I can see what you mean. I did think about "Advanced Naming" - and then rely on the description to tell the story.

"Challenging Naming" ?

[cairnswk]

I don't think any map has names that are too complex to follow.

No, but if the tags are going to serve the intended purpose, it would behoove us to indicate that a player might want to pay more attention to the terit names of, say, Conquer Man or Ardennes or Waterloo than they would need to on Classic. It's a degree of difference between two given terit names thing, i.e. potential confusion of Alaska/Alberta < Derlon 01/Derlon 02. Plus on the aforementioned maps it's a volume issue (not like a one-time Nunavut/Nunavik or that horrible palindrome that used to be on the Philippines map and cost me a game many moons ago).

But Inca...for goodness sake, our much babying do we have to do with this?
I mean if someone can't make sense of naming challenges as a tag, then are they really able to cope with anything that is on this site. I would like to think that this site offers something that does challenge the brain as i have said, and not everything is going to be rolled out and cotton-wool wrapped for those who are too lazy to make sense and watch what they are doing.

[Incandenza]

I don't think any map has names that are too complex to follow.

No, but if the tags are going to serve the intended purpose, it would behoove us to indicate that a player might want to pay more attention to the terit names of, say, Conquer Man or Ardennes or Waterloo than they would need to on Classic. It's a degree of difference between two given terit names thing, i.e. potential confusion of Alaska/Alberta < Derlon 01/Derlon 02. Plus on the aforementioned maps it's a volume issue (not like a one-time Nunavut/Nunavik or that horrible palindrome that used to be on the Philippines map and cost me a game many moons ago).

But Inca...for goodness sake, our much babying do we have to do with this?
I mean if someone can't make sense of naming challenges as a tag, then are they really able to cope with anything that is on this site. I would like to think that this site offers something that does challenge the brain as i have said, and not everything is going to be rolled out and cotton-wool wrapped for those who are too lazy to make sense and watch what they are doing.

Look, in theory, I'm right there with ya. Misdrops by opponents have won me games. But in practice, if there is going to be a tag for "naming confusion" or whatever one wants to call it, then I can see where it should be applied. Remember, this whole system needs to make sense to someone who's just completed their five games and now gets to play on every single map. Hell, all organization of the maps has at least one eye to the new player. So let's cut them a break.

[chipv]

Ok, the database has been updated with Naming Challenges.

Extras include search by multiple tags and country info for map makers

Map and Mapmaker Information

It might be nice to include one example of each tag per map.

[yeti_c]

Conquer 4 - One Way Borders;
Poker Club - Starting Positions / Strategic Resources;

Both of these are way off?!

By your definitions they would be...

Conquer 4 - Double Dipping, Strategic Resources;

Poker Club - Adjusted Territory Bonus, Double Dipping, Strategic Resources, Conquest Gameplay;

(Although I don't classify Poker Club as Conquest - or either as "Strategic Resources".)

C.

[chipv]

Done as well as your other change.

Map and Mapmaker Information

[TeeGee]

When I played Greater China, on too many times to mention get Shanxi and Shaanxi mixed up on deployment or attacks

[cairnswk]

When I played Greater China, on too many times to mention get Shanxi and Shaanxi mixed up on deployment or attacks

Can you read?
EDIT: Too often i get really annoyed about this sort of thing. People have got eyes and some wear glasees for seeing enhancement. I would assume that you would be able to read if you're on this site playing a game that requires you to read.
Stop making excuses for laziness or down-right stupidity!

[TaCktiX]

Cairns, the fact of the matter is that people like to take quick turns, executing their grand strategy in short order after pondering how to do it. Misdeploying because of the difference of an A may be avoidable, but mistakes happen. Knowing what maps have a higher likelihood of mistakes is a REALLY good idea, don't insult people for being lazy idiots when we all screw up.

[cairnswk]

Cairns, the fact of the matter is that people like to take quick turns, executing their grand strategy in short order after pondering how to do it. Misdeploying because of the difference of an A may be avoidable, but mistakes happen. Knowing what maps have a higher likelihood of mistakes is a REALLY good idea, don't insult people for being lazy idiots when we all screw up.

Then if they take quick turns, they should slow them down and read what is on the screen to ensure they get it correct before hitting the attack button, you have that choice to check things and read them, most people just choose not to take that option, therefore i am quite within my right to say read what is on the screen.
As for being lazy idiots...them's your words not mine.

[TeeGee]

When I played Greater China, on too many times to mention get Shanxi and Shaanxi mixed up on deployment or attacks

Can you read?
EDIT: Too often i get really annoyed about this sort of thing. People have got eyes and some wear glasees for seeing enhancement. I would assume that you would be able to read if you're on this site playing a game that requires you to read.
Stop making excuses for laziness or down-right stupidity!

I thought this thread was about maps that could cause confusion. I just stated one where it has happenned to me. I play quickly due to the fact I have many other commitments. It is not up to you to tell me or anyone else on this site what we should be doing.
Middle East map has been put down for naming confusion, yet I play that map all the time without any problems (In fact I can't see any confusion there, but its not my call)
Maybe you need to remove your head from you know where mate.

[MrBenn]

When I played Greater China, on too many times to mention get Shanxi and Shaanxi mixed up on deployment or attacks

I made that mistake, and rarely play the map now.

Cairns, I know that you get frustrated with this sort of thing, but where mistakes are easy to make - as a direct result of territory naming - this has an effect on people's experience of games and their outcomes.

[cairnswk]

When I played Greater China, on too many times to mention get Shanxi and Shaanxi mixed up on deployment or attacks

I made that mistake, and rarely play the map now.

Cairns, I know that you get frustrated with this sort of thing, but where mistakes are easy to make - as a direct result of territory naming - this has an effect on people's experience of games and their outcomes.

Yes, Mr Benn, and their responsibility is to read what is on the screen and stop making excuses.
I can discern the difference between Sanxi and Shaanxi quite clearly.
And I am not saying there shouldn't be something about the possibility of naming challenges on the Gameplay Tags.
Unfortunately, people don't like being told what their own responsibilties are because they like to blame everything but themsleves.
But i'll stop now..since i have my head up my your know where..i might not be able to see anything let alone read.

[MrBenn]

You could apply the same logic to complex attack routes etc... Everything should be clear/explained on the map, but it won't stop people not seeing what's right in front of them

The primary focus for this database, is to help players who are new to each map. In that respect, pointing out to them where they are most likely to make a mistake can only help them pay particular attention to those areas. They'll still have to look and think

[edbeard]

I see it as an indication of something non-standard to alert people new to the map/site

"Naming Challenges" sounds like whoever made the map couldn't figure out how to do it correctly. I would say something like "Non-Standard Naming". And, to call this "complex" in your description doesn't make sense to me. Having S1 and S3 isn't complex. If anything it's the opposite of complex. It's just "non-standard" and could cause mistakes in attacking, deploying and fortifying moreso than if you had Egypt and Middle East next to each other.


Maps I think should have a tag for "Non-Standard Naming" which don't currently

Classic Shapes
Feudal War
Centerscape (until revamp complete)



The whole Shaanxi/Shanxi thing should never have happened. I have so many problems with that map. Honestly, Wisse didn't seem to have a rhyme or reason for anything he did other than just wanting to do it. In fact I think that was the exact reason he gave at one point for having the weird bombardment gimmick.

Remember that there was a similar problem on Phillipines where two territories had almost the exact same names and it was changed. It's something worth having a "tag" about or better yet a full blown explanation in a map description.

[chipv]

Thanks to everyone contributing!

Latest version:

Map and Mapmaker Information

Ok , I have an idea but maybe it's a bit too much but here goes:

Could we collect one example per tag per map where possible?

This would enable me to graphically represent where the tag applies to by plotting highlights on the actual map using the xml coordinates.
This may make it a little clearer, don't know until I do it.

So can people please take some maps each and for the tags listed on the link above, list one example of each.

e.g. for City Mogul we could have

Bombardments: W4,C4

Something like that. If we could do a collective effort like for the tags, this would be great.

[TaCktiX]

The Citadel:

Dead Space: McAlister Field House, Locker Rooms, The Trailers
Killer Neutral Territories: The Parade Deck

And you've got a missing apostrophe on "don't" with the Dead Space description.

[sailorseal]

What are you asking people to do?
Whatever it is I'll do it