Is the MeltingPot taking time away from the rest of the Foundry?

[porkenbeans]

I'll just refer you back to the visual perception argument.


--Andy

Yes, peoples perceptions is in my opinion what IS more important. If there is some sort of flaw in the gameplay, ANY MAP CAN BE FIXED WHEN IT COMES TO THE GAMEPLAY. Making it on the face LESS IMPORTANT. Not UNimportant. It is vital in the make up of a good map. If you are a good nuts and bolts guy, you should be able to fix what needs to be fixed, and this IS important, but face it, Its the lines on the Corvette that sells it.

[yeti_c]

but face it, Its the lines on the Corvette that sells it.

Disagree - it's the lack of its ability to go round corners that DOESN'T sell it...

C.

PS - having said that they've finally sorted this out in the latest version apparently.

[natty dread]

Gameplay is important, graphics are also important to a lesser degree, now quit bickering about it...

[porkenbeans]

Gameplay is important, graphics are also important to a lesser degree, now quit bickering about it...

This discussion keeps bringing me back to automobile analogies. One last one and and I am done.

There will always be the Gear-heads that mainly care about the nuts and bolts. And, there will always be the rest that care more about the lines, and the spit and polish.

Both think that their likes are what is "IMPORTANT".

The fact is- The spit and polish folks, will always outnumber the Gear-heads. That is NOT to say that the nuts and bolts are NOT more important.

But in the end, Any Car Company will tell you The most important thing to them is "units sold". So to them, There are more spit and polish customers than Gear-heads. Besides, We all know that any good Gear-head worth his salt, can soup-up a Vega or Pinto piece of crap, and win at the track.

[yeti_c]

You've also missed the main beauty of making Gameplay before GFX, which I would've thought you might be interested in, it means that less graphically talented people can make a map easier...

They can get the map into the Graphics Foundry with it's Gameplay stamp - then get a Graphical artist to pick it up and prettify it... This was the only way I could get a map completed here... and I managed it when it was harder to do...

If you saw the way Edbeard created his "Land & Sea" map - this followed the exact same prinicipal... (I've a feeling his Drug War map did too)

Opening the ability to make maps to the larger populace should go some way to dispelling the elitism finger pointers.

C.

[captainwalrus]

I would much rather have a nice map gameplay wise that is lacking in graphics than a nice looking map with a few gameplay issues. If a map has bad gameplay it fust isn't fun. CC maps aren't art, they are meant to be played on, not just admired.
That is just my thoughts though.

[porkenbeans]

You've also missed the main beauty of making Gameplay before GFX, which I would've thought you might be interested in, it means that less graphically talented people can make a map easier...

They can get the map into the Graphics Foundry with it's Gameplay stamp - then get a Graphical artist to pick it up and prettify it... This was the only way I could get a map completed here... and I managed it when it was harder to do...

If you saw the way Edbeard created his "Land & Sea" map - this followed the exact same prinicipal... (I've a feeling his Drug War map did too)

Opening the ability to make maps to the larger populace should go some way to dispelling the elitism finger pointers.

C.

But for me, its the other way around. I am an artist, and a bit shy on experience with the nuts and bolts. So why should I be penalized, just to make it easier for non-talented artists to be able to make a map ? It is like I said before, Different people have different ways in which they create, Telling a map maker how he must create, and in what order he must proceed, is contrary to the whole creative process. Since you are admittedly NOT an artist, I can understand how it is, that you do not know this.

And as for the "elitism" comment, I think you have gone to bolster the other side of your argument. You see, All newcomers will undoubtedly have zero experience in gameplay, and maybe only some experience in graphic art. If you can follow simple logic, you will understand that the new structure helps to consolidate power for the "Elite". Their only competition is going to come from artists.

[captainwalrus]

You've also missed the main beauty of making Gameplay before GFX, which I would've thought you might be interested in, it means that less graphically talented people can make a map easier...

They can get the map into the Graphics Foundry with it's Gameplay stamp - then get a Graphical artist to pick it up and prettify it... This was the only way I could get a map completed here... and I managed it when it was harder to do...

If you saw the way Edbeard created his "Land & Sea" map - this followed the exact same prinicipal... (I've a feeling his Drug War map did too)

Opening the ability to make maps to the larger populace should go some way to dispelling the elitism finger pointers.

C.

But for me, its the other way around. I am an artist, and a bit shy on experience with the nuts and bolts. So why should I be penalized, just to make it easier for non-talented artists to be able to make a map ? It is like I said before, Different people have different ways in which they create, Telling a map maker how he must create, and in what order he must proceed, is contrary to the whole creative process. Since you are admittedly NOT an artist, I can understand how it is, that you do not know this.

You shouldn't have to make especially original maps gameplay wise, but you can't just ignore gameplay. It still needs to be high quality. It can't be unfair or unbalanced at all, it has to be set up so that it plays differently every time. If the gameplay is bad, it is a bad map. If it isn't designed so that it is fun to play, it won't be.

[Evil DIMwit]

And as for the "elitism" comment, I think you have gone to bolster the other side of your argument. You see, All newcomers will undoubtedly have zero experience in gameplay, and maybe only some experience in graphic art.

I don't see that that's necessarily true. There are plenty of other places for people to gain game design skills and familiarity with strategy. Surely, to me, gameplay comes naturally easier than graphics.

[porkenbeans]

And as for the "elitism" comment, I think you have gone to bolster the other side of your argument. You see, All newcomers will undoubtedly have zero experience in gameplay, and maybe only some experience in graphic art.

I don't see that that's necessarily true. There are plenty of other places for people to gain game design skills and familiarity with strategy. Surely, to me, gameplay comes naturally easier than graphics.

How many new people have game play experience in creating CC type maps ?

[SuicidalSnowman]

personally, i rarely add anything to a map after it gets out of drafts, mainly because I just don't know enough to see what needs changed. I've expanded into gameplay and graphics a bit after a little more experience, and I commented when The Hive made it to final forge, but I didn't add anything to the map. Perhaps the reason there aren't any extra comments is that people who are comfortable posting in the main foundry process feel that they've contributed what they can and/or don't see any glaring details to comment on?

Same for me. My useful input really is gone after a map exits the melting pot. So I generally can only offer input on the initial designs, after that I basically stop by to say, "Hey, looks good, still watching!"

[sully800]

It is much more important for a map to play well than it is for a map to look spectacular. Of course a map must look sufficiently nice so as not to detract from the gameplay and the be easily understood, but beyond that all graphical touches are just icing, and often very subjective (not everyone can ever agree on what looks best).

If you develop a great looking map that is fundamentally flawed in gameplay, no one will be interested in playing it. And if the graphics were determined from the gameplay, then the cartographer will be very reluctant to redo the time on the graphics to fix what should have been done originally.

No one is trying to say that commenting on gameplay is more important than commenting on graphics. If users would prefer to comment on graphics that is fine and they should be expected to do just that. BUT it is important to sort out the gameplay before fine tuning the graphics (assuming the artist doesn't want to waste hours of work every time a gameplay issue is brought up).

As for the car analogy - I'm more likely to buy a car based on looks than engine specs, sure. But that is partially because I assume the engine will be in working order. If I buy the car and the engine doesn't function correctly I will not be a satisfied customer. Hence, users might initially play the maps that they think look nice. But they are going to keep playing the maps that play the best.

[sully800]

Sure it's extreme, but it's still an option.

It's not going to happen in the immediate future, but it's something I'd consider if people continue to focus on undeveloped ideas instead of helping to keep maps moving

In my opinion, it's not only extreme, it's counter to the spirit of developing maps which have community support.

If a map moves on in the Foundry, but people stop commenting on it, I think it means one of two things: the map is not really interesting, and it should be binned, or the map has no problems to be fixed, and it should move on to the next stage. The problem is, how do you tell which is which?

But to block activity in the Melting Pot because too many people find it to be the most interesting part of the Foundry? I can only quote the doctor speaking at the end of "The Bridge On The River Kwai": "Madness, madness..."

As for the actual topic, I fully agree with ender's comment. If a map is not receiving comments either it is ready to move on or it should be scrapped due to lack of interest. If no maps in a certain area of the foundry receive comments than it is likely a problem with the forum arrangement and not the maps themselves (I'm not trying to say that this is currently the case, but simply the only alternative I can see to the move/scrap ultimatum).

[porkenbeans]

It is much more important for a map to play well than it is for a map to look spectacular. Of course a map must look sufficiently nice so as not to detract from the gameplay and the be easily understood, but beyond that all graphical touches are just icing, and often very subjective (not everyone can ever agree on what looks best).

If you develop a great looking map that is fundamentally flawed in gameplay, no one will be interested in playing it. And if the graphics were determined from the gameplay, then the cartographer will be very reluctant to redo the time on the graphics to fix what should have been done originally.

No one is trying to say that commenting on gameplay is more important than commenting on graphics. If users would prefer to comment on graphics that is fine and they should be expected to do just that. BUT it is important to sort out the gameplay before fine tuning the graphics (assuming the artist doesn't want to waste hours of work every time a gameplay issue is brought up)

As for the car analogy - I'm more likely to buy a car based on looks than engine specs, sure. But that is partially because I assume the engine will be in working order. If I buy the car and the engine doesn't function correctly I will not be a satisfied customer. Hence, users might initially play the maps that they think look nice. But they are going to keep playing the maps that play the best.

[porkenbeans]

It is much more important for a map to play well than it is for a map to look spectacular. Of course a map must look sufficiently nice so as not to detract from the gameplay and the be easily understood, but beyond that all graphical touches are just icing, and often very subjective (not everyone can ever agree on what looks best).

If you develop a great looking map that is fundamentally flawed in gameplay, no one will be interested in playing it. And if the graphics were determined from the gameplay, then the cartographer will be very reluctant to redo the time on the graphics to fix what should have been done originally.

No one is trying to say that commenting on gameplay is more important than commenting on graphics. If users would prefer to comment on graphics that is fine and they should be expected to do just that. BUT it is important to sort out the gameplay before fine tuning the graphics (assuming the artist doesn't want to waste hours of work every time a gameplay issue is brought up).

As for the car analogy - I'm more likely to buy a car based on looks than engine specs, sure. But that is partially because I assume the engine will be in working order. If I buy the car and the engine doesn't function correctly I will not be a satisfied customer. Hence, users might initially play the maps that they think look nice. But they are going to keep playing the maps that play the best.

I agree with everything you have said here sully. What needs to be realized also, is that The majority of people do NOT have much expertise in the fine points of "gameplay" issues. So, just because a map fails to receive very much feedback in the nuts and bolts phase, it does NOT mean that it does not have support. It does not mean that you need to close down the melting pot. That would only be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. It makes absolutely no sense at all. You can NOT force people to offer feedback in a subject that for what ever reason, just does NOT interest them.

[AndyDufresne]

So, just because a map fails to receive very much feedback in the nuts and bolts phase, it does NOT mean that it does not have support. It does not mean that you need to close down the melting pot. That would only be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. It makes absolutely no sense at all. You can NOT force people to offer feedback in a subject that for what ever reason, just does NOT interest them.

And to that point, just because a map DOES get feedback, doesn't mean it does have enough support. This is something new cartographers often do not know how to assess---how much is enough, and often continue going too long on projects that are of little interest to the general population.


--Andy

[SuicidalSnowman]

You know, reading this I initially thought, "Close down the Melting Pot, that is preposterous!!!"

But then I kind of thought some more, and it a sense it might have some potential.

I think it is good that the Foundry now requires the official "Design Brief" and the fortnightly review periods. A lot of times deadlines are very effective. They help keep people on task and motivated. Also, sometimes deadlines have been shown (anecdotal) to foster creativity. There is nothing like that "last minute panic" to get some words to paper.

Let's take it the next step, and say ONLY ONE part of the foundry is open at a time. Think about it, it will get everyone in the community looking at, and working on, the maps in that part. There will be more feedback. We will hear more opinions. Theoretically, this will make the final forge a quicker step, since everything should have been looked over pretty well.

Also, it will get map makers to get stuff ready in time, and then, if their map is not ready to move on, they can work in peace and quiet to get the other parts ready while the rest of the foundry cycles on, and then have something ready to for unveiling next time around.

Even if only the Melting Pot was open, you would have answered, much quicker, the question of, "Does CC at large need/want this map?"

Just some thoughts I thought. Please don't bite my head off. I don't make maps, and don't want to tell you guys what works best for you. I am just throwing out there that closing parts of the Foundry could be effective, especially in dealing with the larger community commenting issues. It is probably worth further consideration.

[porkenbeans]

You know, reading this I initially thought, "Close down the Melting Pot, that is preposterous!!!"

But then I kind of thought some more, and it a sense it might have some potential.

I think it is good that the Foundry now requires the official "Design Brief" and the fortnightly review periods. A lot of times deadlines are very effective. They help keep people on task and motivated. Also, sometimes deadlines have been shown (anecdotal) to foster creativity. There is nothing like that "last minute panic" to get some words to paper.

Let's take it the next step, and say ONLY ONE part of the foundry is open at a time. Think about it, it will get everyone in the community looking at, and working on, the maps in that part. There will be more feedback. We will hear more opinions. Theoretically, this will make the final forge a quicker step, since everything should have been looked over pretty well.

Also, it will get map makers to get stuff ready in time, and then, if their map is not ready to move on, they can work in peace and quiet to get the other parts ready while the rest of the foundry cycles on, and then have something ready to for unveiling next time around.

Even if only the Melting Pot was open, you would have answered, much quicker, the question of, "Does CC at large need/want this map?"

Just some thoughts I thought. Please don't bite my head off. I don't make maps, and don't want to tell you guys what works best for you. I am just throwing out there that closing parts of the Foundry could be effective, especially in dealing with the larger community commenting issues. It is probably worth further consideration.

I like you snowman, and your posts are usually pretty levelheaded, but I am afraid that you have missed the mark here. Your solution would only turn more people off, from visiting the Foundry. As it is now, I see only 5 or 6 people that visit the Foundry every day, and comment on numerous maps. Then there are the dozen or so that, while loyal Foundry goers, do not visit every day, and do not comment on more than a map or two.

What we like to call the "Foundry Community", is actually just a small group of established map makers mixed with a few upstart map makers, and only an even smaller number of people like you, that like to come and offer opinions on maps that they are interested in.

We need more, MUCH more people like you, that do not have a dog in the race, and are here for no other reason but to help, by offering their honest observations, opinions, and suggestions.

When the Foundry shut down for a time, I thought, yea, maybe we will see an improved Foundry process emerge. One that has addressed the concerns of people that had been debating back and forth for the last couple of months. While I applaud the time and effort, I do not really see any of the items that were the main contention of most arguments, addressed.

If this new Foundry structure can bring in more people like you snowman, and can expand the Foundry to include a more CC representative Foundry, Then I will welcome these changes. But to be honest, I am not predicting a stampede to our door.

[AndyDufresne]

Perhaps all these discussions deserve a split.

In any case---just so you are all aware (as I am sure many of you old ladies and gentleman are), these have all been the questions that the Foundry has tried to answer since it was created.

So I don't expect anyone to "figure out the right answer"


--Andy

[RjBeals]

Foundry works fine.. just the people in it need a revamp.

[SuicidalSnowman]

Pork, don't apologize for not agreeing with my idea. I was just throwing it out there.

If the concern is getting people in, I know that recently I have looked at Blitz's map because he PM'd the people who had previously commented. Also, I click on maps in signatures quite frequently. Thinking of Natty's, IH, I think Cairns off the top of my head. Maybe those will help?

[porkenbeans]

Pork, don't apologize for not agreeing with my idea. I was just throwing it out there.

If the concern is getting people in, I know that recently I have looked at Blitz's map because he PM'd the people who had previously commented. Also, I click on maps in signatures quite frequently. Thinking of Natty's, IH, I think Cairns off the top of my head. Maybe those will help?

Getting more people in would be an excellent place to start. I believe that, that would be a shot in the arm for the Foundry.

[the.killing.44]

Redundancy was invented at McGill University for the purpose of Foundry debates c. 2008.

[captainwalrus]

Redundancy was invented at McGill University for the purpose of Foundry debates c. 2008.

It was quite a bit before that, I would presume.

[the.killing.44]

Redundancy was invented at McGill University for the purpose of Foundry debates c. 2008.

It was quite a bit before that, I would presume.

But this is the Foundry-style, "we should have more members" kind.