To the best of my knowledge, that policy is under no threat at all, but I'm starting to wonder if it might be in the future if continued maps of the same places keep getting made.
To me, it's quite simple. I make maps people want me to make. I don't push a map if there's no support at all, but if there's any people who give me positive feedback - showing to me that there's a "market" for the map - I will continue to make it.
I find Soviet Union confusing as hell
Oh? I find it simple, and I like it. Good for escalating.
You're doing something I think will be different in terms of gameplay and I'm starting to ask myself whether or not that should be used on yet another map of Europe, why not pioneer in some of the geographical areas unexplored on CC?
You know, I could make a map pack out of this: a new series of different kind of rail maps. However I want to make the orient express the first of the series (if there will be a series that is) as I feel the orient express is a "legendery" rail line, one which is well known and is often associated with exotic adventures, romance, movies... I feel it has certainly earned a place among CC rail maps.
In general, I personally do like this map but I think you're going to have to garner a lot of support to make the 8th map of Europe. I expect if this map goes through, a number of foundry regulars are going to resist it. My aim in posting was to prevent such a clash in the future before you become too invested with the map.
I don't make maps for "foundry regulars". Frankly if the players like the map then I don't give a flying fudgesicle what the foundry regulars... erm, let me rephrase this. As long as the map has support, I'm well prepared to the opposition it will likely face. However, I already converted one guy who was certain he never wanted to see any more europe maps made (see a few posts back). So I'm living in the hope that my map will eventually win even the skeptics over.
I don't expect the policy of "if you make it we'll host it" to change anytime in the near future, or at least I haven't been given any indication of such a change. But I think we as mapmakers need to be cautious of pushing it too far.
Generally I agree, but once again, the players should be the final judge of that. If the players want a map for playing then I say let them have it. If not... well, we'll burn that bridge when we cross it
And I like your addition of the poll. I think every mapmaker ought to have a general support gauge before starting a map as the results can be both humbling and enlightening.
Thank you. Generally, I feel the foundry polls have limited useability, since relatively small portion of CC even reads the foundry... however in cases such as this they can be used to give a sort-of indicator of support.
My next course of action will depend on the poll results. Meanwhile... should the non-playable land have texture?
