Moderator: Cartographers

I guess it comes as no surprise that I disagree. At the very least, it's just as easy to discuss game mechanics over a simple drawing. Usually, it will speed things up quite a bit, as even substantial changes can be done in a matter of minutes without the need for specialized tools.natty_dread wrote:You don't need to have "pretty" graphics, you just need to have a working draft that is clear and readable. It's hard to discuss gameplay over a pencil-scribble.
I can see how having territory names and a legend makes sense for comlplex or large maps (lots of territores that aren't uniform -like real world maps). In that case it's sensible to name the various objects being discussed.natty_dread wrote:A working draft is a draft that has a working gameplay. It needs to have territory names for all territories and a legend that explains all bonuses and special rules. You don't need to draw the final graphics, although it is considered a plus if your draft also demonstrates your ability to create passable graphics, especially when you're a new mapmaker.
Ah. I see what you're saying. Since your big brothers bullied you when you were little, it's only reasonable that you inflict the same kind of torment on your new kid brother.natty_dread wrote:Experienced mapmakers (those who have succesfully quenched at least one map) are given a bit more leeway in this, because they have already established that they can create graphics that match CC's standards. I know it seems unfair to you now, but remember that we have all been new mapmakers too and we have had to go through the same thing.
Well, I clearly am at odds with the foundry, and I think that's a healthy thing. The foundry is what it is, sure, but that doesn't mean that it's all that it could be. Unless you're religious, there's no such thing as perfection, and everything can be improved upon. If we all just went about our lives thinking 'It is what it is', where would we be?natty_dread wrote:As for the foundry process, it is the best process we can have as long as the foundry is ran by volunteer power. The foundry is what it is. You can either work with it or fight against it, but only one of those ways is likely to get your map anywhere...

Nice. Constructive much?natty_dread wrote:At this point, I gotta say...
BOO FUCKIN HOO.
I don't, and don't care to know.natty_dread wrote:You know how many times I redid the entire graphics of my first (first succesful) map?
I'm glad you've come around on this point.Look, we all know the Foundry is not perfect. It's the best system we have though.
I don't believe I've proposed that you allow any scribble further on down the process without scrutiny and due contemplation.You know how many "drafts" we get every month that are basically nothing but a drunken scribble on a bar napkin? If we would just tell all of them "oh go ahead, do what you want, we don't want to stifle your creative flow" we'd have the gameplay forum literally littered with them. Either way, 99% of them never go anywhere because mapmaker either gets bored or finds out this stuff isn't as easy as he thought it would be.
That's not it at all, no. I want sensible workflow rules that doesn't demand that I waste my time making graphics, as people suddenly think of gameplay changes that could have been easily incorporated before those graphics were made.So you want more freedom in the foundry?
I don't mid that at all. I'm not one to shy away from hard or even tedious work.[mapmaking] is hard, you have to work hard to get your map up to standards, and even so, many times you still won't make it and have to scrap everything and start all over again. When you're a new mapmaker, you very likely have to redo your whole map several times before you get one quenched.
With an opening remark like that, you really wanna compare attitudes? You'll lose any day of the week mate.So either lose the attitude and start working with us, [...]
I think I've already made my choice clear.show that you have what it takes to become a mapmaker. Or, let's just say goodbye now. It's ok, not everyone has to be a mapmaker. It's a pain in the ass a lot of the time, and all you get out of it are some imaginary medals. And praise and respect sometimes, but hey, praise and respect won't feed your family. So anyway, your choice.

If that's the truth, you're simply not even trying. If you put together the map with the explanations I posted alongside, I like to think there's little room for confusion. Even though my esteem for the admin could be higher, I have a hard time imagining you got that blue color without having the capability for such a trivial exercise of the mind.isaiah40 wrote:To be honest here, I can't make heads or tails of your pencil scribbles. If you would do a rough computer generated draft I, for one, would be able to make sense of it. Without it, I'm sorry but there isn't much for me to comment on.
As for the comment about doing the graphics first, if you do the graphics first and get them looking all pretty and such, and then you get into the gameplay, they will have to be changed to fit the gameplay. That is why we have you do the gameplay first and do the graphics around the gameplay so that when you get into graphics it will (in most cases) just be doing the nitpicky things.
Yes, I'll agree that this may be inevitable in some situations. But as you clearly state yourself, agreeing on the gameplay before anything else should limit these situations to the very rarest of cases.Sometimes, mapmakers have had to do a complete graphics overhaul at this stage, just ask RedBaron0 about his Japan map.
It might, but at what cost to the mapmaker? I posit that we will have more maps done when the mapmaker doesn't have to redo graphics on grounds of gameplay issues, which might have been resolved with a scribble like mine.What you will find is that a lot of your graphics make the gameplay clearer, not the other way around.
So your argument is that nations around the world should continue warring because that's how it's been done since humankind has been around?When you are in the gameplay forum, you will be discussing BOTH graphics AND gameplay. This is how it works, and has worked since pretty much CC has been around.
Again, you do not.That is why we have the discussion of gameplay BEFORE graphics not the other way around.
I'm positive that you and everyone else here, are fully capable of commenting on my sketch. When you chose not to, it stems from completely other reasons than incomprehensibility or illegibility.So please don't get upset with us in asking you to do a rough computer generated image (not scanning in your sketch) so we can comment on it and give you more ideas and suggestions.
True, I've seen nothing to the contrary. Except perhaps a couple who have a tendency to express themselves like drill sergeants. Volunteers often have a hard time coping with people who order them "Now do this, then do that!".You will find that we all are easy to get along with when you give good reasons as to why you won't use ideas or suggestions.
I have not ever said that I wasn't going to do it (the graphics). I've said that I'm not going to do it NOW - not before we've significantly homed in on the gameplay.If you have a good reason for why you did something a certain way, then no problem. But telling us that you are not going to do that way is not the way to start. Get it done and then we can get this idea going. I personally think it is a good idea, I just need to see something that I can make sense of.
No, by all means, let's keep them slaving under ridiculous rules.natty_dread wrote:Ok, at this point, I'm not even telling this to you, so you don't have to bother to respond, I'm just posting this so other potential new mapmakers who might be following this thread do not get the wrong idea.
Territory names: aw shucks.This is fine for a sketch, but it's not something that would be moved to gameplay. In order to make it to gameplay, a draft must fulfill certain requirements, which are territory names, bonus area names, legend that explains all the rules of the map. In other words, you must have a working draft. One that you could play a game on. It doesn't have to be pretty. It does have to be legible. What we have here does not satisfy any of these requirements.
Please, if you can't make out the gameplay from the first couple of posts I made, you're the idiot.Even an idiot can see the reasons for these requirements: it is common courtesy towards those who come to the gameplay workshop and have to evaluate and comment on gameplay. Designing gameplay is hard enough, but if you can't figure out the current gameplay because the map looks like it was drawn by a drunken monkey, then those people will have twice as hard time doing their job.
So on the one hand there's people who come by every now and then to complain about the requirements - but still no-one has a problem with them? You see the problem with that argument, I'm sure.Finally, Riskismy, this part is for you: we get guys like you now and then. You stroll in like you own the place, start demanding that the process - a process which no one else has any problems following - be bent and twisted to accommodate your needs, [...]
I have listened to what advice and feedback that has pertained to gameplay, and the only part I'm fighting is this de-facto rule of graphics before gameplay.[...] fight against every part of the process, don't listen to anyone's advice or feedback... 100% of the time, those people's maps never go anywhere.
If you don't think I've gotten anywhere yet, you're sadly mistaken.So you can fight the windmills as much as you like, but it will never get you anywhere.
Lol, no it is not. It looks like something a drunken monkey scribbled with his own fecies, and I'm hesitant to say this because it's sort of offensive to drunken monkeys. I'm sure they could produce much better art than this piece of illegible crap.Riskismy wrote: My sketch is both legible and just as playable as any map moved from the drafting room.
Riskismy wrote:Please, if you can't make out the gameplay from the first couple of posts I made, you're the idiot.
How about some respect for the mapmakers and their time? Forcing these silly requirement on them is simply a big, warm glop of spittle in their eye.


thenobodies80 wrote:Now please draw something using a graphic software and we can start to work to improve/balance the map.
Sully wrote:Just give a graphical draft a shot, I, as well as the Cartographers are here to help you through this process.
natty_dread wrote:Show us that you have talent for something other than drunken bar napking scribbles, and we will be glad to support you and give you all the help you need with your map.
So how about it guys? I'm playing nice, time for a treat, no?isaiah40 wrote:Get it done and then we can get this idea going. I personally think it is a good idea, I just need to see something that I can make sense of.