The Foundry: Problems & Solutions

[Riskismy]

Hey,

I recently had a hizzy-fit here.
Though I admit I used language that isn't warranted by the situation, it was largely due to the condescending attitude and insults by natty_dread, and I think I have valid concerns. I've been asked to post them here, and I'll try to make them clear in the following.

I'd like to start with the rules themselves, and then move on to how these rules are enforced. I will be quoting from this thread, which is the only real source I've been able to find. If there are other, more clear and/or offical sources, I posit that they need to be displayed much more prominently.

I'm at odds in particular with how a map starts it life. Unless I'm much mistaken, the initial progression of a map through the foundry is as follows:
1) Map Ideas, which is "a place to discuss possible maps, or to develop your own idea before posting a draft."
The caption on the forum itself is "Have an idea for a map? Discuss ideas and concepts here."

2) Drafting Room is the parent forum of 'Map Ideas', and is "where a mapmaker posts the first visual implementation of a map, and gameplay is developed into something playable. Many drafts never reach the next stage, but when a map seems as if it's going somewhere, and meets certain requirements, it will be stickied. Once a map advances beyond a rough draft and graphics work has begun plus the map meets another set of requirements, it receives the Draft Stamp."
The caption reads: "Map suggestions, ideas and drafts... They all start life on the Drawing Board. "

This is an unnecessary obfuscation of the process. Note how the explanations on each forum are almost identical.
The distinction between these two fora might be clear to people who have been here a long time, but to someone new these fora are all but identical. Even if the latter has mention of a 'visual representation', my hizzy fit (above), is clear evidence that graphics has to be much more than a 'representation' before the veterans will even comment on it. There are no clear distinction between what constitutes an idea and what constitutes a draft, and it's confusing to the newcomer who really has no clue what is expected of him in each forum.

Further, the phrasing about the drafting room is very unfortunate and unclear in my eyes. What does it mean that "graphics work has begun"? It's anyone guess, until someone like natty comes along and points out that your sketch could have been done better by a monkey with its own feces. Then, a map has to become 'stickied' (which has no clear significance), by "seeming as if it's going somewhere, and meeting certain requirements". What are the requirement, I ask.
Then, to rub salt in the wound, it simply states that maps has to "meet another set of requirements" to move on, at which an explanation is never even attempted.

These two problems - that the two fora are identical (or seemingly so) and that no newbee could hope to know what is expected of his draft - are quite severe and I believe they are a major contributor to so many projects ending up abandoned. New cartographers simply get disheartened and confused by the unclear expectations.

To solve this problem, I propose that either forum is merged with the other. In my eyes there simply is no need for two forums that serves the same purpose. Furthermore, an experienced mapmaker should sit down and work out a very clear and concise set of rules which would explain at what point the map would be moved on to the gameplay forum. These rules should be very precise in their formulation of how specific the map must be in the areas of graphics and gameplay.

Strongly related to these rules are of course the enforcement of them, and this pertains to all stages of the map. I've been reading the entire Foundry Forum diligently for maybe a couple of weeks now, and each and every day I slap my forehead in exasperation, reading lengthy discussions of tiny, insignificant details on graphics in both the gameplay and drafitng room. Likewise there's extensive discussion of gameplay in the graphics forum, extending way into XMl and final forge.

Now, I get that these are overlapping issues and you can't separate them entirely, but I find it especially problematic and prolific with graphics discussions in the gameplay forum. It simply offends my sense of order as it should anyone who puts on his socks before his shoes.
It's detrimental to any process to mingle up the various steps, and downright stupid when you've taken the time to actually define these steps (even if those definitions are just adding to the confusion).
To solve this problem, I respectfully ask that the admin step up and stop the untimely addressing of issues that aren't at hand, and I urge the mapmakers to reject the early interference of people who address their own feelings of inadequacy, by demanding changes to 'graphics' that need be nothing more than schematics.

Finally, I find that in order for a map to be promoted through the process "the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.", is prone to nepotism and exclusion on grounds of personal bias of a few people.
Considering that less than 1% of the members frequent the foundry, and that even less actually make their opinions know, it's complete idiocy to think that the feedback (e.i. personal preferences) of these few people should be any indication of how popular the map will be.
Even if it did, I posit that whether a map is deemed (through personal bias), to see a lot of action or not, is not the best criteria for promoting a map at all. The paramount concern here is whether or not the mapmaker has made it clear that he is prepared to spend the time required to see the map through the process. Whether this will be a long time or a short time is of no concern to the end product and certainly not to how popular the map will be. CC should be as all-encompassing as possible, and I for one find it perfectly acceptable that a map only appeals to a niche of the members. I see plenty of people who plays only a very limited set of maps, and while I don't understand why, I respect their choice to do so. Their enjoyment of a few maps are of no less value than mine is of a lot of them.

Well, I guess this should get the ball rolling. If not, nothing short of another hizzy fit will

Please, let's keep it clean and to the point.
Thanks for your time.

[natty dread]

viewtopic.php?f=127&t=139971

[natty dread]

You seem to make lots of assumptions here, and leaps to conclusions.

These two problems - that the two fora are identical (or seemingly so) and that no newbee could hope to know what is expected of his draft - are quite severe and I believe they are a major contributor to so many projects ending up abandoned. New cartographers simply get disheartened and confused by the unclear expectations.

According to my experience, this is not the case. The major reason for new mapmakers abandoning their projects is that they get bored, or frustrated because they realize that mapmaking is harder than what they expected it to be, that it requires much more work than they anticipated.

Most people seem to understand the distinction between the Drafts & Ideas forums quite well. As for what is expected of a draft, there's an announcement thread in the Drafting room which explains it.

To solve this problem, I propose that either forum is merged with the other. In my eyes there simply is no need for two forums that serves the same purpose. Furthermore, an experienced mapmaker should sit down and work out a very clear and concise set of rules which would explain at what point the map would be moved on to the gameplay forum. These rules should be very precise in their formulation of how specific the map must be in the areas of graphics and gameplay.

Merging the forums has been tried. You probably don't realize how many map ideas we get that are basically "hurr durr, let's make a map about a spaghetti plate, durrr." Keeping the actual drafts separate from the idea threads makes it easier to find the drafts which are already being developed, and which require the most attention. With merged forums, all the drafts which are hoping to get feedback were getting lost under the mountain of map ideas.

As for a "clear and concise" set of rules, we already have it. Of course, applying a rigid universal standard to all maps is impossible. Each map (and mapmaker) is different, and requires different kind of attention. There are lots of people willing to help new mapmakers about these things, and inform new mapmakers of what is required to proceed further in the Foundry.

I've been reading the entire Foundry Forum diligently for maybe a couple of weeks now, and each and every day I slap my forehead in exasperation, reading lengthy discussions of tiny, insignificant details on graphics in both the gameplay and drafitng room. Likewise there's extensive discussion of gameplay in the graphics forum, extending way into XMl and final forge.

Well, I've been reading (and working in) the Foundry for maybe ~75 weeks now, give or take, and while there certainly have been moments of exasperation, overall my experience has been a positive one. There are no "insignificant" details. All the things that are discussed in the foundry may seem like nitpicking to you, but it only takes place because the foundry encourages mapmakers to do their very best. It is, after all, a peer-review system. Criticism and feedback are absolutely vital to the process. Sometimes, mapmakers are forced to make drastic changes, even rehauling the whole map from scratch, and every time you are faced with such an ordeal, it may feel a bit frustrating. But every map has been a lot better in the end because of it. That's why the system works.

It's detrimental to any process to mingle up the various steps, and downright stupid when you've taken the time to actually define these steps (even if those definitions are just adding to the confusion).

I dispute this. For example, let's take foreplay. You could analyze it and separate it into concise segments, like first base, second base, etc. And then proceed with your girlfriend/wife/kissing cousin according to a rigidly scheduled plan, but I bet you all your money that your partner would not be too pleased with that. Instead, you have to mingle the steps, back and forth, according to the feedback you get - you need to be able to read your partner and adapt to the situation.

Mapmaking is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman.

In actuality though, it's pretty much nothing like that. But the analogy is apt, either way.

Finally, I find that in order for a map to be promoted through the process "the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.", is prone to nepotism and exclusion on grounds of personal bias of a few people.

Yes, only a small part of CC frequents the Foundry. However, that is never going to change, and there is no better way to assess the popularity of maps than gauging it on the Foundry. After all, opinions are polled much the same way: they take a small sample of a larger population, and extrapolate from that. Who's to say that the people who frequent the foundry are not an accurate sample of the whole of CC?

And yes, there's no point in making a map that no one wants to play. We have a lot of maps. At this point, some standards have to be set for new maps. Personally, I think all new maps should provide something unique and innovative.

[Riskismy]

Thanks for the response natty. I see your point here and there, but it should come as no surprise that I don't agree with most. It's late hereabouts, though, so I'll reply in full tomorrow.

Thanks again

[Riskismy]

These two problems - that the two fora are identical (or seemingly so) and that no newbee could hope to know what is expected of his draft - are quite severe and I believe they are a major contributor to so many projects ending up abandoned. New cartographers simply get disheartened and confused by the unclear expectations.

According to my experience, this is not the case. The major reason for new mapmakers abandoning their projects is that they get bored, or frustrated because they realize that mapmaking is harder than what they expected it to be, that it requires much more work than they anticipated.

While that may very well be the major reason why maps are abandoned, my claim is that unclear expectations and two similar fora are contributing to this.

Most people seem to understand the distinction between the Drafts & Ideas forums quite well.

If by 'most people' you mean the usual suspect here in the foundry you're probably right, but I'm talking about new people here. These fora are similar if not in theory, then at least they are in practice, and I think this frustrates new map makers. I think many wonder why that map moves along while this other map doesn't.

As for what is expected of a draft, there's an announcement thread in the Drafting room which explains it.

Thanks, I missed that. It does make it clearer, if not exactly clear.

To solve this problem, I propose that either forum is merged with the other. In my eyes there simply is no need for two forums that serves the same purpose. Furthermore, an experienced mapmaker should sit down and work out a very clear and concise set of rules which would explain at what point the map would be moved on to the gameplay forum. These rules should be very precise in their formulation of how specific the map must be in the areas of graphics and gameplay.

Merging the forums has been tried. You probably don't realize how many map ideas we get that are basically "hurr durr, let's make a map about a spaghetti plate, durrr." Keeping the actual drafts separate from the idea threads makes it easier to find the drafts which are already being developed, and which require the most attention. With merged forums, all the drafts which are hoping to get feedback were getting lost under the mountain of map ideas.

So you have to spend a couple of minutes more getting an overview of what's worth your time, big deal. Merging these fora will eliminate some confusion about the process for newcomers, and if the cost is a tiny bit more time on the veterans' behalf, I really think that's a very good bargain.

Could anyone explain why these fora were merged only to be split again?

As for a "clear and concise" set of rules, we already have it. Of course, applying a rigid universal standard to all maps is impossible. Each map (and mapmaker) is different, and requires different kind of attention. There are lots of people willing to help new mapmakers about these things, and inform new mapmakers of what is required to proceed further in the Foundry.

Again, I don't find them clear and concise at all. They're really quite elastic, and that's not entirely bad. As you say, different strokes for different people.
That said, I think more effort could go into explaining these expectations. You actually do a pretty good job at it in a your recent thread on this very topic. Stuff like that should get into a post like this.

I've been reading the entire Foundry Forum diligently for maybe a couple of weeks now, and each and every day I slap my forehead in exasperation, reading lengthy discussions of tiny, insignificant details on graphics in both the gameplay and drafitng room. Likewise there's extensive discussion of gameplay in the graphics forum, extending way into XMl and final forge.

Well, I've been reading (and working in) the Foundry for maybe ~75 weeks now, give or take, and while there certainly have been moments of exasperation, overall my experience has been a positive one. There are no "insignificant" details. All the things that are discussed in the foundry may seem like nitpicking to you, but it only takes place because the foundry encourages mapmakers to do their very best. It is, after all, a peer-review system. Criticism and feedback are absolutely vital to the process. Sometimes, mapmakers are forced to make drastic changes, even rehauling the whole map from scratch, and every time you are faced with such an ordeal, it may feel a bit frustrating. But every map has been a lot better in the end because of it. That's why the system works.

You missed my point completely. I was addressing the issue of when the foundry address a given issue with a map - not if it should address that issue.

It's detrimental to any process to mingle up the various steps, and downright stupid when you've taken the time to actually define these steps (even if those definitions are just adding to the confusion).

I dispute this. For example, let's take foreplay. You could analyze it and separate it into concise segments, like first base, second base, etc. And then proceed with your girlfriend/wife/kissing cousin according to a rigidly scheduled plan, but I bet you all your money that your partner would not be too pleased with that. Instead, you have to mingle the steps, back and forth, according to the feedback you get - you need to be able to read your partner and adapt to the situation.

Mapmaking is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman.

In actuality though, it's pretty much nothing like that. But the analogy is apt, either way.

Well, I'm not gonna debate the aptness of an analogy between project management and love making.
I will, however, repeat that once you have agreed on the rules, you should adhere to those rules.

Finally, I find that in order for a map to be promoted through the process "the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.", is prone to nepotism and exclusion on grounds of personal bias of a few people.

Yes, only a small part of CC frequents the Foundry. However, that is never going to change, and there is no better way to assess the popularity of maps than gauging it on the Foundry. After all, opinions are polled much the same way: they take a small sample of a larger population, and extrapolate from that. Who's to say that the people who frequent the foundry are not an accurate sample of the whole of CC?

There you go again, thinking that there's 'no better way'. There's always a better way.
When opinions are polled they take down your age, gender, occupation and other such criteria. Only when they have opinions from a broad range of the population are the results considered representative. I think you'll agree that this isn't the case here in the foundry.
Perhaps we could explore ways in which to entice the 'common member' to voice their opinion on the maps under development. Polls and an accompanying lottery or medal might be one way.

And yes, there's no point in making a map that no one wants to play. We have a lot of maps. At this point, some standards have to be set for new maps. Personally, I think all new maps should provide something unique and innovative.

I quite agree. I just don't think that the few opinions voiced here is in any way significantly indicative of whether or not a map will be popular or not.

[natty dread]

While that may very well be the major reason why maps are abandoned, my claim is that unclear expectations and two similar fora are contributing to this.

If by 'most people' you mean the usual suspect here in the foundry you're probably right, but I'm talking about new people here. These fora are similar if not in theory, then at least they are in practice, and I think this frustrates new map makers. I think many wonder why that map moves along while this other map doesn't.

No, I'm saying that even most new people get the idea fairly quickly. You're throwing assumptions again, with nothing to base them on except your own experience. Which, at the moment, is still fairly limited.

I don't think it's the foundry that really frustrates new mapmakers. It's simply the fact that mapmaking is hard, and there's lots of learning involved. A lot of self-teaching is required, which is not suitable for everyone - people learn in very different ways - but there's not much that can be done to fix it: we all try to help new mapmakers as much as we can, within the limitations of our personal schedules... real life often takes a slice of our time, and let's not forget we also have our own maps to make. By we, I mean me, the cartos, and some other more experienced mapmakers.

So you have to spend a couple of minutes more getting an overview of what's worth your time, big deal. Merging these fora will eliminate some confusion about the process for newcomers, and if the cost is a tiny bit more time on the veterans' behalf, I really think that's a very good bargain.

Could anyone explain why these fora were merged only to be split again?

It has been explained before. See this thread viewtopic.php?f=127&t=137827

And yeah, it's easy for you to say "big deal". But you do not seem to understand the implications here. This is not just about convenience for "veterans", it is also for the convenience of the common CC people, those who come in to the foundry to comment on map threads. You know, the very people who you want more opinions from, because you feel that the foundry doesn't accurately represent the opinion of the CC population? If those people have to search for map drafts among millions of spaghetti map idea threads, I can assure you the drafts that really need the attention will be getting a lot less of it.

I was addressing the issue of when the foundry address a given issue with a map - not if it should address that issue.

The problem is, that in mapmaking, there are no clear boundaries. Gameplay, graphics, theme, all need to play together to form a consistent whole. To achieve this, a rigid and unflexible environment would be counter-productive.

I will, however, repeat that once you have agreed on the rules, you should adhere to those rules.

What rules are you talking about, exactly?

There you go again, thinking that there's 'no better way'. There's always a better way.

"The perfect should not be the enemy of the good."

Yes, there could be a better way. What I'm saying is, with our current available resources, there's no better way, currently. Not until Lack starts paying all of us real money for what we do.

The current system is flexible, and it actually allows a lot of leeway for mapmakers. But it also ensures that standards are upheld. Balancing these things is not an easy thing, and again considering the available resources, I'd say the Foundry does an adequate job at it.

When opinions are polled they take down your age, gender, occupation and other such criteria. Only when they have opinions from a broad range of the population are the results considered representative. I think you'll agree that this isn't the case here in the foundry.
Perhaps we could explore ways in which to entice the 'common member' to voice their opinion on the maps under development. Polls and an accompanying lottery or medal might be one way.

These ideas are nothing new. I had a lot of similar ideas myself when I was a new mapmaker, you know. I spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to get more people interested in foundry affairs, trying to get more "regular" CC people to offer feedback on map threads.

The thing is though, you can't force people to take an interest. This is a casual gaming site, and lots of people (the majority, I would argue) only come here to have some fun, with some casual games among friends or strangers, and do not care to get more deeply involved in the development and inner workings of the site.

Then, there are people who do care to get involved, but choose to direct their contribution to other areas of the site: SOC, Tournaments, Clans, Suggestions, Forums, Newsletter, Facebook & Twitter... there are so many things competing for attention with the foundry, we should be glad we get as many people here as we do.

I just don't think that the few opinions voiced here is in any way significantly indicative of whether or not a map will be popular or not.

We can't ever be totally sure, and for sure there have been some surprises (positive and negative) along the way. But practical experience has given a lot of us a pretty good eye in gauging interest to certain map projects... and yes, not every map needs to nor will be a super hit. Some are more popular than others, and that is fine, but what we try to do is ensure that maps get made only if there is at least somewhat of interest to see said maps made.

[MrBenn]

You know what, I know things are far from perfect; there's always room for more clarity... these kind of threads actually excite me to some degree, because it shows me that there are (at least a handful of) people around who actually care about how the foundry works. This little corner of CC is where we tinker with things; and when creative people get their heads together, there are often disagreements about the best way to do things - so I'm excited by the debate (even though some of the confusion is down to an absence of clear/central guidance).

The Foundry Handbook that is in the tools/guides forum was only ever a work in progress, and was posted more for information than anything else.... and it is now a bit dated. The forum descriptions could probably be tweaked a little - and again, most of these come from a time when the CAs had nice jolly titles such as "pixelsmith" and "changing rooms"....

Anyway, I think the process is actually pretty straightforward - although I can understand why it may appear to be more complicated at a glance. Partly this is because the life of a map development is much more complex than the life of something like a tournament or bug report. There is work going-on behind the scenes to rewrite and bring some more clarity to the foundry guides... There are lots of other little projects going on too, that we struggle to fit in around our hectic work lives, families and unpaid volunteering time - but we'll get there before too long.

I'm particularly interested to know how you would like things to be explained more clearly...

[Riskismy]

Thanks again for taking my concerns seriously. I do appreciate it.
I still have most of them, though, so I'll be returning yet gain tomorrow - along with a suggestion or two more on clarity.

[kengyin]

, it was largely due to the condescending attitude and insults by natty_dread, and I think I have valid concerns.

i beg to differ, natty_dread has helped me lots with my map dispite having so many of his/her own projects to look after

[Riskismy]

I don't think it's the foundry that really frustrates new mapmakers. It's simply the fact that mapmaking is hard, and there's lots of learning involved.

Well, I'm living proof that the foundry process is frustrating and confusing. I consider myself of average intelligence, and most newcomers here will necessarily share that trait with me. The process is without a doubt confusing to some, and I put to you that it wouldn't require much to lessen that confusion. More on that below.

It [merging and splitting of ideas/draft] has been explained before. See this thread viewtopic.php?f=127&t=137827

Thank you.
MrBenn wrote in that thread:

The big change was moving map threads from the top-level Main Foundry into the Gameplay and Graphics workshops. When I merged the old Drafting Room and Map Ideas subforums, I also introduced the Design Brief - which has never worked as it were intended, and in that respect you're right. The reintroduction of the Drafting Room has been made as an easier way to separate map drafts and ideas with potential from those that have none (ie 'Middle Earth/Star Wars/Nintendo/Sperm Bank/Pencil/Plasagna map anyone?'). Some of the plans in the pipeline relate specifically to this aspect of the foundry.

I understand that there's a point to keeping the silly from the serious. However, I think there's significant room for improvement here, which will also help decrease confusion about the process. See below.

I'd like to add that whatever plans are in the pipeline, they should be discussed in the open to allow input from as many people as possible. There's simply no good reason to keep such plans from the community, and such talks will probably save us all some aggravation in threads like this.

I was addressing the issue of when the foundry address a given issue with a map - not if it should address that issue.

The problem is, that in mapmaking, there are no clear boundaries. Gameplay, graphics, theme, all need to play together to form a consistent whole. To achieve this, a rigid and unflexible environment would be counter-productive.

They need to play together, but at various points in the process and to varying degrees. The boundaries are hazy, but that's all the more reason to explain them well and thoroughly.

I will, however, repeat that once you have agreed on the rules, you should adhere to those rules.

What rules are you talking about, exactly?

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=466&t=81664
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=583&t=105182
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=583&t=105502

Note that these separate threads across two different fora more or less says the same thing, which adds to the confusion.

Yes, there could be a better way. What I'm saying is, with our current available resources, there's no better way, currently. Not until Lack starts paying all of us real money for what we do.

I obviously and again reject that there's no room for improvement, resources limitations or not.
An obvious solution would be to add more resources, i.e. cartographer mods.

The current system is flexible, and it actually allows a lot of leeway for mapmakers. But it also ensures that standards are upheld. Balancing these things is not an easy thing, and again considering the available resources, I'd say the Foundry does an adequate job at it.

The foundry is doing an adequate job, but there's no better way?
I venture that we can guide newcomers better in what is expected of them, all the while keeping the flexibility and map standards.

Perhaps we could explore ways in which to entice the 'common member' to voice their opinion on the maps under development. Polls and an accompanying lottery or medal might be one way.

These ideas are nothing new. I had a lot of similar ideas myself when I was a new mapmaker, you know. I spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to get more people interested in foundry affairs, trying to get more "regular" CC people to offer feedback on map threads.

The thing is though, you can't force people to take an interest. This is a casual gaming site, and lots of people (the majority, I would argue) only come here to have some fun, with some casual games among friends or strangers, and do not care to get more deeply involved in the development and inner workings of the site.

Astonishingly, I know they're nothing new - but have they even been tried out in practise?
I'm not suggesting we force people to do anything - I said 'entice' - that is finding ways to motivate people to come here and give their 2 cents.
Many people love the medals, maybe we can award something like that for participating in the map discussions. I also think having polls with an associated lottery for the people who voted would go a long way towards getting a viable sample.

I just don't think that the few opinions voiced here is in any way significantly indicative of whether or not a map will be popular or not.

We can't ever be totally sure, and for sure there have been some surprises (positive and negative) along the way. But practical experience has given a lot of us a pretty good eye in gauging interest to certain map projects... and yes, not every map needs to nor will be a super hit. Some are more popular than others, and that is fine, but what we try to do is ensure that maps get made only if there is at least somewhat of interest to see said maps made.

I stand by my statement above, and might quote myself from my earlier post:

Finally, I find that in order for a map to be promoted through the process "the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.", is prone to nepotism and exclusion on grounds of personal bias of a few people.
Considering that less than 1% of the members frequent the foundry, and that even less actually make their opinions know, it's complete idiocy to think that the feedback (e.i. personal preferences) of these few people should be any indication of how popular the map will be.
Even if it did, I posit that whether a map is deemed (through personal bias), to see a lot of action or not, is not the best criteria for promoting a map at all. The paramount concern here is whether or not the mapmaker has made it clear that he is prepared to spend the time required to see the map through the process. Whether this will be a long time or a short time is of no concern to the end product and certainly not to how popular the map will be. CC should be as all-encompassing as possible, and I for one find it perfectly acceptable that a map only appeals to a niche of the members. I see plenty of people who plays only a very limited set of maps, and while I don't understand why, I respect their choice to do so. Their enjoyment of a few maps are of no less value than mine is of a lot of them.

Now, as to my specific suggestions:
1) Have a single entry-point for new mapmakers.
You can't make new posts in the graphics or final forge forums and with good reason: There's simply no need. I venture that the same is true of the Drafting room: There's no need for a new mapmaker to be able to post here. Maps should all start in the Ideas forum and only enter the Drafting room when a mod moved it there.
Part of this would be to require a design draft before moving the map to the drafting room. Seems only logical to me.

2) Promote the idea forum
The ideas forum is where maps start the process through the foundry, as such it should be promoted to a top-level forum just like the drafting room and graphics and so forth. The forum should clearly state that this is where you start. Something like "If you would like to make a new map, go here".

3) Review and re-organize information
We have rules and guides and tips and tricks all over the place, many of which overlap and repeat each other. Preferably there should be a single thread, or even a wiki, in which all official information is placed, and another, clearly separated place to have community guides and tutorials. This will allow the newcomer to not only know exactly where to find the info he needs, but also will keep him from being confused about what is gospel and what isn't.

4) Elaborate on requirements
While one of the official guidelines (which are actually mostly rules!) do a fair job of explaining what's what, it could greatly benefit from including passages from threads such as this and this.

5) Enforce the rules
Once it's clear (or at least more clear), what the process is, for the love of all things purple, follow that process. I find it enfuriating to see nitpicking over graphics in the drafting room. Example. I'm sure I could find dozens more if I tried and thought that this point is in dispute.
The mods have to step in and stop this nonsense that even they themselves partake in.

i beg to differ, [...]

Really?
So you wouldn't find it insulting in the slightest if I posted something like this about your map:

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.

I don't believe that for a second. But that's not the point at all. I was explaining that I found it insulting, and that was why my posts took on a shrill note, to say the least.

Now, if you have anything to contribute to the topic at hand please do share. Otherwise let's keep our levels of tolerance for insults out of this.

Edit: oh, forgot one suggestion:
6) Introduce more resources
Promote people to low-level mods and assign them to each and every map that makes it to the drafting room. These should follow the map through the process all the way to the end, advising the mapmaker when needed and providing him with a single go-to guy when questions arise. Further, this mod would have insights into how and most importantly why the map has evolved as it has, and this information, I believe will be valuable to the mods that sit at fixed points down the road.

[natty dread]

Well, I'm living proof that the foundry process is frustrating and confusing.

No. You are only proof that the process is frustrating and confusing to you. You have not provided a single piece of evidence that anyone else considers the process confusing. I have no doubt there probably are some other people who have been confused by the process, but so far you have not demonstrated that this is the case in any significant amount - you have only provided anecdotal evidence based on your own confusion.

I consider myself of average intelligence, and most newcomers here will necessarily share that trait with me. The process is without a doubt confusing to some, and I put to you that it wouldn't require much to lessen that confusion. More on that below.

That the process is confusing to "some" is not an adequate reason to change the process that most others find works just fine. Even if some people are confused at the beginning, the confusion only lasts so long - they will learn the ways of the foundry quickly enough by trial and error. And again, I stress that most people do not seem to be confused by the order of the foundry at all.

I understand that there's a point to keeping the silly from the serious. However, I think there's significant room for improvement here, which will also help decrease confusion about the process. See below.

I'd like to add that whatever plans are in the pipeline, they should be discussed in the open to allow input from as many people as possible. There's simply no good reason to keep such plans from the community, and such talks will probably save us all some aggravation in threads like this.

I will let the foundry mods elaborate on this if they wish, but I'm just going to note that they already do announce their plans on this very forum. You just got to pay some attention. Furthermore, it would often be counterproductive to inform the community of every little thing the mods are planning or considering - it would only serve to disappoint the community if it turns out the idea is infeasible.

They need to play together, but at various points in the process and to varying degrees. The boundaries are hazy, but that's all the more reason to explain them well and thoroughly.

I find the second part of this quote illogical. If the boundaries are hazy, how can they be explained more thoroughly?

Here's a thought. You could think of the different forums less as "departments", and more as "levels". It's not like in "gameplay" we only discuss gameplay and nothing else, and it's not like "drafts" is only for making a draft of your map. They all intermix. Think of each forum as a level you need to achieve, and each stamp as a "badge" that is awarded to you when a part of your map has been approved: the draft stamp means that the basic idea behind the map has been approved, the gameplay stamp means that the gameplay has been approved...

Now, when you get the draft stamp, and get moved to gameplay, it doesn't mean that you should only work on gameplay. It means that acquiring the gameplay stamp should be your main focus and next objective, but it doesn't mean that the development of the map should only be confined to gameplay at that point. Similarly, in the drafting room, your main focus should be getting the draft stamp, but it doesn't mean that any gameplay or graphics development should not be taking place.

viewtopic.php?f=466&t=81664
viewtopic.php?f=583&t=105182
viewtopic.php?f=583&t=105502

Note that these separate threads across two different fora more or less says the same thing, which adds to the confusion.

None of those are "rules". The first one is a somewhat outdated guide on mapmaking - look at the date it was posted. The second one contains the drafting room guidelines. Guidelines are not the same as rules. The third thread has nothing to do with the others: it is a thread for posting design briefs, which are basically applications for foundry mods to analyze your map and assess what it needs to be considered worthy for a draft stamp.

I obviously and again reject that there's no room for improvement, resources limitations or not.
An obvious solution would be to add more resources, i.e. cartographer mods.

Who would they add? You think the amount of cartography mods is somehow artificially limited, and that there would be tons of more cartography mods if they would just decide to "add" them? Sadly, this isn't really the case. Being a cartography mod is hard work, and there are few people who both have the time and energy to do it and possess the necessary experience and expertise.

The foundry is doing an adequate job, but there's no better way?
I venture that we can guide newcomers better in what is expected of them, all the while keeping the flexibility and map standards.

The process is constantly being improved. There already exist plans to update and rewrite the foundry guides, like Mr Benn just said.

Astonishingly, I know they're nothing new - but have they even been tried out in practise?

Yes.

I'm not suggesting we force people to do anything - I said 'entice' - that is finding ways to motivate people to come here and give their 2 cents.
Many people love the medals, maybe we can award something like that for participating in the map discussions. I also think having polls with an associated lottery for the people who voted would go a long way towards getting a viable sample.

Things like awarding people for discussions have their own problems. At best, we would only get those people who are already interested in Foundry affairs. At worst, we would get a bunch of people posting inane comments, just because they're after the medals or whatever other awards. We already get those people who stop by to some thread in gameplay or graphics and post "This is good! I want to play this now!" And while they do stroke the ego of the mapmaker, posts like that are not constructive and provide no value to the development of the map.

I stand by my statement above, and might quote myself from my earlier post:

Yes, I heard you the first time.

Now, as to my specific suggestions:
1) Have a single entry-point for new mapmakers.

This would only serve to add more workload for the mods. If you have a draft, post it to the drafting room, if you only have an idea, post it to ideas. How hard is that?

2) Promote the idea forum

The idea forum doesn't need promotion. We get plenty of ideas as it is.

3) Review and re-organize information
4) Elaborate on requirements

As I said, these are already being done.

5) Enforce the rules
Once it's clear (or at least more clear), what the process is, for the love of all things purple, follow that process. I find it enfuriating to see nitpicking over graphics in the drafting room. Example. I'm sure I could find dozens more if I tried and thought that this point is in dispute.
The mods have to step in and stop this nonsense that even they themselves partake in.

It's not nonsense. It all has a purpose. Read my thread on the Drafting Room, it explains this quite well.
As for the process, it's already being followed.

Really?
So you wouldn't find it insulting in the slightest if I posted something like this about your map:

natty_dread wrote: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.

I stand by my comment. Your initial sketch was something that was hastily scribbled with a pencil on a piece of paper and scanned. A trained monkey could do the same in 5 seconds, and it wouldn't take more than 5 minutes to draw a better, clearer and more legible draft on MS Paint or something.

Perhaps my comment was overly graphic, but it obviously was what needed to be said, because it resulted in you producing a better draft. You also forget that before that comment, I patiently posted at least 4 very polite and thorough posts explaining to you why your initial draft was not acceptable, and you chose to be stubborn and ignore them all. Only when I resorted to more explicit language I got you to improve your draft.

Trust me, it hurt me more than it hurt you.

[Riskismy]

No. You are only proof that the process is frustrating and confusing to you. You have not provided a single piece of evidence that anyone else considers the process confusing. I have no doubt there probably are some other people who have been confused by the process, but so far you have not demonstrated that this is the case in any significant amount - you have only provided anecdotal evidence based on your own confusion.

So what would be a significant amount of confused people to you?
Personally, I think just a few is enough and since you agree that they're around perhaps we can move away from whether less confusion is a good idea, and look at solutions?

That the process is confusing to "some" is not an adequate reason to change the process that most others find works just fine.

Why not? If the process becomes clearer to *Everyone*, why would you stand in the way of such changes?
I think it has a lot less to do with the suggestion itself, than it does with how you feel about the man who made it. Try taking a step back and get some perspective on what you're arguing here.

Even if some people are confused at the beginning, the confusion only lasts so long - they will learn the ways of the foundry quickly enough by trial and error.

There's no question that people will eventually learn (hey, look at me!), but that's just not a good excuse not to take actions that will make them learn faster. If it helps the newcomers and doesn't bother the veterans any, why would you argue against it?

I will let the foundry mods elaborate on this if they wish, but I'm just going to note that they already do announce their plans on this very forum. You just got to pay some attention.

I pay plenty of attention thank you, more than you, it would seem.
I haven't seen any announcements about these plans in the foundry forums, but that's not the point at all. Once it's reached the point of being worthy of an announcement, it's too late to involve the community.

Furthermore, it would often be counterproductive to inform the community of every little thing the mods are planning or considering - it would only serve to disappoint the community if it turns out the idea is infeasible.

hah! I know sure as hell that you don't find changes like those 'a little thing'. This discussion should be ample proof of that

I find the second part of this quote illogical. If the boundaries are hazy, how can they be explained more thoroughly?

It's quite sensible, I assure you. You currently have hazy borders which are explained to some extend, now you explain them at bit more to at least define that haze, perhaps even confine it a bit more.

Now, when you get the draft stamp, and get moved to gameplay, it doesn't mean that you should only work on gameplay. It means that acquiring the gameplay stamp should be your main focus and next objective, but it doesn't mean that the development of the map should only be confined to gameplay at that point. Similarly, in the drafting room, your main focus should be getting the draft stamp, but it doesn't mean that any gameplay or graphics development should not be taking place.

I know this very well, as you've repeated it over and over and it's the only somewhat good explanation you've been able to provide as to why the process isn't completely abandoned in practise.
I have never disputed that the various development activities are interdependent. My claim is that as long as one doesn't serve the other, as long as there's no need for taking graphics into account when gameplay is the issue, why bother? It just obfuscates the process and frustrates the mapmaker when forced to deal with e.g. graphics details that doesn't pertain to the task at hand.
Why take the time to define areas of focus at each step, or level if you prefer, only to jump ahead and start discussing which colour is the better for the junks? All issues have a time and a place, and as long as this comment you're about to make has no bearing on the current issue, wait and post it later.

None of those are "rules". The first one is a somewhat outdated guide on mapmaking - look at the date it was posted. The second one contains the drafting room guidelines. Guidelines are not the same as rules.

If there's any rules at all around here, the second link are it. I for one think that the heading "General Mapmaking Rules" speaks for itself.

The third thread has nothing to do with the others: it is a thread for posting design briefs, which are basically applications for foundry mods to analyze your map and assess what it needs to be considered worthy for a draft stamp.

It has a damn form you have to fill out! How is that not a rule?

Now that we've cleared up which rules I was referring to, maybe you could get back to the actual issue (unless you have more more smokescreens to keep us off topic?)

Who would they add? You think the amount of cartography mods is somehow artificially limited, and that there would be tons of more cartography mods if they would just decide to "add" them? Sadly, this isn't really the case. Being a cartography mod is hard work, and there are few people who both have the time and energy to do it and possess the necessary experience and expertise.

Oh I feel quite confident that we could find a few who would be both willing an able to do the job. The availability of competent people is not why we don't have more mods.

Riskismy wrote:
Astonishingly, I know they're nothing new - but have they even been tried out in practise?

Yes.

Great, so what were the results? Perhaps you remember where the discussion was had?

Things like awarding people for discussions have their own problems. At best, we would only get those people who are already interested in Foundry affairs. At worst, we would get a bunch of people posting inane comments, just because they're after the medals or whatever other awards. We already get those people who stop by to some thread in gameplay or graphics and post "This is good! I want to play this now!" And while they do stroke the ego of the mapmaker, posts like that are not constructive and provide no value to the development of the map.

Well, it doesn't exactly bring anything to the development as such - but they do give an idea about whether there's "a reasonable amount of interest towards a map". If the price for more people in the foundry, is a few more posts that just shows enthusiasm for a map, so be it. I'm sure we can all cope with that.

Riskismy wrote:

1) Have a single entry-point for new mapmakers.

This would only serve to add more workload for the mods. If you have a draft, post it to the drafting room, if you only have an idea, post it to ideas. How hard is that?

Whether they move silly ideas from the draft room, or move serious ones form the map ideas is hardly a big deal. Granted, there's probably more silly suggestions, but the 10 seconds it takes to move a thread really is a fair price for a single point of entry. I'm not saying you couldn't also have the same construct as now, where the silly ideas is moved to a sub-forum to keep the ideas forum clean - the point is simply to prevent mapmakers from posting new topics in the draft room, thus making the process more clear for the newcomer.

The idea forum doesn't need promotion. We get plenty of ideas as it is.

It doesn't need promotion to get more ideas (though one can always use more ideas). It needs promotion in order to make the process clearer. Once it's the single entry-point for new maps, it should go up a level and join the gameplay forum, graphics and so on. In fact, it should in any case. This will make it clear to newbes, simply from glancing at the foundry forum, where he's to start and how he's expected to progress.

Riskismy wrote:

5) Enforce the rules
Once it's clear (or at least more clear), what the process is, for the love of all things purple, follow that process. I find it enfuriating to see nitpicking over graphics in the drafting room. Example. I'm sure I could find dozens more if I tried and thought that this point is in dispute.
The mods have to step in and stop this nonsense that even they themselves partake in.

It's not nonsense. It all has a purpose. Read my thread on the Drafting Room, it explains this quite well.

Please stop being condescending. I both linked and praised that thread above, so how could you possibly reason that I haven't read it?
If you have some specific points in reference to my statement about how nitpicking over graphics in the drafting room is slowing down the process, please point them out to me. You may quote yourself if you so wish.

As for the process, it's already being followed.

The process would be followed if once in a while there were some remarks and work on graphics in the gameplay forum. However, we have them all the time. It's frustrating to be held back by issues irrelevant to the task at hand, it slows down the progression of the map through the foundry and serves little other purpose than to make the nitpicker feel powerful and important.

Perhaps my comment was overly graphic, but it obviously was what needed to be said, because it resulted in you producing a better draft. You also forget that before that comment, I patiently posted at least 4 very polite and thorough posts explaining to you why your initial draft was not acceptable, and you chose to be stubborn and ignore them all. Only when I resorted to more explicit language I got you to improve your draft.

Other than commenting that this is a steaming load of bullcrap and a thinly veiled attempt at goading, I will not deign myself to discuss my motivations with you.
In case you didn't hear me when I asked kengyin, I kindly ask you to stay on topic.

[natty dread]

Riskismy, it is starting to seem like you are arguing because you want to argue, on a lot of points. In order to keep this thread concise and to the point, I'm not going to nitpick semantics and other irrelevancies with you, I'll only address some key issues, as I see them.

So what would be a significant amount of confused people to you? [...]
Why not? If the process becomes clearer to *Everyone*, why would you stand in the way of such changes?

See, that's not the case at all, and you are either being purposefully ignorant or twisting what I say to make a point.

Like I said, the process would not be clearer, since actual drafts would be lost in a sea of idea threads. Like I already said in my previous post: you want more people to come in the foundry and comment on map threads, but how is that going to happen if they can't find the threads they are supposed to comment on?

I have never disputed that the various development activities are interdependent. My claim is that as long as one doesn't serve the other, as long as there's no need for taking graphics into account when gameplay is the issue, why bother? It just obfuscates the process and frustrates the mapmaker when forced to deal with e.g. graphics details that doesn't pertain to the task at hand.
Why take the time to define areas of focus at each step, or level if you prefer, only to jump ahead and start discussing which colour is the better for the junks? All issues have a time and a place, and as long as this comment you're about to make has no bearing on the current issue, wait and post it later.

Gameplay development requires a certain amount of graphical development. A certain amount of both graphical and gameplay development are also required by the idea/drafting phase.

The development of a map does not necessarily proceed in a linear fashion. More often than not, it goes in parallel paths, where graphics and gameplay are developed in tandem, to various degrees. After the gameplay stamp is awarded, gameplay development ceases and the focus is only on graphics. However, both gameplay and graphics are liable to be discussed again when the map enters beta-testing.

Also, practical experience has proved the methods currently employed to be effective. Can you argue against that?

It is up to you how you spend your time in the Foundry. You can spend your time and energy fighting the process, or you can spend it more productively, working on your map.

I dare say, Riskismy, if you spent all of the energy you spend on posting and arguing, on actually working on your map, you would have no problems advancing to gameplay...

[Riskismy]

Riskismy, it is starting to seem like you are arguing because you want to argue, on a lot of points. In order to keep this thread concise and to the point, I'm not going to nitpick semantics and other irrelevancies with you, I'll only address some key issues, as I see them.

Well, you were the one to bring up these semantics and irrelevancies. I merely addressed them so as to keep the discussion moving forward. Now that I've closed these tangents you try to claim that it's me who argue only for the sake of argument. What a laugh

I'm very happy to discuss the issues themselves. Some of which, I might add, you have failed to address most recently.

Riskismy wrote:
So what would be a significant amount of confused people to you? [...]
Why not? If the process becomes clearer to *Everyone*, why would you stand in the way of such changes?

Like I said, the process would not be clearer, since actual drafts would be lost in a sea of idea threads. Like I already said in my previous post: you want more people to come in the foundry and comment on map threads, but how is that going to happen if they can't find the threads they are supposed to comment on?

That's not at all what you said in the section I was replying to. What you said was:

No. You are only proof that the process is frustrating and confusing to you. You have not provided a single piece of evidence that anyone else considers the process confusing. I have no doubt there probably are some other people who have been confused by the process, but so far you have not demonstrated that this is the case in any significant amount - you have only provided anecdotal evidence based on your own confusion.

I addressed this in my previous post by pointing out that you could still move the silly threads to a sub forum. Whether or not the ideas forum is promoted to top-level has no bearing on how the silly ideas are kept from the serious.
By having the ideas forum as a single entry-point (and keeping silly from serious as now), you would gain even more clarity on where to go to comment, according to your taste. To comment on the silly, you would enter the ideas forum and go to whatever sub-forum is set up for those. To comment on the serious you would simply go to the idea forum. To comment on the more advanced ideas, you'd go to the drafting room. Same thing as now, only with a clearer hierarchy.

Gameplay development requires a certain amount of graphical development. A certain amount of both graphical and gameplay development are also required by the idea/drafting phase.

The development of a map does not necessarily proceed in a linear fashion. More often than not, it goes in parallel paths, where graphics and gameplay are developed in tandem, to various degrees. After the gameplay stamp is awarded, gameplay development ceases and the focus is only on graphics. However, both gameplay and graphics are liable to be discussed again when the map enters beta-testing.

Yes, you've said so a handful of times now, and I've made it clear each and every time that I understand this perfectly. Development practice and theory is really nothing new to me.
What I said in my last post is the there's no reason to make untimely observations about the colour of this or that or how the legend is hard to read. All these irrelevant interdictions only frustrate the mapmaker and slow down the progression of the map. It's true that these issues would have to be addressed at some point down the line, but by doing it at the right time you maintain focus, keep the process clean and don't leave the mapmaker feeling like he's being held back by nitpicking. You see, while the colour on junks is an important discussion in graphics, it really is irrelevant nitpicking in gameplay.

Also, practical experience has proved the methods currently employed to be effective. Can you argue against that?

I'm not trying to. I argue that it could be more effective.

I dare say, Riskismy, if you spent all of the energy you spend on posting and arguing, on actually working on your map, you would have no problems advancing to gameplay...

I wasn't aware of any problems in regard of advancing to gameplay. Do you think my map has spend a long time in the drafting room, then?

Actually. Don't answer that. Let's try to keep it on topic, hard as it is.

[natty dread]

That's not at all what you said in the section I was replying to.

I didn't realize our discussion was divided to "sections".

By having the ideas forum as a single entry-point (and keeping silly from serious as now), you would gain even more clarity on where to go to comment, according to your taste. To comment on the silly, you would enter the ideas forum and go to whatever sub-forum is set up for those. To comment on the serious you would simply go to the idea forum. To comment on the more advanced ideas, you'd go to the drafting room. Same thing as now, only with a clearer hierarchy.

Ok. So let me get this straight: you want to protect the new guys from getting confused, so you're going to suggest that no one gets to post on the drafting room. Even those who know very well what should be posted there and what not.
Almost all of your suggestions seem to be about adding rules, limitations and restrictions. Why is that?

Yes, you've said so a handful of times now, and I've made it clear each and every time that I understand this perfectly. Development practice and theory is really nothing new to me.

You say you understand it, but you don't really show that you do, particularly when you go right ahead into comments like this:

What I said in my last post is the there's no reason to make untimely observations about the colour of this or that or how the legend is hard to read.

Yes, there is. Gameplay clarity is a part of gameplay. If the legend is hard to read it affects gameplay clarity, therefore it must be addressed in gameplay. This is mentioned in the gameplay guidelines.

All these irrelevant interdictions only frustrate the mapmaker and slow down the progression of the map.

Mapmaking can be frustrating at times. No one is disputing that. If you think any changes in the process would be able to eliminate all frustration from mapmaking, you are sadly mistaken.

But mapmaking is also lots of fun. If you do not enjoy mapmaking, if you don't find it fun, then you shouldn't be making maps, plain and simple. Of course, I don't mean that it should be fun all of the time. But the bottom line is, we aren't getting paid for this, so if it's not your thing, don't do it.

Also, very few things in the foundry is being done for no reason. I suggest you stick around for a while, and wait until you get some first hand experience on the whole foundry process. Perhaps it will help you realize that there are reasons for things being as they are.

[Riskismy]

I didn't realize our discussion was divided to "sections".

You see how I quoted you there? Usually you'd place any pertinent comments directly under that.
Along with this here comment of mine, it would make a "section".

This is a concept I'm sure you understand, why are you being obtuse? If you don't have a rebuttal for the point, I'd thank you to just not reply. Makes it easier for the people who prefer a serious discussion to have just that.

Ok. So let me get this straight: you want to protect the new guys from getting confused, so you're going to suggest that no one gets to post on the drafting room.

Correct.

Even those who know very well what should be posted there and what not.

Yes. Even those. I'm sure they'll be quite alright with it, as it's no bother for them whether they post in ideas or drafts forum.

Almost all of your suggestions seem to be about adding rules, limitations and restrictions. Why is that?

I've suggested:
2 alterations (forum structure)
2 re-organisations (information/rules/guides)
1 call to enforce the rules (not introducing new ones)
1 introduction of more resources to handle those changes.

Explain to me again, what are my suggestions about?

[TaCktiX]

From what I'm reading (and I've read it all), your complaints seem to boil down to five major categories:
- Rules being unclear
- The roles of the Drafting Room and Melting Pot
- The potential confusion of comments of various types (gameplay, graphics, XML) appearing "early"
- The possibility of bringing more people into the Foundry
- Bringing in more CAs to make maps go faster

I'll address each in turn.

Rules being Unclear
Mea culpa, we got lazy. I'll attempt to excuse it by saying which would you rather do with your busy schedule: rewrite rules that it doesn't seem like anyone reads, or comment on maps so that CC has some awesome new ways to play? We ARE working on it and you should expect to see updates to guidelines and applicable threads soon.

But to be fair, you could ask for clarifications of anything you found confusing. People have shown their willingness to respond to what you say, clearing confusion up would be easily done. Most of the Foundry's processes are not learned by reading guidelines, they're learned by doing the process and asking questions of people who have been there before. The best we can do with guidelines is give a vague and hazy idea, trying to lock it down will make the process too rigid to accommodate the dozens of varieties of maps, mapmakers, and commenters we have here. I say this as a veteran of overly-defined processes and the resulting chaos that it causes as people try to strike out from under the frame (the military being a lovely example of that).

The roles of the Drafting Room and Melting Pot
I started development of my first map within days of coming to the Foundry, in January 2008. Back then, ideas and drafts WERE in the same subforum. My map, being not exactly pretty to start and not improving quickly, had to contend with the latest attempt by someone to get Star Wars made onto a map. Most people do not look far down the list. If you're lucky, they'll look past the first 10. Getting a sticky of all things felt like a vindication as my map that I wanted people to comment on was on top of all the ideas under copyright, ideas with no graphical structure behind them, etc. It was an extra headache for a first-timer, and I daresay to people wanting to comment on maps that the maker actually seemed to listen to what they said.

The single entry point will add that back, at least in some form. Yes it'll be muted if the CAs get to the map quick and scoot it over to the Drafting Room, but why the extra step just for the sake of "everyone starts here"? We're gaining very little and adding bureaucratic overhead. There's enough BO around here already. [/lamepun]

The major difference between an idea and a draft is the level of specificity. A draft specifies that it's not just a map of the Indian Ocean, it's one laid out in latitude-longtitude territories using ocean trenches as impassables. And it shows that layout graphically. Furthermore, the easiest way to define that a draft is present is in the How to Make a Map Handbook:

Have a playable image. If we quenched it people should be able to play on it.

That's as cut and dried as it gets. Essentially, all the rules, all the boundaries, all the bonuses. It may not be pretty, balanced, or generally interesting, but it's functional.

The potential confusion of comments of various types (gameplay, graphics, XML) appearing "early"
No comment is early. Some comments are less relevant to the current focus than others, but any legitimate comment seeks to improve the map in some way. Thus, every comment is on time because it came before the map was quenched and it couldn't be improved further.

Aside from that statement, you've admitted that a lot of the aspects of a map are interdependent. I would contend they are interdependent to the point of being inseparable. Quoting from the How to Give and Receive Feedback (which I partially authored):

Gameplay is how the map will play. This includes bonuses, borders, regions, and any special elements like bombardments, one-way attacks and auto-deploys.

Graphics are a way to translate the gameplay into visual form. Here's a very simple example. While the gameplay says that region A has a one way border to assault region B, the graphics would be the representation of that one-way border with an arrow pointing from region A to region B. In addition, the graphics should also be aesthetically pleasing. This part of graphics is more subjective whereas the definition above is clear-cut. If you can't read the text then that's a problem with the graphics that needs to be changed to represent the gameplay properly. If you prefer font A over font B then that's not necessarily something that needs to be changed, as it doesn't impact the understanding of the gameplay.

Emphasis added by me. A map's graphics must support its gameplay, and generally in the same form that the map will look eventually. Thus, while to get the gameplay solidified you technically only need a Tinkertoy schematic setup with a text box of map rules and bonuses, such a setup is not how the map will look at quench. Furthermore, lines and circles do not portray the theme that a map is going for (I know, look up R&C's wire versions in the first post's version history; they look AWFUL). So to satisfy the needs of a consistent theme and a gameplay being illustrated by the graphics, a mapmaker must work on both simultaneously.

So while it may be the Gameplay Workshop, getting the Gameplay right and simultaneously advancing the map requires the use of at least Gameplay and Graphics. One way of thinking about it would be that having the stamp illustrates what you likely don't have to do anymore. Having the Draft stamp means you don't need to worry about it being a legitimate "could quench it now" draft. Having the Gameplay stamp means that the Foundry considers the map balanced. And so on.

Also, having all aspects of a map (save XML, which 90% of the time is saved until Final Forge, since its completion is fully dependent on the map being set in stone) worked on simultaneously speeds development time up. During the time Gameplay is getting to 100%, Graphics would have managed to work itself up to 75% or so, and getting the next stamp is just a short bullet-list of concerns. Now imagine if you instead had done a Tinkertoy approach for the Gameplay. Sure, it's balanced and good to go, but now you have to start from scratch on the graphics and take longer getting there. Doing all simultaneously also helps maintain a steady flow of comments on a map. No person is interested in all aspects of a map equally, so seeing that graphical tweak adjusted or that bonus value changed keeps people involved.

Finally, nitpicks will show up at any point, dealing with any topic. A good illustrator would be the map I'm working on right now: Research & Conquer. The map got its gameplay stamp December 26th, then me, Oliver, and three other folks talked about gameplay balancing for SIX MORE PAGES (and this is after the topic was sitting at 48 pages total) before I finally managed to get everyone to concede that it'll work for now and we won't know until it's at beta. Sure the Foundry mods thought the map was ready gameplay-wise, but other commenters didn't. Happens, and it's part of the fun. No map is the same, nor should they be. This extends to the development of the map as well.

The possibility of bringing more people into the Foundry
We've tried several different things in many different ways, and other than bringing in a short influx of 20 or so folks that trickle down to between zero and four, they've done very little. Here's a bullet-list:
- The original Foundry Newsletter, up to and including when Newsletters got their own subforum for a time
- The Headlines system noting map quenches, etc.
- Moving the Foundry higher up on the forum list above General Discussion, Tournaments, and whatever the off-topic forum is called this month
- Several iterations of a map group, to include the current Map Surveyors and the previous Preliminary Reviews and Final Reviews
- Mapmakers linking their own maps within a game's chat (I did it for The Citadel)
- Numerous contests of varying sorts and stripes

It's not that we haven't tried, it's that the Foundry itself is not conducive to a "spend 5 minutes browsing some topics, then leave for somewhere else" vibe that most of the other forums can pull off. It requires a different sort of mindset and approach than the rest of CC. This is its strength, and its weakness. We will never be able to bring in "Greater CC" except for the occasional moment where something goes horribly wrong (Das Schloss ftw!). We've tried, and short of disproportionately rewarding people for putting a passive interest in something that genuinely isn't their interest there's no point doing much more.

Bringing in more CAs to make maps go faster
We've done this, actually. Back in the day only Andy looked over the Foundry. One person. That expanded to include KEYOGI and Coleman, then oaktown and gimil, with KEYOGI dropping at some point (wasn't here then, don't know exactly when). Then Coleman departed the Foundry suddenly (real life issues), and Andy had become busier with the non-Foundry sections of CC. So it was two CAs pulling all of the weight, gimil handling graphics and drafts, oaktown handling gameplay, and the two pulling together with Andy for Forge. That was shortly after I joined the Foundry. SOMEHOW they kept things going, and MrBenn was brought in to handle drafts so gimil could focus on graphics. The volume of maps back then was actually HIGHER then than it is now. Over time, the current CA team you see now has been recruited to accommodate the needs of the Foundry.

But what we've found out is that there is not a linear relationship between the number of CAs on the team and the speed of maps. In fact, I would contend that there really is no relationship. The quality demanded out of Foundry maps has skyrocketed, and our basis of examples to make maps better is far larger than it used to be. So maps spend more time getting fine-tuned to the point that some maps have the Beta phase only as a formality. And assuring that quality is not purely in the hands of the CAs but in everyone who comments. Adding more CAs will do nothing except have more blue in topics.

[Riskismy]

Hi TaCktiX,

Many heartfelt thanks for your very comprehensive reply! I appreciate your time and sense of my concerns.

However, it would be all too easy if I had no rebuttal
I can see reason in most of what you say, though, so it shouldn't be too long. Stay tuned for yet another instalment of foundry entertainment tomorrow

[oaktown]

I've not been keeping track for the past year or two, but my sense it that it's been a while since this discussion was had here in the Foundry. But know that it has been had - many times - and usually far less politely than you all are going about it.

The mission of CC's Foundry, as I see it, is to provide a system by which any user can develop and design a high quality map for a wide audience. When you think about it, this is a really lofty goal. Some sites offer systems in which anybody can quickly create, post, and play a crappy map. Other sites maintain quality by limiting map creation privileges to one or more artists. CC wants both high quality AND direct user participation, which is tricky.

Once you understand and accept the mission of the Foundry, I think you'll understand that it does pretty good job. It could always use a tweak or two, and some users may take years to develop the skills to meet CC standards of quality, but the system works.

Those who think that the Foundry is completely whack are probably looking for something else entirely.

[Bruceswar]

Hi Oaktown! Play a game?

[oaktown]

Hi Oaktown! Play a game?

This post is off-topic. Geez, somebody get a moderator in here.

[Riskismy]

From what I'm reading (and I've read it all),

Hehe. Impressive

Rules being Unclear

You ask what I would rather spend time on: write explanations or comment on maps to keep them going. Naturally, I'd rather help the map along, but I'll posit that the more time you spend writing those explantions, the more time you'll have later on for actual development. When people skip the guides and simply ask around the forum, you can simply link to those documents.
Well, you're working on it, which is great and makes it a moot point.

The roles of the Drafting Room and Melting Pot

I'm still not entirely sure you understand what I'm proposing here. I hope you'll forgive me if I explain it one last time to make sure.
It's true that I want a single forum in which a map starts the process. I think this point alone will greatly improve the chances that new mapmakers don't get confused and put off when their map idea suddenly gets demoted (example). This guy might return, but have a look on the first 3 posts there and tell me how welcome you'd feel. I believe that a big part of getting maps all the way through is to show support throughout the process, and especially so in the beginning.
Having a single point of entry would ensure that newcomers doesn't get discouraged by such thread moves, will allow people who are so inclined to find the newbes easily, and I don't believe the admin overhead is as great as you describe.
Let's take a look at the Melting Pot Forum. The first page holds 50 threads, of which the oldest is nearly 4 years ago and several others are from before 2010. Further, only 30 of those threads are from this year, presently only 2½ months old. The CA's visit these fora every day, and weeding out ~10 non-serious ideas a month doesn't seem like a very time-consuming task to me.
As I pointed out in previous posts, you could have the exact same structure as you have now, where the serious projects are kept or moved to drafting, while the less serious will stay in the melting pot forum until the mods are convinced of their merit.

The proposed structure would look something like this:

- Map Foundry

- Melting Pot

- rejected/demoted maps (currently Melting pot)

- Drafting
- Graphics
- Etc.

Essentially, it's just detaching the Melting pot from the drafting room, promoting it one level and making a new forum for rejected ideas. Once the mods have made a decision on the idea, it gets promoted to Draft or rejected to 'silly gummy bear forum'. It could potentially be empty if not enough ideas came in, just like the other forums would be. How is this not more clear and accommodating of finding what you look for?

The potential confusion of comments of various types (gameplay, graphics, XML) appearing "early"

I see reason in much of what you write here. I understand that you can't work isolated in most areas of development, several aspects play a part at any given stage.
I guess it's a matter of degrees. You give the example of a map being 100% done with gameplay, the graphics would be 75% complete. I think this is probably my major problem with the process. As long as the map is clear and everyone understands what the rules are, I see no reason why even a single per cent of the graphics should be done at the time the map arrives at the graphics forum. If some mapmakers like it that way, I won't hold them back, but to me it's annoying to be confronted with issues that are irrelevant to the question at hand. With the rule of 'All sound advice must be followed', I'm forced to address issues that to me are irrelevant and untimely at the current point in the process.
I see these nitpickers going on about the colour of some territory or how the legend could be moved a bit to the left - when all the mapmaker wants is feedback on the mechanics (or so I like to think), and I feel my own resolve dwindle as these poor map-makers are forced to deal with these issues.
You talk a lot about how people are different, and they certainly are, but I for one would like to see commentators show some restrain and think about whether this is the right time to address the given issue, and for the mapmakers to postpone addressing such comments when they do rear their ugly head.

The possibility of bringing more people into the Foundry

Points taken. Does look like you've done a lot in this area.

Bringing in more CAs to make maps go faster

Well, it was only in my latest post that I actually called for an increase in the number of CA's. It started out as a suggestion to assign a single CA to each map when they reach a certain stage (draft or gameplay). When it was pointed out that this had been tried and didn't work because of the limited time even CA's have, I suggested adding some lower-level admins to the list to fill these positions. From a few posts back:

These should follow the map through the process all the way to the end, advising the mapmaker when needed and providing him with a single go-to guy when questions arise. Further, this mod would have insights into how and most importantly why the map has evolved as it has, and this information, I believe will be valuable to the mods that sit at fixed points down the road.

Anyways. I'm all done. I think I've clearly explained my positions on the issues I've raised, and have gotten reasonable explanations as to why things are as they are. I don't agree with some of those explanations, but I don't think I can make my arguments much clearer or more compelling.
I'm perfectly prepared to discuss this further, but I'm not sure we'll be able to move forward in a constructive manner from here. I made my opinion clear, and the admins can take it or leave it as they wish.

Thanks to everyone who took part. Your time and consideration is appreciated!

[natty dread]

Essentially, it's just detaching the Melting pot from the drafting room, promoting it one level and making a new forum for rejected ideas. Once the mods have made a decision on the idea, it gets promoted to Draft or rejected to 'silly gummy bear forum'. It could potentially be empty if not enough ideas came in, just like the other forums would be. How is this not more clear and accommodating of finding what you look for?

Essentially, it's just creating more confusion. If you posit that 2 forums cause "confusion" for new mapmakers... then how the hell do you suppose it would be made better by having 3 of them?

Also, we essentially already have an arrangement very much like this: map ideas, recycling bin, drafting room.

I see these nitpickers going on about the colour of some territory or how the legend could be moved a bit to the left - when all the mapmaker wants is feedback on the mechanics (or so I like to think), and I feel my own resolve dwindle as these poor map-makers are forced to deal with these issues.
You talk a lot about how people are different, and they certainly are, but I for one would like to see commentators show some restrain and think about whether this is the right time to address the given issue, and for the mapmakers to postpone addressing such comments when they do rear their ugly head.

The mapmaker doesn't really mind. The mapmaker understands this is a part of the process.

[Riskismy]

pft. I'm done with you natty. Talk about semantics and assumptions

[TaCktiX]

The roles of the Drafting Room and Melting Pot

I'm still not entirely sure you understand what I'm proposing here. I hope you'll forgive me if I explain it one last time to make sure.
It's true that I want a single forum in which a map starts the process. I think this point alone will greatly improve the chances that new mapmakers don't get confused and put off when their map idea suddenly gets demoted (example). This guy might return, but have a look on the first 3 posts there and tell me how welcome you'd feel. I believe that a big part of getting maps all the way through is to show support throughout the process, and especially so in the beginning.
Having a single point of entry would ensure that newcomers doesn't get discouraged by such thread moves, will allow people who are so inclined to find the newbes easily, and I don't believe the admin overhead is as great as you describe.
Let's take a look at the Melting Pot Forum. The first page holds 50 threads, of which the oldest is nearly 4 years ago and several others are from before 2010. Further, only 30 of those threads are from this year, presently only 2½ months old. The CA's visit these fora every day, and weeding out ~10 non-serious ideas a month doesn't seem like a very time-consuming task to me.
As I pointed out in previous posts, you could have the exact same structure as you have now, where the serious projects are kept or moved to drafting, while the less serious will stay in the melting pot forum until the mods are convinced of their merit.

The proposed structure would look something like this:

- Map Foundry

- Melting Pot

- rejected/demoted maps (currently Melting pot)

- Drafting
- Graphics
- Etc.

Essentially, it's just detaching the Melting pot from the drafting room, promoting it one level and making a new forum for rejected ideas. Once the mods have made a decision on the idea, it gets promoted to Draft or rejected to 'silly gummy bear forum'. It could potentially be empty if not enough ideas came in, just like the other forums would be. How is this not more clear and accommodating of finding what you look for?

One thing that is unspoken code is that there are no officially rejected ideas. I don't think we've ever formalized it ANYWHERE, not even in private forums, it's just what's always been done. We may speak in disparaging terms about plasagna, pencil maps, and someone asking why Star Wars' Death Star Trench Run hasn't become an objective map yet (I don't think anyone's actually suggested that, but if we could do SW that'd be a killer one), but aside from the hard and fast rule "if it's copyrighted you must have the permission of the copyright holder," there are no hard "no"s. So the "rejected ideas" forum is a total no-go.

Off of that tangent and onto the single point of entry. Yes it'll make it easier for newcomers to know "you post here first" regardless, but it'll become an annoyance for people who post a full draft right off the bat. And most maps on CC are made by people who have made more than one map. Yes I know cairnswk breaks the pot with 28 maps, but there are several others who have more than one map to their credit. Adding what amounts to unnecessary tedium to them is a bad idea.

We could communicate more obviously the requirement of something being graphical to be posted in the Drafting Room. That's the only major difference between the two. If you're only going to post some text, go to Map Ideas. If you've got an image that looks like we could roll some dice over, then it goes to Drafting. Revising the wording of each forum to clearly reflect that can be done. But it's just not going to fly to re-integrate the two.

The potential confusion of comments of various types (gameplay, graphics, XML) appearing "early"

I see reason in much of what you write here. I understand that you can't work isolated in most areas of development, several aspects play a part at any given stage.
I guess it's a matter of degrees. You give the example of a map being 100% done with gameplay, the graphics would be 75% complete. I think this is probably my major problem with the process. As long as the map is clear and everyone understands what the rules are, I see no reason why even a single per cent of the graphics should be done at the time the map arrives at the graphics forum. If some mapmakers like it that way, I won't hold them back, but to me it's annoying to be confronted with issues that are irrelevant to the question at hand. With the rule of 'All sound advice must be followed', I'm forced to address issues that to me are irrelevant and untimely at the current point in the process.
I see these nitpickers going on about the colour of some territory or how the legend could be moved a bit to the left - when all the mapmaker wants is feedback on the mechanics (or so I like to think), and I feel my own resolve dwindle as these poor map-makers are forced to deal with these issues.
You talk a lot about how people are different, and they certainly are, but I for one would like to see commentators show some restrain and think about whether this is the right time to address the given issue, and for the mapmakers to postpone addressing such comments when they do rear their ugly head.

I say this from experience: gameplay and graphics inform each other far more than it seems at first glance. There were several cases when developing R&C where I had to say "sorry, the gameplay we want to do will not fit on this size map, we need to do something else." If I didn't have a graphical draft I was improving, it would've gone unnoticed. Then we'd show up in Graphics Workshop and ironically find out that we needed to change the gameplay to accommodate the fact that the graphics couldn't correspond to it. And while it seems like it'll be multiple comment disorder and various other psychological issues, it's really not. There have been many times where something I decided to do graphically for glitz reasons made the gameplay better, either by making the map easier to read or changing the structure of a part of it.

Also, gameplay understanding is a mandated part of the gameplay stamp. Without graphics to back it (and Tinkertoy does not work here), there is no surefire way to make sure that colorblindness (though sometimes this is saved for graphics), text size, text explanations, symbols and the like are understandable by anyone who has just shown up and been handed a copy of your map. Again, you would end up with the irony of having to fix the gameplay when you finally put graphics to it.

These should follow the map through the process all the way to the end, advising the mapmaker when needed and providing him with a single go-to guy when questions arise. Further, this mod would have insights into how and most importantly why the map has evolved as it has, and this information, I believe will be valuable to the mods that sit at fixed points down the road.

We actually have this already. Ask -=- Tanarri -=- and Carlpgoodrich about Research & Conquer. They've been avidly following and commenting on the map since shortly after it came into existence over two years ago. It's the people who find a map they love and comment on it that provide us our perspective. I've seen several cases where a long-time follower explained to a CA why "x" is so before the mapmaker could even reply. Sure, they don't have blue on their name. They're just as valuable and they add the perspective you're asking for.