Moderator: Cartographers
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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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).
Riskismy wrote: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.
natty_dread wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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 wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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?
Riskismy wrote:I was addressing the issue of when the foundry address a given issue with a map - not if it should address that issue.
Riskismy wrote:I will, however, repeat that once you have agreed on the rules, you should adhere to those rules.
Riskismy wrote:There you go again, thinking that there's 'no better way'. There's always a better way.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote:, it was largely due to the condescending attitude and insults by natty_dread, and I think I have valid concerns.
natty_dread wrote: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.
It [merging and splitting of ideas/draft] has been explained before. See this thread viewtopic.php?f=127&t=137827
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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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?
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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
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.
kengyin wrote:i beg to differ, [...]
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.
Riskismy wrote:Well, I'm living proof that the foundry process is frustrating and confusing.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote:Astonishingly, I know they're nothing new - but have they even been tried out in practise?
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote:I stand by my statement above, and might quote myself from my earlier post:
Riskismy wrote:Now, as to my specific suggestions:
1) Have a single entry-point for new mapmakers.
Riskismy wrote:2) Promote the idea forum
Riskismy wrote:3) Review and re-organize information
4) Elaborate on requirements
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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
I find the second part of this quote illogical. If the boundaries are hazy, how can they be explained more thoroughly?
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.
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.
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.
Riskismy wrote:
Astonishingly, I know they're nothing new - but have they even been tried out in practise?
Yes.
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.
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?
The idea forum doesn't need promotion. We get plenty of ideas as it is.
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.
As for the process, it's already being followed.
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.
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?
Riskismy wrote: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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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 wrote:That's not at all what you said in the section I was replying to.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote:All these irrelevant interdictions only frustrate the mapmaker and slow down the progression of the map.
I didn't realize our discussion was divided to "sections".
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?
Have a playable image. If we quenched it people should be able to play on it.
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.
Bruceswar wrote:Hi Oaktown! Play a game?
TaCktiX wrote:From what I'm reading (and I've read it all),
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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?
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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?
Riskismy wrote: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.
Riskismy wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users