MOD EDIT: A version of this has been made by the foundry team here, but it is not incorporated into the site. Mapboard wasn't around when this was suggested, so that could be an avenue taken when implementing this suggestion, and doing that would make it easier than before. -James K
Suggestion Idea: map rating
Specifics: each player can vote on a map after he played at least one game on it. average grade as well as total number of votes are displayed on the game finder and they should be used as criteria for arranging maps.
Why it is needed: in a discussion from map fondry it has been suggested that it's getting rather crowded and that new people won't know which map is good and which isn't.
Priority (1-5): 2. i guess it is not a really urgent thing but i did not want to rate it 1 so i gave it a 2.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
This idea owns, but there are a lot of things that I would consider more important for lack to work on, and this sounds like it might take more time away from him then it is worth.
Coleman wrote:This idea owns, but there are a lot of things that I would consider more important for lack to work on, and this sounds like it might take more time away from him then it is worth.
that's why i only gave it a 2 at priority.
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
DiM wrote:if each map would have a rating and they would be automatically sorted by rating i think there wouldn't be a problem if some crappy maps were produced. they would just fall at the bottom and be forgotten or even removed if they had a poor rating.
I would really support this. Something similar to rating systems on other sites. I'm not sure about the sorting by rating part. I'd almost like something like what You Tube does, where you can rate and comment on released maps like they do on Videos.
Could the site handle that specific kind of traffic? I don't know. Putting the idea out there.
DiM wrote:it's 6:11 am and i've been awake for almost 24 hours so feel free to ignore my ranting.
but i do think it's a good idea.
just a simple 1-10 rating available after you have played at least 1 game.
and you should be able to modify that rating only after you have completed another game. after all many people change their opinion about a map when they've played it several times.
also maps should be sorted automatically according to their ranking thus enabling poor maps to fall at the bottom
“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku
How about a simple questionnaire that allows you to, after completing this, putting your name into a draw for a premium membership.
Good idea, and Lack would get some good feedback.
GunnaRoolsUDrool wrote:yo mama has 3 titties, ones for milk, ones for water, ones out of order
Basically, after you play a map, you could be allowed to give a rating on it similar to the new Player Rating system. There could be Bonuses, Size, Visibilty etc.
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
Will allow players to filter out Maps they dont want, or show the overall communitys idea on the map
Help Map-Makers improve their maps
Note: Yes, i suggested this because i am currently on a game in the new Iraq map. I have been stuck for days, with no armies and no attacks because of the bonus system (-1 for so and so). Since the only territories i have left cannot attack, all i can do is fortify the 1 or 2 armies i get (Up to 3 now, since i lost almst all my territories). This map is horrible, and is just a way of keeping people playing without being able to actually play. I only take my turns nw so that the other players dont have to wait.
Concise description: have a 1 thru 5 star rating below a map.
Specifics:
the map rating would be displayed below the map in start a game / game finder. Players can rate it on Game play, rules Terriorties uniqueness (ect.) (only players who have played the map can rate it) (or should it be players who have played the map say 5 times or more?)
This will improve the following aspects of the site:
For tourneys organizers can no what maps are pouplar and what are not for the commom CC player they can know what maps to stay clear of.
xxxxxxx
When the first Atom bomb test was complete a colleague of Oppenheimer said: "What an Awesome and Foul display of Power." a moment later he added, "Now we are all sons of bitches"
I think the idea is that people will get to know what people think of the gameplay on a map before trying it out. Basically, is the map good or bad to play on although the ratings would always be opposites:
Complex maps: People who know no strategy will them low / people who know how to play on them will rate them high
Small maps: People who like having luck be a major element will rate them good / people who detest the dice will rate them bad
etc. Just like the ratings system is now, it will be worthless. Lets fix up the one we have before adding another.
The Neon Peon wrote:I think the idea is that people will get to know what people think of the gameplay on a map before trying it out. Basically, is the map good or bad to play on although the ratings would always be opposites:
Complex maps: People who know no strategy will them low / people who know how to play on them will rate them high
Small maps: People who like having luck be a major element will rate them good / people who detest the dice will rate them bad
When the first Atom bomb test was complete a colleague of Oppenheimer said: "What an Awesome and Foul display of Power." a moment later he added, "Now we are all sons of bitches"
Why not make it like players can give as overall lets use starts. lets say a player votes 5 stars.
And another votes 1. Then the overall which will show to every1 that, that map have 6 "votes"
After awhile the maps reach up to 200votes and such and then you can see who's popular, and whos not you wont see feks who rated bad..cause its so high numbers. And you will still see who attracts the most people.
Those people that rated the map badly are the ones that do not know strategy and simply do not understand the map (this is way over 50% for Waterloo, AoR, Feudal, and the Rail maps)
Complex maps will be rated crap by all the 5 year old idiots that do not understand how to read a legend, unfortunately there are a lot of them here.
And of course, crossword is a very good map, if you know the strategies but as lots of people don't they don't like it. This should not be implemented each person likes different maps. And you know it
‹max is gr8› so you're a tee-total healthy-eating sex-addict? ‹New_rules› Everyone has some bad habits (4th Jan 2010)
of course there could be different ratings... one for difficulty... one for fun, and perhaps another one or two. and you could only let people who played the maps let's say 5 times rate... so only people who already understand the map can give their opinion.
(all rating will be 1-5 five being the highest/hardst/funest.) fun gameplay difficutluy rules (for maps like AoR) overall
When the first Atom bomb test was complete a colleague of Oppenheimer said: "What an Awesome and Foul display of Power." a moment later he added, "Now we are all sons of bitches"
I take the point of this suggestion is to know in advance if the map will adjust to the kind of game you like and thus if you will enjoy it.
So, alternatively maps could be classified as "strategical" (for maps that need complex strategies), "gambling" (for maps in which luck play a major factor), "small", "medium", "big", or something like that.
OliverFA wrote:I take the point of this suggestion is to know in advance if the map will adjust to the kind of game you like and thus if you will enjoy it.
So, alternatively maps could be classified as "strategical" (for maps that need complex strategies), "gambling" (for maps in which luck play a major factor), "small", "medium", "big", or something like that.
yep u hit the nail right on the head Oliver
When the first Atom bomb test was complete a colleague of Oppenheimer said: "What an Awesome and Foul display of Power." a moment later he added, "Now we are all sons of bitches"
OliverFA wrote:I take the point of this suggestion is to know in advance if the map will adjust to the kind of game you like and thus if you will enjoy it.
So, alternatively maps could be classified as "strategical" (for maps that need complex strategies), "gambling" (for maps in which luck play a major factor), "small", "medium", "big", or something like that.
When the first Atom bomb test was complete a colleague of Oppenheimer said: "What an Awesome and Foul display of Power." a moment later he added, "Now we are all sons of bitches"
When the first Atom bomb test was complete a colleague of Oppenheimer said: "What an Awesome and Foul display of Power." a moment later he added, "Now we are all sons of bitches"
