Quality control for new maps

[edbeard]

well one of the map info projects was going to list all the info about every map including best game sizes and types for each map. It that was finished then people could read a bit about maps before playing on them. If people want to turn this thread into recommendations about what type of games work on certain maps and which ones to avoid, that'd be a lot more productive than whatever is going on here now.


One thing people need to realize is that you're not going to like every map and none are going to work on every size and type of game. To say there's this huge problem with how the foundry works and the QA that goes into making the maps just shows your ignorance of the process and naiveness on what's possible to create.



If your concern is to avoid bugs and errors, then don't play a map until the NEW tag comes off.

[cairnswk]

[quote='incandenza"]
5. The idea that mapmakers should have to drag people into their threads to comment is ludicrous. Mapmakers are not allowed to advertise in GD, tho many if not all put an image or link in their sigs. The foundry is open to all.

Face it, the reason the maps are in the sigs is bragging rights.[/quote]

How untrue. I had been battling in the GD thread on several ocassions to advertise but was told by our great Twill that this was not allowed because "itg messed up the GD thread" - everything had to be compartmentalised. Incandenza in right. We are not allowed to advertise in the GD, so unless you come into the foundry, then there is no communication between where we spend the majority of our time and where you spend the majority of your time. If i wanted to brag about the number of maps i'd made, you see something very different in my sig. Instead what you see if what in currently in development from me..it is the only form of advertising that i can do to get the message out there about what i am developing in the foundry.

[cairnswk]

I have just returned from the foundry and i left my thoughts.

And i responded

[hulmey]

I have just returned from the foundry and i left my thoughts.

And i responded

Ps...Can you please clicky your sig ,as other map makers do ???

[cairnswk]

I have just returned from the foundry and i left my thoughts.

And i responded

Ps...Can you please clicky your sig ,as other map makers do ???

how this hulmey....finally took all that text VVVV

[hulmey]

I have just returned from the foundry and i left my thoughts.

And i responded

Ps...Can you please clicky your sig ,as other map makers do ???

how this hulmey....finally took all that text VVVV

hmmm, Qwert has made it so that each map section is clicky and take you to the map. then you dont need the wording underneath

[rabbiton]

There is a neeed for play testing maps but lackattack doesnt want to do it for some reason

ah yes, the testing facility.

i believe that if we divide the cost of the effort involved to implement a testing facility, by the value of the benefit it will return the website, we would obtain a very small number.

this is what folks in the neurosurgery industry might call a no-brainer.

i looked it up from a thread from a while back (one of numerous to bring up the topic) and here was my primitive business analysis of the process:

1. a db flag on each map to indicate status ('test' in this case)
2. simple logic to hold test maps out of live play
2. the special ability for some individuals to set up games on test maps
3. simple logic that stops maps in test status from issuing points, or changing stats

would probably be an afternoon's work, with some fixes in the morning, and some enhancements the following thursday.

[milwood]

Note to self... don't ever play a map marked "NEW"...

[edbeard]

Note to self... don't ever play a map marked "NEW"...

you're generally safe with the standard style maps. But, it never hurts to take the time to read some game chats of existing games or look at the thread in Final Forge for people talking about problems.

[BaldAdonis]

I don't think test games are necessary. If you've played a lot of games you can tell how maps will work out. For example, Sydney has a lot of bonuses with few territories, worth a lot. This makes for a terrible 2 player/team game (the first to play will be a long way ahead, even if they don't drop a bonus) and also makes for ugly escalating games (too many dead ends, low connectivity and again, a lot of bonuses, make eliminations unfeasible), but it would play quite well as a flat rate or no cards game, especially in the fog.

There aren't as many game options as people are claiming. Two player and two team games essentially work the same way, regardless of cards (your gains are their losses; first to play has an advantage). Then multiplayer (and multiteam) games can be divided into flat rate/no cards games (where the primary source of armies is the map) and escalating (where the primary source is cards). Most maps can be accommodated to play well in these three scenarios, and still leave a lot of freedom.

The primary qualities altering gameplay are bonuses, connectivity (the average number of neighbours) and dead ends (territories with only 1 neighbour). Higher connectivity improves escalating and 2 player (or team) games; lower makes a better no cards game. There is a large margin where they both work well (somewhere between 3 and . Very high connectivity (think Waterloo) improves a 2 player game more than an escalating game, because the latter are affected by dead ends. Dead ends slow down escalating games (because they are very simple blocks, and so make eliminations difficult), but improve the no cards game (two territories for the defense cost of one). Again, a large range where both work well (1 for every 15 or more territories). Bonuses can be arranged any way the mapmaker likes, but the values of each will change the games. Any amounts at all are fine for no card games (they'll just result in more fighting for the valuable regions, hence more cost associated with capturing them), and high values don't change escalating games much, except to make them last longer. The bonuses should be structured towards 2 player games, since a player or team who starts with one can make it difficult for their opponents to do anything if it is too high.

Number of territories has less effect then the emphasis on it would imply. It increases the advantage of playing first in 2 player/team games, but has almost no effect on the other two playing styles.

[azezzo]

whats wrong with the classic map? its what brought all of us to this site in the 1'st place.

i dont understand why C.C. is turning out new maps like a pregnant rabbit, or (is that turtle?).
a few weeks ago i entered a private tournament to play all 88 maps, now theres 95 maps. at the new production rate of the foundry my tourney will not end.
we are about 20 maps into it, and there is a general consensus that some of the existing maps are pretty lame.
that being said, i can understand and appreciate the effort of the map makers to make better maps, but slow down and do your homework, change for the sake of change is not always a good thing.

[whitestazn88]

theres a ton of quality control. all the maps are fun if you want to have fun getting to play them and learn them. if all you wanna do is complain about not being able to noob farm on it, that's not the map-maker's fault.

i for one am enjoying galapagos quite a bit

[hulmey]

I don't think test games are necessary. If you've played a lot of games you can tell how maps will work out. For example, Sydney has a lot of bonuses with few territories, worth a lot. This makes for a terrible 2 player/team game (the first to play will be a long way ahead, even if they don't drop a bonus) and also makes for ugly escalating games (too many dead ends, low connectivity and again, a lot of bonuses, make eliminations unfeasible), but it would play quite well as a flat rate or no cards game, especially in the fog.

There aren't as many game options as people are claiming. Two player and two team games essentially work the same way, regardless of cards (your gains are their losses; first to play has an advantage). Then multiplayer (and multiteam) games can be divided into flat rate/no cards games (where the primary source of armies is the map) and escalating (where the primary source is cards). Most maps can be accommodated to play well in these three scenarios, and still leave a lot of freedom.

The primary qualities altering gameplay are bonuses, connectivity (the average number of neighbours) and dead ends (territories with only 1 neighbour). Higher connectivity improves escalating and 2 player (or team) games; lower makes a better no cards game. There is a large margin where they both work well (somewhere between 3 and . Very high connectivity (think Waterloo) improves a 2 player game more than an escalating game, because the latter are affected by dead ends. Dead ends slow down escalating games (because they are very simple blocks, and so make eliminations difficult), but improve the no cards game (two territories for the defense cost of one). Again, a large range where both work well (1 for every 15 or more territories). Bonuses can be arranged any way the mapmaker likes, but the values of each will change the games. Any amounts at all are fine for no card games (they'll just result in more fighting for the valuable regions, hence more cost associated with capturing them), and high values don't change escalating games much, except to make them last longer. The bonuses should be structured towards 2 player games, since a player or team who starts with one can make it difficult for their opponents to do anything if it is too high.

Number of territories has less effect then the emphasis on it would imply. It increases the advantage of playing first in 2 player/team games, but has almost no effect on the other two playing styles.

playing testing is essential so that maps like galapagos are not put on the site with problems!!! You have just written an essay and not understood why we need play testing of maps before thay are made live!

[edbeard]

NEW tags is play testing. it's just not official or known to anybody except me. like I've said, just put up a disclaimer about the NEW tagged maps and that's the best way to solve any problems. play at your own risk. it allows us to figure out if the map has bugs or poor gameplay in a real setting.

[yeti_c]

Why the hostility gents?

The way I see it is that you're the only person with the hostility in this thread. - You have insulted all of the mapmakers with some fairly stereotypical comments and brash remarks. - Thus attempting to turn what is a decent topic of interest and comment into a "them and us" topic - thus trying to further entrench your mistaken views that the mapmakers dislike "outsiders".

I'm glad that you have failed in this regard and as you can see - the mapmakers are here to discuss the fact that they agree with the "BETA testing area" - but disagree with your comment of "there is no QA".

I personally think that there should be a BETA testing area - However, recently I worked with Lack closely to create a modification to the mapmaker tools that essentially added a BOB type interface for greater QA. - you'll notice that of the new maps there has I believe been 1 connection error. - These were notoriously hard to spot before - but are much easier now -> so your comments about no QA are completely unfounded.

C.

[Thezzaruz]

NEW tags is play testing. it's just not official or known to anybody except me. like I've said, just put up a disclaimer about the NEW tagged maps and that's the best way to solve any problems. play at your own risk. it allows us to figure out if the map has bugs or poor gameplay in a real setting.

It's kind of a poor mans way to do it but it should work well none the less.

I would add having a set time frame (2 weeks or so) for games to be startable and then have a bit of contemplation about the pros and cons of the map. And if no bugs where found send it up again without the "new" sign and if bugs where found solve and then put it up for play (with a new period of testing if the changes are bigish). Could avoid this "haistily fixing of bugs/updating map that created wierd effects in all ongoing games on that map" malarky of the galapagos map.

[Lincecum]

NEW tags is play testing. it's just not official or known to anybody except me. like I've said, just put up a disclaimer about the NEW tagged maps and that's the best way to solve any problems. play at your own risk. it allows us to figure out if the map has bugs or poor gameplay in a real setting.

It's kind of a poor mans way to do it but it should work well none the less.

I would add having a set time frame (2 weeks or so) for games to be startable and then have a bit of contemplation about the pros and cons of the map. And if no bugs where found send it up again without the "new" sign and if bugs where found solve and then put it up for play (with a new period of testing if the changes are bigish). Could avoid this "haistily fixing of bugs/updating map that created wierd effects in all ongoing games on that map" malarky of the galapagos map.

Combine this with changing the "NEW" map icon to "BETA" and I think it makes a lot of sense. There's no need for members who don't even read the forum to get caught in another Galapagos-type snafu. To me, "NEW" and "QUENCHED" implies something very different from "BETA".

[gdeangel]

Why the hostility gents?

The way I see it is that you're the only person with the hostility in this thread. - You have insulted all of the mapmakers with some fairly stereotypical comments and brash remarks. - Thus attempting to turn what is a decent topic of interest and comment into a "them and us" topic - thus trying to further entrench your mistaken views that the mapmakers dislike "outsiders".

Not even close. The initial response from mapmakers was a typical "let's dump this in the forum and bury it". To bad, because a lot of people agree with my point that there is deficient gameplay QA. If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I'm offering up lots of constructive points, and also have expressed that there are really great maps that have come out of the foundry but lately it is just not confidence inspiring enough for me ATM to bother playing a map that has "new" stamped on it, which makes this site a lot less fun than it was 4-5 map releases back.

I like the idea that they should be called "Beta"... at least that's honest for the way things are running now.

There is a lot of denial here by mapmakers, and attempts, such as your post yeti, to make this an ah hominem attack on me for raising this issue in GD. However there are more than a few people who share my view, and that's not to say its "us" versus "them", but you cannot ignore the impression of a bunch of mapmakers parading over here en masse to tow the party line that the foundry works as well as it possibly can. Again, why the hostility? I'd hate to think it was the medals, or the idea that the process (and product at release time) could be improved.

i looked it up from a thread from a while back (one of numerous to bring up the topic) and here was my primitive business analysis of the process:

1. a db flag on each map to indicate status ('test' in this case)
2. simple logic to hold test maps out of live play
2. the special ability for some individuals to set up games on test maps
3. simple logic that stops maps in test status from issuing points, or changing stats

would probably be an afternoon's work, with some fixes in the morning, and some enhancements the following thursday.

Frankly 1.5-2 days of work does not sound like a lot of effort to implement a testing capability, given the immense number of hours that are going into the product by the mapmakers in the first place. Yes, it's going to possibly cost some time, but a start up like this can't balk at putting in the sweat equity up front... which gives the long run payoff of a better site, with more satisfied players sticking around and signing up for premium, etc. I think you have a great implementation plan, and someone with the connections to site management should get it underway now rather than later when the next round of maps with half-baked gameplay make even more players lose their enthusiasm for new maps on this site.

[yeti_c]

Again, why the hostility?

People have already told you - there is no hostility. - Everyone, except you, has made a worthwhile contribution to the thread discussing how the system currently works - and how they would like to improve it.

I, and I believe I talk for the majority of the map makers here, would like nothing more than a BETA area for Map play testing - but it has been rejected many many times - it is not "us" from the foundry that are rejecting it - it is the big honcho himself LackAttack. - however we are working with what we have - and for "you" to come and tell us we're not doing that is a bit rude n'est pas?

Once again I call upon you to become part of the solution instead of trying to be part of the problem.

C.

[TaCktiX]

I must heartily disagree with the tone of the OP. Petty insults and double standards have no place in a discussion about the merits of a system.

That said, I'd say that the quality control is very good right now. It's not perfect, but considering we're talking about a bunch of people who are paid NOTHING for their hard work and are not obligated to provide anything for the site at all (even Premium cash), there's a ton of "bang for the buck". A testing area would be terrific, and adding a disclaimer to the New! maps would be almost as good, but as it stands the quality of work turned out by the Foundry is nothing short of amazing considering there is no direct game testing prior to release.

Also, the "crappy things getting all churned out" is a result of a 2-month backup in the Foundry. Thank Wicked and that forum snafu for why maps got postponed from hitting live play. A lot of the more niche-based maps that were quenched fairly far apart ended up landing all at once, more or less.

Noted by others is the fact that the Foundry relies on the maxim of "put in if you want to get out". If things aren't to your liking, GET INVOLVED. Whining in GD about "those accursed mapmakers" while sitting back and doing nothing when people in the Foundry are actively encouraging people to show up and give their two cents is nothing short of childish. Considering that the average map will take between 3 and 5 months to be completed (my own nearly-completed map of The Citadel is approaching 7 months), there's plenty of time to show up and note possible issues, even if it's a 5 minute brief outline of "lotsa dead-ends" or "bonuses are a bit high".

On the tangent of "but it takes too long to find something I want to comment on," there is a solution that has been around for 13 weeks running: the Foundry Newsletter (link is to the most recent issue). Instead of having to comb through mammoth first posts over dozens of topics, every map in active development is given a paragraph blurb and a link provided to its topic. The means to get involved is even easier than before (particularly since the Foundry Newsletter is available via the Headlines feature).

As for the assertion that "you all want to increase your e-peen by having that stupid map medal", that's a load of crap. I started work on my map (and I know I'm like 99% of all other mapmakers in this) because I wanted to contribute to the site while exercising my creative talents. The medal doesn't mean squat to me compared to the feeling of accomplishment knowing "I spent 300 hours and got THAT out of it".

Finally, I can speak from experience when I try to do gameplay balancing. Note the Gold crossmap (76 at last Maprank), and I'll note that I have won on 91 of the 96 maps in play. Stereotyping all mapmakers as oblivious fools who don't know how to play CC is a load of stinking horsecrap. Due to time constraints, a lot of very knowledgeable mapmakers don't take as close a look as they could at gameplay. There's only 24 hours in the day, and most of us have jobs, classes, and the like to worry about.

[gdeangel]

and for "you" to come and tell us we're not doing that is a bit rude n'est pas?

There it is again... more of the same: who are you to tell us how we can do a better job / how we're not producing quality product.

Well, I'm your end-user yeti. And I don't think I was particularly rude... just stating my perception of what's out there and asking for thoughts of the general community.

Once again I call upon you to become part of the solution instead of trying to be part of the problem.

C.

I took the time to make this thread. I took the time to bother responding to the ideas that have come up, as well as to the attempts to crush the original spirit of this thread, such as sucking it back into the foundry where, and here I'm citing a few other people's thoughts, even mapmakers, above, actually players with insight into strategic gameplay, are in short supply. I don't know what solution you refer to, but my thoughts on the testing, the beta labelling, etc. are above. My thoughts on withholding medals are also an attempt to craft a solution, albeit indirect motivation. The fact that mapmakers can't advertise is not a gating issue to QA because, as said by me and others here, not to criticize by to point out that, with some exceptions, just getting players to intuit on the visual representation of a map is not a way to validate gameplay. It's great for critiquing the visual, but, and as I said above, even if it means printing a map and rolling dice in the living room, after looking at what people have said, I am coming down on the side that the deficiency is lack of a live QA environment for maps.

And as I also said above, the idea of a mirror development environment where site upgrades SHOULD be tested would be the ideal place to implement game testing without compromising the production environment and confusing the rank-and-file player.

And here comes another user to say I'm whining and not helping the site. Let's see, oh, what a surprise... it's another mapmaker. Who is setting up the "us" vs. "them" dynamic here? This is the same kind of crap that goes on in the foundry. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the issue isn't the process or lack thereof... maybe it's just the fact that we've got a bunch of antisocial miscreants with their heads shoved too far up the Photoshop manual to respect outside criticism who are dominating the foundry. Now that IS an "us" vs "them" statement, and if I'm going to be tarred as making them, at least you aught to know what they look like.

I'm done with this waste of time.

[foregone]

and for "you" to come and tell us we're not doing that is a bit rude n'est pas?

There it is again... more of the same: who are you to tell us how we can do a better job / how we're not producing quality product.

Well, I'm your end-user yeti. And I don't think I was particularly rude... just stating my perception of what's out there and asking for thoughts of the general community.

Once again I call upon you to become part of the solution instead of trying to be part of the problem.

C.

I took the time to make this thread. I took the time to bother responding to the ideas that have come up, as well as to the attempts to crush the original spirit of this thread, such as sucking it back into the foundry where, and here I'm citing a few other people's thoughts, even mapmakers, above, actually players with insight into strategic gameplay, are in short supply. I don't know what solution you refer to, but my thoughts on the testing, the beta labelling, etc. are above. My thoughts on withholding medals are also an attempt to craft a solution, albeit indirect motivation. The fact that mapmakers can't advertise is not a gating issue to QA because, as said by me and others here, not to criticize by to point out that, with some exceptions, just getting players to intuit on the visual representation of a map is not a way to validate gameplay. It's great for critiquing the visual, but, and as I said above, even if it means printing a map and rolling dice in the living room, after looking at what people have said, I am coming down on the side that the deficiency is lack of a live QA environment for maps.

And as I also said above, the idea of a mirror development environment where site upgrades SHOULD be tested would be the ideal place to implement game testing without compromising the production environment and confusing the rank-and-file player.

And here comes another user to say I'm whining and not helping the site. Let's see, oh, what a surprise... it's another mapmaker. Who is setting up the "us" vs. "them" dynamic here? This is the same kind of crap that goes on in the foundry. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the issue isn't the process or lack thereof... maybe it's just the fact that we've got a bunch of antisocial miscreants with their heads shoved too far up the Photoshop manual to respect outside criticism who are dominating the foundry. Now that IS an "us" vs "them" statement, and if I'm going to be tarred as making them, at least you aught to know what they look like.

I'm done with this waste of time.

I'm finding all this very difficult to understand, gdeangel.

The only map that I can see you commenting on at the moment (and I may be wrong, still working on the omniscience thing) is mine in which we're having an earnest discussion on gameplay aspects and trying to find solutions/compromises (which I appreciate). And the sole reason I haven't updated anything of those gameplay aspects is because I'd like to try to reach a consensus, or something which reasonably resembles this. And I have a feeling few if any of the other mapmakers would act any differently.

And yes, alot of time is spent on the visuals. Maybe I'm slow, but is this a bad thing at all?

The mapmakers (a group which I do not yet qualify for) have generally asked all people, including those which are gameplay experts, to comment on any and all aspects. They encourage anyone who comes in and tries out this "mapmaking" thing. They come up with new ways to try to encourage more involvement. The maps spend months upon months in the foundry process just waiting for commentary. How is this an exclusive club?

Medals: 8 months of constant grafting for the addition of one number on tiny image is hardly the motivation for mapmakers. Is it nice that the guys that are producing a half ton of maps gets some recognition? Sure. But you certainly can't do a quick production for a new medal.

Lastly, mapmakers are entering this thread to drop a post. Hardly surprising. I don't check the Top 10 of this and that threads often. I'm not close to that league and it doesn't interest me (no offense to anyone). This thread is bound to be interesting to people involved in the foundry process. So they make a comment here. Seems pretty natural.

[hulmey]

Just played the new prison supermax map and the gameplay on it is awful. I played 1 game on it and never ever ever again.

Tactics are drop your armies in the yard and the person with the best dice wins the game. Not only that i started with an 11 bonus and the other player started with friggin 17......I really do think that with all the wonderful and weird maps coming out of the Foundry, that it is about time we catergorized maps by their intended market!!

Keep on drawing guys

[edbeard]

Just played the new prison supermax map and the gameplay on it is awful. I played 1 game on it and never ever ever again.

Tactics are drop your armies in the yard and the person with the best dice wins the game. Not only that i started with an 11 bonus and the other player started with friggin 17.

you couldn't figure out beforehand by looking at the map that a 1v1 game probably isn't the optimal format?

that makes me laugh

[MrBenn]

I've got an idea... why don't we ban any gametype except for 1v1 freestyle. Then there will be a legitimate reason to complain about maps not being suitable for games...