Conquer Club

I'm talking maps here.

I know that the general consensus has always been 'if you don't like a certain map - then don't play it'
But It's been mentioned before that the increasing number of maps is diluting the amount of time it takes to fill a game.

I believe in capitalism and evolution. The fittest survive. The strongest go on to create bigger and better things.

If a map isn't being played much, then pull it from the list.

How many maps would you like to see as the cut off point?

3, one for each setting.

I don't like the idea of killing maps. What about Disney-esque limited runs where maps are temporarily pulled in some sort of cycle? Then they come back X amount of time later to replace newly shelved maps.

Sometimes someone might play a map they dont play often because its in a turny. And maybe that perticular map fits the tournament.

How would you determine it? I mean, given the tendency of some on this site to open 50 games on the same map, often a map not often used otherwise...

Pedronicus wrote:I'm talking maps here.

I know that the general consensus has always been 'if you don't like a certain map - then don't play it'
But It's been mentioned before that the increasing number of maps is diluting the amount of time it takes to fill a game.

I believe in capitalism and evolution. The fittest survive. The strongest go on to create bigger and better things.

If a map isn't being played much, then pull it from the list.

How many maps would you like to see as the cut off point?

Not sure a fixed number would be so good. Perhaps the map page could be split into a couple of bands showing popular maps and specialist maps with a caveat. This would also, perhaps, deter new arrivees from hitting strange maps set up by farmers.

Fruitcake wrote:Not sure a fixed number would be so good. Perhaps the map page could be split into a couple of bands showing popular maps and specialist maps with a caveat. This would also, perhaps, deter new arrivees from hitting strange maps set up by farmers.

This is actually something I've thought about before. Perhaps a categorization of maps. Separated into classic gameplay, maps with bombardment functions or single territory bonues, like Italy, and then the conquest maps.

If the Betas are already separated, it shouldn't be detrimental to the site to categorize more. Also, a "Hot Maps" section could be interesting as well.

Now you're cooking with gas. I like those ideas. Anything like 'em in Suggs & Bugs?

It's the American way-- more and more. Once you've gotten more you want some more. I on the other hand believe in quality over quantity.

I didn't see an option for 25 or less so I chose the closest thing. 75--

There's no "the skies the limit" option...

The number of maps would be immaterial if the game finder/start a game/join a game screens were organised better.

C.

Exactly Yeti

The number of maps is immaterial - it's the poor organisation of them that lets the site down...

...now would be an appropriate time to advertise Chipv's Map Filter script

I agree with MrBenn. The number of maps can look daunting, but with proper organisation, I don't see why there should be a limit at all. It's just a big pile of maps at the moment, if it were structured into well laid out groups, then the more the merrier

leave all the maps

cutoff point no way we need more maps to get more games and more people on this site

there are probably only a handful of maps that i dont play regularly, and i happen to know them all to be wildly popular amongst people that arent me. i would miss maps if they disappeared, would suck.

i do like the idea of limited run maps tho, like the new halloween map only showing up during the month of october, but i would miss it the other 11 months out of the year, lol.

yes, better organization of maps, categories!!!

MrBenn wrote:The number of maps is immaterial - it's the poor organisation of them that lets the site down...

e_i_pi wrote:I agree with MrBenn. The number of maps can look daunting, but with proper organisation, I don't see why there should be a limit at all. It's just a big pile of maps at the moment, if it were structured into well laid out groups, then the more the merrier

well, that is just kind of interesting and funny, considering mr. benn just got a larger, clunkier version of the amazingly perfect EUROPE map into beta. i think if CC were a bit more strict on map ideas and what can and can't become a map, it would be better served. couple that with the suggestions of better organization, and you are onto something...-0

I think the possibility of a rotation with maps, but how would you decide the rotation? Would the 5 most popular maps each rotation stay and the rest change?

However if something along these lines occurred I would suggest that Tournaments can have any map, increasing traffic for tournaments.

owenshooter wrote:well, that is just kind of interesting and funny, considering mr. benn just got a larger, clunkier version of the amazingly perfect EUROPE map into beta. i think if CC were a bit more strict on map ideas and what can and can't become a map, it would be better served. couple that with the suggestions of better organization, and you are onto something...-0

You're more than welcome to post any feedback about the geographically accurate Europe map in the thread in the foundry... The map is still in Beta, so there is still room for a tweak or two if necessary.

The map organisation debate has been going on for a while now, but I still see that as one of the key things that would improve the site.

As for maps making it through the foundry, it takes a lot of effort to get a map into play. The mapmaking process works in stages, and the quality of each map in each stage generally gets better and better. The whole process is entirely community-driven - if you want to make a change, BE the change

MrBenn wrote:

owenshooter wrote:well, that is just kind of interesting and funny, considering mr. benn just got a larger, clunkier version of the amazingly perfect EUROPE map into beta. i think if CC were a bit more strict on map ideas and what can and can't become a map, it would be better served. couple that with the suggestions of better organization, and you are onto something...-0

You're more than welcome to post any feedback about the geographically accurate Europe map in the thread in the foundry... The map is still in Beta, so there is still room for a tweak or two if necessary.

The map organisation debate has been going on for a while now, but I still see that as one of the key things that would improve the site.

As for maps making it through the foundry, it takes a lot of effort to get a map into play. The mapmaking process works in stages, and the quality of each map in each stage generally gets better and better. The whole process is entirely community-driven - if you want to make a change, BE the change

Sounds like someone doesn't like things being said about his map. But this is general discussion. One is allowed to discuss maps here. And I agree. The gameplay of the current Europe map is great. The new geographically accurate EUROPA looks clunky, vainglorious, and a map I will avoid steadfastly.

But that's just my opinion of your big amount of work. Don't get upset about it. Just do more work. That's how it goes for the artist. Tough luck, the audience wasn't as thrilled with the idea as you were.

Speak for yourself, pimp. I love Europa's game play.

MrBenn wrote: if you want to make a change, BE the change

So you mean I should waste my time going into the foundry and telling everyone to stop making their map?
Yeah, right - you're all going to finish whatever you start regardless of input. The only maps that never get finished are the ones started by players who loose interest.

I'm not precious about my map. If people like it, they'll play it. If not, they won't. If you think the gameplay of the map is clunky or whatever, then I'd be grateful for any feedback in the thread in the Foundry.

Back on topic though, I've only played around half the maps available, and so there are some that I wouldn't miss, purely by virtue of never having played on them. There are probably a handful of maps (10-20) that I play regularly, so the idea of filtering the available maps into 'hot maps' or something has appeal to me.

Would the site benefit from dropping it's least popular maps? How do we measure popularity anyway? Maps are a bit like marmite - you either love them or hate them....

there are only a couple maps i dont like to play on... but i think people would get mad if we lost the AoR maps just cuz i dont like to play them

I agree 100% though that we need REAL organization of maps badly

pimpdave wrote:

Fruitcake wrote:Not sure a fixed number would be so good. Perhaps the map page could be split into a couple of bands showing popular maps and specialist maps with a caveat. This would also, perhaps, deter new arrivees from hitting strange maps set up by farmers.

This is actually something I've thought about before. Perhaps a categorization of maps. Separated into classic gameplay, maps with bombardment functions or single territory bonues, like Italy, and then the conquest maps.

If the Betas are already separated, it shouldn't be detrimental to the site to categorize more. Also, a "Hot Maps" section could be interesting as well.

Don't like limits, DO like categorization.

Would make it easier to find the "right" maps. Also, Right now, new folks make hop in, not realize the huge differances in maps, pick one they don't like and leave. If they were categorized, at least they would have a better idea.