Map Tags [Public Discussion/Review]

[thenobodies80]

Like we announced in past (in this thread), at some point we will have a public map gallery that is nothing else that the public side of the big map database we're currently working on.
After some discussion behind the scenes, we decided that it would be a good thing to have a public discussion for two items we want to add to the map gallery/database: Tag and Complexity Levels.

In this topic we will discuss Tags, if you want to discuss about complexity, please use this thread.

Actually we have two type of tags into the database, automated and manual tags.

Automatic Tags:
1 => Starting Positions
2 => Starting Neutrals
3 => Bombardments
4 => Killer Neutrals
5 => Objectives
6 => Requirements
7 => Auto-Deploy
8 => Adjusted Reinforcements
9 => Negative Bonus
10 => One Way Borders

Manual Tags:
1 => Classic Gameplay
2 => Conquest Gameplay
3 => Resource Gameplay
4 => Supersize Graphics
5 => Small Graphics
6 => Sci-Fi/Fantasy Theme
7 => History Theme
8 => Abstract Theme
9 => Geography Theme
10 => Battle Theme
11 => Collections

Obviously automated tags are collected using the xml, but for manual tags we can expand more. For example I'm strongly in favour of having a tag for all classic cities maps that some mapmakers are producing lately. It would be better to have tags for map series instead of long names.

Anyway, apart those already listed, which other manual tags should we add?

[greenoaks]

will the xml tags be like the Foundry icons & listed prominently in each maps description?

[laughingcavalier]

I have got to admit I find it hard to visualise changes like this so I may be talking rot, but...
I am concerned that you have too many tags already. The point of tags is to make it easier to choose games, especially for those who don't know CC well. If you have a large number of tags, then the tags in themselves may become confusing. A player will have to have a large knowledge base just to understand what the tags mean. And if you need to know a lot already to make the tags meaningful, then the tags become less useful to the players who don't know a lot, ie the players who might benefit most from the tags.
So my recommendations:
[*]keep tags to as few as possible;
[*]provide a clear hierarchy for the tags (eg (1) gameplay: conquest OR classic OR resource; (2) graphics: small OR supersize.... etc...
[*]give signposting for the tags (eg a clickable link to explain conquest gameplay = "a map with fixed starting positions, many neutrals blah blah blah")

[greenoaks]

in Australia a movie will be rated something like this-

This movie is rate M - it may contain course language, adult themes, nudity & low level violence


i picture the maps the same way, but interactive

looking at a map it will say this map contains blah, blah, blah but we'd also be able to search maps based on tags like the Game Finder page does to get a list of all Starting Position maps or all maps with Bombardment and Winning Conditions

[agentcom]

I think you're exactly right to include the automatic tags based on XML features. You will need to add a couple for the new XML features when they go live. Also, you may have missed a couple semi-automatic tags, which are overlapping bonuses and leveled bonuses. This is a little hard because the "override" XML tag can be used for a truly overlapping bonus where 1 territ is part of two bonuses, but it can also be used as a matter of convenience where there are multiple "levels" to a bonus based on how many of a certain kind of territory you have. Further complicating things is that there may be both on a map. Or even territs that fall into both categories.

As for the manual tags, I would like to see a "rail" tag with "rail" defined broadly to include more than just the "rail" series. It should also include maps like Sydney Metro or NYC, I believe. Perhaps some of these fall into the category of a different manual tag like "non-obvious connections": think the cross-map connections on Middle Ages, perhaps every map with bombardments that aren't indicated on the map proper (but in the key) like Waterloo or Stalingrad.

Of course, all this is academic to me until we can actually get some search/organizational functionality to these tags into the site. With 200+ maps, it's time we were able to sort and search by these features, but this is a step in the right direction.

I like that you are thinking in terms of things like "Classic Cities" and I would expand that to other series. Perhaps there could be a "series" tag that would apply to AoR, Draknor (when CMS finishes level 2), the original Rail series, and the U.S. highway/cities/regional maps that have been created. In my opinion the more the better.

Also, it would be nice to tag maps that are produced by some of our more prolific map makers. Not that these maps have necessarily common gameplay, but I think it would be another nice tag to have and also produce some recognition to those dedicated folks. Can you imagine the day when you can start a game on Map: Random: Cairns' maps?

Finally, along with the other topical categorizations (History, Abstract, Geography), you could have subsets of those: History--Warfare or Geography--Asia.

I would say that I presented these things in decreasing order of importance in my opinion. You only have time for so much, but I think categorization is a good thing. Let's say this site gets up to 1000 maps ... it will be nice to have as many ways of organizing these maps as possible. And like I said before, it will be nice when we can finally work these features into the CC search engine so that you can create "limited random" map choices ... for example you might want a Random Complex map (see the other topic on Complexity ratings) or a Random Rail map.

[koontz1973]

Also, it would be nice to tag maps that are produced by some of our more prolific map makers. Not that these maps have necessarily common gameplay, but I think it would be another nice tag to have and also produce some recognition to those dedicated folks. Can you imagine the day when you can start a game on Map: Random: Cairns' maps?

This would be a nice one to have. But with so few map makers getting more than a couple of maps, it seems a waste. But to do it for a chosen few like cairns. Just another way to say, here are the best of the best. And I know that best is subjective.

As for other tags, none really come to mind as you have pretty much covered it all (maybe animal maps ).

[greenoaks]

each map should have information about it

creation date, number of terits, starting positions, mapmaker + many other tags such as themes like WWII/Cities/Countries.

all those things should be searchable or sortable

[koontz1973]

each map should have information about it

creation date, number of terits, starting positions, mapmaker + many other tags such as themes like WWII/Cities/Countries.

all those things should be searchable or sortable

War tags would be a good one. WW1, WW2, for starters. Also continents maybe under Geography.

[agentcom]

Where does this stand?

[koontz1973]

Next to the bus stop, waiting as always.

[Aleena]

More manual tags for filtering purposes sounds good to me...
What tags...
Well - I think we should look through all the maps and any classification that you can place 5+ maps in - maybe should have a tag for it...

Like USA Maps,
World Maps
Baltic Maps,
Great Britian Maps,
All of these I've seen multiple versions of...

The Classic Cities tag is a good idea...

Fantasy and Sci/Fi Themed should be two separate tags not the same..

Most maps will have many tags for they can be classified in multiple areas..

[Aleena]

Also think there should be more automatic tags..
We need to expand the XML procedure calls available to us as map makers..
So many ideas I have and have heard from others in the forum of things they ask if they could design in a map - yet are told no - because of the current scoop and limitations of these current tags...

For example:
7 => Auto-Deploy
Only works on areas controlled by players...
we need a new tag - or this one modified to allow Neutral Auto-Deploy
So that a Neutral area will slowly get stronger as the players get stronger unless/until the players capture that area, and claim the auto-deploy for themselves...

Also like to see a Timer-Conditional Victory condition ability...
For example:
Currently you can have a Victory condition that if you maintain control over 3 certain areas then you will win the game. But I feel that in some maps it would be more of a challenge to have to hold onto those 3 areas longer then just one round.. So to have a VictoryTimerCond(4) could indicate that you need to maintain control over these areas for 4 rounds to win, not just one...

This is just two ideas of future upgrades and options - - but we should not stop there... The more tools the designers have, the more dynamic these maps can become.....

Even seen this asked about recently (conditional auto-deploy or conditional decay) - and would be cool if the designers have these tools and are not so limited in scoop..