Map Organization Project Revisited

[laci_mae]

As we steadily expand to over 100 maps that are live and playable, I wonder if there is a better way to categorize them. The alphabetical list is spiraling out of control.

Good features that should stay
[*]All maps accessible from one page
[*]Page doesn't have to reload to see full-size image

Problems with current set-up
[*]Overwhelming number of choices
[*]Not easy to discriminate types of maps
[*]Must individually click each map to choose

My suggestion for improvement
[*]Categorize maps--World depictions, Based on real locations, Based on war, Abstract
[*]Make mouse-over expansion

I started this in the foundry because we are the ones who care about the maps. If it generates some worthy discussion, we could move to the general forum to see what others think.

Best,
LMR

[AndyDufresne]

Somewhere there is a thread Coleman and DiM (along with others) had some lengthy discussions about the topic you mentioned.

Edit: Found it... viewtopic.php?f=127&t=36514&start=0


--Andy

[laci_mae]

Thanks. I shall look for it, and post the link if I find it. I would appreciate anyone who knows more for doing the same!

LMR

[DiM]

the map organization project

[laci_mae]

DiM,

Thanks so much for the link. After scanning the thread, I feel I should summarize the issue and offer my opinion. Please let me know if there are additional points of discussion that won't cause you too much stress.

Laci

[laci_mae]

In the original thread, most agreed that organizing the available maps is a worthy effort. There was heavy debate as to which type of taxonomy would be most appropriate. The front runners are by topic of the map, by complexity, and by user ratings. Each of these options was discussed in depth, and, as such, you may view the nuances in the original thread. Another great suggestion that arose from this discussion was the addition of information pages about each map (i.e. # of plays, how long it's been in play, who made it, user ratings, etc.).

My proposal is based on the idea that a simple, user-friendly categorizing scheme would be appreciated by users, new and old. I support a taxonomy based on subject of the map because it is the single feature that will not change over time. Maps will surely fluctuate in user ratings, and complexity will fluctuate relative to other maps as new maps are quenched. As you see above, I advocate a very simplified system with about 5 groups.

If there is still support for this idea, I think it prudent to start with a basic system. Based on the user feedback, the categories could be broken into subgroups or a double search function could be added. (By double search I mean having the option to categorize by topic or complexity.)

I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions on this topic.

Best,
Laci

[laci_mae]

Geographical—world, continent, multiple countries
Classic
Africa
Arctic
Asia
Australia
Discworld
Doodle Earth
Europe
Extreme Global Warming
Middle East
North America
South America
World 2.1

Geographical—single country
Brazil
Canada
Caribbean Islands
China
France
Germany
Hong Kong
Iberia
Ireland
Italy
Malta
Netherlands
Philippines
Portugal
Rail USA
Scotland
USA

Geographical—cities, distinct regions
BeNeLux
Berlin 1961
British Isles
Dust Bowl
Great Lakes
Montreal
NYC
Puget Sound
San Francisco

Geographical—past or fictional locations
Ancient Greece
Age of Merchants
Age of Realms: Might
Age of Realms: Magic
Cairns Coral Coast
Feudal War
Middle Earth
Midkemdil
Mongol Empire
Solar System
Soviet Union
Space
Tamriel

Geographical—Wars & Battles
Alexander’s Empire
American Civil War
D-Day: Omaha Beach
Duck and Cover
Pearl Harbor
WWII Australia
WWII Easter Front
WWII Gazala
WWII Iwo Jima
WWII Western Front

Non-Geographical
Bamboo Jack
Battle of Actium
CCU
Chinese Checkers
Circus Maximus
Conquer Man
Crossword
Draknor – Level 1
King of the Mountains
Madness
Prohibition Chicago
Siege!
U.S. Senate
Valley of the Kings
Waterloo
8 Thoughts

[InkL0sed]

Good work! Just one thing that I noticed:
You have Discworld as a real place...

[DiM]

Geographical—world, continent, multiple countries
Classic
Africa
Arctic
Asia
Australia
Discworld - this is fictional
Doodle Earth
Europe
Extreme Global Warming - also fictional. yes it is the world but presented in an alternative future.
Middle East
North America
South America
World 2.1

Geographical—single country
Brazil
Canada
Caribbean Islands - not a country. should be in third categ
China
France
Germany
Hong Kong
Iberia - not a country. should be in first categ
Ireland
Italy
Malta
Netherlands
Philippines
Portugal
Rail USA - not a country but rather the railroads in a country, hard to classify
Scotland
USA

Geographical—cities, distinct regions
BeNeLux - shouldn't this be in the first category under multiple countries?
Berlin 1961 - perhaps it should be listed in the fourth categ as it is a past representation of berlin
British Isles - first categ as it represents multiple countries
Dust Bowl
Great Lakes
Montreal
NYC
Puget Sound
San Francisco

Geographical—past or fictional locations
Ancient Greece
Age of Merchants
Age of Realms: Might
Age of Realms: Magic
Cairns Coral Coast
Feudal War
Middle Earth
Midkemdil
Mongol Empire
Solar System - neither past nor fictional
Soviet Union
Space
Tamriel

Geographical—Wars & Battles
Alexander’s Empire
American Civil War
D-Day: Omaha Beach
Duck and Cover - this war never existed. it should be under fictional
Pearl Harbor
WWII Australia
WWII Easter Front
WWII Gazala
WWII Iwo Jima
WWII Western Front

Non-Geographical
Bamboo Jack - third categ as this is a region
Battle of Actium - fifth categ as this is a past battle
CCU
Chinese Checkers
Circus Maximus
Conquer Man
Crossword
Draknor – Level 1
King of the Mountains
Madness
Prohibition Chicago - cities? or past battles?
Siege!
U.S. Senate
Valley of the Kings - third categ as this is a region
Waterloo - fifth categ as this is a past battle
8 Thoughts

[AndyDufresne]

You could use an alternate: "Large Geographic Area" -- Covering the World, Continents, Large Regions, etc. And then use: "Small Geographic Area" -- Countries, Small Regions, Cities.


--Andy

[edbeard]

good job laci. a nice fresh look on it.

I've put my thoughts next to some of DiM's AND MINE ARE MUCH BETTER

Geographical—world, continent, multiple countries
Classic
Africa
Arctic
Asia
Australia
Discworld - this is fictional
Doodle Earth
Europe
Extreme Global Warming - also fictional. yes it is the world but presented in an alternative future.
Middle East
North America
South America
World 2.1

Geographical—single country
Brazil
Canada
Caribbean Islands - not a country. should be in third categ
China
France
Germany
Hong Kong
Iberia - not a country. should be in first categ
Ireland
Italy
Malta
Netherlands
Philippines
Portugal
Rail USA - not a country but rather the railroads in a country, hard to classify
Scotland
USA

Geographical—cities, distinct regions
BeNeLux - shouldn't this be in the first category under multiple countries?
Berlin 1961 - perhaps it should be listed in the fourth categ as it is a past representation of berlin
British Isles - first categ as it represents multiple countries
Dust Bowl
Great Lakes
Montreal
NYC
Puget Sound
San Francisco

Geographical—past or fictional locations
Ancient Greece
Age of Merchants
Age of Realms: Might
Age of Realms: Magic
Cairns Coral Coast
Feudal War
Middle Earth
Midkemdil
Mongol Empire
Solar System - neither past nor fictional distinct region?
Soviet Union
Space
Tamriel

Geographical—Wars & Battles
Alexander’s Empire
American Civil War
D-Day: Omaha Beach
Duck and Cover - this war never existed. it should be under fictional cold war?
Pearl Harbor
WWII Australia
WWII Eastern Front I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU HAD A SPELLING MISTAKE TYPING ALL THIS OUT. for shame
WWII Gazala
WWII Iwo Jima
WWII Western Front

Non-Geographical
Bamboo Jack - third categ as this is a region I think this is more of a past battle / war
Battle of Actium - fifth categ as this is a past battle
CCU
Chinese Checkers
Circus Maximus past location?
Conquer Man
Crossword
Draknor – Level 1
King of the Mountains
Madness
Prohibition Chicago - cities? or past battles? goes in the same place as Berlin. wherever that is.
Siege!
U.S. Senate
Valley of the Kings - third categ as this is a region
Waterloo - fifth categ as this is a past battle
8 Thoughts

[laci_mae]

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with most, so I'll just make some general comments to advance the discussion.

The main discussion should focus on whether this is the most desirable organization system. If you see a better way to group them, I'm very interested to see it.

As for the particulars of the list I made, it is just a quick list to represent what I was thinking. All of those hard to classify maps are open for debate. I'm a business student, so I don't claim to know much about geography.

Discworld & Extreme Global Warming--I think these fit with the other world maps better than fictional places.

Caribbean Islands--several countries, so belongs in first category
Iberia--area where spain and portugal are today, belongs in past locations
Rail USA--I think it stays, it represents 1 country pretty completely

BeNeLux & British Isles--agreed, first category
Berlin 1961--agreed, fourth category

Solar system--could be non-geographical as geography refers to the Earth's surface

Duck and Cover--whatever
WWII Eastern Front--typed it in Word which recognizes Easter and Eastern

All the rest--I think these belong in a separate category, possibly it could be split between non-geographical and abstract. Bamboo Jack, Actium, Prohibition Chicago, Valley of the Kings, and Waterloo are all inspired by real areas or eras, but the are not based on the geography of the area. Crossword, Conquer Man, etc. would be in the abstract group.

Let me know what you think. I'll update the list after there's been a few more comments.

Best,
LMR

[greenoaks]

iberia is the name of the peninsula.
global warming is fictional - it belongs in fictional
discworld is fictional - it belongs in fictional

remove past locations from the fictional list. Berlin 1961 belongs in Locations - Cities as it is clear from the heading it is a city. Ancient Greece belongs in Locations - Countries for a similar reason.

australia is a country. it belongs in Locations - countries. we came up with that name as a play on the continent's name Terra Australis.

carribean islands should be in multiple countries.

rail USA should remain in single country as that is what it is.

[yeti_c]

Didn't we have all this discussion in the last thread?

C.

[Incandenza]

Didn't we have all this discussion in the last thread?

C.

Yeah, but a fresh start isn't a bad idea necessarily. I remember the last thread and it became head-clutchingly discursive as plans were tweaked to accommodate the inevitable maps on the margins (like global warming or siege or D&C, maps that could conceivably fall under a couple of heading).

I don't recall if the concept of tags were discussed. That way marginal maps could have multiple tags.

If nothing else, it's worth remembering that no filing system will satisfy everyone (and by 'everyone' I mean DiM )

[yeti_c]

Yeah fair point...

But the bits that have been discussed was that "circus should be a place" and "global warming" should be whole world etc...

I do seem to remember that it went round in a big load of circles...

Then it was all junked and we went with complexity ratings...

Then everyone (DiM) argued that his maps weren't complex... and Cairns said that his maps weren't complex... and I said that Benelux is not simple and DiM said that benelux is simple... and Cairns said that Pearl Harbour is Complex... and I said we shouldn't use "WTF" we should use Hardcore... so one else suggested "extreme"... and then we added colours... and then...

Then it got forgotten!!!

I can just see this thread going the exact same way!!! (hence why I'll try to ignore it - only to keep reading it and getting bored all over again!)

C.

[Incandenza]

I can just see this thread going the exact same way!!! (hence why I'll try to ignore it - only to keep reading it and getting bored all over again!)

C.

Well then, let's have a different conversation, because laci is right. This is something that needs to get done. And ignoring it won't make the problem go away.

Here's the thing, tho: filing can't be a democratic process. Or at the very leat, it can't be a broad-based democratic process. Since we already have other ad-hod groups, why not create an organizational one? And rather than have volunteers, create a thread where people nominate candidates to serve on this ad-hoc council (obviously the candidates would have to want to do it), and then either have lack and/or andy pick from the pool or have a vote. Membership should be small and odd, 5 people probably works best.

This ad-hoc council would then thrash out a filing system amongst themselves, with lack and andy providing technical assistance and lack holding a final veto. The community at large would of course be able to provide input, perhaps thru a thread in GD.

Hell, you could probably just put together a committee of yourself, cairns, WM, oaktown, and DiM. That seems like a pretty broad enough spectrum of personalities to ensure healthy debate.

[yeti_c]

Hell, you could probably just put together a committee of yourself, cairns, WM, oaktown, and DiM. That seems like a pretty broad enough spectrum of personalities to ensure healthy debate.

So many people - so many personalities... I could see that getting nasty!!! You, sir, are an evil man!!

C.

[Incandenza]

Heh. That would be entertaining.

The real point tho is that nothing is going to get solved in a thread. Threads are placed for debate, not action, and I think the previous debate proved that this issue won't get solved by debate. Maybe it's as simple as tapping one person and saying 'hey, you mind whipping up a classification system really quickly?"

Also (and not to invite debate, but this seemed to be neglected somewhat in the other thread in favor of involved taxonomy) it's worth trying to figure out exactly how a filing system would work. Personally, I favor the following: the join/start/finder page would be exactly the same, except for where the maps are currently, there'd be a series of tabs/buttons/whatever that each connect to one of the map subgroups (including one that says 'all maps'), and when a tab is clicked, the relevant map subgroup appears ajax-style on the page (so that a new page doesn't have to be loaded), and the other tabs remain somewhere on the page so I could easily go from, say, "Historical Battles" to "Abstract" with one click. Some maps could even be filed in multiple subgroups to cover all bases.

That way the filing system doesn't matter so much, since it would be elegant and simple and fast to use.

[cairnswk]

Hell, you could probably just put together a committee of yourself, cairns, WM, oaktown, and DiM. That seems like a pretty broad enough spectrum of personalities to ensure healthy debate.

So many people - so many personalities... I could see that getting nasty!!! You, sir, are an evil man!!

C.

He's very evil

[greenoaks]

does the programming we currently have on this site allow for that sort of clicky drop down thing to happen ?

[yeti_c]

does the programming we currently have on this site allow for that sort of clicky drop down thing to happen ?

No but it would be easily changeable!!

C.

[iancanton]

i favour minimal change, with maps being grouped alphabetically within the five headings suggested by laci_mae. the map choice page currently works well and we must preserve the following features.

Good features that should stay
[*]All maps accessible from one page
[*]Page doesn't have to reload to see full-size image

ian.

[cairnswk]

I've just done the stats for this fortnight (GD thread) and in the image below i have grouped the maps as a suggestion.

Click image to enlarge.

[greenoaks]

i agree with everything you have there cairns. i had been thinking about WW2 as its own group, it is such a rich source of inspiration for map makers. a few questions though:

what game is draknor based on ?
& surely controlling the US senate would count as fantasy.