Conquer Club

i know for sure a thread about this exists but i can't find it. i really can't. it was in the period when civil war was forged i went and said some things in there and people got pissed and called me a jerk but in the end being a jerk helped the map become better. anyway long story made short i still think we suffer from the same syndrome and maps are still getting forged prematurely. now i wil give names so call me the foundry asshole again but i think something needs to be done about this. i'm tired of seeing maps stay in the forge for months with no end in sight because they were forged to soon and they aren't ready for quench. i'm tired of seeing maps with sub-par graphics or with little or no interest get forged. this isn't normal. there have to be some rules some guides, there has to be something to stop this. i mean imagine i make a shitty map. very few people comment, i keep putting pressure on the cartos and after some months of no progress in the foundry i get the forge. i wait a few more months in the forge forum and get quench. and a shitty map with no interest and no graphics is quenched. if that's how it works then why bother making good maps why bother making nice graphics with good gameplay and attractive themes?
map graphics are being taken care of by the gimil
gameplay is being taken care of by oaktown

but who takes care of the interest? of the theme?? i think this is our real problem here graphics can be great gameplay can be a total blast but if people don't like it then it's useless.
there are maps where only a handful of people post, there are maps that have less posts than AoR: Might had while it was still an idea and those maps are in final forge. WTF??

i think the foundry is mature enough to realise that not al maps are bound for success and not everything you start will get quenched. sometimes maps need to be abandoned.

as i said i will give names and i will start by quoting something that made me start this thread:

DiM wrote:

wcaclimbing wrote:It seems to me that Oasis is pretty popular, and Ardennes has similar statistics. It can't be that unpopular, can it?

actually it can.
if you take both threads and cut the posts by the map maker you have 223 for oasis and 104 for ardennes.
now look at the days the threads have, 56 for oasis and 118 for ardennes

this means that in oasis you have 3.98 posts per day and in ardennes you get 0.88 posts per day.

again, this is without the map maker posts just foundry posters.

so basically oasis can be considered 4.52 times more popular than ardennes, despite having similar stats.

aren't numbers great?

a map that spends 4 months in the foundry and gets less than a post per day (except for map maker+cartos posts) is clearly not a crowd pleaser. sorry qwert.
or spaceness map. exactly 6 months tomorrow since the map was started. and how many pages it has? 17!!!! what an interesting number. it's the exact half of AoR:Mayhem and my map was started 2.5 months. so in less than half the time one map got double the posts the other map got.

shouldn't that rise a question regarding interest?

now i'm not saying there should be an exact number of posts required to go to next stage because those posts can be done easily by the map maker (take ardennes where qwert has more than half of the posts in the thread.)
but i am saying that somebody (andy+cartos) should analyse each map and decide if it holds any interest. that isn't so hard to do. it just takes a few minutes of browsing a thread seeing who's posting and what they are posting.
because if a map doesn't hold any interest then the graphics and gameplay also suffer. it's logical if you think about it. would you go and post comments on graphics or spend time analysing the gameplay of a map that doesn't attract you in the slightest manner?? no you won't, you'll spend that time trying to improve a map you do like.

look guys, i'm not trying to get the asshole title again (although probably i will) but isn't the foundry supposed to produce top-notch maps? aren't the cartos supposed to guide maps to become better and better? well in some cases i don't see that guidance. in fact i see the exact opposite, i see maps that could become better but their progress is hindered by the premature forging phenomenon we have going.

yes andy will come and say that an unfinished map will stay in the forge until it is perfect and only then it will receive the foundry stamp. but does that ever happen?? i doubt it. in fact the best example of a map not reaching it's potential was the civil war map. nobody was commenting nothing was happening and everything was going as planned for the quench. what it took was me acting like a jerk and having the guts to say what many others felt but never found the way to say it. the map graphics sucked big time. elijah got pissed he wanted to quit but in the end he was motivated and made a damn good job of improving the graphics. what led to this situation? well the premature forging i've been talking about.
when a map reaches final forge people won't say graphics suck because they will hurt the map maker. and if they do then the map maker can always say the map got to final forge and final forge is for nitpicking not major overhauls and validly refuse to cooperate. so the map enters a stage where it waits and waits and waits some more until it is finally quenched. a week later one of the following scenarios happens:

a. if gameplay is good but graphics suck people start asking for a revamp
b. if gameplay sucks but graphics are good people start complaining the map is screwed
c. if both gameplay and graphics suck then the map joins crossword at the bottom of the pile.

and it needs to be mentioned that these scenarios happen in the rare cases that the map is actually played more than once which i highly doubt.

also since it kinda belongs in this thread, there were talks of demoting maps from forge back to foundry. why? i mean why did those maps get to forge in the first place?? 99% of the work should be done in the main foundry and the ideas sub forum. forge is for xml and nit picking not for major overhauls like the netherlands map or like the the civil war map.

Wait a minute DiM. Do you feel that any of the current maps have been forged prematurely? I understand your argument but I fail to see how it is currently revelant to current events...

Well Ardennes is no graphic masterpiece by any means, but I certainly think it's a unique map that many people will play. The Civil War and Puget Sound maps are the only 2 I can think of that were prematurely forged. And not just you DiM had your say, many of us blasted those maps until they were acceptable. I think Tisha practically quit several times.

But - I don't see any issues with any of the maps currently in the final forge thread now. Sorry.

I think DiM is just on a little PMS session

gimil wrote:I think DiM is just on a little PMS session

Aren't we all.... cough cough colour cough

Start map AOR Feb 03, 2008 Apr 08, 2008
Start Ardennes Dec 17, 2007 Apr 16,2008
Now when your map get Final forge Stage,you dont thinking that these is premature Forging,and when mine map get Final forge,you thinking that these is Premature forging.

by RjBeals on Wed Apr 16, 2008 7:56 pm

Well Ardennes is no graphic masterpiece by any means

What map here is graphic Masterpiece? I can Agree that mine map is not graphic masterpice but also yours map not graphic masterpiece to, also i belive that very small number of map is graphic masterpiece.

qwert wrote:What map here is graphic Masterpiece? I can Agree that mine map is not graphic masterpice but also yours map not graphic masterpiece to, also i belive that very small number of map is graphic masterpiece.

Calm down Qwert. I didn't mean to belittle your graphic skills or even your map. But there's basically no graphics in that map. And this thread isn't about that map specifically - DiM just targeted it in his post. And I never claimed my maps were masterpieces either. Jeez.

qwert wrote:Start map AOR Feb 03, 2008 Apr 08, 2008
Start Ardennes Dec 17, 2007 Apr 16,2008
Now when your map get Final forge Stage,you dont thinking that these is premature Forging,and when mine map get Final forge,you thinking that these is Premature forging.

qwert i know your english isn't perfect but you should have understood that BECAUSE my map is more recent and YET it gathered twice more posts than yours is preciselly the proof that ardennes was forged prematurely.

Sounds to me DiM like your being a knob for the sake of being a knob. AD is perfectly up to the standard needed to pass onto final forge. If I remeber correctly caribean islands had very little intrest with only 3 people commeting on it (one of them you) It was quenched and it a respecable map.

gimil wrote:Wait a minute DiM. Do you feel that any of the current maps have been forged prematurely? I understand your argument but I fail to see how it is currently revelant to current events...

well let's see we have 12 maps in final forge. and i believe 4 of those maps should not belong there. i'm talking about ardennes, spaceness, conqueropoly and south africa. that's 1third of the current forged maps that don't belong there.

ardennes, subpar graphics and no interest
spaceness, subpar graphics and no interest
conqueropoly, subpar graphics
southafrica, vacation

i'm not commenting on gameplay as i have little interest in those maps and so i haven't wasted my time studying them.

i mean come on, take ardennes for example. a map that has less than 1 post per day (except those made by the map maker) how many people will play it? rjbeals says many people will. well where are those "many" people?? why aren't they supporting the map if they love it so much. basically take any page of that thread and look at it. you'll see maximum 1-2 posts that don't belong to qwert andy or the cartos. that's not support. now look at the oasis map. it's teeming with support, people are flocking there, posts are abundant and tons of people express their support.

Could we mention the elephant in the room? Some maps are built to be more complex than others, and the vast majority of CC players aren't looking for complexity. D-Day, Battle of Gazala, Valley of the Kings, just to mention a few. They won't be played as much as Classic or World 2.1 (both straightforward maps with nothing special about them). Call it a manifestation of Theory X in CC. Even though they won't be played as much, does that make them worse maps?

And before you go on a tangent about how complex AoR:Mayhem is, DiM, consider that you have released two maps in the exact same vein that have been phenomenally successful. People with no interest in complexity find AoR fun because it's a well-balanced buildup game. People expect that same level of quality and coolness out of your third effort, and thus will readily post to get it there. Your reputation precedes you, so to speak.

I'm certainly not against being ridiculously picky as to what gets to Final Forge. Heck, my two current map ideas have been through almost as many revisions as most Foundry topics, and I'm still working on both of them (neglecting my third, and MUCH more fun map, sadly). The bar for Quenching should be high, but we shouldn't judge rate of posts as an indicator of true interest. What more should be looked at, and you indirectly mentioned this, DiM, is what the content of the posts are and how the mapmaker is responding to them (e.g., the total thrashing Periodic Madness got and the subsequent gameplay overhaul).

I cant comment on any other map that AD there where all FF'ed before my time. But DiM do you really think that I or oaktown or andy have (or even carinsWK, coleman and KEYOGI) have/had the time to read throught all thread to make sure that there were are 100% that there is enought support going on in a thread. The page numbers to me are enought to suggest wether or not there enough realsitic support. AD has in my opinion pushed itself enought to qualify for its place in FF.

Another one of your points . . .

Just because there isnt teaming support in production doen't mean their wont be support and popularity for a map after quench. There was no real support for feudal when it was in production yet it was the 3rd most popular game started the last time cairns done some stats.

gimil wrote:I cant comment on any other map that AD there where all FF'ed before my time. But DiM do you really think that I or oaktown or andy have (or even carinsWK, coleman and KEYOGI) have/had the time to read throught all thread to make sure that there were are 100% that there is enought support going on in a thread. The page numbers to me are enought to suggest wether or not there enough realsitic support. AD has in my opinion pushed itself enought to qualify for its place in FF.

Another one of your points . . .

Just because there isnt teaming support in production doen't mean their wont be support and popularity for a map after quench. There was no real support for feudal when it was in production yet it was the 3rd most popular game started the last time cairns done some stats.

if you don't have the time to read the whole threads then get more CAs because as it currently stands i could make an image then spam my thread until i get to 17 pages (remember qwert has 55% of the posts in the ardennes thread, 15% belong to andy+cartos and only 30% of the posts are made by others) and then request final forge.

i beg to differ about the support of feudal it had plenty

Dungeon of draknor 267 post
Berlin 328 post
Iberia 325 post
Duck and Cover 341
South America 308
Caribbean Islands 131
Australia 343

These quenched maps have very small numbers of post,then your AOR. Lack of Support?
We can not judge only by how many map have post. I have a little number of poster,but these whas quality question and sugestion.What is use if you get 100 post with answer"Its great,quench" or "I like these".
Look these drastic example -Caribbean Island, 47 post from Edbeard,rest post others. Its these mean that these map dont have valid support?
What is for you valid support,to some map get 500 post,or what.

TaCktiX wrote:Could we mention the elephant in the room? Some maps are built to be more complex than others, and the vast majority of CC players aren't looking for complexity. D-Day, Battle of Gazala, Valley of the Kings, just to mention a few. They won't be played as much as Classic or World 2.1 (both straightforward maps with nothing special about them). Call it a manifestation of Theory X in CC. Even though they won't be played as much, does that make them worse maps?

And before you go on a tangent about how complex AoR:Mayhem is, DiM, consider that you have released two maps in the exact same vein that have been phenomenally successful. People with no interest in complexity find AoR fun because it's a well-balanced buildup game. People expect that same level of quality and coolness out of your third effort, and thus will readily post to get it there. Your reputation precedes you, so to speak.

I'm certainly not against being ridiculously picky as to what gets to Final Forge. Heck, my two current map ideas have been through almost as many revisions as most Foundry topics, and I'm still working on both of them (neglecting my third, and MUCH more fun map, sadly). The bar for Quenching should be high, but we shouldn't judge rate of posts as an indicator of true interest. What more should be looked at, and you indirectly mentioned this, DiM, is what the content of the posts are and how the mapmaker is responding to them (e.g., the total thrashing Periodic Madness got and the subsequent gameplay overhaul).

i'm not specifically talking about how much a map will be played. i'm talking about lack of support during creation.
if people don't give feedback then the map doesn't get better. look at ardennes. i don't think i will find 10 people giving feedback on that map so it doesn't progress, the graphics don't improve, the gameplay doesn't get better, etc.
if the map gets quenched it won't be nearly as good as it could be. why because it had no support during creation. more people means more opinions more opinions means more ways of solving a problem or discovering a problem.

yes some maps are destined to be played by few people because they are niche maps, whether it is because of the theme or the gameplay. but that doesn't mean niche maps are supposed to have a lower quality. look at waterloo map. stunning graphics, rock solid gameplay and yet very few people play it. why? because it's a niche map due to it's complexity but the map had a lot of support from those niche players and the map eveolved both graphic wise but also gameplay wise. that's not something that can be said about ardennes.
and let's not forget i mentioned conqueropoly south africa and spaceness. they are also maps that don't belong in the forge whether it is for lack of support lack of progress or simply bad graphics.

qwert wrote:

Dungeon of draknor 267 post
Berlin 328 post
Iberia 325 post
Duck and Cover 341
South America 308
Caribbean Islands 131
Australia 343

These quenched maps have very small numbers of post,then your AOR. Lack of Support?
We can not judge only by how many map have post. I have a little number of poster,but these whas quality question and sugestion.What is use if you get 100 post with answer"Its great,quench" or "I like these".
Look these drastic example -Caribbean Island, 47 post from Edbeard,rest post others. Its these mean that these map dont have valid support?
What is for you valid support,to some map get 500 post,or what.

qwert, again i ask you to read what i already wrote:

now i'm not saying there should be an exact number of posts required to go to next stage because those posts can be done easily by the map maker (take ardennes where qwert has more than half of the posts in the thread.)
but i am saying that somebody (andy+cartos) should analyse each map and decide if it holds any interest. that isn't so hard to do. it just takes a few minutes of browsing a thread seeing who's posting and what they are posting.

qwert i look in your ardennes thread and besides your posts or andy + cartos posts i really don't see a lot of interest. people don't bother analyzing the map, they don't bother giving you feedback, basically people simply don't even bother entering that thread.

i'd rather quench a map that has 100 posts all made by foundry regulars where every aspect of the map is analized and discussed and solved then to quench a map that has 250 posts more than half made by the map maker, a quarter by andy + cartos and the rest by random people that don't really help by providing helpful feedback and just say: "i like/hate this"

DiM, if you are referring to any of my maps, then please come out and say so.

And as far as any map not being good enough for the site regardless of lack of feedback or not...I believe that lackattack has the final say on whether a map gets put up. CAs and Andy perform their process of getting the mapmakers efforts through the foundry.

I think you should allow for other people to have lower expectations/abilities than yourself, afterall you are such a high level achiever above the rest of us, and i gather that won't change until someone comes along and makes a match for you.

This is a diverse site with many different levels of ability that aren't all up to "your" expectations.

Also, please remember that a lot of people come in here and don't bother to comment on maps....for whatever reason. I have seen evidence of this most recently since the people viewing a forum can be seen at the bottom of many pages in that forum. That doens't mean they won't be popular when they are up for play.

Because you are able to produce a couple of maps that have attracted a large following, don't deny other people their opportunity to produce a work and get it through, and for goodness sake stop complaining about it and other things, otherwise, one day you may find yourself the only mapmaker left in the foundry.

To be quite honest DiM, i for one am tired of hearing you complaining about things that aren't up to "your" high level of achievement.

Cairns is correct DiM.

There is bad maps, and there is unpopular maps. The foudnry isnt a place for leets to hang-out (god forbid JR in here . . .). The foundry first and foremost belongs to the community with the "bar" being set to a level that anyone can achieve. Why should someone who follows the process and produces something of acceptable quality be shunned because they have a less support?

cairnswk wrote:DiM, if you are referring to any of my maps, then please come out and say so.

And as far as any map not being good enough for the site regardless of lack of feedback or not...I believe that lackattack has the final say on whether a map gets put up. CAs and Andy perform their process of getting the mapmakers efforts through the foundry.

I think you should allow for other people to have lower expectations/abilities than yourself, afterall you are such a high level achiever above the rest of us, and i gather that won't change until someone comes along and makes a match for you.

This is a diverse site with many different levels of ability that aren't all up to "your" expectations.

Also, please remember that a lot of people come in here and don't bother to comment on maps....for whatever reason. I have seen evidence of this most recently since the people viewing a forum can be seen at the bottom of many pages in that forum. That doens't mean they won't be popular when they are up for play.

Because you are able to produce a couple of maps that have attracted a large following, don't deny other people their opportunity to produce a work and get it through, and for goodness sake stop complaining about it and other things, otherwise, one day you may find yourself the only mapmaker left in the foundry.

To be quite honest DiM, i for one am tired of hearing you complaining about things that aren't up to "your" high level of achievement.

well i did mention one of your maps but it seems you failed to see it:

yes some maps are destined to be played by few people because they are niche maps, whether it is because of the theme or the gameplay. but that doesn't mean niche maps are supposed to have a lower quality. look at waterloo map. stunning graphics, rock solid gameplay and yet very few people play it. why? because it's a niche map due to it's complexity but the map had a lot of support from those niche players and the map evolved both graphic wise but also gameplay wise.

read the quote above. it clearly explains why waterloo is a great map even if not played a lot.

and i'll have to repeat this:

i'm not specifically talking about how much a map will be played. i'm talking about lack of support during creation.
if people don't give feedback then the map doesn't get better. look at ardennes. i don't think i will find 10 people giving feedback on that map so it doesn't progress, the graphics don't improve, the gameplay doesn't get better, etc.
if the map gets quenched it won't be nearly as good as it could be. why because it had no support during creation. more people means more opinions more opinions means more ways of solving a problem or discovering a problem.

the fact i have some successful maps means nothing, remember i also have AoM not the bottom but not at the top either. just like waterloo or ardennes it is a niche map. so it's logical it won't be played as much as classic. yet it had lots and lots of comments until every little aspect was discussed and every bit of problem was solved. why because it had support. same with waterloo. it had suport and it's great. not the same with ardennes though, or spaceness or the others.

gimil wrote:Cairns is correct DiM.

There is bad maps, and there is unpopular maps. The foudnry isnt a place for leets to hang-out (god forbid JR in here . . .). The foundry first and foremost belongs to the community with the "bar" being set to a level that anyone can achieve. Why should someone who follows the process and produces something of acceptable quality be shunned because they have a less support?

wtf?? what level? what bar? qwert is a great map maker, look at eastern front or western front and then look at ardennes. huge difference at all levels. graphics, support, etc. for crying out loud look at the tons of people that were desperately asking for eastern to be quenched and look at the people that posted in ardennes. eastern had support and lots of it. ardennes doesn't.

also remember these words below. just remember them cause someday i may call you on them.

Why should someone who follows the process and produces something of acceptable quality be shunned because they have a less support?

edit// and yes there are bad maps and unpopular maps but that doesn't mean we have to quench them. it just means we have to either improve them or abandon them.

DiM the carto for theme is gimil, the Map Ideas carto. If you dont have a good enough theme, you wont pass through.

Strangely, I agree with some of what DIM's expressing here, and since my map was mentioned several times, I'm putting my two cents in...
First of all, few people have the time to surf the many maps in the Foundry and also put a reasonable amount of time in their own project(s) and/or games.
Adding 2 - 3 more carto-assistants could help resolve that but, in my opinion, those positions seem to grant a degree of leverage to see to it that their own projects are moved through the steps to quenching. -Politics in the Foundry is no less apparent than in other aspects of life.

When I started my Civil War map I was new in CC and had only visited the Foundry occasionally, but I knew that, since the majority of CC players are American, that the topic itself would be popular.
My first attempts at the graphics were rough, to say the least, but I pressed on, asked other cartos about ways to acheive better results (Cairns was a major help), and the map became better. -This isn't to say that my map (or any others, for that matter) reached a state of "perfection". I sometimes look at it and wish I'd done this or that.
When it moved into FF I was ecstatic and felt it was deserving of being quenched; However, only AFTER it reached FF did DIM and company show up and complain that it was unworthy of its placement there. So, I find it strange that DIM now complains about "premature forging" when he himself seems to provide little feedback prior to one reaching FF before his own current project.
That being said, I think I'd not have been as offended as much if my map had remained in the Map Foundry for a while longer than I was by reaching FF and then having some latent contibutors show up and protest what I considered a personal accomplishment.
In the end, I completely reworked the graphics, not out of "gratitude" for the rude manner in which it was thrashed, but out of a degree of humiliation by some of the "respected" Foundry veterans.
There are many maps I simply don't enjoy playing and DIM's are among them. -I often see full pages of new Age of Realms games started by a single player who has found a method of gaining a ton of points via the gameplay on these maps. The result being a sense of "popularity" for those particular maps.
Cairns is without question one of the best artist in CC but many of his maps get considerably less gameplay. Does that mean they were unworthy of quenching? I think not.

Sorry to have written a book here, but to sum it all up, many elements contribute to the selection of maps making FF and only when the expectations are redefined will the Foundry reduce the number of maps being presented. -The clutter makes the Map Foundry an uninviting forum and discourages input from the broader CC membership.

I've mentioned before that a few of the maps in final forge should probably be moved out and re-developed in the foundry to be sure that they meet final forge standards (especially when a couple are going to be overhauled).

I think niche maps are good and a necessary part of CC. I think by being a Qwert map, Ardennes fits into that niche category and will get support when quenched.

we don't need every map to have feudal war popularity (I'm not saying anyone is saying this), but at the same time letting a few 'unpopular' maps through isn't bad either.

Now, if you're a first time mapmaker, then I think your map must at least seem to have widespread popularity. someone that has quenched a map or two or three should be given more leeway in the maps they make. discrimination? sure. but, I think somewhat deserved.

Elijah S wrote: However, only AFTER it reached FF did DIM and company show up and complain that it was unworthy of its placement there. So, I find it strange that DIM now complains about "premature forging" when he himself seems to provide little feedback prior to one reaching FF before his own current project.

what reached FF prior to my project??

anyway yes i didn't comment on your map until it reached FF because i wasn't very attracted to it. there are maps that get quenched without me ever posting once in their threads. i don't have the time to comment everywhere and frankly some maps simply don't attract me.

DiM wrote:

Elijah S wrote: However, only AFTER it reached FF did DIM and company show up and complain that it was unworthy of its placement there. So, I find it strange that DIM now complains about "premature forging" when he himself seems to provide little feedback prior to one reaching FF before his own current project.

what reached FF prior to my project??

anyway yes i didn't comment on your map until it reached FF because i wasn't very attracted to it. there are maps that get quenched without me ever posting once in their threads. i don't have the time to comment everywhere and frankly some maps simply don't attract me.

So whats your beff about maps that make it to final forge of your not intrested with them?

I cant help but see little direction in this arguments. Its simple different ideas to what we all see as popular, intresting or reasonalbe discussion.