Conquer Club

Suggestion Idea: when maps reach "final forge" a quench committee be named to make final recommendations and decide when it is time to qunech.

Specifics: such a committee should be comprised of the map developer, a moderator (most likely andy), and two users who have map design experience and/or have been actively following the work on that map to date. These other two members would be assigned, one each, by the developer and the moderator. The decision to quench should be unanimous.

Why it is needed:
1. I see a lot of pretty good maps reach a stage where they are pretty close to completion, but the feedback on that map dries up and the map creator is on his own hoping the map will be forged. Then when the map does reach final forge, everybody comes out of the woodwork and has an opinion, but nobody bothers to look back at the many pages of map development history to see why a map has evolved into it's current state. While input could still be left by other voices, it would be nice to have a trio of informed voices both guiding and defending the developer.
2. It would lend some formality to the final forge stage. And final forge stage could be entered into earlier and last longer, knowing there are informed voices who will participate in the final changes.
3. It would remove some of the mystery around how a map a quenched, and perhaps avoid situations in which a developer becomes frustrated with a project and walks away, as was the case recently with the eastern front.

Priority: I don't know, 3? It's certainly not urgent, but it's easy enough to implement, and with all he activity in the foundry it would certainly make things move along better.

I PM'd andy a little while ago suggesting he get a couple of foundry assistants. I suggested 2 names to him... but wont put them here.
I think Andy's opinion is needed alot in the foundy and he needs a couple people to help. He needs someone that is good with playability and someone who is good with graphics. I dont think these people should be used just for quenching, I think they need to be there for the whole development of a map and the final forging process.

He said it was something he had been considering and to stay tuned.

I think something needs to be done. It might just be me, but the foundry seems to be a little on edge lately. There are currently a lot of maps in Final Forge or very close to it and some people seem to misinterpret exactly what Final Forge means and that development of the map is basically complete.

I don't think the map developer should have any input on who's part of this committe or be a member of the committee themselves. A lot of new cartographers think their map is finished or at least close to finished when there's still a lot of work to do. I would prefer to see Andy with 2 sidekicks as part of a permanent and official "Quench It Crew".

I think it should be up to Andy to pick the committee, but I don't disagree with people nominating members and then having a vote. Oviously, each member of the committee should offer some specialised perspective, like Teya pointed out.

I know Andy likes the foundry the way it is and I understand why he feels this way. The current system isn't bad and I think it works really well. The foundry would benefit from more order though IMO.

I understand the benefit of having an established "quench it crew," but I fear that not every member of that crew could possibly follow the developmental history of every map in the foundry. I find that there are some maps I follow very closely and contribute to regularly, and others that simply don't interest me so I never check in.

I don't care who picks the quench it crew for a given map; what's more important is that there be a voice or two on the quench it crew that have followed and really understand the map's development history.

Maybe Andy comes up with a pool of a dozen or so deputies, and draws two deputies from this pool to establish a quench-it crew for a given map. Those two deputies can be entrusted to follow the development of that map and provide feedback, then recommend final forge and quenching.

Andy would, of course, have the final quench vote. This just relieves Andy of the need to follow every map closely, and would give the cartographer a couple of constant and trusted voices guiding the development.

I think this idea is good, and will help the foundry. Tight now we have 3 maps that should be quenched, but for some reason aren't

I think a dozen is too many.
If Andy decides he needs help, he should choose people that already pay alot of attention, and have the knowledge needed.

i think if this will be done only this people are good for it (mayby i miss some names)
Wisse (mayby)
Marvadin
WidowMakers
KEYOGIE
oaktown
Guiscard
Lone.prophet (mayby)
qwert (mayby)
Bad Speler
johloh


that are all the names of great map makers and commenters that play/post still at this time

I think if people are chosen, there are a few things that should be considered.
Firstly, I think the person/people having a completed map would work in their favour. I also think they need to be around a fair bit. No point having someone that only checks in once a week.
From the people Wisse listed, I agree with only a few.
Wisse is possibly a good choice, he has been around a while and does seem to have the knowledge. He is also around a fair bit.
Marvadin I think is a very worthy candidate, but hasnt been around much lately.
Widowmakers doesnt seem to post in other peoples threads much. Just his own. His graphic skills seem to be very specific as well.
Keyogi I think has proved that he has the knowledge and I think would be a good choice. He is also around alot and posts in most threads anyway.
Oaktown Also seems to have the knowledge. Same with Guiscard.
Lone.prophet... Has he been around much lately?
Qwert, Im finding it hard to actually write anything incase it comes across as an "attack"
Bad Speler has completed a map which works in his favour. He made a very nice looking map so clearly knows something about graphics.
Johloh is making a nice looking map also... I cant really say anything else about him as I havent seen him round the forum much.

I believe marv and keyogi would be great sidekicks.

Teya wrote:I think if people are chosen, there are a few things that should be considered.
Firstly, I think the person/people having a completed map would work in their favour. I also think they need to be around a fair bit. No point having someone that only checks in once a week.
From the people Wisse listed, I agree with only a few.
Wisse is possibly a good choice, he has been around a while and does seem to have the knowledge. He is also around a fair bit.
Marvadin I think is a very worthy candidate, but hasnt been around much lately.
Widowmakers doesnt seem to post in other peoples threads much. Just his own. His graphic skills seem to be very specific as well.
Keyogi I think has proved that he has the knowledge and I think would be a good choice. He is also around alot and posts in most threads anyway.
Oaktown Also seems to have the knowledge. Same with Guiscard.
Lone.prophet... Has he been around much lately?
Qwert, Im finding it hard to actually write anything incase it comes across as an "attack"
Bad Speler has completed a map which works in his favour. He made a very nice looking map so clearly knows something about graphics.
Johloh is making a nice looking map also... I cant really say anything else about him as I havent seen him round the forum much.

hmm i agree 95% of what you do say

now we have to w8 what andy says to this

oaktown wrote:I understand the benefit of having an established "quench it crew," but I fear that not every member of that crew could possibly follow the developmental history of every map in the foundry. I find that there are some maps I follow very closely and contribute to regularly, and others that simply don't interest me so I never check in.

I don't care who picks the quench it crew for a given map; what's more important is that there be a voice or two on the quench it crew that have followed and really understand the map's development history.

Maybe Andy comes up with a pool of a dozen or so deputies, and draws two deputies from this pool to establish a quench-it crew for a given map. Those two deputies can be entrusted to follow the development of that map and provide feedback, then recommend final forge and quenching.

Andy would, of course, have the final quench vote. This just relieves Andy of the need to follow every map closely, and would give the cartographer a couple of constant and trusted voices guiding the development.

I'm not sure this is a good idea. It would be hard for Andy to establish who should monitor which threads. I also feel that there's the potential for problems if another member of this crew of a dozen who's not appointed to this map disagrees with someone who is. I'm sure a small committee could handle the foundry if they accept full responsibility for how much time they would have to put into it.

I really think it should be limited to two people, three at the most, to reduce the potential for conflict within this committee. Also, I think it'd be pointless for two people to be assigned to a map that goes nowhere. There's so many maps being suggested at the moment, but only a handful of them seem to actually get anywhere. Most don't seem to make it to a second update.

My opinions on the people suggested so far:
Wisse - already has a lot of input within the foundry.
Marvadin - also has a lot of input within the foundry and has maps already on the site, but his presence has been lacking lately.
WidowMakers - talented with graphics, but has little input in others topics.
KEYOGI - I'd be more than happy to take on an extra responsibility.
oaktown - has a fair amount of input within the foundry.
Guiscard - also has a good amount of input within the foundry.
Lone.prophet - haven't seen much of him lately.
qwert - I'm just going to say no and leave it at that.
Bad Speler - has a fair amount of input within the foundry and also has a map on the site.
johloh - hasn't had a lot of input in the foundry, but shows potential.

I put my support behind the green people, not sure on the orange and disagree with the red people being part of any sort of committee or Quench It Crew.

I think it would be ideal to have people with maps already on the site since they've already been through the whole map making process. Regardless, I'd like to add two more names as potentials:

Ruben Cassar and sully800.

Heres what I think should happen

5 people in a small comitee all members of conquerclub whether they are mods or not they must discuss and come to a choice whether to quench or wait until the next edition

To be selected they must comment very often in threads

I still think 5 is too many. If you have too many people there is likely to be more conflict and it wont actually speed the map making process up.
2 or 3 I think is ideal.
It might be too hard to find more than 3 people that have the time to spend hours a day in the foundry AND know exactly what they are talking about.
And you dont want to complicate things too much. Or take too much away from Andy.

Hehe, looks like you all already realized how I am busy lately... College classes have returned ( ), and Im still adapting myself to work at morning instead of afternoon (this is making me more tired than normal).

Plus, get a general star is my main goal in CC for now, and Im also preparing the update of my new map... But I still intend return to the foundry with full power, probably in one week

Whats really strange is... when Andy assumed the foundry foreman job, he was intending to do exactly this: create a comitee to analyse the maps and decide if they are ready to quench (I liked the idea, by the way)... but most foundry members complained about that, saying there was no need to it, the foundry community should be heard, no privileges to a small group. But I also think, although Andy is doing a great job, its too much for him, specially after he have substituted Twill as community manager. Would be good having someone to help him.

Marvaddin wrote:Hehe, looks like you all already realized how I am busy lately... College classes have returned ( ), and Im still adapting myself to work at morning instead of afternoon (this is making me more tired than normal).

Plus, get a general star is my main goal in CC for now, and Im also preparing the update of my new map... But I still intend return to the foundry with full power, probably in one week

Whats really strange is... when Andy assumed the foundry foreman job, he was intending to do exactly this: create a comitee to analyse the maps and decide if they are ready to quench (I liked the idea, by the way)... but most foundry members complained about that, saying there was no need to it, the foundry community should be heard, no privileges to a small group. But I also think, although Andy is doing a great job, its too much for him, specially after he have substituted Twill as community manager. Would be good having someone to help him.

totaly agreed with you

Teya wrote:I still think 5 is too many. If you have too many people there is likely to be more conflict and it wont actually speed the map making process up.
2 or 3 I think is ideal.
It might be too hard to find more than 3 people that have the time to spend hours a day in the foundry AND know exactly what they are talking about.
And you dont want to complicate things too much. Or take too much away from Andy.

I agree completely that five is too many, but only if each of those five is going to be responsible for tracking every map. I wouldn't volunteer to follow the development of everything in the foundry, but if I was assigned to sit on the advisory panel of three or four maps and give regular feedback, I could. And I would say that Andy should come up with his own pool of deputies and assign whoever he wants.

Keyogi wrote:Also, I think it'd be pointless for two people to be assigned to a map that goes nowhere.

Right. Then the question becomes at what point has a map progressed enough to be officially assigned an advisory panel, and if deupties are assigned does that suggest to the developer that the map will one day be forged? Again, maybe we need an Idea Incubation forum as well as a Map Foundry forum, to better formalize the process of map development.

Maybe this was all a stupid idea, and maybe the open system of feedback is working fine, but i appreciate the amount of thought that is going into everyone's feedback.

I'll continue to watch this thread and look at the input from the general community and the Foundry Goers.

For those interested, in regards to Marv's post about the original idea of a committee...

Topic Found Here


--Andy

i think that if someone (or more people) are going to be "foundry mod" andy and lack have to choose them.

oaktown wrote:Again, maybe we need an Idea Incubation forum as well as a Map Foundry forum, to better formalize the process of map development.

I think perhaps this would be a good idea since the "Map Idea" thread doesn't seem to be working the way it should at the moment. I also believe new map ideas need polls all to themselves to see whether they have the majority of foundry support or not.

Maybe the foundry process could be a bit more formalised without the need for a committee. Having read the link Andy posted I don't think one is needed, the current system works well. The only suggestion I would have is if Andy needs some extra eyes he could appoint two assistants. Give them some sort of label so people respect their status and maybe it will stop some of the complaints that Andy isn't paying a particular thread enough attention. I don't know though, any decision is probably going to be controversial, so maybe we should just be happy with how it is.

I think there's enough communication going on within the foundry for maps to develop to a decent standard. Andy's always thorough with his map analysis and only the deserving maps get through the foundry process.

I do think an "Idea Incubation" sub-forum would be a good idea though, with a formal extra step in the foundry process to promote maps from idea/early development status to something more where the cartographer can fully pursue their idea. Perhaps this should be discussed in a different thread though.

oaktown wrote:I don't care who picks the quench it crew for a given map; what's more important is that there be a voice or two on the quench it crew that have followed and really understand the map's development history.

I couldn't agree more.

I feel that many people see that a map has had a new post and they view it. Upon viewing it they see a "problem" with the new map. They voice their opinion about it and then go one their merry way. What they don't realize is that this issue has already been resolved. Then 15 minutes later 4 other people read the post (some who have never even seen the map before) and agree with it. This process goes on and on churning up old issues that have been resolved already. It just take time away from the cartographer and others who wan to get the map going.

I feel there needs to be a committee (I think Andy should decide) and a new step added to the map making process.

New Map Making Process
Stage 1) Visual Idea of map
..............What is it about
Stage 2) Playable Map Development
..............Setup the basic gameplay/layout of the map based on how it will play NOT HOW IT LOOKS
..............Bonus Discussion
Stage 3) Visual Map Development
.............Ascetically design and construct an appealing map around the already agreed upon Playable Map.
Stage 4) XML Development
.............Adjust the Armies Circle position and XML
Stage 5) Quench the map

By following this process people would have a better understanding of the development stage of the map. A map cannot go onto the next stage if the MAP COMMITTEE does not say so. Also once a map has passed a particular stage, it does not go back (unless the cartographer or map committee feel the need or find an error)

This way once a map has been given the green light to move on from stage 2 to stage 3, any new posts about bonus allocation or territory layout can be ignored and the process can move on.

What does everyone think?

I agree with WidowMakers. If there was to be a committee, it should be picked by Andy and I think they should be involved in a staged development process as mentioned. I think Stage 1 needs to occur in a sub-forum though so the foundry isn't full of new ideas that usually don't go anywhere.

The 'Sub-Forum' issue will be worked on and resolved, as we are looking into using many such 'sub-forums' phpBB mods.


--Andy

nice andy

i also get many people pming me, what they think they can do about their map

also about codes for images etc.

thats quite fun

bumpo

yes i like this idea a lot but agree with the general feeling that there should only be 3 on this commitee. However i think that what the suggestions are from the majority of the foundary readers should be taken into account rather than giving any one person or commitee a veto. The general idea is superb though so long as the people involved give up the time.