Page 1 of 2
Organize Maps
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:40 amby tenio
<Subject>:
Organizing Maps
<Body>:
Suggestion Idea: With more maps being created every week, I think that the current way of displaying maps is getting too over crowded
Specifics: We would seperate the Map area (in game finder/ Start a Game) into 2-3 areas. 1 would be "Classic Maps" Maybe like 10-15 easy to understand maps for the newer players. And then Under that section we would list all of the other maps under some other title.
I wouldn't really be too seperated just a title
IE
Map:
Classic
Maps Maps Maps Maps Maps Maps Maps Maps
OTHER TITLE
Maps Maps Maps Maps
Why it is needed: To make the map sections look less clutered and to allow the noobs easier access to the easier maps. Also the maps are getting more complicated and it would suck to have a noob first start off with one of those complicated maps.
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:48 amby jennifermarie
I'm not too keen on having multiple tabs for maps, there really aren't that many and it takes just a second to scroll down. Most of them really aren't that complicated if you read the instructions (except pearl harbor and battle of actium), it might be better if we suggest to newcomers that they start out on classic, sequential, flat rate, unlimited...or whatever so they can get accustomed to the controls before having to learn weird bonuses.
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:12 amby Herakilla
i agree with jennifer and the maps are already organized... by alphabetical order
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:12 pmby tenio
Okay, I didn't mean seperate tabs just on the page itself have like 1 section for some simple maps and just below that the rest of the maps
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:43 pmby DiM
tenio wrote:Okay, I didn't mean seperate tabs just on the page itself have like 1 section for some simple maps and just below that the rest of the maps
and who decides what maps are simple and what aren't??
i think they're all simple
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:49 pmby Herakilla
DiM wrote:tenio wrote:Okay, I didn't mean seperate tabs just on the page itself have like 1 section for some simple maps and just below that the rest of the maps
and who decides what maps are simple and what aren't??
i think they're all simple
and i agree, the instrctions do make sense, especially now that DDay was revised
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:04 pmby amazzony
Herakilla wrote:DiM wrote:tenio wrote:Okay, I didn't mean seperate tabs just on the page itself have like 1 section for some simple maps and just below that the rest of the maps
and who decides what maps are simple and what aren't??
i think they're all simple
and i agree, the instrctions do make sense, especially now that DDay was revised
Agreed. It's hard to put them into separate groups because it is too subjective.
But I don't agree that all maps are easy. Some are easier than others. Some maps you understand when just giving a short look at them, some are more hard to understand because they have their little tricks or they just have some "bad" colours that confuse some borders, for example. But they are all learnable and well understandable if you take time to figure them out
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:23 pmby AndyDufresne
amazzony wrote:Agreed. It's hard to put them into separate groups because it is too subjective.
But I don't agree that all maps are easy. Some are easier than others. Some maps you understand when just giving a short look at them, some are more hard to understand because they have their little tricks or they just have some "bad" colours that confuse some borders, for example. But they are all learnable and well understandable if you take time to figure them out
We've been tossing around the idea for a while, and that is one hurdle we ran into (Subjective Categories). There are some ways to get around that, but nothing is too great.
But if you look beyond subjective ways to categorize...we could always categorize by size (in regards to
number of countries). I.E.:
- 41 & Less -- <names>
- 42 - 60 -- <names>
- 61 & More -- <names>
It is one possible idea to categorize that doesn't involve subjectivity (Easy, Hard, etc).
====
And if you go the route of subjective categories...we could have requirements to be in each. I.E. "
Classic like" would be normal play (no funny XML things). But then there could be some sort of "
Tweaked Play" which would be maps that use more xml features...etc.
====
Also there was discussion about 'types'...I.E.
Real World Geographic, Fantasy Geographic, Abstract, etc.
Feedback? Any other possible ideas?
--Andy
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:41 pmby amazzony
Just my personal view (maybe not the best one because I might not be able to see the maps and how they are in selection page as a new player sees them) but I see nothing wrong with the alphabetical order. Everybody knows the alphabet and there can't be any confusion and it can't bring up any argues nor misunderstandings.
Though, if there should be some change then I think that the best way is by the number of territories. Because it's also a thing that can't be argued (it's just that my experience shows that if there's something that can be understood in more than one way then there are people who will have endless argues about it and things never get solved).
Or, another thing that is discussed (though it goes more to the lands of subjective), is that the map has a... how was it said... suggested number of players? If it is done then it's a another possibility (and even better one than number of territories IMO) how to sort the maps. Because if the suggested players' number is "attached" to the map then the argue goes back if the suggestion is correct or not but it wouldn't affect the fact which group the map has been sorted.
Sorry for the maybe not the best understood post but it's late
Posted:
Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:22 pmby tenio
I think that by number of territories would be a good idea
it isn't subjective so no map maker could complain that thier map is "unfairly treated"
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:34 amby AndyDufresne
Would categorizing them this way instead of Alphabetically be real advantageous? I'm not sure, it was just one idea.
I think some more input is needed.
--Andy
urm...
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:49 amby Piestar
I don't think you want to do away with Alphabetical, but perhaps an alternate pages with them listed by the various characteristics, for example, number of territories, might be useful.
To minimize the effort however, you might still return to the alphabetical page to actually select the map you are looking for, once you have found it.
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 9:46 amby oaktown
With the recent addition of two more foundry assistants map production is moving faster than ever. There are half a dozen maps that are quenced and waiting to be put in play, and I bet two dozen more will be ready in the next month. The map select page is going to get very long.
Is it possible to meet everybody's wishes, and have a map list front page from which you can click on the following??
1. An alphabetical list of all maps, with thumbs.
2. All 'small' maps with between 6-36 territories.
3. All 'classic' sized maps with between 37-60 territories.
4. All 'large' maps with 61+ territories.
5. A list of all maps organized by genre.
6. A map search page on which you can specify the size, genre, and features that you want... much like the game finder page.
7. A list of all maps by popularity. Numbers geeks are coming up with these stats all the time, may as well put this information to use.
I'm not sure how this would work for starting a game; maybe once you've selected your map it takes you to a page on which you select the rest of the game settings (# players, card progression, etc). With the constant addition of new features, getting the maps off of the features page would make things easier to read.
yes, this adds a step to game generation, but I think we'd get used to it in no time and like it.
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:07 amby Herakilla
what would work would be something like
you show up at the start a game and it is in alpha order but at the top are links to certain types of maps like the ones oaktown listed
best of both worlds
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:22 amby unriggable
DiM wrote:i think they're all simple
Not really...age of merchants, pearl harbor, and if battle of gazala goes any further than that too. Those are very very complicated IMHO.
That being said, no organizing needs to be done.
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:10 pmby oaktown
Herakilla wrote:what would work would be something like
you show up at the start a game and it is in alpha order but at the top are links to certain types of maps like the ones oaktown listed
This would work... or a pulled down menu to change the way the maps are sorted: alpha, # of territories ascending, # territories descending, popularity.
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:05 pmby MarVal
I agree with oaktown about a pulled down menu.
For example the view of the "Memberlist" page.
Here you can "Select sort method" and there you can change the way the list will be sorted. And in "order" you can chose what comes first.
I think it can work with the maplist.
The problem is to find out what "sort method" is important and which not to have a good way of finding the maps you like.
Grtz
MarVal
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:14 pmby DiM
unriggable wrote:DiM wrote:i think they're all simple
Not really...age of merchants, pearl harbor, and if battle of gazala goes any further than that too. Those are very very complicated IMHO.
That being said, no organizing needs to be done.
they are complicated if you begin playing with that thought in mind. keep an open mind, read the instructions carefully and play a few games. you'll see even the toughest map is really easy once you understand it.
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:17 pmby DiM
AndyDufresne wrote:
And if you go the route of subjective categories...we could have requirements to be in each. I.E. "Classic like" would be normal play (no funny XML things). But then there could be some sort of "Tweaked Play" which would be maps that use more xml features...etc.
would you consider AoM to be a "classic like" map? because it doesn't use any xml features. so strictly judging by the xml is as simple as classic.
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:18 pmby Coleman
Those who want super sized maps may find it best to argue for this idea.
That's all I am going to say.
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:18 pmby AndyDufresne
See, you're pointing out the gray areas of the subjective categorizing... That's why if we ever go the route of categorizing, it most likely will be by some sort of objective method(s).
--Andy
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:26 pmby DiM
Coleman wrote:Those who want super sized maps may find it best to argue for this idea.
That's all I am going to say.
i guess this is where i come in and say i want maps ordered like this:
1. optimized for 800*600 monitors (small maps like mongol empire or germany)
2. optimized for 1024*768 monitors (bigger maps like AoM or France)
3. optimized for 1280*1024 monitors (biggest maps we have now like world 2.1 and great lakes)
4. optimized for 1600*1200 monitors (future maps like troy, prison riot, world 3.0, AoR (chapters 2&3))
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:28 pmby DiM
AndyDufresne wrote:See, you're pointing out the gray areas of the subjective categorizing... That's why if we ever go the route of categorizing, it most likely will be by some sort of objective method(s).
--Andy
i assume you're referring to my post. and yes that's exactly what i was pointing. subjective categorizing is flawed. so what we need is something objective. see above post for the solution i think is best.
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 3:30 pmby AndyDufresne
The above could be one idea, but certainly not the only.
--Andy
Posted:
Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:35 pmby mibi
whats the big deal about being subjective, its not like anyone will sue or a miscategorization and it will probably be the most user friendly system.