Conquer Club

The map names on Game Finder page should be alphabetized.

Not exactly needed, but would be helpful when looking for a specific map. And maybe bold the names of new maps for a week or so.

And maybe put the map section into a table or line them up a bit better


Priority: 2

seems like a good idea, and I am sure it is something that could be done easily and quickly. Not to put a lot of work on the site admins.

I think it would be a good idea except for one thing. Most people play the classic map. So maybe the first row could consist of 4 or 5 maps that are most frequently played by users. And then the rest of the maps can be alpabetized. And also about new maps, maybe new maps can be at the end, or have their own little section for about a month or so, and then after that month they get put in order with the rest.

I would kind of say this is unneeded couldn't you just click on the map your looking for in your search criteria?
I think for the most part when I am looking at a persons history I want to look at the most recent games.

I was thinking about the "start your own game" screen. All the maps there seem to be in no order at all.

In order of introduction to play isn't it?

Seems like those pages use the same (or similar) form. Just thought it'd be nicer to have some sort of order going.

Especially when more maps are added in the future, it can get a bit hairy looking for a specific one.

Of course it's not an urgent thing. I gave it a priority of 2

I dont like it.. I'm use to our usual set up(chronological order of adding)


It also respects ccs history.

its not in chronological order tho. I guess it generally is, but look at the africa map, its not too old. It is new then alot of the maps up there but its near the top. Its not in chronological order. Alphabetized would make more sense, read my first post if you want to know what would be best...

Chronological order would only benefit (if you can call it that) the people that've been here since the beginning. But for most (including newbies), alphabetical order would make more sense.

Imagine if the result of the game find is sorted by the number of rounds instead of by game ID. Just wouldn't make sense

Also imagine if, say, by this time next year we have 100 maps (we can hope ) to choose from, and they're still in the same order (dunno if it's actually chronological or not) they are now. It'd be a real pain to find a specific map.

But of course, this is just a suggestion. Up to the site admins to decide

The maps in the game finder are a mess. The order (chronological) is pointless and a mystery to noobs. Aslo the presentation is really unprofessional. The first column is nice and neat and then it disintegrates into a large jumble of words and images.

The easiest, most intuitive, and best looking organization would go Classic map first, then Alphabetical order. All the columns should be left aligned as well. Also to designate new maps, there should be included a marker of some sort, like [New!] or a 2-4 week period.

I suggested part of this before but really its a no brainer and the mess of maps was the first thing that struck me as out of place on this site.

Priority 3!

Seconded. Also, can we have the select all maps option back. I do not relish the prospect of clicking every map every time I want to do a universal search.

Scorba wrote:Seconded. Also, can we have the select all maps option back. I do not relish the prospect of clicking every map every time I want to do a universal search.

yes!, great idea.

To do a universal search, you just have to make sure none of the map boxes are ticked

Scorba wrote:Seconded. Also, can we have the select all maps option back. I do not relish the prospect of clicking every map every time I want to do a universal search.

Lack said just don't click any if you want all of them.

mibi wrote:The maps in the game finder are a mess. The order (chronological) is pointless and a mystery to noobs. Aslo the presentation is really unprofessional. The first column is nice and neat and then it disintegrates into a large jumble of words and images.

The easiest, most intuitive, and best looking organization would go Classic map first, then Alphabetical order. All the columns should be left aligned as well. Also to designate new maps, there should be included a marker of some sort, like [New!] or a 2-4 week period.

I suggested part of this before but really its a no brainer and the mess of maps was the first thing that struck me as out of place on this site.

Priority 3!

They aren't even in chronological order. The newer maps are, but I'm not sure where the order of the older maps came from. CCU for example is way too high on the list compared to when it came out. And Crossword is way lower than it should be. Then again those maps were created before the foundry process was in place. If you want to see how it used to work, check this out for a laugh

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... c&start=15

Jota's first post on the site and he submits an idea and image for the map. A few people say they like it and within 4 days and a page and a half (no updates posted in the thread) the map was up for live play. It usually takes longer than that for a map to be put up to play after being Quenched!!

The old system truly was a joke. It almost makes me think every old map should be taken down and revamped because they are simply not up to the standards of the current maps. Most of the maps created before May/June would probably never pass the current foundry system today, and currently not in the state they were posted for live play.

sully800 wrote:

mibi wrote:The maps in the game finder are a mess. The order (chronological) is pointless and a mystery to noobs. Aslo the presentation is really unprofessional. The first column is nice and neat and then it disintegrates into a large jumble of words and images.

The easiest, most intuitive, and best looking organization would go Classic map first, then Alphabetical order. All the columns should be left aligned as well. Also to designate new maps, there should be included a marker of some sort, like [New!] or a 2-4 week period.

I suggested part of this before but really its a no brainer and the mess of maps was the first thing that struck me as out of place on this site.

Priority 3!

They aren't even in chronological order. The newer maps are, but I'm not sure where the order of the older maps came from. CCU for example is way too high on the list compared to when it came out. And Crossword is way lower than it should be. Then again those maps were created before the foundry process was in place. If you want to see how it used to work, check this out for a laugh

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... c&start=15

Jota's first post on the site and he submits an idea and image for the map. A few people say they like it and within 4 days and a page and a half (no updates posted in the thread) the map was up for live play. It usually takes longer than that for a map to be put up to play after being Quenched!!

The old system truly was a joke. It almost makes me think every old map should be taken down and revamped because they are simply not up to the standards of the current maps. Most of the maps created before May/June would probably never pass the current foundry system today, and currently not in the state they were posted for live play.

I concur - Brazil and Middle East are ghastly... (For those of you who've never heard the word "Ghastly" before liken it to "Gash")

C.

Suppose so... don't care too much but go ahead if you want to

who is voting for the disorganized pile of maps??!?!

I think a categorical order would make it much easier for a new player to see what maps are offered, and the maps could then be listed alphabetically within each category. Something like:

Location - Earth (all of the maps based on Earth's geography)
Location - Other (Middle-Earth, CCU, Siege, etc)
Abstract/Other Games (Crossword, KotM, the DIY map DiM started , etc)

The categories wouldn't have to be explicitly named, just have the maps grouped that way, with some extra spacing between groups.

Lack and I've discussed 'categories' before. What suggestions do you all have?


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:Lack and I've discussed 'categories' before. What suggestions do you all have?


--Andy

Alphabetical seems easiest.

An interesting idea would be to categorize them on types. "Real World Maps", "Fantasy Maps", ....

Chronological made sense when we had 10 or less maps, but now it seems out of order.

Good suggestion mibi.

I also think alphabetical is best. Maybe when there are more maps there can be categories.

mibi wrote:who is voting for the disorganized pile of maps??!?!

me

I'm not sure how much of a pain reformatting would be, but I don't see what would be hard about shifting the order around a little bit.

So columns may wait, but could we get an organized pile soon?