Foundry Death?

[gimil]

not sure if the available bodies are there but ideally in my opinion the above ca should not be map makers themselves or at least not any more to me its a conflict of interest for a carto to also be a map maker or coder or at least an active one as its almost impossible for an active map maker or coder to remain unbiased on his own maps and those of his buddies and as well as that i would much prefer our best map makers and coders to be concentrating on what they are good at ie map making and coding.

Are you serious? Map makers are the best for the CA jobs. They have expreienced the system first hand, they understand whats wrong and right with it through experience.

And let me tell you this, would any cartographer be willing to give up there map making hobby for CA? I know i wouldnt. And do you think you can find a better non map making person to run this place? I think not.

[Coleman]

I'm thinking more along the lines of 3.

Map Ideas / XML (me)
Graphics / Revamps (someone else)
Gameplay (someone else)

It's just that when you restrict someone to one place it really adds a buerocracy too it that I don't like.

More then 3 in the future is always possible, but I like 3 divided the way I stated. And as always nothing could move to final forge or quench unless all 3 of us give it a pass. (I'd be needed in main foundry to ensure that a map doesn't final forge with impossible xml).

This has the added benefit of me being able to ask graphics of gameplay's opinion on something in map ideas without them saying "I'm the main foundry CA bugger off". I don't want to divide labor too much.

The recent xml problems can be attributed to yeti coding when he really shouldn't have (late at night) and me trusting yeti without looking at the code (laziness).

i suggested 6 people for the following reasons:

1. most of the people i have in mind complain about free time
2. having more persons to look at the same thing finds and solves errors faster.
3. the people aren't forced in one place. a map ideas ca is more than welcome to post in a ff map.
4. i insist on 2 xml people because as i said especially when it comes to thousands of boring codelines mistakes are easy to make.

of course i wouldn't mind having 3 people as you said if those 3 people can do the job of 6 without slacking.

If I keep making xml errors we'll need to pick up someone else, but with xml being only one of two things I need to worry about in the proposed system I can afford an hour or two per map to pour over it.

[gimil]

not sure if the available bodies are there but ideally in my opinion the above ca should not be map makers themselves or at least not any more to me its a conflict of interest for a carto to also be a map maker or coder or at least an active one as its almost impossible for an active map maker or coder to remain unbiased on his own maps and those of his buddies and as well as that i would much prefer our best map makers and coders to be concentrating on what they are good at ie map making and coding.

i doubt a subjective CA that favours others will last too long so i won't fear that. remember ----

[DiM]

I'd been leaning toward a structure similar to DiM's, with division of labor by subforum, but as a result of discussions yesterday I've got something slightly different in mind.

Instead of splitting up the jobs by forum, split up the jobs by area of interest/expertise. Give each CA a 'stamp' that they put on a map when it meets a required level of expectations. An Ideas CA gives an initial stamp when the map has the basics, has attracted interest, and shows promise. The XML CA stamps the map when the code is correct and the army counts are aligned. The graphics CA stamps the map when the colors, borders, text, etc meet all standards and address all concerns. The game play CA gives a stamp when play issues meet standards and address all concerns. Any map will need the Ideas stamp to move to the Foundry, will need the Gameplay and Graphics stamp to be Forged, and will need the XML stamp (and Andy's approval) to be quenched.

Any one industrious CA could be responsible for giving more than one stamp, but that's up to the CAs to work out.

Damn, fast-posted by Coleman!

No that's good, I need people to back me up on this.

If we end up going this route and it doesn't work then we can try what you guys came up with.

this is good too. BUT it has 2 problems:
1. time. in oaktown's suggestion it means each CA will have to follow each and every thread from ideas to quench and i don't know who has that amount of free time.
2. who of these will do the dirty work of crushing a bad idea or moving/ locking/ merging various threads?

[Coleman]

1) The non 'ideas' persons don't need to go to Map Ideas. They'd need to follow from foundry to quench.
2) The reason a map can't move would do the 'crushing' but no one should feel crushed, they just need to be willing to work around why we can't take what they are showing us yet. If they aren't then good riddance I say. Right now we have the opposite problem of earlier this year, more maps then maybe we need and less people to iron them out.

[gimil]

I'd been leaning toward a structure similar to DiM's, with division of labor by subforum, but as a result of discussions yesterday I've got something slightly different in mind.

Instead of splitting up the jobs by forum, split up the jobs by area of interest/expertise. Give each CA a 'stamp' that they put on a map when it meets a required level of expectations. An Ideas CA gives an initial stamp when the map has the basics, has attracted interest, and shows promise. The XML CA stamps the map when the code is correct and the army counts are aligned. The graphics CA stamps the map when the colors, borders, text, etc meet all standards and address all concerns. The game play CA gives a stamp when play issues meet standards and address all concerns. Any map will need the Ideas stamp to move to the Foundry, will need the Gameplay and Graphics stamp to be Forged, and will need the XML stamp (and Andy's approval) to be quenched.

Any one industrious CA could be responsible for giving more than one stamp, but that's up to the CAs to work out.

Damn, fast-posted by Coleman!

No that's good, I need people to back me up on this.

If we end up going this route and it doesn't work then we can try what you guys came up with.

this is good too. BUT it has 2 problems:
1. time. in oaktown's suggestion it means each CA will have to follow each and every thread from ideas to quench and i don't know who has that amount of free time.
2. who of these will do the dirty work of crushing a bad idea or moving/ locking/ merging various threads?

time: not so much.

Idea CA: small thread early on are easy to keep up with, coleman does a good job of staying on top of them.

Gameplay: May be the most time consuming but i dont beleive that they would again come in bulk so i wouldnt worry to much about time here.

XML CA: looks through the complete XML. This wont be done in bulk since XML tends to all be done at different times.

Graphics CA: Take the latest updated images as your reference.

[Coleman]

That is kind of odd but it's true, the graphics CA doesn't need to know what the image used to look like, they care about the latest one.

I guess you could argue similarly for gameplay. This kind of puts the ideas person as the only one who really is into knowing how far a map progressed unless the others have more time to spend.

[DiM]

That is kind of odd but it's true, the graphics CA doesn't need to know what the image used to look like, they care about the latest one.

I guess you could argue similarly for gameplay. This kind of puts the ideas person as the only one who really is into knowing how far a map progressed unless the others have more time to spend.

i must disagree about the graphics CA. he doesn't need just the latest image. he needs to know what each update was about and he must look back to see what was solved and what wasn't.

[rebelman]

i reckon having read all the latest posts a hybrid of coleman's / oatown's suggestion is worth a go right now. If more are needed then more can be recruited.


My reason for suggesting people not actively making maps but with the right knowledge was to ensure they would remain unbiased and the same rules would apply to all especially themselves but if you guys don't see that as a problem - then it probably isn't one.

If i am not mistaken andy has never made a map so the guy at the helm is a non map maker (cant remember who said a non map maker cant be in charge)

[Night Strike]

Wouldn't the graphics and gameplay people need to know what was voted against/changed in the past to avoid going back to a lesser version? They couldn't just look at the most recent image and decide what to do from there.

I don't know if Coleman/Andy already have people in mind/contacted them, but who would even want the position(s)?? Certain individuals should either announce their interest or others should post their "nominations."

[rebelman]

Sorry for the multiple posts as well as coleman's proposed new cas I think a panel of players to give especially game play advice would be most welcome these guys/girls need not necessarily be map makers their only requirement really would be they are experienced players on all map types and settings - in the absence of a test area this set of independent eyes could be a great asset in terms of spotting obvious game play issues each map could be reviewed by this panel prior to final forge and again prior to quench - i believe this would help greatly in terms of spotting crazy bonuses, obvious flaws, colour issues etc. the d day numbers and clashing canada colours would probably have been spotted if such a panel was in place back then.

[gimil]

i reckon having read all the latest posts a hybrid of coleman's / oatown's suggestion is worth a go right now. If more are needed then more can be recruited.


My reason for suggesting people not actively making maps but with the right knowledge was to ensure they would remain unbiased and the same rules would apply to all especially themselves but if you guys don't see that as a problem - then it probably isn't one.

If i am not mistaken andy has never made a map so the guy at the helm is a non map maker (cant remember who said a non map maker cant be in charge)

Yeah but anyone who is picked as a CA would be expected to have a good judge of character and im assuming andy wouldnt let them be biased.

As for andy never making a map thats before our time and concern.

[oaktown]

funny, I was thinking that the graphics CA would be the most time-consuming role, but perhaps this is because the graphics are what I tend to pour over when i look at a map for the first time. I've never spent 30 minutes nitpicking somebody's code, or working out all of the attack routes on somebody's map... if there's a mapmaker out there who already does these things on others' maps he/she would ideal candidate to take that job.

An added bonus of dividing the job by area of expertise is that mapmakers would know who to turn to for specific concerns. You've hit a wall with your code? See the XML CA. Not sure how to structure your bonuses? See the Gameplay CA.

if everybody is doing their job well, it makes the job easier for the other CAs. The Ideas CA would have to be the biggest hard-ass, and be very strict about what makes it to the Foundry proper. If we put tighter controls on what makes it out of Ideas, the Gameplay and Graphics CAs would have fewer maps and issues to deal with in the Foundry. And if the Gameplay and Graphics CAs are strict about what gets Forged, the XML CA and Quench CA (Andy) would have an easier time.

I do agree with DiM in that this is still a lot of work for five positions (Ideas, Graphics, Gameplay, XML, Quencher), but it would be better than leaving it all for Coleman. And who is to say that a position can't be split up among two CAs? Two CAs could split up the Graphics or Gameplay job and work out a system between them.

[rebelman]

Wouldn't the graphics and gameplay people need to know what was voted against/changed in the past to avoid going back to a lesser version? They couldn't just look at the most recent image and decide what to do from there.

I don't know if Coleman/Andy already have people in mind/contacted them, but who would even want the position(s)?? Certain individuals should either announce their interest or others should post their "nominations."

I'm fairly sure coleman has people in mind but obvious choices would be yeti (coding) oaktown, wm , cairns (graphics /ideas) and in terms of nit pcking this place is full of contenders each more qualified than the next

[wcaclimbing]

I think a panel of players to give especially game play advice

I think thats a good idea, but if we did that, then we also need a graphics group. a few dedicated artists that know what they are doing and could give suggestions to the graphics themselves.

[Coleman]

Night Strike: Maybe, for right now we still don't like a nominations system much. Not sure why, that's a call that I don't get to make. I believe Andy already has people in mind when he's ready.

Rebelman: Also maybe, I'm interested in seeing if things work better with the current plan and if it doesn't we'll adapt some more. Probably by adding someone who is very interested in maps but has never made one to perform a last look / testing function.

I think we're at the point where we can talk circles around this indefinitely. We need to see some action before more can really be accomplished I think.

[Lone.prophet]

there is way to much bureaucrazy,

just make clear and not just clear but very clear steps in how the map should roll through the foundry, now it one big mess

do something like

1. idea
2. graphics
3. Gameplay
4. Coding
5. Final touch (testing?)

We have... You just may not want to read so much? Which I can understand, there is no way to condense it without leaving things out. I could try an in general one to two sentence for each part thing.

1. Have a working map that meets small or large map guidelines.
2. Maps should be at or above the quality of the latest quenched maps.
3. Maps shouldn't have gameplay that favors luck over strategy. They should be well thought out and willing to bend to the will of the community if they want portions of it changed.
4. XML should be complete and functional. Errors should not be present, but if found corrected quickly.
5. No map should ever reach live play without a play test being conducted or a mock one extensively considered.

now i read this post again and you didnt got whaat i meant i guess,
instead of
idea
work
final forge

i gave a new more structuralk order since i think now the final forge is still seen by most people as the normal work area and they keep trowing things in that were decided to not do by the foundry.
with my order people now where to comment on and dont just say stupid things when something hasnt even been worked on.

[gimil]

Wouldn't the graphics and gameplay people need to know what was voted against/changed in the past to avoid going back to a lesser version? They couldn't just look at the most recent image and decide what to do from there.

I don't know if Coleman/Andy already have people in mind/contacted them, but who would even want the position(s)?? Certain individuals should either announce their interest or others should post their "nominations."

I'm fairly sure coleman has people in mind but obvious choices would be yeti (coding) oaktown, wm , cairns (graphics /ideas) and in terms of nit pcking this place is full of contenders each more qualified than the next

i think coleman has himself in mind for XML

Oaktown isnt intrested

Cairns left his CA post to continue making map

WM runs te shop and generally doesnt have time and doesnt contribute alot outside his own maps in the foundry.

[yeti_c]

The recent xml problems can be attributed to yeti coding when he really shouldn't have (late at night) and me trusting yeti without looking at the code (laziness).

Actually can I point out that this is wrong actually...

1) The neutrals issue was Gimils fault - his half of the XML missed a neutral tag

2) I coded the XML for the large map and all the borders on that were correct except for 1... the fact that the small map and the large map were wildly different was again Gimls fault...

I will hold my hand up for the 1 border that was wrong!!!

C.

PS You should never trust anyone's code when it comes to XML -> it's impossibly hard to check your XML without seeing it in real life!!!!

[gimil]

The recent xml problems can be attributed to yeti coding when he really shouldn't have (late at night) and me trusting yeti without looking at the code (laziness).

Actually can I point out that this is wrong actually...

1) The neutrals issue was Gimils fault - his half of the XML missed a neutral tag

2) I coded the XML for the large map and all the borders on that were correct except for 1... the fact that the small map and the large map were wildly different was again Gimls fault...

I will hold my hand up for the 1 border that was wrong!!!

C.

PS You should never trust anyone's code when it comes to XML -> it's impossibly hard to check your XML without seeing it in real life!!!!

1. i didnt put any neutral tags in the XML, you done them all.

2. yes that was my fault

[Coleman]

I disagree with impossibly hard. I agree with it being really hard, specially as our number of xml toys grows. I'm referring to other maps in the quench group you had a hand in as well though.

[yeti_c]

I'm fairly sure coleman has people in mind but obvious choices would be yeti (coding) oaktown, wm , cairns (graphics /ideas) and in terms of nit pcking this place is full of contenders each more qualified than the next

XML checker wise -> perhaps you should have 2... Maps anyone can look at - XML only a select few have the skills(z)!!

And if I were to suggest someone to work with teh Coleman - I'd go for Forza AZ!

C.

[yeti_c]

1. i didnt put any neutral tags in the XML, you done them all.

I thought you'd done a few... meh must've been me then!!!!

C.

[gimil]

I'm fairly sure coleman has people in mind but obvious choices would be yeti (coding) oaktown, wm , cairns (graphics /ideas) and in terms of nit pcking this place is full of contenders each more qualified than the next

XML checker wise -> perhaps you should have 2... Maps anyone can look at - XML only a select few have the skills(z)!!

And if I were to suggest someone to work with teh Coleman - I'd go for Forza AZ!

C.

forza is pritty competant in his XML, but he isnt so active in the foundry and only checks them after they have been uploaded.

Esentailly i think it would be up to coleman is he wanted to work with someone in the same area.

[yeti_c]

I disagree with impossibly hard. I agree with it being really hard, specially as our number of xml toys grows. I'm referring to other maps in the quench group you had a hand in as well though.

Ah - Malta... yeah - I wrote that ages ago - and didn't check it when I sent it on...

AOM:Magic - all I did here was continents... DiM did the borders...

Anyways - like I say - no-one is infallible with XML -> especially using notepad!!! - I need to get me Textpad - or notepad++ is also good!!

C.