Ahoy Ahoy!
So instead of working on my usual morning Foundry Duties, I'll spend some moments here.
Beware: I had a rough night and haven't had my bananas yet, so there is a good chance I'll be rambling slightly off topic or missing points.seamusk wrote:It would be most helpful if folks would provide meaningful insight into this post. But it is time for the map foundry to review the map approval process as applied, as written, and as it should be. In the interim, I think that the map handbook ought to be pulled because it does not described the map approval process for conquerclub.com as it is being applied currently.
Reviews of process are always welcomed, provided they are helpful, well intentioned, and generally nonconfrontational. We don't want fevered arguments and bananas flying, just well considered thought and idea.
The Map Handbook will not be pulled, as most already know that the Foundry can be daunting and confusing to those who wander in. The Handbook is one attempt at making the Foundry a little more digestable.
1) The cartographers are applying a requirement that new map makers achieve some ambiguous criteria to prove their worth before the actual "Official How to Make a Map Handbook" and "Stages of map development" criteria are actually applied. Either a process and criteria for becoming an official stamped cartographer ought to be developed or this requirement needs to be dropped. There is a stated need in the foundry for new members. The How to make a map handbook was not very helpful to me I know because the criteria as desribed were not implemented.
Long ago, before this current division set up (Map Ideas/Main Foundry/Final Forge) we were faced with the problem of organization and feedback response. Maps that had little chance (I.E. the cartographer was using paint for their map) were mingled and mixed among maps that stood a chance (the map has a clear vision and a dedicated cartographer that was working to improve it). This general lack of organization made it difficult for the maps nearing the end of production to get the last needed feedback, but also conversely made it difficult for new maps to get started on their feet. It was a heap of stinking bananas. Then we switched over to the division, which allows for better organization and is an attempt at making the Foundry more outsider friendly and easier to traverse.
Regarding Map Ideas more specifically, the C.A.'s and myself, and really most other Foundry Members, want to see a clear vision and execution of a map in the Map Ideas forum. Before the division, many many maps simply fell into the Foundry Furnace after a large amount of feedback time was invested in it. By ensuring that when a map moves on out of the Map Ideas that it stands a reasonable chance (provided that the cartographer updates regularly, listens and applies feedback, and generally improves their map visually and mechanically) to be playable on the site sometime, we are directly trying to funnel the feedback to maps that will most benefit.
2) Apply the criteria to all maps. I am not interested in picking on particular map makers, but it should be clear these are all requirements for maps:
1. A map should be ‘inherently unique either in gameplay, location, or theme’.
There are several maps that are repetitive by all three of these but have moved ahead. In some cases, the maps are by the same map maker.
In this case, examples may actually be helpful, provided that we are not "attacking" their map, but looking at it objectively.
2. Gameplay features must be compatible with the game engines currently usable XML.
We have maps moving along that don't even have defined gameplay.
Again, examples may be helpful, provided that we are not "attacking" their map, but looking at it objectively.
4. All sound advice must be followed unless a logical rebuttal by the cartographer or another member of the community is provided.
Sound advice is ignored by experienced map makers and it is ok. Sound advice is applied by new map makers and they still don't care. The anti-new map maker bias hurts this site.
I'll reiterate my point about examples again. We are all adults (or at least, when it comes to cartography
) and we can discuss big bananas, right?
5. To proceed through the foundry the community must show a reasonable amount of interest towards a map.
Define community. Because there are maps with community support not getting moved and maps without it getting moved.
Examples again? I'm not trying to sound like a broken beach boys record, but examples can help move discussion along.
3. Test plays should be mandatory. Obviously a test play section would be ideal. But I see all these maps get into the main foundry that aren't even playable. Furthermore, test plays would help folks to understand that players see things differently than map makers. A lot of maps need less pretty and more clear communications.
Unfortuately a real game play testing area is out of the Foundry's hand. If I could personally whip up something, I would. If I could tell Lackattack to forget about all his other site wide updates, I'd tell him to just focus on the Foundry.
We do have some things in the works, maybe even soon we'll have a few things to ensure better game play. But for now, we'll have to make do with what we've got.
4. Moderation needs to follow moderation. Moderators should be less concerned about what maps they want to play and more concerned about what is good for the community.
If you have any problems with the Moderation that goes on in the Foundry, feel free to contact me,
AndyDufresne or
Twill, if you feel he'll be more receptive. We both don't mind chatting and discussing how to make better moderators (provided we aren't making robot mods.
)
Specifically regarding the "Less concerned about what maps they want to play..." I consider this part of a Foundry Member's job...be it moderator or not. It is good knowledge to know what kind of maps people seem to enjoy playing on. Now, as Moderators, we do know that with our words comes the weight of the world, and we generally try not to be delibately mean but rather "frank." On other forum boards, moderators are robots (as I alluded to earlier), and generally not really "a part of the community." At CC, we encourage our Moderators to be in that community, to have personality, to be an individual. The Moderators are just following those guidelines.
5. I recommend that it be more clear why maps are moved forward and held back. A simple modofication to the process would be helpful instead of leaving the map maker guessing. For example, when a map is moved from one stage to the next it should be justified. Not a long detailed report, but a short description of why that map meets the criteria for that stage. Similarly, when doing periodic reviews I recommend that cartographers use the written criteria. If they want more criteria they should ask for it through an amendment to the map making handbook and stages of production (which should be pinned if it is gonna be followed). Otherwise, keeping it professional and clear. If there are 4 criteria, let the map makers which ones are pass/fail. But a clear rationale would be helpful and more conducive to success and the idea of encouraging new map makers.
We will always try to make things more clear. Perhaps we should include a little more of a criteria post when moving it from one stage to the next. Our "Stamps" are a visual cue in that direction I believe. But we must be careful about adding more bureaucracy to the Foundry! Perhaps what can be made clearer should be spun off into a new Discussion topic.
6. What does "I hate this idea" (or "I love this idea") actually contribute to a map thread? Why do you dislike it? Is this just a personal preference or do you think one that will be commonly held by cc? (I honestly am mored interested in input geared at the target audience). Why do you like it? or don't like it? If you don't want to say than you are not providing constructive feedback. Constructive feedback should be mandatory.
I'll have to respectively disagree that "I hate/love this idea" is not constructive. It may be at the farthest limits helpful feedback, but it I still think those comments fall into the general realm. But whenever anyone does see those little posts, we should all encourage one another to give valid reasosn for those feelings, so we can best guide the cartographer.
Now, "making constructive feedback mandatory" seems somewhat counter to the arguments about making the Foundry more friendly. A lot of non-regulars wander in from time to time, just to post "Wow, I look forward to playing this map! Keep it up!" Sometimes they come back and look for other maps that they would enjoy. I don't want to discourage and make it harder for newcomers to wander in...we want to make the Foundry a friendly and fun place.
7. Adopt another process. What is the point of having multiple stages of some map makers are required to meet criteria of stage V in stage I and others aren't even required to meet stage I requirements in Stage III? A simple suggestion would be to get that test area up and running. And allow it to maps that have quality xml and graphics regardless of whose they are and let the test play process result in stamps. Or do a better breakdown of having an ideas stamp actually be relevent to the idea. But a trial by fire is probably the best way to streamline this process.
Not realizing it, I think I covered this earlier on in my post.
8. Adopt a process that is accessible to our target audience (the 99.9999% of cc who never come here). They are our target audience. And if they are not your target audience something is wrong with you. I don't make maps so that map makers can play them. I make them for everyone. Poll them to get ideas approved or something.
The problem with Polls...falls in line with the fact you stated. "99.9999% of CC never comes here." We'd be polling about the same number that actually give feedback. Over the years, I and the C.A.'s, along with the Foundry Members, have done our best to predict and gauge possible interest to CC at large. We've made some mistakes, but a lot of good has come out of it from the relatively small group of people that come to the Foundry.
For what it is worth, I'm willing to help with a re-write. I know some of these concerns initially led to the FAQ, but the issue is as long as the map handbook and stages criteria aren't followed they either need to be updated or the process needs to be amended to conform. Or a combination of both.
We always welcome a helping hand that's ready to work for the Foundry.
================================
Now, I'll just add. If there is one process we need to work on, it's making the Foundry more accessible to those non-regulars outside (plus a little advertising to the ouside, but I'll talk about that later...we've got something in the works). If we can get more and more people in here providing feedback, a large portion of our above problems will peel away like a banana skin.
[End long post]
Now everyone smile, be happy, and eat a
banana.
--Andy
mibi your year in the foundry without much happening just prooves that there is special treatment, we would never be allowed to stay there 
