[please delete] Create Your Own Map -

[jiminski]

Code a very simple grid with plotted grid references and basic gamplay attributes:

The New Temporary Classic map gives a very good idea of what i mean by simple graphics using a grid:



Specifics:

• May i first say that i have no idea what i am talking about!
  
  I am hoping that some genius coder could build an add-on test map grid. (or even better - Lack does it)
  A simple front sheet asking for territory position and then applying gameplay characteristics -
  allocating bonus' to single 'cells' or selections of cells to give simple bonus areas - Attack direction and jurisdiction etc etc.
  
  Then with the skeleton of the maps it would just need to be linked to a simplified version of the site gaming software; dice and round-clock etc.. so a simple test game could be played to experiment with gameplay and iron-out bugs.
  
  if that were possible and the shorthand version of the code could then be translated to longhand; using the grid-references, any map could be created using the test template.
  (I suppose very simplistically, like Windows sits on top of all the technical computer language, so we do not have to write a programme each time we want to create a document.)
  
  Obviously viable maps would need to go through all the Foundry processes before getting to be included on the main GamePage.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Everyone can make their own simple operational map, with all manner of gameplay
• New and creative Gameplay will be invented
• Code will be ready made and only needs to be transferred when the map is incorporated into the main system
• Map makers beginning with graphics before code can input the basic positions and test alternative gameplay and get rid of bugs prior to BETA stage and the map being part of the main system
• Artists could look at successful gameplay developments and design a map around them
• More people would go to be involved in the Map making, Foundry process!

[samuelc812]

I love this idea It sounds very complicated though

[Lazy_Pilgrim]

seconded ^^ it would allow may more people with good ideas but little technical knowledge to have a go at design. Or even just to have fun in mini comps with other people.

Just as an add on idea, it could form the basis of having your own private set of maps to play with friends/ allow torney makers more flexibility in map types for themed torneys

[jiminski]

seconded ^^ it would allow may more people with good ideas but little technical knowledge to have a go at design. Or even just to have fun in mini comps with other people.

Just as an add on idea, it could form the basis of having your own private set of maps to play with friends/ allow torney makers more flexibility in map types for themed torneys

I think the stars are the limit really! I am sure it is possible and it could move the site into a much larger more Sim-world market, whilst maintaining the fundamental 'Risk' gaming! ... If they wanted that of course.

[Neoteny]

I approve. I'm too lazy, prolly, but it would open things up for more artistic/less technically minded people.

[spearfish]

Sounds like a good idea. So basically an editor to make things really really easy for people to make their own maps?

I'd love to see this come to pass. Alas, I have no knowledge of XML, which is how I hear the maps run, or I'd look into it.

[hecter]

I can see issues with severe gameplay abuse with this one... Though I do like the idea! Perhaps premium only? And the ability to load saved maps that you've created?

[Kaplowitz]

CC is better than Land Grab because of the map quality.

[Herakilla]

CC is better than Land Grab because of the map quality.

lol ya i remember playing a map on landgrab where one of the territs could not be taken or destroyed or anything. so whoever got it couldnt lose

[jiminski]

I can see issues with severe gameplay abuse with this one... Though I do like the idea! Perhaps premium only? And the ability to load saved maps that you've created?

yes i know exactly what you mean.
There could be limits on test games played; perhaps, in the case of the Freemium, the test game could count as one of their 4 games? That way they still get to taste the facility.

hmm though it does make it a little complex!
To make it a true tool for adaptation it would perhaps need to be a speed game or at least there be facility to stop the game at any point, in order to make adjustments...
Perhaps the freemium is precluded.

Regarding saving maps, definitely! i would imagine it would need limits on how many work-in progress maps each user could have. (It would be nice for these to be accessible and copyable to other users too, then they could take a good base map in another direction.)

[jiminski]

CC is better than Land Grab because of the map quality.

Kap, can you expand?.. i am not sure which side you are coming from.

[DiM]

in theory a java application could be developed to allow people to make their maps but there are a few problems.

1. those maps will have horrible graphics (unless the java app also includes predefined pieces to put on your map in which case the maps will look the same). so regardless of the chosen path the maps still need the aid of a graphic artist to make them CC worthy.
2. if the app is free for all then thousands of "maps" will be created thus putting a huge strain on the Foundry with stuff like "please make graphics for my map" "no my map, etc"

the way i see this application working is like this:

1. only some people get access to it. (via applications on the forum)
2. they make the crude maps (basically a mock-up graphic presentation for the sole purpose)
3. these maps are tested in a closed area by the creators, and all those that wish to help and there are no points exchanged in those games (obviosly one could make a map where he exploits stuff to gain points)
4. after a testing period the maps receive comments and votes from those involved in the testing and the best X maps get submitted to the foundry where somebody takes care of the graphics.

this would have 2 big advantages:
a. less time is spent on graphics because you start them when the gameplay is perfect so you don't have to do dozens of changes
b. many map makers would be happy to tackle a proven gameplay and do the graphics than start from scratch and deal with all kinds of messy gameplay problems
c. this application would ensure that no faulty maps are quenched
d. it will allow new people to help and get involved in the foundry


but there is one big problem in the whole idea. who will make this application? it's certainly not easy and it will surely take a lot of time.

[jiminski]

in theory a java application could be developed to allow people to make their maps but there are a few problems.

the way i see this application working is like this:

1. only some people get access to it. (via applications on the forum)
2. they make the crude maps (basically a mock-up graphic presentation for the sole purpose)
3. these maps are tested in a closed area by the creators, and all those that wish to help and there are no points exchanged in those games (obviosly one could make a map where he exploits stuff to gain points)
4. after a testing period the maps receive comments and votes from those involved in the testing and the best X maps get submitted to the foundry where somebody takes care of the graphics.

this would have 2 big advantages:
a. less time is spent on graphics because you start them when the gameplay is perfect so you don't have to do dozens of changes
b. many map makers would be happy to tackle a proven gameplay and do the graphics than start from scratch and deal with all kinds of messy gameplay problems
c. this application would ensure that no faulty maps are quenched
d. it will allow new people to help and get involved in the foundry


but there is one big problem in the whole idea. who will make this application? it's certainly not easy and it will surely take a lot of time.

hello mate,
Well i am glad you can see something in it.

My idea was never to have finalised maps with polished graphics using this system.

to be perfectly honest, I just had it in mind that graphics would be almost non-existent and that it would be little more (as i say above) than a grid with plotted grid-references as territories and army counts. (Using 'x' 'y' axis positioning for example or whatever makes it easiest to transfer to final xml.)
At most, just maps made up of single, uniform block territories.

In that way, all users (or at least Premium) could have access to it due to it's crudeness.
Sure, more sophisticated graphics could come later but the more simple, the more flexible it is as a tool and little strain would be placed upon the server.

As i say above, this is only to give us all the opportunity to test out new gameplay and also to get rid of bugs:

Code a very simple grid with plotted grid references and basic gameplay attributes:
......
Obviously viable maps would need to go through all the Foundry processes before getting to be included on the main GamePage.

But this could be done in such a way as to be able to use the basic information to take it to the next Foundry stage and with tested coding.
As i say in the OP, the Artwork would come later from within the foundry (at least until Lack can fund a sexy bit of generic, terraforming photo-fit software); with Cartographers perhaps sponsoring gameplay ideas they like and developing them in the Test grid.

The Grid could also be employed using Existing artwork; inputting the territory positions so to go through the testing period.
After which, a bug-free, certified gamplay map should be ready to combine: Code and Artwork

I like point 4 too.. but based on an open test.

4. after a testing period the maps receive comments and votes from those involved in the testing and the best X maps get submitted to the foundry where somebody takes care of the graphics.

Anyway Lack should make it
By making this accessible to all and not just the Cartographers or a select few, we have a huge benefit! A benefit not just through greater input on map gameplay and a general swelling of the foundry but also giving a massive new concept to grow as a fundamental aspect of the site.

Eventually, as it evolves from a simple plotted front sheet, it will make him a fortune due to it being Sim-Risk.



Now saying all this, my idea began as an answer to the map bug problem and as a tool specifically for the cartographers to combat this and to help develop gameplay more fluidly.
It began almost exactly as you have outlined above DiM.

If a coder would like to get involved and DiM would help work on the mechanics of it? (as i have no real idea what i am talking about. ) i am happpy to move sideways.

Then maybe a site-wide map creator could develop later, as i think it should be the end goal.

[richardgarr]

A great place to grab the attack pattern template from, would be the coding for "conquer 4 map"
A basic inventory of various templates in different colours could be used as a starting place, then one would simply block off the attack routes with standardized barriers. EX: place mountain barrier in grid f3, place river in e4, e5, ect... (all barriers would have been previously created to CC graphic standards)
There would have to be of course a pre-made inventory of various barriers available to the map creator(s).

Creating a basic guideline for ter bonuses would be simple as well to standardize. something along the lines of . 2 points of entry into a ter would give a 2 bonus, 3 points of entry a 3 bonus ect. Standard bonus count for ter amounts would go by the classic 3 for owning a minimum of 1 ter, 4 for 12 ter's, 5 for 15 , ect...
This would be a good place to start for basic sim-map tech.

Perhaps a basic bank of total bonuses would have to be cretaed as well, so the map maker will have a set max # of bonuses he/she could give for continent bonus's.
EX: total of 40 bonuses available, 2 of them used up for Continent E3, now there are 38 bonuses available for distribution. A maker would not have to use all the bonuses available, but would be limited to a pre-set amount. This would help keep men count to a reasonable level for these make on demand maps.

As far as fancy bonuses and strange and imaginative game play maps, these would have to go through usual channels.

These are just some fast ideas on the matter, and I imagine that the maps would have a very raw look to them (at first), However Having tools such as these available to our community, would raise CC to a level that would be matched by none.

[jiminski]

well i suppose at a certain stage: after testing using minimalist block graphics and then after a period of voting,* you could input a rough, temporary artwork Layer/skin over the top of the plotted territories. Further testing can then carry on, at which point the final Artist and Artwork is decide upon.


*perhaps in the initial stages, prior to any voting, the artwork layer could be accessed from the map-makers desktop, in order to save server space?

[richardgarr]

I was thinking that a very basic make and play map option could come out of this idea.
Like I said it would be raw at first for people to use, but would certainly add a new and exciting element to the CC experience.
In time better graphics and templates could be added to the available options.
As far as playability goes, it would be up to the map host/creator to insure the map is usable for a fair game play.
If people do not like the playability of the map, blame would fall completely onto the host.
This would certainly make for some interesting games.
Every game would be unique to the host and would allow people to have true home team and away games.

(if this easy to use , instant map making option works, I am sure players will come up with many add ons and templates for it.)

[jiminski]

hmm ok, from a conversation or 2 with the coders, it looks as though this is too big a job to realistically happen.
So we may as well lock this thread.

[jiminski]

well this is exactly the same simple map as Lack has given us for the Classic (all the kudos for using my idea on this one is yours to keep Lackster ) . this is pretty much the same concept so let's just do it.....and take the good from the horrific.

[KoE_Sirius]

I got an idea for a map....UMmmmMmm....I know.I think I'll call it classic and use countries of the world to represent the territtories. I know it'll never work,but best layed plans and all.

[jiminski]

I got an idea for a map....UMmmmMmm....I know.I think I'll call it classic and use countries of the world to represent the territtories. I know it'll never work,but best layed plans and all.

you are a trend setter Sirius! but possibly ahead of your time on this one ; )

[yeti_c]

So - "Knicking"... I always thought it didn't have the silent "K"?

C.

[jiminski]

So - "Knicking"... I always thought it didn't have the silent "K"?

C.

heh .. in reality it does not yeti.. but i like the allusion to knickers! .. knickers - collective noun: group or gang of people who steal womens' underwear.

[cicero]

i like the allusion to knickers! .. knickers - collective noun: group or gang of people who steal womens' underwear.

Now that is weird, but then ... let's just be glad that jim is only alluding. If you start participating please let us know in Off Topics/The (Not Yet) Banned

I've been following this thread for a while having had some sympathy with discussion raising the issue that the Foundry appears to be obsessed with pixel perfect detail at the expense of gameplay. And so, as suggested here, I am attracted by the idea of separating "gameplay" from "graphics" since the latter is only a superficial skin over the first isn't yet? Well, on one level, yes it is, but now I find myself thinking that the graphics are actually really, really important in engaging users in the gameplay issues. And this has been brought home by the number of players who are stating that they refuse to play Classic whilst it remains as ugly as it currently is. So if, as proposed here, 'gameplay only' maps were released, in a skeletal form - much like Ugly Classic - then it would seem that no-one would play them, the gameplay wouldn't get tested and so they'd be no better evaluated than they are now before graphical skins were added.

Further I think that "gameplay" is not just about the mechanics and our interpretation of what is 'good gameplay' is heavily influenced by the 'graphical context' in which we are playing it. In the end I think it's such a symbiotic process that development must be carried out in parallel. It would seem to me that some kind of test bed available to foundry maps in development, but not to the community has a whole to play test maps (we have enough trouble with the supposedly finished Beta maps after all), is therefore the suggestion to support.

[I've looked for a thread on a 'foundry testing facility' suggestion but can't find one here in Suggestions & Bug Reports or in the Foundry. Can anyone provide a link to such a thread ?]

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

if, as proposed here, 'gameplay only' maps were released, in a skeletal form - much like Ugly Classic - then it would seem that no-one would play them, the gameplay wouldn't get tested and so they'd be no better evaluated than they are now before graphical skins were added.

Well, as I have stated elsewhere, I actually like "ugly" classic... as it properly represents the relative gameplay elements. The Canada map for example has some very large territories and some very very small ones - if it were shown as "ugly Canada", then this would not be the case. This perceptional element to analysing a graphical map, is an important one, but it tests a player's ability, and not necessarily the actual gameplay directly.

I agree that there would not be that much uptake for testing "self-created" maps if they were "ugly", but I am sure there would be enough. I for one would be happy to play test games on any potential map that had had a reasonable amount of thought put into it.

However, the biggest downside I can see, is that Non-planar maps (as defined and discussed in viewtopic.php?f=63&t=66941) would probably be too hard for a simple "create your own map" tool to handle, and it is those very maps that interest me most.

[yeti_c]

However, the biggest downside I can see, is that Non-planar maps (as defined and discussed in viewtopic.php?f=63&t=66941) would probably be too hard for a simple "create your own map" tool to handle, and it is those very maps that interest me most.

And indeed - would be the ones that needed the gameplay testing the most?

C.