A couple of suggestions

[Dlakavi]

1.Busted multis don't get a chance to explain
My brother has been busted as a multi(it was cleared later), but since he was not premium he couldn't see the forum to see why, or write a pm to the moderators to explain himself.

My suggestion is: when you bust someone, you should leave them access to the Cheating and abuse forum so they can state their case(even mods can be wrong sometimes).
And they should be able to write pm's at least to the mods.

2.New maps in the Map Foundry

It seems to me that there are a lot of maps being made, and people rushing them to Final Forge, and to be quenched, only to complain about it later.
Because of this mods are really careful about letting new maps live.
That is really normal, because i can also like the map before i play it only to find it has some major errors i couldn't see when it was made.

So what i propose for this problem:

You should quench a new map in the earlier stages of construction and put it in play but it should have a [FINAL FORGE] tag next to it.

And then, in 2 weeks, close the map and let the people say what they think. I think you will have much more playable maps because you can see what is wrong with a map much more easily if you play it than if you only see it.

Example: the arctic map:
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4786

It looks really cool and everything, but i would see it's problems and things needing to be fixed if i played 5 or 6 games on the map.

And the Sumatra Brunei connection (or other thing like that) wouldn't be a problem then



priority is 5(it should be implemented as soon as possible, and it's really easy to do)

[sully800]

1) Busted multis are told how they can appeal the decision in the email they recieve. They may not have access to PM but they have email which can be used (and they are instructed to do so if there is a mistake)

2) The idea of Beta testing is a good one, but I don't think your process would work. What happens if the map is up for 2 weeks but then one of the game that starts lasts for 5+ months? Wouldn't you need to wait until all games are finished to replace the map with any corrections? I guess we'll see how they implement the world 2.1 changes since its already up for live play, but I don't think it will be easy.

I prefer the idea of a map testing area- perhaps the games wouldn't count for points and there would be a limited number of tests that could be conducted. Along with that you could have a surrender option in the testing area to end the game when necessary (or people could purposely lose since it wouldn't be for points). I think it would be a valuable addition to the foundry process, and it would make a good step between final forge and quenching. When a map reaches final forge it could go into the beta testing stage, and then once any new problems are worked out it could be quenched normally.