This is the first of hopefully many Feedback Requests from Coleman and myself on ways to better improve the Foundry.
=================================
In a topic a few days ago there was a request for an 'Abandoned Maps' forum. I commented that Coleman and I would rather not create a dead sub-forum that wouldn't be used.
But we would be inclined to create an active discussion sub-forum that could help better organize the Foundry. Right now, the Main Foundry is kind of the catch-all of things that either aren't new Map Ideas or maps that aren't Final Forged/Quenched.
To help better organize and structure the Foundry, would a 'Foundry Discussion' sub-forum be beneficial or useful? We could put all the current various discussion threads in the possible forum, along with perhaps the Tips and Tricks as it would be an excellent place to ask questions and get feedback on such things. We could also see this opening up the door to Tutorials...which perhaps could be housed in the Discussion sub-forum. There are many other possibilities also...more Coleman and I probably haven't even thought!
So finally, to the Feedback Question:
Would an active 'Foundry Discussion' sub-forum be beneficial in the sense of better organizing and structuring the Foundry...and would you like it to come into existence?
Thanks for all your time, and input!
--Andy & Coleman
Last edited by AndyDufresne on Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ecentially yes, but i would still like to see an abandoned/vacation sub forum as well. I know you guys dont want a dead thread but it would move hte 16-17 pages of dead threads and leave only the golden productions of the foundry.
How about making the discussion forum the main forum and having the sub-forum be main maps? The reason I suggest this is that if the discussion sub-forum is made, people who are new to the foundry might post discussion topics in the main forum a lot.
Highest Score: 2532 Highest Position: 69 (a long time ago)
I imagine it would be possible to make a Foundry Discussion sub-forum, and have it linked as a sub-forum from the General Discussion forum as well. It's just a link.
Dead forum (The Graveyard): yes as well. Just yesterday somebody bumped a map that had been dead since June 2006. Ridiculous.
oaktown wrote:I imagine it would be possible to make a Foundry Discussion sub-forum, and have it linked as a sub-forum from the General Discussion forum as well. It's just a link.
Dead forum (The Graveyard): yes as well. Just yesterday somebody bumped a map that had been dead since June 2006. Ridiculous.
New Idea that wouldn't create an extra forum.
Move abandoned topics to map ideas in case someone wants to take it over.
The main forum will always be where people will come in and post questions and random topics. This will lead to people making the great, "this thread needs to be moved "posts. There would also be the slightly more helpful, "this thread belongs in" posts (I admit these ones are actually somewhat needed). Without these posts the moderators of the map forum would surely leave the threads alone not knowing where they actually belong.
The first and third stages of the map process have subforums. I see no reason why the second part of the process doesn't deserve its own subforum as well.
The main forum will always be where people will come in and post questions and random topics. This will lead to people making the great, "this thread needs to be moved "posts. There would also be the slightly more helpful, "this thread belongs in" posts (I admit these ones are actually somewhat needed). Without these posts the moderators of the map forum would surely leave the threads alone not knowing where they actually belong.
The first and third stages of the map process have subforums. I see no reason why the second part of the process doesn't deserve its own subforum as well.
I agree. This idea makes sense. Is there still a desire to have an abandoned idea sub-forum as well? That would make 4 sub-forums and a main foundry discussion.
But regardless of the abandoned one, the 3- stages should be organized in 3 sub-forums. Good idea Bad Speler.
Hmm... Sounds good to me. I would prefer my Foundry map not getting pushed way down the list because of all the discussion threads that keep getting bumped above it
I don't know that everyone will agree on these suggestions (lengthy as they are), but given the challenges that I've seen arise in each of the subforums over the last 9 months since i have been on board from various maps, i would like also to propose -
.......................................
Minimum Stage Requirements a minimum time limit that each map has to spend in each stage of the Foundry.
To this end, i would propose something like:
New Ideas - 2 weeks (mininum)
Main foundry - 6 weeks (minimum)
Final Forge - 4 weeks (minimum)
I know that most maps spend these amounts of time in these areas anyway. But having something "set in stone" in the guidelines, would explain to newcomers to the foundry, not to get grand ideas that their map is going to be processed throught the various stages at a lightning speed, and that everyone has to meet to the same minimum time requirements. This would also stop over-zealous cartographers assistants (like myself) from moving a map before it's time was due.
................................................
Graphic Expectation Standards Of course, also what needs to be explained in the "How to Make A Map" guideleines more precisely is that maps are expected to meet very high standards before they will be quenched.
The reason for this, is because (as we have seen) different cartographers have differing ideas about what is acceptable to them, but not about what is acceptable to the foundry.
These items might include (and these are items that are consistly asked for by some and even Andy):
1. borders - expected to be presented with a slight blur applied or some anti-aliasing of feathering so as not to appear jaggered and non-anti-aliased.
2. rivers - need to look like rivers with slightly different coloring and texturing from the oceans
3. oceans - needs to have some small amount (min) of texture applied
4. colors - need to be not too bright not too dull, pastel shades are always very good and acceptable to most players. Colors also need to be acceptable to the colorblind community in that different continent colors need to differ from other continent colors i.e separation of colors (link to colourblind colors site)
5. land mass needs to have a small amount of texturing applied and possibly needs to look as though the land sits out of the water if surrounded on any side by water.
6. fonts must be legible to the entire community; no more than three differing fonts for any one map;
7. any background imagery should have some effect applied to it so that it is not a direct copy of the original image
8. army circles are expected to be min. 22px diam. or 20px w x 16px h rectangular and must be colored enough to provide good contrast to the army numbers.
....................................
Can't think of any more off the top of my head....but i think this would stop of lot of "preferential" type postings and would be a clear indication to all that the maps won't "go anywhere" unless these standars are applied.
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
RjBeals wrote:Hmm... Sounds good to me. I would prefer my Foundry map not getting pushed way down the list because of all the discussion threads that keep getting bumped above it
Hear! Hear!
* Pearl Harbour * Waterloo * Forbidden City * Jamaica * Pot Mosbi
