How do you think the foundrry system could be improved?

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:16 pm

well?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:34 pm

free donuts might help.

oh and cigarettes and pepsi.

Kaplowitz · Post by **Kaplowitz** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:42 pm

coke is better

We should probably just settle on root beer.

Im sure hookers would attract more people.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 8:45 pm

Kaplowitz wrote:coke is better

We should probably just settle on root beer.

Im sure hookers would attract more people.

coke sucks. as for hookers, hmm, we might get too distracted and end up doing nothing (except hookers)

cairnswk · Post by **cairnswk** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:05 pm

DiM wrote:free donuts might help.

oh and cigarettes and pepsi.

DiM...you don't smoke so you? the pepsi and donuts i can understand, but surely you don't smoke?

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:08 pm

cairnswk wrote:
DiM wrote:free donuts might help.

oh and cigarettes and pepsi.
DiM...you don't smoke so you? the pepsi and donuts i can understand, but surely you don't smoke?

sorry but i do. but i stopped smoking pot and drinking alcohol a long time ago. cigarettes still plague me though. but i switched to lights instead of regulars

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:42 pm

back on topic here

1. cairnswk has asked for this, and I think it is smart. First post being displayed on every page. Not sure if this is even possible.

2. gameplay testing stage. this is probably more for the complicated maps than standard ones. some people are able to test their maps at home and others cannot. Draknor, for instance, was tested by widowmakers and some others in his area. I think the gameplay tweaks were huge in their development.

It can be very hard to critique the complex maps. we just don't know how things will turn out unless we actually play on them. And, with a true testing stage, normal conquerclubbers cannot complain about changes in games suddenly etc that comes with changing a map.

it also lets the XML be tested too.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:30 am

edbeard wrote:1. cairnswk has asked for this, and I think it is smart. First post being displayed on every page. Not sure if this is even possible.

2. gameplay testing stage. this is probably more for the complicated maps than standard ones. some people are able to test their maps at home and others cannot. Draknor, for instance, was tested by widowmakers and some others in his area. I think the gameplay tweaks were huge in their development.

It can be very hard to critique the complex maps. we just don't know how things will turn out unless we actually play on them. And, with a true testing stage, normal conquerclubbers cannot complain about changes in games suddenly etc that comes with changing a map.

it also lets the XML be tested too.

1. i believe this will be implemented once phpbb3.0 is here.
2. testing. this has been asked over and over and so far nothing. some map makers test at home with friends but this is by no means a perfect solution. i have playtested AoM with my friends at home and part of the reason why i don't play it that much on the site is that i play it at home. but other maps are hard or impossible to test at home. for example the aor trilogy is impossible to test because i don't have fog of war on my dining room table. or the cc mogul map i can't play test it because i don't have auto attack. and even if play testing at home is helpful it is still not enough because:
a. you have a limited selection of opponents
b. you can't play 30 games at once and finish them in 2 days
c. you can't test the xml.

play testing is currently possible. remember how lack tested the 7 and 8 player games? or the speed games? that could be done for maps too.

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:24 pm

I agree completely that play-testing must be done. I find it astonishing that it hasn't already been implemented, to be honest.

Kaplowitz · Post by **Kaplowitz** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:27 pm

Play-testing would be great. None of my friends play RISK unfortunately, and i dont have the time or space to keep an active gameboard.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:29 pm

InkL0sed wrote:I agree completely that play-testing must be done. I find it astonishing that it hasn't already been implemented, to be honest.

Play-testing is a huge upgrade, but Lack has put it on his To-Do list, and it isn't at the bottom (but it isn't at the top either).

--Andy

InkL0sed · Post by **InkL0sed** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:30 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:I agree completely that play-testing must be done. I find it astonishing that it hasn't already been implemented, to be honest.
Play-testing is a huge upgrade, but Lack has put it on his To-Do list, and it isn't at the bottom (but it isn't at the top either).

--Andy

That's good to know.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:48 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:I agree completely that play-testing must be done. I find it astonishing that it hasn't already been implemented, to be honest.
Play-testing is a huge upgrade, but Lack has put it on his To-Do list, and it isn't at the bottom (but it isn't at the top either).

--Andy

actually it's not that huge. it is possible at this moment without a problem. all lack has to do is upload some files and let people play a private game then delete it. yes it would require some of his time but that can be done by you and only on certain conditions.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:50 pm

Unfortunately DiM, it's more complicated than that.

--Andy

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:57 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:Unfortunately DiM, it's more complicated than that.

--Andy

well speed games and 7-8player games have been tested and probably other tests so it is possible at the current moment. so i don't understand why can't it be done for maps too??

especially since most of the recent quenches have had xml related issues. this would solve them before going to live play.

also maps are getting more and more complicated and simple analysis of thegameplay doesn't reveal the flaws. testing is needed.

at least 1 play test game could and should be set-up when a map reaches final forge. this way flaws in the xml and in the logic can be found and corrected without having to wait for people to suffer in several games before actually doing something.

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:03 pm

Extensive play testing is difficult. And Lack hasn't been keen on just creating some minor play testing, as regular game playing does better for now. We'll just have to continue to wait. I can't tell you anything else, that's just how it is.

--Andy

Lone.prophet · Post by **Lone.prophet** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:10 am

-redo the hole system just say

idea
gameplay
graphics
final touches

gimil · Post by **gimil** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:38 am

Lone.prophet wrote:-redo the hole system just say

idea
gameplay
graphics
final touches

THats how he system is already run . . .

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:11 am

DiM wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:I agree completely that play-testing must be done. I find it astonishing that it hasn't already been implemented, to be honest.
Play-testing is a huge upgrade, but Lack has put it on his To-Do list, and it isn't at the bottom (but it isn't at the top either).

--Andy
actually it's not that huge. it is possible at this moment without a problem. all lack has to do is upload some files and let people play a private game then delete it. yes it would require some of his time but that can be done by you and only on certain conditions.

Deleting games actually causes data loss...

Consider this...

1) set up testing game.
2) play other games.
3) complete testing game.
4) other games complete.
5) delete testing game and reassign points.

Now step 4 is out of sync - as the points that were gained/lost in the testing game will have affected the points awarded/received in step 4.

(Before you say - don't ever finish testing game - a) could be testing an objective? b) could accidentally happen (esp if fog is on) c) testing game could've been assassin/termy *or other* (remember that testing isn't just for maps it would be for game options etc)

This is part of the reason why I suspect Lack doesn't like creating and deleting games...

Also - I suspect it causes fragmentation in the DB tables (which isn't ideal)

The best solution - would be to create a seperate 'test' server for playtesting - which can then have *very* limited access granted.

C.

edbeard · Post by **edbeard** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:22 am

one thing Andy brought up is very true.

the good thing about how things are run now is that when a map goes up for live play, in a week or two (maybe even less), any gameplay problems are quite evident.

there's nothing like throwing out a map out into the wild to see how it really plays.

there are problems with this, of course. first impressions can be killers. Also, changing gameplay whilst games are going is quite annoying for everyone involved.

But, if it's an option at some point then I'm sure it'd be very useful.

MrBenn · Post by **MrBenn** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:59 am

I think that most people would agree that the The Map ideas subforum gets cluttered quite quickly and easily...

A couple of thoughts about this initial process:

1. I'm not sure when the Index to the map ideas thread was last updated, but the date of the Cairns post is in Oct 07... that's quite a long time ago now...

2. How frequently are the other map indexes, such as the Developmental Atlas / GD Maps in Development (etc.) updated?

3. I wonder if Map Ideas could be renamed to Map Suggestions, and a new 'Early Development' / 'Heating' stage be created for people who want to take an idea and do something with it, before getting to the Foundry proper??

I'm not recommending a massive overhaul, but just putting some shape to what are currently random thoughts...

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:42 am

yeti_c wrote:
DiM wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
InkL0sed wrote:I agree completely that play-testing must be done. I find it astonishing that it hasn't already been implemented, to be honest.
Play-testing is a huge upgrade, but Lack has put it on his To-Do list, and it isn't at the bottom (but it isn't at the top either).

--Andy
actually it's not that huge. it is possible at this moment without a problem. all lack has to do is upload some files and let people play a private game then delete it. yes it would require some of his time but that can be done by you and only on certain conditions.
Deleting games actually causes data loss...

Consider this...

1) set up testing game.
2) play other games.
3) complete testing game.
4) other games complete.
5) delete testing game and reassign points.

Now step 4 is out of sync - as the points that were gained/lost in the testing game will have affected the points awarded/received in step 4.

(Before you say - don't ever finish testing game - a) could be testing an objective? b) could accidentally happen (esp if fog is on) c) testing game could've been assassin/termy *or other* (remember that testing isn't just for maps it would be for game options etc)

This is part of the reason why I suspect Lack doesn't like creating and deleting games...

Also - I suspect it causes fragmentation in the DB tables (which isn't ideal)

The best solution - would be to create a seperate 'test' server for playtesting - which can then have *very* limited access granted.

C.

actually yeti is far more simple. there are 2 solutions:
1. just skip past step 3 and don't complete the testing game. this way there's no score modification adn the game deletion is ok
2. complete the game and don't delete it. i'm fine with that and i'm willing to trash my points for testing purposes. also i'm sure other people would also risk their points just to test.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:45 am

edbeard wrote:one thing Andy brought up is very true.

the good thing about how things are run now is that when a map goes up for live play, in a week or two (maybe even less), any gameplay problems are quite evident.

there's nothing like throwing out a map out into the wild to see how it really plays.

there are problems with this, of course. first impressions can be killers. Also, changing gameplay whilst games are going is quite annoying for everyone involved.

But, if it's an option at some point then I'm sure it'd be very useful.

yes in a week or 2 gameplay problems will be evident and fixed but how many people follow the forum to see if a map has been fixed? most of them would probably never try it again if the first time the map was horrible.

yeti_c · Post by **yeti_c** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:33 am

DiM wrote:
yeti_c wrote: (Before you say - don't ever finish testing game - a) could be testing an objective? b) could accidentally happen (esp if fog is on) c) testing game could've been assassin/termy *or other* (remember that testing isn't just for maps it would be for game options etc)

C.
actually yeti is far more simple. there are 2 solutions:
1. just skip past step 3 and don't complete the testing game. this way there's no score modification adn the game deletion is ok

You missed my above bit of my post...

C.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:52 am

yeti_c wrote:
DiM wrote:
yeti_c wrote: (Before you say - don't ever finish testing game - a) could be testing an objective? b) could accidentally happen (esp if fog is on) c) testing game could've been assassin/termy *or other* (remember that testing isn't just for maps it would be for game options etc)

C.
actually yeti is far more simple. there are 2 solutions:
1. just skip past step 3 and don't complete the testing game. this way there's no score modification adn the game deletion is ok
You missed my above bit of my post...

C.

yes i saw that but a map can still be tested in many other aspects without finishing the game and if it really needs finishing then just win/lose some points.