Moderator: Cartographers
But you accused me of spamming my own thread earlier anyhow didn't you? Please stay on topic of the map. If you have comments on when xml should be done, there is a map foundry discussion forum for that. If you have comments about me personally please PM them to me. I am trying to run a map thread here without y'all spamming about off topic material.TaCktiX wrote:You are posting a lot, and strictly speaking, you are not spamming your topic much (exception to your test game +1 posts, which could be handled via PM), you are adding information about your map. The problem that gimil tried to underline, and the stats put concrete evidence on, is that you're posting too much, too fast for anybody to respond to it. People are only able to give bit-part feedback, or generic support as they're not able to process things as fast as you're moving forward. You're not giving people enough time to give you the feedback you need to bring the map forward. No map is perfect within the first couple of versions (not even DiM's super-fast-quenched AoR: Magic). In essence, you're smothering your own map in your loving arms, while not letting anyone comment on how adorable it is (baby analogy ftw!).
The more recent compilation of the XML shows great initiative, but foolhardy initiative. If at any point the map image changes that moves army locations, or you decide to change how bonuses are accumulated, or pretty much anything gameplay-related, then you have to rewrite it, sometimes in its entirety. XML is saved for Final Forge so that a mapmaker can make image revisions with no reservations about "extra work".
So you are not being held back by others, you are holding yourself back by not letting anyone else help you with the map. We really do want to help, else we wouldn't post anything.
This is off topic AND a personal attack. If you have comments on my attitude towards CAs please continue that discussion in the foundry discussion. If you can point to negative feedback which I can possibly do anything about within this thread that I ignored cite it. Otherwise, please remove your off topic posts from my map thread.t-o-m wrote:i think that one of the reasons that this isnt moving forward is that you also have a poor attitude toward the CA's and to anyone who posts something slightly negative.
you reject anything that goes against you, as i told you when you constantly PM me, (which is quite annoying btw)
you always say that you're going to continue but you reject advice, so what are you going to do
carry on oblivious to what the CA's advice you to do?
please carry on with this by all means, (and im not being sarcastic there)
7 unique posters have expressed support for the map in the thread, not 4. Check your stats. Other have done so privately no surprisingly.gimil wrote:1. Of every post that isnt yours only 4 showed supportfor the map.
Yes, because the test play games go down as spam. I guess you are right though and I shouldn't work to improve gameplay.gimi wrote:2. Tack has averaged all his maps to get "Spam 23.13%" with you currently sitting over that at 30.99%
Because I am the MOST consistent updater in the forum. I should be commended for responding to every point of input promptly.gimi wrote:3. 50.34% or posts are by YOU the map creator, according to every other stat this is the highest percent on map making posts in their own thread. Conqueropoly has alot less than that and it has three people who were working on it.
These numbers are clearly distorted by the fact that I am a fequent updater. But instead of getting rewarded for it you are making up excuses to justify a decision you have no rationale for. If support is an issue, how come you didn't mention it when you were in here a few days ago or when I PMed asking you to check back? I would have had the very complimentary person who PM me yesterday post. And the others too. But as this map has more support than others you just stamped I never felt it necessary, nor did they probably feel it necessary.gimi wrote:4. Another average stat, "Feedback: 67.10% of post not by the creator", you currently sit at 48.38%. Nuff said.
Now compare these with the statements of support for another map you just stamped (nubia egypt chosen at random). Two posts of support when stamped. Otherwise this had equal support and opposition in the poll I ran as that one did. The only difference being that this one is more legible (to be honest and fair).gimi wrote:Now that fact that you post SO much on your own map is boosting its post count. This bring it to my attention and when I look over it, all I see is your username posting over and over again. The average map gains adv. idea in 5-6 pages of posts. them stamped not long after that. Some take longer some dont. But right now with the level of post by a single user im not seeing enought quality posts to warrent an adv idea tag. I was going to wait until I seen a little more by other posters.
That only makes my point stronger. Since there was only one post of support in the approved example. There was also less feedback per day than in this thread. I don't care how long it takes for this map to move, I only care that the criteria by applied and be applied fairly to this map, as it has to others. Otherwise I will continue development as it is a good map idea as expressed by the interest in it, the support, and the level of feedback. But it is also a simple map that requires less detailed nit picking than, for example, my Allegheny Forest map. So I would expect there to be less feedback posts.TaCktiX wrote:Several clarifications:
- Support, as defined by the Map Stats project, is a "generic reference to the map, it being "good", "can't wait to play", etc. Nothing specific is mentioned about the map proper." 3 of the 7 posters also included things that I would consider feedback on any map. There is no double-category, it's one or the other.
I appreciate the suggestions but you do realize that I already did a poll and that most people voted in favor of the map?t-o-m wrote:i just did a quick count, these are the posts that ive seen: (probably inacurate)
i see 76 posts, 42 of those were made by you in double posting or more than double posting.
You made more posts than 42 but i only counted the ones that were consecutive.
So if you are wanting the ideas stamp or even an adv idea then those stats dont look promising.
along with tack's stats and those stats above with 42 of your posts in this thread being at least 1 after the other, this doesnt really meet the criteria for the ideas stamp, and isnt nearing readyness for the ideas stamp (which is marked by adv idea)
we're not trying to say give up, we're just asking if it is worth continuing?
maybe do a poll...that is the way to find out who wants this map being continued/ who thinks it will work?
Maybe ask this question:
Qn A) Do you want this map to continue? Qn B) Do you think this map will work?
then have answers of:
QnA) Yes, continue
QnA) No, dont continue
QnB)Yes, it'll work.
QnB)No, it wont work.
im just giving suggestions now?
I am not familiar with that requirement. But here are the poll results:TaCktiX wrote:What poll where? I just doublechecked the topic and I see no post of a C.A. posting poll results (standard procedure).
As you can see I had intended to put a new poll up but I had so much support and was getting regular feedback so it never seemed necessary.Re: Hurling Gaelic Sport Map- 5/31 UPDATED GRAPHICS
I just posted version 1.5 of the map. Based on feedback I changed the top part of the map (the rules section). I changed it entirely to photos and samples pretty much. Feedback on whether or not this is clear enough is helpful.
I also took the poll down. It was my first poll and it came back with roughly 9 in support and 6 not in support. Since the i hate irish people option was a joke I don't even know how to interpret. I'll put up a new poll in a day or two which will provide more useful guidance to me and the decision makers.
dang, that explains why you posted about 7times in a row and started doing the XML.seamusk wrote:I had so much support
I also have them all mad at me.t-o-m wrote:dang, that explains why you posted about 7times in a row and started doing the XML.seamusk wrote:I had so much support
joke
anyway, i think it would be beneficial for you to put another poll up since you have almost the entire foundry glued to the thread.
pop up my poll and i think you'll get a good turn out.
This is an idea. Though I'd have to look at the gameplay a little closer to see if that would overly limit interactions between players. I don't think that the confusion is necessarily what oaktown thinks it is though as pretty much no one in the test games is familiar with hurling and they haven't had the kinds of difficulties he has described. I don't think the movement is too dissimilar from soccer or rugby from a cc gameplay standpoint. I like the idea of PMing more Irish folks.multiplayertim wrote:i think attack instructions could be made easier by allowing attacks to only go down either wing or center and across the full back/forward line ie. goalkeeper choses to attack Left corner back he then can only attack Left wing back to go forward (he cannot attack the centre back) then midfielder closest to his side, midfielder then has choice to attack centre forward of left wing forward, the left corner forward could then attack the full forward. I hope this would help clear up confusion about attacks without filling map with legend.
I think you could try sending PM's to a few other irish players as they would probably be the most interested in this map
You know, I'm not sure I follow. A hurling pitch is very similar to a soccer pitch. And looking at this map, the similarities ought to jump out at any soccer fan right away. As for first instinct, I think as you will see below is that 1) most players will give all new maps a try even once (even ones with broken gameplay as three had in last quench) and 2) even if you don't get the rules right away you will adjust very quickly since the gameplay will feel like just about every other field sport out there. Right now though, if it doesn't look enough like a pitch that can be addressed. You are the first to say so though.oaktown wrote:My first thought is that this is a subject that doesn't grab me at all. I don't know what Hurling is, and nothing about the map itself makes me want to find out what Hurling is. It's a green rectangle with some circles that I can't place. It could be a Lacross field or a rugby field or a soccer field - all of which would at least give me some basic frame of reference as to what I'm supposed to be doing - but it isn't, so my first instinct would be to play another map.
This is largely speculative. Even if the examples with arrows demonstrating who a position player can attack (basically all adjacent players on field) are not clear enough, that will be clear enough by round 3 of your first game. Luckily, unlike many maps quenched recently, you will not be out of the game by then, but can still be an effective player thanks to the balancing components that I've built into the gameplay. Otherwise, a goaltender is a goaltender and their options are clearly demonstrated in the examples. If the goaltender examples are unclear in any way, please say so so I can fix.Since I don't know the game, in playing the game I am afraid that I might be at a disadvantage. I have to rely entirely on your legends for gameplay, and I will have to do so throughout the game because very little on the playing field itself is self-explanatory. For instance, I've never played a game with four players identified as Goaltenders, so I'm not entirely sure what they can do - I'll be constantly referring to the legends before I make any move with them and even then I'll be second-guessing myself.
No, this would be impossible. A simple read of the thread would have answered this for you.Gameplay questions abound... can't a game end in a stalemate? Once the goalies bombard and eliminate the scoring players, nobody can get them back. In fact, all you have to do is eliminate the full forwards and it becomes impossible to win.
The example makes it clear that the basic attack structure applies to "Position Players". No one has been confused in test games enough to think that the half-backs cannot attack anyone. Doubling the legends has not shown to be necessary. Remember that in an actual live game you would figure this out very quickly thanks to a drop down menu if any clarifications were necessary. Not saying that the examples couldn't be clearer. Maybe a more generic position example would help more. Or some kind of dotted lines in the field of play (I once had them).Sorry, just read that the only starting positions are the goalies. According to the legends the goalies can attack the fullback and one cornerback, who in turn can attack the halfbacks, who can't attack anybody. ??? Clearly you're going to have to double the number of legend images to make sense of who can do what, which means half of your image is going to be explanation - speaking for myself only, I don't want to play a map that has more rules than I can make sense of in one or two readings, and this will require extensive instructions.
I have fuzzy text which can easily be fixed. Your conclusory statements about gameplay and graphics are not justified as demonstrated by test games, the thread, and what I've written above. It seems you are looking for reasons to not like the map instead of looking at it objectively. Now, I can make the text less fuzzy. I can also make changes to the field of play to make it more gamelike. I think those would be good ideas. But I think you are stretching things by the conclusions you draw from that.Graphics: you've got circles inside of a rectangle, accompanied by fuzzy text. If I thought that this map held promise in either the area of gameplay or graphics I'd say it should be at least considered an advanced idea, but as it has neither I can't get excited about it right now.
Thanks for taking the time. To be fair, it wouldn't be as cluttered looking if it weren't for the off topic posts I keep having to respond to. I did ultimately have people give me their moves by PM reducing the test game posts to two each (which would be 6 total posts if I did this to start). But as cluttered as it is this map hasn't been here very long and if you look at the map feedback posts within that context they are actually comparable to most maps.MrBenn wrote:I've taken the effort to read through the 7 pages of this thread, and I can't see a lot of discussion about the map at all. Most of it seems to be your test plays, which are pretty difficult to follow if you don't understand the map/game.
If you are going to proceed with the idea, then you need to get less clutter in the map thread - people generally will read the first 3-5 pages, or the last 3-5 pages... in both cases, there is lots and lots of off-topic/unecessary stuff which detract from your development. I have struggled at times with my Europe map to get discussion going, but I've found that hanging off and waiting can work wonders... so too does taking on board suggestions and not reacting negatively.
Personally, the map at the moment has little to pull me into it - I've said the same about tactix's Periodic Madness map. I want to see something with stunning graphics, or a theme/concept that grabs me and makes me want to try it. The rules seem complex... I expect that's because I haven't sat down and tried to figure them out.
Incidentally, it might be worth putting your poll up again, and keeping it open for longer
one 3 pointer + 2 1 pointers or 5 1 pointers or 2 3 pointers. Maybe if it says "5 or more points" that will make that abundantly clear.AndyDufresne wrote:The game play still has no hook for me. What are the scoring territories worth 5 points? I'd say more about the game play...but as I mentioned...I've got nothing really to say about it.
I agree with this in principle. I'm definitely up to giving it more pizaz (sp?).AndyDufresne wrote:So when working on the graphics, always keep consider and ask yourself "Is this simple, or is this more generic?"
see sample update at bottom of post...One thing that has been bothering me, the green of the field vs the green of the background flag....
can do...The slight color difference between the legend and the flag white is nice, but maybe even more so.
Yeah, too true. Will fix.Also, the image at the right of the legend...its arrows just seem much to thick and overpowering for the small graphic. Perhaps a touch more thin arrows.
Just tried it and I'm not sure it will do the trick. I have been trying to think of a good way to move these off the field or something. But i haven't figured it out.The text on the field is at times hard to read...because of the strong colors. More orange than blue surely also. Would a black outline help alleviate that?
You know, that is a good point. Easily solved I think with some adjustments of where the position circles are.multiplayertim wrote:new attack routes look much clearer.
i just noticed a potential problem- 3 digit numbers
