Map rating

[lancehoch]

I know you are looking for something to be shared with the entire community and as of yet, there is nothing happening. However, what you can do, is use chipv's Games Filter Script where you can tag the maps with your own comments. If enough people have done this, you can compile a list of the tags and make something similar your idea. Also, chipv has, within the script's coding, classified the maps by their complexity, size, and time created and has separated out conquest maps, beta maps, and new maps. This is not perfect, but it is a start.

[GrimReaper.]

ive looked at it and the thing is the creator rates them (not like i want) plus this would not be limited to fire fox users


i would like ALL CC USERS TO BE ABLE TO RATE MAPS not just one person

well??????????????

[GrimReaper.]

cough

[SuicidalSnowman]

I would just like to make the point that the foundry works so hard on these, and then we even have the Beta phase now. I think that this system would be almost entirely personal preference, since all maps are extensively tested. Anyone else agree, disagree?

[tubaman]

I would just like to make the point that the foundry works so hard on these, and then we even have the Beta phase now. I think that this system would be almost entirely personal preference, since all maps are extensively tested. Anyone else agree, disagree?

I agree, this is all personal preference, so each map rating won't affect whether or not I will play it. But if you have it just to see other people's preferences on a map, sure I guess I would support implementing it.

[GrimReaper.]

like i said before it would be great for tourneys

[GrimReaper.]

can we at leat get lack to look at this

[Evan Thomas]

Those people that rated the map badly are the ones that do not know strategy and simply do not understand the map (this is way over 50% for Waterloo, AoR, Feudal, and the Rail maps)

Complex maps will be rated crap by all the 5 year old idiots that do not understand how to read a legend, unfortunately there are a lot of them here.

I agree.... the before someone plays a map for the first time, they should look it over and make sure they can understand it, or just play classic map or simple games.
The worst maps are actually the most simple ones, in my opinion. i hate the ones that are like 35-40 terits and its bonus for these terits, bonus for those. they have to step up in difficulty. if this was to come out soon, make sure you rate by how good the the map is, not by how many points you lost.

[GrimReaper.]

how about u have to play the map say five times or so before u can rate it??

[ubersky]

Concise description:

• Map Rating System

Specifics:

• Add a Rating system for maps. Categories:
• Playability (mechanics of the map, coloring, etc)
• Enjoyability (is it enjoyable)
• Balance (does someone get an advantage?)
• Visual Appeal

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Some maps are just not enjoyable to play. This will provide a constant feedback mechanism for maps after they have left the Foundry.
• Allows Map Makers to revisit map performance in a more trackable way
• Also if possible, a system to report on map usage would be nice, like metrics for Map Makers.

[The Neon Peon]

Post in the threads at the foundry?

Not like they get locked or deleted once the map is finished.

[Boss_oss_ss]

i dont think that this is a good idea - people are good at different maps, and i beleive that people will rank maps low if there not that good at them - you know how people can be....

[ubersky]

That can be taken into the system as well. I'm not a fan of the "Realms" maps since they are very susceptible to rushing. that is something that can be put in there (like the people ratings.. actually it would make more sense here).

I think it's good from a standpoint that I'd like to give my feedback after some of these maps, and digging for a forum thread is not the best way IMHO.

[The Neon Peon]

I think it's good from a standpoint that I'd like to give my feedback after some of these maps, and digging for a forum thread is not the best way IMHO.

There is something called a search button. You will find everything in about 3 seconds.

[SuicidalSnowman]

That can be taken into the system as well. I'm not a fan of the "Realms" maps since they are very susceptible to rushing. that is something that can be put in there (like the people ratings.. actually it would make more sense here).

I think it's good from a standpoint that I'd like to give my feedback after some of these maps, and digging for a forum thread is not the best way IMHO.

When you go to start a game on a map, or have a map on your "My Games" page, you can click on the thumbnail of the map and then it opens large in a pop-up window. Click [discussion topic] in the lower left corner, next to the map name. No digging required.

Also, all these proposed areas of rating are already vetted during the forum process. Any that make it out are found in Beta. Some maps (Das Schloss) are found to be unbalanced and revamped. Others (British Isles) are good, but need new graphics, and they get revamped.

Rather than complaining about a map, head into the foundry and put your thoughts in! They listen.

[SuicidalSnowman]

Concise description:

• Map Rating System

Specifics:

• Add a Rating system for maps. Categories:
• Playability (mechanics of the map, coloring, etc)
• Enjoyability (is it enjoyable)
• Balance (does someone get an advantage?)
• Visual Appeal

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Some maps are just not enjoyable to play. This will provide a constant feedback mechanism for maps after they have left the Foundry.
• Allows Map Makers to revisit map performance in a more trackable way
• Also if possible, a system to report on map usage would be nice, like metrics for Map Makers.

Just to follow up, and be more clear, playability is vetted during foundry development, testing, and then while the map is in Beta.
Enjoyability to strictly a personal preference. You don't like AOR, some people play them exclusively. There is really no point in having a numeric rating system so you can say 'I got rushed on AOR, 1 star' while the next guy goes, 'I rushed someone on AOR, 5 stars.'
Balance is worked out in the foundry. Trust me, they go deeper into this than you can ever imagine. The foundry regulars do it all the time, and are probably better at deciding this than you or me, who might confuse a lucky drop or good dice as 'unbalanced.'
Visual appeal is also HIGHLY debated in the Foundry.

I think this just bugs me because it seems like a way for people too lazy to go to the foundry complain about the maps. Also, you say this will provide feedback, how is 1 star useful feedback? 1 star in graphics could mean anything. Wouldn't it make more sense to go to the discussion topic and post "I can't see two colors on this map?" or "Bright pink clashes with neon green!" so the map maker can do something about it?

Seriously TC, jump into the foundry, they LOVE discussion!

[captainwalrus]

Concise description:

• Rate each map based on difficulty in gameplay, then put this rating next to the map on the browse map page.

Specifics:

• Take a bunch of volunteers who have all played a lot of games. Have them agree on how difficult a map is. Give it like diamond system (like skiing) or something based on what the group decides. Then put these ratings somewhere that someone will notice them before they join or start a game on any given map.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

• Easy farming opportunities will be limited. Noobs can't be lured into a game now without knowing the map is very difficult.
• It makes it so that new players can advance at their own level, instead of having to put in a system where certain maps are unlocked to them as they progress. If they think they can handle a triple diamond map, let them try. If they find it too hard, they can go back to the easier maps.

[army of nobunaga]

this is actually not to bad of an Idea.. Easier to implement than most too.

[army of nobunaga]

You couldnt take volunteers though.. Everyone has their favorite map that they love to see cooks enter. For me its Feudal, cooks come in, make things messy, I clean up.

I think this initiative would have to come from the map makers themselves, most of which do not carry a high rank.

[wolfpack0530]

You couldnt take volunteers though.. Everyone has their favorite map that they love to see cooks enter. For me its Feudal, cooks come in, make things messy, I clean up.

I think this initiative would have to come from the map makers themselves, most of which do not carry a high rank.

I think volunteers could work. I would volunteer to rank maps like this. When ranking the maps as far as 'hardness' goes, i would consider 3 things as I am keep new players in mind!

1) How difficult is this map to play with BOB, vs without BOB. To me, forbidden kingdom, waterloo, maybe WWII Ardennes and maybe Bamboo Jack would rate at 4-5 stars in this category. difficult to infer connectivity. Pro Chicago gives me a hard time in this regard as well. (By the way, these are the only maps that i EVER use BOB on) Most new recruits dont use BOB.

2) How difficult was this map to grasp for me the very first time I played it? All of us with 2000+ games under our belt are 'experts' at a few maps that we have lots of experience on. now these maps are 'easy'. But as a judge, i would try and remember how hard the map was the first time i played it.

3) How many games did it take me to feel that i have a good understanding of basic and then advanced strategy on a certain map. Some maps seem impossible the first time you play them, but once you get the hang of them, you may learn them in a single game. These maps would rate as 'easier' to me compared to a map that took me 25 games on it to get the hang of it.

Conquest maps are a good example of this as well. it took me 30 games of feudal and some coaching by better players for me to learn good feudal strategy. But once i had learned 'good feudal strategy' i was able to learn New World in 3 games. But i would still rate New World and Feudal as roughly equal in difficulty. Now if i wanted to compare New World with Midgard (took me 3 games to learn basic strat on that map), then i would rate New World as much harder than Midgard, because i would take into account the 30 feudal games, and not just say it took me 3 games to learn both midgard and new world.

What do you think? Does my argument hold water? Are there other criteria to consider?

[captainwalrus]

As long as you have enough people doing it that you can get a pretty good agreement on everything, then volunteers would work. Perhaps by comparing everything to one map, classic for example, you could do it more objectively. It is easier to analyze how much harder something is than something else than to just come up with a number.

[BGtheBrain]

****

[tkr4lf]

I like the idea. It would be at least something that would allow us to organize the maps a bit.

[chapcrap]

I also like it. Maybe you can rename the thread 'Map Organization' and have rating be part of it.

[Geger]

I like it.

But players, who can give rating to a map, have to play an amount of games on this map (maybe 5 times?).

Just to avoid, that someone tries a map and loses, then gives bad rating