Moderator: Cartographers
As much as I'd love to take credit for Atlantis' first post I have to pass the credit on to Nemesischild, he put it together I just posted it up and checked it for errors. (Of which there were a lotIncandenza wrote:The way Premier2k did the first post for Atlantis was absolutely top-notch.
) Thanks anyway, we are pleased with it.Incandenza wrote:The first post should have:
1. the most current version of the map (large and small if necessary)
2. all the map details (# of terits, # of starting terits, bonuses, gameplay features, etc.)
3. if the map features starting neutrals, than there should be a version of the map with all proposed neutrals. It doesn't have to be the most current map graphics-wise, but the gameplay should be the same as the most current version.
4. a FAQ might be nice, so that, for instance, if a commenter on page 20 asks about an issue that was resolved on page 10, the mapmakers can refer said late commenter to the FAQ
The way Premier2k did the first post for Atlantis was absolutely top-notch. Concur with 44 that pi's first post is exemplary. And if I do say so myself, I think I did a damn good job keeping up the first post in Trench Warfare.
These are both very good. All I would add is an updated Thread Title after each image update (V1, V2, etc) and the pages it is on (besides page 1)natty_dread wrote:[*]Latest version as an image at the top, and all previous versions as links to the images.
[*]Bullet points of the current discussion & suggestions, anything the mapmaker would particularly want the reader's feedback on
[*]All information and specs of the map, gameplay-wise: number of territories & continents, any special features, etc.
[*]Perhaps a short introduction to the map. What, why, when, where...
How your post is related with the topic?Victor Sullivan wrote:You should institute a "Foundry Handbook" much like the Tournament Forum has
hmmmm, maybe that list could be a little more verbose... Oh here we go! A post from me, also 10 months ago...MarshalNey wrote:Threads themselves could often use some cleaning when they rise above 10 pages, but since this seems impractical to accomplish, they should instead have a really good, short first post. If necessary, put all of the in-depth details on a second post that more interested readers can delve into.
Mapmakers should have a short first post on their thread that has, preferably in this order:
1) A clear, concise explanation of what the map concept and goals are.
2) An outline of what the mapmaker specifically wants to get feedback about; too many mapmakers leave this stuff "buried" in their thread (e.g., 'see my post on page 34'). Take a look at natty_dread's current map threads for examples- LunarWar and Nordic Countries do an excellent job with this.
3) What the foundry mods' current concerns are for this map. I didn't mention this in my previous post, but I think it would help relay to the mods what the mapmaker thinks that they want, and relay to visitors what they can do to help advance the map.
4) A map intended for a layman that comes before any other maps (i.e., before '88' test maps, before wire maps, etc.) or, if you don't have a map made yet, an in-depth explanation of your concept and goals from #1 above.
5) Technical details and previous versions last, preferably hidden as spoilers.
Good heavens, when did I have that much time to type this stuff? If you see the full post, you'll know what I mean.MarshalNey wrote:Finally, thread length and the first page of a post. These are serious problems in a lot of map threads. I won't elaborate too much as this post is becoming way too long itself, but obviously you can't expect someone to come into a thread 40 pages long and read it all before posting. So be patient with redundant comments, even if you feel the issue brought up has been put to bed.
The first post should be a table of contents, but after a while it in many threads it ceases to get updated properly. Mapmakers like to post 'previous versions' and '888 versions' to show the development of the map and its current viability. This is good for thoroughness, but this really should always go last on the first post as it's not really going to give casual viewers any useful information.
In many ways, mapmakers construct their first post for the approval of the mods rather than being a primer for the casual viewer. Technical information that means little to the laymen gets more of the focus.
Reading Marshal's post I got to thinking that I should do it in the future. I think it would help with the development and for the ease of reading. Maybe like Marshal stated a table of contents so to speak, with links to important updates, major changes/concerns etc. That way people can go directly to that page/post and read what the end result was.MrBenn wrote:Expanding on from that, it is common practice when starting a tournament to "reserve" the first couple of posts in a thread for future updates... is that something that we could implement/replicate here in the foundry? And if so, how would people want it split up?
You could have the more essential things in the first post, such as what I described previously, then have current discussion topics for the second post to allow new commenters to easily get involved.MrBenn wrote:Expanding on from that, it is common practice when starting a tournament to "reserve" the first couple of posts in a thread for future updates... is that something that we could implement/replicate here in the foundry? And if so, how would people want it split up?
