Reconquista

[porkenbeans]

It has been over 3 weeks I think since submitting the Design Brief. I hope that with the extra help being added to the Foundry today, we will soon see some progression with this project.

I would like to offer my congrats to tack and IH. I look forward to working with you guys.

[Industrial Helix]

Graphically speaking, I think I prefer this version as the latest is quite hard on the eyes. I like the soft, subtle tonal variations and how the castles/towns fit in with the map, in the latest they stand out way too much.

Version 12-

Click image to enlarge.

Regarding you're design brief, it's under consideration, but there's one thing I want to ask about this map and I want your opinions and rationale: Why does Conquer Club need this map?

[theBastard]

pork, I PMed to thenobodies, so we will see what is going on

Helix, at the first congrats to you that you became cartographer.
to your question, did you mean it seriously?

[Industrial Helix]

Lol, generally yes, I did mean it seriously. The big criteria that the upper echelons of CC power want out of new maps is they want the mods to start filtering the new maps and seriously consider whether or not CC would be a better place because of a new map.

Personally, I know what I think and what you said in the design brief. I was just curious whether or not you guys had something to add or say.

[natty dread]

The big criteria that the upper echelons of CC power want out of new maps is they want the mods to start filtering the new maps and seriously consider whether or not CC would be a better place because of a new map.

...what? This is the first I've heard of such a thing.

[MarshalNey]

... the question doesn't seem fair exactly. It's the silly and ubiquitous interview question, "Why do you think we should hire you?" or even better, "Why do you want this job?"

Seriously, how in the world does one expect an honest answer to that question? The question almost assumes a certain type of self-promoting, bombastic response designed to put others at ease rather than give any meaningful insight.

As for the Foundry, my response would be, "Why wouldn't CC be a better place with another unique quality map?" Is there something I'm missing perhaps, some space limitation restrictions...?

But even beyond that, there's no reason not to advance it to the next forum. The benefits and "uniqueness" of the map are already in the design brief and evident in the concept. The Melting Pot is the "concept" stage of mapmaking I was lead to believe. If it flunks in the gameplay forum, fine, but graphics shouldn't hold a map back until the third stage.

Of course, if what you stated about the graphics was a just a critique for guidance, and not a reason for holding this map back, then please ignore the above paragraph.

Anyway, congrats Helix on the position; I'm glad it's you and I can gripe like this without feeling awkward

[theBastard]

I´m little confused , but I will try to explain some my opinions. and I´m confused because you was the first who gived me support and help with this map .

I agree with some Marshall´s notices, so maybe I say something similar. the first big problem here is huge graphic requests. I´m not long time here, but I saw some good ideas which were dead after first draft. and why? because many people have not graphics knowledge. I understand that everybody can be better and better, also quality of maps, but is this realy necessary?

the good graphic makers are rare and if they work on any projects they have not enough time, because too huge requests (or too many notices). this is for example my problem with Baltic Crusade map - I work on new version, but I´m afraid it will not looks as map makers want. I think the most important should be gameplay or difference of map.
nobody can wants from skilled map makers that they work on forinsic maps/ideas, but it should be great when cartographers or gameplay makers will look around Melting Pot: Map Ideas and sort here interesting ideas (without skilled graphic makers) and work on them with skilled guys...

to the Helix´s question: because its awesome . now seriously, it could shows to players something from history. there are few medieval maps, no one from Iberia. the gameplay idea is (I think) unique, there is no map with so many settlements, there is no map where "land" is realy only land for knights foots, and I think also bonuses are quite different from other maps. and at the last but not least - you like it

[Industrial Helix]

The big criteria that the upper echelons of CC power want out of new maps is they want the mods to start filtering the new maps and seriously consider whether or not CC would be a better place because of a new map.

...what? This is the first I've heard of such a thing.

Well with the addition of more foundry mods came the addition of new requirements and concerns from above. On one hand I'd like to say I'm just doing my job and on the other I think this will work to give maps a better sense of direction as well as ensure that CC (in a community sense) is getting maps that are desired.

... the question doesn't seem fair exactly. It's the silly and ubiquitous interview question, "Why do you think we should hire you?" or even better, "Why do you want this job?"

Seriously, how in the world does one expect an honest answer to that question? The question almost assumes a certain type of self-promoting, bombastic response designed to put others at ease rather than give any meaningful insight.

Well, what I'm looking to hear is that the mapmaker does have some insight rather than the typical BS answer that you mentioned. I think every mapmaker who starts a map, whether quenched or abandoned, says to themselves at one point "You know what would be an awesome map to play?"

I think every good mapmaker sets out to fill a hole they perceive is present in CC. But a handful of mapmakers seem to take the attitude "This subject could be a map, therefore CC needs this map." The latter is what I think should be avoided.

[quote="MarshalNey]As for the Foundry, my response would be, "Why wouldn't CC be a better place with another unique quality map?" Is there something I'm missing perhaps, some space limitation restrictions...?[/quote]

Well, you're assuming two major things in this statement a) unique and b) quality. Unfortunately not all drafts meet these requirements. With Reconquista and a number of other maps waiting for advancement, I think they do meet both requirements and ought to advance. But I'm asking to make sure that both the mapmakers and foundry mods are on the same page.

[quote="MarshalNey]
But even beyond that, there's no reason not to advance it to the next forum. The benefits and "uniqueness" of the map are already in the design brief and evident in the concept. The Melting Pot is the "concept" stage of mapmaking I was lead to believe. If it flunks in the gameplay forum, fine, but graphics shouldn't hold a map back until the third stage.

Of course, if what you stated about the graphics was a just a critique for guidance, and not a reason for holding this map back, then please ignore the above paragraph.

Anyway, congrats Helix on the position; I'm glad it's you and I can gripe like this without feeling awkward [/quote]

Right, my comments on the graphics were just for general guidance and in this specific case will have little to no impact on whether it advances or not. In hindsight I probably should have posted twice instead of lumping it to look like 1 statement rather than 2. One was meant as an observer of the map and the other as melting pot mod. I think I will try harder to differentiate the two as I really want avoid letting the blue name tag blind people as to what I mean.

I´m little confused , but I will try to explain some my opinions. and I´m confused because you was the first who gived me support and help with this map .

I agree with some Marshall´s notices, so maybe I say something similar. the first big problem here is huge graphic requests. I´m not long time here, but I saw some good ideas which were dead after first draft. and why? because many people have not graphics knowledge. I understand that everybody can be better and better, also quality of maps, but is this realy necessary?

the good graphic makers are rare and if they work on any projects they have not enough time, because too huge requests (or too many notices). this is for example my problem with Baltic Crusade map - I work on new version, but I´m afraid it will not looks as map makers want. I think the most important should be gameplay or difference of map.
nobody can wants from skilled map makers that they work on forinsic maps/ideas, but it should be great when cartographers or gameplay makers will look around Melting Pot: Map Ideas and sort here interesting ideas (without skilled graphic makers) and work on them with skilled guys...

to the Helix´s question: because its awesome . now seriously, it could shows to players something from history. there are few medieval maps, no one from Iberia. the gameplay idea is (I think) unique, there is no map with so many settlements, there is no map where "land" is realy only land for knights foots, and I think also bonuses are quite different from other maps. and at the last but not least - you like it

Like I said to Marshal, I just meant the graphics comments to be as a general observer of the map, by no means were those supposed to be a criteria for what this map needs to pass. Sorry for the confusion.

But you're answer is pretty spot on, I think. I think the strong emphasis on autodeploy really takes the map where no map has gone before. The biggest concern I have about its uniqueness is that it highly resembles your on going Baltic Crusades. However, its like there are a million maps utilizing this formula you've got and sufficient differences exist between the two maps that they don't simply repeat each other.

As I mentioned before, I want to make sure we're on the same page. That what I believe you intend and understand matches what you really do intend and understand. I'll be running this by my partner and I'd expect some movement within a few days.

[theBastard]

Like I said to Marshal, I just meant the graphics comments to be as a general observer of the map, by no means were those supposed to be a criteria for what this map needs to pass. Sorry for the confusion.

how you can have general observer for maps? I think as gameplay also graphics should be unique for each map...
not need sorry for my confusion. I was confused because your question, I thought that you like Reconquista, but as cartographer it´s right that you aked me...

But you're answer is pretty spot on, I think. I think the strong emphasis on autodeploy really takes the map where no map has gone before. The biggest concern I have about its uniqueness is that it highly resembles your on going Baltic Crusades. However, its like there are a million maps utilizing this formula you've got and sufficient differences exist between the two maps that they don't simply repeat each other.

I can not have map uniqoue only because autodeploy, but also by bonuses or conditions. I have many ideas in my head, but graphic skills is my big problem. and free time...

sorry, but I did not understand this "The biggest concern I have about its uniqueness is that it highly resembles your on going Baltic Crusades." - you mean that maps are the same? I mean, that they both are build on autodeploying?

As I mentioned before, I want to make sure we're on the same page. That what I believe you intend and understand matches what you really do intend and understand. I'll be running this by my partner and I'd expect some movement within a few days.

I hope we are on the same page. good luck with your function.

[Industrial Helix]

No, don't get me wrong, I definitely like the map. I think its about time we got a reconquista map and this does a nice job of portraying the conflict. But like I said, i gotta make sure we're on the same page.

I mean, that Baltic Crusades and Reconquista use similar structures for gameplay. It's not identical, but the portrayal of medieval conquest is similar. Not that there is anything wrong with that at this time.

As for the "observer" comment, I mean like anyone, mod or not, posts on a thread of what they'd like to see develop in a map. My graphics crits were just what I'd like to see personally but were not a list of things for you to meet to get this map moving.

[porkenbeans]

As soon as I read the question posed by IH, I suspected that it stemmed from further up the tree branch. Which leads me to a question of my own.

Is it CC's intent, to limit the number of new maps that make it to quench ?

A few months ago there was a thread started by an addmin. that asked a question about, should less played maps be removed from live play. The overwhelming opinion was NO. Many people came up with suggestions. Some called for the less popular maps to be moved to a separate location away from the MAIN list of maps. Some suggested that the maps be listed in order of popularity. There were many suggestions that had merit, and could be worked into a positive step forward for CC. But...

It seemed to me that CC was possibly asking this question because the site was reaching its limit of the number of maps, that it could currently support. I voiced my view, but was immediately shot down.

Lets say for the sake of argument, that, CC was indeed reaching its number of maps that it can currently support. They would be forced to make a decision. Do they remove some of the less played maps, or do they tighten up, and limit the output of the Foundry.

I think that it would benefit the Foundry and CC, if they just came out and told us of the dilemma, instead of trying to find out in a round about way. We can handle the truth.

And, knowing the real reason behind the quarry, would most likely result in a different result of the poll.

If we were instead asked, which would you prefer, removing some of the less played maps to make room for the new maps, or, reduce the Foundries output.

CC owes a great deal to the past and present map makers, imo.
They have made CC the success that it is today. And I might add, with little to no reimbursement.

Imo CC owes them. The very least that they should do, is be up front and honest.

[natty dread]

All I have to say is if CC doesn't want my maps, there are other sites who have expressed their interest... A guy from landgrab approached me by pm a few weeks back, and said that my maps would be most welcome there. At the time I thought CC would cater to my mapmaking needs and so I told that to him. But if CC now has a policy of "restricting" the making of new maps, then perhaps it's time to say good bye CC. 75% of the fun I get out of CC involves mapmaking, and if that is taken away from me I have little reason to stay here.

[Industrial Helix]

Guys, you're getting way too worried about this. It's not a restriction. The foundry mods just want to be a little more in communication with the mapmakers, this is a positive thing.

No one is going to start deporting maps to little known corners of CC or flunking maps en masse under the name of "we don't need it."

Natty, I hear you on the joys of mapmaking and I agree. You've got a lot of ideas and that is a very good thing. As a melting pot mod I'm hoping to help develop and encourage the ideas with you, not cut them off. Same goes for you pork. This is about communicating and encouraging good maps, not stopping them.

Now lets stop hijacking Reconquista. PM me if you've got further concerns and we'll talk.

[natty dread]

Thanks IH. Mr B already alleviated my concerns, and clarified the issue... I think this was a sort of miscommunication from our part, you miscommunicated your intent and I misundestood it.

Like the old saying goes, "it takes two people to tell a lie, one to tell it and one to believe it..."

(not that I'm accusing you of lying of course, just a figure of speech in a way).

But yeah, enough threadjacking, let's go back to developing Reconquista, which is a beautiful map.

[porkenbeans]

Like natty I too love making maps, or should I say trying to make maps.( seeing as how I have not been able to quench a single one).

But, I would like to keep trying. That is if CC is not playing games with those that butter its bread.

I would hope that upfront honesty with the map maker, will be the mode of operation.

So how about a promotion for this map. It has surely advanced far enough along to warrant it.

[natty dread]

If you want a promotion you got to suck up to the boss

[TaCktiX]

Okay, if you want to have a debate, put it in Foundry Discussions. That's what the forum is there for. Please avoid derailing a map development topic for something else entirely, even if it is somewhat related to the map.

As for the map, as soon as we have a solid on who the map author/artist is (whether that be porkenbeans, theBastard, or both), we'll move it forward.

[porkenbeans]

Bast is the author, and I am the artist

[Industrial Helix]

Bast is the author, and I am the artist

Who retains copyright?

[theBastard]

is copyright so important? I think that we both (pork and me) should have it. and also some percentage from each my maps should have you Helix, you teached me all graphic skills .
and I did not get you wrong.

to TaCktiX, the authors are resolved I think. and some of debate here helps to do things more clear, so do not bashing us please

natty, you are also right, when CC does not want yours/other ones maps o.k. nobody will supplicate CC. CC must sense that each author hard work on map, spent energy and time for it. and without any reward.

guys it was very helpfull debate for me...

[natty dread]

One person must assume copyright of the map. It is CC policy.

[porkenbeans]

One person must assume copyright of the map. It is CC policy.

The map belongs to Bast.
I only came in to help with the graphics.

[TaCktiX]

Since we have agreement on who's in charge of what with this map, I see it fit to move it forward in the Foundry. On to the Gameplay Workshop you go.

[theBastard]

thanks TaCktiX. and also congrats that you became cartographer.

[porkenbeans]

Thanx tack,