Conquer Club

I've actually gone ahead and uploaded the script.

I have not yet announced it, but the list is derived from Coleman's last list on this thread.
Note you can modify (not delete) default tags.

If anyone wishes to volunteer (or even nominate someone) to help with this the following would be nice:

1. Create an agreed list from the point of view of a new recruit.
2. Create a new thread for reference.
3, Do not change maps around once they are decided (that will confuse new players)
4. Add new maps to the relevant spot on the list.

This shouldn't take too much time, so that would be great, thanks!

As an aside, please make sure the map names are correct (they are case sensitive at the mo, I wrote a tool to parse the list, so it
saves time if I don't have to trawl through and edit names).

This list of default tags is still up for debate of course, but when we get an official thread, then that should be that.

Thanks in advance

Please take a look at the default tags on the script to see how it works rather than critique the list - that's for this thread, I guess.

Mr. Benn, what you've proposed is pretty much exactly like what anyone else has proposed with regard to four groups.

Ruben Cassar wrote:Just because Luxembourg has a neutral territory at the start it doesn't mean it's not simple. It's definitely not moderate.

Actually I think it's one of the most simple maps on CC.

I'm going to change the simple group to having no xml/gameplay features. this means maps like Europe, British Isles, and CCU will be moved to moderate. I think this is the best way to do it or else the simple group is going to be huge.

A new player will find a neutral starting territory to be different from any risk games they've played in the past. That's why my group designations are changed below...


Simple - will play exactly like a standard risk game with no XML/gameplay features

Moderate - will mostly be like a standard risk game but contains one to a few gameplay/xml features including but not limited to one-way borders, neutral territory starts, territories belonging to no continent, connections between non-adjacent territories etc...

Complex - maps that stray far from a standard risk game and/or include many gameplay/xml features

This is ridiculous. You have the following argument going around in circles:

3 categories = simpler
4 categories = person in charge doen't like it

If you want to stop thinking about "the map" in abstract terms, or technical indicia, which is the way I think you need to go here, then you can say as follows:

1 = easy: plays entirely by intuition based on classic. Player will win about same % of games as on classic without special skills.

2 = moderate: plays by adapting the classic strategy with 1-2 changes in gameplay, all of which are understandable with familiarity of classic and reading the map legend.

Then you have to ask whether make a single lump category for everything else or would your hypothetical new cc player (who probably plays a bit of risk in the rw) like to see something like:

3 = advanced: significant deviation in gameplay from Classic. Player will need to understand gameplay by careful study of map legend but should be able to follow along after a couple of games.

4 = very advanced: significant deviations in gameplay and highly complex. Player will not master this map until dedicating a lifetime of study to the gameplay rules and perculiarities of the map layout.

gdeangel wrote:....
1 = easy: plays entirely by intuition based on classic. Player will win about same % of games as on classic without special skills.

2 = moderate: plays by adapting the classic strategy with 1-2 changes in gameplay, all of which are understandable with familiarity of classic and reading the map legend.

3 = advanced: significant deviation in gameplay from Classic. Player will need to understand gameplay by careful study of map legend but should be able to follow along after a couple of games.

IMHO...the three above should be quite enough. Whilst I know I appear to make most of the complicated games, i don't think that any of these are any further than (3) above.

I know i don't necessarily apply this rule all the time bit please

.... KISS ( keep it simple stupid )

cairnswk wrote:

gdeangel wrote:....
1 = easy: plays entirely by intuition based on classic. Player will win about same % of games as on classic without special skills.

2 = moderate: plays by adapting the classic strategy with 1-2 changes in gameplay, all of which are understandable with familiarity of classic and reading the map legend.

3 = advanced: significant deviation in gameplay from Classic. Player will need to understand gameplay by careful study of map legend but should be able to follow along after a couple of games.

IMHO...the three above should be quite enough. Whilst I know I appear to make most of the complicated games, i don't think that any of these are any further than (3) above.

I know i don't necessarily apply this rule all the time bit please

.... KISS ( keep it simple stupid )

I totally agree - and (as has been said many times in this thread) the categories need to be able to be objectively applied.

Player will not master this map until dedicating a lifetime of study to the gameplay rules and perculiarities of the map layout.

This kind of requirement for subjectivity will get us nowhere - for example I can argue (in all truthfulness) that I understand all the maps the very first time I play them.

I can't believe we're still having this discussion. It went nowhere twice before, and this time seems little better. As I said in a different organizational thread, filing cannot be a democratic activity by its very nature. Andy or lack or someone in authority needs to step in and tap one or a few people to put a list together, and that will be that. No one plan is ever going to reach consensus given the subjective nature of the enterprise.

That being said, ed's plan for three categories is the best I've yet seen: no tweaks, a few tweaks, a lot of tweaks. Done and done. Nice and simple.

Yes, there will always be discussion about the maps on the margins (viz. Luxembourg, Feudal, Waterloo), which is why this essentially needs to be settled by administrative fiat, or at least a small panel of intelligent people, not the same circular discussion that's gone on before.

BENJIKAT IS DEAD wrote:

Player will not master this map until dedicating a lifetime of study to the gameplay rules and perculiarities of the map layout.

This kind of requirement for subjectivity will get us nowhere - for example I can argue (in all truthfulness) that I understand all the maps the very first time I play them.

The humility is blinding me. Note, the word "understand" <> "master".

At some point, subjectivity is getting introduced into the process to create a superior result. It is what the user cares about. How many games an I going to have to sink into this map before I can start winning against decent players. 0, 5, 10, forever?

Using easy to apply rules to categorize things is nice if you want to be a librarian, but how often do you go looking for a subject by browsing the dewy decimal system? If the point here is to make it easy for people unfamiliar with the site to figure out which maps they are going to enjoy playing on, people can already tell when its the gonzo map from hell just by looking at it quickly. What they can't tell is whether after playing 2-3 games, they will "get it" and start to enjoy the map. You want to let new players fully experience the site by letting them gradually start out in the non-traditional maps, and that means feudal and AOR 1 should not get lumped in with Waterloo and Actium - which is nearly 100% territorial with a couple of "joint bonuses" if you want to apply the standard strictly - should not be in the same category as Italy.

I could agree with a three level system if you put a few of the easier non-traditional maps in the "level 2" category.

I have uploaded the latest version of the games filter script.

FYI (I just realised the details are in another thread) it organises the maps on the game finder using named tags (also user-configurable).
Maps are hidden if they are not part of the tag. You can check all the visible boxes, add, remove, modify tags, etc.

Currently we have some default tags relating to the complexity pulled straight from Coleman's last complexity list in this thread (doesn't have to be this list)

I am also adding tags for territory numbers.

What would be nice is if a senior Foundry member volunteered or nominated someone to help maintain 2 lists of maps for the map organiser.

1. Complexity
2. Number of territories.

I'm looking for a new reference thread to be created and updated by someone.

Here is a screenshot for a predefined Complex Maps Tag:



This script currently has complexity tags, and shortly territory tags.

I would greatly appreciate some support with this, thanks.

KOTM is not complex

Plus not all of the maps are shown in the respective groupings. For example I could not find New World.

WidowMakers wrote:KOTM is not complex

Plus not all of the maps are shown in the respective groupings. For example I could not find New World.

Using Edbeard's designations, it is complex, because there are 1-way attacks and non-contiguous continent bonuses.

ZeakCytho wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:KOTM is not complex

Plus not all of the maps are shown in the respective groupings. For example I could not find New World.

Using Edbeard's designations, it is complex, because there are 1-way attacks and non-contiguous continent bonuses.

NO

it's under moderate

edbeard wrote:

ZeakCytho wrote:

WidowMakers wrote:KOTM is not complex

Plus not all of the maps are shown in the respective groupings. For example I could not find New World.

Using Edbeard's designations, it is complex, because there are 1-way attacks and non-contiguous continent bonuses.

NO

it's under moderate

Whoops, I didn't double check before I posted - just went with what WM said. Sorry.

Ok, I think edbeard's list now I have seen it is more accurate - it has all the maps (the list I pulled from Coleman's post did not have New World , was posted in January anyway) and I personally prefer the criteria for divisions.

edbeard - maybe you could maintain a thread I mentioned earlier with complexity and territory counts?

Anyone?

Here's the list and the descriptions of each group

I moved British Isles, Cairns Coral Coast, and Europe to moderate due to one-way borders.

I moved crossword to moderate though it might technically be a simple map. this can have discussion because I believe the presentation makes for a slightly confusing game and maybe something can be added to the moderate description).



Nothing is finalized and these words need to be fleshed out better. Instead of writing a new one yourself, say what's wrong with this one and perhaps make preliminary changes to it so we don't each have our own version.


Simple - plays like Classic. no gameplay quirks whatsoever.

Moderate - generally plays like Classic but includes a few gameplay quirks (one-way borders, non-adjacent territory connections, neutral starting territories, etc...)

Complex - includes many gameplay quirks (or has a quirk that itself is deemed complex), or strays far from having the Classic style gameplay




1) Simple

Classic
Africa
Ancient Greece
Arctic
Asia
Australia
Brazil
Canada
Caribbean Islands
Doodle Earth
France
Germany
Hong Kong
High Seas
Iberia
Iceland
Indochina
Ireland
Middle Earth
Middle East
Mongol Empire
North America
Portugal
Puget Sound
South America
USA
U.S. Senate
WWII Australia


2) Moderate

Alexander's Empire
American Civil War
BeNeLux
British Isles
Cairns Coral Coast
CCU
Chinese Checkers
Circus Maximus
Crossword
D-Day: Omaha Beach!
Duck and Cover
Dust Bowl
Egypt: Lower
Egypt: Upper
Europe
Extreme Global Warming
Great Lakes
Greater China
Luxembourg
Italy
King of the Mountains
Madness
Malta
Midkemdil
Montreal
NYC
Philippines
San Francisco
Scotland
Siege!
Soviet Union
Space
Sydney Metro
Tamriel
Texan Wars
World 2.1
WWII Eastern Front
WWII Iwo Jima


3) Complex

8 Thoughts
Age of Merchants
Age of Realms: Magic
Age of Realms: Mayhem
Age of Realms: Might
Arms Race!
Bamboo Jack
Battle for Iraq!
Battle of Actium
Berlin 1961
Conquer Man
Das Schloss
Draknor: Level 1
Feudal War
New World
Operation Drug War
Prohibition Chicago
Pearl Harbor
Rail Europe
Rail USA
Solar System
Supermax: Prison Riot!
Treasures of Galapagos
USApocalypse
Valley of the Kings
Waterloo
WWII Gazala
WWII Western Front

chipv wrote:Ok, I think edbeard's list now I have seen it is more accurate - it has all the maps (the list I pulled from Coleman's post did not have New World , was posted in January anyway) and I personally prefer the criteria for divisions.

edbeard - maybe you could maintain a thread I mentioned earlier with complexity and territory counts?

Anyone?

I'm not entirely sure why another thread is needed.

edbeard wrote:

chipv wrote:Ok, I think edbeard's list now I have seen it is more accurate - it has all the maps (the list I pulled from Coleman's post did not have New World , was posted in January anyway) and I personally prefer the criteria for divisions.

edbeard - maybe you could maintain a thread I mentioned earlier with complexity and territory counts?

Anyone?

I'm not entirely sure why another thread is needed.

For easy reference.

Wading through this thread to find the current list is not a big deal, though.

I was looking for territory counts, found a thread with them, but needs to be updated with new maps as and when.

I'd say keep it all in their original threads. bump the thread you found with the territory separations and ask someone to update it for you!

edbeard wrote:I'd say keep it all in their original threads. bump the thread you found with the territory separations and ask someone to update it for you!

Fine, well, does that mean you'll be updating this thread?

yea sure.

as long as we're keeping this with three groups or someone convinces me that four groups is better and can be done with sound logic



once the main list gets done it's not too hard to add the new ones.

edbeard wrote:yea sure.

as long as we're keeping this with three groups or someone convinces me that four groups is better and can be done with sound logic



once the main list gets done it's not too hard to add the new ones.

Wonderful, thanks very much, edbeard. I'll update the default tags as I see them updated in here. For starters, I'm going to upload a version with your latest list.

Simple - plays like Classic. no gameplay quirks whatsoever.

Moderate - generally plays like Classic but includes a few gameplay quirks (one-way borders, non-adjacent territory connections, neutral starting territories, etc...)

Complex - includes many gameplay quirks (or has a quirk that itself is deemed complex), or strays far from having the Classic style gameplay



maybe we can change moderate to...

Moderate - generally plays like Classic but includes a few gameplay quirks (one-way borders, non-adjacent territory connections, neutral starting territories, etc...) or has a presentation that is deemed possibly confusing


because I think a new player stumbling across the crossword map will associate it more with the moderate maps because of the strange way the borders are done

If we have decided to go with three groupings, as it seems we have, then Edbeard's list separated them correctly as far as I can tell.

Remember, making your own groupings is also a part of this script's functionality. I for one will be making four complexity groupings for sorting on my own, but the way we have it now seems best for the script defaults.

edbeard's list is in the latest version of the game filter script as well as territory default tags (derived from the current xml files).

Also FYI, the map territory counts and also starting territory counts can be found by clicking on the map image in the game finder and start games pages.

Simple

- Plays like Classic. No gameplay quirks.

Moderate

- Plays like Classic, but the layout might be confusing.
or
- Generally plays like Classic, but includes a few gameplay quirks (one-way borders, non-adjacent territory connections, neutral starting territories, etc...)

Complex

- includes many gameplay quirks (or has a quirk that itself is deemed complex)
or
- strays far from having the Classic style gameplay

How much chance would be there be of getting an ordered list of maps by complexity using some kind of ranking system?

Don't laugh.