Quality control for new maps

[oaktown]

Since much has already been said, I'll try to be brief (which isn't always easy for me).

For starters, while I wouldn't say we're "festering backslappers," gdeangel is right about the foundry being overly preoccupied with graphics. 95% of the comments that appear in the Foundry are about color shades, layer opacities, font choice, and decorative elements of maps. As the guy who is supposed to be responsible for making sure that maps get through with solid gameplay, in some threads I find that in most maps threads I am one of maybe three CC users actually discussing gameplay... and in threads I am the only one.

So, where are all the gameplay experts? There are over 12,000 users with Standard Achievement medals, and 2,000 with Cross-map Achievement medals. There are 338 users with more points than me. I lose more games than I win. And yet, for some reason, it is left to me, the mapmaker, and (if we're lucky) two or three other foundry regulars to figure out if a map is going to work. It's extremely frustrating that so few CC users care to visit the Foundry and talk about how their future maps will play, yet so many are quick to attack when two of our nearly 100 maps are released with gameplay flaws.

The irony of this whole situation is that there is probably no mapmaker more open to suggestions about his/her maps than cairnswk, and it is one of his maps that has sparked this debate. The Galapagos map thread was started on January 23 - seven months before it went live - and has had 28 pages of posts. We debated neutral placement and values, bonuses, impassables, territory coding, etc. Unfortunately we didn't foresee some problems, because we only had a handful of eyes looking at how games will progress.

I know that, alone, Cairnswk and I can't get it right every time, so I don't hold us at fault for the poor play of this map. In my opinion, the people who are at fault are those CC users who care about the gameplay of new maps, yet did not once stop in to look over this map in the seven months during which it was in production.

If you leave mapmaking up to people who care primarily about graphics, you're going to get the kind of maps you deserve.

[BENJIKAT IS DEAD]

Just played the new prison supermax map and the gameplay on it is awful. I played 1 game on it and never ever ever again.

Tactics are drop your armies in the yard and the person with the best dice wins the game. Not only that i started with an 11 bonus and the other player started with friggin 17......I really do think that with all the wonderful and weird maps coming out of the Foundry, that it is about time we catergorized maps by their intended market!!

Keep on drawing guys

er - it was only 13 for me - AND YOU WENT FIRST!

If you think that was "all" I was doing with my turns then think again! playing 1v1s on big maps require different thinking!

Anyway - love all the maps - wish there was a test area - but will continue to play them all as they come out anyway.

[oaktown]

Just played the new prison supermax map and the gameplay on it is awful. I played 1 game on it and never ever ever again.

Thanks for another great example to help prove my point above, hulmey. This map began production on June 6, 2007 - 14 months of feedback, and changes, and now folks have gameplay concerns?

Here's a quote in a map thread from early this morning...

Since you're getting a lot of graphics suggestions already, I'll focus on play.

yay! finally someone does

Mapmakers want - and need - gameplay advice. If you think you know anything about the game, I challenge you to come in to the Foundry and nitpick a map... one of mine, if it'd make you feel more comfortable. And if somebody criticizes you for doing so, tell them I sent you!

[chipv]

Just a quick note.

Every member of CC could go into the foundry, give advice on the map and still get it wrong if there is no way to actively test the map's gameplay.
No-one is at fault, everyone is doing the best they can with what they've got - establish a systematic way of testing the maps on the test-site and get selected people to thrash it out. I know this has been discussed before, but the maps are a product that have been design tested but not field tested.
Of course mistakes will still happen but at least the glaringly obvious ones won't get passed through to the public.

Imagine if CC had only one map, and published the website without testing the map's gameplay.

Use the test site.

[mibi]

Just played the new prison supermax map and the gameplay on it is awful. I played 1 game on it and never ever ever again.

Tactics are drop your armies in the yard and the person with the best dice wins the game. Not only that i started with an 11 bonus and the other player started with friggin 17......I really do think that with all the wonderful and weird maps coming out of the Foundry, that it is about time we catergorized maps by their intended market!!

Keep on drawing guys

wow you must be an idiot. the yard is useless if you don't have the gang leader. I am playing 1v1 and its pretty even. of course i read in rules first. looks like the dice didn't help you either "2008-08-27 18:22:24 - hulmey: lost 16 taking 3" so I wouldn't go blaming the map just yet.

just for furture reference, any map with over 60 territories probably isn't the best on 1v1.

[mibi]

I always take gdeangel's remarks with a grain of salt. He came in the Arms Race thread complaining that it was all luck and the gameplay sucked yadda yadda yadda, and was thoroughly discredited.

I think he is just bitter about something.

[oaktown]

play nice now mibi... I'm not saying you aren't right, but let's try to keep the conversation civil.

As for a play test area, that suggestion has been on the table for at least the 18 months I've been hanging around the Foundry. We'd all like to see play testing made a reality, but until that day comes we have to make the best of what we've got.

[mibi]

play nice now mibi... I'm not saying you aren't right, but let's try to keep the conversation civil.

.

Sorry, just trying to live up to hostile expectations here.

[oaktown]

Sorry, just trying to live up to hostile expectations here.

Indeed, it is scary outside of the Foundry!

[hulmey]

A last note here! There are more gamers, than forum posters! Do you expect peope to show an interest in making maps, if they have none!?? Do these non forum posters have to come into the foundry to comment on a map by force? No, they are paying customer's who want the end product. So, asking these people to come in and comment on such things is futile.

From what I can see, is that maps need to be played tested before being put up! End of! Deliver the service i require and have paid for, thats all I and others ask..

On a final note, I'm running a Tounrament were you play Assassin on every map at CC. I put in the 7 new maps to get people at least playing them (you never know they might become a big fan of one of them) and one of the maps changed completely the dynamics of play completely. One player who was nevering his kill found himself on the other side of the map!

[hulmey]

Just played the new prison supermax map and the gameplay on it is awful. I played 1 game on it and never ever ever again.

Tactics are drop your armies in the yard and the person with the best dice wins the game. Not only that i started with an 11 bonus and the other player started with friggin 17......I really do think that with all the wonderful and weird maps coming out of the Foundry, that it is about time we catergorized maps by their intended market!!

Keep on drawing guys

wow you must be an idiot. the yard is useless if you don't have the gang leader. I am playing 1v1 and its pretty even. of course i read in rules first. looks like the dice didn't help you either "2008-08-27 18:22:24 - hulmey: lost 16 taking 3" so I wouldn't go blaming the map just yet.

just for furture reference, any map with over 60 territories probably isn't the best on 1v1.

Mibi, oh what words of Wisdom! 2 of the greatest maps for playing singles on is World 2.1 and Waterloo. Fantastic maps in my book and they require skill to win on. Even with bad dice , you can still win on these maps.

The Supermax map is drop in the yard and battle it out, coz when you have cleared the yard your army count will sky rocket. It's about fencing in the other player in his quarters and not giving him access to try for more bonus's without breaking neutrels. Im quite suprised you didnt know that considering your rank.

If you like we can play a 1 vs 1 and you drop in the other areas and i'll just drop in the yard and lets see who wins! So please smile and have a nice day and stop showing other forum posters how unwelcome they are in the foundry. set an example , becuase being one of the top makers, you need to...

Ps...3139915

[Incandenza]

On a final note, I'm running a Tounrament were you play Assassin on every map at CC. I put in the 7 new maps to get people at least playing them (you never know they might become a big fan of one of them) and one of the maps changed completely the dynamics of play completely. One player who was nevering his kill found himself on the other side of the map!

Wait. You've been here a long time, you know that new maps are sometimes a bit sketchy, and yet you still ran a tourney on brand-new maps and have the temerity to complain? If the stability and game-tested-ness of a map is important, then wait 'till the "new" tag comes off. Otherwise you take what you can get.

Yes, map-testing would be swell. As it stands, the map-testing period comes while they're new. That's life until lack decides differently.

[chipv]

New recruits cannot play speed games for example - that means it is possible to block certain games (and thus maps) from selected users.

For new maps, introduce a testing phase - instead of the word "New" on the maps, put "Test" so people know they can't play it.

Then restrict the map to designated testers and block the general public.

Once testing is finished, change from Test to New and remove the block to allow everyone to play.

This is one possible way for gameplay testing on the real site.

[hulmey]

New recruits cannot play speed games for example - that means it is possible to block certain games (and thus maps) from selected users.

For new maps, introduce a testing phase - instead of the word "New" on the maps, put "Test" so people know they can't play it.

Then restrict the map to designated testers and block the general public.

Once testing is finished, change from Test to New and remove the block to allow everyone to play.

This is one possible way for gameplay testing on the real site.

Now this is what I call a doing guy. Give him a problem and he fixs it

Plus you are right Ind, in future i wont introudce new maps to my tournaments. Problem solved

[PepperJack]

New recruits cannot play speed games for example - that means it is possible to block certain games (and thus maps) from selected users.

For new maps, introduce a testing phase - instead of the word "New" on the maps, put "Test" so people know they can't play it.

Then restrict the map to designated testers and block the general public.

Once testing is finished, change from Test to New and remove the block to allow everyone to play.

This is one possible way for gameplay testing on the real site.

Two potential issue I see with this:
1. How do you determine who the play testers are?
2. How do you convince the play testers to surrender their points?

I figure that with the abundance of Top 10 this and that threads, the community can tell well enough who would be qualified to act on their behalf. Issue 2 is slightly dicier. The easiest answer is I can come up with is CC sponsered multis (*gasp*). Of course, there'd have to be some sort of blood oath that the approved multis would not participate in legit games.

[hulmey]

New recruits cannot play speed games for example - that means it is possible to block certain games (and thus maps) from selected users.

For new maps, introduce a testing phase - instead of the word "New" on the maps, put "Test" so people know they can't play it.

Then restrict the map to designated testers and block the general public.

Once testing is finished, change from Test to New and remove the block to allow everyone to play.

This is one possible way for gameplay testing on the real site.

Two potential issue I see with this:
1. How do you determine who the play testers are?
2. How do you convince the play testers to surrender their points?

I figure that with the abundance of Top 10 this and that threads, the community can tell well enough who would be qualified to act on their behalf. Issue 2 is slightly dicier. The easiest answer is I can come up with is CC sponsered multis (*gasp*). Of course, there'd have to be some sort of blood oath that the approved multis would not participate in legit games.

Number 2 is quite easily done and lack can make it so that points arent lost or won whilst playing test...With modern technology anything can be done

[chipv]

New recruits cannot play speed games for example - that means it is possible to block certain games (and thus maps) from selected users.

For new maps, introduce a testing phase - instead of the word "New" on the maps, put "Test" so people know they can't play it.

Then restrict the map to designated testers and block the general public.

Once testing is finished, change from Test to New and remove the block to allow everyone to play.

This is one possible way for gameplay testing on the real site.

Two potential issue I see with this:
1. How do you determine who the play testers are?
2. How do you convince the play testers to surrender their points?

I figure that with the abundance of Top 10 this and that threads, the community can tell well enough who would be qualified to act on their behalf. Issue 2 is slightly dicier. The easiest answer is I can come up with is CC sponsered multis (*gasp*). Of course, there'd have to be some sort of blood oath that the approved multis would not participate in legit games.

Firstly the designated testers would be trusted volunteers.
So now we have a list of players.

1. If someone tries to join a game, the site looks up this list (could put it in the database or hardcode it) and decides whether or not to allow the players to join.Freemiums are prevented from joining speed games - same sort of code. (I said New recruits earlier but meant freemiums).Also New recruits are hidden from Team games - another example of selective hiding.

2. I was thinking CC sanctioned multis ( they don't have to be premium. Each tester tests 4 maps at a time. Only gameplay is relevant).
Also there must be people who are not so consumed by points retention. You could also write similar code to prevent these accounts from playing anything but Test maps.

[AndyDufresne]

Until we can get a game testing area, why not just stop by the Foundry and help out? Solves all problems in the mean time.


--Andy

[chipv]

Until we can get a game testing area, why not just stop by the Foundry and help out? Solves all problems in the mean time.


--Andy

My last post doesn't mention a game testing area - it is a suggestion to build gameplay testing into the current system.
It is also reasonably easy to implement.

Galapagos-like problems won't always be caught in the Foundry even with every member of CC contributing, that really is the point.

[TaCktiX]

Galapagos-like problems won't always be caught in the Foundry even with every member of CC contributing, that really is the point.

Considering that out of 99 quenched maps bad gameplay was missed by 3 gameplay-minded people (on average) only twice. That's a really nice success rate by any metric. As Andy is saying, if we increased the number of people looking at gameplay from a mere 3, then that already-astounding success rate will only increase.

[chipv]

Ok, I give up on this one. You are all right, more people in the Foundry will help and the gameplay error detection success rate is already superb.

[jiminski]

Firstly the designated testers would be trusted volunteers.
So now we have a list of players.


1. If someone tries to join a game, the site looks up this list (could put it in the database or hardcode it) and decides whether or not to allow the players to join.Freemiums are prevented from joining speed games - same sort of code. (I said New recruits earlier but meant freemiums).Also New recruits are hidden from Team games - another example of selective hiding.

2. I was thinking CC sanctioned multis ( they don't have to be premium. Each tester tests 4 maps at a time. Only gameplay is relevant).
Also there must be people who are not so consumed by points retention. You could also write similar code to prevent these accounts from playing anything but Test maps.

so is this feasible or what?

[owenshooter]

Ok, I give up on this one. You are all right, more people in the Foundry will help and the gameplay error detection success rate is already superb.

chip, don't give up. you are right. i agree with you 100% and i don't think you should give up. your solution
seems much easier. and it isn't just on 3 maps as someone stated above. i remember when pearl harbor came
out, and there were problems that had to be fixed while the map was live. it was kind of fun shooting down
planes, taking them over with your armies, and then passing armies through planes to my partner on an entirely
seperate part of the map i was unable to pass to... it happens more than people want to admit, and like you
are saying, no matter how many eyes look at a map before it goes live, you just can't tell until it is played.
more people in the foundry isn't the solution, it is a cop out. testing the maps is the solution, and an entirely
new section is not needed as you have pointed out. don't give up chip, when you are right, you are right. perhaps
you should post what you have come up with in the suggestions forum, where it will get a more serious look at
than in the GD... don't quit. it is possible to actually be heard and have change instituted on this site.-0

[jiminski]

Ok, I give up on this one. You are all right, more people in the Foundry will help and the gameplay error detection success rate is already superb.

chip, don't give up. you are right. i agree with you 100% and i don't think you should give up. your solution
seems much easier. and it isn't just on 3 maps as someone stated above. i remember when pearl harbor came
out, and there were problems that had to be fixed while the map was live. it was kind of fun shooting down
planes, taking them over with your armies, and then passing armies through planes to my partner on an entirely
seperate part of the map i was unable to pass to... it happens more than people want to admit, and like you
are saying, no matter how many eyes look at a map before it goes live, you just can't tell until it is played.
more people in the foundry isn't the solution, it is a cop out. testing the maps is the solution, and an entirely
new section is not needed as you have pointed out. don't give up chip, when you are right, you are right. perhaps
you should post what you have come up with in the suggestions forum, where it will get a more serious look at
than in the GD... don't quit. it is possible to actually be heard and have change instituted on this site.-0

You are right Owen; it is possible to effect change on the site .. but to do so via the Suggestions forum is as rare as finding petrified, rocking-horse shit.

Andy has seen this and if he thinks it makes sense he can put it under Lacks nose. Otherwise it will be lost; Chip will try to garner support in amongst a million other new ideas but ultimately get frustrated that nothing is happening. The idea will be washed away into the banalise Ocean at sigh-tide.

[TaCktiX]

A testing area, testing status, what-have-you testing has been in front of Lack's nose for at least a year. Andy and others have stated this prior in the thread. It's not coming as of yet for whatever reason, so the best thing we can do (as has been stated before) is to get more people taking a close look.