Download Maps has map Tags

Cernel

Alternatively, calling the category just "Basic" and having Classic to V6 comprising Europe, Pacific and the 1940 series into that, whereas whatever variant is just treated as whatever other non-basic map - not having a dedicated category for the basic variants. This would avoid the problem of deciding at what point a map stops being a variant.

There would be still the problem that the Global map has many games which are not actually basic originals.

TheDog

@Cernel
Thanks!
I will give it a few days to see other opinions
A&A Basic Original
A&A Basic Variant

Could we shorten it to ?
A&A Original
A&A Variant

If there is an Original & a Variant in one map, then I would put it in the 1st group, yes? (if there is only one map that does this)

@ All
Genre, currently Im going for these
1946+ Atomic (for near our current tech levels)
Futuristic (includes Dune, Star Wars, Star Trek etc)
Again, I will give it a few days to see other opinions

Thanks all

Cernel

To account for global (and maybe others) having variants, the category could be called "Basic Original/Variant" instead of just "Basic" (to warn the user that he/she may or may not get variants together with the originals).

Cernel

@TheDog said:

Could we shorten it to ?
A&A Original
A&A Variant

That is not what I proposed. There is no "A&A" in my proposal.

"Original" alone does not imply it is a basic game. Any new map is an original if it is not a variant.

As I see it, for example, "World At War" is the original and "WAW 1940" is a variant of it. Neither is basic though.

Cernel

@TheDog said:

Genre, currently Im going for these
1946+ Atomic (for near our current tech levels)
Futuristic (includes Dune, Star Wars, Star Trek etc)
Again, I will give it a few days to see other opinions

Yes, I would agree that, if we do not want to have a "Near Future" category, better to have it as part of 1946+ than Futuristical. For example, if I now make a map for a World War in 2050, I think that would be better as 1946+ than staying together with Star Trek and such. However, this has the risk of the distinction being lost over time: without a "Near Future" category, every time a new map in the near future would be released, it may end up going one way or the other. Thereby, if not having a "Near Future" category, I suggest that the "Futuristical" category is named either "Far Future" or "Hyperfuturistical" to make that clear enough.

Ondis

@TheDog

I know I can search for them but the whole point of a category system is to not need to search for them and for people to be able to find things that they want to play in the same style. As map variety expands you'd want to be able to make to filter for category.

So for example someone looking for Domination maps might stumble on the "Steampunk" one which they otherwise wouldn't. Or if Im a fan of Total War I might stumble upon Total Ancient War. There are currently dozens of maps that are not searchable based on common map packs and these would benefit from a categorization system immediately.

For example Battle For Arda is a Middle-Earth variant, Operation Unthinkable and Ozeta's maps are Global variants, Steampunk is a Domination variant. These categories have actual utility.

Year just doesn't make any sense, it's not related to the actual thing people are searching for. There's for example 100 WW2 maps. What is "Year" going to do for anyone looking thorugh 1939-1945? Does a player playing Revised care about Total War?

Edit: An other variant instead of either of these two would be to simply have it be "Complexity". So Total War goes into 5 (most complex) Domination 4, Global/NWO 3, Revised 2, Classic 1. Non A&A would go into "Unclassified" category. Like Relic or Chess.

This would automatically group maps of the same style at least somewhat.

Regarding ratings Im fine either way, but I thought the whole reason you removed them was that people did complain. You've already rated some maps that are finished as 2. What would you rate the Capture the Flag map for example? Its (Approved/Finished) but you're rating it a 3. So its not really an equivalent of what I suggested, though it may have its own merit.

Never had a problem with the old system personally. But it was useful partly because it was so stringent So it depends on if people like that or not.