Download Maps has map Tags
-
@ All
So I have settled on the current Spaces column values and its heading.Using as few characters as possible to convey the intent of the numbers.
0-99, yes you will never have 0 spaces, but used for sorting the values
100s, 100-199 spaces, players can pick their favoured sized maps
etc
:
800+, there has to be an upper limit and this is a reasonable limit, there are under 10 of these maps, also it avoids 1000s sorting problem.How about
800s
900s
over999That way, the upper limit of the penultimate category would be 999, which seems more natural.
-
What do people think of the current FFAs, PVP, Solo column?
We could- remove the column ?
- add to the values, like having maximum number of players listed ?
- remove it and add another column, if so what ?
A map like Another World, has 18 players, Shogun Advanced has 16 players as examples, some players want, some avoid these large player maps.
This could be folded into this hybrid/multi use column.
Most fields will be blank, as they will have say 10 or less players and is considered normal and so not worth recording.Thoughts?
I would definitely leave that category reserved only for telling against whom/what the game is supposed to be played, not turning it into a salad with FFA and whatnot. Meaning the categories of PvP (Human vs Human), PvAI, PvP+AI (like Feudal Japan, which is both this and PvAI), Solo (for those rare games like Labirinth) and Tutorial.
For telling stuff like FFA or Team Game or 1v1, that should really be done at the game (not at the map) level, however we can have two information which may help understanding that at the map level. You can have a column for maximum number of playable players and maximum number of sides with playable players. The former would be 5 and the latter 2 for Classic, Revised, v4, v5 and v6.
The question would be what to do in cases like Napoleonic Empires. This map has 3 games which, as a matter of players/sides are 8/2, 5/5 and 8/8. I've no idea how you would convey that reasonably at the map level.
I think you just want to do things at the map level which should be done at the game level. Also the PvP or PvAI should be done at the game level, because you can have a map with two games, one PvP and the other one PvAI.
(When I say at the game level, I mean that those information should be given when you are in the "Select a Game" window.)
-
@ All
Below is an example of what the #Players column could look like.
Where;
.2 =2 player
.3 =3 player
12 =12 player
18 =18 player
FFA-4 =Free for All 4 players
:
FFA- 8 =Free for All 8 players
FFA- 9+ =Free for All 9+ players
Solo =Solo only playerYes its a mashup column, but space is limited, to say 5 columns.
.
Questions, is it useful, worthwhile (it will take me time do this. I will not do 4-11 players as this is the norm for most maps)
-
I like the info with players.
But maybe not mixed with the FFA or single player info.
What do you think about an amount of teams info? -
@TheDog I still have not understood if, for example, a game with 4 sides with 2 players per side (total 8 players) would be a FFA-4, a FFA-8 or not a FFA in your classification. (I guess not?)
I still suggest NOT DOING this because it belongs to game (not map) classification. If you absolutely want to do this, then just give the number of players (or powers, polities, countries, civilizations, factions...) and number of sides (or teams, alliances...) in two distinct columns. FFA will be implicit when you have same number of players and number of sides.
However, IN ANY CASE, you have to decide what you are going to do in case of maps having games with different such things. Will you count Napoleonic Empires as a 8 players with 2 sides or a 8 or 5 players FFA?
Also, please no .2 .3... Use 02, 03...
-
Good format that list would be something like:
02
02
02
02 (PvP)
02 (PvP)
03
03
03 (Solo)
04
04 (FFA)
04 (FFA)
08 (FFA)
09 (FFA)
12
12 (Solo)
18Same info but now it all sorts properly
-
@Vendetta Well, I agree that your remake makes things better to look at, but it does not change root issues like the fact that FFA is PvP unless by PvP is meant that AI players are not players, so PvP actually means HvH, in which case a FFA may or may not be a PvP and being or not being a PvP has nothing to do with being or not being a FFA unless PvP actually means 1v1. If PvP means 1v1, then a FFA and 1v1 distinction would actually start making sense if we assume that 1v1 means 1 team versus 1 team (but we are missing the AI yes/no information unless writing 1Hv1H), except that 1v1 usually means that you have 2 teams each of which is entirely controlled by only one player, but it is leaving out all games which are neither FFA nor 1v1 unless by FFA we mean every game in which there are more than 2 sides/teams, in which case it would be better to rename FFA as 3+Teams or something like that.
This is why I said it is a confusing mash-up.
I strongly suggest totally scrapping this column and forget about it.
-
I think Quality, Year/Genre and Spaces are good additions. Let's just keep these 3 columns only and not add any more of them (removing the Play column). If more things are wanted, better adding them as information in the "Select a Game" window after you download the maps.
-
@cernel
Most games, 51%+ (probably 90%) have 1 map 1 xml, so are easy to define. The ones you refer to are too complex. I have tried to do this below. Where 5v1v5 Sides= 3 alliances/sides with 5 in one,1 in one, 5 in another. This is too complex to list in table format, with pulldown selection.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3741/curated-best-top-maps-triplea-guides.
I still have not understood if, for example, a game with 4 sides with 2 players per side (total 8 players) would be a FFA-4, a FFA-8 or not a FFA in your classification. (I guess not?)
It would be 8 player & FFA or shortened to FFA-8 (Groups all FFA together and does not try to group factions)
.
I still suggest NOT DOING this because it belongs to game (not map) classification. If you absolutely want to do this, then just give the number of players (or powers, polities, countries, civilizations, factions...) and number of sides (or teams, alliances...) in two distinct columns. FFA will be implicit when you have same number of players and number of sides.
I agree as mentioned above it is too complex and is in small percentage of maps.
.
However, IN ANY CASE, you have to decide what you are going to do in case of maps having games with different such things. Will you count Napoleonic Empires as a 8 players with 2 sides or a 8 or 5 players FFA?
If I was going to do the #Players column it would be FFA-x, not good, it raises more questions. Also one of my own maps has the same problem is FFA-11, but with fixed sides/alliances of 5 vs 1 vs 5 again how to convey FFA-11 ?
.
Also, please no .2 .3... Use 02, 03...
So overall a good discussion to a conclusion for me, I will be removing the #players column.
-
@TheDog As a 4th column, it may be good having a "Games" column, meaning how many games the map contains. This would be probably a 1 for 80% of games, but it may be a good information.
Moreover, if "map-skins" get fixed,
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/15040
those would be downloadable too, and something will be needed for them. This is something maybe this 4th column may cover: map-skins (if properly made) always have 0 games inside, so the value for the column may be "0" or "map-skin" or "additional skin" or maybe something clearer for the user, so you would have a column like:Games
0 (map-skin)
0 (map-skin)
1
1
1
2
2
3
4However, I'm not sure if telling how many games there are in a map is really that important, so I'm not saying that I suggest to add this 4th column: it's just an idea, but I'm not sure if it is worth the addition. Opinions?
-
If I was going to do the #Players column it would be FFA-x, not good, it raises more questions. Also one of my own maps has the same problem is FFA-11, but with fixed sides/alliances of 5 vs 1 vs 5 again how to convey FFA-11 ?
Yah, I'm fairly sure that would not be seen as a FFA by most. I'm fairly certain that the normal definition of FFA is when every single player controls only 1 faction/polity/country/power and there are no teams at all. (Arguably, there may be alliances, but they can be undone (like in the Napoleonic Empires FFA), or everyone is always at war with everyone, the latter being more typical for FFA.)
The way I would describe that game would be just a 11 players / 3 sides game, and this would be a good information to have in the "Select a Game" window (after you downloaded the map) or in the description of the map itself (where there is the map image).
-
A cool column to have would be the year when the map was originally released, so you could have the history of TripleA in an organized list. However, I guess this information is not any longer available for most maps...
-
A cool column to have would be the year when the map was originally released, so you could have the history of TripleA in an organized list. However, I guess this information is not any longer available for most maps...
The closest to your suggestion is minimumVersion
This gives the minimumVision to play the map.
However, AFAIK the latest series of releases fix so many of 2.5.22294 problems and runs faster and occupies less RAM. Why run an an old version?
My 2c, not worth putting it in a table.
.
As a 4th column, it may be good having a "Games" column, meaning how many games the map contains. This would be probably a 1 for 80% of games, but it may be a good information.
However, I'm not sure if telling how many games there are in a map is really that important, so I'm not saying that I suggest to add this 4th column: it's just an idea, but I'm not sure if it is worth the addition. Opinions?Again my 2c, not worth the effort/white space used.
-
I would suggest splitting quality between Gameplay Quality and Graphic Quality (possibly also a third column for how good sounds are, which would be left empty if the map does not have a "sounds" folder).
These are such different things that I always find weird to imagine how can you mix them together in a single quality vote.
Of course, judging Graphic Quality is much easier than judging Gameplay Quality.
This would especially make sense if map-skins come back: map-skins can only be judged for Graphic Quality but never for Gameplay Quality.
-
Regarding maps with multiple games, I think the Gameplay Quality vote should be based on the best one of the games (meaning that, if I add a bad variant as a game inside a map already having one or more games, that should not decrease the Gameplay Quality of the map).
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login