TripleA Players and Map-Makers: Please help contribute to the website with your input

theredbaron

Hepps is right that this going to be slightly subjective. I have reduced a few of the options, and added recommended number of players (thanks @redrum).

@Cernel had a concern that he didn't think this was going to be an open form. The concern was justified, but I'm able to see which respondent is the maker of the map, so I can decide later how to use the responses. There might be separate information, one or the other, though I haven't decided.

Now, some of you that are familiar with some of the more obscure maps could really help by giving any information you have. Also, the makers of each map should input information about their map, as well as anyone that is very knowledgeable. This will help to temper the results. Remember, this will be shown prominently on your map's online display and may affect first impressions, so let's get in as many responses as we can.

I think everyone should give their $0.02, though I'll still be able to determine how the data gets used

redrum

@Hepps Yeah, everyone will have a different opinion on it. I think my goal is just to make sure its as straightforward as possible so its quick and easy for folks to fill it out.

@theredbaron I think it looks pretty good now after those couple of updates. I think the one question remaining is where to host the link? Just here in the forum? Putting it on the website? Putting a link to it from TripleA? My initial thought is start with it just here in the forum and have some of the more "veteran players and mapmakers" fill it out and provide feedback. Then maybe looking to link to it from the website or TripleA.

Cernel

Some more nit picking, if you don't mind...

I would expand this definition to:
Poorly Balanced – Identified those games that are not well balanced and few players would want to play them without a non-default bid (usually, the default bid is 0 for all), non-default other options settings, custom restrictions or other non-standard means to rebalance them

For example, you can have a game in which, at default, players have some bids assigned; in such a game, the game would be actually unbalanced if the balance would improve by removing all bids! If I make a game in which all players are supposed to start with some bid, and I define such bids very closely, I should not have my game rated as unbalanced, just because I'm using bids and I'm setting them well!
For a different example, World War II Classic is very badly balanced, requiring a bid of about 20 for Axis, but it is fairly playable without bid, with the "Russia Restricted" common house rule (where the Russians player just limits itself not attacking on round 1); yet, this doesn't mean that the game itself is less terrible on balance, just because its players have found alternative ways (just a not-supported house rule, in this case), but bidding, to make it fair.
Or, for example, maybe a game is very unbalanced but, if I untick "Units Repair Hits End Turn", then it becomes well balanced, for whatever reasons; still, in my opinion, this should not rate as being better balanced, just because you can somewhat rebalance it by redefining its official options, out of their defaults.
Bidding is not the only (and not necessarily the best or even workable) way to balance a game. For example, Domination 1914 No Man's Land is commonly regarded as somewhat unbalanced, but the players of it put in place all a list of special restrictions, they agree to follow (no conquering Japan etc. etc.), to have a better balanced game.

I would remove the rec. number of player, because I don't think it can really make sense, in a lot of games (maybe I think that Revised is best played 1v1, so I tick "2", or maybe I enjoy a full multi the most, so I tick "5"; that would just be merely preferential, and have little to do with the map itself, but just with the preferences of its players). However, if kept, I would expand the number of players till "9 or more players", because there is the staple Napolenic Empires 8 Player FFA, that is exactly for 8 player; so I believe a definite answer up to 8 players is in order. Also, I would rename:
Recommended Number of Players->Preferred Number of Human Players

The reasons for this are two-fold:

In TripleA also the AI is a "player".
In TripleA the term player formally applies to the various "powers" in the game, potentially having their own "phases" (if you select "Total World War", you will see that the in-game info tells you: "Number Of Players: 22").

Cernel

To make a very popular example, World War 2 Revised is badly balanced not only because no competitive players would play it without a good bid for Axis, but also because almost everyone, on top of the bid, adds up a series of other non-default changes (at least almost surely territory turn limit and deselecting tech (Revised tech is really BS and quite unbalancing; almost noone plays with it on, but it is on as default indeed)).

Cernel

Ah, of course, for the same reasons, I would change to:

Decently Balanced – Identified those games that are totally fine for most players, but have some balance issues for very good players, yet are decently playable at default rules/settings (usually, the default bid is 0 for all), even at the highest skill levels

Mind you that not all is necessarily supported; it can be just defined in Notes. For example, in the old World at War, the Notes were telling you that you were allowed to move through canal chains by controlling only 1 of them. By not following this rule, the game would be arguably much less balanced; yet, this doesn't mean that World at War was ever "badly balanced", just because a fundamental rule was not enforced; the fact that was explained in Notes should be enough, supported or not.
For example, @redrum enforced the WaW canal rules in 1.9, but this, of course, doesn't mean that WaW was less balanced beforehand, just because it was up to the players to correctly follow what was explained in Notes, albeit not enforced by the engine.
On the other hand, enforcing the canal rules did make WaW much better playable with AI, because the AI can't read what is written in notes and follow it!
A same matter would be if a developer enforces the Aircraft Carrier WaW special rules; nothing would change for the game itself, since such rules are explained to the Human Players in games note, but only the game becoming more AI friendly.

theredbaron

@redrum You're right, and I would like to not make it so complicated that it's a pain to fill out. I don't mind keeping it here if that's the consensus. I thought having it on the website wouldn't hurt, though it might not bring that much traffic to begin with, since it's not a very prominent link in the PR I sent. Maybe I'll think about closing that and sticking with keeping things here.

theredbaron

@Cernel All good suggestions. I've implemented them to a degree. It's good to point out that the AI is a player as well. The goal here is to make the process simple, but also useful, which is a nice compromise that I think we shall soon have.

Cernel

@theredbaron Well, at least "without bid" or "without a bid" should be changed to "without bids different from default settings (usually 0)".
Otherwise, you are unfairly damaging the rating all the games that have a bid different from 0 default (because envisioned to be played with a specific bid).
I'm mainly saying that it should not be assumed that having bid equals unbalance, but that whatever is not balanced at default means unbalance.
Or you should remove all games that have any default bids different from 0 from the ones you can vote upon.
If I make a map specifically meant to be played with bid, I should not be penalised in the rating just because I decided so, unless the settings are reputed to be off. Maps having bids should not be considered less balanced than maps not having bids, as it would happen under the current definitions.

theredbaron

The rating is based on the map. If a map comes with a default bid, that is covered under the default rules of the map and fits the answer that it is balanced. "Unbalanced" for the purposes of this ranking is that the user will have to take action to balance it.

Frostion

@theredbaron
I would like to fill out the information concerning my maps, but before I do this, I just want to hear about something:

Like cernel said, could you please add an “8 or more players” instead of 7 or more? Most of my maps are made for 8 players
Also, could you make a dropdown menu or options to pick regarding the playtime? It’s difficult to know what format one has to type.
I think the “AI Compatibility” option “Compatible with bonus” is a bit strange. What does it mean? Bonus PUs will not make the AI more compatible, just able to buy more units. I would say just that you should just have the options “Compatible” and “Not Compatible”. At least I understand AI compatibility as the AIs ability to play the map or not, not if it needs ekstra PUs.
Would there be a need for a House rules section? Like if the map has special rules that must be read in the notes? Something like:
House rules

No house rules – Just play.
Optional house rules – Read the notes.
Mandatory player enforced rules – Read the notes.

Cernel

@Frostion said in TripleA Players and Map-Makers: Please help contribute to the website with your input:

Like cernel said, could you please add an “8 or more players” instead of 7 or more? Most of my maps are made for 8 players

This is not what I was saying.

What I was saying was "I would expand the number of players till "9 or more players"".

8 players maps (of which Napoleonic Empires 8 Player FFA is the classic example, among several others, comprising Napoleonic Empires, that it is indeed played consistently both with 2 and 8 human players) are important enough that I would not thrown into any X or more niche answer. With PBF or PBEM, 8 human players games are quite feasible (of course, it is very hard for live gaming), either in a popular site or having a bunch of personal friends.
Having 8+ instead of 7+ would be hardly an improvement, because you would put all those 8 players maps into an undefined mass of maps that may have 8 to infinite players, instead of 7 to infinite players; a very marginal improvement, as I see it. 8 players map are important and popular enough to have their own specific category (not 8+), if you want to quote my personal opinion (but all good, just saying).

Cernel

Ah, and, of course, I've just noticed now, the votes should be per-game, not per-map (1 for each of the xml)!

For example, it doesn't make sense (sorry, but I really think so) to vote for WW2v3_Variants, as it has a bunch of different games, and I would not vote Age of Tribes, either, but each one of its games. For example, I may think that Age of Tribes : Modern is very well balanced, while Age of Tribes : Renaissance is very badly balanced.
Also, some games have bundled spin offs; I've no clue what I'm supposed to vote for World At War, since it has also the WAW 1940 mod. Am I unable to vote for WAW 1940 or should I give the average between WAW and WAW 1940 or what?
I strongly advice the vote being per game (meaning per xml), not per map (meaning per folder).
Sadly, I really believe that voting per map, instead of per game, would really invalidate the whole effort, to a considerable extent; so, consider this last one my highest recommendation of them all.
If it has to be per map (better not), then I much advise you remove all the variants (meaning remove all the maps having a bunch of xml without a clear main referring one), from the list, and clarify that you can vote only for the main game of that map, not for the mods bundled in it (like, you can vote only for Age of Tribes : Primeval, not for the other Age of Tribes, or only for Napoleonic Empires, not for the FFA mods of it).

CrazyG

I was going to make the same suggestion as Cernel, I think it should be per game, not per map. Age of Tribes being a great example (though I thought Renaissance was considered the most balanced)

I also think there should be 5 options for the balance category rather than 4. All that said this will become an excellent resource, I'll do my part to populate the reviews

Cernel

@CrazyG LOL I was making an example, and those are not my opinions (also, I've never played Modern, yet).

Frostion

@Cernel
Yes, an 8 players and then a 9+ players would be more fitting. Not my 8+ players suggestion.

theredbaron

After quite the arduous process, I've gathered I think all of the games in all of the map folders into a list. Here it is for your reference and verification that I have not missed anything, divided by category in the in-game downloader:

Big World 1942
Big World 1942 v3 Rules
Civil War
Civil War: Eastern Campaigns
Great War
MiniMap
Total World War
World War II v3
270BC
Capture the Flag
Diplomacy
Diplomacy: FFA v3 Rules
Diplomacy: FFA Great War Style
Diplomacy: WWI
Middle Earth
Napoleonic Empires
Napoleonic Empires FFA 5 Player
Napoleonic Empires FFA 8 Player
New World Order
The Pact of Steel
The Rising Sun
World At War
World At War 1940
World War II Classic
World War II 2nd Edition
World War II Classic 3rd Edition
World War II Classic Iron Blitz
World War II Europe
World War II Global 1940
World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition
World War II Global 1940 2nd Edition with Combat Move First
World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3
World War II Global 1940 Balanced Mod3 with Combat Move First
World War II Global 1940 Canadian Mod with Combat Move First
World War II Global 1940 Original
World War II Global Ozteas 1941 Setup
World War II Global 1942 2nd Edition
World War II Pacific
World War II Pacific Second Edition
World War II Revised
World War II Revised LHTR Version
World War II v4
World War II v4 Six Army Free For All
World War II v4 Six Army Free For All v2
World War II v5 1942
World War II v6 1941

Age of Tribes: Classical
Age of Tribes: Cold War
Age of Tribes: Modern
Age of Tribes: Primeval
Age of Tribes: Renaissance
Domination 1914 No Mans Land
Battle of Aventurica
Battle of Jutland
Big World 2: Balance of Power
Big World 2: Rise of the Axis
Caribbean Trade War
Cold War
Domination
Dragon War
Feudal Japan
Greyhawk
Greyhawk Wars
Pacific Challenge
Red Sun Over China
Warlords FFA
Star Trek Dilithium War
Star Wars Galactic War
Star Wars Tatooine War
Twilight Imperium
Ultimate World
Ultimate World Revised

1914-COW-Empires
Domination 1914 Blood And Steel
Domination 1914-Weltpolitik
Iron War
Age Of The Sturlungs
Ancient Times
Arnhem
Atari
Big World Variations June 1942
Big World Variations Smalls 1939
Big World Variations NekahNets 1939
Blue vs Gray
Camp David
Classic Variations Omaha
Classic Variations Kremlin
Classic Variations Utah
Classic Variations Gold
Classic Variations Sword
Classic Variations Anzio
Classic Variations Iron Blitz (2nd Edition version)
Classic Variations Iron Blitz 1939A Historical
Classic Variations Iron Blitz 1939B Russian in the Axis
Classic Variations Iron Blitz 1939C US Stands Apart
Classic Variations Iron Blitz 1942A Russia Neutral
Classic Variations Iron Blitz 1945A Russia and Japan
Classic Variations Iron Blitz 1945B Aggressive Russia
Classic Variations Iron Blitz Cold War
Classic Variations Battleship Row
Classic Variations Four if By Sea
Cold War Asia: 1948
Cold War Asia: 1948+Japan
D-Day
D-Day2
Eastern Front
Elemental Forces
Empire
Europe
Feudal Japan Warlords
First Punic War
Game of Thrones
Global 1940 Redesign HouseRules
Global War
Global War2
Hex Globe10
Invasion USA
Jurassic
Large Middle Earth
Neuschwabenland
New World Order 1915Lebowski
New World Order Lebowski Edition
NWO Variants by Smallman
NWO Variants 5 Nation
NWO Variants Eastern Front by Penguins
Pacific
Pact of Steel Variations v3 Rules
Pact of Steel Variations China Added
Rome Total War
Steampunk
Stellar Forces
Tactics Campaign
The Great Northern War
Total Ancient War
Ultimate World Variants Ultimate Pants Talibush 7 Alliances
Ultimate World Variants Ultimate Pants Talibush FFA
Ultimate World Variants Ultimate Pants Talibush Mod
Ultimate World Variants Ultimate Pants
Ultimate World Variants Ultimate Pants ww2v3
Ultimate World Variants Expanded
Ur Quan War Masters Edition
War of the Lance
War of the Relics
World At War Variants v3
World At War Variants Fuel-AA Range
World At War Variants vXXX
World War II Revised Variations 6 Army FFA
World War II Revised Variations Hoshi Head 7 Powers
World War II Revised Variations Barbarossa
World War2010
WW2 Phillipines
WW2v3_11N 1939
WW2v3_11N 1940
WW2v3_11N 1941
WW2v3_11N 1942
WW2v3_Variants China Mod
WW2v3_Variants UK Factory
WW2v3_Variants 1941 Combat Move Before Purchasing
WW2v3_Variants 1942 Combat Move Before Purchasing
WW2v3_Variants FFA
WW2v3_Variants 3 Teams
WW2v3_Variants Free Tech
Zombieland

Everything should be live on the form as well, which is still at: https://goo.gl/forms/JqTYxhNp8xylo2Jz1

theredbaron

@CrazyG I'd be interested in the use case for another option. My thought was that it would be too much nitpicking. I guess maybe one for "in development" maps could work. Other than that, I think the current options just about cover the maps we have.

Also, welcome to the new forum

Cernel

@theredbaron Wow. Some work. I can see a few I never realised they existed, like a World War II Global 1940 Canadian Mod. x-D

Another important thing, especially now that stuff is referring to the single game, having its own version, is that it would be due having the possibility of specifying exactly what version you are rating. The worst game ever can be made into the best game ever, by moving from version 1.0 to version 1.1, or whatever. This would be particularly critical for balance opinions (pretty much, after you change stuff, close to all balance get trashed, and you must rebalance all anew; this is why everyone is scared to ever touch maps that are already regarded as well balanced).
I'm just suggesting adding a spot, under "Choose the game that you are rating", for writing down the version of that game (ideally, it should be a potentially infinite series of digits, from 0 to infinite (first digit equal to 0 means that the map is unfinished), like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc., that are meaning version 1.2345..., in game), and make that mandatory, not to leave it blank.

Also, maybe it should not be possible to rate games till they are at version 0.x. I'm thinking that getting bad rating on unfinished / unbalanced games might induce mapmakers to unnecessarily delay their release till they are more presentable.

Cernel

@theredbaron Are you looking at something outdated? "World At War 1940" was called so for the 1.8.0.9, but it is now called "WAW 1940", since 1.9 times. I've made that change.

Cernel

Another thing of this definition I don't like is that it says "not well balanced", which is the name of the other category, thus would be true for whatever but that one only, as well.

Poorly Balanced – Identified those games that are not well balanced and few players would want to play them without a bid or other rebalancing mechanism outside of the rules of the map

I surely suggest this change:

Poorly Balanced – Identified those games that are badly balanced and few players would want to play them without a bid or other rebalancing mechanism outside of the rules of the map

Also, just for reference, if you want to keep it short, this would be my full formulation, in the shortest form:

Poorly Balanced – Identified those games that are badly balanced and few players would want to play them without an additional bid or other options' changes or other rebalancing mechanisms outside of the rules of the map

The definition could also clarify that a badly balanced game is a game in which, at start game, for very good players, one side would have 80% or more chances to win over the other one (playing it as-is).