TripleA Players and Map-Makers: Please help contribute to the website with your input
I would also reword the player enforced rules this way:
Are all special rules for this game supported / enforced by the engine (this do not refer to current engine bugs or general yet unsupported rules)
Yes, all is supported and enforced or the game fully follows a standard supported ruleset
No, not all is enforced: sometimes the players have to read unsupported custom rules in Notes and self-restrict themselves following them
No, not all is supported: sometimes the players have to read unsupported custom rules in Notes and both self-restrict themselves following them and use edit mode to apply some of them
For example, WAW in 18.104.22.168 would belong to the 3rd category, because you had to use Edit Mode to correctly follow the canal rules. Now, thanks to @redrum, it has jumped to 2nd category, as you don't need to use Edit Mode anymore, but still has to know and follow the Aircraft Carriers special rules in Notes (not enforced), plus a few other minor things. If all the NWO / WAW special rules would ever be enforced, then it would become 1st category.
Also, only 1st category maps may normally be fully playable by the AI, since the AI can't read notes or use edit mode.
(also, all occurrences of "map" should be changed to "game", as map means the original skin; like Age of Tribes is multiple games in a single map)
I just reviewed the maps I made. I hope this feature will come to the official website.
I would think that most reviews would be made after the feature goes live, and especially if the game engine map list could one day link to the website map page or have the website listing in a small window, or something.
Will there one day be some sort of stars to rate with? (:star::star::star::star::star:) I think user star ratings is the best and it would be a good supplement to this review system. Maybe some people just need a bit of motivation to review or rate, like “One star!!! WTF!? This is the best map ever … and I will show the world that.” Or “Five of five stars!!!? Is this a joke!" :grin:
I think adding, to "Poorly Balanced", at the end of the description, this additional description too:
(comprises also those games that are deliberately unbalanced, as PvP balance is not an aim or the aim is to make some sides over powered, usually for AI challenge, but possibly for historicity or other reasons or no reasons)
This would be mostly needed to give something to vote upon when rating the games meant to be AI challenges, and I'm not sure about this, as you could just vote "Poorly Balanced" for the AI Challenges, already (assuming here we are talking of PvP balance), but the main thing is that people might, then, be driven valuing the AI Challenges depending on how much they think they are balanced against the current main AI, which would make hardly sense (as I guess fair balance between human and AI would mean the best players having close to 50% to win vs AI?), and I'm guessing is not what this quiz is asking.
So, main question is, since purposely unbalanced games are all or almost all made for AI challenges, do you want the AI challenges to be rated as "Poorly Balanced" (if not broken) or do you want people to somewhat rate them as how much balanced they are when played against the current Hard AI or with whatever current AI they are supposed to be played? In case of valuing human vs AI balance, should the balance consist in 50% win probability for either side when the best players play against the latest best AI (most likely, would need to be very unbalanced in favour of AI, then)?
I would be ok with leaving all as it is, and just rating any AI challenge as just "Poorly Balanced" by definition, keeping a PvP perspective only, but this needs to be clarified, if we are indeed talking about PvP Balance only.
Otherwise, you can have another category like:
Purposely Unbalanced - Comprises those games that are meant to be not balanced, as PvP balance is not an aim or the aim is to make some sides over powered, usually for AI challenge, but possibly for historicity or other reasons or no reasons
I don't actually like this last proposal, and would just have the "Purposely Unbalanced" games as part of the "Poorly Balanced" ones, as I just feel like it would be much of a grey area to define this category; as, like, I can make a historical game that is unbalanced because I believe historically one of the sides had the advantage, but maybe it would be hard or impossible to clarify if any unbalance were made on purpose or not. For example, you can sometimes even see people that say that Axis & Allies 2nd Edition (Classic) was unbalanced in favour of Allies because they were historically stronger, while obviously that is not a historical aimed game at all (could be still possible someone wanted to unbalance it for the hell of it, tho).
I don't think if this happens to everyone, but for me, on the above link only (so far), the grey-metal banner with "About - Videos - Development" appears at the bottom of the screen when I access the page, but, when I scroll down, it stays in the same position, relatively to its content, covering the second and third row of featured maps.
(also, if I go to the site, in homepage, I can't find how to reach that page, linked above; probably I just can't figure, but maybe this means that is too hard to spot?)
@Cernel This is how it looks to me, and my Google chrome, if it helps you fault find. The metal bar stays at the bottom. :slight_smile:
And I don’t think this page is “live” yet. Matybe that is why you can’t find it?
@Frostion I noticed @Cernel 's issue as well and the fix just went live like 10 minutes ago ^^
Yeah, the page isn't fully official/final yet.
This is the reason why it's nowhere visible using navigation...
This will change in the near future once we get a dedicated page per map
red sun over china and warlords ffa dont work in the latest version, when i try to open either of them it loads for 2 seconds and then puts me back to the player menu