Download Maps has map Tags
-
The years are wrong for "sengoku_jidai". The scenario notes indicate 1600.
Oops mouse trouble, fixed
.
I suggest using the staring year rather than the genre as I have done on the Axis & Allies Wiki. It makes it easier to find specific scenarios, especially during WW2 and makes it unnecessary to predefine the genres. You can also get the information from the wiki.
No to starting years, if it was a freeform text box yes. It is only a dropdown pick list, so I will not be entering starting years, they will be banded.
.
I am not sure what you mean by PVP and Solo in the TripleA context. Most maps can be played both ways without problems.
I disagree.
Solo is just that you vs the AI, maps like 1941 GCD are not designed for PvP play
PvP is Player vs Player in all its forms, some maps can only sensibly be played PvP, yes against the AI for learning, but game play vs AI is so poor its not worth repeat games
Both plays OK solo & PvP, most games will be this or blank.
I also suggest getting rid of the numerical ratings, which might insult some people. The system used before was fine with the options of Experimental, Good and Excellent . Unplayable is a good addition.
This is a maybe, the numbers stay, as it forces, an order, otherwise it will be alphabetical. So it could be;
4 Excellent
3 Good
2 Experimental
1 Unplayable
Note not alphabetical, if numbers are removed..
I have played Iwo_Jima and sengoku_jidai and neither deserves a rating of "2 Poor".
I have not played most maps, but I will change them to 3 Good.
-
@TheDog So "3 Good" would be the default for maps. "2 Experimental" would be for maps that clearly need further development or not intended for competitive play. "4 Excellent" would be for maps that have undergone extensive development or accurate ports of boardgames.
I think that would leave everyone happy and reduce value judgements.
-
-
Great work but rather than year have Genré or Pack.
Which would then be stuff like:Global, Bigworld, Starwars, LotR/Middle Earth, NWO, Domination variants, Revised.
If you take a look at https://axisandallies.fandom.com/wiki/Category:TripleA_Maps, you will see I have categorized the mods by the unique map (the geographical information of the game).
-
@TheDog How about PvAI instead of Solo if this is what Solo means?
There are scenarios which are truly one player like "Labyrinth" and "Tutorial". Most scenarios can be meaningfully played against the AI and may be more fun that way.
Then I suggest calling those "Solo" and "PvAI" for those requiring an active AI (not Does Nothing).
I would also add "PvP+AI" for maps needing more than 1 player but also needing an active AI (like "Feudal Japan" and "Total Ancient War" if I remember correctly). (My "270BC Wars" game would be "PvP" (not "PvP+AI") because the AI is Does Nothing and is practically only used to default click yes on casualties selection and starting battles at random.)
I also agree with having a 1 to 4 rating.
-
@ondis
Decisions by committee, are usually poor decisions, too many compromises.
Having spent too long trying to agree on a consensus in the past. (May 21 to Sept 22) here
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2801/map-tags-for-release-2-6I will now be a Dictator, at least it will be consistently wrong.
Having said the above I think Im reasonable, but I would say that.
.
Global, Bigworld, Starwars, LotR/Middle Earth, NWO, Domination variants, Revised.
You can search for those in the text box, across all fields, so not needed.
.
Year isnt really important. But those that don't have their own classification could fall under World War 1, World War 2, Arab-Israeli, Fantasy, Sci-fi etc.
The maps are already grouped. yes some are weak but they have a home.
.
I wouldnt have rating at all unless people get to add their own stars to the maps somehow in the future (Every unique SysID could get a vote). Its super subjective just hurts peoples feels.
AFAIK we dont have the ability to vote for maps.
The maps will be rated. Players want it. Yes its super subjective, something is better than nothing. If a map is rated as poor/Experimental, then improve it and take the constructive criticism on the chin..
As a compromise we could have something for community approved maps:
Approved(or Popular)/Finished/UnfinishedThe rating system caters for this, sort of.
Approved(or Popular) = 4 as it has been improved, played
Finished = 2 or 3
Unfinished = 1 Unplayable -
How about PvAI instead of Solo if this is what Solo means?
Yes Solo means PvAI
Word shape wise Solo is different enough to PvP, so Solo it is.
-
@rogercooper
Yes, I agree lets use the old system, plus Unplayable.
So
4 Excellent
3 Good
2 Experimental
1 Unplayable -
Ah, I see that is called 1765-1869 Revolutionary. Either Revolutionary or Early Industrial is good, though I would suggest the latter.
-
I suggest renaming "2100+ Future, ScFi" to just "Far Future" or "Futuristical" or "Hyperfuturistical".
I think that it does not make much sense to give a year for when a truly futuristical setting starts. I would leave it undefined.
"Science-Fiction" in no way means that it is set in the future. While this is usually the case, Science Fiction is just a variation of Fictional attempting to give a scientifical or pseudo-scientifical basis to impossible elements rather than just saying "it's magic". For example, if I make a map based on "Jurassic Park", that would be a Science-Fictional map even though it may be set 30 years ago rather than in the future. Also a XIX century steampunk map can be Science Fictional if somewhat scientifically grounded.
Then "1946-2100 Nuclear" would be thus renamed to "1946+ Nuclear", though I would suggest "1946+ Atomic".
Wikipedia uses "Atomic" instead of "Nuclear" for this age:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_AgeAlso 1946+ could be split into two: the actual 1946+ and an other classification called "Near Future" for maps made in a year after the year when the map was made but still fairly close to us (which can be actually in the recent past for maps made years ago for a future year we are already past).
This way, you could have these 3 classifications:
- 1946+ Atomic
- Near Future (from the point of view of when the map was made)
- Far Future (or Futuristical or Hyperfuturistical)
-
Personally, I’d keep the categories simple and use “1946+ Atomic” and “Futuristic.” I can see the reasoning behind separating “Near Future” and “Far Future,” but the distinction could be subjective and may add more complexity than we need.
-
Are you sure about the name of the "A&A Style" category? I would rename that category as "Basic".
Moreover, instead of having them all at 4 stars, I would just leave those games without a "Quality" value at all.
Also, "world_war_ii_v3" belongs to that category (not to 1931-1945 WW2 Global). Whatever the case, it should obviously be in the same category as Classic and Revised. I would say as Global 1940 too.
-
@Cernel
I will get back to you.@ All
There is a Genre called &&& Style EDIT
I intended this to be just pure A&A maps with its TripleA closest map
There are a lot players who want to play just the &&& style maps. EDITBut there are so many variations on these &&& maps. EDIT
What to do, how to group?All in one Group ?
Split out with pure(ish) in one, revisions in another ?Whatever the above what to call theses group(s) ?
Thoughts ?
-
Personally, I’d keep the categories simple and use “1946+ Atomic” and “Futuristic.” I can see the reasoning behind separating “Near Future” and “Far Future,” but the distinction could be subjective and may add more complexity than we need.
Would you put "world_war2010", "2013Conflict" or an hypotetical map I'm releasing now for a World War in 2029 in “1946+ Atomic” or “Futuristic”? Such maps are mostly why I suggested a "Near Future" section.
If right now I release a map starting 3 years from now, the tech of that map is not going to be much different from current, and it will be ideally in the past 3 years from now.
-
@TheDog I would go for a "Basic Original", in which to put everything from Classic to V6 comprising Europe, Pacific and the 1940 series and "Basic Variant" for very close variants of those. Of course, it will always be disputable how close to the originals you have to be to stay in "Basic Variant". My metre would be having in "Basic Variant" only any kind of modifications which keep functionally the same map elements as the original. For example, yes for a mod of Revised which turns the game into a FFA but not for a mod of Revised which adds Italians to the game or split even only one territory into two (or merge two into one).
However, that would currently unfortunately necessitate a third category for "Basic Original + Variant" for all those maps having both originals and variants in the folder. For example, "world_war_ii_global" has both original and variant games, so it should go in "Basic Original + Variant" or split into two maps, one for the originals and the other one for the variants.
Is "world_war_ii_global" the only basic map with both originals and variants inside? If so, I guess the "Basic Original + Variant" would be a single-map category. In this case, I guess we can avoid having that category and instead just putting Global into the "Basic Original" category just to avoid having a category for a single map.
-
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.
-
@Cernel
Thanks!
I will give it a few days to see other opinions
&&& Basic Original EDIT
&&& Basic VariantCould we shorten it to ?
&&& Original
&&& VariantIf 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 opinionsThanks all
-
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).
-
Could we shorten it to ?
A&A Original
A&A VariantThat 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.
-
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 opinionsYes, 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.
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 đź’—
Register Login