Download Maps has map Tags

TheDog

@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-2-6

I 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/Unfinished

The rating system caters for this, sort of.
Approved(or Popular) = 4 as it has been improved, played
Finished = 2 or 3
Unfinished = 1 Unplayable

TheDog

@cernel

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.

TheDog

@rogercooper
Yes, I agree lets use the old system, plus Unplayable.
So
4 Excellent
3 Good
2 Experimental
1 Unplayable

Cernel

Ah, I see that is called 1765-1869 Revolutionary. Either Revolutionary or Early Industrial is good, though I would suggest the latter.

Cernel

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_Age

Also 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)

xxXEddieXxx

@Cernel

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.

Cernel

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.

TheDog

@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. EDIT

But 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 ?

Cernel

@xxXEddieXxx said:

@Cernel

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.

Cernel

@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.

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
&&& Basic Original EDIT
&&& Basic Variant

Could we shorten it to ?
&&& Original
&&& 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.

Cernel

To be clear, my starting suggestion was to have "Basic" instead of "A&A Style". Whether or not then also divide between originals and variants was merely an added item and maybe not worth it. There can be just the "Basic" category only and forget about the variants, let them be normal non-Basic maps like anything else.

xxXEddieXxx

@cernel
Grouping the same map with different versions can also be a solution, I do it in my mobile port.