Download Maps has map Tags

[Cernel]

@RogerCooper said:

@Cernel I actually would prefer the terms "areas" as "spaces" is ambiguous. The rules for Axis & Allies used the terms "territories".

I think that per se the best term is "Zones". The "Sea Zones" are always called as such and TripleA does not have stuff like the "Mobilisation Zone", so it should be quite obvious that "Zones" means territories plus sea zones. However, I've checked the rule-books from Classic to Global, and the official term is "Spaces" or "Game Spaces".

Areas does not sound quite clear to me. An area could be a group of zones or a cosmetic area with no zones at all (like the one that World At War has between 118 and 124 Sea Zone or the many cosmetic islands of New World Order, having not only no ownership but neither existing at all beside visually). Moreover, I would argue that those pacific islands with multiple islands (or Turkey when the European and Asian parts are the same territory) are each a territory/zone/space with multiple areas, meaning multiple areas part of the same territory/zone/space (and I think it would be hard to argue against this).

(Obviously "territories" is a terrible term if non-convoy sea zones are comprised, and just one of the several cases in which TripleA technical terms are just bad. Let's keep them under the hood as much as possible.)

Definitions from Cambridge (first definition given):

Space: an empty area that is available to be used

Zone: an area, especially one that is different from the areas around it because it has different characteristics or is used for different purposes

Area: a particular part of a place, piece of land, or country

Territory: an area of land or sea that is controlled by a particular country

---

At the end, I think the easiest pick is just the official one: space (or game space).

[Cernel]

@RogerCooper said:

@Cernel To me FFA (free-for-all), means everyone permanently at war with everyone. Some mods have relationships that can change in the course of the game, and can't be easily summarized as alliances.

Yah, what I was saying is that FFA is very ambiguous a term. Practically, it can mean one of 3 things, from the wider to the narrower interpretation.

1. A FFA is any game with 3 or more sides (either 3 or more players with only one player per side (so no actual sides) or 1 or more players per side).
2. A FFA is any game with 3 or more sides where every side is composed of only 1 player (so no actual sides).
3. A FFA is any game with 3 or more sides where every side is composed of only 1 player (so no actual sides) and every player is always at war with every other player.

Personally, I tend to understand it as definition 2, but I can totally see @rogercooper and other people understanding it as definition 3, as well as some other as definition 1.

---

A FFA can be an amazing game, but it is very hard to make a very good FFA (especially with ever-growing TUV dynamics like basic TripleA).

[xxXEddieXxx]

@thedog
How is the sorting for Spaces supposed to work?
Currently it seems a little off to me. One Sort option shows 100 first and the other shows -99 ? Shouldn't the big maps come first in the second?

[TheDog]

@xxXEddieXxx
Try again the -99 are now 0-99 and this should be a logicial sort order.

[Cernel]

@xxXEddieXxx Noticed too but did not bother. Yah, the -99 goes after the 800+. Makes no sense

This can be easily solved by changing the "-99" to "099-".

However, then what to do when having 1000s? Would that go before 100s?

To reiterate, my suggestions then would be

099-
100s
200s
300s
400s
500s
600s
700s
800s
900s
1000s

or

001-100
101-200
201-300
301-400
401-500
501-600
601-700
701-800
801-900
901-1000
1001-2000

However, I now see the additional problem that 1000s would not go after 900s and 1001-2000 would not go after 901-1000.

Is there no way to define the up-down order? Is it forcibly dependent on alphabeta-numerical order left to right?

If there is not, then I guess something like this:

01 (99-)
02 (100s)
03 (200s)
04 (300s)
05 (400s)
06 (500s)
07 (600s)
08 (700s)
09 (800s)
10 (900s)
11 (1000s)

(Also, really no idea why wanting to have 800+ instead of going up to 1000s or having 1000+. I don't think there being few (8?) maps at 800+ is enough of a reason for not completing it up to the thousand but leaving it hanging unfinished at the 800 mark.)

[TheDog]

@ 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.

---

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?

[Cernel]

@TheDog said:

@ 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
over999

That way, the upper limit of the penultimate category would be 999, which seems more natural.

[Cernel]

@TheDog said:

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.)

[TheDog]

@ 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 player

Yes 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)

[xxXEddieXxx]

@TheDog

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?

[Cernel]

@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...

[Vendetta]

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)
18

Same info but now it all sorts properly

[Cernel]

@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.

[Cernel]

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.