Download Maps has map Tags

xxXEddieXxx

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.

TheDog

@cernel
Most games, 51%+ (probably 90%) have 1 map 1 xml, so are easy to define. The ones you refer to are too complex. I have tried to do this below. Where 5v1v5 Sides= 3 alliances/sides with 5 in one,1 in one, 5 in another. This is too complex to list in table format, with pulldown selection.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3741/curated-best-top-maps-triplea-guides

.

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?)

It would be 8 player & FFA or shortened to FFA-8 (Groups all FFA together and does not try to group factions)

.

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.

I agree as mentioned above it is too complex and is in small percentage of maps.

.

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?

If I was going to do the #Players column it would be FFA-x, not good, it raises more questions. Also one of my own maps has the same problem is FFA-11, but with fixed sides/alliances of 5 vs 1 vs 5 again how to convey FFA-11 ?

.

Also, please no .2 .3... Use 02, 03...

So overall a good discussion to a conclusion for me, I will be removing the #players column.

Cernel

@TheDog As a 4th column, it may be good having a "Games" column, meaning how many games the map contains. This would be probably a 1 for 80% of games, but it may be a good information.

Moreover, if "map-skins" get fixed,
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/15040
those would be downloadable too, and something will be needed for them. This is something maybe this 4th column may cover: map-skins (if properly made) always have 0 games inside, so the value for the column may be "0" or "map-skin" or "additional skin" or maybe something clearer for the user, so you would have a column like:

Games
0 (map-skin)
0 (map-skin)
1
1
1
2
2
3
4

However, I'm not sure if telling how many games there are in a map is really that important, so I'm not saying that I suggest to add this 4th column: it's just an idea, but I'm not sure if it is worth the addition. Opinions?

Cernel

@TheDog said:

If I was going to do the #Players column it would be FFA-x, not good, it raises more questions. Also one of my own maps has the same problem is FFA-11, but with fixed sides/alliances of 5 vs 1 vs 5 again how to convey FFA-11 ?

Yah, I'm fairly sure that would not be seen as a FFA by most. I'm fairly certain that the normal definition of FFA is when every single player controls only 1 faction/polity/country/power and there are no teams at all. (Arguably, there may be alliances, but they can be undone (like in the Napoleonic Empires FFA), or everyone is always at war with everyone, the latter being more typical for FFA.)

The way I would describe that game would be just a 11 players / 3 sides game, and this would be a good information to have in the "Select a Game" window (after you downloaded the map) or in the description of the map itself (where there is the map image).

Cernel

A cool column to have would be the year when the map was originally released, so you could have the history of TripleA in an organized list. However, I guess this information is not any longer available for most maps...

TheDog

@Cernel

A cool column to have would be the year when the map was originally released, so you could have the history of TripleA in an organized list. However, I guess this information is not any longer available for most maps...

The closest to your suggestion is minimumVersion

This gives the minimumVision to play the map.

However, AFAIK the latest series of releases fix so many of 2.5.22294 problems and runs faster and occupies less RAM. Why run an an old version?

My 2c, not worth putting it in a table.

.

As a 4th column, it may be good having a "Games" column, meaning how many games the map contains. This would be probably a 1 for 80% of games, but it may be a good information.
However, I'm not sure if telling how many games there are in a map is really that important, so I'm not saying that I suggest to add this 4th column: it's just an idea, but I'm not sure if it is worth the addition. Opinions?

Again my 2c, not worth the effort/white space used.

Cernel

I would suggest splitting quality between Gameplay Quality and Graphic Quality (possibly also a third column for how good sounds are, which would be left empty if the map does not have a "sounds" folder).

These are such different things that I always find weird to imagine how can you mix them together in a single quality vote.

Of course, judging Graphic Quality is much easier than judging Gameplay Quality.

This would especially make sense if map-skins come back: map-skins can only be judged for Graphic Quality but never for Gameplay Quality.

Cernel

Regarding maps with multiple games, I think the Gameplay Quality vote should be based on the best one of the games (meaning that, if I add a bad variant as a game inside a map already having one or more games, that should not decrease the Gameplay Quality of the map).