Download Maps has map Tags

TheDog

So Miracles do happen, all you naysayers. (me included)

Under Download Maps, there is now a set of tabs;

Quality 4 Excellent, 3 Good, 2 Experimental, 1 Unplayable (1st 3 same as the old system) EDITED: was 5,4,3,2,1
Year / Genre - banded years & a few genre
Solo / PvP - or both

Over the coming weeks I will be filling in fields, its a boring and thankless task

RogerCooper

@TheDog The years are wrong for "sengoku_jidai". The scenario notes indicate 1600.

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 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.

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.

I have played Iwo_Jima and sengoku_jidai and neither deserves a rating of "2 Poor".

Ondis

@TheDog

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.

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.

For example I think there's a steampunk Domination version (in the maplist just called "steampunk") so its more important to put that there with the others than to try and guess an "Age" for it, then the Arab-Israeli wars stretch over long times, its the theme thats more important.

PS: How is the map repository updated? To avoid opening a new thread I'll just mention it here that https://github.com/triplea-maps/middle_earth isn't in the Maplist even though its the original Middle Earth map. Just a small headsup if you could add it manually.

@rogercooper
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.

The idea to have Finished/Unfinished ratings so people know which maps are in beta or abandoned is great though and won't cause problems

As a compromise we could have something for community approved maps:
Approved(or Popular)/Finished/Unfinished

Cernel

@TheDog "1765-1869" can be named "1765-1869 (Early Industrial)".

I would put the period name between paretheses and written whole. For example, "1931-1945 (World War 2)".

Cernel

@TheDog How about PvAI instead of Solo if this is what Solo means?

TheDog

@RogerCooper

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.

RogerCooper

@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.

RogerCooper

@Cernel said:

@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.

RogerCooper

@Ondis said:

@TheDog

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).

Cernel

@RogerCooper said:

@Cernel said:

@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.

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.