Page 1 of 1

MAP CONTEST RULES

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:40 pm
by sid6.7
here are the rules (tentative) i've made up
take a look and see whats up and what should
change and why if you disagree...

the FINAL DATE is tentative also...depends on
how fast we are setting this up and if enough join.

CONQUEST MAP TOURNAMENT 2005

RULES:

1. You must comply with the rules or your map wont be submitted.

2. Map should handle 6 players.

3. ALL submissions must be emailed here first: sid6.7 AT cruzan.info
if they go to someone else first they wont be submitted.

4. ALL submissions must be submitted by Oct 1 2005 11:59pm PACIFIC TIME if it comes in at 12 midnight it wont be submitted.

5. Maps must be no more then 900 wide x 600 tall in pixels
this will allow the full map to show on the screen and
see the small Conquest task bar at the bottom.

6. Map needs to have at least 42 territories and 6 continents

6. You may submit 2 maps per person, ill do my best to
check this per IP# and email address.

7. Scoring:

map size: do they stay within required limits?: 1 pt no, 2 pts yes

originality: is the map an original piece of work? see RULE X: 1 pt no 2pts revised 3 pts yes

playability: is the map playable? see RULE Y: 1 pt no, 2 points maybe, 3 points yes

artistic: how neat is the artwork?: 1pt GOOD, 2 pts GREAT

errors: are there errors? does the map crash?: 1 pt crashes, 2 pts errors , 3 pts none.

you can get 1/2 points IE.. a .5 instead of 1 a 1.5 or a 2.5 its the judges choice there are no 1/2 points above 3.

total: 14 points

8. Yes you may include a text file explaining your map.

9. ALL maps will be posted on my site with the #1 and #2 winning Medals/Stars.
NO maps will be flamed on my site, thats not cool, I'll send you your score privately to you if you want, i wont rank those that did not win.

10. Map judges may submit maps but automatically lose 1.5 points to thier total.

X. if a map is already on seans web site and you submit it or a revision
of it, it will only get 1 pt for originality. You could get 2 pts if
we think you made substantial enough revisions to change the map. IE...
if you just change the names and add-remove 3-4 territories or so its
gonna get 1 pt instead of 2. its the judges choice.

Y. what makes a map playable:

1. no bunkers...IE a small island that generates HUGE amounts of troops
with only 1 entrance so you can't break in.
2. no circles...IE a map where its an endless/long chase around the map
with no way to corner someone.
3. territories are too small so you can hardly click on them or see
them.
4. NON-ADJACENT territories have to many connections...IE more then 3.
5. No 1 Continent generates more troops then all other continents combined.

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:40 pm
by BoxZone_Author
Maps that crash should score -ve points.
Maps that have errors should score -ve points.

If you're going to make a map, make it work.

Whats wrong with a territory that joins with 4 others?

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:11 am
by sid6.7
had to start somewhere on the links thing to get some
kind of base for the rules...if people want more and
come to some kind of agreement we can change it...

but my thought was to prevent a rat maze of links
that get you into endless loops of chasing someone
around and around the map...

what i've seen on most good maps is about 3 or 4 links
per terr. then i've seen as high as 8 per terr. so i want
to find some kind of middle ground.

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:21 am
by sid6.7
BoxZone_Author wrote:Maps that crash should score -ve points.
Maps that have errors should score -ve points.

If you're going to make a map, make it work.



its been in my experince so far... sometimes a map crashes
on 1 system but not another...

i try to have positive numbers when i do judging i dont
like to give zero values for things... as is we wont
have to worry about error ridden or crash happy maps
cause they will only have 1/2 the points of maps that dont.
we can change it if enough poeple want to do it though.
i'll just need about 1/2 of everyone who joins the contest
to ask for a change...

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:21 pm
by BoxZone_Author
Define "No Circles".
The standard Earth map has circles.

Every map must consist of either circles or bunkers. (often both but never neither)

Whats wrong with curcles anyway? Just become bigger than your opponent and crush them, or come at them from both sides of the circle.

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:45 pm
by sid6.7
BoxZone_Author wrote:Define "No Circles".
The standard Earth map has circles.

Every map must consist of either circles or bunkers. (often both but never neither)

Whats wrong with curcles anyway? Just become bigger than your opponent and crush them, or come at them from both sides of the circle.


well in a way its a circle but its really more of a straightline
accross only the top of the map...you forgot the second
part of the "bunker" explaination bunker that "generates HUGE
amounts of troops...i've never seen anyone make a circle
run around the earth map... i've seen them try...one friend
went from madagascar to alaska but lost everything there...

but you also notice that the "earth" map has only 3 links
per terr...execpt for GB...i do believe hence you dont
have that spiderweb of links leading everywhere in every
direction...

but you can draw and submit any map you wish if you
want to...

again if enough people say yes i will change the rules
this is not like its written in stone...

should i draw a bad example map? do we have to go that far?

as far as i can tell are you saying there is no such thing
as a bad map link wise? or any amount of links to any
amount of destinations is okay?

Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 10:49 pm
by BoxZone_Author
Earth has loads of terratories with four or more connections (China has 6) probably half of them have over 3.

Lots of links should not automatically score low points. If having a map with lots of links (in the judges opinion) makes the game a poor play then they should socre it down. Some other judge might like that sort of game. Certainly one or two terratories like that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Circles ... what are you on about. Circules are a certainty in any map (unless it is a starfish which counts as a bunker game). Circles don't hurt anyone, live with them. Choose you tactics appropriately and if someone wan't to run themselves flat on a circle let them, it's a poor tactic on their part and you can wipe them out all the more easily for doing it.

Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 1:33 am
by sid6.7
okay i see we are talking 2 different link things and maybe i was
not clear about which...your talking about adjacent terr. i was talking
about NON-adjacent terr....

i was thinking about alsaka-kamchatka brazil-N. africa

we would have to allow adjacent links of any number otherwise
a map would be an endless amount of mini 3 terr. islands
which would then create the spider web i was trying to avoid...

maybe also circle was a poor word to use...

so i see i'll have to show a drawing after all of an example
that would not be good...

here:

Image

and yes there are maps like this...ive played them...

so one should try to have a balanced map without
thier map being overwhelmed by these methods..

and yes judges have that option i belive the rule already
allows 1pt, 2 pts or 3pts however the judge wants to judge it...
i judge may say no 1pt....the other may say its not bad 2pts
or another judge may say i see its a perfect playable map 3 pts..

if thats still not okay i guess we will have to agree
to disagree....if you can agree to that?

Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:30 pm
by BoxZone_Author
So in your rules you stated 4 adjacient terratories was out, in your example you show 9. which is it to be? And whether they touch or are connected by lines is irrelevant, thats purely a graphical representation. The logical impact of the game is the number of territiries it is connected to.

'Circles' was indeed a poor name if your example is anything to go by, what you don't like are 'flap' maps where there are no territories not connected to 'adjacient' ones.

we will have to agree
to disagree....if you can agree to that?

We can agree to disagree, but whats the point in having more than one judge if you pre-load the judging rules with your game play preference. What you are ending up with is "Sid6.7's favourity map" and dressing it up as "The combined opinion of a panel of judges". Thats what bothers me most.

Let the judges judge based on what each judge themselves likes.

Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:22 am
by sid6.7
BoxZone_Author wrote:So in your rules you stated 4 adjacient terratories was out, in your example you show 9. which is it to be? And whether they touch or are connected by lines is irrelevant, thats purely a graphical representation. The logical impact of the game is the number of territiries it is connected to.

'Circles' was indeed a poor name if your example is anything to go by, what you don't like are 'flap' maps where there are no territories not connected to 'adjacient' ones.

we will have to agree
to disagree....if you can agree to that?

We can agree to disagree, but whats the point in having more than one judge if you pre-load the judging rules with your game play preference. What you are ending up with is "Sid6.7's favourity map" and dressing it up as "The combined opinion of a panel of judges". Thats what bothers me most.

Let the judges judge based on what each judge themselves likes.


wow... were just not on the same page are we...i really doubt that
you and i are going to agree on much...

and actually you did'nt read the rules very well at all
i posted this whole thing as "tentative" do you know what "tentative"
means?.....and now you've made it personal by declareing it
"maps that sid6.7 likes"...which is totally out of line...
should this map contest be "everything is allowed" cause
boxzone_author will get upset if not?

have you ever run map contest? i've run 2 and been in 4,
and there are always rules and 99% of the time inside
the rules they have suggestions for good map making
or "things you dont want to do"....and above all those
rules dont get made by 1 person NOR 2...there has to
be some kinda consesus from the group not just you
not just me...thats why you post rules BEFORE you
start...

and it has nothing to do with "flaps" which is why i can see
we're not on the same page, there are 20 links on that
map and only 5 "flap over"....which is not the only issue
in my "circle" statement...

sorry man NON-Adjacent and adjacent links are relavent
and 2 different kinds of links enitrely...NON-adjacent can
even mean poping up in the middle of a continent from
very far away...1 or 2 are okay but you do want endless
amounts? no.....do you want other to know this....yes...
you dont blind side people...

and yes the rule mentions more then "3" as a base number
but i showed an example of 9 AND 5...which is a map you
would like... to show how bad it can get...you do know 9 is greater
then 3?....the same as 4 is more the 3? did you think more then "3"
only included 4? and that you could jump to 5-6-7 and be okay?
did you not see the example of 5 either?

i gave a worse case scenario IF there was no limit which seems
to be the direction you want everything to go?

and you can't look at the above bad examples and look at the earth
map and see which is a better idea? on the earth map its
done with some standards...the earth map could have DOZENS
of links betwix ALL the continents and going off all 4 maps sides,
and going multiple times of all 4 sides of the map.....
did that get done?....no...they used some common sense....

why would i want someone to make a map like the bad ones above
and then lose or have a bad chance of winning...most people
and co-judges i've met would not like the above maps and score
them badly...esp. if the person is new to map making then they
come away with a bad experince...or get rip'd by someone for
making it....uncool....

maybe people like bunkers? maybe people like a continent
that generates more troops then all the others combined
why should we limit map size? whats considered too
tiny too see or click on? do you want these too? if not
WHY...why should you say they can't?

i dont think this is about the rules, i think this is about
debate or asserting ones will or being right...i want the whole
groups inputs..and so far your the only one to complain
3 others seem to like the rules...you didnt....so far the
consensus is going for the rules not against them.........

maybe the thing you could have said was can we raise the limit?
like to 5 or 6, 7...offer something for us to go off of......

i did reclarify in the rules to NON-adjacent...thanks for the input...

Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:04 pm
by Legacy
I tend to think one judge alone is insufficient, and some of these restrictions are a bit drastic. I've been a mapper for a lot of games, but my forte was StarCraft, and you need to think out of the box and do things that seem questionable to make a truly new and unique map.

Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:01 pm
by sid6.7
i've asked for judges for sure.... i want 2 or i cant run the contest...
but 3 would be best for tie breakers on anything...

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:14 am
by BoxZone_Author
Sid6.7,

We're just not communicating here. It's late and I don't have time to give your long email the attention it deserves. However ...

The point I was trying to make was that I thought your points should be "suggestions to map makers on what judges tend to like" rather than pre-loading the rules to force all the judges to judge based on what you appear to like.
While I agree with many of your preferences I don't believe that these favourites should be pre-loaded into the scoring.

When I typed 'flap' I meant 'flat'. :oops: (T and P are really close together on my keyboard .... honest!)

I consider Brazil to North Africa to be adjacient, even though the connect 'by a line' rather than by touching, in terms of game play they are adjacient.

If Brazil connected to China, then thats an non-adjacient connection and similar to yourself my preference is to have few or none of these. But thats an individual prefernece. I disagree with you forcing this to be punished by all the judges.

i think this is about debate or asserting ones will or being right
I agree you are asserting your gameplay prefernces by pre-loading the rules with your preferences instead of being more open to what other judges might want. I would have considered being a judge until I saw how you had tied the judges hands based on your preferences.

I didn't want you to take this as a personal attack, hope we can all be 8) about it.

Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2005 12:56 am
by sid6.7
finally we agree to disagree...im very happy...
nice thing about contests is you dont have to join
or contribute rules or maps or whatever if you
dont want you or you can even run your own
if you want based on your preferences
which i think i would find an interesting read if you did
good luck in whatever you do...