Multiplayer maps: prefix labelling, terrain

[Puzz3D]

It's not a big deal, but I prefer the two letter designator to be a suffix with no parenthesis. More of the actual map name will show in the hosted game listing, and players can, if they want, keep all the maps they create together in the listing by using a personal designator prefix. In any case, I think the parenthesis are unnecessary whether the designator is a prefix or suffix.

Maps with no designator are all small maps from STW. I retextured three large maps, Horselands, River Crossing (rivers removed) and Sacred Ground, which Obake made for WE/MI, and gave them the suffix 'fl'.

[R'as al Ghul]

I agree about the suffix.
I think it'd be nice to have: mapname-terrain suffix-personal suffix.
That way all map names should be readable.

Concerning the personal suffix I plan on having an extensive readme documentation (pdf?) where such things could be listed. Map creators should get credit but I see no use in having, for lack of a better example, "O" for Orda. Either you know it's by Orda anyway or you don't and then the "O" isn't helping you any. I suggest that we get rid of personal prefixes/suffixes.
Tomi once suggested to have more telling names but we also have to think of the limited displayable space. (how many characters of the mapname is the lobby showing?) I think placenames like Tokaido or Anegawa (my maps) are short, memorable and fit the theme of the game.

Just thinking out loud......

[Puzz3D]

Red Field of Patay showed in full.

[Tomisama]

My idea was to give a descriptive name that would instantly give a mental picture of the most outstanding characteristic of the map.

But that’s harder to do than it sounds.

Any “real” name will do (please no numbered maps).

They will be learned

For example, if I say Totomi, I bet you can see it in you mind

[|Heerbann|_Luculus]

For me the suffix like (fl) are helpful and easy to know. But real names are quite more interesting than numbers like flatinland_01 etc.

I would prefer a mix of it. At first the name should express for how many armies the map is used to be, then some information about the terrain and at last a name of the map.

For example:

(8f)Fields_of_Agincourt: You see its for 8 players, its almost flat and "fields" causes an impression of the terrain, and the name Agincourt makes it easy to remember it.

[Puzz3D]

R'as has correctly pointed out that all we have are large and small maps, and a single non-alphanumeric prefix would be enough to separate the large from the small in the list. The terrain type could be designated by the map's name, by an optional suffix or carry no designation as is the case with the original STW maps.

[R'as al Ghul]

R'as has correctly pointed out that all we have are large and small maps, and a single non-alphanumeric prefix would be enough to separate the large from the small in the list. The terrain type could be designated by the map's name, by an optional suffix or carry no designation as is the case with the original STW maps.

Yuuki and I've discussed this pretty extensively and this is the result:
1. The two different groups of maps, SP and MP, will be seperated in the list of selectable maps simply by saving them in different locations. (/savemaps and /Battle/Maps)
The effect is that the MP maps are listed first and visually seperated by a slightly darker font. They form the first block.
The second block consists of all smaller maps, SP custom maps and campaign battle maps like flatinland_etc.

2. Within the large MP maps, we'd like to leave out any prefixes or suffixes to give the mapname the most space. However that doesn't mean we prohibit anything.
A mapmaker may choose to include a prefix to keep all his maps together in the list. In that case, please use an underscore "_" to seperate your author prefix from the mapname. Example: "O_Mizulands 01" (O=OrdaKhan) Btw, we try to get away from using numbers.

3. Concerning the terrain, we don't see a real need for a designator in the name. We expect a certain quality and fairness when it comes to maps that we include into our mod. Official map updates will always be approved by us to ensure that.
What do we mean by quality and fairness?
That's certainly subjective and not easy to define, but as a rule the maps shouldn't favor either side of the players. Defenders' and attackers' sides should be treated equally by map creators. Keep in mind that we play without designated attacker and defender roles in MP. Maps should reflect the Taishos' intention to choose a suitable terrain for huge armies to meet. (We can hardly fight a 4vs4 in a mountainous all forest map) 4th Kawanakajima is a nice example for this which most players should know, it's only missing wooded areas to hide units in. (It's included in beta_7 and 8 and in original STW)
I hope this isn't too blurry.

R'as