Community maps.

[Grauniad]

I'm very strongly suggesting (thanks Helper for the seed of this idea) that all future Community Maps have a score from each and every person named in the credits before it is uploaded to Colonial Space. If not, I might consider that it violates the principle for all other maps that the author should post a score.

We do have means to redact maps out of Colonial Space and I'd hate to waste your efforts...

Consider it a test of playability and a means to making maps that are more appealing to a greater number pf players.



Edit to fix a typo -G.

[Grayzzur]

The maps have been a bit difficult. I have argued to tone them down, though perhaps I should have been a louder voice. I do believe the maps need to aim for a wider audience than they have.

Getting ALL authors to play the map before it is uploaded could become a time issue delaying the map by several days. Could we perhaps require 3 or 4 scores for the initial upload? I'd hate to be stuck because one or two of the authors hasn't bothered to play it. It wouldn't be fair to the rest of the team, whereas I think 3 or 4 scores would address the spirit of your intention.

We could also implement a rule in the map making themselves... disallow people from adding to the current map project if they haven't posted a score on any previous maps they've participated in.

[Grauniad]

Make a community rule and I'll go with that.

[knucracker]

In general the maps so far have been fantastic looking and very innovative... but I did wish they were easier.  My two cents on the whole thing is that medium level difficulty maps are better for a wider range of players and ultimately get rated better.  In particular, most people seem to favor starting locations that can be secured.  Working out from a starting location should then become progressively more challenging, but not turn into a 2 hour slog.  Those are generic statements, I know, and easier said than done.

The other option is of course the make the map adaptive.  Scores and even times can be manipulated by CRPL to reward harder paths... but the map can also provide easier paths to victory based on choices made by the player.  Either explicit dialog questions at the start of the map, or during the map, or by actions taken by the player on the map during game play.  Adaptive maps could prove challenging to create, though.

In any case, at least making sure all N or maybe (N-1) contributors to a map can actually finish the map... that sounds like a good idea.

[pawel345]

I through that the "Post a score before uploading" was not a test of hardness but to check if the map is playable, that is if it can be passed. So it doesn't matter if one or ten people pass it, a single(non hacked) score is enough to prove that the map can be beaten. And whether it's going to be a fun and cool map or a long and boring slog doesn't matter, if it's boring it gets voted down. Of course we can post more scores... or one person can beat the map and then upload 10 scores as 10 different people :P (I know it's cheating and I know you can check that :P (And I will not do that) )

[Grauniad]

See the requirement this way. It is intended to prevent the author from uploading a map that the author was unable to complete. Sure, there ware ways and means around it, but that is the spirit of the rule. It was also the spirit of map making that one author makes a map. Under your auspices, that now turn into 8 authors making a map and then the strongest of the 8 posts a score. I think that isn't a community map at all. And the feedback scores on the most recent community map reflect that.

So we're gently suggesting that a cooperative effort focus on maps that have a broader appeal. One way to achieve that is if you "eat your own cooking".

Putting it another way to revert to the spirit of the original requirement: Don't make (or upload) something that you can't play.

[teknotiss]

In any case, at least making sure all N or maybe (N-1) contributors to a map can actually finish the map... that sounds like a good idea.

i agree with N-1, most, if not all, of the creators should post a score, it may make the maps more playable. the first two are pretty intense and feel a bit disjointed
perhaps having less authors per map? or going for a "less is more" approach (as opposed to the current "cram in more CRPL, til it pops like!" approach ;))

[Clean0nion]

In any case, at least making sure all N or maybe (N-1) contributors to a map can actually finish the map... that sounds like a good idea.

i agree with N-1, most, if not all, of the creators should post a score, it may make the maps more playable. the first two are pretty intense and feel a bit disjointed
perhaps having less authors per map? or going for a "less is more" approach (as opposed to the current "cram in more CRPL, til it pops like!" approach ;))

Our current problem with the community maps is that everyone wants to add something new - whether it's slip emitters, moving turrets, evil guppies or not-PZs.
We need better moderation. At the minute, things are being moderated gently - if it's too hard, lower the vars.
Instead, I think we need a new approach. We shouldn't be saying "Is it too hard?" we should be saying "Is there too much stuff?" Then if the answer is yes, we remove the least necessary, most 'spammy' thing. Then we ask again. And again, until we have a map that is playable and not just a mindblast of CRPL. And we do this without sympathy for the people who made the things that we remove.
Then, and only then, do we ask "Is it too hard?" And if it is, then we lower the vars.

You've survived Clean0nion for 600 posts!

[Helper]

I would rather see the map makers ask themselves "is this fun enough".
The first was (IMO) yes, the second one, not so much.

I've managed to complete a fair number of 'hard' games here, and had a great time with the 'fun' ones.

As I said somewhere, Community maps can be a great thing - and lots of fun for the makers and the players. However, there always seems to be a natural tendency to 'cram it til it pops' (thanks tek).

It seems fair to expect someone to complete a map with their name on it before it gets submitted.

[Clean0nion]

I disagree with the "complete if you contributed" philosophy. Let's say you made a tile of terrain on the map. Okay. That's fine.
15 other people make their tiles too. That's also fine.
Then you get asked to play the map. And the map is far too difficult for your ability, even though others may have completed it with relative ease.
And that's not your fault. Because you only made one tile - you only made 16% of the map. *4% is not yours, can you shouldn't have to claim responsibility for it.

Except in my case - I added the turrets for PTM2 and a good deal of the map terrain was based on that. Of course I'd have to complete that map, but others might not.

[J]

Would it be the best to say that at least half of the map makers (rounded up) must have completed the map? (assuming at least half of the contributors made something that made the map harder) Also think about maps that were made with only 2 or 3 players.

Even with only half of mapmakers posting a score bad community maps will be sorted out fairly easily.

[Grayzzur]

I disagree with the "complete if you contributed" philosophy.

I'm on the fence on this one. It's a gray area.

I would argue that if you can't complete the map, then what those other players did is probably too much and needs to be toned down so that you can complete it before it's published. At least you're trying. I don't want people to contribute squares, never playtest or post scores on the map, and keep coming back to add bits to the next one. It's probably something pawel and the rest of us can police ourselves rather than make a hard rule about it, though.

[knucracker]

I can add a few more points of reference...
First, so long as the map isn't improper and it has at last one score... that qualifies it for posting (same as any other map).  It may get down voted or not played, but ok.  The same applies for other maps.

I think the main motivation for this topic is that everyone wants to see maps that are successful... especially the community maps.  And I think the main thing holding them back right now is their difficulty level.  The idea of getting more than one person to post a score is just one way the help improve the odds that the map isn't too hard.  Another way would be for a community map effort to start up with a rule that there is one appointed overlord to ensure game play and difficulty are appropriate.  Or a group effort could start with a rule that they had to get one non-participant to post a score first.  Or a group could form and everyone mutually agrees they will make medium difficulty maps. 

Now maybe these 'bands' will make good music together or maybe they won't.  Their audience can be the judge.

On the N-1 thing that comes from what I used to joke about at my last job(s).  In the military they say, "Leave no man behind".  So in business I had a rule that was "Leave no more than one behind". :)  Invariably no matter what you did for a meeting or a group event there would be at least one straggler.  So "leave no more than one behind" allowed things to proceed and at the same time provided incentive to not be the one.  For a community map, a similar rule might work.  It means you don't mind if one of the group can't handle what you add to the map... but if you make it so that more than one can't handle it, you have something you should address.  But N-2 can work as well... it doesn't have to be some hard rule.

These community maps are an interesting exercise in group engineering.... so it will be fascinating to see how they continue to evolve.

[Grayzzur]

Either we get better at it, or we change the name from "Community Maps" to "Committee Maps."  ;D

[Clean0nion]

Either we get better at it, or we change the name from "Community Maps" to "Committee Maps."  ;D

Challenge accepted.