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.
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.
Make a community rule and I'll go with that.
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.
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) )
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food)".
Putting it another way to revert to the spirit of the original requirement: Don't make (or upload) something that you can't play.
Quote from: virgilw on February 10, 2014, 10:41:17 AM
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 ;))
Quote from: teknotiss on February 10, 2014, 11:44:21 AM
Quote from: virgilw on February 10, 2014, 10:41:17 AM
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!
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Clean0nion on February 10, 2014, 02:54:25 PM
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.
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.
Either we get better at it, or we change the name from "Community Maps" to "Committee Maps." ;D
Quote from: Grayzzur on February 10, 2014, 05:17:07 PM
Either we get better at it, or we change the name from "Community Maps" to "Committee Maps." ;D
Challenge accepted.
well i can do an objective look at any map for you dudes, and i'm in the fora most days. and i can be brutally honest if you wish ;) let me know if you want an external invigilator 8)
pretty sure Helper will help too (sort of built in there really, a "on the tin" kind of dude! ::))
The thing we need... is an "OpperatesWhileEdit (True)" command, also a "CurrentActKey" to detect the user, plus some other edit-mode based commands. Also an "IsFinalized", which could also be used to turn off debug commands without commenting them. A big script can be compiled by the community, with a nice long list of vars. A map is started, a single core placed anywhere on it, and the script attached. Set some vars, hit recompile, and unpause the map for a second. Go back to edit mode and save. Pass the world-builder folder.
This script would keep track of the last 3 Activation Keys (AK) that the map was loaded on. It would keep track of the terrain's layout when the current AK started, and only allow +/-X terrain levels from that to be modified (void is +/-10). Each tile modified adds to this amount. Increasing a 10x10 area from height 3 terrain to height 7 would use up 200 levels from that player's pool. There would be separate limits to adding/removing walls/digitalis, which all three limits could be set when initializing the script. Adding and editing certain units by certain amounts is worth +/- different amounts of Unit Points. Attaching a script to a CRPL core is ~75 points and the core is worth 100 points. If each user is given 150 unit points, then less CRPL spam will occur. It can access the "0" script innate to all units to figure out how much they've been edited.
Since the script would keep track of only 3 users, after 3 others have edited it, it will forget you and you'll be able to add more.
However, this theoretical... "community builder script"... would be
intensely complex to make, and require several commands that currently don't exist.
It would be easier just to say "these are your limits", and not have to build a script to keep track of that. Actually, someone should try that.Prototype rules?
1) Per round, builders have 400 TP, 20 DP, and 150 UP. (Modifiable by GM/theme)
2) Adding or removing a terrain level in a cell costs 1 TP. Refunds only if you change it BACK before your round ends.
2a) Changing terrain to or from Void costs 9+n TP. "n" is the height of the modified terrain.
3) 1 tile of adding or removing digitalis costs 1 DP. 1 tile of adding or removing walls costs 2 DP.
4) Adding or removing an enemy costs a certain amount of UP per enemy. See table 1-a.
5) Adding or removing resources or player-units costs varying amounts of UP per unit. See table 1-b.
6) Editing values on enemy or player units costs varying amounts of UP. See tables 2-a and 2-b.
7) Changing unit prices or limits, or forge limits, costs varying amounts of UP. See table 3.
8) You may only contribute again once two or three other players have contributed.
9) The same LOCKED and UNLOCKED rules as previous community maps, but limiting to amount of editing, not location of editing.
Table 1-a
<IN PROGRESS>
CRPL CORE: 90 UP
Table 1-b
<DITTO>
CRPL CORE: 90 UP
Table 2-a
<THE SAME STATUS>
Change image from none: 10 UP
Attach Script: 30 UP + 5 UP per command
Table 2-b
<INCOMPLETE>
Change image from none: 10 UP
Attach Script: 30 UP + 5 UP per command
Table 3
<YOU GUESSED IT>
I think each "community" map initiative should have it's own rules, as the rules depend on what kind of map you want to make. The person that goes forward with an initiative sets up a set of rules for it, and then those rules are modified as problems rise up.
One can't make a set of rules for all possible "community" maps as, for example, rules for a community map where 1 person does all the terrain and then the other sets enemies, would be different than a map where all people get to make the terrain and then a single person puts enemies on the map.
Also too much rules spoil the fun and chain the "artistic spirit" :P
@MadMag: PLEASE don't be the map tester, except 1 of them I wasn't able to beat ANY of your maps and even on that one I had to cheat (Abusing of the something you didn't think of when making the map (That guppies survive for some time while in creeper)).
About flabort's rules, I disagree heavily because the difficulty can vary by much editing only little terrain/placing few enemies etc. or very little editing much terrain/placing many enemies...
The CRPL thing is even worse because CRPL gives you so many different things to do (including helpful things...) that you can't define general rules for all CRPL.
No problem.
I have the easiest squares in Pass The Maps :)
perhaps some (alternating) CRPL free maps? ??? i'd like to see these sort of communal maps
CRPL is powerful, perhaps too tempting for mere mortals to be restrained with? ;)
Except maybe the emitter script, as that is extremely simple...
edit: wrong thread for that...
Instead of no CRPL I'd say nothing new/fancy, but slip emitters / flip emitters / some of the corrupted units and probably more shouldn't be so bad as long as it's explained well what effects they have.