Prevent unwinnable maps from going on the website

[Timwi]

There are too many unwinnable maps on the website, and usually the author doesn't realise this because they've never tried to play their own map. The big red warning on the upload page doesn't seem to help - I suspect that most people don't read it or don't notice it.

Since the website keeps track of scores now, and Virgil confirmed that the server remembers scores submitted for maps that are not on the website yet, it should be easy now to enforce that people have to play (and win) their own maps before they can post them. Just reject the upload if there is no score for the uploaded map.

[Aurzel]

you need to upload the map before the scores can be tracked dont you?

[Karsten75]

No, Virgil confirmed that scores are saved even if the map is not uploaded.

[knucracker]

I'm implementing filters for "trivial/short/medium/long" maps.  These filters will show you maps that have scores in different ranges.  Maps without scores won't show up when any of these filters is applied.  So this is a strong incentive to post at least one score per map (perhaps the author could do so even before the map is available).  This is one small step in the direction of "maps need at least one score posted to be seriously considered".

This also gives people a way to kinda judge how long a map takes to complete.  Sometimes I want a map that can be done in 10 minutes... at other times I want a 45 minute slog.  So I'd like to search the maps based on the best scores that have been posted so I can have an approximate idea of what I'm in for.

[betadata]

I like virgil :)

[Aurzel]

i dont >.>
most of my maps have a hard early start and then a longer but easier middle, sort of if you can beat the beginning you can beat the level, and personally i cant be bothered to play through the whole map i know when its winable and when its not and i only play until i've beaten the 'hard part' of the map
call me lazy but thats how i am and if it affects my map viewabillity just because i dont want to play through to the end rift off then i'm not happy
further what about maps that are made to be unwinnable? my floodgate map is developing in the hopes that it will get to a point where eventually it will be unwinnable and simply a tough challenge for people to practice if the map does become unwinable i again dont want this to affect its viewability

[SPIFFEN]

Are you realy sure the map is unwinabel ,
or is it that you dont figure out how to win it .

On maps that take long time to finnish ,
theres an big chance to move an tower wrong and destroy your network .

And it would be an nice rule to make an score yourself before you can uploade the map ,
then we dont get maps that are unwinabel .

[Aurzel]

spiffen did you even read my post?

[SPIFFEN]

Well yes i did and you are lazy as me =P
But still , even with an hard start that you manage to control ,
there is easy to move an tower wrong and change the score alot for the end .

So those maps can be unwinabel also ,
even when the finnish is " easy "

It all depends on what stratgy players have ,
and if they build what the mapmaker think you should build .
( depending of the room you have to build things )

[knucracker]

Posting scores won't be a rule....  you can still post maps for which there are not scores.  I'm just providing some way that maps that have scores can be categorized.  The vast majority of maps can probably be won and scores can be posted.  For these maps, it will be nice to optionally organize them based on the best scores.

So if a map can't be won (it is just physically impossible), it will never have any scores posted and currently doesn't participate in the score model.  If the maps can be won (whether the author knows it or not) it will get a score posted whenever somebody plays, wins, and posts.  At that moment, any other person looking at the maps has some hint as to the duration of the map (did somebody win it in < 3 minutes, < 15 minutes, < 30 minutes, or longer?).

[Timwi]

Virgil, what is your reason for explicitly allowing unwinnable maps?

[Karsten75]

Virgil, what is your reason for explicitly allowing unwinnable maps?

He is NOT explicitly allowing unwinnable maps, he is explicitly allow maps that the authors may or may not have played. What may be unwinnable for the author is not necessarily unwinnable for a few good players out there. If there are truly unwinnable maps, he is implicitly letting them in.

Unwinnable is a relative term pointing to skill level. When I started playing, my first posts here were because I thought Gump was unwinnable. Then I got better and now Gump is routine.

I do think there are maps out there that cannot be won, but I don't think that winning by the map author is the criterion. It has to be a community decision.

[UpperKEES]

I do think there are maps out there that cannot be won, but I don't think that winning by the map author is the criterion. It has to be a community decision.

I understand everything that has been said, but in my opinion the map author should have played (and finished) his own map at least one time. Not because of a rule, but just because a map can only be a good map when it has been fine tuned. I can for instance not imagine that someone sets the interval and intensity of all emitters and never checks how this will work out, especially when you have to reach into every corner of the map to get to mandatory items. I love maps where you have to try over and over to reach that survival pod just in time and at the same time make sure that Odin City doesn't get destroyed. Such a map can never be made without proper testing by the creator. Good map makers have to be good players (maybe not the best, but at least good).