Map Submission Process Feedback
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<div class="IPBDescription">to stop derailing, Lt Gravity's thread.</div> The dev team can always use commentary on when things are working and when they aren't. So as to not derail Lt Gravity's thread anymore, I'm moving the discussion over here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There seems to be a desire for secrecy within the dev team that I feel is misguided. For instance, I wanted to know whether there was going to be another client release after 3.0 that ns_shiva could possibly be included in. I realise this type of thing is sensitive news, but when what your dealing with is the ability of your content creators to do their jobs I don't think it helps to be vague about it. The attitude seems to be that map makers should make their maps purely for the enjoyment of making them, and that official inclusion will come on its own if its coming. Anyone who maps certainly enjoys it, but mappers have to budget their time like anyone else, and they need to have enough information to know if it is worth their while in the long run to put additional polish into a map in the midst of schoolwork, jobs, and competing projects. This applies to the rest of the cycle as well. Mappers ought to be able to find out what their chances are. We're mature enough to take it, and its more frustrating to have someone beat around the bush. Remember, Its ok to say you don't have time! Even that gives us information to make decisions!
The other policy I disagree with is the desire to keep potential official maps under wraps completely prior to a client release. I can understand wanting the new maps in a major release to be a surprise. However, average players don't play custom maps much, and hardcore players don't need the surprise to keep them interested in the game. Particularly in the case in which a map isn't going to be officially included, or in some cases, isn't even being playtested, it doesn't make sense to prevent the mapper from releasing it to the public. They could be getting valuable balance feedback to improve the map in the meantime, especially if playtesting it internally isn't a priority.
I hope this is helpful feedback on the process. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There seems to be a desire for secrecy within the dev team that I feel is misguided. For instance, I wanted to know whether there was going to be another client release after 3.0 that ns_shiva could possibly be included in. I realise this type of thing is sensitive news, but when what your dealing with is the ability of your content creators to do their jobs I don't think it helps to be vague about it. The attitude seems to be that map makers should make their maps purely for the enjoyment of making them, and that official inclusion will come on its own if its coming. Anyone who maps certainly enjoys it, but mappers have to budget their time like anyone else, and they need to have enough information to know if it is worth their while in the long run to put additional polish into a map in the midst of schoolwork, jobs, and competing projects. This applies to the rest of the cycle as well. Mappers ought to be able to find out what their chances are. We're mature enough to take it, and its more frustrating to have someone beat around the bush. Remember, Its ok to say you don't have time! Even that gives us information to make decisions!
The other policy I disagree with is the desire to keep potential official maps under wraps completely prior to a client release. I can understand wanting the new maps in a major release to be a surprise. However, average players don't play custom maps much, and hardcore players don't need the surprise to keep them interested in the game. Particularly in the case in which a map isn't going to be officially included, or in some cases, isn't even being playtested, it doesn't make sense to prevent the mapper from releasing it to the public. They could be getting valuable balance feedback to improve the map in the meantime, especially if playtesting it internally isn't a priority.
I hope this is helpful feedback on the process. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
I believe the phrase I used last year when I submitted co_nova was 'smoke and mirrors'. I never received a PM or any form of notifcation saying whether my map had been accepted/denied, or even tested.
Now I didn't think the map was all that good, but I want to at least be kept up to date with what's going on behind the scenes.
but to see a map like ns_eon going official... dont take me wrong the map looks great. but there never had been a official beta release, right?
in case of ns_source I dont see it the bad way, the map has been released only some weeks ago, Im still doing massive changes in 4 areas of the map.
but one thing I cant understand: there are maps out there that had been "finished" some months ago. such as ns_shiva, ns_hulk, ns_marineris and the ns training map.
exspecially when we are talking about the training map. it was made for this mod. not to mention that this "map" also took hours, it will hardly be played because you walk through it once and thats it. so where is the problem including it into the game?
I cant get rit off the impression that the creators just want to make shure that only few maps will be added with each new version of ns. but why? do 5 new maps with a new release "hurt" the game? in my eyes it makes the game even more interesting, exspecially for the veterans. the dev team has to give the players the toys to play with, we are building the playgrounds <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
balance cant be the answer, there are some badly balanced official maps on the one hand. but on the other hand THAT IS exactly the point: every map has to be explored. every map needs different tactics. thats one thing many players forget when complaining about your map. this statements are based on the same idea. "it doesnt plays like eclipse." or "it doesnt plays like tanith." so we have pressure even form this side. the problem with custom maps: everybody waits and hopes that this map gets official. most players dont want to "waste" their time playing this maps unless everybody is able to play it. like moultano said, surprising maps dont make sense here. its like creating a car, never show it to the public, test it behind closed doors and suddenly exspect it to be the 100% seller. DEVELOPMENT.
new maps give more motivation on play ns and KEEP PLAYING ns than permanent updated versions of the "senior maps".
I would be very disappointed if neither the ns training map, nor ns_hulk, nor ns_shiva would be part of the new release...
the mapping section needs a father. someone who is willing and has got the time to take care of us. and when this person runs out of time or doesnt feel like spending time with the mappers... choose a new one. thats the way to keep things moving while NOBODY needs to become angry.
I don't want to go off topic, but perhaps it would be a good idea to get a "semi-official" map-pack going if nothing else? With every new version of the game, release an optional but up-to-date mappack with all the maps that were "maybes". Good looking maps that just didn't get "officially" pt'd or what have you. I think sven coop does something like this, correct me if I'm wrong. If nothing else, there is a pile of really nice maps that IMO need more exposure. Mappacks by the community are great but other than a few, are hardly kept up to date. And downloading each individual map gets tedious when on a server when you just want to play. Simply put, alot more people would be willing to download an "un-official but on the official site" mappack, me thinks.
And the training map... I think the worst part of that one is the interest given by the devs at the start of it... and then nothing at all when it was done... I think the devs underestimate their ability to hype up a thread like that... (I think it was Flayra that posted in there?)
Perhaps some kind of cookie-cutter response just to acknowledge that a map was recieved if nothing else? (It doesn't sound like that much is given?)
alltho the trouble with the training map and probably why they havnt bothered to respond is it needs a couple of entities to make it work (a level change, and an ent to trigger the game start without sv_cheats), and without that last one its not really releasable as u can make the audio sounds overlap in the comm training section (cos u can build and research so quickly).
seriously, the term "mappack" compared to "custom map" isnt any better. the chances for your map being played in both cases is nearly 0%. and you need it to be played in order to get valueable response to improve your map.
another problem would be the decision which map to add. because most mappacks are a collection of the "best maps ev0r!!!", ergo the favourite collectors maps.
best thing would be a vote for new maps. you get three votes for example that can freely be used. maps with an average rating only will have the chance to be added. if you like a map you vote for it. you can vote once for each map you like till you have no votes left.
"how many maps can a mod have?": I never saw a mod that suffered under a massive mapcycle. maybe some people may think about that many maps will make it harder for beginners to lern the ns maps. but since they added ns_veil that looks exactly like ns_eclipse to any newbie player... so this CANT be a rule, it just cant be.
its the quality that is important. if we have a lot of extremely high quality custom maps I dont see ANY CAUSE not to add them. dont hide behind the playtest arguement: the bugs and gameplay problems in some official maps are/were stunning. the vent on veil (seriously, HOW can this happen?), the route to engine room hive on bast that was too short, "ladder fun" on mineshaft...
its not like we build a map and thats it. ns is more about developing maps. during playtest on ns_source I discovered a bunch of problems. to solve these problems I had to redesign 4 areas, removed one completely, added 4(!!!) vents to improve gameplay and spent a lot of time to improve maneuverability.
so please, ns team, talk to the guys that want to create something for your mod, at least.
The feedback he gave Meat seemed to be very vague and general when telling FrozenMeat_on-a-stic(sic) that his map was not going official....
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
you mean ns_training? if it won't be in any official ns release, will you still release it to the public?
tell a veteran mapper his work was for nothing.
thats very sad. but here is the point where you can decide to fight or to run away.
anyways Im pretty optimistic about the whole map inclusion process. my complaint was a bit harsh but maybe things will change to the better.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>> KEEP ON FIGHTING!!! <</span>
its not like we build a map and thats it. ns is more about developing maps. during playtest on ns_source I discovered a bunch of problems. to solve these problems I had to redesign 4 areas, removed one completely, added 4(!!!) vents to improve gameplay and spent a lot of time to improve maneuverability.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My friend, redesigning is a BIG part of level design. Be happy it only took 4 tries <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. I have no idea how many times I have deleted, redesigned elements in my map ns_rust. I have created 8 builds so far, each having large layout changes! The last build I finished about 2 months ago. I sent it to TyrNemesis and was told that his team had narrowed it down to 3 maps and rust was one of the three. I didn't hear anything after that until I got a glimpse of the new changelog and saw ns_eon was included. I have not heard from anyone since then, no explanation or reason for not including it. I guess thats just the way it is...
seriously, the term "mappack" compared to "custom map" isnt any better. the chances for your map being played in both cases is nearly 0%. and you need it to be played in order to get valueable response to improve your map.
another problem would be the decision which map to add. because most mappacks are a collection of the "best maps ev0r!!!", ergo the favourite collectors maps.
best thing would be a vote for new maps. you get three votes for example that can freely be used. maps with an average rating only will have the chance to be added. if you like a map you vote for it. you can vote once for each map you like till you have no votes left.
"how many maps can a mod have?": I never saw a mod that suffered under a massive mapcycle. maybe some people may think about that many maps will make it harder for beginners to lern the ns maps. but since they added ns_veil that looks exactly like ns_eclipse to any newbie player... so this CANT be a rule, it just cant be.
its the quality that is important. if we have a lot of extremely high quality custom maps I dont see ANY CAUSE not to add them. dont hide behind the playtest arguement: the bugs and gameplay problems in some official maps are/were stunning. the vent on veil (seriously, HOW can this happen?), the route to engine room hive on bast that was too short, "ladder fun" on mineshaft...
its not like we build a map and thats it. ns is more about developing maps. during playtest on ns_source I discovered a bunch of problems. to solve these problems I had to redesign 4 areas, removed one completely, added 4(!!!) vents to improve gameplay and spent a lot of time to improve maneuverability.
so please, ns team, talk to the guys that want to create something for your mod, at least. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Meh. It was an idea. I just thought a well advertised "standard" collection would be better than nothing. (Which we have right now.) And maps that get played a lot in the collection, move on to become official maybe. I don't know. I'm just throwing ideas on the table here. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
UT2K4 released a couple of mappacks called the Community Bonus Packs. They are widely played - so the idea is actually rather sound. I'd certainly enjoy it.
its not like we build a map and thats it. ns is more about developing maps. during playtest on ns_source I discovered a bunch of problems. to solve these problems I had to redesign 4 areas, removed one completely, added 4(!!!) vents to improve gameplay and spent a lot of time to improve maneuverability.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My friend, redesigning is a BIG part of level design. Be happy it only took 4 tries <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->. I have no idea how many times I have deleted, redesigned elements in my map ns_rust. I have created 8 builds so far, each having large layout changes! The last build I finished about 2 months ago. I sent it to TyrNemesis and was told that his team had narrowed it down to 3 maps and rust was one of the three. I didn't hear anything after that until I got a glimpse of the new changelog and saw ns_eon was included. I have not heard from anyone since then, no explanation or reason for not including it. I guess thats just the way it is... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
overall version 4 of ns_source. and each one is different.
the deleted areas would make another map if you would get them together <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
moose: thats exactly what we are talking about. one day you are happy about the news, that you have the "official"-sign on your map... and thats it. no further information. thats something I dont have to understand.
mappack: Im not shure if it would work. hm... we have a server and webspace thats rarely used... all we need then is intensive advertising. maybe worth a try. *raises hand to be voted for volunteer mappack creator*
so we know the better 3 votemap are be oficial plus the poll of better co_map.
With an official comunity sanctioned map pack the NS deves could split the size of NS downloadables in half, and still include many more of the absolutly gorgous maps that really deserve to be in NS, but are not because the slot they would take is already taken...
The NS custom mapping scene is really somewhat disapointing ATM... The custom maps that are played are generally crappy, and mostly fun maps, and they are only played so frequently because they are small to download and easy to host on any server devoted to customs.
Maps like NS sourse which deserve to be played WAY more in comparison get overlooked because they are so big that so few people acctually have them were a normal non-custom server try to play them... which usually results in a good 80% of your players dropping out, if not the server crashing from people downloading.
Lazy custom website mappacks = lose because your average NSer doesn't have the patience to hunt them down, and they often just get filled up with tonnes of crappy custom maps that no server admin wants to play, simply because the people who make them want to be inclusive of everyone.
If we had an official comunity mappack it could be advertized on the main NS website, and it would allow way more exposure of all the maps that ALMOST made the cut for official incusion, but just couldn't knock one of the other included maps out of thier slot. It's overall a great idea that allows maps to be rated with high standards and widely played because they deserve to be, yet still without bogging down the DL size of the NS installer.
Official comunity mappack gets two thumbs up and ten golden stars from me!
Please drop by and leave your support and ideas!
I'll see what we can do to improve the process... (no promises, but if I&S is my example, you know I won't ignore this)...
Anyway.. just so you know someone read it <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I'll pop back in with updates when they occur..
<!--QuoteBegin-Zunni+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Zunni)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There really needs to be better dev communication with the mappers. When a mapper asks a question like "Has my map been playtested at all?" they ought to get an accurate response. If they ask a question like "When do you expect to be considering new maps for inclusion?" they ought to get a response. If they ask a question like "When can I expect to hear about the prospects for my map?" they ought to get a response. This ought to be the baseline of politeness just out of respect for the mapper.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I don't disagree, I think you are looking at this from an outside perspective..
it's never easy to project an accurate timeline or even be able to say "well we'll be adding maps next release" because we often don't know until we get into the process..
To address each of your questions individually:
"Has my map been playtested at all?" <- good question, but what does "playtested"
mean, by Tyr? by the PT's?, or others? See the issue is a single PT is never enough.. Repeated playtests are needed, and if you receive back a "yes" does that truly tell you anything other than someone loaded it up once? Often times details can't be shared necessarily because of things we may be working on..
<span style='color:purple'>However even a smidgeon of information would show that the Dev team has at least received it, and is considering it. If they told members of their community who would take time out (sometimes from their own busy schedules) to add to the NS content and constantly push the boundaries, that it had had a walkthrough or was entering the 2nd phase of PTing.</span>
"When do you expect to be considering new maps for inclusion?" <-- impossible to answer, I can tell you that we aren't for 3.0.. But any further (3.01, 3.1) and I have no clue, are more official maps being pulled? Do we want to add more maps? Can we fit new maps into the scope we have planned?
<span style='color:purple'>Fair enough, but maybe there could be someone put in charge specifically to bridge the gap between content providers and the Dev team. It could really come in handy in light of the amount of maps we're likely to see for NS:Source...</span>
"When can I expect to hear about the prospects for my map?" <-- and not to post a cop-out but Tyr's PM actually answers this, we are all volunteers and as such if Tyr can't spend 40 hours a week looking at maps because of real life, how can Tyr be expected to give you an accurate timeline ?
<span style='color:purple'>Even a "I'm afraid I can't give you a guarantee on when you'll hear back from us" is better than nothing.</span>
Hope this clarification helps...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there's my feedback on your feedback.
I admit that was a poor way of handling things and you should have heard back sooner/more often. I'm with Zunni--I'd like to see a standard form of feedback up and running that shows more personal respect to the submitter. I can't guarantee that the process itself will become any faster, however.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crispy+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crispy)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However even a smidgeon of information would show that the Dev team has at least received it, and is considering it. If they told members of their community who would take time out (sometimes from their own busy schedules) to add to the NS content and constantly push the boundaries, ...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think for reasons of personal courtesy it's important to get back to people who have made submissions, but (this may anger those of you who are frustrated about the process even more) the process of custom map creation is completely self-motivated without any input from the NS team, and even though the best of NS often comes from outside contributions we can't give custom content authors (even the ones that put in hundreds of hours) special claims on developer time.
If you don't think it's worth creating a map that won't be official, I can't recommend that you spend the time. If you feel you require quasi-developer status for your work to be worthwhile, I can't recommend that you spend the time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->... that it had had a walkthrough or was entering the 2nd phase of PTing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We may be able to adopt a formal system that returns this sort of information, but would it be more or less frustrating to know that your map is "stuck" in a particular stage?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Even a "I'm afraid I can't give you a guarantee on when you'll hear back from us" is better than nothing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope you mean that, because feedback at frequent intervals would have this as the most common message.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we had an official comunity mappack it could be advertized on the main NS website, and it would allow way more exposure of all the maps that ALMOST made the cut for official incusion, but just couldn't knock one of the other included maps out of thier slot. It's overall a great idea that allows maps to be rated with high standards and widely played because they deserve to be, yet still without bogging down the DL size of the NS installer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there are a set of high quality, balanced and beautiful maps packaged together, I don't think the team would have a problem with making an announcement and putting links to mirrors in prominent places without making an official endorsement.
There are, however, some important questions that should be answered at the very start of the effort to make sure that it doesn't get bogged down later... who judges the maps (and it won't the dev team or PTs acting officially--this will need to be an unofficial community effort since the NS team would have the same schedule problems we do for official submissions)?
What happens when the judges' vote is split on a map? What's the (download) size restriction on the pack going to be, and how will maps be ranked if you receive more quality submissions than the download limit can handle? What happens to quality submissions that are left out of the pack? More packs?
What happens to maps that try to make the pack and don't make the cut? What resources are going to be available to evaluate maps, and is there a minimum standard a map must meet before it's allowed a playtest?
If there are a set of high quality, balanced and beautiful maps packaged together, I don't think the team would have a problem with making an announcement and putting links to mirrors in prominent places without making an official endorsement.
There are, however, some important questions that should be answered at the very start of the effort to make sure that it doesn't get bogged down later... who judges the maps (and it won't the dev team or PTs acting officially--this will need to be an unofficial community effort since the NS team would have the same schedule problems we do for official submissions)?
What happens when the judges' vote is split on a map? What's the (download) size restriction on the pack going to be, and how will maps be ranked if you receive more quality submissions than the download limit can handle? What happens to quality submissions that are left out of the pack? More packs?
What happens to maps that try to make the pack and don't make the cut? What resources are going to be available to evaluate maps, and is there a minimum standard a map must meet before it's allowed a playtest? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a rough form map pack team spec document detailing what I would try to mold the map pack team to look like and what kind of standards of mapping we would be shooting for, it answers all those questions and more. If you Zunni, or really anyone who I feel interested in including in the project want it, I can PM it to you for clairity and criticisms. I most likely won't be releaseing it publicly unless I definitively decide to go through with the project however, and at the moment I have decided that I am probably going to wait for the 3.1 release date to aproach before I have made my final decision anyways, since I want to see if the feelings between the NS mappers and the NS development team cannot be repaired, and I really was never planning to include a bunch of maps in a pack that aren't really close to NS official standards anyways.
Optimally the need for a map pack becomes superfluous until the NS installs really ARE becomeing bloated and need to be split up.
If there are a set of high quality, balanced and beautiful maps packaged together, I don't think the team would have a problem with making an announcement and putting links to mirrors in prominent places without making an official endorsement.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
i think links to an un-official map pack on the main site would make a lot of mappers who dont quite make the grade in terms of quality/gameplay a lot happier as otherwise they just wont get played. and there r definatly maps like this around