M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On
-
Cascade, penguin, I don't believe what I'm doing will affect this.
In fact, 2 Russians actually approached me and requested to disallow gap and astro clones:
https://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=18785
Feel free to contact Robustness or Suzuji on the matter...
-
@Morax said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
Popular does not equal good, Moses. Sorry.
Yeah... in retrospect it looks like this was not the smartest thing to post. I didn't know that such a firestrm might be created by my posting here, but the elitism is comical.
And the people leading the charge against the popular maps are the ones that don't know why popular maps are actually popular until its explained to them in detail.
-
Let me know when you make a map that fills.
-
@Morax said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
Cascade, penguin, I don't believe what I'm doing will affect this.
Of course it will affect it; this is very basic cause and effect. If you make new non-whitelist maps harder to find/access, then fewer players will discover/play those maps, even if they want to discover/play maps like that.
-
@Emperor_Penguin said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
If you make new non-whitelist maps harder to find/access, then fewer players will discover/play those maps, even if they want to discover/play maps like that
that's a bad thing because? a few players wern't able to find that one special pos map... oh dear that make me sad...
-
Look at this dude.
@moses_the_red -
@Khada_Jhin said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
Look at this dude.
@moses_the_redI had no idea he made Dual Gap.
Well. I guess he has made a popular team map. Well done.
-
We know what we are doing...
-
Im not sure what might suck worse.
The fact that:
You know that you only got a meager 1000 play count on one map because you did nothing but host it for years on end.- And the fact that you knew that I knew this, and that I had already called you out on this fact, and that you didn't have a good counterpoint for it. But you attempted to play this card without doing any basic research anyway.
Or the fact that:
The sum total of all your other maps combined is 180.
And the play count of the CHAMP
The play count of the CHAMP is 222?
Subtract the total amount of times you've hosted your own map.
Do you think the amount of your total map plays can compete against the CHAMP? Didn't think so.Stay humble and work on making good content instead of making 3000 word forum posts to justify bad content. You'll have a better time in the community if you do.
-
Did you actually make Dual Gap, or did you just do a remaster?
And if you subtracted the total number of 1v1 games for any of your maps - aside from Dual Gap variants - do you have over 1000 games?
-
More an expanded edition to an already existing map, but of course this was not exempt from your inquiry.
But besides that, it'd be hard to discount his "1v1" maps when some of them are designed for team games and can be played as such. Glossing over the numbers, it's difficult to tally up those instances, but odds are good he's comfortably over 1k games.
-
I would have given him a chance. And if it doesn't work out. Then give a chance to the ideas of biass.
-
@FtXCommando If the majority of people prefer a map over another, it doesn't make it an objectively bad map, it just makes you a bad judge of what a good map is when it comes to the general playerbase.
At the end of the day a map exists for people to play it and enjoy it. What you may find personally enjoyable, other people may not.
Throwing out words like 'objectively' is not helpful, because the list of criterion that "objective" is measured by is subjective, and then even the scoring on that criterion itself is susceptible to being subjective. So the only measure is popular opinion at this point.
I agree playercount is bad measurement for scoring, however, as it gives advantage to team maps, over lower player maps, meaning it will be exclusively 4v4-6v6 maps showing. So all the survival maps will dissapear as they are traditionally 4 player only.
Maybe it would be better to have a rating system, where if a game is filled, and played for X time then the map gets 1 point or somesuch. This score then decays overtime with decay increasing with age of map.
"You donât base the quality of cinema"
That is exactly what a blockbuster is. At this point films are fomulaic to appeal to the joe bloggs, not critics. If you want critics you go see movies released at film festivals like Swiss Army man or somesuch.
-
@Psions said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
Maybe it would be better to have a rating system, where if a game is filled, and played for X time then the map gets 1 point or somesuch. This score then decays overtime with decay increasing with age of map.
Your rating solution does not fix the problem you have stated. Larger maps and team maps would most likely last longer than 1v1.
You might be confused with player count vs play count. Play count is a great metric, the more a map is played, the more popular it is. Obviously have a minimum requirement it to be counted - at least player v player, more than 5 minutes etc etc.
-
@scytale Playcount was literally what i was suggesting as a metric.
The purpose of the minimum time to avoid abuse, or false positives from games being rehosted within the first 5 minutes because of other problems.
Why say it doesn't solve the problem, if you are in agreement of it solving the problem.
I think there is a miscommunication here.
-
@Psions said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
@FtXCommando If the majority of people prefer a map over another, it doesn't make it an objectively bad map, it just makes you a bad judge of what a good map is when it comes to the general playerbase.
Letâs get something out of the way here; the only people trying to correlate that âthe map is badâ because âthe people play itâ are people trying to defend Astro crater.
The map is not bad because people play it.
Astro crater is objectively, a bad map.
It has nothing to do with playcount.As is with all art, there is still objective qualities that can be judged.
- the quality and consistency of your terrain
- the application of your textures and how believable they are in creating a setting
- the quality and application of your decals to improve the appearance of the map
- the application of your props (reclaim) and how theyâre tied into your world
- the lighting of your scene and how it conveys your setting
- the placement of your mex points, which despite being a game mechanic are still natural ore deposits.
And so on, and so forth.
Astro doesnât meet a minimum standard of quality for, or in some cases even has, any of these criteria. Everybody in this conversation knows this part and if you donât, youâre either deluding yourself to keep a defensive, or youâre so inept at judging maps that youâre not worth having a discussion with.People can make an âobjectively better Astroâ at any time.
It doesnât have anything to do with playcount.
Maps can be popular and be âobjectively good,â
The original gap map is still good, even though it is one of the most played maps on the client.Moving on, Iâm not sure what changing the metrics to judge playcount actually solves. Why move the metric away from the quality of your work, to who can inflate their epeen the most? I wasnât aware that people still cared about playcount on their maps until bad mappers started writing 2000 word forum posts to justify why they spent 2 minutes on their map.
Is there a reason why playcount should be a metric, or even considered to one? Is there a problem with the current (ladder) system of rating maps? Why should Astro be in a 2v2 matchmaker? Why should any map be in a matchmaker because itâs âpopular?â Why should objectively good maps not be in the matchmaker if theyâre not âpopular?â
Itâs okay to think people can play what they want, but donât delude yourself in the process.
-
@biass said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
As is with all art, there is still objective qualities that can be judged.
the quality and consistency of your terrain
the application of your textures and how believable they are in creating a setting
the quality and application of your decals to improve the appearance of the map
the application of your props (reclaim) and how theyâre tied into your world
the lighting of your scene and how it conveys your setting
the placement of your mex points, which despite being a game mechanic are still natural ore deposits.This right here is exactly what should be considered.
I think the rating system was being discussed as a metric for how it is searched in the vault.
I hope no one is saying Astro should be in a matchmaker... Jesus! Having good, decent maps included in matchmaking and tournaments would be a good enough incentive for creators.
-
I'm not going to waste my time giving a full response to you. Art is not objective, and if you think it is you will make a terrible moderator of what is essentially functional art, if you start enforcing arbitrary standards such as those you listed.
Once you get out of the basic standards of a map being playable and functioning (criterion you don't even bother mentioning); All the other factors you mention are by definition subjective.
-
@Psions I agree, art is in the eyes of the beholder. To a player that has been playing for a while astro/gap is boring and very predictable, but to new players it's very exciting. But do acknowledge that there is a huge issue with gap/astro clones that need to be trimmed away. The entire popular maps section is just filled with the same iterations of like three maps and it does look unappealing from the vault browser's perspective. personally what i'd do is filter every map containing the word "astro" or "gap" and move all of these maps into their own category on the vault browser, that way the entire vault doesn't look like a single textured double cratered mess. My only qualms with what Morax (and maybe biass?) wanted to do was to get rid of the spam by just taking away mapping privileges from everybody except approved mapping authors, which I find to be a gross use of power.
-
Yes categorisation would be good and its not specific for just those two maps. Many maps are overcloned, especially survivals. There's like 30 different 5th dimension survival maps.
It would certianly be nice to be able to properly filter and sort through the Vault.
