M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On
-
@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 don’t 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.
Let’s get something out of the way here; the only people trying to correlate that “the map is bad” because “the people play it” 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 they’re 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 doesn’t 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 don’t, you’re either deluding yourself to keep a defensive, or you’re so inept at judging maps that you’re not worth having a discussion with.People can make an “objectively better Astro” at any time.
It doesn’t have anything to do with playcount.
Maps can be popular and be “objectively good,”
The original gap map is still good, even though it is one of the most played maps on the client.Moving on, I’m 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 wasn’t 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 it’s “popular?” Why should objectively good maps not be in the matchmaker if they’re not “popular?”
It’s okay to think people can play what they want, but don’t 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 they’re 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.
-
@Psions said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
I'm not going to waste my time giving a full response to you.
You've made over 11 posts in the past 24 hours. I think you have time to talk to little old me.
@Psions said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
Art is not objective
@Cascade said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
I agree, art is in the eyes of the beholder
Sweet, this was the expected response, luckily for my case there is an objectively, meaning a measurable difference between you and an industry professional. And that difference is not a matter of opinion or feelings. (As per the google definition.)
Lets draw psions sitting behind his computer as a cute anime girl. What can be objectively measured as better between a good and a bad work?
- The quality of your lineart
- Your lineart confidence, suggestion, etc
- I wasn't going to add "your ability to style" your lineart but yes, some styling is objectively better than others.
- Your coloring
- Colour that goes outside of the lines is worse than colour that does not. This is not a style choice or a matter of opinion.
- Your adhereance to the human anatomy
- Drawing a character with scoliosis because you cannot figure out proportions is worse than a character that is properly proportioned, this is not a matter of opinion. Unless of course the character does actually have scoliosis. Do you have scoliosis?
- Your ability to convey light
- You have the light from the computer and maybe the light from the ceiling. Portraying other light or incorrect reflections of the aformentioned is objectively worse than casting the light properly.
- Your ability to convery colour under light
- etc etc etc, i'm on a time crunch here and i've proved the point well enough.
@Psions said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
Once you get out of the basic standards of a map being playable and functioning (criterion you don't even bother mentioning);
I don't see why I should need to mention those.
@Cascade said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
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.
So you're saying that single textures are objectively bad here, or is map quality still completely opinion based?
This suggestion is made every other week. Despite the gimmie of "who is going to develop this?" I don't see what real benefit this gives. I can only see how this system is open to abuse. Either the most recent vault is easier to see and people just don't put astro in the name, or the "gap/astro" vault is easier and people put astro in their title to get into that vault too. This also doesnt solve issues with rights, as someone did infact make astro and making a vault dedicated to holding stolen rips of his work is not a good look.
@Cascade said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:
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.
I'm sorry dude but did you not read my application for the councilor role wherein I explicitly stated that not doing this was the entire point of me applying? I made a Tl;DR so at least read that.
- The quality of your lineart
-
@biass
You've not made an argument. So there's nothing really I can say in response, that presents itself as an argument, rather than statements."Some styling is objectively better than others".
How are you measuring that? Where is evidence for this?
Colour that goes outside of the lines is worse than colour that does not. This is not a style choice or a matter of opinion
This is only on the basis of a functional argument if functionally colouring should be within lines. Who chose the lines?
If I'm drawing a picture and then colouring it in, why is going outside of the initial figure lines bad? What if colour bleed is being used to show an energy overflow of a character.Again your argument has no basis.
**Your adhereance to the human anatomy
Drawing a character with scoliosis because you cannot figure out proportions is worse than a character that is properly proportioned, this is not a matter of opinion. Unless of course the character does actually have scoliosis. Do you have scoliosis?**Again this is a functional argument. I am trying to draw a human, or am i trying to draw a human with scholiosis? If I'm an artist I will draw anatomy however I like. Also what I draw is entirely dependent on what i want to achieve. For example, I may stretch certain features to accentuate certain aspects.
Anime characters do not follow proper human anatomy, their heads are too large, their eyes are too large. Does this make all anime and manga objectively bad art?
You're not presenting any objective standard here. You're not even making an argument, you are merely making an assumption that a person is trying to draw something in a specific way and has failed to draw it in that way.
In fact all you have done is within your statement made the pre-supposition that the artist is bad and conveying what they want to convey due to incompetence, and therefore the art is bad. That would be the subjective opinion of the artist who drew it, because it didn't come out as they wanted it to be.
**Your ability to convey light
You have the light from the computer and maybe the light from the ceiling. Portraying other light or incorrect reflections of the aformentioned is objectively worse than casting the light properly.**Am I trying to achieve realistic lighting? Beyond a functional argument, what argument could be made against abstract lighting systems?
You haven't made an argument. Instead you are merely imputing that your view on how something should be drawn is de-facto the way it should be drawn. You are stating that your subjective opinion is objective fact. That is not an argument, it is just a projection of arrogance. Its not more than pretencious critics saying that "metal" is objectively bad music
And before you ask this is my last post on this opinion. Otherwise we would be derailing the thread into a philosophical discussion, that you would never admit you are wrong, even though you are wrong. You are no philosopher king.
You might find the below an interesting read. Or maybe not.
https://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/mythobj.html -
Psions; honest question do you understanding where modern art is “subjective” comes from? I see folks arguing this point and fail to realize why the concept exists.
-
I agree, art is not objective and cannot be measured. With that being said can we please add this beautifull artistically created map to the featured map list? Thanks
-
featured map list is not good enough for this map it needs to be in the tate modern
-
I'm say a traditional RTS enthusiast, played RTSs say since my first one. The one thing that reminds me the most of them at a time is the maps. With Supcom, maps can say take a new meaning to the traditional RTS aspect. How the vault is handled in regards to maps should be considered reasonably.
With playing RTSs over the years I've come to realize that rather good at that or not, I typically enjoy to run them against other game types with the same interest to find in them. Over and over again, there seems to be a tried and true say aspect about that that just tends to work than most often otherwise.
And in all this time the one thing to make a good impact to those RTSs are the maps. Maps take the game and define where you can go with it. They give choice in what to or not to do, especially in regards if another map is the next map.
Supcom offered a reasonable highlight of a map capacity with say changing the game of RTSs of it at the sametime. Options of maps as usual to a point, still sustains what kind of choices the game changing still does amount to. A lack of emphasis for maps in Supcom to support Supcom cant be reasonable.
How the Vault goes and what maps amount to makes sense at a time for a time why either can say move forward. Rather maps should be assigning values without an emphasis of assessing the assigned, I don't know. It has say the remarks in doing so but in regards as so is there still say the appropriate remarks?? What is map participation against most thoughts to say(host understood-one count, more played, amount of players, etc) when interests of say CPU, ping, rank, games played, map size, who playing/played and say etc can be a reasonable factor to consider by themselves for what most maps probably amount to in being played?? If not, that's fine, but still if not, that doesn't say it won't at all. Yes, can say is aniche and not everyone is going to be happy, but what about the variable worth of " speed maps " , minimal design maps for quick play?? What determines the difference of such and the reality of the purpose?? And of that, when does it turn into niche from one to say it is still something in general ??
Yea, the vault most likely without being just one folder with files in it at a time probably has some reasonable overhead on various interests. Of the interests to have for the vault, where/when does the various interests within take for a place to have no interest to be gained at all??
I'm a traditional RTS enthusiast, several several of my maps come from there(the vault), if I gain a map I didn't have before from custom matches it's because I hadn't already got it from the vault.
I understand the interests in many things but many things at a time seem to lack an interest, one point or another for the entire discussion so far one way or another. Of such, how the vault gets handled should be done so reasonably.Thanks
