Hypothetical-Contest Rules Voting

I think the whitebox idea could be indeed a successful smaller contest of its own. The recent Door Challenge proved that smaller scale events and even on different engines can raise enough interest. Though, I'm more interested in a bigger contest. But I do agree that the deadline should be a lot shorter than last time and with no extensions. People seem to prefer something like 5-6 months.

Quote from The Horse Strangler

16 hours ago, The Horse Strangler said: Contest should be shorter this time around, HARD final deadline, and fresh maps. I think this helps to provide a solid lesson in reigning in scope and ambition. It requires designers do more planning early on on paper or docs, which I think is a healthy workflow we should promote via those rules.

Part of the reason why I would prefer a contest with art included is because, as horse also mentioned, it forces people to plan better, take other aspects into consideration and learn how to adjust in order to meet deadlines. I think that's a healthy thing to learn, especially if you plan to work in the industry.

If you guys want to encourage people to explore new layout ideas, maybe you could put more emphasis on that through the judging criteria. For instance, the layout could comprise half of the score. So let's say, if you go for a purely classic dust2 4leaf layout with absolutely no new twists/gimmicks, but it works, you do score decently - maybe 30/50, but not all the points.

Quote from Puddy

2 hours ago, Puddy said: hypothetically, i would theoretically like a contest which had a shorter deadline and was focused on creating a "neat whitebox" map which perhaps had a stated goal of trying to innovate the map structure (the latter not being necessary ofc)

by "neat whitebox", i mean a whitebox level that is fully playable and tested but also fairly fleshed out in terms of geo and architecture and where artistic considerations have been made to a large degree (architecture, shapes, vistas. placeholder art etc) but a full artpass hasn't been made

so the goal wouldn't be to have a 100% finished level, just a very promising base that has solid gameplay and the potential to look great when completed

*Sponsored by Mirror's Edge

Quote from Radu

2 hours ago, Radu said: I think the whitebox idea could be indeed a successful smaller contest of its own. The recent Door Challenge proved that smaller scale events and even on different engines can raise enough interest. Though, I'm more interested in a bigger contest. But I do agree that the deadline should be a lot shorter than last time and with no extensions. People seem to prefer something like 5-6 months.

Part of the reason why I would prefer a contest with art included is because, as horse also mentioned, it forces people to plan better, take other aspects into consideration and learn how to adjust in order to meet deadlines. I think that's a healthy thing to learn, especially if you plan to work in the industry.

If you guys want to encourage people to explore new layout ideas, maybe you could put more emphasis on that through the judging criteria. For instance, the layout could comprise half of the score. So let's say, if you go for a purely classic dust2 4leaf layout with absolutely no new twists/gimmicks, but it works, you do score decently - maybe 30/50, but not all the points.

This is why I would potentially separate the contest out into an art one and a design one. Have a shorter design one that is about the blockout. Do a test later that allows people to collaborate and art the level up, controversial idea but you could actually take the top 3 designed maps and over them out for people to art up which ever one they want. Similar to the artstation contests where people do concepts and then have a second round where people make the things in the concept.

Quote from Vilham

20 minutes ago, Vilham said: This is why I would potentially separate the contest out into an art one and a design one. Have a shorter design one that is about the blockout. Do a test later that allows people to collaborate and art the level up, controversial idea but you could actually take the top 3 designed maps and over them out for people to art up which ever one they want. Similar to the artstation contests where people do concepts and then have a second round where people make the things in the concept.

Neat idea! I agree, personally I would love to design a map and hand it over to others that are much better at level art than me. I feel like this could result in better maps.

Just curious... What's the LD/LA ratio of potential participants, or of Mapcore overall? because we need a lot of artists to do something like this, like twice as many as LDs or something...

Well, that could be a thing. Let's say you have the first month of the contest just for the blocking and testing. At the end of said month the judges pick top 20 or something. Then the second phase starts and everyone that made it in the top has 4 or 5 months to art it up, alone or collaborating. How does that sound? @FMPONE what do you think of this?

Hello there !

To be honest there was a contest I wanted to join but couldn't because of operation guys not wanted. I would love to maybe try another one.

For the LD/LA thing, I think Tf2maps did the same a long time ago, they have also some great concept for a contest like the connect 5 . To be honest I always thought that art and design should evolve like a tennis match. Some design choices tend to change when art is coming through and I don't think this kind of contest can propose that.

Or you make like the Artpass contest on TF2 where everyone is working on the same layout. The cons is that at the end there is only one map with different looks and you don't see a lot of them really played and it's kinda sad... (Also I migh won if you propose that contest ? ) You could still ask Valve to give one of their unfinished layout for the contest, hehe.

If you really want a cool contest, but it's just my opinion, propose something else than just doing the next competitive shit. I remember the day on 1.6 when we had tons of fun and interesting maps and when the hostage gamemode was cool (breaking into a house from every corner was nice) + we also have assassination and escape maps. Aww man...

Quote from FMPONE

14 hours ago, FMPONE said: I'm really frustrated at the way Valve has treated hostage maps. It might some kind of political nervousness, but as a gamemode it's the _only_ alternative to bomb defusal, and Valve has done very little to indicate they even care about alternatives to bomb defusal. I don't think we've seen a major update on that gamemode in maybe 4 years. They should do more there.

Agreed. I would love it if Mapcore ran a hostage rescue map comp to try and (re)raise the profile of the game mode.

Might be interesting. Getting out of our bomb defusal comfort zone ?

Quote from FMPONE

53 minutes ago, FMPONE said: This is something I would want to see after our next CS:GO contest. It would be fun to do in conjunction with some real update from CS:GO such as a re-evaluation of the money system when in CS game-mode.

It's great that you're on board with the idea in theory, but I think this is one of those occasions where Valve will be lead by the community. Until they see an influx of interest in HR (which is a real possibility if 5-10 good quality community maps emerge) they're unlikely to look twice at it.

I'm not sure about hostage rescue though. The big problem is competitive and getting pro teams to play a new game mode will be very hard for valve as most teams wont even play any maps that went made 4+ years ago. In my opinion if any maps right now have a chance to break into the competitive scene and be taken seriously it would be a bomb map so excluding them from a competition for map making would kind of suck :(.

My counter-point would be that if you think you can make a competitive map good enough to get adopted by the professionals then that's a reward in itself, so why not use a $15k prize pool to encourage some talented people to think outside the box?

Of course without knowing where the $15k comes from this might all be a moot point. Maybe the source of the prize pool thinks that they can only get a return on their investment with another 20 generic defuse maps.

Its a good point but don't you think if a hostage map is really good enough to draw valve's attention it would also beat out other defuse maps in the competition? I like your idea of trying to use the prize money to branch into other areas of the game but I think the defuse game mode is really what defines modern counter strike and if a hostage map is created that is better then the defusal maps it should win anyway. Plus even if you make a great defuse map it is very hard to get any traction and competitions like this are the only way (unless you get extremely lucky) to even have a chance at getting your map recognition and into the pro rotation.

+adding on here: I'm not sure but would it be a good idea to have separate competitions for each game mode, split the prize pool? I don't think so... but it is an option

Quote from Plexium_

10 hours ago, Plexium_ said: don't you think if a hostage map is really good enough to draw valve's attention it would also beat out other defuse maps in the competition?

No. That's the whole point. The overwhelming obsession with competitively viable de_ maps eclipses any chance a hostage map has of getting attention from the right people. As you say, "the defuse game mode is really what defines modern counter strike", so it doesn't need any help.

At the end of the day I probably won't have time to partake meaningfully in whatever competition gets run so I certainly don't want to dash anyone's dreams of making the 3000000th Dust2 clone, but as a player I think it would be nice to see some more quality cs_ maps out there.

If you're talking about contests in general, it'd be cool to see something like a cs_ only contest to encourage brainstorming how to make the mode more enjoyable overall. If it's about a contest of this scale, I think limiting the mappers' choice to a specific game mode is not the right way. It'd be more fitting to see something like that in smaller jam-like contests. These could focus mostly on pre art-pass LD then.

Quote from text_fish

6 hours ago, text_fish said: No. That's the whole point. The overwhelming obsession with competitively viable de_ maps eclipses any chance a hostage map has of getting attention from the right people. As you say, "the defuse game mode is really what defines modern counter strike", so it doesn't need any help.

At the end of the day I probably won't have time to partake meaningfully in whatever competition gets run so I certainly don't want to dash anyone's dreams of making the 3000000th Dust2 clone, but as a player I think it would be nice to see some more quality cs_ maps out there.

Good point I guess I am a little bit bias because I have never liked the hostage game mode but maybe that is just because we have never really had good hostage maps and a contest like this would help create some

I think all major contests needs to satisfy two not always compatible demands. First they need to be fair, and second they need to be organized so as to produce high quality entries. Any attempt to advance fairness will impact quality, and vice versa.

If the contest aimed to produce the best content, then the rules would allow for everyone to get involved - including Mapcore staff, and that every map be eligible for submission. Even those submitted to previous contests, as well as remakes. The only exception to this would be maps that made the top 4 in earlier contests, and maps already featured in an operation. Team sizes would be unrestricted, and the time frame would be at least six months.This kind of "catch all" approach would likely mean a top 10 of the best community made maps in any CSGO contest to date, and possibly even a top 20 of maps deemed "operation potential".

The main issue here however, relates to fairness.

These are the things that I personally regard as being both fair and conducive to quality.

• Mapcore staff. All staff should be allowed to participate. The mapping community is small, so barring even one staff member from entering seems counter-productive. We just need to have faith in the judging process. As an aside, I felt sorry for those barred from participation in the last contest because they were helpful enough to be staff.
• Time frame. It takes so long to make a quality CSGO map, that I am in favor of long deadlines. It is the only way for solo-participants working on a brand new layout to compete.
• Maps already under construction. Unless I am mistaken, the last contest drew the line at maps that were anything more than a dev textured block out. In other words, if you added any models or textures to the map, you could not enter. The inherent problem here is that by including this kind of rule as a staple of any and all future contests, it can encourage a culture of secrecy. Mappers will hold back their arted work from the forum, through fear of violating the rules. Knowing if all maps have begun from when the contest is announced is also impossible.
• Maps that have previously appeared in a contest. There is a lot to be said about encouraging people to continue working on their maps. So if a map appeared in a previous contest, but failed to win a prize, it could still be eligible for entry. To stop people from constantly submitting the same map over and over, perhaps a limit could be placed on the number of contests that a map can appear in.

These are the things that I personally regard as being unfair.

• Remakes. The biggest issue with any contest is that of time. The advantages afforded in remaking a proven existing design are so numerous, it is possible to race months ahead of those creating original work. If someone was solely focused on winning, then opting to do a remake would be by far the smartest choice. For contest purposes, a remake could be defined as a map that has appeared in a previous version of any game, other than CSGO.
• Team sizes. Team work should be encouraged, but there has to be a limit on the number of people allowed per team. Since there will likely be a lot of solo-participants, I think no more than two people per team is the fairest. Two people on a team already have a massive advantage over a solo-mapper, that when teams of three or more compete, fairness can always get called into question.

Pretty sure a lot of people will disagree with these. It is why I imagine just outlining the rules is a bit of a nightmare!

Quote from OrnateBaboon

1 hour ago, OrnateBaboon said:

• Maps already under construction. Unless I am mistaken, the last contest drew the line at maps that were anything more than a dev textured block out. In other words, if you added any models or textures to the map, you could not enter. The inherent problem here is that by including this kind of rule as a staple of any and all future contests, it can encourage a culture of secrecy. Mappers will hold back their arted work from the forum, through fear of violating the rules. Knowing if all maps have begun from when the contest is announced is also impossible.

This ruling was terrible in the previous contest. It read: Maps that were under creation prior to the announcement of this Contest can be entered, as long as a complete map version (layout and art) has not been released for public download. If that's not a half measure I don't know what is. Where do you draw the line and how is it fair? It was very sketchy. Imo the obvious answer is to not allow maps (a vmf) that was under construction prior to the contest. You'd have to assume most people will be honest with their submission.