Jump to content
FMPONE

Hypothetical-Contest Rules Voting

Recommended Posts

I'm completely biased here, but I think it would be a shame to entirely exclude maps that had been worked on before the contest announcement. It wasn't clear when or even if there would be another contest and I'd rather not have to pick putting my current work on ice for a year or not taking part in the contest.
I completely get that having additional weeks or months can seem very unfair, but I think the area where it'll show up most will be polish. 9 months should be enough for any team to make a solid layout and some pretty good art. A level that was started prior to the contest would be expected to be much more polished by the end of it and that could be reflected in the judging. For example, if 20 points are given out for polish and overall quality, then it could be set to max. 10 points for maps that were already being worked on.
 

I wasn't participating in the last contest, so I'd be curious to know how much the "already worked on maps" rule really contributed to the finalists and winners. Did anyone really get their position in the contest by simply submitted a map that was already half done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2018 at 9:07 AM, FMPONE said:

 This is about creating high quality products, a greybox is the most theoretical, first step out of about a billion in creating a great level.

Sorry but categorically not. A greybox that has had time to form is the foundation of an entire map. Art adds to certain playable elements but you could wrap the same design in multiple themes and not drastically alter the quality of the map. Its literally happened for multi game IPs (Halo, Gears, CoD) where they reskin an old map.

Its honestly depressing that these contests are repeatedly about style over substance with a focus on art being the most important element. 

Edit - Sorry that last statement might be a little unfair and it isn't to discredit the effort or work people put into their art, its more that rules that allow people to skip the design stage devalue the tests focus on designing and finalling a map.

Edited by Vilham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think what Shawn said there diminishes the effort that goes in to designing a good layout. It's more that an untested greybox is sooooo far removed from a finished, viable design that it doesn't necessarily matter if the brushes were thrown together before the contest start date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with @El_Exodus about the play testing thing, was a subject I was reflecting on in my previous replies and the only meaningful way that makes sense.

The real advantage is having something playtested and already refined.

Not sure about art, everybody is free to work the way they want, usually people at their first attempts at mapping do use textures, also it’s quicker to drop a model for a box/container than creating it out of brushes. I think would be pretty clear when a map has been worked on for months in terms of art.

Something I don’t remember being decided, is the contest targeting only de_ maps or participants will be free to enter cs_? What about wingman?

Edited by blackdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "can't have been playtested" addition to the greybox rule might be viable. It could result in a situation where we do have to disqualify people based on the definition of "playtesting". Another layer of ambiguity to the rules that might not be welcome.

Even if we have to accept some imperfections, keeping the rules from the last contest certainly seems like the most simple (and democratically approved) approach at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FMPONE said:

A "can't have been playtested" addition to the greybox rule might be viable. It could result in a situation where we do have to disqualify people based on the definition of "playtesting". Another layer of ambiguity to the rules that might not be welcome.

Even if we have to accept some imperfections, keeping the rules from the last contest certainly seems like the most simple (and democratically approved) approach at this time.

In this case and for this contest, I think it'd be worthwile to formulate a defintion for "playtesting".

At the moment, "playtesting" can be anything from checking timings in a first greybox iteration by yourself to a full 5 vs 5 competitive match and everything in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Squad said:

In this case and for this contest, I think it'd be worthwile to formulate a defintion for "playtesting".

At the moment, "playtesting" can be anything from checking timings in a first greybox iteration by yourself to a full 5 vs 5 competitive match and everything in between.

Exactly. It's so vague as to be meaningless. There might be some gripes here and there about the rules as they stood last time, but they seemed largely fine at the time and also in hindsight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me counts as playtesting a shell that has been played with people other than the mapper himself.

Compiling and running around the map yourself certainly tells you stuff, but I wouldn’t regard it as meaningful, as players might suggest to change everything.

And like it’s been said before, how’d you even check/enforce that.

Like I said before, I think people are being too touchy and we should trust our community more.

An aside: I see where @csWaldo is coming from and it sucks to miss the opportunity after lots of hard work, also the contest might affect their development regardless, as might be harder to get the map tested going forward. I wonder if maps well into development could run as “off-contest” and simply be tested and scored, with no access to the prize pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×