Trem mapping competition 2011

[your face]

Probable contestants:
A_Spork
Firstinaction
Creature of Hell
Xedoh
Odin
amz181
Nux
mooseberry
nosbrain
c4 (you are a decent mapper, and because we're short on mappers anyways, we should get all the mappers we can)
me

Judges:
Ingar

Possible judges:
Lakitu7
Lava Croft (if he's still around)
Who (if he has an ounce of serious left in him ;p so probably not)
Thorn
TRaK
Stannum (if he isn't too busy making 1.2)
FrameShifter
Tremulant
Menace

I'm sure we can find judges if we nicely ask around.

Possible date: June until end of August.

If all the mappers listed enter, it will be enough.  But we still can probably find more.

[Ingar]

Proposed timetable:

beta-1: july 15
beta-2: august 1
final: august 15

beta-1 stage might be a bit problematic though: it looks a bit tight to get a complete map,
on the other hand, it is good to compile even half a map and spot problem early on
in the development phase. Remember that only the final submission is the one that realy matters.

Maybe we should just call it alpha beta and final

Thorn is willing to let me use his server to run the maps.

I still need conduct some talks and work out the details,
I'll start a new thread as soon as I have all the pieces of the puzzle.

[amz181]

The time period for putting out a finished map is about right. 2 months is a good amount of time to produce a map.

I'd personally want a larger time period for the first release (perhaps august 1st?), I think the beta stages will be tweaking more than anything, and shouldnt require that much time.

I think that more emphasis should be put on getting out a playable map for beta-1 than anything else, regardless of ugly textures/no decorations/poor lighting etc. etc. The problem in the last mapping competition was that too few people had playable maps at the end of it, because they (me included) had concentrated on making the map look good.

Also, for the new competition thread, i suggest you keep it in general discussion, just for more publicity. And  encourage people to post progress screenshots in the thread, as random dev shots is only really read by a handful of mappers, so you'll rarely get feedback, also it would keep the thread active.

But it sounds goood to go

[c4]

I think we should let the maps (permitted they aren't game breaking) be played on the official servers even in "alpha".

Also, I'll compete

[Menace13]

We could run the maps on EU1 only, maybe then people will play there :3

my point is, there are some maps that are obviously and definitely bad. Such as Uncreation.

I quite like a round of uncreation from time to time, it's far more fun than many of the custom maps floating around US1. Of course this admission immediately disqualifies me as a judge, but then i have absolutely zero interest, not to mention no mapping experience, so that's a non-issue.

I completely agree, Uncreation can be fun now and then. What I meant by a bad map is in a REAL game it is horribly biased towards humans.

Also, do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

@your_face:

Possible judges:
...
Tremulant

Note this:

i have absolutely zero interest

Which is too bad, Tremulant would be a pretty good judge. He's active, and is pretty good at telling a map's playability.

[your face]

We must work to boost his interest then.

[Menace13]

Indeed. I quite agree. Also, there's a slight chance I can interest my brother in this competition, but it's a very slim chance, so don't add him to the list.

[Nux]

If playable maps are what we're aiming for, why don't we have the first stage of this competition (perhaps even the entire competition) based explicitly on making good map layouts so people don't get distracted making them look nice. Also this would make it a lot easier to submit a first draft for playtesting/judging which will hopefully make things flow better.

Once a good layout has won, the next stage would be making the winning map layout/s look good and by the end of it we might just have some pretty AND playable maps.

[CreatureofHell]

What makes a layout good?

[c4]

-No rooms that are entirely isolated/only 1 entrance.  Not too many rooms that have 4 or more entrances.  Grates.  Halls that aren't quite so thin as some have seemed to be as of recently.  Not too much BIG OPEN hallways as well :}

[Nux]

What makes a layout good?

A good question and c4 gives some good starting points to think about, but when I say "a good layout" I mean one that leads to fun games and that's something that's harder to underpin.

Just to be clear, I'm referring to all functional parts of a map and nothing that's purely aesthetic. I'm not saying a map doesn't benefit from being pretty, just that that aspect should really be addressed separately or else you can end up with a pretty map that nobody ever plays. Also I don't mean you shouldn't make the maps pretty anyway, just that the first stage of the competition should ignore that quality when judging so as to encourage playable maps.

[Tremulant]

Also I don't mean you shouldn't make the maps pretty anyway, just that the first stage of the competition should ignore that quality when judging so as to encourage playable maps.

This makes a lot of sense. I suppose it also frees up those mappers who fail in the first stage to collaborate with successful entrants in the beautification process, where possible.

[UniqPhoeniX]

IMO the first stage shouldn't take too long compared to the total time given, ppl should just submit what they have by then. We don't want to spend 2 months waiting just to have a few good mappers post something and everyone else give up. Also IMO gameplay should be more important than other aspects in judging. If there are *any* kind of rewards, it shouldn't be only for 1st place.

About layouts: a good layout should have 2+ paths around any point in the map, contain several useful base locations for both teams (with no location that is significantly better than all others) and each base should have at least 2 entrances that can't be defended with all the same defences.
In case anyone doesn't know how wide hallways should be: (if 1m = 32gu and excluding decorations, lamps, columns etc)
corridors should be
  5-8m wide (niveus 2nd floor is a good example of how to make corridors only 4-5m wide right)
  4-6m high
doorways should be
  2.5-5m wide
  3-4m high
there shouldn't be any line of sight more than 40m long (except if there is plenty of cover).

[vcxzet]

lame...
put the maps on a server and let the players be the judge

[your face]

And may the smallest, brownest, most symmetrical map win!

[David]

idea:  make a mod to do proper map voting, vote at the end of every map, and see which one gets played the most.

[Dr. A. Goon]

But then US1 will not be PPPPUUUUURRRRREEEE.

[c4]

Well, it may be worthwhile for a pure version of tremulous to have a player-based judging system for all non-default maps.

[F50]

Its more important that the maps are played at all, the official servers is the only place to guarantee that.

[jm82792]

Maybe I should give GTK Radiant a shot,
I've always wanted to do a map that makes modern computers sweat due to the method of brute force to get high quality.

[Nux]

Maybe I should give GTK Radiant a shot,
I've always wanted to do a map that makes modern computers sweat due to the method of brute force to get high quality.

I expect I'll manage that without the slightest hint of quality thanks to an in-depth ignorance of good mapping technique!

[amz181]

When I suggested greater emphasis should be put on putting out a playable map, i didnt mean they should be fugly. I just dont want a repeat of last competition where by out of the 10 entrants, about 2 put out a map.

Looks are important, im just saying that they should be the last thing on your list, so that we can ensure we have a higher number of entries. I dont enjoy playing ugly maps, and i dont want an ugly map to win this competition

As for the comments about layout; there is no such thing as a good layout. What you guys have been listing are pre existing layouts in tried and tested maps. There is no single layout that is better than the rest, just those that work well in the context of a specific map.

Be creative, we've got plenty 2 corridors atcs clones. Add lifts, add a hole in the roof so that you can jump down a level, heck, add a teleporter that teleports you into the enemy base (c) [thats actually a purdy good idea :O].

I suggest having a look in this thread: http://tremulous.net/forum/index.php?topic=11966.0
it gives great guidelines for making an effective layout layout.

@jm82792

I tried that it took me a month to make a psuedo-bumpmapped wall, and it looked pretty crud But join the competition, you'll probably have better luck than me, and the best way to learn radiant is by map making

@organisers

Can we use things from maps weve already made? Not anything like structure or layout, but just some eye candy (essentially premade models... except their not models, and are made in radiant) for example i made a tiny ship a while back, which doesnt really have a function, just something that players can look at. It'd be much the same as me using pre-made models, and would help with the asthetics of the map. PWETTY PWEASE!

[Menace13]

@organisers

Can we use things from maps weve already made? Not anything like structure or layout, but just some eye candy (essentially premade models... except their not models, and are made in radiant) for example i made a tiny ship a while back, which doesnt really have a function, just something that players can look at. It'd be much the same as me using pre-made models, and would help with the asthetics of the map. PWETTY PWEASE!

I'm not an organizer, but I think that if it's just a small model then It's okay, so long as it doesn't greatly affect the map (if it's detail it should be fine). There's no real difference between that and using a pre-made model, so it's basically they say no pre-made models at all or make limitations. It would be more FAIR to say no pre-made models at all, but I think what would be best is a size and/or brush limit on it.

@stuff about layouts: My thoughts? No team should EVER EVER EVER start in the best base for that team. What I've thought would be interesting is humans and aliens in the best base for the opposite team.

[Nux]

@stuff about layouts: My thoughts? No team should EVER EVER EVER start in the best base for that team. What I've thought would be interesting is humans and aliens in the best base for the opposite team.

Unless you want a map that doesn't emphasize building. Variation isn't a bad thing and a layout isn't made bad by failing to respect specific mantras. Layout is something you can and should be creative with and the fact that it's hard to define what makes a good layout is a good reason to have it judged in a competition.

I stand by my belief that it's a quality hard to underpin. I would argue that all the suggested aspects of 'a good layout' given so far have been good things to consider but have not been definitive. For instance, I might deliberately give one route on my map narrow corridors and clumsy terrain so that another much longer route has an advantage in certain situations (such as fleeing from the enemy) but is decidedly less useful in other situations. Not only does that necessitate interesting decisions about which route to take as the fleeing victim, but also which route you expect the fleeing enemy to take if you're the one chasing them. This is the kind of thing that decides a good layout for me; it makes games varied and keeps them enjoyable.

[Meisseli]

Be creative, we've got plenty 2 corridors atcs clones. Add lifts, add a hole in the roof so that you can jump down a level, heck, add a teleporter that teleports you into the enemy base (c) [thats actually a purdy good idea :O].

Teleporters are a very bad idea, and elevators are hard to make good.

What comes to layouts, there is mainly one bad layout that should be avoided:

[Menace13]

Be creative, we've got plenty 2 corridors atcs clones. Add lifts, add a hole in the roof so that you can jump down a level, heck, add a teleporter that teleports you into the enemy base (c) [thats actually a purdy good idea :O].

Teleporters are a very bad idea, and elevators are hard to make good.

What comes to layouts, there is mainly one bad layout that should be avoided:

Unless there is a wall straight down the middle that forces them to go through the other area. As in, there is no way to get between bases except by going through the other area.

[Nux]

I think when he said 'unused' he really meant unused.  

Bear in mind that the area could be considered 'unused' while the bases stay at thier defaults but could prove crucial once one of the teams decides to move thier base. It would be a good idea to make the more ideal base locations harder to move into, and vice versa.

[amz181]

But teleporters are cool

[CorSair]

Wow, this topic's been lit up greatly after I checked it...

In any case, if there is need of more mappers, I would like to participate. And timetable proposed by Ingar is more than fine for me. I got lot of time after 8th July (probably.)

One question.
If someone fails to make alpha (or beta-1) on first stage of competition, can he still participate on second, or even the final stage?

[Plague Bringer]

One question.
If someone fails to make alpha (or beta-1) on first stage of competition, can he still participate on second, or even the final stage?

As I understand it, this competition is going to have a larger emphasis on gameplay than previous comps. So I think that if you can make even the most simple of poorly textured boxmaps that demonstrates some noticeable amount of potential for good gameplay in the first phase, then that map should have the blessings of all the judges. If you can't do that, though, I think that (unless the judges and other mappers agree to make an exception for you) that you shouldn't be allowed to participate. And luckily, seeing as how our mapping subcommunity is one of the nicer ones, I really don't think it'd be too hard to have an exception made.

Just my two cents.