[Info] Map Naming Standards

GrimGriz

GrimGriz

L10: Glamorous Member
Jan 2, 2009
774
133
PERSONALLY - b3a looks like beta 3 alpha to me, which is why i'll forever use r# for minor revisions...i.e. b3r2 for the second minor revision to b3.

Thanks for the post , I'll be happy if I never see a cp_mymap_a1_s1_3 again (*looks at trinity)
 
ryodoan

ryodoan

Resident Bum
Nov 2, 2007
409
117
Yeah, when I was managing the gameday threads this was required reading as part of the posting your map rules, I don't know if it still is.

DJive and I were getting sick of having really random names that messed up the maplist because of a small typo.
 
A Boojum Snark

A Boojum Snark

Toraipoddodezain Mazahabado
aa
Nov 2, 2007
4,775
7,670
I personally don't believe in minor revisions. If it's not enough to increment the primary number, why are you releasing again? (the bit you originally wrote about forgetting cubemaps... tough. you should make sure you don't forget little stuff and if you do just leave it be)
 
ryodoan

ryodoan

Resident Bum
Nov 2, 2007
409
117
A Boojum Snark said:
I personally don't believe in minor revisions. If it's not enough to increment the primary number, why are you releasing again? (the bit you originally wrote about forgetting cubemaps... tough. you should make sure you don't forget little stuff and if you do just leave it be)
Click to expand...

But the fact remains that people still do it, and if they dont do something to change the name, then there ends up being two versions of the same map that cause problems for people joining different servers.

And the cubemap example has happened more times than I can count.
 
YM

YM

LVL100 YM
aa
Dec 5, 2007
7,135
6,056
A Boojum Snark said:
I personally don't believe in minor revisions. If it's not enough to increment the primary number, why are you releasing again? (the bit you originally wrote about forgetting cubemaps... tough. you should make sure you don't forget little stuff and if you do just leave it be)
Click to expand...

Me, the other day releasing furnace creek then mangy telling me It wasnt right for comp play. Its not a major update but it could not wait. It had to be done then and there.
Only reason I didn't add a subthing is I've grown to feel it looks less proffesional. I'm not even sure about _rc# anymore.
 
Nineaxis

Nineaxis

Quack Doctor
aa
May 19, 2008
1,767
2,820
I think Release Candidate is an important stage. It's like saying "Final" but reserving the right to change something. By mapname_rc it should be pretty much finished, but offers the wiggle room to fix those minor issues that might arise without moving to something which looks stupid like mapname2 or mapname_v2.

RC is an integral piece of the development cycle of anything.
 
GrimGriz

GrimGriz

L10: Glamorous Member
Jan 2, 2009
774
133
A Boojum Snark said:
I personally don't believe in minor revisions. If it's not enough to increment the primary number, why are you releasing again? (the bit you originally wrote about forgetting cubemaps... tough. you should make sure you don't forget little stuff and if you do just leave it be)
Click to expand...

little stuff can include compiling with some visgroup unchecked...which is a major mistake, but a little thing...
 
HoundDawg

HoundDawg

L1: Registered
Dec 18, 2007
48
2
GrimGriz said:
little stuff can include compiling with some visgroup unchecked...which is a major mistake, but a little thing...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but if a mapper can't self-test their own compile before releasing to the public, then they shouldn't bother releasing at all. A mistake like this, should be self-caught, easily. Everything else, can make it on the todo list for the next release.

I don't see what the fuss is about really. We already have alpha and beta incremental releases, there's no need for anything more. Self test your map before releasing to the public and there shouldn't be a need for another minor tier version increment. It's ok if the public release goes from b3 to b5, if need be.
 
HoundDawg

HoundDawg

L1: Registered
Dec 18, 2007
48
2
Nineaxis said:
RC is an integral piece of the development cycle of anything.
Click to expand...

I agree. _a#, _b#, _rc# should all be fine. What does bother me though, is when a map is stuck at _b11 forever. Or, the mapper stays on _rc3 forever. Come on, there has to be an end to the testing at some point and bring closure with a final release. Anything post-final can be a major incremental, as I'm sure there'll be a stack of things you'd like to do different or add to it. It's map evolution.
 
Nineaxis

Nineaxis

Quack Doctor
aa
May 19, 2008
1,767
2,820
HoundDawg said:
I agree. _a#, _b#, _rc# should all be fine. What does bother me though, is when a map is stuck at _b11 forever. Or, the mapper stays on _rc3 forever. Come on, there has to be an end to the testing at some point and bring closure with a final release. Anything post-final can be a major incremental, as I'm sure there'll be a stack of things you'd like to do different or add to it. It's map evolution.
Click to expand...

I think staying at RC# is perfectly acceptable.. once again, it's basically saying Final version, but without screwing up your map name if you do have to change something. But you really shouldn't go beyond three RC's, else it might as well have just still been in beta.

Release your map as RC and don't make it have nothing at the end until VALVe packs it into something is my philosophy. _final just looks stupid.
 
Icarus

Icarus

aa
Sep 10, 2008
2,245
1,210
_final is supported by valve. _final will not display on loading screens and Map Lists.

I do not consider a map that ends with _rc to be a final. People might just end up waiting what seems forever for the actual final.

I actually don't see a point in RC, I just release Betas until I get a version I like, and release it with _final.
 
HoundDawg

HoundDawg

L1: Registered
Dec 18, 2007
48
2
Icarus said:
I actually don't see a point in RC, I just release Betas until I get a version I like, and release it.
Click to expand...

I'm the same way.

@GrimGriz: Even though it's a hobby, if they're going to release without self-testing, I doubt they'll follow any naming convention anyway. I, myself, tend to avoid maps carelessly named or once I find the designer fails to self-test. It's a good sign that I may just be wasting my time there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom