Why not just ban reworked Valve maps?

Terr said:

But, seriously... Then isn't the real question: "Why must they learn macro-layout first?"

Why welcome a newbie working on big dev-layout brushes (who doesn't know anything about texturing or detailing) while rejecting those who are learning it from the other direction and dismissing them as "not learning to map" by comparison? Surely you would be equally unsatisfied with those who stop at "orange" maps as much as those never going beyond Valve remakes?

Click to expand...

Map makers MAKE maps.

Map makers do not edit maps. Map makers do not make incomplete maps. Map makers make maps that fit the game.

Map makers are artists. Artists do not steal or edit another person's work. Artists might derive work, but always start with a blank canvas.

Map makers are architects. Architects do not copy another's blueprints and change a stairway and market it as their own design. Architects are not interior designers, architects build a structure from the ground up, starting with a foundation.

Map makers are engineers. They draft their own design, they build it using the tools they have. They might re-purpose their own work, but not someone else's.

Map makers are landscapers. They must sculpt the terrain themselves.

This is the way of the map maker.

You would not paint on someone else's work and call yourself a professional artist. You would not modify a set of stairs and call yourself a professional architect. You would not fix a small flaw in someone's draft and call yourself a professional engineer. You would not dig a hole and call yourself a professional landscaper. You would not edit someone else's map and call yourself a map maker.

You would not get a canvas and sketch a design and call yourself a professional artist. You would not lay a foundation and call yourself a professional architect. You would not think of an invention and call yourself a professional engineer. You would not imagine the existence of a hill and call yourself a professional landscaper. You would not release an orange map and call yourself a map maker.

Professionals have standards.

Make your own map.

Make your own map.

And make your own map.

There's little justification in saying that editing a map does you any good. You learn nothing from it you couldn't learn by starting a map from scratch. You learn far less for sure. What can you learn from editing a Valve map? How to make brushes? How to texture? How to place props? That does not compare to the extensive list of things making your own map teaches you: brushwork, layout design, texturing, playtesting and feedback collection, acting on feedback, making changes to improve a layout, displacements, detailing, optimization, soundscapes and ambient effects, spawns, entity systems, lighting, lightmap optimization... the list is endless. These are things a map maker must be knowledgeable in. And editing a Valve map, or releasing an orange map, does not make your knowledgeable on even half the topics which are important to successful map making.

And if you can't make a map, you aren't a map maker.

Of course not everyone is setting out to be a pro. What you're saying is true, it's just that many people aren't interested in becoming a great level designer.

Youme said:

You guys are shooting down the absolute truth. All too often people get to a point and then say they can't possibly do any more on their map untill it's been playtested.
What utter rubbish, you are your own best critic and if you have the nack for level design theres masses you can do without any playtesting at all. Admittedly you might get something horribly wrong because it plays out unexpectedly but there are always unknowns in anything.
After all I'm sure a writer can write a masterpiece of a novel without it ever being read by anyone else

I have to agree with everything grazr says, too many impatient people releasing their first experiments in all their flawed glory hoping it will be amazing.

Click to expand...

My first two maps were absolutely dreadful, but while I was working on them I was pretty pleased with them and thought they were great ideas. They weren't.

I think releasing your horrible first attempts CAN be a bad idea, but in my case outright rejection and having people criticize my work (often brutally at times!) was what encouraged me to improve my mapping and stick with it, rather than abandoning it or just continuing thinking my work was acceptable.

The hardest part of mapping, I find, is discerning between what to dump and move on from, and what to stick with and try to improve. Floodgates has a big mess of problems right now, but unlike with my first two maps I think I can really make something good out of it.

As for my thoughts on the original subject matter--I think edits are pretty horrible when they're lazily done, or reskins, or the person making it has put absolutely no thought into it and just slopped a few control points into some places, but stuff that's "just for fun" or has some thought put into making it work (like ctf_badwater) I think is acceptable. Stuff like "ctf_2fort_with_stairs_out_of_the_water" is awful, though. I think people are a bit too fast to dismiss reworked maps, but at the same time a lot of them are pretty awful.

I also must admit I have a secret, innate desire to see a koth_watchtower, or do cp_junction_improved, if only because the problems I have with Junction are naggling, little problems that I know will never be fixed and it would be so easy to make Junction better and it KILLS ME because I know it'll never get an update and aaaaaa.

Is a ban really needed for it? If someone modifies a Valve map and releases it here they get a hail storm of negative comments from all the people who frown up it anyways. I see no purpose in banning something that will bring attention to a new mapper. Yeah some of it will probably be border line comments from the people who disapprove, "zomg, scrub, learn to map." While at the other end of the spectrum you will probably find some people posting advice, useful links, and overall attempting to encourage and motivate them to create something more of their own next time.

Besides, what is the purpose of a ban on modified Valve maps? I'm guessing it is to filter out all of those slightly modified versions, but doesn't that also eliminate the honest players trying to learn from the true professionals?

I've also seen people who get ruffled over modified Valve maps as weird. Mostly because it's a case of Valve's "we want to see how you'd modify our maps" versus "rawr Valve has gone insane modifying maps is evil!"

I think the current system of "encouraging" the modifier to start working on their own maps is fine. If something that doesn't even try to be unique shows up, liking adding a few staircases to 2fort or something, that should probably be a mod giving some kind of pre-written speech and locking the thread.

Whoah. Uh, OK.

I'm not trying to get into a big debate over who is and isn't "worthy of the illustrious title of Master Mapper" vesus "merely poseurs or mere apprentice mappers who deserve exile for their fantastical hubris". That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

____________

Now, perhaps all-from-scratch would simply be more educational bang-for-the-buck, depending on your learning style. A pragmatic statement. Sure. Let's run with that.

The problem is that in-practice that it not the message being sent to people. All too often the sentence "you'd learn more doing X, I suggest you try that" gets mutated into "YOU ARE A HORRIBLE PERSON AND SHOULD BE ASHAMED GO UNINSTALL HAMMER NOW AND GTFO".

If the end-goal is a house which is architected, built, plumbed, wired, decorated (ex. cabinets), and painted (even by a single person), why would it be "wrong" (in that "omfg ban" fashion) for a man to do carpentry, plumbing, wiring, decoration, and painting on >1 other houses before attempting the 100% original masterpiece?

Sure, refuse to host or promote reworked maps all you want: There's a legitimate argument there in terms of gatekeeping and promoting original maps. I have no problem with that at all. However, working off an established base (with the permission of the author, no less) is a perfectly legitimate and moral way to learn, and those who show interest in learning should be encouraged as long as they are progressing, in whatever sub-discipline.

I do believe this has gone far enough... it seems to have devolved into endless bickering. Everyone has said their bit, and nobody is really going to change their opinion.

and the topic at hand was answered many posts ago: we aren't banning them.