72hr Contest Improvements

[CommodoreKong]

About the judging, why not putting a rating plugin in the server ? Something from 0 to 20, like that you are less likely to get equalities in comparison of a 0 to 10, then you get a natural trend about the maps that are good or not, then takes the top 20 maps.

You can't expect people to test 70 maps, to rate them, and then to leave feedback, it's not possible, you can ask that for 20 maps not more.

Yeah I have seen a server plugin before where it asked you to rate a map from a scale of 1-5. Maybe something like that could work not for the final rating/score, but to gauge which maps are the most popular, then maybe have 10-15 finalists that the server runs during the final voting period.

 

[Kill_the_Bug]

I really think the timer thing sucks - I was at work for over 3 hours when the timer started and thus I loose the time at the end and then if anything else comes along that demands your time then you loose even more. So when I look at it I got a really good map done in about 30 +- hours, plus a new set of coding for a 2 cart mpl_ map format

Maybe we could have a time that's Press the button - records time/date and then counts down to time/date and you have to submit your map by the time it expires. That way people don't have to wait for 1 weekend and can start any time you like. The key here is that you have to submit before the time expires once submitted the map can't change and all maps submitted will start to be judge on day X

 

[Crash]

Personally, the countdown and hype of the whole thing starting/ending for all of us is a big part of the fun for me. I've been glad not too many people take up the alternate date options because of this.

 

[MaccyF]

I really think the timer thing sucks

I agree with Crash on that one, i think the contest format is ok as it is, perhaps not perfect, but that the judging system really needs a rework

 

[Kill_the_Bug]

Ok - Now for my judging input.

1. Maps entered
2. Broken entities - ie can't get out of spawn broken, payload. etc - something that breaks the map - map is now disqualified - post is made indication that the map is broken so that other's no longer need to test it for judging - map now enters into feed back stage - what people like / dislike about the map idea lighting etc. This especially helps any new mappers who have entered. Map authors are now free to contine working on their maps.
3. Bad Maps - the lighting is horrendous , the map is nothing but blocks put together, the layout is such that it can no long be played efficiently. Map is disquaified - stating the reason. ie. Although completed map was submitted the basic geometry of the maps are all blocks with minimal detailing. Further feedback is then submitted for the mappers and they can go back to editing their maps.
4. Dev Textures - if the map has nothing but dev textures the map should be disqualified UNLESS the total amount of work done on the map ie. props, displacements, etc out weighs the dev textures seen - meaning in a contest like this, because everyone's working so fast, a dev texture somewhere here or there may be missed. IF the entire map is nothing but dev textures...map gets feedback and author can then continue working on the map
4. Maps that have passed these stages then go into the judging pool.

That being said there should be one web page 72 Judging Results - broken down into

KOTH , PAYLOD, CP, etc. and a table underneath

Map Name - Map Status - Feed Back

Mapexample1 Still in the running None yet
Mapexample2 Disqualified Broken map - see map thread for details, map feedback
Mapexample3 Still in the running None yet
Mapexample4 Disqualified Bad lighting- see map thread for details, map feedback

A consensous of at least 5 need to agree that the maps broken to bedisqualified, numebrs need to adjusted for the other reasons above.

Doing something like this weeds out obvious maps right away and let's people concentrate on the others but giving feed back to submitters is also needed

 

[MaccyF]

That seems like a good idea. Although it might seem a bit harsh at first, as it instantly disqualifies maps people have probably spent quite a bit of time on, at the end of the day those maps were never going to win anything anyway - its better that those authors can start working on the feedback they received straight away rather than having to wait for a month.

 

[LeSwordfish]

The countdown/timer/community aspect of it is very important to me too- i wouldn't enter without it.

 

[YM]

4. Dev Textures - if the map has nothing but dev textures the map should be disqualified

lolno



...


Big timer has to stay, it's one of the best things ever

 

[Kill_the_Bug]

why not ? how hard is it to click on a texture and put it onto at least 1 brush?

 

[Vincent]

why not ? how hard is it to click on a texture and put it onto at least 1 brush?

I'm more interested in the map playing well to be honest.

Also, what if you use the flat dev textures like in cp_garden? I think it looks pretty damn good considering it's mostly dev.

I think it's just too arbitrary a metric to say anything about it. Just let people vote and stop trying to impose restrictions on the mapping portion itself. That won't improve the contest.

 

[Idolon]

why not ? how hard is it to click on a texture and put it onto at least 1 brush?

If people can bypass the rule that easily, why bother having the rule in the first place? Seems like it would only disqualify people who forget the rule even exists.

 

[Muddy]

why not ? how hard is it to click on a texture and put it onto at least 1 brush?

How does this in any way change whether or not you're using dev textures? And surely the map-making process is made much more streamlined if you spend less time worrying over which texture to use.

Also, personally, I think dev-textured maps look much nicer than a map with extremely rushed, generally bad detailing.

 

[LeSwordfish]

All these things being suggested seem to kick newer/less exerienced mappers or those without much time in the crotch to make things more convenient for everyone else. So many new people joined for this contest, and regardless of quality it super sucks to tell a lot of them "you're too bad to be judged".

 

[UKCS-Alias]

Although it might seem a bit harsh at first, as it instantly disqualifies maps people have probably spent quite a bit of time on

I had over 72 hours of work on getting beta 1 of tc_invasion before. That map never even got a decent chance. A 72h contest would have given it more test time to begin with. But it was very early clear it would never become good.

To me the disqualification rounds are a good thing:
A map like that can easily be disqalified in the contest. Not in the first iteration (which decides broken maps or maps that just make your eyes bleed in a negative way - this excludes koth_wubwubwub for disqualifying). But the 2nd iteration excludes maps that realy weren fun. They might become good layer, but in this state they simply are not. Disqualify these when the pool is too large as these simply cant compete for the #1 spot.
But that should allways be after the contest is over using the versions from the contest. If it was fixed later on its just bad luck for them. As it wasnt reached in 72h it should still lose.

The rounds i would do:
1. Broken entity work into being unplayable, fullbright or the map is insanely ugly with no clear reason: disqualified
2. These maps work but simply arent fun and suffer from major balance issues, these get a 2nd test but if it just repeats the same problem: disqualified
3. These maps show good gameplay. But they wont get normal rating yet. First there will be a few poll rounds to decide the maps that still get knocked out. It just gathers favorites of the event. And it can simply be a best 3 of 5 maps poll. On close results giving the bottom maps an extra chance in a later poll. Its basicly to strip it down to about 6 maps.
4. These get the full voting and playtest part of the contest. These contenders show to be realy worth it.

You can allways skip a few of these. But with 100 maps this surely will work as step 1 and 2 most likely take away the first half. Step 3 can easily remove 20 more of those 50 and just repeat that step until its on a managable size of maps.

 

[LeSwordfish]

What if we had a set of judges who went through the maps and picked a top twenty -on the condition of providing a paragraph of feedback each to each one not chosen?

 

[tyler]

What if we had a set of judges who went through the maps and picked a top twenty -on the condition of providing a paragraph of feedback each to each one not chosen?

I'd be willing.

 

[LeSwordfish]

I mean, all you guys who've been saying there's an easy way of removing lots of maps: if the problems are so obvious, pointing them out should be easy right?

 

[tyler]

That's what I think. If we remove maps from a larger pool, I wouldn't be one to say "tough shit"--I'd tell them why. Most of the maps we'd remove from this contest early have really obvious issues that can be quickly solved. I think we'd be better helping the new people by letting them iterate on their maps right away, tbh.

 

[YM]

All these things being suggested seem to kick newer/less exerienced mappers or those without much time in the crotch to make things more convenient for everyone else. So many new people joined for this contest, and regardless of quality it super sucks to tell a lot of them "you're too bad to be judged".

As I said: I believe the best way is to guarantee every map gets 2 or so 20-30 minutes plays in organised tests after the event. Then that's it. Everyone gets the same. No one gets judged. No one gets stuck with a broken map being played for weeks and weeks and can instead move on to an updated version

 

[Fruity Snacks]

I am not for removing this as a contest, while it could work as a standalone, no contest type of event, the chance to win stuff, or a mappers medal, makes it more fun, adds that extra layer and allows people to go "I did better than X, Y, Z person." It's where the newer mappers can topple veteran mapers (this isn't why you want to remove it as a contest YM, is it? ). It gives people dragging rights to say "I made the best map in 72hrs against SIXTY SEVEN PEOPLE" and thats a GOOD feeling.

Removing the contest from the 72hr contest would just kill a layer of motivation for the contest and just make it... meh.

I'm not super for straight up telling newer mappers that have made stereotypical new maps that 'these are just bad and can't be judged' ... if this is to happen, then it needs to have a "And here's why" attached to it. These are also learning events, and we cannot remove that from the learning part of the contest. How are we going to judge whats stereotypically new? There's sure signs, yes, but what about the ones on the edge? What would the category be? There has been, in the past, maps that are made by newer mappers that hit some of the 'stereotypical' new maps bulletpoints... but are fun and do well in voting. We don't want to remove one of those maps just because a couple judges say so, every map needs their chance in the lime-light, even if it's just to go "this is broken."

We don't need to remove maps completely, we need to better improve the voting system so that it doesn't take forever to do. Maybe, just maybe, that involves image-based voting, maybe it doesn't.
Ravage suggested a server plugin, I'm for trying that out. If we can get support from other communities to help advertise, draw people in to play, that would make things so much better and would help weed out the maps people want to really vote for.

As for updating the maps after the contest, I'm impartial. I want people to keep updating their maps post contest, but I also understand that it can cause issues and bias out the votes. Is this good? Is this bad? Some people can make maps really good in a short amount of time and people could see "Oh my, this is the map made in 72hrs? Wow!" when it's really not. It's a weird thing. Maybe the rule is that there a specific 72hr naming format (like we've had) and that your updated maps name must be something different. The goal is to make sure there isn't much of an overlap or potential bias formed. We may need to try it and see what happens.

The contest is becoming a bigger and bigger event every year and we need to take steps to making sure it stays up to date with the size and popularity. It might not hurt us, once we get a solid voting system, to send out a newsdrop to some big gaming news sites and even Valve themselves.

tl;dr: I wrote that all, you read it.