Contest idea thread!

[RevolutionTeam]

For example, Territory Control is unpopular, but it's not a hidden gem. I have no doubt that somebody could make TC fun, but TC just isn't fun.

 

[Malachite Man]

Considering how many people on this website have created TC maps, I think its no surprise why TC is not popular.

 

[Asd417]

TC is unpopular because:
short rounds that you have to play many of. Breaks flow of the map. Tedious to load in for new round
Restrictive layout that forces you to cram a lot of things in limited space.
Unfun to defend players that backcap. Short captime doesnt help. It's like ctf but you actually have to go back to your base rather than being able to intercept the capper in the middle.
Each area needs to be balanced for many different combinations. bound to be forced to make tradeoff when building layout which ultimately means bad layout
Map that is often too big. The amount of work needed is ridiculous. You might as well make 3 2cp a/d maps with that much workload.

I dont see a contest based on using this gamemode to receive more than one submisson

 

[FloofCollie]

It's also incredibly difficult to plan out paths between areas if you want a decent number to reduce chokes - you have to make each path viable for both teams to contest, from both sides, and if you don't want to make 18 seperate paths you need to combine routes between separate stage combinations, and it's just incredibly convoluted, difficult and often stressful to do. And when it comes to the middle area(s)... ooo lord it's a mess. Definitely a case of putting more in for a lesser result.

 

[TheMightyGerbil]

Randomly saw this thread and thought I would throw in some thoughts. For normal contests I agree with the restriction on having to have started a map during it, however, I would like a contest to specifically encourage mappers to go back and finish maps they had lost interest in or got away from. Yes the contest would favor experienced mappers, but, after a decade I have dozens of maps from half finished to rough outlines that I jotted down casually that I can never use in any contest. With TF2 being around so long people have to be sitting on stacks of maps just needing a push to finish one. You could allow any map, of your creation, that has not reached rc status (or possibly beta IDK?) and has not been entered in any contest previously. It'd have the other normal restrictions on content, collaboration, one entry per person, etc. . Maybe call it "The Second Chance Contest" or "The Complete Contest" or something.

In a similar vein you could do an art re-pass contest taking existing incomplete maps, or possibly complete maps, and asking people to change the themes (or complete them if they never got an art pass). Seems like a lot of maps have decent game play but are forgotten for lacking anything unique. If you fear lack of originality maybe you could require at least one custom model in the map. For a name maybe "The Resurrection Rework Contest" IDK?. Might be better to do this sort of thing next year for the Holidays, but, then again excluding Holiday themes could make for more original work.

Please note while I've been around for the past decade I just ghost here occasionally I don't see everything or remember it. You've probably already had contests similar to this but it might be time for another. Also I don't have the time to go through 65 pages on this thread to see if these suggestions are in there. If someone's suggested this before just consider this support for it.

This is just an articulation of thoughts I've had for a while do with it as you will .

 

[RevolutionTeam]

art re-pass contest taking existing incomplete maps, or possibly complete maps, and asking people to change the themes (or complete them if they never got an art pass).

I like this idea the most. The Art Pass contest may never happen again, but I think it would be cool if we got a template map to detail.

But old, incomplete maps? Sorry, but... that's not exactly the best idea. Most incomplete maps are incomplete for a reason - they didn't play well. Either they had too many sightlines, or were massively over/underscaled, or... just plain bad, honestly. (I should know - never got a map out of alpha) Sure, every once in a while, you'll run around an old alpha, and it will play well, but most of the time... nah.

So yeah - maybe a sequel to the Art Pass contest, with near-beta versions of featured maps, or a template map... but definitely not unfinished maps.

maybe you could require at least one custom model in the map.

Meanwhile, this... I mega-disagree with this part. In addition to already having learned hammer, you now have to learn 3D modeling for this contest? That makes it so that only either experienced mappers/modelers or huge teams can join the contest.

Sorry for tearing this idea apart, because I actually think it's way better than my "FuSe GaMeMoDE ToGEthER cONtEsT LawL"

 

[TheMightyGerbil]

Sorry for tearing this idea apart, because I actually think it's way better than my "FuSe GaMeMoDE ToGEthER cONtEsT LawL"

It's all cool man I disagree with some of the things you said too but we all want the same thing in the end a good, fun, original, contest .

First the part I agree with. I realized requiring a custom model would be problematic and limit the field. I was just throwing things out there to address the problem of originality. I mean say, a Japanese retexture of Turbine, could be cool but the reality is without custom content you'd probably end up with a lot of samey maps. Perhaps a better idea would be to provide a few custom assets and require contestants to use at least one but that would be restricting in itself. That and more importantly someone would have to be skilled and willing enough to donate custom content. Maybe have a seperate modeling contest and then a mapping contest that requires use of one of the winning assets? I mean the modeling site is dead now so where would you do it but here anyway? Don't know about the legality of assets though as people can be jerks.

Ok the part I differ in politely...

But old, incomplete maps? Sorry, but... that's not exactly the best idea. Most incomplete maps are incomplete for a reason - they didn't play well. Either they had too many sightlines, or were massively over/underscaled, or... just plain bad, honestly. (I should know - never got a map out of alpha) Sure, every once in a while, you'll run around an old alpha, and it will play well, but most of the time... nah.

First like I said a decent amount of my map ideas were roughed out and never got to playtest. Many aren't even sealed they are simply ideas I had that I didn't want to forget but never worked out the particulars. They could end up bad, they could be wonderful, but it doesn't matter because I did work on them and by normal contest rules I can never use them. There wasn't anything bad about these ideas I just had other ones to work on. Even if you just allow unreleased maps that's still a huge amount of content.

As to the maps I did get to playtest those problems you mention are certainly valid, I know them all too well XD, but, that's why I wanted a contest for unfinished maps in the first place. Example I have a cp map. Three times I ripped it completely apart to rescale it. I don't like to often subject my group to untextured/undetailed maps so 80% of it was detailed. It took me weeks of time to rework it. Now the middle and second points play largely like I want but last stalemates bad, the bane of cp maps. Thing is I've determined I have to rip it apart again, for the fourth time, plus I really don't want to cut out another part I like. I know I can fix it but why? I can't enter it in any contest and a cp map isn't as likely to get a lot of attention at this stage in the game. So I work on other things and never finish anything. Yet if there was a contest I could use it in I go "hey I've already got a functional mid and second" I don't have to worry about them I just have to fix last and I don't have to throw away all the work I've done already.

I also have maps that actually played well but have technical problems. My pl map I tested played well (IMO) but I knowingly built it against the "cart must start facing this direction rule" thinking I surely could fix it later using three different methods... yeah I still haven't gotten one to work XD. Then the cart model desyncs from the func_train even though I have the don't desync checkbox checked (it's called something else but I forget what atm). So yeah I have a nice, undetailed, pl layout which, program wise, does not work, yet I know it can because plr_hightower. I simply got frustrated beating my head with a "Hammer", old pun intended .

Anyway I realize you will get some "bad" maps that people just throw in without work because they had them and could, but, is that any worse than the kid that enters his first contest not knowing how to make a map? New or old map people aren't going to submit their worst. At least with the old they will probably have more maps to choose from. If they want to win they should, logically, want to submit maps that had something good about them. If they want to win they should, logically, want to fix any problems the same as with a new map. I don't think any map comes out perfect on the first go so having a reason, a motivation, to work out those problems can't be a bad thing. What's bad is throwing away an entire map that has some, hard fought, working and fun mechanics because another part needs a lot of work to fix. At worst you'll get a lot of entries on maps you've seen (that's why I stipulated one entry per person and no maps that had been in contests before) but if anyone wants to win they will have to fix those problems. You could even stipulate any map submitted must have X amount of new changes, new textures, a point reworked, etc.

Maybe I'm weird but isn't the point of these contests to encourage mappers to map? Yet when we need encouragement most is when a job is tough. It's easy to just throw out a new idea it's hard to stick with something to the end and fix problems (insert genius is 1% inspiration and 99% percent perspiration quote). Yes some concepts are flawed to begin with and cannot be fixed, but, I'm willing to bet most mappers have at least one map that had good parts which was abandoned simply because another part needing fixing.

Queue "Because a map is a terrible thing to waste" commercial . Peace!

...also now I want to Japanese reskin Turbine XD .

 

[RevolutionTeam]

That block of text was a nice read. No, seriously. The whole read was amazing... however...

Example I have a cp map. Three times I ripped it completely apart to rescale it. I don't like to often subject my group to untextured/undetailed maps so 80% of it was detailed. It took me weeks of time to rework it. Now the middle and second points play largely like I want but last stalemates bad, the bane of cp maps.

That's one reason why this contest wouldn't work - you have too much variance in maps. Either you have something like this...

I'm willing to bet most mappers have at least one map that had good parts which was abandoned simply because another part needing fixing.

Or you have something like this.

but I knowingly built it against the "cart must start facing this direction rule" thinking I surely could fix it later using three different methods... yeah I still haven't gotten one to work XD. Then the cart model desyncs from the func_train even though I have the don't desync checkbox checked (it's called something else but I forget what atm). So yeah I have a nice, undetailed, pl layout which, program wise, does not work, yet I know it can because plr_hightower.

There's a whole load of variables in why a map was abandoned - it could have been layout issues (a massive one way choke that would require redesigning a whole lot) or technical issues (cart flips sideways on the lift - I actually have this problem send help) or just a perfectly fine map which the creator wasn't enjoying updating.

You could even stipulate any map submitted must have X amount of new changes, new textures, a point reworked, etc.

And it would be pretty hard to enforce these rules. B2B didn't have any version limits - as long as it played well, you were in it. It helped to be at A22 by the time B2B was concluding, but you didn't have to. And that's just map versions.

But let's assume that we were able to pull off this contest. I'm definitely joining it.

Also, I think Hightower is rotated on it's side for the cart thing? I wouldn't know for sure.

 

[SnickerPuffs]

How about a Creativity Triathlon? One week to make a map, one week to make as many quality textures/props as possible, and one "free week" to make something else TF2-themed that isn't a texture, prop, or map. Each week would have three winners, and there would be three "Overall" winners at the end for those who did great across the board.

People can duck in-and-out of the competition if they don't feel skilled enough for one of the weeks, but only those who do all three weeks qualify for the "Overall" award.

It's basically a series of long, theme-specific Jams, which can be a pro or con depending on how you look at it.

 

[FloofCollie]

I love the idea of a stream of mini contests you can enter some of, without fretting that you've missed it if there's multiple! Sounds fun and relaxed

 

[Truckojr]

What if there was this artpass contest, where people would 1st: submit a map they've published here to a thread but haven't worked on for awhile/ have abandoned it, and then 2nd, once those maps that people have submitted have been collected, you're given one to detail (and just detail, not change the gameplay that much)

 

[SnickerPuffs]

What if there was this artpass contest, where people would 1st: submit a map they've published here to a thread but haven't worked on for awhile/ have abandoned it, and then 2nd, once those maps that people have submitted have been collected, you're given one to detail (and just detail, not change the gameplay that much)

I like the concept, but detail-oriented contests aren't too popular afaik. Plus, if someone submits a woefully underdeveloped map, no amount of artpassing will make the map good.

 

[MegapiemanPHD]

The problem with a contest like this is the same problem that happened with the mountainlab contest. You get a bunch of versions of the same map to test and none of them address any problems the map may have.

 

[C. LAMITI]

so instead of just an artpass contest, what about a multi-phased telephone-ish contest where everyone makes a base layout, then passes it on to the next mapper, who can detail AND make layout changes (within reason), and then keep it moving for an arbitrary number of rounds?

i feel like you'd get some interesting design out of that, or comedy at least

 

[Prestige]

Secret Santa contest where you make some gameplay space of a certain size and you swap and someone else has to finish it. Not too serious and you could pick your partner cause who cares who wins rly tho

OK basically the same as the idea above which I also support!

https://tf2maps.net/threads/exquisite-corpse.34025/ I guess this happened and it was good, and also a microcontest happened

 

[Tiftid]

I don't like the idea of a telephone contest, because, suppose there are two mappers of equal skill - one gets an unworkable layout and one gets an amazing layout, meaning that one has to do much more work than the other to create a good map. To balance that you could create a system where the altered maps are judged based on the quality of what's added on, but working on a terrible layout wouldn't feel fun, especially if you wanted to make changes and your playtests all get the feedback "this isn't fun", and implementing a cohesive theme is a lot harder when the geometry doesn't add to it, meaning that even if altered maps are judged based on the addons, the overall feeling players have about the map becomes negative through no fault of the mapper's own. You could also get the inverse, where a mapper gets a layout way outside of their skill level and feels bad about any layout changes they might want to make or ideas they might want to introduce, and ends up getting rated poorly because they feel outclassed by the map they've received to work on.
It also totally removes the part of mapping which is coming up with cool ideas and iterating on them with theme to create something really cohesive and special, instead forcing layout creators to entrust their map to someone who, no matter how many detail hints the original mapper produced, might want to do a different theme. There would also be little you could do to stop instances where a mapper just rejects all unique ideas the original map had and introduces their own ideas, "ruining" the layout in the original creator's eyes and going against the spirit of the contest.

 

[Tiftid]

I thought that I shouldn't just beat down other people's ideas without contributing my own, more stupid ideas, so here's:

The 512 grid size contest.

Rules:
-You must create, resize, cut and vertex edit all brushes using a grid size of 512.
-You may place and move point entities using any grid size.
-You must make your map for a gamemode which isn't MvM and doesn't require any server modifications or plugins to be run.
-You may not use the Transform window (Ctrl+M in default Hammer).
-You may not copy anything from any vmf other than the contest vmf, which must be empty prior to the contest starting.
-Concerning displacements, your paintbrushes (when painting geometry) must have a Distance which is a multiple of 256 (e.g 512, 256, 0, -256, -512) and a Radius of 1.
-You may not use props which are obvious conversions of brushwork made using a lower grid size than 512.
-In terms of surface area, brushwork should dominate your gameplay space. This is impossible to accurately measure and comes down to the judgement of the contest judges.
-For the sake of your sanity, you're allowed to use ABS prefabs, but not any other prefabs.
-Detailing using props is a waste of time since your map will not be directly judged based on its theme or the quality of its detailing, but rudimentary brushwork detailing can be useful if you feel that it helps to communicate your creativity and/or proficiency.

Inspired by someone saying "512 grid gang" in Discord a while ago. Maybe that someone was me, I don't know.

The contest would be a layout-only contest.

The contest should be judged based on the creativity and proficiency of mappers - trying to get around the contest's limitations by excessively using props would be something that would reduce your final score, for instance, as it's an uncreative way to approach the contest. Creating angled geometry would (probably) be something that would increase your final score, because it can be, if used well, an excellent demonstration of creativity and proficiency which jumps out at the contest judges and playtesters.

The contest should have a relatively short time frame, maybe 5 weeks, so that mappers are encouraged to work quickly and smartly with their restriction and creatively use all of their mapping skills to salvage TF2 gameplay out of their map, as opposed to giving in and making an overscaled mess. In order to not force contestants to realise this by themselves, the contest should provide information on basic techniques such as "You can use the clipping tool to create faces that are shorter than 512 units long and you can use vertex edit to easily edit brushes cut in this way", ideally in the form of a video tutorial.

Admittedly, I don't like how the average contest idea removes options from mappers, and this doesn't get around that, since it removes your basic ability to make geometry, which, though it requires thinking to get around, is a tad annoying at the end of the day. Other issues include - how do you stop mappers from accidentally reducing the grid size and working on a reduced grid size out of muscle memory? Even if they realise afterwards, stop themselves and delete the brush they made, it's still annoying to have to go through that process often.

Of course, if you think of any loopholes or basic problems that I didn't consider, be sure to leave a reply.

 

[C. LAMITI]

i mean, ideally a telephone contest wouldn't be super serious, or really all that focused on the end product or making an overall super-balanced map, just sort of a fun event where you don't know what you're gonna get - and if someone gets really attached to facets of a map, they can just take those bits and build a proper, focused map around them. all of the friction you described, and the creative decisions they'll force people to make, is the interesting part imo. (not rly much of a contest in the "meaningful winners and losers" sense, but that just means it's less stressful)

 

[SnickerPuffs]

"The Mapdela Effect" Detailing Contest

Participants have to recreate an in-game map, either Valve-offical or community-made. The only stipulation is that they must do it entirely from memory, and cannot look at any reference material directly involving the map (i.e. screenshots, videos, actually playing the map).

The judging will be based on Aesthetics, Faithfulness, and what place you think that submission should win (out of X submissions, from 1st to Xth). Due to the nature of the prompt, playability is not necessary to make a complete submission, and will not be directly judged. It will, however, be used as a tiebreaker should multiple maps in the top 3 have the same score.

 

[Izotope]

"The Mapdela Effect" Detailing Contest

Participants have to recreate an in-game map, either Valve-offical or community-made. The only stipulation is that they must do it entirely from memory, and cannot look at any reference material directly involving the map (i.e. screenshots, videos, actually playing the map).

The judging will be based on Aesthetics, Faithfulness, and what place you think that submission should win (out of X submissions, from 1st to Xth). Due to the nature of the prompt, playability is not necessary to make a complete submission, and will not be directly judged. It will, however, be used as a tiebreaker should multiple maps in the top 3 have the same score.

Sounds fun at first, but I can totally see people not sticking to the rules and "peek" at the source.
And there's no way of knowing who peeked and to what degree.