Polycount does things well with showcaseing. Could take inspiration from them.
Public Discussion: Map Showcase Submissions
- Thread starter Egan
- Start date
wareya
L420: High Member
- Jun 17, 2012
- 493
- 191
I don't like it. The maps don't match the colorscheme of the forum. I think a new full-width bar would be better.
Really, we need to figure out how to mix the news with the showcase effectively, or else make them show in totally different ways.
At least from my perspective, indeed I do want higher standards of what gets into the showcase. Before becoming an admin here I ran an LLF custom maps server, and we played through about half of the showcase maps from here. A few of those that we played we kinda unanimously agreed that they weren't that fun. Even with the Casual-Play Sundays that Harribo ran a couple times, where we played betas & showcase maps from long ago, there were some maps from the showcase that we played that we then-agreed had horrible chokes or had steamroll-y stages. Although, I suppose it is possible that these maps were simply made for an old-tf2 which was definitely different, like how 2fort was once not-bad but is now pretty-bad for gameplay experiences.
Still, how about this idea: We let you guys know when we, the staff, are looking at a particular map over the period of a week or two (or longer), and during that time you can either comment in like a thread we put up, or PM us your opinions. We'll then make a decision if it gets into the showcase with all that in mind, combined with our own analysis. It's essentially a more open version of the previous method we used, just to get more perspectives involved.
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,257
before raising standarts you gotta draw the line between high and too high standarts and decide whether showcase is for bestest maps of all of tf2 or simply a place for good finished maps
tf2m has a history of having higher demands than people actually playing the customs. pl manngrove iirc was and is considered quite flawed, yet the latest version has over 10000 plays, more than many "high standart" maps. borneo is quite a successful map yet it was denied a place in showcase over some gameplay issues
the height of standarts will determine whether we at least try to be relatable to common folk or are we a small group doing their own shit in their own isolated corner
tf2m has a history of having higher demands than people actually playing the customs. pl manngrove iirc was and is considered quite flawed, yet the latest version has over 10000 plays, more than many "high standart" maps. borneo is quite a successful map yet it was denied a place in showcase over some gameplay issues
the height of standarts will determine whether we at least try to be relatable to common folk or are we a small group doing their own shit in their own isolated corner
wareya
L420: High Member
- Jun 17, 2012
- 493
- 191
wait, borneo wasn't showcased but swiftwater was? lol
don't get me started how many mediocre but beautiful maps there are in the showcase when once that are just plain "good" in both categories like borneo seemingly get rejected
i think the most important thing to remember about the showcase is to prevent it from becoming a circlejerk of maps that look good and play well in only unorganized-but-skilled pubs, because that is a ridiculous subset of the tf2 player community and the #1 ridicule that comp players have over this site.
don't get me started how many mediocre but beautiful maps there are in the showcase when once that are just plain "good" in both categories like borneo seemingly get rejected
i think the most important thing to remember about the showcase is to prevent it from becoming a circlejerk of maps that look good and play well in only unorganized-but-skilled pubs, because that is a ridiculous subset of the tf2 player community and the #1 ridicule that comp players have over this site.
Last edited:
the thing is borneo is still in active development, it's still alive and kicking and was updated not too long ago.
seriously tho, let's have a reality check
Who's to say heyo cares about the showcase anyways? that's like, just my opinion but tf2m is hardly relevant as it stands. heyo can make borneo popular regardless of what tf2m thinks and would be wise to do so. I'm just sayin... I do wish I could take the showcase seriously tho, that'd be neat.
town jerk fubar at your service.
seriously tho, let's have a reality check
Who's to say heyo cares about the showcase anyways? that's like, just my opinion but tf2m is hardly relevant as it stands. heyo can make borneo popular regardless of what tf2m thinks and would be wise to do so. I'm just sayin... I do wish I could take the showcase seriously tho, that'd be neat.
town jerk fubar at your service.
Fubar does bring up a point that a lot of us, including myself has tend to forgotten about in the past year or two. The tf2 community has changed, so what is our place in it now? The way I see it, we aren't the place to get a map popular, there is comp, reddit, facepunch, etc, all along side us in that. What we have that stands out is the knowledge of how to make maps, we 're the resource center for tf2 mapping. Not the wiki, us.
How does the showcase fit in with that? It provides the examples of maps that people can use as inspiration, or as learning tools. Borneo could get in there if it applied, it might be hampered by the continual development, but we don't stop maps from development just because they go into the showcase.
Alright, enough with my deep philosophical metaphorical doohickeys. What do people think about that, and what Fubar said? (Fubar, we do plan to have some public discussions in regards to some of the points you have brought up, here and in private conversation)
How does the showcase fit in with that? It provides the examples of maps that people can use as inspiration, or as learning tools. Borneo could get in there if it applied, it might be hampered by the continual development, but we don't stop maps from development just because they go into the showcase.
Alright, enough with my deep philosophical metaphorical doohickeys. What do people think about that, and what Fubar said? (Fubar, we do plan to have some public discussions in regards to some of the points you have brought up, here and in private conversation)
Using the showcase as a "hey, this map has something you can learn from" collection doesn't sound like a bad idea. It seems that the current problem people have with the showcase is that it's somehow too selective and not selective enough at the same time. We could turn the current showcase into a sort of archive for maps that did something noteable that other mappers (current and future) could learn from.
Then, we could curate a more selective, 'elite' list of maps to be a current list of our best maps - and maps that don't age well get trimmed out over time. That way, we could recognize both maps that are pretty alright (showcase) and maps that are pretty darn great (new list that i don't have a name for).
Then, we could curate a more selective, 'elite' list of maps to be a current list of our best maps - and maps that don't age well get trimmed out over time. That way, we could recognize both maps that are pretty alright (showcase) and maps that are pretty darn great (new list that i don't have a name for).
I agree with Idolon, in fact I was saying something quite similar in chat earlier today.
If you go over to Polycount, they have a showcase forum. But the thing I notice about all the showcase threads there, is they're not just "here's a finished piece that looks nice!" they're threads full of a wealth of transparent development of that piece. You can go into any thread and see the incredible feedback, the iterations, the WIP shots. It's not just a pretty piece, it's also a database of techniques, knowledge and tips applied to an actual thing rather than a empty wiki or tutorial.
Personally, that's what I'd love to see from our showcase. I already look at the maps in there every time I'm designing a map - designing keikoku? I had existing CP maps from the showcase open in TF2. Inari? Same thing, I was studying how other people did it in their payload maps, not just valve but maps like Borneo too.
We have the advantage over any other TF2Mapping community in that we're really the only one that can help you refine your skills, not just teach you hammer, and I think the showcase is a great way of doing that.
If you go over to Polycount, they have a showcase forum. But the thing I notice about all the showcase threads there, is they're not just "here's a finished piece that looks nice!" they're threads full of a wealth of transparent development of that piece. You can go into any thread and see the incredible feedback, the iterations, the WIP shots. It's not just a pretty piece, it's also a database of techniques, knowledge and tips applied to an actual thing rather than a empty wiki or tutorial.
Personally, that's what I'd love to see from our showcase. I already look at the maps in there every time I'm designing a map - designing keikoku? I had existing CP maps from the showcase open in TF2. Inari? Same thing, I was studying how other people did it in their payload maps, not just valve but maps like Borneo too.
We have the advantage over any other TF2Mapping community in that we're really the only one that can help you refine your skills, not just teach you hammer, and I think the showcase is a great way of doing that.
Last edited:
- Jul 22, 2009
- 1,874
- 1,257
making a wealth of transparent development would require threads to become ten times more active
right now its mostly "hey guys new version" - "random feedback post" - "i updated stuff" - "i updated more stuff" - "random feedback post" - "hay guise its fourth update already"
besides there doesnt seem to be a lot of map specific knowledge wealth, they mostly do the same thing by the same principles that are mostly long covered in guides written in 2008. stvs add to that by being the best feedback source while not being very discussable
also id like to not on the topic of bad showcase maps that most of them have been tested quite a lot of times and somewhere somewhen on one of tf2m servers they most likely played well or at least good enough for the author to consider the map done, its not like they just get tossed into showcase as soon as detailing is done
experiences do vary from person to person
right now its mostly "hey guys new version" - "random feedback post" - "i updated stuff" - "i updated more stuff" - "random feedback post" - "hay guise its fourth update already"
besides there doesnt seem to be a lot of map specific knowledge wealth, they mostly do the same thing by the same principles that are mostly long covered in guides written in 2008. stvs add to that by being the best feedback source while not being very discussable
also id like to not on the topic of bad showcase maps that most of them have been tested quite a lot of times and somewhere somewhen on one of tf2m servers they most likely played well or at least good enough for the author to consider the map done, its not like they just get tossed into showcase as soon as detailing is done
experiences do vary from person to person
I had written a cpuple of dev posts about rusts final point. I coud pull those out and make them into forum posts, rather than on my blog.
All I've learned from this thread is everyone basically agrees that maps should be considered on a case by case basis and that the method we had before is best provided the staff actually do something (which would be required by any other method anyway)
Edit: no more engrish
Edit: no more engrish
Last edited:
Case-by-case is all you ever could do with maps. It's not like there's a checklist of what makes a good map except in the most generic ways ("looks good? plays well? etc").
Asking for transparent development is kind of silly IMO. Normally when you post a changelog, the only responses are 1) crickets, 2) a general platitude about something being fixed that someone really hated, or 3) someone else finding new bugs. Not criticizing those responses at all, mind you. There's only so much discussion you can expect to something like "fixed clipping on mid."
It's not like we go deep into our thoughts on why we felt changes were important; it's far more reactionary. We see a problem in a playtest, we address it. We don't have the large volumes of data that Valve would have from a playtest. So what we do is much more like personally reacting to "Leaving 2nd spawn is confusing" with "Changed 2nd spawn so exit faces goal, removed dead end."
Asking for transparent development is kind of silly IMO. Normally when you post a changelog, the only responses are 1) crickets, 2) a general platitude about something being fixed that someone really hated, or 3) someone else finding new bugs. Not criticizing those responses at all, mind you. There's only so much discussion you can expect to something like "fixed clipping on mid."
It's not like we go deep into our thoughts on why we felt changes were important; it's far more reactionary. We see a problem in a playtest, we address it. We don't have the large volumes of data that Valve would have from a playtest. So what we do is much more like personally reacting to "Leaving 2nd spawn is confusing" with "Changed 2nd spawn so exit faces goal, removed dead end."
I would not say 'basically everyone agrees'. It seems we have two main uses for the showcase: recommendations, and inspiration. Some of us want to see higher standards for the showcase, but some of us say that there are maps that wouldn't fit into those higher standards, but are still inspiring. I don't think siding with one specific use would be good because it would alienate the ideas some of us have portrayed to be important to them here. If you just chose one, you would hurt the other.
Although, looking back at what Idolon has said:
I actually think this is a good plan. We get our overall large list of essentially what the showcase is now - inspiring maps / maps we'd sorta recommend. And then we'd have a separate list of maps that meet our higher standards for being 'great'. We could have our normal method of what maps get into the showcase for the big list of maps, but also have the 'higher standards and discussions' for maps that would get into our 'elite' or whatever we choose to call that group.
Although, looking back at what Idolon has said:
I actually think this is a good plan. We get our overall large list of essentially what the showcase is now - inspiring maps / maps we'd sorta recommend. And then we'd have a separate list of maps that meet our higher standards for being 'great'. We could have our normal method of what maps get into the showcase for the big list of maps, but also have the 'higher standards and discussions' for maps that would get into our 'elite' or whatever we choose to call that group.
Maybe have the best maps (and a discussion of what should be there) as a sticky in the showcase forum? That way we don't need a whole new sub forum. The OP of the thread can be the list of maps we decide on and the rest of the thread can be discussion on what should be there. That way we're crowd sourcing our "best" list. We as admins can direct the conversation as we need it.
We really don't need a new subforum for this. (A new subforum isn't an answer for everything!) we already have too many as is, personally.
I also don't see how we can't have two reasons for the same showcase. Sure, some people want higher standards than others, but we really shouldn't think of ourselves as the ones who dictate what is quality. It's a community thing and decision, sure we have more knowledge on what makes things good or bad, but it should be a tf2 community decision in the end. a public discussion with staff moderation seems like the best idea to achieve this goal.
I also don't see how we can't have two reasons for the same showcase. Sure, some people want higher standards than others, but we really shouldn't think of ourselves as the ones who dictate what is quality. It's a community thing and decision, sure we have more knowledge on what makes things good or bad, but it should be a tf2 community decision in the end. a public discussion with staff moderation seems like the best idea to achieve this goal.
Last edited:
I never mentioned a new subforum. We can use Crash's idea and have a stickied thread.
I'd appreciate having some form of 'what is quality' than none, from a perspective of a server host, and not just from a tf2maps.net server host. I wish I could point to a specific curated list we had and go "those are the maps I'd recommend". There has been a few people lately who have asked me "which maps are valve quality from this community" and then it comes from my opinion instead of any community discussion - which we can totally do in this instance.
I agreed previously that would be ideal, but I don't see why we can't apply that to both the showcase entrants and the curated elite list entrants.
To reiterate: if people get higher standards for maps, then you won't see maps like manngrove in the showcase. Manngrove is great example of how you can make your map look awesome from an instance of where it looks really bad. There's lots of discussion in that thread, and again if there were higher standards, we'd probably not add it because its gameplay sucks, and then no one would be able to easily find it unless they knew the name beforehand. If we leave the showcase just as it is then it would be difficult to say what is a fun map, what maps I would recommend to others, because evidently I wouldn't recommend everything in the showcase based on its gameplay.
It's a pretty simple idea / change to just have a curated list of maps we'd recommend. And I think we do have a right to decide which maps are better than others, because we made all the maps.
Last edited:
To me the showcase should show maps that are excelent in gameplay over the good looks part. Gameplay is alot more important on custom maps than looks. If a custom map with good looks plays bad then people wont vote on it after a while just because it plays bad. Yet on good gameplay it will keep coming back.
That doesnt mean good looks arent important, as a bad looking map will be turned down on that aswel. Its just the balance that has to be right.
That doesnt mean good looks arent important, as a bad looking map will be turned down on that aswel. Its just the balance that has to be right.
Okay, to come to some sort of conclusion from this thread:
We are not going to continue with the 'vote for showcase maps' idea. We think that the voting system creates arbitrary decisions of what's good or not, which is not ideal for the showcase.
We are going to change the map showcase entry process to have more moderation; we're going to allow TF2maps.net members to give their thoughts on each submitted map when the admins are making their decision. We will alert you when we are looking at a specific map, and how you can contact us (either through PM, or new replies to the map thread if you want to spark discussion). Map showcase submissions will still be done in the stickied submission thread.
Overall it seems we have two main uses for the showcase: Recommendations, and Inspiration. Some of us wanted to see higher standards for the showcase, but there are maps that wouldn't fit into those higher standards but are still inspiring enough to be included in the showcase. To appease the higher-standard-wanting-people we're going to create a new stickied thread with the main post being our combined choices of the 'currently best playing maps from the showcase'. The purpose of this thread is so we can easily suggest the best playing maps to other people who are looking for that, but we can still archive all the previously showcased maps as 'it plays pretty well, and still is inspiring'. The discussion for this top list would go on inside the thread for it (endless).
We are not going to continue with the 'vote for showcase maps' idea. We think that the voting system creates arbitrary decisions of what's good or not, which is not ideal for the showcase.
We are going to change the map showcase entry process to have more moderation; we're going to allow TF2maps.net members to give their thoughts on each submitted map when the admins are making their decision. We will alert you when we are looking at a specific map, and how you can contact us (either through PM, or new replies to the map thread if you want to spark discussion). Map showcase submissions will still be done in the stickied submission thread.
Overall it seems we have two main uses for the showcase: Recommendations, and Inspiration. Some of us wanted to see higher standards for the showcase, but there are maps that wouldn't fit into those higher standards but are still inspiring enough to be included in the showcase. To appease the higher-standard-wanting-people we're going to create a new stickied thread with the main post being our combined choices of the 'currently best playing maps from the showcase'. The purpose of this thread is so we can easily suggest the best playing maps to other people who are looking for that, but we can still archive all the previously showcased maps as 'it plays pretty well, and still is inspiring'. The discussion for this top list would go on inside the thread for it (endless).
Last edited: