Which rules would you want to see more often in community projects?

Just to get a few things out the way:
 

1 hour ago, Pegleg said:

recording such a demo proves that it is possible to beat a map in that manner and that is an aspect of quality control. It should not be the only aspect, as Not Jabba stated.

Making a UVmax mandatory doesn't rule out any other means of quality control in any way shape or form by default, so let's not get things mixed up here...

1 hour ago, Pegleg said:

My only point is that forcing the author to be the one to record that demo is an unnecessary hurdle--I think

And here's where I'll have to ask what I'm supposed to expect from a map which the author can't even be arsed to play. Don't get me wrong, I can understand that once you've finished a map you've been working on for weeks or months even, you might not be inclinded to sit down right away and deliver a super polished UVmax at like uber-doomer levels of play (not that top tier play with highly polished routing is necessary to begin with). But if the author can't be bothered at all - not even for the purpose of delivering a proof of concept - sorry not a good look in my point of view.

1 hour ago, Pegleg said:

My only point is that forcing the author to be the one to record that demo is an unnecessary hurdle--I think the most recent SlaughterMax got it right in that regard: a UV-Max demo has to be recorded of the map before it can be accepted, but it can be recorded by anyone, not just the author.

A UVmax was still required to get the map in, so any issues that would prevent maps from being maxable were ruled out, which is why I think having a demo - just any demo - is always a plus. And I seem to remember that some mappers did demo their own maps at some point, so it appears to me that this hurdle isn't so big after all, since the respective mappers did it basically voluntarily. Sure, runners like ancalagon beat the mappers at their own game eventually, but if you look at the thread you'll find some demos made by the authors as well.

As for the methods that Not Jabba deemed to be (un)successful, I can easily point you to maps that have been in beta/team-testing, were collaborations, and still turned out unmaxable because they were mechanically unsound in at least one source port (in spite of there being methods to make them work equally in any port that is compatible with the format used), or simply built in ways that couldn't have worked under any circumstance. If the respective maps had gotten a UVmax demo, these problems would have been fixed prior to release quite comfortably.

As for tod's rules, those were a little "backwards" in the sense that once a demo was provided, the map couldn't be edited any further. What that doesn't mean is that mappers didn't find and fix any issues during the max-recording part of the whole process. With that being said, NJ's assumption that UVmax demos are a method that turns out to be unsuccessful is plain and simple false, never stood on firm legs to begin with, and his line of arguing in this regard has a distinct hint of straw to it as well in my opinion.

@Xaser Yes, demos with saves are possible in PrBoom+ and in gzdoom, that much I know for certain.

Heh, cool! That may change the playscape a bit -- I'll have to muck around with that when I get a chance (though hell if I know when that'll be). The open question is how easily distributable demos-with-saves are -- i.e. how easy it is for someone else to open it and view it.

Looks like there's some quick docs here, but they don't quite answer the distribution question yet. But that's a topic for a different thread...

6 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Making a UVmax mandatory doesn't rule out any other means of quality control in any way shape or form by default, so let's not get things mixed up here...

And here's where I'll have to ask what I'm supposed to expect from a map which the author can't even be arsed to play. Don't get me wrong, I can understand that once you've finished a map you've been working on for weeks or months even, you might not be inclinded to sit down right away and deliver a super polished UVmax at like uber-doomer levels of play (not that top tier play with highly polished routing is necessary to begin with). But if the author can't be bothered at all - not even for the purpose of delivering a proof of concept - sorry not a good look in my point of view.

That is not what I meant at all. I think that you and I mostly agree about the matter at hand. If a mapper truly can't be bothered to playtest the map they just made, that's a significant problem. I do not advocate just making a map and then not testing it or being willing to play it through on all difficulties. In fact, when I make a map, I test it on all difficulties myself. However, I typically play on lower difficulty levels, so, I often find that I don't usually do well on the higher difficulty levels. I ensure that the map is beatable (by me) on lower difficulty levels and then move on to the higher difficulty levels. In fact, after trying them (and generally failing), I often playtest higher difficulty levels with IDDQD on, because my point is not to prove that I can beat the map, but rather I want to know if there is a reasonable amount of ammo available to make it through the map. I reason that it's not a problem that I can't personally finish my own map on a higher difficulty level, because there are numerous players with skills leagues above my own who will be able to make it through the map.

All I meant with my statements was that if a mapper with lower skills as a player (such as myself) builds a map where the higher difficulty levels are intended to be challenging to others, that mapper may not be able to finish his/her own map on UV. In such a case, to force that author to record a UV-Max demo would simply lower force the overall difficulty level of the map to be lowered, thus becoming less enjoyable for others. All I was saying was that if you are going to mandate a demo from the author, that you allow the author to record a demo on a difficulty level more appropriate to their skill level. If you want to have UV-Max demos being the gatekeeper for admission, then simply allow anyone to submit this UV-Max demo (yes, the author can still do it if he/she wants to), because the point is not that the mapper who struggles on lower difficulty levels can UV-Max the map, but that the map is maxable on UV.

6 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

As for tod's rules, those were a little "backwards" in the sense that once a demo was provided, the map couldn't be edited any further.

ToD was actually rather plain in his aim--to force mappers to test their own maps, to be efficient about it, to continue to test until the bugs were ironed out, and not rely on others in the community to find the bugs. He didn't want mappers to just rush something out, content in the knowledge that they could just fix something that was wrong once someone found it. I'm not arguing that it is a good approach or a bad approach, just that he had a specific set of goals in mind with that particular rule.

My personal opinion is, if you're going to put a demo rule in, don't restrict it to just the mapper's demos. Allow a play-tester to record it. Some mappers, like me, are absolute dog shit at the game, and so can't really make anything challenging enough to actually be fun if they're forced to make the level compatible with their own skill level.

1 hour ago, Pegleg said:

ToD was actually rather plain in his aim--to force mappers to test their own maps, to be efficient about it, to continue to test until the bugs were ironed out

Except it doesn't work, precisely because the map author knows how the map "should" be played.

Someone other than the map author 100%ing a map is actually much more likely to find problems than the map author doing it.

Edit to add: I do think that "someone should 100% every map prior to release" is a good idea.  But I categorically reject that the best person to do this is the map author.  They are the worst choice.

Punch yourself for every ten sectors you create.

The "beat your own map + no updates" concept wasn't really intended to be an improvement for bug-fixing, it was just based on how I release maps: make a map, record a demo, release it and leave it alone. I've been including demos with my maps since 2006 and people have been doing that since the beginning of pwads. To me, beating your own map is the climax of mapping and the most rewarding part.

Rule 69:
No orthogonal lines!
I'd love to see a cp with that rule :)

-Someone draws a layout for a map

-Someone else makes it into a map

I think that would make for an interesting project.

12 hours ago, TimeOfDeath666 said:

To me, beating your own map is the climax of mapping and the most rewarding part

Mmmm I know a good climax when I see one ;-)

There are many mapping errors that would be prevented if only someone does the effort to complete the with 100% kills. I think for projects that enforce maxing the map it shouldn't be necessarily the author of the map who does it, or even to do it saveless, there are many mappers who can't complete their own maps in 1 go and honestly bad players trying to do hard maps end with the most fun maps to run :).

In the mayhem 2018 pack we've been doing so far we've encountered; maps where not all monsters spawn, maps where sometimes not all monsters spawn, maps where monster spawns can be blocked by other monsters causing them to permanently not spawn, maps no one wants to play, monsters that randomly resurrect and become unkillable, all of this would have been easily prevented if anyone took the time to max the maps before release.

For Eviternity we made exactly those kinds of mistakes since we pushed super hard to get a release out for Doom's 25th birthday. But for the bugfix release we're doing our homework properly, 100/100/100% for all maps in both GzDoom and PrBoomPlus on UV/HMP/HNTR:

I really like what 4800 Hell Knights is doing, I'd like to see more of something like "250 monster minimum per map" :)

I feel like starting out mapping when vanilla was really popular kinda influenced my style, because even with limit removing I feel really guilty if I add a sector / linedef to my map that doesn't immediately influence the gameplay.

9 hours ago, Beezle said:

I really like what 4800 Hell Knights is doing, I'd like to see more of something like "250 monster minimum per map" :)

You should really like the next SlaughterMAX, should one ever be released.

Some ideas for ZDoom-based community projects:

1. A community project where all the lighting is done using only point lights (like in Quake).

2. A community project where all monster encounters are scripted (using ACS or ZScript).

3. A community project done using only resources from Blood (or Rise of the Triad, or Duke, &c.)

These are from the top of my head, I may come up with sth else.

On 1/24/2019 at 1:49 PM, Gez said:

4) Maps must be made for Heretic.

 

I like Heretic and it doesn't have enough maps.

 

5) Maps must be made for Hexen.

 

I like Hexen and it doesn't have enough maps.

 

6) Maps must be made for Strife.

 

I like Strife and it doesn't have enough maps.

 

 

Yeah, don't try to use all rules at once.

How about making a community project where participants must make a Doom map layout that's then repurposed for each of these three games. 4 concurrent community megawads!

I am playing around with a rule set:

There is 1 BFG and Beserk and you have to strategically consume ammo to take on the hordes of hell. BFG-Survival-Horror.

No CC4 you bunch of unoriginal buggers :)

What rule would I like to see more often in community projects?

"Needs more cowbell."

I would like to see a Vanilla Heretic Community Project, I'll could start one in the future.

14 hours ago, DJVCardMaster said:

I would like to see a Vanilla Heretic Community Project, I'll could start one in the future.

In case you missed it, HUMP Mini was a recent vanilla Heretic CP.

these would be the bomb

1: all maps must have a boss
2: each map should have an easter egg
3: when making a map, the map need have EXACTLY 1 mb

This is a joke:

mappers must create decorate enemies
modders must map

I remember of "Secret Santa Imitation Project" where you had to make a map with the style of another mapper.

 It could give very interesting results when mappers have very distinct and opposite styles. I wonder what a James Paddock map looks like with TimeOfdeath's style or a Paul Corfiatis map with Mechadon's big architecture.

I have also an another funny idea of rule : The leader makes a medium-sized map and mappers must remake the map according to their own style/taste.

The only thing that I care about when it comes to mapping is that as long as the level is beatable (regardless of the format of the level), I would play and record it. Longer levels are more of my style than the shorter ones, unlike the majority of the Doom community. Some enjoy the longer ones just as much as I do. It's all a matter of preference. As far as the difficulty settings are concerned, I don't really care too much about that.

I'd like to see a community project balanced around the nightmare difficulty.

No maps allowed