Kind of a crazy idea... but could be fun

Map making competitions with restrictive rules are fun. I still remember the very simple 10 sector wad making competition. Well, I would like to propose something a little different and a little more complex , but could be interesting. Each of the monsters, ammo, health and powerups get assigned a numerical difficulty rating.

So, let's say an imp has a difficulty rating of 6. Former human 1, Seargent 4, SS Nazi 8, Lost Soul 10, Demon 12, Spectre 14, Chaingunner 16, Cacodemon 20, Revenant 35, Hell Knight 50, Arachnatron 60, Pain Elemental 60, Baron of Hell, 80, Mancubus 80, Arch-vile 300 (because if utilized well they are devastating and to prevent people from overusing them) Spider Mastermind 800, Cyberdemon 1200. These difficulty values would have to be hotly contested and changed until they are well balanced such that one monster isn't being used predominantly over the others.

The powerups would all get weighted, too. Health potion 1pt, armor helmet 1pt, soul sphere 200pts, med kit 10pts, stimpack 4pts, megasphere 400pts, mega armor 150pts, green armor 50pts. Blur Sphere 100pts, Rad Suit 40pts, Berserk 140pts, invuln sphere 1000pts.

You would get to use each weapon once as a given, but for each additional weapon you want to place in the map cost you the following points: chainsaw 20, shotgun 40, Chaingun 60, SSG 120, Rocket Launcher 200, Plasma Rifle 300, BFG 500.

Ammo: Clip 1 point, shells 2, rocket 3, plasma cell 10, box of ammo 5, box of shells 10, box of rockets 30, cell pack 100. Weapon/ammo and powerups would need to be broken into two separate "point banks." So that you were awarded 10,000 monster points, 3,000 weapon/ammo and 5,000 health/powerups.

The idea: Make a map as difficult, but as interesting and fun as possible. So it will need to be subjectively judged the way the 10 sector contest was. No putting the player in a 160x160 box with a cyberdemon. You are being judged on your creativity. The more creative someone is in making the map difficult and the more interesting the map is as a result, the more win your map will be in the eyes of the judges.

Rules: You must include a preset number of weapons, health, powerups, ammo. You can make them difficult to get, but the goal here isn't just making the map difficult. The goal is to be as creative and fun as you can in making it difficult. If a map is really interesting and fun, but is too easy, then it will be penalized. If a map is really hard and uninteresting then it will be penalized. So you will have 10,000 points for monsters. So if you wanted, you could have a map with 8 cyberdemons, an arch-vile, a baron of hell and a cacodemon. Or a map with 625 chaingunners. The map will be judged in four categories, broken down into two main categories: Gameplay and Aesthetic. Gameplay will account for 90% of the map's grade, and Aesthetic will count for 10%. :P

Gameplay:
1: Difficulty. This gets weighted at 30%. In order to have a winning map, it needs to be challenging!

2: Fun: If the map is super hard but not fun or interesting to play, then you fail it. A 160x160 box with the player and a Cyberdemon inside is not what we're going for. This is weighted at 30%

3: Creativity: Get creative!! The more creative you are in making the map challenging (this includes your item placement) the more interesting and fun it will be to play.

4: Aesthetic/theme/atmosphere: If you do all the other things superbly but your map is a horrible mis mash of themes, texture use, architecture, the aesthetic side of mapping, and there is no discernable mood or theme, then the map will suffer in the eyes of the judges. This is only weighted at 10% because mappers have a tendency to pay more attention to this over the other aspects to mapping--so it gets lower weight importance to encourage people to focus on gameplay.

Note: you have to implement the allotted powerups/weapons/ammo/health in a creative way. These cannot just be put in some impossible place and then, whoopee--you have a really hard map. This gets graded under creativity.

In addition, there could be three sets of different rules to map by. Lite, Normal and Heavy. Lite would have only 2,500 monster and ammo points and 1,000 health/powerup points. Normal would be the point distributions already laid out at 10,000 monster points and Heavy would be 100,000 or something fun and crazy like that. :D Maybe there is an easier way of breaking down how much stuff you get to use in your map. I like the point system because it means you have total freedom of what you include in your map. But you are restricted by how many points allotted to you. Map editors do have statistics of all things/monsters used to make it easier!

Another consideration: Would you have to use all the points up or just stay below the amount allotted? I think to make it more interesting, you would have to use them all up, or at least within 5% of the total(so 10,000 monster points, you have to use between 9500 and 10,000 monster points)

All numbers are preliminary.

Hellbent said:

SS Nazi 8

I think the SS Nazis are weaker than Imps and even than Sergeants. They're almost as easy to kill, they take twice as much time to open fire and actually have less firepower than the Sarges, under -fast mode.

This actually sounds pretty cool. But printz is right, the SS Nazi is fairly weak, unless placed right. Maybe he should be 3 or 4.

I'd be all for it, if my mapping skills were better than they are at present (I'm sorry). Unless I happen to release something (which may or may not happen), so far I think I'm better at advising and critiqing others work.

P.S. NO SS NAZIS, please! They suck! And they don't fit in doom! Putting them in a levels ruins it completely!

Even the Former Human Sergeant deserves more than the Imp.

What executable should it be for? Doom2.exe?

this is a really good idea.

I think Boom format would be a better choice. Plenty of fun to be had with voodoo doll trigger-sequences and other neat tricks, while still keeping things simple and without easily going into "this isn't Doom anymore" territory.

I'm surprised this idea is only getting positive response. I agree that a new mapping challenge would be fun, as I believe that constraints actually aid creativity, but this is not a good premise.

This challenge essentially boils down to: "Make a level that's as good as possible." Now, of course, this is the goal of all restricted mapping challenges. But, these rules are not nearly restrictive enough to make this challenge special. Many levels (if not most levels) that have already been made would fall within these limits.

What made 10sectors an interesting challenge is that the very best levels showed no signs of being restricted, even though they were restricted in a very significant way. But, even the very worst levels made in this challenge would not be visibly restricted - they would just be crappy levels. A player, unaware of the nature of the challenge, needs to be able to deduce what the challenge was, and able to admire how the author overcame it. This is impossible in this challenge.

And, of course, keeping track of all these numerical values would be a colossal pain in the ass, both for the level designer AND for the judges.


Since we do need a new challenge, here are some some ideas that, frankly, are better. These would be difficult to map with, easy to verify as within the rules, and would still allow for incredible achievements of level design.

As sort of the opposite of the 1monster megawad, consider this: only 1 (ONE) of each thing can be placed. So, that's one of each monster, one of each powerup, one of each decoration, and no more (you can leave some out if you wish).

Many technical limitations along the lines of 10sectors haven't been tried. One option is limiting the number of usable sector tags. To go directly to the extreme case, some very interesting levels could be created where on all lines and sectors, only two tags are ever used: 0, and 1. Surprisingly complex level transformations would still be possible in this condition - keep in mind that many different sorts of linedefs could all refer to that 1 sector tag, especially in Boom, and that the same switch action (like raise to highest floor) can affect two different sectors in very different ways, depending on surrounding conditions. And, doors tagged 0 would be allowed of course.

Many challenges could be based around a restriction of linedef types actions: Perhaps no more than 5 different linedef actions can be used, or only gunfire-activated linedefs can be used, or only Boom-specific control-linedefs can be used, etc.

We could place aesthetic limitations: 3 textures and 3 flats, limited height variation, etc.

Also, here are some ideas that aren't great for a challenge but would be great for a concept map pack:

To take 1024 to a more extreme length, how about 128? or 64! Monsters and decoration could exist outside of those boundaries, of course, as long as the player's movement is restricted. I can already think of a few fun levels that can be made on this idea... a player guards a stationary turret while fighting off waves of demons that teleport in (triggered by voodoo doll effects) in a battleground... a player is suspended in a helicopter, blasting away cacodemons... a player is operating a switch booth, opening doors to guide a cyberdemon to a crusher, while opening and closing a window to block his rockets, etc.

Also, a map pack could be made where every map has 3 player one starts, one for each difficulty level, and the map should feel like a wholly unique experience when played from each start - monsters and keys could be similarly shuffled around.

My favourite idea here is 2sectortags.wad

Creaphis said:

To take 1024 to a more extreme length, how about 128? or 64!

This has actually been done :D
http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Congestion:_64

Sounds cool. If you can stand my missaligned textures then I'm in.

I tend to agree with Creaphis on this one. This "challenge" is basically just asking everyone to make a sweet level, which is what everyone tries to do anyway. Firstly, all the judging criteria are subjective... these criteria mean different things to different people, so it's hard to tell exactly what your trying to produce. Secondly, the point-system does not really add much of a restriction as you can otherwise make the level any way you choose. It just seems to encourage people not to use cybs or powerful weapons since they would use too many points, which I don't think is even fair to a mapper who wants to make a very hard map with powerful enemies and plasma fights, for example. The point values seem pretty arbitary as well. While I don't really like any of Creaphis's suggestions either, I do think that the theme needs to be simple, yet very restrictive. "Make a map with 10 sectors." is the only six words needed to define an excellent contest.

Thanks for the feedback guys. Some interesting points made.


@Death-Destiny: We could do away with the weapon restraint and/or the powerup restraint. I thought those would force more creativity in enemy placement configurations and map layout. I think the "detractors" make good points tho--it is awful complex while not quite offering enough restriction. I considered an alternative of breaking down the amount each monster is allowed to be used, but that didn't seem as interesting to me. For example, One Cyb, One Spidey, 3 arch viles, 5 barons, etc... 50 seargents--but then you get a pretty generic distribution of monsters and is really very uninteresting. When I came up with this idea I was thinking of maps like "Go 2 it" from Plutonia (the super secret level) and the super secret level in Alien Vendetta.

I think Creaphis' tagged idea is kind of interesting. But not sure how far that principle can be taken? The multiple start idea is cool, too for its originality. Hell, could be interesting to just do 10 sector contest again. For some reason I think about it from time to time. Maybe I ought to play through it again.

Although maybe someone could write a simple program that would do the calculations for you for how many points you have left in each category? A program that would look at the statistics of a wad and then deduct for each thing/monster the amount of points allotted. Not sure how difficult that would be to program though.

Hellbent said:

Although maybe someone could write a simple program that would do the calculations for you for how many points you have left in each category? A program that would look at the statistics of a wad and then deduct for each thing/monster the amount of points allotted. Not sure how difficult that would be to program though.

Such a program would not be hard to make in itself. It would just involve some type of loop that steps through each thing and deducts so many points for it. Here's some C++ pseudocode:

TV [or the thing variable] = 0

loop of some sort{
if TV == 0, then points = points - 1 x [number of things, which I guess would be determined by a search function]
if TV == 1, then points = points - 4 x [# of shotgunners]
...etc
TV++
iterate loop until TV= its final value.}
return points;

And you'd just step through the list like this. Since the point values follow no particular pattern, I guess you'd need a statement for each thing, so I don't see a shortcut, but the program would be more tedious than anything. But what would we run this on? Would the program be executed on a generic text file that has the values manually entered based on values from a search fuction. I don't think there's a more direct way to do this since level editors can't be modified, is there?

For my single sector tag idea, there are two approaches that can be taken:

1. Make a great level that basically just has untagged door lines and rooms prestocked with monsters.

2. Make a great level that pulls off some surprising effects with a single tag.

I'd like to throw together an extremely simple 1994-style map of what can be done with approach #2. I don't have time to make anything that looks or plays good, unfortunately. Stay tuned.

Edit: Yeah, I knew about Congestion 64, and my idea is originally from that, BUT my suggestion has a key difference: monsters and structures can be outside that 64x64 square, allowing for actual gameplay.

Edit again: If you want levels like Go 2 It, here's a simpler constraint: the monster count has to outnumber the linedef count. With modern detail, that will be interesting.

Well, I wanted something more interesting than Go 2 it. What is a 64x64 map? I don't get that at all.

Another semi-interesting idea would be to make a map mimic as much as possible an original id map from any of the first three episodes and I suppose the 4th one too, but it was rather posthumous some 5 years later. So the idea would not be to try to improve upon the original id maps. The idea would NOT be to try to improve on any aspect of an id map, including semi-lazy alignment of textures. Rather, the idea would be try to *mimic* as close as possible id style maps in all the good and bad aspects of them from Episodes 1-3 so that it could be mistaken for an original id map. I think this is a great and fun challenge because there are a lot of signature aspects to an id map that a close analysis of them will make apparent. For example, id used many interesting line angles in their maps (many are almost 45 degrees, but aren't--which I think somehow has a great effect. Notice how often a line is at an odd angle or near 45 degrees or 22.5 degrees but not quite. (something mappers can appreciate more than people who just play doom.) The other thing is id's used of textures. Except for episode 1, doom levels in episode 2 and 3 often had odd mismatch and mixture of textures and themes that lent to their unique look and feel. This would also mean considering the relative smallness of the levels--the smallness of the rooms, and the shapes of the rooms--and mimicing these aspects--ceiling heights, everything. I've never really encountered maps outside of the original doom that really had the id signature special "quality" After the original doom, with the advent of Doom 2, wads became big and expansive with lots of large rooms and large monsters and lost their peculiar character to mass onslaught.

The difficulty, too, would be in keeping the original over abundance of ammo and powerups in Episode 1, and the minimal ammo in many of the episode 2 levels--EVERYTHING-- so that it would require considerable study of the original levels before starting. But it would be really fun. The more serious people took it--like a school assignment: analyze and scrutinize id levels--observing as much as possible about them, and then try to build your own--the cooler the results would be. Pick an episode, then you could even try to think where your map might squeeze in: maybe between e1m4 and e1m5? Did E2M7 have a sufficient sense of progress from earlier levels to come before Tower of Babel or is there room for another penultimate level? Could a level fit between e3m1 and e3m2? Remember, don't try to improve on any elements of the original aspects of DooM. Try to mimic them as closely as possible; the bad stuff and the good. The only caveat here is to consider where your level might fit in in the episode from which you are mimicing. So in that sense the level might have some unique quality unto itself just the way every doom level has a unique quality unto itself. But even if you don't take this into consideration (and it's probably better you don't) your own signature creative self is going come through no matter how hard you try to mimic id as much as possible.

This means keeping the simple detailing and no uber fancy architecture - and not too many monsters. I think the results would be interesting. Few people would succeed in the most purist sense, but I think the maps would still have great nostalgic effect. And would it not be cause for fame for the person who actually managed unequivocally!

oohhh an idea thread.how about utilizing all of the stock textures in one level but looking nice, and having creative uses for textures.  each texture should be visible in a location on the map that you can reach without cheats and such.  and it should be doom.exe compatible, so no overdetailing.

Hellbent: This is a really good idea, but again, it isn't really a challenge game. What you're suggesting is a community mapping project. If you want to run a project like that, go for it - most Doomers still appreciate the ID style, and some would be willing to map for a project like this - but this just isn't mapping-challenge material. If we want to put our mapping abilities to the test, it's best to set one very specific restriction, and leave everything else to the individual.

Butts: Another interesting idea, but challenges work better when things are restricted than when overuse is forced. Now, this could be an interesting experiment for a 1-man mappack - how much thematic variation can be created when every map has every texture?



I've made a concept map for the 1 sector tag challenge idea. Available at:
http://www.mediafire.com/?vjy2j9mj12w
Edit: For some reason, I can't download from my own link. Try this one:
http://w16.easy-share.com/1700134707.html

Creaphis said:

We could place aesthetic limitations: 3 textures and 3 flats, limited height variation, etc.

Fatal tried a contest like this over at NewDoom once; it didn't go so well. Personally I don't think it makes for a very interesting contest idea.

Creaphis said:

Also, a map pack could be made where every map has 3 player one starts, one for each difficulty level, and the map should feel like a wholly unique experience when played from each start - monsters and keys could be similarly shuffled around.

You'd probably enjoy "Wicked Be The Ways of Men" by ReX Claussen (it uses this idea, quite well, I might add).
http://www.doomworld.com/idgames/index.php?id=13191


Also, there's the 2 sectors contest that was held a few years ago, which had quite a few interesting entries, if I do say so myself. ;) Oh yeah, I did a map for it as well. ::coughs:: :p
http://www.doomworld.com/idgames/index.php?id=13939

This could be a really interesting idea is polished enough. With the preliminary numbers given it would hardly differ from any normal maps, but put the limits a lot lower so that the mappers have a lot less things to use and it could get much more interesting. For an example if you wanted to have a cyberdemon in the map you could only afford a few imps or something like that in addition.

edit: What should be used as a guide for counting the enemy threat and ammo "prices" are enemy health and ammo damage potential. Of course then some adjusting should be made, especially for the boss monsters, but those would be good guidelines.

Creaphis said:

Hellbent: This is a really good idea, but again, it isn't really a challenge game. What you're suggesting is a community mapping project. If you want to run a project like that, go for it - most Doomers still appreciate the ID style, and some would be willing to map for a project like this - but this just isn't mapping-challenge material. If we want to put our mapping abilities to the test, it's best to set one very specific restriction, and leave everything else to the individual.

Butts: Another interesting idea, but challenges work better when things are restricted than when overuse is forced. Now, this could be an interesting experiment for a 1-man mappack - how much thematic variation can be created when every map has every texture?



I've made a concept map for the 1 sector tag challenge idea. Available at:
http://www.mediafire.com/?vjy2j9mj12w
Edit: For some reason, I can't download from my own link. Try this one:
http://w16.easy-share.com/1700134707.html

Creaphis: I guess I wasn't so concerned with wether the community mapping project was challenging so much as whether it was inspiring or interesting or the end product would be fun.

What about a restriction where you have to use every texture in Doom or Doom 2 at least once, but the map cannot be greater than the shareware limits of of DeepSea (so I won't have to register it hehe) or some set number a little greater than the linedef/vertex/sector limits set by shareware DeepSea. So the challenge is in making something aesthetically appealing and moody while constantly wrestling with the pitfall of clashing themes or two many themes. The size restriction of the level would help make it more difficult for people to resort to making three or four levels inside one level (as a way to deal with incorporating many themes into one level)

I do like the id idea. Maybe I will make a designated post for it.

Somebody once suggested a 2 textures, 2 flats (not including the sky or doors) challenge once but was shot down. Personally i thought it was a good idea, it'd get people to use sectors and lighting in creative ways (and torches could be used to signify keyed doors, the wad they where all compiled into could have a small dehack and sprite change to make the yellow/red* key green)

*-whichever consenus decides is least represented by orange torches anyway.

I kinda like the 2tex/2flat idea myself. As you said, it would force the mapper to focus on lighting and architecture instead of pretty texturing (hopefully, though, good gameplay would come out of it as well).

When your trying to find a mapping restriction idea, you have to keep it as simple as possible. Otherwise the restriction plus the complex rules that go with it will probably frustrate a lot of people. That's what I liked about 1024 maps; it's simple and to the point and besides the fact that you have a limited amount of space to work it, it's easy to understand and pull of effectively.

i also liked that idea of 128x128 or 256x256 and the player is forced to stay inside that cube but waves of enemies are outside that cube and attack the player that sounds interesting, for like 1 level but not an entire megawad.

maybe another idea could be to put the player on some rube goldberg like machine which takes him on a ride through the level while he fends off monsters and objects and such to lead to the ultimate prize -- the exit!

I think that 2-3 textures and flats is an excellent idea for a challenge. Modern mappers spend way, way, way too much time messing around with these things, making the mapping process inefficient. I know I tend to use more textures than is necessary, and I think this would provide a good restriction that will improve everyone's mapping skillz in the long run. =)

Hellbent said:

Creaphis: I guess I wasn't so concerned with wether the community mapping project was challenging so much as whether it was inspiring or interesting or the end product would be fun.

Right, a community mapping project certainly doesn't have to be challenging, and an interesting end product is the goal of all projects. But, when you started this thread you were suggesting a mapping competition with judges. It seems that you've entirely dropped the idea of "competition" at this point, and were really just interested in a community project all along. I've been trying to promote ideas that would suited for competitions. I didn't mean to declare your ideas as bad - they're just not useful for contests. You can feel free to start a project based on one of your ideas. Some of them could work.


I didn't even want to do a limited textures/flats challenge when I suggested it, but it seems that's getting most of the support here. I was hoping for a technical challenge (like my 1 sector tag idea - haven't you checked out my sample map?) instead of an aesthetic challenge, but I'd be happy to see this happen. Now we just need somebody big to promote and run this thing or it won't work. (I don't have the necessary influence or experience around here.)

Creaphis said:

Right, a community mapping project certainly doesn't have to be challenging, and an interesting end product is the goal of all projects. But, when you started this thread you were suggesting a mapping competition with judges. It seems that you've entirely dropped the idea of "competition" at this point, and were really just interested in a community project all along. I've been trying to promote ideas that would suited for competitions. I didn't mean to declare your ideas as bad - they're just not useful for contests. You can feel free to start a project based on one of your ideas. Some of them could work.


I didn't even want to do a limited textures/flats challenge when I suggested it, but it seems that's getting most of the support here. I was hoping for a technical challenge (like my 1 sector tag idea - haven't you checked out my sample map?) instead of an aesthetic challenge, but I'd be happy to see this happen. Now we just need somebody big to promote and run this thing or it won't work. (I don't have the necessary influence or experience around here.)

I guess I was interested in a competition since that will actually result in something that gets finished and people will try harder to make it good. Of all the ideas expressed in this thread, the one I'd like to see made into a competition would be the id one. I don't see why that wouldn't work as a competitive thing. The end products would be just as varied in quality as the 10 sector contest. Just because it doesn't place typical constraints on the mappers, doesn't mean it won't be a challenge. It definitely would be.

The point thing seems to be more like a way to balance thing placement than an actual challenge. I do like the idea of using that to help out the thing placement of a map, but this reeks more of a community project with arbitrary limits (not even cool ones like the 1024x1024 project) than a competition of meaningful worth.

I'd like to see this put to use somehow, though, since you spent some time thinking about it.

"Just because it doesn't place typical constraints on the mappers, doesn't mean it won't be a challenge. It definitely would be."

Do we have problem with term definition here? Yes, making maps in the ID style can be a challenge. But no, making maps in the ID style CANNOT be a basis for a mapping challenge. Contests really do need to be based around typical, simple constraints or they won't work.

"I don't see why that wouldn't work as a competitive thing."

First, this makes the contest impossible to judge. Usually, judges only have to make one subjective decision, namely: How good is this map? Now, judges have to make a second subjective decision: Is this map in the ID style? It's impossible to objectively say that "this map is in the ID style." You couldn't possibly draw a line that sorted all maps into the categories of "ID style" and "non-ID style" in a way where everyone would agree with you - and universal agreement is necessary. What if a great map is submitted, but the judges can't agree on whether it's sufficiently ID-stylized or not? What if a crappy map is submitted, but it perfectly matches the works of Sandy Peterson? Does it deserve to win?

Second, the results of this contest would be absolutely meaningless, because this contest has, in a sense, been running since 1993. Great maps have been made in this style since ID made the very first ones. We already keep track of our favourite maps and map authors, and if anyone deserves to win this "contest", the winner is already decided by history. Now, when a contest like 10 Sectors is run, then the question asked by the contest is absolutely new, so the results of the contest actually are meaningful. The contest asks, "Who can make the best map with 10 sectors?" and we ultimately get clear answers to that question. Since nobody has tried this before, nobody is unfairly left out of the running.

What you are suggesting as a competition is not something that can be "won". Therefore, it is only suited for a COMMUNITY MAPPING PROJECT. I know you're concerned that people may not try as hard to make good maps if there's no specific contest, but trust me - people try hard. The contest of history is always running, and nobody wants to lose.