Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Naming the new enhanced port standard

Recommended Posts

For 20 pages and counting, we've been discussing the project of creating a specification for a new mapping standard that extends the capabilities of Boom/MBF mapping. But, this project lacks a name. It's important to have a name, so the standard can be referred to easily. I am terrible at such things. Please help!


This specification will be developed in stages, or "phases", starting, of course with Phase 1. So, it's ok if the name has "Phase X" as a suffix. But, what should it be named?


Please limit discussion to this purpose, if at all possible.


Suggested guidelines:

  • Please avoid symbols, like "+", or any character that cannot exist in a filename.
  • Does not need to be "*oom"
  • Nothing too silly, please.
  • "KaBoom" was mentioned, but I'd like to avoid that one - it's too close to "KBDoom".
  • Please limit to one or two words.



Share this post

Link to post

Brutal Boom





Really it's a standard. We shouldn't be afraid of silly, "Boom" was silly (and clever, too). It could be something as cheesy as "Doomworld Community Standard" (wait no, that abbreviates to DCS and people would confuse it with a flight sim). It could be Doom 21 (for 21st century) because it's about updating the baseline. It's supposed to become a common standard, so it could be just that: Common Standard. CoSta for short?

Share this post

Link to post

Brainstorming here.


EBoom - Simple but a lot of the popular source port names (ZDoom, GZDoom, etc.) are fairly simple. The E here stands for 'extended'. Nothing too fancy. You could play around with various descriptive words ('augmented', 'modern', etc.) and see if something sounds catchy. After regular use, prefixes like these become normalized and transparent and 'feel right' (e.g. prBoom+), so all things considered I think names like this are a good safe choice if you don't want to risk a name that might date itself or sound silly in retrospect. 


Eternity - Describing how long this will take to come out. Zing.


Powerfully Expanded New Imaginative Sourceport - This is technically correct, and it also has a catchy acronym as well.  



Share this post

Link to post
2 minutes ago, rdwpa said:

Powerfully Expanded New Imaginative Sourceport - This is technically correct, and it also has a catchy acronym as well.  

good one... :D

Share this post

Link to post
13 minutes ago, Jayextee said:



Wait, no. Some other game took that in 2004 after Legacy dropped it. How about... Doom XP? Heh.

Share this post

Link to post

NeoBoom or NeoMBF.

MetaBoom or MetaMBF.

Or simply Boom Phase II (last version of Classic Boom is named “BOOM phase I”, so that it makes sense to name the new and refreshed iteration as Phase II).

Share this post

Link to post

Let's do something along the lines of what C and C++ etc does. A short name and with an added year to it to clearly state when it was released and use as an easy version standard. I suggest Doom Source Port Extensions [Year]. Shortform DSPE-nn. Thus if a standard is set in stone this year, it becomes DSPE-17. Anything that doesn't make it into DSPE-17, could go into DSPE-18 or DSPE-19 etc.

If we start with a small set of common features we all can agree on, for instance what Boom support, we can call that DSPE-99, Doom Source Port Extensions 1999. Any port that is Boom-compatible, within reason, is DSPE-99-compliant. Emulating bugs or obsolete features is not required etc.

This way we don't have to include EVERYTHNG into a new standard, since there will be a new one next year or so, and we can let things mature, provide working demonstrations etc, and get it included.

What makes it into the standard is governed by a body chosen by those who make compliant ports. To be considered a valid member of this body, there must be a significant enough divergence from the code it was forked from, and this is decided by the already existing members and requires a 2/3 or more majority vote etc. One person per port/project should be enough. Tool makers, like me, will simply have to lobby or suggest, but cannot vote.

What goes into the standard should be governed by those who actually code for the standard. They are the ones that have to do the work.

Share this post

Link to post

Geez, way to follow guidelines:


"Just a few more tweaks, and I'll be ready to release the contents of my PENIS on you guys..."


There's a couple of good serious ones here. I'm not too keen on using "*oom", as it sounds like a port, and I'm not on the Boom team (which is an "*oom" name). Seems like "extended" should be part of the name. I like the idea of the 2-digit year at the end, though "17" sounds a lot more inferior than "99". And, I hope it doesn't take a year between releases, though the year is flying by...


I was hoping to get some of these words in there, if we were going for acronyms:

extended, enhanced, compatibility, compatible, common, community, standard, specification, baseline, mapping, mapper's, doom/boom.

Share this post

Link to post
1 minute ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Empty promises I take it?

I sure hope so...for everyone's sake involved.

Share this post

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now