[released] Doomworld Mega Project 2018 (beat your own map)

[The_SloVinator]

Hell, I'm in!

 

I prefer to map vanilla stuff, so yep.

 

EDIT: On the second thought, I'll pass this one. There is a project that interests me more atm. Thanks.

Edited January 2, 2018 by The_SloVinator

[gaspe]

Not sure about not allowing ZDoom stuff, but whatever there's the other project now (if it starts) for those who are interested. Using only stock textures sounds cool, and so at least I can make something a bit faster :P

[Suitepee]

Might as well rename this the 'Boomworld Mega Project'. Excluding GZDoom/ZDoom maps from a somewhat long-running community project that was previously all about allowing a wide variety of mapping styles involved seems kind of daft imo.

 

Would Timeofdeath care to explain exactly WHY ZDoom maps are no longer allowed in this year's iteration?

[scifista42]

It's clearly because of demo compatibility, seeing the project's focus on demos.

[Ninehills42]

But why do we need demos? I mean if your reasoning behind this mistery is 'so nobody will make insanely hard maps unless they can beat them' , then its not really a good idea, becuase then it only makes zdoom maps not viable... Why not allow them to record like a video of their playthrough then, so Zdoom mappers can join too?

 

Also there are many of us who would like to have custom, renamed textures allowed (including me). Whats the idea behind these rules?

Explain DansGame

[jazzmaster9]

No ZDoom? Hmm ill pass then. This defeates the whole purpose of the original DMP. The only reason i didnt submit in the last few Mega Projects was due to burnout.

[dt_]

I have always tried to contribute to these projects every year since I've been active on this forum, and for me it's always been a medium of experimentation, a way to push myself or try new things.  For instance  I've always wanted to submit a gzdoom map for obe of these, would you consider allowing this?

 

edit:. Just seen that there's an alternative dmp that allows this.  Might try and contribute to both

[riderr3]

Blame ZDoom, but not the project starter. If ZDoom would support the demos from the beginning, we would all live in peace and harmony. OP wanted to introduce new challenge but not many people appreciated this.

Edited January 2, 2018 by riderr3

[Xaser]

10 hours ago, TimeOfDeath666 said:

1) Mappers must record a demo of themselves beating their own map on UV difficulty (-skill 4). The demo doesn't have to be fast or good in any way, it just has to show the mapper exiting their own map without cheats or saves.

2) Mappers only get one chance to submit their map. Once a mapper submits their map, it is considered final and the map can't be edited again for any reason.

#2 is an awful idea that will only make maps worse, period.

 

Here's a suitable tweak that will keep the aim of rule #1 intact without ruining submissions: If someone posts a new version of the map, they must record and post a new demo. Only the latest version of a map with a working demo will be accepted.

 

Please consider this rather than laying a trap for new mappers to fall into. I get what you're trying to do here, but the stated rules are going to do more harm than good.

[Arctangent]

25 minutes ago, riderr3 said:

Blame ZDoom, but not the project starter. If ZDoom would support the demos from the beginning, we would all live in peace and harmony. OP wanted to introduce new challenge but not many people appreciated this.

please do try your hand at adding demo compat to zdoom so you can realize the extent at which you have become a giant dick erecting from the subterra, soiling the skyline and blocking an annoying but ultimately not significant amount of airspace

[Pegleg]

I like mapping for vanilla with stock textures, so I'm interested.

 

I have a few thoughts, though, particularly about rules 1 and 2. I understand the demo on UV without saves, but if that is mandatory, then I'm with @pcorf, I'll submit something on the easier side. I wasn't a very good player, even when I had time to play more regularly; now that I don't, I'm even worse. That being said, I like to create maps, and I reason that if I make something that I can reliably finish on UV, then most will probably say that it's not challenging.

 

As for rule 2, I agree with @Xaser that it will just hurt the quality. I understand the impetus for it, but I've noticed that people submit a map, other people play it and critique it, and the author revises the map and resubmits an improved map. I would suggest that if you want to restrict people from updating their map multiple times, then do so by putting a cap on the number of resubmissions (e.g., you can submit at most 2 revisions to your map, to allow for bug-fixes and tweaks).

[Nine Inch Heels]

9 hours ago, 42PercentHealth said:

I'm cool with the maps requiring a demo, but requiring the mapper to demo his/her own map might be a bit stringent. Some mappers aren't the best players (of course, I'm not talking about myself at all -- why would you even think it?).

Thou shalt not map above thine skill-level.

[42PercentHealth]

Just now, Nine Inch Heels said:

Thou shalt not map above thine skill-level.

:-(

[Kaido]

 Making maps with secrets would be kind of pointless if we are showing in our own demos the exact location and how to get to the secret. 

[42PercentHealth]

Just now, A7MAD said:

 Making maps with secrets would be kind of pointless if we are showing in our own demos the exact location and how to get to the secret. 

Just don't tag them as secrets then. ;-)

[NinjaLiquidator]

1 minute ago, A7MAD said:

 Making maps with secrets would be kind of pointless if we are showing in our own demos the exact location and how to get to the secret.

Who you think will watch all that long demos? You would have to take 2 days off and watch them in 1.25 speed :D

[Nine Inch Heels]

2 minutes ago, A7MAD said:

 Making maps with secrets would be kind of pointless if we are showing in our own demos the exact location and how to get to the secret. 

The demos are solely there for the purpose of verification, and people who want to know things ahead of time can just open maps in a builder or use cheats anyway, so that argument is kinda lost on me.

 

Strongly disagree with the policy that once a map is submitted, it can't be changed anymore. It disencourages feedback, and rules out any chance for people to fix exploits or map-breaking errors which may get discovered by others. Not everybody is skilled and experienced enough to playtest their maps to a thourough enough degree that makes it such that maps will be 100% mechanically flawless, for example.

[baja blast rd.]

For updates, I'd recommend a compromise (in addition to the new demo thing):

 

1) A "hard deadline" for updates -- nothing accepted after it's January 01, 2019 in all time zones in the world. A countdown to that time will be posted, so there'll be no excuses. 

2) When you post an update, all posts you have made in the thread with the wad need to be updated with a link of the proper version, clearly identifiable. 

 

A lot of people might not have the testing networks necessary to ensure a 100% functional map without any open playtesting. I think the removal of updates might actually do more harm than the demo requirement does good, as far as the playability of the set as a whole is concerned. 

 

[Benjogami]

I like the rules :D I think self-testing is important for creating good maps of any type, and giving mappers just one shot should encourage intense self-testing. But here are some ideas for a bit more breathing room:

 

- Perhaps there could be a "DMP2018 Testing" thread where people can post their maps for testing and discussion, so there's no ambiguity between final submissions and maps that want feedback, so the main thread won't get cluttered with that stuff.

 

- Perhaps more than one map could be allowed per mapper. That way if you submit a terrible blunder, it won't feel so bad. Plus I think there might be fewer submitters than in years past. ;)

 

Allowing updates if a new demo is recorded would definitely be reasonable, but it would also take a lot of the pressure off, and I think that pressure is interesting.

[Memfis]

I'm glad to see you in charge again and I promise to submit a level.

[Ribbiks]

2 hours ago, Memfis said:

I'm glad to see you in charge again and I promise to submit a level.

 

^^ :D

[Steve D]

7 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

Thou shalt not map above thine skill-level.

Once again, nope. A great personal guide for those who want to live by it, but not for me.

 

One could say, "Feel free to map above thine skill level, so long as thine has successful FDAs by skilled players to prove the map is solid, well thought-out, and fair, no matter how brutal it might be."

 

I'm lucky enough to have such skilled playtesters. Personally, I tend to map to the edge of what I can handle, but that's not determined by being able to beat the map in one go 100% of the time or even 25% of the time. In general, I don't consider a map -- by another mapper -- as hard unless I die at least 10 times while playing it. Max deaths in one map is 85 thanks to dobu gabu maru. We all know about that guy and what his maps are like. ;D  I seldom die more than 3 times in my own maps, except when they're of the hardcore variety. The max deaths I suffered in one of my hardcore maps is 54, at which point I quit in despair because I didn't have enough health and ammo to beat the next room and the really big fight beyond that. But instead of making it easier since then, I've made it more difficult -- as per the requests of my playtesters -- because these maps are deliberately pitched way above my skill level. But they're vetted by great players. My personal skill level in those maps is HNTR. 

 

None of this bothers me. I guess the operative question is whether or not "skill level" is a relative term. To some, it might be the ability to beat their own map 100% of the time on Nightmare. For me, it's "Whatever seems fun no matter how many times I die." And as a savescummer, I don't restart the entire map every time I die. I usually save before opening doors or pressing switches, and often before grabbing keys or powerups. There's only so much time, after all.

 

Personally, I'm fine with this year's rules except for the one about no changes after submission. Someone might find a nasty error that I missed because, as the mapper, I tend to take the most optimal route every time. And what's funny is that for all this debating I've done, the fact is that I'm working on three megawads and an episode, plus one CP, so it's not likely I'll contribute. But if I do, I'll make certain I have the demo in hand, by me, and I can -- and will -- make as many tries at beating the map as I like, recording every attempt until the one where I make it, because I want that map to be as hard as possible within this limitation. ;)

 

This is really all about sticking up for the way I and some other mappers do things. In the last post, I mentioned death-destiny. I don't know, but I've been told, that death-destiny preferred playing his maps on HMP and left UV for his playtesters and other elite players. But I do know, for certain, of one mapper, Capellan, who's been mapping since the '90s -- MM2, Requiem, Demonfear, alla dat -- and he has never, not once, played any of his maps on UV. I was really stunned when he told me this. I mean, not even out of curiosity? Nope, not even out of curiosity. So there you have it. One size will never fit all in the Doom community. ;) 

[Capellan]

38 minutes ago, Steve D said:

But I do know, for certain, of one mapper, Capellan, who's been mapping since the '90s -- MM2, Requiem, Demonfear, alla dat -- and he has never, not once, played any of his maps on UV. I was really stunned when he told me this. I mean, not even out of curiosity? Nope, not even out of curiosity. So there you have it. One size will never fit all in the Doom community. ;) 

 

Ayup.  UV is specifically for people who are Better At Doom Than Me. 

[Nine Inch Heels]

38 minutes ago, Steve D said:

Once again, nope. A great personal guide for those who want to live by it, but not for me.

 

One could say, "Feel free to map above thine skill level, so long as thine has successful FDAs by skilled players to prove the map is solid, well thought-out, and fair, no matter how brutal it might be."

If you have playtesters to rely on, who actually, ideally map themselves so that your map can be objectively verified even if above your skill level, then that's one thing. People designing slaughtermaps above their skill level without having the required playtesters at hand is another.

 

Personally I put in maps what can beat at 80% consistency, roughly, if I want to make it interesting for myself. If I want to make to make it genuinely hard, I go with a lower %age. For the purpose of a community project I think expecting people to do a demo that clears the whole thing in one fell swoop makes it such that most maps should be enjoyable for a larger audience, which in my opinion isn't necessarily the worst course of action for that matter. But by all means, go to town on the difficulty if the map overall is solid. ;-)

[Steve D]

17 minutes ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

If you have playtesters to rely on, who actually, ideally map themselves so that your map can be objectively verified even if above your skill level, then that's one thing. People designing slaughtermaps above their skill level without having the required playtesters at hand is another.

 

Personally I put in maps what can beat at 80% consistency, roughly, if I want to make it interesting for myself. If I want to make to make it genuinely hard, I go with a lower %age. For the purpose of a community project I think expecting people to do a demo that clears the whole thing in one fell swoop makes it such that most maps should be enjoyable for a larger audience, which in my opinion isn't necessarily the worst course of action for that matter. But by all means, go to town on the difficulty if the map overall is solid. ;-)

Your method sounds like a very good one. I haven't played any of your maps yet, but I've seen screenshots and I'm definitely interested. Do you upload to idgames using your DW nick?

 

Yes, some of my playtesters are or have been mappers, including slaughtermappers. I do not make actual slaughtermaps, largely because I'm not a good enough player to create puzzle-fights in the vein of Ribbiks and Demonologist. Instead, I rely on chaotic, unscripted battles with high monster density -- the barroom brawl approach, you might say. ;) Sometimes the density is high enough for me to call it 'hardcore slaughtery' -- the Amiga Demo Party maps -- but that's as far as I'm capable of going. There are still strategies, but it's not refined to the slaughter level.

 

It also occurs to me that when I described my skill level as, "Whatever seems fun no matter how many times I die," it's really my tolerance level. I tolerate a high death count because hard maps and tough fights are entertaining to me even if I die a lot. For example, there was a fight in Map15 of Sunlust where I died 12 times in a row, but for me it was the most fun part of the map. :D Then I watch Demon of The Well play it, and naturally he survives on the first try because he's a Doom Ninja. He can assess situations in microseconds and immediately do the right thing. Oh, well, I still had fun. ;)

[Nine Inch Heels]

31 minutes ago, Steve D said:

Do you upload to idgames using your DW nick?

One map I made is in "Joy of mapping winter weekend", slotted as "E3secret", if you wanna try. Would recommend waiting for the next update on the public beta, because for some odd reason I removed a tag from a door when adding some new actions (probably had the sector selected with another one I removed a tag from :/). Other than that I don't have any public releases to my name as of yet, since I'm bundling up stuff I made for the purpose of polishing, and releasing it as a set at some point this year. But, if you wanna have a look when things start coming together, I'll make sure to drop you a link when the time comes.

Also sorry for hijacking thread. :p

[Steve D]

2 hours ago, Nine Inch Heels said:

I don't have any public releases to my name as of yet, since I'm bundling up stuff I made for the purpose of polishing, and releasing it as a set at some point this year. But, if you wanna have a look when things start coming together, I'll make sure to drop you a link when the time comes.
 

By all means send a link. I will probably play on HNTR after I get killed on UV if your maps are in the Ribbiks-category of difficulty. That's how I usually play Ribbiks and Demonologist. Sunlust was an exception because the early maps were fairly easy, so I upped the difficulty as I progressed. Looking forward to your work.

 

I reckon we can give the thread back to its intended purpose now. ;)

[42PercentHealth]

35 minutes ago, Steve D said:

By all means send a link. I will probably play on HNTR after I get killed on UV if your maps are in the Ribbiks-category of difficulty. That's how I usually play Ribbiks and Demonologist.

If you play Ribbiks on HMP, you'll want to play NIH on HNTR or ITYTD. ;-)

 

Not even joking.

[baja blast rd.]

^ Would suggest playing both on the same skill setting. Ribbiks's upper end of difficulty is higher imo.

 

14 hours ago, Steve D said:

In the last post, I mentioned death-destiny. I don't know, but I've been told, that death-destiny preferred playing his maps on HMP and left UV for his playtesters and other elite players.

DD was a pretty good player, especially for the time in which he was active. His approach to difficulty settings was different, because he often used the "HMP = normal tough" approach and then threw in low-effort changes for UV. Turret manc? You're now a somewhat comically placed cyberdemon.

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by rdwpa

[TimeOfDeath666]

Here are my replies (if I didn't reply to you it's because I felt I replied to a similar question earlier).

antares031 said: But not even a custom sky transfer for boom this time?

Yes, the "no textures" rule is very strict this time.

pcorf said: I think rule number 1 about recording a demo is should be just optional, as long as the mapper play tests his or her map to make sure it all plays well because remember we have a whole year to perfect our map. Also I'm not a great player in demo recording during challenging maps (like Richard Wiles-like difficulty) because I like to load and save my game. Everything else is fine. But if I was going to include a demo with my map, expect it to be easy like Twilight Zone 1.

That's ok, I assumed people would generally make their maps easier because of rule #1. That rule should be viewed as the most important aspect of this project, so people should design their maps in a way that's fun and beatable for them and not for other players.

Spectre01 said: Why have the demo requirement, and cut out GZDoom maps, if the project has always been about getting as many mappers participating as possible? Also, not being able to make changes based on feedback is a terrible idea. Not everybody has a team of playtesting pals willing to give behind-the-scenes advice. This will only result in lower overall submission quality.

Because I'm trying to get people out of their comfort zones and try new things. I've made lots of zdoom maps and I'll continue to make zdoom maps, but I want this year's project to be compatible with doom2/boom format demos. For this project, the only feedback a mapper should take is their own because the goal is for the mapper to make a fun map that they enjoy playing and can beat themselves. Ideally, the mapper should do all of the playtesting themselves and not rely on others. Whether it will result in more bugs and "lower overall submission quality" is irrelevant because this is supposed to be a fun experiment/challenge for the mapper and a learning experience.

Steve D said: Should the demo be a zero-secret or full-secret run?

The only requirement is that the mapper activates the exit. If a mapper wants to design their map for a certain demo category like "max" or "speed" or "reality" then that's fine too.

StormCatcher.77 said: As i understand, in this project not planned hub-map?

Perhaps before release our maps we will have to contact each other for help with testing...

Yes, there won't be a hub-map. The maps will be arranged by format (vanilla/limit-removing format and boom format). If there are more than 29 maps, there will be two different wad files. Mappers can ask for playtesting help if they want, but they shouldn't post a link to their wad in the thread for playtesting.

Doomkid said: The only thing I would change is the inability to add fixes to your map after the fact. I'm sure it would be way easier for ToD to compile if there was only one version of every map rather than a million, but it would be kind of a shame for missed bugs/oopsies/etc to remain in the wad for this reason.

I'm all for mappers having to provide a demo, but I feel like it maybe shouldn't be so stringent - For players who like to save/load if they die halfway through or need to take a piss break or something, it seems like a YouTube recording should be enough. This is only a very minor point though, I like the idea of the mappers having to 'prove' they can beat their own maps before foisting them onto the world, I just think "one sitting, no saves" OS style demos might be a bit too strict for many players.

I admit, the most annoying thing about these projects from a compiler's point of view is the sheer number of different versions for each mapper's wad. But rule #2 was also added to encourage mappers to take more time playing their map until they're finally ready to record a demo and release it. Rule #2 also prevents the demo from going out-of-sync if the mapper edits their map again. So this isn't just about making my life easier as a compiler, but also trying to make the mappers more efficient. For years I've made maps that were only tested by me and released without making any further edits.

You're probably right about rule #1 being too strict for many players, but hopefully they will give it a try. Mappers will probably have to adapt their mapping and playing styles for these rules, but this project is just supposed to be a fun experiment. Making a map that the mapper can beat with no cheats/saves shouldn't be a problem at all. If the mapper keeps dying, add health or ammo or change monsters or make the map shorter, etc.

42PercentHealth said: I'm cool with the maps requiring a demo, but requiring the mapper to demo his/her own map might be a bit stringent. Some mappers aren't the best players (of course, I'm not talking about myself at all -- why would you even think it?). I'd suggest that if a mapper gets anyone to do a legitimate, non-TAS demo, that should be good enough.

Any mapper can make a map that someone else can demo, but it's more fun when the mapper can demo their own map. This isn't meant to embarass mappers who aren't "the best players", this is to encourage all mappers to make a map that they can play without cheats/saves.

antares031 said: I'm concerning about restricting G/ZDoom from the submission, though. The goal of Doomworld Mega Project is to gather levels from as many level designers as possible, and restricting G/ZDoom will definitely cut the amount of potential participants. If you're worrying about the compatibility, try to separate the wad, based on the level's compatibility, like the DMP2015 did. And like I said earlier, allowing the custom sky for boom would be a good idea.

I only banned g/zdoom because it doesn't support vanilla/boom format demos. The zdoom devs freely admit that demo compatibility isn't a priority, and demos can go out-of-sync if you don't watch the demo with the same version of g/zdoom that you recorded it with. So I decided to ban g/zdoom to make things easier. I map in both zdoom/vanilla formats so hopefully zdoom mappers will try vanilla/boom mapping too.

Obsidian said: Soooo....is demo compatibility the reason you don't wanna use ZDoom? Because considering it was officially finished last year you can record demos for it now...

Yes, demo compatibility. Even though zdoom is finished, someone could record a demo in an older version that doesn't work in the latest version. And it seems like more people/mappers use gzdoom instead of zdoom anyway, so I just thought it would be too much trouble to try to make sure everyone is using the same version of g/zdoom for testing and recording.

Steve D said: As you said, believing an author should be able to beat their map on UV is a personal principle, for you. There are many who'd agree with you, but I'm not one of them. I happen to enjoy dying in difficult fights, and I typically play as a savescummer. This is especially helpful in the bigger maps I design, since I don't want to start at the beginning again if I die 35 minutes into a 45-minute map.

There are mappers who always play on HMP and, in some cases, never play their own maps on UV, but instead let other players test that difficulty setting. IIRC, death-destiny was one such mapper. Should they be forced into proving they can beat their maps on UV owing to some arbitrary belief by other mappers?

In the case of DMP 2018, ToD set the demo rule and I'm happy to abide by it, because this is a big job and it's great that he does it. His house, his rules. Probably he wants to avoid people tossing in totally BS maps that are no fun to play for anyone. I'm just sticking up for those of us who do things in a different way and who have different beliefs and different joys in playing this game. Anyone can approach this hobby any way they want, but I guarantee that if I participate this year, my map will be more fun if, as @42PercentHealth suggested, it can have a demo by one of the excellent players/mappers who have graciously played my maps over the last few years, instead of by my incompetent self. It would be hard and nasty, but it wouldn't be BS. Otherwise, it will be a little easier than usual but maybe still kind of alright for an early slot.

This is just supposed to be a fun experiment/challenge for mappers. The mapper's enjoyment while playing their map with no saves/cheats is the only thing that matters for this project. The demo must be done on UV -skill 4, so some mappers might have to change the way they do difficulty settings so that they can play the map. But this is supposed to be fun.

scifista42 said: And so I won't be able to use the map I have in progress from 2017, since its main unique concept essentially relies on custom textures and flats.

That was unintentional.

Spectre01 said: I don't see anything about the demo having to be on UV. :P Just do a quick run of the easiest difficulty. If it has to be on UV, flip the settings upside down and have UV be HNTR and vice versa.

That's right, so I added that to the first post. All demos must be on UV (-skill 4). If mappers want to make the lower difficulties harder than UV then that's up to them, but demos must be on UV.

Ninehills42 said: But why do we need demos? I mean if your reasoning behind this mistery is 'so nobody will make insanely hard maps unless they can beat them' , then its not really a good idea, becuase then it only makes zdoom maps not viable... Why not allow them to record like a video of their playthrough then, so Zdoom mappers can join too?

Also there are many of us who would like to have custom, renamed textures allowed (including me). Whats the idea behind these rules?

The demo rule is just supposed to be a fun challenge for mappers to try. I'll be including each mapper's demo in the final zip, so I don't want youtube links. I banned custom content because mappers should put all of their focus on making a map they can beat.

jazzmaster9 said: No ZDoom? Hmm ill pass then. This defeates the whole purpose of the original DMP. The only reason i didnt submit in the last few Mega Projects was due to burnout.

The purpose of the original DMP remains the same. Why can't zdoom mappers try making one map in one year for a classic port? I've made lots of zdoom maps and classic maps.

Xaser said: #2 is an awful idea that will only make maps worse, period.

Here's a suitable tweak that will keep the aim of rule #1 intact without ruining submissions: If someone posts a new version of the map, they must record and post a new demo. Only the latest version of a map with a working demo will be accepted.

Please consider this rather than laying a trap for new mappers to fall into. I get what you're trying to do here, but the stated rules are going to do more harm than good.

Your tweak is a good idea, but it goes against what I intended. For this year's project I want mappers to try to be more efficient in their mapping and be more self-reliant and hopefully rule #2 will make mappers test their maps even more before releasing them. Will it make the maps worse? Possibly. But that's irrelevant for this year's project. Consider it a learning experience. And rule #1 will ensure that the map is at least beatable in some way because the mapper will record themselves beating it. Maybe you're right in that I'm laying a trap, but it's not just new mappers who will fall into it (remember that endlessly updated wad that should be banned from dsda?). This is going to be unfamiliar territory for a lot of mappers and there are going to be bugs and hiccups for sure, but I hope it'll be a fun and worthwhile experience in the end.

Pegleg said: I have a few thoughts, though, particularly about rules 1 and 2. I understand the demo on UV without saves, but if that is mandatory, then I'm with @pcorf, I'll submit something on the easier side. I wasn't a very good player, even when I had time to play more regularly; now that I don't, I'm even worse. That being said, I like to create maps, and I reason that if I make something that I can reliably finish on UV, then most will probably say that it's not challenging.

As for rule 2, I agree with @Xaser that it will just hurt the quality. I understand the impetus for it, but I've noticed that people submit a map, other people play it and critique it, and the author revises the map and resubmits an improved map. I would suggest that if you want to restrict people from updating their map multiple times, then do so by putting a cap on the number of resubmissions (e.g., you can submit at most 2 revisions to your map, to allow for bug-fixes and tweaks).

Everyone has a different skill level and so the opinions of others are completely irrelevant for this project because the goal is to make a map that you can beat yourself. The cap on map updates is a good idea but I want rule #2 to be really meaningful.

A7MAD said: Making maps with secrets would be kind of pointless if we are showing in our own demos the exact location and how to get to the secret.

The only requirement for the demo is to exit the level, you don't have to visit secret areas if you don't want to.

Nine Inch Heels said: Strongly disagree with the policy that once a map is submitted, it can't be changed anymore. It disencourages feedback, and rules out any chance for people to fix exploits or map-breaking errors which may get discovered by others. Not everybody is skilled and experienced enough to playtest their maps to a thourough enough degree that makes it such that maps will be 100% mechanically flawless, for example.

All of that is true and is kind of the point. For this project I don't want mappers to rely on others, I want them to make a map for themselves and for this year's project to be a learning experience.

Benjogami said: - Perhaps there could be a "DMP2018 Testing" thread where people can post their maps for testing and discussion, so there's no ambiguity between final submissions and maps that want feedback, so the main thread won't get cluttered with that stuff.

- Perhaps more than one map could be allowed per mapper. That way if you submit a terrible blunder, it won't feel so bad. Plus I think there might be fewer submitters than in years past. ;)

Good ideas, but I don't want to clutter the forum with another thread and I also don't want mappers to rely on others, plus I'd like to keep the "one map per person" rule.

Edited January 3, 2018 by TimeOfDeath666