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

[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

[Steve D]

@TimeOfDeath666 Wow, thanks for clarifying everything. I really appreciate your explanations.

 

Okay, I'll sign up. I think your ideas and rules are cool, and I'm going to follow them to the letter. That means no one but me will test the map. I also have no intention of playing around with difficulty settings so that HNTR becomes the "real" UV. UV is UV, and HMP and HNTR will be linear reductions from that standard, just like all my other maps. While I might savescum through initial playtesting, I will practice without saves until I feel ready to make my first demo attempt. I will make as many demo attempts as necessary to obtain a clean, successful playthrough on UV Max.

 

Tbh, I'm kind of psyched by your rules. I'll have to pay attention to side routes and such to make certain they can still be fun for players who take them. I'm also very curious to see how much of a typical Steve D map -- basically, all-out-war from beginning to end -- I can make when I can't rely on testers who are top-tier players.

 

Indeed, if it wasn't for your new rules, if it was the same as every other year, the odds are that I would not participate. The new rules give me something to shoot for rather than just tossing in some ancient POS like I did for DMP 2016.

[Suitepee]

I don't entirely agree with ToD's post, but I accept his reasoning for what it is. Best of luck to all the mappers who take part in this year's project, and let my autistic ranting be ceased.

[_-_]

.

Edited May 31, 2019 by danielhday

[Doomkid]

Pretty stoked for the well balanced set of classic maps this is likely to result in. Totally understand your reasoning here, ToD.

[Pegleg]

I agree. Thanks for the clarification @TimeOfDeath666. Now I see what you're thinking and what you're aiming for with this project. Count me in.

 

[jazzmaster9]

Ahh. Thank you for the clarifications TimeofDeath. :)

Ill admit DMP is my excuse to create(or not since i cant finish a map for the life of me) out of the box ideas and have them be put in a note worthy project. I'll see what i can come up with for this project.

[obake]

Even with good intentions, it still feels wrong to have no zdoom.

 

Still, best of luck to the project.

[Xaser]

I appreciate the clarification, though my opinion hasn't shifted. Part of me is hoping I'm wrong and that something positive comes out of this experiment, but I'm so wholly against the "thou shalt not collaborate" philosophy that my other half is hoping for a failure -- I just hate to think that contributors are gonna get burned in the process. :/

 

Either way, it'll be some tangible proof either for or against the idea, which is fantastic from a scientific perspective, so carry on.

[Walter confetti]

I can try do something for this... any style map is acceptable?

[THMG]

Now, I'm new to the whole mapping scene, but having been a lurker for many, many years, it seems to me like not allowing GZDoom is gonna drive quite a few people away. I'll force myself to learn the tricks of Boom mapping regardless, but I'm unsure if others would be willing to as well.

[Spectre01]

@THMG There is an alternative project running concurrently for those wanting to map for GZDoom or want more relaxed rules for their vanilla/boom maps. Pick the one which fits best for you.

[THMG]

@Spectre01 I was planning on doing both. I don't have any other projects in the pipeline at the moment anyway.

[Obsidian]

Honestly, I still feel like you'd be better off keeping these rules separate from the DMP brand: for better or for worse, the Doomworld Mega Project has always been about letting anyone contribute anything (within reason) and to enforce rules like these excludes a lot of people who'd otherwise be willing to contribute, especially ones from other specialized forums like Zandronum or ZDF. Personally I was hoping to contribute a UDMF map this year and I am kinda sad that that option had been gated off.

 

Having said that, if you did reinstate the old rules and turn this idea into its own project, I'd be happy to sign up to both!  A TimeOfDeath community project would be a fantastic idea and a chance to see some damn interesting contributions. I dunno, this is just my take on things.

[Obsidian]

And yeah, I suppose there is Scifista's alternative, but it doesn't feel the same, y'know? Maybe I'm getting hung up on semantics, I dunno.

[Tristan]

Mega project and omega project are the wrong way around, imo. Omega sounds like it would be the cool and interesting spinoff while old-style DMP continues as before.

[THMG]

Yeah, what @Obsidian said is kind of my viewpoint as well. I personally don't think that excluding all advanced formats because of demo issues, of all things, is really in the spirit of the Mega Project.

 

But, if this is still going on, I'd be interested in knowing if doom 1 textures will be allowed, or if only what's in the doom2 iwad is fair game.

[pcorf]

Right now I do not plan to create a map for Doomworld Mega Project 2018.

[Lorenz0]

I may create a map for this project. Or actually I'm gonna take 2 different, never released maps, that I created years ago, cut out every part that I don't like now, add some new stuff, join these maps into one, change some other stuff, and I think that a perfectly fine map will emerge ;D

[NaZa]

I will create a map for this proyect.

[Phobus]

Anybody else started on this, yet? I've decided to revist the Broundry theme for a section of my map. This area might even be vanilla compatible, but the map will be limit-removing by the time I'm done with it.

 

[Walter confetti]

I started a thing using the 2 textures and 2 flats limit for this map, but i'll see if I will keep that theme...

[Philnemba]

For this year's DMP, I'm planning to combine 3 unreleased vanilla maps I made last year into one large map.

 

  

[Malrionn]

I'm interested to make a map for this project.

[Dragonfly]

I've made a start on my map and already see how much of a limitation no new sky textures really is. :/

 

I'm hoping this one rule would be reconsidered. Even if you preselected a handful of skies for us all to use in our boom format maps; that would really help imho.

[riderr3]

I've also even not starting yet, but... I put some ideas in text file and already know how my map will looks like.

[Memfis]

Ye, the iwad skies are so shitty... I'll have to make another all-indoors map I guess.

[Roofi]

I share two screenies of my map I started yesterday. The format will be vanilla.

 

[Dragonfly]

Also any chance of WFALLx textures? Requests against the rules, I know, but it would do a world of wonder.

[Memfis]

You could scroll COMPBLUE down. :D