Mapraider.com

Great post, EvilVey!


This is a tough one to answer... and it's a question that I've had myself.

My gut tells me that all you need to do is account for your "throne" when making your score. At least, this is how I do it myself. If I can't even run the map on my computer, then there's a good chance the someone with a good gaming rig is going to have some kind of fps issues. If it runs on my computer, but at 10fps, then it will probably run decently for someone with a good rig.

This argument does have another side: Some maps, even though filled with meshes, run REALLY well even on my crap box (like most of the official maps and BR-Biohazard, which I couldn't believe ran as well as it did). So what now? If it's possible to do that with a map, then like you said, the other maps should get hit hard in the "construction" rating.

... but even still, I rely on my gut (even though this map shows how possible it is to make an interesting map run well) because not everyone has a crappy box like me ...

As the case with DM-CrookedForest. This map's originality and construction is outstanding! The optimization though is horrid, and it runs very poorly on my machine. However, I still gave it a good construction rating because I realize that my machine is the problem, and not necessarily the map -- especially when I see in forum discussions that most people are running it without problems.

So as I already said, I guess my answer is to simply account for your machine in your rating.


Yes, this might prove to be an interesting twist to the moderation process. But I don't know if it would actually end up swaying that many votes. It may have "ran like a dog on your system" but if it ran good for me, I wouldn't care. In the case of "too much purple light" I think it would boil down to how much of a negative hit you gave the map. To me, something like that shouldn't significantly affect the score by itself, so even if you had made that comment, I might still vote unfair if your rating was too low overall.

One thing to remember is that as more and more people join the system, the number of moderations it takes for each rating increases. The chances of unfair votes like this happening will become less and less as the "average computer stats" among the members evens out a bit... so the problem may fix itself.


Again, great post, and a great question. You're definitely not the only one with this issue, and this situation is unique to Mapraider since it has this moderation system in place.

Maybe we can find an equally unique way that will address the problem if we need to :)

Heh...I think he played my CTF-MP-Raskada][ &|

And if that's the map you're complaining about optimization-wise, I know it's poorly optimized, and I'm trying to keep antiportals in mind for my newer projects.

If it isn't, well, just ignore that. :P

But EvilVey does bring up a very valid argument, and I think that sort of thing would be a great addition to the site. Not only would it allow people to see why people had rated it as they did but it would give the authors a chance to see what they had done wrong (i.e. if the problem was with optimization they'd know, or if the problem was with purple light, they'd know it was a subjective thing and not their fault).

Just my two cents.

HAHAHA! Actually, I wasn't complaining in the least bit about CTF-MP-Raskada][. In fact I loved that map when it first came out and it's still on my hard drive (admittedly, I'm not a CTF nut, but it was one of the better running maps I've played and I was especially impressed by the bots). If your map runs smoothly on my machine (or Bastard's), you can probably safely consider it 'optimized'.

The purple light crack was actually poking fun at a very early, unreleased map I made for the original Unreal of all things (it was a comment one of my friends made and it's always stuck in my head).

CTF-MP-Raskada][ was a cool map...don't be so hard on yourself.

E.V.

Thanks for the wonderful ideas and comments. I've added this to my growing list of features to add, so we'll see what happens ;)

Cool thread guys. Might even kick some people up the ass to make maps properly.

In my opinion, the reason a lot of the 3rd party maps out there run poorly are due to the designers not thinking about Zoning and AntiPortals.

Basically guys, this equals NOT FINISHING OF YOUR MAPS. A map is not finished until every last bit is sorted. Zoning is NOT an optional extra.

A good design is not what you can see but what you don't see. What I mean is not only how a level plays, but how the bots work, how the zoning is laid out etc etc.

I'm as bad at this as the next mapper TBH. You spend days lovingly adding bits to your map, then in an effort to get it out there and played you rush the finishing touches.

My problem is BOTS. I hate doing that bit as the maps I do get put straight onto Servers and I generally don't see the need. But I recognise that not everyone wants to play online.

Map making is not easy. Getting the right mix of looks, play and flow is a dark art, one which I have yet to master. I take my hat off to everyone on here who manages to create something special.

:)

TESTIFY BROTHER!!!

Amen to that! Optimization is not an option! It's a nessesity, especially if you want EVERYONE to play your maps. The only limits I want people to have when they play my map is that they have the game.

If the game runs on your PC, so should the map. It is the mapmakers responsibility to make a map that runs well on your machine, not the gamers responsibily to spend a few grand on a killer rig.

Lets face it. Money's tight, times are hard, and not everyone can afford a killer game rig. My PC is crap, but ya know what? When I do get the killer design/gaming rig to design/play these killer games I'm still gonna test them on the crappy rig to make sure they run right! It's not fair to Joe Gamer to release crap.

I have dozens of crappy maps right here on my hard drive. I don't release them. Why? THEY SUCK!

Nothing would make me feel worse than somebody downloading my map for 2 hours on a dial-up connection only to disappoint them at the end. I understand tastes in maps and games vary, but crap is crap and when you download it, and you're playing it, you know it right away.

Do you like it when you buy a game with your hard earned money and it sucks? So why disappoint someone with your free crap level when you know it's crap and it can be better? Free or pay, you get that same 'why did I waste my time?' feeling when you play crap.

That's why I get bummed out when folks don't rate the maps. Did I produce crap? I dunno...I think all my released maps rock (the ones you don't see do not rock...and they never will). It's almost impossible to look at your own work objectively. You either (a) love it too much or (b) you're too hard on yourself.

It comes down to this. I don't want people to see my name on a map and say 'Not him again! Why bother downloading this monkey's crap map?'. I may not be CliffyB Ownage material, but I'll be damned if I release something I KNOW will be thrown in the Suckage bin because I released it too early.

(And before anyone shoves it in my face and calls me hypocrite...yes, I know the torches didn't work right on some machines for some unknown reason on my DM-Reliquiary map. It was my first released map, made under a deadline for a contest, and it wasn't for weeks and weeks until someone told me there was a problem. Unfortunately TO THIS VERY DAY I have no clue why the torches sometimes won't ignite until you go into the basement. To tell the truth, the reason I didn't waste alot of time trying to fix it was that some people thought it was a triggered effect I did intentionally and it that it looked cool! You go in the coffin room and BOOM! All the torches light! Ooops...but some people thought it was cool...and in my own defence no one complained. Oh well. When enough people look at something you did wrong and think it was a neat effect instead of a screw-up, I guess it's okay to leave it alone and go on to the next map...)

I do not agree with this. UT2003 is not a game that was designed to run on someones PII-400 with a TNT and Epic plainly point this out both on the game packaging and in the readme files. That old PII might have been a good rig for UT, but times do change and technology must move forward.

It is up to the author to decide what his audience will be when he is designing a map, and the only responsibilities he is is bound to are those set out in the UT2003 EULA—namely, the map must be free. If an author wants 200,000 polys per frame, he can please himself. The map can still be optimised but it will probably still only run on killer-rigs.

If the author wants to make a successful map which could be picked up for regular rotation on popular public servers, then he should use his common-sense to keep the poly-counts around the same level as those out-of-the-box maps and optimise as much as possible. He must try and make the map obey the games built-in detail settings so that those who do spend money can justify it, and those who can’t (or won’t) can still play the map.

Just take a look at DM-Nirvana][. An absolutely beautiful map with outrageous detail and excellent playability. It really chugs with those high-details on my rig, but if I turn them down the map is perfectly playable—more so online since no bot-AI is being calculated.

The bottom-line is; mappers can and should please themselves. The gaming public and server administrators will decide if the map is worthy of server rotation. The mapper is more than welcome to lower the details in his maps to try and sway these opinions, but he must never feel restricted by an alleged “recommended specification” of what all maps should be designed to run on. I want playability, but I want eye-candy almost as much.