Thoughts on community edits to maps

Forum

Thoughts on community edits to maps

w00tguy123 13 Aug 2020 05:16

I'm thinking these should always be secondary download links, with the original map author's link coming first.

For things like fixing a bug or res file I think it's fine to outright replace the author's own link. However, changing entity behavior or editing BSPs is more like making your own version of the map, and it can be subjective whether or not that's an improvement.

As long as the original archive isn't deleted I guess it doesn't really matter much, but there should be some standard for map edits. Maybe it would be confusing having multiple download links to choose from. I don't know what's best. We could make map packs so server owners could just download one thing instead of hand-picking from each map page (something like a "Bspguy Merge Pack" and "Garompa's Ripent Pack").

Anyway, here's the proposal for a download section with lots of edits:

+Example Downloads

Original:
SCMapDB

Community edit:
SCMapDB

Extended lore remaster:
SCMapDB

Merged version:
SCMapDB

Server X's edits:
SCMapDB

Community edits to the "Original" version would be limited to bug fixes (e.g. crashes, soft locks, bad file paths). Changes to things like monster health or game_text grammar would go to a separate version.

Last edited on 13 Aug 2020 05:22 by w00tguy123 Show more

Re: Thoughts on community edits to maps

Garompa 13 Aug 2020 16:02

I have only replaced the download links whenever the original map is unplayable for some reason or has bugs, with just a couple of exceptions (maps not fit for playing for several reasons or issues). I have added the original link as well whenever these things happen but there is an external link to the original file. I have added an alternate version in some when the map is playable but may require something done for some reason (example: random map 2).
I hope I haven't angered anyone. The maps I posted yesterday were in my back burner for quite some time now waiting to be uploaded.

If there is a consensus towards this proposal, I'll change them all to "community edit". Although, personally, at first glance, anyone reading that doesn't know would still download the original over the community edit since the name doesn't really explain it is a bugfixed version. Perhaps instead of community edit would be best to use something like "Latest fixed version"?

Last edited on 13 Aug 2020 16:03 by Garompa Show more

Re: Thoughts on community edits to maps

w00tguy123 13 Aug 2020 17:12

The naming isn't important, it's more that I think the original map should be preserved, and that it should be clear when there are edits made to whatever is linked in the downloads (if by someone other than the author/porter).

I don't mean to be calling you out specifically. It's great that you're updating these maps to be playable. The thing that bothers me is when fixes are mixed in with things like "added a final boss", where then it's like not the same map anymore. Maybe some would rather play the classic version. There's only one link so it's unclear where the author's work ends and the ripent edits begin.

In most cases probably no one cares, but in general I think gameplay/style edits should be separated out from the author's version of the map, even if that means linking a map full of 20k hp monsters and no ending. I don't want to anger anyone either by editing downloads to look the way I think they should look.

anyone reading that doesn't know would still download the original over the community edit since the name doesn't really explain it is a bugfixed version. Perhaps instead of community edit would be best to use something like "Latest fixed version"?

Ideally there wouldn't be a need for a "Latest fixed version". That's where I have a problem with mixing fixes and gameplay changes. The "original" download should have all fixes applied, which don't affect the original gameplay or style of the map in any way. Things like adding new monsters or extra lore is where I think a separate download is needed.

Last edited on 13 Aug 2020 19:03 by w00tguy123 Show more

TheBard (guest) 13 Aug 2020 18:49

Hi Guys
In the old days ripents normally had slightly different name. to avoid maps not working
i.e. a server has the original version different version on here, same name, errors pop up stopping people from playing on servers.
so different names please. Say add -rip at the end.

BTW i would comment on my own maps but unfortunately this database wont let me log in (can log in just fine to Wikidot main site) so IDK whats happening there!

w00tguy123 13 Aug 2020 19:19

In the old days ripents normally had slightly different name. to avoid maps not working
i.e. a server has the original version different version on here, same name, errors pop up stopping people from playing on servers.
so different names please. Say add -rip at the end.

I would agree here if clients were able to download maps from servers and host themselves. However, since certain file types are blacklisted (.cfg), you have to download from SCMapDB for maps to work properly anyway. If you have the ripented version, then there should be no problem playing on a server that uses the original. Entity data in your BSP file is ignored when connecting to someone else's server.

That said, it's probably still a good idea to add suffixes for ripents that change the gameplay/style of the map. That way it's clear the ripented version is not how the author intended the map to work.

database wont let me log in

It's some problem with blocked cookies I think. You need to disable some extensions or use a different browser to log in.

Last edited on 13 Aug 2020 19:33 by w00tguy123 Show more

Garompa 13 Aug 2020 20:46

Mmmm i don't know if renaming the maps would be a good idea. On one side, unexperienced people would be really confused as to what to download, they would have to download them all if they want to play on all servers. While on the other hand if maps are kept with the same name, someone downloading any version should be able to play on any server with minimal effort.

As for the example of the final boss. Yeah I get it, although in some cases its difficult to keep the map exactly the same when there is no content. In this case it was either just triggering the ending without anything which felt really empty, abrupt and wrong… or adding a portal or npc that would end it. I chose the npc since the map is extremelly short and there are close to no enemies, and because the last area was a tiny town, making more sense that there are tiny npcs rather than a huge man sized portal. I also ended up adding a kingpin since whenever I tried with any other npcs, they instantly gibbed from some collision issue present in the cliffs around, but since the kingpin can teleport it didn't happen.

I don't believe the idea behind this is to have a hundred versions of each map, but just one that actually works (which would be the ripent), and at most also the original version for archive purposes and the merged version if needed be, imho.

EDIT: anyways I think its a good idea to have a consensus for the download labels. This is my take on your proposal:

• Original
• Community fix <(for bugfixes or adding an ending)
• Remaster fix <(for bugfixes while also adding gameplay to unfinished maps)
• Merged version <(bspguy merged version. Could need specification as to which version has been merged)
• Server X / X's edit <(For ripents specific to some server or from some user that decided to make their own ripent version)

Last edited on 13 Aug 2020 21:00 by Garompa Show more

w00tguy123 13 Aug 2020 22:50

they would have to download them all if they want to play on all servers

yeah, good point. FastDL isn't a guarantee. Server owners will continue to edit maps without renaming, too.

In this case it was either just triggering the ending without anything which felt really empty, abrupt and wrong… or adding a portal or npc that would end it.

Makes sense. I would want to do the same, but those are transformative changes based on our own tastes that not everyone may agree with. Maybe someone hates kingpins and thinks the map is ruined now. Then later we get ripent battles between people who want different monsters or endings. All that is avoided if sticking to objective improvements like fixing a crash bug or res file, or by making a separate download if the map needs some spicing up.

This is my take on your proposal

I want to avoid a "fix" label on the alternate versions. Ideally the original would always have the latest fixes. The other versions would only have the gameplay-related changes like adding new endings or wtv. If it's too much work to backport fixes to the "original" version, then I'd at least replace "fix" with "edits + fixes" or something so that it's clear the map isn't the same nor objectively better than the original.

Could need specification as to which version has been merged

I was just thinking we're getting to a point where some edits are forked from other edits. Almost like there should be tree view for downloads so you know that a version includes the changes from its parent(s).

Server X / X's edit

This one was mostly wishful thinking lol. I get the feeling that server admins intentionally don't share their ripents. Years of player-tested fixes will all be gone once those servers shut down.

Last edited on 13 Aug 2020 23:01 by w00tguy123 Show more

Garompa 14 Aug 2020 00:38

mmm all are very valid points. So something like:

+ Original

• version 3 (latest)
• version 2
• version 1

+ Merged versions

• Original merged (version 1)
• X's edit merged (version 1)
• X's remaster merged (version 1)

+ Community edits + fixes

• X's edit and fixes (version 1)
• Y's edit of X's edit (version 1)

+ Remasters

• X's remaster + fixes (version 1)
• Y's remaster of X's remaster (version 1)

I think we should simplify whenever possible because with a thorough classification like this example or an even better one, there's still a lot and is prone to confusion (of course in reality it wouldn't be so filled with files, only 2 on most maps at most). Perhaps would be best to have lets say 3 classifications only. The original upload, the latest most bugfixed version closest to the original (with merges included if any), and the archive where all the old versions and alternate versions are present. Like this:

+ Original

• version 3 (latest)

+ Community edit

• X's edit and fixes merged (version 1)

+ Archive

• Original merged (version 1)
• X's edit and fixes (version 1)
• X's remaster merged (version 1)
• X's remaster + fixes (version 1)
• Y's remaster of X's remaster (version 1)
• Y's edit of X's edit (version 1)
• Original (version 2)
• Original (version 1)

Well, or maybe not, maybe it would work just fine with a thorough classification. Maps don't have that many versions each and wouldn't be THAT much confusing… and I doubt people other than the team here will be going around posting ripented versions (ripent is an obscure and difficult thing for there being that many people doing it)

Last edited on 14 Aug 2020 00:43 by Garompa Show more

w00tguy123 14 Aug 2020 05:32

Yeah, if there were enough edits, then grouping them like that would be less confusing. I wouldn't show anything except the latest version of something. Less to read/click that way. An extreme example:

Original:
SCMapDB

+ Community Edits

X's remaster:
SCMapDB

Y's edit and fixes:
SCMapDB

Z's version:
SCMapDB

+ Merged Versions

Original merged:
SCMapDB

X's remaster merged:
SCMapDB

Z's version merged:
SCMapDB

(would be nice if those "collapsible" things could be nested. Then "Merged versions" could be moved into the "Community Edits" group.)

Most likely it would end up like this:

+ Download

Original:
SCMapDB

X's Remaster:
SCMapDB

Original merged:
SCMapDB

Maybe 2-3 alternate downloads would be the cutoff before grouping them. The only reason I can think to link older versions of something is if there were big changes between updates and both versions are fully playable. Some prefer the SC 4.8 version of Toon Run, for example.

Really as long as the original version is most prominent and easily distinguishable from other people's edits I'm happy (and probably the authors are too, if they ever come back).

Last edited on 14 Aug 2020 05:59 by w00tguy123 Show more

Garompa 14 Aug 2020 15:03

One thing is for sure, that having less links is better. Grouping the links only when there's more than 2 or 3 of them I can agree.
There is one question though, I don't know if it is fine to put X's name of whoever made the edits. Sometimes the edits have more than one person involved. Sometimes the change is so minuscule and absolutely necessary that wouldn't apply as an edit but more as a fix (for example the old infiltrate.bsp had to be ripented because it was crashing the game due to an extra "{" in the ent code, and that was the only change that was made).
So can we maybe come up with the limits to what is an edit, a necessary fix, a remaster and a merge, so in the end you guys can add it to the new page template. I'd say perhaps you could also add a small disclaimer under or above the links saying something like "community edits are mostly recommended due to bug fixes but the map may not play exactly the same as the original"

w00tguy123 14 Aug 2020 19:25

If there's more than one person then it's probably better to list the names in Additional Credits rather than in Downloads. Things like fixing a crash is where I think you can replace the author's download link with your version, as long as no other edits were made.

No problem with recommending that alternate versions be downloaded over the original. I would want to get away from having fixes only in these alternate versions, but that's much better than nothing.

I'll lay out what I think should be the limits of a "fix" vs an "edit" in a separate post.

Re: Thoughts on community edits to maps

w00tguy123 14 Aug 2020 19:26

Here's what I think should be the limits for what a "fix" is vs. an "edit".

Fix = Restoring functionality to the something which used to work, or something that doesn't affect the gameplay or style of the map. Ideally, players shouldn't be able to notice that anything was changed.

Edit = Anything that isn't a strictly a fix. These changes are generally based on an individual's preferences.

+ Examples of fixes

• Fixing bad file paths:
  • Wrong/missing files in the .res file
  • Recovering missing files
  • Moving files around
  • Typo in a file path (entity keyvalue or configuration file)
  • Renaming files that conflict with other maps
    • The map with the latest release date should have it's files renamed
• Fixing entity logic that used to work in an older version of SC:
  • Removing spaces in targetnames
  • The 'scale' keyvalue in those old box prefabs
• Fixing the target of a trigger_changelevel if it's obvious which map was meant to come next.
• Trivial fixes to crashes and softlocks (examples below)
• Fixing a syntax error in a map script

+ Examples of edits

• Adding or changing entities which aren't needed to fix a crash or softlock
  • Making things go faster to waste less of the player's time
  • Adjusting player messages (game_text)
  • Renaming monsters
  • Preventing griefing or rushing
  • Adding or removing monsters
  • Adjusting the health or damage of anything
  • Fixing triggers that never did anything
• Editing/replacing/adding a texture, model, sound, or sprite.
  • If something causes a crash, then the replacement file should be indistinguishable from the original
• Adding a game_end, or replacing a trigger_changelevel with a game_end
• Fixing a nontrivial softlock or crash (examples below)
• Changing the map configuration besides fixing file paths
• Changing map geometry at all (with bspguy or recompiles)
• Deleting unused files (decided in another thread that those should be kept)

+ Examples of trivial/nontrivial fixes

Trivial:

• An entity is named wrong
• Entity data is missing a '{'

Nontrivial:

• Reworking scripted sequences
• Blocking monsters/players from going somewhere.
• Adding damage to doors/elevators to kill blockers.

If a new version contains only fixes, then it can replace the "Original" download link. If there is even 1 edit, then it should be listed as an alternate download.

This would only apply to people editing maps that they didn't make themselves. Authors could do wtv they want to their pages.

Last edited on 14 Aug 2020 23:08 by w00tguy123 Show more

Re: Thoughts on community edits to maps

Garompa 15 Aug 2020 00:32

Alright, I have edited the Osprey Company page as a small example. What was changed: Only added back the original and your repack download links and labeled them. Added a note warning on top and updated the titles to the changelogs.
See if you can create a collapsible inside the downloads section because I can't.

http://scmapdb.com/map:osprey-company

edit: I think we should add the date after each file and changelog

Last edited on 15 Aug 2020 00:37 by Garompa Show more

Re: Thoughts on community edits to maps

w00tguy123 15 Aug 2020 01:22

Since my repack only had "fixes" in it (as defined above), I replaced the original link with my repack. No reason to choose the original over a fixed version with no edits. Having your edits linked separately makes sense since there were some balance changes made. Likely no one would disagree with those changes and choose the original, but it's easier to just not deal with grey areas.

I couldn't make collapsibles work in the downloads section either. I was able to make that note look more official though (just like in wip maps).

I like how the changelog is done here, with both the dates and updater in the title. It makes sense for Osprey Company since we both touched it. I grouped the changelogs by version too, since each one would be updated individually now. Future fixes might only apply to your edited version, or to the original. It could be a hassle to keep both updated. I don't know a good solution for that.

Looking at it now it seems overkill to be doing this, but with more changes I think it will be easier to follow.

Last edited on 15 Aug 2020 01:45 by w00tguy123 Show more

Re: Thoughts on community edits to maps

Garompa 16 Aug 2020 04:49

Alright, spent the day making the edits to the maps I have edited and uploaded since I exist here. I think everything is pretty organized there now. Just added proper changelogs, and separated the downloads into Original, X's edit and fix, and Merged version. On some maps there are a few extra files, so be sure to check if they are fine (I added them as Extras - X thing) this is the case for http://scmapdb.com/map:restriction i believe.

Should we untag the abandoned maps as abandoned if they were fixed in some edit?

Also, I have not touched these, but I will leave them to you or whoever wants to organize them:
http://scmapdb.com/map:afraid-of-monsters:director-s-cut (Has many downloads. According to R4t0 in the comments my version with all the fixed .res files, paths, missing files recovered, etc. was merged with his in 6.1.2hf but none of them are uploaded I think)

http://scmapdb.com/map:svencoop-rpg (Has several old versions. Wether we keep them or not idk)

Last edited on 16 Aug 2020 04:51 by Garompa Show more

Re: Thoughts on community edits to maps

w00tguy123 16 Aug 2020 07:03

Whoa, yeah, that was a lot of work. It all looks good to me. Hopefully it's not just me thinking this is a better way to handle edits. Maybe the definition of a "fix" is too strict?

On some maps there are a few extra files

according to this, extra files shouldn't be linked in downloads, since that could lead to confusion/clutter. I just removed the link from restriction. Would have been nice if I could copy the note to the file description, but looks like that isn't possible.

Should we untag the abandoned maps as abandoned if they were fixed in some edit?

This tag doesn't mean anything to me (at least, not since it was used on fully playable maps). Anything could be labelled abandoned. You work on a map until it meets your standards, or until you get bored, and then it's "abandoned". I'd make something more specific like "endless" for things that have no game_end. That way it's based on something objective and not someone's opinion on how complete something is.

I'd keep the abandoned/endless tag if the original version is still missing a game_end. As a player I wouldn't know if the server I'm on has the endless version or not. With the tag I know there's a possibility that I'm wasting time scouring the map for something to trigger.

Last edited on 16 Aug 2020 07:36 by w00tguy123 Show more

Re: Thoughts on community edits to maps

Garompa 16 Aug 2020 19:18

Then perhaps we should make something with that tag and the files present. Meaning the original file would be endless but some edit may be not. If you tag it as endless, it would be confusing since its both. Isn't there a way we could tag each file separately?

Re: Thoughts on community edits to maps

w00tguy123 16 Aug 2020 22:08

Not as far as I know. It could be helpful to have some sort of tooltip on alternate downloads to list the main differences (e.g. "not endless + less grinding"). idk how to do that.

Last edited on 16 Aug 2020 22:08 by w00tguy123 Show more

all affiliates / your link here