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

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

Just now, Nine Inch Heels said:

Thou shalt not map above thine skill-level.

:-(

 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 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. ;-)

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

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.

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. 

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.

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

2 hours ago, Memfis said:

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

^^ :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. ;) 

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. 

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. ;-)

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. ;)

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

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. ;)

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.

^ 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.