Learning, skill-based contest idea

[raptor]

Howdy folks,

I have an idea for a set of contests and would like to gauge interest. The contest would be based around becoming a better map-maker, whatever that may be. The idea is as follows:

• Each contest would be based on ONE gametype and would have several rounds (3?)
• Each submitter submits only one map of the specified gametype each round
• Add the end of each round everyone critiques the maps on how they could be 'better' in some way
• Critiques need to be constructive and specific. e.g. don't just say "This map is horrid"
• Submitters need to take criticism without being easily offended. The goal is to develop skill. (You may need to develop thick skin, too..)
• After the criticism phase of a round, submitters will submit their updated map for the next round.
• Maps can be altered in any way for the next round.
• Maps can still be anonymous, but don't have to be. There should be some way that people know that one map is the successor to another - like keeping the same map name or (fake) author name.

The ultimate goal is for each player to get better at map-making, even if only a little.

So, who would participate?

[Little_Apple]

I would!

[Quartz]

Pssh. I don't need to "become a better map-maker." Plebes.

jk I would participate hardcore

[watusimoto]

I think it's a great idea!

[Skybax]

I would definitely submit maps for this.

I like it, but what's your reasoning behind limiting it to only one game mode? I'm all for encouraging people to step out of their comfort zones, but I feel like you'd be able to see a much wider scale of improvement if people could pick which mode they were bad at instead of waiting for the contest to cycle over to it.

For example, I'm awful at making zc maps, but I would consider myself decent at making FFA maps and CTF maps. If I were to participate in this contest for the sake of improving, I would be more inclined to participate if I could choose my map's game mode. Obviously there's room for me to improve in every mode, but I think I'd see the biggest results in a game mode of my choosing.

Just my two cents. Great idea.

Would there be a theme or restriction (ie. size limitation, etc)?

[raptor]

OK, good. I don't mind removing the GameType restriction; and you make a good case to do it. I welcome any further ideas to refine this contest idea.

I was not thinking of putting a restriction on size or with a theme or anything else - if the map is too big, then I fully expect someone to give that critique.

The entire goal is to raise the design expertise of anyone participating, if some limiting factor would help in that regard, then I'm open to adding it.

[Skybax]

I actually really liked the gametype restriction. Instead of giving the map-maker everything and seeing what happens (like most contests) this gives them an interesting limitation.

It would also give an accurate view of what gametypes people are the most comfortable with, and what they need to improve on. It leaves room for a range of skill levels all competing in the same task.

I think the biggest counterpoint to be made against my suggestion is that limitations or restrictions make it easier to compare levels against some kind of criteria for the sake of evaluation. In other words, it's really hard to know exactly what constitutes a "good" level when there are no means of providing comparisons. It'd be like comparing Airlock to Endless War... apples to oranges. Both are great maps in their own regard, but are too different to call one worse than the other.

So that's where the value of limiting entries to only one mode comes in. It's much easier to compare Triple Threat to Endless War (both retrieve) than it is to compare Airlock to Endless War.

But, I would say to that, the point of the contest isn't to compare your levels against other people or criteria. It is to improve, competing against yourself only, with a little enticement (bragging rights + a prize maybe) in the cards to add a motivation factor.

I won't deny that limitations are always fun, however, but I would argue that they have a time and a place separate from here and now.

If I could bring up another, different argument - playing a dozen maps of the same game mode is going to be incredibly boring come contest server time.

[Quartz]

Personally I'd prefer it limited to a gametype.

only one of each game mode
how about that?

We can make teams count as their own game mode

So Teams Bitmatch = 1 gamemode
FFA bitmatch = 2 gamemode

rather than just bitmatch
because there is NO WAY I'm playing 12 of the same map type

[Skybax]

Ummm... having FFA Bitmatch and Team Bitmatch count as different gametypes would just be MORE monotonous... I don't really understand what you're saying.

teams and ffa would be different game modes for the purpose of this contest. But I am advocating that only one map can be submitted per game mode.
Since I see people saying to limit all maps to one game mode, I responded with the opposite. Limit game modes to having one map each

teams and ffa would be different game modes for the purpose of this contest.

I'd imagine they wouldn't? If the game mode chosen was Rabbit, then it would be up to the level makers to decide if they wanted to make a FFA Rabbit or a Team Rabbit map. This is a given, I presume.

But, allowing that doesn't really solve the boredom issue? Because you'd still be playing a bunch of Rabbit maps (just with varying numbers of teams).

EDIT: I may have misunderstood your suggestion, taz.

[Quartz]

The problem I have with your idea, tazinator, is who decides who has to do one gametype? Do we all just get designated a gametype? It's also worth noting that, if that were done, there could only be ~13 maps, ~13 submitters... That isn't really an issue with our community at this point in time so no worries on that part but seriously, who decides what each person has to do for a gametype?

[Skybax]

I like raptor's original post. I think we should do that. All this specification discussion aside. Let's do that.

I like raptor's original post. I think we should do that. All this specification discussion aside. Let's do that.

No harm in discussing ideas for improvement, though! Raptor's thread has only been up for 36 hours... unless we're on a timetable or something, let's iron this puppy out! (Not literally )