Standards.

[Moxus]

Standards would probably raise the quality of mods. Perhaps what we should do is not to consider what we want in a map, but what we do not want in a map, which we may have more in common than what we want.
In stock trading, a common rule of experienced traders is ensure that there are no big losses, and to let the profits run.
Perhaps this could be applied to modding in that we agree on what is bad, and thus allow people to make mods as fun as they want while being standards-compliant?

I think that's a good idea.

Also, we can vote one or two teams of the best Halo players who will consider maps and give them awards. Like all those stuff sometimes seen on software or camera brochures. Bad maps get no awards.

This would be a decent way to encourage good work. Great job 2310.

-=Moxus=-

[Sugarlumps]

Query: How do we want to measure fun?

-=Moxus=-

We measure it from 1 to 10. 1 being the mod sucked. 10 being the mod was amazing. 5 being it was OK.

We measure it by playing it with another person. If there isn't much, then we rate it as 1. In other words, its something like "Mod Testing"

[2310]

@ Moxus: Thanks!

@ Lumps: Oookay ... but people would have differing opinions on this. How would we make it as objective as possible?

[Moxus]

@ Lumps: Oookay ... but people would have differing opinions on this. How would we make it as objective as possible?

2310 hit it right on the head here; for some people, having an extremely competitive mod is fun, while for others, having Hellgulch is fun. That in mind, we need more than a beta test to say how fun the map is, even though that'd be the most straightforward approach.

-=Moxus=-

[Amy]

Anyone remember MT?

[Sparky]

Anyone remember MT?

Yes. We'll continue this summer.

[Kayar]

Not looking back through all these posts, but yes, I agree standards would likely help, if the newbs would bother reading them. There have always been those who rush in here and post up a random hell gulch rip-off with a billion rockets up the hoo-ha out of every weapon at an ROF of over 9000, but if we put up a sticky of "Read this first these are our standards" that's not really so likely to stop these kids from jumping out of their pants to post this crap. It's a good idea, it's the implementation and whether it will have an effect that I worry about. Though, there is this: I'm pretty sure that if it doesn't help the quality of the mods themselves, it would certainly help with giving guidelines for potential mod critics and testers.

[Fortune]

They make their first mods, post here, get flamed, learn from mistakes and get better.
It's trial and error. And because of this, there's really no way to refer them here because we don't know them and can't contact them. So unless you personally know the person and then give them the info, then will this work

[2310]

Anyone remember MT?

Yes. We'll continue this summer.

What's MT?

Not looking back through all these posts, but yes, I agree standards would likely help, if the newbs would bother reading them. There have always been those who rush in here and post up a random hell gulch rip-off with a billion rockets up the hoo-ha out of every weapon at an ROF of over 9000, but if we put up a sticky of "Read this first these are our standards" that's not really so likely to stop these kids from jumping out of their pants to post this crap. It's a good idea, it's the implementation and whether it will have an effect that I worry about. Though, there is this: I'm pretty sure that if it doesn't help the quality of the mods themselves, it would certainly help with giving guidelines for potential mod critics and testers.

We could have a something like the W3C system:

Following standards are optional, but following them results in better first impressions and better opinion of your skills. So people following standards would have a badge/sticker/label/etc. of some sort. However, a problem with such a system is making the standards objectively verifiable, so it couldn't just be guidelines.

[Sugarlumps]

@ Lumps: Oookay ... but people would have differing opinions on this. How would we make it as objective as possible?

2310 hit it right on the head here; for some people, having an extremely competitive mod is fun, while for others, having Hellgulch is fun. That in mind, we need more than a beta test to say how fun the map is, even though that'd be the most straightforward approach.

-=Moxus=-

So that brings us back to the original point, but I can't see how we can "standardize" how fun something is. I think we should stick with comments.

MT is Mod Testers, a group that is very inactive and only have tested 1 mod so far.

[2310]

About MT: O ok! Thanks!

About standardizing fun: We could have a standard rating system, something like Amazon: 1 star = really bad, 5 stars = really good. Using that would be easier to measure a mod's "fun level" than if everyone just gave comments.

So to measure fun, we could use the "MGM Mod Rating System" and to prevent noobishness, use the "MGM Modding Standards". Unless we can think of a standard that would be objectively verifiable.

[Sugarlumps]

Query: How do we want to measure fun?

-=Moxus=-

We measure it from 1 to 10. 1 being the mod sucked. 10 being the mod was amazing. 5 being it was OK.

Isn't that what this is? The Rating System would probably work, but as for fun... It might, it might not. Everyone bases fun on their own perspective, and it might not be easy to judge with just one person playing alone.

[2310]

Query: How do we want to measure fun?

-=Moxus=-

We measure it from 1 to 10. 1 being the mod sucked. 10 being the mod was amazing. 5 being it was OK.

Isn't that what this is? The Rating System would probably work, but as for fun... It might, it might not. Everyone bases fun on their own perspective, and it might not be easy to judge with just one person playing alone.

I guess I forgot about that ...

While people would generally base fun on their own perspective, a collective average of player ratings would make it more objective. And people who dislike the mod idea would generally not play the mod, so they shouldn't rate it, hence only mods universally disliked would get low ratings.

[Moxus]

Perhaps, then, instead of marking on fun as a whole, we break it down into something we can give ratings on. Similar to the Foregehub system, where a map is rated on Aesthetics, game-play, forging, etc, we could come up with a series of categories pertaining to game-play to mark. This would make it easier to quantify "fun".

Ex:

• • Use of a variety of Weapons.
  • Use of Vehicles.
  • Use of good player spawns.
  • Use of good geometry.
  • Overall Competitive game-play.
  • Overall Just-for-fun game-play.

but if we put up a sticky of "Read this first these are our standards" that's not really so likely to stop these kids from jumping out of their pants to post this crap.

The idea wasn't really meant to be a pre-emptive measure, but a universal means by which to judge mods. You're right, anxious noobs will always post hastily made mods. But this system can give a universal, concrete way to tell modders looking to improve where and how they can do so. That said, you're right with the Critics bit. Perhaps a group should be set up to critique mods (beyond MT)?

-=Moxus=-

[Sugarlumps]

Interesting, a critique sub-forum. Maybe only if the author wishes, or if the vote is unanimous, then should we give rating to the mod.