Standards.

[2310]

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.

Excellent idea! Perhaps instead of the current poll system, a modified version could be made that would allow multiple poll questions with 10 options each, to accommodate this system?

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=-

A single group might not be a good idea: if all the members had similar opinions it would not be too objective. And if they were diverse they would have constant disagreements and would be unable to rate maps fast enough. (Imagine a committee made of Seafire, Amy, Sparky, Moxus, Vegerot, and me. ) Perhaps we could have 3-5 groups with differing focuses, and they would independently review maps and give awards where they saw fit?

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.

We could have a poll option, like the one I suggested above. That would allow the option to allow or disallow ratings.

[Amy]

^ the only problem there is Vagrot and you, other then that that team seems awesome. >_>


but yeah, Ratings wouldnt really do much, because a lot of people would ignore their '1 star' and go make another hell gulch.

[2310]

^ the only problem there is Vagrot and you, other then that that team seems awesome. >_>


but yeah, Ratings wouldnt really do much, because a lot of people would ignore their '1 star' and go make another hell gulch.

<slightly_off_topic>What's the problem with me?! </slightly_off_topic>

Sparky likes big maps and releasing single proof-of-concepts. Moxus insists that all & any Halo Full content used in Demo is illegal. (Well it is, just that not many are going to care because it costs more to do so ...) I don't usually like listening to advice. (Yes, I know ...) As for the rest of you, you know your preferences and flaws. That team could be awesome based on past record & modding skill (other than some people ....) ... but would it usually come to a unanimous decision?

As for the ratings, if they ignore us we ignore them.

[Kayar]

<slightly_off_topic>What's the problem with me?! </slightly_off_topic>

You're relatively new (although you've proved yourself to be competent) and vagrot tends to be annoying and noobish most of the time, I have no idea in hell why you would recommend him for a committee like this.

[Amy]

^ Because everyone else there is tight.

@2310
And yeah, just because you were around for 2 of sparkys releases (big map) and (Single proof of concept map) doesn't mean thats all he does. Newbie. Sparky is really good at rating maps, or at least he should be since he started MT. (before you were around. Newbie.)
Moxus has a big influence on the team, because he is well respected. If he says that it's illegal and bad, im pretty sure i would agree with him, making seafire agree with him, so Moxus pretty much covers the legality issues on his own, because he seems to understand it better then most. Yeah so that team would be awesome, except for vagrot and you. Newbie.

Anyways, im gonna stop talking about that awesome team. (besides vagrot and you. Newbie.)


Anyways, back to my statement. If they ignore the ratings (and we ignore them says 2310, >_>) Then the whole purpose is dead. I think that instead of rating system (even though that would be good, but wouldnt really solve the problem) we should have just a set of how to get your mods played and respected and gain +rep.

Like something of a chart saying
All imports on a regular map-
Playing level- medium (based on past mods)
Respect- Very low (based on past mods)
Rep- Lost.

No CE imports, original scen based map, originally modified weapons (most of them)
Playing level- Medium
Respect- Moderate/high
Rep- Gained


Just so the newbies come on with a ultimate import hell mod, and say "omg look what i done, i get respect because this gets played, imma make more of these kinds of mods. Face it, most newbies and even normal Joes want to impress the older guys, so if we tell them what will gain their respect, they will try harder to not release the "bad " kind of mods and lose rep.

meh.

[Moxus]

Amy, I think you need to keep a bit of perspective when calling people Newbies. You're not so long here yourself after returning.

-=Moxus=-

[seabeast]

I think this is a case of MASSIVELY INFLATED EGO. O_O

[Amy]

i didn't mean it offensively, thats why i said newbie, instead of noob. Newbie as in new to join. And i was just pointlessly flaming 2310 in my paragraph. The newbie thing was a joke, sorry i got carried away.

But yeah can we focus besides that of which i said.

[2310]

<slightly_off_topic>What's the problem with me?! </slightly_off_topic>

You're relatively new (although you've proved yourself to be competent) and vagrot tends to be annoying and noobish most of the time, I have no idea in hell why you would recommend him for a committee like this.

Actually, I didn't (& would never, until he changes) recommend him to be in this committee, if it was real: He's just there to prove that diversity tends to result in conflict if opinions are treated as facts.

Also I probably would have made something noobish if I started when I first saw this. I've been around a lot longer than it appears.

I think this is a case of MASSIVELY INFLATED EGO. O_O

:P:P

i didn't mean it offensively, thats why i said newbie, instead of noob. Newbie as in new to join. And i was just pointlessly flaming 2310 in my paragraph. The newbie thing was a joke, sorry i got carried away.

But yeah can we focus besides that of which i said.

Yes, back to topic.

@ Amy's on-topic post: Based on what you said, here's a table I made:
http://halodemomods.com/wiki/User_talk: ... ards_Chart

[Fortune]

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.

No I hate amazon. Let's make it on a larger scale, from 1-100 like on grades. I think this will be alot more accurate than 1-5

[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.

No I hate amazon. Let's make it on a larger scale, from 1-100 like on grades. I think this will be alot more accurate than 1-5

It would be more accurate, but people might have a harder time rating it. But if everyone's ok with it, then it probably is, since we're making the system for ourselves.

[kiddten]

another standard should be a theme.

[nil]

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.

The first four listed make a lot of sense to me. What determines if a mod is good at being competitive exactly? The last point is just quantifying fun, exactly what we'd probably want to avoid for a universal standard. I don't think rating fun and theme work, and I don't think any of the things Amy mentioned about reputation help.. Maybe visual appeal (art/graphics) could work too.

As I recall, MT was great at spending wasted hours ending up with one review, which was a failure because everyone interpreted things like theme and entertainment differently.

[2310]

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.

The first four listed make a lot of sense to me. What determines if a mod is good at being competitive exactly? The last point is just quantifying fun, exactly what we'd probably want to avoid for a universal standard. I don't think rating fun and theme work, and I don't think any of the things Amy mentioned about reputation help.. Maybe visual appeal (art/graphics) could work too.

As I recall, MT was great at spending wasted hours ending up with one review, which was a failure because everyone interpreted things like theme and entertainment differently.

The first four points actually depend on what the mod is supposed to do. Scen-based maps, would usually mostly affect points #3 & #4, but a gameplay-changing mod would mostly affect #1 & #2.

I could think of a few points that would help determine competitive gameplay ...

• Balanced weapons
• Easy to remember layout(?)
• Is mod details consistent with emphasis if any? (such as teamwork, tactics, vehicles, etc.)

As for MT, that's why I suggested having more than one group so that different groups could quickly make a review because group members would think alike and help each other to see what the others missed. Too many groups might result in some groups being abandoned and might create confusion.

[Fonzeh]

I think Mods that are released with full content should be labeled as so. So that the downloader and the Uploader both know the risks of downloading and using this map. And a Disclaimer should be made. in the topic. Thats really all we can do without modification the board. Most people use full anyway. I'm not condoning it, I'm just stating the fact.