So with the recent uproar within the Forging community about getting Community made forge maps into matchmaking, I thought I would toss my hat into the ring. I understand everyone’s rage about wanting their maps added into matchmaking and how some of the CC’s could be seen as playing favorites (Not sure who is and who isn’t). But here’s the thing. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL WAY TO SUBMIT MAPS. And so I began to ponder how one could do things like this to ensure that both the Community Forgers got a fair chance at submitting maps to POSSIBLY get added to matchmaking, as well as making it easier on the CC’s so they can do their jobs to a much smoother extend and take some of the burden off their shoulders.
The solution I came up with? Have a portfolio system dubbed “The Cartographer’s Portfolio” (Think Steam Workshop)
Here’s what I’m talking about: Let’s say that the 343 developers have set the CC’s on a mission to find Maps and Games for an upcoming Action Sack playlist for October 2016 (THIS IS AN EXAMPLE). Now, currently, the CC’s would have to scramble through all the different community sites out there to try and find maps and gametypes for said list, test them out, and pick a list of X number of things to add to the playlist. It would take them a good month AT LEAST to do this.
Here’s where the Portfolio idea comes into play. Rather than have the CC’s scramble all over the net to find stuff, have an official Forum/website/location of Maps and Gametypes already selected as “Matchmaking Ready Content” and let them sift through that to find what they need.
“But how would one go about doing that?” Good question. Here’s the idea I had. Have a selected number of trusted Forgers from the Community from all the different Community sites out there (Forge hub, The Epidemic, etc) and have them periodically test out maps and gametypes from their sites and submit the best ones into this Portfolio. Have them list what the map is capable of (Slayer, FFA, CTF, BTB, etc), how many people can play on it, all that jazz. Or just post a link to the site they found the map on and post THAT onto this thread.
Seem a little complex? Let me simplify it.
Let’s say you have a team of 50 Forgers from different Community sites, and let’s call this group the “Portfolio Team” for example sakes.
The Portfolio team would then host Custom Game nights with friends or people from the Community, and test maps that were submitted to their site and test them out. The members of this team would then ‘Grade’ the map on a 1-20 scale on 5 different categories to show what this map excels at.
Let’s just say the 5 categories are this:
-Aesthetics (How pretty is it?)
-Uniqueness (How fresh is the idea/How good is the Remake?)
-Variety (How many gametypes does it support/How well do different Gametypes play on it?)
-Stability (How complex is the idea/Could you play this with bad connections?)
-Fun (Is the map fun to play? How many times could you play it before it gets old?)
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL STUFF, JUST EXAMPLES.
Anyway, for example, let’s take my Mantis Arena 1 map and use it.
So the map gets played and after averaging all the scores from all the Portfolio Team members who played it, it got the following scores and info tags stuck to it.
Mantis Arena 1 (Minigame) [Breakout, Slayer, Strongholds]
Aesthetics: 13 (Uses the base level well, looks good enough, layout of level is solid and easy to follow)
Uniqueness: 16 (Very few Mantis based gametypes and maps out currently. Made good use of Basic scripting to keep combat fresh within the map)
Variety: 14 (Uses Breakout, Slayer, and Strongholds. Each gametype brings a different feel to the map and different strategies must be used)
Stability: 16 (Basic Halo combat idea, map functions well, Bad connections would only affect hitting a target)
Fun: 20 (Overall, it’s a fun map to play and always a fun game to come back to after some serious CTF/Slayer games)
Suggestions/Notes: Could possibly try to use more aesthetics in future Mantis Arena variations. Game has a fair amount of potential for content. Keep up the Good work.
So That’s just an example of a review from the team. Total score? 79. Also, I’m being generous in my review for the sake of the example. And cause i’m the map creator.
So after the review, if the Portfolio team deems the map worthy enough to go to the CC level, they add it to the portfolio of other games and maps that they think the CC’s should review and look at.
Also, ANY MAP REVIEW SCORE SHOULD BE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. Why? So you can keep people in check.
Now, I’m not saying EVERYONE’S review should be public knowledge, i’m saying the AVERAGE score should be. That way people can see what their map got and what they need to improve upon it. Also, reviews should be labeled MK 2 or higher if the map gets submitted multiple times. That way people can see the evolution of the map.
Anyway, So Mantis Arena 1 got a 79, and a passing score should be a 65 or 70 (Again, example here). The Map gets added to the portfolio.
Now the portfolio should be set up similar to how Steam has it’s workshop content. HAVING TAGS. Why? Easier browsing of course! Think about it. The CC’s need new BTB maps and all they have to do is sift through the portfolio for content, Search for BTB maps, and PRESTO!! Easy access to finding new maps for Matchmaking. All they have to worry about then, is getting a lobby big enough for it together and testing the map and see what they think. Now, at THIS point, I think the CC’s should be given privacy as to what maps get added and what don’t. Why? Because people are going to see what maps get included anyway. And if Favorites ARE being played, we can easily see who’s being favorited.
Now here’s a quick side note I want to address here. Playing Favorites is not cool. EVER. But here’s the thing. If one forger is exceptional at making a certain type of content (Minigames, Slayer maps, CTF maps, Races, etc) and they keep showing time and time again that their work is WORTH getting put into matchmaking and keeps submitting their maps and keeps getting added into matchmaking, you want to know what that means the CC’s are doing?
NOT. PLAYING. FAVORITES. They are adding content into Matchmaking because it DESERVES to get in there. Now, I personally would lose my -Yoink- if any of my Mantis Arena maps ever got added into Matchmaking, but I trust the CC’s to make the Grown up decisions on what gets added and what doesn’t WITHOUT playing favorites. I trust EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM to do their job and do it fairly. And I believe the bulk of them do. As for the one’s who might actually be playing favorites? Guess what. 343 will deal with them if need be. SO QUIT WHINING ABOUT IT. You’re making Forgers look bad. It’s a real cluster right now with no official way to submit maps to possibly get into matchmaking. So quit spending your time whining about it and HELP SOLVE THE DANG ISSUE. It will save the sanity of all Forgers, Cartographers, and 343 Employees.
So to sum things up, here’s the system again. In a simple step by step system.
Step 1 - Forger submits map onto whatever Community site they want to use
Step 2 - Portfolio team made up of Forgers from different sites test and grade map, then submit ones they find good enough to go to the CC’s Portfolio
Step 3 - CC’s find, play, and test maps to find Matchmaking worthy Content and possibly add it in per 343’s request
Step 4 - Fairness is restored and sanity of all is saved!
Thanks for reading and I hope this helped
Morslupus