NS World 2.0?
ChromeAngel
Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 14Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 14Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<div class="IPBDescription">Do we want it? Do we need it?</div>Many years ago now, I wrote a website called NS World. Some of you may remember it. NS World had mapping information, tutorials, author biographies and inspirational links, but mainly it was a custom map list that let map creators share publicise their NS maps. It wasn't perfect, but i've had years of web development experience since then <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
A PM from ShenTrax set me thinking about a new version for NS2. Before I really get stuck in I thought I'd stick my neck out here and ask if such a site has a place in the NS2 community, or has in-game downloads, the steam community, UWE and the likes of moddb made the concept redundant?
Do we want it? Do we need it?
A PM from ShenTrax set me thinking about a new version for NS2. Before I really get stuck in I thought I'd stick my neck out here and ask if such a site has a place in the NS2 community, or has in-game downloads, the steam community, UWE and the likes of moddb made the concept redundant?
Do we want it? Do we need it?
Comments
This would probably help to increase overall map quality in this period of time, where ns2-mapping is new to everyone and even source mapping to some.
cheers,
wurm
you can never have too many fan sites, bring it on!
I would say it could be invaluable for hosting a basic mapping FAQ, maps and more advanced articles.
I can see it working very well in Wiki format. This way you wouldn't have to worry too much about producing lots of regular content, you could simply focus on producing some quality content and mainly on adminning the site and authing its content.
1. When a mapper adds a new map, the versions changelogs and downloads can all be kept on the same page. Screenshots and YouTube videos can be embedded. The 'discussion' tab can be used to report bugs and make suggestions. Mapper can list the servers playing his custom map. Server admins will be able to check this map page to download the latest version of the map.
2. Self-help documents: think NS Mapping Forum stickies meets NSLearn. In-game lingo and acronyms, beginner tutorials, fading, bunny-hopping, Commander base layout, map strategies, introduction to mapping for NS2, guidelines for official map submission
3. NS2 competitive info: competitive tournaments/leagues and past winners. Demos and Videos of competitive games can be embedded/linked. Top 10 clans per tourney/league can have clan pages.
---
Lastly, if you have a voting system for maps, only allow vote results to become public once a map has received 10+ votes. This will stop the mapper getting his friends to give him two or three 10/10 votes and people wasting their time checking out a crappy boxmap. On the old NSWorld this was all too frequent. CHeck out PlanetPhillip to see how this system works in practise.
I've used a wiki for documentation before now and used the valve developer community wiki, they seem to work quite well. Since the NS development team got there act together with the <i>official</i> NS mapping guide, I would be expecting something at least as good for NS2 from the start, which wouldn't leave much room for an <i>un-official</i> mapping guide like the old NS World berzerkers guide.
If you know better, give a me a shout and i'll happily wiki-ize the current mapping guidelines as a baseline or whatever. However mapping articles aren't really featuring heavily in my vision for NS World 2 at the moment.
I <i>was</i> thinking of including some kind of game server listing service, similar to how maps used to be listed. The idea was to let server operators pick their map rotation from the listed maps and build a server specific custom map bundle. That info could then feed back into the map's profile and players could see what servers to join to play that map.
The I started thinking about the LUA scripting the devs have talked about and the possibility of promoting and distributing those too, but how they will be used, integrated and packaged is still too much of an unknown. Again if you know something I don't please enlighten me.
I don't know much about clans and leagues, but I got the impression there was some quite successful specialist sites for managing that stuff. I'm not sure I need to go writing/hosting another one. That said it might dovetail with the game server listing idea...
Good suggestion about the voting system Crispy, I was just thinking of making the voting system members only and putting in some kind of abuse reporting tool.
That right there! One of the best ideas for map hosting sites I've seen in a while. Besides we need nsworld back in action, not to mention your own hosting location for the ns_sample map <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> (I'm hosting right now on me <a href="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/ns_sample/" target="_blank">ISP</a>)
Maybe you could also get some residential reviewers of maps at the site.
I think Shentrax's planet-ns can handle most tutorials/mapping articles though, I guess I need to get to writing some more...
Anyway I'd love to see a NS2 specific maps site back in action. It was the best onlyto be replaced with Bry's ftp server. Which is also very nice, but it does lack the interface <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
If you remember, the OMGs didn't have a lot of detail on map layout, on the intricate bits and bobs. It also wasn't updated later on to include REALLY important mapping guidelines like 'no doors in the MS or Hive rooms', which became an essential ingredient later but was not identified when the OMGs were originally written.
Secondly, the OMGs had close to zero information on aspects like siege ranges, player collision box dimensions, and so on. Now, this was probably because all of these aspects were being tweaked and changed up from version to version, but I can foresee a way of getting around this.
If all of the information is located in a text file, or a compile bit of code text. Would it be possible to extract all of the variable information into a text file and use that as a basis for updating a web page or a database? Would it be possible for the devs (or a 3rd party LUA programmer) to write a quick additional program that pulls out all this info into a text file for this purpose?
If this were possible you could have a source of up-to-date information to help you work on layouts and so on.
Exactly! What I was trying to say was that i'm expecting to see the OMG 2.0 from UWE as a wiki (which would render a <i>second</i> NS world wiki pointless). Then again I have overestimated the dev team before now, they may not be this organised or want the overhead of another system and database to manage.
I didn't even know about planet-ns.com Kouji_San, looks like it's got a solid CMS behind it, which certainly makes it capable of handling any user contributed articles.
In the mean time i've been looking at my old NS world data backup. If I go with your voting suggestion Crispy i'm going to have to lower the threshold for vote visibility. It seems most maps didn't get 10 votes, even the most active only had 70 votes. Most maps had about 6 votes, so i'd probably set the threshold at 5.
In the mean time i've been looking at my old NS world data backup. If I go with your voting suggestion Crispy i'm going to have to lower the threshold for vote visibility. It seems most maps didn't get 10 votes, even the most active only had 70 votes. Most maps had about 6 votes, so i'd probably set the threshold at 5.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I stopped using the voting system when I saw a boxmap with a better average vote than Lost.
If it were more of a resource site it would have more reason for people to come back regularly. One of the problems with NSWorld was that it was underused and there wasn't regular new content, so it had a small regular userbase. If you promote avenues for user-created content you will have more regular updates and a bigger regular userbase to vote with.
But I don't see any harm starting with 5 to begin with and adjusting the threshold according to circumstances (e.g. if it gets abused too easily).
I've found Charlie to be quite responsive via email, don't know about Max, but if he hasn't responded there is probably a good reason. I wouldn't expect them to spill their guts for a fansite, but maybe if you pose some more general questions that they can answer without giving too much away, you'll get a better response.
E.g. "Do you think there is a place for a fan-run, user-driven NS2 Wiki project?"
Then they can answer: "We have plans to handle expansive mod documentation ourselves, but that's all we can say at the moment." or: "We would welcome something along those lines."
That sounds like mapping snobbery to me, with the right players i'm assuming they just had more fun on the funmap/boxmap than with conventional NS maps. There was quite a lot of "fun" maps when NS really got popular, and yes they were a distraction when you're looking for the serious/classic gameplay.
Makes me wonder if we'll be seeing funscripts/funmods for NS 2... almost certainly.
Maybe I need different ratings for graphics/atmosphere/gameplay
Or, categories. Whoever upped the map can place it into the category, give visitors a report option in case something is in the wrong place, and periodically if you're not too busy look through the maps and see that they're in the right places.
But different ratings for those things also sound fine.
There is simply no way an unbalanced, horrible looking boxmap can compete with Lost in the same game mode. It was simply a case of vote abuse. When you see stuff like that and you know the voting system is broken, you don't see any point in wasting your time using it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Maybe I need different ratings for graphics/atmosphere/gameplay<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, categories. Whoever upped the map can place it into the category, give visitors a report option in case something is in the wrong place, and periodically if you're not too busy look through the maps and see that they're in the right places.
But different ratings for those things also sound fine.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->'Gameplay' is totally subjective. I have never seen a siege map with what I call 'good' gameplay, because most siege maps totally break the balance with ludicrously long and straight corridors and wide open spaces, and the setup period is an unbelievably tedious way to start a game. Stormsiege was one siege map that attempted to A) put some effort into the texturing, brushwork and lighting and B) actually bothered to design rooms in shapes other than boxes and, surprise, surprise, nobody plays it. Now -that's- what I call map snobbery.
<b>Map categories</b>
I definitely agree in categorising maps so that players who value different gamemodes vote according to their appreciation of it. E.g. If there were no categories, I would see a disgusting siege map come up and mark it down for having a 1024x1024 room with zero cover. However, if it were in a 'Siege' category which I almost never visited, only Siege fans would be voting on it, and the score would be much more representative of the view of the players who actually play Siege maps.
<b>Vote categories</b>
I also agree some scoring categories are also necessary, to reward solid game design as much as artistic merit. <i>Atmosphere</i> would cover sound, the look, the 'feel' of the map as an actual place. <i>Gameplay</i> is fairly subjective: for one type of player it might cover balance, for another type they may value atmosphere as adding a lot to the gameplay, and not be so bothered about balance issues. I still think it's important to keep a Gameplay vote separate from Atmosphere. Lastly, perhaps <i>Quality</i> covers how polished the map comes across as. It can cover textures, brushwork, lighting, sound
<b>Kneejerk voting</b>
I do foresee a bit of a problem with kneejerk voting based on looks alone. Some maps look great but have hideous flaws like double siege points and the like. To go some way to solving this, I would suggest a simple box-checking system that asks the reviewer to confirm either "I have played this map" or "I am yet to play this map". Posed with this question, most reviewers will answer honestly. Next you could either separate the played/not played votes into two separate scores, or you could weight the 'played' scores to be worth twice as much as the 'not played' scores.
<b>Versions</b>
There is the issue with voting reflecting past versions of a map. There's nothing more saddening than a mapper putting tons of work into making improvements, optimisations and so on, only to have it rejected based on everyone's past experiences with the map. For this I would suggest each 'map' getting its own page, but the votes for past versions getting locked (or pushed to a less prominent area of the page) as soon as a new version was uploaded. You would keep the votes for all the old versions on display (or, at least, accessible) to cater for the eventuality of a mapper actually making the map worse (crash problems, missing files, balance issue, etc.) - just so server admins could run the best version of a map based on the votes given.
<b>Competitive maps?</b>
There is a big issue I was having with how to show that a new map could be played competitively, without being too divisive. Having a 'Competitive Maps' category obviously creates a division that isn't needed. At the same time, though, any competitive community does need new maps to play on to keep things fresh and engaging. My point here is that NS2World could help the competitive community find new maps to trial by including a short line on a map's page. "Is this map suitable for competitive play?" asks the reviewer a Yes/No answer but actually could offer 3 possible responses.
- "Don't know" (means if you don't feel you are qualified to answer this question you can effectively skip it)
- "Yes" (means you feel qualified to answer this and think it could be played in competition)
- "No" (means you feel qualified to answer this and think it should not be played in competition)
Crucially, only the Yes/No votes would be displayed to give a more accurate account. You could even write in a script that would only display this statistic on the map page if it were 30% or above in favour of being played competitively, meaning the 'competitive' argument wouldn't invade the map pages of the non-competitive realms of funmaps, enviro-maps and siege maps.
<!--quoteo(post=1676529:date=Apr 22 2008, 10:34 AM:name=Crispy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crispy @ Apr 22 2008, 10:34 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1676529"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><b>Kneejerk voting</b>
I do foresee a bit of a problem with kneejerk voting based on looks alone. Some maps look great but have hideous flaws like double siege points and the like. To go some way to solving this, I would suggest a simple box-checking system that asks the reviewer to confirm either "I have played this map" or "I am yet to play this map". Posed with this question, most reviewers will answer honestly. Next you could either separate the played/not played votes into two separate scores, or you could weight the 'played' scores to be worth twice as much as the 'not played' scores.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I cant see anyone ticking a box to say "my vote is worth less" which is what you seem to be getting at there.
You seem to be confusing ratings (where a group of people vote and the subject is rated with with the groups average to arrive at a meaningful single index) with reviews (where one trusted person makes a in deapth study of the subject and weighs up it's pros an cons to save everyone else the bother). NS World tried both approaches in it's time. As has been noted ratings is flawed if a large number of abusive votes are cast, there were never sufficient NS World reviewers to cover the majority of maps.
I'm currently thinking that giving the full range of reviewer feedback tools to the average player would just discourage them from taking part at all (either that or end up with incomplete forms that skew the result anyway).
It would be easiest not to rate them at all :/
Version reset on the rating could be abused by mappers whos map is rating badly even if it isn't a new version at all. Apart from that I don't really have a problem with that idea.
Competitive gameplay is another whole can of worms I hadn't even thought of. Can we trust say a boxmapper to know what makes a map suitable for competition? I think not. The only people who can really judge that is the competitions organizers. How the hell does the system know who they are?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Competitive gameplay is another whole can of worms I hadn't even thought of. Can we trust say a boxmapper to know what makes a map suitable for competition? I think not. The only people who can really judge that is the competitions organizers. How the hell does the system know who they are?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->When you register you are asked if you play NS competitively. If you do (bear in mind this should be the minority) you will be asked to provide a link to your clan page on the site of the tournament you play in - for verification purposes. An NS2World admin will be asked to authorise this (I would imagine a dedicated member of staff with a vested interest in Competitive play would be best suited).
Now you have verified competitive players who are better qualified to rate a map in terms of suitability for competitive play.
I get what you're saying about making the rating system so complex it becomes a chore, so instead, just allow verified competitive players to suggest a map for competitive play. This is separate to the ratings process, and is done by putting in the map's unique ID into a field on a page in the competitive area of NS2Word. Would that be a better alternative?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I cant see anyone ticking a box to say "my vote is worth less" which is what you seem to be getting at there.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Maybe not, but you're assuming they are aware that their vote will count for less. If this information is never communicated to them, they will be none the wiser.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You seem to be confusing ratings (where a group of people vote and the subject is rated with with the groups average to arrive at a meaningful single index) with reviews (where one trusted person makes a in deapth study of the subject and weighs up it's pros an cons to save everyone else the bother). NS World tried both approaches in it's time. As has been noted ratings is flawed if a large number of abusive votes are cast, there were never sufficient NS World reviewers to cover the majority of maps.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm fairly sure a set of guidelines could be put in place, but ones that don't interfere too heavily with how quickly the rating system can be carried out by an end-user.
I'm imagining that when you select a score for Quality, some text appears in a box that describes what NS2World considers '7' for 'Quality'. The user then has the option of reconsidering the vote, or just going with their original vote. This isn't prohibitive in the slightest, but it would encourage a better understanding of how maps -should- be voted. It at least attempts to provide a unified rating system that -if adopted by the majority of users- would make the votes less subjective and more educated/objective/considered.
Now, you may then argue that how a siege fanatic rates a map is different to how an experienced ns_classic mapper rates a map. So, in the same way as above, the registration process could allow you to put yourself into a usergroup. Therefore, different people could be given different messages when they give a map '7' for 'Gameplay'. A self-confessed competitive player may be given something like:
"Fairly well balanced, but some areas have obvious exploits."
But a self-confessed newer player could be given something more easily digestible, like:
"Aliens and Marines seem to win 50:50 on this map."
(these are soundbites of what I'd imagine them to be, but they give an example of how they'd be different)
You could take this further so that (behind the scenes) self-confessed Siege fans' votes for siegemaps would be worth more than players who weren't siege fans, and may pew-pew siegemaps through narrowmindedness or prejudice.
...with a quick and particularly vauge reply, that didn't address any of my specific questions. It seems UWE <i>may </i>or<i> may not</i> be planning to do <i>some </i>of the things discusessed, which may or may not be available in time for the launch of NS2...
Since i'm sat here ready to start coding (give or take details of a rating/review system) that didn't help. I shall seek clarification.
[edit]
Additional thought on the ratings topic. How about simplifying it even further, using a system like <a href="http://digg.com/" target="_blank">digg</a> or <a href="http://www.deviantart.com/" target="_blank">deviant art</a> where registered users vote by simply saying they "digg" or "fav" a particular article?
[/edit]
I think when it really comes down to it, sadly it's not up to the players to find a good map and play on it. First and foremost it's down to the server admins to select those maps and put them on the mapcycle. Sure players can recommend maps for consideration, but ultimately it's down to the server admin to pass judgement on it. I think if anything the biggest focus should be on bringing maps and server admins together, and giving the latter a well-rounded system that measure's a map's quality and suitability for a particular game mode.
Only once that is done can players who like the map play it, which is where NS2World can then link a user from the map page to a listing of servers who purport to be running that map, with perhaps even a direct Steam link to jump into the game and onto that very server.
---
As for the PM, sounds like they have plans to do such a thing, but I would imagine these plans are secondary to completing the game. Since they're a small team now with a budget and self-made deadlines, I'm guessing that a lot of the things we've talked about would be put on the backburner in favour of getting the release out on schedule. I'm guessing that their immediate plans would be to provide purely informative content along the lines of tutorials and details about the NS universe, basically general text that supports the first-party stuff. Mapping community support is less of a priority, relative to giving new players information about how to play the game and what it's all about.
Bottom line: Go ahead with your vision of NS2World (or NSWorld 2.0). If it's good enough and it really catches on, and it does a lot of the work they would have had to do and includes the features they'd want to see, I wouldn't be surprised if UWE offered to purchase it and/or provide some money towards its continued upkeep.
Even if that doesn't happen, NS2World will get there first and earn the community's allegiance. It minimises the need for UWE to make their own version, allowing them instead to endorse NS2World, sending you traffic to help pay the ad revenue.
I totally understand this stuff is probably on the very edge of their business plan and so probably has next to zero priority, but <i>could </i>still totally trump NS2W several months or years down the line (with the emotional investment of time and money that goes with a volunteer project). I didn't seek the official seal with NSW and it's mapping guide and got quite hurt when the OMG finally arrived. Which is why i'm fishing for an official stamp and cooperation for NS2W up front.
ZERO priority ! I think not and all you have to do is read some prior threads here and you will find that the UWE boyz understands how much the community and major sites like ns world contributed to the overall success of Natural Selection. "Do we need it?" that's is not the correct question son.The correct question from us should be Where The Hell Have You Been ?
Do we need it? Do we want it? Is the concept redundant? Shall we get picky about a rating system real server admins could care less about blah blah blah. Looks to me that UWE has plenty on there plate and would welcome the kind of quality site I and my friends use to rely on to make our little piece of ns better. I would say that it could be invaluable to the success of Natural Selection 2.
I would consider it an honor to be among the first to sign up and " WELCOME You Back"
Do we need it? Do we want it? Is the concept redundant? Shall we get picky about a rating system real server admins could care less about blah blah blah. Looks to me that UWE has plenty on there plate and would welcome the kind of quality site I and my friends use to rely on to make our little piece of ns better. I would say that it could be invaluable to the success of Natural Selection 2.
I would consider it an honor to be among the first to sign up and " WELCOME You Back"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Nearly</i> zero Woody <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /> They still have to make the game within their deadline before they can start supporting 3rd party customiztions and distributions, NS2W could do that for them if they'll let it.
Thanks for the uneqivocal support for the concept there Woody. I'm sure NS2 will be a hit either way, plenty of other games manage it without any mod support at all.
I'm putting this idea on hold until i've got more information.
If I can do so for NS2 I might consider running an NS2 server, or simply paying for it, managing it and getting some damn good admins.
A humble suggestion of mine:
Originally, the concept of the Ready Room was not only to increase immersion by getting rid of clumsy menus, but also to force players back into one place after each game so that they could tell each other stories about what had just happened. I'd love to see this idea extended with NS World, maybe as some system were you could attach a story to a map, giving a general location and an outline of what happened. Or map secrets, strategies, and easter eggs could be tagged.
I've just always saw sites like this as a way to build depth in a community. Keep in mind that this is coming from someone looking for ways to use such a site outside of the general mapping community. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
A humble suggestion of mine:
Originally, the concept of the Ready Room was not only to increase immersion by getting rid of clumsy menus, but also to force players back into one place after each game so that they could tell each other stories about what had just happened. I'd love to see this idea extended with NS World, maybe as some system were you could attach a story to a map, giving a general location and an outline of what happened. Or map secrets, strategies, and easter eggs could be tagged.
I've just always saw sites like this as a way to build depth in a community. Keep in mind that this is coming from someone looking for ways to use such a site outside of the general mapping community. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I remember when NS World was going to be about linking all the maps together with their backstories, so we could have like a universe map and place each game map in it's context of the human and alien campeign. The idea fell short on content though. Very few mappers did much with the backstories to their maps, the Devs only ever produced one (short) background story for the entire NS universe. Very rarely did I ever saw any fan fiction in these forums. Let's face it NS is a pretty shallow game and players just don't care.
We'd be better off sharing demos and streaming video (Not in the plan!)
Links - Yes, I don't have any problem with contributors linking to whatever.
Embedded - No, I haven't done any research into what's the best video sharing site(s). I wouldn't want users to embed any old thing, in case it gets abused by embedding malware.
We'd be better off sharing demos and streaming video (Not in the plan!)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not so sure that the community was (is) shallow: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=29447&st=0#entry371900" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index....t=0#entry371900</a>
Not sure how many of those links still work, though. That's not even everything that was produced. I'm not an artist, but I remember a lot of drawing work coming out of the art forums, too. Sorry, I just feel the need to stick up for my old haunts. ^_^