16 replies to this topic

[Shane]

Hello, everyone! As you may have heard from last month's announcement, Map of the Month will return starting next year! Eddy did a fantastic job previously supporting Map of the Month - but with a busy schedule Eddy could no longer find the time to host the contest. I'll be taking the reins from here on. 

 

Before we get to submitting again, there has been talk about changing the requirements for map submissions and I'd like the community to get involved with determining a fair outcome. What should the minimum requirement be for an entry, and should there be a maximum requirement to go with it? I'll be polling for a week before officially accepting submissions so make your voice heard now!

[Ether]

Is it feasible to have different brackets for areas vs dungeons vs whole overworlds, and shuffle between them every month? I guess probably with more months being individual areas and only 1 or 2 months per year being full overworlds.

[Moosh]

4 screens seems like the point where something can be considered a "map" to me, though I don't particularly believe there need be limits for either. This includes by "area". If somebody has the energy to create an entire multi map overworld and stitch it together in an image editor that should be permissible. No reason to punish overachievers. This strikes me as no different from somebody entering a screen with beautiful fully custom graphics into SotW. They might have a ridiculous advantage over every other entry, but they still put in the extra effort. 

[Aevin]

Personally, I think a "whole area" limitation makes sense. It's always seemed strange to me that people would submit whole overworlds, and to me it seems pretty obviously out of scope, and potentially intimidating for people looking to enter the contests. I think at this point, encouraging participation is a big priority. More modest sized entries means more even competition, and a lower bar for entry, which could lead to people being more enthusiastic about joining. And that doesn't have to mean "lower effort" entries, just more concentrated effort on smaller maps. That's my thought process, anyway.

 

Of course, what constitutes a "whole area" is an entirely different question.

[klop422]

Is it feasible to have different brackets for areas vs dungeons vs whole overworlds, and shuffle between them every month? I guess probably with more months being individual areas and only 1 or 2 months per year being full overworlds.

I know for sure that I have a bias towards overworlds and against dungeons, primarily because the former are much more readable at a glance. It might make sense to split things a little, as well as limit things to just one area (though, of course, that has its own questions)

 

That said, my only MotM win was a four-map overworld, so maybe I'm self-sabotaging . Even so, in that case, the top-left map was basically just the one area too (minus a handful of screens), so the range of sizes is definitely large.

[Taco Chopper]

Is it feasible to have different brackets for areas vs dungeons vs whole overworlds, and shuffle between them every month? I guess probably with more months being individual areas and only 1 or 2 months per year being full overworlds.

could be worthwhile, just depends on what gets submitted, right? I'm not sure about everyone else but I'd definitely be voting for an overworld most of the time compared to a dungeon if only for the way the design can feel a lot more open/unrestricted. unless there's something visually striking about the dungeon, of course...

 

I voted for a 4 screen minimum. I think the minimum is really the only guideline that matters, because what defines a map aside from being a few screens stitched together? The definition of a "whole area" as a maximum can vary, of course, but I think it gives a general idea of scope. Better to have some sort of guideline than none at all, right?

On the other hand, Moosh has a point - it's up to the discretion of the creator and whether they're going to enter something of Very High Quality. Definitely would rather those entries get the credit they deserve, than nothing at all.

[Deedee]

I'm of the opinion that if people want to submit high effort stuff they should be allowed, whether that be through lack of restrictions or different brackets.

[Twilight Knight]

I'm of the opinion that if people want to submit high effort stuff they should be allowed, whether that be through lack of restrictions or different brackets.

I share that opinion.

 

Though I definitely do see the advantage of having brackets/themes, I fear it would impact the amount of submissions negatively. Having no maximum restrictions in map size or restrictions on the type of area is a positive thing I think, as some people love making overworlds and some love dungeons.

 

Arguably dungeons are generally less "attractive" than overworlds, but I think voters are perfectly capable of taking that into regard and vote for an astounding dungeon map even if there are also decent overworld maps submitted.

[Ether]

I could see the brackets going one of two ways: it could hamper submissions further, but I could also see people being like, "Oh, this is a dungeon month! I have a cool dungeon and there won't be another of these for a while," and that encouraging submissions. I'm genuinely not sure which one it would be, but I think it's worth having the experiment.

[Shane]

If we did go for brackets, I'd say alternating between overworld and dungeon each month should suffice. People can simply submit their overworlds or dungeons in advance. There might even be some benefits to that system. But for what it's worth, I like how Map of the Month was handled in the past. If people want to put their 4 screen map up for competition against a fully complete overworld and multi floor dungeon map more power to them. I think the varying results are interesting to see even if the results tend to favour more to larger maps.

 

So far it's looking that the results are for changing the current minimum requirement of 9 screens down to 4 and keeping no limitations as to how big a map can be. I think I might experiment with overworld and dungeon brackets. I guess there definitely is some flaws to this system: Where can unique cases be submitted like caves or something that blurs the line between overworld and dungeon? What happens if there's simply no dungeon maps being submitted during the dungeon theme? And do the dungeons and overworld maps eventually compete with one another?

 

My proposals for these questions are:

• If you feel your oddball map leans more towards functioning as an overworld, it can be submitted there. If it plays more like a dungeon, it goes in that bracket.
• I think if there are zero entries we simply switch themes. If there is one entry in the bank it can be reserved for later.
• I think due to the bias towards overworlds, dungeons and overworlds should remain separated and Map of the Year has two victors.

I am going to observe carefully how brackets will play out should I go forward with experimenting. I'm not entirely confident in this approach, but if it does inspire more dungeon maps, that would be cool. It'd be refreshing to see dungeons get more love.

[Ether]

If people want to put their 4 screen map up for competition against a fully complete overworld and multi floor dungeon map more power to them.

This part doesn't seem quite right--people don't know what they're going up against when they submit. If someone submits a 4 screen map against a full overworld, is that actually because they wanted to do that?

 

(I still also think that there should be separate brackets for individual areas vs an entire map's worth of content, for that same reason. I think I would generally lump caves in as a type of dungeon, although I could see some exceptions to that.)

[Twilight Knight]

I'd say the more complicated the contest rules get, the less submissions. Having no submissions for a particular bracket could really break the contest

[Shane]

This part doesn't seem quite right--people don't know what they're going up against when they submit. If someone submits a 4 screen map against a full overworld, is that actually because they wanted to do that?

Totally fair, no one has that kind of foresight. When entering Map of the Month you should always expect a submission that's bigger than yours. I don't really anticipate many four screen maps to be submitted throughout the entirety of the contest. There's really not that many areas in projects that are four screens big to begin with. I'm for anything being submitted each month, but I am looking to see what the community feels here... they are the reason the contest will become alive again after all.

 

I guess I'm concerned about too many brackets. That kind of thing feels more fitting for something that's weekly like Screenshot: Challenge Accepted. One could potentially wait almost a quarter of a year to submit their dungeon map and that's assuming that there will be enough dungeon maps for that themed Map of the Month to happen. And even then, this won't exactly achieve a fair outcome as who's to say someone won't make a giant single area?

 

I just feel a little unfairness is always bound to happen in a contest environment. And ultimately, what should matter more is having fun and showing off cool ZC maps you recently made or want to reflect on. I'm not going to discount more brackets if people want that, I just don't quite have the same level of confidence some people might have for it. But the proof is in the pudding and I am willing to experiment to see the results.

[Ether]

I think size on its own doesn't have that much wow factor for me and the variety that goes into a full overworld is the impressive part, but otherwise that's fair. I'm not under the impression that anyone else except me sees this as a good idea, and of course I wouldn't be making submissions either way, so.

[Shane]

I think size on its own doesn't have that much wow factor for me and the variety that goes into a full overworld is the impressive part, but otherwise that's fair. I'm not under the impression that anyone else except me sees this as a good idea, and of course I wouldn't be making submissions either way, so.

Understandable. I don't dislike the overworld and dungeon brackets. I really want to see more dungeons and I feel dungeons just have an inherent disadvantage. Not that dungeons haven't won against overworld areas and entire overworlds. But for this to work, there definitely needs to be more dungeon submissions!