what exactly are the judges grading on?

[spacedemonebu]

crack perhaps? i'm really trying to understand the purpose of this contest and since the judging is what determines the kind of content produced, i wonder why it is that the judges tend to give (some of the) winning places to the most generic, epic-imitation maps instead of encouraging people to try something new.

i'm not just griping because war-holywar didn't make the cut, i've felt that a lot of other people's maps have been sleighted. FOR INSTANCE (disclaimer: i'm not trying to start beef with MozI because i've really liked some of his other maps but...) I thought War-Meditation was a really uninteresting map from a gameplay, creativity, and graphics standpoint and it gets into the finalists while a map like war-marooned is only given an honorable mention. like... really, judges? i just want to know how that happened.

since we are not getting any significant feedback on why the judges like one map over another, it doesn't seem worth it to put a great deal of care and artistry into your map when it's just going to get overlooked in favor of a simplistic and unoriginal map.

i'm not saying all the judges decisions have been in error, i just feel like UT3 has an immense amount of potential that is going unnoticed and the judges have the power to entice people to find it. it's just my opinion; i know a lot of the UT3 community does not share it.

[Kev_Boy]

I wouldn't quite put it this harshly, but I do agree to a fair extent.

[jayoplus]

http://utforums.epicgames.com/showpost.php?p=25846742&postcount=3

[KazeoHin]

I can understand the angst, but in the end, Epic is looking at the content from a professional standpoint. Seamless, artifact-free artwork is not always beautiful, but its judged higher because it keeps to the professional standard. Gameplay that is really fun for a mod community member may not be fun for a casual shooter fan; simple, thought-out layouts win over tactically complicated and initially confusing layouts. This is the way the judges look at content, I'm sure. I worked very hard on my submission, sometimes going days without sleep to secure the "100% custom content" badge, but I didn't make it to the finals. I'm not going to blame that on anyone. Looking back, there are things I would have done differently to make my submission more "professional", maybe with more experience, maybe more time, who knows? but I don't think the community fully understands the idea of "professional quality", myself included. Buck up, there are always two more phases. Look at it any other way, and you'll drive yourself mad.

[MozI]

One thing I learned over the many years of mapping is that I can't make everyone happy. So I create what I can to the best of my ability.

spacedemonebu I am glad you liked my other maps. About meditation your points are valid as I made this map really fast. Not for MSUC but CBP 3 was lacking WAR maps near deadline I did what I could to fill in the gap.

Trust me there are some even harsher comments down in CBP private forums from early development. And again with time I have learned that being a level designer both as a pro and hobbyist is that it requires a thick skin and openness to feedback or criticisms, so your comments about Meditation if that is how you feel about it then you are right to, I am not going to convince of this or that being it's my map... it will just waste your time and mine. :)

As for it being a finalist, I never thought it would happen given how quickly I made the map. But I build this map with simplicity in mind from the get go nothing too complex (yes if had more time I would have done better on visuals) Perhaps it is the simplicity that went in it's favor, just a thought.

But I understand the frustrations that happen. In Phase 1 WAR-CBP3-Airlock was finalist among seven other maps. I totally thought I had it in the bag (was kind of cocky about it to be honest) with my really cool kismet driven level, and guess what I did not win. I was a bit devastated (made some bad posts I regret now) but then got back into my senses and looked for feedback from folks at Epic.

Turns out I did not win because it was a bad map, in fact from the feedback I got the map was pretty good. I lucked out due to complexity. The Airlock concept was good but the feedback loop to the player was not well done nor emphasized enough. Quoting Jim Brown, " Even after repeated playthroughs, a lot of the judges were asking, "what exactly does the countdown node do?!?" There's a certain level of clarity missing there that essential to understanding the map. I know that can sometimes be hard to do in a community map without custom VO and such but I still think the point is valid. Jim had other notes in terms of some level construction feedback and overall layout.

After getting feedback I played the winning phase 1 WAR maps and some of them I though how could this win, etc.... but then I looked at it not as mapper, nor MSUC contestant, but as a 'average' gamer. And one thing I noticed is that a few of those winning maps had 'simple' gameplay for the pick up and play matches and I am sure that along with other qualities (some I may disagree with) got those maps into the winning spots.

This brings me to conclude this post, making maps is hard, but judging them (either from a professional industry view or the view of gamer) is extremely hard, as different gamers have different tastes in what they see and interact with. I doubt it is ever possible to unanimously say so and so map is perfect or to push it further game x or game y is perfect. There will always be someone to find a flaw or personal pet peeve with a map or game and I believe these points are always valid and are a great medium (if done in mature and professional manner) for discussion and makes room for improvement on the developer and also the fans be it in a mod community or for a full fledged game.

So sorry to rant (may have gone off topic) but I hope this helps spacedemonebu. I have done many contests over the years for a myriad of fields from education to gaming and most things in between. I have had my fair share of wins and losses and it comes with the territory and more often than not there will always be the thought ( I think due to human nature) that some thing is unfair or off... not sure how to say it but it happens and I totally understand where you are coming from on this.

Edit:
But this does raise a good question for discussion not in terms of MSUC maps but games and maps in general, Simple vs. Complex designs, what works, what doesn't and finding the right middle ground for both? Perhaps we can start another thread about that somewhere should be a good discussion.

[spacedemonebu]

edit: hey, MozI. i'm glad that you are a chill and enlightened person that didn't let me piss you off :) i completely agree with the need to be open to criticism and feedback. i know my maps have flaws but this community seems so supportive that i don't feel like i've gotten a proper thrashing for them. i'll keep making maps regardless, i'm just a bit less interested in this contest. thanks for your words and i honestly wish you luck even though i was mean and singled out meditation.

KazeoHin, i hear what you are saying about professional quality but i don't see that that is consistent criteria that the judges are basing their decisions on. consider that both war-valley and war-moltencore were cluttered by meshes that had horrible collision issues, in the VCTF finalist thread someone was pointing out that several of the finalists run at single-digit frame rates and crash servers online, how can things like that be forgiven if professional quality is at all a priority?

i think epic needs to put on a contest specifically for level designers that are trying to expand and evolve videogames as an art form. no judging by sponsors, they've got to have real level designers calling the shots.

[Distant Land]

In a lot of cases I felt like the maps were being judged heavily on graphics, how much of the editor it used (tricks, effects), and maybe blurriness. In the case of best <category> maps, gameplay should really come far above all else, and while many of the maps that sweep the contest, a lot of CBP3 stuff usually, do look very good, they do seem to be awarded for the ones that most emulate epic's style, including occasional over-post-processing., and a requisite abundance of static mesh, often to the maps detriment both in gameplay and visuals.

I too have been somewhat disheartened by the contest and seeing a lot of the ones judged winning maps, because while some have interesting concepts, or are decently polished, a lot of them are tough to even finish a match on. They don't seem to be executed with thought for weapon placement, map flow, angles of attack, the things that make UT3's somewhat simpler gameplay interesting. There's a lot of the same meandering hallways and corridors, with totally monotone lighting, where the background has a good chance of looking more interesting than the play area. Epic-style...I don't consider that a huge exaggeration, but am not calling out any single map for mediocre quality. I just think there's an overall unoriginality. They'd fit in with the default map packs, but I was disappointed with those ones as well. Relative to what can be done with the editor (ebu's Holywar is a good example), the ones being chosen, while without question done by people very skilled with the editor, are not the best ones.

I agree that a contest such as this should be about progressing the artform, as any game should...awarding the things that are most interesting in concept and gameplay (with atmosphere and visual appeal and polish being secondary factors...blurry maps are way way too common). Graphics should be kept solidly for graphics, and feedback/justification provided on why the winning maps were deserving over anyone else who put time into their work would go miles towards showing the lucidity and good judgement of those actually scoring the contest.

Maybe we should hold a second contest where the community votes on the best ones, and map makers can make their case for what people should be focused on in their playing...that would at least feel more down to earth and legitimate that faceless judges with corporate sponsors, and processing and awards, completely without useful feedback.

[Bret Hart]

http://utforums.epicgames.com/showpost.php?p=25846742&postcount=3

This

=============

[Distant Land]

Saw that already...not quite the move I was thinking of, but I'm glad they're willing to be personal about it

[spacedemonebu]

that's not quite what we're talking about. from the wording i don't get the impression that anyone other than the finalist or HM can get feedback on anything other than their own entry. it would be most useful to be able to compare that feedback between the maps so that we could get an idea of what the judge's priorities really are.

[Angel_Mapper]

Wow... I can understand where some of you might be coming from, but this thread could have been handled with a little more tact and professionalism. Denigrating other contestants and the judges or their criteria won't get you very far.

[Bret Hart]

Wow... I can understand where some of you might be coming from, but this thread could have been handled with a little more tact and professionalism. Denigrating other contestants and the judges or their criteria won't get you very far.
Rachel has a point here. Sure it sucks your map didn't make the cut, take a look at Hourence's map he submitted for phase 1, DM-Krodan. It didn't make the "cut" and it was astounding. It probably lacked in gameplay flow, I don't really know. Judges have their methods in judging a map and we all have to respect it, and not whine about it. That just won't get you anywhere.

[spacedemonebu]

it would be easier to respect those methods if we knew what they were. i once asked if the judges played the maps in multiplayer or individually and never got a reply.

i apologize to anyone who took my critical tone and words too seriously. i don't actually believe that the judges actually smoke crack, that was just a joke.



But this does raise a good question for discussion not in terms of MSUC maps but games and maps in general, Simple vs. Complex designs, what works, what doesn't and finding the right middle ground for both? Perhaps we can start another thread about that somewhere should be a good discussion.

http://utforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=647383

[Distant Land]

Wow... I can understand where some of you might be coming from, but this thread could have been handled with a little more tact and professionalism. Denigrating other contestants and the judges or their criteria won't get you very far.

I heard they eat puppies



Rachel has a point here. Sure it sucks your map didn't make the cut, take a look at Hourence's map he submitted for phase 1, DM-Krodan. It didn't make the "cut" and it was astounding. It probably lacked in gameplay flow, I don't really know. Judges have their methods in judging a map and we all have to respect it, and not whine about it. That just won't get you anywhere.


I'm not addressing it with the idea that my map should have won...everyone's gonna vote for themselves, and hopefully everyone can admit that there map isn't the greatest thing ever made at the same time. I'm not whining, but it's a contest for the community, to promote the game and to get the community involved. It's not unreasonable to discuss and question their methods...it's not a call for a recount.

[KazeoHin]

If you're looking to win the contest: look at what the judges think is 'win' and go off of that. But personally, I use the contest as a way of expressing myself, not winning glory or money. Congrats to the finalists, and good luck in the final judging. Remember: Phase 3 is still on the horizon.

[Bret Hart]

If you're looking to win the contest: look at what the judges think is 'win' and go off of that. But personally, I use the contest as a way of expressing myself, not winning glory or money. Congrats to the finalists, and good luck in the final judging. Remember: Phase 3 is still on the horizon.
That's true, do not give up hope yet. Ask the judges why they didn't pick your map, what you could do to improve it. I didn't make the finals for the 3d buzz contest, it's because my map didn't have any z-axis gameplay.

[SmokeRingHalo]

KazeoHin, i hear what you are saying about professional quality but i don't see that that is consistent criteria that the judges are basing their decisions on. consider that both war-valley and war-moltencore were cluttered by meshes that had horrible collision issues, in the VCTF finalist thread someone was pointing out that several of the finalists run at single-digit frame rates and crash servers online, how can things like that be forgiven if professional quality is at all a priority?


I don't necessarily agree with all of the decisions the judges made either but then again its not our place to judge is it, its theirs.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't specifically point out my works as targets of your rants in the future.

[Distant Land]

If you're looking to win the contest: look at what the judges think is 'win' and go off of that. But personally, I use the contest as a way of expressing myself, not winning glory or money. Congrats to the finalists, and good luck in the final judging. Remember: Phase 3 is still on the horizon.

Looking at the ones that did win...it seems pretty subjective, while something like this, with specific things being judged should be more objective. Gameplay shouldn't rate high if a level is cluttered with static meshes and uninteresting angles for instance. And graphics seems to be equated with amount of post processing more than anything...lots of monotone-colored maps are usually the norm too.

[Distant Land]

I don't necessarily agree with all of the decisions the judges made either but then again its not our place to judge is it, its theirs.
I'd appreciate it if you didn't specifically point out my works as targets of your rants in the future.

I'd say the same thing...collision problems were all over that one because it was cluttered with meshes....accept it as constructive criticism more than insults.

[spacedemonebu]

yeah, sorry dude... but your map wasn't the target of my rant, it was just a bystander that got hit in the shootout. and i didn't actually say your map was bad or didn't deserve to win, i simply pointed out a fact about it that i assumed you would have already been aware of.

while i was a contestant in the contest, i'm also part of the community that this contest is intended to produce content for. so while it may not be my place to judge the entries, i am entirely entitled to judge the judging. who knows, maybe this outburst will prompt the judges to consider the entries a little more carefully in later phases and better maps will be selected than would have had i held my tongue.

[Bret Hart]

What one person considers a map to be "MSU worthy", another person will find it to be not so worthy, in my opinion.

[SmokeRingHalo]

yeah, sorry dude... but your map wasn't the target of my rant, it was just a bystander that got hit in the shootout. and i didn't actually say your map was bad or didn't deserve to win, i simply pointed out a fact about it that i assumed you would have already been aware of.


I'm aware that Moltencore has its problems, it is still beta after all. If it wasn't I'd like to think it would have taken 1st. I'm also surprised and disappointed that it didn't get at least honorable mention in best graphics category because everyone seemed to love its visuals, if not its performance or gameplay. I'm not going to make a thread about it though. It wouldn't change anything and is a waste of time imo. I'd be better off polishing my entries for the next phase. There is one thing about phase 1 that I will complain about though, I never got the MSUC DVD they said they were sending.

[Bret Hart]

You could always email someone and ask them why they didn't send the DVD.

[Distant Land]

What one person considers a map to be "MSU worthy", another person will find it to be not so worthy, in my opinion.

Judging for a contest like this should be less subjective though...and I suspect they're going more for Most thorough use of the editor's features, rather than best level (gameplay first, visuals second)

[Plutonic]

There was a DVD?

[Xyx]

The original post must be edited, because it did not strike me as harsh. Open, honest, forward, perhaps a bit blunt, but all of that is good. Feigned modesty, unspoken opinion and political correctness are the death of actual communication.



JUDGING CRITERIA

For Evaluation Phases 1 through 4, Submissions will be evaluated on a preliminary basis only by qualified judges and evaluators.

At the end of Phase 4, Submissions will be judged by qualified judges and evaluators using the judging criteria set forth in these Official Rules. All judges' decisions are final and binding in all respects. All Entries will be judged on a 1-100 point scale, using the following criteria: Creativity, Visuals, Innovation, Fun, Quality, Polish and Gameplay.

At Sponsor's discretion, Submissions may be judged in multiple categories. In the unlikely event of a tie for any portion of the Contest, the judging panel shall break that tie by rescoring the tying entries. In the event that Submissions in any Category do not receive a score of at least 70 points, no Finalist will be selected. In the event that no Entry receives a combined score of at least 70 points, no prize will be awarded. Those Submissions that receive the highest scores will move on to the final round. On or about October 1, 2009, Sponsor will announce the Finalists who will complete for the Grand Prize.

Note the bold part. I checked this list many times while working on our entry to ensure that we'd deliver on all fronts.

Note that the rules do not specify whether all criteria are weighted equally, nor do they explain any of the criteria. This still provides something of a guideline, but is still subjective in the extreme. This makes competing in the MSUC not only a matter of talent and skill but also a matter of luck. A bit of a shot in the dark. You could bring the best gun ever, but a miss is still a miss.

I trust that our judges based their decisions on a foundation of solid principles, but in the interest of fairness it wouldn't be amiss if they shared this enlightened philosophy with the public. This cuts two ways; contestants have a better guideline and Epic gets more entries in line with what they prefer.

[Oliebol]

i guess they have vacation now, and i should wait with receiving answer of feedback of my level? :p

Or else i should try to get my english better.

[spacedemonebu]

Feigned modesty, unspoken opinion and political correctness are the death of actual communication.
thank you! it's actually beginning to seem like most of the community isn't necessarily in disagreement with me, just that some people wouldn't have chosen such strong words.

an official statement assured us that the judges were "qualified" but it also said that they were from Intel and VelocityMicro which, to my knowledge, have no background in videogame design. so they are qualified in that they... have fingers and demanded to be judges with the threat of withdrawing sponsorship of the contest? ahh capitalism...

eagerly awaiting phase 1 of the MSTIAUTTC
(Make Something That Is Actually Unreal This Time Contest)

[Bret Hart]

Well I guess mine scored over a 70 since it's in :p

[FPgundam]

This was a subject I was planning to interview the Epic Games judges about indepth for a future article. I was planning on this subject or a more general interview with Jeff Morris in Phase I. Well I picked the more general interview. Hopefully I can get a second interview and contestants can get their answers soon..... Which is like one month.

First of all Epic Games is reknown for play testing. I've heard they go through hours and days of it. The entire office for GoW2 was tested by the non-gamer to hardcore gamer employee.

They are looking for professional quality work as aforementioned by Jeff Morris. That means it has to be a combination of fun to play, great looking, original, and bug free. Hitting homeruns is the point.

Well I'm back to getting all the finalist maps into a single zip file.

[DGUnreal]

I try not to get involved in the general chat too much... I prefer sticking to the less dangerous area of technical help... :)

Personally, I feel that P1 was judged better than P2 (and I didn't win on any maps in P1 in case anyone was wondering). I don't totally agree with all of the finalist choices made in P2. Perhaps the judging was moved to other people with WarTourist's leaving this area of Epic and that brought about changes in the contest. Without knowing the judges and their experience and the judging criteria, it is difficult to speculate why some of the choices were made.

IMHO some of the finalists/HM should not have been included because they were remakes of earlier Epic maps. This disqualifies them from "contestant's original creation" according to the rules.

No offense is meant to any mappers here...

I'll be honest, I haven't played every map (that takes a lot of time), but I don't see how maps like these get in the finalists, while better maps are not even in the running. But... it isn't up to us to determine who wins.

http://www.beyondunreal.com/media/thumbs/gen_081104_13_200.jpg http://www.beyondunreal.com/media/thumbs/gen_081104_121_200.jpg http://www.beyondunreal.com/media/thumbs/gen_081027_25_200.jpg

[Bret Hart]

Yeah, but I don't know if they will make the top 5 in the final judgement. Maybe they had to pick those, just to pick them, who knows really.

[_N_]

You could always email someone and ask them why they didn't send the DVD.

I asked about this and the reply was that Intel was supposed to have sent these out already, but there was a bit of a mix-up that's caused a delay. They're coming eventually, but we're going to have to be patient ;).

[HideInLight]

I try not to get involved in the general chat too much... I prefer sticking to the less dangerous area of technical help... :)

Personally, I feel that P1 was judged better than P2 (and I didn't win on any maps in P1 in case anyone was wondering). I don't totally agree with all of the finalist choices made in P2. Perhaps the judging was moved to other people with WarTourist's leaving this area of Epic and that brought about changes in the contest. Without knowing the judges and their experience and the judging criteria, it is difficult to speculate why some of the choices were made.

IMHO some of the finalists/HM should not have been included because they were remakes of earlier Epic maps. This disqualifies them from "contestant's original creation" according to the rules.

No offense is meant to any mappers here...

I'll be honest, I haven't played every map (that takes a lot of time), but I don't see how maps like these get in the finalists, while better maps are not even in the running. But... it isn't up to us to determine who wins.

http://www.beyondunreal.com/media/thumbs/gen_081104_13_200.jpg http://www.beyondunreal.com/media/thumbs/gen_081104_121_200.jpg http://www.beyondunreal.com/media/thumbs/gen_081027_25_200.jpg

Quote from crowl


We can't accept mods that contain third-party intellectual property (IP) as per the rules: http://www.makesomethingunreal.com/rules.aspx

While it's fun to see characters like Mario and Master Chief in mods (a la UT2D), we can't consider versions with IP owned by someone other than the mod creator for the contest.

Of course, it's fine to use characters from the Unreal universe.


Not to sure if the same applies to remakes of EPIC maps, but it seems to be allowed for the characters. Mostly refering to Face][

[DGUnreal]

Not to sure if the same applies to remakes of EPIC maps, but it seems to be allowed for the characters. Mostly refering to Face][


Then why not just export the player meshes and skins from UT2004 and submit those...

Any map that uses the same design as an existing released Epic map to the point where it is unmistakenly the same map, can not be classified as a "contestant's original creation".

Otherwise I may as well just start with an empty map and insert all of the existing retail content identical to DM-ShangriLa and submit that... it may be identical to the existing release version, but I dropped in all of the content myself, so it's my "remake"... maybe I'll just tweak a couple of textures so I can call it DM-ShangriLa][. If it was good enough to make Epic's retail game, it had better win the MSUC.

See the problem with this?...

[Bret Hart]

DGunreal has a point.

[evilmrfrank]

Since you used my map as an example I'll just clarify on my behalf :P I never thought anything of submitting the map extra I did it for the fun of it not thinking it would get mentioned or anything. If it had won I would have felt kinda guilty about it as its not my creation entirely but I'm still glad to see it get mentioned like that. I don't think remakes should win, unless the mapper is remaking his own map. Honorable mentions I think are fine though :P

[DGUnreal]

Nothing personal is directed to the mappers themselves in any of my posts. :)

The examples were given as to questioning the contest judges, not as questioning the talents of the mappers.

There were other maps submitted that were not remakes or IMHO equal or better quality to various chosen finalists who didn't get an HM from the judges.
I just found that to be odd...

As mentioned, with P1 I pretty much agreed with all picks, with P2 I scratched my head on a few of the finalists.

[spacedemonebu]

glad to know i'm not the only one that was perplexed. i wonder if we'll ever get an official explanation... or maybe heads will quietly roll and better judges get selected for phase 3 and 4. some people have tried to defend the judging by saying that it is the judges prerogative and that we just have to roll with it. i was never taught to accept authority for authority's sake.

can we agree that it is in everyone's best interest for this contest to rock? well, i would say that Epic and the contestants have done their part to make it so and while we all know that sponsors crave control, we have to make them see that they are the ones f***ing it all up.

this thread has probably killed any chance of me winning in future phases, but i'll never be anyone's sycophant.

[Bret Hart]

When I judged maps for the devmods.com contest, it was no easy task. There were quite a few that were hard to pick a winner. I had to go over the maps again and again, deciding what would truly make 1st, 2nd, 3rd place. Some of the contestants did not agree with my choices as I'm sure you do not agree with the choices here, so yeah.

[spacedemonebu]

When I judged maps for the devmods.com contest, it was no easy task. There were quite a few that were hard to pick a winner. I had to go over the maps again and again, deciding what would truly make 1st, 2nd, 3rd place. Some of the contestants did not agree with my choices as I'm sure you do not agree with the choices here, so yeah.

but when most of the contestants disagree with the choices...? no one has said "actually, i think the judges have done a fantastic job on phase 2". a few have outright agreed with me, while others have said that while they agree, they think my words are too harsh.

and lets remember that this isn't even about the winners because those have not been announced yet, this is about certain stellar maps that got dropped as Honorable Mentions while maps that are (or at least should be) obviously inferior make it into the finalist bracket.

[Distant Land]

Since it was supposed to be a community thing and was driven by capitalist interests, why don't we go socialist and just hold our own UT3 community contest, and then people can discuss, argue, and justify their choices and votes...then everyone, prize-winners or otherwise will just get tons of exposure and community props if nothing else. I bet some other sites would link it up too if it was well structured enough.

[DGUnreal]

Who's going to pony-up the $1,000,000 dollars for the prizes though... :p

[Bret Hart]

Who's going to pony-up the $1,000,000 dollars for the prizes though... :p
Intel, of course. And we can whine and complain all we want about the finalist decisions, but it won't change the outcome. Maybe phases 3 and 4 will have BU judges instead.

[Distant Land]

prizes are props, publicity, praise, pdownloads...and since what...only some 40 people each phase out of however many put in effort won anything anyway....you'd probably get more satisfaction out of people enjoying and critiquing your map than not winning money.

Or maybe special categories of things people often post about like best 1v1's, best map done inside a week, best use of X (Particles, post processing, etc), best map with a ____ theme (space, desert, etc). Things to push creativity and let people really practice advancing mapping skills the best they can.

I'm not really that harsh on the MSUC, it just could have been done better...Although I'm pretty proud of my Best Use of Physics honorable mention. If I had to not win money, I'm glad I got such a minor accolade out of it.



Intel, of course. And we can whine and complain all we want about the finalist decisions, but it won't change the outcome. Maybe phases 3 and 4 will have BU judges instead.

Why not do one that's like community based to start with...so everyone can make their case in favor of different maps and just do a giant poll.

Popular vote over electoral college

[evilmrfrank]

I honestly don't think the community should have any part in voting for the MSUC maps winners or finalist.

[Bret Hart]

Okay we'll pick a bunch of scientists and engineers to judge them :p

[Distant Land]

[redacted]

[Xyx]

Submissions should be judged from various angles, including casual gamer appeal, hardcore gamer appeal, originality, polish, artistic excellence, technical excellence, commercial potential... You cannot expect the community to provide a good distribution of those angles. That requires a carefully selected panel of judges.

[Distant Land]

casual/hardcore gamer appeal is more related to the game of UT3 itself...polish is usually a given...you'd hope maps don't have large gaps in them...technical excellence is skilled use of the editor, which I think things are most judged by now...commercial appeal too maybe, but things shouldn't be made for commercial appeal...you do that and you end up with tons of games that are bleak-metal-future in style with little programming gimmicks like the current gen trends. Artistic originality and quality, and gameplay are the two most important things to a good map, and game for that matter, gameplay being foremost. Ideally, quality and innovation should be directly connected to commercial success, but that's a ways off.

And I'm talking about a community sort of thing for the communities sake...let the MSUC judges decide on whatever they want, give money and publicity for it, however carefully they might have been selected it doesn't mean they're going to make the best choices. But this thread is more to question the motives behind their decisions. Maybe show the 1-100 ratings that were decided on different points for finalists and winners, something like that. I'd really like to know if they knock off points for every map overusing blur and bloom, or reward it. Or if remakes of UT99 maps get really low scores on originality.

[Beastenator]

Submissions should be judged from various angles, including casual gamer appeal, hardcore gamer appeal, originality, polish, artistic excellence, technical excellence, commercial potential... You cannot expect the community to provide a good distribution of those angles. That requires a carefully selected panel of judges.

Does that include hardcore gameplay testing? I mean, if a map full of camping possibilities can get through or one withouth avril, that isn't right, is it?

And that's mainly vctf I'm talking about, VCTF-wastelands, no offence, it's a nice map, but really, have they even concidered how easy it is to defend the base and to camp the flag? In warfare it might be good, but defenately not in vctf.

then again, another example: VCTF-Defection. The lethality in the midfield is far too high. On foot you can't get through, unless you manage to get over the fence, somehow. still a good map, and jump boots would fix a lot.

[spacedemonebu]

Intel, of course. And we can whine and complain all we want about the finalist decisions, but it won't change the outcome. Maybe phases 3 and 4 will have BU judges instead.
no one is whining, why are stuck on that? i never expected nor requested that the judges change the outcome. they just blatantly screwed up and i'm calling them on it. i wouldn't even say it's complaining, it's more of a scientific observation mixed with critically incisive poetry.

of my 60 some posts so far, this thread is maybe 10 of them. mostly i'm in love with the unreal editor and i'm grateful to Epic for giving it to us. as i stated in the first post, i see a great deal of potential in UT3 and i'd much rather be working on new ideas for phase 3 than trying to figure out why the judges hate new ideas. that's me, but what's your purpose here? you haven't directly given your stance on the phase 2 judging, you just seem to be whining over the fact that not everyone is as complacent with errors as you are.

again, i'm not trying to change the past, the only thing i've requested is public feedback on all finalists AND HMs. that's not so much to ask is it? especially considering how right i am... :p

[Bret Hart]

You can "call them out on it" all you want. It still won't change the outcome, you probably won't get an "official" response from anyone. It's like the state laws, not everybody agrees how the rules were laid out, you just have to go with it. Still seems like whining to me but whatever.

[spacedemonebu]

and we've officially reached the 6th page of you still missing the fact that i'm not trying to change the outcome.

[Bret Hart]

and we've officially reached the 6th page of you still missing the fact that i'm not trying to change the outcome.
Really? Sounds like it to me.

[DGUnreal]

Epic's game, Epic's contest, Epic's judging, it's their choice not ours. Whether we agree or not is irrelevant.
A percentage of the community doesn't care for various stock UT3 retail maps either. A lot unfortunately comes down to personal taste. And judges are not immune from fanboi-ism either.

[evilmrfrank]

I love the UT3 retail maps :D Much higher quality than previous Unreal games :D

[spacedemonebu]

Really? Sounds like it to me.
please quote me. i want to know where i asked them to change their minds.

[Bret Hart]

Well some people say Epic is judging the maps and other people say Intel is doing it. Which one is it? Epic seems more qualified to judge the maps than Intel people.

[_N_]

then again, another example: VCTF-Defection. The lethality in the midfield is far too high. On foot you can't get through, unless you manage to get over the fence, somehow. still a good map, and jump boots would fix a lot.

There's actually a jump-pad to get over the fence on each side. It's one-way too, so quite difficult to camp. In addition there at 2 pairs of jump boots.

I agree that a community-based contest would be fraught with problems. I don't see how one could prevent it from turning into an american-idol style popularity contest... :(

[Distant Land]

I love the UT3 retail maps :D Much higher quality than previous Unreal games :D

They're higher polycount but a lot of the old ones had more interesting settings, better atmosphere, actually used color, less visual/gameplay clutter from everything not being covered in meshes, and less blurriness, since Post processing is heavily used...a lot of maps suffer one or more of these same problems I think. I'd blame it on UT3's style but it's more the current gaming generations visual sytle. Part of the judging I think heavily leans towards emulating the retail-maps, highly polished and professional, but not necessarily the most fun or creative or even interesting.

[spacedemonebu]

some people said that holywar made their eyes bleed. i guess being reintroduced to the color spectrum can have that effect if all you've played is Gears and WAR-Downtown.


Well some people say Epic is judging the maps and other people say Intel is doing it. Which one is it? Epic seems more qualified to judge the maps than Intel people.

i distinctly remember reading that the judges were from Intel and VelocityMicro. i think it was in an official announcement thread in this forum. but what does that have to do with anything? or are you just changing the subject?

but you're right, epic is exponentially more qualified to judge than intel. that's what i've been saying since page 1. the problem is that sponsors are control freaks to the point that they forget that they have no artistic sensibilities.

[Distant Land]

I can see with something like holywar or Plaza that it may be not visually unified enough to be easy on the eyes, compared to a monotone map with no strong lights...but then, there's other people who just haven't exercised their rods and cones proper. It's a good balance to try to find...that sweet spot of visual appeal, but I know for sure many maps aren't doing anything that's really visually interesting.

[evilmrfrank]

They're higher polycount but a lot of the old ones had more interesting settings, better atmosphere, actually used color, less visual/gameplay clutter from everything not being covered in meshes, and less blurriness, since Post processing is heavily used...a lot of maps suffer one or more of these same problems I think. I'd blame it on UT3's style but it's more the current gaming generations visual sytle. Part of the judging I think heavily leans towards emulating the retail-maps, highly polished and professional, but not necessarily the most fun or creative or even interesting.

Well I agree that older UT's had way more interesting atmospheres but UT3 definitely pulls off the ones they do have to a much higher degree. I do wish that they would just go all out crazy and creative like the original UT maps were though. Visually the maps are amazing, gameplay they are much better than the UT2003, UT2004 maps, perhaps not as good as a lot of the UT1 maps but some were better than some of the UT1 maps, just an opinion thing.

[Distant Land]

UT3's technology definitely shows that it's a decade down the line from UT99, and even 2004 had some bright colors and appealing looking maps. I just think for the potential UT3 has, and the ease of use of the UT3 editor, the maps for it are pretty boring. Think of UT3 if it had stronger style, creativity, and surrealism...then I think it would really be at the level it should be at. Nowadays there's just a lot of grungy future levels, or "Asian level"

[evilmrfrank]

I really do agree. With the amount of awesome talent that went into making UT3's levels it would have been awesome to see that same talent put into at least a couple different themed or colorful levels just to see how things would have looked :D

[Distant Land]

Yea...usually the backgrounds were more appealing than the levels themselves, and only a few stand out to me like Deimos and uh...

[angjminer]

you know this contest is something that they really have no obligation to do at all.
the very fact that they are interested the the very people that buy and play their product is amazing.

I for one think that this is a very good opp for those of us who other wise have no chance at getting any where with our talent. regardless of how they want to run the competition the underlying fact is this.

it its a gift no matter who sponsors it.
its your opp take it, dont wine moan and groan.
there are four phases, get feed back from the community,
use it do better.
even if they dont like it some one else may, and they may be looking for your style and be willing to give the $$$ to make you happy.

besides it should be fun just to get your stuff out to such a wide audience.
epic isnt the only ones looking at your work.
so man up and gett your stuff ready for phase 3
all your wine will do is give you a hangover and regrets.
sheesh (can i have some water....WHAT!!! NO ICE??!!!)
come on.

[DGUnreal]

I'm not on any side so only take this as a general comment.

Nobody remembers those who didn't win the UT2004 MSUC...
If a large percentage of the community disagrees with any judging for various reasons whether it be bias for design-styles or mappers or whatever, that only hurts and splits the community more, and causes many community mappers to simply stop mapping.
As an example look at what happened with the 3DBuzz contest.

[Bret Hart]

It's too bad, it was supposed to encourage people to make more maps. But I guess it had the opposite effect.

[Distant Land]

As an example look at what happened with the 3DBuzz contest.

what happened?

[spacedemonebu]

angjminer, i haven't said anything negative about Epic; i think it's really cool that they give us the same tools that they used to make the game. i don't want to seem ungrateful to them because i really respect that about Epic.

however, to look at this contest as purely some kind of gift to us is terribly naive. UT3's popularity has been waning over the past year and at times it seems like it's just hanging on by a thread of dedicated fans. this contest no doubt brings people back into it- NOT simply because there IS a contest, but because of the extraordinary content that the mod community produces. we're basically making a massive expansion pack and the vast majority of contributors will be doing it for free. Epic has made a great game, but we are the ones keeping it alive (until they releases their official expansion pack). my only objection is when a third (and completely unnecessary) party gets between Epic and their fan base.

i really hope the viewpoints brought up in this thread spark some kind of reconsideration especially on the part of Intel and VelocityMicro. Sorry guys, we appreciate you putting up the money, but that's as far as your involvement should go. see, Epic makes videogames, the mod community makes mods, but the sponsors just make hardware. so out of the three parties that are present, the ones judging are easily the LEAST qualified to do so.

WHO HERE WOULD BE OPPOSED TO EPIC LEVEL DESIGNERS JUDGING THE MAPS?

exactly.

[angjminer]

Nobody remembers those who didn't win the UT2004 MSUC...


maybe not all but there are some that stick out.
eg the guy who ported the doom3 models over,
wouldnt have found those without interest in the contest.

.................................................. ................................
and i do agree there really should be a variety of judges.
those who create,who know what to look for,
and those who play, who know how it should feel,
and one for the money, because really noones going to put it up without a rep.
oh yea even the guy who goes ghost to find issues that a normal player would never see.;)

i know my entry wouldnt have even been an hm if there were double the vehicle entries,
really it is grade school quality, but i did get it in, and thanks to snarf its in a msuc entry pack with those beautiful unwheel vh..... no comparison;
i dont care if my stuff is remembered, ive aquired experience , and i have overcome challenges specific to me. heck this has been an investment that is both time and money
both that i really cant afford.
but when its over will i be able to say yes to was it worth it?
i dont know . but im glad ill be able to ask my self that question.

heck im tickled pink that someone has dl my entry as many times as they have.
any how sorry for the ramble. but thankyou for actually being there.

with out you guys

my time would have been for nothing and thats whats important.

[Bret Hart]

I still dont know what was so bad about the 3dbuzz contest.

[Cosmix]

I am involved because my map is part of the MSUC Phase 2 Contest. In that case I am very carefull what I say and I will do it with great respect to all entries.
In fact I was more than surprised about the results. Sure, I am sad and disappointed because my map WAR-Marooned is not within the finalists. I worked nearly a year on it and that is frustrating. But much more important for me is the question why some other 'hidden champions' doesn't make it in the meantime others do? From my point of view and understanding of leveldesign/gameplay I have no answer...

[rhiridflaidd]

I agree that the beer and pizza weighting should be higher in the marking structure.

[Xyx]

can i have some water....WHAT!!! NO ICE??!!!
Unfair comparison. It's not like properly clarifying the judging process costs anything.

And it's not like you can host a big contest and still remain free from social obligation. Noblesse oblige. Merely using the word "judges" obligates the contest organizer to provide qualified judges, meaning knowledgeable and impartial.


I am involved because my map is part of the MSUC Phase 2 Contest. In that case I am very carefull what I say and I will do it with great respect to all entries.
You mean you cannot speak your mind because you have an entry in the MSUC? I also have an entry. If I win nothing because the others are better, then so be it. But if I win nothing because I spoke my mind in this thread, then that would be the most demented judging evar.

[Cosmix]

@Xyx

I don't fear EPIC or the judging because my map is with the contest. Maybe I wrote this a little bit unintelligibly. It has to do with respect. I dont wont to degrade anyones work here but in my opinion the results are curious.
There are many perspectives how to appraise an entry. Maybe it could be helpful to know who is part of the judging but at last you can't change anything. It's done and now we have to draw the right consequences out of it.

[spacedemonebu]

if we can't get better clarification on the criteria the judges use, better feedback on finalists and HMs, or simply better judges (not sponsors)... then all we are left with is the hope that we've changed the outcome of future phases for the better because if we had said nothing, they'd probably still think they were doing a good job.

[evilmrfrank]

Space, steve polge said he would get feedback for those maps that made finalist and honorable mentions.

[Bret Hart]

Space, steve polge said he would get feedback for those maps that made finalist and honorable mentions.
Yes it does take time to review them all...

[spacedemonebu]

i'm talking about public feedback on the maps, not just "you can get feedback on your map if you request it". i'm not asking for essay length critiques, but if the judges liked something about the map enough to make it a finalist or found enough problems with it to only make it an HM, a few sentences detailing their experience with it would be quite helpful. and it wouldn't just be helpful to the map maker, it would also be helpful to the other mappers.

more than anything, i really just want to know what the judges found so unforgivably awful about war-marooned and war-holywar when compared to the other warfare finalists. that was pretty much the triggering factor that caused me to question the judges alleged qualifications.

if they don't feel comfortable with talking about someone's map like that, they could just add a check box in the phase 3 submission that would designate whether the contestant was alright with public feedback.

if you're talking about something else, i guess i missed that post.

[Xyx]

if the judges [...] found enough problems with it to only make it an HM
I always thought that "honorable mention" was for those entries that were "good enough" but just not as good as the top 10. Meaning that if there are only 10 entries, there couldn't possibly be any honorable mentions.

If honorable mentions are "not good enough" but still commendable in some way, then there'd be no way to distinguish between the "good enough, just not top 10" and the "not good enough" honorable mentions.

This whole "top 10" thing is questionable at best. Mapping categories get tons of submissions while, for instance, Best Matinee gets only a few (which are pretty awesome, by the way, don't get me wrong).

[evilmrfrank]

Complaining about getting honorable mention is just being unthankful... I know some pretty awesome mappers that are happy to make honorable mentions.....

[jayoplus]

IMHO Sir, if you really want this feedback, why not just send the email to Steve about your map(s)? Then, if you feel so compelled, post them in the public forum. They are not obliged to post feedback for every entry.

Also, the maps are judged, as far as I understood the rules, on a points basis. Thus, it may not be that the map(s) you are mentioning were "unforgivably awful" but simply that the other maps scored higher.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the competition would be run as they see fit. This is not the first MSUC, after all. And I don't think anything you or I say now would have much impact on how it is run.

[SmokeRingHalo]

Complaining about getting honorable mention is just being unthankful... I know some pretty awesome mappers that are happy to make honorable mentions.....

I actually agree with emf on this. I wear my honorable mentions as proudly as I wear my 2nd place win in my sig.

[Bret Hart]

Hey thanks for reminding me to put DM-Conveyor in my sig cause it got honorable mentions :p

[hawkwind]

in the MSUC, this is not an amateur review with 10 points for lighting, 20 points for bot pathing, etc.
or is it 20 points for taste, 10 for presentation, and 20 for originality; no that's the food channel :rolleyes:

probably the criterion are more like:
is it original
is it technically well done
and can 51% or more of the current players have fun playing it

[Bret Hart]

Yeah on beyondunreal.com there's official reviews of 2 maps with a point system breakdown. Maybe it's like that.

[hawkwind]

i certainly hope not,
beyondunreal.com seems to be down,

but some years ago, i think i said that a map should not be judged on what it is, but what it is trying to be.
if it wants to be an art map, then judge it that way. if it wants to be a pretzel map, or a strategic map, then.. well you fill in the blanks

on a personal note, luv_studd is god for anything DM.
i'm still waiting for a ctf conversion of one of his maps, but i'll be dead in hell before that happens

[jayoplus]

Okay, to clear up the misconception, I am not saying the way you broke it down was the way the maps were being judged. I was simply reiterating the rules on the MSUC website


All Entries will be judged on a 1-100 point scale, using the following criteria: Creativity, Visuals, Innovation, Fun, Quality, Polish and Gameplay.

At Sponsor's discretion, Submissions may be judged in multiple categories. In the unlikely event of a tie for any portion of the Contest, the judging panel shall break that tie by rescoring the tying entries. In the event that Submissions in any Category do not receive a score of at least 70 points, no Finalist will be selected. In the event that no Entry receives a combined score of at least 70 points, no prize will be awarded. Those Submissions that receive the highest scores will move on to the final round.

Hence, why I pointed out that it may have been that the top 10 scoring entries were the ones that made it into the finals. Thus, it's not always that the map was "horrible".
I have taken part in other contests that were judged on a points basis and the last one I remember used the points system that was used in the Olympics(drop the highest and lowest score and average the remaining 5).

In the end, the judging is at the discretion of those running the competition. This is the entire point I was trying to make anyway. Nothing you or I say will change that.

On another note, saying to judge the map on what it is trying to be is really not the case. The rules had already been set on what maps will be judged on.

Anyhow, this really is just beating around the bush. Again, nothing you or I say will change much of anything.

GL to everyone.

[Distant Land]

Even using that scale I don't think a lot of the finalists made sense...unless you just assume that it's very subjective judging by people who may have never opened the editor. That isn't to say they aren't totally qualified to decide how to allot their own prize money, so that shouldn't be a point of argument. And While I'm glad there's an MSUC in general to drum up support and content, it's just sort of lame that these positions are handed out, no feedback, no obvious apparent consistency in judging, and in some ways, exclusion of the community itself. Even seeing a lot of people's responses here, I'm disappointed that the community isn't more ready to discuss things like this within itself...lots of people want to silence dissent rather than promote discussion.

[DGUnreal]

As I mentioned in a previous post I tend to stay out of the general chat topics... and I mean no disrespect at all to any of the mappers or maps mentioned, this is a discussion regarding the judging not the mapping.

Assuming that the maps were judged on the 100-point 7-criteria scale, if anyone can honestly and objectively tell me that maps such as this (http://www.fileplanet.com/192842/190000/fileinfo/Unreal-Tournament-3---DM-Agony2) and this (http://www.fileplanet.com/193260/190000/fileinfo/Unreal-Tournament-3---CTF-Facing-World-II) and I could link a couple more finalists, should be honestly ranked higher overall quality on the 100:7 scale and deserve an HM over this (http://www.fileplanet.com/193236/190000/fileinfo/Unreal-Tournment-3---DM-DG-Tempered) map...
This is why I question the judging and why I personally believe that Epic has passed the judging off to some "other group" and is no longer doing it in-house. Not that I'm trying to sound anti-Epic here... :)

[Bret Hart]

Perhaps it's just not what they're looking for, I don't konw.

[Cosmix]

Complaining about getting honorable mention is just being unthankful... I know some pretty awesome mappers that are happy to make honorable mentions.....
This is absolutely not the point.
All I want is a deserved judging and if you compare some entries that are honorable mentioned or 'below' with some finalists.... Ya, I have absolutely no idea what's going on there.


All Entries will be judged on a 1-100 point scale, using the following criteria: Creativity, Visuals, Innovation, Fun, Quality, Polish and Gameplay.
Basically they don't judge on these notes. Further they fail in balancing these criterias. I always was pro Epic but more and more they become unfamiliar. I'm sorry...

[bazzwano]

Deleted my post as I decided I just don't want to post here..

Regards

[DGUnreal]

Perhaps it's just not what they're looking for, I don't konw.

Unfortunately the rules don't state "we are only looking for maps that fall into the category/theme/style of xxxx".
Don't anyone misunderstand my comments, I'm not stating that the map I linked above should be a winner or even in the top 5 or 10, as I don't feel it would be a top winner at all. Comparatively though, the judging is imho 'odd'.
Unfortunately I won't be creating or submitting any future maps or other entries for the contest for a number of personal reasons. Good luck to everyone else in the contest.

btw, bazz, I found your review to be quite good.

[bazzwano]

OK ill post again... In my previous post I judged (my personal preference) the maps DG listed.. Performance , Origanality , gameplay , and visuals (this is the criteria stated on MSUC page). DGs map won by 20% mainly due to the fact that it wasnt a remake!!!. thats the only part a agree with. it doesnt make scence to me. but again its personal preference.. but to me, it doesnt take personal preference to mark a remake down in origanality and gameplay as these are two allements that are not designed in remakes unless there are changes... perhaps the judges did not know.. thats where the flaw could be.. but in the end there are many judges to eliminate personal preference so the judging is fair in my eye.

[spacedemonebu]

i have a creeping suspicion that the politics of my maps are being evaluated with more scrutiny than the performance, originality, creativity, gameplay, and visuals...

i'll openly admit it, i am anti-war. i made a warfare map of the earth's continents and called it imperialism (the highest stage of capitalism) and i followed it up with another warfare map called holywar (holycrap). these are the two most primary causes of war that i have identified and i think violent videogames are a perfectly ironic way to get these ideas out there. it becomes even more apparent if you read the readmes. but in the official rules that they put out, a person's politics should not be taken into consideration in the judging.

am i being paranoid or is it a valid suspicion to think that big corporations might not want to associate themselves with such radical perspectives? it's been in the back of my mind for a while.

DG, thanks for being direct and actually posting screenshot comparisons, i feel that pictures can express the peculiarity in the judges decisions better than words. i really don't want to hurt anyone's feelings (i was lucky MozI was so cool about it) but i feel like i could post some screen comparisons of HMs and finalists that would properly incite a "WTF were they thinking!?" in the minds of anyone that saw them.

i'll eventually ask for some official feedback, but they probably don't like me very much right now. and in truth, if it's not epic grading the maps, i don't think i'm really going to learn anything.

[Entropy]

Just to clear up some misconceptions, the Epic staff is HEAVILY involved in the MSUC judging process. As the Lead in my department, the final judging of the level categories falls in my lap, but many many people are involved along the way, and I take all of their feedback and comments very seriously. Even my final recommendations bounce back up to Steve and the rest of the Leads group so there are checks and balances along every step of the way. There have been multiple instances of us (the judges) getting into heated and impassioned arguments about specific entires as well - we don't make these decisions lightly and there are always some very close calls to be made. These decisions are never easy, and we do our very best to remain impartial.

Judging is based on many factors (see any of the posts above) but in the end it comes down to balance and consistency. How do you define what a "good map" truly is? There are so many factors that its near impossible to say for certain, but someone who can deliver high marks in all categories will do much better than someone who shines in one area but falls short in others.

Also note that we look at the maps by ghosting around in them, playing them alone, playing against bots, playing online, and analyzing their construction in the editor. Again, we don't make decisons lightly, and we will give entries more than just a cursory glance. Near the end when the best of the bunch is whittled down, those maps are considered again and analyzed in even more detail. Certain aspects (like gameplay) will be more heavily weighted than others (quality of construction) but they all matter in the end and they're all considered by many people before any decisions are made.

[wael]

Just to clear up some misconceptions, the Epic staff is HEAVILY involved in the MSUC judging process. As the Lead in my department, the final judging of the level categories falls in my lap, but many many people are involved along the way, and I take all of their feedback and comments very seriously. Even my final recommendations bounce back up to Steve and the rest of the Leads group so there are checks and balances along every step of the way. There have been multiple instances of us (the judges) getting into heated and impassioned arguments about specific entires as well - we don't make these decisions lightly and there are always some very close calls to be made. These decisions are never easy, and we do our very best to remain impartial.

Judging is based on many factors (see any of the posts above) but in the end it comes down to balance and consistency. How do you define what a "good map" truly is? There are so many factors that its near impossible to say for certain, but someone who can deliver high marks in all categories will do much better than someone who shines in one area but falls short in others.

Also note that we look at the maps by ghosting around in them, playing them alone, playing against bots, playing online, and analyzing their construction in the editor. Again, we don't make decisons lightly, and we will give entries more than just a cursory glance. Near the end when the best of the bunch is whittled down, those maps are considered again and analyzed in even more detail. Certain aspects (like gameplay) will be more heavily weighted than others (quality of construction) but they all matter in the end and they're all considered by many people before any decisions are made.
So... that's awesome and all, but do you have an estimate on when the winners will be announced? :D

[Angel_Mapper]

Two Weeks™

[bazzwano]

Just to clear up some misconceptions, the Epic staff is HEAVILY involved in the MSUC judging process. As the Lead in my department, the final judging of the level categories falls in my lap, but many many people are involved along the way, and I take all of their feedback and comments very seriously. Even my final recommendations bounce back up to Steve and the rest of the Leads group so there are checks and balances along every step of the way. There have been multiple instances of us (the judges) getting into heated and impassioned arguments about specific entires as well - we don't make these decisions lightly and there are always some very close calls to be made. These decisions are never easy, and we do our very best to remain impartial.

Judging is based on many factors (see any of the posts above) but in the end it comes down to balance and consistency. How do you define what a "good map" truly is? There are so many factors that its near impossible to say for certain, but someone who can deliver high marks in all categories will do much better than someone who shines in one area but falls short in others.

Also note that we look at the maps by ghosting around in them, playing them alone, playing against bots, playing online, and analyzing their construction in the editor. Again, we don't make decisons lightly, and we will give entries more than just a cursory glance. Near the end when the best of the bunch is whittled down, those maps are considered again and analyzed in even more detail. Certain aspects (like gameplay) will be more heavily weighted than others (quality of construction) but they all matter in the end and they're all considered by many people before any decisions are made.

That was a very interesting read, exactly what I thought but I didnt realise you open them in the editor too. thats Great to know. :)

[spacedemonebu]

well, it's good to know that the contest wasn't just hijacked by some suits somewhere. but why was it stated that the judges were from intel and velocitymicro? or did i completely hallucinate that?

i would like to apologize for any trouble i've caused or feelings i've offended. i really have respect for epic and my fellow mappers in this community, i guess i just had the wrong idea about the situation. if you guys are really in control of the outcome, then it's your contest and i'll happily leave it to you.

currently i'm working on a new, tripped out idea for a map; whether it is something the MSUC will ever appreciate is yet to be determined... so how about another contest that focuses on severe mindblowingness rather than overall score? :D

[Distant Land]

Would it be incorrect to say that a lot of the winners are maps that often emulate Epic's style of map construction? I'm glad you guys are directly involved but what do you mean by balance and consistency? Shouldn't a good map come down to good gameplay (area suits the weapons and mode of movement, thought to weapon/item selection) + A good setting (interesting visuals that are a fun and hopefully interactive background to play on). Those seem like the baseline thing to go by.

I'd really like feedback on my map, DM-Plaza, because in playing the finalists and seeing what each is bringing, their style, their setups, the thought put into gameplay I can't get a clear idea of what the common thread in all the finalists for each phase as been, and could think of a number of reasons why mine would be disliked or enjoyed, but am surprised it wasn't even HM over some others in there.

[Xyx]

(awesome exposition)
Wow, go Epic! That is very professional indeed! Thank you for putting some minds at rest.

[Entropy]

well, it's good to know that the contest wasn't just hijacked by some suits somewhere. but why was it stated that the judges were from intel and velocitymicro? or did i completely hallucinate that?

In the past we've had game editors, magazine reviewers, hardware folks, and of course, our sponsors. The same applies to this year's contest. The "celebrity judges" are brought in to help judge the finals. We still help judge, but their input is added to the mix.

[KazeoHin]

Two Weeks™

Now THAT brings back some memories.

[Cosmix]

J...we don't make these decisions lightly and there are always some very close calls to be made. These decisions are never easy, and we do our very best to remain impartial...

...How do you define what a "good map" truly is? There are so many factors that its near impossible to say for certain, but someone who can deliver high marks in all categories will do much better than someone who shines in one area but falls short in others...

...Also note that we look at the maps by ghosting around in them, playing them alone, playing against bots, playing online, and analyzing their construction in the editor...

Nice to hear that and I'm glad for that statement. Generally official messages are rare here at the forums, so I'm thankful for that one. (Keep it up!)
Some questions are answered, some not...anyway, it is a contest and decisions have been made. Finally it would be very handy for some of us (me included) to get some feedback about your decisions and why we don't make it to the finalists. I really want to know that and as Steve Polge mentioned here (http://utforums.epicgames.com/showpost.php?p=25846742&postcount=3) we will hopefully get some feedback.

[evilmrfrank]

Just to clear up some misconceptions, the Epic staff is HEAVILY involved in the MSUC judging process. As the Lead in my department, the final judging of the level categories falls in my lap, but many many people are involved along the way, and I take all of their feedback and comments very seriously. Even my final recommendations bounce back up to Steve and the rest of the Leads group so there are checks and balances along every step of the way. There have been multiple instances of us (the judges) getting into heated and impassioned arguments about specific entires as well - we don't make these decisions lightly and there are always some very close calls to be made. These decisions are never easy, and we do our very best to remain impartial.

Judging is based on many factors (see any of the posts above) but in the end it comes down to balance and consistency. How do you define what a "good map" truly is? There are so many factors that its near impossible to say for certain, but someone who can deliver high marks in all categories will do much better than someone who shines in one area but falls short in others.

Also note that we look at the maps by ghosting around in them, playing them alone, playing against bots, playing online, and analyzing their construction in the editor. Again, we don't make decisons lightly, and we will give entries more than just a cursory glance. Near the end when the best of the bunch is whittled down, those maps are considered again and analyzed in even more detail. Certain aspects (like gameplay) will be more heavily weighted than others (quality of construction) but they all matter in the end and they're all considered by many people before any decisions are made.

Awesome :) Always good to hear some good news!

I can't wait to hear the final results for the contest :D

[bazzwano]

I have a question: how long does it take to get feedback, I emailed Steve asking for feedback, and I didnt get a reply, and that was about a month ago.. should I asume your still getting arround to it..

Regards

[evilmrfrank]

Weren't they all on vacation?

[Bret Hart]

By the way what's Steve's email address so I can get some feedback on my map?

[Rumple]

I dont see how that VCTF-Valhara map made it. Sure it looks pretty but it has crappy gameplay, horrible collisions, a lack of vehicles, loads of wasted space where there could be more spawn points and vehicle spawns, not to mention meshes you can get into or ways to get outside the map. We took it off our server because of all its problems especially the horrible gameplay.

[Bret Hart]

That's funny because, the judges must have found it an acceptable map in order to make the finalists. I'm sorry you feel that way.

[bclagge]

Collision problems aren't a feeling.

[Bret Hart]

Collision problems aren't a feeling.
I thought they were an emotion though? :confused:

[SmokeRingHalo]

I dont see how that VCTF-Valhara map made it. Sure it looks pretty but it has crappy gameplay, horrible collisions, a lack of vehicles, loads of wasted space where there could be more spawn points and vehicle spawns, not to mention meshes you can get into or ways to get outside the map. We took it off our server because of all its problems especially the horrible gameplay.

Wow, just wow.
To be fair, Hedsteem server (in your sig) is known for heavily modified weapons and vehicles which may or may not work well on any given map. Shame you had to remove it from your server but I don't think it's fair to bash the gameplay of the map when the mods you're using have altered that gameplay from their original intent & design.

[Bret Hart]

Wow, just wow.
To be fair, Hedsteem server (in your sig) is known for heavily modified weapons and vehicles which may or may not work well on any given map. Shame you had to remove it from your server but I don't think it's fair to bash the gameplay of the map when the mods you're using have altered that gameplay from their original intent & design.
Hmm I didn't realize this guy was the guy that had the heavily modified VCTF server. That explains why he doesn't like my map that much. And also, I don't think the judges play maps with his modified equipment either.

[Oldskool0482]

Wow, just wow.
To be fair, Hedsteem server (in your sig) is known for heavily modified weapons and vehicles which may or may not work well on any given map. Shame you had to remove it from your server but I don't think it's fair to bash the gameplay of the map when the mods you're using have altered that gameplay from their original intent & design.

No it just don't have good gameplay, if you actually ever played vctf in a server with real players u might be able to see where he is coming from. Stock vehicles or not.

[spacedemonebu]

just when i thought we had achieved some measure of peace! the official response did a lot to soothe some tensions but it seems there are still some inconsistencies in question. this is where i thought public feedback would be of immense help in harmonizing the mapper's aspirations with the judge's values... many of us are still perplexed.

[Bret Hart]

No it just don't have good gameplay, if you actually ever played vctf in a server with real players u might be able to see where he is coming from. Stock vehicles or not.
No, it doesn't have good gameplay because it doesn't suit that guy's server's mod's needs.

[MozI]

Here we go again :)


weeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pop!]

Hedsteems modified weapons & vehicles don't cause the many issues that this Valhara map has.. Such as the significant collision issues to name just one.

Pop!

[Distant Land]

Let's just settle this out for real, tear everyone's maps to pieces, then whoever gets the least shat on wins the money...Or instead...rather than making it about individual maps, try to line up what good judging criteria should be all about...primarily a good map is two things:

Good gameplay should come way above anything else...Including: weapon placement being well thought out and interesting for the area it's placed in, good angles and enjoyable areas to fight in, maps that fit the weapons and their ranges well, variety to the battles...Basically how fun interacting with the map actually is.

Interesting setting + good visuals are second to that, they're tied together I think, and polish is a given, it implies good execution and a tightly put together map. Not just looking at the levels backdrop, but the actual area...is it an enjoyable space to be in? good atmosphere? Interesting (or any?) colors? Good use of post processing? Is it a static backdrop to your battle or does it have any interesting moving parts/interactivity?

These two ideas were always in the forefront of my mind when designing my map. Personally I think it turned out great on these accounts, and brought a lot new to the table that has been absent from UT3, but present in 99 or even in 04 a bit. I think trends in mapping these days are a lot of meandering corridors and hallways without much room for confrontation, not enough health/armor to keep battles interesting/fun, too much post processing (blurry /= attractive), random weapons/ammo sprinkled around, unimaginative use of meshes, no interactivity, no color, etc.

I'm not saying all the winners fell into all these problems, but I think most maps hit a lot of them, but I'd be ready to discuss the real merits of any of the maps either on their own or in comparison to mine. And while I could bring up quite a few points why mine might not be enjoyed by people, or what could be better, I'd really like to know the justifications in favor of a lot of the winners on these accounts...that's what this thread is about for me...they say consistency and balance but those are pretty abstract...I don't think they're an obviously apparent common trait for the winners like I think people expect them to be. What does it even mean? Why say we can't actually define what makes a good map?

I would have liked to hear their feedback and justifications for their decisions on maps. It would do a lot more to actually help the mappers who entered develop, winner or no, to hear why each map got what they got, more than decisions passed down from on high.

[1337_Sniper]

No, it doesn't have good gameplay because it doesn't suit that guy's server's mod's needs.

No, the collision issues, playability and vehicle selection have nothing to due with the mods a certain server runs. Try to get in the base with 2 nemesis in the base. Good luck. The more posts I see of yours, the more I am hesitant on giving you feedback on your maps.

Here's wishing good luck to all the finalists.

[Bret Hart]

No, the collision issues, playability and vehicle selection have nothing to due with the mods a certain server runs. Try to get in the base with 2 nemesis in the base. Good luck. The more posts I see of yours, the more I am hesitant on giving you feedback on your maps.

Here's wishing good luck to all the finalists.
Well we could argue all day long about it, but the fact of the matter is, I fixed all the collision issues. That's fine anyways because I make maps for Renegade-X now :)

[spacedemonebu]

i agree with distant land. i've actually written some essays on what i've analyzed to be the essential ingredients to making fun DM, CTF, and WAR maps... i don't know if i'll post them yet.

one thing i would definitely like to state right here and now is that so far i've made 2 large warfare maps. people have complained to me that they are too big, then i ask how many players they had and they tell me 5 or 6.

IF YOU PLAY MY MAPS WITH LESS THAN THE MAX PLAYERS, YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!!

once ambershee gets the hoverboards working in warfare++, i would recommend 64 players as the ideal player count for my maps.

secondly, some people complained that war-imperialism didn't have enough cover. you're supposed to feel vulnerable if you're not in a vehicle. the scale of the environments along with the plentitude of vehicles should make it obvious that this is really a VWAR map.

[Oldskool0482]

Well we could argue all day long about it, but the fact of the matter is, I fixed all the collision issues. That's fine anyways because I make maps for Renegade-X now :)

no u didn't, go look at valhara's map thread, there is many i just posted in there the other day that u probably didn't see cause you had me on ignore most likely. You guys want them in your maps thread you got them. All the pictures was also done on your most recent release. And Hedsteems vehicle are modded, but don't cause gameplay problems as much as you might think.

[bclagge]

i agree with distant land. i've actually written some essays on what i've analyzed to be the essential ingredients to making fun DM, CTF, and WAR maps... i don't know if i'll post them yet.

one thing i would definitely like to state right here and now is that so far i've made 2 large warfare maps. people have complained to me that they are too big, then i ask how many players they had and they tell me 5 or 6.

IF YOU PLAY MY MAPS WITH LESS THAN THE MAX PLAYERS, YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!!

once ambershee gets the hoverboards working in warfare++, i would recommend 64 players as the ideal player count for my maps.

secondly, some people complained that war-imperialism didn't have enough cover. you're supposed to feel vulnerable if you're not in a vehicle. the scale of the environments along with the plentitude of vehicles should make it obvious that this is really a VWAR map.

Unfortunaly, your maps will never be fully appreciated then. Maps for PC UT3 should be geared for no more than 24 players. It's because the community is so small, the only populated Warfare servers are 24 players max. Therefore, all maps are more likely to be played with 6 players than 32 or more.

Even if the community supported 64 player servers, something doesn't work right with so many players. Play becomes choppy and extremely laggy with that many players, as I can attest from back in the day when there were a handful of 64 player servers.

For offline play, a player must jump through hoops to get more than 32 bots.

[bclagge]

Well we could argue all day long about it, but the fact of the matter is, I fixed all the collision issues. That's fine anyways because I make maps for Renegade-X now :)

I think the reason you rub so many people the wrong way is the because of how you respond. Allow me to paraphrase:

Random community member: "Your map has collision problems! Look, I took screenshots to show you!"

Bret Hart: "Nuh uhhhh! I fixed them ALL."

Random community member: "No, look, I have screen shots." (Plus some unkind remarks)

Bret Hart: "I am teh l33tz0r5. MSUC judges. Renegade-X. Therefore, I will ignore all negative feedback and proclaim my map completely bug free. I'm sorry you don't enjoy it, but it's the best map ever. MSUC. Renegade-X."

[MozI]

I think the reason you rub so many people the wrong way is the because of how you respond. Allow me to paraphrase:

Random community member: "Your map has collision problems! Look, I took screenshots to show you!"

Bret Hart: "Nuh uhhhh! I fixed them ALL."

Random community member: "No, look, I have screen shots." (Plus some unkind remarks)

Bret Hart: "I am teh l33tz0r5. MSUC judges. Renegade-X. Therefore, I will ignore all negative feedback and proclaim my map completely bug free. I'm sorry you don't enjoy it, but it's the best map ever. MSUC. Renegade-X."

No offense to any one but I lol'ed reading that... this thread is becoming funnier each post.

[wael]

No offense to any one but I lol'ed reading that... this thread is becoming funnier each post.
Iz funneh cuz iz true.

[Entropy]

People, let's stay on topic please...

[Bret Hart]

People, let's stay on topic please...
I agree. I'm tired of this childish back and forth never ending nonsense.

[spacedemonebu]

Unfortunaly, your maps will never be fully appreciated then. Maps for PC UT3 should be geared for no more than 24 players.

no one plays with bots online? is there an actual problem with them or do people just not like to have bots on their team?

[Cosmix]

With patch 1.2 Epic brought us the possibility playing with 64 players online.
Increased UTGame MaxPlayersAllowed to 64.
My map is able and big enough to get that amount of people. Afterwards this could be a bottleneck and maybe a wrong decision because the engine doesn't manage that very well...

Is it right that maps playable with PS3 and PC are in advantage by the judging? My map is too big for the PS3 but still good playable (and optimized as best as I can) for the PC.

[bclagge]

no one plays with bots online? is there an actual problem with them or do people just not like to have bots on their team?

The community is very small. The people who play online generally do not like bots on their team. The majority of online Warfare players stick to a handful of 24 player servers that only have enough bots to keep things interesting until real people join.

[Distant Land]

Which is why online multiplayer only is a bad judge of the maps quality...