Map filename convention

[Terox]

ok fair enough.

If we bring in two optional subgroups then
1) (Addon code) from those who wish to use it
2) (Version Number)

so the map filename template would be
<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Map type</span></span> ***<span style='color:blue'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Addon marker</span></span> ***<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Player limit</span></span> ***<span style='color:blue'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Map name</span></span> ***<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>OPTIONAL Server addon pack name</span></span> ***<span style='color:blue'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>OPTIONAL version number</span></span>


This gives servers that use various addon packs a chance to be more descriptive in the filename without affecting anything else

and as far as version numbers is concerned
1) Anything up to the date where the system is univewrsally incorporated, leave as it is, however any maps that are made after the system is brought online use a version number of some type, of which we will recommend the version system previously mentioned.


This then gives enough flexibility for the
1) Name subgroup
2) Addon code subgroup
3) Version subgroup



What do you think?

[Skunk Monkey]

I&#39;m in

I&#39;ll be getting our new linux server up and running at the end of this week, I&#39;ll change all may map names then, and Spam the "troubleshooting" forum with all my linux questions

(Joking I&#39;ll use search)

"In at the Deep End" - Linux Virgin sets up OFP server on Slackware Linux using command line access only :S

[Terox]

ok looks like we are just about there then, all we need now is a few Yes&#39;s and i will put up a Preliminary post which we can then edit prior to its release

[benu]

Before we should vote for anything we should maybe talk about WHAT WE ACTUALLY WANT. If you want a uniform naming scheme there can be no optional fields. If one admin fills in this optional field and another doesn&#39;t there is one map with 2 different names. If EVERY admin puts the name of HIS addon pack into the name the map will have a DIFFERENT name on each server. If a map has a different name on each server anyway, then why agree on a "convention" here that is no convention at all? If the player has to download the same map again on every server he goes to then there really is no need to make a naming scheme. If every admin puts his addon tag into the name of the map and renames it there is no reason for a mapmaker to name his new map after this convention cause the admins will rename it anyway.

Yeah, addon tags are really cool, each player knows at once which pack to download. But only on the one server that uses that one pack. Does anyone know where you load GRB addon pack? No? Does it even exist (anymore)? So which addons does that co@ 16 blamap GBR need? Addon tags are of no use when you are not on the one server using exactly that addon pack. And, well, when i&#39;m playing on that server i know WHICH pack to download anyway, either there is only one or i download all cause i don&#39;t want to be kicked off every second map.

Same with versions, every admin will use a different version number. Only the mapper can put an "official" version number into the map, and if he does it&#39;s part of the map anyway.

An universal naming scheme leaves no room for optional fields and all fields have to have DEFINED values. Something like "admin puts in version number he likes" or "admin puts in name of HIS and ONLY HIS addon pack" destroy uniform naming.

I don&#39;t know how many times i have written this so far without anyone saying something about it... Maybe we are talking about different naming conventions? Maybe i am the only one not getting what you want to accomplish with this naming convention? I mean, if i as player have to download the same map on every server again i wouldn&#39;t call it a naming convention. And if as an admin the map has a different name because of my addon tag anyway there is no reason to name it similar to maps on another server anymore. The same applies to mappers... why adopt a naming scheme when the map gets renamed by each admin anyway?

[eisa01]

addons required should bee displyed when u connect with a url to server website. problem solved no need for tags

[joltan]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benu @ Dec. 09 2002,20:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Before we should vote for anything we should maybe talk about WHAT WE ACTUALLY WANT. If you want a uniform naming scheme there can be no optional fields.
[...] Same with versions, every admin will use a different version number. Only the mapper can put an "official" version number into the map, and if he does it&#39;s part of the map anyway.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Right, thats what I&#39;m saying (also already repeated times): the naming conventon could urge mission makers to include a version number in their map names - but no admin should start adding one to the maps he is using.

That would only result in different names for the same map on different servers: an admin who has some 500 maps can&#39;t possibly check all missions if they contain a version number somewhere in the briefing or readme, but smaller servers might - resulting in different version tags... so better leave that to the mission makers&#33;

[Terox]

one step forward 3 steps back ***

I agree, however for once i was just going with the flow

I dont like the idea of an addon subgroup, but was just trying to please as many as i could.

So lets scrap the addon subgroup and just stay with the addon tag @


Versions

As i initially said, if you are going to create a subgroup, then the information in that sub group must be the same.


I have heard arguments about not including a map version, if the map maker didnt.

Fine in theory, not in practice.

If we have a version subgroup, then for continuity it must contain something, not be left blank.

If it is left blank, some admins may put something in, some may not. So straight away we create unconformity


Lets play make believe

This only concerns maps that already exist

3 of the same maps exist on 3 different servers

ctf_2-32_riverdance
2_32_ctf riverdance v1
ctf 32 riverdance v1.0

The chances are (Not 100% foolproof) that all these maps are the same.

By not incorporating a default value of v1 for anything that already exists without a version number, even though we use the filename convention thus agreed on so far, in the example we will still end up with 3 filenames

ctf ***32 riverdance
ctf ***32 riverdance v1
ctf ***32 riverdance v1.0

instead of simply
ctf ***32 riverdance v1.

So then we come to the argument
"What if the mapmaker was using v0.5 as a beta and decided it was good enough"
Well if he didn&#39;t state a version number it becomes v1, which means that every riverdance out there becomes version 1 also

Which afterall is what we are aiming for.

Yes there will be discrepencies, there will be copies of the same map that have been hacked de-pbo&#39;s etc which will cause some problems. This we can&#39;t avoid.

I am a great believer in always asking the map maker of the original ***to modify his map, i dont think anybody else has the right too. Although this is an ideal situation, we know it doesnt always happen this way and when it does there is no good workaround to rename a hacked map


This is the only simple solution to standardising what is out there already.


For the new maps that are going to be released, then we should incorporate the
Beta 1.0. 1.1 1.2 etc
Changing it to v1, v2 etc with every finished release.

My aim is to have the map name convention somewhere prominent on OFPEC, BIS and the various leagues and forums out there.

This way most mapmakers (Who visit ofpec regiularly anyway) will have access to it, and it will also be our job as admins to see that the convention is adhered too.

This is why for things like version there has to be a default value, a value to be ebtered if no value is present.
It stops discrepencies from occuring


Just a thought on hacked maps, this is intended for future proofing

Lets say all maps now have a default value of v1

somebody comes along and hacks the map, creating a new version of the map

Do we as admins now make the mapname v2
Probably not, how do we know there isnt a version 2 out there.

So what do we do.
Well the map has to be loaded on a server somewhere (obvious)
and to get it onto a server it has to be mailed to an admin

The chances are that the admin will know its not been revamped by the original mapmaker because some reg player has been badgering him about uploading the map he has just edited.

So what else could we do

perhaps
v1a
having a lower case letter after the version number to show that its a hacked map version

or you could put it in the mapname subgroup
ctf 30 riverdance 1a v1
or have another marker to indicate its hacked ~ or # or whatever


If we used v1a then for things like planefrenzy there would probably numerous versions of 1a.

but if we just had v1 or no version at all there would be even more.

These are just thoughts
I think
1) Default values for existing maps without version numbers = v1
2) Any new maps use the beta 1.0-beta 2.7 etc
Replaced by v1, or v2 as they are released in their final state
(Overseen and enforced by admins)

3) Use some way to distinguish a known hacked map from the original release

[Terox]

had an idea about hacked maps.
This would work on maps we know have been hacked, de=pbo&#39;d wjatever you want to call them

Original, version
ctf 30 riverdance v1

map hacked by player called swat

ctf 30 riverdance_#swat v1

have a sign used much in the same way as the @ to distinguish a hacked map
# was just an example.
I dont think this would complicate matters and it would also support the original mapmaker in his efforts while allowing some credit to the editor/hacker


Whay do you think?

[joltan]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terox @ Dec. 09 2002,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) Default values for existing maps without version numbers = v1
2) Any new maps use the beta 1.0-beta 2.7 etc
Replaced by v1, or v2 as they are released in their final state
(Overseen and enforced by admins)
3) Use some way to distinguish a known hacked map from the original release[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Why does it have to be there everytime - its the last part, even after the maps proper name. We are not doing this to make it easy to decipher with a software for automated analisis - we are doing this to be easily understood by humans. So we do NOT need anything there. Admins shouldn&#39;t fuck with a mission&#39;s name. Just use the correct tag.

That way exactly what you propose will not happen. The version number will not be part of the regulation and it will be only recommended to mission makers to name their maps accordingly.

If you have a server and a new map is submitted you can always ask the guy (preferably the mission maker himself) submitting it to send you a version containing the right version number. Only if admins start messing around with the version numbers can problems arise as you describe them (i.e. duplicate maps).

In your example the map would just be called &#39;ctf 32 riverdance&#39; but not the other variants. If you assume many admins would rename the maps with a bogus version number even if this is not part of the naming scheme, then you also have to assume they would not follow the scheme properly anyways. As you try making it more complicated (by requiring them to add the bogus version number to all maps) you will just create more people not following this scheme (or &#39;worse&#39; trying to find out the correct version number and naming the map accordingly).

Also in my example I didn&#39;t say the mission maker didn&#39;t state the version number - most people do NOT have the version number in the map name, but in the briefing or briefing notes (or in a seperate readme). So most maps will have a version number that an admin can&#39;t see from his file browser. And it is hilarious asking admins that have hundreds of maps to check all maps for the correct version number ingame.

So just leave that out.

You don&#39;t ruin the naming convention by not regulating something. I think most votes so far have been against admins adding a &#39;default&#39; version number or even regulating the exact way version numbers have to be spelled - and I think as this is a group effort you should stick with that.

What you are proposing with your three points has nothing to do anymore with a convenient map naming scheme, but with trying to regulate everything about how people are allowed to name their maps. I doubt many people would follow something like that. I would kick the admins ass telling me how to number my map versions or when to consider a map finished or not (or if I could reopen an old and finished map and fiddle around with it some more).

[Goeth]

No need for version numbers.