Map submission rules revision suggestions.

[Dr Super Good]

The map submission rules were brought to my attention after a minor chat incident. Some of the rules seem out of place and certainly not practical.

No multi-uploads of a single resource - please use {UPLOAD IMAGE} instead.

Needs to clarify that this only applies to map updates and not completely different maps. The term "multi-uploads" is ambiguous and probably only has a meaning to moderators and staff.

Requires an exemption clause for map updates which differ significantly from their base. This is commonly the result of an author making a fully functional map but then deciding to take the map in a completely different direction. Such maps are usually marked as a completely new release. Some times map makers will prefer to keep both versions alive as each may target different player groups.

An example of an exemption is Genesis of Empires and Genesis of Empires 2. Although 2 was technically the sequel it played so differently from 1 that it disserves to be treated as a completely separate map. For a long time I saw people playing both versions.

•The DISBTN version of custom icons must be imported as well.

So I can use internal icons without DISBTN versions and its fine? What do icons even have to do with gameplay? Why is this a requirement?

If no one sees the disabled form of the icon it is fine. If they do see it then one can report it as a bug and the ratting lowered as a result of it having obvious bugs. As long as it does not crash or make the map unplayable there is no reason for a map to be rejected for lacking disabled icons.

As far as I am aware both Windows and Mac clients at all visual settings should be able to cope with no disabled icons and not crash. If this is not the case then it should be mentioned as part of the rule as justification.

Adding a rule regarding custom assets working at all WC3 visual settings would be a good idea. Work is defined as not crashing (some corrupted blps apparently crash lower visual settings) and not making the game unplayable (cannot target or select something gameplay critical due to invisible models or missing textures).

The Quest Log should contain the essential information about the map's gameplay.

This is a suggestion not a rule since "should" is a strong recommendation but not a requirement. A more appropriate place for it would be under some sort of tips section for producing highly ratted maps.

Work in progress (WIP) maps are not allowed, the map needs to be a complete release.
ALPHA and BETA versions, "teasers/trailers", etc. can be posted in Map Development.

I have played many alpha and beta releases which never get passed that stage but were fully playable and very fun. Alternatively I have played many post release maps which are clearly incomplete and some times not playable.

Ultimately no one cares if the map is Alpha, Beta or release 13.37 as long as it is playable and what is playable feels mostly done. If the map is PvP it should be winnable and all players able to partake and win/lose. If the map is cooperative it should have a win/lose with what feels mostly finished. If it is open ended/sandbox then it should have most of the intended features available to the players.

All this means that as long as the map is "playable" (everyone can partake and progress the map towards a conclusion) and "mostly finished" (few noticeable WIP areas, core features are available, not many rough edges on features etc) then there is no reason not to approve it.

An example of a alpha/beta map which should be approved is Final Fantasy Forever. This map was never finished and only the first of intended 4 areas complete. However what was complete felt complete, the features available to the hero felt complete and there was enough content to promote people to replay the map several dozen times.

I have seen several examples of release version RPGs which clearly were not complete. Unfortunately their names escape me due to them being unremarkable (they were incomplete after all).

English only:
In-game text and Hive description. The grammar and spelling must be adequate.

Targeting the wrong problem. The problem is not maps containing other languages, but rather maps not containing an English localization. WC3 technically does support multiple localization of maps however no one uses the feature.

Maps must contain a full English localization. This localization must be sufficiently correct for a native English reader to understand what is going on. Other localizations are permitted as long as the submitted version contains an English localization.

Average quality standard:
A certain amount of quality is required, the gameplay needs to be somewhat fun, the terrain must not be lacking and a bit of originality should be present.

Another hint for a good map and not really a rule.

The actual problem it is meant to stop are submission of maps made in a few hours messing around with the editor. These might be playable and even full releases (no unfinished content) however they will clearly be lacking and of an extremely low quality.

A good guide would be that the map should appear to have at least 24 or 48 hours (significant work) of mapping time invested in it. Good maps have several hundred hours so it is easy to notice if one was rushed.

Uniqueness:
The map must bring something new to the table. It can't just be another clone of X popular map. It must be radically different from existing maps.
You may in certain circumstances be permitted to submit a modified version of somebody else's map if you fix a bug that makes the map unplayable or if you change it radically. In this case you must give credit to the original author. Also, you must ask for permission if possible.
You can't just take DotA, add a few heroes and call it a new map.

In a day of RPGs, FPS and AoS clones called "MOBA"s uniqueness is hardly a thing the industry is concerned about. Neither should Hive since ultimately people will copy popular ideas.

What is more important is to specifically target open source map modifications. These should be permitted as long as considerable effort has been put into modifying them and when possible correct credits are given. Simply adding cheats, some broken heroes or units or changing some balance stats is not sufficient effort for such a map to be permitted. Effort will be approximated from differences compared with the base map and not the sum total of effort invested in the map (needed to stop them arguing they passed the effort rule). They must also mention the map it was based on since open source maps often have rich inheritance of features.

Example of such a clone map that is allowed is my Green Circle TD. I spend a lot of time altering stats, testing balance and fixing triggers and spawns. Although far from perfect (probably disserves a 3-4 at most) it still is playable.

Imaginary example of such a clone map that is not allowed is "LoaP GOD DEATH GOLD 12!!". Random no effort changes made to a random LoaP version based on another random LoaP version and probably protected for no real reason.

Efficient triggering:
The triggering needs to be efficient and mostly leakless.

This is not the Spells section. No one cares how leaky or inefficient the triggers are. In fact they might not even know what the triggers are or care for that matter.

This is targeting unplayable maps due to extremely poor performance. What causes the poor performance can be badly written triggers (leaks, bad complexity), poor map design (thousands of units fighting all the time) or even WC3 bugs (melee AI cannot find path to player). Ultimately the cause is irrelevant to anyone other than the map maker himself.

As such the rule should define some minimum performance requirements for the maps. The map should operate >90% of the time at 60fps on a decent computer. The map should not drop into single digit frame rates often and when it does it should be only really briefly. Poor performance during obviously designated loading times is ignored (this is a WC3 problem that mappers cannot really avoid). A decent computer is any modern computer with discrete GPU operating in full power mode without any demanding background processes.



You might want to add a rule to remove modified protected maps unless the person was given permission by the author, was the author (but lost the original) or has made so many modifications that the original (stolen) parts are now insignificant. Even if it is covered in the general site rules or some other place it would be good to clearly emphasize this. How strictly you want to scrutinize the evidence of "given permission by the author" is up to the moderator at hand. If a map containing significant constructive modifications made to a protected map is acceptable when the author of the protected map cannot be contacted for consent I will leave to be debated.

 

[Ralle]

Good job!

I will definitely replace many of the rules with your rewrites and let the others influence the rest.

Thank you!

 

[Ardenian]

As the pseudo-'most active reviewer of Hive', here is a bit input:

So I can use internal icons without DISBTN versions and its fine? What do icons even have to do with gameplay? Why is this a requirement?

It is a point for Aesthetics. If you don't see them, then none will mind, I guess, as none will notice. However there are hardly icons not using the DISBTN version.

Adding a rule regarding custom assets working at all WC3 visual settings would be a good idea. Work is defined as not crashing and not making the game unplayable (cannot target or select something gameplay critical due to invisible models or missing textures).

This is definitely an important point to add. I just reviewed a map yesterday destroying its mini-map on purpose and I was not sure how to handle it.

This is a suggestion not a rule since "should" is a strong recommendation but not a requirement. A more appropriate place for it would be under some sort of tips section for producing highly ratted maps.

This might be true, but, as a reviewer this is a big point I will pay attention to and I will suggest it always if it is missing. Therefore, if anyone reads the rules, it is good to have it, at least, as recommendation there.

All this means that as long as the map is "playable" (everyone can partake and progress the map towards a conclusion) and "mostly finished" (few noticeable WIP areas, core features are available, not many rough edges on features etc) then there is no reason not to approve it.

The rule about no alpha and beta maps allowed was added to prevent a spam of unfinished maps there, I assume. However, I think you are right. A map being playable, having a basic content to offer players can enjoy, could be approved and be an exception.
Though, in my opinion, the rule should remain untouched and it could be added that playable maps can be uploaded to the official section, but not for testing issues, but for getting feedback and offering a place for the map, additionally to the development thread in the MD section

Average quality standard:
A certain amount of quality is required, the gameplay needs to be somewhat fun, the terrain must not be lacking and a bit of originality should be present.

Another hint for a good map and not really a rule.

I strongly disagree here. So you say we should not judge the quality of a map ? If it is not 'trash', then we should simply approve it ? No reviewing, just having a quick look ?
That's what makes Hive unique. We don't accept cheap 2-hour-made maps, usually.

Uniqueness:
The map must bring something new to the table. It can't just be another clone of X popular map. It must be radically different from existing maps.
You may in certain circumstances be permitted to submit a modified version of somebody else's map if you fix a bug that makes the map unplayable or if you change it radically. In this case you must give credit to the original author. Also, you must ask for permission if possible. You can't just take DotA, add a few heroes and call it a new map.

In a day of RPGs, FPS and AoS clones called "MOBA"s uniqueness is hardly a thing the industry is concerned about. Neither should Hive since ultimately people will copy popular ideas.

To be honest, this is a point I think hardly anyone pays attention to. Of course, a map being called like others seen on the BattleNet will be criticised ( like Green TD or Shago Tower Wars), but if you re-name it and keep the basic concept, as boring as it might be, hardly anyone will vote for rejection because it has a copied concept.

Efficient triggering:
The triggering needs to be efficient and mostly leakless.

This is not the Spells section. No one cares how leaky or inefficient the triggers are. In fact they might not even know what the triggers are or care for that matter.

Inefficient and leaky triggers have an influence on the whole game. It is a good thing to consider it, in my opinion, but as long as it does not crash the game or have heavy impact on the frame rate it will hardly be a point for rejection, no matter how many leaks there are.

 

[Shadow Fury]

It is nice to see that someone actually cares about the rules and is proposing some changes. While I do agree with many of the stated points, I have to drop my views on some of them.

Needs to clarify that this only applies to map updates and not completely different maps. The term "multi-uploads" is ambiguous and probably only has a meaning to moderators and staff.

Requires an exemption clause for map updates which differ significantly from their base. This is commonly the result of an author making a fully functional map but then deciding to take the map in a completely different direction. Such maps are usually marked as a completely new release. Some times map makers will prefer to keep both versions alive as each may target different player groups.

An example of an exemption is Genesis of Empires and Genesis of Empires 2. Although 2 was technically the sequel it played so differently from 1 that it disserves to be treated as a completely separate map. For a long time I saw people playing both versions.

As I told you in the chat, if there is a significant difference between two maps, there is no problem in uploading them separately. Otherwise I could say that the campaigns of Shar Dundred should all be rejected because they are "different versions" of the same story and keep only one of them. However that would be clearly stupid and unacceptable. The term multi-upload is clear enough to be comprehended. I believe people are smart enough to understand if their two versions of the same map are sufficiently diverse to be uploaded individually or not. However, if you really feel that we should change this rule, I have no problems with it. Adding this exemption to the rule would cause no harm, yet I still think it's not really needed.

So I can use internal icons without DISBTN versions and its fine? What do icons even have to do with gameplay? Why is this a requirement?

If no one sees the disabled form of the icon it is fine. If they do see it then one can report it as a bug and the ratting lowered as a result of it having obvious bugs. As long as it does not crash or make the map unplayable there is no reason for a map to be rejected for lacking disabled icons.

As far as I am aware both Windows and Mac clients at all visual settings should be able to cope with no disabled icons and not crash. If this is not the case then it should be mentioned as part of the rule as justification.

Adding a rule regarding custom assets working at all WC3 visual settings would be a good idea. Work is defined as not crashing (some corrupted blps apparently crash lower visual settings) and not making the game unplayable (cannot target or select something gameplay critical due to invisible models or missing textures).

Many people hate to see green icons, that's why this rule exists. No moderator will ever reject a map just because it containts green icons. The greatest thing he can do is setting it to needs fix in the presence of other issues. Rejecting maps for green icons only would be detrimental and counterproductive, especially if the author is a guy who uploads a map and vanishes forever (e.g FriendlyWarlord, CalciumCarbonat).
Regarding the custom assets, I think it is a great idea adding a rule about it.

This is a suggestion not a rule since "should" is a strong recommendation but not a requirement. A more appropriate place for it would be under some sort of tips section for producing highly ratted maps.

In the case a user decided to add a Quest Log, the rules recommend to make it descriptive and informative. We do not force each map to have a Quest Log but when someone creates it, it should contain the required info. This is more of a guideline than a rule and it should be kept as such.

I have played many alpha and beta releases which never get passed that stage but were fully playable and very fun. Alternatively I have played many post release maps which are clearly incomplete and some times not playable.

Ultimately no one cares if the map is Alpha, Beta or release 13.37 as long as it is playable and what is playable feels mostly done. If the map is PvP it should be winnable and all players able to partake and win/lose. If the map is cooperative it should have a win/lose with what feels mostly finished. If it is open ended/sandbox then it should have most of the intended features available to the players.

All this means that as long as the map is "playable" (everyone can partake and progress the map towards a conclusion) and "mostly finished" (few noticeable WIP areas, core features are available, not many rough edges on features etc) then there is no reason not to approve it.

An example of a alpha/beta map which should be approved is Final Fantasy Forever. This map was never finished and only the first of intended 4 areas complete. However what was complete felt complete, the features available to the hero felt complete and there was enough content to promote people to replay the map several dozen times.

I have seen several examples of release version RPGs which clearly were not complete. Unfortunately their names escape me due to them being unremarkable (they were incomplete after all).

Good point, though I'm worried that this rule will be abused someway. It's not so easy to upload a WIP map that is fully playable so I'm afraid I'll receive many incomplete beta maps that are barely playable (and probably of low-quality) that must be rejected. However, when I'll actually reject them, the authors will use this rule against me. I might get 1 in 20 WIP maps that can be approved. If a map is playable, the mods will approve it. I've stumbled across a few maps (e.g Eurica The Caribbean, initially uploaded as a WIP) that were WIPs BUT complete and they were approved anyway without the need of modifying this rule so I don't see why altering it. Its consequences will not be advantageous.
We should draw a parallel between the various types of WIP maps. There are WIP maps that are called as such because the user wishes to add more features but the map itself is fully playable (Eurica is an instance). On the other hand, there are WIP maps that are called as such because they are incomplete. The latter will be rejected, the first will be approved. Know the difference.
No, I disagree with this one.

Targeting the wrong problem. The problem is not maps containing other languages, but rather maps not containing an English localization. WC3 technically does support multiple localization of maps however no one uses the feature.

Not that different from the old one. The problem IS maps containing other languages. The rule is simple: Don't use other languages other than English and use an understandable grammar. The underlined part is the core point of the rule. We just don't want the use of foreign languages. There's no need to make it more complicated and say "English localization" and that stuff when it is unnecessary.

Another hint for a good map and not really a rule.

The actual problem it is meant to stop are submission of maps made in a few hours messing around with the editor. These might be playable and even full releases (no unfinished content) however they will clearly be lacking and of an extremely low quality.

A good guide would be that the map should appear to have at least 24 or 48 hours (significant work) of mapping time invested in it. Good maps have several hundred hours so it is easy to notice if one was rushed.

Coudln't concur more with you on this one, except for the last paragraph... First of all, how can I know how many hours have been put in a map? One can simply lie and elude this rule. It is not the time spent on a map that necessarily determines the quality of the map. If one is a very noob map-maker, you can give him one year to create map, and it will still suck. Not even mentioning "effort" (as you said in the chat) would be good because every single person would tell you that they put lots of efforts in their maps. This should only be transformed from a hint to a rule but I can't figure out how so let's leave this pseudo-rule as it is.

In a day of RPGs, FPS and AoS clones called "MOBA"s uniqueness is hardly a thing the industry is concerned about. Neither should Hive since ultimately people will copy popular ideas.

What is more important is to specifically target open source map modifications. These should be permitted as long as considerable effort has been put into modifying them and when possible correct credits are given. Simply adding cheats, some broken heroes or units or changing some balance stats is not sufficient effort for such a map to be permitted. Effort will be approximated from differences compared with the base map and not the sum total of effort invested in the map (needed to stop them arguing they passed the effort rule). They must also mention the map it was based on since open source maps often have rich inheritance of features.

Example of such a clone map that is allowed is my Green Circle TD. I spend a lot of time altering stats, testing balance and fixing triggers and spawns. Although far from perfect (probably disserves a 3-4 at most) it still is playable.

Imaginary example of such a clone map that is not allowed is "LoaP GOD DEATH GOLD 12!!". Random no effort changes made to a random LoaP version based on another random LoaP version and probably protected for no real reason.

These are all good and nice words but they just summarise into the rule. When the rule states "radically different", it means "don't just add some cheats, broken heroes or units bla bla bla". It's even stated more precisely in the last lines. You just reworded and extended the rule which is, once again, unneeded.

This is not the Spells section. No one cares how leaky or inefficient the triggers are. In fact they might not even know what the triggers are or care for that matter.

This is targeting unplayable maps due to extremely poor performance. What causes the poor performance can be badly written triggers (leaks, bad complexity), poor map design (thousands of units fighting all the time) or even WC3 bugs (melee AI cannot find path to player). Ultimately the cause is irrelevant to anyone other than the map maker himself.

As such the rule should define some minimum performance requirements for the maps. The map should operate >90% of the time at 60fps on a decent computer. The map should not drop into single digit frame rates often and when it does it should be only really briefly. Poor performance during obviously designated loading times is ignored (this is a WC3 problem that mappers cannot really avoid). A decent computer is any modern computer with discrete GPU operating in full power mode without any demanding background processes.

Why are you complicating an existing rule again? This is not the Spells section, ok, but that doesn't mean you are allowed to create heavily leaking maps. All the talk you did about FPS can be solved by preventing the leaks. Your new rule does not explain what should be done to actually prevent the issue of FPS.

You might want to add a rule to remove modified protected maps unless the person was given permission by the author, was the author (but lost the original) or has made so many modifications that the original (stolen) parts are now insignificant. Even if it is covered in the general site rules or some other place it would be good to clearly emphasize this. How strictly you want to scrutinize the evidence of "given permission by the author" is up to the moderator at hand. If a map containing significant constructive modifications made to a protected map is acceptable when the author of the protected map cannot be contacted for consent I will leave to be debated.

There are enough places where this is mentioned as you said so there's no need to emphasize anything. I always ask for a proof (e.g screenshot of PM, a VM, author's signature) about these maps, as any mod should do. This rule is even very blatant because obviously you cannot upload someone else's resource if he doesn't give you the permission. This is common sense, I don't think we need emphasis on it.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Leaks have an impact on the performance of the game even outside of the map.

For example, a heavily leaking map will takes several minutes if not longer to close the score screen. Which is super annoying as it basicly forces you to restart the game if you don't want to wait that long.


Also - as you guys probably know - I do my own personal crusade against widgetizing as it breaks compatibility with a lot of other maps and causes the players that played a widgetized map before to desync.
So I would plead for a rule that widgetized maps should not be allowed.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I just reviewed a map yesterday destroying its mini-map on purpose and I was not sure how to handle it.

If it was done on purpose as part of the game mechanics then it is working as intended. If it only breaks on certain client and visual settings then the map is broken. Some silly survival or horror maps break the minimap for purposes of "atmosphere". Some RPGs break the minimap due to the WC3 mechanics of resizing camera bounds which there is no easy work around for.

The rule about no alpha and beta maps allowed was added to prevent a spam of unfinished maps there, I assume. However, I think you are right. A map being playable, having a basic content to offer players can enjoy, could be approved and be an exception.

Exceptions are bad as they are unclear and left to moderators to decide. You need to define such mechanics into the rule. Hence why version numbering is completely un important and instead map mechanics are.

As long as when you play the map it feels like a finished map is all that matters. If you walk into large areas of unfinished terrain (Loaderon Dirt usually) or suddenly run into an end of content without appropriate finish (game progression stops, nothing more to do and no way to win) then the map is not finished. If you can play from start to end and achieve what the map advertise then it is as good as finished even if a lot more content is still planned.

This might be true, but, as a reviewer this is a big point I will pay attention to and I will suggest it always if it is missing. Therefore, if anyone reads the rules, it is good to have it, at least, as recommendation there.

Rules are not recommendations. One could tag on a recommendation for complying with the rule but in the end the rule is what will reject or approve maps.

I strongly disagree here. So you say we should not judge the quality of a map ? If it is not 'trash', then we should simply approve it ? No reviewing, just having a quick look ?
That's what makes Hive unique. We don't accept cheap 2-hour-made maps, usually.

Except "quality" is an opinion. Rejecting maps over opinions is kind of stupid. Good maps can be emphasized with director cut and high ratings since filters for those do exist.

WC3C is the place for "high quality" maps. THW is the place for the anyone serious about mapping. Just because someone is serious about mapping does not mean that they produce high quality maps but it does mean they should be supported when possible, eg by having their map approved and not rejected. The rules should be there to eliminate jokes, spam, complete wastes of time or even in some cases protect their author from possible humiliation.

To be honest, this is a point I think hardly anyone pays attention to. Of course, a map being called like others seen on the BattleNet will be criticised ( like Green TD or Shago Tower Wars), but if you re-name it and keep the basic concept, as boring as it might be, hardly anyone will vote for rejection because it has a copied concept.

So why is it in the rules then if moderators ignore it? The rules should clearly define what a map needs to get approved. Not what a map needs to get a high rating since ratings are opinions which vary from moderator to moderator (personally I think they should be removed but others disagree).

Not that different from the old one. The problem IS maps containing other languages. The rule is simple: Don't use other languages other than English and use an understandable grammar. The underlined part is the core point of the rule. We just don't want the use of foreign languages. There's no need to make it more complicated and say "English localization" and that stuff when it is unnecessary.

As long as when you test it the text is English it is fine. If it supports other languages via single map with multiple localization or multiple maps with single localization is of no concern as long as the one uploaded and tested appears in English. As such you must require English and not exclude all other localizations.

First of all, how can I know how many hours have been put in a map?

Being a moderator you should be reasonably experienced with mapping. As such you should know approximately how long it would take to do something.

The general hints are the amount of content and detail of available content. An RPG with 12+ heroes with many triggered abilities each and 8 odd areas clearly took a decent time to make. On the other hand an RPG with 1 area, no quests, about 15 minutes of complete gameplay and only 1 choose able hero did not.

When the rule states "radically different", it means "don't just add some cheats, broken heroes or units bla bla bla".

No it does not. You cannot expect people to understand more than what is written. A world like "constructive modification" is more likely to get across that meaning.

You just reworded and extended the rule which is, once again, unneeded.

All rules have to be made crystal clear so that there is no argument over them.

There are enough places where this is mentioned as you said so there's no need to emphasize anything. I always ask for a proof (e.g screenshot of PM, a VM, author's signature) about these maps, as any mod should do. This rule is even very blatant because obviously you cannot upload someone else's resource if he doesn't give you the permission. This is common sense, I don't think we need emphasis on it.

You do need to mention it for clarity sake. Especially since there is a lot of controversy over abandoned maps.

For example, a heavily leaking map will takes several minutes if not longer to close the score screen. Which is super annoying as it basicly forces you to restart the game if you don't want to wait that long.

You have to restart often anyway due to Widigitzed maps so I see no problem there. Maximum I have seen is about 30 seconds and that was a slide show for a map when I left (already failed my suggested performance requirements).

The problem is maps performing badly. The rule is to filter out maps which are unplayable due to extremely bad performance. The cause of such is of no concern. One may guess that it is caused by trigger leaks but in the end that does not matter because it gets rejected for extremely bad performance and not for leaking or having inefficient triggers. A map which pits 10,000 units against 10,000 units at the same time will also be rejected for extremely bad performance even if the triggers do not leak and are extremely well optimized. The reason such a rule exists is to safe guard potential players from wasting their time on a 1 FPS slide show.

Also - as you guys probably know - I do my own personal crusade against widgetizing as it breaks compatibility with a lot of other maps and causes the players that played a widgetized map before to desync.
So I would plead for a rule that widgetized maps should not be allowed.

This would have to be applied to maps submitted after a certain deadline. It would be stupid to remove already approved submissions from many years ago due to a change in the rules today.

 

[Shadow Fury]

As long as when you test it the text is English it is fine. If it supports other languages via single map with multiple localization or multiple maps with single localization is of no concern as long as the one uploaded and tested appears in English. As such you must require English and not exclude all other localizations.

This is quite an obvious point itself. English localization is required for English-only texts in game, that's why I believe we do not need to state it directly. We care about the custom tooltips, in game messages, quest logs and descriptions that are not subject to the localization.

Being a moderator you should be reasonably experienced with mapping. As such you should know approximately how long it would take to do something.

The general hints are the amount of content and detail of available content. An RPG with 12+ heroes with many triggered abilities each and 8 odd areas clearly took a decent time to make. On the other hand an RPG with 1 area, no quests, about 15 minutes of complete gameplay and only 1 choose able hero did not.

This is not the problem, for I can easily tell how many hours were spent on a map. The problem is how I'm going to use the quality rule to justify the rejection. If they say that they spent more than 2 days, either this is true or false, how can I tell them "No, it is not like that"? They'll ask for solid proofs which I cannot simply base on the cheapness of the map. You know, a noob map-maker may even rustle up a crappy map in 3 days if he includes some triggering. How would I deal with that if the rule merely states that the map must be done in more than 48 hours?

No it does not. You cannot expect people to understand more than what is written. A world like "constructive modification" is more likely to get across that meaning.

I don't think people are dumb enough to misinterpret the rule. As I formerly stated there's also some common sense in this. You do not just copy a map, add very little stuff from your own, call it a map and pretend approval. This is logical and doesn't need the rules to state them. Blatantly your map must be different from popular maps if it is to be approved.

All rules have to be made crystal clear so that there is no argument over them.

For me, they're already clear as they are. We should keep the rules simple and easy to read. Overcomplicating a rule isn't a good idea since people are already averse to read all rules. Let's keep them concise and precise.

You do need to mention it for clarity sake. Especially since there is a lot of controversy over abandoned maps.

Oh yeah you should. It must be *crystal clear* that you got the permission to upload someone else's map, as I did with my Minotaur's Labyrinth (originally made by WendigoWars, continued and developed by me). Controversial, self-contradictory or unclear statements will lead to rejection these days. I don't know about the past but I certainly know about the present.

 

[Kino]

Except "quality" is an opinion. Rejecting maps over opinions is kind of stupid. Good maps can be emphasized with director cut and high ratings since filters for those do exist.

WC3C is the place for "high quality" maps. THW is the place for the anyone serious about mapping. Just because someone is serious about mapping does not mean that they produce high quality maps but it does mean they should be supported when possible, eg by having their map approved and not rejected. The rules should be there to eliminate jokes, spam, complete wastes of time or even in some cases protect their author from possible humiliation.

Exactly.
Ive said this years ago, Ill say it again
- Approval = map works, doesn't contain stolen/rule breaking content.
- Rating = How good the map is.

They're not the same thing.
Moderators approve maps
The community rates maps
If you really, really want to, you can designate official reviewers to rate maps.

 

[Dr Super Good]

We care about the custom tooltips, in game messages, quest logs and descriptions that are not subject to the localization.

As long as everything is localized into English you do not care. If it is also localized into something else as well you will not care either. Once again the requirement is to contain English, not to exclude all but English.

The problem is how I'm going to use the quality rule to justify the rejection.

You are not rejecting by quality. Quality is hard to justify and is not what the rules are for.

If they say that they spent more than 2 days, either this is true or false, how can I tell them "No, it is not like that"? They'll ask for solid proofs which I cannot simply base on the cheapness of the map. You know, a noob map-maker may even rustle up a crappy map in 3 days if he includes some triggering. How would I deal with that if the rule merely states that the map must be done in more than 48 hours?

You approve the map but either with no ratting or a very low ratting. This is not WC3C which quality filters its content. Hive is about encouraging and trying to help map makers. As long as the map looks like some commitment was put into it then there is no problem. The rule is to reject troll maps which can pass the other rules but are extremely easy to make and mass producible.

I don't think people are dumb enough to misinterpret the rule.

Just because a person cannot understand English does not make him dumb. A lot of the visitors to Hive Workshop have English as a second or third language so cannot be expected to be able derive obscure and unintuitive meanings from it.

As I formerly stated there's also some common sense in this. You do not just copy a map, add very little stuff from your own, call it a map and pretend approval. This is logical and doesn't need the rules to state them. Blatantly your map must be different from popular maps if it is to be approved.

You cannot reject maps for reasons not on the rules. It would be like sending someone to prison for violating laws which do not exist.

For me, they're already clear as they are. We should keep the rules simple and easy to read. Overcomplicating a rule isn't a good idea since people are already averse to read all rules. Let's keep them concise and precise.

They are not "concise and precise" when half the rules are not rules and the other half are ambiguous. Clarity is key. I would recommend a brief few word summary as to what the rule is about and then a detailed description for people unsure to its meaning.

Oh yeah you should. It must be *crystal clear* that you got the permission to upload someone else's map, as I did with my Minotaur's Labyrinth (originally made by WendigoWars, continued and developed by me). Controversial, self-contradictory or unclear statements will lead to rejection these days. I don't know about the past but I certainly know about the present.

WC3 is a dying game, many of the authors have disappeared without any traceability. For all we could know some may have even died sadly. As such the concept of ownership is hard. Even in real life ideas will become public domain unless ownership is maintained and enforced. This is food for thought and something that can only be decided from a high level.

They're not the same thing.
Moderators approve maps
The community rates maps
If you really, really want to, you can designate official reviewers to rate maps.

Exactly, this is the system I tried to promote several years ago. It makes moderator's jobs easier, more happy content creators and produces better feedback.

 

[Vengeancekael]

So I can use internal icons without DISBTN versions and its fine? What do icons even have to do with gameplay? Why is this a requirement?

It is simply an indicator of your basic world editor expertise. Spell icons missing their DISBTN, etc. are an unprofessional mistake, doesn't matter if it's a rookie modder.
And it has nothing to do with the gameplay part, because it's not written under 'gameplay' or w/e. It is simply a rule on its own.

This is a suggestion not a rule since "should" is a strong recommendation but not a requirement. A more appropriate place for it would be under some sort of tips section for producing highly ratted maps.

It's not (or wasn't) supposed to be a suggestion, but a requirement. So I guess the 'should' should be replaced with 'must'. It's important that the author gives the gist of their map in a central hub, which in Warcraft 3, is the quest log.

I have played many alpha and beta releases which never get passed that stage but were fully playable and very fun. Alternatively I have played many post release maps which are clearly incomplete and some times not playable.

Ultimately no one cares if the map is Alpha, Beta or release 13.37 as long as it is playable and what is playable feels mostly done. If the map is PvP it should be winnable and all players able to partake and win/lose. If the map is cooperative it should have a win/lose with what feels mostly finished. If it is open ended/sandbox then it should have most of the intended features available to the players.

All this means that as long as the map is "playable" (everyone can partake and progress the map towards a conclusion) and "mostly finished" (few noticeable WIP areas, core features are available, not many rough edges on features etc) then there is no reason not to approve it.

An example of a alpha/beta map which should be approved is Final Fantasy Forever. This map was never finished and only the first of intended 4 areas complete. However what was complete felt complete, the features available to the hero felt complete and there was enough content to promote people to replay the map several dozen times.

I have seen several examples of release version RPGs which clearly were not complete. Unfortunately their names escape me due to them being unremarkable (they were incomplete after all).

Your 'several examples' are not the main reason why this rule came to be. It originated back when the Maps section was being filled to the brink with newly registered users submitting their maps in the Maps section and at the same time stating themselves that their map is incomplete and that they would like people to test it and to provide some feedback. The rule's point is to stem the flow of uploaded resources which belong to the Map Development forum.

Targeting the wrong problem. The problem is not maps containing other languages, but rather maps not containing an English localization. WC3 technically does support multiple localization of maps however no one uses the feature.

Perhaps I should mentioned this at the top of my post: I'm not sure if you remember, but Ralle decided to rewrite the main Rules page quite a while back to make it simpler and quicker to read. (making it look less like Terms and Conditions)
This idea was transposed to the individual section rules. You're basically going around and complicating the basic message of each rule. The rules page is supposed to be a quick read, since most users refuse to ever read them.
Also, you're getting too technical here. Yes, different localizations exist, but the one version that'll ever be accepted is the English one. Also your correction is quite peculiar, I'm not sure why only 'native' English speaker should understand it. Last time I checked, the hive's main audience was from Singapore.

Another hint for a good map and not really a rule.

Not a hint, but a clear requirement. This rule was intentionally written in an ambiguous manner, in order to give the moderator some wiggle-room. The daily submissions are diverse and some kind of standard of quality is still needed, even if the hive is generally pretty lenient.

In a day of RPGs, FPS and AoS clones called "MOBA"s uniqueness is hardly a thing the industry is concerned about. Neither should Hive since ultimately people will copy popular ideas.

What is more important is to specifically target open source map modifications. These should be permitted as long as considerable effort has been put into modifying them and when possible correct credits are given. Simply adding cheats, some broken heroes or units or changing some balance stats is not sufficient effort for such a map to be permitted. Effort will be approximated from differences compared with the base map and not the sum total of effort invested in the map (needed to stop them arguing they passed the effort rule). They must also mention the map it was based on since open source maps often have rich inheritance of features.

Example of such a clone map that is allowed is my Green Circle TD. I spend a lot of time altering stats, testing balance and fixing triggers and spawns. Although far from perfect (probably disserves a 3-4 at most) it still is playable.

Imaginary example of such a clone map that is not allowed is "LoaP GOD DEATH GOLD 12!!". Random no effort changes made to a random LoaP version based on another random LoaP version and probably protected for no real reason.

I could understand if you'd want to replace or remove the term 'radically', since, indeed, it is a rather strong word. Nobody expects you to create the next innovative genre to be spinned off as its own genre and game. Yet it's the fact that quite a few users tend to crack popular maps and implement some insignificant changes (change the name of a hero and their skill icons), which they then claim as their own.
Plus, if you're going to make a map from scratch, at least one different feature should be present in the map: a carbon copy would be pointless to accept. It goes past the point of caring if a user invested a lot of effort into a map, when that creation is literally a remake of another map tile for tile.

WC3C is the place for "high quality" maps.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but that site is dead. Has been for a while now. So yeah, your argument's pretty much invalid since that community doesn't even accept new submissions anymore.
But since you're going down that route, then the hive isn't epicwar either.

As long as when you test it the text is English it is fine. If it supports other languages via single map with multiple localization or multiple maps with single localization is of no concern as long as the one uploaded and tested appears in English. As such you must require English and not exclude all other localizations.

The word localization is not even mentioned in the body, so I'm not sure why you're picketing that one out. If it's not in there, then you can suppose that it's allowed. The user may include as many localizations as they desire, the rule is simply stating the fact that the main displayed language should be English. Again, you're being too technical and complicating the rules' text.

You are not rejecting by quality. Quality is hard to justify and is not what the rules are for.

In a way they are. I can understand your point of view that the moderator's primary function should be to verify the resource's status in terms of working properly, etc. but you cannot argue that even the moderator can tell if the map is pure garbage. The rule is there to ensure a certain degree of quality. If it's about a more in-depth look at the profound levels of the map's features and fusion of different ideas, then so-called professionals or reviewers should come into the play. Yet the moderator is still hired (at least I hope) because they have an adequate amount of expertise when it comes to mapping. So they too can check its quality.

Also, I'm not sure about this, but I think you also used to moderate maps quite a while back. So I'm not certain, but it could be that the type of uploaded resource differs greatly from that time when you used to moderate. I can tell from my experience as a moderator that 99% of the uploaded maps had to be rejected on the basis of poor quality. They fulfilled all the other rules, even including a fancy description, but the maps themselves fell short in every possible way.
So what I'm trying to say is, there's some kind of 'common ground' which everyone who's experienced enough can agree on when it comes to a basic set of quality.

You cannot reject maps for reasons not on the rules. It would be like sending someone to prison for violating laws which do not exist.

Hence why most of the rules are kept ambiguous, or every little detail would have to be included, which then, once again, would make the whole body of text look messy. The Hive is not some judiciary court with strict moderation, not every peculiarity and 'right' of a creator needs to be stated in an official text.

I will definitely replace many of the rules with your rewrites and let the others influence the rest.

I too appreciate his input on this, but please don't include his iterations until they've been discussed by others.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Also, you're getting too technical here. Yes, different localizations exist, but the one version that'll ever be accepted is the English one. Also your correction is quite peculiar, I'm not sure why only 'native' English speaker should understand it. Last time I checked, the hive's main audience was from Singapore.

It defines a rough level of English quality required. This is to prevent possible arguments over incorrect spelling due to UK or US localization and also to allow some leeway for spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes. Someone who barely knows English cannot really comment on English text because incorrect grammar might make more sense to them due to being closer to their native language.

The word localization is not even mentioned in the body, so I'm not sure why you're picketing that one out. If it's not in there, then you can suppose that it's allowed. The user may include as many localizations as they desire, the rule is simply stating the fact that the main displayed language should be English. Again, you're being too technical and complicating the rules' text.

Except the rule at the time I made the list clearly stated that the only localization a map can have is English and anything else is not permitted. This is not true since other localizations are allowed as long as the one the map links to is English.

In a way they are. I can understand your point of view that the moderator's primary function should be to verify the resource's status in terms of working properly, etc. but you cannot argue that even the moderator can tell if the map is pure garbage. The rule is there to ensure a certain degree of quality. If it's about a more in-depth look at the profound levels of the map's features and fusion of different ideas, then so-called professionals or reviewers should come into the play. Yet the moderator is still hired (at least I hope) because they have an adequate amount of expertise when it comes to mapping. So they too can check its quality.

The level of quality required should be at the "not a total waste of time" which is what the rules should clearly define. Anything more is no reason to reject, even if it is like 1/5 or 2/5 ratting.

Hence why most of the rules are kept ambiguous, or every little detail would have to be included, which then, once again, would make the whole body of text look messy. The Hive is not some judiciary court with strict moderation, not every peculiarity and 'right' of a creator needs to be stated in an official text.

So you want it to instead look like it is run by kids who do whatever they want? Unless you can give a clear reason why something was rejected then it should not be rejected. Further more rejection should be a highly predictable standard which people can build around in advance instead of having to argue with moderators about. It is all about providing a quality of moderator service rather than doing whatever the moderator feels like.

I too appreciate his input on this, but please don't include his iterations until they've been discussed by others.

They are being discussed with others. Additionally they were not really revisions but suggestions, someone actually needs to revise the rules first.

 

[Kino]

Hence why most of the rules are kept ambiguous, or every little detail would have to be included, which then, once again, would make the whole body of text look messy. The Hive is not some judiciary court with strict moderation, not every peculiarity and 'right' of a creator needs to be stated in an official text.

So you want it to instead look like it is run by kids who do whatever they want? Unless you can give a clear reason why something was rejected then it should not be rejected. Further more rejection should be a highly predictable standard which people can build around in advance instead of having to argue with moderators about. It is all about providing a quality of moderator service rather than doing whatever the moderator feels like.

Here's the issue.
Rules = mostly objective,
Worth of a creative product = highly subjective

The issue is not about more or less defined rules.
The problem is that we are trying to use rules (a measurable list) to judge how worthy a map is (highly based on user tastes and author vision).
If Mods did not rate maps, there wouldn't be an issue.

Ideally rating a map is two part process
> Mods checks functionality, legality (things that can be measured) and approves and rejects based on that.
> Users/Reviewers rate the worth of the map based on their tastes.

Adding more rules to the current system doesn't actually help as Kael pointed out.
At the same time, DSG's point that approval largely based on Moderator whim is also very true.
System is broke.
Adding more rules wont fix it, neither will leaving it be.

Anything more is no reason to reject, even if it is like 1/5 or 2/5 ratting.

Agreed.
Food for thought; whats the point of a 1/5 rating if no approved map is ever going to get it?

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

Too much quote mania going on. I'll help calm it down.

1. Obviously quality is subjective. I'm certain map moderators rate how the community would rate. This is why I clarify that my moderator rating and user opinion rating is different. I'm not a 100% for the whole rating on effort thing. Why exactly is this a better alternative to a minimal quality rule and what effect it would have? I'd be fine either way, though.

2. The incident where the creator of the map argued (and flamed obviously) against rejection expected an approval when two of the rules are completely broken throughout the map. Other incidents like these, which are quite few, have a similar reason - the user clearly failed to incorporate a few rule(s) which weren't unclear at all

3. Hive 2 (source unknown, may be false) is to have reviewer ratings replace moderator ratings. Not that map moderators are also map reviewers. User ratings will still co-exist.

4. Like DSG and a few others, I'm pro lower the standards for approval. While some of the professional Hive "artists" say "this is no epic war and that it'll cause Hive to have trashy: spam, I find that to be a ridiculous reason to not approve fully functioning maps that may have a popular negative opinion. . Plus, an approval gives map makers a chance. Rejections push map makers away from the Hive by the hundreds. Low ratings can give motivation and a sense for the author to know people are playing that map unlike a rejection.

5. There aren't that few 2012+ maps that bear a 1 to 2 star ratings that are approved. Almost all of them have a (2) lacking, (3) acceptable, or (X) no rating for the moderator rating.

6. About the terrible descriptions, there'll likely be an unmanned system to prevent extremely short ones. Amount of characters.

Final:
I agree and feel indifferent with every other proposal DSG made. The ones above are mostly some clarification things.

PS. SF, DSG, and I discussed some of this in the chat already

 

[Shadow Fury]

Indeed, too many quotes and walls of texts. Oh God, that really puts me off. I had to reply yesterday but, yeah, indolence... let's get to the point.

Localization is not the main aim. As I formerly stated, not everything is subject to it. The rule clearly tells you that everything has to be in English, regardless if by localization or not. Present your map entirely in English as if localization doesn't exist.

Technically, I cannot reject a map unless it breaks at least one rule of the map submission rules, this is why I emphasize the importance of the quality rule. I reject cheap maps based on that rule. If it wasn't there, I'd be compelled to approve extremely cheap crappy maps that follow the rest of the rules.

People may put all the efforts they want but what I care of is the final product. If it's not worth approval, I wouldn't care if they took a century to make it. I reward efforts but I do not base my judgement simply on that.

Well well well, I was really expecting you to say that (English as second or third language thing), and that's why I'll rehash the fact that you're overcomplicating simple and clear rules. Some of your revised rules are far more obscure and hard to understand than the original ones. The original rules are not vague or ambiguous in most cases since they convey the message they bear.

Ok I need to quote this one:

You cannot reject maps for reasons not on the rules. It would be like sending someone to prison for violating laws which do not exist[/QUOTE

In fact a rule about it actually exists (uniqueness), even if it is so blatant... it worked well because I didn't see many copies of popular maps.

 

[Kino]

Indeed, too many quotes and walls of texts. Oh God, that really puts me off. I had to reply yesterday but, yeah, indolence... let's get to the point.

Still, none of your points address the issue raised; that the current rule-set is pretty pointless.
Its full of vague points that are extremely open to user interpretation and moderator whim. The 2 rules that you "emphasize" the most ("quality" and "originality") are in themselves the least worth as rules, since they are the most subjective of all the rules.

What is the point of a rule if anyone can choose how to interpret it?

Poke all the holes you want in DSG's overspecific new ruleset, it doesn't address the point he raised in the first place.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Current unofficial WIP of suggested rules.

After listing all the rules is a section explaining them in detail. The idea being people can glance at all rules very quickly and if they are unsure of any they can read it in more detail below. The rules could be used as a checklist by moderators or authors.

Additionally the rules, rule names and descriptions may be subject to revision.

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

Current unofficial WIP of suggested rules.

After listing all the rules is a section explaining them in detail. The idea being people can glance at all rules very quickly and if they are unsure of any they can read it in more detail below. The rules could be used as a checklist by moderators or authors.

Additionally the rules, rule names and descriptions may be subject to revision.

Ah, you added the author details. That's all you added since we last went over it?

I think these rules are in the right direction to not push map makers away, to make things more fair. I think it would be best, though, to have the details be linked to a separate pastebin entry on the actual rule. By doing so, it'll prevent the post from being excessively long which can be intimidating and annoying for others to read.

 

[Zwiebelchen]

Exceptions are bad as they are unclear and left to moderators to decide. You need to define such mechanics into the rule. Hence why version numbering is completely un important and instead map mechanics are.

Why?
Not everything must be written out in the rules. I'd rather have mods apply common sense than stupidly enforce rules as written.

 

[Ardenian]

Why?
Not everything must be written out in the rules. I'd rather have mods apply common sense than stupidly enforce rules as written.

You would think different if you would have posted 2D resources in their sections...

It is impossible to not have a personal opinion influencing your opinion. That's what makes moderators a human being, not bots just going through a check list when moderating.

Rules should be there to protect resource creators from moderator despotism, but not enforce moderators to go through a list of points and not having an opinion at all.

There should be room for an exception, in my opinion. You should not hardcode a spell and you should not hardcode what is allowed and not. It will rarely happen that something will pop up being very difficult to decide about.