Are "Maps v1.2 Requisite Fails" bound to fade away from the game?

[Cleaner]

As you probably all know, at the release of V1.2 a fair amount of maps won't make it through due to requirements failure...
Reasons for this are numerous (and not necessarily intended in the first place), cube height, pickups too close to each other, missing spawn points and so on and so on.

Staff over at AKIMBO are converting heaps of maps, making sure they'll be compatible for next version and all available for auto-download.
Whilst doing so every maps they encounter that won't make it are put aside here (74 of them so far but that's just the tip of the iceberg, believe me).
Needless to say that many of us had great fun playing on most of these maps, that there is also a huge part of nostalgia in there and consequently we don't want to see it all going down the drain just like that. Flushed and forgotten? No way sir, No can do!

This thread is about grabbing a general feeling of what you think should happen next with these material and how certain issues can be solved (licensing for instance) so that whatever actions we (AKIMBO Staff) may take in the future are approved by the vast majority of the community and why not made legit by the higher instances.

Obviously the first thing we'll do is try to get hold of authors these maps if and when they are still around to ask them if they can sort it out or at least let some trusted and experienced mappers take care of the problems (We could eventually set up an official "MrFixit" crew at AKIMBO :D ).
btw, you could go browse that list of maps and put some pressure on the creators of maps you want to see through V1.2... ( I've never said that! I'll categorically deny it !).

The annoying part is that we have maps dating quite a few years back and unfortunately a lot of these people have gone MIA, most of it with all sorts of different configurations the like of:

• By "Unknown" in mapmsg, no readme.
  
• Just a name in mapmsg, no readme.
  
• contact in readme no longer valid.
  
• readme without any useful information.
  
• Valid website but no activity detected in ages.
  

In some cases for those unreachable can we possibly consider an eventual "Do not edit this map without author's consent" message as "Don't fucking mess with my map but if you are some sort of "AC official" and if it is to have my map evolve along the game then it's fine with me".

Well this is it, I suppose you all get my drift...

[[SODA]___ME___]

With all the fresh content that will be availible in 1.2 I think it may not be worth opening that can of worms. With that said, if you have exausted all means to contact the author and the changes are small (like move a pickup or change a room height by one cube) then I can accept it is due to game upgrades. I would not have an issue if I had left and this was done to a map I created (even after finding out about the change), but I think the mapmsg should include a phrase like "change have been made by the fix-it ccrew to make it 1.2 compatible." Others may not agree and I also understand why they would feel that way. I still say the new version needs new maps that will use new models and give AC a fresh look.

[Luc@s]

A few maps should be left (it is better to give up when the changes required would make the map completely different, typically when a room is way too big).

However, regarding the other maps;
if the changes are *very* minor (such as removing 1 single entity) then imo we should do by ourselves.

Else, we would have to contact the author. It may be easier now you made this public.

[Undead]

won't ever fade away unless there is a push within the devs to remove the restrictions.
i would say that the majority of the community, even the forum community, would favor removal of the restrictions.

[Hellspell]

I worry how many of those maps would get played in 1.2 in that they were made playable but if someone wants to do that then that's what they want to do. That said Ravenstein was good fun back in the day, is it too high?
My feeling is the fixit crew should be free to update the unlicensed maps if you can't contact the original mapmaker for their opinion, as long as the overall feel is maintained. I know from experience that personally I'd feel proud if I found someone made the effort to fix one of my maps.

[ExodusS]

map restrictions should exist but only the server owner should be able to allow "shit" maps on his server, and clients should have an option to filter those servers

and of course, the basic settings would hide those servers from the server list, like that, everyone will be happy:
-newcomers who are creating new maps and learning the coopedit
-players who are in search of any kind of those uncommon maps
-gema/ezjemvill/twintowers players because they enjoy playing "fun" maps
-seriouz players because they don't want to see twintowers invading the server list
-devs because new players will not be afraid of new maps and instant leave/uninstall the game (and this is the main reason why devs want a strong map restriction)

devs know map restrictions will never filter a 2 texture maps in a full darkness or with non-sence models/sounds and blue lights everywhere with water from the floor to the roof, and they know a map like that would make every new player instant-uninstall the game, they know it, but they still make a stronger map restriction code wich is a good idea, but wich is not used well at all.

/gg

[Cleaner]

This isn't about lifting restrictions, they are here to stay so just live with it!
It's about having old maps fit within these restrictions whenever possible.

My little mistake was that I didn't make it clear in my first post that no major/drastic changes will ever hit the structural layout nor design of the maps concerned.

Basically we're merely talking about removing colliding pickups and sorting spawn points when required.
No textures/mapmodels modifications whatsoever.
If structures changes ever need to be made they should remain hardly noticeable and should not affect gameplay/pathways in anyhow, for example lowering a ceiling of 25 cubes is a No No.
Needless to say that Fixit crew won't be the last of noobs when it comes to mapping so they are entitled to fix glitches, solid/occlusion or any other issues they find if they fancy doing so (not mandatory).

At the end of the day one has to understand that it's not a map redo, it's just a map fix.

One last thing, fixes and/or changes will be notified in the map's readme.

[Alien]

Add these comment chars before and behind restriction code and the problem solved. :P

/*** COMMENT ***

AC CODE OF EGOISM

*** COMMENT ***/

[Cleaner]

Ever wonder what happen to KanslozeClown?

Alien ate it!

[ExodusS]

...all the needed changes that must be applied to old maps...

But all that would not even be a problem if server owners were able to allow maps that doesn't fit with the restrictions, just let the official client filter servers with and without those maprestrictions (and the basic setting would hide those servers, like that, no afraid newcomers anymore (or almost lol) and devs/everyone is happy).

[Alien]

I hated one his statement "playing on my server is the privilege, not the right" , red muleta for me :P

[Cleaner]

For heaven sake stop moaning about map restrictions on this thread! These aren't the issue discussed here.
The only matter right now is "will we make old maps compatible with next version of the game or not?" Amen!


btw, when did I said that?

...all the needed changes that must be applied to old maps...

Ho, I never did!
I hate that when people messes with my quotes, it can be misinterpreted...

"...all the needed changes that must be applied to old maps..." is wrong since I have specifically mentioned that it would only be "minor fixes" and not "map redo"

[ExodusS]

But those "minot fixed" are "needed changes" anyway, you must (if you want a map that fits with the new restriction) modify the map, a bit or a lot, you edited something anyway.

You spoke about the nostagia feeling about old maps and gameplays, I'd describe it as the AssaultCube community culture.

[YesWeCamp]

"In some cases for those unreachable can we possibly consider an eventual "Do not edit this map without author's consent" message as "Don't fucking mess with my map but if you are some sort of "AC official" and if it is to have my map evolve along the game then it's fine with me"."

I think this is what most mappers mean. Even though, the Creative Commons licenses can't be interpretated this way. If they don't use a particular license it's hard to decide, but I think you should have some space to edit the maps to make them fit for the new version. Meaning I think that you should, but apart from that it's purely how I would react on someone needing to fix my map when I'm MIA. Probably some mappers out there wouldn't agree on this.