Forged Alliance Forever Map Vault Rules & Regulations

[armacham01]

Even symmetrical maps can be unfair, for example Aeon being weak in navy unless there are narrow chokepoints where destroyer shots can't be dodged. Or how some maps have mexes near the water that are vulnerable to zthuees. So it would be a mistake to assume that symmetry automatically means maps are fair.

In terms of differences: I would see the differences as being small rather than large. I wouldn't give one player 2k extra mass reclaim and the other player gets easy access to 5 extra mexes. That might be "fair" but that's not the kind of assymetry that would be particularly interesting. I'm not suggesting one player has 1 chokepoint and the other player has to defend 4 chokepoints on their side of the map. Or that one player has very fast access to the water to establish a naval lock but the other player can capture a civilian T2 power plant next to their base. Just that the layout of hills and chokepoints and ridges would be very different on either side of the map, that if you look at both of them you wouldn't think they have anything in common, but would be intended to give each player similar opportunities to defend and attack on either side of the map. The mapmaker should try to make things even in terms of: how much time it takes to get to key locations (mexes, reclaim, chokepoints, good places to establish a large naval yard, etc.).

IMO "fair enough" for use in ladder matches would be something like 45/55. Meaning that if players are evenly-matched, instead of winning 50/50, they would win at least 45% of the time. Getting a "bad" spawn on such a map should be no worse than getting a "bad" faction matchup. And ideally even with the differences it would be more like 50/50, because over time if one start location is shown to be "bad," the map could be slightly tweaked to benefit that spawn, pushing it back towards being 50/50.

If a mapmaker is making an effort to create a balanced assymetrical map, and gets it to a point (by testing it before it is included in the map vault) where it is roughly 45/55 in terms of fairness, that should be enough to let it into the vault to allow for broader use/testing. Over time, as the map gets played (which assumes people want to play it--if people don't play it, there's no problem) and a meta develops, the mapmaker could tweak it to increase fairness. The goal would be to make a map that is 50/50 but it shouldn't be locked out of the vault just because it isn't quite there.

[Farmsletje]

Purposefully making a map imbalanced for the sake of making it asymmetrical. What exactly does that achieve?

Also the faction matchup is a totally unfair comparison because in this case it would be 2 people with the same factions with 1 having an advantage just because of the map. Yes currently some maps are unbalanced because of faction advantages but that why are you even using that as an argument? We have 1 balance issue so it doesn't matter if we add another balance issue?

45/55 is a terrible ratio but not like it matters because it will be impossible to check anyway because aside from the higher ranks such minor imbalances wouldn't matter at all.

Also this all neglects the fact that it will cost map makers a lot of work to make a map that is both asymmetrical and almost perfectly balanced.

[armacham01]

Purposefully making a map imbalanced for the sake of making it asymmetrical. What exactly does that achieve?

(1) better immersion, because symmetrical maps are unnatural (2) one asymmetrical map would end up being like two slightly different maps, depending on which starting location a player gets, so it would add variety/depth to the game, not that FAF is lacking. Also (3) more choice for the mapmakers. They would only put in the effort if they wanted to. Some mapmakers actively want to create asymmetric maps that are fair and fun to play on. Plasma Wolf wrote on the forums about how he intentionally made Tessal Passage to be asymmetric.

I just want the door left open for such maps. I'm not forcing anyone to make them and I couldn't force anyone to put them into the ladder rotation. Banning them from the vault is unnecessary. The existing rules allowed for such maps in the vault. The example was the map based on the layout of Vietnam, which was not really balanced at all but had a theme and if people wanted to play on it, they should be allowed to. Another example of a theme map that doesn't try to be balanced is the one based on the entire planet earth, or a map based on all of Europe. SliFox made a bunch of asymmetrical maps. If we can have maps that are completely imbalanced (and we should leave those in the vault) we should be able to have maps that are pretty-darn-close-to-balanced.

As to #6, functional resources: does this mean "Sludge" is not allowed in the vault? You can't build all 4 storages for any of the mexes.

The problem is establishing absolute rules, which actually should be more like guidelines. As in: if you want a map that doesn't have fully "functional resources," you need to justify why we should allow it. "I'm lazy" "I'm new to mapmaking" "this is beta" would not be valid reasons. You should use subjective judgment to allow diverse maps where they are above a minimum level of quality, as opposed to making absolute rules. Basically that you are inclined against allowing maps into the vault if they don't meet your test but the mapmaker can try to explain why it should be allowed. You don't have to establish a formal process for contesting/appealing your decision and you don't have to listen to people who won't take no for an answer. But if you make absolute rules, then you either have to enforce them absolutely (which would mean removing some maps from the vault, and barring similar ones from coming in) OR you have to engage in what looks like favoritism. Better to make the rules flexible to begin with.

Separately: the rules should also establish official definitions for certain terms, such as the word "Adaptive." No map should be permitted in the vault to have "Adaptive" in its name if it does not meet the strict criteria. You can have maps that borrow from CookieNoob's scripts, and have some features of adaptive maps, but they shouldn't get to use the word "Adaptive" in the name unless they meet a specific list of criteria.

Not sure what other keywords there should be. Maybe "TeamPlay AI" or anything with the word "AI" in the title would have to meet certain standards like having proper AI markers.

[biass]

if you make absolute rules, then you either have to enforce them absolutely (which would mean removing some maps from the vault, and barring similar ones from coming in) OR you have to engage in what looks like favoritism. Better to make the rules flexible to begin with.

this tbh

As to #6, functional resources: does this mean "Sludge" is not allowed in the vault? You can't build all 4 storages for any of the mexes

uh so FAF loves to ring mexes but they're not really a eco step built into the game design and thus shouldn't really be a requirement imo

many people agree

the people in the map and mod discord are one side of an extreme and shouldnt be used as ancedotal evidence in indentifying an issue

vault quality is so poor we need it

Pretty sure that I talk about this every week but these rules are really just a non solution to a non issue. I don't really see how uploads of poor quality maps (not broken, just "bad") really do any damage to FAF and if it somehow did, by for example: overshadowing quality content, this isnt going to change anything there either, mostly because of the comical vault ui or the relentless apathy of the playerbase proper.

There are plenty of reasons as to why this stuff wasn't completed in the last m&m period (outside of the people involved) so don't spend too much time on this stuff. Just give yourself the liablility you need to nuke non functioning maps and also maps with rights issues (actual issues that hamper the player experience) and focus on doing something that increase contribution or quality thereof. People are going to either ignore or argue to the death on subjective rules regardless and maps you and your team deem are "low effort" are not really yours to dictate. Focus on giving people reasons to make something worth "our" time in the first place instead.

[Morax]

Not sure I agree it's only m&m that dislike the vault average quality upload, but symmetry is going to be tough to regulate. I don't really see arma's desire for "immersion" as something achievable, either, though.

I'll keep a loose "try to keep the map as even as possible, but m&m reserves the right to review "fairness." That's the only way I see things going better for all parties.

Again, don't expect so many maps to get nuked out of the vault with these rules. We simply need something to go by should a problem arise.

I don't think I'm spending too much time in these administrative tasks... this is the last one and then after that it's generating tutorials and content for the game. I have been slow at the start because it's summertime and I want to enjoy being able to go outside before the harsh cold season (about 6 months long) settles in here.

[Triaxx2]

Seems to me simply unranking maps that fail to meet the criteria, aside from the violators of rule 3, would be sufficient. Some maps are intended for a non-sporting purpose, such as Flat, or Maps scripted to spawn large numbers of ACU's, would end up dumped for failing to meet the guidelines that would make them competitive maps, when they were never designed as competitive maps. Indeed, quite a few of the original game maps would fail on these criteria, which seems counter-productive.

[Morax]

I think you missed the part where I stated exceptions would be made to scripted maps.

No one is going to enforce rulings on gpg maps, either. That's absurd.

[Morax]

I have added rule #7, 8, and 9 and taken feedback thus far into consideration.

Non-Symmetrical maps will not necessarily be removed.

Copyrighted material will not be allowed without written consent.

The versioning system guide written by biass and supplemented by ozonex will be followed and understood. Maps which attempt to show versioning in any way will not be allowed.

These 9 rules are going to be reviewed by the moderation and M&M teams over the next days to decide on their finalization and implementation. If you have any further input, speak now!

[Franck83]

These rules are nice steps forward.

I would suggest to add a full individual check list of these rules before uploading a map.

[Morax]

Thanks, wish I got more feedback, though. I feel a lot of people will be upset but a month is a bit of time to wait.