Proposed Map Vault Rules Update & Additions

[Morax]

After a half a year (maybe more) of the vault rules being in place, it has become apparent that an update and some additions are needed. To review the current-standing rules, please go to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17873

Proposed new rules:

10) Similar Maps (the "Copy Pasta" rule) - Maps that have nearly an identical theme, but have some minor difference will not be allowed. See the image below for an example, but know that a simple rotation, mirror/angle differences of the same geometry, and more are in violation.



Some more examples of the "Copy Pasta" rule:

https://imgur.com/a/wyHOCBC

11) "Meme" Maps" - A map that is 100%-purely comical in nature will not be allowed. This does not restrict the use of images (so long as they follow copyright) or all comical aspects, but the map must in some way play and feel like a normal map.



12) Deliberate Symbols and Terrain Shortfallings" - Supreme Commander is a game that in general sets itself upon realistic terrain features and it is a theme that should be followed. A few symbols and little details for fun is fine, but a map entirely based on a symbol or completely arbitrary terrain may be hidden after review. See example below of "UEF emblem" map:

Spoiler: show

[Petricpwnz]

All good as long as Chris Tailor face map is safe

[Emperor_Penguin]

There is currently an unwritten rule that prevents anyone from taking a map with unknown author (such as many of the GPG maps, among others), and using it to make a new map. In some cases, this is sensible. In other cases, it's not.

The policy should be changed.

In particular, taking a small fraction of a map that is very well-suited to be its own map with a smaller number of players is sensible.
A new map should be fun and distinct and not otherwise problematic.

Here is a case study of a map that should be allowed:



For example, in the case of Fields of Isis 1v1, I played regular Fields of Isis a lot. I really enjoyed my 1v1's vs the player across from me, but they would often get interrupted by the other players (or, I would choose to fight the other enemy/help my teammate) and it would not be a 1v1 dynamic like I enjoyed having a lot of times - that's fine; it's a 2v2 map... weird team dynamics can happen. - However, I wanted to be able to play 1v1's there without interference, as I found the 1v1 dynamic there to be a lot of fun, and that dynamic included not having to compete over the rest of the map, like I would have to do if I just closed 2 player slots or played Vale of Isis - the logical solution was to basically cut Fields of Isis in half and name it Fields of Isis 1v1.

After being posted to the vault, Fields of Isis 1v1 was well-liked enough to be played about 40 times in its first week of being up and was continuing to be played frequently until it was removed for this unwritten rule. It can be a very fun map to play, and while it was accessible in the vault, I had been playing regular Fields of Isis as well as Fields of Isis 1v1, as they offer different experiences with fun and distinct gameplay.

So, maps such as Fields of Isis 1v1, that use a portion of a map to create a fun new map with a distinct gameplay experience, should be allowed.

To clarify, I'm not suggesting allowing maps that are duplicates with changes like 1 or 2 different mex positions or new textures or things like that.
I'm only suggesting allowing new maps that make substantial changes to the gameplay experience.

Not allowing good maps with a distinct gameplay experience that people find fun seems like a really poor policy.

[Morax]

"1) Plagiarism of Maps: All content that is created based off of, conceptualized, and or close to an original work that is not the uploader's must be in some way given permission by the original author. Exceptions to this rule are for "Unknown Author" where the server does not have a record of who created the original version. This most often happens with GPG maps where the base game install includes these items."

"Permission to use an "unknown author's" map as a base: In order to resolve issues of maps being uploaded that use the original, unknown author's work, the M&M team will assume ownership and determine the legitimacy of an update."

Right at the start, you claimed the rules do not explain what you are trying to say does not exist.

[Emperor_Penguin]

I am fully aware of that rule and was when I made the above post. The wording of the rules doesn't make the case of creating maps based off of 'unknown author' maps entirely clear. When I read the rules before I made any maps, I had thought that meant that the M&M team had power to remove maps that were based off of 'unknown author' maps, rather than requiring permission from the M&M team to even post such a map. However, there seems to be an unwritten (in the mapping rules section) rule/policy that basically equates to "the M&M team won't approve new modified versions of 'unknown author'/GPG maps, unless they are intended to fix/update/replace the existing map." The aim of my original post here is to change this rule/policy.

[biass]

I normally play the "pro content" role in this dance but this sh*t legitimately irks me.

So, maps such as Fields of Isis 1v1, that use a portion of a map to create a fun new map with a distinct gameplay experience, should be allowed.

Maybe I wouldn't care so much if you actually put some time into it, perhaps just copy paste the existing mountains to wall off the half or whatever, but all you did here was literally just change a number value. You couldn't even spare the effort to remove the decals and props outside the play area now that you changed it, toy with the lighting, or what have you.



I think you've spent more time writing out the brief history of this map in italics than you spent making it and these attempts at making sure to do the tiniest amount of effort possible are starting to get me. Maybe because there is no incentive to make better? I don't know, it makes me feel like people that skirt the rules like this would never win them anyway.

After being posted to the vault, Fields of Isis 1v1 was well-liked enough to be played about 40 times in its first week of being up and was continuing to be played frequently until it was removed for this unwritten rule.

Noone who ever cared about play count had a legitimate play count and the same applies here so listen:
If you host your own map so many times and then brag about how many plays it has, it's not legit and people will laugh at you.
If you can make an easy search and look at the guy who hosted the same map 10 times in a row to test his mod or something and still claim your play count is good, people will laugh harder.

I didn't hide this map but as someone who is responsible for doing that, I side with whoever did.
Maybe if you put even an ounce of effort into changing stuff for a 1v1 enviroment because as you said, a new map should "be fun and distinct"
You changed a single number and re-uploaded it.
Even doing stuff that you think should not be allowed like new textures are harder to do. So annoying.

[Emperor_Penguin]

I actually did remove the decals that were outside of the play area and removed the props that would've been partially on/off map. I also removed the off-map markers and changed the player settings and such. I attempted to remove all of the off-map props as well, but I couldn't mass-delete them for some reason, and manually selecting each prop and pressing the delete button a few thousand times in a row seemed excessive for stuff that wouldn't even show up on the map anyway...

None of this, however, should be relevant. You want to impose your values. This shouldn't be about amount of time or effort put into it. Give me zero credit if you want; I don't really care. What I do care about is being able to play a map that I like. I shouldn't be forced to not play the map normally on FAF. Saying I could change it to better meet XYZ person's standards or reproduce a near-identical copy is besides the point.

The point should be about what is gained by disallowing a map like this vs what is gained by allowing a map like this.

[Morax]

It's 100% about the time and effort: you are trying to get around the rules and take other work, justify it by your own needs.

As I stated on numerous occasions, if everyone got their way and interpreted all of the maps they dislike, or see in a "different light" (your case) , we would have 100s of versions of open palms, sentons, canis, etc.

We already see this issue with astro craters and gap, hence why taking already- created works and changing them to one's liking is not allowed.

[Farmsletje]

Not even that. Without proper rules you can easily make some map with a nice "FAF IS A VIRUS" heightmap to then upload it 100 times a day. Obviously there are going to be rules and yes these rules WILL be imposed on you whether you like it or not.

[FtXCommando]

There is no fundamental right to play any map you want on FAF. This is a private service with rules going on along with using that service. You are given permission to use the FAF vault, the FAF vault does not exist due to your permission.

People need to stop with this notion that FAF is some public resource and restrictions on your actions is an injustice similar to a cop forcing you to let him crash on your couch for the night.

So yes, the imposition of values exist in order to server the general interest of FAF defined by the M&M Councillor. That’s the point. Argue whether those values do serve a general interest, not whether those values have any justification for existing.