Re: CMM - stamp of quality for maps
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:06 pm
I think you should reconsider this idea. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, but you should do it wisely and carefully.
First of all, many of the things you listed to be checked should honestly be done in a computer program, not by humans. You could (find someone to) write a computer program similar to a HTML validator, an UrT map validator, that would check all the shaders against some master list, check all the graphics for powers of 2, and check all the other stuff you talked about checking.
There is a disconnect between what you say this stamp of quality is for and what people are going to perceive it is for. When I first saw the title and top of this thread I assumed it was CMM's stamp of approval for the *quality* of the maps (obviously, since that's what it says), but then you go on to describe a process that doesn't consider the quality of the map, but merely technical issues.
Sure, technical issues do fall under the umbrella of quality, but quality is much more broad than that. And to the average gamer, the technical stuff hardly even matters while the true quality of the map does.
What is the point of a CMM stamp of quality if terrible garbage maps would qualify for the stamp? It would become completely meaningless to the end user, and put CMM in a bad light. End users will not say "Oh wow, this map has only textures with a power of 2, great!", they will say "Wow this map is shit, this CMM thing must also be shit" (in the case of a shitty map that meets the standards for the CMM stamp, which so far are exceedingly low standards from what I'm reading. Pretty much all you need to do is not have errors or technical flaws in the map. So a giant box map with cubes in it would get the CMM stamp. A poorly scaled map with an ugly theme would get the stamp, etc.
Personally, I think if you want to do this thing as described, then you should look into my map validator idea, and drop the stamp but instead just have a validator that mappers can quietly use without any obvious CMM stamps imho.
If you want the CMM stamp thing, imo you need way better requirements, but, I think then you may find yourself in a quandary about what is a good map and what isn't. I think it would be quite difficult.
First of all, many of the things you listed to be checked should honestly be done in a computer program, not by humans. You could (find someone to) write a computer program similar to a HTML validator, an UrT map validator, that would check all the shaders against some master list, check all the graphics for powers of 2, and check all the other stuff you talked about checking.
There is a disconnect between what you say this stamp of quality is for and what people are going to perceive it is for. When I first saw the title and top of this thread I assumed it was CMM's stamp of approval for the *quality* of the maps (obviously, since that's what it says), but then you go on to describe a process that doesn't consider the quality of the map, but merely technical issues.
Sure, technical issues do fall under the umbrella of quality, but quality is much more broad than that. And to the average gamer, the technical stuff hardly even matters while the true quality of the map does.
What is the point of a CMM stamp of quality if terrible garbage maps would qualify for the stamp? It would become completely meaningless to the end user, and put CMM in a bad light. End users will not say "Oh wow, this map has only textures with a power of 2, great!", they will say "Wow this map is shit, this CMM thing must also be shit" (in the case of a shitty map that meets the standards for the CMM stamp, which so far are exceedingly low standards from what I'm reading. Pretty much all you need to do is not have errors or technical flaws in the map. So a giant box map with cubes in it would get the CMM stamp. A poorly scaled map with an ugly theme would get the stamp, etc.
Personally, I think if you want to do this thing as described, then you should look into my map validator idea, and drop the stamp but instead just have a validator that mappers can quietly use without any obvious CMM stamps imho.
If you want the CMM stamp thing, imo you need way better requirements, but, I think then you may find yourself in a quandary about what is a good map and what isn't. I think it would be quite difficult.