so?

Knorke: Good wiki page to have, and good questions to ask. Hopefully we'll have the answers soon.

Skasi: You helped. Thanks.

---

As it so happens, I recently reviewed all the forum posts in the past year or so that have discussed the new "featured / supported" tagging system. I'll try to summarize the consensus.

Criteria, Supported
GoogleFrog:
. "those that technically work and do not break gameplay"
. "this map has been tested and it works decently"
. "the map works but may not be universally liked"
. "the map is neither broken nor outdated"
. "map is ok and works but is not great enough to feature"
. "If something would prompt a bug report then it does not work."
Knorke:
. "all that are good enough to play"
Jasper:
. "should not be a dumping ground" meaning that if a map has multiple nearly-identical versions, only support one

There's an open question as to whether a supported map should have a minimal quality of gameplay, or whether it can be supported as long as it technically works no matter how lousy it is. I believe GoogleFrog's intention is that "works decently" implies "works as a game" and not just "loads without errors and doesn't generate bug reports" but I'd like him to weigh in again to confirm his intention.

On Fissure_wip GoogleFrog suggested that it should be unsupported due to low quality appearance and gameplay, but Jasper, Orfelius, and Skasi thought that "supported" only required that the map not be broken, not that it be any good. However, they weren't advocating for that position, just saying that's what they thought it meant. Perhaps they would support a different meaning if asked their opinion.



Criteria, Featured
. better than Supported

The question of how much better is completely open, and in part depends on the question of how many maps are expected to be featured. I'll discuss that separately in a moment.



Meaning, Supported
. Findable with "!map MapName"
. Findable with web search
. Allowed in public hosts
. Unsupported maps not visible in websearch
. Unsupported maps not allowed on public hosts
. Any maps are allowed on private hosts
. Need a command similar to "!map MapName" which selects any map on private hosts
. Need a command similar to "!map" which selects a random supported map

Meaning, Featured
. Selected at random with "!map"
. Used with automated matchmaking

There is an open question as to how many maps should be included in the featured pool. ShadowFury is of the opinion that "there shouldn't be more than 25 or so across all game types, and no more than 12 in any one game type". Others disagree that the matchmaking pool should be so small. ShadowFury replies that the pool should be small, but the maps in the pool should be rotated every few months.

Knorke suggests "Featured = maps that have special attention. (For example "map of the week" or "winter maps" themed mappool before christmas or whatever)"

I believe there are some people who think that the featured pool should include all the maps that are "good", especially if "supported" just means "all the maps that work".

I will add this one point: If the featured pool is deliberately kept small, so that there are more "good" maps than there are are currently "featured" maps - and especially if the intention is to rotate maps through the featured pool - then we would need yet another tag, comparable in meaning to "good enough to feature but not currently featured". There would be no practical effect of this tag; they would be playable in the public hosts like any other supported map and would not show up in the matchmaking or "!map" pool. But we would need to tag them anyway, for two reasons. One, so that when Jasper and other admins are reviewing maps, if they find one that's good they have something to tag it with. And Two, so that when it's time to rotate the maps in the featured pool, then we know which maps to choose from without having to wade through all several hundred supported maps.

---

So as I see it, the open questions not yet resolved by consensus are:

1) Should "supported" imply a certain quality of gameplay and/or aesthetics, or only a technical compatibility with ZK?

2) If the former, what minimum standard of gameplay and/or aesthetics is required to become "supported"?

3) Considering the answers to 1 and 2, what minimum standard of gameplay and/or aesthetics is required to become "featured"?

4) Should the featured pool be limited in size? If so, what size?

5) If the featured pool should be limited in size, should maps rotate through the featured pool?

6) If the featured pool should be limited in size, should there be another tag which indicates a map is of sufficient quality to be featured even if it isn't featured at the moment? If so, what should that tag be?

I hope this helps guide the discussion.

I would unfeature this article based on its formatting, but i would support it based on its utility.

Featured means that the map is good enough for most people to want to play if it comes up in the random rotation. If a map is consistently skipped then it should not be featured. Aside from this they should satisfy stronger versions of conditions on supported maps. I am not sure what those conditions are.

I think poor aesthetics can disqualify support. Textures can be really bad. Heightmaps can have jagged sheer cliffs or rice field ramps. Sufficiently poor gameplay can also be not supported. For example we should not have greenfields as supported even though it is technically possible.

quote: Should all such maps be featured, or should we adopt Shadowfury's and Knorke's idea of using "featured" as an artificially-limited rotating pool of such maps?

I think there should be a category for all sufficiently good maps. We only have two categories and "supported" already has a role so we'll have to use "featured". A category to put maps in the random rotation would be good.