Posts from New rules for submitting maps.

Rating is important, but not everyone votes.

Added after 47 seconds

Where does it say the opposite?

I don't understand.

It's a joke. I've said it a hundred times to push my point.;)

Added after 5 minutes
By the way, why is the number of players important for single-player games?

By the way, what's the point of having the number of players for single-player games?

Indeed, what's the point? The number of players is relevant for multiplayer, but it doesn't make sense for scenarios and campaigns. Perhaps the number of players should be left in the Multiplayer heading, and when it comes to the heading for scenarios and campaigns, you could replace the number of players with the author's name.

the submission format should be the same in any case, and the author can be indicated in the first post, not in the topic title. I think the title should be something like this:
[type][size][name]
or like this:
[type][size][name][game version (3.0; 3.1...)]

Added 5 minutes later
and another point: perhaps not everyone knows the size designations, and the number of sizes - the developers are certainly "great" here. For example, the size of the map "medium" should be in the middle between the smallest and the largest, but we have this middle called "large" and at the end "very large", "incredible", etc. Why didn't they continue this wonderful series of names: Very large, very very large, very very very large, slightly incredible, almost incredible, finally incredible, the most incredible, super incredible, the most incredible, the most incredible, super-duper incredible.:smile17: :smile17: :smile17: - this kind of nonsense has always annoyed me.

I didn't find an option in the poll to "leave it as is," so I'll post here. The current format for organizing topics is perfectly fine with me. All these additions/clarifications are not critical for me. I primarily focus on the map size (my computer can't handle the huge ones—I avoid them, but there are exceptions) and the presence/absence of scripts/campaigns. And the playability is determined during the map walkthrough. But if the majority of players come to a specific opinion regarding the topic format, I won't object.

Why do you assume that new sections won't be added? The current voting suggests otherwise.

Well, for now, slightly more people are voting for tags. According to the survey plan, it's better to implement the option that satisfies the majority of people, rather than the one that seems best to a portion of the voters. But I'm open to discussing that as well.

By the way, why is the number of players needed for single-player maps?

It's not needed. As I mentioned, it's only for multiplayer.
In general, I envision the headings something like this:

Journey-Dyrman-Scenario[L]
Bay of Destiny-Subjugator-5 players[XL]
Map with alliances-Just came up with the author-2x2[L]

Not necessarily in this order, of course.

Simple and clear. But the main thing is the description.

But it’s still better to remove the map names in English from the title, but leave them in the description.

Not necessarily in this order, of course.

Here's how I would search for maps:

I want to download a single-player scenario map. I start by searching for them (first in the title), then I look at the map's name and author.

I want to download a multiplayer map. I search for multiplayer maps, then look at the size and number of players. And then the name and author.

I agree with Dyrman. There is a logical reason for such a search. I will summarize (as an option):

General section
MAPS for Heroes of Might and Magic 5: "Tribes of the East"
Subsections:
Multiplayer
Example title: [XL], "Absolute Power", 8 players, Dyrman
Scenarios
Example title: "Two Sisters", Heroist
Campaigns
Example title: "Unicorn Empire", RedHeavenHero

We do not overload the titles with unnecessary information. There is little information, but it is important - this simplifies the search. However, in the description, we describe in great detail everything that is known about the map

Example description:

Map type: scenario
Title: Ring of Emptiness
Map name: Lacuna Coil.h5m
Size: XL
Dungeon: no
Built-in mods: yes (text)
Computer players: 2 (in alliance)
Author: cyrax
Version: 1.0
Creation date:
Victory conditions: according to the scenario
Scenario description: ...
Installation:
Notes:

I support atlant108's suggestion; it's detailed and clear. However, the creation date should be removed from the description. What's the point of including the type if there will be separate sections? What's the point of including victory conditions and an English name if our fellow speakers of that language still won't be able to read the Russian-language map itself?

Damn, just one more vote is needed for the idea of creating sections to tie with the leader.
I'm still in favor of creating sections first (multiplayer/single-player), but if it's decided to rename them, then the multiplayer/single-player parameters should remain the primary ones, so they should be placed at the beginning of the topic title, followed by the size letter, then the map name, and finally the author if necessary.

I think the new system will have sections and a long description. That’s good.

Added after 44 seconds
The author is the most important thing in a map. Without an author, publishing a map is nonsense!

Added after 33 seconds
I meant the author’s instructions.

of course, the author will be mentioned in the first post, but should their name be included in the thread title? in my opinion, it's not necessary.

Some players search for maps by author.

Added 7 hours and 9 minutes ago
Please don't forget about the "old maps" and "winning maps" sections. This isn't in the poll, but it's relevant.
Overall, I plan to post about 15 scenarios and 5 campaigns from 2007-2009.

Campaigns!? A whole five that aren't here??? There will be plenty to do in retirement...