Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
Error Details:
Share Link
Posts from New rules for submitting maps.Auto-translated
Perhaps it would be a good idea to summarize the results, as the poll has been running for a while, and everyone who is interested in the topic has already voted.
So. 1) Change the title: add the map type. This option is more popular than adding sections, and we will implement it.
It's getting complicated. Only 18 people voted (2 in the thread voted for "leave it as is"). So, besides this option, no other option reaches half of the votes. Therefore, I reason as follows: I look at similar options in meaning/purpose. I calculate the total number of votes (I don't count the same people twice). If it's more than or equal to half, we implement the most popular option. Do you agree?
2) This item has no similar options, and there are few people in favor of it. - 3) This item has the same function as items 4, 8, and 9 – to deal with old maps (which are mostly "foreign" maps). We count them together; for these items, we have the votes of Antik, AstralLein, psatkha, Lux in tenebris, Andrail, Rolf, Dyrman, Anton Turov, atlant108. That's 9 people. Is that enough? Well, barely. You can also count me as a supporter of this change; that will be enough. But item 3 is not the most popular in this group. 4) And this one is the most popular. It goes into production. 5) Similar to 6). We need to remove unnecessary information and shorten the title; otherwise, there will be a problem with modifying the titles. There are eight people for these two items. Counting me, that's nine. This is not good and is a small number, but the point is important. Item 4 definitely doesn't make sense without this. In general, it goes into production. 6) Same as 5. 7) Same as 1. 8) Same as 4. 9) Same as 4.
That is, items 1, 4, and 5.
For the sake of fairness, we can create another poll, such as "Which is better, items 1, 4, and 5 or just item 1," to eliminate doubts about the correctness of the choice. But, it seems to me that it will point in that direction.
If there are no objections, I will start renaming the topics this weekend.
Thank you all for your participation and comments.
Regarding how to rename:
Ideally, the topic title should be: Map type (single/campaign/multiplayer) - Map name in the original language - Map size in the form of a single letter - Map author
For example: Scenario: Journey[L] - Dyrman
Or even more likely, according to a slightly later template:
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 headings with unnecessary information. There is little information, but it is important - this simplifies the search. However, in the description, we describe in 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 agree with both Dyrman's and Ment's options. However, it is important that the items that will be excluded from the title remain in the map description - because the informativeness should not suffer from the innovations
I took his version, but I just tweaked the formatting...
However, it is important that the items that will be removed from the title remain in the map description - after all, the informativeness should not suffer from the new features.
Yes, and please don’t forget about the sections for old maps and winning maps. The point is that posting good maps from 2008-2009 might lead to misunderstanding from forum members who have already played them, and this fact could upset them greatly! I witnessed a similar situation when I posted several old maps. As for the winning maps, I think they deserve to be highlighted and made available for everyone to see. Besides, there aren’t many of them.
The storm of discussion has already passed, but I'll still add my suggestions. Much has already been discussed and proposed, and I mostly support the idea of updating the template ([L] "Journey" - Dyrman). At the same time, it is necessary to divide the directories within the "maps for Heroes of Might and Magic" theme into published maps (on this site) and maps taken from other resources. We need to encourage and promote "our own" maps. It would be good to separate scenario maps and Multiplayer maps, as has already been written. To the first category, we can add campaigns; there are very few of them, and it wouldn't be reasonable to create a separate directory for them. Perhaps it would be better to simply highlight them with a different font within the directory. Maps by local authors who have just uploaded them can be kept at the top of the theme (as is currently done for the latest maps of contest winners). Let them be seen a little more; the authors have put in effort, and they should at least have the opportunity to gain attention from players for some time. The period for which they would be in such a position is debatable; in my opinion, six months would be appropriate. Maps that are winners of any contests can be marked with badges or medals in the field where "stars" are currently displayed. In the map directory itself, we should write (Name/Author/Two-level map: yes (no)/Size/Map version/year)
Yes, and please don't forget about the sections: old maps and winning maps. The point is that posting good maps from 2008-2009 may lead to misunderstanding from those forum members who have already played them, and this fact may upset them greatly! I witnessed a similar situation when I posted several old maps. As for the winning maps, I think they are worth highlighting and making them publicly available. Besides, there are not many of them.
Few people voted for this option, so there will be no new sections. The problem of old maps should be solved by displaying the map author's nickname in the title. This will make the map identification unambiguous (those who have already played the map will be sure of this and will be able to ignore the topic).
Perhaps, it is better to simply highlight them with a font within the catalog.
Good idea. Unfortunately, I have already experimented with topic titles, and bb-codes do not work in them. HTML might work, but it is unlikely. This solution has another problem: highlighting with a font affects the overall appearance of the forum (and it has not been too colorful in this regard, visitors to other sections may be unhappy with the new state of the feed or the list of recent topics).
Maps by local authors who have just uploaded them can be kept at the top of the topic. (As is currently done for the latest winning maps.) Let more people see them; the authors have tried, and they should at least have the opportunity to get attention from the players for some time. The period for which they would be in such a position is debatable; in my opinion, six months.
This is worth considering; I agree.
Maps that have won any contests can be marked with badges, medals, in the field where "stars" are currently displayed.
Technically impossible. We can use special Unicode characters in the topic title. ⍟ ☚ ♚ ➊ Something like that.
In my opinion, the most important thing is to clearly indicate the type (single-player or multiplayer); everything else is just details.
I agree. Moreover, 10 people voted for point 7 (subsections), which is more than half. Sorting maps by sections will significantly simplify the search for maps, campaigns, and scenarios; it will also look more visually appealing and clear. Multiplayer, Single-player (scenarios) Campaigns
Added 10 minutes later I would add that points 1 and 7 received the most votes, which indicates their relevance. Although these points are similar in description, they are fundamentally different from each other, so I suggest implementing both options: 1 and 7. I am ready to help with sorting the maps. Leaving only point 1 and ignoring point 7 is not a good solution, as this would ignore the wishes of 10 people who voted for point 7
Okay, if there are no objections from the other people who voted for both options, let's do it this way.
In any case, I'll be renaming the topics over the weekend, and the implementation of sub-sections will be done on the Creator, so we'll have to wait until he comes online.
-------
Wait a minute. There were 19+2 votes. What "more than half" are we talking about?
That is, first the type (scenario/multiplayer/campaign and only this way, as it will allow using search filters), then in square brackets the size (I put either numbers or letters, as I am afraid of confusing the sizes myself), colon, space, in quotes - the name of the map, dash, author's name.
Need help with formatting? Well, let's say that if someone were to list all the correspondences right here, so I don't mess things up, I'd be okay with that.
atlant108
AstralLein