New to posting maps? Read this first!

how do I post it though

1 hour ago, Maghster said:

how do I post it though

Start a new topic in Wads & Mods, and then follow the instructions in the OP

4 minutes ago, Gothic said:

Start a new topic in Wads & Mods, and then follow the instructions in the OP

OP?

On 11/2/2020 at 7:31 PM, Maghster said:

OP?

OP means "original post". Just make a thread in the WADS/MODS section.

man, more people should read this..

14 hours ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

OP mean "original post". Just make a thread in the WADS/MODS section.

ok

CapnClever hasn't signed on in over a year, but one thing I'd really like to see between points 2 and 3 at the top, is a line encouraging users to specify what map format they used. Often, this is even more enlightening as to what ports can be used to play the wad in question.

So basically, it would read something like this:

On 7/30/2017 at 1:30 PM, CapnClever said:

Strongly recommended:

 

1. Screenshots, screenshots, screenshots. Even two or three will do wonders in attracting attention.
2. What port(s) did you test with? Nevermind what ports you think it may work with - if you tested in GZDoom then you write that.
3. What map format did you use? Common map formats include Doom/Doom2 format (aka Vanilla or limit-removing), Boom format, UDMF, and Doom in Hexen.
4. For advanced ports (e.g., GZDoom) does your map/mod expect any of the following: (etc etc....)

I think this is a good idea, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts as well. I often find that - as long as I'm told what map format a wad uses - I pretty much know what ports to try it with.

(...Side note below)

12 hours ago, Doomkid said:

On 7/29/2017 at 11:30 PM, CapnClever said:

Strongly recommended:

 

1. Screenshots, screenshots, screenshots. Even two or three will do wonders in attracting attention.
2. What port(s) did you test with? Nevermind what ports you think it may work with - if you tested in GZDoom then you write that.
3. What map format did you use? Common map formats include Doom/Doom2 format (aka Vanilla or limit-removing), Boom format, UDMF, and Doom in Hexen.
4. For advanced ports (e.g., GZDoom) does your map/mod expect any of the following: (etc etc....)

 

I think this is a good idea, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts as well. I often find that - as long as I'm told what map format a wad uses - I pretty much know what ports to try it with.

I would tend to agree with you Doomkid. It's not a bad idea, particularly for new mappers, to know both the target format and the ports used for testing. At least you won't be exasperated if you run into a problem on a limit-removing map that was only tested in GZDoom, and you can provide that as feedback, confident that was the reason why the person was ignorant of that bug.

Of course, it doesn't just have to be new mappers. I made a Boom format map and tested it in GZDoom without thinking much about it. Then a person testing it for me found a few things that were broken in PrBoom+, but that had worked in GZDoom. Yes, ideally we should be testing in the target port, but that isn't always done, even though we know we should be doing that way.

If we're in the market for things to be added, I would suggest adding to the "Other Suggestions" list information about mods:

Mods that are known to work with/not cause problems in the map/mapset

Mods that are known to cause issues with the map/mapset

Any mods that are bundled with you map/mapset (e.g., Supercharge)

It's obviously not the mapper's responsibility to confirm whether their map/mapset is compatible with any of the myriad of mods out there, but if there are some that you know will work or that you know will break the maps, then I think it's worthwhile to let people know that information specifically, instead of just issuing a blanket statement akin to "Use mods at your own risk."

Thanks, Pegleg. Ideally, every mapper in the world would mention all 3 in their mapset releases - Port tested in, Port targeted, and map format. The (rare) examples where files mention all 3 of these things leave almost 0 ambiguity as to what ports the wad is likely to run in!

Also gotta agree with your point about mods. I don't think it's as crucial, but if an author knows with certainty that their mapset/mod is going to cause a nuclear meltdown with very common mods, it's a good courtesy to mention that in the release thread or text file.

On 6/27/2021 at 4:02 PM, Pegleg said:

If we're in the market for things to be added, I would suggest adding to the "Other Suggestions" list information about mods:

 

Mods that are known to work with/not cause problems in the map/mapset

Mods that are known to cause issues with the map/mapset

Any mods that are bundled with you map/mapset (e.g., Supercharge)

 

It's obviously not the mapper's responsibility to confirm whether their map/mapset is compatible with any of the myriad of mods out there, but if there are some that you know will work or that you know will break the maps, then I think it's worthwhile to let people know that information specifically, instead of just issuing a blanket statement akin to "Use mods at your own risk."

That information (the upper two parts) is likely to be known by the mapper in <1% of cases. I play with gameplay mods for fun quite a good amount, yet for my own maps? I might not even begin to be able to name one or two incompatibilities.

It's generally clear whether a wad is safe by its format and the extent to which it replaces content. So in that sense, "use mods at your own risk" is a useful comment -- enough to begin to look at what content might be replaced, what might be tethered unconventionally to scripts. And as a player, I'd much rather have that, or broad info. Something like "Keen and SS Nazi are replaced but nothing else" gives me a strong idea which monster-replacement mods I can use, for example.

Knowing that a map doesn't work with a specific mod isn't predictive if I don't know why (it could be countless reasons). And it isn't useful if it's not predictive because there are dozens of well known gameplay mods. 

Adding to what rd pointed out: I think it's nice on paper to be more supportive towards mods, but when you look at the history of how the burden to accommodate for this huge diversity in use cases has always been placed squarely on the mapper's shoulders until people finally started pushing back against it, I'd rather not open up that can of worms again...

I don't think anybody will complain about some additional info, if the mapper happens to be aware of a mod that does work, but most of the time it's straight up impossible to account for all the variance there is, doubly so when players happen to run some pretty extensive "load lists" sometimes...

Not to derail too much - but I think rd and NiH are bang on, now that I’ve read their points. To be honest I’m not sure which mods are and are not compatible with my previous works, I pretty much never play with extra mods on my own..

On the note of load lists, it reminds me of a Memento Mori server I saw on Zand recently - MM.wad and MMmus.wad, just two files, easy right? Maybe 3 or 4 if you add a skin pack and a mod that adds splash effects to liquid flats or something.. Really going the whole hog when coupled with freelook and OpenGL and such!

Nope. This MM server had 18 mods and wads being loaded... Fuckin’ 18!!! Wtf even is all that shit..? Needless to say, considering some people chop and change Doom to that extreme, it’s gonna be impossible to know what popular mods will and won’t work, especially with all their own little addons. 

It would actually be an interesting flip of expectations if more mods, especially intensive ones, would try to mention what expected/normal features of Doom are messed up by their use. I remember one mod in particular broke Map07’s special tags relating to the Mancs and Arachnotrons, but it was great that the author was aware and made that issue obvious before you even click “download”. Just shows that extra level of care.

I don’t really want to place any extra expectations on mappers or modders though. If either/or is aware of incompatibilities they definitely should mention it, but I generally don’t expect that of them. (I know this is a bit of a detail, forgive me)

At any rate, I don't think I'd want to strong arm modders into that much investigation either, especially now that we have DSDA-Doom out, maps being made for Eternity, and the new MBF and such... There's just too much to account for... I reckon at the best of times modders might know what may or may not work when it comes to IWADs, but take a dive into the realm of MBF, like for example valiant, which has a non-MBF iteration just so people can play the maps with mods, and it's just hopeless... I think the best angle to take here is to promote the general sense that loading potentially "invasive" mods includes a certain "risk"...

Adding to this and my previous point... I've seen this thread in particular linked zealously as though it was some kind of bible, and while I get the idea that it's more or less what this here thread is there for, I'd refrain from making it any more extensive than it absolutely needs to be, because at some point when it's linked to a new mapper on the block, it could become a huge and intimidating wall of text that may overburden mappers who aren't familiar with all these terms yet..

In the vast majority of cases, it'll be good enough for mappers to state which port they tested in, what format the maps are made with, how many maps there are, which IWAD is required, and whether or not jumping/crouching is "allowed"... add a couple screenshots and that's all that ever needs to happen in like >90% of all scenarios... and for that little bit of required/convenient information, the OP looks a lot too "bulky" already, I'd argue....

Thx!

I'll definitely use it!

On 6/30/2021 at 3:29 AM, Nine Inch Heels said:

At any rate, I don't think I'd want to strong arm modders into that much investigation either, especially now that we have DSDA-Doom out, maps being made for Eternity, and the new MBF and such... There's just too much to account for... I reckon at the best of times modders might know what may or may not work when it comes to IWADs, but take a dive into the realm of MBF, like for example valiant, which has a non-MBF iteration just so people can play the maps with mods, and it's just hopeless... I think the best angle to take here is to promote the general sense that loading potentially "invasive" mods includes a certain "risk"...

 

Adding to this and my previous point... I've seen this thread in particular linked zealously as though it was some kind of bible, and while I get the idea that it's more or less what this here thread is there for, I'd refrain from making it any more extensive than it absolutely needs to be, because at some point when it's linked to a new mapper on the block, it could become a huge and intimidating wall of text that may overburden mappers who aren't familiar with all these terms yet..

 

In the vast majority of cases, it'll be good enough for mappers to state which port they tested in, what format the maps are made with, how many maps there are, which IWAD is required, and whether or not jumping/crouching is "allowed"... add a couple screenshots and that's all that ever needs to happen in like >90% of all scenarios... and for that little bit of required/convenient information, the OP looks a lot too "bulky" already, I'd argue....

well maybe divide it into basics and advanced information? I could see how that would still be intimidating, but not to the point of "i'm gonna avoid the trouble" intimidating.

Sorry for necromancing

This is an unofficial expansion on CapNClever's thread, which you can read here, it's pinned, can't miss it.

Of course you don't necessarily have to follow these though, the Doom mapping isn't harsh, but there are some things that the community doesn't favor.

DISCLAIMER: I AM IN NO ORDER TO BIAS AS I HAVE NOT POSTED A MAP AT THE TIME OF WRITING THIS, THIS IS JUST WHAT I GATHERED FROM LOOKING AT PUBLISHING MAPS

Tip 1 - Don't use SLIGE, or any map generators in general.

SLIGE is a map generator, but the community favors wads and maps with effort over low effort generators, think of it like AI art, some people see it as real art, most others don't.

2. Low effort maps aren't funny, and never were.

Low effort maps aren't funny, low effort maps like ones generated in SLIGE ( refer to 1 ) are seen by the community as time wasters, at least Terry maps had some effort, with all that zDoom ACS crunchiness.

3. Do not, DO NOT MODIFY the IWAD

This is EXTREMELY important to keep in mind, as just because the source code is public, doesn't mean that the assets are, there are plenty examples of this, whether modifying a single level, just because the assets are on the spritzers resource, doesn't mean you can use it to "Add an Arachnatron" to Ultimate Doom, it's illegal and extremely looked down on in the Doom mapping community.

4. Finish something to show people

This is something I'm guilty of, being ambitious then never going through, at least have screenshots of a somewhat finished product.

That's all I have in mind for now, may add more later if I'l see a few things I miss, and I wish you all a good Thanksgiving.

EDIT: Turns out this was moved to this thread, feels more fitting, thanks mods.

This was really helpful! Thanks.

This might not be related but @TheMagicMushroomMan said my OP in my mod was too big and filled with images and text and recommended I put the bits and bobs of the op into spoilers which I gladly did! so basically I would recommend that if your post about your mod with a crap-ton of images and paragraphs of text, you put those into spoilers, reducing the amount of clutter in the OP and making it look tidy as.

What he had taught me, I shall tell you guys...

This year, several people have posted a new thread for every single wad edit they made. Some posters have hit 4-5 threads for the same map in under a month, only stopping because someone noticed and stopped them and then cleaned up the mess. So you don't want to do that. 

The way it works: you usually* want to have just one thread for a wad, and update/edit that thread, especially the first post, when you want to share an update. 

A related point: don't start a new thread simply to announce that you have updated an existing thread. You can reply to your own thread with a message that you have updated the wad. (Most people have done this well before the "are you sure you want to bump this thread?" notice would appear, so being spooked by that doesn't seem to be the reason. But in any case, an update to your own project is always a very relevant reason to announce that in your existing thread.) 

This helps you out a lot, too. Every time I've noticed these sprees of one-off update threads, they lacked context that would lead to any interest in playing the wad. The first thread would sometimes have a number of replies and then each of the update threads would have 0 or 1, despite existing for some time too. So this doesn't even have "shiny new thread" clickbait benefits. 

*

Newbie here. I'm probably overlooking something really obvious, but ... how do I upload screenshots and include them in a post? There's no icon for it in the post editor, and the attachments don't seem to be the right place for them either.

Edit: I tried copy&pasting the image into the editor, which results in a broken image icon and a 0 bytes attachment (two such files if I use Firefox). When I try uploading the image (a 155 kB JPEG) as an attachment, I get "There was a problem processing the uploaded file. Please contact us for assistance."

Edit 2: After some googling how to upload images to an Invision board, I now get how its supposed to work: Upload as attachment, then klick to add it to the post. However, I still only see a white rectangle in the attachments and a broken image in the editor. In my profile under "my attachments", the file is listed as having zero bytes.

Edit 3: This is a Mac issue. After switching to my Windows machine, I'm able to upload the same image files without problems.