[REL] OpenArena Community Mappack - Volume 1 - FINAL

[Neon_Knight]

The names have been decided a while ago, Gig. No point in discussing such thing now.

[Gig]

Excuse me, are you kidding? I asked about that before, with other things, and you replied "it's not time to talk about those things yet!".

And the discussions about it many months ago (when even Sago replied something, but I do not remember what), ended up with NO clear decision.

[Neon_Knight]

There's no need, because I've already decided on it. Look, Gig, if every single detail about this pack is to be decided by everyone, we won't be releasing this anytime. So, sorry, this will sound harsh, but for some things, I'll decide on them.

[pelya]

They will be named oadmcmp01 - oadmcmp13, as I remember from previous RC.

[Akom74]

I don't remember, are there updated versions of Jan's and Moixie's maps AFTER RC1? I know there are updated versions of Akom's maps, but only Akom and Neon_Knight have them...

About my latest maps you can find the download link in the wiki page:
(DO NOT LINK) h t t p s : / / openarena . wikia . com/wiki/OpenArena_Community_Mappack

In the table you can see that final release names are oacmpdm01-10 and oacmpctf01-03.



P.S.: I think that Fromhell must try the maps too, to tell us if it's all right with GPLv2 stuff, no ?

[Neon_Knight]

P.S.: I think that Fromhell must try the maps too, to tell us if it's all right with GPLv2 stuff, no ?

Already asked. Received a negative response. And pretty much everyone else who do GPL audit charges people in order to do so.

[Akom74]

P.S.: I think that Fromhell must try the maps too, to tell us if it's all right with GPLv2 stuff, no ?

Already asked. Received a negative response.

What ?? 

You mean that's no time for Fromhell to test anything, or the pack is no good for be released ?

 

[Neon_Knight]

The pack will be released in the announced dates.

Seeing the available options, I guess it's better if I audit it myself. I mean, I know no other person who has a very large knowledge of GPL and can find badly licensed stuff easily as fromhell, but has already told me that won't audit stuff which don't go in the main game. That, and the first received answer was "*faints from lack of time*".

[pelya]

Usually it means that you have to take some (legal?) responsibility when you're claiming for something to be GPL-compatible, unless you made it totally yourself without using any other work you've found on Internet etc, because there might be that 20-year-old DOS game no one knows about, which contains the same texture you've just downloaded from the "free textures from Internet" site, and that means you may not legally use it. Just googling for that texture name usually won't help, you have to do some actual research on 20-year-old DOS games to be sure, and that takes effort, and there's no guarantee you won't miss it anyway.

or the pack is no good for be released ?

Most certainly no, I've read somewhere Fromhell intends to bring some attention to the pack (maybe not include into official OA release, because she can never be sure if it's truly GPL-compatible, unless you replace all textures in a pack with the photos you've taken yourself. edited and attached with .psd files to the texture pack. And be sure to take photo of yourself taking photos for textures, to prove it was truly your work ).

[pelya]

BTW I've tested v16bis and the columns are better now, lhey look like the rest of the level.

[Akom74]

BTW I've tested v16bis and the columns are better now, lhey look like the rest of the level.

Me too, but there still be some shiny surfaces, by the way i don't care. The map is not thinked to be realistic. I care more about gameplay.

@Pelya: shots in 1920x1080 format may be too large, can you reduce it ?

[pelya]

But... there is a thumbnail! It only becomes large when you click it.

[Akom74]

But... there is a thumbnail! It only becomes large when you click it.

Yes, and i don't click on it because it's too large 

 

[Gig]

They will be named oadmcmp01 - oadmcmp13, as I remember from previous RC.

Those were not clearly stated to be definitive names. Months ago there has been some discussions about them, but those discussions did not end with a decision of any kind. Then I tried to return on the topic a few times (together with other things), but Neon Knight said it was to early to talk about details that were for the final version only. Now that the final version is near, he says it's too late to talk about details. When was the right time to talk about such details, then? I feel like fooled, as you can guess.

I always considered the oacmpdm01 format as a mere placeholder until we take a real decision for the final release.... if you think about it, a two digit format is a bit silly... we are only at the first OACMP package, which is relatively small and has already consumed 10% of available 2 digit DM map names. Other kinds of naming would be more logic, thinking about N oacmp packs in future years. I really don't understand the reason for fixed 2 digit numbers.
 

There's no need, because I've already decided on it. Look, Gig, if every single detail about this pack is to be decided by everyone, we won't be releasing this anytime. So, sorry, this will sound harsh, but for some things, I'll decide on them.

Uh? If we can take decisions within the date of 20 december, there would be NO slowdown at all.

I understand you had the idea of creating OACMP (and thank you for that), but I thought OACMP was a collaborative project....

Just a silly example: I prefer udV16, but if most people prefers v16bis, I will be okay using it.

[Neon_Knight]

Yep, it's a collaborative effort, but there are limits. I've already repented myself of letting the people to choose the goddamned and godawful "when it's done" deadline, knowing myself all the negative side effects such decision has. I won't commit the same mistake twice.

The names are set, and that's it.

EDIT: Akom has already finished his OACMP2 work, and we let it pass a good chance to get more people because we're still debating about OACMP1. I feel bad about letting chances go.

[Gig]

Where is the link between the "when it's done" approach we used before (for map editing/polishing) and map names? You were the one who posticipated decisions about final packaging details.

It's a very quick thing to do, no reason to posticipate anything for that... I really don't get the reason for using an unefficient naming just for the sake of "don't change". It's not logic.

[Neon_Knight]

Simple: you mentioned that there was no consensus about which names the maps in the pack should have. If I have to wait until a consensus is reached, the pack will have a long time before being released, at risk of (in the worst case) not being released at all. Something I don't want.

My mention of "when it's done" was just an analogy. "When it's done" implies "all the time in the world", tends to encourage procrastination and demotivation; projects which follow this deadline rarely accomplishes anything or take a VERY LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG TIME until they are released (or worse, cancelled).

[Gig]

The only thing has ever unmotivated me about oacmp is your behavior in these last days.   Think about it for a minute. Please. Please. Final months efforts when we realeased 0.8.8 were very active and collaborative... now for some reason the mood of the last weeks is negative instead.  

However, there was no clear decision at that time because we did not do a poll for that. Just do a 1-2 days mini poll and we will have an answer.

When consensus would require too much time, a poll is still better than arbitrary decision without explaination.

[Neon_Knight]

Alright. You won. Again.
I'll open a poll, but it will only lst until 20th. Once the decision has been taken, no more arguing.

EDIT: Poll added. I forgot to set the option to lock the poll after a certain date, so I'll lock it manually.

[Gig]

Alright. You won. Again.
I'll open a poll, but it will only lst until 20th. Once the decision has been taken, no more arguing.

There is no reason for a formal separate poll thread... we can just ask users choice here and count manually. Up to 17th or 18th can be enough for me (at this point, I dubt we will see Moixie and Jan soon ), if you prefer.

Of course, I will accept the result, you can be sure.

UPDATE: okay, i see you already created the poll (so, it's possible to add a poll to an existing thread, eh? Interesting), then keep it.

For everyone: think about N possible OACMP packs in the future and vote as you prefer. I will vote for Oacmpdm1.

[pelya]

Actually, the poll is on top of the page Gig. There's no option to keep the original map names, but well I can live with that.

[Akom74]

Guys, stop fight please, we are here to give the community of OA the better job we can do, is not write nowhere that as to be the perfect job ever.

However i'm good with oacmpdm01 and oacmpctf01.

I don't think that will be released more than 100 maps.

[Suicizer]

Call it something different instead of those ugly shortenings. Not that hard to pick a name.

[Gig]

However i'm good with oacmpdm01 and oacmpctf01.

I don't think that will be released more than 100 maps.

Well, you are capable of making almost 100 maps in a year all alone... when you start, you are capable of creating a map in two days...  

However, currently no official Q3 or OA map uses the "fixed 2 digit" format, and I really don't see a single reason to start now. I just checked with "\map [TAB]" command, and they all use "trimmed" numbers.

[pelya]

My proposal would be to use something like cmpdm1 - cmpctf3, because oacmpctf3 is too many abbreviations.