One More Round on the Map Credits Subject

[Doc Paterson]

Browsing the revision, I see a number of other maps where the original designer is not credited.

I very much appreciate that you've gone on the attack here without first doing any research on the subject or talking to me about the motivations/process behind it.

Important Point #1: The character, distinctiveness, and identiy of a map are not determined by the name of that map. If an alligator slowly morphs into a gorilla over the course of two years, you probably shouldn't still be calling it an alligator. I'm guessing that the arguments for the current Charge (soon to be renamed) still being called Charge and credited to PG would be equivalent to "Oh, well the gorilla still has eyes. It still has four limbs."

I'd like anyone interested to try the following exercise:

Consider five things that give a map its identity. Write them down.

I'd like you to consider the distinguishing qualities (attributes that make it different from all other maps) and characteristics of this map:


Write them down. (Try to avoid writing things that would be true of just about any random map.)

Now consider the distinguishing qualities(attributes that make it different from all other maps) and characteristics of this map:


Write them down.

Consider above all else the core dynamics; the ways in which certain unit types and factions will move and deploy, the dimensions of the maps, where fronts form, which playerside will move and react in what way.

Compare your two lists.

I have written volumes on this subject already, and I wish that you, Mysterious Man in the Shadows, had bothered to read them or had presented any real sort of argument while the subject was being discussed.

A random user made map would probably be more similar to the old Charge than this current "Charge" is to the old Charge.

Arguing that PG should be credited as a designer for the current "Charge" is absolutely ridiculous to me (see the above alligator analogy), and I find it offensive that anyone would be so ignorant as to claim that I'm "taking credit" for anyone else's work here.

It should be comparatively easy to dig the forums and ask around for knowledge of the original designer.

Again, it's a shame that you know nothing about the subject in which you're arguing. In fact I did make a thread about this quite some time ago, in which I asked the community to do all that they could to find the original authors of some of our ancient maps (which, incidentally, either no longer exist, or have been altered to the point of complete distinctiveness). Everything that they uncovered is reflected in the current credits, though truly, there was not much to be found. Arguing that our current King of the Hill, for example, (by Bec) is anything like the original would be ludicrous. If someone wants to try to make a convincing argument though, I'd love to hear it. The core concept of a "profitable but dangerous center area" is far too generic a gaming concept to give someone creative credit for, and is almost certainly not worth the added text-clutter of "Designed by Becephalus, based very loosely on a concept by an unknown user."

In cases where new maps do still hold, in the slightest degree, to the core qualities of their originals, I gave credit where it was due. The current Castle Hopping Isle, for example, has a PG credit, as does Clash- though in both cases, the revisions made by Bec (CH Isle, which I also worked on, though less so than Bec) and myself (Clash) completely changed the maps to the point that it is now possible to play balanced games on them. This last point is massively significant- I'm not sure how else to convey the fact that these are not simply "edits", they are reinventions of vaguely formed, awkward concepts.

Getting due credit for what they've actually done (as an editor, so designated, of a map, or even as an original map designer, for e.g. Den of Onis) may be more beneficial even for Doc P than having to face accusations of stealing credit for someone else's original work.

If someone would like to make any accusation of the kind, I am, as you can see, more than willing to defend myself.

The revision adds "Designed by" to MP objectives (a somewhat odd change in itself, akin to a degree of self-promotion, but I'll let the devs discuss whether this is really wanted).

This idea began a long time ago, as detailed above, and has been discussed with several devs. I began to consider map credits as a possibility after careful consideration of a long-standing problem- The channels of feedback are scrambled by the fact that users do not know who to discuss the maps with, who to send complaints to, who to talk to about a potential mod or idea for improvement. I gave Bec autonomy over all of his maps, and yet I very frequently get PMs from users asking me to change things, to explain this or that, even, in slightly-more-informed but equally misguided cases, to "make Bec fix x section of y map." Feedback is extremely, extremely important with these maps, as the immense complexity resulting from the hundreds of potential matchups on all of our official maps create a situation where small problems will slip through the cracks, and will, as has often been the case up to this point, fade away, perhaps circulated in conversation a few times amoung a few players, but ultimately lost. Even many of our more experienced players, from whom feedback would be even more important, have no idea who to talk to about any given map (I recently observed a game in which F8 Binds announced, during a game that included 5-6 spectating "vets," "Paterson made all of the 1v1s. Becephalus made all of the other maps." There was no correcting comment from anyone.)

If any MP-related dev really believes that increasing the flow of feedback, even to the .01th degree, is not worth putting the map creator's name underneath the title, I would like to hear some good logical arguments. I'm sure that there will be, amoung some users, an undercurrent of "Oh, he's so arrogant, putting his name on that thing that he thinks he created," and that really does sadden me. The truth is, over the last 2-plus years, I've probably spent at least 200-300 work hours on "Charge" alone, and close to that on many of the other designs. What Charge once was has been completely wiped away, and if anyone would like to debate this with me, I am, as I said above, eager and willing to argue the point.

It strikes me as depressingly simple-minded for someone to suggest that I've done mere "edits" to new maps that retain the names of completely different, unbalanced, ancient maps.

In at least two maps, Charge and Blitz, the original designer (pg) is not credited.

PG is the original namer. I hesitate to say this, but I do believe that anyone with a halfway decent understanding of competitive multiplayer would know that the maps that were created by PG are most certainly not these maps. As Dave has said, the old PG maps probably should have been deleted right away, but they weren't, and the new maps that they have become are wonderful.

Stating a map was "Designed by" the one editing it in a case like this is, arguably, quite arrogant.

Statements like these are built on a house of cards. "Paterson only edited this map," stacks nicely with "He isn't the real designer of this map," and combines into a wonderful "It's arrogant," statement.

Here's hoping that you have the courage to reply to me on the forums where I will be posting this. I've made a lot of points here, and I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to all of them.

[Soliton]

To clarify this is in response to bug #9913.
I doubt the reporter can read this.. Move it to an open forum and give the link as a comment in the bug report if you intend to get a discussion on the forum going.

PS: I haven't read the post fully yet but I suggest to keep the flames to a minimum, before posting on an open forum.

[Doc Paterson]

Perhaps you're right- I did get the impression though that the reporter was connected to the game in some way, perhaps a contributer. If he isn't able to respond in this thread, I'd be fine to let this whole thing pass. His post seems to be directed to all devs though, and, as it seems like this subject keeps getting dredged up, I wanted to see if anyone (any dev) had any strong feelings about these issues. If anyone here does have a serious problem with the above subject, I would like them to clear the air and respond to the above points; it's really about time that we put this thing to rest.

I've chosen to post it here as an alternative to going on irc and explaining things many different times to many different people. This way, I've formulated all or most of my thoughts on the matter, and any dev that wants to debate these points can do so.

[jb]

In Doc's defense, he had recently supported the idea of putting the creator's name in the actual map description. I personally feel that is not needed, but certainly wouldn't put up a fight about it either.

My only gripe is when Doc makes a revision to an MP map he doesn't make a small post in MP Map thread about why the change was made. It would help dispell the idea that map changes are willy-nilly.

[Doc Paterson]

In Doc's defense, he had recently supported the idea of putting the creator's name in the actual map description. I personally feel that is not needed, but certainly wouldn't put up a fight about it either.

My only gripe is when Doc makes a revision to an MP map he doesn't make a small post in MP Map thread about why the change was made. It would help dispell the idea that map changes are willy-nilly.

Well as you know, I used to do this, and would like to do it more often. I do plan to do this for the new Charge, as the revisions are massive (see the picture, above). I think that most people know though that they only need ask me, via PM, to hear my reasoning for any particular change.

(Speaking of which, I've done some small terrain moves for the next Clash, which simultaneously close the controversial "paths," and achieve the original goal of terrain lightening.)

[Boucman]

I loved it when you described what your changes in the map's reader's digest...

you should do it some more

[irrevenant]

Is there any reason that we shouldn't just credit everyone who worked on the map (flagging the current contact for the map)? Is it more than 1-3 people in most cases?

[Doc Paterson]

Is there any reason that we shouldn't just credit everyone who worked on the map (flagging the current contact for the map)?

Yes, there are many reasons, the most important being that there is a point, when a map has changed so completely (appearance is completely different, every defining conceptual quality has changed, name has changed, etc.) that it is no longer appropriate to consider it the same map. The core of that argument is above. I haven't done this because there didn't seem to be any interest in further debate, but if anyone with dev authority wants me to prove this current "Charge" (soon to be renamed) as an entirely distinct entity, I'll do that. If you look at the two maps above, understand the way that they play, and want to say that they have something significant in common, we have something to discuss. I think that we can agree that there is a point at which a map becomes a new entity; the only question is what that point is. Like I said, if someone truly contests this current course of map credits, (which aims to avoid clutter in the objectives window and give design credit only to the creator(s) with the most significant influence on the current form), I'll break it down in greater detail.

[Doc Paterson]

I loved it when you described what your changes in the map's reader's digest...

you should do it some more

You're probably right- I think I faded out on that for a while because there seemed to be little or no interest.

I'll make an entry or two when next I have time.

[irrevenant]

Yes, there are many reasons, the most important being that there is a point, when a map has changed so completely (appearance is completely different, every defining conceptual quality has changed, name has changed, etc.) that it is no longer appropriate to consider it the same map.

You're probably right. I was thinking by analogy to the GPL and source code.

[Noyga]

Yeah, AFAIK that kind of thing might be disallowed by the GPL...
Usually with that kind of licence (which is the one used by BfW) you *must* preserve the credit information, even on a derivated work where someone else made the most work (who can be credited too of course).
You should probably add something like "derivated from a map from PG" or something like that ?
Btw i'm not sure it is really a problem here according to some previous threads about those maps.

[turin]

Uhm, the GPL says nothing about preserving credits information, I'm pretty sure. It was the BSD license that had that clause originally, and I'm not sure that it's even present there anymore.

[Doc Paterson]

Perhaps I could leave the objective window credit as it is, and say something like "X-name map began as Charge (link to the Charge made by PG), which was gradually disassembled and replaced with X-name map, designed by Doc Paterson.

Thoughts?

[Doc Paterson]

Uhm, the GPL says nothing about preserving credits information, I'm pretty sure. It was the BSD license that had that clause originally, and I'm not sure that it's even present there anymore.

That's what I thought as well, but I might be wrong.

I personally hate the idea of PG being credited for a map that has nothing to do with his Charge design (I'm pretty sure that I could prove that a randomly generated map is more similar to the old Charge than the modern soon-to-be-named-map is to the old.) Again, if anyone really wants me to break this down, piece by piece, I will. I've not done it yet because it would be a huge undertaking that would involve many graphics and much writing.

As I said though, I wouldn't be opposed to a brief explanation of the development history of the two maps, in the map description.

[Baufo]

As I said though, I wouldn't be opposed to a brief explanation of the development history of the two maps, in the map description.

I think that is a good idea. What about something like
"Designed by Doc Paterson after a concept by PG"