Map filename convention

[whisperFFW06 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WisperFFW06:

We have many addons maps on our server - most do NOT use the editor addon. And when looking at our non-addons maps (still the majority), well they use absolutely no addons - not even this. Therefore having these maps mixed up with maps that actually use an addon would prevent us from knowing which maps are really safe to use.

<span id='postcolor'>

Roger that. So it is our local server config, shouldn't be used as general scheme. That's what I wanted to know.

So, @ whatever the addon.

Whis'

[nierop 0]

To benu:

Again, we are talking about a general applicable convention. On a MOD only server its clear that people know that they need a mod.  Also, to a certain extent servers that sport their own addon-pack (such as MTCO) fall into this category. However, its common practice that many servers have a mix of missions, some that us addons and some that don't, and these servers are visited by many users that dont even know what an addon is.... Even missing a "basic" addon like the editoraddon kicks these people leaving you with an near empty server. This is not an ficticious event, it is common practice on most servers. You might say that these people are not worthy, well thats up to you. However, an admin should be firstly aware of the fact that addons are needed for a certain mission.

So, regarding the general applicability the "addon-factor" should rank first.

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benu @ Nov. 29 2002,12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When talking about the addon flag we are talking about servers that WANT to use addons, so whether the map has addons or not is not so important on those servers. Maptype and Maxplayers are more important.

I'm interested in maptype first and maxplayers second. I'd like to have my maps sorted that way. Using an addon map or an addon-free map is really only my third thought.[...]

So i propose that the addon flag goes AFTER the maxplayer field, cause any other system makes sense only for servers that don't want to use the addons anyway...<span id='postcolor'>

But if it is of no consequence (as you won't have the addons marker if you are not using addons) it would make no difference: 'coop12dc interventon' - now, where's the addons marker?

If you have addons maps it makes more sense to have it in second place, I think there were enough arguments brought forward in this discussion. So I'd really recommend keeping it in second place. when not using addons the marker won't be there and the player number is in second place anyways...

[joltan 0]

ok, so the first part we mostly agree upon now:

(type)(@=addon if needed)(number)...

Which is the most important thing as this part of the tag is responsible for sorting the maps in the map selection. If the @ symbol doesn't cause any problems whenusing Linux (Terox, have you tested it yet?) I'd say its the best. It sticks out rather well and can still easily be understood. Better then using 'a' (as we do at the moment) or other symbols like '#' or '*'.

But how to continue?

I'd say start with the author's initials (2-3 letters), still being part of the tag, so we can easily see (without hovering the cursor over the name) who made a mission. If you have a lot of missions this might help you find a mission that you are looking for. At least to me it happens often that I do not remember the exact name of a mission, but I know who made it.

The version number should be optional and in the last spot - as proposed by Terox. I for my part see some problems with it (maps won't get overwritten automatically when new versions are put on the server) but also the benefits (easy to compare version numbers).

(authour's initials if known)<space>(mission's name - without spaces)<space>(maybe version number)

Example:

coop09dl findthechopper

coop@12keg crimsonfrost

c&h@18dl winterc&h

Mhhhh.... Sure Linux will have problems with big letters in the name (not the tag - the tag should be small letters all the way!)? Might improve readability using large letters to indicate a new word:

'coop09dl FindTheChopper' instead of 'coop09dl findthechopper'

or

'coop24act BlackOpHALO' instead of 'coop24act blackophalo'

[benu 1]

Lol, i don't think you got my point. Maybe i was too cryptic.

If i as an admin have an addon-free server, then regardless of how you mark addons in the name, this will not apply to me as i only use maps NOT containing addons and therefor NOT having that symbol in it's name.

The addon symbol is only important for servers and admins who WANT to use maps containing addons. As i do on my server for example. When i change map i see how many ppl are on the server and what they want to play (coop, ctf, etc). So most important is obviously the type (mostly coop on my server) and then maxplayer (cause a 30 ppl coop with 4 players is just as bad as a 6 ppl coop when 30 players are on the server).

If the addons tag is BEFORE maxplayers i have to browse TWO lists, coop maps WITH addons and coop maps WITHOUT addons, which are far apart in the maplist. So i really lose lots of "comfort" when the addon tag is put before the maxplayers.

If it is put BEHIND maxplayer ALL (for example) coop 20 maps are together, those needing addons first and those who don't second. So anyone NOT using addons cause of "not regular players" who don't have the addons loses no comfort at all but admins WANTING to use addons gain a lot.

And lets face it: addon server play with regulars most of the time. Or else you NEVER could use any addons.

I really see NO point in splitting maps of ONE TYPE into TWO lists because of addons. Maybe you could make your arguments a bit more clear. My experience is that players who don't want to d/l addons won't come back to addon servers anyway and those who do like to play the maps WITH the addons. Your concept looks to me like tailored for servers that have addons installed but don't want to use them

Regarding symbols: # is ok, @ should be ok too, * is bad.

Regarding further naming: I'd say mapname next. I don't know all the authors of all the maps on my server and there are so many authors that you run out of 3-letter acronyms for them anyway

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benu @ Nov. 29 2002,19:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The addon symbol is only important for servers and admins who WANT to use maps containing addons. As i do on my server for example. When i change map i see how many ppl are on the server and what they want to play (coop, ctf, etc). So most important is obviously the type (mostly coop on my server) and then maxplayer (cause a 30 ppl coop with 4 players is just as bad as a 6 ppl coop when 30 players are on the server).<span id='postcolor'>Right - there we absolutely agree. You're practically quoting me

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the addons tag is BEFORE maxplayers i have to browse TWO lists, coop maps WITH addons and coop maps WITHOUT addons, which are far apart in the maplist. So i really lose lots of "comfort" when the addon tag is put before the maxplayers.<span id='postcolor'>Right and wrong - if it is in first place then you will have two completely seperated lists - causing a lot of inconveniance - see my example in the first post on page three of the thread.

If it is in second place you still have a seperation of addons maps and non-addons maps - BUT they are grouped together! If you do not have addons maps you have no tag, therefore no extra groups of maps. On the other hand if you have ANY addons maps you want them not mixed up with the rest of the other maps of the same type, as to avoid unwanted selection of addons maps.

With addons marker in first place:

c&h...

coop09 FindTheChopper

coop12 FirstStrike

coop24 Rearguard

ctf...

dm...

ff...

tdm...

tff...

@c&h...

@coop09 GunsOfVarta

@coop12 IslandCleanup

@coop18 DawnRaid

@dm...

With addons marker in second place:

c&h...

coop09 FindTheChopper

coop12 FirstStrike

coop24 Rearguard

coop@09 GunsOfVarta

coop@12 IslandCleanup

coop@18 DawnRaid

ctf...

With addons marker in last place:

c&h...

coop09 FindTheChopper

coop09@ GunsOfVarta

coop12 FirstStrike

coop12@ IslandCleanup

coop18@ DawnRaid

coop24 Rearguard

ctf...

Now imagine a voted admin - where would he be more likely to choose the 'wrong' (addons) map? Putting the addons marker in the last place would be a big disadvantage on servers using addons - and these servers are the only ones that will use the marker!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it is put BEHIND maxplayer ALL (for example) coop 20 maps are together, those needing addons first and those who don't second. So anyone NOT using addons cause of "not regular players" who don't have the addons loses no comfort at all but admins WANTING to use addons gain a lot.<span id='postcolor'>Wrong - they would be completely mixed up - see my example from above.

Anyways: Anyone not using addons doesn't loose anything wether it is in second or third place - if the map doesn't use addons the addons tag is omitted, so the list is sorted exactly as you wanted it to. That is what I replied in the last post already. I really don't understand what anyone NOT using addons would care for where the addons marker is placed, when he wouldn't have to use it at all anyways???

If you do not use addons - you won't have any addons maps on your server, right? So the list from above would just look like below, even if the addons marker will be placed after the map type:

c&h...

coop09 FindTheChopper

coop12 FirstStrike

coop24 Rearguard

ctf...

Exactly as you want it to be...

[terox 316]

Bearing in mind that the convention is for global use throughout the OFP Mplayer community

There is no rush to implement it tomorrow, so a prolonged discussion exploring alll avenues is worthwhile

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>THE ADDON MARKER @</span></span>

This applies to servers of three types

1) Servers that do not use any addons

2) Servers that use addons only

3) Servers that use a mix of non addon & addon maps

When i talk about addons, i mean ANYTHING thats is required to play a map other than the standard files installed during the game installation

1) Servers that dont use any addon, will never have the @ sign, so apart from it being a Danger marker for the server if somebody inadvertently mails it to an admin for upload, they will never see it

2) Addon servers, they will  have all map names with @ in the name, so to them, it makes no difference whether you use it in any of the following ways

@ ctf

ctf@

ctf @

Because which ever way you use it, the list will still be sorted in Map Type order (This is a fact)

2) Mixed map servers

This is the problem one

Ok lets play make believe.

The admin wants to load a ctf that uses an addon

For arguments sake lets say the island is Nogova, there are 100 non addon maps and 100 addon maps

For each supergroup there are

25 C&H

25 CTF

25 Coop

25 Other types (Misc)

So by placing the @ at the start of the filename (@ CTF) it creates 2 supergroups of 100 maps each.

He knows its a ctf (Which he will know in real life) and he knows it has an addon

So

He goes to the first group of CTF's and searches through 25 maps.  

However

By placing the @ after the map group CTF@

he only has to go to one ctf map group, but he now has to scroll through 50 ctf's

The CTF@ will be all listed together at the latter half of the CTF list

Either way it makes no difference as to the speed of finding a map or distinguishing it as an addon

The only difference is

If you want to specifically load an addon map, your addon choice of all map types is together and not spread apart

And vice versa for non addon maps

It also makes the list easier on the eye.

I have no problem with

1) @ ctf

2) ctf@

3) ctf @

But i do think they belong together, not in the map name or after the player limit.

Placing them further into the list, would cause non distinguishable sorting

So what should we do

I still prefer the @ preceding map type, but am quite happy to go with the flow

----------------------------------------------------------

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Map makers tag</span></span>

Absolutely not required in the filename

How many of us use the map makers name to choose maps?By adding their tags it just adds another grouping which isnt required

Mapmakers have more security placing their names ingame, where it can only be hacked by de-pbo.

There are plenty of places to put it

Intro

Briefing etc

If they really wanted too, they could place their name tag at the start of the actual map name

say

@ctf (30) terox-riverdance

Having created map myself, i see no reason to put my name in the file name, most players will never see it, but they will see what i placed in the briefing, intro etc

League maps are a different matter, they can simply preceed the actual name

ie

ctf (22) efl everonIII

efl being Euro Flashpoint League.

I did think of having league maps start with the league tag, but there are too many leagues to make this a nice neat system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:12pt;line-height:100%'>Game & Map version</span></span>

Most admins whho just log into the server and run the server wont really understand the reasons for this, however if you have total control of a server this becomes more important

ctf (30) armourgeddon (1.85 Beta 1.0).noe.pbo

ctf (30) armourgeddon (1.85 Beta 1.1).noe.pbo

ctf (30) armourgeddon (1.85 Beta 1.2).noe.pbo

ctf (30) armourgeddon (1.85 Beta 1.3).noe.pbo

ctf (30) armourgeddon (1.85 v1).noe.pbo

ctf (30) armourgeddon (1.90 v1).noe.pbo

ctf (30) armourgeddon (1.90 v2).noe.pbo

Initially the map had its first beta release on whatever server it was tested on, which was running 1.85

It had a few bugs, so a new version was released.(Beta 1.1)

This seemed to run well, so the admin deleted the older version

A few more bug fixes later another version was released.(Beta 1.2)

This crashed the server, so it was deleted, but the version before it was still okay

(Had the filename being the same. we would have lost the previous version)

Another version was released (Beta 1.3)

This worked fine, no more bugs, it was taken out of Beta and the admin simply renamed the filename, swapping Beta 1.3 to v1 (v1 being the first finished map release)

Now a new game patch was released (1.90)

No maps had been played on the new game version, so they all remained 1.85

A few hours later 6 out of 12 maps had been played and tested, the admin having done this, then renamed the filenames, swapping 1.85 to 1.90.

He then leaves the server

Half an hour later another admin logs in, sees the 1.9 tags on some maps but not on others, he plays for a few hours and hey presto, all the 12 maps have now been tested on the new game version and their filenames upgraded.

The new gamepatch has also brought out additional weapons.

These weapons are now added to the ammo crates and map version 2 is released

Joe bloggs has been playing on server A (1.9) server

Map ctf (30) mymap (1.85 v1) The first time the map has been run

He then goes to server B, theyve updated their mymap to 1.90

he goes back to server A to play, they have now updated mymap to 1.90, he doesnt have to dl it.

But both server managed to test and upgrade the map, and there is only one version of the map on either server

[Skunk Monkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terox @ Nov. 29 2002,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">After a new patch

A few hours later 6 out of 12 maps had been played and tested, the admin having done this, then renamed the filenames, swapping 1.85 to 1.90.

He then leaves the server<span id='postcolor'>

NO F@!*ing WAY !!!!

I will never re-name all the maps with the version number !!!

1) some maps are up to 4Mb, with many above 500K, the 56Kers will kill me

2) I have 500 maps!!!

3) If a map doesnt work under a new patch it will be deleted, and wait for an update from the author

4) There is no need for a version compatability tag, everyone should be on the most recent patch

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terox @ Nov. 29 2002,22:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The admin wants to load a ctf that uses an addon

For arguments sake lets say the island is Nogova, there are 100 non addon maps and 100 addon maps

For each supergroup there are

25 C&H

25 CTF

25 Coop

25 Other types (Misc)

So by placing the @ at the start of the filename (@ CTF) it creates 2 supergroups of 100 maps each.

He knows its a ctf (Which he will know in real life) and he knows it has an addon

So he goes to the first group of CTF's and searches through 25 maps.  

However

By placing the @ after the map group CTF@

he only has to go to one ctf map group, but he now has to scroll through 50 ctf's

The CTF@ will be all listed together at the latter half of the CTF list

Either way it makes no difference as to the speed of finding a map or distinguishing it as an addon

The only difference is

If you want to specifically load an addon map, your addon choice of all map types is together and not spread apart<span id='postcolor'>

The point is - I have never, ever, seen someone just wanting to play an addons map without knowing whickh map type to play...

As I showed to you in my post on page 3, in your example someone wanting to play coop would have to scoll past 75 maps to get to the second group! If the tag is in second place they come directly after each other.

This IS quite a difference in comfort of map selection.

Also I think a compatibility number should not be used: maps that are not compatible with the server version should not be available at all - if there is one, scrap it until a compatible version is available.

A map version number might make more sense, but can only be added by the mission maker upon publication of the map. Many map makers do not use version numbers at all, others (like me) put them in the briefing notes. If you have to rename your maps to comply with the naming scheme - do you really want to check every mission where the author (if at all) has hidden the version number???

About the authors tag - I never meant the whole name to be included, more like a 2-3 letter code. I argued why I think this makes sense, but like the EFL example you made, it is basically part of the map name and not part of the sorting tag. If you don't use the tag to search missions, then its because you never had missions named that way or could not relate to the authors.

On our server we usually know the map maker as its either an SES or VS member we already played together with. Therefore we know things like "the mission loc-dog made" or "the mission december made where you have to picked up by the chopper" and it helps finding the maps. If you only use maps made by people you don't know, this doesn't help much, agreed.

But as the version number this should be optional - and it definitely has no influence on the sorting.

[terox 316]

Removed post was just letting off steam :-)

[Skunk Monkey 0]

I dont see hostility...

We have come out of this so far with 1 agreement, that @ should be addon.

We may not agree on where to put it yet, or what is needed in the filename, but that can come, as you say, no rush when we agree on this let it be a good system.

The main problem i see is very few servers represented in this discussion, seems to maily with SES and your new server shrike, with Damage from GP agreeing on the @ symbol and a few others. I was hoping to get more server owners posting here Then we can all agree to adopt a common system and have a final vote on format that we will all agree to adopt. If nothing else comes of this discussion then at least @ might become reconised in OFP for maps with addons ...

[Skunk Monkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nierop @ Nov. 29 2002,11:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This would be the proposed convention:

(type)(@=addon if needed)(number)<space>(Name - with our without spaces)(version number)<space>(authour if known)

Pimmelorus [sHoP]<span id='postcolor'>

If we could more server owners here in this thread I think we could agree to use this, its fine by me, seems to be roughly what Shrike/Terox wants, I have someone trying to get oo7vet from vetserver to comment in this thread. There will be a new REBEL server soon and I have spoken to the owner of this, they would use this naming system, they are also adopting our addon pack, Vetserver is also considering re-joining the Addon-Pack setup we have, as they did when we first introduced it, it will run about 35Mb + Winter Nogojev of Vetserver come in with a few addons we havent got and they want added in.

Anything that can be common between servers has goto be good for the OFP community if we are all flexible enough and have 75% the same desired end-solution.

With the version number this should be a minimum version number, ie 1.46 if was made at that time, 1.75 if on nogova, 1.85 if uses the hunting rifle, it would be daft to change all maps everytime a new patch is realeased.

[terox 316]

As far as servers is concerned

I represent

Stoners House of Pancakes (Windows server)

& two Zeus (Linux servers), one for addons and one for non addon maps

These servers

Stoners being presently the busiest server around

and Zeus being the biggest capacity when it comes out of testing

Will quite happily use whatever system is agreed on.

so far the system that we agree on then is

<span style='color:red'>map type(Addonmarker @) (Player limit) Name (Game version & Map version)</span>

Ref Game version and map version

I suppose if folks dont want to create a mass workload, then the game version the map was released in would suffice throughout its life

Iff the map is re-edited to add new weapons after a game patch release etc, the filename (game version) would then change, is that fair enough

and as for having the map makers name in the tag, i really dont see the point of this

And spaces instead of underscores

So to this point what do you guys think

-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

Thus far we have reached this point

Point 1

First group

<span style='color:red'>Map Type</span> including addon marker if required

ie ctf@

(We still need to sort out exactly what abbreviations to use)

I would prefer to use 3 to 4 letters for each map type

Point 2

<span style='color:red'>Player limit</span>, a single number ie 30, not 2_30, and to be enclosed in brackets

ie (32)

Point 3

<span style='color:red'>Map Name</span>

If it is a league map, then the name should be preceded by the league tag

ie

efl everonIII

The same for squad maps, preceded by squad tag

ie

=ca= holywars

Point 4

<span style='color:red'>Game version & Map version</span>

4A

Game version

This is to be the game version the map was created for and does not change just because a new game version has been released.

However, if a new game version has been released, and the map edited to hold some new weapons etc, or for a new script or command, then the game version part should be renamed to the newer game version

4B

Map version

Beta's

To indicate a map is in its testing stages, then Beta should be used instead of V.

For each bug fix, the Beta number should be different

Once out of testing stages, the beta is replaced with V and the version becomes V1

So this is a quick rundown on a map through beta to finished release.

This is for a squads map that uses an addon

From initial beta testing to finished map

c&h @ (32) =ca= madland (1.85 beta1.0)

c&h @ (32) =ca= madland (1.85 beta1.1)

c&h @ (32) =ca= madland (1.85 beta1.2)

c&h @ (32) =ca= madland (1.85 v1)

then 1.9 comes out

c&h @ (32) =ca= madland (1.85 v1)

Map editor decides to upgrade map

c&h @ (32) =ca= madland (1.90 beta1.0)

and its bugfree

c&h @ (32) =ca= madland (1.85 v1)

5

General Guidelines Spaces rather than underscores

6

ctf @

instead of

ctf@

-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

Lets quickly reply to this using the following simple method

1) Yes, Yes but, or No

2) Yes, Yes but, or No

3) Yes, Yes but, or No

4A) Yes, Yes but, or No

4B)Yes, Yes but, or No

5) Yes, Yes but, or No

6) Yes, Yes but, or No

-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

[benu 1]

joltan: As i wrote in the other thread, it seems to be matter of preferences. I never think "there was this cool map from blake", i think in terms of "lets look for a nice 16 player coop map", so for me "maptype playernumber addontag" seems most intuitive.

But this thread is about creating a standard. If the majority wants to use "maptype addontag playernumber" i can live with that and will rename all my maps. One has to make sacrifices

Regarding the other points: IF you agree on something like Mapmaker field and version field then you would have to make those fields mandatory and create a database for all admins to check against, or you would destroy the uniform naming scheme. I would propose only essential fields in the name. The purpose of this whole standard is that 1) players don't have to d/l the same maps multiple times and 2) voted admins can select good maps. We should keep that in mind. I get the feeling some admins have featuritis and want to put as much as possible into the name. I don't think this is good. KISS. If you make it complicated nobody will use it.

Mapmaker: When the mapmaker names a map after himself it's part of the name and should be left in (like in "co 16 benu coop"). Else it should be left out. It's "useless" info for downloading and for the casual admin and the mapper has other ways to put his name into the map.

OFP Version: As Skunk Monkey said, the server is only running ONE ofp version and if a map doesn't work it gets deleted. Useless information field in my opinion.

Map Version: How do i know? I have for example some maps from karillion in 3 different versions, without version numbers. It's essentially the same map, with the same (internal) name but with slightly different gameplay. IF a map has a version info in its name we can let that in, as part of the name. Same as with the Mapmaker field above. Else, it's better to let it out. It would complicate the naming scheme.

[terox 316]

I would imagine most Dedicated servers have their own website

SHOP has created a forum specifically for map makers.

The forum consists of wanted inclusions for server maps &

some guidelines etc

Very simply any would be mapmaker utilises the information that is provided.

If we all have a similar thread,

a) it would help mapmakers anyway

b) it woulk aid the filename standard

if a map maker wants to add his name to the filename, so be it, add it in the same place as the league tag or squad tag is

heres the forum thread link for our beta maps and mapmakers.

Stone-keep map makers guidelines

when the filename convention has been agreed on, it will be updated

And as far as different versions of the same maps are concerned.

Yes thats bound to be the case for some

These will probably have different version numbers already in the name.

But i bet ya there are hundreds of maps that are exactly the same, but the filename is slightly different

This is a cleanup operation, there are bound to be casualties

By the way, it doesnt take long to go through the maps and rename the filenames.

and if you dont want to do it all in one go, then do a little at a time

also whats to stop you informing your regs as to what and how you are doing, then to save them the dl, they simply rename their map files in EXACTLY the same way as the convention uses

[Skunk Monkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terox @ Nov. 30 2002,17:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Point 3

<span style='color:red'>Map Name</span>

If it is a league map, then the name should be preceded by the league tag

ie

efl everonIII

The same for squad maps, preceded by squad tag

ie

=ca= holywars<span id='postcolor'>

This is the only bit I have any doubts over.

League Maps should be left as the league makes them, if we can convince ladder organisers to adopt our system then all good. Other visting squads would download a map not knowing if there had been other alterations other than the name to the map the ladder authorised, and could mean people are called cheats.

Squad maps should be renamed to the same system as all other maps, what makes them special ?

[terox 316]

Totally agree skunk monkey, i have already spoken to efl league, when i get time I will mail the other leagues, however any help that anybody can give in contacting the various organisation would help

Due to the fact that these leagues dont have hundreds of maps, i dont foresee a problem.

EFL has already agreed to follow any convention

[joltan 0]

Sorry Terox - I didn't want to sound hostile. I was just arguing my points - in the end the important thing is to agree on one solution - and whatever it is, it will be an improvement to the current chaos. So thanks for the effort you are putting into this!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ref Game version and map version

I suppose if folks dont want to create a mass workload, then the game version the map was released in would suffice throughout its life

Iff the map is re-edited to add new weapons after a game patch release etc, the filename (game version) would then change, is that fair enough

and as for having the map makers name in the tag, i really dont see the point of this

And spaces instead of underscores<span id='postcolor'>

Spaces are fine with me,

Re: minimum version number

Map makers can (and should) define this in the description.ext, when creating a mission. A server not supporting the version number listed there won't load the mission and therefore problems can easily prevented. So I don't think the required version number would be nescessary. But hey - that is just my opinion, and I will happily follow any majority decision on this (quite irrelevant) point.

Same goes for the map makers tag - while I think it is quite usefull in some cases (like a server with mostly 'home made' missions), I can see it being completely irrelevant for most other servers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So to this point what do you guys think<span id='postcolor'>

Sounds very good to me. I can agree on that, and I think its a good system.

Edit: Great news on the League - hope others will join the effort! Again, good work!

[zinco 0]

I can't read through all five pages of this. i am with the 1st Battalion 8th Marines. We will change all the map names according to what you guys come up with.

If spaces are compatible with all server environments than use spaces. My only suggestion is that the type, player number and map name are the most important and it would be nice to keep it all on the screen so you don't have to hover over every map.

ch(30)thunder road v1.0

@ch(30)thunder road v1.1

[benu 1]

I am using spaces as delimiters between the fields, it works on windows and linux (as would underscores or the example zinco made with putting the player number in brackets. Actually, underscores beat spaces in linux, cause spaces can be difficult in scripts).

What i would like to know: are there points/arguments for or against any of those delimiters? Or would a consensus just be a matter of taste? Speaking for me, all solutions seem good to, as long as there IS a delimiter. Putting it all together like co@16mymapname is just unreadable...

Regarding duplicate maps with different names: Thats no problem (at least with linux).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> find mpmissions -type f -name '*.pbo' -exec md5sum -- {} >> md5.list \; <span id='postcolor'>

Then grep, sort, uniq, diff and rm and all duplicates are gone... just did something similar today. Finding 33 duplicates in 340 maps and deleting them was just a matter of a few minutes.

[JRMZ 0]

Hi,

We at EFL have 20+ squads with servers and I think that they are all willing to change the maps filenames according to the convention rules.

I'm just wondering one thing. It's very important that everyone knows about this. Not just a small group. Otherwise we will have mapnames in the old way and mapnames in the new way on one server. How do we arrange that?

My oppinion about the spaces and underscores is that we should use underscores.

[terox 316]

Underscores V spaces

Both systems work in both dedicated server o/s and as yet there has been no reports of any problems using spaces on either systems.

I am lucky to have server admin rights on both a linux and win system.

So, it then comes down to the most visually pleasing and ease of reading.

So, here are two screen shots of both systems

(The filenames still have capitals etc, and different versions sytems) but that doesnt matter in this case, because this post isnt a discussion about that

With Underscores

With Spaces

Now that you can clearly see the differences, there is no way that you can argue for underscores

[terox 316]

We havent actually had a discussion about the abbreviations for the map types yet.

As it isnt greatly important as to what it is.

What we have to think about is a very simple system that is easily recogniseable to anybody that plays ofp.

Also allowing for future delelopments of different map types

Everything is basically obvious except Cooperatives

various systems used so far is

co

coop

theres probably more as well

I think Coop is by far the most obvious

so the list would be

a&d...........= attack & defend

c&h...........= capture & hold

coop.........= cooperative

ctf............= capure the flag

d&d...........= defend & destroy

tff.............= team flag fight

ff..............= flagfight

tdm...........= team deathmatch

dm............= deathmatch

rac............= race

misc...........= miscellaneous (anything not covered by above)

If there is a major group that I have missed out that needs inclusion let me know

As for c&h, a&d and d&d there are differences between these types of maps

"rac" there is at least one server that i know of that has quite a few race maps, which is why i have included it in the map types

So hopefully there will be minimal disagreements on this aspect.

If that is the case, we only need to agree now on

1) spaces v underscores

2) version system

We also need to get every league to join in this discussion and all the major servers  and squad servers that run 24/7

Lets also try to get a completion date on the convention for say

Dec 25th

and bring the new system online by Jan 1st

Also, when we are nearly done, we can ask the sites admin to do a mass email to all its members (Hopefully they will be happy to do this as its for the good of the community)

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terox @ Dec. 01 2002,15:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We havent actually had a discussion about the abbreviations for the map types yet.

As it isnt greatly important as to what it is.

What we have to think about is a very simple system that is easily recogniseable to anybody that plays ofp.

Also allowing for future delelopments of different map types

[...]

If that is the case, we only need to agree now on

1) spaces v underscores

2) version system<span id='postcolor'>

The abreviations sound fine to me. While we tried to keep a two letter code (to keep the tag short) it might be easier to understand using 'coop' instead of 'co'.

Seperators:

If spaces might cause problems withs scripts in Linux (as was indicated in this thread by benu) then I'd say go for underscores. If this is no issue, then I couldn't care less what is choosen. But leave it at one seperator between tag and map name (and maybe version number) and please, do not use brackets as in your screenshots above.

coop09 FindTheChopper.Noe.pbo

coop@12 IslandCleanup.Noe.pbo

coop09_FindTheChopper.Noe.pbo

coop@12_IslandCleanup.Noe.pbo

Both seperators look fine to me.

On map version:

In my opinion minimum map version is not needed, as it can be defined in the mission itself, preventing systems using the wrong version to load a mission not designed for them.

A version number for the mission itself is another issue - I'm a bit unsure if it will be an advantage or not. On one hand it offers an easy way to find out what version of a map a server is using.

On the other hand you don't overwrite an old version by just copying the new version in your mission folder - so you have to delete the old file by hand (which might be seen as an advantage by some). That means additional work to change download links or when updating mission packs...

Problem: the version number can really only be ammended to the name by the mission creator himself - if he doesn't you either have to try finding it out yourself, or you're just out of luck.

Edtr: lol, underscores actually are a problem if you want to post a filename to a forum like this - Iknonboard keeps changing my mission name to an email link...

[terox 316]

1) spaces do not cause problems in linux, infact i tried changing one filename by just creating spaces, when i tried to get the os to accept the filename, it said file already exists, so i must assume linux simply ignores the spaces anyway when looking at the filename

2) (30) to 30 no real problem there, just thought it looked neater

Version number

You said the map maker could do this in the description ext.

I didnt know this was possible (Paste a code snippet please).

However that doesnt make any difference, what about the hundreds of maps out there already.

would we have

ctf planefrenzy listed 3 times on the server

All having diferent filesizes but no idea which has machine gun emplacements and AA without loading the map

Its a lot easier to have a version system in the filename than in the coding itself. Its easier for the map maker and easier for admins to control the different versions of maps

For instance if there is more than one version of the map on the server (distinguished by different filesizes) how do you know which is which without loading, especially on a server with 500+ maps.

Its much easier to see which is which  if it has a version number system in the filename.

As for the system

My initial idea was to upgrade the game version part of the filename as each map was tested on the newer gamepatch.

Although this does cause admins work, it does benefit the server itself by quickly differentiating those maps that have been tested from those that havent. At the end of the day it doesnt take that long to update a few maps that the admin has just played during his session (Be honest you arent going to admin for 16 hours and then update 30 maps are ya) You are more likely to do a 3 or 4 hour stint and want a break anyway.

however what was pointed out was that every player would then have to dl the new map, unless they too changed the filenames themselves which isnt practical

Lets just make sure for a second we are on same wavelength.

When i say rename

So i then proposed to keep the game version unless the map itself was updated with new weapons etc, which is practically far easier

Reason for game version

Firstly dont think of it as a seperate element from the map version, its all part of a version number.

Stating the game version simply makes it more obvious to differentiate between map versions and gives the admin a hell of a lot more information about a map

For instance

ctf 30 armourgeddon (1.85 v1)

ctf 30 armourgeddon (1.85 v1.1)

ctf 30 armourgeddon (1.90 v2)

is far more informative than

ctf 30 armourgeddon (v1)

ctf 30 armourgeddon (v1.1)

ctf 30 armourgeddon (v1.2)

as you can see if we dont specifically place something in there to show the difference, this could and probably will happen

Especially now 1.85 clients can play on 1.9 and 1.85 maps can be played on a 1.9 server. Who knows whats going to happen with 2.0

From the gameversion tag we can tell

1) The rough age of the map

2) what weapons / vehicles we could and couldnt expect to see

3) if a more up to date version of a map exists

Not every server just has 1 admin in charge of uploading and sorting maps out, so with 4 or 5 admins constantly loading up maps it helps to sort things out a bit, and straight away an admin would notice a well known map that had a different game version on

Imagine being on server version 2.2, and seeing a map on the selection list of a server with over 900 maps the gameversion tag (1.75v1)

Look at the comparison screen shot jpegs above

spaces between sub groups really make the list far easier to read, closing these gaps makes it more difficult to read as your eyes have more difficulty focussing on a specific group

You only have to look at the jpg's to see this, is it not that obvious to you