Map filename convention

[terox 316]

will update map type with CTI when the convention is completed thankyou

Ok fine without internal subgroup seperators

But i would prefere subgroup spacing between map type, player limit and map name

eg ctf@ 32 riverisland

This really does make things easier to read

The & was requested to be taken out for cosmetic reasons, not technical

As some say, it is the best symbol to replace "and"

[benu 1]

I think it is better to have the first block only letters and digits (and the addon marker where it applies). Looks more uniform to me. Ampersand sticks out. I'd like the addon marker to stick out only. And i can't see what is wrong with cnh/ch (or and/ad).

I don't really care if the first fields get lumped together into one block or not, seems to be a matter of taste. "co@16 name of mission" looks still readable to me and is shorter and one can use the first space as a separator between tag block and mission name. And we could use spaces as separators within the name block then cause all other fields would be one block anyway.

But i could live with "co@ 16 name of mission" as well.

What i really don't like is mixing spaces and underscores, as in "co@ 16 name_of mission" or "co@16 name_of_mission".

[terox 316]

am happy to not use underscores to connect words within a subgroup together

the & simply makes more sense, especially as there are still different gametypes under development

cti capture the island (I dont know what this is yet) it could simply turn out to be a C&H

there going to be an e&e escape and evasion which uses multiple flag carriers on the same side

theres also Flagball under development

God knows what else is going to be created

So using & helps to differentiate better and its also a widely used convention

i prefer  

c&h @ 32 mapname version

or if a league map

c&h @ 32 leaguetag_mapname version

most folks dont want a seperator around the addon marker

so this would be

c&h@ 32 mapname version

Which is not a problem

This thread seems to have died somewhat

We have done really hard work on it so far, nows the time to all agree on the silly things and put it to bed

This weekend i will post a complete convention once all have aired further views

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terox @ Jan. 07 2003,17:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">most folks dont want a seperator around the addon marker

so this would be

c&h@ 32 mapname version<span id='postcolor'>

Misunderstanding!!!

This would be 'c&h32 mapname version' or for an addons map 'c&h@32 mapname version' - no space in the tag means no space with or without addons tag! I think all that voted for no seperators/spaces in the tag want it that way.

[benu 1]

I guess the reason the thread dies down is

a) it's getting old for some

and

b) most arguments have been told. Most open points seem to be matter of taste and i for one couldn't tell how to resolve those issues.

Joltans post for example has a "version" field in the mapname again. Sorry, but with a "version" tag filled in/decided on by admins the whole naming convention is pointless as each admin will put in a different version and mapnames will be different on different servers. If the version is put into the name by the mapper (as it should be imho) then it is part of the MAPNAME and does therefor not need a separate field anyway.

I think everyone should state what he wants to achieve with the naming convention. As i stated before i hope for 2 things:

1) readability/ease of use for (guest) admins.... i guess ANY naming scheme would this, no need for convention used by many/all servers.

2) players do not have to download the same map multiple times... this means the convention must be so that the name of the map is the same on EVERY server, no "name of servers addonpack" field, no "admin filled in" fields. AlLL fields have to be MANDATORY and DEFINED, that means every admin must be able to fill in all fields CORRECTLY. I don't know what versions all the maps on my server are, except for those where the mapper put a version into the map. So this is not a DEFINED field.

But maybe your goals for this convention are different?!?

As for spaces: i don't care if there are spaces or not, but don't mix. And as all fields have to be defined a "leaguetag" is part of the name, it's no "mandatoey" field. As that it has to be separated by spaces too. It has therefor to be "c&h@32 leaguetag name of map".

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benu @ Jan. 07 2003,18:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Joltans post for example has a "version" field in the mapname again. Sorry, but with a "version" tag filled in/decided on by admins the whole naming convention is pointless as each admin will put in a different version and mapnames will be different on different servers. If the version is put into the name by the mapper (as it should be imho) then it is part of the MAPNAME and does therefor not need a separate field anyway.

[...]

2) players do not have to download the same map multiple times... this means the convention must be so that the name of the map is the same on EVERY server, no "name of servers addonpack" field, no "admin filled in" fields. AlLL fields have to be MANDATORY and DEFINED, that means every admin must be able to fill in all fields CORRECTLY. I don't know what versions all the maps on my server are, except for those where the mapper put a version into the map. So this is not a DEFINED field.<span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, I was just quoting Terox there - I consider the version number to be part of the mission name, not a seperate, obligatory tag. In my opinion its up to the mission maker to name his mission, and if he wants a version number in the name, then go for it, if not , well, just

leave it out. No admin should try to rename missions with a version number if it wasn't already part of the mission name before anyways.

About the strikt definition - the problem here is the conversion of old maps. New maps should be named according to the convention right from the start, while with old maps there will be some unavoidable problems, no matter how well defined the convention is. There will by typos, slightly diferent interpretation on how to convert a name like 'FindTheChopper_102...' ('findthechopper 102' or 'find the chopper v1.02'), etc. The only way to avoid this would be for the bigger servers to compare their mission names.

Basically the convention starts with the mission makers. Some things like version numbers, mission maker tags, league tags, etc. can only be added by the one publishing the map (mission maker/original server/league), so if that version of a map is distributed the name will always stay the same. If you have existing maps, just use the tag + the original name.

And NEVER rename league maps - if a league follows the convention then they will publish the renamed version on their website and you can get it from there. That way no duplicate maps should come up, and no quarrels about 'manipulated maps' either.

[benu 1]

I have thought about the problem with old maps when i first started talking about a naming convention in the thread where this branched off from. I think it's more important to lay a foundation for the future than making a half-assed convention because of the old maps. When mappers know of this convention they can name their maps accordingly. YMMV.

Regarding the old maps it would be possible to rename them all to the same name on all servers, but it would require much effort from all admins involved and i'm not sure whether all admins will see a point in this. I mean, they would need to rename the old maps to conform to the naming scheme anyway or they would have different naming schemes on their server. But getting all old maps renamed to exactly the same name/version/etc that all other servers use would require a central "authority" to control the names (maybe with md5 checksums). That is, the first admin to rename a map according to the agreed on naming convention would have to submit the name and md5sum to a central point where other admins could check against their maps. The actual checking/renaming would be no problem with linux, don't know how much work this would be with windows server though.

IF there was a possibility to get all the old maps into the naming convention that would be great but i don't think it will work in ALL cases. But it will work in MANY cases and hopefully for ALL new maps.

Addendum: It was late yesterday and i did not answer to some of your questions. IF we define a good standard then renaming old maps can be possible. If LEAGUES are part of the name and only the leagues themselves can name their maps they just have to think of ONE leaguetag and use it consequently. IF version numbers may be part of the name then we have to agree on ONE version scheme. "v1.0.2", "v 1.0.2", "v102", "102", maybe something different. From what i've said before, i am against using spaces AND underscores. So i guess we could argue about the dot in the version number, if there should be a leading "v" or not or any "beta" suffixes. I'd propose that there be no stuff like "alpha" or "beta", only a "v" followed by the version number. To keep the name short (as many in this discussion seem to wish) i'd say "v102", no spaces IN the numberfield, no dots except for "betas" (numbers less than 1).

"co@16 my mission name v102" for example.

"co@16 my mission name v0.8" would be the earlier version of that mission.

[terox 316]

I really do not like the idea of jumbling the maptype, addon and player limit together  it doesnt make it easier to read it makes it harder, The space imvolved between c&h@ 32  is negligible

When viewed in the game map selction screen, this space makes all the difference in readability

We agreed very early on at the start, what the various subgroups needed to be and in what order they needed to be displayed in

Keeping these subgroups split, makes it Neater

Of this there can be no argument

Simply look at the screenshots

On top of this, it also needs to be easily navigable in our Filebrowsers

I want the spaces for the same reason the entire world uses spaces in books, To make it easier to read

On a server with 300 maps on one island, these spaces make a big difference, especially when quickly running down the scroll bar

Having asked folks who have nothing to do with OFP, they agree these spaces are better

All the arguments I have heard about cluttering them together are about saving space.

We dont need too, its only 1 space anyway and the majority of all maps is more than legible with the first part being able to see

There are probably only a handful of maps out there that are totally readable in the ingame screen anyway

[benu 1]

Terox: in the naming scheme i currently use there are spaces between maptype and playernumber. I like it that way too. But i don't really care that much.

I also agreed to putting the addonmarker behind maptype although i do NOT like it. I would like to have it BEHIND playernumbers as my server is aimed at regulars and the question whether to play a map with or without addons is not so important as that of playing a map for the right number of players.

I don't really care if it is going to be "co@16 name of map", "co@ 16 name of map" or "co @ 16 name of map" (last one looks odd though). I use "co 16@ name of map" at the moment and like that one best (that's why i did it this way). Everyone has to make compromises i guess. Joltan seems to favor the "blocked" first tag. Such decision should be made on (dis)advantages of the differrent naming schemes. If it is a matter of preference only.. well, don't know how to decide then... majority vote?

What about the other points? I will read through this whole thread in the next days again and see if something got lost on the way...

[joltan 0]

There were more votes than just mine for not using any seperators within the tag. See oo7vet's post, and others way back in this thread.

The main argument was that the filename would be unnescessaryly longer than needed and that less of the name would be visible. Admitted it's only one char and you can use the hovering mouse to see the full name, but I'd rather have the '&' in 'c&h' (instead of 'ch') or use the full 'coop' tag than waste that char, too. At least the additional letters in the mission type might make it easier to understand for people not used to the naming convention. With the space before the player number I don't see this.

As we use small caps only (because of the linux servers) the numbers already stick out VERY well from the tag, so the additional space doesn't add much in regard to the tags readability.

Of course I follow any majority on this topic, but looking back in this thread I have the impression of a clear majority against the aditional space!

Edit: about the version numbers - I'm strongly against server admins adding version numbers on their own - they basically can't get them right, and in addition on big servers it might be too much work to go through all missions checking for their version numbers.

If the version number was already part of the filename then it should be left in whatever way it was written there - seperated from the rest of the name by a space. If an author wants to use a dot in his version number he should be able to do so. Restricting people on how they should name their missions/count their version numbers (apart from the tag) will not work.

[terox 316]

we had already discussed version numbers at some point and came to the agreement than any existing version numbers should be used, none added

and that from the day the convention is released, that a recommended system of version numbers be used by mapmakers but not a strict requirement

The only thing we have to finally agree on is

ctf@16 mapname

or

ctf@ 16 mapname

If you decide on the first one, then it looks like a clusterfuck, i tried it, renamed every map on my personal machine and when i scroledl through it at speed found it more difficult to read than the latter system

I think the majority had agreed to use

c&h

coop etc

Once this has been agreed then i can post the complete convention for final approval

[benu 1]

Version number: this was NOT about admins putting in version numbers. But if a mapper does not conform to this convention (as it is their right) we have to rename the map. It is about EXISTING version numbers.

If the mapper calls his map "kill_em_all_beta_0.8" and it is a coop map for 16 ppl needing addons each admin has to know how to rename it properly. Because of this there has to be a version number system. As it stands now we would rename this map "co@16 kill em all VERSIONNUMBER", but how exactly?

"co@16 kill em all beta0.8"?

"co@16 kill em all 0.8"?

"co@16 kill em all v0.8"?

"co@16 kill em all v 0.8"?

There has to be a standard, that's what this convention is for.

I propose NAME_OF_MAP SPACE V NO_SPACE DOTTED_NUMBER, eg "co@16 name of map v1.2"

Alternatively, we could leave it as the mapper made it, but that could lead to any wild chracter sequences like "mapname (0.66) !BETA!!!".

BTW: Maps do not have to be in lowercase because of linux.

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (benu @ Jan. 14 2003,17:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the mapper calls his map "kill_em_all_beta_0.8" and it is a coop map for 16 ppl needing addons each admin has to know how to rename it properly. Because of this there has to be a version number system. As it stands now we would rename this map "co@16 kill em all VERSIONNUMBER", but how exactly?<span id='postcolor'> I would just change the underscores for spaces and leave it at that. So it would be called "coop@16 kill em all beta 0.8". What's there to think twice about? Straight forward. Changing anything else would just introduce errors.

As far as I gathered the OFP server for Linux (not Linux itself) does not accept uppercase in mission names. Maybe this is only important for the island tag and the pbo extension, but we agreed on lowercase to avoid any problems.

[Skunk Monkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terox @ Jan. 14 2003,15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only thing we have to finally agree on is

ctf@16 mapname

or

ctf@  16 mapname

I think the majority had agreed to use

c&h

coop etc<span id='postcolor'>

The first is better, Did we decide to use co instead of coop ??

i cureently have all my maps as coop but would hapily swap to co to reduce space - same goes why extra spoaces at the start are unnecesarry - if you cant work it out without the spaces i suggest glasses or a brain transplant - lol (hey - dont take me so seriously

[benu 1]

Joltan: you are right that all files have to be lowercase for linux but that does not mean the windows servers have to use all lowercase. Because: WINDOWS does not care. If you have a capitalized map (like "Co@16 Name of Map") and play on a linux server you won't d/l the map again as for windows the all lowercase name is the same as the capitalized. As i have a linux server and lowercase anyway i don't really care if you name all maps in lowercase with windows too, but you don't have to.

Regarding version number: what do you with the brackets and exclamation marks in my example? Do we call the map "mapname (0.66) !BETA!!!" after all (no underscores in the name)?

Co/Coop: *cough* i guess that was just me cause i named all my coops "co .....". If we agreed on the (imho long and pointless) coop i will rename of course. Although i don't see why ALL names get abbreviated and coop doesn't.

"capturetheflag@ 32 long name map"

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you have a capitalized map (like "Co@16 Name of Map") and play on a linux server you won't d/l the map again as for windows the all lowercase name is the same as the capitalized.<span id='postcolor'>Are you really sure of that? I think you might actually download the mission again. Else it would be unimportant, as the server admins can just use tolower to change the filename to small caps.

About the brackets, etc. - sorry, missing to answer that part of your post. I'd just leave them in, although I'm unsure about the exclamation marks? Are they a problem in filenames - does anyone use them? I'd just remove them, but if they do not pose a problem they could also be left in. I never use exclamation marks in filenames, so bare with me if I got no idea about that.

Well the 'co' or 'coop' stuff wasn't finally decided really. I can live with both, although I'd prefer the shorter variant, too. We actually used that until we changed to our linux server, when we started to use the "coop@12..." variant. But as I said - I'd rather have that 'coop' then having spaces in the tag.

BTW: 'coop' IS an abreviation already... it's just the usual short form for cooperative mode, as is 'ctf' for capture-the-flag.

I think we have discussed that long enough - we should start a vote (1 week voting time) and put the following options:

- <maptype>@<playernumber> (map types: coop, ctf, c&h, a&d,...)

- <maptype>@<playernumber> (tags: co, ctf, c&h, a&d,...)

- <maptype>@ <playernumber> (tags: coop, ctf, c&h, a&d,...)

- <maptype>@ <playernumber> (tags: co, ctf, c&h, a&d,...)

That should cover all critical points. And the version number should be left as it is. Or you come up with a renaming convention for old map names! Then we can finally close this and get on playing!

[Goeth 0]

I vote for

- <maptype>@ <playernumber> (tags: co, ctf, c&h, a&d,...)

I think this is the most clearest. Cooperative maps has been named from the first release of this game as C.

[terox 316]

coop maps have not been called c since the start of the game

they have been called

c

co

coop and probably more as well

as per the version system

in an earlier post we went into this indepth

We decided that an admin couldnt rename or add his own version on maps that already exist

Think for instance "Plane frenzy"

how many versions are there of this and none of them have version numbers

and even if they did, how many are version 1

so a much earlier post stated something like this

anything prior to the map convention been released, uses the mapmakers version number

however any new map releases are recommended to use the following system

(There are two different types of version

Beta versions (maps under test)

Finished maps which are bug free or as bug free as is possible

let me take you through the development of a map

New map uploaded to a server for the first time

ctf@ 32 hellfire beta 1.0

an improved map is then released

ctf@ 32 hellfire beta 1.1

further improvements

ctf@ 32 helfire beta 1.2

The final release was bug free

so it then becomes

ctf@ 32 hellfire v1

new game version released

new beta with new weapons or added commands and scripts etc

ctf@ 32 hellfire beta 2.0

ctf@ 32 hellfire beta 2.1

becoming

ctf@ 32 hellfire v2

this system has the following advantages

each release has a new version number

therefore rather than copying over the original file using the same filename, you know which real version it is

secondly, when cleaning up you mpmissions folder, its obvious which is the most recent version

thirdly if the newer version is worse, you havent overwritten the older version and when the time comes to delete the older version, its obvious which it is

fourthly, having a difference of beta and v lets the admin know whether bugs can be expected

if beta then it is to be expected and due to the fact that the mapmaker will probably be testing it on only 1 server, there shouldnt be a communications problem.

We use a system for beta testing maps and knowing it is a beta really helps us out

If the map version number starts with a v, we know it should be trouble free

beta have version numbers to 1 decimal point eg beta 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 etc

finished maps just use integers v1, v2, v3 etc

i dont think its is practical to bring in something for hacked versions, but a marker may be of some use here

at the end of the day, it is a recommended version not a must do

Its up to the server admin who is hosting the mapmakers beta's to see to it

[terox 316]

ok lets get the spaces convention sorted

vote either

A) ctf@ 32 hellfire

or

B) ctf@32 hellfire

Advantages of A

Much clearer and easier to read especially when in a long list of maps

Disadvantages of A

Takes up a space

Advantages of B

A bit more clustered and harder on the eye

Disadvantages of B

saves a space

it is not possible to see the comparison without looking at the screenshots, listings on the forum dont show it

so scroll between the two screenshots numerous times and then come to a conclusion

(forget about the letter abbreviations etc just concentrate on the spaces between the subgroups

lets all vote

I vote A

[JRMZ 0]

A

[joltan 0]

B - no space in the tag.

And in regards to the other vote:

- <maptype>@<playernumber> (tags: co, ctf, c&h, a&d,...)

[Goeth 0]

A

[-TNF-Steiner 0]

I vote A, spaces between tags

[benu 1]

<maptype>@ <playernumber> (tags: co, ctf, c&h, a&d,...)

or

A

[shrike 0]

I vote A.