Follow-up Comment #5, bug #9913 (project wesnoth): As you say, you have indeed made a lot of points. I see five issues that can be discussed here:
1. Whether visible credits for multiplayer are desirable. 2. Giving credit where credit is due. 3. The extent of the changes to the maps, in particular Charge. 4. The practical difficulties in gathering the information about the original map creators. 5. The choice of venue for this discussion. Only two of these points, primarily number 2, and secondarily number 1, are material in this context. Out of politeness, however, as you've expressed your wish that I respond to all your points, I will oblige, for this time, and endeavour to do so. (As a technical point: You are perhaps unfamiliar with the bug tracker's "reversed" interface, in which newer comments appear at the top. Consequently, you have responded to my later comments first, and to my initial submission last.) I will discuss each of these five issues in turn. -- 1. Whether visible credits for multiplayer are desirable. This, in fact, was not my main point. I, however, alluded to this in parentheses, so it is completely fair that I try to address your points regarding this. I wrote: "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)." You wrote: "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. -- 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." "If any MP-related dev really believes that increasing the flow of feedback is not worth putting the map creator's name underneath the title, I would like to hear some good logical arguments." As you see, I initially didn't wish to address this point, it being peripheral to my main issue. I will also admit to being misinformed as to the history of this development. Now, having considered this issue more carefully, I can say I am in *perfect agreement* with you, when you say that _feedback is absolutely necessary._ Consequently, I think it is highly appropriate that the MP developers given credit _in a manner parallel to_ the credit given to _campaign_ authors. You wrote: "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." I believe you inadvertently demonstrate a point which I, too, would like to avoid. Clearly labeling a) the original author of the map, *AND* (more importantly from a feedback point of view!) b) the one responsible for the map's *CURRENT* design and balance would if not prevent, at least alleviate the problem of players being misinformed about who created the map and who to address when they have feedback. I heartily endorse the desire to improve feedback from players to map makers. I will also withdraw my parenthesed allusion to "self-promotion", quoted above. I realise that - from a practical point of view - the map objectives were a quick and easy way to "open up a channel for feedback". Therefore, I will endeavour not to attribute to malice or desire of self-promotion that which can be attributed to other causes, e.g. expediency of implementation. In the long term, I don't think having this information in the objectives is the best option, but I'm confident the developers will find a good way to implement this, which will satisfy the conflicting desires. To further the goal I've above deemed valuable, I have submitted feature request / bug #9921, in which I discuss alternative ways for displaying MP credits. In it I also try to address the suitable length of the credits, what you termed "text-clutter", and it is in my opinion mostly a question of finding a convenient implementation to be able to show what information is deemed necessary. -- 2. Giving credit where credit is due. "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." This, as I see it, is the crux of the issue. I *do not* argue that pg should be credited for the _current_ "Charge". I give _you_ *full credit* of the _current design_ of charge, how it looks, and how it plays. I fully appreciate the fact that you have spent a considerable time working on this map. You deserve credit for this, absolutely! What I *am* arguing is that this does *not* remove the map's heritage or origins. A (programming) project that is gradually developed, from modest origins (see http://www.wesnoth.org/images/sshots/ancient-01.png), still retains some of its old characteristics, _even if_ parts of it, or the entire project, should no longer contain even a trace of the _original_ results (lines of code, images) of the effort spent on it. The project, *as it now exists,* wouldn't, however, be what it is, without the modest origins. It is a matter of basic courtesy that credit be given to those who've contributed to the project, to each according to their contributions. I will return to this shortly later on. I will quote, as an example, a section of the manual page of the program responsible for showing and keeping a database of different manual pages (on linux systems part of the output of command 'man man'): "HISTORY 1990, 1991 - Originally written by John W. Eaton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). Dec 23 1992: Rik Faith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) applied bug fixes supplied by Willem Kasdorp ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). 30th April 1994 - 23rd February 2000: Wilf. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has been developing and maintaining this package with the help of a few dedicated people. 30th October 1996 - 30th March 2001: Fabrizio Polacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> maintained and enhanced this package for the Debian project, with the help of all the community. 31st March 2001 - present day: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is now developing and maintaining man-db." -- 3. The extent of the changes to the maps, in particular Charge. As I've stated above, in my view whether the map has changed slightly or significantly, modestly or extensively, is of no concern to acknowledging the map's origins. Whether this creates "text-clutter" is a matter of technical implementation only, and can be solved, which I've discussed above and in the other report referenced. However, for this once, I will oblige and give my view on the extent of the changes to Charge. You wrote: "Important Point #1: The character, distinctiveness, and identiy of a map are not determined by the name of that map." "I'd like anyone interested to try the following exercise: Consider fiev things that give a map its identity. Write them down. [Two map images] Compare your two lists." I see a smallish map (expanded by width, sure, in the later version) with two keeps, one at top and one at bottom. The map is, basically, mirrored through the center - in other words the map halves, looking from the keep towards the opponent, are broadly similar. As defining features between these two keeps there are two ridges in the direction of north-north-east south-south-west. These ridges are located to the "front and right" from the keep (towards the opponent), and will channel and hinder the units' movement. Another defining feature is the marshy area (with two villages) to the "left" of each keep (looking towards the opponent). Battle will occur for the villages at the sides (the number of which has been reduced and the positions of which have been changed), and secondarily for the central village (which was more threatened earlier). Important positions for units are often formed in the middle highlands (the highlands closer to the current defender, so to speak), to the "front and left" of each keep (again, looking towards the opponent). The most important changes to the map can be labeled as follows: a) Partially removing & relocating the knots of 2 villages at both sides, essential for improved p1-p2 balance. b) Significantly improving unit mobility (more significant for land units, but it was also improved for water units) towards the "left" of each keep (looking towards the opponent). c) Modifying the above-mentioned main ridges channeling the unit movements to consist largely of impassable terrain. (First to cave wall, later to the aesthetically more pleasing impassable mountains.) This is essential to hinder the movement of flying units, but _most of all_ to hinder the drake faction from abusing their supreme mobility. All of these changes were done at an early phase. The rest of the changes are, frankly, minor in significance, compared to those named above, amounting to finetuning the map's behaviour. (By saying this I do not wish to undervalue the efforts you've put into this - the finetuning can be considered valuable.) d) To these changes can be added the slowing down of the central area by a waterway. (This is, in my opinion, not quite as significant a change as the others named.) As a consequence, the defence of the central village requires potentially less attention. Now, you will no doubt consider this short summary simplified. Yes, I will be the first to agree that it is so. This is due at least to the trouble needed to convey accurately ideas of map balance in text form, and the timeconsuming nature of trying to formulate these ideas, which I will elect not to elaborate on. Accordingly, I do not intend to spend 200-300 hours pondering this map. (You may, for all I know, spend an hour pondering the details of a few significant hexes, and this has two likely consequences. For one, the map will, possibly, benefit from your musings. And for two, you may, personally, grow fonder (that is, attach more emotional importance) to the map, having given it yet more of your attention, and consequently become more attached to the map's current incarnation. But I digress.) "I have written volumes on this subject already, and I wish that you had bothered to read them or had presented any real sort of argument while the subject was being discussed." As you see from my statements at the beginning of this section, I don't think an exact analysis of the map's character is relevant to the issue due to which I filed this report. "A random user made map would probably be more similar to the old Charge than this current "Charge" is to the old Charge." I perceive this to be exaggeration. Charge is still recognisable. This is however not relevant to issue 2, as said. In other words, even if it were not recognisable, "if not one line of original code was left", but still had been created based on the original map, it would be a matter of courtesy to name that "inspiration was had from such and such map", for instance. Of course, if the origins can't be recognised at all (by an outside, history-conscientious observer), it is only up to the new map's editor to acknowledge what s/he had inspiration from. In my opinion, acknowledging the sources of inspiration *really* does not diminish the value of the finished map. Quite the contrary, actually. "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..." Please see above. (By the way, your analogy of the gorilla and the alligator reminds me of your recent comment about the state of Wesnoth biotechnology, and it not being quite up to the task of "building" units. I heartily agree with you on that matter, units certainly aren't "built", but generally "recruited". Armies, though, may even be "built".) "...the revisions made by Bec (CH Isle, which I also worked on, though less so than Bec) and myself (Clash) completely changed the maps [b]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." "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." I will readily agree that they are not "simply edits" or "mere edits". You do realise this yourself as well. More than well. Then, it seems clear to me that you in no way "need" to claim credit for the _original_ design, as little as pg "needs" (nor wants, for all I know) to claim credit for the _current_ design. "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. I agree to your statement that those maps are most certainly not the same as these. The maps are significantly changed. Yet, their origins are still there. They are even visible in the maps, but whether they are visible or not, is, to me, not relevant, as said above. "I'm sure that there will be, amoung some users, an undercurrent of "Oh, he's so arogant, 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." To repeat, *in no way* do I wish to take away your credit for your work. -- 2. Now, back to the real issue. In my view, it in no way diminishes your "glory" to acknowledge that you did not start from an empty slate. As I wrote above, for the _current design_ of the map, you have full responsibility and credit. It is plainly obvious that you abhor the _original design_ in what you deem its balance flaws. Why, then, do you wish to claim credit for that _original design?_ Is the following not good for you, and does it not clearly denote who is responsible for the *current design and balance* of the map? " *Bitter Creek* Original map design: pg (Charge) Current map design and balance: Doc Paterson (Bitter Creek) Special credits for the map's name go to: bert1" I wrote: "Stating a map was "Designed by" the one editing it in a case like this is, arguably, quite arrogant." You wrote: "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." As you can see from the example I have given above, I give *you* the credit (along with the responsibility, which I understand you have gladly accepted) for the *Current map design and balance.* -- 4. The practical difficulties in gathering the information about the original map creators. I wrote: "It should be comparatively easy to dig the forums and ask around for knowledge of the original designer." You wrote: "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." Oh I am aware of the thread in which you requested for origins of old maps. But it is hardly my job to find out what they are. If anyone's, the job is yours, since you are in the position of the current map maintainer. Considering the plain availability of much of this information on the forums, though, it appears to me that you haven't really exercised your capacities in trying to find the information. Since I've taken an interest in this matter, and appear to possess or be capable of finding information you don't have, I may yet provide you with some assistance in this matter. I traced the origins of some maps, to demonstrate it is doable, but I shall not spend my time trying to trace the origins of *all* current maps. I will not mention the newer maps (mostly original designs by Becephalus), as the origins of these are known. Mind you, I or my memory are not infallible, and if I chance to make a mistake in attributing a map's origins, please accept my apologies. If you want to trace the origins of old maps yourself, doing a forum search on "multiplayer maps" and starting off the oldest end of threads will yield you something. Also, tracking the svn history of MP maps (and commits done on them) may give information both on the time they were introduced, and if you're lucky, even their author. What I came by in a short excursion to old forum threads follows. Take a glance here: http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4529&highlight=olof Were not all Morituri by Olof, same as Triple Blitz? (Original concept: pg (Blitz), Map adaptation: olof (Blitz 3), Current map design and balance: Doc Paterson (Triple Blitz)) Also hexcake, even if it's hugely changed in its current revision. Also the 4p versions of various maps were made by olof (known for making families of different maps), but most of these are not in the current distribution. Take another glance here: http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5432&highlight=maps On second page, cobretti professes to be the author of Siege Castles. Apparently, also on second page you imply that pg is the author of "Divide & Conquer", the origin of current Caves of the Basilisk, if I'm not mistaken. Included in the pg group are, as you probably know, (with current names) Blitz, Charge, and CotB. Dave created Wesbowl (which didn't get credits in the latest revision): http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1479 Apparently telex4 created King of the Hill: http://www.wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1438 (This thread reminds me: If you want to trace the origins of old maps, checking old releases for familiar-looking maps might be worth the trouble, to get an idea of how old an old map is, so you know _what time frame_ to comb through on the forums.) Take a glance here as well: http://wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2255 On second page, apparently Neorice made Forest of Fear. It appears you know this, though (http://wesnoth.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=99284#99284). You do state (concerning the thread requesting for information on maps' history) that "Everything that they uncovered is reflected in the current credits, though truly, there was not much to be found." It does seem though that everything _you_ know is not reflected in the credits. Could be that you forgot, or then it may be because you considered the changes too extensive to credit the original author. (A point you will by now see is in my opinion not significant.) Island of the Horatii - with the removed mention of "# no idea who created this (1v1v1hex) or when, revised by Becephalus 01/06" - I haven't tracked down. Numerous other maps - I decided to not spend more of my time tracking these down. I consider I've done my share. -- 5. The choice of venue for this discussion. You wrote: "Here's hoping that you have the courage to reply to me on the forums where I will be posting this." I wrote: "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." You wrote: "If someone would like to make any accusation of the kind, I am, as you can see, more than willing to defend myself." Why this should be discussed on the forums is not altogether clear to me. Do you in fact wish to stir conflict, or recreate old flamewars? Do you strive for discord, thrive in unneeded argument? If you do, I desire no part in it. This I added at a later time, after reading your second post in the forum thread: I see from your later post that you do not either wish to stir unnecessary conflict, as you state that you only wish to get the matter settled. I find this positive. For me, this is not a personal issue, nor directed in particular at you. The new credit notifications simply struck me as being in discord with what is appropriate in a gradually developed (and developing) project in the realm of open sourced software. In my opinion, this matter is more of a technical (if perhaps also somewhat philosophical) nature, and can best be settled in the bug tracker. Also, you misjudge my position, choosing the developers' forum for posting your response. I am quite sure that if any of the developers had an issue with the new credits, they would have no problem in voicing their opinions directly to you. If one motivation for you behind choosing the forum as venue of discussion is to gain the knowledge of my name, or indeed whether I have a forum account, I assure you that my name is really of no consequence to you, and I do trust that my anonymity does not prevent addressing the issue. -- As a summary: I have endeavoured to respond to your points, in my opinion carefully enough. I require no response from you, but you are of course free to provide your view. It has taken me some time to consider this issue, and to respond to your points. Accordingly, I hope you will take note of the following. As I've stated, in my opinion issue 3, the extent of the changes, is not material in this context. To me, this is more an issue of a technical nature. I do not wish to further belabour map balance with you, and consequentely will refuse to further comment on the matter here. I kindly ask of you the courtesy not to request or require a further answer from me on this topic. Likewise, rehearsing here a detailed analysis of the changes would be wasted energy on your part. On issue 4, the practical difficulty of tracking the maps' history, I feel I have said enough. Also, the practical side of things is not relevant to addressing the principles at hand. I will as far as possible refrain from further comments on this topic. Of issue 5, the choice of venue, I have said what I wish to say. As the matter is more of a technical nature, the bug tracker is quite a suitable medium for it, and on this I shall comment no further. What *is* material in this context, are issue 2, giving credit where it is due, and issue 1, how to technically present those credits. Of those, I believe I have said enough, in this report and the report referenced above, to make my point clear. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://gna.org/bugs/?9913> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-bugs
