/tg/Station 13

our feature agility is seriously harmed when you have to do the same boring ass shitty reptitive mapping actions on 7 maps, most of which you'll rarely ever play on.

I am seriously concerned that this is impacting our ability to introduce new features and remap existing departments.

Solution, run a simple STV poll with all the map options on it.

Cut everything but the first place winner (probably meta)

and commit to having a single map again.

Can we hold at two and a half?

Where the half is some semi-featured station that will most likely be for lowpop anyways?

Why is there not a vote in this post?

If maps cannot be maintained then I agree they should be brought out of rotation. Though I like having more map diversity if we cannot keep up maintaining them then they will be dropped. I'd be happy to take coderbus advice on this.

there's nothing to vote on, I'm asking for thoughtful opinion only. This doesn't matter in anyway unless key decision makers commit, so it's pointless to have a poll, that would come after.

I don't think a lowpop station has any value, use the primary map as the lowpop with increased access, we rarely have ultra low pop save for new servers, adn they will either get more pop or die.

This is probably a shitpost, but if it isn't fuck off Oranges. Speaking as someone who played frequently when there was only Box as the map, it was stale as shit. Map rotation is the best feature we've added in years, get fucked if you want to go back to the monotony of only one map.

it's easy to post from that position, but you know what will get way more fucking stale than a single map? A game with no new features added because the cost to feature is too high (Which it is)

Given that you've never done more than shitpost on the forum and github, I wouldnt' expect you to get it.

The reality is nearly all the station maps play almost identically, there is no significant difference between box and meta for example and the reality is that adding new features is a pain when you have to work with dreammakers shitty map software to do 7 different maps, most of which you won't give a fuck about.

Just ask okand, they left mapping here and went to CM because all the maps here feel the same and end up the same.

No point in keeping 7 maps that are pretty much the same with no real unique differences.

All but the most popular two might be a more popular idea

I agree 7 is a bit much

the two most popular are going to be meta and box

they are not different in any real sense other than cardinal arrangement, it might feel different but the two maps are functionally identical, hell, most of the time the departments even have the same exact layout and content.

I don't see it being a tradeoff worth costing us actual features and changes.

I might accept having more than one map if the maps other than the community map had a dedicated nominated person who was actively mapping it, and when they went away/inactive they have to pass on the torch to someone else, or trigger a community vote to make it the new default map.

There would have to be no complaint about that process and it would need to be clear about how it works and how the process plays

People would only be required to add their feature to the community maintained map.

Repathing/etc would still require the normal ensuring each non community map still compiles at least, to prevent map rot.

and for anyone who doubts me because of my shitposting I am serious about this one.

It's something that's being weighing in the back of my mind for a while now and recent discussions I've had have crystallised my opinion on this.

I know it feels like a step backwards but I think it's going to be much more healthy for the community to take this route.

+1
if i have to wonder whether or not i'm on meta or box or delta then something is wrong
if we really want to we can also make an SS13-Maps repository to keep old maps from dying or whatever

they'll die anyway because the paths rot as we do refactors/improvements, and they're no less retrievable from the git history

oranges wrote:The reality is nearly all the station maps play almost identically, there is no significant difference between box and meta for example and the reality is that adding new features is a pain when you have to work with dreammakers shitty map software to do 7 different maps, most of which you won't give a fuck about.

That's because they're all played with the same gamemodes and the same people genius. Their LAYOUTS are different. That's literally the whole point, give a change of scenery for the same things that happen every round. To argue that that's "too much" and "is stifling adding features" is fucking moronic. The maps don't require perfect maintenance, the crew can fill in any gaps themselves.

As to the rest, apparently I need to explain it, I would think that a coder of all fucking people would understand it (though by your own admission you've hardly coded a single large feature), but coders code what they want when they want, though whether it gets merged is a different story, but you're one of the ones guarding that gate.

Also nice job trying to disregard my input because "all I do is shitpost", despite my point being entirely valid you idiot.

your point isn't valid because you've never done a major feature map in your life.

Ask kor how fun it is to do 7 sets of identical pipe and power remappings before you run your mouth about how easy it is actually add things to the maps.

People code things as a combination of
1) would it be accepted
2) how hard is it to actually acheive

having 7 maps that are functionally identically is making the bar of 2 much higher and is RIGHT now getting in the way of people's motivations to change and add features.

This isn't idle speculation, I've had direct concrete feedback to that respect.

ShadowDimentio wrote:The maps don't require perfect maintenance, the crew can fill in any gaps themselves.

Using techwebs as an example, if we had removed the ability for science to print every item, but only added the department lathes to Box, do you think people on the other maps would be happy when they couldn't make guns at all anymore?

also the real irony is that if we do what shadow recommends then we'd just have players bitching at us about the unmaintained maps until we remove them.

Removing them upfront and instituting a strong maintenance policy about extra maps causes some bitching upfront, but it's easier than eating shit for 7 months until we remove them all anyway.

Also shadow, since you're so strongly in favour of having variety, can I expect you to step up and maintain one of the maps? Perhaps you'd like to maintain box or delta or omega?

Would love to hear from you about that asap.

Kor wrote:

ShadowDimentio wrote:The maps don't require perfect maintenance, the crew can fill in any gaps themselves.
/quote]

Using techwebs as an example, if we had removed the ability for science to print every item, but only added the department lathes to Box, do you think people on the other maps would be happy when they couldn't make guns at all anymore?

>Implying they get them now

I joke. But that's an issue easily sidestepped by coding the lathes that had already been dropped into the various maps into the omni-lathes so that construction still works fine until someone drops department lathes into the maps in question. Bam done, mapping crisis resolved with only a minor bit of foresight.

so your solution to people having to jump through hoops to get a feature done is to jump through other hoops instead?

wow great solution, we can just make every single new feature use existing map objects no matter if that will scale or not!

I see no reason why we can't utilize the gigantic codebase we have now to recruit people who can map the server. We're literally knee deep in people and we have an extremely large community, I don't see why I can't just help y'all get someone to maintain the maps.

oranges wrote:so your solution to people having to jump through hoops to get a feature done is to jump through other hoops instead?

wow great solution, we can just make every single new feature use existing map objects no matter if that will scale or not!

>Jump through other hoops

Like having the slightest bit of foresight? Like I'm only a rank amateur coder but my solution would take an absurdly minimal amount of effort and you know it. All you'd have to do is instead of making the regular lathes in science the science lathes you leave them as the omnilathes and create a new, different lathe that's the science lathe.

@citrus
Maybe that's true, but we still need to decide on a policy, to deal with the case that actually we cant' find that many map maintainers

remove cere 2018

ShadowDimentio wrote:

oranges wrote:so your solution to people having to jump through hoops to get a feature done is to jump through other hoops instead?

wow great solution, we can just make every single new feature use existing map objects no matter if that will scale or not!

>Jump through other hoops

Like having the slightest bit of foresight? Like I'm only a rank amateur coder but my solution would take an absurdly minimal amount of effort and you know it. All you'd have to do is instead of making the regular lathes in science the science lathes you leave them as the omnilathes and create a new, different lathe that's the science lathe.

You've suggested a solution for a single recent change

what would you do for example, if someone wanted to add a whole new department and move all gun construction to that department, making it important to the stability of the round?

There's no easy fix for that, you simply have to sack up and add the department /machines to every single map

You're overfocusing on a workaround for a single example rather than the principle that you can't just leave entire rooms or objects missing on several maps. It won't always be as simple as "just leave an omnilathe"

What if we axed circuits and now we have a bunch of maps with circuitlabs that wont compile unless we remove them?

If we trim to most popular three, it'd most likely be Box, Meta, and Delta. Most of the complaints I hear about our maps are usually centered around Omega and Pubby (though they're usually about outdated complaints about things already fixed.)

Also we only have 5 maps.

>Axed circuts

That's a pretty damn huge change to construction, so yeah you'd have to commit to the long haul and unfuck all the shit you broke by gutting the system.

Again my advocacy is for the following
1 community map that feature developers have to target
n many extra maps, with a dedicated person who develops the map, with limited maintainer balance oversight (we'll remove it if people are screamign at us too much)

If the extra maps fall behind, they get cut, if the map owner vanishes, they get cut, unless they picked a person to pick it up, or someone steps up.

at most I might be convinced to have two community maps

Also, if we have such a major issue with mapping things for new features or major removals, feel free to poke me about doing it. I don't usually get mapping requests (I think the last one I got was when MRTY was adding spacepods.)

ShizCalev wrote:Also, if we have such a major issue with mapping things for new features or major removals, feel free to poke me about doing it. I don't usually get mapping requests (I think the last one I got was when MRTY was adding spacepods.)

Wonderful, I think the codebase would really appreciate the extra work. I do wonder if we would be able to get someone to take over planetstation with a similar search, but maintaining the already available maps should be our primary objective.

Meta + Delta wombo combo

It'd really be better to limit it to the top 3, or a selection of 3 if the vote was too "stale".

It's more work then 1 map, sure, but it allows us to keep some variety in the mix while defocusing maps that have lain stagnant barring required changes.

Also mapping, unlike coding, is one of those things that most people can do with a little bit of guiding, so if feature implementation is really being hamstrung by map updating, we can always push this within the community (thread within Coding, a group of volunteers on github who can be tagged if a developer needs map changes, something along those lines). I can't code my way out of a paper bag, but I'm happy to make changes to maps to ensure that good changes get in.

Hey you guys wanna know the 2nd reason goof farm got cancelled?

I couldn't fit a farm next to botany on every map.

We have maps so unpopular in rotation that admins force a map change when they come up.

Keep box, meta and possibly delta.

Scrap the rest.

ShadowDimentio wrote: >Jump through other hoops

Like having the slightest bit of foresight? Like I'm only a rank amateur coder but my solution would take an absurdly minimal amount of effort and you know it. All you'd have to do is instead of making the regular lathes in science the science lathes you leave them as the omnilathes and create a new, different lathe that's the science lathe.

Except we have a ton of features that require different amount of mapping. Honestly I get that some people might want more maps but you're just posting shit in bad faith and you don't know how much work it can be to add a feature and map it into every map.


I've been holding off on several ideas because I know I'd have to butcher 7 maps and add new sections to them, which is not what I want to be doing, takes up a fuckton of time depending on the feature, and isn't particularly fun.



+1 remove most maps and leave 1-3.

CitrusGender wrote: Wonderful, I think the codebase would really appreciate the extra work. I do wonder if we would be able to get someone to take over planetstation with a similar search, but maintaining the already available maps should be our primary objective.

I'm currently discussing with someone if we can make a planetstation map but I want to see some actual design documents that arent just vague forum threads with ideas but no actual plan.

Arianya wrote:It'd really be better to limit it to the top 3, or a selection of 3 if the vote was too "stale".

It's more work then 1 map, sure, but it allows us to keep some variety in the mix while defocusing maps that have lain stagnant barring required changes.

Also mapping, unlike coding, is one of those things that most people can do with a little bit of guiding, so if feature implementation is really being hamstrung by map updating, we can always push this within the community (thread within Coding, a group of volunteers on github who can be tagged if a developer needs map changes, something along those lines). I can't code my way out of a paper bag, but I'm happy to make changes to maps to ensure that good changes get in.

people dont' map because it's boring, not because it's hard

oranges wrote:

Arianya wrote:It'd really be better to limit it to the top 3, or a selection of 3 if the vote was too "stale".

It's more work then 1 map, sure, but it allows us to keep some variety in the mix while defocusing maps that have lain stagnant barring required changes.

Also mapping, unlike coding, is one of those things that most people can do with a little bit of guiding, so if feature implementation is really being hamstrung by map updating, we can always push this within the community (thread within Coding, a group of volunteers on github who can be tagged if a developer needs map changes, something along those lines). I can't code my way out of a paper bag, but I'm happy to make changes to maps to ensure that good changes get in.

people dont' map because it's boring, not because it's hard

You literally have two people in this thread already volunteering to do mapping, so clearly its more a case of connecting people interested in doing the mapping with people who need mapping rather then just saying "MAPPINGS BORING NO ONE WANTS TO DO IT"

Arianya wrote:

oranges wrote:

Arianya wrote:It'd really be better to limit it to the top 3, or a selection of 3 if the vote was too "stale".

It's more work then 1 map, sure, but it allows us to keep some variety in the mix while defocusing maps that have lain stagnant barring required changes.

Also mapping, unlike coding, is one of those things that most people can do with a little bit of guiding, so if feature implementation is really being hamstrung by map updating, we can always push this within the community (thread within Coding, a group of volunteers on github who can be tagged if a developer needs map changes, something along those lines). I can't code my way out of a paper bag, but I'm happy to make changes to maps to ensure that good changes get in.

people dont' map because it's boring, not because it's hard

You literally have two people in this thread already volunteering to do mapping, so clearly its more a case of connecting people interested in doing the mapping with people who need mapping rather then just saying "MAPPINGS BORING NO ONE WANTS TO DO IT"

saying you will != Doing it

saying you will != Doing it

In which goof doubts a maintainer's ability to follow through.

Also our entire codebase is essentially doomed if we take the view that no one will ever actually do anything ever and it hinders implementation. Say you don't like the suggestion if you don't like the suggestion but don't come up with lazy arguments against it that change nothing.

Kill box, worst map

I'll be extremely surprised if the actual list isn'tt meta > delta > box > pubby > omega, veteran players might have a sweet spot for box but on the whole it has very few friends

Also I'm personally of the opinion that "making a feature" and "enabling a feature by mapping it" should be two different steps except for the tiniest of map changes

How veteran do you have to be? Because I certainly prefer meta.

Naksu wrote:Also I'm personally of the opinion that "making a feature" and "enabling a feature by mapping it" should be two different steps except for the tiniest of map changes

This. Features should be mapped in by the mappers not necessarily by the people making the features.

Adding things via adding them to a spawner list, adding them to cargo, or adding them to techwebs should be one PR, then if they need separate spaces for them, do a separate map PR. Most things dont need to have pre-built areas, I mean it gives assistants and engineers stuff to do if they need to build shit.

Goof farms was animal breeding right? why drop an entire feature because of a mapping issue when you can give people all the tools via cargo and techwebs and let them solve the mapping issue for you by building what they need.

That all being said, if you had to limit it to one map I would say delta, with meta as a close second. Bagil's population tends to need something as big as delta.

keep meta box and delta
not even low pop niggers(terry) like those shitty low pop maps

if we do go ahead with this, the really telling point will be, once the most popular map is picked, who steps up to maintain the others?

it's one thing to suggest you'll map things for people if they manage to get a hold of you, it's another entirely to commit to actually being the guy for a map.

A lot of people have in my opinion some starry eyed optimism that my jaded experience does not map with.

People saying keep box, meta and delta are factually correct.

Box is THE SS13 map, you just can't remove it, it's like removing clowns or mimes. And it's pretty suitable for lower populations.
Meta is the development of box, a sweet spot, most universal and most popular.
Delta is not so popular, but it's pretty good for high pops, I love it's maint layout.

oranges wrote:if we do go ahead with this, the really telling point will be, once the most popular map is picked, who steps up to maintain the others?

it's one thing to suggest you'll map things for people if they manage to get a hold of you, it's another entirely to commit to actually being the guy for a map.

A lot of people have in my opinion some starry eyed optimism that my jaded experience does not map with.

This is specifically why I'm suggesting a group of volunteers who can be pinged on github rather then assigning one person to a map who inevitably burns out/goes on holiday/doesn't like a particular feature/etc.

As far as I've seen this idea of "map ownership" has never really resulted in map improvement/maintenance in anything beyond the first month or two of a map's lifecycle, so why continue to push on having "the guy" for any given map instead of treating it as a shared resource.

Lots of potential mappers have been turned away because of difficulties with the map merger and git. they're too complicated for people who aren't coders.

Even I've been turned away with all the fucking steps involved with making changes to a map. Making the changes in DM is the easy part. What pains me is having to manage the mapmerger, then baby the changes through github, which is NOT a good site for handling maps. Take my recent map PR for example. It's been 10 days, three commits, and still no end in sight. Right now it's holding up 2 other PRs, which is awful.

Here's what it should be, regardless of how many maps get removed:

- Promote SEVERAL map maintainers. Denton is good. I'm good. MMMircacles is good. Most people are good, actually. Promote anyone who shows a tiny bit of mapping competence.

- Allow map maintainers to instantly merge their own commits on maps that aren't Meta. The PR system is an unnecessary hoop that makes map changes more painful than need be. Additionally, the PR system is the reason the map merger is required. If commits could be merged instantly there wouldn't be a need for the map merger, so kill the map merger on everything but meta.

- People adding objects should only required to update Meta, but for each map they don't update they have to tag map maintainers to let them know. People doing path changes or removing items are required to change all maps, however.

+1 to op, meta isn't my favourite and it'd pain me to see box go but absolutely I agree with the sentiment