Yale, maps and first finish battles in EOL

[Kopaka]

With the release of yale there has been some issues rised. If you're not familiar with the situation yale is a new level making web app that allows for cooperative level making. Links to participate are shared between a few people or publically in #across so multiple people have been part of the level making, and possibly more have seen the level. These are often larger levels started as first finish battles in EOL.

First off I would like to say, as roope pointed out when we talked about it in mod chat, yale has brought a lot of positive things, it's bringing people together to design levels and attracting people to EOL when they are battled. So we certainly don't want to completely cripple this with rules and regulations, so would like to have an open minded discussion, because there are as you can imagine some issues with that if we are to adhere strictly to the rules of EOL.

The issues being:
1. Multiple people designing, some of which are taking place in the battle.
2. Level is shared publically in a place like #across long before the battle, or same keys are reused so people can guess the url.
3. Map is shared in mopolauta long before the battle (not necessarily related to yale).

If we were to follow EOL rules strictly, for 1. any designer taking part shouldn't be allowed to play. For 2. it could never be battled if it's already shared somehow. For 3. there's not really any rule against it, but technically it could be considered sharing the level as you could convert it to a real level.

It really comes down to does anyone get an advantage, I think in most cases probably no one will bother to play the level beforehand even if they have it. And if you just designed a small part the advantage you get is minimal. Of course there have to be a line somewhere. Sharing the map will even the playing field a bit for those who haven't been part of designing it, but there's many who plays battles who doesn't check mopolauta, so it doesn't make that big of a difference.


So would like to hear people's opinions and the experiences you've had using yale and playing yale levels in EOL.

[kuchitsu]

Imo this should be approached with maximum fun in mind. These levs are great and of course the makers want to see how they turned out, they want to have fun with them too. I think playing should be allowed as long as the person haven't made more than about 20% of the level. If we say "no, if you make anything then you can't play", that will seriously discourage people from actually creating these levels...

Sharing levs publically - now that sounds weird to me. I thought people share link to the room in private messages? Why don't they do it like this?

Sharing maps - this also always seemed a bit strange to me, like why is it necessary? I guess people do it because they are afraid that mere words won't attract enough people? So they attach these impressive pics so that everyone will get interested. That is understandable, but by now we already know that these levs kick ass and they don't really need more promotion I think. I think it would be nice if people stopped doing this.

[Lousku]

A few points...

1. Generally people who work on these levs (as well as people who allow starter in flagtags) seem to play them very casually if at all. Not with a taste of blood in their mouths to win at all costs, but to enjoy the lev and give some cruising company to Markku and adi etc. Especially if the person made most of the level, they usually take it extra easy.

2. It's not simply "playing your own level". I would compare it more to "playing someone's remix of your lev" because most often others will put their dirty paws on your vertices after you're done with them.

3. In the end, who cares about ff stats to the extent that this is an actual problem? Stats can be interesting, but do they really outweigh the fun brought into the scene by YALE? That you'd rather suppress this new type of collaboration (by not letting designers play at all) in order to not give that extreemly negligible advantage to people?

4. Ramone said that even just looking at the map gives a big advantage in ff battle... How? Are you really memorizing the lev and then driving by memory instead of watching map all the time? Maps posted on lauta are to give a rough idea of what to expect in the battle, and see if you want to make time to participate at all and how stoked you should be. I seriously doubt anyone can use it to any advantage at all.

Sharing levs publically - now that sounds weird to me. I thought people share link to the room in private messages? Why don't they do it like this?

"Publicly" just means a link on #across. I think we generally want as many mans as pasibel to contribute something, so why not? Spamming the link privately to everyone who might be interested gets annoying and serves no purpose.

[kuchitsu]

Uhh. I thought it's like:
-who wants yale?
-me!
-ok, here link *sends a private message

If everyone can see it then that's a bit problematic maybe. But I'll have to think about it more first.


Obviously being able to study the map in advance can give huge advantage in terms of planning and, more importantly, confidence ("I'm already familiar with this land, nothing to be afraid of").

[Ruben]

Uhh. I thought it's like:
-who wants yale?
-me!
-ok, here link *sends a private message

If everyone can see it then that's a bit problematic maybe. But I'll have to think about it more first.


Obviously being able to study the map in advance can give huge advantage in terms of planning and, more importantly, confidence ("I'm already familiar with this land, nothing to be afraid of").

Yeah but everyone can prepare equally when an image is just upped to lauta, so there's really no unfair advantage. If you're dedicated you'll get a better result, seems right to me.

On this general subject, I feel people have a good idea of whether they ought to play or not. Like seriously, who would go out of their way to abuse such a system? Just shut and have some fun dammit.

[skint0r]

I feel like the biggest distinction is how these are usually some 60m FF levs. Not normal 15 minute battles where few people cooperated for two hours making 30 second long level and trying to hoyl for a win on it.

This whole thing is such a non-issue I think it's retarded to even have problem with it. I can understand having opinion about not liking levs being shared as image or makers participating, as a general concept, which is fine. Can totally respect that even though disagree in some ways.

But holy balls how stupid arguments to think someone is winning this non-serious thing because they saw the image of level in advanced or looked at yale link in #across. I wonder if people who complained even plays FF battles ever? You are constantly looking at minimap, judging how hard/easy part comes next, maybe try spy some general overview of where to go now and after, then you try to maximize safeness vs. going fast. Do you seriously think people are memorising levels in head and aren't doing these things instead? Do you think for example the reason Lousk got 37 apples in some theoretical battle while you only got 24 is because he made level? No it's probably more because you don't know how to play FF or Elma in general and he's not a total fucktard and understands how to play them.

[Zweq]

It sounds like there would be need for rated and non-rated battles, in the style of chess sites. If ppl really don't care about stats like they claim to, then they can play it non-rated. (Although I bet my ass that somebody would still complain)

[adi]

Posting a picture of map has been norm for about 5 years? I'm really surprised that this seems to be problem for some ppl. Like Lousku said, map only gives a rough idea of what to expect...is the level cruise, challenge or mix of them? I've previewed every yaleff but couldn't really memorize anything useful (and don't want). Also it's hard to see the scale and after all levels often get changes after posting a picture of map.

[gimp]

Who is complaining about seeing the map? Nobody here so far... I agree with everyone else, in the end the best players will prevail, seeing a map doesn't really do shit.

I could see designers playing own lev being a problem if they created some 20 minutes of the ff lev or something, but i don't really know how YALE works, seems like most people don't care.

Also it is hard to care about stats at all when the ranking formula sucks. The way people are ranked on elmaonline should not be taken seriously.

[Pab]

Besides any opinions i have, once the level is started to be made in yale, you don't know who is making the level or who is downloading and testing the level. Or if ppl share an image of it, then others can create a level from it? I never tryed but i guess its very doable. Most levels are shared publically so everyone can participate, and that is the best thing of yale. So you dont really know who made which part or vertex or whatever.

Like Ruben says, who is going to abuse this system? Well, i guess you cant risk it. I understand there are some rules to be made. But i wouldnt consider implementing the "no colaborators that publically confirmed that they created something in the level or that somehow tested it before the battle can play" rule, simply because yale (for now) is anonymous.

I personally wouldnt play the battle if i tested the level or if i made a big part of it. I wouldnt take advantage to win a 60 minutes "100% made for fun" FF battle. The last yaleff triggered Ramone thoughts pretty badly, since i leaded after maybe 20 minutes? because everyone else died except me (it was a hard level, is not so rare thing to happen), and i said i colaborated in the level and i was going to play for fun, die and then spy the leader (which other colaborators said too). And i did it, i died after 20 minutes on the only part i fully made myself (30 seconds part), then spyed markku to the win.

So Ramone probably doesnt know what making this big colaboration levels is like but he obviously knows how eol works, and yale brings totally new and positive things to eol. I would invite everyone to experience it before having a so strong and restricting opinions about it. Specially Ramone since he makes very good stuff in levels.

[Lousku]

Relevant piece of chatlog from the balle that started this discussion

[22:10:21] <EOL_bot> (Pab): i play, i die, i spy
[22:10:22] <EOL_bot> (Lousku): i play, die and then spy
[22:10:24] <EOL_bot> (Lousku): pab :D
[22:10:29] <EOL_bot> (Pab): :D
[22:10:29] <EOL_bot> (ville_j): my too

Nice coincidence that we said the same thing within a second, but it does represent a common attitude in playing "own" levs.

It sounds like there would be need for rated and non-rated battles, in the style of chess sites. If ppl really don't care about stats like they claim to, then they can play it non-rated. (Although I bet my ass that somebody would still complain)

That would be great, or alternatively getting to add some nicks in startballe to disqualify from the balle (though that could ez be abused...)

[gimp]

The last yaleff triggered Ramone thoughts pretty badly, since i leaded after maybe 20 minutes? because everyone else died except me (it was a hard level, is not so rare thing to happen), and i said i colaborated in the level and i was going to play for fun, die and then spy the leader (which other colaborators said too). And i did it, i died after 20 minutes on the only part i fully made myself (30 seconds part), then spyed markku to the win.

So obviously if you help to collaborate on making a large part of one of these levs you have an advantage, I think pabs statement just proved that. Since it is anonymous and we have no way to prove who made what, I guess the best thing to do is just make a statement in some rules that "you may not play to win in a battle you helped create in YALE". Winning is the only way rank is effected anyways, so second or third doesn't matter. Pabs statement and the chat log shows also the players who are elite enough at this game to win huge ff battles all have to much respect for the game to cheat (from what I've observed at least).

[Lousku]

The last yaleff triggered Ramone thoughts pretty badly, since i leaded after maybe 20 minutes? because everyone else died except me (it was a hard level, is not so rare thing to happen), and i said i colaborated in the level and i was going to play for fun, die and then spy the leader (which other colaborators said too). And i did it, i died after 20 minutes on the only part i fully made myself (30 seconds part), then spyed markku to the win.

So obviously if you help to collaborate on making a large part of one of these levs you have an advantage, I think pabs statement just proved that.

How? He said he died in the only part he fully made himself. :S

[Ramone]

Like I said: if its decided its ok Im fine with it. But I wont take part of battles where levelmakers play the battle. No fun for me. I wanted to get a discussion about it. Also, for me, I dont have big minimap. I dont really use it. I just play and hope for best. So seeing level beforehand makes me know where to go. It helps.

Anyway, since the reasoning for bneing allowed to play your own (or partly own) level, I should be able to "allow starter" in my rets. I never test them. I have less advantage there.

Also, some berh type ppl could easily dl map and play some and then win. And yes, that is lame. But then why arent we allowing internal balttles, or internal crippled battles, since its all in good fun (could also be excluded from stats if ppl worry about that)

I heard: ppl can play cause they have no advantage, and they think its fun. I have no advantage in my own untested battles, so I will play them from now on.

[Ramone]

OK, I cant click allow starter. That must be fixed, or should I let other ppl start my battles like they do with YALE levels so I can play?

whats best solution?

[kuchitsu]

I guess the best thing to do is just make a statement in some rules that "you may not play to win in a battle you helped create in YALE".

Ehh, I can't say I like it. Playing like that will feel very uncomfortable I think (restraining yourself, using bad moves on purpose).

[Pab]

Ramone, again i wonder if you colaborated in any yale levels yet. You should!! It's very fun i recommend you to try it some day, also colaborate in some FF! It is not the same as making a level on your own, it is just not the same at all. Ofc if you make a level on your own IN yale, it would be the same and the rules would apply normally (since you are starting your own level). I believe we are not disscussing here if yale should exist or not (ofc it should!! wtf), but it introduces a whole new way of making levels and you cannot generalize it just like that.

Comparing ret, specially ret!! to yaleffs? Ramone, everyone can download the level at any moment in yale, and you cant know who did. Anyone can test the level, even hoyla it for hours and get the best possible styles in every part, and probably win the battle with no effort, and no one will notice. If that is what you think that takes away the fun, ofc it does. But is it a real problem? (talking about yaleff in particular) Is even there a way of stopping anyone from doing that? A simple rule cannot in this case. Not to compare so lightly to Internal battles or playing own pack levels that can be controled easily.

To gimp/lousk: yes i died in the only part that i knew what was coming ahead xd which im not saying that proves anything, but it happend.

[gimp]

To gimp/lousk: yes i died in the only part that i knew what was coming ahead xd which im not saying that proves anything, but it happend.

To pab, lousku. I thought Pab died in his spot on purpose because he had said in chat he would die then spy. Didn't know it was on accident, my bad, guess it doesn't prove anything.

To ramone. Obviously some huge yaleff is much different than playing own personally small owned battle. I get that you are trying to make a point by saying, "I will play my own battles cause I didn't test". Obviously that cant be allowed because although I believe you, nobody can prove that you didn't test them, and also if we allow it for you, we would have to trust everyone that says, "I didn't test so now I can play my own battle". I don't see why I have to explain this, but that is why you cant use that as a reason to play your own untested battles.

[Lousku]

I think the biggest difference is we're playing a lev where we made something like 5-20% (much of which is edited by others afterwards) and didn't test (though that can't be proven) while you made the whole lev yourself. I would also argue that the advantage is much bigger in normal balles than ff.

[Ramone]

its the same. nothing can be proved, its all aboput trust, so I should trust you (and ANYONE, cause its YALE lev?) but no one can trust me when make a ret?

its very off. actually making level public bneforehand is whack as fuck. make privbate sessions, and makers dont play battles. imo.

if you are allowed to play, why arent I allowed to play my own rets I make in 30 secs? I dont see it. not even close.

[Ruben]

its the same. nothing can be proved, its all aboput trust, so I should trust you (and ANYONE, cause its YALE lev?) but no one can trust me when make a ret?

its very off. actually making level public bneforehand is whack as fuck. make privbate sessions, and makers dont play battles. imo.

if you are allowed to play, why arent I allowed to play my own rets I make in 30 secs? I dont see it. not even close.

The problem people are having is that you're comparing a 20-30 min FF to an 8 second hoyla. It's just not the same at all. If you join some people in yale and make part of a max size lev, then sure join in and play, your advantage will be completely insignifficant. If you join yale and collab with one other guy and make a 20 sec lev, then no, it should not be allowed. Obviously there is a grey area where maybe there's an advantage and maybe there's not, but we just have to be leanient about that, and let people judge for themselves. What do you actually think people are attempting to achieve here? Getting #1 on the rankings by hoyling yale ff's? It's ridiculous. Yale levs are a very small part of battles, and we are not a big enough community to where we can ban half the active players from playing just because they made a few polys in a gigantic lev.

There is only one way to fix this, and right now I don't see anyone who's able and willing to:
1. Fix the ranking system (so it actually works)
2. Introduce different categories into the ranking system (ff, apple, normal, long, short, all-time, recent, yearly, monthly, weekly, daily osv.)
3. Allow ranked and unranked battles. Ranked battles with strickt rules for who can play, what remixing is allowed osv., and unranked battles where much more is allowed (including playing your own quickly made battles, internals, other levpacks osv.)

[Pab]

I didn't know the rankings were important, does special battles even count for rankings? If that is the problem then maybe it is fixable somehow. Was the rule of not playing own levels only about stopping ppl from having advantage and/or for rankings? is there any other reason?

So if the problem itself is only about playing own levels and being unfair (not about rankings or anything else), then in yale levels:

1. For short battles with few designers (mostly ppl would put their names in the levels so they can be identified as creators or collaborators). Then i guess you could say that the designers should not play. Still, you can't really know if someone is taking advantage (especially if the yale key was public), coz you simply cannot identify everyone for sure. So why you can't play your own normal battles if creators in yale can?

its the same. nothing can be proved... if you are allowed to play, why arent I allowed to play my own rets I make in 30 secs?

Well, the same rule would apply, but there is a difference. And i don't want to be so repetitive, but is not about trusting that the designer will not take advantage, it's about that you simply cannot know who made what and if someone tested (even if didn't collaborate), and also the difference is that there are multiple designers and that is not a simple normal level or even an usual chain level.

Example, insguy made a level http://elmaonline.net/battles/105349, he posted the key in #across so everyone could join. I made the tree on the right (some ppl helped me). You can't even reach that tree, it does not form part of the playability of the level, it's 100% decorative. Also, when i made it, the level was 20% done, so i didn't see the real level until it was battled. I didn't play the battle coz i didnt want at the moment, but looking back at this, was there going to be any problem if i played it? My name is in the level so ppl could identify me. How can you know if no one downloaded the level while it was on the making and then took advantage at the battle? Even if the collaborated but didn't put his name on it. Even if they didn't collaborate.

2. For massive collaboration FFs, it's even more complicated. If it's public, which is super nice and making it private would be a shit. You have no control, the only one you can certainly identify as a designer is the one that started the battle (maybe he didn't even colab which is improbable but the rule of not allowing starter on battles still applies).

Example, i colaborated 1% in http://elmaonline.net/battles/105921. I played the battle, i said i collaborated before playing (but didn't say it was 1% so its understandable someone would think it's unfair). Now look at the level and results and tell me i had an advantage, also the level had a public key and the map was posted in lauta.

So i don't think changing the rules to allow designers on normal battles is going to help. But there is no real rule that would stop ppl from playing own yale massive collaboration levels since you can't control it (am i wrong?). Unless the implementations of yale or eol change or duno. So Ramone, it's not about trusting that you will not take advantage in your own ret coz you didn't plan the level or test it, i would totally trust you and wouldn't care at all if you played, but the rules apply equally to everyone. But can you see that the same rules don't measure yale collaboration levels the same way?

At least that is what i understand from this, hope it helps to analyze the situation. The best solution i can come up with is making statements (as gimp said), of what is correct and what is not correct to do, to guide ppl and to solidify the grey areas of this.