Hello all Friends....!!! The life is so boring without UT.......Something new in UT? Maps, players? See u all in september!!! No UT no FUN !!!

warlock16 wrote:
Hello all Friends....!!! The life is so boring without UT.......Something new in UT? Maps, players? See u all in september!!! No UT no FUN !!!Yes... .

Btw, I think I've seen mention of some newer edits to known maps in GT's TechCom server page (some <MapName>-Edit* named maps) and I dunno what the changelogs for those are either. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that a better use of our News section in the Freelancer homepage could be achieved by announcing newly added maps/edits and what they entail so ppl would be in the know than just celebrating favourable changes to our server's overall ranking or more updates on the ever growing music pack . Hows about it?

Unfortunately (or good on the other hand?) those with "Edit1" have no changes at all. Foibos thought it would be better if all Techcom-edits would be called by the edit-number because they would say more than adding a simple - or + to the end of the name.
So instead of having ONS-2Tricky-RC2- we now have ONS-2Tricky-Edit1.

I am really against this new "convention" for several reasons.
The old naming-convention was good. The - or + at the end of the name was only used if it was for sure the last edit, otherwise we had Beta-xyz for example.
Calling it Edit(n) was probably also not the editors intention when doing something with the map. For example I never agreed to this convention, but my edit of MagicIsle, for which I just added a simple + to the name (- was used already), was turned into Edit1 by Foibos, because he didn't thrust me that this would be my last edit on the map.
This naming-style somehow has the taste of disrespect towards the original map for me, like as it says really big "look at me, I am the edited version!!!!1111". It was way more humble when staying close at the original name.

Also bad is, that we have to download now every renamed map again, though it has no changes at all from our last version.


As far as it goes for me, I'll forbid changes to the names of maps I edited. I want to keep them as they are. That started with Halo-Bloodgulch already… I called the final edit ONS-Halo-Bloodgulch+, but Foibos made a SE out of the +.

It wouldn't surprise me if the new CataldiPark would be called ONS-CataldiPark-Edit1 instead of EONS-Edition. -.-


That also isn't helpful for me when doing edits. I have a hundred of different versions of maps in my directory and it's surely not getting clearer this way.


Using the news-section for announcements about new maps would be good, yes. It would be enough to just link to the forumpost where the changelog is.

sry crusha, maybe i am a little bit ignorant, but i never understood what the heck is that "EONS - edition" or "JLKJH 00324908 - plus minus MEGABETA 02" or " new new edit of the previous edited 2nd time ALFA" at the end of every new edited map, as long as that map may be edited again and again many times (i also name my works like that, but only for personal use, and when i'm about to release them, i gave them very simple easy to remember names). this "edit 1" is much better, more familiar with most of us. for me, the map is always called "halo bloodgulch", even if its complete name is "halo bloodgulch - GSPB crusha third version 2". many of us don't care of the suffix, we will never see any difference beside the original simple name of the map. so, "halo bloodgulch - edit 1" or "halo bloodgulch - edit 2" is much simpler. i agree with foibos this time :/

I think you are a bit exaggerating, aren't you?


If I only do minor changes, then I try to stay close to the original map-name. Those things like the '-' are in my opinion better than 'Edit 1'. The things I give you for testing are already renamed for public.
When you get the 'Battlefront-Beta6', then I have also 'Beta5-Test1' and so on, up to 10 test-versions of the last Battlefront.

For Spiff it's not hard, you don't have to care about why it's 241 and not 188, only about which one is greater.

I don't have problems to do it different in future maps, but for the current ones I'd like to stick with the naming as it is now.
But I also don't like that word 'Edit' somehow, so maybe you could find something better.

y i was exaggerating a lil'bit :> but u got the idea.

the truth is we (most of us, the players) don't care about the maps names as long as there is a single map-version to be played at the same time and no one asks for voting or smth else, so we don't need to know the full name. this naming is your concern. the idea is to stick up to simple names.

so for minor changes in the map = minor changes in the name, obviously.

spiff for example, there were two versions, one of them, never seen it for a long time, (and i DON'T know it's full name) had the mirrored nodes. maybe that vershion should be called "spiff - edit 1" or "spiff - mirrored 01" just as an hint.

The reason was simple, as usual. After first edit of some map you can add "-" in end of it's name. And after second, third etc.? So we (ok, me) added the number instead of that, then the first edit was ONS-AwesomeMappingPiece-, the second ONS-AwesomeMappingPiece-2, ONS-AwesomeMappingPiece-3 etc. I just wanted to unify the naming convention into something more comprehensible and fancy and I chose the "Edit" and number. Of course there are some exceptions, i. e. after some significant changes (Twinfang, Battlefront, Cataldi - it will be EONS, don't worry). Guys, actually, does it matter?

1000. post! oh yeah!

1001 post! oh yeah, but PLUS 1 !!!!!!