This was originally a reply to the Community Breakout Playlist thread, but I feel this warrants its own discussion and shouldn't derail the original thread. Some of you know that in the past I wanted to suggest a different process to the community for getting maps into matchmaking only if people were interested since I'm typically really busy in general. Now is a good time to strike a conversation about the current process and perhaps grow towards something that the community is more accepting of. And to be clear I consider Community Cartographers being part of that community, not in their own Ivory Tower. We are not above the community, in my opinion. In my mind we are representatives of the community. DISCLAIMER: I do this regularly. I want to make it clear that my thoughts are of my own opinion, and not representative of any other Community Cartographer and/or anybody at 343 or 343 as a whole. Background for those uninformed The Community Cartographers are a group of community members who work with 343 Industries to find maps for matchmaking and get them suited up for the public. We have lots of things we do, but that's the jist. The CCs are more than just the 5 that went to 343 Industries. I'm NOT listing them here because of the amount of ridiculous attention we already get from people that want their maps in matchmaking or have their own opinions of what should be in matchmaking. There is like 10+ of us and many that are inactive off and on. They are selected for a variety of reasons, be it leaders in the community, respectable forgers, level headed individuals, etc. The point is they exist and this is typically how maps get into matchmaking. We are normally given "tasks" to fulfill an experience (Breakout, 4v4 Slayer, BTB, Action Sack, 2v2, CTF, etc.). We have our own places to discuss things and it is not viewable by the general public, mainly because sometimes talk is just talk and not always a promise... sometimes its hard to convey that to the general public. That's my summary of all this. The Reply Here's the original post and my reply plus some. I tend to get wordy and write walls of text for things I care about... my apologies. TL;DR I believe the solution we had wasn't the best for this Breakout situation, I'd attempt to break down the scenario, and I'd like suggestions on how we can move towards something the community would feel more comfortable with. The normal process for getting maps into matchmaking isn't actually "let's go make maps for matchmaking". The normal process is actually "what is out there in the community to fulfill this goal of a playlist". Breakout was a goal that could not simply be filled just based on normal already existing content as Breakout in general was not on the community's mind. It was remakes, 4v4s, 2v2s and mini-games. I definitely agree that a system with more transparency will lend nicely to truly feeling like there is more allowance for the community to adjust to matchmaking goals. However I still think that transparency is actually not the only real requirement towards a solution. What transparency will equate to is just everyone building maps for matchmaking, which is a TERRIBLE goal to have in my opinion. This fosters Here are my thoughts on the matter and they are only mine. These are all related to the current system in place. The community in general should be about building content that people enjoy that covers a variety of needs. The community should either A) be filling a gap that exists (Breakout would be a great example, somebody enjoys this experience so people should help improve that experience by filling the gap) B) Improving the quality within each specific type of experience (BTB and 2v2 need love normally while 4v4 reigns supreme) C) Introducing a new type of experience that can be filled by rest of the community (Grifball, Ricochet, Infection, Conquest are great examples here) What we need is a focus on improving the library of selections for experiences. In my mind 343 does the job of defining the experience that they want to focus on. As the developer of the game, they choose the direction they want to take the game (of course this ALWAYS includes community feedback and no game will ever succeed if they don't really build for consumption by their community). Community Cartographers have the job of curation. They should be finding the content that already exists in the community and bringing them to light. And I defined what I think the goal of the community should be above. So herein lies the problem, this may not be the first time this happens so I'll be generic while referring to the specific. A request for a focus on a particular experience was put out (in this case Breakout). The curation team (Community Cartographers) realizes that there is a hole in the library of content and that they cannot fulfill the request to a satisfactory result. The chosen path was, let's contract out the need to fill this hole in the experience and give X amount of time in order to actually have something to curate. In this result the curation team essentially fills the game with content based on who accepts the contract, which in this case isn't the community. As a result the playlist feels like a CC playlist rather than a community playlist. Does this feel like an accurate statement? So how should we approach this scenario in the future? I see a couple options. A) We push back on 343 and say something along the lines of "Hey look, we know you are looking to highlight the Breakout experience, however we can't simply fill that gap with what is currently in the community. How do you want us to proceed?" This puts the decision in 343's hands, but the solution drafted up with may still not be visible to the community. So we could suggest something instead, this time we suggested a contract be put out and it be fulfilled in order to fill the need (looking back this is probably not the best way to go, which is why I'm talking through all this in the first place... seriously nobody's perfect we all know this as long as we strive to learn from this). B) We request that we be completely transparent with the community and straight up say "Hey community we have a deadline of X and we are looking for Breakout maps". Effective for giving a voice to the community. However the request may be denied for any number of reasons... the main one I've experienced is not wanting to give the community a pseudo promise, not fulfilling within reasonable time or at all and then destroying false hope. I think this is the actual most common reason for a visibility request turn down, which is completely reasonable in my opinion. You may disagree. On the side of if the request is granted, I personally still don't think the result is optimal since it creates a race to be put in matchmaking and people fighting towards a goal that is not really a great goal in my opinion. Getting in matchmaking doesn't mean much if people don't enjoy the content so matchmaking glory isn't all that great to focus on as a personal goal. I know that from experience and so do several others. C) We divert focus and say "Hey we don't really have Breakout maps to curate, but we have these shiny remakes over here". Which is the Community Cartographer's essentially driving the direction of the game. In my opinion that is not our role in this process so terribly unfair in a similar vein as getting contracts filled by certain groups or individuals. Could be better sure, but still just feels a bit dirty and may result in a drop in communication between the CCs and 343. Which I don't think the community wants because until a different system is in place the community loses some sort of voice with 343 (which may or may not be a good thing right now). There are other options, but honestly this is the community's representation we are talking about here. So let's start getting voices heard on what the community feels would be a good process. Curation isn't an easy job. There's always talk of friends getting special treatment, not every part of the community being covered (really difficult task), too many voices, too little voices, biased opinions due to skewed interests (everyone is there own person and finding an exact balance doesn't seem reasonable), etc. Conclusion We are all problem solvers in our own right so let's talk about what the issues of the current process are -please avoid being not so tactful, everyone's got feelings-, how can we refine the current process in case it never changes as a whole, what we would like to see out of a curation process, and potential new systems that could be put into place. The sky's the limit on suggestions as we can figure out the impossible later and mold it into possible. So if you think a full blown web tool will help or full blown transparency from 343 is needed throw out the suggestion, it can foster more ideas that could bring us closer to a real solution. I'll rope in the reddit community for more brains and voices. Seriously Halo 5 has improved on so many levels, let's continue to try to improve it from this vector. It's entirely possible I just opened up a can of worms... lol... ready, set, GO!
I think the whole community should know each 343 ask and the approximate timeline for each ask. I understand 343 not wanting to "steer" the Forge community as a whole per their playlist ideas, but that's just not realistic. The Halo 5 population is small, and the Forge population smaller still. We don't have the luxury of a Bungie-style process with these numbers. The constant CF Breakout tests were a dead giveaway that Breakout was first; the FH 2v2 contest (and its "way in the future" deadline) is a dead giveaway that 2v2 is coming around March. I really don't see the harm in mentioning that they're looking for BTB maps in a certain month, for instance. Worst case, the Forge/customs community puts its whole collective brainpower toward BTB for a month - and probably invents some awesome **** for BTB in the process. Trying to be a distant observer is not the approach 343, and by extension the CCs, should take. It actually probably reduces the quality of the maps that get slotted into the rotation, because there's less of a community focus. Isolated pockets of CC in-groups can certainly make good maps, but the real impressive stuff often comes out of left field from the relatively unknown Forgers. I think our goal with Halo 5 should be to grow the Forge community, and keeping crucial data on the down-low really impedes that.
Totally get it, this is actually the MOST common request that I've seen for the process since being part of the process in Reach. This will definitely require getting permission from 343. There are actually a couple decent reasons. The BIGGEST, as I understand, is that asking is typically viewed as a promise. NOTHING is every concrete when an ask goes through. Them asking for Breakout doesn't always mean that they will successfully implement a Breakout playlist. And them asking by mid January does not mean it will come for February. It's historical that the community takes certain words as promises and then complain when their concocted promise isn't fulfilled. Avoiding this is important. So in the reverse, I'd vote that you just consider everything an ask. Eventually everything will get fulfilled. Put focus on what you are good at, what you want to build, what needs building etc. What I've seen in the past is when a more visible ask goes out with a deadline, people also RUSH to get their maps made. Does anybody want maps rushly made? Granted that is what happened here. I totally get that. But this is a special circumstance as it is early on in the game, and so few people were already building for Breakout. Also when a deadline is say in 2 weeks and everyone is trying to get their map prepared, testing becomes chaos because there are so many to test and content will not get reached and people will be sad. Even within CF we felt that with like 10 designs going forward and some were being left behind. So I don't think that solution will help as much as people think it will, but of course this is my opinion. Another issue is that an ask can typically come with details that really shouldn't get out yet. Managing information flow is extremely important in game development as early information can lead to misinformed reviews. This isn't just in game development either. For example, I just heard for plays it is actually illegal to write a review for a play that isn't actually considered complete yet. Literally I heard this yesterday. So outside of that request, what other things do you think could be better about the process? Also, I'd ask the people running the 2v2 contest if that is actually an ask same with those running BTB testing as I know someone is going to ask about that. It appears that when the Community Cartographers are involved in a contest or event that caters to a particular experience it is assumed that it is for a 343 ask. This is NOT always the case, so please refrain from assumptions. Speaking toward CF, one of my goals as a forger this go around is to support non-core initiatives with a team. Essentially if something like Conquest, Grifball, Breakout, Infection, Ricochet, etc. gets popular, I'd like to see the team of Creative Force fill the database with options for those experiences. For example, there's a gametype going around called Spellcasters by Lemon that I'd like CF to fill with maps to support Halo supporting non-core experiences and shifting towards a more game engine like environment. I personally want to see more custom game options and see future Halos get as much focus around game development as map development got this time around. A team effort like CF allows us to do things like this. I created a team as a resource because I felt that there are some things a team can do better than individual forgers. Breakout was just kind of convenient so I offered CF as a resource... as it was intended to be.
I try not to worry about it. I like creating playspaces for Halo - it's almost therapeutic for me. Often they are passable, and rarely, maybe, it might be really good. But I'm too old, and far too grumpy to consider worrying about what 343 need when making stuff. So, business as usual for me.
Havent got much time to post fully on the CC process, but I dont think using Breakout as a the blueprint for future forge updates would be wise considering the unpopularity of the gametype in forge because of its restrictive and flawed nature. What I dont like however is 343s policy of focusing on a niche every month. Thats fine at first for actually implementing maps, but Id be willing to bet a decent amount of money that those forge maps are maintained/modified/updated on a regular basis, and only get changed when its "their turn". As for 2 v 2, 343 cant create a 2 v 2 playlist thats decent. They will want weapon pads and radar that will play any map terribly, when theres a good chance we could test maps with pad less layouts and no radar.
With all due respect, I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. You, and by extension the other CCs, are not 343i employees. You are liaisons from the community, selected to represent the community's best interests to 343i. Conversely, people like Bravo and Unyshek are liaisons from 343i, selected to represent 343i's best interests to the community. They get paid. You don't. When it comes to managing expectations - which, as you have elaborated, is a truly essential part of AAA game development these days - you are spot on. However, you mistake your role for that of a 343i employee. 343i has selected you and a whole host of others to act as their "buffer zone" - meaning that you don't officially speak for the company, but you have slight influence and the ability to represent the players' interests. While it is obviously in your personal best interest not to reveal their secrets, inner workings, or make promises that would jeopardize your working relationship with the 343i team, there's absolutely nothing stopping you and the other CCs from saying something along the lines of "Community Breakout went great - 343i wants to do a Community Mini-Game playlist next. Let's work hard and see if we can provide some cool content to them so that a playlist might be possible." The CCs are the ones who should manage our expectations. You can all be explicitly clear when stating "make mini-games" that there are zero promises from 343i that it will happen. Just like you told the CF people about Breakout - no guarantees. Why not tell everyone; what's the harm in that? In retrospect, a month-to-month itinerary of what's on tap for the Community playlists is certainly unrealistic given the shifting nature of development/product management in general, but saying "here's what's next" and putting the onus of responsibility on the community while not explicitly promising anything would far and away be the best way to handle situations like this going forward. And that may be so - but the issue at hand here is that until we have a more transparent form of communication, there will always be that conspiratorial sentiment toward anything a CC is involved with. I think in general that's bad and foments distrust within the community, when we should be banding together to make awesome maps and save this game from falling into oblivion like the last ones.
"In my mind we are representatives of the community." "The chosen path was, let's CONTRACT out the need to fill this hole in the experience and give X amount of time in order to actually have something to curate. In this result the curation team essentially fills the game with content based on who accepts the CONTRACTS, which in this case isn't the community." "So we could suggest something instead, this time we suggested a CONTRACT be put out and it be fulfilled in order to fill the need" 1) The CCs are NOT representatives of the community. I don't mean that to read as "you guys don't deserve to represent the community", but rather that the idea that some group of arbitrarily chosen individuals believe that what they think and say is representative of whatever portion of the community they are supposed to represent is completely self-serving and just flat out ridiculous. 2) The CCs, without fail, always display some sense of entitlement and empowerment. Your use of the word "contract" highlights this. Also, during the whole Breakout "task" I heard many CCs say things like "I'm not making a map but I have people making maps for me", and was one of the biggest reasons I got turned off from the entire task. The CCs always talk as if the community is some kind of possession of theirs that they utilize, which brings me to my last point. 3) The community does not work for you, you are supposed to work for the community. But the CCs repeated possessive behavior/mindset and inability to think of themselves as being on the same level as the rest of the community shows that that is not the case. CCs act as if they actually work for 343 (which may be the source of a lot of the aforementioned self-entitlement), when in reality 99% of the people that actually work at 343 don't care who is actually a CC. Since Reach I've chosen not to talk about the CCs on forums or Xbox Live because I honestly did not care about what the CCs were doing. For the most part, I still hold that sentiment. But the things I've seen and heard in the past few months are just so strange and disgusting that I feel the community should at least know of it, even if it makes me look like a sour or crazy individual that always has a pitchfork ready.
The 2v2 Contest was created for many reasons. To inspire the community to create wonderful maps, to use those maps for a tournament and to provide content for a 2v2 playlist. I emailed QuinDelHoyo in an attempt to set up a relationship to align their matchmaking needs with future contests. Despite where that conversation led, when I experienced the doubles playlist in Halo 5 I was shocked at how sloppy the whole experience was. This alone informed me that we needed to do something so we created this contest for the community to save the day. There are already some great 2v2 maps in production and we're looking forward to bringing those to the community as soon as possible. Please don't look at 'March' as an official time frame for a 2v2 playlist update.
Here's your communication now. The contest has nothing to do with 343. No may's, no if's. The contest has nothing to do with CC's, its a FH thing. You cant use the 2 v 2 contest to support your point of CC's being distrustful when its literally not correct. @GodlyPerfection Not sure you should be posting this on your own, its making it sound like you are speaking for all the CCs which I dont think this is the case.
Just to be clear, the Grifball and Breakout CC tasks were not official CC tasks. They were a hastily assembled request to polish 2 or 3 maps which grew WAY out of proportion when word got. Once that happened it evolved into the mess which provoked the above discussion. We knew we would receive flack from the community for the way it went down but decided that getting forger's maps into official hoppers, and seeing the first iteration of a forge showcase playlist, was more important than covering our butts or worrying about tarnishing our reputations. [edit] My bad guys. I stopped reading the internal task announcement after the Grifball section and ignored the Breakout task details because i was already booting up forge by then. It was an official task, but it was a much quicker turnaround that we usually get. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. The first official task will be coming soon. Every community and forger will know about it. Good things are coming.
Yep I'm fully aware of that hence the disclaimer. I'm letting it all sink in before I reply I am obviously reading though. I raised this thread because I dislike the current process and I'd like to see it change. So I presented my own perspective of things and I'm hoping that the conversation shifts away from how things were run, and shifts towards what to do in the future. Keep the replies coming please. I want to voice my opinions just as much as everyone else. I consider myself on the outside of 343 like everyone else and I'd like a group collaboration towards a proposal of a different system honestly.
I want it to be clear that while my above post loosely addresses the most recent task, it is intended to encompass the behavior of CCs that has persisted and gotten worse since Reach. Not sure if that was clear, but that was my intent with the post.
If you want the process to change then do it in a less public manner at first. This is sounding like more your vision and your plans rather than the CCs as a whole. Yourepart of a team, dont act as an individual.
In response directly to the map selection for Community Breakout, I can understand why this task was "contracted" out to certain individuals as briefly looking through the Forge Discussion section or first 15 pages of the Maps section of ForgeHub there are only a handful of Breakout maps designed for the 4v4 experience that weren't made by the authors of maps who were selected for Community Breakout. Additionally the finished Breakout maps that I did find had no feedback on them whatsoever by anybody. It is clear that Breakout isn't currently popular in the Forge community, but it doesn't help that those creating Breakout experiences visibly aren't getting any feedback on their work. This isn't due to a lack of member activity either as I've seen Breakout maps posted next to normal 4v4 maps within an hour of each other and the 4v4 gets attention and replies while the Breakout map gets no comment. If the intention of the ForgeHub community is to provide a catalogue of maps and game modes that support every facet of Halo 5, as @GodlyPerfection indicates, then it needs to openly support community members working on all experiences by acknowledging them like any other Forger. I see that the fear of creating false hopes with an open request was a primary factor in deciding not to make this public, but if there is clear and sincere communication of the expectations then one cannot be at fault for the wild emotions of others. While there isn't a person who may have been disappointed for not being on the fulfilling end of some idea of a "promise" they created out of misconstruing the truth, there may now be a person who has become more jaded at the Forge community because they feel that they're being segmented and brushed aside. No matter what choice is made someone is going to be upset whether or not their emotional reaction is reasonable. A choice valuing the principles of fairness and honesty could have been made instead of bypassing such a process in order better hedge bets on delivering to 343i in a timely manner. Rarely do I find that people value the ends over the means. Now looking towards the future, ideally the Forge community would create a blind, anonymous council of laypersons made up of Halo community members who value different aspects of the game and vary in experiences. This solution is unrealistic in these circumstances as it would ask a community member to bar themselves entirely from the Forge community in order to retain their "blind" position when judging map submissions. However, the possibility of an anonymous panel for judging submissions would be feasible and could eliminate some of the peer pressure concerns judges may face from friends. Granted this method would require a certain level of trust from the community towards CCs and those they anonymously select from the community. It would hard to be judge if the system is working, but I see there being concerns from sections of the community either way. In regards to handling future requests like the Community Breakout ask from 343i, it would be in everyone's best interest if there was a public announcement regardless of the time frame or possibility of the ask ever being fulfilled. If the expectations are clearly stated in a sincere manner hurt feelings can be almost entirely avoided and neither 343i nor ForgeHub can be attacked, reasonably, by community members for the decision to make such information public. The benefit of making this knowledge public, like motivating more people help create and support less popular Halo experiences, outweigh the negatives. As for the aforementioned concern of information management, I doubt 343i would intentionally give any sensitive information to the community that they wouldn't want made public. If they do that's hilarious because by putting it out to community members they're making it public anyway, so I don't see a scenario where a CC would be asked to keep things quiet for 343i. EDIT: After seeing @NOKYARD 's clarification, it sounds like this was more of an internal problem with a different set of issues. While discussing a process for future 343i asks is important, it sounds like the CCs need to do some internal revisions in their methods as well.
I'm not up for a lengthy reply here but I do want to say that this breakout task was the only set of maps that I've noticed we not filled with a majority of CC maps. Which I feel is a good thing. I feel like contests with no start date restrictions are a wonderful way to collect a vast amount of polished and quality maps to look at potentially going into matchmaking. Mainly due to CCs and others respectful reviewers being FORCED to test various maps from not only their close friends that they usually test but all of the community too.
George Carlin might have a good model for a new process. He kept a file cabinet, and every time he wrote a new joke, he categorized it and put it in the cabinet. When a certain topic got enough material, he'd pull it out and polish it for his next act. Applying that to community maps, 343 could put a list of hoppers they're interested in filling... specifically with no timeline given. So Breakout, BTB, 4v4, etc. would be examples of playlists. Then, let the CC's (and communities in general, like Forgehub) do their thing and curate/aggregate content for those categories. Every certain period of time, (say, 2 weeks?), 343 could update those categories with a % bar, showing the progress of the category in terms of readiness. When the bar is full, the category is ready for a community playlist where some final selections are made, much like the Breakout playlist is doing this week/weekend. 343 would be the one to decide the progress meter on this one. They could also set expectations on things like cameras, gametypes settings, rate of community playtests, and so forth. Pros of this system would be the transparency that a lot of people are asking for on 343 priorities. CC role is closer to it's original intent of finding the diamonds in the rough. 343 still gets to keep control over dates, and visibility into the supply of maps might help with "holes" like the Breakout one recently. (Less progress means less competition) Cons: a major issue might be discouraging people from working on categories that aren't in the priorities. This could be alleviates by having an explicit "other" category, but... meh. Expectations would be another concern from 343's side - category % show supply of quality maps, not player demand. If a category hits 100% (i.e. there is enough for a community playlist) but there's no demand for said playlist, what do? Thoughts? I'll defend the idea in the interests of discussion, but I'm not particularly attached to it.
I could not disagree anymore about people want 343 to "force/push" us to create for a certain niche. They already control the competitive scene, which is hardly working as it is. Let our community do what they want. The whole point of Forge is to be creative. We dont have a job, we dont have a role. People chose not to make breakout maps/give feedback not because of a "fear". There isint some kind of propaganda to ignore breakout forgers, the gametype sucks to play, and more importantly to design for. As for contests, please remember that FH and CCs are not the same entity. Contests take a LOT of time, we cant just keep throwing them out every month, and FH cant just keep doing contests just because 343 is picking a gametype for a forge playlist.
All problems would be fixed if halo actually shipped with a fair amount of Dev maps. I love seeing our creations in matchmaking and there should be a playlist for our maps to be played on. With that said, the best forged map just doesn't feel the same as a Dev map. I'd like to see around 15 Dev maps with the shipment of the game, instead we get around 5, warzone maps, breakout maps, and 2 forged maps. This started in reach and has only gotten worse since.
Proposing that new process got me thinking we should come up with a way to evaluate new process proposals, so wanted to give my thoughts on who we have to satisfy with a new process and what their goals are. Optional 3 minute video on why I think it's important to do this. Players: non-forgers who play Forge maps inmatchmaking. Needs: -Good maps make it into MM, and the experience remains fresh. -They don't care how it gets selected, they just want to have fun. Why do we care?: this group is the cat. If our process doesn't produce good maps, it's broken. Forgers: anyone who makes a map/gametype of matchmaking quality. This is level of polish, not intent. We are the factory. Needs: -Wants a defined method of getting content considered for matchmaking. -Feels that the selection process is fair (not necessarily transparent - that's one possible way of meeting this need). Why do we care?: This is us... =p also, this is where the loudest discontent is coming from. 343i: They are the owner/business in the cat video terms. Needs: -Quality maps to float to the top - 343 can't sort through everybody's maps. (time/resources are limited) -Ability to manage community expectations against internal priorities (trying to capture Godly's point about promises) -Make the Players happy. (Satisfy the cat) -Others? Why do we care?: Ultimately, 343 gets to decide what they put in their game. If a proposed process doesn't satisfy their needs, they won't adopt it. I do think it's worth noting that 343 wants a process that satisfies everyone. I do not count the CC's as their own group since the CC role is the existing solution - it's part of the" how" not the "why." To the extent that a proposed solution has something like the CC role, we should make that volunteer role easy to do. I think the main thing the CC's can provide for a new process is insight into the existing one and a good platform for proposing new things. The value of figuring this out is that we can evaluate proposed changes based on how well they satisfy these needs. What did I miss on groups/motivations/etc? This is just my initial impressions. Remember, we want to keep this high level - this is criteria to design a solution, not a solution itself.