Talk:Official Level Design Collab

Articles for each contest

I think the contest packs can be considered important enough to be put into their own separate articles; a general description, some screenshots, voting/pre-voting links, and the voting results should be enough content for each article.

As for this article, I think it could be used to list all the contests and show some general statistics or some crap. ~ Blue Warrior (currently logged out)

Official Level Design Contest 1

This link is red,are missing... Router 15:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It was just an example, the article isn't supposed to exist. Although, while I'm at it, let's make it not a link. --SpiritCrusher^{Talk • Contribs} 15:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm deciding on naming articles numerically, rather than by the date the contests were done in. As you may notice, I added the "Needs Images" template. I think each OLDC contest article should have screenshots of the winning maps for each division in that contest. In this case, it would simply be Loopy Tunnel Zone. ~ Blue Warrior ^{talk contrib} 15:40, 31 December 2007 (PST)

Maybe they should get their own articles, but their not so important that they get seperate articels for each. Something like "Official Level Design Contest (2003)", and that would list all 2003 contests. ~Kaysakado  •  ^{Talk  •  23:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)}

Well... now that I think about it, that's a good idea. I'll get on that. ~ Blue Warrior ^{talk contrib} 16:12, 31 December 2007 (PST)

This article looks better this now, doesn't it? - Jacklekku 19:21, 4 January 2008 (PST)

Instead of just plain old links to the voting, should we put links directly to the files?

*coughbannedforuselesspostingadaybeforethecontestvotingstartsD=cough* ~Kaysakado  •  ^{Talk  •  23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)}

Is it just me, or are the averages of OLDCs getting lower at a linear rate?

D:

Ash 16:58, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

Stop making new talk page sections have long titles. It looks SO unorthodox. Anyway, my map should make things better. –SonicMaster 17:18, 8 April 2008 (PDT)

OKAY, YEESH. Stop having such a cow. I really hope your map is, in essence, one of the best maps ever. Otherwise, it wont help a thing. A few good maps in a contest grouped with various awful entries still have a poor average, depending on the good to bad ratio. Also, you have to admit: The SRB2 community does not know how to rate. 5 is technically a C, not a failure, but hey, leave it to humans to vote for maps. Popularity is a huge factor, as well as position, hype, and actual quality. The fact that the quality is not the only thing that matters means that the rating is exceptionally corrupt and off, so I'd say even with gratis, the maps pretty much have an average of "suck". Where the rating goes from 10 - A, and 5 - F, you only have 5 real ratings before going into different shades of failure. So yeah, if they knew how to rate, the average would be much lower, and I doubt that many maps would even be able to get into the 8 - 10 range as easily as they have in the past. I don't see that happening, so I wish the best of luck to you, as you pretty much already have a chance to get > 5 points. I would submit a few, but because of the no customs rule, I'd rather not. -Ash

Calm down, seriously. For the record, custom stuff can go in this map of mine because it is 1P. "I really hope your map is, in essence, one of the best maps ever. Otherwise, it wont help a thing." You make yourself sound like you're voting off hype. I've had to learn to adjust my ratings, too. Thanks for wishing me luck, Ash/Segmint, but you still have this knack of being intimidating. There's a reason why you aren't well liked in this community: you're elitist. Also, you are implying that a vast majority does this 5 = F thing. Some people do it today, but not all of them do it like you say. The SRB2 community knows how to rate better than you think they do. –SonicMaster 20:02, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

Looks more like cynicism than elitism to me and its not unusual on some of the other forums I frequent. Compared to the way other maps are rated, a score for a stage at five or below is pretty dismal even if it shouldn't be. I also know that bias can influence ratings, my contest entry was according to one voter was not bad until he noticed there was a homing-rail possibility which should guarantee instant fail. I've also seen that its a rush to play through them and vote the same day they were released... and the valuable criticism you might get for your works can be a single side comment or will range in so many opposite directions that it gets confusing to draw anything from it.

However when I look at my map's rating it means more to me what did better and what did than the statistic that gave it the rank. Its possible that this 'relative ranking' idea also contributes to the issues with the rating system.

Mainly though, I post levels because then people are guaranteed to play it. (and I'm guaranteed not to put it off... sorta) Though I'd *like* to win, I don't want to win only because I'm the only one put any effort into it. JEV3 22:34, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

The thing is that the community has improved at rating levels. As far as winning because the other ones were total crap, yeah. –SonicMaster 21:30, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

I wish today's contests were like May/June 2006...

32 maps... that NEVER happens anymore. ;_;
Ash~

13:31, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

One year later, someone will post "I wish today's contests were like Nov/Dec 2009". --Ezer'Arch|עֶזֶר'Aρχ^Talk 17:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the quality of the maps, probably not... --SpiritCrusher 17:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As if the ones from that time were better... LightspeedX 18:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish today's contests were like May/June 2006 :V

Period | Number of Maps | Average Rating
November/December 2009 | 34 | 5.22
May/June 2006 | 32 | 5.29

D: --Ezer'Arch|עֶזֶר'Aρχ^Talk 11:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Best of 200x

I keep telling myself to bring this idea up to you guys, and every time, I either forget or get sidetracked. Well, in any case, this idea has been on my mind for a long while.

Single player levels get honored by being put onto srb2.org (and they have a right to be; they're arguably the hardest division to make maps in), but all of the good multiplayer maps just stay cramped with all the bad ones. Not only does this kinda leave those maps with less significance, but it also leaves them unplayed because nobody wants to shuffle through all the bad maps in the rotation. So why don't we compile all of the good maps from January to December into one wad reflecting on the best contest maps of that year?

What's the definition of "best"?

It's extremely important to realize that the "best" of each contest is not which map wins the division, but which map is the most fun (and therefore gets high ratings). As such, maps such as OMIGODZCTF by Kaysakado have no chance of getting in. So, what ratings can be considered "best"?

We don't want to be too lenient about this, but then again, we don't want to be strict. Unlike grade school, 7 is not average; 5 is average. And so clearly maps in the 7 through 10 range are great maps. If "7" is the minimum to ensure almost anyone can have a lot of fun on the map, then "7" should be considered the best, and thusly inserted into the Best of 200x wad(s).

How do we organize the stages into the wad?

Pretty similar to how today's contest maps are, but just a little more organized.

Maps are to be sorted by gametype, as usual, but instead of all the maps flooding into Ax, Match maps will be Ax, CTF maps will be Bx, and Race maps will stick into Cx. I think that should be convenient for both the wadder and the host of the server.

Also, I'm thinking we should possibly organize the maps in the divisions themselves. We could arrange the maps in each division from lowest score to highest score, so that if the host wanted to, he could just skip to the really good maps. Then again, we could just not organize the maps of each division in any sort of fashion, if we want to aim for the host not to do that....

What would be the purpose of these "Best of's" and how would they be made public?

They would shine light on the better half of the contest, yet they would also make it convenient and more enjoyable for players to use the contest maps in netgames. The contest downloads should be made public on the SRB2 Addons section (wait, that hasn't been updated in a year... oops) and this SRB2 Wiki. Personally, I'd be more than happy to host the wads on my webspace.

Who should we ask permission to execute this idea?

Now, THAT's a bit of a problem. Since Mystic and FuriousFox are the contest holders, it would seem logical that getting their A-OK would clear this idea to be put into action. However, Mystic and FuriousFox didn't create all of the maps... all of the contests combined would consist of maps created by hundreds of different users, so if we really wanted to ask permissions to the original makers, then we would be sending emails to all of them. That's a creepy thought.

But I think that won't be necessary. After all, I'm sure the only people who wouldn't want their stages put into a "Best of" compilation would be those who didn't want their stages entered into the contests in the first place. Since Mystic and FuriousFox are the ones responsible for compiling the original contests (and maintain a certain portion of how the site should be run in terms of what's an official wad and what's not), they should ultimately be the jury and decide whether this is permissive or not.

Better yet, if a map author just doesn't want his map in the "Best of" compilation, then he/she can just ask, and the wad can be recompiled without that particular stage.

Who should create these "new" wads?

Well, personally, I would have been willing to do it myself. If anyone else wants to pitch in, however, talk about it.

What do YOU think?

Seriously. I wouldn't be posting this on the talk page if I didn't want your opinion -- actually, I probably would have just gone and worked on this idea already. Whether you wish to perfect on my idea or bring it down, I want something constructive offered to the table. So, gimme some feedback on this.

Still giving a crap since '06,
~ Blue Warrior ^{talk contrib} 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a Good idea to me.--Glaber 02:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are my ideas. Circuit cut-off is 6.25 because of the low quality of them. D: <- Unsigned comment.

I was actually thinking of doing something like this for my own personal use a while back. Sounds great. -- Also, couldn't we sortof arrange the maps chronologically? Like, the Jan-Feb maps would come in the pack earlier than the Nov-Dec maps. -Blue04 23:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a plausible idea too... actually, it's probably best that way, since it promotes the idea of continuously moving through the year in each contest.

SonicMaster: Just as a reminder, not all of the maps should flood into Ax. Also, I suppose 6.25 is okay, but I would personally have liked it if the map quality adjusted to suit the standards, not the other way around -- apparently, most map makers haven't wandered beyond the idea of thokfests. Chicks dig the fox too, y'know.

One other idea I had was, if there weren't a lot of outstanding maps for one year, we could join two years for one pack -- for instance, 2003 and 2004 could easily join best-ofs if we wanted them to. It looks like 2007 would definitely need this, because the overall quality of maps this year is disgraceful.

~ Blue Warrior ^{talk contrib} 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the release of these packs might just get me to start hosting netgames again. It is an awesome idea. There is so much great multiplayer content for this game that constantly goes unplayed and this would easily be the best approach to getting it played by the community. --Jazz 02:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Best of 2006

• MAPA1 - Shortcake Mountain Zone by SRB2-Playah - 7.20
• MAPA2 - Ivory Square Zone by Digiku - 8.44
• MAPA3 - Plughole Zone by Oogaland - 8.14
• MAPA4 - Chaotic Belief Zone by JJames19119 - 7.43
• MAPA5 - Glacier Cocktail Zone by Neo Chaotikal - 7.43
• MAPA6 - Sheltered Waterfall Zone by Oogaland - 7.25
• MAPA7 - Rocky Ravine Zone by Blue Blur - 8.56
• MAPA8 - Molten Core Zone by ree-c - 7.33
• MAPA9 - Techno Heights Zone by ree-c - 7.75
• MAPAA - Greenery Hotel Zone by JJames19119 - 9.00
• MAPAB - Rush Job Zone by Neo Chaotikal - 8.00
• MAPAC - Octagonal Zone by Oogaland - 8.00

• MAPAD - Magma Cavern Zone by Flame the Hedgehog - 7.83
• MAPAE - Azure Frost Zone by JJames19119 - 7.50
• MAPAF - Card Carnival Zone by JJames19119 - 8.00
• MAPAG - Greenery Cave Zone by JJames19119 - 7.60
• MAPAH - Lily Pads Zone by Oogaland - 8.00
• MAPAI - Crystal Dimension Zone by ST218 - 7.75
• MAPAJ - Wall Fortresses Zone by JJames19119 - 8.00
• MAPAK - Slime Tower Zone by Chaos Zero 64 - 7.00 (slime not returning flag glitch must be fixed)

• MAPAL - Sunset Gardens Zone by Flame the Hedgehog - 6.50
• MAPAM - Lime Isle Zone by JJames19119 - 6.40
• MAPAN - Morning Hill Zone by JJames19119 - 6.60
• MAPAO - Four Seasons Circuit Zone by Oogaland - 8.20
• MAPAP - Race Alley Zone by FoxBlitzz - 8.86

Contest Average with Multiplayer: 7.71

Best of 2007

• MAPA1 - Courtyard Clash Zone by Shadow Hog - 7.63
• MAPA2 - Hazard Plant Zone by Senku - 7.00
• MAPA3 - Winter Twilight Zone by I'll Begin - 8.10
• MAPA4 - Carved Canyon Zone by Some guy - 7.75
• MAPA5 - Snow Shrine Zone by Oogaland - 8.11
• MAPA6 - Industrial Sync Zone by Some guy - 7.73
• MAPA7 - Fort Eltsac by Shadow Hog - 7.73
• MAPA8 - Emerald Park Zone by Dark Warrior - 7.20 (removing a large amount of scenery Things WILL increase framerate)
• MAPA9 - Freeze Factory Zone by Com - 6.57 (my vote of 2 pulled it under a 7, plus it should work well in large netgames)
• MAPAA - All Hail Shadow Zone by Penopat - 7.57
• MAPAB - Lush Falls Zone by Com - 8.29
• MAPAC - Meadow Plains Zone by Dark Warrior - 7.57
• MAPAD - Capture the flag...Zone by Some guy - 7.00
• MAPAE - Amber Fortress Zone by Chaos Zero 64 - 8.00
• MAPAF - Concrete Stronghold Zone by Some guy - 7.00
• MAPAG - Daimondus[sic] Zone by Glaber - 8.27
• MAPAH - Castle Canyon Zone by Mystic - 8.82

• MAPAI - Waterfall Heights Zone by Boinciel - 6.67
• MAPAJ - Castletania by Glaber - 6.27
• MAPAK - Sky Cannon Zone by FuriousFox - 6.71
• MAPAL - Generic Greens Zone by SRB2-Playah - 6.80
• MAPAM - Noxious Wood Zone by SRB2-Playah - 6.67
• MAPAN - Sandopolis Zone by JJames19119 - 6.78
• MAPAO - Mario Race Zone by Sonict - 6.44
• MAPAP - Ice Cap Zone by JJames19119 - 7.60

Average: 7.37

Best of 2007

I've recalculated the 2007 maps that will appear in the BOOLDC. Please tell me if I made any mistakes. ~ Blue Warrior ^{talk contrib} 06:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Other than that one mistake that I fixed, it's correct. –SonicMaster 00:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Match

January/February 2007

• MAP05 - Emerald Park Zone by Dark Warrior - 7.20

March/April 2007

• MAPA3 - Industrial Sync Zone by Some guy - 7.73
• MAPA4 - Hell Angel Zone Act 2 by Sonict - 6.67
• MAPA5 - Fort Eltsac by Shadow Hog - 7.73

May/June 2007

• MAPA4 - Winter Twilight Zone by I'll Begin - 8.1
• MAPA5 - Carved Canyon by Some guy - 7.75
• MAPA6 - Snow Shrine Zone by Oogaland - 8.11

July/August 2007

• MAPA3 - Hazard Plant by Senku - 7

September/October 2007

• MAPA4 - Courtyard Clash Zone by Shadow Hog - 7.63

November/December 2007

• MAPA1 - Leafy Cave Zone by Blade T. Hedgehog - 6.75

CTF

January/February 2007

• MAP12 - Wasteland Towers Zone by Flame the Hedgehog - 7.17
• MAP14 - Frigid Cave Zone by JJames19119 - 6.73
• MAP17 - Daimondus[sic] Zone by Glaber - 8.27
• MAP18 - Castle Canyon Zone by Mystic - 8.82

March/April 2007

• MAPA6 - Amber Fortress Zone by Chaos Zero 64 - 8.00
• MAPA7 - Concrete Stronghold Zone by Some guy - 7.00

May/June 2007

• MAPA8 - Capture the flag...Zone by Some guy - 7

July/August 2007

• MAPA5 - Lush Falls Zone by Com - 8.29
• MAPA6 - Meadow Plains Zone by Dark Warrior - 7.57

November/December 2007

• MAPA8 - _-All Hail Shadow-_ Zone by Penopat - 7.57

Circuit

January/February 2007

• MAP21 - Tier by BlueZero4 - 6.18
• MAP24 - Ice Cap Zone by JJames19119 - 7.60

March/April 2007

• MAPA9 - Generic Greens Zone by SRB2-Playah - 6.80
• MAPAA - Noxious Wood Zone by SRB2-Playah - 6.67
• MAPAB - Sandopolis Zone by JJames19119 - 6.78
• MAPAC - Elemental Ring Zone by JJames19119 - 6.00
• MAPAG - Mario Race Zone by Sonict - 6.44

September/October 2007

• MAPA9 - Waterfall Heights Zone by Boinciel - 6.67
• MAPAA - Castletania by Glaber - 6.27
• MAPAB - Sky Cannon Zone by FuriousFox - 6.71

List of Contests Table: a new column for "Number of Voters"

It's just an idea: List of Contests Table has currently three columns: "Period", "Number of Maps" and "Average Rating". It would be nicer if a "Number of Voters" column was added. So, we can follow how people have participated in the OLDC votings. --Ezer'Arch 22:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that not everyone votes on everything. So there may be 3 single player voters and 20 match voters or something like that. It really doesn't tell us anything. --SpiritCrusher 16:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem. It's just a way of telling us how many members are voting and getting involved with votings.--Ezer'Arch 02:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point. This would be quite a lot of work, however. I might start to calculate the number of voters for a contest or two, just to see how much work it really is. For the record, someone said on the MB that the current contest had 47 voters. --SpiritCrusher 10:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I did a rewrite...

I removed the parts about SRB2.org's Addons section as award. For instance: "the winning maps of the Single Player contest will receive special treatment on the SRB2 Addons section: they will be displayed in a "Featured Addons" section complete with screenshots and a commentary from the author.". Also, I did a rewrite. I tried to not "waste" the old content, but the article still seems so imperfect. Please, review it. --Ezer'Arch 03:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Image Naming Convention. Please, keep the consistency

*** For OLDC pages

You all are uploading files for OLDC pages with wrong naming conventions. Filenames like MCZ2.png, Srb20086.png, Srb20076.png and Srb20087.png are wrong (LINK). Please keep the consistency. Next time, open the code of a similar page before uploading any file.

The correct names would be:
Septoct09-singleplayerstage.png
Septoct09-matchstage.png
Septoct09-ctfstage.png
Septoct09-circuitstage.png

Next month:
Novdec09-singleplayerstage.png
Novdec09-matchstage.png
Novdec09-ctfstage.png
Novdec09-circuitstage.png

(Text transferred. See next section)

*** For Level pages

Please, follow this:

MapXX-srb2.png

... where, XX is the level number. srb2 indicates that map belongs to the official level pack and can be replaced with mod name. For instance:

Neo Aerial Garden Zone: Map40-srb2.png
Jade Coast Zone Act 2: MapA2-mysticrealm.png

*** Replacing an image with a better one

If you want to replace an image with a better one, don't merely upload a new image. Clink on the old image, go to File history and click on Upload a new version of this file and do rest.

Thank you --Ezer'Arch 23:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Eggmanfan's map screenshot on OLDC page. Why?

Why Eggmanfan's map deserved a screenshot and Neo Chaotikal's map didn't? I know Eggmanfan's map was a "milestone" in the community, but I think winners should receive all glory D: --Ezer'Arch 23:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

About Canyon CTF, that should really be changed. I sometimes upload a picture of a non-winning level because that one was more memorable or because that already has its picture on the leaderboard page. Sometimes, though, I don't know why I chose certain ones for image. –SonicMaster 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No way, Canyon CTF is there because of it's legendary HORRIBLENESS. Stuff like this does not happen very often. It's so bad, it's more notable than a winning map. ITS THAT BAD. --D00D64 the Super Sexy 06:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, his map got a perfect 10 in reverse, that's why that map deserves a pic. :P And is only one picture of one stage per division allowed? --LightspeedX

10 in reverse is 1/10 =P --Ezer'Arch 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant in ratings and there the lowest is 0 and highest 10 so, that's why I said it like that. =P --LightspeedX

Personally, I'd suggest we go back and take screenshots of the winners only instead of randomly choosing a level to take a picture of, which would remove this entire argument. -Mystic 22:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That would work for a compromise, but I still disagree. Undersea Palace should in my mind, receive the picture instead of Flooded Mine because of its memorability and its large standard deviation in votes. But going to the worst, even if it's memorable, just doesn't feel right. Iron Turret Returns is also fairly memorable, being a recreation and major improvement over one of the most unpopular official CTF levels. People won't forget that level either. (Plus, it won, too.)

There's one major thing here. Putting the loser's picture just isn't going to work because people will make bad levels on purpose to increase their ego-meter. There is a community member who has been doing this... –SonicMaster 16:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but you see, Eggmanfan's Failure is practically LEGENDARY. You can try, but you cannot fake TRUE fail like that. People either never try hard enough or try too hard and not make that terrible of a map in the end. Canyon CTF is the kind of fail you CANNOT TRY TO REPLICATE. Otherwise, it'll just come out better by a slight bit. It's that bad. And thus, this EXTREMELY VALUABLE piece of fail deserves that spot far more than any other level EVER could. --D00D64 the Super Sexy 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't need a screenshot on the Wiki for managing to suck more than anyone else before. The Wiki should show off the positive aspects of the OLDC. We don't need to ADVERTISE that some people are truly awful level designers. Just because it's OLDC history in the making doesn't mean we need a picture of it. Always showing a screenshot of the winner removes any remote amount of bias on the part of the Wiki and completely nullifies this argument. I don't want to have an argument of who deserves a screenshot every two months. -Mystic 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact of mentioning Eggmanfan's map on text body is enough, at least for me. See, even the winners are rarely mentioned there. Then, why more? If someone is curious, just download the map and appreciate the art him/herself. Screenshot just FTW. I said. --Ezer'Arch 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I just have one thing to say... Is it really a cardinal sin to have more than one picture per gametype per contest? I'd personally like to see Canyon CTF alongside Iron Turret Returns. 犬夜叉^(Inuyasha) 06:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt here took the words right outta my mouth, why can't we just have both? --LightspeedX

Wasn't there a rule against that or something? Hell, I'd do that in the first place :P --D00D64 the Super Sexy 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with having more than one picture is because that usually doesn't fit; it will push the other pictures out of alignment, possibly even other contests' pictures. I also don't want to compromise that with ugly blank space. I've only found one contest where I could fit two pictures for one division correctly. –SonicMaster 22:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't just put mine under his? Thanks most of my levels are consiseredered (however you spell it) worst then Legendary Horribleness. :D. --This was done by Eggmanfan you have been warned 23:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it just plain doesn't deserve it because of how poor it is. –SonicMaster 00:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need the "leaderboard"?

Personally, I think it really doesn't serve any purpose, as the numbers are more the result of changing public opinion than a legitimate change in the quality of maps. To take a basic example, Desolate Twilight received a lower score than Tree Ring, but I'd say quite strongly that Desolate Twilight is the superior map in hindsight. Even more dramatic are the numbers for the CTF leaderboard, where absolutely nothing after 2007 is listed because we've become much more critical of maps. In the match section, only one map after 2007 is listed.

While it might be interesting to make a discussion about the changing averages because of how we're becoming more critical, I don't see how raw numbers that nobody has a chance to top are remotely interesting. Nobody could EVER do what Tree Ring did nowadays because we have much higher standards for a 10/10 and far more people are voting.

- Mystic 08:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to just delete all pre-2.0 maps from the leaderboard and just start a new one. Standards for maps have changed drastically and it has become much harder to make a Match or CTF map (at least it requires more effort). I think that a leaderboard with only 2.0 maps in it might be a more accurate representation of the quality maps in the contest, but of course it would take a few contests until we have enough entries. --SpiritCrusher 08:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I found it to be more of just an interesting thing more than anything, and that's why I placed it. I'm very aware that the standards have greatly changed, and while Four Seasons plays decently, even disregarding its weapon imbalance, I also will agree that it doesn't deserve a 9.5. I'd rather not get rid of this, actually. I want an adjusted and raw leaderboard. Though, the adjusted leaderboard I wouldn't go as far as saying only 2.0. I think there should be a defining contest date before that. After all, we didn't just BARELY become reasonable in our critique. =D –SonicMaster 05:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Create one leaderboard per version. 1.09.x and 1.08.x leaderboards could be archived somewhere else, and just keep 2.0.x leaderboard here. When 2.1 is out, archive 2.0.x leaderboard too, and start a 2.1.x and so on. --Ezer'Arch|עֶזֶר'Aρχ^Talk 06:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's useless to compare a 1.X Match map with a 2.0 Match map and that comparison wouldn't serve any purpose. The game has changed so drastically that those maps can't be compared anymore. --SpiritCrusher 08:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd be more interested in removing it entirely, because the nature of the voting makes comparing numbers from different contests inherently useless. Different people vote each contest, and the numbers that result are only really comparable to the other maps in the same contest because of that. Changing opinions is just one reason for this, it could also just be that some especially harsh critics happened to be voting in a specific contest that weren't around to vote for another. These numbers really just don't mean anything. -Mystic 21:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverse the order of contests in the year pages?

It seems odd to me that the first contest listed on each of the "Level Design Contests of <year>" is always the last contest of that year. Shouldn't January/February be first, followed by March/April, etc? It just seems backwards right now. -FuriousFox

Yeah, I've always found it a bit confusing to open a page and see the latest contest, and that I have to scroll down and then scroll back up if I want to read them from earliest-to-latest for whatever reason. It would make a lot more sense (to me anyways) if they were the other way around. --Simsmagic 16:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Actually, I wonder why it was made this way in the first place, since it isn't helpful in any regard. I'll change it now, and if anybody disagrees, just say why. --SpiritCrusher^{Talk • Contribs} 08:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Name change of a contestant

If a contestant changes their name, shouldn't we note their new name as well for old entries, so that their maps can be attributed to them? In case of a minor name change, like "Blade T. Hedgehog" to "Blade" or "Jellybones69" to "Jellybones", we could just replace names; in case of a larger name change like "MattW_CFI" to "Inuyasha", we could note the new name in parentheses. --SpiritCrusher^{Talk • Contribs} 12:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would like it if all of the "Blade T. Hedgehog"s were changed to "Blade". --Blade^{Talk • Contribs} 12:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

They have been changed now. I need to make a list of contestants that changed their names though. --SpiritCrusher^{Talk • Contribs} 13:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Jason_the_Echidna -> Jason the Echidna
• Jellybones69 -> Jellybones
• Mr. Thompson -> Thompson
• Knockout the Echidna -> KO.T.E
• HyperKnux -> Hyperknux
• MattW_CFI -> Inuyasha
• JJames -> JJames19119
• GCFreak -> Callum
• Chrome the hedgehog -> Chrome
• Roy Kirby -> Roy
• Dark Warrior -> Rob
• Sonicandtails218 -> ST218
• Flame the Hedgehog -> Flame
• Com -> ComRante
• Boss -> Azure Hawk
• Mikel93 -> Mikel
• hotdog -> hotdog003
• Ree-c -> Naga

Have I missed anyone? Are the ones with a "?" legitimate or just wrong speculations? Did I screw up in any other way? Also, should lowercase names stay lowercase or be made uppercase in here? --SpiritCrusher^{Talk • Contribs} 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: OK, no question marks left. They were all legitimate. --SpiritCrusher^{Talk • Contribs} 15:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Form

Hmm... the name is Official Level Design Contest,wanna say OLDC ! But this room was been removed by some reason.

It was removed because the OLDC voting is over for now. That MS room appears only when OLDC voting is going on, if I remember correctly. -- Monster Iestyn ^Talk 19:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Should we rename the page to "Official Level Design Collab"?

OLDC 2022: Round 2 was released and now it transitions from a tournament to a collaborative celebration. Should we rename it or create another page? SapoCururu 00:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Uhh... I think we should. I don't think it's a good idea to create a new page. <Henry_3230>^talk Post time: 09:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)