In an effort to help keep high-quality maps a mainstay of the ThinkingWithPortals.com community, myself and the staff will begin removing "Released" maps from the Download Database that do not meet absolute minimum standards. These include, but are not limited to:

** - Maps with no lighting (fullbright maps)
- "Playground" or sandbox type maps (assuming they are of general poor quality on their own, see above)
- "Rollercoaster" type maps where the players are simply viewers, and there is no real testing / puzzle elements
- Maps with no goal, puzzle or objective**

These are not hard-and-fast rules; the decision to remove a file is entirely up to the discretion of the staff. Period. The goal is not to stifle creativity or make a "No Fun Allowed" rule; we want to make sure that visitors know that ThinkingWithPortals.com will continue to have some of the best quality Portal 2 maps on the internet.

### How To Properly Report A Low-Quality Upload
If you have found a map that you feel does not meet our quality standards, simply hit the "Report Download" link on the download page. Please provide a descriptive reason for why you feel this map does not meet quality standards. This will bring the map to the attention of our staff, and we can review it to see if it should be subject to removal.

Just because you post in a map's thread saying it is low quality, does not necessarily mean that the staff will see it. Please us the "Report Download" button!

Let us know if you have any questions about this policy. Thanks.

Why can't you just put them into their own separate category instead of deleting them? Some people find those kinds of maps fun to have a mess about with, myself included. I think you're letting your personal dislike of those kinds of maps cloud your judgement here.

While some people find them fun, they do not meet the minimum standards of the forum. I'm not entirely sure who I agree with, however if msleeper is willing to consider a comprimise, I would suggest that simply fulbright maps be removed.

If a "playground" map is of sufficient quality - and by that I mean, it's not a single box room with fullbright and 1 texture - then I won't have a problem with it. The ones that were removed were nothing more, or not much more, than that though.

EDIT
The goal is not to stifle creativity or make a "No Fun Allowed" rule; we want to make sure that visitors know that TWP will continue to have some of the best quality Portal 2 maps on the internet. I have full faith that one of our many talented community members could make a "playground" map, and make it look good.

In fact, consider that a challenge. Anyone who thinks they can make a playground map that is also a "high quality download", do your best. I dare you.

There's really a lot of maps with either fullbright, or bright diffused lightning.

Hey, I'm glad to hear this. This might make the forums more inviting to newbies if they see only completed maps here.

Love that some quality control is going on here Means that we can focus on playing the best maps that people have put their time and effort into. Good job staff!

coopcrowd wrote:
Good job staff!

This. I am frankly astonished at how many downloads each map gets, and how many maps are uploaded each day. [brownnose] msleeper has done a fantastic job here [/brownnose]

Good decision!
I never understood why someone would want to release something they did in their first 5 minutes with an SDK. Might be a bit off topic, but that's the same reason why the app store is full of crap, they should learn a lesson from msleeper

Jomonay wrote:
[brownnose] msleeper has done a fantastic job here [/brownnose]

It's really not just me entirely. Hober, Winston, and most recently Nacimota have really helped keep the site a shining star. I might run things, but I can't take all of the credit.

I assume (almost to the point of "it goes without saying") this excludes WIP maps. At least on the quality/lighting elements. I threw a few lights on Ascendence after hearing so many complaints about fullbright in other maps, but I still haven't gotten any good at using lighting creatively or effectively. Future map concepts may start with fullbright and stay there until the chambers themselves are finished, at which point I'll work on adding lighting that makes sense and is supportive of the puzzle.

Of course, those would all be in the WIP section.

I'm in favor of this. Though I'm with some of the others on the "no playgrounds" ruling. The playground that came early on, with the control room, wasn't bad, as sandboxes go. Wasn't great, but with as many features and mechanics as Portal 2 has, it dealt well with providing access to almost all of them in a clean, efficient way. IMO.

I personally find playgrounds, with the appropriate elements and mechanics, can be used to test out potential new puzzle-solving mechanisms to be added to maps. I've been using them to figure out potentially new ways to solve puzzles. 'Course, having half the maps here as playgrounds would be terrible, so I agree with the idea, generally.

msleeper wrote:
It's really not just me entirely. Hober, Winston, and most recently Nacimota have really helped keep the site a shining star. I might run things, but I can't take all of the credit.

You did bring back from the dead, as it were, which is what I was referring to.

Map names shouldn't be so overlooked. "Get the cube" is the dumbest name ever, but the map itself is fantastic.

Lukavian wrote:
I assume (almost to the point of "it goes without saying") this excludes WIP maps.

In my post, I specifically state this is for "Released" maps. Not having lighting or a "goal" in a WIP map isn't really an issue, since they are obviously still in progress. Released maps are just that - maps that, for all intents and purposes, are completed and finished maps. Yeah, there might be a bug fix or an explot fix update, but there won't be any major changes to them. And Released maps are expected to be of a certain just basic quality - having lighting, being actually playable, and so on.

You sent me a PM asking what, in my opinion, would constitute a "worthwhile playground map", and I'll answer that with an example. A friend of mine who would later go on to work at Infinity Ward made a CS:S surf map several years ago under the same pretense - make a "surf" map that isn't a bunch of fullbright 1 texture blocks floating in the sky. And that's exactly what he did. I think that one of our many, many talented mappers could take the concept of a playground map (a map as simple as just having all of the game puzzle elements and a space within which to play around with them) and make it more interesting than a single box room with 1 light in it.

msleeper wrote:
what, in my opinion, would constitute a "worthwhile playground map"

Imo one that is incredibly customizable in-game (panels galore), Garry style.

Finally. I was just getting afraid this site is going to get polluted by first-time mappers who release every map they made in 5 minutes. Great to see some quality control here

The only playground maps that I would understand to have zoo maps (game mechanics, animations, etc). Other than that, the playground maps can remain with the sandbox games (ex. Gmod). The fullbright maps tend to be annoying to the player for obvious reasons, and maps without goals will to be pointless to even waste the bandwidth downloading. Honestly, I understand the move to remove the files and support the Idea. It is not really difficult to put in a temporary light entity here, or set up a basic goal there. Doing some of these simple things will significantly improve the quality. The maps don't have to be a master work of art right off the bat. They need to at least be functional, have a goal, and have some form of challenge.

Removing the "low quality maps" is a good idea. There are a lot of good maps that don't get any players because nobody can find them in this chaos.

Thanks mods, way to keep the forums up to a standard.