Beta testing category

[Remixer]

It all boils down to this: the goal most reviewers have has changed. Their reviews used to be for the map creator. Now they're to impress the community with formalities that don't actually help anyone. That's the initial cause. This cause then lead to elaborate, formula-based reviews. Formula-based reviewing ruins a review entirely. Every time I see a review with a full-page UI that's split into arbitrary categories (unless they put it inside of hidden tags and offer comment outside of it), I just scroll past the attention whore and move on to the next comment

This is actually somewhat true. Myself, I have reviewed quite a few melee maps and I like to keep it simple.

Personally I divide the "scoring" to a few different categories. Then I also have generally category where I mostly talk about how things work together. I also really like when map makers do something unique, not the same old bland.

Also I try to keep my review as suggestive as possible. They are not orders like "do this" or "you should..." but rather "in my opinion placing these this way..." or "you might want to try out..." also, I hate when reviewers only comment on negative aspects of a map. For myself, if the maker has tried something new, I really think about it myself and figure out if there is a better way of doing it and then tell about it to the map creator.

The idea of reviewing is not to get any score or give personal credit, it's about making maps better overall also, improving yourself, and the map maker.

 

[InfernalTater]

This is actually somewhat true. Myself, I have reviewed quite a few melee maps and I like to keep it simple.

Personally I divide the "scoring" to a few different categories. Then I also have generally category where I mostly talk about how things work together. I also really like when map makers do something unique, not the same old bland.

Also I try to keep my review as suggestive as possible. They are not orders like "do this" or "you should..." but rather "in my opinion placing these this way..." or "you might want to try out..." also, I hate when reviewers only comment on negative aspects of a map. For myself, if the maker has tried something new, I really think about it myself and figure out if there is a better way of doing it and then tell about it to the map creator.

The idea of reviewing is not to get any score or give personal credit, it's about making maps better overall also, improving yourself, and the map maker.

Agreed. Although I do usually end up commenting on primarily the negative aspects of a map since I'm usually trying to point out things for them to improve. I try to remember to let them know what I really like about a map despite the flaws I'm pointing out, but I'll admit sometimes I forget and my post is misinterpreted.

 

[StoPCampinGn00b]

Off-topic stuff

Hi, Infernal Tater.

While it may seem that way for many (most?) of the reviewers now, I recommended reviewers do away with a point system. As a trial map moderator, I used a point system then scrapped it. Those watching over me did not seem to have a problem with the point system but I did. Why I had a problem with it? Probably practicing and noticing that what I was doing wasn't right to me anymore.

I prefer reviewers to do things the way I see as the right way which usually is the majority way. That being no formula or point system, progressive interaction with the map maker instead of listing points, and the most important in my opinion, flexibility. When getting my points across about flexibility, I usually make up 'meh' examples like this.

"A map could be fun for ___ audience > The map is not fun in my opinion"
"A map could have bland terrain in your opinion, but for most others the gameplay completely overules this so it doesn't deserve a two"

Those probably aren't solid and convincing examples, but you get the point I was trying to get across to others who reviewed in the map section... by reading my... point.

I want to cut myself and the rest of the pack some slack from your humble rant. I think you've stated a plethora of perceived so called facts which are in my eyes, well, inaccuracies.

Reviewers have gotten to the point where they are mechanically reviewing a map with a "system", a checklist, just giving it points for each category, and if it doesn't do everything they want, it gets a bad rating, even when the things they're rating it for aren't specifically relevant to the map they're reviewing. The actual gameplay of a map is often as little as 20% of the points in their review.

When, though? When have reviewers gotten to this point? If this is the case, then I say we need to know all the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" on this issue. This is my take below.

It's come to my conclusion that this has been going on more in the past than in the present. I know you've been here much longer than me, but I think it's plausable I've browsed and studied the map section's contents longer than you have. Woopah, my credibility.

Especially on rejected maps, the contents of old reviews are extremely self opinion centered.

It is up to the reviewer to rate the map. They know they are only voting for a specific action for the moderator to take. This means it's easy for reviewers to rate a map not on Hive's standards, which by nature are pretty damn murky, but by their own standards. I've dug up some old and deleted map reviewer threads, and most of the information there seems to not stress the things you're wishing reviewers did. What was in place of what I wished? Mostly point system discussions and insignificant, off-topic messages.

There have been arguments made that the best way is to just to compare pending maps to approved maps. Maps are always radically different from each other, and comparing not the maps, but key aspects of them seems to be a decently modest and fair way to judge, right? In all honesty, I don't know if I'd back that argument up, nor go against it.

There are just too many factors in judging a map and so far no full proof way to assess which factor determines how much of a map's overall quality and then converting it to a review.

In what way, are you suggesting, that reviewers review without a system? Honestly, everything is a system in my eyes, so I'd need some help distinguishing the two, if there even are two options.

It all boils down to this: the goal most reviewers have has changed. Their reviews used to be for the map creator. Now they're to impress the community with formalities that don't actually help anyone. That's the initial cause. This cause then lead to elaborate, formula-based reviews. Formula-based reviewing ruins a review entirely. Every time I see a review with a full-page UI that's split into arbitrary categories (unless they put it inside of hidden tags and offer comment outside of it), I just scroll past the attention whore and move on to the next comment.

Oh, that's me except for the formula part. Here I speak for myself and myself only. While my reviews might have all the motherfucking glamour in the world, I do it for the help. Can a man not have the intention help and raise himself up at the same time at an equal extent? You know what makes me more happy than a rep on my review? A huge thanks and discussion about it from the author. Feels great.

To any reviewers I may have offended: This doesn't mean you're a bad human being. You probably never realized you were doing it wrong. But you can always make the change, from flashy, overdone, elaborate, but formulaic and inaccurate, reviews, to reviewing things more fairly with the weight of each aspect being dependent on how crucial that element is to the map. Sure, it won't look as impressive since you won't be able to use the same premade UI for your review every time, and your review will be less likely to be chosen by moderators or +repped by users, but it will be more useful to the creator since you'll be really speaking to them about the map instead of just satisfying the formal requirements of a review. You can still use categories and review effectively, but you have to change your categories based on the map, and instead of allocating points to each category, simply list pros and cons under each category. The amount (and significance) of the pros and cons under each category should determine the weight of that category in determining your overall review. In this way maps that focus on a particular element don't "max out" their points in that category and have the rest of their effort go to waste.

"You probably never realized you were doing it wrong."
Woah there. Let's... not go there.

You suggest reviewers make the change, which already happens, without a huge indicator to say how. I get it, that's not what you're focus in this argument and doesn't matter if you don't know how, you just want it to be done and that's fair enough.

But if it can't be done, or isn't the right way to go because maybe that's already what's going on, there isn't a point in asking reviewers. Yes, it's your perception of how reviewers. But from what I see, these problems are at an all-time low and suggesting it to go lower would definitely be better than telling reviewers nowdays (you haven't specifically said that but I guess you're implying in a full on or half heart like manner) to do it more and better than to just say do it as if they aren't that way already.

To some it up, I think a bunch of the things you stated as issues have no correlation to fair an accurate. A point based system is flawed in my opinion, but everything else such as the visuals in reviews? That doesn't have to do with fair and balanced news reviewing.

EDIT:
One little thing I didn't get to tie in and I'm lazy to find the right spot to do so, I put a high value on uniqueness and encourage others to do that as well.

EDIT2:

Every KB's a dollar. Everyone gets an $8,192 budget to make their maps. Being worth the price is important for usefulness. As such, you should find the cheapest method of producing your resources, and if no cheap method is available for the purpose, then the quality must justify the price.

Isn't this just another insignificant point in evaluating quality of maps? I'm joking here

I dont really mind it exists, Ive accepted that this is pretty much standard operating procedure on THW. I just wonder what certain users are thinking when they are trying further reduce map approvals in a year when uploads are at an all time low.

This needs a topic of its own. I am strongly against rising standards, or at least significant rising standards, and I've done little about it.

I'll create one today in site discussion.

 

[InfernalTater]

I'm going to start replying in hidden tags before our posts build The Great Text Wall of Text.

Convo

Hi, Infernal Tater.

While it may seem that way for many (most?) of the reviewers now, I recommended reviewers do away with a point system. As a trial map moderator, I used a point system then scrapped it. Those watching over me did not seem to have a problem with the point system but I did. Why I had a problem with it? Probably practicing and noticing that what I was doing wasn't right to me anymore.

I prefer reviewers to do things the way I see as the right way which usually is the majority way. That being no formula or point system, progressive interaction with the map maker instead of listing points, and the most important in my opinion, flexibility. When getting my points across about flexibility, I usually make up 'meh' examples like this.

"A map could be fun for ___ audience > The map is not fun in my opinion"
"A map could have bland terrain in your opinion, but for most others the gameplay completely overules this so it doesn't deserve a two"

Those probably aren't solid and convincing examples, but you get the point I was trying to get across to others who reviewed in the map section... by reading my... point.

I want to cut myself and the rest of the pack some slack from your humble rant. I think you've stated a plethora of perceived so called facts which are in my eyes, well, inaccuracies.

I should have been better with my wording. I didn't really mean that the majority of reviewers are the way I described. I simply meant that the majority of reviewers who use complex UI's are the way that I described. That does not mean all UI template reviewers, it simply means more than half. Possibly only slightly more than half. And that's of reviewers that use UI's, which are already a minority compared to the 90% of reviewers who don't use fancy templates.

When, though? When have reviewers gotten to this point? If this is the case, then I say we need to know all the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" on this issue. This is my take below.

It's come to my conclusion that this has been going on more in the past than in the present. I know you've been here much longer than me, but I think it's plausable I've browsed and studied the map section's contents longer than you have. Woopah, my credibility.

Especially on rejected maps, the contents of old reviews are extremely self opinion centered.

It is up to the reviewer to rate the map. They know they are only voting for a specific action for the moderator to take. This means it's easy for reviewers to rate a map not on Hive's standards, which by nature are pretty damn murky, but by their own standards. I've dug up some old and deleted map reviewer threads, and most of the information there seems to not stress the things you're wishing reviewers did. What was in place of what I wished? Mostly point system discussions and insignificant, off-topic messages.

You're probably right that you've spent more time browsing the map section's contents than me. I don't spend a lot of time in that section because I'm too busy playing the maps I get from it.

I suppose it really depends on what you consider the past. I've been playing Warcraft 3 for 13 years, so to me, everything after 2010 is "new gen", after 2005 is "middle gen", and before 2005 is the classic old maps when people were just getting the hang of advanced techniques (yes, even back then people were making crazy shit, just not as many people were, and it was so experimental that most of the old advanced maps were never released. Strilanc, an old friend of mine that I haven't seen in years, would be a good example of someone who was making all kinds of advanced shit that hardly anyone ever saw; he used to show me a dozen maps, each doing something I'd never seen before, and be like "nah those are just a few of my maps i just made recently".

Anyway, I was off-topic for a bit, but you get the idea; I'll mention anything I've seen in the last 1-3 years as though it's happened yesterday, and something 5 years before that as though it were a month ago. It might not necessarily still be the way I described as much, it's simply that everything I've experienced here, including in the years before I joined, is kind of mixed together.

There have been arguments made that the best way is to just to compare pending maps to approved maps. Maps are always radically different from each other, and comparing not the maps, but key aspects of them seems to be a decently modest and fair way to judge, right? In all honesty, I don't know if I'd back that argument up, nor go against it.

There are just too many factors in judging a map and so far no full proof way to assess which factor determines how much of a map's overall quality and then converting it to a review.

In what way, are you suggesting, that reviewers review without a system? Honestly, everything is a system in my eyes, so I'd need some help distinguishing the two, if there even are two options.

Comparing maps should never be done directly, since many maps are unique, but our expectations are still generally based on what we've seen before, so that already factors into our judgement on a subconscious level, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not suggesting that reviewers shouldn't use anything to assist them in reviewing something whatsoever; merely that they shouldn't use a predetermined system. Since every map is different, they need to review it differently, too. The system you used to review one map accurately might not give another map the right amount of kudos for the things it did well, because it's different, and different things have different levels of importance for it than they had for another map.

Oh, that's me except for the formula part. Here I speak for myself and myself only. While my reviews might have all the motherfucking glamour in the world, I do it for the help. Can a man not have the intention help and raise himself up at the same time at an equal extent? You know what makes me more happy than a rep on my review? A huge thanks and discussion about it from the author. Feels great.

Like I said in what you quoted, "Unless it has a comment". It's fine to have fancy UI, as long as you're still actually talking about the map, and not simply having "Terrain: 20/100 Too much green. Imported Content: 30/50 Too much blademaster models. Trigger systems: 10/50 No hash brownie tables." You talk more about the maps that you review, so I wasn't really complaining about you in particular.

"You probably never realized you were doing it wrong."
Woah there. Let's... not go there.

They are doing it wrong. Plain and simple. Maybe they have too much pride to admit it. Oh well, not my problem. We've all done things the wrong way before. We've all been in a situation where we were doing something wrong, and somebody tried to tell us we were doing it wrong, but in our pride, kept doing it the wrong way, and refused to learn. Some of us stopped being this way before we reached adulthood, and some of us never learned. That's not progressive. It's in the best interest of the person doing it wrong to just accept that and improve their methods. Just like an engineer can design a circuit wrong, and a modeller can design a model wrong, a reviewer can design his review wrong. You can always be better.

I don't really have a replacement system. The whole point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't use a predesigned system that's made by someone else. The way that you review needs to be based on two things, and two things only: Your personal style, and the map's personal style. That's it. Find a way that suits you, and adjust it to each map that you review. Adjusting it according to what you're reviewing is the most important part, because every map is different.

You suggest reviewers make the change, which already happens, without a huge indicator to say how. I get it, that's not what you're focus in this argument and doesn't matter if you don't know how, you just want it to be done and that's fair enough.

But if it can't be done, or isn't the right way to go because maybe that's already what's going on, there isn't a point in asking reviewers. Yes, it's your perception of how reviewers. But from what I see, these problems are at an all-time low and suggesting it to go lower would definitely be better than telling reviewers nowdays (you haven't specifically said that but I guess you're implying in a full on or half heart like manner) to do it more and better than to just say do it as if they aren't that way already.

There are still people reviewing things with too much of a lack of dynamics. Like I said before, you can always improve. Yes, some people have gotten better. Not everyone has, and not everyone who has, has done so enough yet.

To some it up, I think a bunch of the things you stated as issues have no correlation to fair an accurate. A point based system is flawed in my opinion, but everything else such as the visuals in reviews? That doesn't have to do with fair and balanced news reviewing.

I think you misinterpreted my post. The fancy review templates aren't the problem; they're simply a symptom of the problem. Like I said before, the problem is that many reviewers' objectives have shifted from serving the map creator to elevating their own reputation. The fancy design for a review is not wrong; it's simply something that is very often done by the same people who review things based on a formula, because they're using the same template every time.

EDIT:
One little thing I didn't get to tie in and I'm lazy to find the right spot to do so, I put a high value on uniqueness and encourage others to do that as well.

Like every other part of reviewing, this depends on the map. Not every map has to be original. A lot of times mapmakers are inspired by old maps that they enjoyed, but wanted more out of, so they decided to make their own from scratch that plays the way they want it to. Making it too different from the other map would cause it to be something completely different, when they might have wanted to preserve the essence of the map they were inspired by.

EDIT2: Isn't this just another insignificant point in evaluating quality of maps? I'm joking here

I get that you're joking, but I just figured I'd point out that my signature is actually to people making resources to use in maps; not the maps themselves. A map can be as big as the creator wants it to be.

This needs a topic of its own. I am strongly against rising standards, or at least significant rising standards, and I've done little about it.

I'll create one today in site discussion.

Raising standards for ratings is fine; we've gotten better, and what the average terrainer can do today would easily have gotten a 5/5 when THW first came into existence. We have to raise standards so that people will know that when they get a 5/5 from a moderator, they really did a good job.

But raising standards for approval should never be done. A map shouldn't have to be great to be approved; approving a map is essentially about trying to decide whether the map 1: Follows the rules of the site, and 2: Is playable. I can't rightly define the requirements for a map to be playable, but you know what I mean; it's either a game, or it's junk.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

totally off topic Patrick :-I

shame, shame on you for following the others.

I would have thought you would Set a better example than the others.

I'm as so disappointed in you :'(

ok... what ever, I don't truly care

as long as all these mega discussions evolve into drawing attention to hive quality and the true topic BETA TESTING

I am happy.

so yes.

Patrick, what do you think of the topic of having a beta tester title

official beta testers

which should encourage more growth in the hive community and encourage specialists,quality and appreciation of both beta testers, moderators and map makers.

make the beta tester just as important as the moderator, give them the same tools and advantages, and see the hive move forward.

 

[InfernalTater]

totally off topic Patrick :-I

shame, shame on you for following the others.

I would have thought you would Set a better example than the others.

I'm as so disappointed in you :'(

ok... what ever, I don't truly care

as long as all these mega discussions evolve into drawing attention to hive quality and the true topic BETA TESTING

I am happy.

so yes.

Patrick, what do you think of the topic of having a beta tester title

official beta testers

which should encourage more growth in the hive community and encourage specialists,quality and appreciation of both beta testers, moderators and map makers.

make the beta tester just as important as the moderator, give them the same tools and advantages, and see the hive move forward.

My bad. I'll admit, I jumped in on a replink to a friend's post, and hadn't yet read the OP. I hope I wasn't too off-topic.

Hi

I'm Theo Lord Of Chaos

I've been trying to get my map approved for about a year and recently I came upon a reason(other them my poor world editor skills) why it has yet been approved.

reviews
awaiting updates
eventual rejection.

the process of the current hive system

reading through this list

www.hiveworkshop.com/forums/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2009

I believe people don't update their maps because they are discouraged by bad reviews.

perhaps a new map section should be created

beta testing

a section 'awaiting updates' maps go where the public who like beta testing can go test their maps

I find that after the reviews I would update my map and get reviewed again, only for the review to prove my map with more errors.

a beta tester could provide a good map maker with constant reliable error checks as the map is updated.

there are a lot of people who like to beta test, but perhaps if we encouraged people to beta test it should increase traffic to this site

meaning more possible reviewers moderators and activity

maybe in just dreaming, but it's worth a shot

thank you for listening.

This sounds like a great idea. We already have the map developement forum, but being able to find beta maps in the actual map section would really work better because it's too easy for maps to be buried in the development forums. Rather than an entirely new section, though, it could be as simple as having "Beta" as a tag, just like "Pending", "Needs fix", and such, except that normal users could have the ability to choose to include beta maps in the maps list (they would not show up by default). An entirely new section would just divide people between them.

 

[Kino]

This sounds like a great idea. We already have the map developement forum, but a beta testing map section would really work better because it's too easy for maps to be buried in the development forums.

As has already been stated, if you want testers there are already places to find them. Map Dev has always been a testing forum. There's nothing that stops you from submitting an unfinished map and gathering feedback from there.

As has already been stated, fragmenting the map dev forum even further doesn't solve anything.

what about acknowledgement and a sense of appreciation

show the beta tester so of that

Hilarious, especially in the context of your map.
Feedback is pointless as you do not read.
Testing is pointless because your updates are irrelevant.

Do you honestly expect people to take time to replay your map just because you added weather effects?

Adding a beta-test forum will do nothing to help you.

 

[InfernalTater]

As has already been stated, if you want testers there are already places to find them. Map Dev has always been a testing forum. There's nothing that stops you from submitting an unfinished map and gathering feedback from there.

As has already been stated, fragmenting the map dev forum even further doesn't solve anything.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean that we should make an entirely new section, but that it should be a map category, no different from "Pending" or "Needs Fix", except that it would be automatically removed from the list unless the user chooses to include them in their search. It would not be an extra section, or a replacement for the map development forum, but simply a way for people who spend more time in the map section to find beta maps in the same place; some people don't care if a map is beta or finished, and want to have them all in the same place, and would beta test if they only knew the maps were available; the only people who go to the map development forum are those wishing to create a map or test maps; adding it to the map section would allow people who are just looking for something to play to also help as testers.

 

[Daffa]

This sounds like a great idea. We already have the map developement forum, but being able to find beta maps in the actual map section would really work better because it's too easy for maps to be buried in the development forums. Rather than an entirely new section, though, it could be as simple as having "Beta" as a tag, just like "Pending", "Needs fix", and such, except that normal users could have the ability to choose to include beta maps in the maps list (they would not show up by default). An entirely new section would just divide people between them.

In that case, it's almost obliterate the entire purpose of Project Recruitment Forum, and to an extend, Map Development Forum.

As has already been stated, if you want testers there are already places to find them. Map Dev has always been a testing forum. There's nothing that stops you from submitting an unfinished map and gathering feedback from there.

As has already been stated, fragmenting the map dev forum even further doesn't solve anything.

Hilarious, especially in the context of your map.
Feedback is pointless as you do not read.
Testing is pointless because your updates are irrelevant.

Do you honestly expect people to take time to replay your map just because you added weather effects?

Adding a beta-test forum will do nothing to help you.

I have to agree here, some people will only test certain map due to friendship, or interest in the map. These people are quite difficult to search, no matter what you do, since it's a preference of taste. Adding beta-test forum, as stated by Kino above, won't help one bit.

 

[Ardenian]

some people don't care if a map is beta or finished, and want to have them all in the same place, and would beta test if they only knew the maps were available; the only people who go to the map development forum are those wishing to create a map or test maps; adding it to the map section would allow people who are just looking for something to play to also help as testers.

This would spam the map section, I would say. There is a reason why Beta's are not allowed there.
Considering that many maps probably not even reach a release state, this would be much more work for current moderators / newly assigned moderators / whoever who take a look on the Beta maps.

Then I would favour an additional map development section, maybe add a link to the map section, but I doubt it is a good idea to remove the 'No Beta / WIP' rule for the map section ( personal opinion).

As stated before, if you search for testers, you are going to get some.
You have friends at Hive, you can post in the 'Project Recruitment' as well as in the 'Map Development', you can freely ask members you think of that they would help you, you can even upload it on MMH and play it in multi player, independent from Hive.

There are enough options ( again personal opinion), if my project will reach Beta one day, I am confident I am going to find fast some testers.
If someone has problems finding one/ some at all, then one might have to think about the map again.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

should I start a new thread...

I believe I stated that I agree, a new category would dirty the hive

which is why instead I stated that beta testers should be highlighted in bold, that they should become as significant as moderators with a title

official beta tester.

so that perhaps it would increase hive growth and map approval.

 

[Daffa]

should I start a new thread...

I believe I stated that I agree, a new category would dirty the hive

which is why instead I stated that beta testers should be highlighted in bold, that they should become as significant as moderators with a title

official beta tester.

so that perhaps it would increase hive growth and map approval.

Beta testers are mostly people who are interested in some maps. There's no way to make official beta tester, without of course, making them stop beta testing after a short while.

Why?

Official beta tester will soon flooded with request to beta test maps, and since they're official, they're forced to deal with maps they pretty much displeased (same case with Map Mods and Map Reviewers <to a certain extend>) to fulfill their task.

Also, this bold bonus might spark conflict between Beta Testers and Map Reviewers as well. Official Map Reviewers might demand equality for their works if Beta Tester gain such bonus. And I don't want to see such sparks.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

No! Daffa

that's not how it's going to work

official beta testers will be just like moderators

instead of reviewing a person's work and providing critique

they will review and provide suggestions on improvement from a more personal level, and error reported... basically what I mean is, they will beta test the map.

beta testers are totally different from reviewers

they stay with a author and check their work as it progresses.

very few moderators are willing to review a work after it had already been reviewed.

I've just been lucky and insistent

 

[Daffa]

No! Daffa

that's not how it's going to work

official beta testers will be just like moderators

instead of reviewing a person's work and providing critique

they will review and provide suggestions on improvement from a more personal level, and error reported... basically what I mean is, they will beta test the map.

beta testers are totally different from reviewers

they stay with a author and check their work as it progresses.

very few moderators are willing to review a work after it had already been reviewed.

I've just been lucky and insistent

Isn't this going to make more hassle for the Administration Team?

And please, I don't want Map Reviewers to envy beta tester if this gets applied.

Also, sticking with an author? Honestly, I couldn't see how long this can apply. Well, for the first few weeks it would be fine, but once too many people request beta testing, and if combined with lack of testers... This will easily collapse.

Also, Moderators actually can be requested (I did twice with Orcnet and Vengeancekael on 2013 on my first map upload) easily, just that time for response varies (I can't remember how long I waited, but I waited happily and improve my map in time before they hit the door). As Keiji ever said (I recall he was the one saying this similarly on another thread about Pending Models) :
We (Moderators and Admins aka Staff) aren't your employees, we do our jobs for free.

I would propose another solution : create a specific group that is meant to handle beta test (such as Beta Tester made by Rheiko, but we can make another or reform that group), then we give them "indirect" powers like how Map Reviewers already have since 2009(I hope older members can correct me).

Quite off-topic

Just for everyone's information :
There has been a rising amount of group around 2013-2014, and most of those groups are focused on projects, ranging from triggerers, modelers, icon makers and of course, testers.
Sadly, most of them collapse in time.

 

[InfernalTater]

In that case, it's almost obliterate the entire purpose of Project Recruitment Forum, and to an extend, Map Development Forum.

This would spam the map section, I would say. There is a reason why Beta's are not allowed there.
Considering that many maps probably not even reach a release state, this would be much more work for current moderators / newly assigned moderators / whoever who take a look on the Beta maps.

Rather than an entirely new section, though, it could be as simple as having "Beta" as a tag, just like "Pending", "Needs fix", and such, except that normal users could have the ability to choose to include beta maps in the maps list (they would not show up by default).

I'm getting really sick of people quoting a piece of my posts out of context just so that they can argue with that part of the post and ignore the rest.

We're supposed to be debating an important topic to find out what's best for the community, not sabotaging the opposing point of view to win an argument. I made a legitimate suggestion, then you guys went and edited my quote to make it sound like I was saying something different than what I was actually saying, just to make it easier for you to argue against it. That's more than just counterproductive; it's also lame.

I said nothing about making a completely new section, and I said nothing about letting them flood the map section; they would be automatically filtered out of the list so that people who don't want to see beta maps won't have to, while people who do, can. Beta testing doesn't have to only be done by people who are dedicating themselves to finding bugs in a map. It can also be done by the regular community that is just looking for something to play and comes across an interesting looking beta map. Sure, a dedicated tester will find more bugs than a casual user, but while you'd be lucky to get a few good beta testers, you could easily get dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of regular players to try the map if they only knew it was available; people who are looking for something to play don't check the map development forum.

The next time you reply to me, please say something about the actual suggestion I made, rather than ignoring it and arguing with a couple of lines of text. If you can't think of a good counterargument for my suggestion, what's wrong with putting down the weapons and developing the suggestion into something that we can adopt?

Really, stop and think about it for a moment, and forget about which side of the argument you're on. If my idea were implemented, who would be positively affected, and how? Who would be negatively affected, and how? Would the benefits outweigh the annoyances?

I'll try to predict what sort of effect it would have, and if I miss anything, feel free to reply.

Pros:
Mappers can upload their beta maps to the maps section and have casual players testing their maps because they are now more available (only mappers & testers check the dev forum)
Mappers can still use the development forum for hardcore beta testing
Players looking to play new maps would be able to search the map section directly for betas.
Players who don't care whether a map is finished, or still beta, can search the map section as normal but without excluding betas, to have a wider variety of maps available to them.
Players who don't want to play betas will be unaffected; they will not show up in the list by default until they opt to include them in their search

Cons:
Beta maps will then have two different places on the website to be posted (Which is no different than any other resource; every section has a forum dedicated to it as well, whether it's complete or WIP. This is not a con to most, however I listed it under cons because this seems to be a colossal issue for people who are opposed to the idea)

I tried to think of more cons, but I can't think of any. I will honestly update this list with more cons if any can be provided and I see them as legitimate complaints. My goal here is for the community to be able to weigh their options and choose what they really want, whether that means using my idea, or finding its flaws and coming up with their own solution that doesn't cause the same problems.

 

[InfernalTater]

In that case, it's almost obliterate the entire purpose of Project Recruitment Forum, and to an extend, Map Development Forum.

This would spam the map section, I would say. There is a reason why Beta's are not allowed there.
Considering that many maps probably not even reach a release state, this would be much more work for current moderators / newly assigned moderators / whoever who take a look on the Beta maps.

Rather than an entirely new section, though, it could be as simple as having "Beta" as a tag, just like "Pending", "Needs fix", and such, except that normal users could have the ability to choose to include beta maps in the maps list (they would not show up by default).

I'm getting really sick of people quoting a piece of my posts out of context just so that they can argue with that part of the post and ignore the rest.

We're supposed to be debating an important topic to find out what's best for the community, not sabotaging the opposing point of view to win an argument. I made a legitimate suggestion, then you guys went and edited my quote to make it sound like I was saying something different than what I was actually saying, just to make it easier for you to argue against it. That's more than just counterproductive; it's also lame.

I said nothing about making a completely new section, and I said nothing about letting them flood the map section; they would be automatically filtered out of the list so that people who don't want to see beta maps won't have to, while people who do, can. Beta testing doesn't have to only be done by people who are dedicating themselves to finding bugs in a map. It can also be done by the regular community that is just looking for something to play and comes across an interesting looking beta map. Sure, a dedicated tester will find more bugs than a casual user, but while you'd be lucky to get a few good beta testers, you could easily get dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of regular players to try the map if they only knew it was available; people who are looking for something to play don't check the map development forum.

The next time you reply to me, please say something about the actual suggestion I made, rather than ignoring it and arguing with a couple of lines of text. If you can't think of a good counterargument for my suggestion, what's wrong with putting down the weapons and developing the suggestion into something that we can adopt?

Really, stop and think about it for a moment, and forget about which side of the argument you're on. If my idea were implemented, who would be positively affected, and how? Who would be negatively affected, and how? Would the benefits outweigh the annoyances?

I'll try to predict what sort of effect it would have, and if I miss anything, feel free to reply.

Pros:
Mappers can upload their beta maps to the maps section and have casual players testing their maps because they are now more available (only mappers & testers check the dev forum)
Mappers can still use the development forum for hardcore beta testing
Players looking to play new maps would be able to search the map section directly for betas.
Players who don't care whether a map is finished, or still beta, can search the map section as normal but without excluding betas, to have a wider variety of maps available to them.
Players who don't want to play betas will be unaffected; they will not show up in the list by default until they opt to include them in their search

Cons:
Beta maps will then have two different places on the website to be posted (Which is no different than any other resource; every section has a forum dedicated to it as well, whether it's complete or WIP. This is not a con to most, however I listed it under cons because this seems to be a colossal issue for people who are opposed to the idea)
Implementing this idea would take a moderate amount of work. Those whose responsibility it would be to implement such a system would have to decide whether they think the effort would be worth it or better spent on something else.
People who accidentally enable searching for beta maps and don't know what a beta map is could unintentionally download a potentially incomplete map, despite the "Beta" on the thumbnail, and most likely also having "Beta" or a version less than 1.0 in the title (oh no!)

I tried to think of more cons, but I can't think of any. I will honestly update this list with more cons if any can be provided and I see them as legitimate complaints. My goal here is for the community to be able to weigh their options and choose what they really want, whether that means using my idea, or finding its flaws and coming up with their own solution that doesn't cause the same problems.

No! Daffa

that's not how it's going to work

official beta testers will be just like moderators

instead of reviewing a person's work and providing critique

they will review and provide suggestions on improvement from a more personal level, and error reported... basically what I mean is, they will beta test the map.

beta testers are totally different from reviewers

they stay with a author and check their work as it progresses.

very few moderators are willing to review a work after it had already been reviewed.

I've just been lucky and insistent

I don't think that's a good idea. I don't think fancy titles are to the benefit of the community. It will automatically create segregation. If someone wants people to know they're a beta tester and are available to test their maps, they can change the user title beneath their name to it to let people know; they don't need a special rank or privilege.

You don't need to have the same beta tester testing the map throughout its entire development. All you need is anyone testing the map. It could be a different person each time. What difference would it make? Beta testing doesn't have to be dedicated. Having it be open to each and every casual user to simply play the map and provide suggestions afterwards, as they already do for completed maps in the map section, is all we really need. And of course someone who does want to test a map thoroughly throughout its development isn't going to be stopped from doing so, that would just be absurd. If you feel that they need to be rewarded, you can always +rep them, and other people who enjoy the project will often also give +rep to people who frequently provide a lot of helpful input. Between +reps and visitor messages, I think people can get the recognition they deserve for whatever way that they contribute.

There are lots of different ways that people contribute to the site. If you start giving beta testers titles, then everyone else who feels that they contribute equally as much, or even more, will feel as though the beta testers are being unfairly favored.

 

[MasterHaosis]

I am thinking of something a little different. How about a maps section where its your choice to submit a map for review? There are maps and there are maps submitted for review and there are approved maps. But you can decide not to.This will give us a combination of epicwar and hive. I am sure not everyone even want their maps in the approved section or want to put up with getting a review. This would relieve stress both on the map moderator and the user. I haven't thought this through. It was just an idea.

Ralle, I completely agree with that and I was just about to submit that.
Just be note that reviewed maps should be more rated with reviewers or moderator's rating, than ones which authors decided not to be reviewed...or balance it somehow. But definitely good idea!
Reviewing tons of maps could be painful, and took lot of time, also people will complain by time why is their map not reviewed yet etc etc....

 

[Daffa]

I'm getting really sick of people quoting a piece of my posts out of context just so that they can argue with that part of the post and ignore the rest.

We're supposed to be debating an important topic to find out what's best for the community, not sabotaging the opposing point of view to win an argument. I made a legitimate suggestion, then you guys went and edited my quote to make it sound like I was saying something different than what I was actually saying, just to make it easier for you to argue against it. That's more than just counterproductive; it's also lame.

I said nothing about making a completely new section, and I said nothing about letting them flood the map section; they would be automatically filtered out of the list so that people who don't want to see beta maps won't have to, while people who do, can. Beta testing doesn't have to only be done by people who are dedicating themselves to finding bugs in a map. It can also be done by the regular community that is just looking for something to play and comes across an interesting looking beta map. Sure, a dedicated tester will find more bugs than a casual user, but while you'd be lucky to get a few good beta testers, you could easily get dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of regular players to try the map if they only knew it was available; people who are looking for something to play don't check the map development forum.

The next time you reply to me, please say something about the actual suggestion I made, rather than ignoring it and arguing with a couple of lines of text. If you can't think of a good counterargument for my suggestion, what's wrong with putting down the weapons and developing the suggestion into something that we can adopt?

Really, stop and think about it for a moment, and forget about which side of the argument you're on. If my idea were implemented, who would be positively affected, and how? Who would be negatively affected, and how? Would the benefits outweigh the annoyances?

I'll try to predict what sort of effect it would have, and if I miss anything, feel free to reply.

Pros:
Mappers can upload their beta maps to the maps section and have casual players testing their maps because they are now more available (only mappers & testers check the dev forum)
Mappers can still use the development forum for hardcore beta testing
Players looking to play new maps would be able to search the map section directly for betas.
Players who don't care whether a map is finished, or still beta, can search the map section as normal but without excluding betas, to have a wider variety of maps available to them.
Players who don't want to play betas will be unaffected; they will not show up in the list by default until they opt to include them in their search

Cons:
Beta maps will then have two different places on the website to be posted (Which is no different than any other resource; every section has a forum dedicated to it as well, whether it's complete or WIP. This is not a con to most, however I listed it under cons because this seems to be a colossal issue for people who are opposed to the idea)

I tried to think of more cons, but I can't think of any. I will honestly update this list with more cons if any can be provided and I see them as legitimate complaints. My goal here is for the community to be able to weigh their options and choose what they really want, whether that means using my idea, or finding its flaws and coming up with their own solution that doesn't cause the same problems.

I guess I slightly miss the point.

The pros do overweigh the cons, at least from your post.
However, there's also another cons that comes with them, but surely you should already know :
To an extend, this will almost obliterate Map Development Forum.
Beta Maps will be similar to Pending Maps, to a certain extend. They tend to be not researched, since Beta has a kind of "not finished" message, which might discourage players (at least casual ones). (But I don't see this as legitimate argument, at least from your view)

Also, how would Map Moderation Team handle these Beta Maps? Leave them be or check them once in a while to see if it deemed approvable as Late Beta?

The next issue here would be how should this be implemented. I was thinking that this tag will be shown below Pending Maps, and in addition, we need a special tick with "Is this map a Beta?" Since logically, we can't easily define wether a map is a beta or not. This application might come with another cons :
New users might deem his map as "completed", while in actual truth it's still a Beta. This will cause the map to appear in Pending (instead of Beta), which kills the purpose of that new section entirely. Mostly case of New Users, not too big to worry, but worth noting.
It's also odd if a map from pending downgraded to Beta, which is kinda inconsistent. (But I'm sure most can handle that, and it's VERY possible in the field)

I just figure those cons as an addition to the issue, but others might also come when we have this applied in the field.

The pros of this method of applying however, would be much on Staff's end, and of course, we user do get the benefits.

We can obliterate the main con you stated with merging the sections somehow. Or we make Map Development Forum more visible (in this case, we should also do the same for Artist's Corner).

I however, would like to hear in what way you think Staff applying this.

Just Random Note (not part of argument) :
If this gets applied, I might send all of my projects there instead of Map Dev, as of course : Open Beta

 

[InfernalTater]

I want to start out by thanking you for debating with me instead of against me.

I guess I slightly miss the point.

The pros do overweigh the cons, at least from your post.
However, there's also another cons that comes with them, but surely you should already know :
To an extend, this will almost obliterate Map Development Forum.

We've already got forums for the other resource sections, and people still actively use both the resource sections and the forums for them, so I don't think this would be any different. Even so, it would only obliterate the map development forum if everyone decides to use it instead of the forums. If they like it so much, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Also, how would Map Moderation Team handle these Beta Maps? Leave them be or check them once in a while to see if it deemed approvable as Late Beta?

I think it would be okay if they left them be, since they're only Betas (aside from checking for viruses and inappropriate content, etc). When an uploader decides they're ready to take the big leap, they can simply request that a moderator review the map. They would only need to moderate them to the same extent that they do the forums; to ensure that they do not violate the rules, but not to judge whether or not their quality meets THW's standards.

The next issue here would be how should this be implemented. I was thinking that this tag will be shown below Pending Maps, and in addition, we need a special tick with "Is this map a Beta?" Since logically, we can't easily define wether a map is a beta or not. This application might come with another cons :
New users might deem his map as "completed", while in actual truth it's still a Beta. This will cause the map to appear in Pending (instead of Beta), which kills the purpose of that new section entirely. Mostly case of New Users, not too big to worry, but worth noting.
It's also odd if a map from pending downgraded to Beta, which is kinda inconsistent. (But I'm sure most can handle that, and it's VERY possible in the field)

I just figure those cons as an addition to the issue, but others might also come when we have this applied in the field.

I was thinking Beta would be list that a user could opt to have their map be part of when uploading their map. It could either be on the left, with "Reviewed Maps, Approved Maps, Pending Maps, Beta Maps", or in the Map Category place. By choosing to have their map as "Beta", it would automatically skip the Pending process but still not be approved; it would be "Beta", which would be its own list, sort of like instantly skipping to "Needs fix". The word "Beta" would be written on the map thumbnail, just like with the other lists, so it should be pretty obvious to users that the map is a Beta. And, as I said before, Beta maps would automatically be filtered to be removed from the list unless players opt to include them in their search, so the only people who see them would be people who understand that they're including Beta maps in their search and won't be confused as to whether or not the map is complete. Essentially, the map section would be no different than it used to be, aside from the fact that people can choose to include the additional category if they want it.

The pros of this method of applying however, would be much on Staff's end, and of course, we user do get the benefits.

We can obliterate the main con you stated with merging the sections somehow. Or we make Map Development Forum more visible (in this case, we should also do the same for Artist's Corner).

I however, would like to hear in what way you think Staff applying this.

Just Random Note (not part of argument) :
If this gets applied, I might send all of my projects there instead of Map Dev, as of course : Open Beta

I don't think we'd need to change anything about the Map Development forum. It's in the appropriate place, and people who would rather use that section can still use it. We've got forums of the same sort for all of the other resource sections, and they're not phased out by the resource sections. I don't think this would be any different.

 

[Daffa]

I want to start out by thanking you for debating with me instead of against me.



We've already got forums for the other resource sections, and people still actively use both the resource sections and the forums for them, so I don't think this would be any different. Even so, it would only obliterate the map development forum if everyone decides to use it instead of the forums. If they like it so much, wouldn't that be a good thing?



I think it would be okay if they left them be, since they're only Betas (aside from checking for viruses and inappropriate content, etc). When an uploader decides they're ready to take the big leap, they can simply request that a moderator review the map. They would only need to moderate them to the same extent that they do the forums; to ensure that they do not violate the rules, but not to judge whether or not their quality meets THW's standards.



I was thinking Beta would be list that a user could opt to have their map be part of when uploading their map. It could either be on the left, with "Reviewed Maps, Approved Maps, Pending Maps, Beta Maps", or in the Map Category place. By choosing to have their map as "Beta", it would automatically skip the Pending process but still not be approved; it would be "Beta", which would be its own list, sort of like instantly skipping to "Needs fix". The word "Beta" would be written on the map thumbnail, just like with the other lists, so it should be pretty obvious to users that the map is a Beta. And, as I said before, Beta maps would automatically be filtered to be removed from the list unless players opt to include them in their search, so the only people who see them would be people who understand that they're including Beta maps in their search and won't be confused as to whether or not the map is complete. Essentially, the map section would be no different than it used to be, aside from the fact that people can choose to include the additional category if they want it.



I don't think we'd need to change anything about the Map Development forum. It's in the appropriate place, and people who would rather use that section can still use it. We've got forums of the same sort for all of the other resource sections, and they're not phased out by the resource sections. I don't think this would be any different.

If we talk about the better of the community, why not?

And better add an Alpha Section along with it if we want to bury Map Development Forum (just kidding). But yes, I see the point. The Map Dev Forum still serves as an Alpha Testing and Recruitment.

Well, that wouldn't be much hassle for Moderators (gazes at Shadow Fury, SCN, and Orcnet), At least from the theory.

A good addition I think, might as well add Alpha (just kidding, we don't need that, Map Dev serves that purpose).

I have to agree based on my earlier points.

However,
Pretty much Beta Maps still needs some restrictions to make sure utter rubbish ones out (we can have Map Reviewers and Beta Tester do this and hand the rubbish ones to Moderators for cleanup, but that depends on Staff's opinion on this case). I fear this one extra category become the effective target of crappy maps (marked as Beta, effectively shielding them from Moderators). The standard would be around 15-30% of the real standard would serve more than well (and excludes the "must be complete or late beta" rule).
This translates into some real work for Moderators, but as I state before, we can have the specialized groups to handle that for them, though I don't know how certain this will go.

The key here is to ensure that the Beta Maps have some quality, not completely almost not functional maps, which means it's an Alpha or completely rubbish ones.

This is the very reason I don't like this category, handling the rubbish ones which is tactically tagged as Beta, while author's only intention is to get it published around here and get some players to appreciate it while never update it. Other than that, with the idea I agree with it (since I get the point).
I'm very sorry, but I didn't ever like and never want to see Hive becomes similar to Epicwar.

 

[InfernalTater]

If we talk about the better of the community, why not?

And better add an Alpha Section along with it if we want to bury Map Development Forum (just kidding). But yes, I see the point. The Map Dev Forum still serves as an Alpha Testing and Recruitment.

Well, that wouldn't be much hassle for Moderators (gazes at Shadow Fury, SCN, and Orcnet), At least from the theory.

A good addition I think, might as well add Alpha (just kidding, we don't need that, Map Dev serves that purpose).

I have to agree based on my earlier points.

However,
Pretty much Beta Maps still needs some restrictions to make sure utter rubbish ones out (we can have Map Reviewers and Beta Tester do this and hand the rubbish ones to Moderators for cleanup, but that depends on Staff's opinion on this case). I fear this one extra category become the effective target of crappy maps (marked as Beta, effectively shielding them from Moderators). The standard would be around 15-30% of the real standard would serve more than well (and excludes the "must be complete or late beta" rule).
This translates into some real work for Moderators, but as I state before, we can have the specialized groups to handle that for them, though I don't know how certain this will go.

The key here is to ensure that the Beta Maps have some quality, not completely almost not functional maps, which means it's an Alpha or completely rubbish ones.

This is the very reason I don't like this category, handling the rubbish ones which is tactically tagged as Beta, while author's only intention is to get it published around here and get some players to appreciate it while never update it. Other than that, with the idea I agree with it (since I get the point).
I'm very sorry, but I didn't ever like and never want to see Hive becomes similar to Epicwar.

The level of moderation wouldn't have to be exactly what I described. I think it would be fine if it were moderated at the level you describe, too.

 

[Daffa]

The level of moderation wouldn't have to be exactly what I described. I think it would be fine if it were moderated at the level you describe, too.

Or perhaps Staff can set their own rules.

 

[InfernalTater]

Or perhaps Staff can set their own rules.

That's basically what I meant; that I wasn't trying to define how they should moderate, which is why my original post didn't even mention that process; I would have left that to them. But since you'd asked me, I thought I'd come up with a hypothetical.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

so...

are you guys telling me it's sorted?

What is this solution then???

I mean the more defined explanation

 

[InfernalTater]

so...

are you guys telling me it's sorted?

What is this solution then???

I mean the more defined explanation

I was thinking Beta would be list that a user could opt to have their map be part of when uploading their map. It could either be on the left, with "Reviewed Maps, Approved Maps, Pending Maps, Beta Maps", or in the Map Category place. By choosing to have their map as "Beta", it would automatically skip the Pending process but still not be approved; it would be "Beta", which would be its own list, sort of like instantly skipping to "Needs fix". The word "Beta" would be written on the map thumbnail, just like with the other lists, so it should be pretty obvious to users that the map is a Beta. And, as I said before, Beta maps would automatically be filtered to be removed from the list unless players opt to include them in their search, so the only people who see them would be people who understand that they're including Beta maps in their search and won't be confused as to whether or not the map is complete. Essentially, the map section would be no different than it used to be, aside from the fact that people can choose to include the additional category if they want it.

I described it quite a few times. Anything more specific than that is up to the administrators and development; we have to leave room for them to adapt it to what they see fit for the site.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

ok I'll call SCN. ...

 

[Ralle]

Alright. Sounds cool.

In the future, resource sections will be a bit more like forums, let still be filterable as hell. So, maybe we should have this structure for maps:
Maps (Approved maps, it contains the approved maps itself)
- Submissions
- Test/Beta Maps
- Graveyard (or something less dark)

 

[pred1980]

yeah, something like that. I have the same problem that i don't find testers

 

[Daffa]

Don't use Test/Beta, just Beta.
It can send wrong messages.

 

[Rui]

I'd like our Reviewed category for maps back.

 

[TheLordOfChaos201]

I'm cool with that..

this was a response to Ralle...

I like... the change... waiting forth coming results...

 

[Flux]

Alright. Sounds cool.

In the future, resource sections will be a bit more like forums, let still be filterable as hell. So, maybe we should have this structure for maps:
Maps (Approved maps, it contains the approved maps itself)
- Submissions
- Test/Beta Maps
- Graveyard (or something less dark)

This is actually a good idea. When should we expect it?

 

[Ralle]

Yes indeed!