Maps approved too easy?

[Chaosy]

Hey, I thought of it a while ago and I decided to bring it up here.

If you upload a working map here on the hive it will most likely get approved.
Because I have seen really boring maps and still they are approved. Aslong the map aint a virus or a empty map it will be approved aint that bad?
it feels like the moderation in the map section is pointless in some cases.


why is it like that?

 

[I3lackDeath]

I don't understand what your point is.
First you mention moderation, then the rating?

Please phrase a proper statement.

 

[Chaosy]

Ignore the last statement, I edited it.

 

[HammerFist132]

Well Idk, but one of hundred downloaded maps from hive I open in we(i done it few months ago), I wont say what map. That map was so leaking so lagging so bad, but it still get approvred. Even then when my coding knoweladge was much lower I wouldnt approve it. I think to they do it somehow rarely and do not care a lot.

 

[I3lackDeath]

Hm, okay.

it feels like the moderation in the map section is pointless in some cases.

Nope, it definitely isn't. You want to maintain order within each section - approving something "just because it works" or "just because it fulfils the criteria and follows the rules" included.

I'd like to use Scrubs as a metaphor here.
Dr. Cox said life as a doctor is not (always) like "House" depicts it (challenging diagnosis, therapy and whatnot).
Usually, things are very trivial.

Same applies to maps, or any other resource.

Additionally, Maps are (one of) the hardest resources to moderate, because they include several parameters that have to be reviewed.
If each case was reviewed in detail, you'd never clear out the section in time - you would always be behind.
Ergo, what works and fulfils the most rudimentary criteria/rules, will be approved (the better the map (more original etc.), the better the rating). What doesn't work, will be rejected.

Of course, this is my personal opinion - the voice of our Map Moderators are what has to be heard in here.

 

[Chaosy]

ofc, you can't make a in-deph review for every map.

still I think it should be harder for a map to be approved.
Things I think should be checked:
-atleast almost leakfree
-enjoyable gameplay
-decent terrain

 

[-Kobas-]

Let me explain how it works.

Map moderator when checking map look for critical errors like, missing DIS icons, game crushing tiggers, huge memory leaks, inefficient imported resources and so on (I for example always checked map from inside WE, deprotecting and unlocking "call it protected" maps). And I was strict, cruel and harsh, rejecting map for any "call it small mistake" I was able to find.

Yes, I was rating good maps with just 3/5 rating, sometimes "humiliating users" when doing so, and they didn't liked that, but my judgment was respected. Map rated 4/5 or rarely 5/5 was freaking worth checking for sure. After all we have marks from 2 to 5 to rate approved resource.

But there was huge problem in such moderation, I used to spent 1 or 2 hours checking map/s. AOS maps or RPG maps was pain in the ass because of such complex gameplay. And after writing "2 word pages" long review users was usually like, MEH OK, WHO THE FUCK CARES, or something like FUCK YOU, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO JUDGE MY MAP WHEN 1000 PLAYERS HOST IT ON BATTLE NET. Gosh, it slowly started to hurt, really. But honestly I didn't see any point in glorifying map, WOAH WHAT A TERRAIN, DAMN DUDE THIS MAP ROCKS 5/5 ....

Eventually I lost devotion to continue, way 2 many people wasn't "brave" enough to accept critics, so at first I started NOT TO write reviews, and rate maps. Simple approval and rejection was enough. (Ofc I was always there for user that wanted to improve his skills, who wanted to move on, continue working, continue shaping his map into MASTERPIECE, and those were/are users worth my/moderator time).

Moderators and staff members in general are just users with a little greater devotion to community and maybe skills to do their job, they don't get salary, they don't get any kind of profit for their work, just some respect that is nowadays totally useless. I said this many times, and I will say it again, if you want to see good review, if you want to help, feel free to do so, I can guaranty there is no staff member that will ignore your help (they will always check it out, and point you into right direction).

If map, or any other resource pass all site rules, there is no reason for it not to be approved, and that's it, end of discussion.

So please stop bitching about something so meaningless, just like in real word if you want to see something done, take it into your own hands, and then when you actually feel and experience HARD WORK you will start to value it.

 

[Pharaoh_]

So please stop bitching about something so meaningless, just like in real word if you want to see something done, take it into your own hands, and then when you actually feel and experience HARD WORK you will start to value it.

This reminds me of someone saying how bad they felt their terrain was. So, I suggested ways to improve the output -in fact, he was creating a floating building and I told him that it was too flat: everything was symmetrically perfect, height-wise, which made it unrealistic-. When I told him that he should get certain doodads lowered further and bits of rocks to hang off the main structure (to give the impression of gravity), it was suddenly too much work. This is an example that shows how hard work is not felt even by the creators themselves. You can't be seeking for perfection, when you are not following basic rules of aesthetics. When you create something, you have to consider others' opinion. You can't just make it perfect for yourself, otherwise what's the point to publish it? Even in the real world, you don't dress for yourselves, you dress for the others (which again reminds me of another joke: Girls dress to impress other girls, not men; if they dressed for men, then they would go out naked).

Sometimes we overvalue our works, but the objective eyes are there to judge them with no emotion, which we actually invested in the object we worked with. This doesn't mean that they are insensitive, but the fact that there is no real evidence of hard work.

 

[GhostThruster]

some maps are really old, and it would be impractical (+disrespectful) for map mods to purge the database of these old maps (which may have been good for their time).

 

[Zwiebelchen]

I don't think that maps here on the hive should be judged in the same way as models and spell resources.
There are critical criteria that should be fullfilled, of course, like the map to be working, free of offensive content and - at least to a certain standard - free of bugs.
However, I don't think moderators are there to judge the gameplay or content of the map itself, because this is in the eye of the viewer.
They can and possibly should share their own personal oppinion, but compared to other resources, the matter of taste hits way too much here.
You can clearly reject a bad model due to objective criteria. You can clearly reject a bad spell due to similarity with other spells or bad coding.
But you can not reject a map just because you don't like it's gameplay, because there might be others that have a great time with it.

I personally don't like TD-maps because of their repeating gameplay, so I'd never judge a TD map based on that. If I would do so, I'd never give a TD map more than 3/5, simply because I feel that TDs are boring as shit.
I think you see what I'm aiming at here?

If anything, there should be dedicated moderators to the specific genre of maps, to allow for a more in-depth look of the submission.
And even then, even "bad" maps should be approved - unless they are rejected by objective submission rules (not working, offensive content, copyright issues, etc.).

Girls dress to impress other girls, not men; if they dressed for men, then they would go out naked).

Couldn't be more wrong. 90% of the people in this world look better clothed than naked. Women even more than men.
Everyone loves to see a girl with a sexy dress - and that doesn't neccesarily mean showing off every curve and piece of skin. Sometimes, more is actually more ...
Just because our ideal of beauty is so fucked up due to pretentious mass media (I don't know one single man that likes those 1,80 meter 50 kilogram "no breasts, no hips, just bones"-girls you can see in advertising or "model shows"), doesn't mean that everyone takes it down to the purest animal instincts.

 

[gorillabull]

there is no need for map moderation you can just look at the person who made it's rep and ull know if it will crash on loading or not

 

[Vengeancekael]

Things I think should be checked:
-atleast almost leakfree
-enjoyable gameplay
-decent terrain

I always check if it's leak-free, Orcnet just checks if the game lags or not I think.
"Decent" and "enjoyable" are 2 strong adjectives: The Hive is known for its low standards for maps, we are not wc3c.net.
The thing about the hive is that it welcomes more user groups, whether you're a noob or a real modder, we try to let you upload your resources to our section.
However, every map is checked not only if it works, etc. but also for a certain amount of quality, as can be read in the Map Submission Rules:

Average quality standard:
A certain amount of quality is required, the gameplay needs to be somewhat fun, the terrain must not be lacking and a bit of originality should be present.

If a user uploads his "first RPG" with a horrifying terrain and boring default spells, it will be rejected.
So no, we do not approve utterly bad maps, but our standards are sadly low.
I'd also love a more high quality maps section, but that matter would have to be discussed more. Right now we have enough problems trying to enforce the current rules, 90% of submitted maps don't even pass the first criterion: An actual description.

@-Kobas-, nicely written, your English is starting to impress me.

Additionally, a section purge of older maps is not possible:

1. Even though I don't have a life, we have higher priorities.
2. Today's standards are not the same as back then, so new rules do not apply to them. (Else I'd have to reject about 200 maps because of a missing description)
3. You're all carrots.

If anything, there should be dedicated moderators to the specific genre of maps, to allow for a more in-depth look of the submission.

That used to be the case with me usually checking cinematics instead of Kobas, but with his departure, Orcnet and I have to take care of every genre. It would be nice to have such a system, but there isn't even a third user that is fit for map moderation.

 

[Rui]

Back when I used to set the quality standard for maps in the Map Section, every submitted map needed to be thoroughly tested, sometimes more than once. I thought it had never changed? I definitely didn't catch it if we have gone back to the «tested for viruses» standard.

If the original poster was referring to the older maps (2006 and older), we keep them around because they came from wc3sear.ch, thus paying respect to the site, if there's any left.

 

[Vengeancekael]

*looks at Kobas*

 

[-Kobas-]

Hey it's maybe true that I approved few maps with some lacking gameplay or terrain (Lacking 2/5 rating BAM done).
I was the cruelest map moderator among you ^_^

 

[Vengeancekael]

But we still reject maps because of that.
Anyway, Chaosy is my answer satisfying enough?

 

[Rui]

In spite of what Zwiebelchen has said, I have not given good ratings to maps that are just one more a given type, like TDs. Originality for me is the most important characteristic of a map. I am not sure if I ever rejected a map because of lack of originality, but I may well have rejected functional maps.

It is possible to make a map within a determined map type whilst still giving it a good amount of innovation and making it fun. I admittedly abhor TDs, but I'd still give "Squadron TD", in SC2, a 4/5 or a 3/5 at the least. Despite being the regular TD with no apparent logic, strategy or balance given to the different towers or the different races you can pick from, it was fun to play every once in a while back when I still played SC2.

 

[I3lackDeath]

So no, we do not approve utterly bad maps, but our standards are sadly low.

I'd also love a more high quality maps section, but that matter would have to be discussed more.​

Higher standards would be welcome, but remember:
You have to work with what's available to you.​

1. Even though I don't have a life, we have higher priorities.
2. Today's standards are not the same as back then, so new rules do not apply to them. (Else I'd have to reject about 200 maps because of a missing description)
3. You're all carrots.

 

[DESTROYER123]

If a user uploads his "first RPG" with a horrifying terrain and boring default spells, it will be rejected.

That was what I did

 

[Codric]

Hey it's maybe true that I approved few maps with some lacking gameplay or terrain (Lacking 2/5 rating BAM done).
I was the cruelest map moderator among you ^_^

I dont belive that :3
Not for a second.

 

[Chaosy]

I guess you have answered it kael.