• Listen to a special audio message from Bill Roper to the Hive Workshop community (Bill is a former Vice President of Blizzard Entertainment, Producer, Designer, Musician, Voice Actor) 🔗Click here to hear his message!
  • Read Evilhog's interview with Gregory Alper, the original composer of the music for WarCraft: Orcs & Humans 🔗Click here to read the full interview.

Needs Fix Spells

Needs Fix Spells

  • Hide From Public

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    5
Status
Not open for further replies.

Kazeon

Hosted Project: EC
Level 34
Joined
Oct 12, 2011
Messages
3,449
Personally I think the whole needs fix thing is completely bullshit in the first place. 90% of the things uploaded here does work fine. Yet it 'needs fix'

If they did not meet the standard requirement of spell approval (MUI, no leaks, no repetitive function calls) then they were indeed needing fix. But if they were just lacking some freaky optimizations, then I'm agreed those are invalid needs fix statuses.

Lately I've realized we have applied a too high or even too harsh reviewing standard. Actually, we just need to mention major flaws in a spell, not every single minor improvements. Efficiency, coding neatness, etc. are not required, they are secondary objective to get higher rating. But those should not influence their approval status. Then eventually, those minor optimizations and clean coding can affect their final ratings.

As far as I see, capt. Bribe did a perfect job on moderating. He did not mention blocks of review but just 3 or less comments including one resource's major approval problematic. Just like "this is not MUI". And that's how a valid review should be.

Yet, our spell submission rules itself is way too constrained. Just like these ones
  • JASS code must be written to follow common JASS convention.
  • Variable names must be descriptive, but not too descriptive.
  • Spells must be easy to import, use variables for object editor data, for example for abilities and unit types. Strive to require as few changes possible when importing.
  • The triggers and/or code must be readable and clean. Messy code is very hard to moderate, and even harder for inexperienced users to deal with.
  • Users have to be able to configure your spell to their liking. Don't make spells that are hard-coded and only work in one configuration. Allow users to configure things like damage, Area of Effect, special effects, damage type, attack type, etc...
Do you really think they are necessary and required? Personally, I don't think so. Yet they may influence submissions' final ratings. I suggest somebody to rework on our spell rules.
 

Chaosy

Tutorial Reviewer
Level 40
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
13,219
If they did not meet the standard requirement of spell approval (MUI, no leaks, no repetitive function calls) then they were indeed needing fix. But if they were just lacking some freaky optimizations, then I'm agreed those are invalid needs fix statuses.

Even if they do leak, needs fix is totally misleading. The spell/system might work perfectly in terms of result. In other words the spell/system might do exactly what it is supposed to, but got a leak or two or even minor flaws as you mentioned.
 
90% of the things uploaded here does work fine. Yet it 'needs fix'
I sorta agree, but I'm suggesting a separate filter for them.

Let me also a suggestion that rejected/need fix maps should still be visible. I think this is one of the reason why new created maps die out quickly because after rejection the map doesn't get any feedback anymore since its not visible and maybe the author feel discouraged about it.
After rejection the mod should've pretty much covered the issues of the map. If not, I guess it's okay on a separate filter too. Then the really obnoxious maps (stolen, etc.) should be soft deleted.

Lately I've realized we have applied a too high or even too harsh reviewing standard. Actually, we just need to mention major flaws in a spell, not every single minor improvements. Efficiency, coding neatness, etc. are not required, they are secondary objective to get higher rating. But those should not influence their approval status. Then eventually, those minor optimizations and clean coding can affect their final ratings.
I fully agree about the ratings.

Even if they do leak, needs fix is totally misleading. The spell/system might work perfectly in terms of result. In other words the spell/system might do exactly what it is supposed to, but got a leak or two or even minor flaws as you mentioned.
Perhaps for small scale problems such as a leak or two, Awaiting Update? Since they're almost perfect but have flaws too minor to be set to Needs Fix.
 
Reject/NeedsFix/AwaitUpdate? They are all the same. -> Not approved. -> Does not match with rules.

That should be only critique for an approval. I agree that a moderator do not need to make a detailed presentation of his review and does not need to mention each little optimization/flaw.
But a moderator should at least recognize most of them and shortly mention them, no matter if spell gets approved, or not. Just a short and professional feedback.

Even if they do leak, needs fix is totally misleading.
Leaking should be an undiscussable point. As they may lead to unplayability, there should be no exception, and it should get a NeedsFix.
A single leak does not matter at all, but many systems and almost all spells periodicly call leak-able operations, so it was a very bad habit to start ignoring them.

I prett much agree with Dalvengyr,... instead of Bribe, because I don't really know him. :D
 
Last edited:
Level 22
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
4,821
Memory leaks must be fixed, as it impacts the game engine's performance (as stated by IcemanBo) which most of the time leads to unsatisfied players. Even lazy script monkeys like me don't leave them unfixed.
 

Chaosy

Tutorial Reviewer
Level 40
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
13,219
Reject/NeedsFix/AwaitUpdate? They are all the same. -> Not approved. -> Does not match with rules.
Spells/systems should be approved if they work correctly, that should be the only criteria. If a spell leaks and isn't MUI, give it 1/5 and approve it, because saying it doesn't work is bullshit.

Leaking should be an undiscussable point. As they may lead to unplayability, there should be no exception, and it should get a NeedsFix.
A single leak does not matter at all, but many systems and almost all spells periodicly call leak-able operations, so it was a very bad habit to start ignoring them.
Memory leaks must be fixed, as it impacts the game engine's performance (as stated by IcemanBo) which most of the time leads to unsatisfied players. Even lazy script monkeys like me don't leave them unfixed.



This only applies to crappy computers unless wc3 got a really crappy RAM limit. One leak is 4 byte, no? so if I got 16 gig ram... which is pretty standard here in Sweden anyway.
 
Spells/systems should be approved if they work correctly, that should be the only criteria. If a spell leaks and isn't MUI, give it 1/5 and approve it, because saying it doesn't work is bullshit.
There also must be a general minimum of quality, equal for all submissions, to ensure a standard in the section.

This is why a submission should be MUI or at least MPI for systems. (though in common cases)
This is why leaks are no-no. It's proven that they can make a game unplayable. And it's basic for proper coding.

So even if you as user do personaly think that your submission works and is ready for approval, it still should go in hand with the general submission rules.
 
Spells/systems should be approved if they work correctly, that should be the only criteria. If a spell leaks and isn't MUI, give it 1/5 and approve it, because saying it doesn't work is bullshit.






This only applies to crappy computers unless wc3 got a really crappy RAM limit. One leak is 4 byte, no? so if I got 16 gig ram... which is pretty standard here in Sweden anyway.

Limit is around 2 GB, for me it crashes at around 1.85 GB so cleaning leaks are pretty much the most important part of mapmaking. Then gameplay. Even so it has a high chance to crash when above 1 GB and can still crash when below still. Memory overwrites and other mis-reads and crap. Bigger filesize is better then more leaks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top