- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 9,797
I suggest they be put on a separate filter instead of appearing unwantedly while searching.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
You don't see "Needs Fix" resources from default filter in the map section, and I also would think it could be done in Spell Section.
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'
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.
- 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...
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.
I sorta agree, but I'm suggesting a separate filter for them.90% of the things uploaded here does work fine. Yet it 'needs fix'
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.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.
I fully agree about the ratings.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.
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.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.
Leaking should be an undiscussable point. As they may lead to unplayability, there should be no exception, and it should get a NeedsFix.Even if they do leak, needs fix is totally misleading.
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.Reject/NeedsFix/AwaitUpdate? They are all the same. -> Not approved. -> Does not match with rules.
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.
There also must be a general minimum of quality, equal for all submissions, to ensure a standard in the section.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.
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.