when the map section will....

[Deolrin]

So WRITE EVERYTHING YOU TESTED in the actual review, instead of randomly writing bullshit. :/
What really matters is the review; It's supposed to be a way for the average hiver to determine how good a map is.

 

[Vengeancekael]

So you're saying that the rating is more important than the review?
I wouldn't really care if you gave my map a rating, I'd rather read a review with some feedback. The rating would only either make the user happy, very sad, or angry when you don't properly tell him why his map 'sucked' in your review.
edit: Ah god damn you Deo

 

[Ironside]

So WRITE EVERYTHING YOU TESTED in the actual review, instead of randomly writing bullshit. :/
What really matters is the review; It's supposed to be a way for the average hiver to determine how good a map is.

The point is, most no one is motivated enough to still write huge reviews, trust me, it's easier to play and rate the map then write that wall of text that often even ends up in a map whose author already gave up on their map.

So you're saying that the rating is more important than the review?
I wouldn't really care if you gave my map a rating, I'd rather read a review with some feedback. The rating would only either make the user happy, very sad, or angry when you don't properly tell him why his map 'sucked' in your review.
edit: Ah god damn you Deo

That certainly was the case in the map purge event as I recall it. The case currently is similar back to then with the difference that there are less maps.

 

[Deolrin]

Then don't post 'reviews' at all.
All you're doing is confusing the users with very retarded and inaccurate reviews, and forcing the mods to use your terrible reviews as the official reason for the map's approval.

 

[Skycraft]

If you can't do a damn decent review then don't bother at all.
Like I said before, you just waste time.

 

[Ironside]

In case you haven't noticed, I already stopped 2 weeks ago.
I doubt you'll find many more that will write proper reviews though.

EDIT:

Just checked, the pending maps are rising again, so who's reviewing them besides -Kobas- ?

 

[Linaze]

That a number is rising is no excuse to approve a map based on ridiculous facts.

 

[Vengeancekael]

In case you haven't noticed, I already stopped 2 weeks ago.
I doubt you'll find many more that will write proper reviews though.

EDIT:

Just checked, the pending maps are rising again, so who's reviewing them besides -Kobas- ?

ap0 and Cweener?

 

[Ironside]

ap0 and Cweener?

Haven't seen anything from Cweener in a while.
Yes, ap0 is still active too.

 

[-Kobas-]

I guess there is no use to continue this discussion, because we "run" into infinite loop. Didn't wanted to say but Ralle made thread in mods lobby about this few months ago. We just "fallow" instructions, if you don't like it, ignore it. I won't post here anymore.

Report, insult, troll do anything you want I just don't care. Bye.

 

[Linaze]

We "run into infinite loops" because you can't see (or you can't accept) that your way of handling the map section sucks.

 

[Jazztastic]

Guys, here are te facts, as I see it:

1. The map section receives more maps each day than can be reviewed.
2. There are sub-par reviews being used as the sole basis for map approval/rejection
3. There are, at any given time, less than 5 people working on the map section.

As a solution, what if everyone on this thread stops bitching about how terrible the review system is, and tries to fix it. If everyone here wrote a review a day, we wouldn't have this damn problem. I talked to Kobas a while ago, and anything you review, you can pm it to him and he'll consider your review. But stop bitching and moaning about how terrible it is if you aren't willing to fix it.

 

[Vehster]

If the users that decided to upload their maps bothered to ask people to review their maps we would not have this problem....

This is just sad, you guys are trying to blame what there is barely left of mods for reviewing maps when it is really your fault for not doing the reviews yourselves to try to help them out, I admit I have been lazy but that is due to my own problems, I am back now though.

I write good enough reviews I think enough for this modern time, I point out stuff while giving how I rate the map and judging the map inside-out.

If your here to complain then go to Starcraft 2, they need that there not here.

If I had the power, I would fix the entire map section, approved and pending only of course...
However I don't and I don't work often for I am busy with RL and helping in Bnet for friends.
If Kobas or another map mod would trust me to the max extent then I would do the entire thing as in mass amount of maps approved or rejected or stay pending.
But since all the map mods rather check the map themselves as well it slows stuff down too.

 

[Ketsuno Anson]

You'll have to prove yourself to ralle first,go apply for a mod position then,if you think you are up for it

 

[Vehster]

I rather not try to prove myself, I am done with that... I would rather be asked if Ralle would want me as a mod then asking him.

I am up for anything, it doesn't matter really.

 

[Ironside]

If you want to help, just write reviews and PM them to -Kobas-.
If your reviews will be good he will start to use them for approving & rejecting maps.

 

[Linaze]

The way you "help" the map section is like helping a fattie by giving him food. You're only making it worse. Don't tell yourself or anyone else that you're doing something "for the Hive", you are wasting your time and making the map section even worse while doing it.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

Why don't you do something about the map section than whine for others how bad job they do? At least they try something.

I think it's better to make poor reviews than doing nothing. People can always ask for more advanced reviews if they want. Maybe like 90% of uploaders doesn't care about reviews as long as their projects are approved.

 

[Linaze]

I've done all that is within my reach. I reviewed maps and made suggestions when I was a moderator and now I argue with the people who call themselves reviewers. I still have suggestions on how best to "save" the map section, but people don't usually like my ideas on this subject.

 

[Ironside]

I've done all that is within my reach. I reviewed maps and made suggestions when I was a moderator and now I argue with the people who call themselves reviewers. I still have suggestions on how best to "save" the map section, but people don't usually like my ideas on this subject.

As several told you already, times have changed and most people just want their maps approved / rejected already. Most don't care about reviews. Besides, each and everyone of them can request a detailed review.

 

[Linaze]

It's not relevant what the average map-uploader wants. What's relevant, however, is what kind of map section the Hive should have, because the current one obviously doesn't work.

Edit: I missed your reply before I posted (you probably replied while I was posting).

Did you just ask me to shut up? Forgive me, but I won't. I've been taught to speak my mind when my mind wants to be spoken.

 

[Aeroblyctos]

Tell then, what could work?

 

[The_Silent]

Stop this flaming, and close the tread if people can't behave.

 

[Linaze]

@Aero, I will, but I'll do so later/tomorrow.

@Vehster, blabla you're an *.
I've not behaved bad in this thread, and that I've been repped only proves that my opinions are supported amongst at least some members of the community.

@The Silent, @ @ @ @ enforce rules and @ what threads should be locked?

 

[Jazztastic]

Linaze, I'm more with you on this one. The quality of the reviews needs to be higher for a mod to use solely it as whether a resource should be rejected or approved. I'm very interested to hear what you consider the "best" solution to the problem the map section is having. Will the rest of you please be civil and simply ask him instead of trying to flame him out?

@Vehster
Denying the right to speak his mind isn't going to help you in your arguement at all.

@Ironside
I understand deeply that you're trying to help (which you most certainly are, no one can deny that), but you have to admit that some of the reviews you have written are not acceptable. Please don't take it personally, I'm just saying that you messed up once or twice, everyone makes mistakes

 

[Linaze]

First of all, thank you for staying civilized in this discussion, Beef.

Now, as for what I propose be done with the map section:

1. Ditch the moderation process, it makes no sense and does not work for several reasons:

• First and foremost, the Hive does not have the staff available to keep up with the amount of maps that are uploaded each and every day. One may counter by saying that we then should get more map moderators, but let's be realistic, we'd need something like 5 - 7 of them, and the right people for these positions don't exactly grow on trees.
• Secondly, the only real difference currently between an approved map and a pending map is that the former is free of viruses and guaranteed to work. Map moderators don't approve maps based on the quality of them, but on things like the ones I mentioned just above (other examples have also been given earlier in this thread). A person who comes here to download maps will obviously look amongst the approved ones because they should be of some quality, but this is not always the case: There are approved maps that no one would find amusing. This makes no sense, at least not to me.
• Thirdly, when Wc3S died, the Hive "took over" and imported the old site's resources and maps. These maps have never been moderated but still count as approved, no one knows if these maps are worthy of being in the database or if they're worthless.
• Last but not least, the Hive has surely had 30 different people reviewing maps, all in their own way, ranging from Haosis with his "[ ] map is free of viruses" (or whatever the hell he wrote) to people who played the maps and properly reviewed them. This has lead to great injustice for the map uploaders, many maps Haosis approved I would've surely rejected.

2. This point requires the first one. There ain't no longer things such as "Approved" or "Rejected". However, there will still be a map staff that will do several things:

• Review good maps per the uploader's request, or just because the map is good enough for them to actually want to.
• Handle user reports from the map section. For example if a map contains a virus or doesn't work, the map moderator will handle it.
• Make sure map comments follow the rules of the Hive. I.e. make sure there's no flaming or racism or anything of the kind going on.

3.Enjoy your new map section.

You asked where I stand. Well, this is where. Take it or leave it, I don't care.

 

[Jazztastic]

So what you're suggesting is a less structured and rigid control over the maps section, from my point of view, which isn't a bad thing. But here's how I'm understanding it:

No moderator interferance with maps except for keeping them clean from things such as viruses or flaming. Moderators will review a map if asked for by the submitter. But how do we know a quality map from a shit map? Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

 

[mckill2009]

moderators shouldnt be too strict in order to approve a map...if a map is playable/no viruses/terrain is OK and follow hive rules, then it should be approved...they shouldnt expect that a map MUST be as good as Gintara's/Diablo3 etc...

 

[Vengeancekael]

moderators shouldnt be too strict in order to approve a map...if a map is playable/no viruses/terrain is OK and follow hive rules, then it should be approved...they shouldnt expect that a map MUST be as good as Gintara's/Diablo3 etc...

So you're saying that the only quality aspect of the map that should be looked at would be the terrain? And here I thought it was gameplay>visuals/beauty/terrain

 

[Linaze]

So what you're suggesting is a less structured and rigid control over the maps section, from my point of view, which isn't a bad thing. But here's how I'm understanding it:

No moderator interferance with maps except for keeping them clean from things such as viruses or flaming. Moderators will review a map if asked for by the submitter. But how do we know a quality map from a shit map? Other than that, I pretty much agree with everything you said.

There's always user rating and comments when calculating the quality of a map. I'm glad you agree, by the way.

 

[Skycraft]

So you're saying that the only quality aspect of the map that should be looked at would be the terrain? And here I thought it was gameplay>visuals/beauty/terrain

Gameplay > Aesthetics > Bug/Lag-free > Everything else. :3

 

[Linaze]

So a super-laggy, super-buggy map but great gameplay and aesthetics is pretty awesome despite being completely unplayable to to lag and bugs? Interesting.

 

[Jazztastic]

Gameplay > Aesthetics > Bug/Lag-free > Everything else. :3

Imagine it like this.

OMFG THIS SKILL IZ EYECANDIEZ TO TEH MAXORZ! Too bad it bugs everytime and kills every single unit on the map.

Or

OMFG THIS ICON IZ SOOO HAWT! IT IZ ALL TEH SPARKLEZ AND STAWFF. Too bad when I click it the game crashes due to the massive lag created by the ability it represents.

Gameplay > Bugs > Aesthetics

 

[Skycraft]

Well if someone has a map with 'Great Gameplay' and 'Great Aesthetics' there is little chance for it to be buggy/laggy because it is evident the coder knows what they are doing, with enhancing the gameplay and such.
You shouldn't think of the 'worst-case scenario' that randomly pops into your head when a statement is given. That's silly. :3

Anyhow I tend to find fixing up leaked coding is much easier than altering the gameplay or the look/feel of the game.

 

[Linaze]

Neither great gameplay nor great aesthetics requires a coder that knows what he's doing. It takes merely a creative mind and a visit to the model section. Besides, the order of importance has nothing to with difficulty of pulling something off, it has to do with, guess: importance.

 

[mckill2009]

So you're saying that the only quality aspect of the map that should be looked at would be the terrain? And here I thought it was gameplay>visuals/beauty/terrain

What I said was >>> if a map is playable/no viruses/terrain is OK and follow hive rules, then it should be approved, meaning not only the terrain but everything else...

But not too strict in judging coz not all modders can do what CloudWolf/Booody/Dj0z etc...did, nor any other fucking awesome maps...

 

[Linaze]

Terrain implies not only terrain, but "everything else", this gets more and more interesting with every post.
mckill, did you read my ideas for the map section?

 

[Skycraft]

Neither great gameplay nor great aesthetics requires a coder that knows what he's doing. It takes merely a creative mind and a visit to the model section. Besides, the order of importance has nothing to with difficulty of pulling something off, it has to do with, guess: importance.

Great gameplay mostly comes through with coding, as that creates unique systems and in-game events which 'you would think' are mostly leakless. This could be different if you are referring to something simple like a melee map.
However you are right with the aesthetics scenario :/

 

[mckill2009]

Melee map needs to have an awesome terrain btw ...

@Linaze, I havent coz coding gives me more passion than playing the ALL WC3 games, including mine, but maybe sometimes, I will take part in reviewing maps...

 

[Deolrin]

Linaze's ideas are great, and the Hive can still use the review system that is being used currently, just not to approve\reject maps but to rate and measure the quality of a map. Instead of "Approved" and "Rejected", it can use the tags "Reviewed" and "Unreviewed".

Also, uhh. Bug\Lag Free > Fun > Balance(doesn't apply to all maps) > Aethetics, in my humble opinion. Even if a map is fun, I wouldn't play it if some unit causes a crash or some ability causes an infinite loop or some other stupid coder thing and lags the game to an unplayable state. (Yes, lag is a verb now. Deal with it. )

moderators shouldnt be too strict in order to approve a map...if a map is playable/no viruses/terrain is OK and follow hive rules, then it should be approved...they shouldnt expect that a map MUST be as good as Gintara's/Diablo3 etc...

Yes, they SHOULD be strict. That's exactly the problem with the current map system; Too many terrible maps that aren't fun to play at all are approved based on some random's person review of "Hmm, this map has a multiboard! I approve!".

 

[SA Dashie]

A map maker that uploads a map wants his/her map approved more than waiting for a rushed review and should only be approved if the terrain, the coding is done well(meaning lag and almost completely bug free), is fun to play(or at least for most/some), is easy to learn and somewhat original. I think that there can be other things to be marked on but a MAP DISCRIPTION SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED IN THE OVERALL SCORE FOR THE MAP and also anything else that can be easily implemented into a map. And also as I said before that a map maker does not perticualy want a review from a mod that instead if a mod wants to rate a map and/or approve one all these things can ballance out one.
Please keep in mind that if you have power over the map section be smart with approving/rejecting maps as this is the hive workshop and not a Wc3 map spam site.

 

[GhostThruster]

I think Map moderators should only check for the technical properties (eg. the map description, gameplay, and playability). Map mods don't have the time or manpower to constantly write detailed reviews.

 

[Linaze]

A map maker that uploads a map wants his/her map approved more than waiting for a rushed review and should only be approved if the terrain, the coding is done well(meaning lag and almost completely bug free), is fun to play(or at least for most/some), is easy to learn and somewhat original. I think that there can be other things to be marked on but a MAP DISCRIPTION SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED IN THE OVERALL SCORE FOR THE MAP and also anything else that can be easily implemented into a map. And also as I said before that a map maker does not perticualy want a review from a mod that instead if a mod wants to rate a map and/or approve one all these things can ballance out one.
Please keep in mind that if you have power over the map section be smart with approving/rejecting maps as this is the hive workshop and not a Wc3 map spam site.

This would be the optimal map section, but there's not the time nor the resources to review maps this way, unfortunately. That's why I posted my alternative.

I think Map moderators should only check for the technical properties (eg. the map description, gameplay, and playability). Map mods don't have the time or manpower to constantly write detailed reviews.

That's basically what I suggested, except all maps are approved on default, and then mods and users check that they follow the basic ruled there'll be, that they're not bugged, causes crashes etc.

 

[SA Dashie]

I am just asking the mods to actually act like they know what there doing instead of just flicking threw maps pay attention to what they are doing and also gather that information in there brains and distinguish there final mark (if they want to rate) or just approve instead of paying attention to the easy thing that can be made in WE of what a map contains as the proper talents of the map (if any) should be more noticed to properly determine the final mark or/and status of the map.

 

[GhostThruster]

except all maps are approved on default

No, I think there should be Pending, Approvalised, and Rejected maps.
What if a map contains a virus, and a user gets to it before a mod does?
Plus, users aren't well-known to reading before clicking, so even if a mod writes a warning post or some shit, it may be too late or ignored.

When there is an approved section, it will make downloading safer.

 

[Linaze]

If a map contains a virus it's dangerous with our without the word "Pending" just below the download link.
Besides, I don't think maps with viruses are too common either way, I for one never encountered any while moderating maps.

 

[GhostThruster]

What I'm trying to say is that a Pending section, like we have now, will funnel out the shit for users to download safe, secure, and non-time wasting maps.

If a map contains a virus it's dangerous with our without the word "Pending" just below the download link.

Yes but if we were to put the maps into a Pending section, like we have now, fewer users would download it (true story, the pending maps get less visits and downloads, for obvious reasons).

 

[Linaze]

Well. You are right, fewer people download the pending maps simply because they are pending, and thus, less virus maps might be downloaded. But seriously, how many virus maps does the Hive have in it's pending map section? I'd guess none. Also, it's up to the user to determine whether a map seems safe or not, just like the user has to do with every file he or she downloads from the internet. It's not like every site that has downloads also has an "approved" and "rejected" section. Finally, if the moderators have to go through every pending map and check for viruses, that it doesn't bug, works properly and so on, then we're back to square zero, the failure that is the map section of today.

 

[Ketsuno Anson]

We'll need reviewers as as part of the staff too,if that's what we need

 

[mckill2009]

Yes, they SHOULD be strict. That's exactly the problem with the current map system; Too many terrible maps that aren't fun to play at all are approved based on some random's person review of "Hmm, this map has a multiboard! I approve!".

Man, read between the lines, I said >>> moderators shouldnt be too strict in order to approve a map, maybe you'll be asking what's the difference?...

Well it's true that you cant approve ALL maps that contains a multiboard but if a good map is not approved because it's NOT super awesome or unique, then that's the bloody problem...