Discussion: Possible Impromptu Raincheck Thread

Rexy

The Kwisatz Haderach
aa
Dec 22, 2008
1,798
2,533
@ Okrag,

Yeah, for some people, who have no ability to attend their maps, this is fine. But I think that sort of thing should be saved for scheduled events. I myself have been in situations where people threw their map into an impromptu wanting it to be tested and then never showed up--meanwhile there a few people on the server who were present and actively waiting to test their maps next, in which case I gladly skipped over the map where the author didn't show and came back to it later. The principle of adding maps where the authors aren't present to the end of impromptus isn't going to be a good solution, at least to me--another reason why I like impromptu over scheduled tests is that they are typically shorter, we can test anywhere from 2-5 maps and be done. If after the few maps where the authors are present are over, and there's a log of maps to test in which the authors are not present, I'm more tempted to find something else to do. I can leave feedback and point out a few things, but I feel the best kind of feedback is when you can talk to the author about issues directly.

All of the above is just opinionated ^
 

Okrag

Wall Staples
aa
Jun 10, 2009
1,029
655
I'm all in favor of maps of authors who aren't there always being pushed to the end in order to support authors who are there. Sometimes though I see impromptus that still have people that just sort of end with no extra maps to test and it would be nice to keep some kind of record of what maps people want tested.
 

Mr. Wimples

L6: Sharp Member
Jan 27, 2010
276
226
I'm going to agree with Rexy and Grazr here; Impromptus are more about instantaneous, personal feedback on a map than getting a map tested sometime in the near future with annotations scattered here and there.