Public Discussion: Feedback Quality and Quality of tests

[Berry]

I feel like a rating system could work if it wasn't forced on people via vote. A simple command that pops up the vote with options like "I don't like it" "Impartial" "I like it" and "I love it" would be nice, and then a command to further a main reason.

However, a command to further a reason why you like/dislike a map would be pretty much obsolete with the current feedback system in place. With this one can already pretty much just say "!gf I dislike the map. I feel it's ruined by the x at y, but z really doesn't help either."


On the subject of the feedback system, I think something accessable on map pages would be nice (possible to be listed by the author, etc) that is an overview of the map in the style of heatmaps (but without the heat obviously). People could crop & zoom into specific areas and place a small tack with feedback attached to a specific area.

I don't know if that is at all worth the effort it'd take to make (again considering the system already in place) but I feel like it's a great way for people to give their feedback on specific areas post-game.

 

[UKCS-Alias]

Well, maybe besides the thanks given and thanks recieved also have a feedback given counter and possible with it a quality feedback given button.

The map author when looking through the feedback then simply would be able to judge good and bad feedback. That way showing good feedback can be promoted.

FPSB for example does have a good feedback system which makes quality feedback noted alot better.

 

[YM]

No ratings. I don't want to ever put my name next to "I don't like it"

Put yourself in a totaly newbie's shoes Berry. You submit your first map to gameday and it gets bombarded with "I don't like it" votes because, let's face it, it's shit. That's cruel and demoralising. Far better to have people offer their thoughts and suggestions where they're not being limited to saying like/dislike

If I am going to tell someone that their map bad, I definitely want to say why and suggest a direction to head in, rather than just leaving it at saying it's bad.

 

[Idolon]

I think the important thing is that we focus on making it easier to leave detailed feedback, rather than making it easier to leave any kind of feedback in general. When someone actually wants to leave their thoughts on a map, they should be putting as little effort as possible into making sure the map-maker can read their thoughts, so that they can better focus their attention on what matters: the actual feedback.

One thing that could definitely help is a command to leave feedback on the current map (or previous map, or any map) that isn't limited by the size of the chat window. This might mean bringing up a browser window, but I think it'd be totally worth it. I know I'd try to make as much use of that system as possible, and others probably would too.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

... maybe a plugin for offline mode where you can run around a map, leave feedback and it creates basically its own FB page... but it isn't limited by the chat window?

 

[Crash]

Geit, have we mentioned how much we love you and how awesome you are lately? So awesome. Like, the best.

 

[wareya]

I really don't know if this has been talked about before, but what if other people like PUG hosters could use the feedback plugin in some way? Even if it doesn't come back to the tf2maps feedback database it would be cool.

 

[YM]

... maybe a plugin for offline mode where you can run around a map, leave feedback and it creates basically its own FB page... but it isn't limited by the chat window?

Why would we want a plugin that makes facebook pages??

 

[Sergis]

... maybe a plugin for offline mode where you can run around a map, leave feedback and it creates basically its own FB page... but it isn't limited by the chat window?

imo someone wholl give enough shit to run around the map by himself will give enough shit to post the findings the old fashioned way in the thread

 

[Fruity Snacks]

To pull another thread over to this one, Shadowslasher did bring up some fair points about tests specifically.

I'm going to borrow it as a way to bum in for a discussion on test structure a bit more, since the discussion here fell into the 'feedback' category a bit more.

Cross post from the original thread:

As I've almost always seemed to notice, no one is ever around very long for impromptu testing. It's annoying to try and get information when your map is the 5th one down, and won't be tested until 2 hours later. Given that the circumstances are that no one rtv's or rounds end quickly.

Impromptus should be quicker gameday's really. They're not really there to give you full feedback, but just enough to fix issues.

15 minutes would be long enough for players to get feedback and playtime in, while keeping players interested on the next map and keeping the running time from dragging. Not so often will people still be playing after about 3 or 4 maps. And by the 5th timeslot, a lot, if not all people are gone. Ruining feedback for those who need it, but are at the very bottom of the list.

While we're not saying this is a good idea, is there anything that we can use to constructively build on the idea of imp and gameday structures? (Not necessarily as a way to get more feedback, but maybe something to make it more fair to people?)

 

[Sergis]

i hate 15 minute tests

the map is over before it begins

im quite satisfied with the status quo

 

[A Boojum Snark]

idea: guarantee X minutes and Y rounds for a map. Issue a NON-mapchange vote to poll whether people want to go further. I say a non-changing vote because the mapchangeguy and the author of the map should have some veto power in case people are "being a butt" - supertoaster 2012.

 

[Doktor Richter]

We could try hosting imps/gamedays more often, and maybe in different regions (Aus imps/gamedays?), if there's not enough testing time to go around for all the new maps. I know the mods would need to dedicate more time and effort for more gamedays, so maybe we could pick up some more volunteers for hosting.

 

[Another Bad Pun]

Usually when an impromptu gets started, it begins with 4 maps to be tested and ends with seven. I think we should limit imps to 4 or 5 maps, since in imps the player count usually drains faster. If the map count does increase, the creators of the added maps should know that they are likely to get fewer players.
I know imps are supposed to be spontaneous, but a few regulations like this might help out with the complaints.

The other thing I'm noticing is that there is a high demand for these tests since lots of maps are being made. Additionally, alpha iterations have been really short lately. Usually a map's next alpha is out only a day or two after the previous one, and the makers want immediate feedback. I know lots of us like to work fast, but if the period between alphas were a little longer, say four tests per alpha instead of two, other maps could be played more often. Without the need for immediate feedback on a new version, testing the same alpha map could draw out testing so that it is less required.

Another way to satisfy the high map-testing demand would be more gamedays. I know they can be a hassle for the hosts, but right now I'm pretty sure we only have one per week. There could be two per week, with an EU gameday on Sunday and a US one on Wednesday. (These are just random days.) Gamedays last longer too, so if we do more of them I'm thinking it will be alright to make imps shorter. And if the imps are shorter, more maps will get proper testing! It’s a tricky balance between map makers wanting tests and the reliability of those tests for others.

Two gamedays a week might be awful though, so who knows

 

[wareya]

imps should last until the server drops below a population that the map changer is willing to support and i'm fine with that

what we really need is a way of getting around to maps that just keep don't getting tested without resorting to full-on gamedays. like a log of "we were going to imp this but the imp died early" or "this guy wants his map imped but isn't online at the right times".

 

[A Boojum Snark]

what we really need is a way of getting around to maps that just keep don't getting tested without resorting to full-on gamedays. like a log of "we were going to imp this but the imp died early" or "this guy wants his map imped but isn't online at the right times".

Could one of our site people whip up a plain table page linked to forum credentials to note who did something?

crappy mockup:

Map|Added by|On date|Got played
cp_bob|Bob|aug 6| no
ctf_pie|Joe|aug 6|yes
sd_monkeys|Joe|aug 7| no

[ textbox ] [Add Map Button]

No links or anything, just a community list for remembering maps that need remembering.

....actually. Why don't yall just google-docs it. Shared spreadsheet, perfect. (if you do that, maybe you could get a site person to make an easy redirect to the doc, like tf2maps.net/imp)

 

[SSX]

imps should last until the server drops below a population that the map changer is willing to support and i'm fine with that

what we really need is a way of getting around to maps that just keep don't getting tested without resorting to full-on gamedays. like a log of "we were going to imp this but the imp died early" or "this guy wants his map imped but isn't online at the right times".

Well we could make it so that if the server dies before testing reaches that map, we could put those maps first on the next imp.

 

[henke37]

We could even bother coding it to prevent human error! To prevent human laziness! To prevent forgetful people!

 

[Sergis]

We could even bother coding it to prevent human error! To prevent human laziness! To prevent forgetful people!

now wheres the fun in that

 

[Turbo Lover]

Please stop starting EU imps when I'm eating dinner.