Dox
L8: Fancy Shmancy Member
- Oct 26, 2007
- 588
- 62
people get bored and leave on un-fun maps if you try the full half hour, and a lot of maps in early alphas tend to be in this category...
Wow, gameday failures...
- Thread starter Sgt Frag
- Start date
people get bored and leave on un-fun maps if you try the full half hour, and a lot of maps in early alphas tend to be in this category...
cornontheCoD
L420: High Member
- Mar 25, 2008
- 437
- 70
MrAlBobo
L13: Stunning Member
- Feb 20, 2008
- 1,059
- 219
very few people will last all day if the maps are not fun...not to mention that if they are not fun then they would likely not be "fun and balanced"
personally I liked the old system of assigning less time to less developed maps, it seemed to produce the longest lasting gameday. In my opinion the mapper should be well aware of just how much testing their map actually requires, and recommend whether or not they need the full 30mins. There is no reason why a map on its 1st playtest needs the full 30mins...
personally I liked the old system of assigning less time to less developed maps, it seemed to produce the longest lasting gameday. In my opinion the mapper should be well aware of just how much testing their map actually requires, and recommend whether or not they need the full 30mins. There is no reason why a map on its 1st playtest needs the full 30mins...
Surely the first playtest of a map will need a long test because the whole thing will be tested rather than small changes and updates?
MrAlBobo
L13: Stunning Member
- Feb 20, 2008
- 1,059
- 219
taken with a grain of salt it could work...id prefer this as a fallback method though
I think the mapper who is submitting a map should have to say how how their map deserves as another required field, then if there are too many maps that want too long of timeslots you begin to reduce timeslots starting with the alphas that requested a 30min timeslot, until the gameday is functional...ideally people should have a good idea of where their map belongs based on its completeness...
Yeah, I agree. Some maps don't need 30. Others need at least 30.
It's probably hard for mappers to determine, of course everyone wants the max time and players they can have.
I don't have a solution for that. No matter how many people can give clear and consise, even honest opinions of what their map needs there will always be others who can't. To have a mod/admin go into everymap ahead of time and double check would be a terrible burden on the admins.
On one hand I almost think Alphas need more time. Mostly due to the fact that it's the best time for a mapper to make significant change sto the map for gameplay.
Betas tend to be in a more finished/detailing phase. If the gameplay is bad here then alot of work is needed to redo the detailing. At this point it might be better to have shorter times because it's smaller tweaks needed.
Of course people probably enjoy betas more because they are more 'game-like'. They represent the final product more, less dev tex, etc...
However that's catering more towards people just playing and less towards people testing. Personally as sad as it is to say I belong to the later group while playing. It's always been hard for me to look at dev tex with any kind of seriousness.
I really think that mappers should at least use a basic representation of the texturing they will use even in an alpha. I understand using the dev tex for scale. But if you are gonna have players play it it needs to look somewhat like a playable level. Dev tex is for PRE-ALPHA IMO.
But then we need to find a way to establish criteria.
IMO it would be something like this.
pre-alpha: very basic terrain with dev tex. maybe nothing actually works. no testing, author, personal friends maybe. not ready for any public consumption.
alpha: no dev tex. at least wood/metal, ect.. where it will be roughly. No need to align/scale...
working caps, intel, doors. If it doesn't work start to finish it is not ready for any kind of test. As the author hasn't spent time detailing or alinging tex it's not time wasted if they change terrain.
but it HAS to work, people HAVE to be able to get out of spawn, can't build on lava, etc...
Of course it's alpha so there is a little room for error, after all you have to test and make sure things work.
beta: this range is wide. It starts at end of alpha. gameplay areas are at least 75%. People like the flow. everything works. general texture, layout, detail is good but needs refined.
through various beta stages the map grows from decent overall to polished. Once it is finely tuned it enters the RC stage.
release candidate: this is it. testing ONLY for major complaints. final detailing. Might not be -final lit, but ready. really only has tyhe RC on it to make sure there are no major bugs. No terrain changes. Only minor tweaks to lighting, props, etc... if at all. Should be ready to go but author just wants to make sure.
---------------
Still, all that doesn't have much to do with time slots.
I think alpha that is playable needs more to get a good solid gameplay layout is needed.
beta can have less. The major gameplay area is already decided on. So the test is more about bugs, not gameplay. More about looks than anything.
RC. Not really sure these maps need 45 min like they got. At this point they have been tested ALOT. they really just need quick run-throughs to make sure everything still works.
The biggest thing is they need at least one complete round all the way through.
EGO'S need to be checked at door. if time is running out, defending teams need to 'give up'. Let the final point be capped, make sure it works.
NO STALEMATES. MAKE SURE IT WORKS. too late for game balance issues. if game balance issues comes up it needs to rever to beta at a later date.
RC means - NO MORE CHANCES. final is final.
It's probably hard for mappers to determine, of course everyone wants the max time and players they can have.
I don't have a solution for that. No matter how many people can give clear and consise, even honest opinions of what their map needs there will always be others who can't. To have a mod/admin go into everymap ahead of time and double check would be a terrible burden on the admins.
On one hand I almost think Alphas need more time. Mostly due to the fact that it's the best time for a mapper to make significant change sto the map for gameplay.
Betas tend to be in a more finished/detailing phase. If the gameplay is bad here then alot of work is needed to redo the detailing. At this point it might be better to have shorter times because it's smaller tweaks needed.
Of course people probably enjoy betas more because they are more 'game-like'. They represent the final product more, less dev tex, etc...
However that's catering more towards people just playing and less towards people testing. Personally as sad as it is to say I belong to the later group while playing. It's always been hard for me to look at dev tex with any kind of seriousness.
I really think that mappers should at least use a basic representation of the texturing they will use even in an alpha. I understand using the dev tex for scale. But if you are gonna have players play it it needs to look somewhat like a playable level. Dev tex is for PRE-ALPHA IMO.
But then we need to find a way to establish criteria.
IMO it would be something like this.
pre-alpha: very basic terrain with dev tex. maybe nothing actually works. no testing, author, personal friends maybe. not ready for any public consumption.
alpha: no dev tex. at least wood/metal, ect.. where it will be roughly. No need to align/scale...
working caps, intel, doors. If it doesn't work start to finish it is not ready for any kind of test. As the author hasn't spent time detailing or alinging tex it's not time wasted if they change terrain.
but it HAS to work, people HAVE to be able to get out of spawn, can't build on lava, etc...
Of course it's alpha so there is a little room for error, after all you have to test and make sure things work.
beta: this range is wide. It starts at end of alpha. gameplay areas are at least 75%. People like the flow. everything works. general texture, layout, detail is good but needs refined.
through various beta stages the map grows from decent overall to polished. Once it is finely tuned it enters the RC stage.
release candidate: this is it. testing ONLY for major complaints. final detailing. Might not be -final lit, but ready. really only has tyhe RC on it to make sure there are no major bugs. No terrain changes. Only minor tweaks to lighting, props, etc... if at all. Should be ready to go but author just wants to make sure.
---------------
Still, all that doesn't have much to do with time slots.
I think alpha that is playable needs more to get a good solid gameplay layout is needed.
beta can have less. The major gameplay area is already decided on. So the test is more about bugs, not gameplay. More about looks than anything.
RC. Not really sure these maps need 45 min like they got. At this point they have been tested ALOT. they really just need quick run-throughs to make sure everything still works.
The biggest thing is they need at least one complete round all the way through.
EGO'S need to be checked at door. if time is running out, defending teams need to 'give up'. Let the final point be capped, make sure it works.
NO STALEMATES. MAKE SURE IT WORKS. too late for game balance issues. if game balance issues comes up it needs to rever to beta at a later date.
RC means - NO MORE CHANCES. final is final.
Last edited:
GrimGriz
L10: Glamorous Member
- Jan 2, 2009
- 774
- 133
You take that out of context.
I wasn't talkinf about maps that can tend to stalemate. ALL maps can do that, that depends on the players.
I was talking about the people who test these versions. DON't let the map end in a stalemate, the team closest to losing should lose if it's gonna stalemate. Like I said, check the ego's at the door. It isn't a competition.
The losing team needs to let the other team win to make sure that the map finishes properly.
I wasn't talkinf about maps that can tend to stalemate. ALL maps can do that, that depends on the players.
I was talking about the people who test these versions. DON't let the map end in a stalemate, the team closest to losing should lose if it's gonna stalemate. Like I said, check the ego's at the door. It isn't a competition.
The losing team needs to let the other team win to make sure that the map finishes properly.
GrimGriz
L10: Glamorous Member
- Jan 2, 2009
- 774
- 133
You take that out of context.
I wasn't talkinf about maps that can tend to stalemate. ALL maps can do that, that depends on the players.
I was talking about the people who test these versions. DON't let the map end in a stalemate, the team closest to losing should lose if it's gonna stalemate. Like I said, check the ego's at the door. It isn't a competition.
The losing team needs to let the other team win to make sure that the map finishes properly.
My point was that stalemates need to be tested as a finish as well though....
You can test whether a map will successfully finish by yourself, just put a bot in and win or wait for the timer to end. No point in doing it with others unless theirs a bug when theres many players involved.