Time for quality control?

I agree. I've played a few maps where iI spawn on the killzone...not fun.

Also the way I weed out maps that I know that arn't guna be good is by not even looking at any map that hasn't got a thumbnail screen-shot attached.

If the author is clever, technical and is proud of their map, thumbnails will be uploaded, there is no excuse for not doing this.

 

As an experienced forger I'm going to wait a while before I post my maps.
I understand this has been happening (happens to me in the forge discussion section, not even the bloody maps section)! Wait a bit, see if the noobs get it out of their system and swoop in with some killer maps that will attract a lot of attention.

 

Those are the reasons why Shiska didn't use Forge Hub to find maps for Halo 3 and still won't use Forge Hub for Reach.
For every decent map which would have worked in matchmaking, there's a ton of horrible maps, unbalanced maps, maps with exploitable features or maps which are just plain dull for playing on.

You can't just tell people to only post their map if its good, that's the problem, most of the time the creator does think its good.

I think we just have to accept that there will always be a lot of bad maps.

 

I think there's a lot of truth in this, the current wave signifies the surge of enthusiasm around what is basically a new toy, and an awesome one at that.

This is very tricky territory to get in to: does FH represent a place for people to post their creations (thus putting the right of the map maker to post, regardless of identifiable quality, above all else) or is it a place for people to come and find maps (thus putting the onus on making sure content is worth downloading to at least a basic degree)? Obviously it's ultimately a mix of both, but I think we have to tend towards the former in terms of deciding what can be posted, simply to be fair. By being posted on FH, a map is not being recommended by anyone even in the slightest (aside from the creator obviously, but I mean it's not being condoned in any official sense), it's just a chance to publicise your creation as a map maker. Therefore I think we have to be really careful about saying 'you can't post this' on hard to define quality reasons, 'not good enough' is a very tricky line to draw as opposed to just meeting or failing to meet certain objective criteria. Bad spawning/design/overall gameplay, no matter how bad, don't really qualify as such objective criteria.

However, in terms of broken maps, I think it'd be fair to enforce some measure of basic playability, for example if a map claims to be set up for certain gametypes (based on the new DB gametypes field) and in fact is broken for one or more of these gametypes, it could be considered fair to lock the thread and ask that it be fixed. This is arguably similar to enforcing working pictures/links in the map thread, it has to function on a basic level, and the map itself doing so is arguably more important than the thread which exists only to publicise it.

However, coming back to what crypto said, I think we should really leave off any rash thinking on this front until at least a couple of months down the line so that the initial rush dies down and we can see how the situation actually pans out in the longer term.

 

I think the main issue here is the fact that people are trying to be as specific as possible when writing a comment on a map they haven't downloaded and/or tested. Part of it is because the rules state they're not allowed to write simple, generic responses, while at the same time, they don't have the motivation to test maps, then write in-depth analysts of each individual one.

We're all basically stuck in a giant, green, hairy pickle. We want to help, but we don't have the motivation and/or time to help hundreds of people make good maps.

 

In the database, you'll find you can rate threads. This is for the map. If you've played the map, RATE IT. In the future you'll be able to custom search for maps with criteria like "Plays with 12 players, Invasion, rating of 3 1/2 or higher". Good maps will therefore never be "pushed" down because they'll be found, while maps that have been proven to be less than ideal will get low ratings. Also, everyone has to start somewhere, when nobody's willing to help out new members you can't expect their overall quality to improve significantly very fast.

 

It's a difficult issue, and our policy here is and always will be to never prevent users from posting their creations, nor to instate any sort of multi-tier system of 'bad' and 'good' maps. But I do feel your pain. It'll be interesting to see where this discussion goes, but in the meantime, my advice would be to take the map thread as a good indicator of the probable quality of the map. If the author has clearly taken time over the thread's presentation and content, then it's a good bet they've taken the same care in forge.

Further, once the Testers Guild and Review Hub get back into full swing after having had their holidays, they'll be a great help. Heading to the Review Hub to check out what they rate highly will become a good way to find those gems without having to trawl the boards so much (we'll continue to put those maps into the Site Updates, too).

 

Yes...
I personally do think that there should be something done to ensure that the quality of maps is a decent level. I'm sure once the forge rush has ended, the newbies to forge will either decide to get better (and therefore start building unbroken maps) or decide that forging isn't their thing (and therefore stop building broken maps).
I personally refuse to play broken maps for example, my friend downloaded a 'race map' but when we attempted to play it with the race gametype it didn't work. I quit immediately.

 

Okay, I have a wild idea.

Next to each map, will be three ratings, out of 5

The first will be the general opinion of people.

The second will be the general opinion of the testers guild.

The third will be the general opinion of the Review hub.

That was, we'll immediatelt be able to see if it is a very good map, or not. If someone cares about their map, they will submit it to TG first, etc., and those who care about their maps often make the best.

 

I am working on a map, but will not release it, or advertise it ready to be tested until it meets my high standards. You do not sound elitist at all, I fully agree with what is said by the OP. Many people really don't have any pride in what they are doing, only want to put maps out.

I know I am new here, but can hopefully bring some good things to the table in the future. I have been in the Halo community for many years.

 

What if a new section is implemented where users could recommend the "playable"/good maps. It wouldn't be the featured section, but it would be a section of play tested, unbroken maps are posted so that they don't get lost in the rubble.

 

I think forgehub could create a group to test every and each map, like 1 map/day and make a "official review" of the map. It would be cool.

 

I've got to agree with pretty much everything that's been said. I would respectfully like to address the suggestion that unplayable maps be locked, as put forward by Pegasi.

I could see a problem with this. Generally, I don't think mods can be everywhere. I've only had positive experiences with them so far (in a manner of speaking), but the same reason its impossible to separate the chaff from the grain is going to make it difficult to enforce this. Is it at all possible to implement a system in which a map is reported for being unplayable or broken, aside from just reporting the thread? Not sure how the moderation system works here, but I would think it would be much more useful for a mod to get a notification that a map is broken, instead of trudging through hundreds and hundreds of map threads looking for complaints.

 

I just checked, Test Pilot is open for Reach! We used Test Pilot to organise testing sessions for Atlas maps because Shishka requested every map be submitted with at least 3 full gameplay films, played as they would be in matchmaking.

Back then we limited testing to matchmaking gametypes but now I believe you can sign up for a testing session for any gametype.

Its not going to get rid of the terrible maps but it will make it easier for people to test and actually play games on their maps and see for themselves how their map could be improved

 

This is a problem Bungie should be solving.

There should be ratings system that allows great maps to float to the top.

There should be a way of seeing all the maps a certain map creator has made.

There should be an easy way to take a thumbnail to every map created.

and there should be a "featured" or "bungies picks of the week" selection of maps that have been found, playtested (and maybe modified) by Bungie themselves.

The Rock Band's Music store is better than Halo's.

 

USE THE RATING SYSTEM
If people did, and tagged maps appropriately it would enable searching for good maps quickly. Advanced search allows tag, rating, and date specifications.

As for my maps, I won't even post a Preview until thanksgiving because anything else would just be wasting my time.

 

There is an issue with the rating system. It doesn't show what the rating of a map is when you're scrolling through maps. That would definitely help people easily discover the best maps.

 

May I suggest a move to Customer Service to further this discussion?

Perahaps a group of trustworthy volunteers could compile a list of maps that are a blast to play on and place them in a stickied thread somewhere? So these are maps that might be featured, might have gotten into FHF or just be plain awesome.