1: that sounds horribly vague, unintuitive, and doesn't provide any meaningful feedback to the map author 2: the last thing we need is anonymous bullshit you've got it completely backwards. Accountability is extremely important. It lets you know who leaves the review, if you should even take them seriously, if they're going around spamming shitty reviews, etc. Everyone's name should be plastered next to everything they do. And to bring up the Beyond rep system AGAIN, it's why I like it so much more than reddit. You can see who up and down votes everything, you can't just go through someone's **** and mass shadow down vote like a *****.
- You will be able to see who clicks these buttons, very similar to the 'emoji' system found on Discord. - We've already got that on our list. Thought I would let you know since its the third time you've brought it up here.
My problem with a lot of people who do actual legitimate reviews is the fact they are inconsistent, they don't take into account the budget and scale of the map. You can't grade a huge map for aesthetics the same as a small map, its just not fair, its like they forget about compromises for budget or framerate. A lot of times they don't grade for the creators intention and how well the map reflects his intention, but how it plays to their liking and style. Basically they grade it for how much it shocks them or plays to their liking, not for how well it carries out its intention and what it does with the budget and limitations of forge. Yeah maybe a concept shocks you because its so crazy, but does it actually play well? In a few years would you look back and think ("yeah that was fun") if not it doesn't matter how crazy or unique your map is. I see this a lot in the customs community, they get so shocked and compliment a map that is crazy so much, but truthfully it's boring and they wont play it more than a few times, the same can probably apply to core maps. I wish reviewers could see through this blinding shock and look at how fun something really is, think of Flapjack frenzy, it was so crazy it shocked everyone and was loved.I bet you wouldn't want to play it more than a few times though. I wish reviewers could see through this shock and review the maps for replay value and how unique and fun they really are, something other than "I've never seen this before 10/10."
Well you never responded to it so I just thought I'd keep mentioning it. I still think buttons that convey simple statements like that won't do any good, and there will never be the perfect button for the perfect critique you want to give. I have no issue with people having to give reviews through text. My problem is with the scoring system
Hopefully that will be less of a problem in the future when we move to the next console supporting 6 teraflops of processing power, increased memory, etc. I believe large maps will eventually have as much detail as 4v4 maps because the art may reach a point of saturation. There are a few BTB maps that do that now like 'Scavenger' by Commander Colson. Alright, could you elaborate on that a bit? Whats up with the scoring system and how would you like to improve it?
The problem as I see it right now is that the review system is attempting to satisfy two audiences, and not satisfying either of them very well as a result. For players (people looking for good maps to play), I'd like a see a simple rating system that's geared towards telling them whether something is recommended; either the 'recommended' or 'not recommended' style that was mentioned earlier, or only a 'recommended' option. For forgers, I don't like the idea of going to a more complex review system (with multiple categories to rate and give feedback on). I don't like the idea of having a rating system attached to review at all, because a secondary visible rating would conflict with the first suggestion I gave. I'd personally be in favor of having 'reviews' broken down into various categories, but NOT have any ratings whatsoever. This eliminates the negative feelings and resentment that inevitably come with receiving a less than stellar rating, and may make the forger more open to receiving constructive feedback. It may also make people more willing to provide a review, since they don't need to worry about the social impact of handing out poor ratings. As a whole, this brings the focus away from ratings, and towards feedback and improving maps. tldr - Ratings are for players. Reviews/Feedback are for forgers. They should be separate because they're for separate audiences/purposes.
Yup. People who leave the text reviews should have the option to click the "Recommend this map" button When I'm scrolling through the map page I'd like to see a little score on the side that said "98% of reviewers recommended this map." 58% of reviewers recommend this map 21% of reviewers recommend this map That way you eliminate the stigma of having to give shitty maps low stars/"Not Recommended" option. The second you give someone even two options of "Recommend" or "Not recommend" you're essentially saying this map is a 10 or this map is a 0. And it makes you feel like a douche and the map author doesn't like the review.
Just keep the 'likes' and add a 'recommended download' button as well. If someone wants to write a wordy review of a map let them. This is being made more complicated than it should be. P.S. If you are worried about offended someone with an honest review of their map then maybe you shouldn't be taking part in the optional experience of map reviews. Just stick to trying to make friends.
I agree with this. Recommend option, no ratings. I'm also against the Beyond rep BS. It's just a circle-jerk rewarding system, but whatever.
It's very self moderating. Not really circle jerk at all, people don't just spam downvote when they disagree because it shows your name next to it. Reddit is anonymous and sucks because of it. If we had public downvoting you'd probably see people like me being significantly less douchey because those posts get downvoted right away. --- Double Post Merged, Jul 10, 2017 --- Right. I just find that tagging system totally impractical towards reviewing maps. What if I wanted a button that said "Map seems to lack character in certain areas and could use with simplifying the routes". You got a button for that?
This is literally the only thing I ever downvote people for on Beyond, and is the only things I would downvote people for here as well. Back to the review system. Bottom line is that ratings aren't being submitted on enough maps or by enough people to make the ratings meaningful. I don't see any scenario in which making the system more complex resolves this problem. The solution is greater simplicity. The simpler the better when it comes to ratings. The opposite is true of giving feedback, which is why I believe the two need to be unconnected. Feedback for the forger NEEDS to be detailed or it's mostly useless. Again though, the system through which feedback is submitted still needs to be simple and straightforward. If it requires too many clicks, people won't use it. Recapping, I don't know or even really care what the ultimate solution is, but it needs to take into account these things or it's basically useless: Make ratings easy for players to see and interpret. Make sure reviews provide relevant information to the forger who submitted the map. Make both simple for the user (the person that submits the rating/review).
How about a tagging system for comments, say you can say what you want but you can add your own tags to the bottom of the comment. I know its a strange comparison but similar to what RateMyProfessor has except geared for Halo so you can put things like "great for competitive", or "poor budget use" at the bottom of the comment. They would be pre-selected and curated so there isn't a bunch of shitty tags that mean nothing and the amount there is much more meaningful. This would help because it would be geared towards people who do not want to write a huge in-depth review about something but want to throw in a detail or two. I would also make it not possible for the map creator to tag his own map in his map comments.
First of all, just what the hell do you think you know about my comfort zone? That is not the issue here. Everything in life is an opportunity to learn. I have to be conscientious with my time. It shouldn't matter who I am. Anyone who is capable of Forging their own map and posting it to this website should be considered capable of reviewing a map. So why don't they? Most of them won't even speak up in this thread.All these maps, hundred of Forgers.. Are you telling me the only reason they don't write reviews is because they're all insecure? And you don't think there’s anything a little ****ed up about that? I asked what you people get in return for writing reviews. Now I feel like I have my answer. People are using the Forgehub review system as a tool for ingratiation, not appreciation. No one really cares about helping the community. You only care about being friends with the most talented Forgers. Everyone else is on their own. If you really cared about the community, you would want EVERYONE to participate. It shouldn't matter who they are, or what they have to say. What matters is that they CHOOSE to be involved. And just what the hell is so wrong with rewarding that choice? So far, the only reason you people have to not do it is because too many people will have their opinions heard. You people don't really want everyone to give their opinions. You just want a few people to do it, the people with opinions you already want to hear.