Hey everyone! Any of y'all that have seen my rants in the shout box or various threads here on this subject will know that this thread was a long time coming. What I'd like to touch on is some general observations I've made over the years regarding how forgers give feedback, and how we should go about changing it. I'll try to keep this short and sweet. I'd like to focus on my biggest grievances regarding feedback during testing lobbies: Forgers getting caught up in personal preferences and believing said preferences are objective criticisms. Forgers being hyper focused on forge issues during game play rather than focusing on trying to play the map and noting game play related observations. Forgers have a tendency to box themselves in design "rules", and see deviations from such as "flaws". With the former, the issue lies in the inherent biases of the individual. Everyone has a a particular play style that they prefer more than others, and consequently have a subconscious desire to see a map altered to fit said bias. These biases can come in various forms, take for example that some forgers prefer very "free flowing" maps, while others prefer more "structural flow". These are two stylistic differences, and when offering feedback on such, the individual should give their observations of how players traversed a map rather than dictate to the author that they need to make the "flow" meet one standard or the other. What is important to the author is if the map plays accordingly to how they envisioned it, and observations are more helpful to the author in addressing deviations from their vision than the alternative form of feedback. In the latter issue I raise, the problem is that forgers are not focused enough on playing the map. Too often they will nitpick on perceived issues that could be observed in a non-play testing environment. When testing how a map plays, the author doesn't care about there being Z-fighting somewhere, they're concerned with how well the map plays. Unfortunately, when the testers attention is divided between game play and critiquing forging, the game play suffers and the test is less than optimal. It is for this reason that so many forgers prefer getting tests on their maps with non-forgers, as such lobbies have a higher tendency to be focused on the gameplay. My third issue has a lot to do with my first one, but differs slightly. The best way to explain it would be through example, taking for instances The Pit. The big criticism many forgers have with The Pit is that it is a segmented down the middle with a large wall and features a key power position attached to the base. They recognize this as a "flaw" in the map, rather than what gives the map character. Without these perceived "flaws", or deviations from set design "rules", a map begins to lose its flavor and runs the risk of becoming generic. Embrace perceived "flaws", because without them a map is inherently less interesting. TL;DR The take away here is that when testing a map you should be primarily focused on playing the map, and that you must understand that your personal stylistic preferences are an objective standard. And finally, break away from set design "rules" and observing deviations from such as "flaws", as these are not only preferential differences, but what help give a map its flavor and uniqueness.
The first thing I want to do is add onto the core discussion about Feedback: When you're in a publicly held testing lobby, you are a testing resource. You are not there to have fun or enjoy the game; you are there as a body to fill a spot. It is never a designer's intention to subject players to frustrating gameplay; however, the nature of a testing lobby is that there will be times where the map is simply frustrating to play, especially in the early formulative stages. You have every right to leave the lobby if your frustration impedes your ability to play the map and provide observations on the gameplay. Observations are the key to giving good feedback. Share what you noticed and what you did during that point. Your opinion on perceived issues, potential fixes and personal preference however is not relevant unless you are asked for it. You of course have the right to decline to share it if you are. If you are offering feedback on the design, it should always be given with the intent of improving the map by addressing an observable issue based on the author's intentions for the map. Additionally, it is not polite to lambaste another person for their opinion or observations even if you disagree with them. It is the authors responsibility to decide what is relevant to improving the map they want to create. Feedback should not be directed towards the designer, even if they are unresponsive to the feedback.
All I can say is surprisingly I agree with all of this schnitzel, and while I sometimes tune you out when you go ranting what you have here in this post is really important and lines up with how I think feed back should be given almost to the letter. I hope more people will read this and consider it in the next time they move to get feed back, and I think people who give feed back based on their biases (eg hate of teleporters, snipers are OP) that the lobby host point out its a biased opinion and the forger should be aware of that. All too often do I think people base feed back on what they think a map should be and not what the forger had in mind for their map. Thoughts like "this area of your map is bad, scrap it" should be the last thing you suggest. Forgers should see what the room was intended to do and try to find a way to keep the feel and function while also helping it add to the map without going away from the forgers original vision, but Some forgers should understand that not every map is a winner, in the sense that No every map design as the Forger envisions it can be a tournament level map or balanced. They can all be fun to play and I believe forgers should build the map till they are happy with their results and should not compromise their map for the sake of others biases unless they can agree with them and still be happy with the results. I try to keep Forged Friday stuff inline with this and what you've said, because its about the forger not how well someone does on the map. I don't know if you keep up with Forged Friday at all but I might want to hear some of your thoughts on it since I think our ideas of feedback line up with each other. And again, great post.
While agree people are their to give feed back to the betterment of the map and forger, why would you say you are not there to have fun and enjoy the game? giving good feedback like you have mentioned can still be done while having fun and enjoying it. Infact the feed back may be more useful if you are there with the intention of having fun and providing feedback. How well you do in the game should not matter if you enjoy it or not, I believe the fun and enjoyment should come from playing with the other players and having a positive time hanging out with other forgers and non forgers playing custom games. Additionally I agree that if you can have fun or if you get frustrated you should leave the lobby, but I believe people should do it after the game and give the lobby host a notice that they would be doing it so they can try and find a replacement. I feel its very disrespectful and extremely discouraging to a Forger for a player to leave half way through the map when that person has the ability to stay all the way through.
If you don't enjoy playing custom games with your peers and helping to test maps at all, then it would definitely be weird for you to hop in a lobby. My statement simply means that an individual's responsibility as an occupant in a testing lobby is first and foremost as a guinea pig from which to reap data from. But of course, lobbies do not need to be cold sterile laboratories void of any amusement to be efficient. It's just something to keep in mind.
I've started adapting a rule when it comes to feedback that I like to just state facts. After a playtest I may say something along the lines of "I was able to run around the outside of the map 2 times without seeing anyone" or "on this particular spawn in this location, I spawned looking up at the sky" This way the author can decide for themselves wether it's a good or bad feature on the map. And it eliminates my personal bias. Regarding spawning feedback. Saying that you were constantly getting bad spawns or had a bad spawn doesn't help. Either make a note of the game clock or the location of the spawn so that we can go back and watch the video to analyze either 1.Why it would spawn you where it did 2. Does the map creator consider it an acceptable spawn. Different forgers have different opinions on spawns, some prefer to spawn in a safe cubby every time, some don't mind hot spawning and some don't mind spawn killing even. Before saying that spawns are bad, try to understand the forgers mindset when it comes to spawning.
Just don't be a **** and give emotional feedback right after a game. Other than that, I believe it's all up to the map creator to sift through the feedback, big and small.
I completely agree with this approach. You're giving factual observations, which are the best form of feed back to give to the author.
Solid thread with lots of great posts. One thing I'd like to highlight, which some of the posts here alluded to here, is that when you're in a testing lobby you're there to help test the gameplay. Anyone can hop into a Forge or custom session solo and then take screenshots and write up feedback on the Forging technique but testing gameplay requires the help of others. Unless there is a blaring Forge-related issue that may not be easy to notice in Forge alone (e.g. a funky spawn) don't waste the author's and lobby's time talking about how there is an uneven surface or something. Save that kind of feedback for a forum post/message about the map.
I always try to include positive feedback along with any constructive criticisms. While improving a map is important, I feel it is important to let an author know what works well, what looks good, what plays well. When talking to a more experienced forge expert, it can be daunting for newer players to receive a list of specific fixes and improvements without any counterpoints as to the good things. I always try to provide encouragement when suggesting fixes for a map. I know from experience just fixing one or two things and then doing such a thing over and over again can be frustrating to get the map better and better. That's why I try to encourage authors to keep going. Making a good map isn't too hard. It's making a great map that's difficult. I also agree with a lot of the other posts in the thread. Lots of interesting talk. I love looking at discussions about forge philosophy.
Here's my approach to feedback: have word or note pad up on my laptop and make a list for the current map note any bizarre spawning issues and state where I saw them on the map if I can accurately describe it. List any geometry issues with regards to navigation, flanking paths. look for sigh lines and lack of, note any areas that feel cramped or way too open (only if it doesn't need to be open ie for like certain stronghold areas) framerate, z-fighting, "Crayola-crayon effect" lighting issues After I look at these basic things, I then think about the previous game, and how it played, where issues arose. I find it interesting though that in most of the lobbies I have been in, a lot of the members of the lobby don't talk much or arnt contributing much. I thing I personally don't like seeing is people only talking about the art of the map, please save those comments for a later time. These testing lobbies are meant to go fast and test a lot of maps to see how the gameplay is performing, not an art discussion. It doesn't help a forger know his/her map looks pretty or amazing when they are looking for actual game breaking issues. That being said, do message the map maker and tell them that you like their work. But don't focus on the art in these lobbies. <3
Also, if you are in a testing lobby and can't find at least 1 thing to comment on/agree with another commenter for each map, might I suggest that you find your voice. It's very difficult for the creator to make any changes when there's only 1 or 2 pieces of feedback available from a lobby of 8+ people. SILENCE KILLS DREAMS
If you are in a testing lobby don't tell the creator of the map you can help them with their map aesthetics. Unless they specifically ask it's a total asshat move. Everyone's got their own art style and yours is probably garbage anyways
Thanks for this. I will try to enforce this in my lobbies, so I get the best feedback. One problem though; how do you get people to test your maps on a regular basis?
Alot of times Duck and Squally do weekly customs lobbies that they put in halocustoms. I also know there are many other forgers who also run regular testing lobbies. Other than that you'll have to network with other forgers to get the people for lobbies.