Taking a look at the format ATN uses to orginise and coordinate the feedback and status of all these maps, i must say i am extremely impressed. Not that my indivdual opinion means much. Just want to say how glad i am to have such a resource available to me here before i continue with my concerns/ critiques. So my main issue is that the majority of feedback is a result of the lobby participants, of whom we can't always be certain their feedback is at all relevant. This isn't to discredit each individuals experience, that of course matters. The issue arises when one cannot discern the difference between emotional feedback vs logical feedback. I'll list some examples of emotional feedback • Timmy doesn't like a certain skill jump on the map because after his first game he couldn't figure it out falling to his death in the process, and in tern this left a bad taste in his mouth • Sally doesn't like the way strongholds plays, in her opinion all bases should be within a close visual proximity and equaly defendable/ attackable These may not always be indicitive of actual issues with the map or design. But rather player orientation. If a map is going to be held back from moving up the ladder because of primarily emotionly driven feedback, than i do think that is an issue. It does require a certain level of maturity to be able to constructively critique a map, and not give in to your own distastes, here are some good examples of constructive feed back and validated concerns • Bobby utilised a piece of geometry that allowed him to head glitch and gain a lead on enemy targets, bobby expressed his concern and finds out that was intentional in order to ballence a certain area • Ulga found herself spawning behind enemy players often and as a result was able to kill many enemy players, even though she enjoyed slaying the targets, she realised this must have been a mistake and needs to be fixed And was fixed So the difference here is that, while people may not like something about a map, doesn't neccecarily mean it is a mistake or needs fixing. Hard skill jumps, high risk routes, etc may have already been taken into consideration the developer and is there for a reason. Now normaly this wouldn't be an issue, the issue is that if these sorts of critiques can hold back a map from advancing unjustly. If am incorrect and this isn't the case, then these emotional based critiques won't hold back a map from progressing. I'm just concerned that this may be what's going on...
Honestly, the "green light" process is just a way for a bunch of blow-hards to aggrandize and make themselves appear important. It's essentially a "we wish we were cartographers" circle jerk.
For those of you who have made a name for yourself, you guys don't need a 'gatekeaper'. But for me, new forgers, etc... Just getting our map in front of big names won't be enough to get into MM, which is what my goal is anyways
Shoot me a FR and invite and I'll hop on your map some time with you then. I know we have our differences, but I consider myself a pretty fair judge of maps and I won't hold you to some obnoxious standard like these other clowns. Seriously, at the end of the day, people like Demption are out there only to make themselves look important. This whole "you're map isn't good unless we approve it" is straight bullshit, and they know it too. I absolutely detest all the self aggrandizing egotistical chicanery that goes on in this community.
Idk about what you said about demption, i try to avoid that stuff i dom't realy know anybody enough to judge... But you can watch ducks stream, lol just played btb on my 4v4 map. Besides that i'd love to have your opinion
You should just start a "Schnitzel Roasts Your Maps" lobby. Its just a lobby of you and you pick apart peoples map and give them your feedback. I'd follow that.
I had thought it would turn out well and it really did work. Honestly, Squally is critical of a lot of maps if they don't work for him easily and defends is map decisions the hardest (for the record I could make that jump to the old OS platform with a simple stabilizer jump if that's the jump they were talking about). That's what I've pbserved from playing with him in Duck's lobbies. Some points brought up made sense however when ATN hosts give feedback it's not only from themselves. There are usually 3 lobbies playing the same map, not always with the same players and each of the players gives their feedback on it as well. From being in many of Duke's lobbies and a couple of Demption's I gathered that what ATN is doing is great stuff for the community. No disrespect to you @SecretSchnitzel because we've played a bit together and I know for a fact you're a good Forger, but I don't think what ATN does is a circle jerk of faux-importance. They may not exactly have the power to claim what's matchmaking ready, but the fact that they give exposure to a bunch of new maps to people who are new to the Forge community or who are not involved much in it and stumbled upon it, like myself, it brings a reputation to the maps while giving the feedback and even helps me understand what aspects are good about a map and how to analyze and give proper feedback. Sure anyone can host lobbies and give feedback but the dedication here is particularly notable. These guys are very passionate about what they do and it serves multiple purposes like I said.
For the record, while it may seem that I'm rather disdainful of the ATN guys, it's a little more complicated than that. I do like most of the guys, but I detest their rating/approval system. I can't say enough how appreciative I am of their efforts to playtest the many different maps the community creates, or the amount of exposure they help relatively unknown forgers garner... I just hate seeing people interjecting their opinions against the overall quality of a map. Map "grading" is inherently a very subjective process, and anyone "grading" a map has to overcome their intrinsic biases to reach as close to an objective opinion as possible, and I simply don't see many people in the community as being capable of doing that. At the end of the day, I'm generally pretty cool with anyone (despite how uncool my demeanor may appear), but when perceived EGO comes into the equation, I get very bent out of shape. And yes, this is rather ironic and hypocritical, as we all can attest that I do have a rather bloated ego myself.
We have always been on good. Terms and I respect your opinions of maps and our system. However, I think your views on why and how we do things are misconstrued. I've talked with soldat last night and think we've clarified most things, a point I will address again further in this thread when I have a computer to type it up on instead of a phone. The green light system was put in place to filter maps to the ones we (a collective we, the lobby hosts and the lobby players) felt were the most ready for competitive play and have the UCC team play on them. The UCC team only had limited time to play maps so filtering was necessary because the map submission thread for them got filled very quickly with maps that were not all of top quality. People did not have access to have a competitive level team testing their maps (like you may have) and there was an interest there. There is no ego here thinking that we are better than anyone in judging maps. In my lobbies feedback is given by the players and I try to facilitate a discussion that leads to quality feedback. The decision on the map's green light status is a collective input. That hopefully eliminates some of the personal and emotional biases, and when they are present the host does his best to not let them factor into the decision. I personally try to provide all feedback given in my notes and let the forger decide what is worth changing and what is not. Maybe it is not clear but the green light system wasn't about making Duke, max, or demption appeased with the map but instead the lobbies as a whole.
I have been submitting to ATN for a while now and The feedback goes from excellent and idea inspiring. To downright awful, silent, b***ching, with no substance. Truly you have to drown out the scrubs with no helpful critiques and just take the most you can from the stream footage and in-game feedback. After all this time I have some feedback for the ATN TESTING LOBBIES: 1. I would like to see the hosts steer the feedback sessions in a more organized way. My idea, potentially lay out set parameters you want the lobby to focus on for all the maps that night. It allows focused feedback on a few objective pieces per map and squashes the subjective B.S. 2. While giving the feedback on a specific map why does every just sit in menu? Load up a custom game and call it "5 minutes of feedback" (or something clever) and walk the map together. This would allow for more accurate feedback, and revelatory exploring that allows the players time to talk and walk. 3. A host of the lobby needs to stop the whining and malicious behavior of some participants early on.These players aren't contributing to your lobby. Kindly ask them hat's the shape of Italy? And move on. I hope these things help streamline the process. I can't express how much I appreciate having people just play my maps every week. I feel as though I have progressed as a designer because of the streaming and testing. Thank you. So please keep it up! Continue improving. We will too...
I feel like anyone who plays maps specifically to give feedback will always just come up with anything to critique. When I test with people, I listen to all their feedback but I don't change anything. The very first thing you should to is observe and take your own intentions into consideration. Make them play it over and over and see what feedback keeps coming up, who's saying it (<--- this one especially) and what kind of feedback it is. If it's anything subjective like "the pathing is too strict" that's a personal opinion and if it was intentional, that's a compliment even if they're bitching. If a tactical jump is too hard for someone, they should be tuned out completely. How many people can do sniper bridge to the top Windows jump in the bit? I doubt you know anyone besides me. Or even get S1 to S2 on guardian consistently. But people don't ***** that the makes the experience worse. All in all, it's not about the feedback you get but how you go about changing your map to compromise. And honestly, unless it's "this spawn is repetitive" or bad often, or that the objectives are circulating right, or that there is an exploit, feedback is only given to see if you succeeded in your intentions for the design. There will always be people who like and dislike elements of your map, no matter how "perfect" it is. Sorry for the rant.
Another good technique is to download the game footage and just watch it from an outside perspective. Watch where everyone congregates and what are the most popular paths/camp spots. This also helps figure out just how someone breaks out of your map.
Let me add to my last post and say that even if most feedback is subjective and you shouldn't compromise your intentios for the map by straight out obeying them. It's always a good idea to listen for that fact that someone may come up with something that you haven't thought of that could benefit the map while keeping your vision. So just be sceptical, not ignorant.