I don't participate on the site or in lobbies enough to review. (Though I'd like to--though I probably won't.) I like the recommend idea, but I don't think anything should be as easy as hitting a button. If you are going to highly recommend something you should be able to articulate why. I think ideally people would post WIP maps, and that's where they'd get most of the honest written feedback. Then if you post a piece of crap in the maps section you deserve shitty reviews. The maps section should be a place where you put things you are confident will be well received, but you shouldn't be but hurt if it isn't. Personally I'd be for a binary system. If your unsure about a map ignore it, but if someone releases a map that is unfinished or unfitting of it's goal it should be said. I've never submitted a map so I don't know: is there a section for authors to post their goal? Their intent? If there isn't there should be. And if they succeed I'll recommend and if they fail they should be aware. If you're unsure you need to test a post WIPs. I think a community that promotes testing and WIP threads will improve the quality of the site, the forgers, and the maps.
Honestly when I scan through the map section I go: "ooh thats a cool pic of a map, lemme dive deeper." then i check out the pics for the map, go: "ooh thats hawt," or "damn wtf were they thinking" or "eh its ok." if a map ever hits the "ooh thats hawt" category, then I write a comment telling them so. Otherwise, I tell them the map needs work. Come to think of it, maybe we should have a system like tinder where we swipe left or right based on if we like it. I find people generally want to provide feedback to maps, but other than hitting the "like" button they couldnt be bothered to comment or review maps in general. Not sure if its laziness or they just dont care. Personally I agree with others above: if a map needs work, I tell them in the comments. If its great, I tell them in the comments. The star system is flawed as people (guessing friends) give 5 stars to a staircase surrounded by like 5 rocks, whereas masterpieces dont get diddly. *For the "most popular maps" why dont we just added up the likes or "tinder swipes" a map gets because again as someone mentioned before, pretty much everything can be manipulated... except likes (at least Im pretty sure). Just keep the system simple for all of the lazy kids that exist here.
nobody posts in WIP threads, and ever since likes were added, nobody sincerely comments on pictures posted in WAYWO
That doesn't mean we should treat everything in the published maps section as fluid. That section should be a tool as much for players as it is for forgers. If forgers update their maps, fine. More power to them, but this is where players come to see finished maps.
Meh. Either way I wont be posting any reviews as long as the 5 star system is in effect. Unlike some people I have no problem leaving negative reviews, but I am against it on principle considering someone could just as easily leave an arbitrarily low review in turn.
Here's how I've always seen it: WAYWO is for advertising your projects WIP Threads are one of the avenue's for improving your projects MAP posts are for sharing projects you deem 'complete' --- Double Post Merged, Jul 4, 2017 --- Things I learned today - Ascend Hyperion is the only person who submits reviews on Forgehub.
Which would be fine if 1. people actually posted in WIP threads 2. a 5 star system wasn't ambiguous Someone can give a 5 star rating to a map just because their friend made it, and that same person could give a 2 star rating to a map whose only problem was framerate drop. It's a fundamentally flawed system, even despite the hidden weighting assigned to seasoned posters.
I haven't read everyone's comments but from what I have read maybe people should just message reviews and feedback directly to forgers or something. Although I agree WIP threads are good, as said above, no one uses them and just a single thread with loads of people posting different maps and giving reviews could get heptic and confusing. --- Double Post Merged, Jul 5, 2017 --- To add to this. A lot of less well known forgers, me included, probably feel like we don't have the expertise or authority, I guess, to properly review maps so we just don't.
I said ideally. Ideally we would cultivate an environment where people are posting and commenting in WIP threads. I think that's the healthiest way to get feedback. People don't like that negative reviews put a permanent mark on their map. The solution is to gather feedback before things become permanent. Then if you as a forger are confident enough in your design to say "**** the majority opinion on my map," you can publish it anyway and just block out the haters through sheer willpower. Reviews aren't going to be an end all solution of sorting maps and providing feedback. Ideally we as a community would be smart enough to separate those ideas. And ideally this would all happen in the open rather than in PMs because that's how you get people to feel included. I'd say this all really boils down to a **** game (which it does), but I also joined this community when THC was a sinking ship in the ocean of Halo 4, and although the community was small there were plenty of map threads and feedback on them, so a **** game can't be the only problem. I think the real issue is we need more egotistical assholes on this site, who have a basic need to trash other people's maps. This honestly makes the community stronger cause shitty forgers and shitty maps get **** on rather than getting no feedback at all.
The bottom line is that the review system needs to be changed to something simpler and more inclusive. Switch it to +\- | Like/Dislike | Recommend/Do Not Recommend and require the poster to type at least 140 characters after selecting it to explain their choice. Boom. You get unambiguous feedback and an instantly recognizable scale. I hate upvote and downvote in the majority of contexts because you're never required to say why you chose something. Content then gets "liked" and dies due to lack of posts, or gets knee jerk disliked based on the title or premise and not resulting discussion. Requiring a post after voting diminishes that, and it'll be easy to catch any sort of abuse, which I expect to be rare anyway. @that guy I don't think you should feel like you need "authority" or "expertise" to review or comment on a map. indeed there are people who - to put it tactfully - have no business sharing advice or criticism. Therefore, i believe a system that best reflects the individuals within the community while requiring an effort beyond impulse would foster more participation. I would personally be more inclined to recommend a map and list all the things I like about it, and perhaps some things I don't. Similarly, I might choose not to recommend a map and then go on to list the things I dislike about it, while still including some positive attributes. One could argue that it's not much different from the current scale, but the fact alone that it's a simple binary choice and not 10 choices that are averaged for the map's overall score would eliminate a lot of apprehension towards leaving a review.
I'm not opposed to a simple Yes or No recommendation system. At the end of the day I would most prefer any system that allows members to share their feelings on a map that has a public reflection on the map itself. I don't feel like you gotta be a "Forge Expert" to have an opinion on a map and I think that's one of the big things that hold people back from doing reviews. (This thread expresses that sentiment). To that same note though, there are people who are more knowledgeable/experienced who's opinions could and should hold some weight. I don't mean that in a condescending way, but it's just natural. With the Forge Critic system we could keep reviews as a way for those chosen members to leave their own critical views and evaluations of a map along side the Recommendation rating from the community at large. @a Chunk 's point about a map not being final is a big one that rings with me. What if there was an option to say something like, "Finalized Version" on a map post. This would allow for the map to become open to reviews from Forge Critics. I know some people never really "finalize" their maps but I sure do haha. It would also be nice to see people comment more on map posts.
There is a place to "let 'em have it" and a place for a more gentile review. I think it's true that on someone's map thread, where everyone to see it, is not the place to say "this map sucks, don't bookmark it". But rather, point at something that could be better if revised. I should do more reviews, and likely will in the future. When I'm busy with maps of my own, I don't tend to load up all the new maps and try them for myself.
1. I don't think there should be weighted reviews at all. 2. There should be a separate TAB in the map's page for "WIP/Beta testing" so you can upload a map and tag it with some sort of unfinished stamp. This would get WIP threads out of the forum page and onto the main map page, which could potentially encourage more participation.
From what I've read it seems like the maps tab itself is where all the WIPs are. What we need is a check box for the fully finished maps. Then throw those maps into a tab of finished maps. That way those going in for a DL aren't surprised when a map suddenly gets changed in their bookmarks
The inclusion of a WIP/Finished switch would be awesome. It'll really aid people in giving feedback as well
I only really pay close attention to maps that people asked me to help them because I'm curious on how the map evolves and what changes they made based off of feedback. I only point out obvious issues because I think too many people get carried away with how maps should be but I'm on the side of at least trying to do something new. I personally don't check out too many maps because of other priorities that are more important. So I get on when I have the chance and it's hard to check out a new map unless it really stands out because of how much time I have to game. plus it really tough to see how a map is by pictures. Even a video doesn't do any justice. Maybe the streams that test out a map can be linked on the map page so people who wanna see how it plays can check it out. feedback doesn't have to be written. I think a small team of reviewers can be beneficial to such a task. Just a thought.
My main problem with writing reviews is that being exclusively on PC, I don't really get to play maps in a live environment. So I just don't have much useful feedback to give. That leaves my only real suggestion as "start testing lobbies on PC", which is...unhelpful. But from the map creator side, I think forcing a finished/unfinished distinction could be unhelpful. It's very hard to have a fixed "done" point for many maps. I personally have had a number of maps that have reached what I thought was full completion several times, only for people to discover new bugs or balancing issues that required an update. I've also had insights six months later and gone back to alter a previously "finished" map. Requiring forgers to call a map Done And Finished and never touch it again in order to get reviews would be counterproductive. Forging is interactive, for me at least. If someone reviews my map and says "well, it's kinda bad", I want to go back and fix it, because I want people to enjoy playing on my map. In my opinion, the Maps page is where maps should go when people want playtesting and feedback (as well as when they're finished). It's centralized, sortable, and has a standard template, built-in comments, and so on. It makes it easy to store information about your map as a packaged page to link to, and makes it easy to receive feedback as well as to get it to people who will give that feedback. Sure, require that a map be playable, but I think the focus should be on improving the tools for maps that are in the Maps section, not on excluding maps from it. You could also look at community initiatives, like providing a display tag for top reviewers, or putting together some kind of volunteer team that goes through and reviews a few best/worst maps every x days. I would also love it if the testing lobby streamers would be encouraged to provide links to the map's FH page (if it has one) alongside their feedback. Finally, I think it's important for the system to encourage equal distribution of reviews. Currently it's mostly only big name maps that get lots of reviews and high scores - ones by established forgers who have fanbases they can point to their map pages. Perhaps a solution would be something like Steam's Discovery Queue: a weekly roundup of new maps with low review counts, fresh-delivered to your front page for you to check out and review.