Map comments and constructivism

[aMoeba]

I propose a suggestion, that in my earnest opinion would make map commenting better to the tenth power.

The Problem

All too often on Xforgery I see "well the map looks great! I love what you did with the [insert object name here] and I will download and get back to you!"

There is good and bad to this. The good being that the map maker was told what he did well (however many things it may be) and that his map got bumped. The bad however greatly outnumbers the good. First of all, the comment tells nothing on which the map maker can improve. Second, the user commenting has no experience in the actual map, therefore picture reviewing is often extremely faulty, and third, most of the time, they never actually play the map to then give it a further review. Then, even after your map has ten comments, all saying "looks great downloading now i'll post more later" you look at the Bungie.net page only to realize that they truly did not download.

I'm not going to delve into a strictly enforced rule system, because that's faulty and could be easily corrected by means of other options. Now, while I'm at it, I'll take a comparison to Forge Hub. By their standards you must post something meaningful, and even though its enforced people seldom do and the moderation of it has died down tremendously. Let's learn from their mistake, here; where exactly did they go wrong? The idea was good on paper:

Pro:


Comments help the map creator

Cons:


Strictly enforced, yet seldom done so

This creates an aura of inequality, in the sense that one person may be infracted/warned for the same issue that hundreds of others were not infracted/warned for. To show evidence of what I'm talking about, I will quote user comments on varied maps, but leave their name anonymous.

From the sounds of it this just seems like one team with a weapown stash and another with almost nothing. doesn't really sound like it depends on skill of the players at all.looks like really awesome interlocking. and alot of it.
i really like the map layout so ill dl and see how it is in gameplay. The map looks great if I do say so myself ^_^ Wow, this map looks amazing from the pictures you've provided. I'll have to download and take a look at it when I play halo... in the near future...? :confused:Wow.
Looks amazing, que'd. I will leave a review of some sort when I play it.^ Never reviewed

um, this map is a little fun, and looks good, 3/5More in the spoiler:



not bad looks interesting. no offence but please try to have correct spelling. As for the map, it looks pretty well interlocked but you could of put more work into it 1.75/5Now, I haven't played on this yet, but I can see from the pictures that there is a few little things that need to be added and changed on this map.

First off, some positive stuff. The map is beautiful, all the interlocking and geomerging is perfect.

HOWEVER, the game play looks as if it would be horrific.
From what I can see, there is little to no cover on this map. It also looks like it is a very very jumpy map. You may think that stairs will help gameplay, but they force people to walk around the stairs and then go up them. And many of the structures have no walkways to them.
And the weapon placement has to be better. The center structure, the one made of walls, is completely the most risky place in the map, and the only reward is an assault rifle.

Look, I'm not mean, this is a great skeleton to a map, but it needs a lot more.
As I like to say, this is a traditional Forgehub map. Absolutely perfect in every way aesthetically but lacking in any gameplay. It seems cool I'll have to dl it to look at it in game.map looks great for capture the flag are assualt i like the layout and the interlocking you usedThis looks really good. I love the layout of the map, and the interlocking is superb. Great job, dude. Great job.nice map [name omitted]This map looks great,nice forging.nice color filter you add for the map.I give it 5/5this looks cool but Extremely smallnot gonna lie it looks pretty good based of the pictures. ill have to play it sometime and see how gameplay goes. good job.Looks Good! I'll have to give it a try sometime.It looks cool from the screenshots i'll have to edit the post when I look around a bit.Sweet map, the design looks great along with the layout and the interlocking and what-not. It would seem that the gameplay suites your map so overall great job!wow this looks really good [message omitted, trust me, it wasn't a review]Wow I'm not gonna lie that map looks freakin gorgeous and definitely something that I would love to play tonightThis actually looks really good. It brings back the old H2 Foundation feel of sticking in groups and barricading yourself into an inescapable corner :D.

I'll DL, play this, and report back.Looks great! I have also been working on a map much like this [omitted for anonymity]this looks kinda sloppy and werent you the one who posted [omitted]Looks pretty good,seems like loads of fun. i didnt know it was so dark out there...i really wish i could play *sad faic*
well, um, i would have DLed it but i have no more space, but can you correct your grammer?I seen this on forgehub before its mad fun i heard i should try it out sometime. nice job!i think [map] has had a little too many roids

You can search for those posts and probably find them. If you're sad you made one of those posts, learn to make a better post. Either way, my point is not to humiliate, degrade, or put down another member. I am simply attempting to prove a point - that we need to get rid of this useless map comment gunk.

The Proposal

Now that you have the idea, allow me to show you how to make comments on Xforgery meaningful, enforced, and productive.
Good fixes don't come easy most of the time, and the current viability of this situation depends on Null [or Thomas]'s programming ability.

The prime idea I had in mind would be that when replying in a map forum, there is a simple form that comes with the reply (which is required in order to reply). At first thought, you're probably like, "no one will want to reply, takes too much time!!" Wrong. The only requirements would be a few simple categories, in which you type a comment in each. For example, I'll comment on Null Parameter's map "Abysmal" with a would be required form (subject to change).

What I liked:

I liked the darkness, and the uniqueness of the regenerator for an overboard map like this one.

What I didn't like:

There were many bumps on the floor causing some bad gameplay.

Suggestions/Additional Notes/What can be improved:

(none)

Comment box [below]:

Loved playtesting this, tons of fun, do you plan to fix it?

That's what it would go something like. The user can always opt out of putting something in any category, but then again, they might as well not even bother posting. I could compose a mock-up in Photoshop, but it would be terrible, hence I left it up to the staff's discretion and imagination. This way, the staff with moderating powers will not have to moderate the map forum, yet all comments have something productive come out of it.

Or you can use the other option, (which I only recommend if Thomas or Null cannot program the first option) where users will post freely and staff with moderating powers will infract/warn if a useless comment is said. However, I personally greatly dislike this idea, as it is faulty and the staff with moderation are probably busy with someone else, and if they aren't, it appears we wouldn't have enough staff either way, even though this is still a viable option.

More options, and overjoying rationale!

PsychoBucket proposed an idea that reviews would be separate from conversations as to not interrupt them, and allow the flow of the thread to keep going. So far this is probably the best idea, and I'll add on any good suggestions to it. The proposed suggestion is to have a "review" button while you can check out the reviews separately. There could also be a review archive for your map where you can check them all out at once. I'm also assuming this will work for all maps, if not then the limitations may bury the pro's. As for now, if you have anything to add on, feel free to do so in a reply.


IMPORTANT: Instead of bashing my ideas for their flaws, IMPROVE THEM, or SUGGEST SOMETHING BETTER. This thread isn't dedicated to solely one idea, but anything someone can think of to get rid of useless map comments.

[MultiLockOn]

I actually had this same idea not too far back, seems that it has slipped my mind. At the moment, I really can't think of any reason not to do this. I'm trying really hard to pick up something that may happen with this premade template, but I can't, which is good :) We'll see what some other staff says about this.

[Zak]

I have a feeling that I have done that before, but I have really been trying to stop. I believe that ll of the members of the community need to help and send those members messages telling them what they have been doing wrong, because to tell you the truth, I have a feeling many do it because they believe that that is a respectable and full answer. We need to change that thinking by not replying in the thread, but sending them a visitor or a private message telling them what they are doing wrong and that if it continues infractions will be sent out. Its the current communities responsibility to keep the site full of helpful and active members. I believe by making a guide, members will feel restricted and will not post.

[Blue]

I'm extremely supportive of your first idea. If Null can create a system like that I will really fight for that to be implemented. However, if he cannot, then your second idea could also work. I would like to know if there could be a rank created to only allow us to infract an close threads, similar to what the "Guardians" do at Forge Hub. This would basically allow some if the more frequent and trustworthy members to basically patrol the forums.

[aMoeba]

I have a feeling that I have done that before, but I have really been trying to stop. I believe that ll of the members of the community need to help and send those members messages telling them what they have been doing wrong, because to tell you the truth, I have a feeling many do it because they believe that that is a respectable and full answer. We need to change that thinking by not replying in the thread, but sending them a visitor or a private message telling them what they are doing wrong and that if it continues infractions will be sent out. Its the current communities responsibility to keep the site full of helpful and active members. I believe by making a guide, members will feel restricted and will not post.

This post has me confused. It'd be nice if you could elaborate, but what I picked up is that we should VM or PM people about how to improve their map, and some other stuff.

As for that sentence I bolded, are you referring to my suggestion?

[MultiLockOn]

This post has me confused. It'd be nice if you could elaborate, but what I picked up is that we should VM or PM people about how to improve their map, and some other stuff.

As for that sentence I bolded, are you referring to my suggestion?
He's referring to the template you suggested.

[aMoeba]

Well then, I don't see how its so restrictive. If you looked at my example, it was two sentences.

[Zak]

As I think about it more and more, I like it more and more. what if that format was only mandatory until say 20 posts. Then there would be a box that you could check not to use the format.

[aMoeba]

As I think about it more and more, I like it more and more. what if that format was only mandatory until say 20 posts. Then there would be a box that you could check not to use the format.

I'm not so sure about that, though. I mean, you look at big time maps and people comment just because they know somebody else already said the thing they were going to, so they just praise the map. I think it would create a false sense of bypassing the format... although its somewhat plausible, its quite fallible.

[Denominator]

*disclaimer* There is one purposeful spelling error in this post. Cyber-cookies to whoever finds it

I like where you're coming from, but you've missed the crux of the issue. You touched on it, but not really.

Well then, I don't see how its so restrictive. If you looked at my example, it was two sentences.

That template won't fix the problem. The problem is that there are too many comments that are not specific to the map. If you look at what is in the template you provided, it is identical to what is in all your "bad posts" except has map specific comments. It's really no more helpful to the map-maker than any of the other comments.

If we remove your template you say something like this:

I liked the darkness, and the uniqueness of the regenerator for an overboard map like this one. [However,] There were many bumps on the floor causing some bad gameplay.

How is that any different from this:

Now, I haven't played on this yet, but I can see from the pictures that there is a few little things that need to be added and changed on this map.

First off, some positive stuff. The map is beautiful, all the interlocking and geomerging is perfect.

HOWEVER, the game play looks as if it would be horrific.
From what I can see, there is little to no cover on this map. It also looks like it is a very very jumpy map. You may think that stairs will help gameplay, but they force people to walk around the stairs and then go up them. And many of the structures have no walkways to them.
And the weapon placement has to be better. The center structure, the one made of walls, is completely the most risky place in the map, and the only reward is an assault rifle.

Look, I'm not mean, this is a great skeleton to a map, but it needs a lot more.
As I like to say, this is a traditional Forgehub map. Absolutely perfect in every way aesthetically but lacking in any gameplay.

Which is listed in your "bad" map replies section.

The idea is sound, but again I think we are brushing up against the issue of censorship. I will agree that there are a lot of really really bad posts up there and none of them help the map-maker, but I don't think forcing people to fill out a form will solve anything.

The people that write fluff posts will continue to write fluff posts within the template, and the people that would write good posts in the template already write good posts without the template. To further reinforce this, here is one of the bad posts:

this looks cool but Extremely small

Can easily fit a template:

What I liked:

looks like a cool map

What I didn't like:

looks Extremely small

Suggestions/Additional Notes:

(none)

So nothing is really accomplished.

I like the line of thinking though. As membership increases, this is inevitably going to get worse and worse, but I think we're approaching the solution the wrong way. The fluff posts are going to be there no matter what we do, and it becomes obvious rather quickly who the fluff posters are. Just ignore them, or encourage them to make better posts.

Then thank the good posters for making good posts. Take the effort to make sure when people take the time to write a decent post that they realize tha tit actually means something to you. Have a discussion about the map, thank them via VM or PM and in the thread. I think XForgery will do far better if we encourage positive behaviour rather than discourage negative behaviour.

[MultiLockOn]

that they realize tha tit actually means something to you. Have a discussion about the map, thank them via VM or PM and in the thread. I think XForgery will do far better if we encourage positive behaviour rather than discourage negative behaviour.
Give me my damn cookie.

On a more serious note, I think this work well as a review template..

[Coyote1023]

Wait a second. Hold on there. I am completely 100% against this idea. It may seem good at first but think about it this way. Carrying out a conversation would be WAY too inconvenient. Let me give you an example of how you can give input from pictures, have a useful post before playing it, and having a conversation:

Are you telling me that you made the sword spin?

Next, what is the difference between psyflag and normal flag, is it really required?

Now, onto the map. From the pictures, I love the aesthetics, the rotational symmetry is great! The middle structure with the mancannons is great and the pillars at each base with the overhang type things look amazing. My only concern before playing it is that there arn't enough weapons (only 4 grenades?) and that the sword would be overpowered with those shield doors. Depending on how many plasmas, that could be fixed, but I will have to play it first. Downloading now. ;)

Oh! And don't worry about talking about FH here, we don't mind, we aren't as touchy about it as they are.

Thanks to all for commenting. To the people's issues...

Babysmuggler and Coyote: The sword itself does not spin. Unfortunately, if you thought that was the cool part, you are wrong. The green square under the sword does spin, in a wierd, glitchy way (Shut up, i still spins in my dreams...) LOL. But now you all know.

To Silva Sniper: You asked the same thing on FH. Ugh... so... PsyFlag is a custom gametype for Telekinesis, since it's sosmall, The flag away and return times are much shorther and teh flag carrier is a little slower to make due with the small size of the map. Also, I bumped the capture limit to 5. Personally, I think I'll cut this in the V2, I just don't like cTF on the map, I was jsut experimenting, and I'll probably remove it in my V2, which is coming soon.

Although I am changing the weapons list.

Thank you MultiLockOn, but since you liek my style of forging, let me tell you this. My last 4 map have been on a style of forge, based on something. If you like this, I will consider keeping it.

Thanks to AZN FTW, I'm honored to get such a good comment from someone like you.

Also thanks to Time Glitch, although I've heard of you, but don't really know you around here or other affliates.

Again thanks to all V2 coming soon!

Now how would a few things work with your layout.

1) I can't post my concerns because I havn't played it
--I have no clue what psyflag is and think the sword spins...

2) How is the poster supposed to respond to everyone that asks questions? Have two lines commenting on his own map that are blank and then everything else in the concerns section? Give me a break I would just quit right there.

3) So I go and play the map to come back and post EVERYTHING in a gigantic post of epic proportions, then I don't post again because it is annoying to have 2 random blanks open. The map dies after everyone has replied once.



Then [B]thank the good posters for making good posts. Take the effort to make sure when people take the time to write a decent post that they realize tha tit actually means something to you. Have a discussion about the map, thank them via VM or PM and in the thread. I think XForgery will do far better if we encourage positive behaviour rather than discourage negative behaviour.

Thank you. You don't know how much it pisses me off when I post a huge paragraph (not only the map section) and get completely ignored. I already don't post much as it is...

[MultiLockOn]

I guess it'll almost take all the voice out of comments. Posts would be more towards "Do this and that and fix this", when what we have now seems a little more....entertaining. While it is an issue, I don't see it big enough that we need to take a drastic step. Yes, it is a good idea as I stated in the first post, but the more I get to thinking about it, bleh.

[aMoeba]

*disclaimer* There is one purposeful spelling error in this post. Cyber-cookies to whoever finds it

I like where you're coming from, but you've missed the crux of the issue. You touched on it, but not really.



That template won't fix the problem. The problem is that there are too many comments that are not specific to the map. If you look at what is in the template you provided, it is identical to what is in all your "bad posts" except has map specific comments. It's really no more helpful to the map-maker than any of the other comments.

If we remove your template you say something like this:



How is that any different from this:



Which is listed in your "bad" map replies section.

The idea is sound, but again I think we are brushing up against the issue of censorship. I will agree that there are a lot of really really bad posts up there and none of them help the map-maker, but I don't think forcing people to fill out a form will solve anything.

The people that write fluff posts will continue to write fluff posts within the template, and the people that would write good posts in the template already write good posts without the template. To further reinforce this, here is one of the bad posts:



Can easily fit a template:



So nothing is really accomplished.

I like the line of thinking though. As membership increases, this is inevitably going to get worse and worse, but I think we're approaching the solution the wrong way. The fluff posts are going to be there no matter what we do, and it becomes obvious rather quickly who the fluff posters are. Just ignore them, or encourage them to make better posts.

Then thank the good posters for making good posts. Take the effort to make sure when people take the time to write a decent post that they realize tha tit actually means something to you. Have a discussion about the map, thank them via VM or PM and in the thread. I think XForgery will do far better if we encourage positive behaviour rather than discourage negative behaviour.


Your basic idea is that "fluff" posts can go into a template. Had the template been actually used, it signifies that the user actually played the map in the first place.

It is in fact "what I liked" and not "what I looked at." The problem with you fitting that fluff in the template is that the template is a means to post what you liked and disliked. You cannot like something on a map that you don't know, and you can't dislike something when you don't know.

The comparisons you had referenced are drastically different. Notice how one says "looks" and one asserts "is." There's a large difference, and a map maker cannot improve on a misunderstanding or a faulty judgment on the commentator's part.

I can guarantee that the template will reduce fluff posts. Sure, its possible to do a fluff post inside of a template, but are you really going to make a faulty assumption and make yourself look like an idiot? Nonetheless, the form doesn't say "what do you think" or "what's your impression" it says "what did you like/not like" and "suggestions." You can't do either without actually playing the map. It asserts the need to play the map before a comment.

As far as "encouraging positive behavior" and "discouraging negative behavior", they go hand in hand, which makes your point moot. Both should be used in moderation, not one over the other.

Now how would a few things work with your layout.

1) I can't post my concerns because I havn't played it
--I have no clue what psyflag is and think the sword spins...

2) How is the poster supposed to respond to everyone that asks questions? Have two lines commenting on his own map that are blank and then everything else in the concerns section? Give me a break I would just quit right there.

3) So I go and play the map to come back and post EVERYTHING in a gigantic post of epic proportions, then I don't post again because it is annoying to have 2 random blanks open. The map dies after everyone has replied once.


1) Then play it and find out. Or go ahead and use a visitor message, like the others have suggested.

2) Like I said, use VM's. They're quicker anyways, as notifications appear on the front page while the map maker would have to check their threads.

3) You're forgetting the entire original intent in posting a map. I'll even tell you why people post maps:



To get downloads
To become famous for a map
Showing off a new idea
Getting awards (Xforgery)
Bragging rights, etc

As for the actual thing you said, you really need to explain that. I can't seem to make sense of it.

Besides, like I said, a layout section is subject to change. You're all judging off that tiny form. It might as well have a comment box, or an option to toggle windows so you don't have to go over a certain section. Whatever it may be, you can't just begin to judge off the alpha. Its a suggestion for a reason, and it can be improved.

[Denominator]

Give me my damn cookie.

On a more serious note, I think this work well as a review template..

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:dKEUwNY0Zf3SqM:http://pixiestixkidspix.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/cookie-bite-web.jpg

Believe it or not, that is exactly how the original reviews were done. I just managed to dig them up on the original BNet group "Forgery" so those of you with group access can see them here (http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/144878/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=16638205), but for those of you without access here it is:

Boxed In by Ske7ch

Another 3v3 Team Slayer game, a second map that my team got continually frustrated on. We kept running up the ramps in hopes of more map an more weapons, but found none. The sniper rifle is in a good spot, but not so useful on such a tight map. Again, weapons balanced nicely and there were more grenades to grab. Solid map, but nothing outstanding. 8+ player KotH would probably be loads of fun.

The good - fast paced action in a tight area. Mauler dominates.
The bad - frustratingly small and leaves you wanting more.
The ugly - those boxes in the spawn rooms bug me.

However, we changed the 3 required boxes for more informative review text.

This is a better format, in my opinion. You have 3 forced boxes of text so there has to be some substance, and then leave the rest open for discussion.

I also fully agree with what Coyote said. You'd have to refill the boxes with each response, or leave them blank and then they're useless.

[aMoeba]

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:dKEUwNY0Zf3SqM:http://pixiestixkidspix.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/cookie-bite-web.jpg

Believe it or not, that is exactly how the original reviews were done. I just managed to dig them up on the original BNet group "Forgery" so those of you with group access can see them here (http://www.bungie.net/fanclub/144878/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=16638205), but for those of you without access here it is:



However, we changed the 3 required boxes for more informative review text.

This is a better format, in my opinion. You have 3 forced boxes of text so there has to be some substance, and then leave the rest open for discussion.

I also fully agree with what Coyote said. You'd have to refill the boxes with each response, or leave them blank and then they're useless.

Avert your eyes to the following quote:


Besides, like I said, a layout section is subject to change. You're all judging off that tiny form. It might as well have a comment box, or an option to toggle windows so you don't have to go over a certain section. Whatever it may be, you can't just begin to judge off the alpha. Its a suggestion for a reason, and it can be improved.

[Coyote1023]

If you can toggle off windows, why have it?

"I'm New, hey this map looks cool."

Good

Bad

Comments:
Great map D00d. Keep it up, I will DL it!

[Denominator]

Your basic idea is that "fluff" posts can go into a template. Had the template been actually used, it signifies that the user actually played the map in the first place.

No it doesn't. Just like in the current setup, there is nothing requiring people to play a map before commenting on it. Nor should there be. Like Coyote pointed out, there is often very good discussion happening before someone plays the map, and you've now completely eliminated that.

However, people are still going to comment on the map before playing it, so don't assume based on your wording that it is otherwise.

It is in fact "what I liked" and not "what I looked at." The problem with you fitting that fluff in the template is that the template is a means to post what you liked and disliked. You cannot like something on a map that you don't know, and you can't dislike something when you don't know.

You're playing with semantics. I can see something in a picture and like or dislike it just as much as actually playing it.

The comparisons you had referenced are drastically different. Notice how one says "looks" and one asserts "is." There's a large difference, and a map maker cannot improve on a misunderstanding or a faulty judgment on the commentator's part.

Again, semantics. I found your post no more helpful than the other one.

I can guarantee that the template will reduce fluff posts. Sure, its possible to do a fluff post inside of a template, but are you really going to make a faulty assumption and make yourself look like an idiot? Nonetheless, the form doesn't say "what do you think" or "what's your impression" it says "what did you like/not like" and "suggestions." You can't do either without actually playing the map. It asserts the need to play the map before a comment.

Again, you're reading too much into your wording. People simply are not going to do that. They will continue to post fluff, just within the confines of the template now.

As far as "encouraging positive behavior" and "discouraging negative behavior", they go hand in hand, which makes your point moot. Both should be used in moderation, not one over the other.

Yes, you have to use both, but recently we are focusing on discouraging fluff when I think we should concentrate on encouraging non-fluff.

1) Then play it and find out. Or go ahead and use a visitor message, like the others have suggested.

2) Like I said, use VM's. They're quicker anyways, as notifications appear on the front page while the map maker would have to check their threads.

3) You're forgetting the entire original intent in posting a map. I'll even tell you why people post maps:



To get downloads
To become famous for a map
Showing off a new idea
Getting awards (Xforgery)
Bragging rights, etc

As for the actual thing you said, you really need to explain that. I can't seem to make sense of it.

Besides, like I said, a layout section is subject to change. You're all judging off that tiny form. It might as well have a comment box, or an option to toggle windows so you don't have to go over a certain section. Whatever it may be, you can't just begin to judge off the alpha. Its a suggestion for a reason, and it can be improved.

You're missing the point of posting a map. It's supposed to be discussed, and as in every thread, some other user will post something that I had not thought of but agree with, so don't restrict it to PM or VM where only certain people can see it.

[aMoeba]

If you can toggle off windows, why have it?

My god no offense but honestly this makes me want to shoot myself. Did I NOT just say its subject to change? Its a suggestion! I was merely shooting out ideas, its not the final product. You're just skimming over my post and making these little sentences which you try to make so valid yet you don't even realize that your viability is completely and totally flawed because of your lack to notice what you're even arguing against.

1) No it doesn't. Just like in the current setup, there is nothing requiring people to play a map before commenting on it. Nor should there be. Like Coyote pointed out, there is often very good discussion happening before someone plays the map, and you've now completely eliminated that.

2) However, people are still going to comment on the map before playing it, so don't assume based on your wording that it is otherwise.



3) You're playing with semantics. I can see something in a picture and like or dislike it just as much as actually playing it.



4) Again, semantics. I found your post no more helpful than the other one.



5) Again, you're reading too much into your wording. People simply are not going to do that. They will continue to post fluff, just within the confines of the template now.



5) Yes, you have to use both, but recently we are focusing on discouraging fluff when I think we should concentrate on encouraging non-fluff.



You're missing the point of posting a map. It's supposed to be discussed, and as in every thread, some other user will post something that I had not thought of but agree with, so don't restrict it to PM or VM where only certain people can see it.

1) I think from my list of quotes it is easily discern-able that good discussion does not go on very frequently before the map is played. Also, I bolded a massive contradiction.

2) Contradiction, see above.

3) Not at all. From a picture you can say "that structure is pretty neat" but during the gameplay you can realize "that structure is crap." You cannot accurately judge a map from pictures, no matter what, and I dare you tell me otherwise.

4) Its not a semantical argument. Your perception of it is obviously misconstrued. Is it not hard to find the difference between "is" and "looks?" "Is" refers to what the map really plays like, etc. "Looks" is judging a book by its cover, which I'm sure by now you know what that means.

5) Yes, but with the proposed suggestion the map maker actually has something to improve upon. You can't honestly say you didn't like it "looking extremely small." Sure, it looks small, but after actually playing you can make the final decision. I'm sure you've played a map which you didn't think was good [from the pictures], but you turned out to like what you didn't. I know I have.

6) A comment posting template encourages no fluff and discourages fluff. They're exactly the same except for one asserting and one looking down upon fluff. A template encourages the user to post a good review much more than it discourages any sort of fluff.

7) Subject to change

[Null Parameter]

My god no offense but honestly this makes me want to shoot myself.
A little bit more respect here, or the thread will be closed. There are plenty of other ways to show disappointment, so use them.

1) I think from my list of quotes it is easily discern-able that good discussion does not go on very frequently before the map is played. Also, I bolded a massive contradiction.

2) Contradiction, see above.

3) Not at all. From a picture you can say "that structure is pretty neat" but during the gameplay you can realize "that structure is crap." You cannot accurately judge a map from pictures, no matter what, and I dare you tell me otherwise.

4) Its not a semantical argument. Your perception of it is obviously misconstrued. Is it not hard to find the difference between "is" and "looks?" "Is" refers to what the map really plays like, etc. "Looks" is judging a book by its cover, which I'm sure by now you know what that means.

5) Yes, but with the proposed suggestion the map maker actually has something to improve upon. You can't honestly say you didn't like it "looking extremely small." Sure, it looks small, but after actually playing you can make the final decision. I'm sure you've played a map which you didn't think was good [from the pictures], but you turned out to like what you didn't. I know I have.

6) A comment posting template encourages no fluff and discourages fluff. They're exactly the same except for one asserting and one looking down upon fluff. A template encourages the user to post a good review much more than it discourages any sort of fluff.

7) Subject to change
1) Showing 10 quotes out of 6,000+ posts doesn't show a majority. There is plenty of discussion that goes on before people every play a map.

2) That isn't a contradiction at all, because he was saying that based on your assumptions, when using the template people won't post before they play a map, but he is saying that good conversation takes place before people ever play it. So if you assume people will play the map first, that conversation will never take place, thus completely eliminating it.

3) He wasn't saying that all opinion is based upon visuals, but rather that you can still get a good idea of how a structure will play simply by examining it, which is totally true. Sometimes, it turns out to play differently due to things you can't see in images, but just as often it is almost exactly as you would picture. And if by chance it doesn't, because it gets a constructive conversation going that can, in fact, help the creator, and others, understand why the structure works or doesn't work and how everybody can improve upon their gameplay. Dare taken.

4) No, it is all semantics you are arguing. You are arguing that people won't post comments about the map before playing it because they see "the map is" versus "the map looks like", which is completely false. Most people don't pay that close attention to wording, and beyond that you can easily stretch the definition of is to be that of the completely visual domain, it's completely up to the user and how they read it.

5) In my college educated and fairly well informed mind, along with my experience in raising children and helping/tutoring many people throughout my years in school, Enforcing Positive Behavior works 10x better than Punishing Bad Behavior. Positive Reinforcement is always the key to making things better. People often have highly negative reactions to being told them are doing things wrong, or being punished (through persistent trivial activities) for the wrong doings of others. But nobody turns down a positive comment, and almost everybody is willing to accept helpful expertise.

6) I personally don't think people are going to look at the template as you envision it. They'll see (no matter what the fields are) what they want to. As everybody else has said, people will fill in what they desire, especially if they know they can omit fields, but then again, not omitting them is punishing the whole community through monotonous trivialities that aren't needed for civilized conversation.

[PsychoBucket]

My god no offense but honestly this makes me want to shoot myself. Did I NOT just say its subject to change? Its a suggestion! I was merely shooting out ideas, its not the final product. You're just skimming over my post and making these little sentences which you try to make so valid yet you don't even realize that your viability is completely and totally flawed because of your lack to notice what you're even arguing against.


You keep saying "subject to change", but they are just commenting on what you gave them to comment on. Isn't that what you wanted? He asked a valid question. Would you rather him say "great idea" when he actually sees a flaw in it? Everyone understands that it is subject to change, but someone needs to suggest the "change".


4) Its not a semantical argument. Your perception of it is obviously misconstrued. Is it not hard to find the difference between "is" and "looks?" "Is" refers to what the map really plays like, etc. "Looks" is judging a book by its cover, which I'm sure by now you know what that means.

There is no need to try to insult his intelegence. Everyone knows the difference between "looks and "is", but your definitions are what you think they should mean in this forum. There are times that you can use the two words interchangably. For example, I can say "This looks neat" based off of a picture, and I can also say that after going into the game. I can also say "this box is not lined up with the rest of them" after noticing it in a game, but I can also see it in a picture. The point that Denominator was trying to make was that you are placing way too much emphasis on one of the least important parts of the comment.


5) Yes, but with the proposed suggestion the map maker actually has something to improve upon. You can't honestly say you didn't like it "looking extremely small." Sure, it looks small, but after actually playing you can make the final decision. I'm sure you've played a map which you didn't think was good [from the pictures], but you turned out to like what you didn't. I know I have.


You missed the point of what he was saying. No one was suggesting that you could judge a map better with pictures. This is the problem. We need to get people to play more maps. If you get rid of the "fluff" posts without getting more people to play maps, then the map forum would be dead.

[aMoeba]

1) Showing 10 quotes out of 6,000+ posts doesn't show a majority. There is plenty of discussion that goes on before people every play a map.

2) That isn't a contradiction at all, because he was saying that based on your assumptions, when using the template people won't post before they play a map, but he is saying that good conversation takes place before people ever play it. So if you assume people will play the map first, that conversation will never take place, thus completely eliminating it.

3) He wasn't saying that all opinion is based upon visuals, but rather that you can still get a good idea of how a structure will play simply by examining it, which is totally true. Sometimes, it turns out to play differently due to things you can't see in images, but just as often it is almost exactly as you would picture. And if by chance it doesn't, because it gets a constructive conversation going that can, in fact, help the creator, and others, understand why the structure works or doesn't work and how everybody can improve upon their gameplay. Dare taken.

4) No, it is all semantics you are arguing. You are arguing that people won't post comments about the map before playing it because they see "the map is" versus "the map looks like", which is completely false. Most people don't pay that close attention to wording, and beyond that you can easily stretch the definition of is to be that of the completely visual domain, it's completely up to the user and how they read it.

5) In my college educated and fairly well informed mind, along with my experience in raising children and helping/tutoring many people throughout my years in school, Enforcing Positive Behavior works 10x better than Punishing Bad Behavior. Positive Reinforcement is always the key to making things better. People often have highly negative reactions to being told them are doing things wrong, or being punished (through persistent trivial activities) for the wrong doings of others. But nobody turns down a positive comment, and almost everybody is willing to accept helpful expertise.

6) I personally don't think people are going to look at the template as you envision it. They'll see (no matter what the fields are) what they want to. As everybody else has said, people will fill in what they desire, especially if they know they can omit fields, but then again, not omitting them is punishing the whole community through monotonous trivialities that aren't needed for civilized conversation.

1) I could get oh so much more if you'd like.

2) Here, I'll quote what he said.

"Like Coyote pointed out, there is often very good discussion happening before someone plays the map, and you've now completely eliminated that."

He says "good discussion goes in before someone plays." Then he goes on to say that [with my template] its eliminated. Then:

"However, people are still going to comment on the map before playing it, so don't assume based on your wording that it is otherwise."

He also proved himself that fluff can be done in a template, and on purpose. Also, as a map author myself, I would much rather have people play the map and then comment, because then I won't have to answer a bunch of ridiculous questions easily answered by a forge-through.

3) I never denied that you could not get a good idea from looking a picture of something, because that's not even what he implied. By your statements you're basically saying "maps will almost always play as how you envision them to, and if not criticism goes on." No, you did not take the dare. You merely re assessed a point that wasn't even very relevant to what he was saying. I'll quote him for clarity.

"I can see something in a picture and like or dislike it just as much as actually playing it."

He's saying he can like the structure as much as he did in the picture (which is perfectly possible) but it draws extraordinarily away from the point I'm trying to make.

4) Look, I'll say this as nicely as possible, but this isn't an infallible system, and so far everyone who is against it acts like it is. This whole argument here is about one specific suggestion. I really don't care if it makes it in or not, but it'd better the commenting system. That's just one of the few suggestions, which all leads up to my actual point, which all the comments here are missing by a long shot. I really could not care more if you find a flaw in my layout. A way to work around it. If you did, great. How about you add onto the thread instead of arguing an already rehashed point? I'm not trying to get one specific suggestion through, I just want the damn fluff in maps to stop and I'm sure the entire population that matters (which would be map makers) would certainly make Xforgery their home if that happened.

5) Thanks for the reinforcement, all the layout does is encourage good reviewing.

6) Omitting fields is a possibility, as is a conversation field.

1) You keep saying "subject to change", but they are just commenting on what you gave them to comment on. Isn't that what you wanted? He asked a valid question. Would you rather him say "great idea" when he actually sees a flaw in it? Everyone understands that it is subject to change, but someone needs to suggest the "change".



2) There is no need to try to insult his intelegence. Everyone knows the difference between "looks and "is", but your definitions are what you think they should mean in this forum. There are times that you can use the two words interchangably. For example, I can say "This looks neat" based off of a picture, and I can also say that after going into the game. I can also say "this box is not lined up with the rest of them" after noticing it in a game, but I can also see it in a picture. The point that Denominator was trying to make was that you are placing way too much emphasis on one of the least important parts of the comment.



3) You missed the point of what he was saying. No one was suggesting that you could judge a map better with pictures. This is the problem. We need to get people to play more maps. If you get rid of the "fluff" posts without getting more people to play maps, then the map forum would be dead.

1) I gave a base template to improve upon. Comments are fine but they are useless if they do not improve the idea in anyway. And so far, nobody has suggested really any change except myself, only pointing out the flaws in the alpha instead of bringing up suggestions to improve it.

2) If it were a semantics argument there would no such forum as "competitive maps" and "aesthetic maps." The most important part of a comment is telling what the author can improve on, and that's exactly what I'm trying to strictly enforce.

3) Then let it be so. Whenever I post a map, if I see "looks [insert adjective here]" and a rating, I immediately skip that post because its worthless. The player cannot get a true feel for the map until it is played. You're indirectly implying that fluff posts are good and keep the map forum thriving. They make the map forum look ridiculous, and hopefully my time spent quoting posts has shown that.

[GodlyPerfection]

ALRIGHT EVERYONE FREEZE!!! We are in flame war mode... well at the very least aMoeba is. I'm sure aMoeba doesn't like being jumped all over like he is. Let's all take a break and agree to disagree.

aMoeba, let me put it simply.

If you made a map and we had the template, you would want it to get recognized correct? Well people see the map and decide it's not their style, rather than actually saying that in the thread and explaining why, people will see that they have to fill out the form. Because it is not their style and they don't particularly tend towards the map, they pass it on. Now depending on your audience and your map category, if it's MLG you have already lost about 60% ATLEAST of your potential comments.

Now for the people that actually want to comment on the actual post, they remember that they should probably not comment on the post until after they play it. Now they don't have space in the queue so they wait til later. During this time they could forget.

Now for those that don't forget, they go to download the map and they don't have any space on their hard drive. They forget to redownload it.

For those that do end up downloading it they try to get a party together. They didn't get the right amount of people or can't get enough, they blow it off and play matchmaking.

For those that do end up playing it they either enjoyed or didn't enjoy, if they didn't enjoy they are very unlidely that to post in that thread, unless they see the potential for it to be lots of fun.

For those that did enjoy it they want to post in the thread, but now they have to follow a format to post it. What they have said could have already been posted... so why bother?

If it hasn't been posted then they can post in the format what they want. As for a reply, the format doesn't allow free flowing conversation and that's how normal maps get better is by free flowing collaboration. So the conversation ends stopping many people from posting any more on the map.

The point of this is the fact that EACH step you can loose people that would have posted on your map. If multi had a problem with people not giving attention to maps now, he is definitely going to have a fit later.

There is a common design theory that is based off of removing layers of a process for simplicity.

When you see cool premium content in a video game, what's easier if you want to buy it? Click on the paypal thing and accept the payment, or copy and paste the url given, then find the part to signup, then find out where to click and what to fill out, etc. The objective is to remove overhead. There isn't ENOUGH difference between results of using the templates and not using the template isn't enough to restrict posts. Plus restrictions also limit discussion and maps will never improve.

Also think about it this way. Doesn't it feel good to see that someone enjoyed certain parts of your map from the pictures? First impressions are just as important as actually playing a map. I am definitely more likely to download a map with a post that is very well done like Conker's or Aimless Ant's because they took the time to show it off. Why wouldn't I be allowed to comment on their post?

Also for those that say, I'll download and play later? Look at the process. It is easy to either forget or not be able to or to even stop caring after a certain point. At the very least that person tried. Now if you just see a general fluff post then mention it in VM. Denom put it right when we need to acknowledge people's posts both good and bad and follow through. If you see a bad post VM or PM that person. If you see a good post mention it in the thread then continue on with your post or VM or PM. It's not that hard. You can't remove human interaction for everything. Removing that free flowing discussion removes the community feel of XForgery. Do you really want every post to follow guidelines for maps instead of having fun? You can't restrict too much... or else we are just here to work and not have fun. When you think of something that removes fluff that doesn't require someone additional effort (following any kind of form requires additional effort despite how little) then you can suggest that. But adding more work for the community just makes this place less liked. We want to make life easier for everyone. Not more difficult. You can't brag "Hey at XF when you post on a map you have to follow a form", but you can brag "Hey at XF you will get honest opinions of your map and they will be constructive while you have fun".

[aMoeba]

ALRIGHT EVERYONE FREEZE!!! We are in flame war mode... well at the very least aMoeba is. I'm sure aMoeba doesn't like being jumped all over like he is. Let's all take a break and agree to disagree.

aMoeba, let me put it simply.

If you made a map and we had the template, you would want it to get recognized correct? Well people see the map and decide it's not their style, rather than actually saying that in the thread and explaining why, people will see that they have to fill out the form. Because it is not their style and they don't particularly tend towards the map, they pass it on. Now depending on your audience and your map category, if it's MLG you have already lost about 60% ATLEAST of your potential comments.

Now for the people that actually want to comment on the actual post, they remember that they should probably not comment on the post until after they play it. Now they don't have space in the queue so they wait til later. During this time they could forget.

Now for those that don't forget, they go to download the map and they don't have any space on their hard drive. They forget to redownload it.

For those that do end up downloading it they try to get a party together. They didn't get the right amount of people or can't get enough, they blow it off and play matchmaking.

For those that do end up playing it they either enjoyed or didn't enjoy, if they didn't enjoy they are very unlidely that to post in that thread, unless they see the potential for it to be lots of fun.

For those that did enjoy it they want to post in the thread, but now they have to follow a format to post it. What they have said could have already been posted... so why bother?

If it hasn't been posted then they can post in the format what they want. As for a reply, the format doesn't allow free flowing conversation and that's how normal maps get better is by free flowing collaboration. So the conversation ends stopping many people from posting any more on the map.

The point of this is the fact that EACH step you can loose people that would have posted on your map. If multi had a problem with people not giving attention to maps now, he is definitely going to have a fit later.

There is a common design theory that is based off of removing layers of a process for simplicity.

When you see cool premium content in a video game, what's easier if you want to buy it? Click on the paypal thing and accept the payment, or copy and paste the url given, then find the part to signup, then find out where to click and what to fill out, etc. The objective is to remove overhead. There isn't ENOUGH difference between results of using the templates and not using the template isn't enough to restrict posts. Plus restrictions also limit discussion and maps will never improve.

Also think about it this way. Doesn't it feel good to see that someone enjoyed certain parts of your map from the pictures? First impressions are just as important as actually playing a map. I am definitely more likely to download a map with a post that is very well done like Conker's or Aimless Ant's because they took the time to show it off. Why wouldn't I be allowed to comment on their post?

Also for those that say, I'll download and play later? Look at the process. It is easy to either forget or not be able to or to even stop caring after a certain point. At the very least that person tried. Now if you just see a general fluff post then mention it in VM. Denom put it right when we need to acknowledge people's posts both good and bad and follow through. If you see a bad post VM or PM that person. If you see a good post mention it in the thread then continue on with your post or VM or PM. It's not that hard. You can't remove human interaction for everything. Removing that free flowing discussion removes the community feel of XForgery. Do you really want every post to follow guidelines for maps instead of having fun? You can't restrict too much... or else we are just here to work and not have fun. When you think of something that removes fluff that doesn't require someone additional effort (following any kind of form requires additional effort despite how little) then you can suggest that. But adding more work for the community just makes this place less liked. We want to make life easier for everyone. Not more difficult. You can't brag "Hey at XF when you post on a map you have to follow a form", but you can brag "Hey at XF you will get honest opinions of your map and they will be constructive while you have fun".

The way I see it the beef of what you're saying is that a form causes more work, making people not want to post. That's a fair one sentence summarization. So, simple solution (I'd rather aim to improve my suggestion that argue that it works): toggable windows. When you click reply on the box, a form pops up. You can toggle it off and comment away, or you can use the form. Sounds like a solution to me...

Glad to see a thoughtful post.

[Denominator]

I'm not going to bother rehashing the same argument again. It's getting us nowhere but mad.

3) Then let it be so. Whenever I post a map, if I see "looks [insert adjective here]" and a rating, I immediately skip that post because its worthless. The player cannot get a true feel for the map until it is played. You're indirectly implying that fluff posts are good and keep the map forum thriving. They make the map forum look ridiculous, and hopefully my time spent quoting posts has shown that.

I have a big issue with this though. No matter how "fluffy" the post is, no matter how meaningless it is, it still means that somebody else took the time to look at your map. I can promise you that having fluff posts is better than dead threads.

I necropost on map threads all the time when I upload reviews. The Review Team is currently reviewing maps about 3-5 months after they were posted, so most of the maps have been pushed far off into the abyss that is the map forums, and get no attention anymore. I post that they've been reviewed so that the author knows that the official review is up.

But I find a very, very interesting thing happens when I post on an old map.

New people look at this map like it was just posted, and the map recycles through the motions and everybody downloads it and it gets attention again. Often, well deserved attention.

So each time somebody posts in a map thread, no matter how fluffy, no matter if the post just says "Review added", the map gains attention and downloads. AND THAT IS A GOOD THING.

The absolute last thing we want to do is restrict map traffic. And if, like you said above, the map forums are to be a dead zone, then map traffic is so low that there will be no downloads. Would you honestly rather read fluff posts or not have your map downloaded?

[aMoeba]

Would you honestly rather read fluff posts or not have your map downloaded?

Both happen.

[Null Parameter]

Both happen.
Saying that both happen doesn't answer the question, and nothing we do will make people download more maps. So which would you rather have?

Do you want to have "fluff"? Or do you want to have less/no downloads?

[aMoeba]

Saying that both happen doesn't answer the question, and nothing we do will make people download more maps. So which would you rather have?

Situation 1) Do you want to have "fluff"?

Situation 2) Or do you want to have less/no downloads?

That question is still on faulty ground; think of it. I'll have to define a map post simply though in order to make this easy to understand.

You post a map on Xforgery.
You get fluff.

You post a map on Xforgery.
You get little to no downloads.

There's no way to pick one or the other. You need to be more elaborate. Normally when I get fluff, I also get no downloads, and then if I did get downloads there would be no problem. Or, when I get little to downloads, I could also have fluff, or no comments at all. It really doesn't make much sense. They're hand in hand things that you have to be more precise about when picking one over the other, and in these two situations, you can't pick what you truly want because they're barely defined.

[Null Parameter]

He never said you would ever get one or the other, he asked which you would prefer, which is easily answerable.

It's a simple opinion.

For being so technical on wording in everything else, you are sure throwing that out the window right now.

[aMoeba]

He never said you would ever get one or the other, he asked which you would prefer, which is easily answerable.

It's a simple opinion.

For being so technical on wording in everything else, you are sure throwing that out the window right now.

Its not being technical at all. Its a simple flaw in what you're saying. Of course I'd prefer fluff, because even with fluff I'd still get little to no downloads, or maybe even many. Little to no downloads is restricted to just that, though, which makes it simply idiotic to choose it.

[Null Parameter]

Its not being technical at all. Its a simple flaw in what you're saying. Of course I'd prefer fluff, because even with fluff I'd still get little to no downloads, or maybe even many. Little to no downloads is restricted to just that, though, which makes it simply idiotic to choose it.
That's not a flaw, it's making a point.

[aMoeba]

That's not a flaw, it's making a point.

A flawed point at that.

You're saying this:

Choose option 1 or 2. Option 1 is obviously better than option 2. Option 1 includes option 2.

Don't bother continuing this.

[Denominator]

You are complaining about two things, but fixing one makes the other worse.

[Null Parameter]

A flawed point at that.

You're saying this:

Choose option 1 or 2. Option 1 is obviously better than option 2. Option 1 includes option 2.

Don't bother continuing this.
I don't understand what you're even getting at with this. Throughout all of this you are basically saying that XF sucks for map makers because they get way too many fluff comments that do no good and get no downloads. If that's how you feel, then don't post maps here, it's that easy.

I've been fine with posting my maps, and don't go on about how I'm Null and people are bound to post on my maps so I don't count because it (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=223) isn't (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=479) true (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=680). If you are seeking huge amounts of downloads, I can promise you, this isn't the place for it. We are a small community, and many people here hardly even play Halo but stay around for the Community.

I'm sorry that you aren't getting what you are looking for, but in the end, I don't think there is anything we can do to fix this. Look at every other forging forum, if you find them getting better comments, and can point us at what they're doing, or come up with something on your own that doesn't restrict the members who already do a good job, then we'll look into it.

I know that you've said we could have a form that's by passable, but that doesn't change anything because then people will just bypass it; thus making no difference. I'm sorry, but if I were a new member or anybody that wanted to make a "fluff" comment, that wouldn't deter me in the least.

[aMoeba]

I don't understand what you're even getting at with this. Throughout all of this you are basically saying that XF sucks for map makers because they get way too many fluff comments that do no good and get no downloads. If that's how you feel, then don't post maps here, it's that easy.

I've been fine with posting my maps, and don't go on about how I'm Null and people are bound to post on my maps so I don't count because it (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=223) isn't (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=479) true (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=680). If you are seeking huge amounts of downloads, I can promise you, this isn't the place for it. We are a small community, and many people here hardly even play Halo but stay around for the Community.

I'm sorry that you aren't getting what you are looking for, but in the end, I don't think there is anything we can do to fix this. Look at every other forging forum, if you find them getting better comments, and can point us at what they're doing, or come up with something on your own that doesn't restrict the members who already do a good job, then we'll look into it.

I know that you've said we could have a form that's by passable, but that doesn't change anything because they people will just bypass it; thus making no difference. I'm sorry, but if I were a new member or anybody that wanted to make a "fluff" comment, that wouldn't deter me in the least.

That's what I don't post my maps, period, anywhere. I have a plethora of amazing maps that I could take time to post and look nice, but in the end all I get are a few comments saying "lol nice fusion coil, i like dat structure n its rly kool, 2/5." The only reason I ever joined any forging site is to improve my forging prowess. Now I'm so caught up in my forge skill because I never get criticism telling me how to improve.

You still got comments on those maps though, regardless. Some great maps here don't even get noticed at all. (What's a Walnut, Lotus)

You could've at the very least bothered to comment on the other suggestion, but instead you just decided to pick out the flaws in the first one.

Once again, I am not attempting to deter anybody from fluff on maps. I am only trying to encourage a good review. The best option at this point is to include an optional premade review form, which can be anything from Pro's and Cons to Gameplay, Aesthetics, Balance, etc. Even if a form is not used often, its still an incentive to give a better review. And I'll be honest, if a review form were required, it would in fact prevent me more from adding a fluff comment, because the way I see it, (although its a possibility) you still make yourself look like a moron if you say "gameply loks gud fom the pics." The main thing I see a form promoting is the necessity for forger's to know more than the average comment. The normal user doesn't comment on spawns or balance, but a review form would encourage that.

You are complaining about two things, but fixing one makes the other worse.

How so? Get rid of fluff and you have the same amount of downloads you did before they commented. As for downloads, what is there to fix?

[Denominator]

That's what I don't post my maps, period, anywhere. I have a plethora of amazing maps that I could take time to post and look nice, but in the end all I get are a few comments saying "lol nice fusion coil, i like dat structure n its rly kool, 2/5." The only reason I ever joined any forging site is to improve my forging prowess. Now I'm so caught up in my forge skill because I never get criticism telling me how to improve.

Then why are you here? This makes absolutely no sense to me. You joined a forging site but don't want to post your maps because they only get fluff posts.

I'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculously elitist.

You still got comments on those maps though, regardless. Some great maps here don't even get noticed at all. (What's a Walnut, Lotus)

There are 544 maps posted to XForgery right now (not including closed threads). Of all 544, a mere 18 have 0 replies. 5 more of which are brand new. So you have 13 of 544 maps posted to this site that have gone unnoticed. And 0 maps beyond 2 and a half months old with no comments.

Every map gets at least one fair play by the Review Team, so no map will ever go unnoticed.

Both of those maps were less than a month old when they were rebumped.

Once again, I am not attempting to deter anybody from fluff on maps.

That's exactly what you are trying to do. Read your first post again and try to tell me differently.


How so? Get rid of fluff and you have the same amount of downloads you did before they commented. As for downloads, what is there to fix?

You agreed earlier that removing fluff would decrease downloads.

Apparently there is nothing needed to be fixed in terms of downloads because you don't post your maps.

I am only trying to encourage a good review. The best option at this point is to include an optional premade review form, which can be anything from Pro's and Cons to Gameplay, Aesthetics, Balance, etc. Even if a form is not used often, its still an incentive to give a better review. And I'll be honest, if a review form were required, it would in fact prevent me more from adding a fluff comment, because the way I see it, (although its a possibility) you still make yourself look like a moron if you say "gameply loks gud fom the pics." The main thing I see a form promoting is the necessity for forger's to know more than the average comment. The normal user doesn't comment on spawns or balance, but a review form would encourage that.

I believe that three things will happen. The first is that yes, fluff would be cut down on, but not nearly as drastically as you believe. Secondly, with that fluff, will go quality discussion about a map. I believe people will be less inclined to discuss a map if there is a form involved. And thirdly, most importantly, is that I believe downloads will decrease. I know that a number of times, I have asked a question or discussed a map before downloading it, because I see something in the pictures that intrigues me.

It doesn't matter if the discussion about the map is fluff or not, discussion in a map thread is a good thing.

[Null Parameter]

That's what I don't post my maps, period, anywhere. I have a plethora of amazing maps that I could take time to post and look nice, but in the end all I get are a few comments saying "lol nice fusion coil, i like dat structure n its rly kool, 2/5." The only reason I ever joined any forging site is to improve my forging prowess. Now I'm so caught up in my forge skill because I never get criticism telling me how to improve.
And that's your choice. I still post all of my maps because I want people to have access to them to have fun. I don't just make maps to improve myself, I do it to give enjoyment to myself and others.

You still got comments on those maps though, regardless. Some great maps here don't even get noticed at all. (What's a Walnut, Lotus)
Did you look at the comments?

The first map linked has no posts actually about the map, and 2 out of 4 were me.
The second map had 3 comments that are just "fluff".
The third map had no comments that said anything actually about the map, but rather about how the images weren't working and other stupid stuff.

All of which is the "fluff" that you claim do absolutely nothing for the map or creator.

Out of almost 550 maps posted, everybody missed a few. That's not too bad at all in my eyes. Yes, it is sad, but it is bound to happen. Threads get pushed down, things get missed, people post 5 maps at once and push their own down, etc.

You could've at the very least bothered to comment on the other suggestion, but instead you just decided to pick out the flaws in the first one.As far as I read, that was the root of all of the suggestions, and I even incorporated some of the later parts of it with the bypassable form. If I missed something, please tell me what it was.

Once again, I am not attempting to deter anybody from fluff on maps.
It might be just me, but that is definitely not the way it sounded, during any of the discussion.
Edit: Nope, it isn't just me (http://www.xforgery.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44189&postcount=36).

The best option at this point is to include an optional premade review form, which can be anything from Pro's and Cons to Gameplay, Aesthetics, Balance, etc. Even if a form is not used often, its still an incentive to give a better review. And I'll be honest, if a review form were required, it would in fact prevent me more from adding a fluff comment, because the way I see it, (although its a possibility) you still make yourself look like a moron if you say "gameply loks gud fom the pics." The main thing I see a form promoting is the necessity for forger's to know more than the average comment. The normal user doesn't comment on spawns or balance, but a review form would encourage that.
I think it is just making things overly complicated. It will deter people from making even half-constructive posts that include relevant questions because, as you say, people will question what they are commenting and think that it might be "fluff".

How so? Get rid of fluff and you have the same amount of downloads you did before they commented. As for downloads, what is there to fix?That really is relative. Sometimes that fluff and interactive, random conversation may persuade people to download a map that they might not have initially. I know that I have at times done exactly that. I see a map, it looks good but, being that I can't download every map on XF, I move past it; only later to come back, find some interesting conversation about the map that has developed from the "fluff", which makes me want to download it.

[aMoeba]

Then why are you here? This makes absolutely no sense to me. You joined a forging site but don't want to post your maps because they only get fluff posts.

I'm sorry, but that sounds ridiculously elitist.


There are 544 maps posted to XForgery right now (not including closed threads). Of all 544, a mere 18 have 0 replies. 5 more of which are brand new. So you have 13 of 544 maps posted to this site that have gone unnoticed. And 0 maps beyond 2 and a half months old with no comments.

Every map gets at least one fair play by the Review Team, so no map will ever go unnoticed.

Both of those maps were less than a month old when they were rebumped.



That's exactly what you are trying to do. Read your first post again and try to tell me differently.



Elitist? What the hell? Maybe I want to post my maps so I can improve and not get some totally BS response? I'm sorry but not every person on the planet appreciates being appealed to when it doesn't even make sense. You can call me a great programmer and that's great and all but I'm not a programmer. I keep my maps just for custom games, because I only make them to improve, and I can actually ask people after a game what they liked and didn't like because they actually played it. I only make maps so people can enjoy them. I spend unbelievable amounts of time on my newer maps and even then if there's no half decent criticism, its a waste. I can like my map and all, but I want to be as good as I can get, and there's nothing elitist about it.

Just because every map is commented doesn't mean every map has a useful comment.

They were re bumped by an angry author, which is why I noted them.

Because cutting down on fluff is synonymous with posting good reviews...

[Denominator]

Elitist? What the hell? Maybe I want to post my maps so I can improve and not get some totally BS response? I'm sorry but not every person on the planet appreciates being appealed to when it doesn't even make sense. You can call me a great programmer and that's great and all but I'm not a programmer. I keep my maps just for custom games, because I only make them to improve, and I can actually ask people after a game what they liked and didn't like because they actually played it. I only make maps so people can enjoy them. I spend unbelievable amounts of time on my newer maps and even then if there's no half decent criticism, its a waste. I can like my map and all, but I want to be as good as I can get, and there's nothing elitist about it.

You're claiming that you don't want to post your maps because you don't want to subject them to the "fluff". You're saying that your maps are too good for XForgery because of all the fluff.

Yeah, that's elitist.

Just because every map is commented doesn't mean every map has a useful comment.

So what?!

The fact that it got commented on means that it got looked at. And it means that somebody saw something in it. That's the entire point of posting it in the first place.

Because cutting down on fluff is synonymous with posting good reviews...

No, it's not. Cutting down on fluff is cutting down on fluff. If we don't allow fluff to be posted, then we cut down on posting. People that are posting fluff are more likely not to post than to post good posts.

[PsychoBucket]

I know that you've said we could have a form that's by passable, but that doesn't change anything because then people will just bypass it; thus making no difference. I'm sorry, but if I were a new member or anybody that wanted to make a "fluff" comment, that wouldn't deter me in the least.

Amoeba's idea can work if and only if you can get those posts to appear above the conversation posts. Maybe instead of the "window" he was talking about, it could be a "Review" Button. The serious posts and the conversation would be separated, so they wouldn't have to look through the full thread. Maybe we could require a link to the game(s) played on the map so the person knows if they played it correctly. That might discourage people from doing it because of the extra work, but it is something to think about. Also maybe we could have some sort of incentive for doing unofficial reviews. Incentives would get more people playing more maps, which would decrease the percentage of fluff.

[aMoeba]

You're claiming that you don't want to post your maps because you don't want to subject them to the "fluff". You're saying that your maps are too good for XForgery because of all the fluff.

Yeah, that's elitist.



So what?!

The fact that it got commented on means that it got looked at. And it means that somebody saw something in it. That's the entire point of posting it in the first place.



No, it's not. Cutting down on fluff is cutting down on fluff. If we don't allow fluff to be posted, then we cut down on posting. People that are posting fluff are more likely not to post than to post good posts.

It would be elitist, had your second statement been true. However, its not. I didn't say (or imply, and if that's what you interpreted, that's not my intention) that my maps were too good for Xforgery. I'm saying that when I spend so much time on my maps to make them so incredibly good and all I get is a moot comment its not worth it to me. If you didn't already grasp this, I only post maps so I can get better. Others post it for downloads/etc, I just want to improve in my forging skill. Its not that my maps are too good for Xforgery, its that the fluff given to my map makes my work feel neglected.

That's not always the point of posting a map... I don't post maps to get comments. I post to get criticism.

Obviously. You're saying that if useless posts were not allowed, it would cut down on posts. Basically, saying less posts would cut down on posts. That's obvious enough. What isn't obvious is how satire I was when I said that, hence the multiple periods.

Amoeba's idea can work if and only if you can get those posts to appear above the conversation posts. Maybe instead of the "window" he was talking about, it could be a "Review" Button. The serious posts and the conversation would be separated, so they wouldn't have to look through the full thread. Maybe we could require a link to the game(s) played on the map so the person knows if they played it correctly. That might discourage people from doing it because of the extra work, but it is something to think about. Also maybe we could have some sort of incentive for doing unofficial reviews.

I see where you're going with that, and I like it. Perhaps along with the review button a "review archive" button, so you can see all the reviews on one page? Even with the extra requirements (such as game history) I'd still use this idea.

[PsychoBucket]

I see where you're going with that, and I like it. Perhaps along with the review button a "review archive" button, so you can see all the reviews on one page? Even with the extra requirements (such as game history) I'd still use this idea.

By review archive, do you mean reviews for all maps in the same place?

[aMoeba]

By review archive, do you mean reviews for all maps in the same place?

Not exactly sure what you mean, so I'll just elaborate.

Next to the "review" button would be a "review archive" button, which when clicked would take you to a page full of all the reviews that that map has had.

But, if you are intending to say a review archive for every map, I don't think it would work too well, but its not a terrible idea.

[PsychoBucket]

Not exactly sure what you mean, so I'll just elaborate.

Next to the "review" button would be a "review archive" button, which when clicked would take you to a page full of all the reviews that that map has had.

But, if you are intending to say a review archive for every map, I don't think it would work too well, but its not a terrible idea.

Well my idea was to put all the "reviews" on top, so that would be the same thing as an archive for the map.

[aMoeba]

Well my idea was to put all the "reviews" on top, so that would be the same thing as an archive for the map.

That's an option, although it might make the page look cluttered, unless you want to put all the links to the reviews on top.

[PsychoBucket]

Well the reviews would be in a normal post, so it woulnd't be anymore cluttered then any other forum.

[aMoeba]

Well the reviews would be in a normal post, so it woulnd't be anymore cluttered then any other forum.

The review would be in a regular ... post? wha? Explain..

[MultiLockOn]

Alright, getting off topic slightly, but I'm actually feeling a little sorry for aMoeba at the moment, being ganged up on by both Null and Denominator, which is also pretty entertaining to read XD The best possible way I can see this used effectively, is if it remains toggle-able. For instance if someone was to make a long post, and at the end, the "bottom line" for any one that tuned out. Like it would purely state fix this, fix that, I like this, and that. _/5.

[Null Parameter]

Sorry Psycho and aMoeba, but the reviews you are talking about aren't possible. Once you starting changing the position of posts around there is no way to determine which page to go to within vBulletin, and that is one of the small issues easily visible by users, there are many other more intricate issues that wouldn't work behind the scenes.

[PsychoBucket]

Sorry Psycho and aMoeba, but the reviews you are talking about aren't possible. Once you starting changing the position of posts around there is no way to determine which page to go to within vBulletin, and that is one of the small issues easily visible by users, there are many other more intricate issues that wouldn't work behind the scenes.

What about if you added something like the official review box, but at the bottom of the map post and in a different format?

[Null Parameter]

What about if you added something like the official review box, but at the bottom of the map post and in a different format?
You mean for anybody to put reviews into? That could become incredibly crowded, and not only that but would involve me writing an entirely new posting system.

[Apocalypse]

Yea-I agree with what your saying but the thing is, some people are too lazy to type more than 10 words(I am too sometimes) But at the same time, it's better than posting nothing.