The problem with this is it causes a very unrealistic metagame gameplay experience that is vastly different then that of a normal player. This is why there are testers, to provide balance feedback and any other feedback that the person making the map might not have seen otherwise. Yes, the map maker should look over the map and test as many components as they can, looking for issues, but in the end it's much more efficient and better to get the feedback of a small group of testers. This is exactly the same in the Game industry.
It makes sense to get people to test things which are going to be commercially exploited. These CTM maps are not sold or bought. These testers are unpaid and play for fun. Testing takes a hell of a long time and therefore, the mapmaker should do as much as he/she can before releasing the map. Unpaid beta testing is a lazy alternative to the hard graft of a mapmaker, which is unfair on others.
As for mapmakers being unable to see the map from a player's perspective- that's plain wrong. All you need to do is load up the map and play for yourself. If you've taken time to make it somewhat clear where a player should go, then you need not worry whether or not a player would miss things. It's not fair to use other people's time and effort to playtest a map, to discover whether an area's too hard or illogically structured.
I understand the use of beta testing in the game industry. I played Black Ops 2 for a week, then gave up because so many things were unbalanced. Battlefield 3 went through public tests, unlike BO2 and it's by far the superior game. Applying beta testing to Minecraft custom maps is OK if the playtesters are friends who are happy to help out, but otherwise, it should only be made us of after the mapmaker has playtested the hell out of it beforehand. Any obvious mistake in a map should not exist, if the mapmaker has spent the time to make it playable and fun.
When a mapmaker updates a map based upon feedback by beta testers, these changes should be minor; little tweaks to ensure that the map is balanced and 'smooth'. Of course, the majority of mistakes should have been resolved by the mapmaker whilst he/she made and playtested the map his/herself.
TL;DR= the mapmaker is responsible for ensuring the map is perfect. Beta testers should not be relied upon to pick up on mistakes which are obvious and the mapmaker should not simply make an area, give it a once over and then decide it's ready for the beta testers to waste time on an unbalanced or unplayable map. It's all about respect for others.
Hmm.
The way I've always looked at it is that playing your own map more than three times will desensitize you to it, and start making you see things differently than a normal player would. I think that's what Rock means by "unrealistic metagame gameplay experience." I played through DsI probably two times before the beta release, but I thoroughly tested that first intersection before that, so much so that I just grabbed the necessary loot (since I knew where all the good stuff was,) and then booked it to Intersection 02. Maybe that's just me; perhaps Krose has the ability to play through his map like a new player each time he plays it. If that's the case Krose, don't assume everyone else can do the same; we aren't all copies of you.
On the other hand, I agree with Krose that unpolished, unfinished maps shouldn't be delivered to beta testers. But I don't think that's what Rock was suggesting. As a mapmaker, we see areas we've made differently than a player would, even if we make the effort to think and play like a new player would. Adding obvious hints to tell the player where to go, like well-placed lighting cues or paths, do a certain amount to guide the player along. But what if a beta tester was playing your map (on short render distance), following the paths you laid out, then found themselves in front of a large void chasm. Looking across, they can't see any other side (because of the short render distance), so they turn around and run in circles for a few hours, not thinking to turn up their render distance at that area where a bridge on the other side is very obviously placed. That's the kind of thing a mapmaker making the map on normal or far render distance would never think of, but something a beta tester would find very obvious. And that's the beauty of beta testing.
There's a very big difference in playing a map you know well and playing one you don't. Playing your own map is a very metagame experience because you know where things are, you know what to expect and those "Obvious cues" you may leave for the player can be missed very easily regardless of what you think. A map you may think perfect can have a lot of flaws in it, regardless of what you may think.
Now obviously I don't suggest you just throw something together and then shove it off to testers, but honestly, you can't know if your map is fun or not, or how well balanced it is until you give it to people that don't know the map.
I'd like to chip in on the conversation, but it seems that we've reached some kind of agreement already...
Now, here's something: What if the mapmaker simply isn't a good enough CTM player to beat their own map? Is the mapmaker then restricted to making his/her maps easy? What if they want to make a harder map? Just thought I'd throw this out there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mapmaker and LPer of Complete The Monument (CTM) maps.
Creator/owner of the CTM Community Mapping Server - ask about it on the CTM Community thread!
Current projects:
Thanatos - a subterranean semi-open-world urban CTM
Titan's Revolt - a collaborative project run by ProjectCTM; sequel to Pantheon
Pinnacle - a "sketch" mini-CTM intended for newer players (nearing completion!)
I'd like to chip in on the conversation, but it seems that we've reached some kind of agreement already...
Now, here's something: What if the mapmaker simply isn't a good enough CTM player to beat their own map? Is the mapmaker then restricted to making his/her maps easy? What if they want to make a harder map? Just thought I'd throw this out there.
To quote Extra Credits "if you think the difficulty on your [map] is just about right, its probably way too hard"
The map maker knows all the tricks, traps, loot, spawners, EVERYTHING! If they can't beat their own map, chances are none but the most veteran players can beat it either.
As for mapmakers being unable to see the map from a player's perspective- that's plain wrong. All you need to do is load up the map and play for yourself. If you've taken time to make it somewhat clear where a player should go, then you need not worry whether or not a player would miss things.
This is more from the perspective of what the player is doing, how they approach obstacles, etc. Not just "oh herp-da-derp, where duz I go now?" Your perspective on your map is just that, your perspective. A player like me (cautious, tunnel rat, sequence-breaker) looks at the map a lot differently from Hybran (speedrunner, blitzer), who looks at the map differently from the next player. Getting at least 2 additional viewpoints on how your map is played is always good.
It's not fair to use other people's time and effort to playtest a map, to discover whether an area's too hard or illogically structured.
If your map is that bad that it would be "work" for someone to betatest it, then your map has a serious flaw to begin with. Namely, its no fun. I had a blast beta-testing The Fire Beneath. Look how many people offer their services as beta-testers. Everyone wants that "first" access, and the opportunity to discuss the map with the mapmaker before it is released. You're treating beta-testing as a chore, but trust me, it's not, unless the map sucks. In which case the beta-tester is there to tell you that.
The hills are gravel. Should I change it to something else? It looks good when you are far away from it, but just "meh" when closer. Grass doesn't look very good on the hills, so i don't want them to be grass btw.
With /light on
Normal
They are different angles too, if you couldn't tell... somehow...
The hills are gravel. Should I change it to something else? It looks good when you are far away from it, but just "meh" when closer. Grass doesn't look very good on the hills, so i don't want them to be grass btw.
With /light on
Normal
They are different angles too, if you couldn't tell... somehow...
The second screenshot looks great, Love the lighting
The hills are gravel. Should I change it to something else? It looks good when you are far away from it, but just "meh" when closer. Grass doesn't look very good on the hills, so i don't want them to be grass btw.
With /light on
Normal
They are different angles too, if you couldn't tell... somehow...
I really think the hills of patched gravel look good. But that's my view on it, which seems to be drastically different compared to others. I really like. Add a bit of gravel/cobble in the walls, and it looks good in my eyes.
The hills are gravel. Should I change it to something else? It looks good when you are far away from it, but just "meh" when closer. Grass doesn't look very good on the hills, so i don't want them to be grass btw.
With /light on
Normal
They are different angles too, if you couldn't tell... somehow...
I think the reason the hills look out of place is that the roof is low. It makes it feel claustrophobic, try raising the roof up about 20 blocks or so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There ain't much left of the world these days. The gods have forsaken us, there's no denying that. But still you press on. For what? A chance to sift through the ashes one last time? The hope to one day be called a hero? Whatever your reason, you've got a lot of work to do. The corruption won't leave without a fight, so you better get started.
I never said they did they are there to test it not fix it they just ehhh test it. I guess that might of not been worded the best but my point was over all more the most part you do not have to play though the entire map to do a good test and also you can release a beta version while you are playing it seeing that you will notice all of the obvious flaws.
No. The mapmaker must complete the map legitimitely as a regular player would. All the way through. Or that's what I believe anyway. I've completed all of my released maps many, many times in various tests. Every major update to the map and I play it through again. For a full-length map I wouldn't have time to do that, hence why myself and Krose are dropping our full-lengths to work on minimaps. And beta testers, really, are polishers of your map. The main grind of testing comes from the mapmaker. Betas are just there to point out things the mapmaker has missed. And anyway. As Hybran said, it's the mapmaker who makes the update; not the testers.
k
Well yes in the end you would want to but waiting to release the map before you play it all the way through could delay the release for almost a month or more depending on how long and than if a big update has happened by then you do what replay it all over again? no unless you want to be replaying your map forever. You would release the beta version and play it your self at the same time and before that you would do a quick balance test (and by quick I mean in scale again meaning not really quick but quick in the grand scheme of the map) If you have all the time to play a full length map I would just advise releasing the beta version at the same time beta testers are there to find flaws and the map maker should be a beta tester too.
The problem with this is it causes a very unrealistic metagame gameplay experience that is vastly different then that of a normal player. This is why there are testers, to provide balance feedback and any other feedback that the person making the map might not have seen otherwise. Yes, the map maker should look over the map and test as many components as they can, looking for issues, but in the end it's much more efficient and better to get the feedback of a small group of testers. This is exactly the same in the Game industry.
exactly my point but I am not saying the map maker should not play the map himself too. I consider a map maker a beta tester too.
+1
TL;DR= the mapmaker is responsible for ensuring the map is perfect. Beta testers should not be relied upon to pick up on mistakes which are obvious and the mapmaker should not simply make an area, give it a once over and then decide it's ready for the beta testers to waste time on an unbalanced or unplayable map. It's all about respect for others.
I almost don't want to say this again but I consider the map maker a beta tester too. Oh and let me remind you the map maker is not paid either.
I'd like to chip in on the conversation, but it seems that we've reached some kind of agreement already...
Now, here's something: What if the mapmaker simply isn't a good enough CTM player to beat their own map? Is the mapmaker then restricted to making his/her maps easy? What if they want to make a harder map? Just thought I'd throw this out there.
For the most part if the map maker could not even complete the area it would be rather difficult to balance it because they would never know if they were just bad or if the area was unbalanced and unforgiving. They would have to be a CTM genius (which I don't get how a CTM genius could be bad at ctm maps) or rely on beta testers an insane amount but for the most part beta testers will not finish a bad map.
I think the reason the hills look out of place is that the roof is low. It makes it feel claustrophobic, try raising the roof up about 20 blocks or so.
You might be right there but what people do not realize is the player will most likely be on the ground not flying in the air making it almost impossible to see from the distance because of the trees being about the same height.
Experimenting with color schemes, I think I accidentally made a pretty.
To answer zero: Nope, I have no plans on using this in a map. Already planned out most of the areas and there's no good place for this. I'll probably use the technique somewhere though.
There ain't much left of the world these days. The gods have forsaken us, there's no denying that. But still you press on. For what? A chance to sift through the ashes one last time? The hope to one day be called a hero? Whatever your reason, you've got a lot of work to do. The corruption won't leave without a fight, so you better get started.
I know this is a little off topic but this would look really good on some of your forum pages instead if extra screenies in a spoiler so i recommend checking this out: http://www.minecraft.../#entry24410571
Remember how I said I wasn't going to use that thing in a map? Well, after an hour or two of building, I think I may have created the start of some kind of minimap.
There ain't much left of the world these days. The gods have forsaken us, there's no denying that. But still you press on. For what? A chance to sift through the ashes one last time? The hope to one day be called a hero? Whatever your reason, you've got a lot of work to do. The corruption won't leave without a fight, so you better get started.
The mapmaker’s job is to make the map. He is the one to make it almost spot-on. He is the one to iron out the things that are wrong. The role of the beta-tester is to play an almost perfect map, spot the minor errors and balance issues, and have the mapmaker make those final changes before he ships it off.
I’ve played my own map plenty of times in my own little alpha stages, being able to complete it. While it is slightly tough, when I can’t beat an area, I go back and change what is needed. Whether it be a bit of food needed here, or some spawners removed there, it all depends. I am now getting in the habit of, say, playing and balancing the first intersection, and saving the base I make at the second intersection as a schematic. Then I can use that schematic to re-establish my progress. But that doesn’t mean I take the lowest gear you could have, and take on the area. I have pretty much all the gear from the previous areas, minus whatever I have used, plus whatever I have farmed.
Taking the lowest gear you could have puts you at a real disadvantage. Even though I could maybe take on an area with the lowest gear there, I still would not make it, and it would not be representing of the map. Playing like that is pretty much the same as “I’ve got no gear, and I’m going on bare minimums. But I’m such a dummy I forgot to loot the loot chests all over the area I have died in 20 times.” A normal player would not have died 20 times, and lost all their gear because they weren’t quick enough. Players would also loot the loot chests I give out, so that they have more things in their arsenal just in case they do die. I have to make sure that the loot I give scales well as the map goes on. I continue to map in 1.5.2, just because I run much better in it than 1.6. But, does that mean I disregard the update? No. I’ve already placed plenty of food to counteract the saturation and health nerf. I’ve been making new armor, tools, and weapons, with ideas for mobs in mind, all of this with attributes in mind to add to them later. I’m ready to embrace, not only 1.6, but 1.7, with open arms to my map. While it will take lots of item revamping, it will be a tool of motivation for me. There’s also a seekret thing me and Skeeto decided to call something seekret, but she’ll sometimes remind me of that, and I will have the motivation to flesh my map out.
Testing is a big thing for maps. Testing is the way to figure out how the map actually plays. If you, the developer, cop out on actually playing the map, then you will get nowhere far. Just ask Skeeto. The first time I asked her about testing my map, I don’t think I even achieved the white wool. Either that or I hadn’t achieved the orange wool, and yet I had built about half the map. I was stupid in asking her then, as it was a pointless cause. I felt real bad, and she opened my eyes to it. Testing is absolutely necessary in making a map. Whether it is alpha, beta, gamma, or whatever Greek character name you want to use. Any and all stages of testing are needed in making a map.
Hey guys, Chiefwiggy here... havent posted in a while. Whats been going on with everyone and the community? My computer is currently broken which sucks, but i wanted to make this post to basically say that i think im done CTM map making, its been a nice run... ive made currenty 3 CTM maps, but i am really getting bored of making maps. I use CTM map making as a stress outlet in my life, but recently... my lifes getting better, im back in school away from my homelife, talking to a girl who i like, getting along with my parents and everything else just seems better. so when i sit down to map make... i get bored, really really easily. So it was a good run I hope you guys liked the content i provided. I will still be around the community to give advice to people, and I do stream occasionally, im on skype alot and post on twitter alot (@TheChiefwiggy) too so im not gonna be completly gone, just less active that is all. Once my computer is fixed i can post more often as well :D. You guys are awesome and i love all you guys for helping me through a hard point in my life. So thank you <3
anyway tl;dr im not gonna be making CTM maps but im still gonna be moderatly active :3
So you would prefer a mapmaker to shove out an imperfect release of their map rather than take the time to go that extra mile and test it themselves? I see we have very different priorities.
Also; mapmakers are technically alpha testers. Just saying.
If the map maker is a good map maker they would have the ability to look at a map and see if there is any obvious flaws that would greatly damage play. The map would not be perfect but if the map maker is good it would work and be a good map than it can be revised after he gets some feed back from the beta testers and himself that is all I am saying. Assuming the map maker is good I would like to play the map in the same version it was originally played in and not have to go back to 1.5.2 or wait for an update because the map is not balanced for the new hunger mechanic. imo
P.S This is also coming from someone who has high standards and only plays good maps.
Hmm.
The way I've always looked at it is that playing your own map more than three times will desensitize you to it, and start making you see things differently than a normal player would. I think that's what Rock means by "unrealistic metagame gameplay experience." I played through DsI probably two times before the beta release, but I thoroughly tested that first intersection before that, so much so that I just grabbed the necessary loot (since I knew where all the good stuff was,) and then booked it to Intersection 02. Maybe that's just me; perhaps Krose has the ability to play through his map like a new player each time he plays it. If that's the case Krose, don't assume everyone else can do the same; we aren't all copies of you.
On the other hand, I agree with Krose that unpolished, unfinished maps shouldn't be delivered to beta testers. But I don't think that's what Rock was suggesting.
So basically, you're both right in certain ways.
Exactly.
There's a very big difference in playing a map you know well and playing one you don't. Playing your own map is a very metagame experience because you know where things are, you know what to expect and those "Obvious cues" you may leave for the player can be missed very easily regardless of what you think. A map you may think perfect can have a lot of flaws in it, regardless of what you may think.
Now obviously I don't suggest you just throw something together and then shove it off to testers, but honestly, you can't know if your map is fun or not, or how well balanced it is until you give it to people that don't know the map.
Special thanks to Axl Rosie for the sig.
Now, here's something: What if the mapmaker simply isn't a good enough CTM player to beat their own map? Is the mapmaker then restricted to making his/her maps easy? What if they want to make a harder map? Just thought I'd throw this out there.
To quote Extra Credits "if you think the difficulty on your [map] is just about right, its probably way too hard"
The map maker knows all the tricks, traps, loot, spawners, EVERYTHING! If they can't beat their own map, chances are none but the most veteran players can beat it either.
This is more from the perspective of what the player is doing, how they approach obstacles, etc. Not just "oh herp-da-derp, where duz I go now?" Your perspective on your map is just that, your perspective. A player like me (cautious, tunnel rat, sequence-breaker) looks at the map a lot differently from Hybran (speedrunner, blitzer), who looks at the map differently from the next player. Getting at least 2 additional viewpoints on how your map is played is always good.
If your map is that bad that it would be "work" for someone to betatest it, then your map has a serious flaw to begin with. Namely, its no fun. I had a blast beta-testing The Fire Beneath. Look how many people offer their services as beta-testers. Everyone wants that "first" access, and the opportunity to discuss the map with the mapmaker before it is released. You're treating beta-testing as a chore, but trust me, it's not, unless the map sucks. In which case the beta-tester is there to tell you that.
Normal
The second screenshot looks great, Love the lighting
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI really think the hills of patched gravel look good. But that's my view on it, which seems to be drastically different compared to others. I really like. Add a bit of gravel/cobble in the walls, and it looks good in my eyes.
I think the reason the hills look out of place is that the roof is low. It makes it feel claustrophobic, try raising the roof up about 20 blocks or so.
Well yes in the end you would want to but waiting to release the map before you play it all the way through could delay the release for almost a month or more depending on how long and than if a big update has happened by then you do what replay it all over again? no unless you want to be replaying your map forever. You would release the beta version and play it your self at the same time and before that you would do a quick balance test (and by quick I mean in scale again meaning not really quick but quick in the grand scheme of the map) If you have all the time to play a full length map I would just advise releasing the beta version at the same time beta testers are there to find flaws and the map maker should be a beta tester too.
exactly my point but I am not saying the map maker should not play the map himself too. I consider a map maker a beta tester too.
+1
I almost don't want to say this again but I consider the map maker a beta tester too. Oh and let me remind you the map maker is not paid either.
For the most part if the map maker could not even complete the area it would be rather difficult to balance it because they would never know if they were just bad or if the area was unbalanced and unforgiving. They would have to be a CTM genius (which I don't get how a CTM genius could be bad at ctm maps) or rely on beta testers an insane amount but for the most part beta testers will not finish a bad map.
You might be right there but what people do not realize is the player will most likely be on the ground not flying in the air making it almost impossible to see from the distance because of the trees being about the same height.
Yeah you definitly did that looks amazing. Are you gonna use it for something? like a map....? I want.......
To answer zero: Nope, I have no plans on using this in a map. Already planned out most of the areas and there's no good place for this. I'll probably use the technique somewhere though.
You should accidentally make pretties more often. That looks great.
You elitist builder.
Monumenta in-joke for those of you who don't get it.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premium...
Well. Here comes another marathon of a post now.
The mapmaker’s job is to make the map. He is the one to make it almost spot-on. He is the one to iron out the things that are wrong. The role of the beta-tester is to play an almost perfect map, spot the minor errors and balance issues, and have the mapmaker make those final changes before he ships it off.
I’ve played my own map plenty of times in my own little alpha stages, being able to complete it. While it is slightly tough, when I can’t beat an area, I go back and change what is needed. Whether it be a bit of food needed here, or some spawners removed there, it all depends. I am now getting in the habit of, say, playing and balancing the first intersection, and saving the base I make at the second intersection as a schematic. Then I can use that schematic to re-establish my progress. But that doesn’t mean I take the lowest gear you could have, and take on the area. I have pretty much all the gear from the previous areas, minus whatever I have used, plus whatever I have farmed.
Taking the lowest gear you could have puts you at a real disadvantage. Even though I could maybe take on an area with the lowest gear there, I still would not make it, and it would not be representing of the map. Playing like that is pretty much the same as “I’ve got no gear, and I’m going on bare minimums. But I’m such a dummy I forgot to loot the loot chests all over the area I have died in 20 times.” A normal player would not have died 20 times, and lost all their gear because they weren’t quick enough. Players would also loot the loot chests I give out, so that they have more things in their arsenal just in case they do die. I have to make sure that the loot I give scales well as the map goes on. I continue to map in 1.5.2, just because I run much better in it than 1.6. But, does that mean I disregard the update? No. I’ve already placed plenty of food to counteract the saturation and health nerf. I’ve been making new armor, tools, and weapons, with ideas for mobs in mind, all of this with attributes in mind to add to them later. I’m ready to embrace, not only 1.6, but 1.7, with open arms to my map. While it will take lots of item revamping, it will be a tool of motivation for me. There’s also a seekret thing me and Skeeto decided to call something seekret, but she’ll sometimes remind me of that, and I will have the motivation to flesh my map out.
Testing is a big thing for maps. Testing is the way to figure out how the map actually plays. If you, the developer, cop out on actually playing the map, then you will get nowhere far. Just ask Skeeto. The first time I asked her about testing my map, I don’t think I even achieved the white wool. Either that or I hadn’t achieved the orange wool, and yet I had built about half the map. I was stupid in asking her then, as it was a pointless cause. I felt real bad, and she opened my eyes to it. Testing is absolutely necessary in making a map. Whether it is alpha, beta, gamma, or whatever Greek character name you want to use. Any and all stages of testing are needed in making a map.
Thank you for reading this essay.
Witty
anyway tl;dr im not gonna be making CTM maps but im still gonna be moderatly active :3
<3 Chiefwiggy / Collin K
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumSo short, yet so sweet.
P.S This is also coming from someone who has high standards and only plays good maps.