Beta map changes

[porkenbeans]

I still stand by that this is a friggin beta map... Its beta... PLAY AT YOUR OWN RISK.

If something can get implemented with no slowdowns -Promised- then im all for it.

Hey partner,
I am not so much advocating a position, as I am trying to ascertain all of the pros and cons, of the proposed, "Waiting Period".

I have listed some pros, but I honestly am not able, to think of any cons.

I realize that a map labeled BETA is "play at your own risk". I understand that, that is the way it has always been. If some change is made, and you happen to suddenly loose all of your troops, well it's tough luck I guess.

I could understand equally as well, that a player subjected to such a thing, would feel a bit miffed.

Do we really want to drive testers away from participating, in the BETA testing phase, of our maps ? We might end up with a test group that consists of only noobs.

If a simple thing such as a short waiting period as suggested, would take care of this problem, then why not.

"Why not" is what I am asking to hear. I would like to see the "cons" if there are any. Then those that are interested in this topic, (like me), can have all the facts, in order to weigh out the situation.

[edwinissweet]

Could you start a thread in the map makers guild? I really think that cartographers should have the last say on the delaying beta time issue. This is a twist to the original suggestion subitted by the OP, but its one that i believe could be extremly beneficial to alot of people.

To me the only con seems to be the delay. So impatience could be the issue. But since im not familiar with map making, i wouldnt know. Thats why i think we need more map makers in this thread.

[TheForgivenOne]

I guess my post doesn't exist.

[edwinissweet]

I guess my post doesn't exist.

?

[TheForgivenOne]

I guess my post doesn't exist.

?

"Why not" is what I am asking to hear. I would like to see the "cons" if there are any. Then those that are interested in this topic, (like me), can have all the facts, in order to weigh out the situation.

For maps that have been going through a lot of changes, such as Dos Schloss, and i believe Monsters has been going through a few changes, it would push production back further. I DON'T see a reason for a waiting period. You don't like a game/map that may change during game play, don't play them. Simple. You can easily wait for it to come out of beta. This came up after ONE change to a map that people have really liked.

I'm guessing this post from me went unnoticed

[porkenbeans]

I guess my post doesn't exist.

?

"Why not" is what I am asking to hear. I would like to see the "cons" if there are any. Then those that are interested in this topic, (like me), can have all the facts, in order to weigh out the situation.

For maps that have been going through a lot of changes, such as Dos Schloss, and i believe Monsters has been going through a few changes, it would push production back further. I DON'T see a reason for a waiting period. You don't like a game/map that may change during game play, don't play them. Simple. You can easily wait for it to come out of beta. This came up after ONE change to a map that people have really liked.

I'm guessing this post from me went unnoticed

No it was not unnoticed. If I understand you correctly, your only con is-

1.) It would push production back.

To be honest, This "con" is not really a con at all. What does this even mean ? I contend that once a map makes it to beta, then it has already crossed the finish line. It has become available for everyone to play, and should for all intensive purposes, be considered a success.

The BETA testing phase is merely an extra opportunity for the mapmaker to test drive the map, and during this test period, he is allowed the freedom to make changes, that will fix any unforeseen problems.

As a mapmaker, it is to my advantage to be able to make changes. So, the longer my map is in BETA, the more time I am allowed to polish it up. If this ability was extended even further, I would be even happier.

I asked the question before, Has there ever been a map that made it to BETA, but failed to be quenched ?

If there is, then your only (so called) "con" would have merit, and I would consider it as a legitimate item to be included in the con column.

Otherwise, I am seeing a plethora of pros, ...but the con column is empty.

[army of nobunaga]

I guess my post doesn't exist.

?

"Why not" is what I am asking to hear. I would like to see the "cons" if there are any. Then those that are interested in this topic, (like me), can have all the facts, in order to weigh out the situation.

For maps that have been going through a lot of changes, such as Dos Schloss, and i believe Monsters has been going through a few changes, it would push production back further. I DON'T see a reason for a waiting period. You don't like a game/map that may change during game play, don't play them. Simple. You can easily wait for it to come out of beta. This came up after ONE change to a map that people have really liked.

I'm guessing this post from me went unnoticed

No it was not unnoticed. If I understand you correctly, your only con is-

1.) It would push production back.

To be honest, This "con" is not really a con at all. What does this even mean ? I contend that once a map makes it to beta, then it has already crossed the finish line. It has become available for everyone to play, and should for all intensive purposes, be considered a success.

The BETA testing phase is merely an extra opportunity for the mapmaker to test drive the map, and during this test period, he is allowed the freedom to make changes, that will fix any unforeseen problems.

As a mapmaker, it is to my advantage to be able to make changes. So, the longer my map is in BETA, the more time I am allowed to polish it up. If this ability was extended even further, I would be even happier.

I asked the question before, Has there ever been a map that made it to BETA, but failed to be quenched ?

If there is, then your only (so called) "con" would have merit, and I would consider it as a legitimate item to be included in the con column.

Otherwise, I am seeing a plethora of pros, ...but the con column is empty.

Thats not true man.. some real problems get ironed out in beta many times.

Beta needs to become even more important and more fluid in change in my opinion.

I just see this as a potential step that will create a beta that is more unchangeable.

If this can be implemented without a speed pediment in the beta process, cool.

You made a point that people that play beta are being driven away.. Man I saw the posts.. all those assholes crying over lost points never even go to the foundry and add their 2 cents anyway. They probably shouldnt be playing a beta map.

[porkenbeans]

Thats not true man.. some real problems get ironed out in beta many times.

Yes indeed,and that is why the BETA testing period is so important.

I just see this as a potential step that will create a beta that is more unchangeable.

I just do not see it that way at all. I look at it this way. I ask myself, what is the difference between a map stamped "BETA", and a map stamped "quenched" ?

The only big difference that I can see is, The mapmaker is allowed to make changes with a BETA map, but is NOT with a quenched map. If he wanted to make changes to a quenched map, he must go through the long process of a Re-vamp.

So, in my eyes, the longer the opportunity to make changes, the better. Why not take advantage of the wider community to voice their opinions about your map ?
There are thousands upon thousands of players that do not visit the Foundry Forums. I do not slight them for not having interest in, or knowledge of the Forums. But we must acknowledge, that they make up the overwhelming majority.

We should take advantage of the opportunity that the BETA period offers. It is our chance to hear from some of those people that represent the majority.

You made a point that people that play beta are being driven away.. Man I saw the posts.. all those assholes crying over lost points never even go to the foundry and add their 2 cents anyway. They probably shouldnt be playing a beta map.

I do not think that it is in our best interest to reduce this pool of testers to noobs.

Most of these testers are looking at the map for the first time. They have an interest to test drive a map or two. but, most of them do not have an interest in making, or helping to make, a map. They are willing to try out, what we put out there, but their main interests lie elsewhere. Most are mainly interested, in their rank and such.

I believe that we should make the BETA process as clear and fair, as we can. A simple and straight forward system would look something like this-

Pick a certain day of the week that all changes are to be implemented. Lets say (Sunday).
All upcoming changes, through the link that andy suggested, would be posted on every (Monday). Once a map has gone through a certain number of cycles without any changes, then it is granted the Quench stamp.

Then all of the testers have no excuse, or reason to complain if they are adversely effected by any changes. The link to "Upcoming Changes" are clearly posted on every BETA map, so it is their own fault, if they neglect to stay appraised of these changes.

To just say "Tough luck" this is a Beta map, and you were warned, is not cool IMHO. Not when it is so unnecessary. The BETA phase is not about the mapmaker, and his selfish desire to get a shinny quench stamp. It IS about, giving the larger community, a chance to chime in, without the danger of getting totally screwed, just because of an impatient mapmaker.

[TheForgivenOne]

I still don't see a reason for a 3 day waiting period if a Major change happens, and a little pop up message comes up saying "A new change has occured, on space [X] etc etc etc" occurs. Maybe once everyone has taken a turn since the change has occurred, then it would work. Because i know that a few games have taken more than 72 hours for me to get a turn in. And a week? That will make the process longer. Because adding in a week to the process will make the mapmaker wait LONGER for anyone to notice any bugs with this new update.

[porkenbeans]

I still don't see a reason for a 3 day waiting period if a Major change happens, and a little pop up message comes up saying "A new change has occured, on space [X] etc etc etc" occurs. Maybe once everyone has taken a turn since the change has occurred, then it would work. Because i know that a few games have taken more than 72 hours for me to get a turn in. And a week? That will make the process longer. Because adding in a week to the process will make the mapmaker wait LONGER for anyone to notice any bugs with this new update.

Fail.

[TheForgivenOne]

Shush, i'm tired, and didn't want to re-read what i wrote. I can see a reason for a pop-up message, yes. But not a major waiting period of up to 3 days to a week. But since Dos Schloss just went through 2 updates in a matter of less than a week, this process would be a lot longer. You say you want the map to be perfect. Well, making it wait longer won't make the perfection any better. People will notice mistakes and hiccups on maps if there is a week longer waiting period, or instantly once the map gets an update

[porkenbeans]

Shush, i'm tired, and didn't want to re-read what i wrote. I can see a reason for a pop-up message, yes. But not a major waiting period of up to 3 days to a week. But since Dos Schloss just went through 2 updates in a matter of less than a week, this process would be a lot longer. You say you want the map to be perfect. Well, making it wait longer won't make the perfection any better. People will notice mistakes and hiccups on maps if there is a week longer waiting period, or instantly once the map gets an update

No, there can be more than one change per cycle. This gives the mapmaker a whole week to evaluate, and to decide what the changes will be for the next period. To just willy-nilly make unexpected changes without prior notice, just makes the whole game a crap shoot, for players.

How utterly thoughtless, and disrespectful, of an attitude.

[phantomzero]

Shush, i'm tired, and didn't want to re-read what i wrote. I can see a reason for a pop-up message, yes. But not a major waiting period of up to 3 days to a week. But since Dos Schloss just went through 2 updates in a matter of less than a week, this process would be a lot longer. You say you want the map to be perfect. Well, making it wait longer won't make the perfection any better. People will notice mistakes and hiccups on maps if there is a week longer waiting period, or instantly once the map gets an update

No, there can be more than one change per cycle. This gives the mapmaker a whole week to evaluate, and to decide what the changes will be for the next period. To just willy-nilly make unexpected changes without prior notice, just makes the whole game a crap shoot, for players.

How utterly thoughtless, and disrespectful, of an attitude.

If the change message was in a very easy to see spot (like above the map) then I can't see why the change couldn't be implemented after each player has taken one turn. But in some 8 player games that can take a week for everyone to get their turns.

[porkenbeans]

Shush, i'm tired, and didn't want to re-read what i wrote. I can see a reason for a pop-up message, yes. But not a major waiting period of up to 3 days to a week. But since Dos Schloss just went through 2 updates in a matter of less than a week, this process would be a lot longer. You say you want the map to be perfect. Well, making it wait longer won't make the perfection any better. People will notice mistakes and hiccups on maps if there is a week longer waiting period, or instantly once the map gets an update

No, there can be more than one change per cycle. This gives the mapmaker a whole week to evaluate, and to decide what the changes will be for the next period. To just willy-nilly make unexpected changes without prior notice, just makes the whole game a crap shoot, for players.

How utterly thoughtless, and disrespectful, of an attitude.

If the change message was in a very easy to see spot (like above the map) then I can't see why the change couldn't be implemented after each player has taken one turn. But in some 8 player games that can take a week for everyone to get their turns.

Yes, that is why I suggested, that it be a weekly cycle. To code something that would keep track of everyone's turns, would be a lot of work. And besides, If it was an easy to remember weekly thing, then BETA testers would become accustomed to it more.

[TheForgivenOne]

Shush, i'm tired, and didn't want to re-read what i wrote. I can see a reason for a pop-up message, yes. But not a major waiting period of up to 3 days to a week. But since Dos Schloss just went through 2 updates in a matter of less than a week, this process would be a lot longer. You say you want the map to be perfect. Well, making it wait longer won't make the perfection any better. People will notice mistakes and hiccups on maps if there is a week longer waiting period, or instantly once the map gets an update

No, there can be more than one change per cycle. This gives the mapmaker a whole week to evaluate, and to decide what the changes will be for the next period. To just willy-nilly make unexpected changes without prior notice, just makes the whole game a crap shoot, for players.

How utterly thoughtless, and disrespectful, of an attitude.

That's not what i am saying. The mapmaker made an error on the new update. So this new hiccup on the map wouldn't have been noticed until the newer version came out of the map, THUS prolonging.

[porkenbeans]

Shush, i'm tired, and didn't want to re-read what i wrote. I can see a reason for a pop-up message, yes. But not a major waiting period of up to 3 days to a week. But since Dos Schloss just went through 2 updates in a matter of less than a week, this process would be a lot longer. You say you want the map to be perfect. Well, making it wait longer won't make the perfection any better. People will notice mistakes and hiccups on maps if there is a week longer waiting period, or instantly once the map gets an update

No, there can be more than one change per cycle. This gives the mapmaker a whole week to evaluate, and to decide what the changes will be for the next period. To just willy-nilly make unexpected changes without prior notice, just makes the whole game a crap shoot, for players.

How utterly thoughtless, and disrespectful, of an attitude.

That's not what i am saying. The mapmaker made an error on the new update. So this new hiccup on the map wouldn't have been noticed until the newer version came out of the map, THUS prolonging.

Sorry, but I am not following you here.

[TheForgivenOne]

Sorry, i was giving an example. Dos Schloss went through the update, making AA a killer Neutral, Correct? Well, with that new update, a newer bug came out, letting Hubschrauber B the ability to attack Casey, instead of bombarding. Now, if there was, say a week long waiting period, it would have taken a week plus for anyone to notice this glitch. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be no Smart Message that comes up, but having such a long wait will increase the amount of maps in beta, making the process longer. There have been rarely any major updates, that have screwed over players that the AA killer neutral update did. But all of a sudden, due to it happening once, everyone jumps on the bandwagon saying, "THERE SHOULD BE CHANGE!" I for some reason, think that if this update didn't affect anyone, this suggestion wouldn't have been made. Or is it just a coincidence that this suggestion happened right after the Dos Schloss update?

[TheForgivenOne]

Also, players around this site have been complaining how slow updates have been happening, such with new game settings, and glitches like the Double-turn in Freestyle. This is basically going to slow down the map process as well.

[phantomzero]

Shush, i'm tired, and didn't want to re-read what i wrote. I can see a reason for a pop-up message, yes. But not a major waiting period of up to 3 days to a week. But since Dos Schloss just went through 2 updates in a matter of less than a week, this process would be a lot longer. You say you want the map to be perfect. Well, making it wait longer won't make the perfection any better. People will notice mistakes and hiccups on maps if there is a week longer waiting period, or instantly once the map gets an update

No, there can be more than one change per cycle. This gives the mapmaker a whole week to evaluate, and to decide what the changes will be for the next period. To just willy-nilly make unexpected changes without prior notice, just makes the whole game a crap shoot, for players.

How utterly thoughtless, and disrespectful, of an attitude.

If the change message was in a very easy to see spot (like above the map) then I can't see why the change couldn't be implemented after each player has taken one turn. But in some 8 player games that can take a week for everyone to get their turns.

Yes, that is why I suggested, that it be a weekly cycle. To code something that would keep track of everyone's turns, would be a lot of work. And besides, If it was an easy to remember weekly thing, then BETA testers would become accustomed to it more.

That would work. So changes could be announced one week and then 7 days later the changes could be implemented. Or perhaps there could be set days where changes are announced and implemented. Like every Wednesday or something.

[porkenbeans]

Sorry, i was giving an example. Dos Schloss went through the update, making AA a killer Neutral, Correct? Well, with that new update, a newer bug came out, letting Hubschrauber B the ability to attack Casey, instead of bombarding. Now, if there was, say a week long waiting period, it would have taken a week plus for anyone to notice this glitch. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be no Smart Message that comes up, but having such a long wait will increase the amount of maps in beta, making the process longer. There have been rarely any major updates, that have screwed over players that the AA killer neutral update did. But all of a sudden, due to it happening once, everyone jumps on the bandwagon saying, "THERE SHOULD BE CHANGE!" I for some reason, think that if this update didn't affect anyone, this suggestion wouldn't have been made. Or is it just a coincidence that this suggestion happened right after the Dos Schloss update?

Sorry, but I am STILL not following the logic. Your only "con" is that it would make the process longer. YOU may see that as a con, but I do not see that as a con at all. But, for the sake of continuing the debate, I will put it in the con column.

So far we have only this one item in the con column. Unless you come up with anything to add to it, this seems to be an easy decision for me.

[porkenbeans]

Shush, i'm tired, and didn't want to re-read what i wrote. I can see a reason for a pop-up message, yes. But not a major waiting period of up to 3 days to a week. But since Dos Schloss just went through 2 updates in a matter of less than a week, this process would be a lot longer. You say you want the map to be perfect. Well, making it wait longer won't make the perfection any better. People will notice mistakes and hiccups on maps if there is a week longer waiting period, or instantly once the map gets an update

No, there can be more than one change per cycle. This gives the mapmaker a whole week to evaluate, and to decide what the changes will be for the next period. To just willy-nilly make unexpected changes without prior notice, just makes the whole game a crap shoot, for players.

How utterly thoughtless, and disrespectful, of an attitude.

If the change message was in a very easy to see spot (like above the map) then I can't see why the change couldn't be implemented after each player has taken one turn. But in some 8 player games that can take a week for everyone to get their turns.

Yes, that is why I suggested, that it be a weekly cycle. To code something that would keep track of everyone's turns, would be a lot of work. And besides, If it was an easy to remember weekly thing, then BETA testers would become accustomed to it more.

That would work. So changes could be announced one week and then 7 days later the changes could be implemented. Or perhaps there could be set days where changes are announced and implemented. Like every Wednesday or something.

Yes, it could be any day of the week that is deemed the best. The main idea is to create a routine that everyone can become accustomed to. This helps both the mapmaker and the testers alike. It gives the mapmaker a whole week to evaluate the last changes, and it gives the testers a whole week to chime in with any possible glitches in the proposed changes. With this system, we would NOT have had the resent clusterfuck on Dos.

[MrBenn]

Does anybody else find it ironic that the reason we have Beta maps is that Das Schloss was severely flawed when it first went live. It took a lifetime for the games on the flawed map to finish before the amended version went live, and there has been a lot of debate about how to get the gameplay to a perfectly balanced state now that the flaws have been removed.

The majority of amendments to Beta maps are minor; but even in cases where major changes get made, there is no way to synchronise the update to the beginning of a round... There was enough outcry when we had a glitch with the World Cup map XML with people reporting breaks to CM and BOB - unless you can find a way to ensure that these scripts can cope with a staggered release (after all, to ensure that everybody receives due notification of a change, then different games would have to update at different times)

I can think of plenty of occasions where we've made cock-ups with updating maps (both pre and post the introduction of Beta), and I think the principle of "suck it up cupcake" works pretty well now

Some sort of notification that a change was coming would be nice, although I don't know how it work in practice, particularly as you'll never adequately inform all the necessary people all of the time.

Edit: and until the volunteers who keep things ticking over receive a salary, there's no way you're going to tie us down to a rigid schedule.

[natty dread]

I asked the question before, Has there ever been a map that made it to BETA, but failed to be quenched ?

Pelo war?

[ManBungalow]

This.

Well, but a simple message from admin, saying that tomorrow da scloss will be changed. That would be polite.

That would be nice, but I suggest something slightly different - which will only apply to those actually playing the map:

A few days before the update, re-upload the map image file with a graphical note on the map itself - "Warning, AA will reset to neutral beginning on the 12th etc" or words to that effect.

Sure, you can keep an eye on the development thread and play these maps at your own risk, but I'd be pretty pissed if I just lost 84 troops without warning.

[army of nobunaga]

"suck it up cupcake".

atta boy