DDraceNetwork - mapping

DDraceNetwork

DDraceNetwork / mapping

Here you can talk about mapping, ask mapping related questions or request new ratings for released maps

Between 2022-04-11 00:00:00Z and 2022-04-12 00:00:00Z

@louis zap fan

is there a setting that makes it so you can only fire one grenade per click instead of it just auto-firing

im wondering what you need this for actually

lynn

im wondering what you need this for actually

for pogo

01:11

pain.

01:17

for anyone wondering, apparently me and FJP had the exact same idea for a map, and even named it the same thing. we didn't talk about it before, this is so fucking weird

great minds think alike

you don't have the no jumps part though

yeah i use the jump in some parts

01:19

i jsut have tune zones on the platforms so you cant rocket off of them

yknow what would be cool

01:19

speeder walls, so it's more like pogo

oo

01:19

i was working with how to make vertical parts

01:19

that could be cool

a lot of my parts required double rocket (edited)

hm ok

the best part I mapped involved forcing a nade shot to the side for double

01:23

and tele returns you to the place ur shooting

poggers

1

louis

https://youtu.be/lVAbMtERt3k

never seen that last trick, thats pretty cool

Hey, how can I make my tiles have a diff skin? I put a skin into quads but it doesn't really work

If you mean to make entities you need to make a new tile layer and put the image there, where you place tiles as if you were in game tab

21:43

i suck at double and also no i will not use the 45 bind

why not

the 45 bind is literally the best bind in this game (edited)

Lining up double nades takes time, you're going to be playing this game for years to come, save yourself the hours

21:55

Not to mention the fails that happen when you line it up imperfectly

mods promoting cheating smh

It's part of the vanilla client

if thats cheating then im n9

I'd argue the angle bind is more fair than using dummy

dummy is aimbot yes

Correct

thats why I want hookfly dummy built in since its just more aimbot

There's a hookfly bind

I'd rather have dummy nerfed, not buffed

bencie

There's a hookfly bind

yea and its called skill (edited)

21:58

think it was a modified persian client I had that had a built in dummy hookfly cheat and it was so fun hookflying with dummy and dragging in different ways before a startline ofc

part is so boring people would rather talk about a bind than the part

22:34

feelsbadman

lynn

part is so boring people would rather talk about a bind than the part

unknown mapper please wait 6months before we give any feedback and insta decline

it's problematic because it's hard to say what reason there will be for declining a map. it feels bad to provide feedback and then get a single tester message with decline after

22:51

i think it discourages testing maps overall, and we rely on the team to do it because we're afraid of pointless work

22:51

wow i just realized that was a reply to this channel not the other channel xd

22:58

time for lynn to give her bicentennial rant about testing. we should have two types of criteria for determining if a map should be released 1. a community vote (simple like/dislike ratio) not whether the map should be released, but if players enjoy the map 2. a more testing-minded vote by the official team (ready/decline) for each tester to decide if a map is releasable with both of these things, it should be way easier for others to decide if a map is worth testing, without fear of doing pointless work. we already have a sort of pseudo-voting system due to the checkmark reactions in #📬submit-maps but i think an official indication would be cool

22:59

ultimately, the testing team would still have the final say, but community vote would be considered first before any $ready or $decline used

23:00

we already value community efforts in development, im not sure why this can't be the same for other aspects of the game

23:01

(well i guess anyone can test as it is :P but we should be more considerate)

idk about a community vote. I feel like people would ask their friends to help them get their map approved, even if the map isn't good. As flawed as the current system is, it works. I think there just needs to be more feedback from the testers in general. People need to know WHY their map got denied, and they can improve upon what they have.

23:02

Also there just needs to be more testers

FJP

idk about a community vote. I feel like people would ask their friends to help them get their map approved, even if the map isn't good. As flawed as the current system is, it works. I think there just needs to be more feedback from the testers in general. People need to know WHY their map got denied, and they can improve upon what they have.

they have been better about the latter point

23:03

but i dont think the first thing would be an issue really. i suppose it could become a popularity contest but that could be up to the discretion of the testers

23:03

deciding if they think there is bias or not

exactly

23:03

there has to be some standard set

testers can always just veto troll voting, that's not an issue

23:04

but it seems (from our conversation in Mult0map) no one really knows the stats

but where do you draw the line between a troll map and a bad map

if we did, it would be easier to understand whether something should be tested

FJP

but where do you draw the line between a troll map and a bad map

testers already have complete control, we have to trust that this system is better

23:05

it at least gives testers a tool to use. a metric

23:05

if they dont care about it, fine

23:05

but we could do it

23:05

we could just start reacting to stuff in #📬submit-maps but i think that's a less organized/official way of this

the problem is that negative voices are louder than positive ones. if someone hates a map he will f4. if someone thinks the map is alright they will do nothing

thats why i think there should be more testers. Just spread out the power a bit more to a variety of testers. It shouldn't just be that one person can look at your map and decline it. Maybe if theres agreement between like 3 or more or something

and if the testing team has a veto anyway its useless for the community to vote

23:06

cause their opinions are so different

23:06

and testers love their opinions

Knuski

the problem is that negative voices are louder than positive ones. if someone hates a map he will f4. if someone thinks the map is alright they will do nothing

yes but if all maps are treated this way, people can account for the bias. we already do this in real life, not concerning ourselves with stuff that's reviewed negatively online, since we know more of these people think to put a review

and defend them more than common folks

i dont think this point really holds up

23:07

a real example would be Amazon reviews. we dont decide not to buy something just cus there's a lot of bad reviews

Knuski

the problem is that negative voices are louder than positive ones. if someone hates a map he will f4. if someone thinks the map is alright they will do nothing

i also think there's plenty of stuff like this already happening, people in testing channels saying "good map" or "when rls" so im not as worried about this (edited)

My idea for testing was it being a step by step process,the categories should be Gameplay Test,Waiting for changes from mapper,Design phase,Lead Tester opinion on release/decline This would also help with the confusion of testers talking over each other and only test one map over and over and can clearly see where a certain map is in its testing phase and see what maps need testing next 1.Gameplay oriented testing - testers only look at the gameplay since its a waste of time to focus on design if its just gonna get declined or ignored for so long and they only gave you pointers about design 2.Put in tested category and now its up to the mapper to make their changes and get back sent to Gameplay Test if the testers think the map needs more changes 3.When everyone is fine with how the map turned out then they can finally start to look at design and make the appropriate changes there 4.The testing leads look at changes and give their final opinion about the map and if its fine to release or not

23:14

yes I understand that "testing shouldnt feel like a job and should be fun for the tester" but it could atleast get a better structure that outlines where a map is currently in its testing phase

i agree with this as well

23:14

needs to be more rigid phases so that even non-testers don't get confused

23:15

that's why i asked about oldschool some days ago

23:15

do people not like the maps? is there just not any time to test them? is there a problem with the map? stale for months and no one saying anything, so what's the status?

23:16

and when i said that, louis tested all of them like, 3 days later. so clearly there wasn't an issue, just someone decided to take the time to test / $ready them (edited)

23:16

but no one knows what testers think. there's no dialogue like this, unless there is a problem with a map, or the releasability of a map is disputed

lynn

do people not like the maps? is there just not any time to test them? is there a problem with the map? stale for months and no one saying anything, so what's the status?

simple answer: no one cares. the testers dont care. its up to chance. maybe im gonna test it tomorrow, maybe in a few weeks. there is no rush to it for us. so mostly if there is nothing going on in a channel it means that we simply dont care at that moment

23:20

ofc i would rather test a map by a known mapper than some oldschool

23:21

its not like we testers are objective to everything. we mostly test what we like

23:21

that shouldnt be a secret

oh im not saying the long wait is a bad thing

23:21

just that the indication is there

hmmm

put a note like "oldschool. not much known about this map but at first glance nothing seems wrong. need to test for skips and such but don't care to test atm"

23:22

better than nothing

23:22

and some status indicator like NovaShock said

i mean yea could implement that

23:23

would have to get that through the whole team tho

23:24

and i think the team would deem it as useless

we need some semblance of either publicity or community input, im not sure if anyone sees that as a bad thing

the ideas and all are always nice, but getting them through is the problem

imo mod team is similar to testing team. lots of people dont always test maps and there are some common names more than others. this is fine but just having it visible is nice

23:25

people are just more affected by tester's work i guess

23:25

so they're louder about it

lynn

imo mod team is similar to testing team. lots of people dont always test maps and there are some common names more than others. this is fine but just having it visible is nice

elaborate? what is more visible about the mod team than the testing team?

oh i think potentially there's a problem there too

23:26

im not really saying the mod team is any better

23:26

but also i think the nature of moderation requires some privacy lol

23:26

compared to testing at least

you want that the private testing team channel turns public for everyone to see xd?

i often cite Caeli as an example of this

23:27

no, you dont have to do that

23:27

just make the status more visible to non-testers

23:27

that's all

Knuski

you want that the private testing team channel turns public for everyone to see xd?

I don't think that's the best idea XD

we already have status emojis btw

23:28

evaluated and waiting maps have 2

23:28

Image attachment

23:28

why not extend these to have more meaning

23:28

not "2" possible emoji

23:28

sorry that was confusing

23:28

2 used together

well if u would take caeli as a status example (i got the testing log so its accurate): ur proposal of status would go something like this: before decline: status: "map needs a few changes then ready" BUT then we had an internal discussion about the map which lasted fewer than an hour and decided to decline it. so i think the status can be really misleading as testers have different impressions

Well all you would really need to do is have an order of testing. If the top map is tested then it means the map that's waited the longest gets tested first. Once the map is tested if it is moved to "Waiting for mapper" it'll rejoin the queue at the bottom once fixed. Then no maps get preferential treatment. Shouldn't need any more than that really.

the way caeli was declined was confusing. some testers said something different, then testers agreed about the final thing, which louis said, and then everyone argued after, because of all the confusion (edited)

yea thats because not every tester looks at every map at the same second

and sure starkiller was salty, not what i meant though xd

Knuski

yea thats because not every tester looks at every map at the same second

this is fine, but with status stuff this could be easier

testing will never be predictable

overall i think there's something to learn from the fact that, we don't prefer bugs to be sent on discord, we prefer them on github

23:34

a discord channel has disadvantages

23:35

we have to overcome these difficulties somehow

23:35

either with a stopgap in discord or our own testing app

23:35

testing app would be so sick though

and who is gonna make that testing app

same as any ddnet feature, in some years

23:36

greenthing

23:36

im not saying it's a practical idea, or will happen, but it would be cool xd

Exported 137 message(s)