Posting level betas for Quake 4

Post by **Foo** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:20 am

Guys,
I just read some posts regarding level betas being posted in Q4 Discussion. Some of you guys feel those should be posted in Level Editing, and not in Q4 Discussion.

On one hand, posting betas in here usually gains more technical feedback. On the other hand, betas are there to be played, just like a finished level, so no reason why 'regular' gamers over in Q4 Discussion shouldn't be encouraged to check them out and post their thoughts.

So, a good solution is to post a thread in both forums as StormShadow has done: [1] [2]

Post by **o'dium** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:44 am

What and i havent'?

Post by **Foo** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:56 am

o'dium wrote:What and i havent'?

Does it have to be about you?

Post by **obsidian** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:13 pm

Well, it would be a bit difficult for people to follow both threads - though not a huge issue. Is it possible to have a single "Test these beta maps" sticky or something in Q4D of maps that currently need beta testing with links to the actual thread? Just a suggestion.

Post by **hemostick** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:19 pm

Since I think they're trying to limit their number of stickies, I presume a normal thread that gets bumped every now and then would work (just like the "screenshots" thread).

Post by **Foo** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:55 pm

I disagree. Redirected threads can't be bumped in their original forum.

Take odium's thread as solid example. Would that thread have reached 15 pages in here?

In one respect, this could be seen as hypocracy - after all I'm usually whining about technical threads that get left in GD when they should be in T&T.. but this is different, because betas do concern regular gamers just as much as level designers.

I think a lot of great levels for Quake 3 were ignored because they remained out of the public eye. Seperate forums, dedicated level websites... noone cares to look but they would if they were passively accessible. How many people outside of level design involvement knew about infosprite?

Post by **wviperw** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:38 pm

This is definitely a step in the right direction to be posting maps on the general Q4 discussion boards. That was one of our (as in us mappers in general) problems for Q3: we would test our maps in our little mapping bubble and it would never see any real world gameplay and therefore would be a technically-flawless, albeit practically-unplayable, level.

Post by **Hipshot** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:02 pm

I welcome the idea of two separate threads. I also felt that when people test maps in here, they really isn't tested by people that play the game for the game itself, more mappers, ofc many of you play but its not the same thing to map and play and only play. I'm sure some of you, that mapped for a good while, always feels that you need to investigate, check, overlook, etc etc everything technical of a map, even if you never really intend to share your thoughts it does damage a pure gameplay test, atleast I feel that. Someone that dosent map might do a better gameplay reiew of a map since they really don't care/think about odd graphical, technical flaws as long as thier gameplay isn't affected. Some might never even up thier graphical settings to actually 'look' the map...

Post by **Foo** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:22 pm

That's a possiblity, of course it's best if the author posts both threads themself. I think our role as moderators extends as far as encouraging a thread in each forum.

Post by **Lukin** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:07 pm

I guess when people find q3dm6 or q2dm1 equivalent for "Q4" (ya know - one map played over and over again) posting in q4d will be pointless ;P

Post by **Foo** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 4:21 pm

Defeatist attitude ;P

Post by **roughrider** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 2:54 pm

Foo wrote:How many people outside of level design involvement knew about infosprite?

Good point.

Personally, IMHO, I think a redirect in Q4D to here would be better. Granted, it is for players to play on, which is why we make maps. But in order for the technical part of the map to be seen the best, it really needs to be placed in the best spot for the technical aspect, which is here.
I know that I would play a map if it looked good and had good flow, etc...but, as a player and not a mapper, if it had flaws in it the first time I played it, I would hesitate on a second time around.

Post by **surgeon62** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:08 pm

Lots of pros and cons here.

On the one hand o'dium's thread for his Q3DM6 conversion shows that some of the gamers don't understand how much work is involved in producing a quality map. They think he should have it done in 2 days.

/*opens map he has been working on for a year

On the other hand early testing by the gamers could be very valuable for early map development. It would actually be interesting to get input from some hardcore gamers on an alpha, but some education on the mapping process might need to occur before that.

Maybe it's best to leave the choice to the individual mapper. Some of us might want to let more experienced mappers take the gamers through the education process a few times before exposing our still developing skills to the "constructive criticism" gamers will have for beta maps.

Post by **Eraser** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:25 pm

crossposting happened a lot with CTF/TA maps back when the TA forum was still there as well. People would get technical feedback and in the TA forum for gameplay feedback and play testing.

Post by **redfella** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:43 am

Wait a minute, q4 came out?

Post by **Chi** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:42 pm

welcome to the real world :icon32:

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:51 pm

wviperw wrote:a technically-flawless, albeit practically-unplayable, level.

hey, i worked damn hard on my technically-flawless-yet-practically-unplayable maps, bub :icon33: