Metanet Forums

You should check out yungerkid's and my ideas on the judging process in the original thread. We could use some feedback from someone other than us on there. And also the playtesting, we hope, is going to be done independently, so one person doesn't have to playtest every level. check that other thread for details again =)

Just a quick note, I believe there may be a section for unbeatable maps (DDAs, survivals, etc.) so unbeatable-ness shouldn't disqualify a map, necessarily. People need to know they can submit tilesets and stuff, as well.

and another quick note, maps are ALREADy being submitted. >_>

Your map will be disqualified if our playtester cannot beat your level. You'll have to resubmit the level once reformatted accordingly.

I'm assuming the playtester is good? In any case, what if the mapmaker has recorded an AGD?

I think maybe playtesters should be of varying N-playing talent. Because if, say Meta_Ing can beat a map doesn't mean I can. That could be very frustrating for worse players. (the general public)

I seem to have missed a lot.

Anyway, I feel like I've been around the community long enough, and seen enough maps, that I can request a judging position. I'm also open to playtesting any maps for this pack--just PM me the data with MoA in the subject line. (If that's how we're going to be doing the constructive criticism.)

EDIT: @ChaoStar's post. Why is length a requirement? And, 20/30 may not even be good enough. Best to leave this objective--no numerical rating, just a feeling of whether it belongs in the pack or not. But I realize you've all already hashed this out in the other thread, so ignore me if necessary.

flagmyidol wrote:I seem to have missed a lot.

Anyway, I feel like I've been around the community long enough, and seen enough maps, that I can request a judging position. I'm also open to playtesting any maps for this pack--just PM me the data with MoA in the subject line. (If that's how we're going to be doing the constructive criticism.)

EDIT: @ChaoStar's post. Why is length a requirement? And, 20/30 may not even be good enough. Best to leave this objective--no numerical rating, just a feeling of whether it belongs in the pack or not. But I realize you've all already hashed this out in the other thread, so ignore me if necessary.

If a level takes about 10 minutes to complete, it's not going to be very attractive to complete... also the point system would, in my opinion, clear up confusion. but, maybe 20/30 isn't good enough, but time will tell.

EDIT: Wow I'm an idiot. Nvm.

But long maps can be good. And I don't think anyone's gonna submit something extreme. Imo, length shouldn't be a req, but whatever.

flagmyidol wrote:EDIT: Wow I'm an idiot. Nvm.

But long maps can be good. And I don't think anyone's gonna submit something extreme. Imo, length shouldn't be a req, but whatever.

idiot about what?

I misread your post completely, then noticed, and edited mine accordingly.

I could probably playtest. Medium difficulty ones, at least.

Unless you want the very best of mappers to playtest.

I'm not sue how this is working, here the maps I want to enter:
http://nmaps.net/browse?q=author%3Abufa ... 0&count=11
These I couldn't re-tag:
http://nmaps.net/116260
http://nmaps.net/115819

EDIT: When I get back I'm willing to playtest. I represent the mid-lower tail on the bell-curve that is ninja skills.

I could playtest/judge. I used to do that all the time at the old forums; I consider judging maps to be my strongest quality around here.
Yup.

I will actually, definitely sign up for the playtester spot.

i agree with flagmyidol, there should not be a numeric rating. i think that a pass/fail rating system would be better.

i think, once again, that a list proposed initially by a single person and edited by the community would be better than applications. the reason is, that if we have applications, it is ultimately down to one person to decide. and we want the generation's opinion on the judges, not one person's. edit: i also believe that the list should be proposed *after* all the participants of the pack have signed up.

to repeat chaostar (what i understood of the system), there will be no specialized playtesters. instead, the partners in the first phases of approval will playtest each other's maps before they go to the judges. so there's no need to apply as a playtester anyway.

I more meant that anyone thinking of entering a map could PM it to me to see (unofficially) if it was any good. Just as a meter to judge whether the map was worthy of (attempted) inclusion. I think that that would work better than having partners, if enough people volunteered to take PMs.

I think the aesthetics/gameplay system is too in depth. =/
This is more of a qualifications panel, would you rather yes or no a map or grade each one and average?

i don't think we should do a system of application. it places the job of deciding the whole panel on one person, which i disagree with. i think that we shouldn't choose the judges until the list of participants has been determined. chaostar, would you rather go with the application system or with the proposal and modification system? it's ultimately up to you.

...if we do go with the application system, i'd like to be a judge.

flag, if there's going to be a panel of playtesters and a panel of judges, why have the playtesters? it seems unnecessary.

yungerkid wrote:i don't think we should do a system of application. it places the job of deciding the whole panel on one person, which i disagree with. i think that we shouldn't choose the judges until the list of participants has been determined. chaostar, would you rather go with the application system or with the proposal and modification system? it's ultimately up to you.

...if we do go with the application system, i'd like to be a judge.

flag, if there's going to be a panel of playtesters and a panel of judges, why have the playtesters? it seems unnecessary.

it's up to me? I'm flattered. I don't really get what you're saying, but I will say this. Each level has to be able to be AGD'd if not, it goes to the dump. also, I think there should be a panel of judges who say aye or nay to whether the map goes into the pack. (screw the point system.)

EDIT- the playtesters are there to AGD the maps. That is all.

http://nmaps.net/157942
http://nmaps.net/157746
Test our system so far?

Okay. Yungerkid seems to be the most with me (as in, knows what I'd like to do with this) on this. Not surprising, honestly, because half of my ideas are actually his. But whatever.

After reading this over, I also think it should be a simple yes/no out of ten judges, where eight out of ten have to thumbs-up a map before it gets in.

Also, you guys should read my post on the other thread, as it lays out my ideas on the playtesting stage of the mapping pretty clearly. I don't think there's a need for official playtesters - it should be done individually. I guess you're actually going to have to read that post to know what I mean by that. Sorry.

well, chaostar, you are the beginner and organizer of this project, unless you want to hand it off. without playtesting, the levels would still be agd'd by the judges. the panel of judges would be saying yes or no; that's what i was suggesting earlier. what i was saying in that post, was that people should not apply to be judges. instead, we should, once the list of participants is complete, have one person propose a list of judges, and have the rest of the community change it around until most all people are satisfied with it. i think that would be the best way to put the best judges in charge of things. by the way, i also think that having a rubric is an imprecise way of judging maps.