Mapping Standards - Public Beta Releases

(Ifurita) #1

This is both for server admins and mappers … at what point should maps be put onto servers for public beta testing. I’ve been running into tons of maps which seem far far away from being anywhere close to public beta test ready. No objectives, no command map, terrible FPS, crappy texture alignment, lights that stick out into hallways, very poorly thoughtout spawn points …

My take on this is … mappers, maps need to be fairly polished before they are released for public beta. Nothing trashes a reputation more than crappy workmanship. Server admins, you aren’t helping the mapping community by jumping on every fricken map that come out/gets leaked/or otherwise gets released into the wild. If it isn’t ready for public beta, don’t run it on your servers. It only pisses off your players and trashes the rep of the map maker

(Wils) #2

The main problem as it stands seems to be that map authors are naming their maps ‘beta’ until they consider them finished (or ‘final’).

The situation might be resolved by more accurately naming the maps’ status - Anything that reaches ‘Alpha’ should generally be feature-complete with all the gameplay in a finished state (pending feedback, obviously - thats the point of doing map tests :)). The geometry should be more or less final (especially things like layout and routes), but may need adjusting depending on how well it plays.

‘Beta’ tests should be a last call for bug fixing and tweaking ONLY - you shouldn’t be using them to get player feedback beyond that, otherwise your map is not in a state you could reasonably call beta.

For everything else, server admins could still test unfinished maps, but they shouldn’t really be put into rotation or left on the server unattended.

If you do want to run a map test on a map that isn’t at alpha or beyond, you should make sure it’s named accordingly - we use the term ‘First Playable’ at SD, which denotes a map which has reached the stage where it can be loaded in game and players can run around doing stuff, but its by no means final, geometry and lighting still need significant work, and the gameplay isn’t complete.

(Drakir) #3

I only release a map as BETA when i feel i cannot see any bugs myself, on other words, believing its done.

I´ve learnt from my misstakes, by releasing maps too early in development. So now i have a team BETA testing it for at least 5-6 hours before making the FINAL version. Or even releasing it to the Public.

It´s really hard to find all the small misstakes by yourself as you go pretty blind while designing and testing technicalitys out. So to you all out there getting closer to what u feel is the FINAL version, make sure you test it with alot of other players before considiring it a FINAL.

Even after testing and gameplay testing of “North Pole” i have at least 10 things that should make the map even better and bug free. But no one can be perfect.

(hummer) #4

I think it helps for mappers to test their map throughout the design as well, even if it’s with a few people. The key is to step back and let other people play around on it. The worst thing you can do is make an entire map, fully detail it, only to find that your routes suck and major portions of the map will need to be redone.

It’s always an eye opener… maybe I’ll forget to clip a model or finish the detailing of a room, thinking I’ll get back to it later, then after awhile, it becomes a “normal” part of the map. It takes someone else saying “hey, this needs to be clipped” it order for me to realize “hey, this needs to be clipped” sometimes :slight_smile:

Also, making a list helps… I usually just write down a list of things that need to be done, or keep a text file. Then, as I complete things, I wipe them off the list… but I never remove the item unless it’s fully working.

Now, I could get to beta if only the command map would get done…

/me eyes duke’ku.

(MrLego) #5

I just use a version number on mine - no alpha or beta until it’s ready to be seen by more than just a few play testers. It is also much easier to keep track of which version is currently being tested. When a version is tested, I zip up everything as a backup and rename the project to the next version.

The only downside is updating the folder names, scripts and arena files - still it only takes a few minutes.

Something like this…

MyMapName{A0} or mymapname_a0.bsp
MyMapName{A1}or mymapname_a1.bsp
MyMapName{A2}or mymapname_a2.bsp
MyMapName{Alpha} or mymapname_alpha.bsp
MyMapName{Beta1}or mymapname_beta1.bsp
MyMapName{Beta2}or mymapname_beta2.bsp

And when it is all done just use the map name without the versioning tags.

MyMapName or mymapname.bsp

This works for me quite well.

(SCDS_reyalP) #6

I think people have different ideas of public beta too. For some people, that just means uploaded somewhere people can downloaded it, while for others it means “this map is finished as far as I know”

I think the responsability really falls on server admins. Before you put a map on your server, verify that it works and is something that you would want to play. If a server admin is helping mappers by running development versions of the maps, then make that clear in the server name and map load screen.

(MadMaximus) #7

that was as far as i understood it a map test would be presented as, not a beta. i do see a lot of beta maps on servers, and i also see a lot of maps on servers that could use more tweaking and visual ajustments. i’m a firm believer that a map shouldn’t be rushed out the door, for whatever reason. if you want your map to be liked and played on a regular rotation on servers it has to be of quality, not just the gameplay of it, but visual as well… that makes a good map to me… and i know i havent released a map for et yet, but im hoping all the work im putting into mine will be appreciated when it does come out. you really can’t rush a map from what ive learned, its a long process, and there is a lot of good community maps out there, as well as some that are ‘less than standards’ depending on what your standards are. but a good map should have decent gameplay and good visual aspects from the general gameplay down to the command map ect… as far as i see it… i will not connect to some servers that run customs maps even if i have the custom map in my etmain, its just that i don’t like the map… ya know?

(Ifurita) #8

Well, one of the standards for releasing a map shouldn’t be, “I get at least 23 fps most of the time”. Gameplay > *

Test groups are your friends and there are many people out there who don’t map, but would love to get involved in the mapping process and get their feedback into a map. Use them. They’ll find more stuff wrong with a map than you ever will.

Also, mappers need to keep in mind that, unless you wish to create a non-playing map to show off your technical prowess, the player community is your ultimate customer and therefore needs to be listened to. I’d much rather listen to feedback during the mapping process then complaining and bitching about my map after i’ve released it as “final”

(MadMaximus) #9

well, with that said, i just convinced a friend to d/l et even though he has a 600mhz system, and even i get 18 fps on some places in the regular et maps… bear in mind, its not the best engine for open area’s, but its a good engine… and its not quake 3, fps is a big thing to keep in mind when making a map, but it can’t always be helped in certain places, as long as the map is playable.

(Irrelevant) #10

Those are good definitions, Wils. I’ll put that in my forum quotes file (see sig).

I usually call the pre-alphas ‘dogfood’ builds. Just about edible, but not yet fit for human consumption. :smiley:

(Fenris) #11

While I maybe should stay out of the discussion since I don’t map, I only run them on my server, anyway another way of looking at this is that I can’t really see the fun in playing too early released maps, if they’re too buggy or unfinished it will ruin the fun, and will be even less fun to have to re-download the same map all over when it gets released in newer versions. Just my two cents of thoughts :wink:

(Ifurita) #12

Fenris, as a server admin, you are absolutely part of the discussion. It takes 2 to get crappy maps onto public servers - mappers who release them way too early and server admins who don’t screen out bad maps.

(G0-Gerbil) #13

I’ve no particular problem with early releases as long as they are clearly marked as such. Possibly it’d be best to do private tests at this stage, but they are hard to organise.

I’m thinking of testing publically earlier than I have in the past - I want the same as Hummer - feedback, and early. Whether people are prepared to do so given a map that is quite clearly still in development is another matter, but I know I’ll be trying it out. If it doesn’t work, or causes confusion (can’t say I’m particularly bothered about the reputation bit myself), then I’ll have a rethink in future.

As long as maps are marked CLEARLY in both the map itself AND the server name (this part is usually ignored), then players can ‘enter at their own risk’. It may be that people would actively welcome being able to shape the course of a new map, but until I try it out properly (which seems to be the failing of many of the maps people in this thread don’t like - IE they are incorrectly named / publicised etc) then I won’t really know…

(S.S.Heirpie) #14

I always check the maps to see if there playable or not, a few missing textures here or there does not hurt the game play, The Players on our servers Expect to see the latest (BETAS), I also invite the Mappers to join in and check out what the game play is like, changes that can be made to make a Great map, instead of a map that gets set aside.
Ive seen a few finals that the FPS is so bad I had to take it out of rotation, to many complaints, If they would have had it BETA tested for a few weeks this could have been caught and fixed before the final was released.
I enjoy and so do the players all the time and effort you mappers put into your maps.

Thanks
PIE
Shit-Storm Servers

(Fenris) #15

Well I only put on betas that have been publicly announced, but I usually also walk through them to see if they seem fairly complete, i.e. missing textures and especially if there are such things as command maps or not to help players locate themselves and objs on new maps. (I don’t see myself as more competent to decide whether the map is playable than the mapper who made it, at least not until the server is full so its easier to see how the gameplay works.)

(G0-Gerbil) #16

Well, I think it’s fair to say that even a really rough beta (in other words an alpha or earlier) should, if it’s publically released, have all objectives working properly, with a command map that if not nice, at least is accurate.

In other words, as the server peeps here rightly point out, it should be playable, winnable and errrr navigable.

Seems simple enough really - command maps are easy enough to knock out roughly just by manipulating ye olde tracemap etc.

[EDIT] As another point, it wouldn’t hurt if betas were used to sort out the scripting / entity chain errors that I see so often. Just had a quick poke at North pole, and it’s got them at final :confused:

In other words, when you load a map - check the console for errors. I can’t remember, but I think one or two of the official maps have these problems :wink: