The "new" approval system

Discuss and suggest any update ideas you have for the Plazma Burst series

The "new" approval system

Postby Hikarikaze » 26 November 2017, 02:08

I understand this approval system we're now using is fairly new and it's not perfect compared to what we had before, but I feel enough time has passed for me to gather up any observations and thoughts I made regarding the system after looking over the justifications and reasons for this new system's existence.

In short, I don't find anything new with this system. It's a lazy copypaste from what we previously had with additional variables to consider and go through. The route to approval is still the same and the destination is still the same. The method for doing so is barely any different. Nothing about the system screams a bit of difference from the predecessor. The same underlying basics are still there. No matter how much this can be justified, there's no denying that this is quite literally a less direct version of the "system" we had before, if this can even be called a proper system instead of a procedure.

Spoiler: Show More
In the old system, it was either two options: a map got found by chance or more likely, people asked Eric to look and approve the map in question. This was more direct then what we have now. It took time out of his day, sure, but so does this new system. The procedure now is that we don't go after him directly. We post a topic, get any type of feedback if fortunate enough, and then it gets approved by none other than Eric himself. No one else gets a final say, which is odd, because that's exactly how it worked in the past, so really, what's the difference? This is just the same, except rather than asking Eric Gurt directly, people are asking for approval indirectly. His attention still needs to be diverted to the maps requested for approval. There's still time being taken out, and these maps are still being a distraction for him because he only has the final authority still. To actually have room for the system and execute the purpose of not bothering Eric with constant requests, the authority to approve maps needs to be handed to a few more people again, if not done already. As to who gets that privilege, that is not my decision to take.

The way someone requests for an approval is the exact same as the forum method dependent on pure probability, i.e Eric finding the map by chance. Before this whole shenanigan with these additional sections, the MP maps section was our de facto "approval request" section, except requests, indirect or not, whether you stated you were looking for an approval or not, were optional here, not a requirement or a specified component to the section. The approval request section is essentially just the MP maps section copied and pasted, with this option now specified clearly as a requirement. It's laziness. There's nothing different at face value. The method is still the same.

This new system was also made so that community and staff input would be possible on maps so that everyone can have some sort of influence or role in getting a map approved. Fair enough, I'll give the system that, if this wasn't a thing before its time of existence. Again, any and all feedback was done through the MP maps section, then any changes necessary were made, and then quite possibly and most likely, the map was privately shipped off for evaluation. Now this same exact process is still there, but public. This feedback thing the system is trying to allow requires communication which I'm barely seeing. I do see feedback here and there but not proper communication beyond that.

I'll take my own approval request for example. I made this said request on the 11th of November; my map got approved and yet I had no knowledge of this until 9 days after when I miraculously thought it was a great idea to check my maps list to work on any incomplete maps. No one told me my map got approved and no one felt the courtesy to lock my topic because it was approved and nothing more was needed towards the topic. I left it unlocked still at the time of me writing this post to prove this exact point. If I never checked my own maps list, I still wouldn't have known. Who else besides the people that checked the approved maps list knew of this? This is not communication and if this is, then it's a terrible way of executing the objective of establishing communication. I don't want excuses that nobody had the time to inform me or that I should've found this out myself. I want an explanation as to why this one facet that's being "advertised," you could say, with the system isn't being used. What's the point of giving all of these extra people a role in the process if that role isn't being used? And if it is being used, then why isn't it being used enough? If this is going to be the norm, then it's better if everyone else didn't have a say because it seems only a few people actually have an actual voice to speak with here. Making a single or a couple of posts saying "the map is good" or something that's not helpful/constructive on a map request isn't "having a voice," it's just the equivalent of making noise.

I'm not going to inflate this post any further so I'll draw the line here. I don't know if there's anyone that shares the same opinion of mine, but I'd like this to be a point of discussion, because I find both the idea and operation to be something concerning. The only thing I actually like about this system is that it's quicker but what good is speed if there's no efficiency? Obviously I or anyone else can't force each other to act perfectly in accordance to the system's execution so this system runs smoothly but effort is a thing, and I find not enough effort is being exerted, both in the creation of the system and in the proper running of the system.

TLDR: This system is, to me, lazily made. It's a lazy copypaste of what we had aside from minute changes that don't justify this being called different. It's the old system but public and less direct. My main question is "how is this any different from what we had before?" Changes may most likely need to be done for this system to truly be worthwhile.
User avatar
Hikarikaze
Noir Lime [600]
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 24 January 2014, 02:05
Location: Somewhere, just not here

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby ZapruderFilm » 14 December 2017, 05:10

viewtopic.php?f=117&t=20288
Thanks.

ZapruderFilm wrote:
Hikarikaze wrote:snip


The difference is people aren't distracting Eric with map requests. People who didn't know how to get approved, now can get their map on the table.
If everyone has a problem with the new system, I'm sure all the staff wouldn't mind scrapping it and going back to the old one.
Edit: I'd also like to point out staff don't get to pick how Eric runs his website, and neither does anyone else. If Eric sees fit, he'll give someone the ability to approve maps.
As of right now, he doesn't. And that's fine with me, because he knows map making better than anyone else.
ZapruderFilm
  
Left PB2 Staff to join Dark Clan.

ZapruderFilm
Android T-01187 [200]
 
Posts: 238
Joined: 26 August 2016, 21:00
Location: USA

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby Hikarikaze » 14 December 2017, 23:15

ZapruderFilm wrote:viewtopic.php?f=117&t=20288
Thanks.

That topic is locked so the discussion cannot be continued there, which is why this topic exists in the first place.

ZapruderFilm wrote:The difference is people aren't distracting Eric with map requests. People who didn't know how to get approved, now can get their map on the table.

The fundamental flaw with this reasoning is that even in this "system," Eric is the final person to give a decision regarding approving a map. The final call still is up to him so there's still a distraction on his end regardless, especially as more mapmakers request for their maps to get approved. "Getting a map on the table" is just an additional and arguably unnecessary step towards reaching the same exact end that we always had.

ZapruderFilm wrote:If everyone has a problem with the new system, I'm sure all the staff wouldn't mind scrapping it and going back to the old one.

Except there's nothing about this system that's remotely new. This is quite literally the old system with one or two additional steps included. The only thing redeemable about this "new" system is that it's actually referred to as a system, despite it just officially recognizing the past process as a legitimate method to gain map approval. I'd consider the system to be new if there was something even minutely different, such as admins getting permission to approve maps again, but there's nothing of that sort. The only thing "new" is that the process, procedure wise, is much more stretched out.

ZapruderFilm wrote:As of right now, he doesn't. And that's fine with me, because he knows map making better than anyone else.

This is erroneous because there have been times where even Eric's approved maps have been criticized and even targeted for map approval removal (see rainwars1 and EGRW). We have mapmakers here that have pushed the boundaries of mapmaking constantly to newer heights yet by this logic, they lack the credibility because they lack a position, i.e in this situation as a developer, similar to or equal to Eric's position. We even have mapmakers on the staff team that actually have some knowledge or idea on what they're talking about, making them far more credible than the bunch that knows next to nothing about mapmaking that the system wants to focus on under the guise of "community input" (aside from the actual mapmakers that truly do know what they're talking about that respond to approval topics). Eric is not perfect nor are his decisions (see quite virtually half the approved maps list and/or the map approval removal section) so appealing to authority is honestly the worst argument to make in this case

Also, there's literally no response to the more detrimental issues outlined in the OP such as lack of proper communication or how lazy the system really appears to be. That's rather shockingly concerning.
User avatar
Hikarikaze
Noir Lime [600]
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 24 January 2014, 02:05
Location: Somewhere, just not here

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby ZapruderFilm » 18 December 2017, 08:29

I think you'd find most people disagree that this is anything remotely close to how it was before.
Regardless, if many players are shown to have an issue with the new forum section, it isn't any issue for us to take it down.
ZapruderFilm
  
Left PB2 Staff to join Dark Clan.

ZapruderFilm
Android T-01187 [200]
 
Posts: 238
Joined: 26 August 2016, 21:00
Location: USA

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby Hikarikaze » 18 December 2017, 09:59

ZapruderFilm wrote:I think you'd find most people disagree that this is anything remotely close to how it was before.
Regardless, if many players are shown to have an issue with the new forum section, it isn't any issue for us to take it down.

You're going to have to cite and prove that because I've yet to find anyone in support of this system and anyone that thinks this is remotely different than before apart from the process being publicized (and no, the staff members in favor do not count). If we are to trace back from start to the present, this is everything I can find regarding some sort of criticism or opposition to the current system, criticism that has yet to be properly addressed:

- viewtopic.php?f=117&t=20288 - This is slightly forgivable because the system had just been enacted, but there were flaws pointed out right off the bat, which again weren't stressed on because the system was literally on its first day. The description of the system given was quite literally however just a more transparent version of the PMing process.
- https://prnt.sc/hfbimx - This comes from viewtopic.php?f=117&t=20369 which, again, doesn't show the system in a good light. You'll find this matches up with what I said nicely. Even the topic suggests a lack of communication, which is a flaw I pointed out yet still hasn't been addressed yet for some reason.

The fact we have decent topics that actually suggest revamping or modifying the lazy copypaste that is the system, like viewtopic.php?f=117&t=20470 and viewtopic.php?f=117&t=20469 for example, shows that there are problems with the system. Problems that aren't being addressed, which is a problem that even I pointed out and am waiting for an answer on.

When you have double digit replies on map approval requests on popular maps like EGRW and stryde-sniper where it's just technical arguments with a decent chance of it developing into a flame war of some magnitude half the time and a general consensus that the vague, inconsistent, and backwards guidelines need to be double checked and reworked the other half, you cannot say that this system is efficient in the slightest because nothing's getting done. Every removal request is pretty much a wakeup call that the approval guidelines, which mapmakers stick to religiously and unhealthily, need to be looked at, because it's those guidelines that are screwing up how approval's being done in the first place. No clarity, no transparency, and no progress for sure.

If you look at the map approval removal requests, only about 8 maps out of the 18 (almost 50%) on the first page are still standing, including the ones that should've been gone right off the list and including EGRW/stryde-sniper, which is downright surprising. For a system that emphasizes community input, two pages with 41 replies still have yet to make a dent on stryde-sniper and EGRW was just met with an edit that was immediately revoked with no threat to its approval status. You can argue that someone's listening but only to the wrong or partial things.

Also, claiming that multiple people complaining would warrant the section being taken down is a double standard when random things have been taken out at the word of 1-2 people before, case in point the enemies list.

What I'm also getting from the responses is that I apparently am not going to have anything I pointed out properly addressed. I'm still waiting on that lack of communication concern for one. Nobody has a legitimate explanation as to why I wasn't notified of my map getting approved, even when I clearly wrote that I want a notification regarding that whole subject? If there's going to be a system that revolves around participation, make sure the entities in question that the system depends on actually has a presence enough to participate and make a difference. The map approval requests are essentially dominated by generally three people, with a few additional here and there, in what looks like a crusade against approved maps because they violate guidelines that barely make any sense to begin with. Last I checked, three people don't represent the community. This isn't the enemies list topic anymore.

Feel free to trash the system all you want. I'm not for trashing it outright immediately without giving this a chance, but it needs dire changes before it can redeem itself and seemingly skipping around the main concerns while claiming something without evidence of any kind is definitely not a way to be going around and handling the issue. On paper it's a neat idea but the way it's going about is wrong in its current iteration.
User avatar
Hikarikaze
Noir Lime [600]
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 24 January 2014, 02:05
Location: Somewhere, just not here

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby lostmydollar » 20 December 2017, 14:40

pmed staff members. hope they'll force Eric to take a look at your topic
User avatar
lostmydollar
Falkok [250]
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 11 April 2017, 17:36

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby Hikarikaze » 20 December 2017, 22:29

lostmydollar wrote:pmed staff members. hope they'll force Eric to take a look at your topic

Thanks. I originally was going to PM staff members regarding this but I chose not to for my own withheld reasons. Now that I've come to an understanding on the viewpoints about the system from some people, this might be the next step that needs to be taken especially considering the conclusions I've drawn from the time I created this topic to now.

Though I'm not so sure about Eric being forced to look at the topic. Chances are he'll find this on his own or without pressure, again based off what I found over the past few days.
User avatar
Hikarikaze
Noir Lime [600]
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 24 January 2014, 02:05
Location: Somewhere, just not here

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby lpzimm » 23 December 2017, 18:27

Yeah Hik, I agree. I think approval requests should have some more attention from site staff, like mods and admins, and maybe a little more community power. To some people, approval is the biggest goal of map making, but they can never really get off the ground because only one person is approving the maps. I know because that's exactly how I felt before my map was approved. Ideally, what we would have to approve maps is a group of staff and volunteers playing together on the map (up to, say, 50 kills, 30 round wins, or 150 team kills), with chat off and trying their absolute hardest. They would then vote and discuss on the forum page, wait for small changes to be made based on feedback from the dev, and maybe a sovereign mod could approve it or they would send it to Eric Gurt. There would need to be some sort of incentive, imo, to play the volunteer match. Maybe it could count as k/d or something. There would have to be a little curation as to what they play - nothing that breaks rules like no modguns and all that. But I think that system would be the most fair.

Edit: the important part of this is that it ensures the map is fun, which hasn't at all been a focus of maps before. It's closer now to "yeah, it hits all of the rules, approve pls".
User avatar
lpzimm
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 84
Joined: 17 July 2013, 00:17

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby ECC9 » 6 January 2018, 11:58

Yeah. A new approval system will be really good so people can't copy other people's maps and it can't be approved.
But I don't care much about approved maps and approval system. It's just my opinion.
Discord: ECC9#6057

ECC9
Civil Security Boss [500]
 
Posts: 525
Joined: 9 April 2015, 17:30
Location: Europe

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby Incompetence » 6 January 2018, 23:54

lpzimm wrote:Edit: the important part of this is that it ensures the map is fun, which hasn't at all been a focus of maps before. It's closer now to "yeah, it hits all of the rules, approve pls".

some of the "requirements" go against the concept of fun (fixed HP value requirements, complete prohibition of modded guns, etc). it limits creativity which is why we see maps that are just variations of each other bar a few exceptions. the guidelines are too fixated on function over form imo. if they were just a tad bit flexible yet properly defined, the average quality floor for maps would go up but there would still be some standards to meet that actually defines an approved map

also it's weird how the guidelines are being treated as requirements. guidelines would imply it's not necessary to do what is being listed. they're just suggestions meant to help you improve your map. lately map makers have been ardently following them as if the guidelines are actual requirements off a checklist which i don't think is good. it's like willingly sacrificing creativity for the sake of someone else's standards rather than your own, which the guidelines are supposed to help set as a starting point. personally the whole process to gain approval is just unhealthy to creativity and uniqueness
User avatar
Incompetence
Civil Security Heavy [300]
 
Posts: 331
Joined: 3 February 2016, 03:55
Location: Definitely not behind you

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby lpzimm » 14 February 2018, 18:25

Incompetence wrote:
lpzimm wrote:Edit: the important part of this is that it ensures the map is fun, which hasn't at all been a focus of maps before. It's closer now to "yeah, it hits all of the rules, approve pls".

some of the "requirements" go against the concept of fun (fixed HP value requirements, complete prohibition of modded guns, etc). it limits creativity which is why we see maps that are just variations of each other bar a few exceptions. the guidelines are too fixated on function over form imo. if they were just a tad bit flexible yet properly defined, the average quality floor for maps would go up but there would still be some standards to meet that actually defines an approved map

also it's weird how the guidelines are being treated as requirements. guidelines would imply it's not necessary to do what is being listed. they're just suggestions meant to help you improve your map. lately map makers have been ardently following them as if the guidelines are actual requirements off a checklist which i don't think is good. it's like willingly sacrificing creativity for the sake of someone else's standards rather than your own, which the guidelines are supposed to help set as a starting point. personally the whole process to gain approval is just unhealthy to creativity and uniqueness

Well said. I hope EG listens to this feedback.
User avatar
lpzimm
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 84
Joined: 17 July 2013, 00:17

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby Star Fox McCloud » 23 March 2018, 13:18

He never did. It's always great to approve maps that map makers already have. You're far less likely to get one if you have far more ratings and plays than the maps that barely has them and if you have no approved maps. As I studied, I watched the same pattern keep happening.

Star Fox McCloud
Android T-01187 [200]
 
Posts: 227
Joined: 16 July 2013, 00:21

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby gani » 23 March 2018, 18:28

Star Fox McCloud wrote:He never did. It's always great to approve maps that map makers already have. You're far less likely to get one if you have far more ratings and plays than the maps that barely has them and if you have no approved maps. As I studied, I watched the same pattern keep happening.


Im fully agree with you!

2000-2018
User avatar
gani
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 75
Joined: 17 July 2013, 08:01
Location: Mars

Re: The "new" approval system

Postby Hikarikaze » 23 March 2018, 23:13

Wait, people still care about this topic? What a surprise

Star Fox McCloud wrote:He never did. It's always great to approve maps that map makers already have. You're far less likely to get one if you have far more ratings and plays than the maps that barely has them and if you have no approved maps. As I studied, I watched the same pattern keep happening.

At this point, approval just exists to give the no-name mapmakers the popularity they'd kill to have. There's no real point in going for approval anymore and I think this "system" hit the last nail in the coffin

---

On an unrelated note this topic is becoming a lost cause. There's few valid opinions here and I also have certain people refusing to continue discussing this issue with me because they just can't keep their ego in check (they know who they are). I don't know why I never locked the topic earlier when I knew this issue would be ignored or poorly defended just as easily as the rest
User avatar
Hikarikaze
Noir Lime [600]
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 24 January 2014, 02:05
Location: Somewhere, just not here


Return to Other Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users