Extended playtesting phases

[40oz]

Something I find kinda sucky about map design is that the act of making a new map actually doesn't take very much time relative to the amount of time spent tweaking it for official release.

It seems like mappers are under more and more pressure to release clean perfect error-free wads than ever before. Whenever someone shares a map for testing there are textures that need to be aligned, areas you can get stuck, gameplay that's not fun, too hard, too easy, etc.

I dont think this mode of thinking is particularly new but it is something I have to consider whenever I get the idea to start a new project. While a project idea may be small, I think my reputation and attention to detail makes my work that much more subject to scrutiny which makes it more difficult to be as prolific as id like. So the process of making a map may be short, the time spent sending it out for playtesting, waiting for the feedback, and responding to the feedback seems to take ages.

Mapping a long time ago I think was a bit more lenient about errors and nuances in their design if the general idea and execution stood on its own merits. I think as some of the better mappers in this community have less and less time to make maps, and that maps seem more 'disposable' than ever, it may be time to be more forgiving of error-prone maps so that mapping can be fun again.

[MrGlide]

This is one reason I think mapping teams should perhaps look at the comic book industry, where different people are responsible for different things in each picture alone, you've got pencleing, inking, color inking, story. I'd like to try out making mapsets in this kind of work flow.

The way I could invision this working for mapping would be an over weapon, enemy, ect arc to be proposed for the certain map slot, then the over all size of the map and flow type. Then you'd have the main mapper basically do a speed build, or an alpha of the map, and work on refining it and so forth.

[scifista42]

40oz said:

It seems like mappers are under more and more pressure to release clean perfect error-free wads than ever before. [...] it may be time to be more forgiving of error-prone maps so that mapping can be fun again.

"Be more forgiving" as in "mappers should be less hard on themselves" or as in "playtesters should give less harsh feedback"? I don't see either of these things as something that needs to or should happen. As for playtesters, finding as many possible problems as they can is the best that they can do, that's what makes their feedback valuable (potentially to all mappers who read it, not only the one mapper whose map they are reviewing), and it's typically on the mapper how to approach that feedback, which parts of it to agree or disagree with, and how to change or not change his map based on them. As for mappers, it's all about what they want, whether to create a perfect map or to have fun or whatever inbetween. Whatever "pressure" they might feel is a part of their way to achieve what they want, which they chose by themselves. What's more, there are not even any notably negative consequences for failure. It's fair to assume they already realize this, so you don't really help them by telling them how to approach their own hobby.

[riderr3]

Actually testing is annoying. On bigger maps is 4x annoying. So my next project will be include small maps.

[Chezza]

I understand where you are coming from and I do believe Doom World has some of the toughest crtics. However don't become too obsessed on pleasing others, simply make a map you enjoy enough to want to play test yourself. I personally know it's possible. If you doubt it then you should evaluate the reason why you're mapping in the first place.

Or don't release the map to the public and it shall not be judged.

[Memfis]

Testing is the process of going from "wow, I'm such a cool mapper" to "my god, what is this uninspired pile of crap?". Avoid it as much as you possibly can. If you're already experienced, most likely the first playable version of your map will be good enough apart from a broken trigger or two and the lack of shells. So just fix these and release the damn thing. That way the map might still seem a little bit interesting to you. From my experience anyway.

I don't have much sympathy for the line of thought that people can comment on whatever they want and it's up to the author to decide if there is something to learn from these comments or not. This is how a perfect robotic society would work, but we aren't all R2-D2s. Some of us are more thick than others, some are looking for praise and comfort more than they are looking for self-improvement, etc. It is incredibly nice when the commenters take that into account.

[MrGlide]

Memfis said:

some are looking for praise and comfort more than they are looking for self-improvement, etc. It is incredibly nice when the commenters take that into account.

This is a real nice take away.

[Bad King John]

I have a bit of an obsession with trying to perfect things, and it is entirely seff-centric and nothing to do with outsiders or criticism. Like if I am doing woodwork and making an enclosure that no-one will ever see inside, I still smooth off all the internal corners. Yes, it takes a lot of time.

The biggest thing with making a Doom level though is the play testing - getting the distribution of of monsters right, and the balance with ammo, armour etc. When you play test your own level you have the huge fighting advantage of knowing where everything is and what to expect, so you don't know how it will be to a new player. It is particularly difficult to know what to put at the lower difficulty levels as I never normally play those myself. I guess though that most people playing Doom these days are quite expert and play at UV.

[MrGlide]

Bad King John said:

I guess though that most people playing Doom these days are quite expert and play at UV.

Here? mostly so, we've definetly a few members who play modern wads at lower difficulties, as for normal Doom public like many members of the Facebook Groups, not so much from what I'v seen.

[baja blast rd.]

Bad King John said:

I guess though that most people playing Doom these days are quite expert and play at UV.

Difficulty settings don't really mean much outside of the specific maps they are on. If you expect UV on all maps to fall within one consistent band, and likewise for HMP and HNTR, with maybe some light overlap here and there, that isn't really the case. HNTR or HMP on a Ribbiks map for example can be a lot harder than UV on most maps. UV on a small "coffee break" map is going to be significantly easier than the HMP version of a longer challenging map. So it doesn't really make any sense to speak of "people who have a certain level of skill and thus play maps on [insert difficulty setting here]".

Most people play on UV for a few reasons: 1) Most mappers design primarily for the UV setting, with HNTR and HMP coming across as watered down versions of UV; 2) Most players use saves during casual play. That removes some of the purpose of difficulty settings, because on a hard map, instead of dropping down to a difficulty setting where you might beat a map on the first go or in not too many attempts, you can simply use checkpoint saves on UV (or savescum, if it's really hard). 3) Most people will only play a map once, unless they happen to really like it or something. The combination of these factors leads to most players playing on UV, because you really might as well most of the time under those circumstances. Most Doom maps aren't really designed to be so hard anyway, and a lot of the challenging ones can be beaten comfortably with some saves here and there, so it makes sense to just see what UV has to offer.

The singleplayer Doom community is less about "getting good" than that of most other games and hobbies, I've noticed, and is driven more by nostalgia and light recreation. I wouldn't say most people stick to UV because they are "quite expert" at Doom. In fact it's sort of a "thing" where actual hard maps are concerned for some people to stubbornly persist with UV even when the difficulty of a given map is too high for them to have any fun (i.e., they can beat the level with lots and lots of saves, but they are dying all the time in a way that isn't so fun for them).

[Phade102]

in my opinion if what you're designing isn't fun for you, it isn't worth doing. I'm not one of the top mappers like skillsaw and such, in fact i'm an absolute nobody, but I know if I ever wasn't enjoying building the map, I'd throw it out, or go to a different map.

The fact is people who expect a map to be perfect on the first playtest are expecting too much. I remember a time when maps had numerous releases to fix previously found bugs and gameplay tweaks. theres nothing wrong with that, anyone who wants to play a quality map needs to understand that no map is ever perfect on the first release and they shouldn't be encouraging the map makers to try to aim for that. its an unrealistic goal and burns people out.

[Gamer With Dignity]

Just have fun mapping. That's what's most important and if you're enjoying what you do, the quality will always shine through.

MrGlide said:

This is one reason I think mapping teams should perhaps look at the comic book industry, where different people are responsible for different things in each picture alone, you've got pencleing, inking, color inking, story. I'd like to try out making mapsets in this kind of work flow.

The way I could invision this working for mapping would be an over weapon, enemy, ect arc to be proposed for the certain map slot, then the over all size of the map and flow type. Then you'd have the main mapper basically do a speed build, or an alpha of the map, and work on refining it and so forth.

This would be interesting and I could see the assembly line structure being the basis of a really good community megawad structure.