Nine Inch Heels

I'm going to ignore the plea for non-bullet-hell shmups, and recommend "crimzon clover world explosion"... The game has a novice mode that should be doable for just about everybody -- with a little bit of effort and practice. The scoring system, should you care for it, is not as unforgiving as for example the one in DoDonPachi, but it still provides lots of legroom for gradual improvements. One huge plus of CC:WE would be the final boss, which isn't just some resource-check like the infamous Mushihimesama TLB... If you want to get into shmups and maybe cultivate a slightly better relationship with the bullet hell genre, it is definitely a shmup I would recommend for that purpose... Small bonus: It's not some fantasy styled shmup, but it goes ham with spaceships, tanks, and giant mechs, so in terms of theme it should definitely check the right boxes in your case...

The secret is to spend a minimal amount of time whining about it, and the necessary amount of time practising these maps... Here's the thing: In terms of "hard" maps, stuff like plutonia barely moves the needle compared to the actually hard maps this community has brought forth over time. You have no idea how hard maps can actually get while still being humanly possible. What I am saying is that you're "not getting" stuff that would register mostly as "intermediate" difficulty nowadays - just to put your musings into perspective a little bit... It's a matter of not sucking, not a matter of masochism...

This doesn't say much about how complex your map actually is, and 90 monsters is not necessarily a whole lot either, because numbers depend on context. One thing I can tell you for sure is that I may not be the only person who's turned off by the thought of grinding through 10 nobles and a pack of pinks, let alone all 90 critters, with a mere shotgun. If you want to subject players to that, then you might be better off having some sort of "twist" in place that makes that shotgun grind at least a little bit interesting, so it doesn't get monotonous... Yes, tedium was the first thing that came to mind after reading what the premise was. If you want a third solution: Add an easy to find, and well-supplied rocket launcher to the map, possibly in a secret, to give players at least a somewhat satisfying alternative to the shotgun. You could still run your 90 monsters map, but it wouldn't take what feels like an entire afternoon and then some to actually play the map in its entirety and kill everything. All that being said, the problem isn't "complexity". Shotgunning 90 things isn't complex. The problem is tedium, and how to best avoid it. While I can't say what's "best" in this case, because I don't know what's planned for the following maps, it's usually easiest to just add more firepower...

There is so much wrong in so few lines of text that I'm quite honestly baffled as to how you managed to accomplish such a density of nonsense... Just going over the major blunders here: "Do research on current issue"... Yeah, we've seen what happens when people do their own research on facebook, or whichever echo-chamber they feel the most comfortable with. "Personal research" tends to be worthless... It's called confirmation bias, and it's one of many reasons why humans are piss-poor data-taking-devices... "Getting injured due to being annoying"... So who's to blame here..? You think reacting to someone who is "annoying" with straight up violence is fair game..? Do that to any protester in a civilized country, and let us know what happens once you've gotten outta jail again... One more thing... This whole "stay nice and polite during arguments" type of spiel, which is disturbingly similar to your whole "non-disruptive-protest" drivel is most commonly a request made by hypocrites, like the Dave Rubin or Steven Crowder types, who do and/or defend some of the most heinous shit that's happening nowadays because their ideological possession demands it. Even Nazis had "non-disruptive" table manners - imagine that...

The question isn't how or why people enjoy these types of maps, the question that needs to be asked and answered is why you play maps you obviously do not like, and on a difficulty setting that is apparently too much for you to handle. How do people even enjoy that crap..? (See what I did there?) Also, if you want a game that requires zero cognitive activity, I hear path of exile is pretty good...

The reason why I "waste time" on maps with "badly considered encounters" is because they usually remain at least a little bit challenging even when I know what's about to happen. You just can't do "top-end-difficulty-encounter-design" while also adhering to the arbitrary and overall baseless doctrine that anything that cannot be beaten "cold start" is "bad design". By your logic, virtually every challenge or slaughtermap out there is badly designed, and it should be readily apparent even to genre naysayers just how bad of a take that is at the bottom line - not to mention that something person A can do first try might also be something person B needs to practice first, which puts yet another dent into authoritative statements regarding what is or isn't "well-designed" when "first-tryability" is the only metric in question. That being said, any argument about the quality of something that is made by someone who inherently dislikes said something, is best dismissed as hollow drivel, because at worst it poisons the well when it comes to forum discourse...

Your main point is a non-argument, because what is or isn't fun is subject to the eye of the beholder... You may not find it fun, but someone else does... It's like you're asking if eating asparagus is any enjoyable while you yourself do not enjoy the taste...

Aria Maestosa

What a slaughtermap can and can't do depends on how it's built, and what the respective design goals are... There is no "slaughter always does this, but never does that". You're gonna have fights tight on ammo, you're gonna have fights tight on health, you're gonna have fights where you're put at a disadvantage by way of load-out you have access to (ie fighting PEs with RL), you're gonna have pure BFG spam maps, and the list goes on and on... And all that depends on what the mapper wants to have in any given map... As for what slaughtermaps can provide, most of them tend to be more difficult than IWAD maps, and they require a set of skills that isn't required when playing IWAD-ish stuff either... That being said, the questions there almost warrant writing essays, which I'm too lazy to do atm... You're better off playing slaughtermaps and seeing for yourself if you want answers, because booksmarts won't get you very far...

What LippyServer said... "Gameplay relevant geometry first, then test it, then adjust it - add details when it's fine"... Next on the list is encounter design... Think about where you want highlights, and how you can make them interesting, so you don't end up with a cheap shooting gallery or SSG-camp-fests...

Yes, you are not reading it correctly... The idea isn't that you ought to keep your opinions to yourself, the idea is that you don't pretend that your opinions, or anybody else's, are objective metrics around which all maps ought to be built... And 100% tailor-made is a nonsensical goalpost... If you like slaughter maps, then you're probably gonna give feedback on slaughter maps, and quite possibly less often on IWAD gameplay type of stuff, because maybe that's not what you would like... You can still comment on that vanilla stuff, and look at things through you own personal lens, but you need to have the modicum of honesty and self awareness to realize that this vanilla map you don't really like can't really be made into something a slaughter fanatic would enjoy necessarily... That being said, the feedback you provide on something that you are more familiar and "aligned" with, is probably going to be a lot more valuable and thorough than feedback you provide on something that you don't really feel like playing more than once anyway...

And I'm gonna disagree here for various reasons, because all too often, this supposedly objective perspective of someone, who has some surplus salt to load off tends to be anything but objective... Likewise, lines similar to "inescapable pits = bad game-design" are not objective truths. In fact, anybody who claims their opinion on something that isn't a purely mechanical issue (something can be objectively broken) is "objective" is, objectively, full of shit... You're not "game-design experts" just because you play a lot of games, you're consumers with subjective preferences, and it doesn't/shouldn't matter to any mapper how often you proclaim to have some deeper knowledge about how a game/map/mod has to be made in order for it to register as "objectively good". Most of you aren't even able to discern the fact that this thing that you think you provide objective feedback for might not even be made for people like yourselves, but an entirely different type of audience, with vastly different preferences and interests... Clamouring for objectivity with regards to feedback or reviews is something I view as detrimental to the discourse as a whole, because you're objectively not an objective data-taking-device, and on top of that, asking for objectivity when it comes to feedback empowers the self-fashioned experts and armchair-game-design-critics whose contributions to this community amount to something near (if not less than) zero... Transparency >>>>>>> (supposed) objectivity... It's that simple...

I'm going to echo what's been covered already. Standardization is a double-edged sword, and in a community where people's maps are often elevated by developing their own type of language (SIGIL does this, for example), I'm worried that the whole idea in and of itself is going to cause more problems than it solves in the long run... I can live with getting lost a few times a year when that's what it takes to have access to astounding and unique maps and concepts. The prospect that new mappers would need to learn all these norms (in addition to learning how to make maps) in order to participate in anything sets up a barrier for new talent so much so that I would consider your idea a genuine threat to the long-term health and growth of the community at large. Standards are fine for community projects, where people can decide whether or not to participate, but for an entire community it's most likely a bad idea that also doesn't seem feasible to even realize in the first place (for which I actually happen to be glad)... Despite the fact that you put a lot of time and effort into this: Hard disagree on the standardization of maps and textures on such a scale... EDIT: After giving it some more thought, I think what you propose is kind of like a solution in search of a problem...

No, I've been calling you a disingenuous liar for asking how you ought to be dealing with mappers/trolls who make their maps intentionally difficult, obtrusive, or whatever else, while you are the one flinging shit in other people's directions despite the fact that what they're doing isn't anywhere near as egregious as a play-tester who is incapable of understanding that their supposedly "genuine" feedback is of negative value. Your problem isn't that you're having trouble with giving feedback to people whose maps and ideas you dislike, your problem is that you think that there is any merit whatsoever in calling anybody's map a wretched piece of trash, despite the fact that it should be self-evident to anybody who wants to help others improve that such an abusive behaviour towards somebody, who clearly did not deserve that kind of treatment, cannot possibly yield any positive results at all. In pointing that out, I am implicitly telling you how you should improve your feedback game. What did you expect? That I can perform miracles like telling you that something you did was wrong without telling you that something you did was wrong? If you expected that, why don't you try telling a mapper that something's broken without telling them that something's broken - see how that goes... It's one thing to say that, yes, you did overreact, yet you managed to sort things out with the respective mapper (which, again, we'll have to take your word for) - but it's another thing for you to go hyper-defensive when you're being told precisely what about the way you're delivering feedback doesn't work at all. There is no way on earth to make "wretched piece of trash you despise" sound good - the way to make your feedback more palatable is to avoid stuff like that, and that should go without saying. Your temper tantrum in the thread I linked was disruptive, it soured the mood of several people, resulted in back and forth bickering between you, the mapper in question, and some other people who saw themselves fit to chastise the victim of your unwarranted temper tantrum instead of chastising you, how it should have been. And despite the fact that you can click the thread right now, and see for yourself the mess you've made, you're still arguing that what you did was fair game and worse than that, you think there is merit to your approach in spite of hard evidence that suggests that it is disruptive. If you had at least a shred of interest in improving the way you do stuff, you'd own up to your mistakes, and admit that it would have been way better for everyone involved if you just said that the way the map played was frustrating for you, instead of breaking out the heavy toys - the use of which being entirely indefensible in this case. It's the same feeling you convey, just way less hostile. You aren't really looking to get better at providing feedback, because if you were, you would plain and simple accept that shit-talking somebody else's map is a no-go when it's blatantly obvious that they're actually trying to deliver the most polished product they are able to create - even if it's not going to appeal to everybody in the end. Yes, I did indeed do some digging, because it was brought up in this thread that you had to deal with a mapper whose supposed reaction to your feedback was said to be unjustified. I, still giving you the benefit of the doubt, had a look around, because I was hoping to find the respective mapper who was supposed to be the problem (and also to develop a more informed perspective), so that I could tell you exactly what I would have done in that situation... And all I found was the exact opposite of what I was made to expect: You were the problem in that exchange - the mapper didn't do anything wrong until you started flinging shit at their work and them by transitive property - and as far as I'm concerned, they didn't do anything wrong when they chose to give you a small taste of your own medicine either. The fact that it's been presented in this thread as though the mapper was the problem is nothing short of absurd. You asked publicly, the problem I brought up about the way you're providing feedback is public, the fact that you're in denial is public, and thus you're being told more than once - also publicly. Besides, you're not quite in a position to cry foul when I'm doubling down here, are you? Just asking, because that's the exact same thing you did to the mapper by dismissing their request to be a bit less mean next time you provide them with feedback by way of saying "just talking about the map, not you", despite the fact that it's obvious that they took it personally. Worse than that, you then also tripled down by telling them that their map "is bad for your health". And let's not forget that you're claiming your abusive delivery has merit to it, while you bemoan the fact that all I'm doing here is telling you straight up what went horribly wrong, without beating around the bush, and without any candy-coating. I'm more polite towards you than you were towards the mapper in this case. You asked me what I think you ought to be doing and how. I've been telling you, right at the top of page 2 of this thread what it is that I think you should be doing, it's right there for everybody else to see. You can keep pretending that it doesn't exist, but that doesn't magically make it go away. I've taken time out of my day to write that stuff, because I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought to myself that what you're dealing with is a problematic case. There is no irony on my side here at all. I have answered your question in pretty great detail - if anything, I am annoyed at the fact that I made time to write up that small essay, only to find out later that you're being outright abusive towards the very people you pretend to be helping - and you don't need me to tell you that you've been abusive, nor do you need me to tell you that you shouldn't do that. -Yes, you are being disingenuous as far as I'm concerned, because claiming that there is merit to an approach that somebody else finds unpalatable, which also happens to disrupt the harmony among other contributors to a community project is absolutely dishonest. There is no nice way to say that what you did registers as abusive, but there is most certainly is a nicer way to say that you did not have a good time with somebody else's map due to the state it is currently in. You can keep on pretending that you don't deserve to be made an example of, but what I've found after doing some research is so egregious that, again, I'm surprised you didn't get warned for your outburst - in fact, I'm also surprised that the project lead didn't react to reign you in, which indicates a lack of leadership-skills in my opinion, but CP-management is a topic for another day and a different thread... -Yes, calling anybody's work "a wretched piece of trash that you despise" is pretty damn ugly, no matter how you slice it, and if you had any interest in stepping up your game you'd simply accept that, just like any mapper who wants to deliver a more polished product would accept that something needs fixing in case it's broken. -My opinions on your actions are based on facts. You calling somebody else's map "a wretched piece of trash", and me pointing out that it is in no way constructive feedback is a fact. You can keep on living in wonderland, where denial is king for all I care. It's a matter of fact that you messed up the way you should have been giving feedback, and if you don't want to be told that what you're doing is wrong, then don't pretend that you're interested in any feedback at all. Yes, I'm using terms like "self-evident" when something is self-evident, and I use terms like "no doubt deserved" when there is no doubt whatsoever that someone deserved something. There is nothing demeaning about it, and even if there was, it's certainly a long shot from calling the way you've provided feedback "wretched shit that I despise". In no uncertain terms: You are asking for the kind of "courtesy" that you yourself are unable or unwilling to provide or live up to. No, I did not suggest that you said anything via DM that was even more vile. You should read what I've written a few more times before you accuse me of something you wouldn't be able substantiate even when held at gunpoint. Yes, I did give you several paragraphs worth of advice, and claiming once again that I didn't, even though it is right there, doesn't win you this argument on the internet. Yes, you do harvest what you sow, and it turns out that's exactly what happened to you, but somehow you seem to have a problem with that. Anyway, it's readily apparent that this isn't worth my time any longer. You seem like the type of person who believes to be in a position to dish out, only to cry foul as soon as the wind blows the other way. I'm well aware of how blunt I can be, but at least I have the decency to be upfront about it, moreover, I'm not crying on somebody else's shoulders when someone else is as direct with me as I am with them. You on the other hand..? You want people to put on velvet gloves when they're talking to you while you claim the right to be "brutally direct" exclusively for yourself whenever you feel like it, regardless of how it's being received. I've got bad news for you: That's not how things work. The reason I can "afford" to be as blunt as I am is that I can take it when somebody else is equally blunt with me, and unless you can say the same for yourself, you'd do well to exercise some restraint in how you're interacting with the very people who you ought to be assisting. Here's my piece of advice, probably the only one you need: Don't play-test anybody's maps again, ever. You are the wrong person for the job, you have the wrong attitude for the job, and this exchange between us made self-evident that you are incorrigible as is demonstrated by how you keep on defending something for which there is no place whatsoever in an environment that requires co-operation. Sooner or later you'd be stumbling upon another map that annoys you, and then we're gonna be here again, discussing the supposed merit of abusive behaviour towards mappers, who are trying their best while they're still learning the ins and outs of basic mapping...

This is the context we're all able to look at, plus the links and quotes I provided earlier... The other stuff that isn't visible here at all I can't comment on, but I will also be upfront and tell you that it is of practically no consequence to anything I've pointed out, sans the minor issue that I may have been wrong when it came to who you considered to be a troll. However, the fact remains that we have to take your word for it, and the mapper in question is not present to say their piece. Whatever happens on discord, unless it is so absurdly vile that it violates forum guidelines against off-site-harassment, is entirely inconsequential to the case I made. I would also like to add that I've gone out of my way to give you the advice you have been asking for, while also giving you the benefit of the doubt with regards to the example that you say I'm confusing with something else. I also stand by what I said: If you hurl insults in somebody's direction, be it at them directly or at something they put time and effort towards (and honestly, nobody cares how often we dive into semantics here - you snapped pretty damn hard at someone, it's that simple), just because you got frustrated at something, and then you go out of your way to ask how you could deliver constructive criticism that directs things into a positive direction, while what you're doing is the opposite of what you say you wanted to accomplish then you have set yourself up quite formidably for what came your way, because it does come across as disingenuous Outbursts like that are of negative value for the mapper, yourself, the community project in question as well community projects in general, and to a lesser extent possibly even the community at large. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt again, and go under the assumption that you managed to sort things out for good, but you've got to admit that what I've found within a mere minute of browsing these forums looks pretty damn ugly - and most definitely worthy of condemnation - regardless. Telling a mapper that you found something that breaks is one thing, that's valid, and for technicalities like that there is usually a way to tell if that's the case. Lashing out at a mapper like you did, again, bad move. It doesn't matter if the problems you've found in the map are concrete facts like technical aspects, or subject to personal preference. You don't get to treat people like that while also saying that you would love to be told how to step up your "testing-game" - It's a community project where it is about working together to deliver a product, and not some difference of opinion with someone you don't need to get along with at all. It is glaringly obvious what you shouldn't be doing, and asking me why I made an example of you in a thread that is about how acceptable negative feedback is (and how receptive people should be when negative feedback is given), which typically comes down to delivery and context, is baffling to me, because the reason I made an example of this is self-evident. Again, if I confused some things, sorry about that. Regardless, treating a mapper like that on a forum where you have all the time in the world to look at what you're about to send, and then being surprised - or at least confused - as to why you're getting a slap on the wrist that you no doubt deserved (and should be able to take on the chin, considering the matter of fact that you're no stranger to playing rough), that's just baffling to me...

Okay, this is probably going to end up resulting in a double-post, but this I just have to make an example of, and just to make sure people are on the same page once I get down to business, I'll provide some quotes with links for context: https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2487333 And that quote here is taken from none other than "pistoolkip", who is now asking how in the world they could possibly provide constructive feedback to someone who goes by the doomworld forum handle "%some random internet shkila", who, on just a cursory glance, has absolutely shown willingness to make their map easier, and address problems that were brought to their attention. Moreover, this supposed "troll" went out of their way to work some "quality of life features" into their map, to make it a bit more enjoyable for the inclined player: https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2485842 https://www.doomworld.com/forum/post/2487366 note that the following quote is taken from the supposed troll's reply to the "feedback" provided by pistoolkip, who called the respective map a "wretched piece of trash" From where I'm looking at this, the problem here is not that the mapper has any intentions that would amount to fucking with everybody who plays their map on purpose, the problem is plain and simple technical ineptitude, or something as simple as mere oversights that could be fixed within a reasonable amount of time. The fact that you, @Pistoolkip, are now prancing around as if you played no part whatsoever in how the communication between you and the respective mapper took a turn for the worse makes you, quite frankly, a disingenuous liar, who is in no position whatsoever to even call themselves a play-tester who is able to deliver feedback in a respectful way - and as far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't play-test anything until you've got at least a small degree of self-control. As far as I'm concerned, you can consider yourself fortunate that the chord you struck there didn't result in a warning - rest assured I'd give you one without a moment's hesitation, because that stunt you pulled there while now acting all pure and holy after framing the respective mapper as a "troll" is the kind of shit that drives mappers away from communities - not to mention that it creates bad attitudes and expectations towards play-testing and play-testers when it seems perfectly acceptable for play-testers to throw a temper-tantrum while the mapper is being chastised for responding in kind (or in this case way less than that). Play-testing happens in order to find stuff that breaks, and if you cannot handle finding stuff that breaks to a degree that you don't end up lashing out at the mapper in question (and calling a map "a wretched piece of trash that you despise" is lashing out no matter how you slice it), then play-testing is not for you. Stuff that breaks can happen to anybody who makes a map, and most of the time, these errors fly under the radar of the mapper, because they're playing their own map knowing literally everything in advance, which means they are the least likely ones to find the kinds of problems a play-tester who knows nothing about the map would stumble upon. Had you called any of my maps a wretched piece of trash, because something broke and you just got frustrated, I would have torn you a new blowhole on the spot at the very least. I'll tell you straight I made plenty mistakes in the past when it came to providing feedback, which is largely owed to the fact that I tend to be very blunt at times - nobody is perfect, but never in a hundred years would it ever occur to me that I had any right to insult someone who is demonstrably trying to improve like you did right there, and then trying to wiggle my out of the mess I made by way of saying "I was only talking about your map - not you"... Your attitude towards play-testing and mappers stinks, and you don't even have the maturity that is required to look at the crap that's fallen out of your own ass. The fact that somebody else felt like they could chastise the mapper in the respective thread despite the fact that it's you who started flinging shit around is quite frankly ridiculous, and as far as I'm concerned, you and everybody else who assumed to be in a position to talk down on the mapper owe them an apology - not the other way around...

One thing I don't have a whole lot of these days is time... If it's a small-ish map, maybe I can help out, but anything that would normally be considered medium or large - I don't think I'm going to be able to help with that... Generally speaking, a map for a CP can be as difficult as it wants to be as long as there is a way to actually beat it (outside of TASing it, I suppose). However, in the context of community projects (where most of my maps have gone over the years, all of which definitely more difficult than the average map, if not intentionally "unfair" in one particular case), the question that needs to be answered is whether or not a map like that is a good fit for the community project you are currently helping out with - however, if the CP-lead did not establish any boundaries with regards to difficulty (and most CPs don't have a "difficulty threshold") then you don't have a case, period. There is also the issue that you, as one play-tester out of several, may not be able to actually appreciate maps that go beyond a certain degree of difficulty, but someone else might actually like the map in question. The same principle applies to other "features" you may or may not "agree with". Whatever the case may be, in situations like that, you're the wrong tester for that one particular job. It's that simple. I've had people call stuff I made "bullshit" (one such person has also been posting in this here thread and made some decent points, btw) based solely on the fact that they couldn't beat something that I could do quite reliably and even with less resources than what has been provided, meaning the person in question was the wrong person to give feedback and I, as the mapper in question who, quite frankly, knew better in that particular situation was under no obligation whatsoever to make any changes to my map in order to make it appeal to somebody who, in principle, dislikes what I wanted the map to be like in the first place. And I've also been accused of "not being very open to feedback" while mapping for a CP sort of under the breath. My "E3SECRET" (mapslot name) for JOM05 - winter weekend for example was met with criticism from some people over there, because not only was it arguably one of the most difficult maps in that CP, if not the hardest of the whole bunch (hence, relegated to a secret slot), but I've also been told that the map would be "improved" if I made a platforming section at the start of the map a part of "the rest of the map", where there would be tons of revenants around and about. And I could have done that, but I refused, because in order to make that happen and still end up with something "beatable", I would have needed to water down both the platforming and the biblical flood of revenants, as somebody else called it - I kept those things separate for good reasons, after all. When explaining my reasons for keeping things the way they were, I've been met with comments regarding my openness towards feedback from people who, quite frankly, thought that their ideas would have resulted in the improvement of something, the design goals of which they disagreed with in principle to begin with. The debate was then settled when I said I'd take the feedback on board for other maps I might make in the future, but I've mostly kept difficult platforming separate from monsters in my maps, or provided players with the option to take out the monsters first and then do the platforming after. Another example I could bring up was some passive-aggressive shit talking behind my back (which, of course, I found out about anyway, because it turns out that twitch chat isn't a private space) where the argument has been put forth that I shouldn't contribute maps to community projects at all, due to my tendency to make my maps somewhat difficult, if not brutal, compared to your average map, and I've been accused of "ruthlessness" and "ego-tripping" because I made stuff I enjoy (like every other mapper under the sun, by the way), which I then didn't water down in the interest of the "common folk" to the point where the map would have been something else in principle, and that me providing my reasons for anything I would or wouldn't do was mere "bitching and moaning" in the end. To make these anecdotes make any sense at all, unless the CP clearly establishes that maps beyond a certain degree of difficulty aren't going to make the final cut, there is no reason for anybody, be it mapper, tester, or even "onlooker" to discriminate map-validity based on how difficult something is or isn't. If it's not for you, don't play-test it, say that it's not for you, and why, and move on. It saves you a lot of time, it saves the mapper a lot of time, and the potential bickering won't stink up the discord server or feedback thread... You've got to understand that, even though you're co-operating within the confines of the community project, not everything you come across will be your cup of tea, because some CPs attract mappers with wildly different backgrounds and preferences, and the fact that you've spent time testing something and wrote down what you think about it doesn't mean that you are entitled to seeing the things you disliked changed later down the line. I've play-tested maps in CPs I did not like all that much, and at most you should point out things where you were under the impression that something about the map didn't do the map as a whole any favours on a purely conceptual level, while keeping in mind that not everything you get your hands on has to be something you need to enjoy in order for it to appeal to somebody else. You also wanna keep in mind that the situation in community projects is different from the sort of "dedicated" and "private" testing that I prefer to do, because, again, CPs attract mappers and play-testers of all sorts, so there will be incompatibilities between people when it comes to the maps themselves, and you're not doing anybody a favour if you keep laying your thumb down on this one thing you are unable to enjoy time and time again. Say your piece, and let somebody else do the testing. If everybody agrees that a map is "toxic", or at least not a good fit for the project, then that's when the project lead can have a final say on the matter. First of all, I'm quite certain that you would have called one of the meanest maps I made for a CP "a troll map", and me "a troll mapper" respectively. What I'm saying is that you are getting to make your case here while the mapper in question is unable to defend themselves, and their respective map is unavailable for examination. If I want to be charitable, and go under the assumption that the mapper is indeed a vile asshole, then you say your piece, you let the supposed "troll" say their piece, and then you let the project lead decide what needs to happen next.

I don't think I'm looking for something in particular when I start testing a map. I go in with a pretty blank slate for the most part, unless it's a mapper I have worked with in the past or whose work ethics and mapping doctrines I happen to be familiar with, in which case I have at least a vague idea as to what I'm about to get involved with in terms of gameplay, difficulty, and overall design of the map. One example that comes to mind would be tourniquet, who made some of the most enthralling maps you can get your hands on in my opinion. When he asked me to play-test his vanilla project "mutabor", I knew I was in for a treat no matter what. Having said that, once I played any given map at least once or twice (and maybe got lost, because my sense of direction in classic doom is miserable compared to my sense of direction in hollow knight, for some reason), I actively start to look for things that rub me wrong... As soon as the first impression is over and done, I'm looking for misaligned textures, fights where monsters don't act well, things that are meant to be tricky but can be trivialized somehow, I open the map in a map-editor to see if I can find something blatantly obvious that would allow me to break a sequence, all that stuff... So, in a sense, I am looking for things that I "don't like" or even "hate", and I bring those to the mapper's attention, if I happen to come across something. I mean, that's the reason I'm testing anything at all - so that things that don't run properly can be addressed, should the mapper choose to address whatever it is that I happen to find. Mind that I make a distinction between "first impression feedback" and "feedback based on play-testing", though... A first impression can be very, very valuable, especially when there's a demo to watch, or a youtube video, for that matter. But those demos and videos, most of the time they get made once, perhaps you get some additional written feedback and that's it. So while it is potentially extremely valuable feedback, because it captures what's being how enjoyable for one person, it is still a first impression that may not catch the things that don't "operate at 100%". The point of play-testing, to me personally, is to go beyond what a first or second impression is able to provide, and to get into when and where something misbehaves when given several attempts in a row, for example - or what ends up becoming laborious instead of engaging after a couple rounds in - suppose there's a fight that starts to get boring while everything else in the map still feels "fresh" and is fun after 5, 10, or even 20 runs, then that's something where I would make the case that it's a fight worth looking into, because the only thing better than a map that leaves a fine first impression is a map people are going to want to play again and again, and if there's a good way to make the "least best" part of a map better, then I think that's where play-testing is starting to show that it's got muscles in places where first impressions aren't quite as strong necessarily, because how else are you gonna find stuff like that reliably without having dozens of people doing first impressions at your beck and call..? When there's a difficult and climactic fight in a map, I'll play that fight several times in a row to see if I understood the method that was required to beat it, and if I got that right, then I also wanna see if the method is consistent in how successful it is, or if some "misbehaviour" can do me in "just because" and if it is possible to "play around" such edge-cases. I wanna find those types of things, because that's interesting to me - I may not make many maps, and some of them are deliberately "unfair" in the eyes of most people, I suppose, but the fact remains that you can learn a lot about mapping by way of testing somebody else's maps more in-depth. It's not like I'm looking forward to finding stuff I dislike for one reason or another, but I am looking forward to seeing it addressed, if possible - that's what makes play-testing fun to me personally, even though I must confess that I haven't gotten around to doing much testing at all lately, due to a pretty severe lack of time... I even had to turn some people down in recent past, and any offer coming my way now would probably get turned down on the spot as well, unless it's a map I can chew up within a couple minutes, because that limits the "problem-horizon" in terms of what may need to be addressed... Life happens, if you know what I mean... Now, when it comes to things that don't cater to my tastes, chances are I will just say that it's not my cup of tea, play it a couple more times, and leave more in-depth feedback on that supposed something to somebody who appreciates it more than I am able to - I want the mapper to know what I am the most likely to invest time in when I play-test, and there is no value in going over something I could never really enjoy dozens of times - I've done that in the past and it never really amounted to anything that was particularly helpful in the grand scheme of things... It's not often that I have to "pass" on something like that, because I'm pretty flexible in terms of gameplay-styles overall, but when I feel like I'm playing an IWAD-rehash with pretty window-dressing, then, yeah, I might not invest as much in that as I would invest in a challenge or slaughter map mostly due to personal preference. I can still appreciate when something's solid in terms of how it's constructed and staged, and I can still look at the mechanics behind something, to see if there's a chance that something might "misfire", but that's as far as it goes in those rare cases...

What I'm saying is that the attitude towards play-testing and play-testers leaves some things to be desired every once in a while... And I could go on and on about situations where - from my perspective, which is rooted upon having tested more maps than I have created myself - the importance and/or value of competent testing has been criminally underrated... I view play-testing as an "exchange of privilege", for lack of a better way to say it. The mapper gets to enjoy the privilege of having someone at their side, who is going to sit down with their map in order to think about what worked well, what didn't work so well, and where there may be mechanical problems. The tester gets to enjoy the privilege that is getting their hands on something which is not always made public by that point - so before most other people see it - and to participate in the development of something which, at the bottom line, everybody involved can take some degree of "pride" in once it's available to the public. So, from where I am standing, and despite the fact that the mapper is always going to have the final say on matters - as it should be - it needs to be a level playing field as far as communication goes. It is a type of arrangement that is different from the "general feedback" you see in threads once something is published, in that a tester doesn't play something just once, makes an attempt to put down in words how they feel about something and then calls it a day - there is more thinking and even more playing involved than what's required for just saying "played it, liked this, didn't like that, tho" - in some cases, proper testing actually requires a great amount of patience, and a fair degree of "technical know-how" should something require some debugging. It's a co-operative endeavour, where people need to make clear what they're looking for, what they're able to contribute, and it has to go without saying that not all feedback that will come around is going to be "10/10 map" or something similar - it is not a "top-down dictatorship" from mapper to tester (and it shouldn't be a circle-jerk, either)... You wouldn't believe how, in some places I've seen for myself, play-testing was basically being treated as "bottom feeding". There was this one community project I signed up for as a tester to lend a hand (which has gone the way of the dodo, because it's been severely mismanaged), where I was on the respective discord, and asked for there to be a channel where mappers can put their maps for testing and where testers could put their feedback for the maps they grabbed and tested. The "system" that was put into place to make sure testers knew there was something new they could have a look at was to "ping" them via discord, and to post maps and the respective feedback in the general chat (where stuff could easily be missed, thus depriving mappers of potentially valuable feedback and testers of stuff to actually test), instead of giving all of that a place of its own. The effort required to set up the respective channel and the posting privileges based on roles accordingly was a mere few minutes worth of time to make the life of dozens of people, who would spend hours actively working on something, that much easier... That's the kind of bullshit - and there is no other descriptor that is suitable - mappers and testers were made to put up with, if they wanted to contribute. Oh, and did I mention the project died a silent death in the end? Go figure...

I've tested a couple maps over the years, and to be perfectly honest, the way I presented my feedback wasn't always one that I would say lived up to extremely high standards, both in terms of depth as well as delivery and/or overall structure... That being said though, if someone asked me to test a map, and I agreed to check it out, then the "having fun" part you describe is a welcome side-effect for me personally. Obviously I prefer testing the kinds of maps that cater to my "gameplay-fetishes" because it is usually more enjoyable for me personally, even if that may make the testing more complicated/exhausting in some cases, but my main motivation is to get in there, find things that I consider to be problems, and to think about how they could be solved, if something is a more elaborate or mechanical issue, and not just a mere oversight or texture misalignment. So, to me, it's less about enjoying the time I spend playing the map, and more about enjoying the process of finding things that can be improved in some way - and then seeing the improvements the mapper makes, should they agree... Also, from my very own experience, a huge issue can be transparency and/or how communication does or doesn't take place... I distinctly remember testing map with a fight that I suggested to add some rockets to, because not only was the fight not very threatening (not at all, if you circle-strafed, in fact) it was also very grindy for what little it actually contributed to the map. The suggestion to add like 2 (at most 3) additional boxes of rockets has been shot down with the argument that "it's not supposed to be a slaughter map". To put that into perspective, we're talking about a square-shaped arena with 4 PEs spawning in, which could be circle-strafed immediately. As someone who does like to help with something I am interested in on one hand, who also views the act of testing as "making time for somebody else, so they get to publish a more polished product" on the other hand, I can assure you I would not have spent a single minute testing those maps if I had known in advance that my feedback would be viewed through a lens like that. Like, sorry, if that's what you're giving me after I spent well over a dozen hours on a map, so that your product is met with an overall better reception once it's made public, you're just wasting my time. It's one thing to disagree with the feedback that's been provided if it does not align with the design-goals for a particular map or just a particular setup thereof - I can accept that, and it's a "doctrine" I entertain myself - but if you dismiss suggestions like that by virtue of an assumed "animosity" in order to defend a fight that was poorly executed and lacking in terms of concept, then you don't deserve that play-tester's time and effort, whether you like it or not... If you don't want (specific) testers to look for certain things (for specific reasons) - which they may bring to your attention as something worthy of criticism, tell them that from the get-go, so that they can spend their time more efficiently. I mean, the whole reason you want testers is because you want a second, third, if not eleventyfirsteenth opinion on something you have created, which is obviously not going to be "perfect", especially not while it's still a work-in-progress... I understand that there are these notions some people entertain where they view their maps as some sort of extension of themselves - however esoteric that might sound, it's something I can wrap my head around, but if you give me a map, and you want me to play-test it, then I'm going to be looking for "problems" like any sensible person would. Nobody needs testers to give them a "5/5 would download again" (even though a pat on the back tends to feel good), so if you don't want criticism from testers, don't "hire" testers to begin with, and don't pretend you want to have something play-tested. You put something up for testing, any person who understands what the term "test" means will assume that criticism is fair game, so your map will be met with some criticism. To wrap this ramble up, if you want to have a good time with your testers, even if not all of the feedback you receive boils down to "sickest map ever", you and your testers need to put their cards on the table, so that everybody knows how things need to run in order to avoid misunderstandings. If you want the testing to yield the kinds of results you are looking for, then you, as the mapper, need to set up some parameters for your testers - and you, as a tester, need to adhere to those parameters whenever possible. That's my take on it, anyway...

Aww.... Our precious little snowflake is playing the victim-card instead of addressing any of the arguments that have been made. How cute. I hear there's copium available on 4chan, so try your luck where your drivel and your victim-complex have a chance to impress.

Let's get something straight here, people like Musk buy things that benefit themselves first and foremost. It's always been that way no matter how you slice it, and if anything beneficial for anybody else actually comes as part and parcel of the package, then that's at most a welcome side-effect. This idea that was espoused by someone else here, which is that Musk is merely buying it out of boredom, so that he can have some "puzzle" to solve is so woefully naive that it boggles the mind. People don't get as rich as for example Musk seems to be when their ambitions are primarily motivated by a general sense of benevolence or mere curiosity - people get rich, because when they make purchases like that, they do that after assessing that there's some manner of profit to be made for them in the vast majority of cases (if not all cases) - and that's profit of any sort, be it directly or indirectly, be it monetary gain, or be it stuff like "PR"... Look no further than Bezos, who - instead of spending money on installing air conditioning in his warehouses (unless he's forced by local legislation) - opted to hire people to do first aid when someone goes belly-up in the amazon box mines, because it was cheaper for him - a simple cost-benefit analysis carried out by someone who couldn't possibly care any less about the local economy, or the well-being of his employees. Also, while I'm at it, people like Musk or Bezos benefit way more from a fucked up local economy than from a healthy one, because if they actually create jobs, then a fucked up local economy gives them way more leverage with regards to what they need to pay their wage-slaves in order to actually have any applicants knocking at their doors in the first place. People like Bezos fucking love monopsonies, and those are always easiest to come by where employment opportunities are at a premium. Why do you think are iphones being made in china for the equivalent of a 4-5$ hourly wage, and why do kids in China knit carpets for even less than that until their fingers are ruined around the age of 10 to 12 years, after which many of them need to compensate for the lack of income by way of prostitution until they're 14, which is when they are allowed to glue shoes together for Nike again? Does that happen because financial heavy-weights like Musk care about your neighbourhood's economy? Thus far, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Musk aims to create plenty more jobs to go along with his purchase, and even if he happens to come up with something that requires additional manpower (a pipe dream when you're looking algorithms that do the "checking" instead of real people who would need to be paid, by the way), it would still be highly unlikely that the additional jobs created would make any noticeable difference on the local economy, because they're not going to hire like 10,000 - 20,000 people - it would be damn surprising if even just a hundred new jobs were created (which is still a drop in the ocean, considering the size of the workforce as a whole, even when it's just smaller cities instead of "behemoths" like for example New York)... Do you think your thinly veiled insult changes anything about the fact that people like Musk or Bezos "create jobs" only if it is in their own interest to do so in the first place? If anything, I would suggest you attend high school for another 1 - 2 years so that you can have another chance at learning some critical thinking - when that's done, then we can have another discussion about whose ideology may or may not survive contact with reality. Oh, one more thing. If you have mass employment in a single area exclusively (<- very important qualifier!) due to a lack of employment opportunities, then the local economy is fucked already, because that's why people aren't getting their hands on any jobs in the first place. There are not enough businesses that create jobs, because it's scorched earth from an economic perspective to begin with. If it were as easy as "hire more people, so you get to sell more product" there would never be a shortage of jobs anywhere around the world, because every entrepreneur under the sun would hire people like crazy in order to raise their own profits and the profits of everybody else. Why, then, don't entrepreneurs just do that? And you want to talk smack about people who are (supposedly) still in high school, or whose ideology is presumably the problem here? Have you taken a look in the mirror lately?

In a world where people run a patreon account, stream on twitch, or whatever else people have up and running that involves money in some order, it's kinda unlikely that nobody here wants to make any money. In fact, I could throw a couple hundred dollars at someone right now to get an awesome new MIDI in return... It's not like there are people here who will only lift a finger when the money is there, but it's definitely the case that money is involved at this point, and it has been for a long time - one example that also comes to mind would be brutal doom...

1. Several of those big players that haven't been mentioned are rubbing shoulders anyway, because they represent the same ideology and have the same goals. It doesn't matter if Musk is 1/12, 1/32, or 1/108. The situation as a whole is still the same. 2. When it's one guy anywhere, then it's all dead and done in the water. It's not where the problems start, it's where the possibility to solve problems ends. And before you start arguing that the government has a monopoly on that sort of stuff, save yourself the effort, because governments are subject to vastly different laws and regulations than a private person like Musk, who has no concept of accountability or social responsibility. Except those people with cops and soldiers are also the ones who put laws into place which protect the freedom of speech and expression. They may not put laws into place that allow everybody to say the most heinous shit and get away with it (for reference, see 1st amendment of the USA, and the USA are not the only ones to make freedom of speech and expression a right everybody has - that also happens to have limits, contrary to popular belief).

It's by no means an unpopular opinion around here, you simply made the mistake of clicking a thread that magically attracts the type of person who happens to rate 11 on a 10 point "Dunning-Kruger scale"... If you'd like a more optimistic view, this thread is a honeypot, albeit a somewhat mediocre one at that...