Conquer Club

I want to start a new user group called "map reviewers".

The purpose will be to systematically play and publish reviews of maps based on a fixed set of gameplay configurations.

There will be testers. I.e., specialists to play, say, 20-30 games on a map all with same settings, like fog, freestyle or 1v1.

Testers will submit reports and/or write up their results for publication.

There will also be an editorial staff that reviews and/or compiles/writes up the review based on testers input.

I would prefer to have people who are NOT mapmakers in this group.

I would also prefer to have at least 5 premium who can do the lions share of testing. The other 5 +/- can be freemium and would be expected to contribute to the editorial aspects of writing the reviews.

This will be something like tournament newsletter, but more of a long term project. Results will made available in some abridged form to the greater cc community.

To make the organizational aspects manageable, I'm going to limit to 10 people at the start. I reserve the right to selectively admit if there are more than 10 interested in joining.

If you are interested, sign up below please, include whether you plan to be on the writing side or the testing side or both, and PM me with a RW email contact as well.

I expect this will get off the group slowly... so don't expect to hear from me right away if you do sign up.

This is a great idea. If I can do something to help let me know.

I agree. I can do both, but preferably would like to write reviews and such if needed to.

I like the idea and the iniative. I'd surely like to help out if I could.


--Andy

I would like to be in, as a tester

My rank is low at the moment, because im trying to get it low - my usual rank is major.

I would like to partake in this, the testing side please

Note: I would not be able to start until after the 26th of this month, I will be away until then

Very good idea.....I would like to help if I can.

I'm in as a tester if you decide to approve me

Nice idea, I'd like to help out.

--lanyards

yer me too ey...

I'd like to be in, not testing, not writing, just reading, to see what kind of discussions you guys have in the group. I'm a mapmaker and I'd love to be in there to see what happens in the discussions regarding gameplay. I could use whatever I learn to help improve my own maps and also maps made by others.

I think it would be beneficial to include a few mapmakers in this group. Not that we would be any extra bonus in the testing, but because we can take what we learn from the discussions in there and use that information to help fix gameplay issues BEFORE the maps are finished, when the maps are still in the foundry.. Since most complaints about gameplay seem to come out right after a map is finished, any other mapmakers in the group and I could possibly eliminate some of those problems before a map is finished. One of the most difficult things to do is to make a map equally balanced on all settings. If I could learn any clue from this group about how to make a map more balanced and then use that information to help improve one of the maps currently in production, that would be awesome.

I know you said you didn't want mapmakers in the group, but if you are willing to have an extra member or two just reading, learning from the discussions, but not participating, I'd love to be a part of this group.
If not, I wish you good luck.
I'll be interested in reading the "reviews" this group produces.

I'll do whatever you need done. And you should open this up to mapmakers like wcaclimbing mentioned, just to have them around and able to see (or take part in) the discussions. Maybe make a post in Foundry discussion linking here (mapmakers advertise in GD; clans advertise in the foundry)

This is an encouraging start. One thing is that while I initially and still do prefer not to have mapmakers on the team, that's mainly to preserve objectivity in the reviews. There is an inherent issue if people are reviewing, or even influencing the reveiws of, their maps or maps that they have made calls on. I can see why it makes sense to open this up to let mapmakers get engaged in the program, and I'm going to give some thought on what type or role could work into the main objective to provide thorough, quality, objective reviews of map gameplay. Initially, at least, I'm thinking that giving access to the working group area would not be a good idea, or at least not without ability to put up chinese walls for certain map reveiws.

By my count there are 10 already signed up. Over the next week I am going to put together a draft of the standard setting combinations for evaluation, as well as the ratings criteria. I was originally thinking of a standardized word or excel document that every tester would use, so if you want to have a look at that in advance, like I said above, I'll need a RW email that can receive attachments. Once that is finalized, map teams will be formed and we can start getting down to business. I think realistically to plan on 2 weeks +/- before testing kicks off. Like I said, this will be a big project, and we'll try to go slow and steady in the beginning.

Anyone else who wants to be in, please post below as I will send in the roster to the admins probably tomorrow or Friday.

Thanks all for your interest.

I'll lend my hand to do his project. I think it would be a great idea!! I think we should also write up Map Guides for each Map to help out newbies! I dont think map makers should be allowed into this group to but i do think Andy, Gimil and or Oaktown should be invitied. there knowledge would be a great assest!

hulmey wrote:I'll lend my hand to do his project. I think it would be a great idea!! I think we should also write up Map Guides for each Map to help out newbies! I dont think map makers should be allowed into this group to but i do think Andy, Gimil and or Oaktown should be invitied. there knowledge would be a great assest!

that i agree with...if your gonna have a map maker in here have a carto...
means info about gameplay stuff can get directly back but also stay cant think of the word...unifluenced lol
also be good in this group stratergy games can be played...ie in an open chat as we will be talking about gameplay and what not...
and what hulmey said a write up about the maps to help noobs

lord voldemort wrote:

hulmey wrote:I'll lend my hand to do his project. I think it would be a great idea!! I think we should also write up Map Guides for each Map to help out newbies! I dont think map makers should be allowed into this group to but i do think Andy, Gimil and or Oaktown should be invitied. there knowledge would be a great assest!

that i agree with...if your gonna have a map maker in here have a carto...
means info about gameplay stuff can get directly back but also stay cant think of the word...unifluenced lol
also be good in this group stratergy games can be played...ie in an open chat as we will be talking about gameplay and what not...
and what hulmey said a write up about the maps to help noobs

Hey man, you just got to stop agreeing with

Well im not one to follow rules, ( ) so, im still in as stated before - only for testing and commenting on gameplay.

I would be interested in the editorial/compilling side, as there seem to be a lot of people who want to be testers and im only fremium I think I could be of service in that area.

Hope this gets of the ground with or with out me on board as it could really help in the future as the number of new map releases seems to be increaseing more quickly.

Ill be in as a writer and a tester

perhaps you should split the people who wish to help into 2 groups of 8-10
1 person to write up the editorials (and possibly be a tester if they wish)
1 person to read said editorials as an actual editer (and possibly be a tester)
6-8 players to be the actual in game testers (8 players if the 2 writers are separate, 6 if they are participateing)
This way you have 2 teams, asign each to a map alternateing as they get forged. Perhaps asign the teams as maps enter the FF, that way they can look on and make comments pre-forge as well

t-o-m wrote:Well im not one to follow rules, ( ) so, im still in as stated before - only for testing and commenting on gameplay.

you are a map maker

ill love to join

If you still have spots, I'd love to help out.

Natewolfman wrote:perhaps you should split the people who wish to help into 2 groups of 8-10
1 person to write up the editorials (and possibly be a tester if they wish)
1 person to read said editorials as an actual editer (and possibly be a tester)
6-8 players to be the actual in game testers (8 players if the 2 writers are separate, 6 if they are participateing)
This way you have 2 teams, asign each to a map alternateing as they get forged. Perhaps asign the teams as maps enter the FF, that way they can look on and make comments pre-forge as well

I think the group should have at least 8 testers for trying stuff out with 8 players and such.

Someone asked me why I am openning this to all ranks, and I said that I felt comfortable that we could spot questionable test reporting / reviewing because there will be redundancy (i.e., a couple of people working on each map), and if someone doesn't know what they are talking about, we'll figure it out pretty fast. And after thinking it over, the same thing should be true for mapmaker bias, so I'm prepared at this point to have a go at letting in mapmakers.

If we have 10, which is what I counted, I see us dividing into teams of 5 to review a single map. The team will consist of 2 primary testers, 2 secondary testers, and 1 editor.

Primary testers will run the battery of games playing about 20-50 games on a map in various combinations. These games will be games with the public at large, or organized using the "rank" threads as private games for the more complicated maps to ensure that there is opportunity to see some of the best players work the map. They will submit a ratings form, along with reviewer commentary to the team. The team will look for items that stand out (like "this map doesn't work for 1v1"), and then the secondary testers will go to work. Secondary testers will play 2-3 games with the primary tester (either on same team or against) and evaluate whether the flagged parts of the review are legitimate. They will then also submit an abreviated review and comment sheet. The fifth person on the team will be the "editor" who will be responsible for the final content of the review, including the narrative review. The reviewer will be expected to play 5-10 games on the map they are reviewing, but will not submit a ratings sheet, and the games can be in any context they want.

I will be coordinator and copy editor, occasionally jumping in on review teams as needed.

So now that there are more details available, I would ask people who posted here, and anyone else who may also be interested, to post below with their primary area of interest (i.e., primary tester, secondary tester, or reviewer). I would probably suggest that anyone lookign to be a primary tester should be premium.

Thanks,
GD