this is your map's testing channel! Post map updates here and remember to follow our mapper rules: https://ddnet.org/rules
Include a changelog alongside your map updates (preferably with screenshots).
gameplay
Dummy by nezox
Btw why the transparent bg?
ye its okay
You can do this part without getting dj
Super cool map, but imo its abit too short. Would be nice with a few more parts!
This part seems a bit unbalanced. Would be better with hook through at the green or remove the freeze at red.
I suggest removing the hooks at red and add more at the green for a better swing
There is one 2x2 in the map and all the other blocks are 1x1's. Seems abit odd. Would be nice if you made some more variations of blocks by adding more bigger tiles or keeping it all with 1x1's.
This corner is smaller than the once you used everywhere else.
Missing corner
Another small corner
Corner missing
This is the only place you put a corner on hookable.
Another skip
smth like this maybe idk
Ye that should fix it
Please fix the transparent bg too!. It only looks grey on yours because your default background is grey too.
Design is a bit plain, woulda been nice if you worked more on the map before putting it on test server. Seems like you were a bit in a rush while mapping this.- No pun intended.
I don’t have much time to delve into the design and so on, it’s just that this map was made about 6 months ago, and only now I’ve done some minimal design and worked on some parts. I didn’t want the work to go to waste, especially since the map isn’t bad
But I will try to do something
Map channel has been moved to waiting mapper.
Include a changelog alongside your map updates (preferably with screenshots).
Big thanks to iTom
Didnt do a lot but ig its enough? Stars and some decoration^^ For me it looks good
This seems "perfectly" measured right now as all attempts I've had so far, were really close.
1st issue in that part is, that getting your dummy past the unhook tiles is controlled by unnatural movement and that should be optimized again to make it work smoothly. 2nd thing is the dj on the bottom, as there is barely kept any speed and the dj timing has to be "perfect" again to reach the hookables.
The swing seems really bad right now as I have to touch the floor right after hitting the hook. That could be more improved.
Often I wont get past the tiles above me.
Also as Aoe already mentioned 2 times, please don't put transparency on your background. https://ddnet.org/guidelines/
Layers which will need to be set for high detail.
Please watch out for more of those bugs in your map.
entity bug
Aoe mentioned those already. Also I would add the corner on top back again as it doesn't look good right now.
(not the only place)
Now my final words to this map.
Design is not terrible, but could be improved way more. The 1x1 generic unhookables are really uninspiring and I'm pretty sure you could find a better tileset which will give the map a better look overall. You could play with 2x2 and 3x3 variations then instead of having 1x1's throughout the whole map.
The map is made out of 7 parts if I count every single small part and as of now that is way too short to be released like that.
However, I think some of the gameplay I mentioned could be improved and even more if you go in depth. Additionally if you want to continue working on this map, then you should at least create and add the same amount of gameplay you already have.
The most important thing I'm mentioning is, that you didn't listen to some testers feedback which makes me think, that it doesn't matter enough to you having a good map released. Your comment that the map was created about 6 months ago, doesn't justify all of that and is more likely a reason to me, that you don't want to spend time on this map, which is also totally fine. But we testers put a lot work into testing to bring maps in a good state and if mappers don't respond to feedback, then I'm wondering, why you submitted your map here.
I will decline this for now and if you wish to work on this, then feel free to resubmit your map.
Your map submission has been declined.
referring to these messages
Idc a lot but 2 things. First can we stop saying a map is too short? I would prefer this map 10x more over pataros 2 or Cts. Second why do we raise the bar for design so high. For me a simple design is much more enjoyable to play. Every tile is easy to distinguish and its not painful to look at the screen. Bugs could still easily be fixed and some 2x2 3x3 added
The combination of difficulty/failyness and length plays all together, but here the map would only be rated that low just because of its length. The parts imo. don't belong to a low rated dummy map as the parts themselves don't provide the gameplay a 1-2* usually has.
I am not saying that this map is bad, objectively it is just short and this map doesn't seem to be a full product yet. You could take a look at our recent dummy maps to see what the current standards are.
Some work should be put into design at least, and when the map was submitted, it was really poor done and only got changed recently. It does look better indeed, but Aoe already mentioned the generic unhookables earlier and they still look the same, nothing changed. Above a month after given feedback, there have been changes to the design, but feedback relating to the gameplay was still not considered. Nowhere did I say, the design is not releasable. But as you said, this could be easily fixed. That is why I told the mapper to resubmit the map when he is willing to do changes and make the map longer.
I agree on the design part. But we shouldnt avoid/forbid/decline short, difficult maps just cause its hard to rate. There should be room for this kind of maps and not a rule to make faily difficult maps longer? xd
(If you double the parts the amount of trys you need for this map increases progressive. Some Example: The Map has 7 parts, a player has the chance of 50% of doing each part( We assume the player is not improving). We want a 95% probability(Confidence interval) of finnishing the map one time. How many trys does he need? Chance of finnishing is 0,5^7=0,78125%(p) for each try. 95% probability of finnishing 1 time: 1−(1−p)^n ≥0,95 =(1-p)^n≤0,05 = 0.9921875^n≤0,05 =ln(0,9921875 n)≤ln(0,05)=382 trys. If we double the amount of parts you need 49.081 trys for a 95% confidenceintervall. Hope i calculated it right🤓 I know players improve over time but i wanted to show that increasing the map lenght may be bad for the succesfull experience of finnishing the map^^)
^ I haven't finished NeZoX maps because for me they were too long and I couldn't be bothered to learn the parts. So yeah, having a short 2 stars maps with 3 stars difficulty doesn't sound too bad.
First, we wouldn't release maps based on probability calculation... That is clearly not how it works.
I've explained my position clearly and directed it to the mapper. As I mentioned before, the map simply lacks of content. It's not that we don't release shorter maps, but if we let this topic go further, then we would have even worse cases than this. For example, creating a dummy map with more challenging parts with the same length as in this map. The map’s difficulty rating would be comparable to this one, just because of its length. We want to avoid that and ensure the * rating has a meaning behind it. It won't benefit most players having harder but shorter maps ranked in the wrong difficulty.
If the mapper wants to work on this map, feel free to do so. Keep further discussions about this issue out of this channel please.
You didnt get the point, that adding more parts makes a map disproportional harder. And why shouldnt we discuss the reasons you declined it? The rating argument is just bad and nonsense to me
It would be disproportional harder in its rating if it would be released like that.
The rating argument is just bad and nonsense to me explained already how it makes sense.
For example, creating a dummy map with more challenging parts with the same length as in this map. The map’s difficulty rating would be comparable to this one, just because of its length. We want to avoid that and ensure the * rating has a meaning behind it. It won't benefit most players having harder but shorter maps ranked in the wrong difficulty.
There is no rule determining how long a map should be.
add the same amount of gameplay you already have. However, at least 3-4 more parts in the map would be more appropriate to give a fair rating to not cause the mentioned issue.
In that case I'm relating to the Mapping Guidelines https://ddnet.org/guidelines/
- Consistent difficulty Large spikes in difficulty lead to an unbalanced gameplay ; too easy or too hard at times, it’s unsatisfying for players and it’s impossible for testers to rate during the testing process.
Your map should be balanced throughout the whole map - don't put a Brutal part in the middle of a Moderate map.
There are a few parts which I mentioned, that should be changed to fix the balancing issue overall. Additionally in order to rate this map appropriately, the map should contain more content. It is not written there exactly, but the rating issue is still present.
Useless discussion,no map should not get released cause the rating isnt easy. If the gameplay is good we shouldnt care a lot if its 2 or 3 stars and force a mapper to add more parts. Its also not like the map has novice and brutal parts, isnt that unbalanced.But ig we have a different opinion on that. Thanks anyway for the detailed answers! 🙂 Hope NeZoX changes some stuff would be sad if the map never gets rls.