Quote:
Originally Posted by
MangyCarface
6v6 playtesting takes a lot more out of playtesters than pub playtesting, where anyone can hop in or out at any time and can casually play. 6v6 playtests are precious things and if the mapmaker can't be spared to hang around for the entirety of a test then they don't really need that test. When you playtest in 6v6 you want to iterate very slowly so that you're not forcing people to play your map every other day- easy to get sick of even good maps like that.
OK, none of that actually addressed my query.
I would have no intention of demanding my map be tested every other day; and if i'm spectating, technically i am "hanging around"; if that
principle is so important. But that's not what i was asking. It's that we have to participate in one of these for it to happen. I have no problems participating in
some if not
most games, especially if they involve my own map, but if i would like
one extra PUG to
fine tune my map before my next release, that i am dissallowed this because i wont/cannot play in it. A mapper might rather spectate for the sake of not destroying balance. Otherwise,
then what's the point of the test?
There is also, obviously, no obligation for anyone in particular to test at any given time. So if people feel they don't want to play, that's their porogative. I really don't see the issue here that it requires a rule like that. It merely seems counter intuitive to the development process.
My issue isn't even with people joining in and dropping out half way through a game. Again, that wasn't what i asked, i can understand why
that would be disallowed.
Also, whether a mapper is able to attend their map test or not has nothing to do with whether it actually requires testing. These are two seperate things, and as a statement sounds completely pretentious.
I fail to see any relavence to anything you said in regards to what i asked. I simply wanted a justification for a rule that seemed largely unnecassery, particularly when i imagine most mappers will attend their own maps anyway.
As i said, i was querying because i might want one test with balanced teams before i release another beta; but you're saying i can't do that unless i play. I just fail to see the logic. If a map gets over tested, people will simply say that and refuse to play it further. You don't need a rule like that to manage excessive testing of any one map.
I don't mean to sound ungreatful for this service, not at all. It just seems to be a rule that only restricts the total amount of tests available to mappers for the competition. If you have the man power to fill 12 slots without the mapper, it just seems petty to refuse that test on the grounds that he is unable to personally attend. Particularly in the context of a fair test, where not playing is intentional. If someone ends up requesting a lot of tests that he doesn't attend i can see why you would refuse it further testing. But refusing to test maps without the author's attendance outright?
Competitive Testing now Available Here!
