add more map review checks #370
Conversation
AshenCinders
force-pushed
the
check-default-spawn-mapreview
branch
from
bee3bc6 to
71657ad
Compare
AshenCinders
changed the title
AshenCinders
force-pushed
the
check-default-spawn-mapreview
branch
from
71657ad to
96f814c
Compare
AshenCinders
force-pushed
the
check-default-spawn-mapreview
branch
from
96f814c to
4ed6f43
Compare
| For more in-depth information on map porting, please see the [map porting](../map_porting) and [zoning](../map_zoning) guides. | ||
|
|
||
| First check: | ||
| - [ ] The map has been in public testing for at least 7 days |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is more of just something for us to think about, but I feel like we need a way to see how much each track was actually played in the testing period. I've reviewed maps that had few if any completions so I couldn't actually be sure how much it was tested. Maybe this will be better now that there's more people able to play.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe it's Tom's idea to keep maps in public testing for at least 7 days, but admins can bypass this. I'm adding this box mainly because I've seen some maps get fast-tracked and approved within a day of entering public testing, one instance (I think) within an hour
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The 7 day thing has been planned for years, before I was even involved with the project. Honestly it's pretty skeptical of its usefulness. As rio said it doesn't guarantee people actually complete the map. Requiring completions doesn't sound particularly helpful either though, most players aren't providing feedback. I guess it's good to confirm that it's even beatable, but doesn't guarantee it's been tested significantly beyond that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There have been a few maps that have been approved but had problems that needed addressing, which in a lot of those cases we would definitely have found the issues had the map been out in public testing for 7 days.
So I think we should keep that limit
|
@jason-e please merge if you are happy with it, |
3 participants
No description provided.