Advertisement

Author Topic: Qualified staff  (Read 1529 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline humphrey

  • Members
  • *
Qualified staff
« on: 29 Jan 2009, 10:36:55 »
Hi -

I been lurking around here for a while now and i noticed something weird. On this page http://www.ofpec.com/faq/index.php?action=read&cat=ao&id=49 it says

Quote
a balanced critique by one of our experienced Missions Depot Staff.

but over the last while I seen a bunch of pretty basic questions asked by some of these staff. I guess my question is what makes these guys so qualified to score other missions if they don't know that much about making missions?

Offline i0n0s

  • Former Staff
  • ****
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #1 on: 29 Jan 2009, 13:49:22 »
You don't need mission maker to test missions.
You need players to test missions.
And at that point there is no conflict between experienced and their questions.

Offline hoz

  • OFPEC Site
  • Administrator
  • *****
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #2 on: 29 Jan 2009, 14:10:22 »
Just to add...
Quote
Each mission has also been given a score, which we like to think gives a fairly accurate rating of the mission's quality. However, in all cases you should download the missions and make your own decision

Xbox Rocks

Offline humphrey

  • Members
  • *
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #3 on: 29 Jan 2009, 14:19:26 »
Yah I understand but testing is not the same as giving a score. Say one of these guys see some really cool scripting and goes "wow that's shithot, wonder how the guy did that!" and gives a high score. But another review staff who knows something about scripting sees the same thing but doesn't get all impressed because he understands how it was done. I'm not sayin I disagree with the whole scoring thing, I'm satying that if you got a guy who knows his stuff he gives a better review of all those things down the side like scripting and camera cos he knows more about them and knows whats good and whats shit.

Offline hoz

  • OFPEC Site
  • Administrator
  • *****
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #4 on: 29 Jan 2009, 14:57:11 »
Which is why we invite you to make your own decision about a mission review. Not everyone has a mando-brain or is spoon-tastic but we try hard. :)
Xbox Rocks

Offline Wolfrug

  • Addons Depot
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Official OFPEC Old Timer
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #5 on: 29 Jan 2009, 15:21:02 »
Being an experienced reviewer != being an experienced scripter! Likewise being good at making missions != being good at scripting. There's a reason we have resources in the ED depot : to let people take ready-made scripts and functions and apply them to their missions, without necessarily needing to 'understand' how it works. Of course, ArmA and OFP being the games they are, one does need some basic understanding of syntax to be able to make stuff work, but really, it shouldn't be a showstopper if you're not a Mandoble or a Spooner  :)

That said, it's not the complexity or quality of e.g. scripting that make a mission, it's how these things are USED. A mission can have a wholly new, complicated script system, created from scratch, but if that's all the mission has going for it (or if the system is poorly utilized in the mission), well...likewise, some very simple scripts and commands (perhaps not even external to the editor!) can give a mission a very polished and expert appearance. At the point the mission arrives at the reviewer, it's the mission itself being reviewed, not the process leading up to it or what's under the hood. :)

And finally: download and try for yourself, don't trust scores ;)

Wolfrug out.
"When 900 years YOU reach, look as good you will not!"

Offline humphrey

  • Members
  • *
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #6 on: 29 Jan 2009, 20:20:54 »
 :D You guys rock.

I'm glad we got this site in the community because the BI forum is a bit of a joke, you wouldnt get people answering questions as good as this, not as friendly either. Its good that you don't take this stuff like scores and shit to seriously and your up front about it, some people really got a stick up there ass when it comes to this stuff, but your all like, chill man.

I'll just play more missions and do my own comments like you said.  :good: :clap:

Offline fallujahmedic

  • Members
  • *
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #7 on: 29 Jan 2009, 22:56:16 »
 Minus the colorful metaphors humphrey used  ;) I'd have to agree that we are a lucky bunch!  I'm glad to see intelligent responses from the site staff. All too often on sites like BI and Armaholic the responses by the staff are normally curt, condescending and normally contribute nothing. Sometimes all that is required is a shove in the right direction or an encouraging word.
 As far as the scoring goes, yes it's subjective, but I understand how you come by your score. Yes, D/l a mission and play it for yourself, You may or may not like it. Personally I cant stand most aspects of Evolution. I prefer tactics and sound military doctrine to "give me every available air and armor asset available in the game". Far too often I see folks flying around in helos then bailing out when they near their destination, what a waste of resources!

 For the most part you staff seems qualified enough, I have no MAJOR gripes. Like we were told in the military "a bitching soldier is a happy soldier".

Keep up the good work, I know its hard playing Arma all day   :cool2:
 

Offline savedbygrace

  • Mission Depot
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Be swift to hear...slow to speak...slow to wrath.
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #8 on: 30 Jan 2009, 05:53:39 »
Also, to note.....The Missions Depot staff has a set criteria to adhere to when reviewing a submitted project, which is where the balance is struck. The critique is applied by their own opinions just as you have your own opinion of what qualified is. And as you stated, there is no other like OFPEC; No other site takes the time to review missions before public release in order to maintain quality offerings to the community. It's a, By the community For the community thing  ;)

Offline Cheetah

  • Former Staff
  • ****
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #9 on: 30 Jan 2009, 09:34:25 »
A lot of good points have been made in this thread  :good: They reflect the way our reviews should be interpretated, but I think there is a bit more to it.

Scores given are based on perception, which is determined by the reviewer's taste. There are certain rules, areas that have to be talked about in a review. However, the final verdict is always subjective. This makes it important to understand who reviewed the mission and what he likes most in ArmA/OFP. Speaking of that, this is something currently hard to find out. Point noted for improval.

The second thing I'd like to add is that the beta testing done on the beta boards is often more important as the final review. Why? Many people share their opinion on the mission, bugs get found by testers and fixed. This all results in a far better end result! That's why we stress the fact that a mission should be beta tested prior to being reviewed.

So, in the end, why even review missions? It gives authors something to strife to. It promotes completing a mission - bug free end result. And, in the end, a mission that receives an 8 or 9 (10?) is recommended, while a mission with a 3 is probably less enjoyable. Between different authors, a score often varies only 1 point. Sometimes 2 points, but this is often the case in a love or hate mission.
Like missions? Help with Beta Testing! or take a look at the OFPEC Missions Depot for reviewed missions!

Offline mathias_eichinger

  • Missions Depot
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #10 on: 30 Jan 2009, 10:39:57 »
When I reflect on this as a reviewer, it comes to my mind that I am susceptible to what I call "the balancing problem": Very often, I find missions unplayable hard, be it that you are hunted down by regular soldiers form 300 m away and you have only a silenced MP, your position is overrun by scores of tanks or there are enemies coming at you like a swarm of mosquitos.

While balancing problems are bad mission design for sure, the very term is subjective. What if I am a worse player than the specific mission editor, and he can pick off enemies twice as fast as I can?
Bottom line: Always put your mission through the beta testing process, to see if anything comes up with other people that would be perfectly ok for yourself.

Offline Wolfrug

  • Addons Depot
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Official OFPEC Old Timer
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #11 on: 30 Jan 2009, 11:26:47 »
"The balancing problem" can luckily be countered by things like difficulty selectors and the mission-maker giving the player plenty of alternative assets by which to complete the missions (reinforcements, artillery or gunship support, a wide array of weaponry, several routes of attack etc.); likewise, if the mission needs to be harder, it can be made so (a little artificially) by introducing things like time limits, limited assets/saves, vital units or things that need to be protected etc. It's a balancing act, but ultimately, I think, a rewarding one  :good:

/off topic

Carry on!

Wolfrug out.
"When 900 years YOU reach, look as good you will not!"

Offline schuler

  • Contributing Member
  • **
Re: Qualified staff
« Reply #12 on: 30 Jan 2009, 12:06:41 »
We look for game play, there are some very well made missions with little or basically no real scripting. A good mission can be made with the in-game editor alone. We don't want to pick the whole mission apart to see how things are done but that they are well made for the mission and its game play (story or objectives ).
  I never un-pbo a mission till I have played it a few times, its not fair to peak!
We all work together to see that a fairness is given to the author. We are a team and review each others reviews before they are published to the public.
  Not all test pilots built the aircraft they test, and if they did they might not fly the damned thing.
  Some players can play the game very well but yet not write a mission. But have mastered game play. How many critics have directed a movie? How many good directors have made rotten movies yet you liked it? You or someone else might like an author's ways of writing ( or style ) more then someone else. Some people like solo missions as a sniper, others might like playing the commander and order in the troops and sit back and not have to fire their weapon. (not many missions like that in Arma but in OFP there was). I think it all comes done to fairness and having fun, after all test pilots have died testing aircraft and I don't think we have to worry about that here...... unless someone scores a 10 !
I do appreciate your question  and it deserves an answer. I do agree with everyone so far and I am glad you enjoy the site.
I liked the points everyone has made in this post,, all valid.
And if anything goes wrong,,,,,     blame Cheetah he is our boss   :P @ Cheetah ( had to get that in for fun! )
And thanks to the bigger guys  :cop: that keep this site running, so we all can have some good ol' fun.  :clap:
@ Mathias and Wolfrug good points on balancing, its all a combination of things that make a good mission, not just scripting alone. And mostly as said before, beta testing please. :whistle:
cheers to all schuler
Note this is an IMO and I am not speaking for the site
« Last Edit: 30 Jan 2009, 12:11:37 by schuler »
Semper Fi