Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

Well, the latter would be ideal.

Stephen4Louise
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 548
Registered: 04-06-2005
IP: Logged

eytanz wrote:
"Upgrades will only be accepted if the original demo still works for them"

I'm still not convinced that including demos with new holds is the right way forward, but this is one place where the idea could be best used.

I still don't like the idea of including demo's though. What would you do for a hold like Figure or Ground, where each room has to be passed through several times. Each room may be beatable from certain entrances, but the overall maze may not work.
In Beethro's Day Off, the majority of the rooms can't be beat (intentionally), and the main puzzle rooms all have to be passed through twice. What demo's whould I need to include to get that hold passed?

silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged

I don't see the objection, really.
Demos which conquer the conquerable rooms. Optional rooms wouldn't need demos.
These "others paths" and "have to go through it more than once" objections are smoke and mirrors -- you'd need provide the same demos which will eventually be usable as high score demos.

The careless authors who are putting out crap holds with unconquerable-but-required rooms are not the same ones designing Figure or Ground.


____________________________

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

Plus, "this solution will not work in 100% of the cases" is a poor reason not to do anything - if 4 out of every 5 unconquerable holds are thus prevented, that's progress. Sure, even with demos it would be possible to screw things up royally - say, make a room solvable, get a demo for it, then edit the level to make it inaccessible, and submit the hold - but that'll be less likely.

Now, it's true that Syntax's suggestion to limit hold edits will make such holds harder to fix. So I'd say that if Syntax's suggetion is adopted, there should be a way for the forum admins to allow, on a case-by-case basis, for more serious edits to be done.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

michthro
Level: Smitemaestro
Rank Points: 679
Registered: 05-01-2005
IP: Logged

Exactly. Demos for required rooms would already go a long, long way. What's more, multiple pass-through rooms isn't a problem. Someone already pointed out that a sequence of demos would cover that. (Either a sequence of level demos, or just a sequence of room demos. Same thing.) It would require a little added code to check that such a sequence is valid, i.e. room/level exits and entrances correspond, and room states are valid. (Remember that a demo needn't be a *victory* demo.) So the author supplies such a sequence, the spider plays it, and checks that the hold and all required rooms are conquered.

That only leaves cases where the hold can be conquered, but restoring is necessary to conquer all rooms. To handle this would be a bit more complicated, but it can still be done. The spider is given more than one sequence, and sees where one sequence can be attached to another one to form a branch. Basically, the spider starts playing the main sequence, and when it finds itself in a position corresponding to the start of another sequence, it branches.

Otherwise, the only possible problem I see is authors making rooms unrequired because they're too lazy to supply a demo.

Stephen4Louise
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 548
Registered: 04-06-2005
IP: Logged

silver wrote:
I don't see the objection, really.
Demos which conquer the conquerable rooms. Optional rooms wouldn't need demos.
These "others paths" and "have to go through it more than once" objections are smoke and mirrors -- you'd need provide the same demos which will eventually be usable as high score demos.

The careless authors who are putting out crap holds with unconquerable-but-required rooms are not the same ones designing Figure or Ground.

How about this, demos have to be included for all rooms that are marked as scorable. However, there is no way to currently mark rooms as scorable until after they have been uploaded. I personally thing that marking rooms as scorable should be something that can happen during the design of a hold, then maybe the demo idea will be more workable, otherwise how will the forum know which rooms need demos? It also allows testers to have more input into which rooms are scorable or not.

The main reason, I'm not 100% sure about including demos is that new architects should be directed towards the architecture forum as much as possible. Taking things out of their hands by forcing either admins or regular users to sign off their holds almost forces this. Allowing any hold with a full set of demos to be uploaded doesn't. A demo doesn't make a good playable room.

eytanz wrote:
"Upgrades will only be accepted if the original demo still works for them"

This is an excellent reason for including demos.

Some combination of the two ideas will probably be best.

---

[Last edited by Stephen4Louise at 09-11-2006 11:04 AM]

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

michthro wrote:
Exactly. Demos for required rooms would already go a long, long way. What's more, multiple pass-through rooms isn't a problem. Someone already pointed out that a sequence of demos would cover that. (Either a sequence of level demos, or just a sequence of room demos. Same thing.) It would require a little added code to check that such a sequence is valid, i.e. room/level exits and entrances correspond, and room states are valid. (Remember that a demo needn't be a *victory* demo.) So the author supplies such a sequence, the spider plays it, and checks that the hold and all required rooms are conquered.

No, this I'm against. The gain is much less than the inconvenience caused to the hold authors - currently, recording a sequence of demos requires them to solve their entire hold *in a single sitting* (they can't even exit to the main menu), which is ludicrous. It would be possible to implement an easier way to get sequences of demos in future versions, but this would require a lot of work for the programmers for little gain.

Once TCB is released, this entire discussion will become moot, and not in a good way - some of the additional capabilities in 3.0 will make demos an even less effective way of ensuring solvability (you'll have to forgive me for not supplying specifics here). I think that, as Stephen4Louise also pointed out, we need a solution that shuffles inexperienced authors towards proper behavior, rather than look for a technological panacae. Demo uploads by authors should be the first line of defence, not the ultimate one.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

---

[Last edited by eytanz at 09-11-2006 11:45 AM]

michthro
Level: Smitemaestro
Rank Points: 679
Registered: 05-01-2005
IP: Logged

Yeah, it would be a lot to ask from architects and the programmers. I agree that the ideal is to somehow get newcomers to play through their own holds (and all that). Individual demos for required rooms is still a good idea, though.

Tim
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1979
Registered: 08-07-2004
IP: Logged

What I think is most interesting about this discussion, is the fact that everyone here seems to agree that they don't want problem holds on the Holds board. Yet on the other hand will play them as soon as they are released, and don't seem want to give up their scores once they played those holds.

It's also very interesting to hear that you all have the same idea on how this problem should be solved, and that is: spank the architect Sorry, I mean delaying the counting of the scores of new holds until it is solveble (again); and give a huge warning to those architects. But all I read is how it should be solved technically. Look, we, the forumites (and especially CaravelNet users) should all be saying that we don't like the current situation first. Then it's up to Erik (or Mike) to do anything about it. How they do is up to them, they might even ask us for help, but they can also say they will do nothing about it.

The only thing I want to say here is that I don't like the idea that even bad, large holds can score more than small great holds. Agreed? (Please say so if you do.)

-- Tim

PS. Well, let me tell you one thing: I don't have demos for any of my holds. Of course I test my hold thoroughly, but always inside the editor, and one part at a time. I haven't even finished some rooms in my first hold (although I know how to solve them, and tested this part by part). Does that mean I shouldn't release any new holds?

____________________________
The best way to lose customers is to let little kids running loose on a forum with too many mod points.

michthro
Level: Smitemaestro
Rank Points: 679
Registered: 05-01-2005
IP: Logged

Tim wrote:
What I think is most interesting about this discussion, is the fact that everyone here seems to agree that they don't want problem holds on the Holds board. Yet on the other hand will play them as soon as they are released, and don't seem want to give up their scores once they played those holds.

Not me. I wait before playing suspicious-looking holds. In the case of RR, I only played it when it had already been out a long time, and thought it's problems had more or less been sorted out.

But all I read is how it should be solved technically. Look, we, the forumites (and especially CaravelNet users) should all be saying that we don't like the current situation first. Then it's up to Erik (or Mike) to do anything about it. How they do is up to them, they might even ask us for help, but they can also say they will do nothing about it.

I don't see what there is to lose by discussing what Erik and Mike could do. Think of it as a feature request, where technical details, rather than a vague suggestion, are usually demanded.

The only thing I want to say here is that I don't like the idea that even bad, large holds can score more than small great holds. Agreed? (Please say so if you do.)

Agreed.

PS. Well, let me tell you one thing: I don't have demos for any of my holds. Of course I test my hold thoroughly, but always inside the editor, and one part at a time. I haven't even finished some rooms in my first hold (although I know how to solve them, and tested this part by part). Does that mean I shouldn't release any new holds?

No, but since you do test them, I don't see that it would affect you much if you or your testers had to record demos while you're at it.

---

[Last edited by michthro at 09-11-2006 08:55 PM]

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

Tim wrote:
What I think is most interesting about this discussion, is the fact that everyone here seems to agree that they don't want problem holds on the Holds board. Yet on the other hand will play them as soon as they are released

How else are people supposed to determine whether the holds are problematic or not other than by playing them? Sure, at some point it will be clear, and then, indeed, most people don't play them. But I don't want holds I can't play on the hold board either.

and don't seem want to give up their scores once they played those holds.

Actually, the poll clearly indicates that most people *are* willing to give up their scores if the hold is really problematic. What people are not happy about is the situation arising where that has to happen to begin with. Are you suggesting that people who took the time to solve rooms and get good scores for them should be happy to lose the scores?

It's also very interesting to hear that you all have the same idea on how this problem should be solved, and that is: spank the architect Sorry, I mean delaying the counting of the scores of new holds until it is solveble (again); and give a huge warning to those architects.

Huh?

But all I read is how it should be solved technically. Look, we, the forumites (and especially CaravelNet users) should all be saying that we don't like the current situation first.

We did.

Then it's up to Erik (or Mike) to do anything about it. How they do is up to them, they might even ask us for help, but they can also say they will do nothing about it.

True, it's up to them to decide what the policy is. But that does not mean we can't come up with suggestions. Once they decide on a policy and announce it, it will be the time to stop making suggestions, not the time to start.

The only thing I want to say here is that I don't like the idea that even bad, large holds can score more than small great holds. Agreed? (Please say so if you do.)

I don't have any problem with large holds scoring more than small holds. I would like it to be theoretically the case that difficult holds get more points relative to their size than easy holds, but that's a totally different discussion and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

PS. Well, let me tell you one thing: I don't have demos for any of my holds. Of course I test my hold thoroughly, but always inside the editor, and one part at a time. I haven't even finished some rooms in my first hold (although I know how to solve them, and tested this part by part). Does that mean I shouldn't release any new holds?

No. One of the things being suggested above is that the hold's author doesn't have to be the one creating the demos. They can come from testers. All that means is that you'd need to get someone to beta test your hold for you and generate demos, which presumably you're doing anyway.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

Tim
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1979
Registered: 08-07-2004
IP: Logged

[Note: Sorry if I am a little harsh in some of my answers, but I'm not that good in diplomatic answers, and I think that will not do the discussion any good.]

michthro wrote:
Not me. I wait before playing suspicious-looking holds. In the case of RR, I only played it when it had already been out a long time, and thought it's problems had more or less been sorted out.

Sorry about this then, I haven't touched any of tk holds for some times, as I've seen the original anyone edit version back then, and knew this hold would take lots of time to mature. And I've put it as one of the first posts in that thread. And I still did not change my view on it. How much harsher would you suggest so that really people will avoid the hold in the future?

I don't see what there is to lose by discussing what Erik and Mike could do. Think of it as a feature request, where technical details, rather than a vague suggestion, are usually demanded.

And somehow I think that, for this discussion, the idea is much more important than the technical details behind it.

eytanz wrote:
How else are people supposed to determine whether the holds are problematic or not other than by playing them?

Looking at a low score perhaps (not a neutral 5 like everyone seems to be giving before playing), and look posts by others, and the Architecure Board. Holds on the Holds board are not problematic, just give a 1 and move on.

Sure, at some point it will be clear, and then, indeed, most people don't play them.

This is simply not true, as michthro points out (if it's here for a long time, it's probably good). I remember seeing someone's post "I want to judge it myself". And our nice CaravelNet people who wants to be in the top ten.

and don't seem want to give up their scores once they played those holds.

Actually, the poll clearly indicates that most people *are* willing to give up their scores if the hold is really problematic. What people are not happy about is the situation arising where that has to happen to begin with. Are you suggesting that people who took the time to solve rooms and get good scores for them should be happy to lose the scores?

Well, it seems that *you* do. As you've already said, "at some point it will be clear, and then most people will not play them". If CaravelNet users cannot accept that playing "not so good" holds is a risk, then there's little to do about this problem.

It's also very interesting to hear that you all have the same idea on how this problem should be solved, and that is: spank the architect Sorry, I mean delaying the counting of the scores of new holds until it is solveble (again); and give a huge warning to those architects.

Huh?

Well, I hope your goal is preventing bad holds appearing on the Holds board. If that's not your intention, then I have to ask you what you are doing.

Then it's up to Erik (or Mike) to do anything about it. How they do is up to them, they might even ask us for help, but they can also say they will do nothing about it.

True, it's up to them to decide what the policy is. But that does not mean we can't come up with suggestions. Once they decide on a policy and announce it, it will be the time to stop making suggestions, not the time to start.

No, you are dictating them exactly what to do. At least that's what it sounds like to me. We here call this kind of behaviour "mircomanagement". And it means something like so overspecified that it doesn't do what you want.

All that means is that you'd need to get someone to beta test your hold for you and generate demos, which presumably you're doing anyway.

I can tell you that I have asked some people to share me their demos during my last hold. They didn't.

____________________________
The best way to lose customers is to let little kids running loose on a forum with too many mod points.

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

Tim wrote:

eytanz wrote:
How else are people supposed to determine whether the holds are problematic or not other than by playing them?

Looking at a low score perhaps (not a neutral 5 like everyone seems to be giving before playing), and look posts by others, and the Architecure Board. Holds on the Holds board are not problematic, just give a 1 and move on.

And how do you think the low scores get there? They get there because people play the hold and award it to them.

And sure, you can give the holds a 1. But I don't think buggy holds deserve a 1. A 1 should be reserved for functional, but lousy, holds. I have no issue with functional, but lousy, holds on the holds board. I have a problem with holds that do not work.

The scores are just a minor issue, at least for me. What the major issue is is that the purpose of the "holds" board, as seperate from the "architecture" board, is that it is a place for complete holds. I want all the holds there to work, or not be there.

Sure, at some point it will be clear, and then, indeed, most people don't play them.

This is simply not true, as michthro points out (if it's here for a long time, it's probably good). I remember seeing someone's post "I want to judge it myself". And our nice CaravelNet people who wants to be in the top ten.

I am usually among the first to play a hold, but that's because I feel, that as an experienced player, I am in a position to judge the hold and give it a proper rating early on. I also am on the top ten scores, but I played all the holds even back in the days when I was not even in the top 30. I can't see the connection.

Also, it seems to me you feel there's something wrong with wanting to be in the top ten, or participating in the highscores. While there certainly is nothing wrong in *not* doing that, the highscores are there for a reason, and that's because Caravel wants people to participate in them.

Are you suggesting that people who took the time to solve rooms and get good scores for them should be happy to lose the scores?

Well, it seems that *you* do. As you've already said, "at some point it will be clear, and then most people will not play them". If CaravelNet users cannot accept that playing "not so good" holds is a risk, then there's little to do about this problem.

No. I'm suggesting that people should be *unhappy* to lose their scores, but do it anyway because they know it's for the best. And I think that Caravelnet users should never be in a position where they have to take risks. Caravelnet is a product people pay for, and it's unfair to tell people who paid for something that they are taking a risk on what they are getting.

I have never said that Caravel has an obligation or duty to do anything here. I said that if they do, they will be offering a better product. As someone who works with the Caravel team, I know that they are committed to the quality of the product, and I know they are happy to receive suggestions as to what will make it better. They might accept these suggestions, and they might not, but they certainly are open to them.

It's also very interesting to hear that you all have the same idea on how this problem should be solved, and that is: spank the architect Sorry, I mean delaying the counting of the scores of new holds until it is solveble (again); and give a huge warning to those architects.

Huh?

Well, I hope your goal is preventing bad holds appearing on the Holds board. If that's not your intention, then I have to ask you what you are doing.

That is my intention, at least for certain values of "bad". But I still don't understand what you meant by the paragraph quoted above.

Then it's up to Erik (or Mike) to do anything about it. How they do is up to them, they might even ask us for help, but they can also say they will do nothing about it.

True, it's up to them to decide what the policy is. But that does not mean we can't come up with suggestions. Once they decide on a policy and announce it, it will be the time to stop making suggestions, not the time to start.

No, you are dictating them exactly what to do. At least that's what it sounds like to me.

Please cite evidence of this.

We here call this kind of behaviour "mircomanagement".

Huh? You can't micromanage something from below. We are the customers, not the managers.

I'm making specific suggestions, sure, but I just can't see what's wrong with that.

I can tell you that I have asked some people to share me their demos during my last hold. They didn't.

If you use the caravelnet beta system, they don't get a choice - you can download their demos. If you don't, well, you should get better testers. But that's a valid concern that you raise.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

---

[Last edited by eytanz at 09-11-2006 10:27 PM]

Elfstone
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1285
Registered: 03-01-2006
IP: Logged

I have read this thread with great interest and as a fairly new member who has only in the last couple of weeks started to venture in to Architecture, may I add my tuppence worth?

Granted there seems to be a problem with unfinishable holds, although I haven’t come up against it yet myself ( the ones I can’t finish don’t seem to cause anyone else any problems !!). I haven’t yet explored the procedure, but I gather that it is very easy to upload a hold into the Holds board. I had always assumed, because “admin.” appears as the thread starter in each case, that all holds which were submitted to the Holds board were ‘vetted’ in some way, by the people who run the site.

To get round the problem of bad (untested) holds, several of you have suggested that the Architect should provide demos of the hold and while I understand the thinking behind that, I would not wish to have to provide demos of the hold I am now working on; not because I haven’t played all the rooms, (I have) but because I am so slow and clumsy at playing the game - I couldn't tell you how many hundreds, maybe thousands, of times I have ‘died’ in the last 6 months!! I would be embarrassed to have other people watch a recording of my fumbling progress through my own rooms - any rooms actually.

I like the idea of holds having to be checked before being added to the Holds forum, very much better. Indeed, as I said above I had assumed, until recently, that that was the process. If I may use an analogy from Writing: all novels, short stories and so on are proof read and edited several times before going into print. Any writer will tell you that it is extremely difficult to proof read one's own work, either for spelling/grammar or for inconsistencies in the plot/timeline/characterisation. We all of us, with the best of intentions, see what we think is on the page, rather than what is actually there. That’s why publishing houses have editors; not just to send rejection letters for manuscripts which are unpublishable for one reason or another, but to work on the ones which are going to be printed. In a very real sense we are ‘publishing’ our hold when we put it into the Holds forum; we should expect it to be put through a rigorous ’editing’ process first.

The exact process of insisting on testing I don’t really feel able to comment on, partly because I don’t understand the technical computer requirements implied in any of the methods, and partly because I am so new to the whole building process and haven’t published a hold (yet). I think it would be a good thing to have the Holds forum automatically reject any hold which hadn’t spent some time on the Architecture forum, but I don’t know if that is technically possible,

I wonder what the rest of you think about the idea of “mentoring”, probably in a fairly informal way? It seems from the comments I’ve read here that the problem is with new, (possibly young) inexperienced players/architects going headlong into the publication thing. It’s understandable to some extent - that great first rush of enthusiasm, the DROD addiction ( we all have it to some extent, don’t we?) the impetuosity of youth, possibly even the desire to prove one’s self to one’s peers, the confidence that says “I play this game well, therefore I must be a good architect” without understanding that the two functions are quite different (a good composer is not necessarily a good performer and vice versa). Add in language difficulties, which are almost inevitable on a site which attracts people from all over the world and there’s a recipe there for problems. If each new architect was encouraged (required? - not sure) to work with a mentor (or two) from within the much more experienced architects, most of the problems we are discussing would disappear.

That is essentially the situation I’m in with Hikari. Because he has a mac and he was very helpful in answering my many technical questions and trying to solve the problems which caused me to lose all my played holds, I PM’d him to ask if he would consider checking the mini-level I made for Ezlo’s Labyrinth contest when I tentatively started using the Build levels part of DROD. He kindly did that and is now helping me through my first small hold - mentoring me in fact. That help has been invaluable and no amount of rules and regulations about uploading holds would be an adequate substitue for it.

The success of my suggested scheme would depend on the goodwill of experienced architects of course, and on their having the time to offer their help to new members. That is something which can’t be regulated, but it seems to me that this is a site full of goodwill and kindness and unfailing helpfulness and I would hope that could be channeled into a ‘when needed’ system of helping newbies.

Could we have one of those ‘sticky’ threads at the top of the Architecture forum in which experienced Architects could volunteer to mentor newcomers, perhaps with links to their profiles, and in which newcomers were invited to make contact through PMs?

This has turned onto a bit of an Epistle - sorry!!!

Elfstone.

____________________________
Winner of: Novice Architect Excellence 2006.
FAPCA - Technical Design Excellence in Layout and Aesthetics

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

Elfstone wrote:
To get round the problem of bad (untested) holds, several of you have suggested that the Architect should provide demos of the hold and while I understand the thinking behind that, I would not wish to have to provide demos of the hold I am now working on; not because I haven’t played all the rooms, (I have) but because I am so slow and clumsy at playing the game - I couldn't tell you how many hundreds, maybe thousands, of times I have ‘died’ in the last 6 months!! I would be embarrassed to have other people watch a recording of my fumbling progress through my own rooms - any rooms actually.

Noone said that just because the demos are uploaded, they are available for the general public to see - they will be there to provide a baseline that proves the rooms are possible, and should be hidden from everyone except forum admins. If the architect wants to show of his scores, he or she can upload them again to the highscores.

As for the rest of your post - speaking as an experienced architect, I am very happy to help people with technical issues, and occasionally with beta testing, but I don't have the time to walk people through the entire process of hold production. I think that's the general case. Still, it's a nice idea.

____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

Tim
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1979
Registered: 08-07-2004
IP: Logged

[Note: I think I was making too many points, so I'm not answering everything here. It's not that I don't want to answer them, but I want to make my most important points more clear.]

eytanz wrote:
And how do you think the low scores get there? They get there because people play the hold and award it to them.

The problem is not the low rating, but the side effect that playing them using CNet means that people also get scores for it. And that means that other people who wants to chase scores has to do them as well to get a equal or better score, even if these holds are not working.

What the major issue is is that the purpose of the "holds" board,[...], is that it is a place for complete holds. I want all the holds there to work, or not be there.

Exactly. And that was the other historical thread was for. Erik has even presented his stance on that thread. It is already possible to remove some holds.

And I think that Caravelnet users should never be in a position where they have to take risks. Caravelnet is a product people pay for, and it's unfair to tell people who paid for something that they are taking a risk on what they are getting.

I agree wholeheartedly. On the other hand, playing a new hold is always a risk. And I must say that all the solutions I've (briefly) scanned through this thread do not address this problem. As long as everyone can post/edit the Holds directly, and people trying to score the latest holds as soon as possible, this problem will exist. So, we will need a solution for this as well. Any suggestions?

I can tell you that I have asked some people to share me their demos during my last hold. They didn't.

If you use the caravelnet beta system, they don't get a choice - you can download their demos.

I can download their demos, but that does not mean I can publish them. I will still ask for their permission before publishing them.

____________________________
The best way to lose customers is to let little kids running loose on a forum with too many mod points.

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

Tim wrote:
What the major issue is is that the purpose of the "holds" board,[...], is that it is a place for complete holds. I want all the holds there to work, or not be there.

Exactly. And that was the other historical thread was for. Erik has even presented his stance on that thread. It is already possible to remove some holds.
No. Erik suggested an outline of a policy. Which was never implemented. It was, and always is, possible to remove some holds. But no-one is actually removing them, and it's probable that no-one will.

Anyway, the point is, there is a problem. You know there is a problem, because enough people think there is one, and even if these people are wrong, then the fact that they hold this opinion is a problem in its own right. The fact that Erik made a single post over a year ago suggesting what he thinks can be done doesn't mean that the issue is forever shelfed.

I can tell you that I have asked some people to share me their demos during my last hold. They didn't.

If you use the caravelnet beta system, they don't get a choice - you can download their demos.

I can download their demos, but that does not mean I can publish them. I will still ask for their permission before publishing them.

Like I replied to Elfstone, no-one is suggesting that anyone publish other people's demos. The author should submit demos which will *not* be available to the public, but rather exist solely so that an automated process could verify the hold's veracity. They will be totally invisible to everyone else. If this system is added, a warning that agreeing to be a beta tester involves implict agreement that your demos should be used for this purpose can be added to the beta sign-up messages.


____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

---

[Last edited by eytanz at 09-12-2006 03:49 AM]

Kevin_P86
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 535
Registered: 06-28-2005
IP: Logged

Unless someone can come up with a formal, complete definition of what constitutes a "bad" hold - a definition which can classify holds into disjoint sets "good" and "bad" whose union is the set of all possible holds, it is clear that no perfect automated system can exist. If it is the case that such a definition does exist, it would at least be possible to tell a computer to pick out these "bad" holds, and do something different with them (reject them, flag them, whatever). But assuming that such a definition does not or cannot exist, some human intervention is definitely needed to find a "perfect" solution to this problem.

____________________________
+++++[>+++++<-]>[>+++>++++>+++++<<<-]>.>+.>-------.<++++.+++++.

eytanz
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2708
Registered: 02-05-2003
IP: Logged

I think there's a simple definition.

Bad = The hold cannot be conquered.



____________________________
I got my avatar back! Yay!

---

[Last edited by eytanz at 09-12-2006 04:51 AM]

Kevin_P86
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 535
Registered: 06-28-2005
IP: Logged

That is one possible definition. However, while possible in theory to get the computer to check if a hold is conquerable, there is definitely a thread dedicated to how it might as well be impossible. And if you are simply referring to the fact that demos may be proof, it has been pointed numerous times that just because each room is possible, that certainly does not mean the level or the hold is possible.

And I also recall reading some comments suggesting that their definition of bad would not consist entirely of "broken" holds (in the sense that they cannot be conquered).

____________________________
+++++[>+++++<-]>[>+++>++++>+++++<<<-]>.>+.>-------.<++++.+++++.

silver
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 915
Registered: 01-18-2005
IP: Logged

It's been acknowledged a billion times in this thread by the pro-demo side that demos wouldn't prove a hold was possible.

but, they probably would for most of the "newbie tosses up the first hold they thought of without having testing" cases.

there's a concept in computer science: the 80/20 rule. The last 20% of a problem takes 80% of the effort to solve it. What we're looking at here is a 20% effort solution that solves 80% of the problems. We can case-by-case the remaining holds (because there's not going to be a technical solution to them), but this will cut the number of cases we have to think about.


____________________________

Stephen4Louise
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 548
Registered: 04-06-2005
IP: Logged

silver wrote:
there's a concept in computer science: the 80/20 rule. The last 20% of a problem takes 80% of the effort to solve it. What we're looking at here is a 20% effort solution that solves 80% of the problems. We can case-by-case the remaining holds (because there's not going to be a technical solution to them), but this will cut the number of cases we have to think about.

I think the best solution to this problem is going to be a technical one that has user input. I came up with this on my way home from work last night.....

The architecture board as is, is scrapped and a new board put in it's place (possibly with the same name). I'll call it the testing board from here to avoid confusion. The testing board will operate similarly to holds, architects submit a hold to testing where anyone can download test and comment on the hold, architects can make unlimited changes to their hold while in testing, including adding/removing rooms and levels.
Once the architect is happy with the hold he can then submit it for approval to the holds forum. At this point, we go back to my original suggestion, the hold in the testing forum that has been submitted will need to be signed off by X number of people.
Now the people signing the hold could be one admin who browses the thread and agrees that testing is complete. It could be two ordinary forum members. It could be two forum members of a certain rank. etc. etc.
I see the method for approving a hold being similar to how a hold is currently submitted. Once someone clicks to approve a hold they are asked to confirm that the hold has been tested and is of a good enough quality. Once the hold has been marked as approved, the testing forum thread is locked to everyone but the hold author and admins. A new thread is opened in the Holds forum with the hold attached. This will become the only method of submitting a hold. Private beta forums will operate in exactly the same way as the testing forum.

The architecture forum can be kept for hold development and help/advice for architects.

On top of this, it might be worth adding high score functionality to the testing forum, on the assumption that the scores will be removed once the hold moves to the holds board. If a full set of demos are required before holds are allowed to be submitted, then maybe this functionality can be added too.

I think it's terrible at the minute that the holds board is like a witch hunt. We should be encouraging people to post (properly tested) holds. Anyone new who has arrived on the forum in the last couple of weeks and read some on the threads on there could be put off a career in architecture for life! Our main aim should always be to make it easy for architects (new and old) to make and post good quality holds.

Thoughts?

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Stephen4Louise wrote:
[snip]

Thoughts?

Well the major problem is what if someone wants to submit a private hold? Under your system suggested, thats impossible.

Also, this could cause a group of forumers to favor certain types of holds, which can't be good.

I think the best solution to solving the problem of people feeling forced to play bad holds(however you define it) is to have hi-scoreable holds and non-hiscoreable holds. How that would be done, i don't know.

Stephen4Louise
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 548
Registered: 04-06-2005
IP: Logged

NiroZ wrote:

Well the major problem is what if someone wants to submit a private hold? Under your system suggested, thats impossible.

Also, this could cause a group of forumers to favor certain types of holds, which can't be good.

I think the best solution to solving the problem of people feeling forced to play bad holds(however you define it) is to have hi-scoreable holds and non-hiscoreable holds. How that would be done, i don't know.

Do you mean private holds tested completely outside of the forum? Yes, this would be impossible under my system. However, private beta boards would work in exactly the same way as the testing board, so holds can be tested privately within the system if required.

Everyone likes different holds anyway, so I don't see how that is a problem. As long as enough people sign it off as tested then the hold will be approved and posted in the holds board.

As for non-high scorable holds, who would make the decision? This is where my system has the advantage, once implemented it will run itself, there is no need for holds to be reviewed by admins and no major decisions about each hold (scorable or not). But is better than the current system because the hold will have to be signed off by someone other than the architect.

It's not perfect, who will stop people signing bad holds as ok? I don't think people will be rushing to sign off a buggy hold. Once you sign it, your name will against it on the hold board as a tester, and it won't do anyone any good to have their name against a problem hold.

Hikari
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 438
Registered: 01-28-2006
IP: Logged

I think it'd be worthwhile to make it so only people of Delver class or higher could sign off on holds. That would prevent people from creating dummy accounts for the sole purpose of signing off on an untested hold just because they want to rush it out, as I doubt the newbie hold creators wanting to rush things to published state would be willing to take the time to earn all those rank points.

I like this whole idea a lot. :nodnod:

____________________________
Caravel Official Holds Progress:

---

[Last edited by Hikari at 09-12-2006 01:06 PM : Out, damned smiley! Out, I say!]

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

Stephen4Louise wrote:
Everyone likes different holds anyway, so I don't see how that is a problem. As long as enough people sign it off as tested then the hold will be approved and posted in the holds board.

Ok, lets look at each step.
1. the user(lets call him jimmy) creates his hold. Its buggy, badly designed and very long. Its not that Jimmy wants to annoy people, its just that he got caught up in the excitement of finding DROD.

2. He wants to then submit his hold, tell the world about it. So he hits the forums, and looks for where to submit his hold. Lets just say that he sees the Holds board. He trys to submit his hold, but is forced to post on the Architecture board. He is a little offput by the fact that there seems to be two tiers of holds, but he thinks that his will make it to the hold board.

3. So he submits his hold(a bit fustrated, but still confident).

4. He checks back later, to see that his hold was not voted to be on the holds board, and alot of people are saying that his hold is buggy, cannot be compleated, and that room where you have to stand on 1 square for 100 turns sucks. One of the poster tries to tell him about what to do in a hold, and he is very insistant that there be a good story included, and to try and focus on effeicency puzzles.

5. Jimmy feels a bit put off by this, and so he metaphorically kicks and screams on the forums for a bit, then leaves.

The problem with this system is it is making extra hoops that people have to jump through, giving the forum an elitest feel(and the lackof which is what i enjoy about this forum).

Also, people naturally prefer different things, and althought they might mean the best, they may start to favor and try to encourage holds to be a certain way. My guess is that a system like this would end up being a bit like wikipedia. Lots of people enter information, but a core group refine the information. With such a small forum, the 'core group' might prefer a certain type of hold.

Stephen4Louise
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 548
Registered: 04-06-2005
IP: Logged

What if Jimmy arrives today and posts his hold on the holds board and gets a hard time about it. The whole point of this thread has been to stop people posting buggy holds on the holds board.

The testing board will be in essence an advanced architecture board. Holds will be submitted for testing, the architect will need to manually submit their hold for approval. People on the architecture forum are generally much more lenient than on the holds forum. When Jimmy posts his hold on the architecture forum (current or new system) he is more likely to get friendly advice.

I don't think people will try to influence holds any more than they do now. All holds should be tested, this will formalise the procedure. There are so many people willing to test holds in architecture I don't think anyone will have a problem getting a hold approved as long as it's solvable and of reasonable quality.

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5204
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

I personally agree with Stephen4Louise's general procedure. NiroZ has brought up some relevant and important issues, which I'll paraphrase here according to my understanding:

1. Should we forbid a user who has designed a hold in private (i.e. no prior peer evaluation) from publishing a hold on Holds immediately?

2. Should we feel bad about installing a system into CaravelNet that will not allow a user to publish a buggy hold in the set of CaravelNet-available holds?

3. Will people be put off by added bureaucracy?

My instincts here are, "Yes, No, No":

1. Yes -- We should definitely forbid new user X from being able to publish a hold on CaravelNet that no one has ever seen, and no one is able to attest to the validity of the hold. People are being put off by the CaravelNet service when they have to wade through buggy holds to acquire and maintain a competitive ranking. However, having a hold posted on a "Testing/Trial" board doesn't forbid anyone, subscribed to CaravelNet or not, from playing user X's holds. Another reason is to avoid witch hunts on the Holds board.

2. No -- We shouldn't pat ourselves on the back for allowing people to place any buggy hold they feel like permanently on CaravelNet and making subscribers irate (or at least peeved).

3. No -- This system doesn't create any more hoops for the author of the candidate hold to jump through. They just post their candidate hold on the Hold Testing board, and then as soon as people play it and confirm its goodness, then the hold is promoted to the Holds board and published on CaravelNet. If it needs revision, then thank goodness fixes get to be made before the hold is published. Fortunately, no one user who is insisting for feature X to be added to a candidate hold has the power to hold up hold promotion as long as other people confirm the hold is good. This seems to be exactly what everyone who uses the CaravelNet service is looking for. For people who don't use CaravelNet, then it doesn't seem to matter whether a hold can be downloaded for play from a Holds board or from a Testing board. Also, now hold authors come to the table with the understanding that people expect their hold to actually work if they want to publish it on CaravelNet, rather than being vaguely afraid they'll get flamed once they publish their new work on Holds, like can happen now. If they aren't interested in making their hold work, it can stay on the CaravelNet Hold Candidates board forever (where anyone can still download and play it). Alternately, they can just dump it in Architecture and run. Inserting this system doesn't seem disrespectful, but rather shows that we respect players and are confident they are able to take care of things themselves. We just need to provide some infrastructure to facilitate this.

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

---

[Last edited by mrimer at 09-12-2006 05:36 PM]

Hikari
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 438
Registered: 01-28-2006
IP: Logged

OK, so here's a question...

Will it be possible to set things up so that CaravelNet subscribers are able to automatically download things from the Testing board in-game, perhaps in a separate tab within the Change Location dialog?


____________________________
Caravel Official Holds Progress:

Remlin
Level: Master Delver
Rank Points: 181
Registered: 04-28-2005
IP: Logged

I think this whole discussion would benefit from a rebranding. It's becoming more clear that the real issue isn't a need for a hold submission revamp. It's a need for a High Scores revamp.

Mrimer put it well - the frustrations being expressed are having "to wade through buggy holds to acquire and maintain a competitive ranking". The existance of low quality holds isn't itself a problem. The rating system and comments in the hold thread take care of that - anybody who went through Roaches Revenge knew in advance what they were getting into.

So my suggestion is, let's take all these ideas about not being allowed to submit holds until there's a suite of demos / moderator approval / tester signoff / minimum rating, and turn them into ideas about how to define a new class of holds - Recommended Holds.

Anybody should be able to submit a hold at any time, just as it is today. But not just anybody should be able to effect the high scores page, 'forcing' the people who compete for rankings to play them. Recommended Holds carry the stamp of approval of the Drod community, and with it a guarantee of completability and minimum quality. And while high scores are collected for all holds (so you get "8th Place!" pop-ups in game), only Recommended Holds have scores added to players' totals. (I think this dovetails nicely with Wallu's recent idea.) All holds are available for download on the forums and in "Change Location" in-game, but the Recommended Holds have their status clearly marked. (Hikari's seperate tab idea is good.)

I think this will keep hold creation simple, fast, unbureaucratic and friendly, while still conferring the benefits we'd be getting from forcing some sort of approval before hold submission.