Player Fault vs. Mapper Fault

[Alfredo]

When playing a mapset, its rather easy to get caught off guard and say "Jesus this mapset is bullshit. Bad mapper!" 

 

At what point is this criticism valid? And At what point is this more the player's fault than the mapper's?

[Decay]

When I watched people play through my first SP map in Refracted Reality, there were a lot of tears about not having enough ammo and my being a bad mapper because of it. In reality they just never tried changing their playstyles, never adapting because they are accustomed to playing particular types and something different threw a curveball they couldn't wrap their head around. I think it becomes bad mapping when the player cannot adapt to the map by trying different playstyles, and it is the player's fault when they don't change/keep doing the same thing and wondering why they fail.

[Not Jabba]

9 minutes ago, Alfredo said:

"Jesus this mapset is bullshit. Bad mapper!" 

 

Both mappers and players can make mistakes, but it's probably not worth trusting anyone who gives this kind of criticism, period. It comes from people who don't communicate effectively and don't have the awareness to separate their personal preferences (or abilities) from the mapper's design choices. Good feedback comes from people who understand what you're trying to do and can help you add nuance to your own approach, rather than making it about what they want you to do.

[geekmarine]

A few years ago, I released a map that was well-received overall, but everyone brought up that ammo is a bit stingy AND I had a demon swarm at one point.  I really should've either included a melee powerup or been less stingy with ammo - so that was entirely on me not thinking about how "stingy ammo" and an attack that basically amounts to an ammo grind are not a good combination.  I mean yeah, I could get through it while having enough ammo to survive the rest of the level, but I wasn't taking a player who didn't know the map inside and out into account.  To this day, it's still my biggest mapmaking regret.

[Devalaous]

Its the mapper's fault when a map has only been designed for the mapper's own playstyle, with no consideration for various other styles of play, and no difficulty level support. This is generally why a lot of releases get playtested by outside eyes, things are spotted that the mapper cannot initially see.

Its the player's fault when a map is meticulously designed for a wide range of players, with well supported difficulty levels, at this point, its on them alone for not being able to beat it.

[Wagi]

It becomes valid criticism when you have a trap or fight that requires foreknowledge to get around and doesn't give the player an obvious hint. If walking through the first doorway in E1M1 resulted in an instant death teleporter then it makes zero sense to blame the player for dying.

[Horus]

If I'm the mapper, it's the player's fault. If I'm the player, it's the mapper's fault.

 

;)

[Nine Inch Heels]

1 hour ago, Alfredo said:

At what point is this criticism valid? And At what point is this more the player's fault than the mapper's?

Let's ignore TerryWADs, and "trollmaps" for a moment, because those are obviously meant to be obnoxious in a very particular kind of way...

 

In the vast majority of cases that I've witnessed people throw the word "bullshit" around - from your average "I can beat the original doom2, therefore I am a god-gamer" Dunning-Kruger-type on the forums (of which this forum has seen a great many new faces recently) up to cacoward panel members - it's a player centric issue... And we're talking about some value greater than 90% here...

 

As far as I can tell, the word bullshit gets used most often when the map either demands that players play outside of their comfort zones, or need to learn what the map wants at which point, or when the map overall is beyond their skill level... That's the holy trinity of bruised egos and finger-wagging in most cases...

 

When I want to make a slaughtermap or challenge map, I will go ahead and do that, and it's not on me when players who are unable to beat even the easiest of set-piece fights out there reliably are incapable of making progress... I'm not going out of my way to turn what I want to be a specific type of map into something that caters to people who do not like what I want that particular map to be in the first place...

 

This idea that "difficulty settings exist", therefore it's on the mapper if they don't cover all the bases is perhaps fine for your standard "modern" map where it's easier to cover many bases because the top-end is reasonably low, but not everything can be engineered to be everybody's cup of tea.. And there never was (nor will there ever be) an obligation for mappers to make their work accessible for absolutely everybody who happens to own a copy of classic doom and doom2...

[Dexiaz]

Obviously it depends on particular situation.

 

For example. The WHOLE GAME is developer's mappers fault:

 

This one is players fault in most cases:

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Dexiaz

[Loud Silence]

Mapper does not take responsibility for player's actions and/or failures in his map. Play at your own risk.

[Roofi]

If I can beat my map , it's entirely your fault.

[dmslr]

If I can't beat your map , it's entirely your fault.

[Margaret Thatcher]

If you can't meat my bap , it's entiyourly yer flat.

[seed]

Truth be said it tends to be a player issue for sure, and it boils down to two main issues from my POV:

 

a) the map is quite clearly beyond the player's skill level and thus they are incapable of enjoying it even in the slightest since they get utterly destroyed. Therefore "map bad" from the player's view.

2) it forces the player out of their comfort zone, by adopting a different approach to the gameplay than they're used to, and said playstyle is something the player is also more or less not capable of handling. So, "I don't like this, map bad".

 

Typically, if the player is not able to provide any insight into what makes the map "bad", or how to improve it - provided the map is not what the mapper intended it tobe already - well, they might be better left doing that, and moved on from. An important thing to keep in mind here is also the fact that not all mappers try to appeal to a broad audience, and design their work to be challenging from multiple points of view, or for a specific kind of player - thinking of slaughter and mappers such as Ribbiks or skillsaw here - so if you try to play one of those, despite quite clearly not being part of the targeted demographic, you play it at your risk. Chances are, you're almost certainly not going to have a good time.

[Egg Boy]

1 hour ago, Devalaous said:

Its the mapper's fault when a map has only been designed for the mapper's own playstyle, with no consideration for various other styles of play, and no difficulty level support. This is generally why a lot of releases get playtested by outside eyes, things are spotted that the mapper cannot initially see.

Its the player's fault when a map is meticulously designed for a wide range of players, with well supported difficulty levels, at this point, its on them alone for not being able to beat it.

I don't necessarily agree with this assertion. If I want the player to play aggressively, I am going to design my maps in such a way where playing aggressively is rewarding, and playing passively is punished. An example would be putting resources on the end of the room where the monsters are, if you want health, you're going to have to push into the fray. Another example is opening a closet or teleporting monsters behind the player so that they cannot stay in the doorway or in a certain area.

[Deadwing]

If is someone playing a map I've made, then is probably my fault somewhere lol

[GarrettChan]

1 hour ago, Devalaous said:

Its the mapper's fault when a map has only been designed for the mapper's own playstyle, with no consideration for various other styles of play, and no difficulty level support. This is generally why a lot of releases get playtested by outside eyes, things are spotted that the mapper cannot initially see.

Slaughter maps are designed by slaughter map player, and are playtested mostly by slaughter map players. Oh no...

[yakfak]

I remember a few times people told me my maps played wrong and I got really sad cos like
what's the definition?

"this level peppers you with too many distant fireballs" maybe that's correct gameplay

"this level gives you almost no ammo and makes you chainsaw revenants" gimme a hell yeah

"80% of the level is hidden behind a completionist secret you might never spot" 'L_' . o O ( good )

"i navigated through this level without finding any of the monsters" that's neat

"awawawawawawawawawawawa" bnbnbnbnbnb

[roadworx]

when the mapper has done their best to balance the map and make sure it's beatable given the resources they hand out to the player, then 9 times out of 10 it's the player's fault. it really doesn't matter if it's been designed for multiple playstyles or not, because not all maps are designed for the same playstyles

[dmslr]

People here tend to respect mappers more, as I do, but I think players should be allowed to be salty about some maps.

[Bridgeburner56]

I'm not a fan of using terms like "it's person x's fault" as it implies that there is some sort of moral failing and a need for chastisement. If someone starts throwing around blame in their feedback I'm going to ignore them. Constructive criticism is better couched in terms like "here's what I think can be improved on" whether it pertains to play style or mapping.

 

All that being said there's a continuum with player improvemt on one end and mapper improvemt on the other. Literally not enough ammo to clear a fight even with judicious use of infighting or a switch that has no clear use? Probably something for the mapper to work on. Smashing your head against 3 cyber demons repeatedly when there are 3 other clear paths to check out or using the bfg on singular lost souls multiple times? Well then maybe the player should change tactics.

A lot of it comes down to how clearly are the mapper's intended strats put across to the player eg a certain ammo type being common in an area will indicate that this is the weapon that should be used.

 

I'd also weight feedback by consistency and how much you resonate with the person giving the feedback. Are the majority of players giving you the same critique? Probably something to look and think about how you can improve the situation. Is this someone who's opinion you often agree with and often play maps in the style you are aiming for? Listen closely (and if possible fold them into an alpha testing team). Getting high quality feedback before a public release will go a long way to weeding out things the mapper should work on.

[dew]

48 minutes ago, dmslr said:

People here tend to respect mappers more, as I do, but I think players should be allowed to be salty about some maps.

Salty: yes. Karen: no.

[dmslr]

5 minutes ago, dew said:

Salty: yes. Karen: no.

Yup, obviously.

[Bridgeburner56]

Joke's on you Karen, the manager plays doom

Edited March 12, 2021 by Bridgeburner56

[Major Arlene]

3 hours ago, Alfredo said:

When playing a mapset, its rather easy to get caught off guard and say "Jesus this mapset is bullshit. Bad mapper!" 

 

At what point is this criticism valid? And At what point is this more the player's fault than the mapper's?

it's not. 

it's hard to tell from written feedback alone what people are and aren't doing. from experience my playstyle can be super wasteful with ammo because I'm just shite at aiming, but I also record all my playthroughs so the mapper can see if I am or are not doing in my play.

 

If they're also not playing as intended then probably just best to ignore. If you've given them everything they need to know about the map and they ignore that- that's on them. that includes difficulty settings or lack thereof, use of mods or lack thereof, source port, light modes, etc. IF THEY IGNORE THAT THEN IGNORE THEM. if they can't respect you enough to play as intended the first time then forget them. (I am guilty of using GZDoom as a catch-all for testing, admittedly, so compatibility isn't always 100% but it gets the job done about 99% of the time as I play mostly GZDoom sets). 

[Razgriz]

The criticism for maps is valid only if the player can actually prove through different play styles that a map can't be beat or is too hard to _complete_. The biggest issues that I have noticed through watching multiple streams is that:

 

1) Players tend to _save in the middle of the map_

2) They also want to _kill everything_ for full completes' sake

 

Which is quite frankly boring, long, and counter productive if you plan to make criticism of said map pieces. If you base your complaints on whether the map can easily be full completed, then you aren't doing anything but validating that it should take some time/work/risk as opposed to the idea of actually just trying to complete it on the basic level. But if you have to save frequently during a map, then you are just cheesing your way through a map while complaining that it's too easy or too hard (you basically don't gain competency when completing maps or get the actual intended difficulty/pace). At this point is where I draw the line for player critique, because there are a lot of players who are in the "I see it I must kill it" machine mindset, who don't actually think too far into "how can I just by pass this for later". For BourgoiseSP, I saw so much save scumming and full completes of maps on streams that I personally didn't consider it due to the nature of what was happening in front of me. Full completes should not be easy, but a basic complete of the map with ignored monsters and secrets should take time and be risky, but how am I supposed to really know how it can be played if I see you save scumming through all the maps once you get over a potentially difficult hurdle, I can't take your criticism at all _especially_ for difficulty.

 

For mappers, it's harder to really slate them, because in order to really be bullshit, it would have to include something that's obviously broken that allows things to get much harder, or exploits that prevent maps from being completed in some way (which is also by design might be specific between survival coop or single player). With that, it might just fall on how you're trying to play the maps vs their intended purposes, and that would be the players' fault, not the mappers.

 

 

[Margaret Thatcher]

It's a bad map when there's a monster that takes up 30% of the room, unpredictably bounces around the room. instakills you, and summons smaller versions of themself that also unpredictably bounce and instakill you.

 

Edit: fuck super pierrot

Edited March 12, 2021 by Margaret Thatcher

[P41R47]

If the map is not wineable by any means for example: player getting stuck, softlocked or hardlocked on an area, forgotten to add a linedef or a script, etc.

Thats a mapper's fault.

 

If the map is wineable, was tested, people played it and there is no bug. But still you can't complete it.

Thats player's fault on distinguishing their proper skill at playing Doom.

[roadworx]

28 minutes ago, Razgriz said:

The criticism for maps is valid only if the player can actually prove through different play styles that a map can't be beat or is too hard to _complete_. The biggest issues that I have noticed through watching multiple streams is that:

 

1) Players tend to _save in the middle of the map_

2) They also want to _kill everything_ for full completes' sake

 

Which is quite frankly boring, long, and counter productive if you plan to make criticism of said map pieces. If you base your complaints on whether the map can easily be full completed, then you aren't doing anything but validating that it should take some time/work/risk as opposed to the idea of actually just trying to complete it on the basic level. But if you have to save frequently during a map, then you are just cheesing your way through a map while complaining that it's too easy or too hard (you basically don't gain competency when completing maps or get the actual intended difficulty/pace). At this point is where I draw the line for player critique, because there are a lot of players who are in the "I see it I must kill it" machine mindset, who don't actually think too far into "how can I just by pass this for later". For BourgoiseSP, I saw so much save scumming and full completes of maps on streams that I personally didn't consider it due to the nature of what was happening in front of me. Full completes should not be easy, but a basic complete of the map with ignored monsters and secrets should take time and be risky, but how am I supposed to really know how it can be played if I see you save scumming through all the maps once you get over a potentially difficult hurdle, I can't take your criticism at all _especially_ for difficulty.

???????

 

if you're disregarding player criticism because they're saving or they're trying to do a 100% run, then you may not be a bad mapper but you're certainly an asshole lol

[DMPhobos]

It's a very subjective thing, and i think it depends a lot on what the map 'sets out to do', it's often said that when it comes to map feedback you have to be able to recognize legit criticism and useful feedback from "noise" and sometimes it's easy to recognize criticism that's not useful (like someone complaining about balancing issues with the map when played with a mod, someone deliberately breaking compatibility settings, or if someone just outright yelling "Jesus this mapset is bullshit. Bad mapper!" without any constructive feedback), but other times you do have to be aware where the other person comes from (like if it comes from someone who enjoys the type of gameplay that the map is meant to be, or even if the person is aware of the intent but doesn't enjoy the style outside of that) and distinguish if the criticism is valid with the intent of the map. It all comes on the intent of the map, sometimes you'll design a map that's meant to be played for a certain play style but you want to make it accessible to players outside of that, or sometimes you just want to focus on that style alone, all that is valid, and based on that you can see what feedback is useful or not