19 replies to this topic

[✠ davef ✠]

hey have you designers thought about opening up the course testing to the 

forum users here. i would think the more eyes the better it seems we find different

stuff at times then is being found at OGT and nothing against what they have going on but i had

no idea till the other day there where really 9 pins on each green and stuff like that it is easy to see how some things get missed. like i said nothing against OGT but im a believer in i should be able to do everything game related on sites provided by PP.

i do, do some testing for a few designers now but want more to do.

so if any of you others want another set of eyes im here.

 

[Kablammo11]

Or how about you register as a tester over at OGT? Same difference.

Imo expanding the tester base is not an issue - improving (or rather in the case of OGT: maintaining) the quality of testing is more important, It's a time-consuming and a very pedantic chore at best. It's work, not play. As a designer, I prefer one or two good and committed testers to several dozen of nondescript, casual ones.

 

And, sorry for this following sentiment, I prefer my testers to be other course designers rather than players, because designers know what it takes do create a course and they know the difference between a technical error and a design choice. They won't waste my time with trees they don't like, pin positions or textures which they would want to be different - and instead focus on faulty meshes, missing physics and dodgy planting. Real designers can resist the temptation to design other courses by proxy in the disguise of being a tester, as we so often see happening in the community course comments.

 

True, you should be able to do everything and more on this PP site. I happen to believe that, too. From game information to Forums to course and asset downloads, testing and tournaments, everything should be here, instead of being disseminated over non-adjacent real estates.

But it isn't, that's simply not on and it won't happen. Bummer, but there we go.

[axe360]

Or how about you register as a tester over at OGT? Same difference.

Imo expanding the tester base is not an issue - improving (or rather in the case of OGT: maintaining) the quality of testing is more important, It's a time-consuming and a very pedantic chore at best. It's work, not play. As a designer, I prefer one or two good and committed testers to several dozen of nondescript, casual ones.

 

And, sorry for this following sentiment, I prefer my testers to be other course designers rather than players, because designers know what it takes do create a course and they know the difference between a technical error and a design choice. They won't waste my time with trees they don't like, pin positions or textures which they would want to be different - and instead focus on faulty meshes, missing physics and dodgy planting. Real designers can resist the temptation to design other courses by proxy in the disguise of being a tester, as we so often see happening in the community course comments.

 

True, you should be able to do everything and more on this PP site. I happen to believe that, too. From game information to Forums to course and asset downloads, testing and tournaments, everything should be here, instead of being disseminated over non-adjacent real estates.

But it isn't, that's simply not on and it won't happen. Bummer, but there we go.

 

Totally 100% agree! I like to have between 3 to 5 testers and I Have to know Exactly whom they're. I don't pass my course out to the general public because you would Never know, if all testing is done before fixing errors and proceeding to beta's 2,3 and so on.

Chris nailed the rest, to a tee. Critically important to know Who is testing your course!!!

 

Also, there is plenty of room for folks who want to learn about testing and help out over at OGT.

Us designers are always willing to point out to New testers, what to look for. Peace

 

L

 OGT requires 6 pins and believe me, to get someone to test all 6 pins, is not so easy.  I was only going to put 3 on this course but I like to try and accommodate as many as I can, so 6 it is, for now!

 

Another point, I have Never seen a "perfect course". We always strive for that but it is inevitable that you will miss a crease/tear somewhere on your course. I just don't think some realize how much work has to go into building a strong playable course. Yes, it's fun but yes, it's work!

Although I do my utmost best to have every single spike/tear/crease found. As I'm sure we all do.

[M Rose]

Things always get missed.... my last course was in testing for three weeks, and I still had to put out a fix because we all missed a blade of grass that was inappropriately placed, including myself several times, plus I wanted to check out that funky pin that Dave himself posted video of.

 

I think the enthusiasm level at OGT has dropped a bit, there aren't nearly as many people testing courses as there were maybe six months ago, and that drops even further when I put out a fictional course instead of a real one. It's a little harder to get a lot of testers than it was before. I suppose I could put my money where my mouth is and start testing others' courses a bit more, especially now that I'm between projects.

 

I have no problem with beta testing being opened here, and I'm fine with players testing. I do take K11's side on a few things, though, mainly criticism of that which is subjective in the eyes of the designer. To me, things like tree choices and texture colors are non-negotiable unless they significantly alter the game play.... your water is too blue, or it isn't blue enough, or you should add a set of forward tees that don't exist on the real course because the sim players aren't happy.... things like that. That said, I wish we'd see some more variety of textures in the courses coming out; I feel like I'm still seeing the default set being used for most things.

[clubcaptain]

 that which is subjective in the eyes of the designer. To me, things like tree choices and texture colors are non-negotiable unless they significantly alter the game play.... your water is too blue, or it isn't blue enough,

Agree with this so I'm not overly concerned with solely having designers involved in testing. I design for folks to play and the gameplay is the final arbiter as to what is a good design.

 

I've been using 3 guys who have been gracious to volunteer to test. AFAIK only one is a designer. Anyhow, the feedback between them has been great and gratefully received.

 

I was a tester at OGT but pulled out after a short time because it seemed that everything had to be done in a rush. In one instance the course was published the day after it was made available for testing. Complete waste of time. As K11 says, it's more of a job of work. In my case I was testing every pin (could be 9), every tee, every wind strength and 6 putting angles. People don't have the patience to wait while that's done so I stopped as I didn't feel I was able to provide adequate feedback in the truncated time scales people seemed to want to be the norm.

[axe360]

 that which is subjective in the eyes of the designer. To me, things like tree choices and texture colors are non-negotiable unless they significantly alter the game play.... your water is too blue, or it isn't blue enough,

Agree with this so I'm not overly concerned with solely having designers involved in testing. I design for folks to play and the gameplay is the final arbiter as to what is a good design.

 

I've been using 3 guys who have been gracious to volunteer to test. AFAIK only one is a designer. Anyhow, the feedback between them has been great and gratefully received.

 

I was a tester at OGT but pulled out after a short time because it seemed that everything had to be done in a rush. In one instance the course was published the day after it was made available for testing. Complete waste of time. As K11 says, it's more of a job of work. In my case I was testing every pin (could be 9), every tee, every wind strength and 6 putting angles. People don't have the patience to wait while that's done so I stopped as I didn't feel I was able to provide adequate feedback in the truncated time scales people seemed to want to be the norm.

 

Ahh, Confucius say's "man who hurries his course out, ends up, with Crappy course"!  Really, he really did say that.

[Crow357]

To me, things like tree choices and texture colors are non-negotiable unless they significantly alter the game play.... your water is too blue, or it isn't blue enough,

 

I gotta disagree with this.  If my textures are shit, I want you to tell me.  I recently played a course (that isn't on my HD anymore) where I had to turn the saturation down to 57% just so the bucket of lime green paint the guy had dumped on his fairways didn't bore a hole through my eyesockets.  Golf course architecture isn't just about making a technically great golf course, it's also about making something pleasing to the eye.  A fall looking golf course isn't one with bright green grass, bright green trees with a couple trees doused with red paint thrown in for good measure.  So, if I put something out that doesn't look like it would grow on this planet, please tell me.

[zmax - sim]

I was a tester at OGT but pulled out after a short time because it seemed that everything had to be done in a rush. In one instance the course was published the day after it was made available for testing. Complete waste of time. As K11 says, it's more of a job of work. In my case I was testing every pin (could be 9), every tee, every wind strength and 6 putting angles. People don't have the patience to wait while that's done so I stopped as I didn't feel I was able to provide adequate feedback in the truncated time scales people seemed to want to be the norm.

 

You must be referring to Danville Acres?  If so, the designer did such a great job on it that testers only found a few minor issues.  Course was posted for testing on the 14th.  Testers jumped on it right away.  Designer posted new version with all the fixes a couple of days later.  Fixes were confirmed by testers such as Bortimus, etc...  Designer was happy with it and the course was released on the 17th.  Some courses stay in beta longer while waiting for designer to post new version with fixes.  I guess Danville Acres was a very smooth one.

 

99% of the time, a course is released shortly after the designer gives the ok.

 

In any case, I really don't care if the courses are tested here, at OGT, by a few friends, or not tested at all.  I just want good courses to play like everybody else and thought I can help the community via the structured testing and central course downloads.  That's all.

[M Rose]

I gotta disagree with this.  If my textures are shit, I want you to tell me.  I recently played a course (that isn't on my HD anymore) where I had to turn the saturation down to 57% just so the bucket of lime green paint the guy had dumped on his fairways didn't bore a hole through my eyesockets.  Golf course architecture isn't just about making a technically great golf course, it's also about making something pleasing to the eye.  A fall looking golf course isn't one with bright green grass, bright green trees with a couple trees doused with red paint thrown in for good measure.  So, if I put something out that doesn't look like it would grow on this planet, please tell me.

 

Well in the case of something really super garish, then yeah, obviously that's something else. I do make an exception for things that are super inappropriate or are so ugly that it is distracting to the player.

 

My experience with such nitpicking has generally been with much more subtle examples than that, usually to the effect of "the rough you have chosen should have a different normal map on it" or again, the color of the pond water.

 

As far as beta testing goes....  I put my beta up and watch the OGT thread; I generally won't touch the course for a week and then start to make necessary changes. I also try to make sure nobody has commented in the thread for 2-3 days as I figure anyone who wanted to test at that point would have done so. Generally I have about a 7-10 day turnaround before final release depending on the extent of the changes. I also like to release courses before a weekend

[DoGgs]

I gotta disagree with this.  If my textures are shit, I want you to tell me.  I recently played a course (that isn't on my HD anymore) where I had to turn the saturation down to 57% just so the bucket of lime green paint the guy had dumped on his fairways didn't bore a hole through my eyesockets.  Golf course architecture isn't just about making a technically great golf course, it's also about making something pleasing to the eye.  A fall looking golf course isn't one with bright green grass, bright green trees with a couple trees doused with red paint thrown in for good measure.  So, if I put something out that doesn't look like it would grow on this planet, please tell me.

lol are we talking baltusrol here? if so, Are red maples kinda red thru out the year?  so is it a fall course or is that just your perception.  You have every right not to like a course, but that does not mean you speak for everyone, i have had good feedback from a few sim users who appreciate the extra color because on a projector screen PG looks even more washed out than normal.  I will be pushing a champ version with the normal washed out look, but i get the feeling it will stil be (no longer on your HD)  I can take critique of any of my designs, i'm not easily offended, i don't care enough,  but when it is vitriol laced, as your response is, your argument loses all credibility instantly.... Remember this..." you have every right to be offended, but it does not mean you are right"

[jt83]

I'll probably make my first course available here, and I welcome criticism as long as it's written with the understanding I'm a first-timer.  I'm not keen to get mail from those who feel I've intentionally wasted their time.

[clubcaptain]

There's enough reasonable people here to give you good feedback. Just remember, it's your course, your creation, your perception. By all means take constructive suggestions on board but if you like it then that's the main thing.

 

When i was doing some beta testing I never ever queried the design element of a course even if there were things I wouldn't do. I never saw it as my place to criticise the ideas. I just checked out the technicalities of the design and tried to ensure that it played as well as possible. Obviously there are overlaps between design and playability but I always approached it from the playability aspect.

[axe360]

Any tester who does his best to give "good, thoughtful, constructive feedback/suggestions are A #1 in my book.

[Kablammo11]

Addendum: I don't like long testing periods. And I don't believe in dumping umpteen versions of work in progress onto the testers or issue only partial courses where some of the holes have not been finished yet (This is not a dig at designers who do that, people are different, processes vary and that's perfectly okay). The courses I submit for testing are supposed to be the finished article, ready to use, barring some minor oversights and errors which I have failed to notice. And yes, these always happen and are almost unavoidable: There's always something.

Above all, I don't like to invite testers onto a course of mine that I haven't tested thoroughly myself. I play up to 200 rounds on my own designs before I let the testers have a go.

 

 

[RBarley]

My point of view has been that everyone has made good points from their perspective. My experience as a play tester for PPG and other golfs sims leads me to say that. When I make a course I usually play it many times and usually find something every time I play the course. When I ask for play testing to be done. I'm just looking for flaws or objects out of place. Greens should be looked at for size and slope. Tee boxes should be level as possible. Textures should be pleasing to the eye as far as not hurting your eyes when playing. Your opinions should be honest, but not demeaning. Every person has different skills and faults. Faults can be built upon and in time it will be a skill.  Just my 2 cents.

[DPRoberts]

It is really a bit like proofreading.

Certain editors looking for their particulars (mesh tears, odd pins, shot points, etc) and will make corrections as needed. Some designers are better than others at releasing a polished beta. Often, it seems the course may need a little proofreading to jump start the finalizing process.

When you stare at these courses for a long time, probably eventually gloss over some little things you assumed were correct. Always funny to me when I leave a word out of a sentence but subconsciously place that word in every time I read it.

[M Rose]

When you stare at these courses for a long time, probably eventually gloss over some little things you assumed were correct. Always funny to me when I leave a word out of a sentence but subconsciously place that word in every time I read it.

 

That's where it is most important.... because you begin to lose your objectivity. I certainly have before. I probably do at least 25-30 builds of a course before I even put it to beta, but some projects (real course) require more than that.

 

Pebble Beach will always be the most notorious example with me because I had so much feedback on it that I really did go crazy at the end of it.... ultimately I was asking myself all the time whether it was ultimately any good or not. I felt like I had no concept of my own work for a little while.

[NoPutt]

K11 called it, " your inner bastard", that little voice that tells you something

looks good, or feels right; then someone else sees it and says," what the heck is that".

So yes, the Matt's are correct, we lose objectivity (the facts), and become subjective (the feeling).

Objective..  It's Raining

Subjective..  I love the Rain

Don't listen to that "Inner Bastard", get other bastards opinions.

[axe360]

Forget it. Designers and testers should be a team and get along. That's all.

[Kablammo11]

K11 called it, " your inner bastard", that little voice that tells you something

looks good, or feels right; then someone else sees it and says," what the heck is that".

So yes, the Matt's are correct, we lose objectivity (the facts), and become subjective (the feeling).

Objective..  It's Raining

Subjective..  I love the Rain

Don't listen to that "Inner Bastard", get other bastards opinions.

 

That's only half of what I meant, buddy. The Inner Bastard is the little voice that tells the designer "Meh, near enough, nobody will notice, no need to fuss about it, it's not perfect just leave it that way and move on...". Whenever I hear that little voice, I must fight its lure and force myself to ignore it and invest more time and effort into a particular area. The Inner Bastard wants things to be quick, easy and painless - but his outer bastard happens to know that they never are.