08-04-2015, 04:52 PM
I've recently thought this a lot and heres from one authors experience:Â
90-100% of the feedback on my Workshop-missions is exclusively from CiA alone. That also made me find you in the first place.
Other feedback varies from very little to nonexistent. Sure, my missions aren't most beginner friendly, I don't advertise them in forums/they have no respawn/VAS/arsenal and usually briefing alone drives people away, so my 'customer base' is niche. People who like, usually subscribes more than one, and casual gamers usually does not even try. But very few players bothers to comment. I get some thumbs up, some thumbs down from my regular haters. Rare comments are usually "nice mission, thanks" or then someone tells me my mission sucks because of no respawn/saves/against wrong faction/too long/too difficult/etc. That too is feedback and is appreciated.Â
If someone says my mission suck, or that there is something wrong, it is perfectly fine. They just might be right. But. I would like to know why. Estimating mission difficulty, duration, challenge, is damn tough, especially if the mission is intended for 'general public' and honest commentary helps with this. I suppose that lot of people simply don't want to sound like they are whining but any respectable mission maker wants to know if there are script errors/task issues/bugs, what ever.Â
The practice of rating/commenting missions that CiA does, is still rare and extremely important. I haven't noticed any other clan doing it. Another nice feature is that Variable/server admin usually comments that "Sounds good. Mission will be hosted in CiA server" or something like that. That gives author feedback that someone is actually bothering to try. These were some factors which kept me making missions.
-Stag
90-100% of the feedback on my Workshop-missions is exclusively from CiA alone. That also made me find you in the first place.
Other feedback varies from very little to nonexistent. Sure, my missions aren't most beginner friendly, I don't advertise them in forums/they have no respawn/VAS/arsenal and usually briefing alone drives people away, so my 'customer base' is niche. People who like, usually subscribes more than one, and casual gamers usually does not even try. But very few players bothers to comment. I get some thumbs up, some thumbs down from my regular haters. Rare comments are usually "nice mission, thanks" or then someone tells me my mission sucks because of no respawn/saves/against wrong faction/too long/too difficult/etc. That too is feedback and is appreciated.Â
If someone says my mission suck, or that there is something wrong, it is perfectly fine. They just might be right. But. I would like to know why. Estimating mission difficulty, duration, challenge, is damn tough, especially if the mission is intended for 'general public' and honest commentary helps with this. I suppose that lot of people simply don't want to sound like they are whining but any respectable mission maker wants to know if there are script errors/task issues/bugs, what ever.Â
The practice of rating/commenting missions that CiA does, is still rare and extremely important. I haven't noticed any other clan doing it. Another nice feature is that Variable/server admin usually comments that "Sounds good. Mission will be hosted in CiA server" or something like that. That gives author feedback that someone is actually bothering to try. These were some factors which kept me making missions.
-Stag