Okay so, I just came back after unclaiming the n-th hack... pretty much because I couldn't stand its difficulty.
I was going to make plans about how to treat hacks that kinda break the "hard" field of difficulty. Think about JUMP, or Bits and Pieces: these are examples of hack that goes over the "hard" difficulty. At the same time, it's not considered "kaizo". As some tutorials point out, while in normal hacks you have a variety of paths to choose from, in kaizo hacks, you only have one possible path, and in that path, all the difficulty of the hack is focused (source).
In JUMP and Bits and Pieces, you have a variety of paths still, but they're all awfully hard to pass: may it be sprite spam (Bits and Pieces), extremly tricky gimmick (JUMP), and so on.
Why I'm making this announcement post? Well, the time to pick a decision has come, but the opinion of the whole staff isn't enough: I want your input about which one of these two options you'd be more lenient the most. Depending on the majority, and depending on your "why/why not", we'll finally put a defined line on how we should treat such kind of hack.
After all, who plays hacks the most? You, that's right! My aim is to make the hack section better for all of you players of smw hacks!
Let's go with the two options then.
Option 1: awfully hard hacks won't be allowed.
Again, think about JUMP and Bits and Pieces. If this option will be choosen, this kind of hack will be rejected in future (and the first one will be Bits and Pieces). JUMP will, instead, go trough the newer feature process again, and will be judged again for feature or not. If not, its featured status will be removed. We can't really reject the hack from the section, since it was accepted long ago, back to when Sixcorby was hack mod leader... but at the same time, we can't have an almost impossible-to-play hack featured: many hack makers will be confused, since they can potentially base their hack difficulty on something that awfully violates difficulty standards. And yes, I've seen similar episodes of this, so don't question how important a featured hack is for everyone, especially hack makers.
But yes, with this option, if the hack requires player to savestates spam, this factor will be considered major reason of rejection. The mod who will reject it will also state some examples of design flaws in his removal (extreme item babysitting? low ceilings? claustrophobic design? low reaction time? clusterfuck of sprites? etc..), as well as general tips about how to tone difficulty down (put more powerups? use switch palace blocks more often? etc..).
Pros:
- Faster and better moderation. Unfair hacks get rejected easily. The mod stops playing as soon as he feels like he savestated way too often.
- More design quality / less design flaws on the hacks in the hacks section.
(add more?..)
Cons:
- Those who look for insane hacks won't find much in the section... since we reject them.
(add more?..)
If you think this option will suit better, state why, and suggest which should be the factors that should make the hack mod lenient to a rejection (i.e. savestates abuse, etc..).
Option 2: add a "very hard" difficulty that identifies hacks that go insane, and be 90% more lenient to accept them.
This is the opposite of the first option. If this is choosen, hacks like JUMP and Bits and Pieces will be tagged as "Very Hard" or "Insane" or "<insert your suggestion here>", and will be normally accepted. Hacks tagged this way will also allow mods to use cheats in a fair amount during the moderation (for example, if there's a section you tried 10 times, and that you can't really pass because there are too many sprites to avoid, use a cheat that makes Mario permanently big). Obviously, savestates will also be a must for the mod who is moderating this kind of hack (not in a spammy way, but way more lenient than the first option).
Obviously, broken levels still won't be justified, and will be rejected. Example: you make a level that can't be beaten unless you use a Fire Mario cheat (and there are no Fire Flowers in the level in question, nor in the whole hack). If there's even one level that does that, the hack will be rejected.
Pros:
- People looking for an "inbetween kaizo and hard" hacks will be satisfied, since we now accept such kind of hack.
- Faster moderation here too, since if a section is too hard to pass, cheats and savestates can be used.
(add more..?)
Cons:
- Design flaws can be potentially mislooked. Mods will try avoiding to accept hacks with excessive flaws, but hacks tagged in the new way will happen to have one or two.
(add more?..)
Make sure to clearly state why this should be choosen instead of the other option.
That's all I had to say. I hope I was clear, sorry for any misunderstandings. Be sure to ask if there's something wrong with anything!
As hack team leader, I'm expecting you to post your thoughts so that I can organize my mind and see what we have to do with the difficulty factor in hacks. I'm welcoming other options too if they're valid, but I'd prefer you just stick on one of these two, along with your reasons.
Discuss.
I was going to make plans about how to treat hacks that kinda break the "hard" field of difficulty. Think about JUMP, or Bits and Pieces: these are examples of hack that goes over the "hard" difficulty. At the same time, it's not considered "kaizo". As some tutorials point out, while in normal hacks you have a variety of paths to choose from, in kaizo hacks, you only have one possible path, and in that path, all the difficulty of the hack is focused (source).
In JUMP and Bits and Pieces, you have a variety of paths still, but they're all awfully hard to pass: may it be sprite spam (Bits and Pieces), extremly tricky gimmick (JUMP), and so on.
Why I'm making this announcement post? Well, the time to pick a decision has come, but the opinion of the whole staff isn't enough: I want your input about which one of these two options you'd be more lenient the most. Depending on the majority, and depending on your "why/why not", we'll finally put a defined line on how we should treat such kind of hack.
After all, who plays hacks the most? You, that's right! My aim is to make the hack section better for all of you players of smw hacks!
Let's go with the two options then.
Option 1: awfully hard hacks won't be allowed.
Again, think about JUMP and Bits and Pieces. If this option will be choosen, this kind of hack will be rejected in future (and the first one will be Bits and Pieces). JUMP will, instead, go trough the newer feature process again, and will be judged again for feature or not. If not, its featured status will be removed. We can't really reject the hack from the section, since it was accepted long ago, back to when Sixcorby was hack mod leader... but at the same time, we can't have an almost impossible-to-play hack featured: many hack makers will be confused, since they can potentially base their hack difficulty on something that awfully violates difficulty standards. And yes, I've seen similar episodes of this, so don't question how important a featured hack is for everyone, especially hack makers.
But yes, with this option, if the hack requires player to savestates spam, this factor will be considered major reason of rejection. The mod who will reject it will also state some examples of design flaws in his removal (extreme item babysitting? low ceilings? claustrophobic design? low reaction time? clusterfuck of sprites? etc..), as well as general tips about how to tone difficulty down (put more powerups? use switch palace blocks more often? etc..).
Pros:
- Faster and better moderation. Unfair hacks get rejected easily. The mod stops playing as soon as he feels like he savestated way too often.
- More design quality / less design flaws on the hacks in the hacks section.
(add more?..)
Cons:
- Those who look for insane hacks won't find much in the section... since we reject them.
(add more?..)
If you think this option will suit better, state why, and suggest which should be the factors that should make the hack mod lenient to a rejection (i.e. savestates abuse, etc..).
Option 2: add a "very hard" difficulty that identifies hacks that go insane, and be 90% more lenient to accept them.
This is the opposite of the first option. If this is choosen, hacks like JUMP and Bits and Pieces will be tagged as "Very Hard" or "Insane" or "<insert your suggestion here>", and will be normally accepted. Hacks tagged this way will also allow mods to use cheats in a fair amount during the moderation (for example, if there's a section you tried 10 times, and that you can't really pass because there are too many sprites to avoid, use a cheat that makes Mario permanently big). Obviously, savestates will also be a must for the mod who is moderating this kind of hack (not in a spammy way, but way more lenient than the first option).
Obviously, broken levels still won't be justified, and will be rejected. Example: you make a level that can't be beaten unless you use a Fire Mario cheat (and there are no Fire Flowers in the level in question, nor in the whole hack). If there's even one level that does that, the hack will be rejected.
Pros:
- People looking for an "inbetween kaizo and hard" hacks will be satisfied, since we now accept such kind of hack.
- Faster moderation here too, since if a section is too hard to pass, cheats and savestates can be used.
(add more..?)
Cons:
- Design flaws can be potentially mislooked. Mods will try avoiding to accept hacks with excessive flaws, but hacks tagged in the new way will happen to have one or two.
(add more?..)
Make sure to clearly state why this should be choosen instead of the other option.
That's all I had to say. I hope I was clear, sorry for any misunderstandings. Be sure to ask if there's something wrong with anything!
As hack team leader, I'm expecting you to post your thoughts so that I can organize my mind and see what we have to do with the difficulty factor in hacks. I'm welcoming other options too if they're valid, but I'd prefer you just stick on one of these two, along with your reasons.
Discuss.