Map Spring Cleaning?

[SuperxAndrew]

Personally, I'd rather no maps to be taken out. I actually have great memories on some of these maps and I feel like others do also.
I feel as though the voting system takes out the need for maps to be taken off since if a map is not popular, it'll be played less. A map will win the vote if the majority of the players want to play that map. Taking off maps wouldn't make (almost) anyone happy since everyone has a different opinion on maps.

Whenever a new map is added, it is really fun to play it. I seriously don't think I would mind if 100 maps were on the server. The more the merrier. Although, if we were to have that many maps, we would need a system to dedicate certain maps to certain servers. ;-;
I'm going to go ahead and stop now; I'm completely rambling xD

The rambling had good points. xD

I think that it is completely realistic to imagine the servers with 100 maps. However, it would need to be 100 solid maps. The problem I see with this is many maps not being enjoyed.
Just think, the majority of maps on the servers aren't popular. There are only a handful of maps that are played so regularly that they could be presumed popular, and this is with less than 50 maps. Imagine doubling the amount of maps MCSG has... it would theoretically double the amount of good maps, but also the bad.

Basically what I am trying to say it, yes, more the merrier is definitely a valid point; however, in order for MCSG to find 100 good maps is unrealistic. I think it is more realistic for MCSG to focus between 30-40 (in the post I said 10-20, but I think the 30-40 range is more ideal after reading other people's comments) maps that are all popular, get rid of the maps that cause clutter, and set a real standard of quality for the map making community.

 

[benji_r]

Whoever designs the computer program would be adding their bias. Compute programs don't magically appear, someone would have to create it, and by doing so add their own bias in programming how the program would pick maps.

Hahah good point, I was not saying it was actually possible, but rather just saying that theoretically a computer can not have feelings and therefore makes it the least biased option, but I completely forgot about how it's programmed xD

 

[Azorces]

A strong number would be at 30
Right now there are plenty of maps that aren't being played but if people really like them that much maybe there could be some throwback servers or have a day that old maps would be able to be voted for just an idea.

 

[Electrix]

I think some maps should be re-tiered and made into 48 or 120 player maps. Maps like Remnant, Dracarys, and Fortress Pyke could benefit from this greatly IMO.

If MCSG keeps only about 30 24-man maps, they will be fine. And generally, I think that 48 and 120 player maps need to be greatly upgraded. There's a reason nobody joins them ;(

 

[xMetql]

There are maps I wish could be removed (I will not say) but I would wish that there would be a certain kind of "Template" (probably not the best word) for maps better suited for clans.

More quality maps to balance out the maps that a lot of people don't generally like.
When I think of a map that I actually has a lot of quality, I think of maps like: SG4, ValleySide, Zone85, and Holiday Resort.
These maps are mainly clan battle maps.

 

[Ceroria]

There are many aspects that go into creating a good map. Some maps are good for certain things, and some for others but all are passed by the same standard. When you look at how the community judges a map, most look at it for the clan battle aspect however the reason this is so is because said clan battle maps have what I like to call the whole package. These maps are aesthetically pleasing, have solid terrain for PvP, have chokepoints, and have balanced tiering. There are a few maps that I'd love to see re-tiered, or at least reverted to their old tiering (such as Avaricia, Solar Frost V2, and Fallen Empire) and there are some maps that shouldn't be touched.

I personally would love to see a similar thing, but with tiering. I'd like to see some popular maps that were not tiered by the mapmakers to be retiered. This would change up the style of play, and make things fun for those who are bored of the same old thing over and over again. Take for example Valleyside and SG Highway. Both maps are fun to play, but the routes have become stale, and it is no longer much fun for me to play games on them.

Overall, there is work that can be done, but I don't see any specific problems.

 

[Electrix]

There are many aspects that go into creating a good map. Some maps are good for certain things, and some for others but all are passed by the same standard. When you look at how the community judges a map, most look at it for the clan battle aspect however the reason this is so is because said clan battle maps have what I like to call the whole package. These maps are aesthetically pleasing, have solid terrain for PvP, have chokepoints, and have balanced tiering. There are a few maps that I'd love to see re-tiered, or at least reverted to their old tiering (such as Avaricia, Solar Frost V2, and Fallen Empire) and there are some maps that shouldn't be touched.

I personally would love to see a similar thing, but with tiering. I'd like to see some popular maps that were not tiered by the mapmakers to be retiered. This would change up the style of play, and make things fun for those who are bored of the same old thing over and over again. Take for example Valleyside and SG Highway. Both maps are fun to play, but the routes have become stale, and it is no longer much fun for me to play games on them.

Overall, there is work that can be done, but I don't see any specific problems.

I think retiering maps just annoys players, since it's more fun to have stacked battles than 3-shot kills. This is why new maps are usually underplayed: nobody has any stuff, so fights get kind of boring. It might be more fast-paced, but is that necessary?

 

[Ceroria]

I think retiering maps just annoys players, since it's more fun to have stacked battles than 3-shot kills. This is why new maps are usually underplayed: nobody has any stuff, so fights get kind of boring. It might be more fast-paced, but is that necessary?

Idk, I just got bored of having the same Valleyside route for almost 2 years, it'd be nice to formulate new routes on some of these older maps

 

[Jusser]

When I first joined MCSG, part of the thrill of playing was the process of discovering all the maps that were on the server; I was desperate to play on every single one. For that reason I think there isn't a problem with adding "more", because the community naturally will pick out favorites.

That being said, the way MCSG plays has changed very differently from the past, the most notable change being adding more and more chests. Because of this, many older maps aren't played because they don't have "op tiering" or whatever. If more chests were added to the lacking maps OR chests removed from the newer maps (Par 72 is a prime example of having simply too many chests), then the gameplay would be more balanced. You don't want to make the game too easy to play, yet you still want to empower the player and provide a challenge as well. Don't fix what isn't broken, but fix the broken maps!

For the maps that simply can't be fixed by changing up the chests, then the maps should be removed. Otherwise, try and fix it!

- Jusser, DW Member