Map Spring Cleaning?

[SuperxAndrew]

why is the text white

I use the old forum layout. The white text actually shows up on it. I'll edit that though.

I thought I was done writing huge essays about maps but I guess I'll do this once more but I'll try to hold back from writing too much. Only respond to this comment if you actually genuinely read and understood the points presented, otherwise you would be left uninformed and misunderstood.

To begin with the main post by SuperxAndrew , although I understand your intentions, there are many issues that it would raise. The following are a few off the top of my head- community disagreement/uproar, the logistics of going about such a process, and the struggle of cooperation through all levels of management down to the community. Next is the elaboration on these points:

Community disagreement/uproar- This topic is fairly easy to understand. Everyone has their favorite map whether or not the map is wholly enjoyed by all members of the community. Remove even 20% of the maps and you remove about 20% of the popularity of the movement. Think about it from a common player; "Oh, *Insert map here* is my favorite map ever!" Well, if that map is removed, the usual response is "Why would they do that!? This is so dumb!" *Proceeds to spout disapproval of the whole process*. Although the number of maps is increasing drastically as compared to that of a year ago, so is the community which can create touchy situations such as the whole map business. The rest of this topic is pretty self-explanatory.

Logistics- I'm unsure about the way things are run for the map aspects of things now. I know there used to be a map committee but I've been gone for some time (and still am) so I'll explain problems that would arise with and without a map committee (allowing for both angles). If there still is a map committee or something of the sort, personal bias is the first huge issue. Obviously people do not want their own maps removed and some people will fight to the end to keep their maps on the servers. Furthermore, there's the sort of politics that goes on with all of it. While some people do not like to realize it or face it, things just are not as simple as they appear. Obviously I won't give an example because it would either derail on-topic conversation or it would just not be suitable to this conversation to begin with. Also, the haste of decision making is an issue. Adequate time would need to be take to insure that the correct maps are removed to allow the least possible disagreement from the community. Now, if there is not a map committee and everything is decided from one or a few people at the top, distance can present issues. Not to be taken the wrong way, but those at the top are distanced from the community (which is good for certain decisions). However, this decision needs to be made from those with community involvement. As for who those people are, deciding that presents another problem yet again. That's all I'll write for this aspect.

Struggle of cooperation- Time and time again a single map has been removed and an absolute struggle has ensued. SG Japan and Demons Breeze are two prime examples. A decision was made but the process was so difficult to carry out because there could not be a common consensus between all levels of the community. As for voting to choose what maps to remove, that would simply not work. The in-game community is drastically different from the forum community which is drastically different from the clan community which is drastically different from the map building community and so on. You simply will not get cooperation between levels of the community.

Now for the parts I agree on- There should probably be a somewhat limited number of maps, maybe 30-40 is there is a list that simply can not be removed but around 20-30 is that list is nonexistent and every map is up for removal. To expand on the idea of this list of maps that "can't be removed"- no map should be here forever. If there are some maps that "can't" be removed, make a gamemode like benji_r suggested. MCGamer is all about change. If it weren't, it simply wouldn't be around anymore. If we were to sit here and count how many changes have been made, it would be longer than the "Last Reply Wins" thread. So why allow change so much but exempt one thing from change? Holding on to the past is what holds the community back from progression. Other than SG4, none of the Vareide maps are popularly played (or even close to popularly played). As said before, just make the other gamemode if you want to keep them but it is clear that the "Survival Games" gamemode is made for change and progression so don't hold it back from that.

If this idea, or any idea similar to it for that matter, are to be even close to enacted, some serious planning and thought must go into it. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone will be serious enough about it to go to such extensive lengths and plan out every single aspect. This is not a change that you can rush into or even approach carefully. Instead you must carefully plan for quite some time (even months) gathering information and strategies for doing so. Although it would be beneficial to the community, I don't think it would ever happen.

This is all I'll write for now. If you reply to the comment, please do so in genuine interest of the situation and from an unbiased view point if you can do so. If your comment happens to do this, I'll reply.

I ought to go ahead and replace my main post with this. xD Very well said.

I think this is more of what I meant. There doesn't need to be a map clean out as drastic as cutting nearly half the maps, rather one just big enough to weed out the maps that don't belong and leave room for change.

Your points hit the nail on the head as far as predicting how change of this scale simply wouldn't work, but do you think there should be a way for MCGamer to evaluate and accept maps similar to the way the map committee used to that would work? I guess I mean, do you think there is an ideal way for MCGamer to go about map changes such as adding/removing maps?

 

[Twistology]

I think MCSG would definitely benefit from a cleanout.
I don't want to list maps that I feel should be removed, because there are hundreds of threads where people have already done that. However there are certain maps (and more than you might think) that are in the rotation and are never played.

A year or 2 ago 'underplayed' maps would have some sort of chance at getting played, but now you just get all the 'newer' players voting the same maps over and over - they join a server, look through the 5 maps to find valleyside, SG4, Holiday or (ffs) Demon's Breeze (and a few others) and if they don't see one of those, just maps like Fallen Empire and Fortress Pyke, they leave to find a new server.

An example would be Estyr, which was released like a week ago. It's a quality map with excellent builds, people have been finding chest routes already, and it generally has everything a good map needs... I've managed to play it twice since it came out, and only because I had friends with platinum donor in the lobby.

I'm not saying that any of the 'overplayed' maps should be removed, but I think we would benefit from removing a substantial number of the most 'underplayed' maps, which (in my opinion) just clutter up the voting lists and put people off wanting to be original.

im bad at long structured posts but you probably just about get what im getting at..

 

[Tree_TheBigKind]

Your points hit the nail on the head as far as predicting how change of this scale simply wouldn't work, but do you think there should be a way for MCGamer to evaluate and accept maps similar to the way the map committee used to that would work? I guess I mean, do you think there is an ideal way for MCGamer to go about map changes such as adding/removing maps?

Although there would be no ideal way that every single person will agree on or like, there are some ways that could be effective and be a step in the right direction. A map committee is a difficult thing to do correctly for the following reasons-

1. How would you even determine who is allowed in? The forums vote? The in-game community votes? Higher up staff chooses? There's problems with each of those. The forum-goers only represent a small portion of the overall community and it's been very evident that the forums' opinions differ greatly from the in-game community. And how would the in-game community even know enough about everyone to elect them? They usually just play the maps and so it might end up just being YouTubers or popular players selected to be in the committee. That leaves the higher up staff. Well, again (referring to my original post), there's some politics in all that but it does appear to be the only viable option.

2. Next is the issue of what type of people would be selected to be in the committee. Will it be regular players, map builders, YouTubers, clan leaders, staff, etc.? Each and every single option available would lead the map selections in a different direction. Regular players may not know what to look for in a good map. Map builders may only value aesthetics and be biased towards their own maps. YouTubers might only choose maps they could get an edge on. Clan leaders may only choose maps suitable for clans and then the clan spotlight becomes too overpowering in every game played. Staff may only choose maps their friends make or maps they could get an edge on. A lot of those reasons are interchangeable between each category as well.

3. The structure of the committee is also an issue. Who gets all the say? Is it equal voting power? Is there a single entity that is given suggestions by the members? If there is equal voting power or even structured voting (anything similar to it) there could easily be a rise of alliances or pacts that work to benefit each other. If there is a single person that has the final say and is just given suggestions by the members, then what's the purpose in the first place?..

These are the biggest issues I see for a map committee. However, if a solution to these problems is somehow found, then a map committee is a very viable option.

So this brings me back to the original question- Is there an ideal way to go about map changes/addition/removal? In all honesty, probably not at this point. There are many options ranging from very poor to manageable but none reach an ideal point. The only process I can think of is as follows:

-Map maker posts a new map on the forums with a poll with options "Yes" and "No" but the map creators titles are hidden and nobody can tell who made the map. Higher up staff (or someone else to be determined) has the ability to know who made the map to ensure that they do not try to compliment their own map or try to boost the map's popularity.

-If the map catches popularity, it is put into the test stage in which it is put onto "test servers" (For more information about these, check previous threads created about them). At this point the map is tested and the thread is put into a sub-forum labeled "Testing Maps" or something of the sort. Suggestions/bugs can be put on the thread such as "There's a difficult chest to get to that should be tier two" or "There's a glitchable spot" or "The map is heavily one sided with tier twos", etc.

-In-game on the map, there is a poll that is opened after one week (or another time to be determined) with the question "Would you like to see this map added" and the options "Yes", "Unsure", or "No". After the poll is open for one week (or another time to be determined later), it closes. If "Yes" has over 50%, the map is accepted and added. If "No" has over 50%, the map is removed and denied. If neither of those options have over 50% and "Unsure" has more than both of them, the map is left on for another week and the poll restarts after that week.

To eliminate the problem of crowding of maps (assuming maps are removed correctly and the total number on the server is reduced to 30-40 or something) there will only be space for two or three test maps at a time. Any others voted for on the forums would be put on a waiting list with no changes in order so that maps can wait until they have a chance to be tested. No maps would obtain precedence over others.

This is simply an option pertaining to adding maps correctly. As for the issue of removing/revamping maps, I have not thought of a solution to that yet although I can if anyone wishes me to.

Any questions will be answered as soon as I can, thank you.

 

[benji_r]

So this brings me back to the original question- Is there an ideal way to go about map changes/addition/removal? In all honesty, probably not at this point. There are many options ranging from very poor to manageable but none reach an ideal point. The only process I can think of is as follows:

-Map maker posts a new map on the forums with a poll with options "Yes" and "No" but the map creators titles are hidden and nobody can tell who made the map. Higher up staff (or someone else to be determined) has the ability to know who made the map to ensure that they do not try to compliment their own map or try to boost the map's popularity.

-If the map catches popularity, it is put into the test stage in which it is put onto "test servers" (For more information about these, check previous threads created about them). At this point the map is tested and the thread is put into a sub-forum labeled "Testing Maps" or something of the sort. Suggestions/bugs can be put on the thread such as "There's a difficult chest to get to that should be tier two" or "There's a glitchable spot" or "The map is heavily one sided with tier twos", etc.

-In-game on the map, there is a poll that is opened after one week (or another time to be determined) with the question "Would you like to see this map added" and the options "Yes", "Unsure", or "No". After the poll is open for one week (or another time to be determined later), it closes. If "Yes" has over 50%, the map is accepted and added. If "No" has over 50%, the map is removed and denied. If neither of those options have over 50% and "Unsure" has more than both of them, the map is left on for another week and the poll restarts after that week.

To eliminate the problem of crowding of maps (assuming maps are removed correctly and the total number on the server is reduced to 30-40 or something) there will only be space for two or three test maps at a time. Any others voted for on the forums would be put on a waiting list with no changes in order so that maps can wait until they have a chance to be tested. No maps would obtain precedence over others.

This is simply an option pertaining to adding maps correctly. As for the issue of removing/revamping maps, I have not thought of a solution to that yet although I can if anyone wishes me to.

Any questions will be answered as soon as I can, thank you.

I really like this idea, and I've always thought of something along the line of a test server, as maps can be aesthetically very pleasing but be awful for gameplay. I've always wanted to have a way to test maps that I build, for example when I built Highfield Estate, as it was really only a solo build with some help from a friend on a LAN world with just world edit, we had no way at all of testing it. It's easier for bigger build teams that have their own servers, but for the little guys this would just work so well. (I'm sorry if i repeated myself a lot xD)

The other thing I wanted to comment on was this:

1. How would you even determine who is allowed in? The forums vote? The in-game community votes? Higher up staff chooses? There's problems with each of those. The forum-goers only represent a small portion of the overall community and it's been very evident that the forums' opinions differ greatly from the in-game community. And how would the in-game community even know enough about everyone to elect them? They usually just play the maps and so it might end up just being YouTubers or popular players selected to be in the committee. That leaves the higher up staff. Well, again (referring to my original post), there's some politics in all that but it does appear to be the only viable option.

2. Next is the issue of what type of people would be selected to be in the committee. Will it be regular players, map builders, YouTubers, clan leaders, staff, etc.? Each and every single option available would lead the map selections in a different direction. Regular players may not know what to look for in a good map. Map builders may only value aesthetics and be biased towards their own maps. YouTubers might only choose maps they could get an edge on. Clan leaders may only choose maps suitable for clans and then the clan spotlight becomes too overpowering in every game played. Staff may only choose maps their friends make or maps they could get an edge on. A lot of those reasons are interchangeable between each category as well.

3. The structure of the committee is also an issue. Who gets all the say? Is it equal voting power? Is there a single entity that is given suggestions by the members? If there is equal voting power or even structured voting (anything similar to it) there could easily be a rise of alliances or pacts that work to benefit each other. If there is a single person that has the final say and is just given suggestions by the members, then what's the purpose in the first place?..

So why not have a bit of everyone? High ranked players, map builders (as long as they are currently not trying to get a map on), Staff youtubers and others as you listed. Have the map committee be big, like 30 people or something, that's enough to reduce a bias that could be seen with a smaller committee.

However as you detailed, I don't think there is ever a possible way to completely eliminate a bias and make it 100% fair.

- ben

 

[FusionDeck]

I've seen all the other replies to the thread and I'm going to save you all 30 minutes of boring reading by summing up my statement into this:

I believe that a lot of the maps on MC Gamer should have been removed long ago due to bad builds, gameplay, bad tiering etc. Unfortunately most of these maps would be classed as 'classic' and I feel MC Gamer is 'technically obligated' to keep them, such as the Sg 1 - 5 Series. I think that a new gamemode JUST for these old maps would be a good idea to make way for fresh new maps on the rotation. Another option would be to add the maps to SG classic, but that is using the old version of SG so it wouldn't fare well.

I hope I didn't bore anyone too much *Cough Tree_TheBigKind Cough*. Just kidding bud

 

[Tree_TheBigKind]

So why not have a bit of everyone? High ranked players, map builders (as long as they are currently not trying to get a map on), Staff youtubers and others as you listed. Have the map committee be big, like 30 people or something, that's enough to reduce a bias that could be seen with a smaller committee.

However as you detailed, I don't think there is ever a possible way to completely eliminate a bias and make it 100% fair.

- ben

There's still some issues with this even. A few that present themselves right away are-

1. Having a little bit of everyone would bring together a bit of every single issue with having each type of player.

2. Having so many players would make it insanely difficult to convene meetings as a meeting time in which everyone could go to would be hard to determine.

3. It would be difficult to obtain a common consensus as each person would be looking for a different thing in a map so there would be way too many options presented.

Sorry if I didn't elaborate on the points enough, I just woke up.

 

[Sanders]

Although there would be no ideal way that every single person will agree on or like, there are some ways that could be effective and be a step in the right direction. A map committee is a difficult thing to do correctly for the following reasons-

1. How would you even determine who is allowed in? The forums vote? The in-game community votes? Higher up staff chooses? There's problems with each of those. The forum-goers only represent a small portion of the overall community and it's been very evident that the forums' opinions differ greatly from the in-game community. And how would the in-game community even know enough about everyone to elect them? They usually just play the maps and so it might end up just being YouTubers or popular players selected to be in the committee. That leaves the higher up staff. Well, again (referring to my original post), there's some politics in all that but it does appear to be the only viable option.

2. Next is the issue of what type of people would be selected to be in the committee. Will it be regular players, map builders, YouTubers, clan leaders, staff, etc.? Each and every single option available would lead the map selections in a different direction. Regular players may not know what to look for in a good map. Map builders may only value aesthetics and be biased towards their own maps. YouTubers might only choose maps they could get an edge on. Clan leaders may only choose maps suitable for clans and then the clan spotlight becomes too overpowering in every game played. Staff may only choose maps their friends make or maps they could get an edge on. A lot of those reasons are interchangeable between each category as well.

3. The structure of the committee is also an issue. Who gets all the say? Is it equal voting power? Is there a single entity that is given suggestions by the members? If there is equal voting power or even structured voting (anything similar to it) there could easily be a rise of alliances or pacts that work to benefit each other. If there is a single person that has the final say and is just given suggestions by the members, then what's the purpose in the first place?..

These are the biggest issues I see for a map committee. However, if a solution to these problems is somehow found, then a map committee is a very viable option.

So this brings me back to the original question- Is there an ideal way to go about map changes/addition/removal? In all honesty, probably not at this point. There are many options ranging from very poor to manageable but none reach an ideal point. The only process I can think of is as follows:

-Map maker posts a new map on the forums with a poll with options "Yes" and "No" but the map creators titles are hidden and nobody can tell who made the map. Higher up staff (or someone else to be determined) has the ability to know who made the map to ensure that they do not try to compliment their own map or try to boost the map's popularity.

-If the map catches popularity, it is put into the test stage in which it is put onto "test servers" (For more information about these, check previous threads created about them). At this point the map is tested and the thread is put into a sub-forum labeled "Testing Maps" or something of the sort. Suggestions/bugs can be put on the thread such as "There's a difficult chest to get to that should be tier two" or "There's a glitchable spot" or "The map is heavily one sided with tier twos", etc.

-In-game on the map, there is a poll that is opened after one week (or another time to be determined) with the question "Would you like to see this map added" and the options "Yes", "Unsure", or "No". After the poll is open for one week (or another time to be determined later), it closes. If "Yes" has over 50%, the map is accepted and added. If "No" has over 50%, the map is removed and denied. If neither of those options have over 50% and "Unsure" has more than both of them, the map is left on for another week and the poll restarts after that week.

To eliminate the problem of crowding of maps (assuming maps are removed correctly and the total number on the server is reduced to 30-40 or something) there will only be space for two or three test maps at a time. Any others voted for on the forums would be put on a waiting list with no changes in order so that maps can wait until they have a chance to be tested. No maps would obtain precedence over others.

This is simply an option pertaining to adding maps correctly. As for the issue of removing/revamping maps, I have not thought of a solution to that yet although I can if anyone wishes me to.

Any questions will be answered as soon as I can, thank you.

This makes me think that there is an actuall way of making map selecting unbiased..
I just cant put my finger on it yet...

 

[Tree_TheBigKind]

This makes me think that there is an actuall way of making map selecting unbiased..
I just cant put my finger on it yet...

It won't ever be unbiased but the amount of bias can be minimalistic if treated properly

 

[Sanders]

It won't ever be unbiased but the amount of bias can be minimalistic if treated properly

I'm thinking of a way to create a system that will incorperate the concerns from everyone that commented on this thread.
Will post it on the forums when im done

 

[benji_r]

Sanders2408 Tree_TheBigKind I think the only way for an unbiased selection would be a non human selection, but it would be impossible to programme computers in this way...

 

[SuperxAndrew]

Sanders2408 Tree_TheBigKind I think the only way for an unbiased selection would be a non human selection, but it would be impossible to programme computers in this way...

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.

 

[L8Nick]

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