Mark / TNTime12
Iron
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2012
- Messages
- 1,167
- Reaction score
- 1,165
The struggle
-
Our Minecraft servers are offline but we will keep this forum online for any community communication. Site permissions for posting could change at a later date but will remain online.
New Maps & The Map Committee
- Thread starter mr_pendle
- Start date
ImJellyfish
Platinum
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2012
- Messages
- 279
- Reaction score
- 121
let alone fallencolossi still has a invis bug or was that fixed idk as its never played
Tree_TheBigKind
District 13
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 2,186
- Reaction score
- 1,865
Well, since I'm in the committee, I feel as though I should make a post. I'll start by going ahead and saying that these views are solely mine, they do NOT represent the map committee in any way. I'm just saying how everything has happened in the most objective way possible.
So, for starters, the most recent update-
When I got on the forums that morning and saw the front page post with all that, I was actually quite shocked. Why? Well, mainly the fact that quite a majority of it was never fully discussed in the committee. I'll list each individual part:
Here's the deal with people complaining of maps being removed-
If you like a map (I'll use Fortune Island for an example since it seems to have the bigger response on the map updates thread), you'll vote for it to play it. Simple enough. You'll most likely ask the person you're playing with (If there is one) to vote for it as well. This highly increases it's chances of winning. The logic in that is quite simple. So, let's say there's a new map that's added and exactly 5% of everyone likes it (Only an example). A new lobby starts and no one from that 5% is in there. That map won't be played. Another lobby starts and there's 5 people from that 5%. They're all going to vote for it and attempt to get others to vote for it which makes it win. So, this 5%, when in game, see that the map is played often (Only from the games they are in). Well, for all the other lobbies where there's the majority of everyone who doesn't like it, the map is highly underplayed. So, perspective.
Anyways, onto the big thing I want to talk about- Maps being added.
I'll list out the new ones:
So, moving on to the main topic of this thread- Maps listed on this thread.
Now, moving on to the maps you listed to be added. Please keep in mind I don't want to reveal too much information since some of it isn't supposed to be shared.
This list seems quite odd though... Zone 85, Eye of Horus, and Alaskan Village definitely are popular as well. Eye of Horus actually received over half the votes on this thread (it could've been they just spread it to all their friends, I'm not sure)-
http://www.minecraftsurvivalgames.com/threads/what-do-you-think-will-be-the-next-maps.81992/
Also, Zone 85 has an outstanding 91% "Yes" voting ratio on it.
These maps have a possibility as well.
To address other things brought up on the thread-
Anyways, sorry if this was a bit short and lacking in any parts. It's because I've worked on homework for about 11 or 12 hours straight and I just want to go to sleep xD
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'll answer any questions about the map committee as well since this thread seems centered at that. I'll answer them whenever I can get around to it.
So, for starters, the most recent update-
When I got on the forums that morning and saw the front page post with all that, I was actually quite shocked. Why? Well, mainly the fact that quite a majority of it was never fully discussed in the committee. I'll list each individual part:
- Fortune Island- We did discuss removing it in the committee (We went through the entire list of all the maps on the servers looking for some to remove since there are absolute tons and quite a few underplayed ones). Something to remember throughout this entire post- The forum community is VASTLY different from the in game community. I can truly say that I play MCSG a lot and that map is one on the list of my five most underplayed maps. Please refer to the larger text later in this post for more pertaining to this.
- Rugged Lands- It was actually very underplayed after the removal of the hobo sticks and the regeneration potion. It actually appears as though people played the map for the hobo sticks (they were kinda fun at the very very beginning).
- Vida Cova- It was underplayed and not well suited for 24 player servers. That is why it's being put as a 48 player map.
- Wyvern's Wake- I'll be honest, I had absolutely no knowledge of OP items on it besides the diamond sword in the furnace and the stack of enchantment bottles. I don't know about these other items so I can't shed much light on it due to my lack of knowledge in the matter.
- Khamunrah- Somewhat the same as Vida Cova- Underplayed and better suited as 48 player.
- Treacherous Heights- Same as Vida Cova and Khamunrah for the most part- Underplayed.
- Boombeard's Battle- Underplayed and too many OP items. There were quite a few OP items which I believe everyone is aware of.
Here's the deal with people complaining of maps being removed-
If you like a map (I'll use Fortune Island for an example since it seems to have the bigger response on the map updates thread), you'll vote for it to play it. Simple enough. You'll most likely ask the person you're playing with (If there is one) to vote for it as well. This highly increases it's chances of winning. The logic in that is quite simple. So, let's say there's a new map that's added and exactly 5% of everyone likes it (Only an example). A new lobby starts and no one from that 5% is in there. That map won't be played. Another lobby starts and there's 5 people from that 5%. They're all going to vote for it and attempt to get others to vote for it which makes it win. So, this 5%, when in game, see that the map is played often (Only from the games they are in). Well, for all the other lobbies where there's the majority of everyone who doesn't like it, the map is highly underplayed. So, perspective.
Anyways, onto the big thing I want to talk about- Maps being added.
I'll list out the new ones:
- Ancient Japan- I don't think we ever mentioned it in the map committee. I was only aware of the demand for it by the forum support of it's addition back to the servers. I have heard that AlpakaWhacker (or however you spell it) was making a lag-free version but I don't think he ever finished it. So, I'll keep this one short and sweet- It was removed for a reason (sorry to those who like it)- It's laggy, still is. We never voted on adding this, I don't know who's decision it was but it wasn't the committee as a whole.
- Breeze Island 2- This is supposed to be essentially a better version of Breeze Island. Once its tiering is properly fixed, it should show. Give it a tiny bit of time once it's fixed.
- Winds of Change- Never even brought up in the committee. I've heard that it was because Chad liked it that it was added. Why complain about it being added and say that it was better before the committee when this map was added the way it was before the committee? So, again with this one, the committee never voted on this.
So, moving on to the main topic of this thread- Maps listed on this thread.
- Winds of Change- Already talked about, refer to the above.
- Ancient Japan- Already talked about, refer to the above.
- Breeze Island 2- Already talked about, refer to the above.
- Boombeards Battle- Already talked about, refer to the above.
- Forsaken Ascension- We never voted on this in the committee. I'm not entirely sure who it was that made the decision, but it wasn't the committee as a whole.
- Fallen Haven- It was originally added because of the fair amount of support on the forums and the positive feedback from the test games. People underestimate how much test games show. They show how the map plays out in terms of gameplay which is what this is all about. Now, I know the map crashes every time which is very unfortunate. I'm in favor of removing it until it is fixed (if it's fixed at all).
Now, moving on to the maps you listed to be added. Please keep in mind I don't want to reveal too much information since some of it isn't supposed to be shared.
- SG Venezia- Talking about (We have for a while)
- Cloudy with a Chance of Survival- I'll be honest, I'm not a huge fan of that type of style. This doesn't mean I hate the map though. I won't really say too much on this one.
- Underground Kingdoms- Well, this kinda needs to be put bluntly: It's largely voted for mainly because of the style of screenshots (Shaders and the texture pack). It's very similar to the whole Moonlight Lake thing. The pictures tell an entirely different story than the map itself.
- Trophaem- While it does seem to get mainly a positive response, it's not that high quality. I've seem the map in game and personally, (no offense to anyone who worked on it or anyone who likes it) it doesn't seem that well built...
- Alluring Isle- I won't provide any opinions on this since it's my map but, like SG Venezia, it has been brought up but only briefly.
- Waterfall Resort- It has a very very nice feel to it. I think I wrote a review on it a while back. Anyways, unless it's been changed, it's escapable (Only a minor thing since it's easy to fix)... This is a quality map overall though.
This list seems quite odd though... Zone 85, Eye of Horus, and Alaskan Village definitely are popular as well. Eye of Horus actually received over half the votes on this thread (it could've been they just spread it to all their friends, I'm not sure)-
http://www.minecraftsurvivalgames.com/threads/what-do-you-think-will-be-the-next-maps.81992/
Also, Zone 85 has an outstanding 91% "Yes" voting ratio on it.
These maps have a possibility as well.
To address other things brought up on the thread-
- Team Apollo in the map committee before they had maps on the servers- Since I'm not the person that made the map committee, I'm not sure. I questioned this to myself as well at first but when the committee was made, those who made it must have thought it was smart to do so and have their own reasoning in this.
- "The only two maps that have been added which have a poll, the "Yes" results are shockingly low. Is it a "coincidence" that these two maps were both by Red Forest?"- I think you're referring to Fallen Haven and Winds of Change. I already explained about Fallen Haven previously in this post so I'll let you refer to it if you need. As for Winds of Change, it's not by Red Forest... It was made by Ninetailefox92 with no affiliation to Red Forest in any way at all. Also, according to some sources, it was Chad's decision to add it.
Anyways, sorry if this was a bit short and lacking in any parts. It's because I've worked on homework for about 11 or 12 hours straight and I just want to go to sleep xD
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. I'll answer any questions about the map committee as well since this thread seems centered at that. I'll answer them whenever I can get around to it.
mr_pendle
Diamond
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 1,013
- Reaction score
- 764
First of all, thanks for your response.
Secondly, I'm on a phone so typing may be short.
You start off by saying you were shocked at the recent map update, as some of the changes hadn't been discussed in the Map Committee. I know this isn't the Committee's fault, but really, what's the point of having a Map Committee if they do map changes without discussing it.
- The forum community is much different but, you saw all the stats were looked at, and it was underplayed. On the map update thread, CaptButterToast says, "[Fallen Collosi and Destiny/s Shiver] were so underplayed we forgot them" But apparently you looked at all the stats. Maybe Fortune Island was underplayed compared to the other map, but if you say you forgot about other maps, then compared to those maps Fortune Island is overplayed. No matter how underplayed the stats say, there were much more underplayed maps that weren't removed.
- Rugged/Vida Cova Once again you say these are underplayed, but you don't remove the PMC underplayed ones. :/
- Wyverns. This map did have issues with OP items but, I had never seen any body complaining. If no one else has an issue with the OP items, why remove it?
- Kharmunrah, Treacherous Heights. Agreed.
- Boombeards Battle. I agree with this, but it was added one map update to be removed the next. Not the best choice.
Whilst perspective does make sense, it doesn't always work like that. Maps may seem more played to you if you like them, but if you're not a donor, it comes down to all the other people in the server. Therefore, more people has to like that map, over 4 other maps. I think most people agree that they saw this map being played. Maps like FallenCollosi are never played. You should remove the priorities first.
- Ancient Japan. Even though there was a lot of forumers wanting it back. More people wanted maps like SGVenezia etc. There was a petition, but there was no 'no' for that petition, unlike map threads with Yes/No polls. Also, if it was removed because there was too much lag, there will be the exact same issues as before.
- Breeze Island Two. Breeze 1 is an overplayed, map, which already has remakes of it. Even though, Breeze 2 is better, there should be 1 or the other. I think the community had said, "No more breezes"
- Once again, you say this wasn't discussed by the Committee. Even though Chad said he liked it, so there wasn't much you could do, you say the map committee only talked about 1/3 maps added. If the map committee doesn't have much of a choice, what's the point of having them.
Thanks for your review on the list. The list was put there in comparison of maps with high yes percentages, which arn't being added, which was why Eye of Horus/Alaskan Village wasn't there.
"The only two maps to be added with a poll a both by Red Forest, the 'Yes' votes are shockingly low"
This was just showing that, in the last 2 map updates, they both had a poll, and were both lower than 65%
That's not good. Seriously.
I think I change the RedForest thing, not sure. What I meant to say is, the makers of the maps which votes were low, are both in the map committee.
This whole thread was made to tell the map committee, that they should start adding maps the community wants, therefore maps with high Yes votes instead of just adding maps that the community have no idea of.
Thanks for your review. It gave a lot more information into this and last update. I think it would be good to have something like that in each update explaining decisions, as it would help people a lot.
I also hope that this thread will help inform the map committee to make a change, and start adding maps with high Yes/No ratio's.
Thanks!
TheOfficialWils
Career
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 713
- Reaction score
- 588
I think I should probably say something on the main post telling people not to use the pictures as a reference to the quality of the map but I did a really good job of making my map look good with those screenshots and it's kinda fun to see what people think.
I am really glad you posted this it gives a great insight into the map committee and how you are being a bit screwed over.
J
Joel/MadDawg
Guest
I'll give a brief response to this.
First off, thank you for taking the time to address a lot of the things that have been said on this thread. You explained a lot of things well, and I certainly had some of my questions answered in your thread.
One thing that I took away from your post is that the map committee doesn't communicate well. You said multiple times that maps had been added/removed without the full agreement of the committee. This is bad, especially when you say that a map was added just because Chad liked it (that's pretty much the old map-selection system; make a pirate ship and you're in!). So this brings up the question: why have a map committee if you don't collaborate on everything and can still be overruled by a higher power?
This is my new question for you, and I would really appreciate is someone other than Tree took the time to respond
(One last thing, why is Tree always the only one to make lengthy responses replying to our concerns?)
mr_pendle
Diamond
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 1,013
- Reaction score
- 764
I agree with the last point, I'm pretty sure someone in the map committee would have seen this thread, but not bothered to reply.
Thanks to tree again, I'm just going to tag some map committee members.
Dave CaptButterToast Cubes
hobo1955
Peacekeeper
- Joined
- May 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,326
- Reaction score
- 1,068
I am not on the map committee (was invited on but never got around to joining) , so I don't have much say in things but I would just like to state that so far it hasn't been working.
I don't think we should go back to the old system. When I first heard about it I was all for the committee.
Removing under-played maps sort of makes sense but there are also faults to this.
For example it results in the removal of some high quality maps as opposed to those that aren't - and I thought the map committee , being an association of builders themselves , would realize what maps really deserve to be removed.
I agree with most of their decisions however , except the additions of maps.
Winds of change is decent - Yes it probably deserves to be on the servers - but as tree said : the map committee had no say .
Same goes for Ancient Japan - which was removed for a good reason , and it has not been edited at all and is back on the servers. Do you think it's fair to remove maps to add in maps that nobody wants to play on due to obvious reasons (extreme lag)?
Now onto breeze island 2. The map was made as an improved version of breeze so it could go on the hive. In my opinion it is in NO WAY a sequel to breeze island - so why keep the original breeze? Because people would kick up a storm. Soloution: Don't add Breeze 2.
I was truly shocked to see no discovery works maps on the servers as any sane person can tell they deserve a place.
In many ways they are much better than maps created by the official build teams - and yet their maps don't get priority and RF + TE maps do. (everyone knows this is true despite the arguments against it).
Tl;Dr : The map committee apparently has no say in their only function so why bother having a map committee?
As tree said chad can apparently add whatever map he wants - so the system hasn't changed in the slightest.
(sorry for any mistakes - on my phone)
I don't think we should go back to the old system. When I first heard about it I was all for the committee.
Removing under-played maps sort of makes sense but there are also faults to this.
For example it results in the removal of some high quality maps as opposed to those that aren't - and I thought the map committee , being an association of builders themselves , would realize what maps really deserve to be removed.
I agree with most of their decisions however , except the additions of maps.
Winds of change is decent - Yes it probably deserves to be on the servers - but as tree said : the map committee had no say .
Same goes for Ancient Japan - which was removed for a good reason , and it has not been edited at all and is back on the servers. Do you think it's fair to remove maps to add in maps that nobody wants to play on due to obvious reasons (extreme lag)?
Now onto breeze island 2. The map was made as an improved version of breeze so it could go on the hive. In my opinion it is in NO WAY a sequel to breeze island - so why keep the original breeze? Because people would kick up a storm. Soloution: Don't add Breeze 2.
I was truly shocked to see no discovery works maps on the servers as any sane person can tell they deserve a place.
In many ways they are much better than maps created by the official build teams - and yet their maps don't get priority and RF + TE maps do. (everyone knows this is true despite the arguments against it).
Tl;Dr : The map committee apparently has no say in their only function so why bother having a map committee?
As tree said chad can apparently add whatever map he wants - so the system hasn't changed in the slightest.
(sorry for any mistakes - on my phone)
mr_pendle
Diamond
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 1,013
- Reaction score
- 764
Yes, I agree. The map committee started off as a good idea, but it seems to be unorganised and not efficient.
Have they added the deathmatch arena for SG 4 yet?
It's a good idea, gone badly.
Bamber
Peacekeeper
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 1,426
- Reaction score
- 883
Shouldn't there be some sort of way that maps are released and voted on with anonymous creators? That way, there would be no biased decisions or accusations of it. Then, once the map is accepted, the creators can receive all the glory and praise that they deserve.
mr_pendle
Diamond
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2013
- Messages
- 1,013
- Reaction score
- 764
It's a good idea, just would never work. The creator could tell people, he could put 'made by' in the thread.
An idea I was thinking of is, no one can see maps being posted, and each time the map committee want to do an update they post an option of 5 maps that they want to add.
The committee would move the threads to a unlocked section lets say, and allows people to vote on it. Whichever 3 has the highest votes in a week or two gets added.
If the map doesn't have a thread, the committee makes one.
This way the map committee would decide what maps were going on, but the community has the final decision.
An improved, but with more effort required version of this would be that the map committee posts a new thread, with anonymous names, and.only uses default screenshots. This way shaders don't sway decision.
Just an idea
