New Maps & The Map Committee

[Tree_TheBigKind]

Since I've been gone all day, I haven't had the chance to respond to all the different responses. Due to the enormity of the writing that it would require to answer every single part, I'll just go down all the responses and try to briefly explain anything I think is necessary c: Like said as others though, more opinions from others would be nice.

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.

I understand the point you're trying to make, unfortunately it seems as though communication seems to a bit off like someone said after your post.

• 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.

A majority of this seems to be centered around the failed removal of Destiny's Shiver and Fallen Colossi which I already completely explained here-

Also, one small note about Destiny's Shiver and Fallen Colossi- We decided to remove these maps over a month and a half ago... How they were not removed in the last update is beyond me. Whoever was the one removing maps off the servers just simply forgot to I believe. So, don't complain that the committee hasn't decided to remove these maps before others because we in fact decided to remove these first.

Why they were "overlooked" is beyond me. We were absolutely unanimous in deciding to remove them a month and a half ago. When decided to remove maps recently, we went down the list of maps on the forums but the PMC maps don't have threads. This might be the reason (whoever was removing the maps might have had links to the map threads open in tabs possibly). Again, since I'm not them, I have no idea, that's only a mere possibility.

As for Boombeard's Battle, we were completely unaware of the OP items (the main reason it was removed right away). If there were no OP items, we could have given it just a little more time to see if people grew to like it.

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.

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)?

Like I mentioned with SG Venezia, we've been talking about it. To be honest, it seems as though we've not really gotten to add any maps that we've strived for, instead it seems like maps are kinda put in out of no where (Like previously stated, sometimes the map committee doesn't have a decision, I will get to it later). As for Ancient Japan, I completely agree that it'll probably have the exact same issue as before and probably get removed for it... I guess the moral of the story here is that communication is key.

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"

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.

With the Breeze situation, Breeze Island has gotten so overplayed, not necessarily popular. The reason I say this is because people are playing Breeze because they know the map, not always because they like it. While this isn't the case for a majority, it's been something that has been growing slowly for a while. Anyways, so, Breeze Island 2's intention is to revive the "fun" aspect of Breeze (as it's kinda being dwindled out). We are hoping that Breeze Island 2 gets popular (it's very possible with correct tiering) and then there won't be too much of a need for Breeze Island (original). I'm not saying that we put in the map to remove Breeze Island, I'm saying that it might be a solution to the issue.

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.

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.

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?

Chad is the owner of these servers. Does he not have the right to add any maps he wants to? So, no matter what system there is, there will still be some of the "old way".
As for "so the system hasn't changed in the slightest", it actually has. The system itself has changed tremendously. I believe you're referring to the execution that seems to appear to make the system flawed.
Obviously the execution of everything hasn't been top notch or even anywhere close. I think once the communication improves greatly, it will work quite well.

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?)

I'm sorry, I just felt like I should respond xD Anyways, I always try to respond to these things because I feel as though everyone needs to stay informed. Like I said at the beginning of my post though, it would be nice to get others to respond as well c:

Sorry if all this is kinda jumbled and jumps all around, I just picked pieces out of everywhere with no particular order but still tried covering the general premise of everything.

 

[Toast]

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:

• 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.

Also, one small note about Destiny's Shiver and Fallen Colossi- We decided to remove these maps over a month and a half ago... How they were not removed in the last update is beyond me. Whoever was the one removing maps off the servers just simply forgot to I believe. So, don't complain that the committee hasn't decided to remove these maps before others because we in fact decided to remove these first.

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.

Correcting some points in here, just need to finish reading.

The past 3 maps were added without a community vote were added because they were personally requested by Chad.

Boombeards Battle was voted on.

Forsaken Ascension was voted on.

Fallen Haven was voted on. Broken due to the fact (my theory, not actual fact) that the SG servers only have 1 GB of RAM and the map most likely requires more.

Team Apollo: At the time, the team had been seen a a quality build team and Vida Cova was planned to have been added, things have happened in the past and there are no build teams that are actually in the map committee.

 

[Joel/MadDawg]

I'm sorry, I just felt like I should respond xD Anyways, I always try to respond to these things because I feel as though everyone needs to stay informed. Like I said at the beginning of my post though, it would be nice to get others to respond as well c:

I'm not saying you shouldn't respond (your responses are always well thought-out and interesting) I just really wish that you didn't have to act as the voice of the Map Committee and others in it would also respond :3 EDIT: Looks like we're gonna get a message from Cap

As for the rest of your post, your reasoning is very fair. My one thing that I still disagree with is Chad's ability to act over you guys. Yes, he is the owner of the servers, but he (should) know far less about maps than you guys and he should definitely not be able to overrule a majority vote in the committee. If he's given the final decision then the Map Committee will just act as a suggestion team, recommending things for Chad but not having any voice in the final say. Honestly, that scenario does sound very similiar to how maps were picked before the Map Committee.

 

[Tree_TheBigKind]

I'm not saying you shouldn't respond (your responses are always well thought-out and interesting) I just really wish that you didn't have to act as the voice of the Map Committee and others in it would also respond :3 EDIT: Looks like we're gonna get a message from Cap

As for the rest of your post, your reasoning is very fair. My one thing that I still disagree with is Chad's ability to act over you guys. Yes, he is the owner of the servers, but he (should) know far less about maps than you guys and he should definitely not be able to overrule a majority vote in the committee. If he's given the final decision then the Map Committee will just act as a suggestion team, recommending things for Chad but not having any voice in the final say. Honestly, that scenario does sound very similiar to how maps were picked before the Map Committee.

Thanks c:
Anyways, I do get what you're saying about a final say in things.. Unfortunately, that's just how things are and this time it seems like something that is going to remain the same (It appears).

 

[ztxmd]

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.

<------THIS .GREAT IDEA!!!

 

[Guinessis]

For new "community" maps added since the inception of the committee, all but one have had a committee affiliated builder. The rest have been from Red Forest (or affiliates), Team Apollo, and Team Elite, but I suspect that it's more of an issue of visibility than bias to be frank. Committee teams have direct ties to the addition process and enjoy a bit of extra momentum as a result. Other maps are discussed without any external force speeding the process along. More communication (like the posts in this thread) will help, assuring the map makers that their work is still being considered rather than overlooked.

Anyway, while we're all discussing new maps I'll bring up another concern. 2/3 of the new 24 player maps (not including Winds of Change/Breeze 2 since they are brand new) added in the last year are currently serious candidates for either complete removal or banishment to the 48 player servers. And to be blunt, I think quite a few of the maps mentioned in this thread would suffer a similar fate if they were added. I think some more analysis of what makes a map "fail" would be beneficial.

 

[jonnysurvives]

From what I gather after reading this thread, the problem is not that the system is bad, but that it's not functioning correctly. Tree_TheBigKind, how do you guys communicate? Do you have a skype chat, or what? The way I think it ought to work is when it's time to add new maps, you go through every candidate one by one and each vote yes / no, providing reasons for your decision, and maps with > 2/3 yeses (for instance) get added.

Polls and likes are generally not a good barometer for the quality of a map. Moonlight lake 1 and 2 both got an insane number of likes and votes, but when you download them and have a look around they don't look nearly as good as they do in the screenshots. Winds of Change, on the other hand, I think wasn't done justice by screenshots. In practice it plays well and looks good, which the poll on the thread doesn't reflect.

On a different note, the ideal scenario for me would be for Eye of Horus, Zone 85 and one of the Discovery Works maps to be added, and Destiny's Shiver, Fallen Colossi and Breeze to be removed.

 

[Tree_TheBigKind]

Correcting some points in here, just need to finish reading.

The past 3 maps were added without a community vote were added because they were personally requested by Chad.

Boombeards Battle was voted on.

Forsaken Ascension was voted on.

Fallen Haven was voted on. Broken due to the fact (my theory, not actual fact) that the SG servers only have 1 GB of RAM and the map most likely requires more.

Team Apollo: At the time, the team had been seen a a quality build team and Vida Cova was planned to have been added, things have happened in the past and there are no build teams that are actually in the map committee.

I never said Boombeards and Fallen Haven weren't voted on c: I guess I don't remember Forsaken Ascension.. It was probably one of those very quick things

 

[Dave]

Im just going to do a post pointing something out here i do not do long responses as you would not understand a word i am saying and i do not actually have the ability to do so adding on to that the committee has been a little un-organized due to the fact myself and the others have been busy irl and on here.

 

[Hazzy16]

I think because Team Elite and Red Forest have made amazing maps in the past, if they made another map, it would get on a lot easier and quicker than a map made by a less known build team... Maybe they should do a map update from only less known map builders :/

 

[Dusk]

I really wish they would add the concept of the PMC servers they previously had, of which, they add maps that had high votes, and the community would play on the servers, and the staff would see which maps were getting played the most, and then they would add those certain maps onto the regular servers.

 

[Dave]

I really wish they would add the concept of the PMC servers they previously had, of which, they add maps that had high votes, and the community would play on the servers, and the staff would see which maps were getting played the most, and then they would add those certain maps onto the regular servers.

cost to much and also the way maps are updated is it goes to all servers you cant pic and choose.