New Maps & The Map Committee

[mr_pendle]

I will respond to all of this when I get back tomorrow. Thanks for all the feedback!

 

[Mlpoknzaba]

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.

Perhaps a second map is needed? plsplsplspls

 

[mr_pendle]

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.

Ok, hopefully when it get's more organised it will work better.

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 :/

While I agree with the top part, I don't agree with a map update being just from less known builders. I would want a map update which has maps the community wants, instead of always Red Forest/TE/PMC maps.
Thanks for the comment!

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.

I don't understand why it would cost too much. Mcsg have loads of servers on Us/Eu. All there would need to be is a few for maps. Maybe hosted in regions with less servers so there are more servers for those people, and testing servers for us.

 

[Hazzy16]

Ok, hopefully when it get's more organised it will work better.


While I agree with the top part, I don't agree with a map update being just from less known builders. I would want a map update which has maps the community wants, instead of always Red Forest/TE/PMC maps.
Thanks for the comment!





I don't understand why it would cost too much. Mcsg have loads of servers on Us/Eu. All there would need to be is a few for maps. Maybe hosted in regions with less servers so there are more servers for those people, and testing servers for us.

I meant they should do ONE map update from less known map makers Not all map updates xD

 

[mr_pendle]

I meant they should do ONE map update from less known map makers Not all map updates xD

xD Yeah, one update of maps by community would be good.

 

[Tree_TheBigKind]

I don't understand why it would cost too much. Mcsg have loads of servers on Us/Eu. All there would need to be is a few for maps. Maybe hosted in regions with less servers so there are more servers for those people, and testing servers for us.

The costs for them is only part of it though... The other major part is constantly updating them. Since the servers would be for testing new maps, someone would have to constantly be loading and unloading maps. Also, they'd need to be tiered since maps are almost liked only for good tiering nowadays (most of the time) because if a map is badly tiered, people will hate it. So, a lot of it is the upkeep of the servers as well c: But this is why I love to see people hold test games for their maps. I try to attend them if ever invited because test games (although it's usually the default public sg plugin) allow us to see if the map could work even with or without proper tiering.

 

[Toe]

The new map update had lot's of controversial changes.
They removed two popular maps, Wyverns Wake and Fortune Island instead of removing some of the least played maps, such as Destiny/s Shiver and Fallen Collisi.

In the recent update, I was expecting at least 1 Discovery Works map to be added, if not 2 and maps such as Waterfall resort/Underground Kingdoms, which all have high votes in their polls.

Instead, In the last 2 map updates, 3 maps by members of the map committee have been added, 3 from PMC, one map that had been removed because of lag, which it still has btw, and one map from a major build team outside MCG.
Lots of these maps I enjoy, but it seems like lot's of maps in the finished section are being ignored.
Maps added should be what the community want, if you look at polls, then it shows that the map committee aren't agreeing with the rest of the community.

Maps added:

• Wind of Change 60% Yes
• Ancient Japan N.A.
• Breeze Island 2 N.A. (I thought they said no more breezes?)
• Boombeards Battle N.A.
• The Lobby Games N.A.
• Forsaken Ascension N.A.
• Fallen Haven 45% Yes (Practically Useless poll)

Potential maps to be added

• SG Venezia (No poll but the most liked map with 99 likes)
• Cloudy With a Chance of Survival 82% Yes
• Underground Kingdoms 88% Yes
• Trophaem 82% Yes
• Alluring Isle 86% yes
• Waterfall Resort 86% yes

Now if you looked at those to lists of maps and thought, which one should we add, aI think the choice is obvious what the community wants.

I'm not saying the map committee is biased in any way towards their own maps, but it seems like they're not listening to the community. However, somehow, Team Apollo got on the Map Committee before any of their maps were added. How does that work?

I could also add that, even though apparently Fortune Island and Wyverns Wake apparently had viable reasons to be removed, you didn't see anyone complaining about the OP items, and the underplayed map. If no one's complaining, why change something?

Please note: I am not hating towards any map on the list. I like lots of the maps I just want the map committee to look more towards maps that the community wants.]

Edit #1: I agree that maps can't be added 100% on voting percentage but it's clear that they're not adding any map with a high "Yes" Percentage. 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?
As TheOfficialWils said:

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Tree_TheBigKind]

My thoughts exactly!

Did you read all the posts on the thread You don't have a whole story till you hear all of it

 

[mr_pendle]

The costs for them is only part of it though... The other major part is constantly updating them. Since the servers would be for testing new maps, someone would have to constantly be loading and unloading maps. Also, they'd need to be tiered since maps are almost liked only for good tiering nowadays (most of the time) because if a map is badly tiered, people will hate it. So, a lot of it is the upkeep of the servers as well c: But this is why I love to see people hold test games for their maps. I try to attend them if ever invited because test games (although it's usually the default public sg plugin) allow us to see if the map could work even with or without proper tiering.

I see your point, it would take lots of effort with uploading the map and tiering. I think it would be worth it though, as it would make there be maps on the server that people like. Also, if there are any OP items, people would find them in the testing server, so that would fix the problems that happened on maps like Wyverns/Boombeards.

 

[Levah]

The costs for them is only part of it though... The other major part is constantly updating them. Since the servers would be for testing new maps, someone would have to constantly be loading and unloading maps. Also, they'd need to be tiered since maps are almost liked only for good tiering nowadays (most of the time) because if a map is badly tiered, people will hate it. So, a lot of it is the upkeep of the servers as well c: But this is why I love to see people hold test games for their maps. I try to attend them if ever invited because test games (although it's usually the default public sg plugin) allow us to see if the map could work even with or without proper tiering.

I seriously think they should lower the amount of servers on us and eu. Sg Classic is dead in eu so get rid of lots of them but keep 5 or so. Quater quell is busy at peak times. So keep them. The devs have a server which they test. I'm not sure if they pay for it or not. Update me if I'm incorrect, they could test the to-be added maps in that server looking for bugs while the mods or who ever does it tiers the maps.

 

[Tree_TheBigKind]

I see your point, it would take lots of effort with uploading the map and tiering. I think it would be worth it though, as it would make there be maps on the server that people like. Also, if there are any OP items, people would find them in the testing server, so that would fix the problems that happened on maps like Wyverns/Boombeards.

I seriously think they should lower the amount of servers on us and eu. Sg Classic is dead in eu so get rid of lots of them but keep 5 or so. Quater quell is busy at peak times. So keep them. The devs have a server which they test. I'm not sure if they pay for it or not. Update me if I'm incorrect, they could test the to-be added maps in that server looking for bugs while the mods or who ever does it tiers the maps.

I do see both your points, it's mainly a thing of finding a way to work out all of the logistics of it. I'm fairly sure there's a thread that suggests it, so it'd be best if discussed there if anyone thinks of any more to it c:

 

[TheOfficialWils]

I do see both your points, it's mainly a thing of finding a way to work out all of the logistics of it. I'm fairly sure there's a thread that suggests it, so it'd be best if discussed there if anyone thinks of any more to it c:

Here is the thread: http://www.minecraftsurvivalgames.com/threads/map-testing-before-implementation.72588/