40 replies to this topic

[Amdrial]

I hereby call a poll to decide if we want to have five custom maps in total on the Team Fortress 2 server because there was a discussion on the server earlier.

These are some of my points of view on the subject:

• The server is far too cluttered with all these new custom maps
  
• People (including people from Fallout Studios) don't want to download additional content to play the game
  
• Custom maps usually tend to scare people off (Remember that one time when we had 24 people and only 10 left after switching to one of the custom maps?)
  
• We don't even play all the custom maps since they were installed (Think Meleebarn, Castle4 or Swiftwater)

Just my 2 cents,


Admiral

Edited by Amdrial, 13 June 2010 - 11:24.

[Libains]

I voted no, yes, yes.

Primarily because I think we should have ZERO custom maps, I find them inconsistent, unbalanced, and a right pain in the arse to download. As a result, when I do play TF2, you will find me leaving on the introduction of a custom map. If we should have to have custom maps, then I think they should be (or more precisely one should be) changed every month or so as voted for by the public. Tbh, I'm not a huge fan of the way that we go about sorting out the maps at the moment.

Nice to see this topic, though

[CodeCat]

No, no, yes.

The main point behind custom maps is to give some new material to the game, because it can get quite stale otherwise. I agree that not all custom maps are as well tought-out as others, but the general idea is to have fun and not to have maps so balanced that it takes all the fun out.

That said, I would like to note that custom maps are for the most part available only on a nomination basis. This means that unless someone ingame nominates a custom map for playing, the map is never played and never shows up in map votes. The effect, in other words, is that custom maps (along with some less popular standard maps like hydro or junction) are available as an extra which people can opt for if they choose to. But in order for such a map to come into play, it first needs to be nominated, AND then it has to receive the most votes. So I think it's fair to say that if you end up playing it, it has significant support among the people on the server.

Edited by CodeCat, 12 June 2010 - 21:15.

[ΓΛPTΘΓ]

I do want a limit on how many custom map there is, be five seem a bit too low. 7 might be a better number.

Also, if custom maps are rotating make sure there is enough time for each interval (IMO, 1 month at least.)

[TehKiller]

I think the question thats missing here is "Do we want custom maps at all"...and due to the server I voted No No Yes.

I dont mind custom maps but our server...well fails at uploading. If there were to be a limit on custom maps it better not be interchangeable on a weekly basis as I want as less as possible carp to DL. (oh and yeah you "you got DL links on the forums" argument fails as not every single player that comes onto our server will visit the forums...it just goes in favor for a low as possible server population and popularity)

And Yes for the vote as I dont want any kind of shizm coming onto the rotation.

[CodeCat]

Download speed can be improved by using a HTTP mirror. So we can set it so that the game will download the content from our webserver instead of our game server.

[CJ]

Amdrial, on 12 Jun 2010, 21:53, said:

• We don't even play all the custom maps since they were installed (Think Meleebarn, Castle4 or Swiftwater)

BTW, could anyone explain how a map which fails as much as Castle4 or Swiftwater has been added in the first place?
I mean, Frontier and the quake-like maps are cool, but those 2 just look like they're still at early alpha stage...

[CodeCat]

I don't know how we got Meleebarn, that was already there. I never put that in. I've played both Castle and Swiftwater and think they're good maps. Castle isn't so good when there are few players around though.

[TehKiller]

CodeCat, on 13 Jun 2010, 10:30, said:

Download speed can be improved by using a HTTP mirror. So we can set it so that the game will download the content from our webserver instead of our game server.

In that case...DOOO EEEEET NAOOO

But still I dont want shiite cluttered on the server. So yeah I may consider custom maps IF you improve the upload speed.

[Hottwire]

ΓΛPTΘΓ, on 12 Jun 2010, 23:21, said:

I do want a limit on how many custom map there is, be five seem a bit too low. 7 might be a better number.

Also, if custom maps are rotating make sure there is enough time for each interval (IMO, 1 month at least.)

TehKiller, on 13 Jun 2010, 12:44, said:

CodeCat, on 13 Jun 2010, 10:30, said:

Download speed can be improved by using a HTTP mirror. So we can set it so that the game will download the content from our webserver instead of our game server.

In that case...DOOO EEEEET NAOOO

But still I dont want shiite cluttered on the server. So yeah I may consider custom maps IF you improve the upload speed.

I voted No, Yes, Yes

I feel that we should do as raptor said and have maybe 7 instead of 5 ?

and i do agree that if the speed can be improved by a http mirror then the maps idea is still valid and should be turned on asap

[Rich19]

Yes, no, yes.

I don't have too much of a problem with the occasional custom map, as long as it's chosen carefully. But I'm not downloading beforehand on the offchance that I might play a round on that map within the next few months. Custom maps also tend to be worse than official maps. For both of these reasons, I would prefer that we keep custom maps to a minimum.

Edited by Rich19, 13 June 2010 - 16:08.

[CJ]

Rich19, on 13 Jun 2010, 17:07, said:

But I'm not downloading beforehand on the offchance that I might play a round on that map within the next few months.

Now, that might have something to do with the fact that you show up on the FS server only once per month

[TehKiller]

During Summertime he appears almost on a daily basis...

[Nid]

I think most of you forget that this community was built on the foundation of custom and user created content, and I have never really been one to forget that, and so modding out a game has always been a must. Level design is an aspect of this and so I fully support the inclusion of all custom maps, I think the system we have is fine, A custom map can only be played by vote, thus the map is only played when players want to play that map.

Valve seem to take pride in custom created content for TF2, as custom maps become official ones, and user created weapons and hats too, and as such I think the game and it's players should be a sufficient mirror to this, I dont think people should shun custom content at all, if anything I think it needs to be more embraced.

As for quality checks, I think Code does a good enough job monitoring the content that comes in.

I think you guys are making a fuss over nothing really, in all the time I play on the server (though not very much any more) there is rarely a custom map bieng played, it just seems to me you want them all eradicated which I dont really think is very fair to people that actually enjoy the maps, as well as outsiders that use the server who could also enjoy custom maps.

As the small amount of custom maps we have making the server cluttered, what? There are servers out there with many many more custom maps on rotation, and they generate plenty of traffic, and are managed perfectly well.

I voted:
No, why should we have a maximum number of custom maps?
No, no point.
I voted No, but it was a hard no, I think code does a good job reviewing map quality, but I also think that community involvement is an important aspect and a good idea to consider.

[Slye_Fox]

Quote

Do we want a maximum of 5 custom maps on the TF2 server?

No, I do not want a limit.

Quote

Do we want the custom maps to be interchangeable? (Have the ability to rotate each week or month or something)

No, I wish them to be permanent.

Quote

Do we want to vote on the adding of custom maps before they get added in?

I put no, but I could go ether way.

[Foxhound]

Yes, at least initially, to enable my second idea:
Yes, maps should be interchangeable. Popular maps get to stay, unpopular maps (*cough*meleebarn*cough*) get to go.
Yes, because the aforementioned idea would require input.

Tough, like Admiral said, that's even if we keep the custom maps at all. It is a fair point that custom content seems to scare people away, or at least the ones who aren't knowledgeable enough to enable custom content downloads or are unwilling to do so.

Edited by Foxhound, 14 June 2010 - 07:44.

[CodeCat]

I'll repeat my and Nid's statement here: if a map is unpopular, don't vote for it.

[Foxhound]

CodeCat, on 14 Jun 2010, 5:36, said:

I'll repeat my and Nid's statement here: if a map is unpopular, don't vote for it.

The thing is, people probably don't want their files cluttered with maps that they never, ever use, or only use once in a very great while.

[CJ]

Foxhound, on 14 Jun 2010, 15:29, said:

CodeCat, on 14 Jun 2010, 5:36, said:

I'll repeat my and Nid's statement here: if a map is unpopular, don't vote for it.

The thing is, people probably don't want their files cluttered with maps that they never, ever use, or only use once in a very great while.

And most of the time, when there is a vote, you just happen to be switching weapons at that moment, which makes you vote for a silly map without noticing (and if you notice, you'll still have to type !revote before the timer expires, which is just not possible when you're in middle of a fight...)

[TheDR]

We need to have some sort of map limit as then quality control for maps just goes out the window. With a custom map limit maps will need to be good to go in. When we get bored of a map, it gets voted out and a new fresh one comes in. Its a simple system which keeps the map rotation fresh and we don't get left with maps that only ever get accidentally voted in.

[TehKiller]

CodeCat, on 14 Jun 2010, 9:36, said:

I'll repeat my and Nid's statement here: if a map is unpopular, don't vote for it.

Sadly this argument is also somewhat flawing...I remember once someone actually tested to see how people would vote and it always ends up with an extreme majority of the people either accidentally pushing one of the numbers or just ignorantly push some random number

[CJ]

TehKiller, on 14 Jun 2010, 20:28, said:

CodeCat, on 14 Jun 2010, 9:36, said:

I'll repeat my and Nid's statement here: if a map is unpopular, don't vote for it.

Sadly this argument is also somewhat flawing...I remember once someone actually tested to see how people would vote and it always ends up with an extreme majority of the people either accidentally pushing one of the numbers or just ignorantly push some random number

Pretty much what I said

[TehKiller]

Your missing the point...people DONT read what they are voting. They just push number 1 to get rid of the vote out of their screens.

[CodeCat]

That's no one's fault but their own, then.

[Foxhound]

CodeCat, on 15 Jun 2010, 8:35, said:

That's no one's fault but their own, then.

But it still doesn't get around the point that the ingame voting is not necessarily indicative of what people actually WANT.