Whiteflash, I agree that the process as laid out in your post would be great to have implemented.
So, in essence: I'm not saying that the current process is perfect. But maybe you try to rethink your suggestions with these constraints:
- Rework the map pool so that the game yields a higher player retention across most player profiles.
- You have only one patch to do so.
- Resources are sturmpanther and Rosbone (additionally the mappers whose maps are in the current pools for a rework of their maps; not that anybodies contribution would have been turned down, but seems like that is the yield this time around; also sorry if I forgot anybody wo/rking on this behind closed doors).
- You have 2 months (which btw, have passed now).
Thanks for writing this SiphonX this is a well reasoned case. There are basically three things here to respond to.
1. A "competitive" map clearly has to be defined. This article does that
, except we now know that snow/ice has its problems and my writing and map understanding has gotten better as that article was written 5 years ago. If you haven't read that article please do to define the term "competitive" (apologies the pictures are gone i need to update that). I would be curious what you think of that article SiphonX as your analytical and reasonable approach to this topic would be useful.
2. The majority of players do
want competitive maps. By a competitive map I mean...let me quote the article I cited in secion 1. "Everything I've talked about is a means...to what end? Fun!!! For competitive maps, fun comes in the form of consistently epic games, as much faction balance as possible, and people enjoy
the map!" That line summarizes the end product anyone should aim for in any map in any mode (1v1-4v4), and tournament organizers pick the maps that most closely follow that ethos. Maps that are vetoed more, the community as a whole enjoy less, maps that are imbalanced are by definition less fun.
If a trend shows imbalance and high vetoes that is a strong indicator of subpar quality and grounds for removal, and is likely not worth the time to try to improve (improvement attempts are case by case and can be subjective) this opinion on improvement is largely based on my 11 years of experience fixing my own and Relic maps that arent very good and the time to benefit ratio generally being low on improving broken maps because the fundamental design of the map must be strong in order to make improving the map to an acceptable level possible. I've literally never seen a subpar fundamental design flesh into a great map through incremental improvements.
It is pretty clear, a good map is enjoyed by the majority of people for getting right all the elements laid out in that article. And removing subpar maps to replace them with new vetted maps that also get all those elements right is the clear solution. And remember, the maps arent being removed from COH, they are just removed from the ladder where it should, by definition, have the most competitive maps possible (as defined in the article in section 1). Improving the map pool is, as shown in other games, a clear way to yield the highest player retention, leaving it half broken, as it has been across all game modes, does the opposite. Never settle for subpar maps when its not necessary, which brings me to the third thing. It sounds like we don't have a choice...
3. At the end of the day it sounds like from Spanther and SiphonX that Relic just cant support the better initiative that was laid out earlier because they are busy on other projects and its possible we only have a few patchs left to do anything. If that is the case then that is totally fair and I know the COH community and Relic will do its best.
I would only plead with Relic to remember my first and second point in this post for their future games.
EDIT: edited this post for clarity
EDIT: edited again for clarity
EDIT: edited section 2 again for clarity