It's time to take stock maps out of rotation

[CrazyCurt]

Can we at least remove the maps that are re-skins of the Valve maps? (Ex. cp_lushbowl -> cp_dustbowl)

[TempSoul]

Can we at least remove the maps that are re-skins of the Valve maps? (Ex. cp_lushbowl -> cp_dustbowl)

Lushbowl has problem with loading, plus the rainy lushness fucks with people computers

[dragoonofdeath]

Can we at least remove the maps that are re-skins of the Valve maps? (Ex. cp_lushbowl -> cp_dustbowl)

Lushbowl has problem with loading, plus the rainy lushness fucks with people computers

Which is a shame, cause the only reason I recommended Lushbowl is because I've always enjoyed the reskin. It's one of the few reskinned Original maps I like.


Either way, with the issues, I suppose it'd be best to toss it.

[stickbeast]

With TF4 we must reconsider the definition of a "stock map."

By definition they'd be maps that come with the game, by default, part of the TF2 experience just as the 9 classes. They are the same maps that have been available for play since launch, or from patches long ago, immediately accessible to everyone and everywhere. The "normal" maps. The "constant" maps.

With TF4, the "normal maps" have become redefined. Instead of 2fort, dustbowl, and gravel pit having a high chance of being the current map on any given moment, we have rooftime, redfort, and desperados. I always thought that custom maps were a way of giving the players a way out of the stagnant developer's cage of limitations, with a steady stream of content availability. However, we have foolishly used the freedom of user-generated content to create a new prison to contain the possibilities of a fresh experience.

And now you want to remove the possibility of playing maps we "hardly play" to increase the likelihood of playing maps we play all the time?

I am between disappointed and confused.

[tehENEMY]

Archer you're dumb.

I agree.

[Django]

With TF4 we must reconsider the definition of a "stock map."

By definition they'd be maps that come with the game, by default, part of the TF2 experience just as the 9 classes. They are the same maps that have been available for play since launch, or from patches long ago, immediately accessible to everyone and everywhere. The "normal" maps. The "constant" maps.

With TF4, the "normal maps" have become redefined. Instead of 2fort, dustbowl, and gravel pit having a high chance of being the current map on any given moment, we have rooftime, redfort, and desperados. I always thought that custom maps were a way of giving the players a way out of the stagnant developer's cage of limitations, with a steady stream of content availability. However, we have foolishly used the freedom of user-generated content to create a new prison to contain the possibilities of a fresh experience.

And now you want to remove the possibility of playing maps we "hardly play" to increase the likelihood of playing maps we play all the time?

I am between disappointed and confused.

Amen

[dragoonofdeath]

With TF4 we must reconsider the definition of a "stock map."

By definition they'd be maps that come with the game, by default, part of the TF2 experience just as the 9 classes. They are the same maps that have been available for play since launch, or from patches long ago, immediately accessible to everyone and everywhere. The "normal" maps. The "constant" maps.

With TF4, the "normal maps" have become redefined. Instead of 2fort, dustbowl, and gravel pit having a high chance of being the current map on any given moment, we have rooftime, redfort, and desperados. I always thought that custom maps were a way of giving the players a way out of the stagnant developer's cage of limitations, with a steady stream of content availability. However, we have foolishly used the freedom of user-generated content to create a new prison to contain the possibilities of a fresh experience.

And now you want to remove the possibility of playing maps we "hardly play" to increase the likelihood of playing maps we play all the time?

I am between disappointed and confused.

10/10, would agree with again

[Sidecutter]

With TF4 we must reconsider the definition of a "stock map."

By definition they'd be maps that come with the game, by default, part of the TF2 experience just as the 9 classes. They are the same maps that have been available for play since launch, or from patches long ago, immediately accessible to everyone and everywhere. The "normal" maps. The "constant" maps.

With TF4, the "normal maps" have become redefined. Instead of 2fort, dustbowl, and gravel pit having a high chance of being the current map on any given moment, we have rooftime, redfort, and desperados. I always thought that custom maps were a way of giving the players a way out of the stagnant developer's cage of limitations, with a steady stream of content availability. However, we have foolishly used the freedom of user-generated content to create a new prison to contain the possibilities of a fresh experience.

And now you want to remove the possibility of playing maps we "hardly play" to increase the likelihood of playing maps we play all the time?

I am between disappointed and confused.

Worst speech ever. Just remove the stock maps and randomize the rest, with a weekly change in the available maps. There are DOZENS of maps people like that never get played simply because they are either unavailable at the time, or no one can remember the name of the map. There's nothing better than loading a map going "The hell is this and why does the name sound familiar?", then getting in and going "OH SHIT I LOVED THIS MAP BACK IN THE DAY!".

[stickbeast]

I forgot to mention the reliability of quality among the "stock maps" as opposed to the "custom maps." Having custom maps is a fun experience...however are nevertheless, designed by amateurs, rather than paid professional video game designers. Because of this, many of these maps are designed around a cheap gimmick and abandon functionality, balance, and replay value, which becomes violently obvious the more they are played. While a steady stream of content is vital to a custom map server, so is a steady stream of quality and reliability. There is no reason to eliminate stock maps from rotation...when all they do is provide a source of stability of quality.

Removing stock maps from rotation would be like when Andy quit his job at Dunder Mifflin to pursue fame.

[Archer]

Stock maps get us players when the server's quiet.

Fair enough, but what about when the server is full? There's always enough new people voting for the same stock maps to out-vote the other players who don't want those maps. It doesn't mean that the majority of the server wants to play those maps again, just that the majority of players can't all agree on something different.

Exactly this. We should take all stock maps out for two weeks, see how it goes. I guarantee we'll have far more interesting gameplay than we're having now with all the stock votes.

[mbaxter]

I forgot to mention the reliability of quality among the "stock maps" as opposed to the "custom maps." Having custom maps is a fun experience...however are nevertheless, designed by amateurs, rather than paid professional video game designers. Because of this, many of these maps are designed around a cheap gimmick and abandon functionality, balance, and replay value, which becomes violently obvious the more they are played. While a steady stream of content is vital to a custom map server, so is a steady stream of quality and reliability. There is no reason to eliminate stock maps from rotation...when all they do is provide a source of stability of quality.

Removing stock maps from rotation would be like when Andy quit his job at Dunder Mifflin to pursue fame.

This.

[Parasyte]

I forgot to mention the reliability of quality among the "stock maps" as opposed to the "custom maps." Having custom maps is a fun experience...however are nevertheless, designed by amateurs, rather than paid professional video game designers. Because of this, many of these maps are designed around a cheap gimmick and abandon functionality, balance, and replay value, which becomes violently obvious the more they are played. While a steady stream of content is vital to a custom map server, so is a steady stream of quality and reliability. There is no reason to eliminate stock maps from rotation...when all they do is provide a source of stability of quality.

Removing stock maps from rotation would be like when Andy quit his job at Dunder Mifflin to pursue fame.

This.

I don't think we should get rid of stock maps entirely; they can be fun from time to time. The problem is the frequency at which those maps are played whenever there are new players on the server. And it's never just one stock map and then back to custom maps; they just keep coming. Stock maps or silly maps all night is not fun for everyone.

A handful of new people can consistently outvote the rest of the server. Consider this:

During a map vote on a full 32 player server...
8 players vote for Map Option 1: Dustbowl
6 players vote for Map Option 2: Anything but Dustbowl
6 players vote for Map Option 3: Anything but Dustbowl
6 players vote for Map Option 4: Anything but Dustbowl
6 players vote for Map Option 5: Anything but Dustbowl

This is a common scenario in which a minority of players are able to out-vote the rest of the server simply because the other 24 people don't all agree on something fast enough while those 8 players are spamming/shouting, "ONE, 1, pick Dustbowl!!!!1!". The new folk really are like lemmings in this regard...

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:

• Provide fewer map options
  The more options you have, the more divided the server will be and the fewer votes it will take to create a dominant vote on any given map.
• Tiered voting
  Start with a vote for map type (ie: Valve, Custom, Silly). After the server has agreed on a map type a second vote should list 3 maps from the selected type. Again, the fewer options you present the easier it will be to please the MAJORITY of the server.

[Sanvich Hoovy]

Good ideas, except for tiered voting, because all anyone would ever pick is silly maps due to the fact that
OOOH WEE WOO THEY'RE SO SILLY!

[Parasyte]

Good ideas, except for tiered voting, because all anyone would ever pick is silly maps due to the fact that
OOOH WEE WOO THEY'RE SO SILLY!

I don't believe this is true; I think the majority of players would pick something else. Even if this is true, it's easily correctable by putting a timer on how frequently ANY silly map can be played. If a silly map has been played within the last X minutes then the "silly maps" option should not be available in the vote.

[stickbeast]

This is a thinly veiled attempt to keep playing the same maps we have been playing for the past few years. Suddenly the status quo has been changed and the community is uncomfortable with it. Replace the word 'dustbowl' with 'rooftime' and the lemmings analogy literally applies to the server for the past 3 years. Unlike dustbowl however, rooftime is designed to last forever, so 90% of the time the map is only changed after a sudden death round.

There is definitely a problem with the frequency some maps are being played...but if you are at all sincere about the problem being the frequency maps are being played, don't single out the "new players" and "stock maps."