72hr Contest Improvements

[Jethro]

I'm not super for straight up telling newer mappers that have made stereotypical new maps that 'these are just bad and can't be judged' ... if this is to happen, then it needs to have a "And here's why" attached to it.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone has actually said to do it like that.

 

[YM]

Regardless of the outcome of these changes I doubt I'll participate in the voting phase ever again (either entering a map or voting on others') There are simply too many maps each time to get to grips with an I'm tired of the prolonged voting period killing my motivation for the map.

As for Frozen's points:

I think no voting is better than the two-phase voting we have now, which is better than this dumb idea of disqualifying bad/broken maps immediately that is being brought up. One major draw of the 72 hr contest is that it has a stupendously low bar for entry, we can't just jack up that bar again because we've got too many entries.

I don't believe the prizes or bragging rights is really that big a deal for anyone. Are people really entering this thing to place? I reeeaaaaalllllyyy don't believe it. I just don't. I bet if we put it to a poll, the leading options would be "I do it because it's fun" or "I do it because I want to make something I'm proud of"

I'll keep banging this same drum:
No votes. X number of guaranteed tests for every entry in the two weeks immediately following.
If you have to have a winner/judging/prizes then elect a few judges and give out a prize for best/quirkiest/brokenest in the weirdest way/etc as chosen by the judges.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

The volume of maps is increasing every 72hr contest. Our community isn't enough anymore to properly play through all of them (we're growin' up guys!). I'm interested to see how this conversation goes, but I genuinely do not want to drop voting and the contest part of the 72hr contest. We need to take a hard look at our current voting/judging system (for more than just 72hr contests, mind you) and develop a new system that can easily manage the sheer number of maps that we get, in addition to being more open with the contest and the post-contest plays.

We can do 2 week voting periods, if we have more people playing consistently. That means, we're more open about the contest with other communities, have them 'advertise' it for us, we post our servers around, hell, I think this is cool/big enough we could even try to get coverage on gaming news sites if we tried.

I understand the arguement to remove voting and to shorten the test period, but I haven't heard a legitimate reason that sways me to think it's necessary. It's removing something, that I find a positive to the contest, for absolutely no reason other than the personal preference of some people.

It's not a contest problem, it's a systems problem.

tl;dr: Read it again, dammit.

 

[YM]

I genuinely do not want to drop voting and the contest part of the 72hr contest.

Equivalent to: We should never change the law, because it's the law

I understand the arguement to remove voting and to shorten the test period, but I haven't heard a legitimate reason that sways me to think it's necessary. It's removing something, that I find a positive to the contest, for absolutely no reason other than the personal preference of some people.

So the fact that it's a total fucking nightmare and a brutal, slog, even for someone like me who has more time than most isn't a legitimate reason?
How about the many reasons it hurts the development of the maps involved (and the maps not involved) because we're playing the exact same versions for two months running? Was my very length post detailing why it's bad full of completely illegitimate reasons? Did I not raise a single valid point?

IMHO the only winning move after the contest ends is to not play. That is to say after a few days of tests, pull out of the judging now it's gained some feedback and to continue playing. If you're in it to win it (which you suggest is the main reason people do it) then you'd do FAR better to skip the judging and continue working on your map after it all ends. I mean after the 6 weeks-2 months you could have 100% finished the map, but you're saying that isn't a legitimate reason. You're saying that we should drag out the process. We should be helping people to make and finish maps, not preventing them from doing so.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

Something that someone did just point out to me (Shout out to you, you know who you are)... No matter the system we come up with, 60+ maps is a LOT to play. Your suggestion of giving each map X amount of tests in a 2 week period is absolutely ridiculous. Removing voting does not fix the issue of how do we easily playing 60+ maps in a reasonable amount of time.

It's a nightmare even with your solution, because it doesn't fix the problem. I do agree that the development choke is there, but thats not what we're arguing here. It's how do we get through a MASSIVE amount of maps in a reasonable amount of time, while providing a solid and easy way to vote on maps.

EDIT: The other argument, parallel to what I pointed out, is how do we quell down maps that are just straight up broken? Again, removing voting doesn't fix this.

 

[Vincent]

IMHO the only winning move after the contest ends is to not play.

I reach this conclusion with a lot of problems and you know what? It's an incredibly boring solution.

I may not have a catch all solution for how to play all the maps effectively or what we should do with voting but simply telling everyone "It's just too much shit go home" isn't an elegant solution either.

I'm sure a lot of fresh mappers also just enjoy the competitive environment, even if they objectively "suck", why deny people that chance?

 

[MegapiemanPHD]

Personally, I do the contest both because it's fun and to try and place, at least in the top 10. I'm relatively new to mapping with TF2 and have participated in a few of these 72 hour contests. At first, it was just to see if I could make a TF2 map really at all but now it's about trying to not just make a functioning map, but a good/fun map.

I've kind of seen these contest as stepping stones for my own personal mapping skills as they allow me to utilize everything I've learned between them and show it off to a large amount of people. Sure, winning isn't everything, but for me, seeing people vote for my map and the possibility that it could place up against maps of much more experienced mappers helps me motivate myself and feel like I'm not just wasting my time with mapping.

With the normal Gameday Tests, it can be difficult to judge if people like a map or not since they usually play it infrequently and don't at all once it's finished since it no longer needs testing. With the contests, people play your map A LOT and play it constantly. Seeing the ones that rise to the top as well as WHY they rise to the top I find to be a good learning tool. It lets me not just see what and why players enjoy certain things, but also experience it all at once.

Is 2 moths a bit long for this process, maybe, but I still find it a fun process to go through.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[Sergis]

What if we had a set of judges who went through the maps and picked a top twenty -on the condition of providing a paragraph of feedback each to each one not chosen?

something like that is good because it ensures people dont leave the contest judging phase with nothing. if they made a good map they will naturally get it played and feedbacked; if they made a crappy one they will still be guaranteed at least some feedback instead of just "your map sucks, gtfo"

So the fact that it's a total fucking nightmare and a brutal, slog, even for someone like me who has more time than most isn't a legitimate reason?

no. its a CHALLENGE! :angry:

 

[JMaxchill]

Noob incoming, but is it acceptable to make a map in the 72 hour period, upload it as such, but specifically say you don't want it in the contest? Personally, I doubt I'd have time to get further than a2, so I might want my map recognized as "made in 72 hours" but not competitively? That's a significant part of it for me - I don't care if my map wins or not, so it doesn't need to be judged, but I still want the satisfaction of saying "this is what I can do in 72 hours".

 

[Fruity Snacks]

You're welcome to do that whenever you want, not just during the contest.

 

[YM]

It's a nightmare even with your solution, because it doesn't fix the problem. I do agree that the development choke is there, but thats not what we're arguing here.

uhhh sorry, but that's exactly what we're arguing here. You can't just dismiss my valid arguments because they're not changes that you want to consider.

How does what I've suggested not fix the problem?
I'd list the problems here again for you, but I already made that incredibly long post about it, please read it again.

Confining testing to scheduled tests over a two week period fixes all of those issues. 70 maps fits into a week at 10 per day. 5 on EU then 5 on US later in the day. Switch round the following week and that's two tests for every single map. Job done and everyone can get back to actually working on their maps. The judges (if we need any) will be people who can attend as many of those tests as possible so they've definitely played all the maps so they can make their choices. Most importantly they're making those choices from those two weeks of testing, rather than two months of testing.

Stop dismissing my solutions as invalid because they're not what you want to do. I still want the challenge of the contest, I still think having judges pick a few entries for best/runner up/<insert relevant new category just for this contest>. I still want everyone to receive testing and feedback (no matter how bad or broken their map) And most importantly I want the focus of this event to shift from a brutal two month slog of playing not-so-great maps over and over and over AND OVER (even at the end of this, most people haven't even played all of them), to getting back to helping people develop maps. The faster we can get through whatever testing/voting period we have after the contest the better.

Since I haven't said anything about it: I'm very against server-plugin voting. That's a horrible idea, it's open for abuse as well as unintentional votes (since it uses the number keys) It also provides no platform for comments to go with your vote. Geit's google form was brilliant last time and if we're doing public voting again (which I don't think we should) we should continue to use that.


Since I've just mentioned it there and it sparked a thought. I think the cause of the whole problem here is the fact the judging and voting is a public vote. If we had a pool of judges, they'd be able to get together and test all the maps together. instead of giving everyone enough time to play as many maps as possible, we'd only need enough time for a handful of people to play all the maps, which (if we pick the right people) could take as short as a week for a single play, then the second week could be revisiting the maps they want to play more.

Although, this then leaves the problem that they're going to be playing the good maps more than the bad maps and they might even choose to skip over the super-bad/broken ones before they've even been given a chance to get feedback from the other players.

So while a small pool of judges who orchestrate tests would be better (due to the reduced time required) it'd still leave some maps getting more testing than others, and I think that's fundamentally opposed to what we should be doing.

Key things we need from whatever follows:

• Every map gets played the same number of times
• Every map gets played with 20+ people
• It's over as quickly as possible so that authors can get back to active development before their enthusiasm is killed or they're bored enough to start another project
• Demos and feedback are posted for authors, so new members can find them too

Optional things that'd be nice but are unnecessary:

• Prizes for best in TBC categories
• Judges scores
• Public scores

@JMaxchil - yep, that'd be totally possible

 

[Fruity Snacks]

-snip things-

Confining testing to scheduled tests over a two week period fixes all of those issues. 70 maps fits into a week at 10 per day. 5 on EU then 5 on US later in the day. Switch round the following week and that's two tests for every single map.

-snip other things-

Stop and re-read what I was saying. I'm dismissing your argument not because it's something I don't want to do, but because implying that 70 maps tested at 10 per day at 20+ people each day for 2 weeks solid is an absolutely ridiculous idea. 10 a day for 2 weeks, thats each map, played twice. In essence, 140 maps played in 2 weeks. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks that is impossibly ridiculous. There are some days when we can barely manage to get 15 people for 2 tests, and most of the time, the tests die off after 3 maps. If you push that kind of testing, you're going to get author/player burn out before development even begins at the end of 2 weeks. Many people here could probably attest to burnout and how it sucks. At the end of a 72hr weekend, most people don't want to touch TF2 for a few days, just to recoup. Additionally: Who would host all the tests? Who's going to decide what goes where

In addition, expecting a 'small pool of judges' to go through 70 maps and write up decent feedback for each and everyone one... in two weeks, is equally as ridiculous. I can barely get judges to cover the major contests which have 10 maps, in addition to getting them to do it within a reasonable timeframe. This solution expects too much of participants and judges.

For my argument, I may have not clearly stated or lost it in my longer post, so I'll clarify for everyone here. A better voting system will solve both problems: A better system will make voting for a large number of maps not a nightmare (for anyone). It will keep the voting period to a reasonable timeframe (max 3 weeks) and be designed in such a way that mappers can collect feedback and move on with development quickly. Ideally, the system allows for parallel development of maps immediately after the 72hr contest ends, without introducing any sort of update bias. I've already talked to Geit about things, and I think we can come up with some sort of system that does this, rather easily.

tl;dr: A better voting system will solve YM's complaint about not being able to develop maps during the voting period, while maintaining the competitiveness and voting of the contest. It'll make things easier for everyone and not force people to play 70 maps in a week.

 

[YM]

Stop and re-read what I was saying. I'm dismissing your argument not because it's something I don't want to do, but because implying that 70 maps tested at 10 per day at 20+ people each day for 2 weeks solid is an absolutely ridiculous idea. 10 a day for 2 weeks, thats each map, played twice. In essence, 140 maps played in 2 weeks. I don't think I'm the only person who thinks that is impossibly ridiculous. There are some days when we can barely manage to get 15 people for 2 tests, and most of the time, the tests die off after 3 maps. If you push that kind of testing, you're going to get author/player burn out before development even begins at the end of 2 weeks.

In the last few weeks I've seen two imps a day last for 6+ maps each being full until the end. I don't believe that 10 per day, 5EU/5US is in any way overkill. No one has to play _all_ of them (except if you desperately need prizes to justify this contest). There are enough members here (and heck, we could call in troops from elsewhere if needs be) to keep things going.

Many people here could probably attest to burnout and how it sucks. At the end of a 72hr weekend, most people don't want to touch TF2 for a few days, just to recoup.

Few days of burnout vs being prevented from updating for two months. Yeah people want a few days off, but no one wants two months off.

Additionally: Who would host all the tests? Who's going to decide what goes where

Ido has already made a test schedule for this contest, so this isn't exactly an issue in any way. If we have judges, they're running tests, if not, staff/vips are recruited to run the tests, just like normal imps and gamedays. No big deal.

In addition, expecting a 'small pool of judges' to go through 70 maps and write up decent feedback for each and everyone one... in two weeks, is equally as ridiculous. I can barely get judges to cover the major contests which have 10 maps, in addition to getting them to do it within a reasonable timeframe. This solution expects too much of participants and judges.

Judges aren't there to provide detailed feedback. They can if they want to but, as you say, expecting anyone to write up detailed feedback for 70 maps over any period of time is ridiculous. It's probably why no one wants to judge. It's a more mammoth task than playing 70 the maps, and they have to do both!
No. Instead I suggested that the judges are just picking out notable entries to award prizes to. Like:
Judges favourite
Best gimmick
Most creative
Most mindbendlingly accomplished
Best use of 10,000 overlays
or whatever they want.

We have demos and the feedback system for feedback. That's why I think guaranteed testing is way more valuable to people than getting ranked as 34th out of 68 maps or whatever. That's useless, but all the !fb and !gf feedback and demo recordings people get? Super useful.

For my argument, I may have not clearly stated or lost it in my longer post, so I'll clarify for everyone here. A better voting system will solve both problems: A better system will make voting for a large number of maps not a nightmare (for anyone). It will keep the voting period to a reasonable timeframe (max 3 weeks) and be designed in such a way that mappers can collect feedback and move on with development quickly. Ideally, the system allows for parallel development of maps immediately after the 72hr contest ends, without introducing any sort of update bias. I've already talked to Geit about things, and I think we can come up with some sort of system that does this, rather easily.

Parallel development is a bad idea, if those maps are allowed to be played, that's MORE maps seeing testing during the voting period, and if they aren't then the author has to sit on it and wait, which sucks for anything more than a few days.

Rather than talking to geit privately about a new system, describe it here and let us discuss it. Because if it doesn't slash the time taken to under 3 weeks to a month at max, then it's a change that isn't going to help things.

tl;dr: A better voting system will solve YM's complaint about not being able to develop maps during the voting period, while maintaining the competitiveness and voting of the contest. It'll make things easier for everyone and not force people to play 70 maps in a week.

Again I'll reiterate: describe the better system or throw your vote behind something someone has already described.
You've said "perhaps this" or "perhaps that" to wishy washy things. and said "more players" but that's not the issue here. It took me two months to get all 40 maps played last time. more people isn't going to help each of us play more maps. It'll just mean MORE people feel like they haven't played enough of the maps to fairly vote.

More people makes the situation worse. People don't feel happy casting votes until they've played a sufficient amount of the maps. For me, last time, that was all of them. Adding more people to the voting pool won't make it easier for me to play all of them, it'll make it harder if anything because it'll be harder to get onto the server. I had no problem rallying people last time to play the maps I needed to play, we did 10+ at a time and the server stayed full.

Number of people isn't the issue.

The google form is FUCKING AMAZING. It allows you to do some now and some later, to add votes and comments at a different time, allows you to update and change votes. It was the best.

Ease of casting votes, again, isn't the issue.

The issue is the number of maps there are to play and to cast votes on.

I'm firmly of the opinion that everyone should get the same amount of testing. I don't think we should be telling anyone that their map isn't good enough to be in the general running and I don't think making this event a contest is a good idea. It's just so wrong on every level.

For something like Ludum Dare, it makes sense. You make something over the weekend and then submit it for voting.

You're allowed to continue working on it, but due to the way testing happens for Ludum Dare entries there's never any confusion between your continued version and the one you submitted. it's impossible to confuse the two. So it's not a problem.

If you don't want to continue though, that's fine, the chances are you didn't even make your entry to be a viable product and were just doing a personal challenge to learn something new or just push boundaries. So just wait the voting period out and enjoy the feedback you get. yay.

For us though it's totally different. While people do enter the contest to push their boundaries and make something throwaway, I'd bet 90+% of us want to continue that map after the contest if it turns out to be any good.

But if you want to continue you've got problems because testing of the updated version and testing of the contest version would happen in the same space. So we disallow it.
We disallow people to work on their maps because some of us want this to be a contest

Think about how awful that is.

I'll reiterate: Suggest your method for making things easier so we can discuss it. If you can't propose a voting method that will reduce the time it takes down to 2-3 weeks then we really need to scrap the contest element of it and get back to the core of what this place is supposed to be about: testing maps and helping people make their maps rather than hindering them.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

And before YM posts his second rebuttle:

70 maps in a week, or even 2 weeks is ridiculous. Maintaining 2 imps a day, with 5 maps each for 2 weeks is not only just a ridiculous claim, but also snuffs out development of non-72hr maps for 2 weeks. This is something that you're trying to avoid, yea? Preventing development?

Additionally, we only have so many hosts (only a handful). I don't know about them, but not many of them want to run imps twice a day (even once a day) for a few hours each day, for 2 solid weeks.

If your solution for removing voting "because it's a nightmare" is to add an even greater nightmare that could harm the community with burnout, then you should highly reconsider your idea or drop it. There are far better solutions that are more positive on the community.

 

[YM]

Ok so I think frozen isn't understanding what I'm trying to say (conversation in chat) so I'm rewriting it here for clarity:

First some statements that are fact:

• We run imps pretty much every single day.
• We run multiple imps most days.
• We often run out of maps to test before we run out of players during imps.

My suggestion:

1. We divvy up the maps to 5-6 per test and run two tests per day.
2. That's 5 on EU, then 5 later in the day on US.
3. Repeat this for 7 days and all 70 maps have been played once.
4. Switch EU for US and repeat for week 2
5. All maps have now been played twice.

Here are the reasons this isn't even close ridiculous:

• We play this many maps normally. (They might be the same maps multiple times in a week, but we play this many maps weekly, definitely)
• Nobody has to attend both tests per day, or even a single test each day. (Claim in chat: that no one wants to play 70 maps in a week, but I never said anyone has to????)
• We play this many maps normally.
• Once the schedule has been set, we have dozens of VIPs and staff who are capable of running tests. (Claim in chat: someone might end up doing 5 days of them. You're right, but we have a LOT of people capable and willing to run tests) Underestimating the manpower required to host? Nope. We run 1-3 imps per day, every day. That's less manpower than doing these tests.
• No judging or voting means that as long as each map was actually played, we're all good here.
• We play this many maps normally.
• If we bump it up to 7 maps in a test, we can have two full days of non-72hr map testing a week. But even without that, asking people not involved in the 72hr contest to wait just two weeks isn't that much of an ask. Not nearly as much of an ask as asking all of the 72hr entrants to wait two months before continuing
• Did I mention that we play this many maps normally yet??

At the end of these two weeks of scheduled tests:

• Everyone has had their map played twice.
• Everyone has had an opportunity to play each map on their preference of server.
• No one has to feel obliged to play all of the maps
• No one has to feel obliged to know the maps well enough to provide detailed paragraphs of feedback
• Everyone can resume working on whatever they want to after just two weeks.

Requiring anybody to vote means they have to play all 70 of the maps themselves. THIS is the ridiculous ask. And no matter what you say, if there is voting, people will feel obligated to play as many as possible (if not all) before casting votes. The idea that anybody can manage that without suffering immense burnout is what's crazy, no matter how long they have in which to do it.

 

[YM]

Oh

Just in case I didn't mention it:

WE PLAY THIS MANY FUCKING MAPS NORMALLY

 

[Fruity Snacks]

Oh

Just in case I didn't mention it:

WE PLAY THIS MANY FUCKING MAPS NORMALLY

Going back, looking through all the previous events and such over the past month (pre 72hr)... we don't reach 70 maps a week. We're around half that, even if you include maps tacked on to the end of imps/gamedays. This includes counting repeats (like, playing tanker twice a day, or something). I can go and get a more solid number for you, if you'd like.

Just because I disagree with you (heavily), doesn't mean I don't understand your argument. I do understand what you're saying, I just think it's bad.

 

[YM]

Ok so Geit's method, which hasn't been posted so I'll outline what that is here:


24/7 server with the maps on rotation
They have a plugin based vote "Do you think this should be a finalist"
Once a map has enough votes, it's removed from rotation until all others have roughly the same level
We call in troops from other places to populate it
This is run for the first week

I like this idea, but if you think that my suggestion of calling in troops and running 10 per day is totally unfeasable, then keeping a 24/7 server full enough for any reasonable testing is absolutely, totally and utterly mind-bogglingly unfeasable.

I can get behind this suggestion because it's a short and intensive and probably workable idea.

For Phase 2 Geit's option is:
Take 10-15 from the first phase and do a week of scheduled tests on our regular servers.
Voting at the end of that.

This is a 2 week plan I can get behind, but it requires more effort than the two weeks I outlined to call in troops and get that 24/7 server populated to a good level. 4v4 or 6v6 testing isn't what people want. 10v10 or more ideally.

 

[Turbo Lover]

WE PLAY THIS MANY FUCKING MAPS NORMALLY

No we don't. And I have the data to prove-

Going back, looking through all the previous events and such over the past month (pre 72hr)... we don't reach 70 maps a week.

Fuck. Well I'll give you the data anyway.

Spoiler

MAR 1 - 2 IMPS
MAR 2 - NO IMPS
MAR 3 - 1 IMP
MAR 4 - NO IMPS
MAR 5 - 1 IMP
MAR 6 - 1 IMP
MAR 7 - 1 GAMEDAY, 1 IMP
MAR 8 - 1 IMP
MAR 9 - 1 IMP
MAR 10 - NO IMPS
MAR 11 - NO IMPS
MAR 12 - 1 IMP
MAR 13 - 1 IMP
MAR 14 - 1 GAMEDAY
MAR 15 - NO IMPS
MAR 16 - 1 IMP
MAR 17 - NO IMPS
MAR 18 - 1 IMP
MAR 19 - 1 IMP
MAR 20 - 1 IMP
MAR 21 - 1 GAMEDAY
MAR 22 - 1 IMP
MAR 23 - 1 IMP
MAR 24 - 1 IMP
MAR 25 - 1 IMP
MAR 26 - 1 IMP
MAR 27 - 1 IMP
MAR 28 - 1 GAMEDAY
MAR 29 - 2 IMPS
MAR 30 - 1 IMP
MAR 31 - 1 IMP, 1 APRIL FOOLS GAMEDAY
APR 1 - 2 APRIL FOOLS GAMEDAY
APR 2 - 1 APRIL FOOLS GAMEDAY
APR 3 - 1 IMP
APR 4 - 1 IMP
APR 5 - 2 IMPS
APR 6 - 2 IMPS
APR 7 - 2 IMPS
APR 8 - 2 IMPS
APR 9 - 1 IMP
APR 10 - 1 IMP
APR 11 - 1 GAMEDAY
APR 12 - 1 IMP
APR 13 - 1 IMP
APR 14 - NO IMPS
APR 15 - NO IMPS
APR 16 - NO IMPS
APR 17 - NO IMPS
APR 18 - 1 GAMEDAY
APR 19 - 1 IMP
APR 20 - NO IMPS
APR 21 - NO IMPS
APR 22 - NO IMPS
APR 23 - NO IMPS
APR 24 - 1 IMP
APR 25 - 1 GAMEDAY
APR 26 - 1 IMP
APR 27 - NO IMPS
APR 28 - NO IMPS
APR 29 - NO IMPS
APR 30 - 1 IMP
MAY 1 - NO IMPS
MAY 2 - 1 GAMEDAY
MAY 3 - 1 IMP
MAY 4 - NO IMPS
MAY 5 - NO IMPS
MAY 6 - NO IMPS
MAY 7 - 1 IMP
MAY 8 - 1 IMP
MAY 9 - 1 GAMEDAY
MAY 10 - NO IMPS
MAY 11 - NO IMPS
MAY 12 - 1 IMP
MAY 13 - 1 IMP
MAY 14 - NO IMPS
MAY 15 - NO IMPS
MAY 16 - 1 GAMEDAY
MAY 17 - 1 IMP
MAY 18 - NO IMPS
MAY 19 - 2 IMPS
MAY 20 - NO IMPS
MAY 21 - 1 IMP
MAY 22 - 1 IMP
MAY 23 - 1 IMP, 1 GAMEDAY
MAY 24 - 1 IMP
MAY 25 - 1 IMP
MAY 26 - 1 IMP
MAY 27 - NO IMPS
MAY 28 - 1 IMP
MAY 29 - 2 IMPS
MAY 30 - 1 IMP
MAY 31 - 2 IMPS

Of the 53 days that impromptus were announced on in the three months prior to the 72hr's earliest participants, only 9 had two impromptus on the same day. Even if you include days which contained both an impromptu and a scheduled gameday, that doesn't break 20%. Furthermore, there are 28 days in which no impromptus were recorded.

We don't come close to playing that many maps normally. Even if we did, I don't want to play 72hr maps for 14 days straight, because that's 14 days in which it is impossible for non-72hr maps to receive testing, unlike our current system which leaves 4 out of the 7 days for normal impromptus

That said, the longer this discussion goes on the more I think you're right, YM, that the contest part of this contest is unnecessary. I want to update my map now, but at the same time it's already been voted for by a few people and I don't want to pull it out now and let that go to waste. I'm not sure I'll be as motivated to update it as I am now in three weeks time. And I still don't really want to play these maps for another 7 weeks.

I don't agree with Fr0z3n when he says that removal of the voting process doesn't fix anything, because that doesn't make sense to me. The voting process is a problem, removal of a problem inherently fixes it. If there is no voting, I don't need to wait to update my map because there's no confusion about which version to vote for, and if there's no voting I don't need to play 72hr maps for 8 weeks so I can vote on them.

I agree with YM that a 24/7 server running the 72hr maps on rotation would be even less feasible and would probably only see a handful of the total entries getting played. I don't agree with YM's proposed solution because that's still too many maps for our community, as I feel the data shows. Fr0z3n has yet to offer a solution. So instead I thought about what solution I feel like I'd want for my map.

I don't really want a prize for my map, that's not a big deal. I do want my map to be good, better than others, I'm not above a good dick waving contest every now and then, so even if there's no prizes, a ranking system would be cool, I guess, it's not THAT important. Most importantly I just want my map to be tested so I can figure out what to do for the next version. My map had been tested enough for me to know what to do by Wednesday, but there was still a scheduled test for it on Friday. That's one more map to test that didn't really gain anything from being tested other than some people who haven't played it yet have now played it and maybe they will vote for it.

So it's basically down to getting testing for your map, and maybe a bit of dick waving, but the problem is testing ALL of the maps, because everyone who makes a 72hr map should get equal testing. Should they get equal testing? We're only going to get more and more entries every year, and a blanket "everyone gets the same amount of testing" is only going to get more and more inconvenient and unwieldy.

Maybe it should be down to the author to procure testing for their map. Maybe we don't even have separate 72hr tests, and it's down to the authors to come into chat or post in the gameday thread and submit it for testing. Or some other system that doesn't really separate normal and 72hr map tests, and the amount of testing is determined by how much the author feels they need for their map.

As for satisfying everyone's ego, I guess that's what the judges are for? To hand out little titles for your map that make you feel proud of it. Maybe the prizes are dumb things like TF2 items that somehow relate to the title your maps gets. Like how Wilson said in his vote that I was the future of Medieval Mode, and I felt proud of Valley Hamlet for that comment, maybe my prize is a Strange Eyelander with a cool custom description.

TL;DR That's basically all I want from a 72hr. The actual 72hr period where everyone gets together to make maps in a frenzy, testing, and some harmless dick waving, and maybe a small sticker that says I'm a winner.

P.S. I'm fucking tired today, sorry if this sounds really dumb.

 

[Waffe]

This thread needs a bit lightening up