Campaign Maps and TF2 - a "working plan"

[fubarFX]

What we need to know is if the culling only applies to campaign maps or all of them. in the current landscape of campaign maps, they're all good enough that I can't imagine some of them performing less than junction era stuff.
Also I don't know if that's an other nail in arena map's coffin or not. I think there's a possibility that the "performance" measurement may be wrong as there's always many factors at play

 

[LeSwordfish]

I like to think valve would have a better way of telling which are popular than "how often is it played."

 

[Beef Bucket]

To a certain extent, I'd almost rather have Valve put a bullet in Arena rather than have it continue to bleed out.
I don't know. I definitely think TF2 could do without some of its older maps
I would only consider removing a map if it were over four or five years old at least, and also not very good

 

[ics]

Lowest performing maps? Are these lowest performing framerate wise or gameplay wise in-game or simply maps that are not played that much? How are these defined?

Personally, i think it doesn't matter where the map is as long as it works as they work now. CSGO uses the same system for storing old maps - they put the old revision of the map into workshop, where it gets downloaded if the map is played (like on csgo overwatch demo viewing if there was update to newer version). I guess this is done due to new users not having to download so much stuff at once. Generally maps are less than 50 Megs anyway and 25-30 can fit into 1 GB of space so it's not that much at all.

But generally i'm against of removing base content from the game. I haven't got much of an idea how they actually pick the maps to the game but looking back at all of these maps that have been added, the scale seems to be pretty wide.

 

[EArkham]

I like to think valve would have a better way of telling which are popular than "how often is it played."

"How often a map is played" seems like a pretty important metric for determining popularity. You just can't use that to exclusion of all else.

Dustbowl was THE most popular map by a huge margin when community servers made the majority of available games... but it was also the first map in the rotation so a server sitting with a single spectator for source mod would sit on dustbowl forever.

On the flip side, stuff like arena, tc and pd aren't supported properly by Valve servers now, so ANY map with those prefixes are forced to be unpopular because the only way to play those maps is to join a (comparatively rare) community game.

Ultimately metrics are up to Valve since they have more info than we do (and we can only guess as to what they track). Logically you'd think it's stuff like this:

* Frequency of full servers with this map
* Total time servers spend on this map
* Frequency of map extension votes passing for the map
* Frequency of votes passing to switch to this map
* Frequency of connections/disconnections when on this map
* Map stamps & map filter sales

(That said, I don't think stamps or filters should account for a huge factor in any case, since those sales look pretty pathetic compared to the campaign pass sales -- but improving the value of stamps & filters is another conversation entirely so I digress)

I'm guessing Valve-made content is not up for removal since we're talking about using workshop entries to provide the content. Which is too bad, because I wouldn't be opposed to removing the oldest or less exciting arena maps.

Halloween maps seem like a good candidate by their seasonal nature. Most of the year, you never even load them up, but if you download the game in April, you're downloading a ton of Halloween maps that you wouldn't see for months. I feel dirty even mentioning this because we just had a huge quality community Halloween update last October.

Someone already mentioned how the HL2 content which goes mostly unused in TF2 could be culled. Most of it probably could (some maps do use things like stair textures or aerial props I've noticed, but there's no reason to keep Combine stuff, is there?)

I don't feel it's fair to remove community made maps for gamemodes that aren't played on Valve servers though. Don't have a solution for this... Having a set of Valve servers with a hodgepodge of gamemodes doesn't sound like that good an idea either. Are people going to want to go through a player destruction game followed by an arena game and then a medieval mode one? Maybe PD could be combined with RD once asteroid is done since the gamemodes are similar enough.

I'm not opposed to removing maps... but I think picking older and unpopular maps as well as culling unused content should be done first.

 

[Vel0city]

Someone already mentioned how the HL2 content which goes mostly unused in TF2 could be culled. Most of it probably could (some maps do use things like stair textures or aerial props I've noticed, but there's no reason to keep Combine stuff, is there?)

That'd be me, but just to clarify: maybe 10 or less materials/models are used in TF2. Gorge has those skylight windows with the HL2 textures, Granary uses some of HL2's railing in the OOB areas, and Powerhouse has some HL2 fence way back in the distance, and that's all I can remember. 99.99% of the stuff in those folders goes unused, and as I said earlier, if Valve wants to continue using some HL2 textures or models, simply pack them in the bsp as if they're custom content. That saves a whole lot of space.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

That'd be me, but just to clarify: maybe 10 or less materials/models are used in TF2. Gorge has those skylight windows with the HL2 textures, Granary uses some of HL2's railing in the OOB areas, and Powerhouse has some HL2 fence way back in the distance, and that's all I can remember. 99.99% of the stuff in those folders goes unused, and as I said earlier, if Valve wants to continue using some HL2 textures or models, simply pack them in the bsp as if they're custom content. That saves a whole lot of space.

Snowplow uses some HL2 textures.

(Don't like it? BITE ME)

 

[Davekillerish]

Snowplow uses some HL2 textures.

(Don't like it? BITE ME)

*Nom Nom Nom*
Thats adding to the problem...
If each map in TF2 was 'culled' so that it was on demand download, instead of being installed with the game then this issue would be resolved.
Every time you wanted to play a game, you had to download the map first, but you load up the game faster and you have 1/16'th more space for stupid hats that valve will never cull.

 

[fubarFX]

The thing with removing hl2 content is that it's just not a good practice in terms of software development. You'd just break countless amounts of maps that depend on that content and there's just no way for Valve to know what to remove and what to keep. Having maps being "standalone" with their pak file is a step in making maps more interchangeable without touching the base content. You can't go removing assets willy-nilly, that's not what they are going for.

 

[Vel0city]

The thing with removing hl2 content is that it's just not a good practice in terms of software development. You'd just break countless amounts of maps that depend on that content and there's just no way for Valve to know what to remove and what to keep. Having maps being "standalone" with their pak file is a step in making maps more interchangeable without touching the base content. You can't go removing assets willy-nilly, that's not what they are going for.

Well, how about keeping those few models/materials around that are used now but prevent any other from being used by deleting them?Right now it's wasting almost 3GB on my SSD for those 10-15 materials/models that are no more than what, 20 MB in size? Even if it's not a good practice, it's still better than leaving unnecessary and unused content around wasting space.

 

[Crash]

And how do you determine exactly what is being used? What about all those non standard maps (trade, surf, etc) that use these assets? Should that old catalogue of content get messed up for this? Probed uses hl2 audio significantly in it's finale, I'm willing to bet a lot of other maps use content you might not realize. How could they possibly determine what's worth cutting?

 

[iiboharz]

I would say if you're gonna cut any HL2 stuff, cut stuff that definitely is never used like voice lines, assuming there are any in TF2's files. Keep everything else.

 

[EArkham]

Forgot about the HL2 audio. The sound effects are generic and used a ton. Anyway, it's just a suggestion and discussion in this thread. I don't think anyone should start worrying over it unnecessarily.

Maybe we should confirm that Valve is actually willing to cut out anything that isn't a community map? For example, the arena versions of Valve koth maps that are unplayed and unsupported would be high on my list to remove, but if they're only removing community maps, it's moot.

Also I would hate to see unique and interesting gamemodes like medieval, player destruction, or even special delivery go away just because there's no official server support.

I'm ambivalent about tc_hydro. Lately I've realized the only reason I even like the map is because of nostalgia. Can't say I'd miss it if it just vanished one day... I mean, it's effectively vanished already.

 

[takabuschik]

I must say I support the idea.
It would enable Valve to continue bring new maps, without flooding the computer with files, and player's mind with memorizing layouts and pickup placements.
We just need to shift our mindset about "becoming official". "Official" would become a temporary condition, it would not last forever. It would be like a football championship- you can win, but you won't be there forever, because in the next tournament you might lose, and someone else would become the new champion- or in this case- the new "official" mapper. That way, more mappers could get their maps "official".

I think that what maps are removed should be selected by players. During the loading times of Valve servers, there could be a survey popping up, asking "which map is your favorite?" with 4 maps in the list, and each player could rank them.
Maybe even make it so the graveyard "culled" maps could get back in, (once again- maybe use a survey to determine what map is missing the most).

 

[Idolon]

While it's reasonable to be against the idea of rotating maps in and out of the game the way that CS:GO does, it's pretty much what players already do. When maps get introduced as part of an operation, people flock to them because it's something new to play. Over time, the maps that prove themselves to be playable over and over will continue to get played, while the other less solid maps generally peter out. Phasing out these "novelty" maps pretty much just makes sense, especially if Workshopping them in is as easy and flawless as it seems.

Matchmaking interests me because it could really help inject life into "novelty" maps. Operating on a Splatoon-like system where maps relatively quickly cycle in and out of a featured "playlist" would allow maps that don't have an outstanding amount of replay value still be able to be played on a somewhat regular basis without becoming stale. People who want to play on nothing but Badwater can play on nothing but Badwater, but people who want a variety can be playing on a different map every week.

This would also allow Valve to feature maps that aren't a part of the game (or a more graceful way of testing maps ala Asteroid and Cactus Canyon). If the map doesn't play well, then it's only around for a week. If it plays well, then it can be included in a future operation.

This raises some questions that I don't have good answers for. Does the mapper get $$$ from this? If maps get featured this way, then what does being included an operation even do for a map? (Would there be a third playlist that cycles through operations on a 3-month cycle? Would having too many MM playlists be a problem?) Who decides which maps get featured? Would a rapidly cycling system keep people from learning maps to the degree that competitive play demands? (Is that even a concern, considering that the playerbase might not be able to perform at that level?)

Despite those concerns, I think that a Splatoon-like system of rapidly cycling through maps could be very beneficial to keeping the game from being stale and metagame heavy, as well as giving the less-used content in this game a new life.

 

[LeSwordfish]

This raises some questions that I don't have good answers for. Does the mapper get $$$ from this? If maps get featured this way, then what does being included an operation even do for a map?

Perhaps Valve could, if doing this - or any system where certain maps are kind of, promoted but not added - extend the stamp system to them, and make it clear that stamp purchases on a map are an excellent way to recommend it be added to the game. The mappers get small amounts of money from stamps as well as the publicity, and maps that are chosen then get the usual amount. Being in an operation then gets you downloaded with the game, gets you the money from the operation, and gets you included in whatever fancy contracts system is in use for that operation.

 

[Izotope]

Question for custom map stamps:
Will the Mann Co. Store ask you to support a custom map with a stamp like it does with official maps?
When I buy something from the store they always ask me if I want to support cp_steel due to my playtime.
Let's say I'll accumulate 30+ hours on pl_snowycoast, and I'll then buy something from the store, will they ask me to support pl_snowycoast?
And if so, will this still be the case after a map gets culled?
Has anyone had any experience with this?

 

[Zed]

Question for custom map stamps:
Will the Mann Co. Store ask you to support a custom map with a stamp like it does with official maps?
When I buy something from the store they always ask me if I want to support cp_steel due to my playtime.
Let's say I'll accumulate 30+ hours on pl_snowycoast, and I'll then buy something from the store, will they ask me to support pl_snowycoast?
And if so, will this still be the case after a map gets culled?
Has anyone had any experience with this?

I don't understand what you're asking.

Yes, they ask you if you want to buy stamps for community maps if you've accumulated a high amount of playtime on them. Steel is a community map.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

The discussion so far has been great, but might be drifting a bit far off point. Also, remember that this is a working plan, is not final, and could definitely change.

So, when I was talking about this and when I made this post it was super late, and I probably forgot some important questions, I'll see about getting some clarifications on them. (like financials, though I think I asked that and got an answer, I just don't remember nor have the conversation to refer back to)

More to the point, as I interpreted it, 'low performing' maps would be in terms of playtime, popularity, balance. So, if we use Junction, a map which is unpopular and arguably unbalanced on larger servers, I would think that it would get the 'low performance' marker, because not too many people are excited to play the map. So I would think that 'low performing' would basically be a measure of how fun it is for players. I miight be over thinking it now, but you'd think that naturally, you would want to be diverting your players to the statistically 'most fun' maps so that the perceived quality of TF2 goes up, rather than being more hit-or-miss. You want to increase the chances of new players hitting the most fun maps, which means they'll have the best enjoyment from the game, and a better chance at a longer retention.

 

[Izotope]

I don't understand what you're asking.

Yes, they ask you if you want to buy stamps for community maps if you've accumulated a high amount of playtime on them. Steel is a community map.

I meant featured campaign maps, not older community maps that have been purchased by Valve.