Discussion in 'Contests' started by YM, Jan 9, 2010.
I don't think 1 is an option. It's HARD to pug every single map there. But 6-7 isn't that hard.
I haven't voted personally because I've been unable to get a good solid 6v6 game on all of the final entries.
5. Toss public voting out the window and just use judges' votes.
Well i only managed to test 7 of the finalists properly before my graphics card died. It'd suck if my votes were discounted because i only managed to review 7/10 finalists.
Only acknowledging 6 public voters is just making an already piss poor event even more illegitimate.. but at the same time acknowledging votes of less than half the map list potentially throws off the map scoring averages.
Removing the public vote is going a bit far, after all, it was the "official" judges that allowed maps like Mercy to get into the finalists despite what i've seen to be nearly unanimous voices complaining about how that happened.
From what i can tell most of the testing has either been public or 4vs4 at best.
Big ups. I'm a fan of judges-only.
There might the possibility of combining one of those options with altering the public:judge ratio. If we're going to be changing it drastically like ignoring public votes, we might as well do something like that instead so those who did put in work to vote on all/most don't feel bad.
flame now has a monopoly on gameplay class involvement scores. fixed
camping your base with two heavies and two engies worked and we won, that's a perfect score
Flame unbalanced any 6v6 I played.
But in reality, I didn't get to play that many maps, just a few quite often. I did play a lot on the pub when it was running, but that can't really compare to a 6v6, and there was NO autobalancing which meant quite often it would be 10 v 5
After that I sort of gave up on it.
Everyone got pissed at me when I told them that my votes were based on pubs, so I removed them
What I said with the last big contest:
Pick a voting system that handles "unreviewed" picks gracefully like The Condorcet internet voting service.
That way any voter can meaningfully contribute even if they only looked at two maps and think A is better than B. Their input can still be used without causing problems for the maps C, D, E that they didn't see.
Eh, as long as you've had to compare at least 5 of the maps I'd say you could enter the votes. It does need to be several so they have at least been able to compare them and base their scoring on that instead of first impressions, but remember it's a pretty huge thing to ask from everyone to have played eleven maps thoroughly and in a (semi-)competitive setting.
Just put my individual map feedback in the voting thread with a few changes. Hope this helps some of the mappers.
The gameplay areas are solid and easily understood, focusing teams into a coherent push to grab the intel. The intel room itself is slightly marginalised and protected, with most of the fighting occuring in the yard at front. Soldiers, scouts and demos get love with the high and open areas throughout the map, but more vulnerable classes still had their place. The detailing is good, but the tall cliffs surrounding the map are the definition of unadventurous. Get a nice 3d skybox and poke some holes in those cliffs.
Landfall I quite like the layout, it was new and intuitive. However, it seemed to have the opposite effect of cloudburst's layout, splitting up teams and making the majority of battles 1v1 situations. The detailing is very nice, achieving the alpine feel with a unique twist.
The gameplay areas of stockpile have interesting height variation and layouts, but I feel the ramp route to the intel is too powerful, leading to slightly predictable pushes for the intel. The detailing is so so, sort of aiming between granary and 2fort, but missing both. Granary is all about the towering buildings teeming with windows, the fighting taking place in the cool shade between them. 2fort is a homely outhouse, filled with junk and sprawling buildings. Stockpile feels ramshackle, but too clean at the same time. The blend texture is nice, though!
It was worth a shot. You tried something new with the map, but sadly it either just didn't work (that window), or it wasn't right for 6v6. It really really needs to be bigger, with a much larger mid. The detailing is okay, but a bit messy and uncontrolled. Take this the way of 4v4 or scrap the mid and stretch the whole map out.
Wiretap It's fun in pubs, but like landfall, actively discourages teamwork. The intel room is quite easily locked down, but this is countered somewhat by the sprawling inner bases, which belongs more to the enemies team than to your own. The detail I feel is very professional, but quite overdone in some areas and underdone in others. It's a pity that my favourite detail area, the bridge, is surrounded by dull old square cliffs.
Deliverance is an interesting take on invade ctf. The layout allows for good back and forth gameplay, but still manages to keep teams focused. The detailing is very individual and natural, if a bit bare when it comes to the buildings. I can't really think of something that would definitely improve it, so you're doing well.
Converge has what I'd believe to be a more conventional hourglass shape for invade ctf. The outside area gives a good first engagement, even if the inner areas have slightly less flow. The detailing for this level is of a very high quality, with your custom model fitting in well. Once again, no definite improvements to be suggested here.
Overlook is the only map in the final to earn 7 for style due to DBP's brilliant grasp on detailing. Your map has by far the best lighting to be in this contest, and the various areas of the map capture their respective themes precisely. Now, as for the gameplay. I marked overlook very low on my first pass, for its predictable attack routes, but on second thoughts it is still a strong map, just not as good as a few others in this contest. Talk to people about gameplay issues, try and fix a few of the problems. Otherwise, the map is absolutely fine.
I like the gameplay of this map. The mid is simple, but effective in its layout, the intel area promotes teamwork both from the attackers and defenders. The map has no out of the way dead zones. As for detailing and optimisation, they can be polished to a mirror sheen after the contest. I have a few reccomendations, which I'll post in the thread after the contest.
Wildfire From a1 I could see that wildfire was a very strong and fun to play map. The gameplay is extremely team-orientated, with the very streamlined layout helping this. You have obviously tested this map thoroughly in 6v6 and know exactly what you're doing for gameplay. The detailing of the map is also of a high quality, with a good twist on the Hydro theme. The only thing I could recommend is to take a leaf out of overlook's book and try some interesting lighting situations.
Probably the most inventive map in the final, but you make it work. Once the player has the concept sorted out, it really shines. The only thing that I feel lets it down slightly is the flat and unadventurous mid. The detailing doesn't really sit well with me. It is very competent and consistant, but feels angular, and slightly out of place in TF2. Congrats for trying something new though, you seem to do it with a lot of your maps, and it works.
i didn't vote because like others getting a chance to play the maps in 6v6 was DIFFICULT!
i remember several times trying to get ppl in the chatroom on the servers but to no avail.
so i just don't feel i've played any of the maps (except possibly converge) enough to offer fair judgement.
also i guess i did feel a lil bummed at the whole 50% maps insta-eliminated thing (yeh i understand why but it still doesn't mean it feels right).
overall this contest has had bad leadership. as a result, there's been many problems rising up.
i think the next time a contest is done it has to be accepted that there's gonna be a lotta entrants given the size of the community these days, and on top of this trying to get maps played or even tested will be very difficult if there's an imposed low player count limit if only because the general mentality of our community isn't that of comp-players.
most importantly though, there needs to be a greater degree of control of the system, and transparent pre-defined information about the nature of all facets of the contest from the start.
If people understood what was required of them for the voting process, from the very start, I think that would have helped smooth the overall process as well (even if sometimes changes are necassery for unexpected variables like massive entry counts).
The scoring criteria were weird and ambiguous, nobody other than the mods really knew how many judges there were or even who they were and If people knew who the judges were then a lot more successful PUG's could probably have been attended/organised. Rather than sporadic individuals looking at random times of the day through the week for players to PUG with, people could have flocked to the right person... the public voters and judges could have helped each other rather than keeping what seemed to be a professional distance between each other diluting the chances of successful PUG's occuring.
A lot of the mods didn't judge this time around and a lot of the regular public voters from previous contests came and filled the gap, which is probably one of the many reasons we are seeing less substantial public votes.
we have mods?
oh you mean nine
We had till they all left cuz the next contest is so cool yo.
Yea, the mods left in the middle of the contest. But they'd normally have been the ones judging contests. Which was fine, when they were smaller events and at least half the mods were proficient mappers.
I'm not really surprised at the low number of votes. This seemed to be a contest catered towards a small community amongst the general TF2 players, so a small amount of feedback from the masses would be expected.
How many voters we got is irrelevant, what I wanted to know was which of the votes were eligible for counting.
Separate names with a comma.