TF2Maps.net Mapping Contest #6: (A)Symmetry CP

[tyler]

Actually I'm pretty annoyed with a "nearly perfect map" getting a solid 10. What would a perfect map get then?

Or the apparent lack of playtime on some of these maps. Or certain bad maps rating higher than certain good maps. I don't want to name actual maps here, and it isn't just about my own.

If the split is really 40/60 I want that adjusted. Or some of these posts just not counted. I can't believe we trust these people to do anything.

Some voters haven't even played all the maps, according to steam chat chatter.

I think in some places they are trying to rank the maps, or something. There's no other way to examine some of these votes; they're like bell curves. That's not what the votes should be like because 95% of them are high quality.

 

[littleedge]

Future contests (if they ever occur) shouldn't have the performance or technical categories. Only judges should be voting on performance and technical because those two are nearly fact, not opinion. Players shouldn't be able to skew votes that way. FPS remains a standard ratio between maps whether you get 100-300 on every map or 5-30. Clipping is something that can only be determined once and that's done with. Triggers working (capture zones and the like) are a one-time thing - does it work, or does it not, does it actually cover what is said to be the capture zone from the hazard strips on the ground.

 

[LeSwordfish]

To be honest i have not the slightest clue how to rate performance and technical. Aside from an in-depth analysis, which i dont have the time for, i can only guess really. "Um, yeah, runs fine, i guess. And i havent found many problems..." what does that translate into? 7, 7, 10, 10, 5, 5,?

 

[Ezekel]

best example of this problem is that last guy who voted and gave canyonfodder a 10 and then gave copperhead and slush both a 0 in asthetics...
i mean, what the hell, that's just not right or fair.

i get it he may have had a bad experience on those maps due to bad teams or whatever, but both copperhead and slush are properly detailed and interesting to look at.
again, i just don't think it's fair to vote in that way

 

[Fruity Snacks]

Well, it is fair to vote that way, he played it, he made his judgement. Now how accurate and educated it is, thats a different thing. When people asked for a blog post, I was under the assumption that people understood that we were going to public opinions that were going to be like this.

 

[Wilson]

Well i expected some common sense when people started rating maps, why would anyone rate copperhead (for example) detailing 0, i mean, it is about opinions and all, but 0? That is just not right.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

Well, that should technically be 1, becuase there is no 0 in the scale.

We can't tell people "Your wrong". we can suggest that they play the maps more and take a better, more open-minded look at the maps.

 

[EArkham]

Doh. Was trying to hit quote, not thanks, and I can't remove it. Oh, well, consider yourself thanked for something else you've done. <hand wave>

Well, that should technically be 1, becuase there is no 0 in the scale.

We can't tell people "Your wrong". we can suggest that they play the maps more and take a better, more open-minded look at the maps.

Actually, you can tell voters they're wrong. The voting is between 1-10 and votes of 0 are, to be blunt, wrong. Maps are disqualified for not following the rules; so should votes be.

That still won't stop people from voting all 1s on something if they're purposely trying to skew the results, but that sort of thing is expected honestly.

 

[Pocket]

Maybe we should use a poll that they have to sign in with their Steam ID to use, and that checks to make sure they've spent more than fifteen minutes in a map before they can vote on it.

You know, in the future.

 

[Wilson]

Maybe we should use a poll that they have to sign in with their Steam ID to use, and that checks to make sure they've spent more than fifteen minutes in a map before they can vote on it.

You know, in the future.

Yes, i like this new idea.

 

[Fruity Snacks]

Maybe we should use a poll that they have to sign in with their Steam ID to use, and that checks to make sure they've spent more than fifteen minutes in a map before they can vote on it.

You know, in the future.

I don't know if you can do that... check if they have specifically been on a map. Maybe the server, but still.

I'm still confused about why people can be angry or mad at this.

 

[tyler]

I think people are probably unhappy because votes are apparently being cast:

• Based on a single bad experience
• Without complete knowledge of how the voting category works
• Without having played the map at all
• On personal bias rather than an attempt at objectivity

It's not like everyone should be voting identically -- I do understand that people have opinions -- but it's a little concerning when some of the above bullet points are known facts about certain voters and yet I haven't heard anything about their votes being disqualified.

It isn't like personal bias shouldn't enter into the voting, but it's apparently entering at an extreme. You shouldn't be judging aesthetics on whether or not you like the theme a lot (though that plays into it) so much as how well it's executed.

I imagine it sucks pretty hard to spend five months making something that's Valve quality only to have someone take a shit on it and then give someone else's first map better scores by threefold.

 

[Fraz]

I find this whole situation quite funny. You have to face the stark truth; public tf2 players do not like playing custom maps. They'll try them a lot of the time but the majority will play maps that were shipped with the game or have been included in updates. This lends to a lot of them perhaps not enjoying themselves in an unfamiliar environment. Whereas a lot of the people here take a more favourable approach to voting, giving maps generally > 6 round the board. This is probably because a lot of us have played the map from a1, seen it improve and know it, well for the maps made by people that regular tf2maps, the servers, chat and forums.. We have a kind of connection with the maps, and we take a more analytical approach, even if giving favourable votes. This connection is something that takes time to build, so you can't expect every random Joe to just come, play loads and loads of each map before voting. They'll vote based on their experiences, just like you will with yours. What's to say your vote is better thought out, a better representation of what the map is like or even more valid than somebody else's opinion?

If people are seriously going to bitch and moan about other people's public voting scores, either make it 100% Judges scores to deem the winner or do the public voting in private. PM it to the staff member running the contest so we get NONE of this bullshit that comes with public people voting. I'm sick to the back teeth of it and this isn't the first time something like this has happened. It's also one of the reasons I don't vote. I've never played a map enough to get a proper representation on how I feel about it. I think it was mangy or somebody who said something about testing a map for 40 hours total before you have tested a map enough to get the real representation of it. That's why I've never voted for a major contest thus far; and why I might never.

End Rant.

 

[Moose]

snip

This is exactly how I feel. It's another reason I like to look at a map's overall stats and use that to help judge things like balance. Unless you have a ton of playtime on the map in question, your votes on gameplay and balance will probably be influenced by something that isn't even relevant.

Actually when comes to maps in general, a lot of us just assume we know more than the author about how things play. Sometimes it's true, especially for early alphas where major changes need to be made, but for maps in beta status, you need to assume the mapper knows more than you about how his map works. Hundreds of rounds of experience tell you more about a map than any analysis of a few rounds can, no matter how confident you are in your ability to assess a map's faults. I've received my share of ridiculous complaints, and I know almost everybody else has too, so if you're judging somebody else's work in the future, try to get as much information as possible before making any assumptions.

With all that said, sometimes major things are overlooked, so authors themselves need to be careful to think about any feedback given before dismissing it. Even if a complaint isn't all that much of an issue, it might still be something you want to address.

welp those are my thoughts

 

[owly-oop]

that has nothing to do with the fact that some people used a random number generator to vote for them which is the real problem

 

[ScorpioUprising]

that has nothing to do with the fact that some people used a random number generator to vote for them which is the real problem

today random number generation! Tomorrow? Humans marrying cats!

 

[MangyCarface]

Next contest, public votes should be on a 0-100 scale- there needs to be a large enough range to distinguish one 9 map from another. This would encompass all areas of mapping. The score could be affected by a multiplier that plateaus, one based on # rounds played on the map. i.e. playing the map once gives you voting strength .2, while playing it 6 times may be a 1, and 10 times a 1.5, and 20 times a 1.7 etc. not sure how that'd be determined though

 

[grazr]

...It's also one of the reasons I don't vote. I've never played a map enough to get a proper representation on how I feel about it...

This should be an incentive to cast your vote. You know people will make lesser informed decisions, so cast your vote anyway. People with half as much experience and twice as much bias are making votes whilst you sit it out because you have more pride and respect over this whole thing; and as admirable as that is, in the end it isn't really improving the status quo.

The public and official votes are also weighted 40/60 for the very aspect of quality critical thinking.

I implore the TF2M regulars to cast their votes and not boycott the contest on pride and principle because they are only making the situation worse; and i can only imagine you'll regret it in the end when the average scores come in and your favourite map doesn't make the top 3 places.

 

[Languid]

Next contest, public votes should be on a 0-100 scale- there needs to be a large enough range to distinguish one 9 map from another. This would encompass all areas of mapping. The score could be affected by a multiplier that plateaus, one based on # rounds played on the map. i.e. playing the map once gives you voting strength .2, while playing it 6 times may be a 1, and 10 times a 1.5, and 20 times a 1.7 etc. not sure how that'd be determined though

Actually, this is quite an interesint concept that I think could be achieved through a plugin. perhaps just allowing votes after playing has been recorded? It has the risk of further making the vote basically tf2m regulars only, but I guess that would be better than totally stupid votes? I'm not sure, its an interesting points.

I would say that personally at least I have seen a few votes that have, uh, made me twinge slightly. Probably bigheaded but nothing big especially since single votes become immensely diluted if people actually vote in large numbers! If you feel really bad about a particular vote remember tactical voting is also an option and you can counteract them easily!

 

[grazr]

Tactical voting is... discouraged.

Someone elses opinion shouldn't affect yours. I know it's an idealistic way of thinking but if everyone voted how they believed it'd be a lot more realistic, even if there are distasteful votes. If more of the... "more respected members"/"regulars" made their votes (as i know many have expressed the desire not to participate) these contoversial votes would be less potent to the end results. Which is better than letting these randoms have their way completely, don't you guys think?

I seriously doubt anything will be changed this time around regarding the voting process.