PDA

View Full Version : Atmo poll


Nikon
01-19-2011, 06:39 AM
k, so tgleaf couldn't get the poll to work. So this thread is only for the poll.

Go ahead.... Vote!

Nikon
01-19-2011, 06:50 AM
previous poll results

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6615/ballatmospherepoll1.jpg

elxir
01-19-2011, 07:35 AM
don't see why not

Mandrad
01-19-2011, 10:28 AM
Although i never played it, it looks to have all it takes to...

Mt.Vesuvius
01-19-2011, 12:28 PM
Hahahahaha Boko

Boko
01-19-2011, 12:34 PM
Hahahahaha Boko

I kno rite :cool:

shrode
01-19-2011, 02:24 PM
i do feel like random needs some new maps, but I've only played this once so I'm gonna hold back.

Mr. Moooo
01-19-2011, 04:58 PM
I for one enjoy this map. It took me a few times to get the flow of it, but once you can fly through all of the little nooks and crannies with your afterburner going (without crashing) it sure does bring a smile to your face :D

Nikon
01-19-2011, 06:01 PM
ummm, aren't the poll results good enough to get it on custom_random now?

XX1
01-19-2011, 07:15 PM
ummm, aren't the poll results good enough to get it on custom_random now?

well....just becuase people like it doesnt necessarily means it is ready for ladder...

Nikon
01-19-2011, 07:58 PM
well....just becuase people like it doesnt necessarily means it is ready for ladder...

Well, that's all that matters isn't it? If people think it's ready. and 29 people think it should be in custom_random, and 3 people don't. I think that means it should be in custom_random.

sunshineduck
01-19-2011, 08:56 PM
ummm, aren't the poll results good enough to get it on custom_random now?

not necessarily

judging by the posts in the thread, these are mostly uneducated votes. mandrad even professed that he had never played the map, but that it "looked ready".

i still don't feel that there's been an adequate amount of feedback to make an accurate judgment tbh

Duck Duck Pwn
01-19-2011, 09:17 PM
I think that we should add ball football to the start_random rotation, because so many people like it. after all, there are at least 3 servers dedicated just to this map!

(reserving judgment on this map; don't know it well enough)

Nikon
01-19-2011, 09:17 PM
not necessarily

judging by the posts in the thread, these are mostly uneducated votes. mandrad even professed that he had never played the map, but that it "looked ready".

i still don't feel that there's been an adequate amount of feedback to make an accurate judgment tbh

Mandrad is the only one that you have proof for that statement. When I went around asking people to vote, I made sure that they had played the map before, if they hadn't played it much I would tell them to vote after they play it more. I believe that most of those votes ARE educated.

But yes, I guess I agree that it isn't enough feedback. But the maps that aren't on custom_random never get played, it is very hard to get people to play maps that aren't in a rotation, and even harder to get them to leave feedback.

If you want more feedback on the maps that are in ladder but not in random (not test maps) I would suggest that you have a week or two, that the only maps you can play are the maps that aren't in random. This would make people really get use to the maps and actually have an opinion about them.

sunshineduck
01-19-2011, 09:54 PM
If you want more feedback on the maps that are in ladder but not in random (not test maps) I would suggest that you have a week or two, that the only maps you can play are the maps that aren't in random. This would make people really get use to the maps and actually have an opinion about them.

This is not going to happen.

It's rough, but you're going to have to keep trying to get people to willingly play your map and offer feedback if you're going to want it in the random pool. Having an easily influenced poll in which people vote yes/no is all fine and dandy, but unless I see some in-depth feedback on why the map is good or bad, I'm not budging. Deciding the ladder map pool isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship, and the buck stops here. As much as I want to be the nice guy and let any good looking semi-tested map into the pool, the last thing I want is to be the reason the next ball_doodle is born.

Keep your chin up and keep trying, results will soon come if you're persistent.

Nikon
01-19-2011, 11:07 PM
This is not going to happen.

It's rough, but you're going to have to keep trying to get people to willingly play your map and offer feedback if you're going to want it in the random pool. Having an easily influenced poll in which people vote yes/no is all fine and dandy, but unless I see some in-depth feedback on why the map is good or bad, I'm not budging. Deciding the ladder map pool isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship, and the buck stops here. As much as I want to be the nice guy and let any good looking semi-tested map into the pool, the last thing I want is to be the reason the next ball_doodle is born.

Keep your chin up and keep trying, results will soon come if you're persistent.

I didn't think it was going to happen but it was worth a try.

Okay I will keep trying to get people to leave feedback.

Nikon
01-21-2011, 05:56 PM
This is not going to happen.

May I ask why? I think this is a valid suggestion.

Mandrad
01-21-2011, 06:08 PM
not necessarily
... uneducated votes. mandrad even professed that he had never played the map, but that it "looked ready".

I didnt professed the word "ready", and for me thats exactly the point. How can maps be ready if one spends his time developing it and then it takes ages to get feedback - big probability youll get none also.
If a good number of people seems to like it, im 100% yes to good testing no matter how much i can personaly hate a map - not the case.
I also thnk my map play knowledge is now educated enough to conclude by an image if a map has good chances to play good - this map has it.

sunshineduck
01-21-2011, 06:23 PM
May I ask why? I think this is a valid suggestion.

it defeats the entire point of ladder. ladder isn't a testing ground for maps, it's there to accurately judge player skill at a competitive level. having a week in which the only maps that are being played are potentially maps that are completely unfit for competitive play is completely contrary to the entire premise of having a ladder. people are free to vote to play untested maps for points if they want, there's absolutely 0 reason to force people to either risk their points on potentially awful maps or play in pubs.

I didnt professed the word "ready", and for me thats exactly the point. How can maps be ready if one spends his time developing it and then it takes ages to get feedback - big probability youll get none also.
If a good number of people seems to like it, im 100% yes to good testing no matter how much i can personaly hate a map - not the case.
I also thnk my map play knowledge is now educated enough to conclude by an image if a map has good chances to play good - this map has it.

this is the same ass-backwards thinking that brought the atrocity that was ball_doodle upon us. it looked good, and a well-liked player created it, so it had to be good, right? right?

Pieface
01-21-2011, 06:27 PM
Agree with SSD that adding maps to random without lots of testing is a bad idea. However, I do think that all maps with potential should be added to the custom commands since playing for points is the only way to get people to play seriously and give constructive feedback. Since a majority of the players would have to vote for a real game on the map, it also ensures that it only gets played by those willing to be the test subjects.

(/add tron to the custom votes so I can do final testing >:|)

Sunaku
01-21-2011, 07:55 PM
However, I do think that all maps with potential should be added to the custom commands since playing for points is the only way to get people to play seriously and give constructive feedback.
That's why I voted yes to Nikon's poll. Not a definitive yes, but a "this map could improve a lot with just a few days in ladder" yes.

I know some are reluctant to the idea of adding work-in-progress maps to the custom rotation after what happened with doodle. But the reason why doodle left a lot of us butthurt (at least I was) is not because the map was incredibly awful — just a resize away from being very good in my opinion. It's only because it stayed on ladder too long after its issues were identified, which led to unnecessary frustration. But for all the trauma the doodle era caused, it had the virtue of providing a lot of feedback. Admittedly much in the form of tears, yells and name-calling, but feedback nonetheless. Would have Nasty still been active at that moment, that I have no doubt the map could have been official by now.

Mandrad's point is crucial in that in such a small community, even the most motivated map maker still needs all the cooperation he can get for his project to succeed. I'm the first guilty for not giving enough feedback, but I think we're plenty in that case.

Some attempts have been made to build structures in order to smooth the testing process, like the current Ladder Map Project or Peanut Gallery, but alas without much success so far. The main reason why this feedback is hard to obtain, aside from the testers' chronic laziness, is the genuine difficulty to find a competitve environment and get appropriate gameplay.

Unless some official process is sponsored by the developers, the next best thing in term of feedback gathering is the ladder. It combines some of the most popular servers with some of the highest level of gameplay outside of tournaments. This is why I think that ladder could play an even more decisive part in the testing process, by allowing more unfinished maps in the rotation.

Concretely, something like one single unfinished map in the map pool at a time, for a 1-2 weeks cycle seems tolerable. A bit like doodle, except that a close monitoring would ensure potential damage control. At the end of that period, another map or map version could be introduced to replace the previous one, and so on.

I realize this is a burden Nobo or the admins don't really need on their plate, and that players could be anxious about their rating. But I believe there is a better, and still reasonable, middle-ground to be found if we ever want the map creation to take off.

sunshineduck
01-21-2011, 08:06 PM
I felt that allowing maps that are "under construction" to be played for points in the custom rotation but not in the random rotation was an acceptable compromise. It's my opinion that throwing incomplete maps into the random rotation defeats the purpose of the custom_random function. Yes, people could avoid playing maps that are still in the testing phase by voting the maps they want to play, but I figure it'd be easier to allow these maps to be played for points in a competitive environment with willing participants rather than people possibly forced in against their will.

andy
01-21-2011, 08:13 PM
I actually think that this is the right way to do it, we have played some games on atmosphere and they all counted towards the rating but still your not forced to play on an "unofficial" map if you dont want to. custom_random should just have official maps imo. I think a map needs at least 20 games played before it can be added to the random rotation.

This map is actually good and i encourage people to get in ladder and vote it in order to gather some feedback and make it random worthy.

Pieface
01-21-2011, 08:47 PM
I felt that allowing maps that are "under construction" to be played for points in the custom rotation but not in the random rotation was an acceptable compromise. It's my opinion that throwing incomplete maps into the random rotation defeats the purpose of the custom_random function. Yes, people could avoid playing maps that are still in the testing phase by voting the maps they want to play, but I figure it'd be easier to allow these maps to be played for points in a competitive environment with willing participants rather than people possibly forced in against their will.

Yeah, I wasn't really referring to Nikon's map here. In general I agree that the ones put in the random pool should all have been thoroughly tested first. However, I feel that all maps with potential should be playable for points via /vote custom start so that final feedback and corrections can be made. Leaving maps with generally solid structure (correctly collidable geometry, graphics, appropriate size) in the test pool to rot and die while others (such as assembly) are immediately playable for points and thus improvable really doesn't make much sense to me.

rojo
01-21-2011, 09:10 PM
Yeah, I wasn't really referring to Nikon's map here. In general I agree that the ones put in the random pool should all have been thoroughly tested first. However, I feel that all maps with potential should be playable for points via /vote custom start so that final feedback and corrections can be made. Leaving maps with generally solid structure (correctly collidable geometry, graphics, appropriate size) in the test pool to rot and die while others (such as assembly) are immediately playable for points and thus improvable really doesn't make much sense to me.

I think there is an assumption that since there are more active ball servers than TBD servers with elevated levels of play OUTSIDE of ladder (not official 1), that these are the areas that these maps need to be tested, not in ladder. I could be wrong.

In general, people aren't giving these mapmakers enough quality feedback. Peanut gallery lasted for a couple weeks, and provided some good feedback (I think), but that fizzled quickly. What I think these guys need is something sustainable and objective, not simply 'well its fun' or 'HELLZ YA I LIKE ITZ'. They also need to know what type of criteria (other than public support) is required for maps to get into ladder, because as SSD stated "the buck stops here."

Why not provide generic "forms" or something like that that can provide this type of feedback and make it available to both the Ladder Map Project Super Duper Leader and the mapmaker?

Actual question: SSD, what (objectively) makes this map unsuited for ladder at this moment?

Nikon
01-21-2011, 09:22 PM
I'm glad there is some actual conversation going about this for once, it needed to be addressed.

sunshineduck
01-21-2011, 10:02 PM
I think there is an assumption that since there are more active ball servers than TBD servers with elevated levels of play OUTSIDE of ladder (not official 1), that these are the areas that these maps need to be tested, not in ladder. I could be wrong.

In general, people aren't giving these mapmakers enough quality feedback. Peanut gallery lasted for a couple weeks, and provided some good feedback (I think), but that fizzled quickly. What I think these guys need is something sustainable and objective, not simply 'well its fun' or 'HELLZ YA I LIKE ITZ'. They also need to know what type of criteria (other than public support) is required for maps to get into ladder, because as SSD stated "the buck stops here."

Why not provide generic "forms" or something like that that can provide this type of feedback and make it available to both the Ladder Map Project Super Duper Leader and the mapmaker?

Actual question: SSD, what (objectively) makes this map unsuited for ladder at this moment?

It's hard for me to truly objectively judge a map, but there are a couple of specific reasons I'm hesitant to add atmosphere directly into the random pool.

On the few instances I've actually played the map it feels entirely too gimmicky to be an official map, with the majority of the objects seemingly placed to create optimal bounces for cool looking trick shots and bounce passes rather than to influence actual gameplay one way or the other. While this is fun and suits my personal bounce-heavy playstyle, I'm not 100% convinced that this will translate well into competitive play, and I haven't seen any evidence contrary to this belief. Obviously I believe it has potential to eventually make it into the random rotation, otherwise I wouldn't even bother allowing it to be played for points. I also noticed that mikesol was among the people that voted no, and I respect his opinion on these matters more than anyone but my own. He didn't make a post elaborating his stance, but I think it may be for the same reasons that I don't think it's ready. There's a huge leap between a map being fun and well-polished and it being ready to be branded as an official ladder map.

I think you bring up a good idea in the generic forms, I'll need to think on this a bit and see if I can even commit the time necessary to do all this. I think I could be able to manage having a thread up for ball (and a separate one for tbd) ladder stating which maps can be played for points and asking for feedback with a general questionnaire to be filled out. This obviously won't help get the maps tested, but when they are tested then it will help give accurate and objective feedback on the map.

@Pieface: The reason I haven't thrown tbd_tron into the custom_start pool is because the tbd ladder map pool is currently pretty much set. As of right now, I'm looking for a team bomb map to replace lostcity and a neutral map to possibly replace middleground. Assembly looks like it will do the job nicely as the neutral map, and chess and origamipark are both currently in testing as the team bomb counterpart. As of right now both these maps are more polished and complete than tbd_tron and just need some more testing to be absolutely sure. I think the general consensus is that chess is not ready, however, and it appears that silent skies has given up on making maps, so there may be an opening for tron to replace it in the custom_start pool, but as of right now it's of low priority. Sorry :\

Sunaku
01-21-2011, 10:12 PM
I felt that allowing maps that are "under construction" to be played for points in the custom rotation but not in the random rotation was an acceptable compromise. It's my opinion that throwing incomplete maps into the random rotation defeats the purpose of the custom_random function. Yes, people could avoid playing maps that are still in the testing phase by voting the maps they want to play, but I figure it'd be easier to allow these maps to be played for points in a competitive environment with willing participants rather than people possibly forced in against their will.
This is already a fair compromise that I even advocated for (http://altitudegame.com/forums/showthread.php?p=48793#post48793). Honestly, I overlooked the implementation of that feature; without any mention in the change log thread, I thought the testing potential was limited at the custom test_map command, which didn't quite feel satisfactory. So it's good to know the possibility of serious testing is there, and maybe it would deserve more publicity.
That said and seeing the current map making reality, I'm wondering if it's enough and if the further step I mentioned is not required. I'll leave the question as purely rhetorical until I get the chance to vote some custom start_WIP and see the results.

Nonetheless, even after the removal of doodle, it's safe to assume that all the remaining maps in the random pool are not unanimously approved. Someone playing an official map s/he dislikes could say this map is still untested or unfinished.
My point is that people are already willing to be forced to play questionable maps in a reasonable amount, as they're doing it every time they play a custom_random. In that aspect, I don't think that promoting a new map every now and then would considerably undermine the ladder and hinder its purpose.

Pieface
01-21-2011, 10:26 PM
Thanks for the clarification SSD. Still don't agree that origami/chess are necessarily more viable than tron but at least I see where you're coming from. Still, the fact is the map's pretty much at a standstill right now and that is mainly due to the fact that nobody actually cares enough to play a competitive game on a map that doesn't have anything at stake for them. Similarly, I personally feel that the dynamics of assembly make it not even close to being ready for ladder (though the art is really nice!).

I guess I was just confused about why certain maps seem to get precedence over others with about as much testing simply because they were made first.

Nikon
01-21-2011, 10:28 PM
Pieface, would you please clarify on what map your talking about? if your talking about another map on this thread please clarify or I just get really confused.

Pieface
01-21-2011, 10:41 PM
Sorry about that, I swung the thread to map making in general. I'll let you get back to your discussion now. :)

Mandrad
01-22-2011, 12:00 AM
this is the same ass-backwards thinking that brought the atrocity that was ball_doodle upon us. it looked good, and a well-liked player created it, so it had to be good, right? right?
Doodle never looked good to me - again, never played it - but the empty space, which is all that matters here, always looked wrong.
As previously mentioned, testing map doesnt have to hang in there forever. I think 1 week being played is time enough to get all the conclusions. Problem is, who will say what exactly is good enough is somehow subjective and "problems" will come for sure.
Im completely apart from the ladder scene mostly because atitude is an issue there, but one thing im certain of, ladder and its xtreme competitivity will die of boredom if new maps dont keep refreshing it. Thats why a testing compromiss doesnt seem too much of an engagement.
Im sry i cant easily express myself in english... hope that message passes.

sunshineduck
01-22-2011, 12:21 AM
I disagree completely. The competitive scene won't die out if there's not an influx of new maps, the amount of joy expressed whenever tbd_asteroids comes up on random pretty much makes my argument.

Mandrad
01-22-2011, 12:29 AM
I disagree completely. Thats because roids is "the light". There can be only one. Question is: Is it enough?

Nikon
01-22-2011, 12:30 AM
I disagree completely. The competitive scene won't die out if there's not an influx of new maps, the amount of joy expressed whenever tbd_asteroids comes up on random pretty much makes my argument.

That does not mean people won't enjoy new maps now and then.

And ssd, what would you like me to change about my map if you don't think it's ready?

ps. you should look at my new update.

sunshineduck
01-22-2011, 12:53 AM
That does not mean people won't enjoy new maps now and then.

And ssd, what would you like me to change about my map if you don't think it's ready?

ps. you should look at my new update.

I am aware of the fact that new maps are good for the game, that's the entire reason I'm running the map project when nobody else would. Preaching to the choir >_>

And I haven't played enough of the map to really make an accurate judge on any major changes, all I know from my experience is that changing it to make it like other maps would take a complete and total overhaul of the map. This is why I'm so heavily dependent on other people to make accurate and in-depth posts about the map. Your map is gorgeous and very well-polished - the only reason it's not in the random pool already is because of it's uniqueness. A map that plays completely differently from other maps in the pool is obviously going to have to go through a longer and more strenuous examination phase.

Goose
01-22-2011, 03:45 AM
I think ball_atmosphere should be made an official map permanently. Every game i have played on this map has a real good flow to it, and it offers some nice passing lanes.