Pro: Voting prevents the players from complaining that the map they're playing sucks, and voting to end the map.

Con: We don't need to play facing worlds or capture city every other map.

Dave told me to vote No...so


Joke..well actually he did, but i already agreed on IRC..

..the fun maps are 'fun' but it is nice to play some GOOD gameplay maps..not like how dave says..capturecity, facingworlds, mental space and succersocks, oh and pushmectf..

Well Dave didn't tell me to vote Dave, but those damn voices I keep hearing did!

...yeah the current voting for CTF is just wrong. I can't stand to play the same maps over and over. I know they're great CTF maps and fun, but they just get old too quick if you play them every other map. There's plenty more CTF maps out there ladies and gents, lets at least give those a try too.

Maybe blocking a map for a while after it has been played would be a good idea.
Eg. after Mentalspace has been played it will not been offered for the next 5 rounds.

Or maps could get tags like "fun-map" and in every third round only "serious" maps are offered.

(And every tenth round only maps with the "really-sucks" tag are offered )

I don't like the voting much in general to be honest, not only on CTF. Here's why.

CTF:
Lately [since 2.3] I have been leaving servers sooner then I was planning on beforehand because of another game at Facing Worlds or another crap map. OK, Facing Worlds is not a 'crap map' but it does get tiresome after two games or so. Like any other map that gets played too much I guess. I don't have a gripe against Facing Worlds but more with the way a lot of people seem to play there which makes it tiresome even faster. How many just grab a nex and snipe... well, get sniped really on the side of the tower. It all just seems a bit silly. But I'm straying off topic here but the essence is that I voted for No with that reason.

DM:
And in CTF most of the people know the maps by name because most of them are named pretty convincingly. But in DM/Minsta a lot of maps that are not in 2.3 itself have very arbitrary names, slightly random letters and numbers... I have played a lot of Nexuiz the last year and STILL don't know most maps with their names, other then the standard ones so another problem occurs. Even if people don't know what map Aggressor is it easily wins over a map that can not in any way be judged by its name. An d that is fine every now and then because it's a great map... but it might get frustrating when you want to play non-standard maps as well.

In general:
There is a problem with it that also goes further then "people vote crap maps". I mean... if the majority of people on the server are voting for crap maps then clearly the majority of people on a server want to play crap maps... and if the voting is to be untouched and an outing of our democratic intentions then it works perfectly. But we DO end up playing a lot of crap maps Some of the players, probably the most vocal or Nexuiz-experienced ones, do not like that and start trying to change it. Which is fine I guess but devalues the voting system. I have seen the following scenario's played out multiple times already on different servers:

1. People on server vote 'crap map' -> others call a vote to get rid of it... a lot of people still don't know how to accept/reject a vote or are too busy starting the game to care [despite of the annoying stuff on screen whenever you have not voted yet] -> map gets changed.

2. People on server vote 'crap map' -> server admin changes the map.

Where is the democracy in that ?

My suggestion ? Ditch the voting system as a default and bring back the map lists as the standard way of doing things. Keep the voting as an option for those server admins that want it.

If this all just sounded like a stream of random thoughts... it probably was.

I don't remember how the system works but it would be nice if the maps in the end have not been played for a while. I think it's a great feature in general, which is not that common in other games.

my useless 2 cents.

I found that the few seconds during voting can be an interesting experiment in reverse psychology. If there are 2 maps in question, more often then not, requesting one map will cause people to decide to vote on the other.

Voting in general is good, but I would like to see an additional cvar which would require X many maps be played before a repeat is allowed.

So something along the lines of a separate cvar containing the names of the last X maps played not be allowed into the vote...

maybe it already exists, I never even looked I guess

i secondn willis

Thirded.

I think the AMX mod for CS did that, now that I think about it. Or had an option similar to it - been a while since I played CS actively.

Willis wrote:Voting in general is good, but I would like to see an additional cvar which would require X many maps be played before a repeat is allowed.

So something along the lines of a separate cvar containing the names of the last X maps played not be allowed into the vote...

maybe it already exists, I never even looked I guess

The thing is, QC is a very limited programming language and such things are quite hard to implement there... once I have time (not now) I will try implementing that. Storing the recently played maps in a cvar however IS ugly... but there is no other data store one can use.

At least we FINALLY have string operations, so we don't need to tokenize() the cvar any more to check if it contains the map we are playing...

EDIT: such code is now in testing on the RBI servers. The cvar will be called g_maplist_mostrecent_count (default: 3), and it will be configurable whether or not vcall chmap and suggestmap are allowed to override this.

Dave wrote:Pro: Voting prevents the players from complaining that the map they're playing sucks, and voting to end the map.

Con: We don't need to play facing worlds or capture city every other map.

So, the Con now has been almost solved - one can configure how many previous maps are not allowed to be repeated (default: 3, but maybe 5 is better... not sure)... if there are not enough maps for that to be possible, maps still repeat (no server crash) but map suggesting will stop working (as anything you suggest would be recent).

But... a vote on voting?

divVerent wrote:But... a vote on voting?

Of course, and I'm coming close to being elected it seems?

It is a good thing, but I agree on how its awful to play the same maps over and over. Maybe add optional revisions such as after "X map" is voted "X times" it isn't displayed for "X amount of time".

Or add an option for just maps to cycle.

I don't know whats involved in this and most likely getting carried away.
Variety and choice is nice though. sometimes...

Less waiting for a map vote, more time fragging.

Aside from providing time for a quick dash to take a leak or get another coffee, I prefer jumping right into the next map, no voting needed.

melk wrote:Less waiting for a map vote, more time fragging.

True, but what is it, like 40 seconds more? =)

Also the small breaks are almost like part of Nexuiz. The "good game"s and it gives time to check out the scores and comment.

Yes, I like these small breaks too... when playing for a long time, I need some short breaks. Just for relaxing the hands a bit...