[Taiga] wrote:
Hey look, another drama topic.
*popcorn*
[Taiga] wrote:
Hey look, another drama topic.
*popcorn*
We have a system in place where quality the quality map is the focal point, it's called the "ranked-system".B1rd wrote:
Why are you making this whole thread to demonise the opinions of some people? Go takes your rants about elitism to that thread.
Any they have a point, bad and casual players just spam votes for the most popular/gimmicky map regardless of its quality. Low rank players spamming the lobby with it does not give it any more merit. The whole voting system is a stupid way to determine which maps are loved anyway.
An elitist attitude is good because it creates a standard that new players must reach rather than letting the game be dominated the lowest common denominator. You will notice what a cesspool this forum is compared to what it was half a decade ago.
The community is the target audience. The mentioned players are in the minority, but they act as if they were the majority or as if their opinions should outweigh the majority. If the majority wants the map to be loved, then it should be loved. That is the whole point of the loved-section, giving people maps they want to play without focus on the map's rankability.My Angel Wilchq wrote:
Can't you understand that players mentioned are also the target audience for these maps?
Do you really think that people who get 20% with nofail are equal in assessing maps as players who play them quite comfortably?
Call it eliticisim we don't care, it's the sad truth that WE THE ELITE know more and know better. Now go tell your parents that they are elitists since they always tell you what you should be doing in life only since they are more experienced. It's exactly the same situation here.
I personally don't really care what map goes there now, after some time most of the maps we want now will be included. But I have to say that I understand the people in question and agree with them.
There are many people who enjoy the patterns that are "boring" to you. It makes sense that the patterns are boring to you, because you've played the game for such a long time, but they aren't inherently boring for lower ranked players.My Angel Wilchq wrote:
It is a map with some potential but is mapped in a boring and ctrl + c ctrl + v way which should disqualify it from being loved.
go eat a dick low ranked plebs
The thing is, red like roses is a map that many people enjoy playing, no matter how you look at it.-Jukke- wrote:
the thing is, red like roses is a bad map no matter how you look at it. also what raiden and my angel wilchq said.
a person who cant play a certain map is not able to judge that map without a lot of mooding or mapping experience. and alot of 100ks dont have either the ability to play it nor the experience in mapping or modding. they just play it with nofail and think their cool when they hit one jump in a hundred (trust me i was like that too when i was very very low rank and someone put it in a lobby).
elitism in a case like this is very ok, since they actually are in the right and do know better
It depends on what you vote on.Raiden wrote:
You call it elitism? I like to call it common sense. Not like I'm in favour of any aristocracy or dictatorship, though.
This happens everywhere, not everyone is allowed to vote (not until the age 18 in most countries) and I haven't seen you calling all democratic government elitists because they don't let a 10 year old kid vote.
Same applies here, in my opinion. At age 10 you don't have enough maturity to discern what politics mean and how life works overall (hell not even at 18, but we still vote). See the relation now?
goodOr even in the OP itself. Now I don't know what the OP edited in the last couple days but:
TL;DR: The best unrankable maps could be moved to a special category where they would have scoreboards while giving no ppWe read words like "best" and "quality" here.
→AFTER BEING SELECTED AND PASSING A MODDING PROCCESS←
This'd encourage the creation of quality gimmick maps (as they'd get more attention) and reward players with unique skills.
Elitist groups are not what makes the standards. Elitist groups are literally what brings communities down.B1rd wrote:
An elitist attitude is good because it creates a standard that new players must reach rather than letting the game be dominated the lowest common denominator. You will notice what a cesspool this forum is compared to what it was half a decade ago.
May very well be the case, but seeing as Loved is still in a beta/alpha testing phase, those details should be figured out decided sooner or later. Whether for gimmicky maps only or just "popular" ones, it is what it is. Certain maps won't make it, certain maps will. Nothing you can do about it. If you really cared, you can promote the map and/or express your thoughts about it, but there's not reason to condemn people for being dumb for not realizing what a "masterpiece" it is.Endaris wrote:
I think a lot of the salt being spread roots in the idea of having a category for gimmicky maps being compromised by the preselector and by holding community votes.
Good point, I agree that higher ranked players are better at assessing higher ranked maps and this should be catered for somehow.My Angel Wilchq wrote:
Can't you understand that players mentioned are also the target audience for these maps?
Do you really think that people who get 20% with nofail are equal in assessing maps as players who play them quite comfortably?
You know you can make a point without being condescendingMy Angel Wilchq wrote:
go eat a dick low ranked plebs
Even if he is, its best to focus on the arguments rather than a persons character if you want this thread to be actual discussion rather than drama.Railey2 wrote:
You are such an elitist
Very underrated post, there are always going to be people that think their opinion leans more to objectiveness than subjectivity.CXu wrote:
Welp.
Objectively good/bad means nothing as long as the loved category is supposed to be what it is right now. If it did matter, we would just have a ranked category with more laxed rules, aka old approved.
OK extreme situation but my point is that lets say there's 3 maps for loved and you can only cast on vote, and he results are two maps with 33%, and one map with 34%, in the current system the map with 34% would be in the love section, but technically there's 66% of the voters oppose that one map being loved, so despite being the "majority" it's not an accurate representation of what the community wantswinber1 wrote:
umm, its either yes or no, so there is a majority and a minority. whether or not that majority is the "acitve" population of forum posters/"good players" is another question, but technically speaking they are still part of the "community"
it's not like you can just exclude them for being new
arguably more worthwhile than browsing classic G&R shitposts and repeated questionsYuudachi-kun wrote:
Haha look another useless railey thread intended to make argue for 10 pages
Lol? Looks like it turned out pretty well.N0thingSpecial wrote:
I mean just look at how democracy worked out for UK when they voted to leave EU.
They don't always oppose the map being loved, they usually just prefer it over another. If the community could instead rated the maps by 1-10 rather than there being a binary vote or not vote you would see a different story.N0thingSpecial wrote:
OK extreme situation but my point is that lets say there's 3 maps for loved and you can only cast on vote, and he results are two maps with 33%, and one map with 34%, in the current system the map with 34% would be in the love section, but technically there's 66% of the voters oppose that one map being loved, so despite being the "majority" it's not an accurate representation of what the community wants
I like this ideaKtkC wrote:
If you want to split up LOVED, that's a fine idea as well.
1. (Experienced Choice - top x000 players' votes only, or from a designated panel of users)
2. (Community - anyone can vote)
They may not fill the top of the boards but that doesn't mean they don't use them to compete with their friends. Though I agree that the better players probably use the boards more.-Jukke- wrote:
who do you think is gonna fill those leaderboards?
Good point, public attention is the other important purpose of the loved category that more competitive players probably forget. This loved category isn't ranked and is more about maps the community likes rather than competitive maps that are unable to be ranked.Stefan wrote:
What the fuck, the category has been added to give maps which are unsuitable for the rank status an own leaderboard and to give the attention to the public audience they deserve
Then the follow up question is how can you tell? I think this aspect of voting is ignored because there is no real way to factor this into the system without it losing its democraticness.N0thingSpecial wrote:
do these people actually like the map for the right reason?
Oh look another khelly post adding nothing to the discussion.Yuudachi-kun wrote:
Haha look another useless railey thread intended to make argue for 10 pages
You think I care about whether or not I'm adding to this meaningless discussion whose only purpose is to just incite meaningless G&R shitM3ATL0V3R wrote:
Oh look another khelly post adding nothing to the discussion.Yuudachi-kun wrote:
Haha look another useless railey thread intended to make argue for 10 pages
Fair enough, I understand if you don't want to get involved. Though the actual points discussed is interesting if the drama is disregarded.Yuudachi-kun wrote:
You think I care about whether or not I'm adding to this meaningless discussion whose only purpose is to just incite meaningless G&R shit
I'm just here to point out that: This is like the 4th time Railey feels like he has to do this
The problem with a system where people people rate maps by 1-10 is that different people have different standards for which value means what (some people would consider "5" average, "7" outstanding, and "10" incredibly good; while some people consider "9" average, and "10" good).M3ATL0V3R wrote:
They don't always oppose the map being loved, they usually just prefer it over another. If the community could instead rated the maps by 1-10 rather than there being a binary vote or not vote you would see a different story.N0thingSpecial wrote:
OK extreme situation but my point is that lets say there's 3 maps for loved and you can only cast on vote, and he results are two maps with 33%, and one map with 34%, in the current system the map with 34% would be in the love section, but technically there's 66% of the voters oppose that one map being loved, so despite being the "majority" it's not an accurate representation of what the community wants
That is a good system for a small candidate pool but when many maps are considered 1-10 is best. If every person had do list their preference for every map over each other it would be exhausting for the participants. That's why they use the 1-10 system on myanimelist, imdb, etcFull Tablet wrote:
The problem with a system where people people rate maps by 1-10 is that different people have different standards for which value means what (some people would consider "5" average, "7" outstanding, and "10" incredibly good; while some people consider "9" average, and "10" good).
Also, it is prone to abuse: people when they vote, want to maximize their own voting power, so if they think a map deserves a rating of "8", for example, they vote "10" instead to make sure the rating is pushed up (voting "8" would just be a weaker vote).
Instead of a rating system for votes, a better system would make each vote consist of a ranking of candidates from best to worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tr ... te#Example
Including everyone on the list in each vote is not mandatoryM3ATL0V3R wrote:
That is a good system for a small candidate pool but when many maps are considered 1-10 is best. If every person had do list their preference for every map over each other it would be exhausting for the participants. That's why they use the 1-10 system on myanimelist, imdb, etcFull Tablet wrote:
The problem with a system where people people rate maps by 1-10 is that different people have different standards for which value means what (some people would consider "5" average, "7" outstanding, and "10" incredibly good; while some people consider "9" average, and "10" good).
Also, it is prone to abuse: people when they vote, want to maximize their own voting power, so if they think a map deserves a rating of "8", for example, they vote "10" instead to make sure the rating is pushed up (voting "8" would just be a weaker vote).
Instead of a rating system for votes, a better system would make each vote consist of a ranking of candidates from best to worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tr ... te#Example
Ok i guess its better then, my bad.Full Tablet wrote:
Including everyone on the list in each vote is not mandatory
Maybe a better system would be a combination of both systems. 1-10 is simpler for the voters but gives unequal power in some situations. If however the 1-10 rating list of each user was converted into an equivalent STV preference list this system would have the advantages of both systems. Simple and fair.Full Tablet wrote:
The problem with a system where people people rate maps by 1-10 is that different people have different standards for which value means what (some people would consider "5" average, "7" outstanding, and "10" incredibly good; while some people consider "9" average, and "10" good).
Also, it is prone to abuse: people when they vote, want to maximize their own voting power, so if they think a map deserves a rating of "8", for example, they vote "10" instead to make sure the rating is pushed up (voting "8" would just be a weaker vote).
Instead of a rating system for votes, a better system would make each vote consist of a ranking of candidates from best to worst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_tr ... te#Example
Threads are a team effort but ill try my best not to postN0thingSpecial wrote:
M3ATL0V3R you're solo carrying this thread to 10 pages
Don't give up!M3ATL0V3R wrote:
Threads are a team effort but ill try my best not to postN0thingSpecial wrote:
M3ATL0V3R you're solo carrying this thread to 10 pages
or maybe he's solo-throwing itN0thingSpecial wrote:
M3ATL0V3R you're solo carrying this thread to 10 pages