Change the Voting System back.

[xExplore]

I actually quite like the new voting system. In my opinion, the maps that are underplayed are disliked because people don't give them a chance. Just as much time and effort has gone into an unplayed map like Origins or Vida Cova as has gone into ones that are over played, like valleyside and sg4.
I like this system, it gives all maps a chance at being voted.

Well, an important thing for SG Players is PvP.

In my opinion, SG4 is the best PvP map.
Valleyside is also great for PvP.

Vida Cova isn't.
It's very hilly, and I think that doesn't make the map optimal for PvP.

I also think that's the reason why people just want SG4 and Valleyside over and over again.

 

[bcfcAnt]

Let us put it this way. In the Canadian voting system there is no party with total power. When there is an election Members of Parliament of specific parties will run in their constituencies. If they win with most votes in said constituency, they will earn one of the 308 spots in parliament for their said party. Now, with this system it means that if an MP does NOT win the vote in their constituency, they just lost their .003 % chance they had for that seat in decision making to another party. Now when the election is over, the party with the most seats get to be the party in 'power'. But, if they got below 50% total seats, they are a minority and actually have LESS of a say than the other parties who were running and got into the house. But, if they got above 50% they have a majority government and have much more say in decision making, but not all of it. The point I'm trying to get at is this system IS fair, and can give everyone more of a say in the final result, sort of how when a map gets the least votes it can still affect what the final outcome is. Though just like in the Canadian voting system, majority does not NECESSARILY rule and in the end that is more fair to have the beliefs of everyone spoken for. Like in the new voting, majority does have the most power but we are giving the underdogs the chance to prove themselves that they deserve.

That was completely irrelevant to the point. I mean, comparing voting on MCSG to this lol.

 

[Tyco]

Well, an important thing for SG Players is PvP.

In my opinion, SG4 is the best PvP map.
Valleyside is also great for PvP.

Vida Cova isn't.
It's very hilly, and I think that doesn't make the map optimal for PvP.

I also think that's the reason why people just want SG4 and Valleyside over and over again.

It's not that it isn't good for PvP, it's because everyone likes to play on a flat field rather than trying to think of strategies in harder areas. Not everyone is like "OMG fishing rod is best start" or "fns is sooo good #yolo". Everybody seems to have forgotten "maybe if I can trick him into getting close to the edge I can knock him off" or out parkouring them to escape.

That was completely irrelevant to the point. I mean, comparing voting on MCSG to this lol.

You missed MY point, I was trying to explain how majority ruling isn't necessarily the fairest way to go about doing things.

 

[Dah_Hobbit]

Well, an important thing for SG Players is PvP.

In my opinion, SG4 is the best PvP map.
Valleyside is also great for PvP.

Vida Cova isn't.
It's very hilly, and I think that doesn't make the map optimal for PvP.

I also think that's the reason why people just want SG4 and Valleyside over and over again.

It's called MCSG not MCPVP. If you want straight up pvp MCSG has that. However, it is called the survival games for a reason. You need to survive.

 

[Joel/MadDawg]

Here we go.

You ever heard of the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"?

The system was broke in lots of people's opinions (mine included). It rewarded maps that had lots of tier twos and modern, simplistic themes. In essence, the system rewarded maps that it was easy to get stacked on and give you the illusion that you have a good chance of winning.

That applies here on so many levels it's unreal, the whole point in users voting is to play a map we like. I mean there can be 30 votes on one map, and 1 on the other which clearly no one wants to play except for that one person and that map could possibly win. If you ask me that's ridiculous.

If clearly no one wants to play a map then why did one person vote for it? Also, it's fair that this map has a chance of winning, because someone does want to play it. Sure, the map should lose most of the time. But it's unfair to throw out the opinion of one person on the map that should be played solely because they don't agree with everyone else.

I can see why you added this, to play the 'underplayed maps' but at the end of the day, it's just causing everyone to just leave the game if these maps get randomly chosen. I do myself, I don't play the map for a reason, I don't want to. This is why my vote used to count, but now it doesn't. You're taking away the privilege of allowing us to vote for a map we actually like.

Sure, the map with 3 votes will beat the one with 18 once every while, but most of the time the majority would still win. It's absurd to say that your vote doesn't matter anymore simply because what you vote for doesn't win every time anymore (can't always get what you want). Honestly, your vote probably matters more in this new system than before. Back then the winning map usually won by a large sum of votes, meaning that yours didn't technically affect the outcome. But now your votes matter more because you're trying to increase the chances of winning as much as possible.

You could argue "You still increase the chance of playing the map you like", but at the end of the day that means nothing. The fact that a map with a 1% chance can still win is just ridiculous, it's 1% for a reason.

I did just argue that, and "at the end of the day" it does mean something. A map with 1% of the votes will win 1% of the time, and I don't see what's ridiculous about that (1% of votes = 1% chance of being played; what doesn't make sense about that?)

I've never heard of any complaints with the old voting system except for users complaining about some maps being 'underplayed' but now you've made the situation worse because you're forcing us to play these maps which we don't play for a reason.

No one's forcing you to play anything. You have the right to leave a server if you don't like the map. However, I do recommend playing some underplayed maps because my guess as to why you don't like them is because you've never taken the time to play or analyze them.

I've heard a lot more complaints over this voting system in a matter of days whereas the old voting system was fine.

You didn't hear complaints about the old voting system because we don't whine when we don't like something

The overall feeling that I get from your post is that you're upset your diamond donor doesn't guarantee you a game on a map that you like anymore. I recommend that you take the time to learn the maps you don't like, because then you might discover that they're not so bad after all

 

[bcfcAnt]

The overall feeling that I get from your post is that you're upset your diamond donor doesn't guarantee you a game on a map that you like anymore. I recommend that you take the time to learn the maps you don't like, because then you might discover that they're not so bad after all

No and to be honest I've started to play a lot less than usual anyway, just figured I'd post my opinion. I'm not 'upset' that my diamond donor doesn't guarantee a game on a map that I like anymore.

and I don't want to play the maps. It's becoming more clear to me that the people who are here to PvP, including myself clearly like the maps with much more flat lands and these are usually the 'overplayed' maps. I know you guys say "PvP isn't that important we just wanna push someone off a cliff". Yes it's 'survival games' as I see a lot as an excuse, but you can't survive if you need to flee and there's no where to run because you have to keep jumping up some cliff where they can still hit you.

I still think this change was not needed because they're pleasing the minority rather than the majority. Sure it seems like you guys have the majority here but go and ask for opinions in-game. Not everyone posts on the forums, hell, I bet most don't even visit this side of the server.

I also see you guys saying if you don't like the map then leave - hell, you can do this too ya'know, so why complain about overplayed maps?

If you ask me the PvP element is the most important factor to MCSG, that's why people play, that's why people get addicted to it.

"If clearly no one wants to play a map then why did one person vote for it? Also, it's fair that this map has a chance of winning, because someone does want to play it. Sure, the map should lose most of the time. But it's unfair to throw out the opinion of one person on the map that should be played solely because they don't agree with everyone else."

I still completely disagree, why should 1 person out of 23 be satisfied, it's completely unfair to the majority. Now, if you say "If you don't like it, then leave" That'd leave one player remaining if all 23 disliked the map, in this case if that 1 person didn't want to play the 'overplayed' map then they have all the rights to leave, that was 23 people are satisfied.

 

[MoLoToV]

If you ask me the PvP element is the most important factor to MCSG, that's why people play, that's why people get addicted to it.

Being able to adapt to your surrounding is part of PvPing

 

[Joel/MadDawg]

and I don't want to play the maps. It's becoming more clear to me that the people who are here to PvP, including myself clearly like the maps with much more flat lands and these are usually the 'overplayed' maps. I know you guys say "PvP isn't that important we just wanna push someone off a cliff". Yes it's 'survival games' as I see a lot as an excuse, but you can't survive if you need to flee and there's no where to run because you have to keep jumping up some cliff where they can still hit you.

No one here said pvp isn't important. More terraformed maps make for much more strategy and require thought into your every action. Flat maps make for easy pvp, hillier maps make for interesting and strategic pvp.

I still think this change was not needed because they're pleasing the minority rather than the majority. Sure it seems like you guys have the majority here but go and ask for opinions in-game. Not everyone posts on the forums, hell, I bet most don't even visit this side of the server.

I have no illusion that the forums is a good place to get the opinions of an average Mcsg player. However, this update wasn't just done to please the minority, it was done to give a variety of maps a chance to be played. This map update doesn't have to only please the minority, if you just learn to like the interesting aspects of other maps then you may grow to like it.

I also see you guys saying if you don't like the map then leave - hell, you can do this too ya'know, so why complain about overplayed maps.

There was a three month span where I left every single valleyside and holiday game I encountered. And like I said in my first post, the complaints about overplayed maps are fairly mild in comparison to the outlash at this update (without giving time to really test and learn it).

If you ask me the PvP element is the most important factor to MCSG, that's why people play, that's why people get addicted to it..

I got addicted to Mcsg because It was fun, not because of the pvp. Heck, I still suck at pvp but have fun because I enjoy playing the game as a whole.

I still completely disagree, why should 1 person out of 23 be satisfied, it's completely unfair to the majority. Now, if you say "If you don't like it, then leave" That'd leave one player remaining if all 23 disliked the map, in this case if that 1 person didn't want to play the 'overplayed' map then they have all the rights to leave, that was 23 people are satisfied.

You don't seem to realize that the map the 23 people like will win over 95%of the time. There is nothing unfair about that.

 

[bcfcAnt]

Stop assuming I haven't tried the maps, even some of the maps I kinda have a like for, I still don't play them because I don't want to, hence why I vote for the other maps. I still think this has been a really bad move for MCSG personally and I've seen a lot of complaints in-game about the voting system and all it causes is people to get frustrated and leave the game because the map what should have won, didn't.

That in my eyes is completely unfair to us because we're waiting in a lobby which has a very high chance of the map you want to play, to be played then you suddenly get a map you hate, you check by typing /v and you see it's something ridiculous like 3%. That's very annoying because then you need to leave and wait again just in hope that the majority voted map gets picked.

 

[RC_4777]

Well, an important thing for SG Players is PvP.

In my opinion, SG4 is the best PvP map.
Valleyside is also great for PvP.

Vida Cova isn't.
It's very hilly, and I think that doesn't make the map optimal for PvP.

I also think that's the reason why people just want SG4 and Valleyside over and over again.

Despite being a creator of Vida Cova and finding it hard to not like it, as unbiased as I can be I absolutely love combat for Vida Cova. When I think good for PvP, I don't think flat; that is ridiculously boring and maps that only are flatland take only one skillset. Vida Cova makes you need strategic PvP skills; I am able to take advantage of strategy to use height, the water, vines, and the corn to rip opponents that might even be exponentially better geared.

Overall, I'm trying to say that if we only have maps that are flat, PvP is less dimensional. I don't have a problem with those maps, but I think it is much more entertaining to give players with other skills, such as use of environment, maps where they can outshine people that are good in a different area.

 

[TheMangoTiger]

Well, an important thing for SG Players is PvP.

In my opinion, SG4 is the best PvP map.
Valleyside is also great for PvP.

Vida Cova isn't.
It's very hilly, and I think that doesn't make the map optimal for PvP.

I also think that's the reason why people just want SG4 and Valleyside over and over again.

There are a lot of underplayed maps which are good for pvp, like Origins, sg1, sg2, kharmurah and so on. Also, Vida Cova does have hills, but it's called Survival Games for a reason. If you want to just pvp, go play Kit PvP or something. Survival Games is about using your surroundings to your advantage and doing whatever it takes to win.

 

[xExplore]

Despite being a creator of Vida Cova and finding it hard to not like it, as unbiased as I can be I absolutely love combat for Vida Cova. When I think good for PvP, I don't think flat; that is ridiculously boring and maps that only are flatland take only one skillset. Vida Cova makes you need strategic PvP skills; I am able to take advantage of strategy to use height, the water, vines, and the corn to rip opponents that might even be exponentially better geared.

Overall, I'm trying to say that if we only have maps that are flat, PvP is less dimensional. I don't have a problem with those maps, but I think it is much more entertaining to give players with other skills, such as use of environment, maps where they can outshine people that are good in a different area.

I'm not saying I don't like the map.
I actually think it's really nice built.
If we would only have 'PvP Fishing Rod maps eZ' then it'd be boring .
So yeah, it's true what you said here.