Community Vote: The great map voting debate 2014!

[MaxsGraphics]

I do not believe the Asia servers are still out there. Last I heard, the Asian servers were removed.

Really... Cause I just saw Asia again is it a glitch.

 

[Tryhard_Batman]

Really... Cause I just saw Asia again is it a glitch.

What do you mean 'you saw Asia'? Was the serer playable?

 

[MaxsGraphics]

What do you mean 'you saw Asia'? Was the serer playable?

In the automated hunger games link here I'll send it to you http://www.minecraftsurvivalgames.com/servers/

 

[Tryhard_Batman]

In the automated hunger games link here I'll send it to you http://www.minecraftsurvivalgames.com/servers/

Maybe a dev testing?

 

[Kinify]

yeah

 

[BitoBain]

I haven't been on MCSG in months, and I'm rather surprised that this got implemented! I also find it funny that in the beginning, 95% of us were all for it, now the polls say that only a little less than half of regular players want it. If people really don't like it, I say we find a way to improve it. We could do a voting cap, as has been mentioned, or have specific servers with voting. I had a strange thought before I even made the raffle voting thread, when I realized that the classic "29 votes for Valleyside, three votes for Fallen Colossi, Fallen Colossi wins" would make people really mad.

We could change it so that the more votes a specific map has, the more power each votes has. In other words, we could square the number of votes a map has, and that would be what is factored into the percentage. So if Valleyside has 29 votes, and Fallen Colossi has 3, then Valleyside really has 841 and Fallen Colossi has 9. That means Fallen Colossi would have only a 1.05% chance of being selected, rather than a 9.38% chance. It is a moderate balance between the two competing systems here. However, if Valleyside has 11 votes and SG 4 has 10, then it would be a fairly even match, with 121 on Valleyside and 100 on SG 4.

I initially didn't mention that because I figured it would be too complex for the MCSG masses to appreciate/understand, but who knows.
Long story, don't give up! Let's improve it!

 

[MaxsGraphics]

Maybe a dev testing?

I dont think so unless the Dev that is testing it is adding it back

 

[Qoku]

This is a new idea witch I think adds a fair play. I don't think that I have ever seen this kind of a voting system when it comes to survival games and other gamemodes. There are pros and cons to this but at least people who like different maps can have a chance at trying out a map and getting used to a map that is rarely voted for. I think it should stay however it does need a few improvements to it.

 

[NingleWingle]

Well, I am a Platinum donor, and really, I by this rank so I can pretty much guarantee that I can play the map that I feel like playing.

 

[SuperxAndrew]

ChadTheDJ
I tagged Chad because I am late to respond to this thread, but what I am going to say may fix the debate.

The main dislike that raffle voting gets from the community is when a map that has less than a 20% chance of getting voted gets picked. For example:

The Survival Games 4 (18 votes; 44%)
Breeze Island 2 (4 votes; 1%)
The Survival Games 3 (1 vote; 0.2%)
Moonbase 9 (6 votes; 15%)
The Survival Games 2 (12 votes; 30%)
*Numbers and Percentages are estimates.

Given the scenario above it is clear that either SG2 or Sg4 should be chosen. However, what brings negative feelings towards the raffle system is when SG3 (that has a 0.2% chance of being picked) gets picked.

In order to fix this, any map that doesn't get at least 30% or higher of the votes should be thrown out. So, in the scenario above it would either be Sg2 or Sg4 being picked while the others are thrown out.

This is a very reasonable solution to the problem. It provides a way to still add variation, keeps the very good idea of a raffle vote, but guarantees that maps that don't get at least 30% of the popular vote don't get played.

I think I made my resolution clear, but if not, just respond with a question.

 

[3point]

ChadTheDJ
I tagged Chad because I am late to respond to this thread, but what I am going to say may fix the debate.

The main dislike that raffle voting gets from the community is when a map that has less than a 20% chance of getting voted gets picked. For example:

The Survival Games 4 (18 votes; 44%)
Breeze Island 2 (4 votes; 1%)
The Survival Games 3 (1 vote; 0.2%)
Moonbase 9 (6 votes; 15%)
The Survival Games 2 (12 votes; 30%)
*Numbers and Percentages are estimates.

Given the scenario above it is clear that either SG2 or Sg4 should be chosen. However, what brings negative feelings towards the raffle system is when SG3 (that has a 0.2% chance of being picked) gets picked.

In order to fix this, any map that doesn't get at least 30% or higher of the votes should be thrown out. So, in the scenario above it would either be Sg2 or Sg4 being picked while the others are thrown out.

This is a very reasonable solution to the problem. It provides a way to still add variation, keeps the very good idea of a raffle vote, but guarantees that maps that don't get at least 30% of the popular vote don't get played.

I think I made my resolution clear, but if not, just respond with a question.

I have to disagree. Firstly, your math is off by quite a bit. SG3 actually has around a 2.5% chance (1/41) chance of being picked. Despite that, SG3 is only going to win 1 out of 41 times. Why eliminate it? Sure, SG4 is a much better map, and because of that it is 18 times as likely to win the vote.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is knocking maps out of the competition, as you say, defeats the point of raffle voting. Unless I'm mistaken, the goal is to even out the voting so certain maps have a better chance of winning. Your system would bring back the same problem that raffle voting eliminated; only certain maps would be played. Is this what the community wants? Maybe, but if so we should just bring back the old system.

SG4, in this case and in general, will win a lot more, but it's fine if SG3 wins every once in a while. It's not unplayable, and if somebody voted for it it means someone is happy.

TL;DR Raffle voting is designed to give underplayed maps a chance, and they already have a much lower chance of winning percentage wise, so don't take that away.

 

[SuperxAndrew]

I have to disagree. Firstly, your math is off by quite a bit. SG3 actually has around a 2.5% chance (1/41) chance of being picked. Despite that, SG3 is only going to win 1 out of 41 times. Why eliminate it? Sure, SG4 is a much better map, and because of that it is 18 times as likely to win the vote.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is knocking maps out of the competition, as you say, defeats the point of raffle voting. Unless I'm mistaken, the goal is to even out the voting so certain maps have a better chance of winning. Your system would bring back the same problem that raffle voting eliminated; only certain maps would be played. Is this what the community wants? Maybe, but if so we should just bring back the old system.

SG4, in this case and in general, will win a lot more, but it's fine if SG3 wins every once in a while. It's not unplayable, and if somebody voted for it it means someone is happy.

TL;DR Raffle voting is designed to give underplayed maps a chance, and they already have a much lower chance of winning percentage wise, so don't take that away.

First off all, I know that my math was off http://puu.sh/8JXXp.png (as posted above). I wasn't giving a real scenario as far as the numbers go.

I understand what you are saying, but you confused what I was saying. If 3 maps get at least 30% of votes then it would be a raffle between those maps. All I was trying to do what meet in the middle. Still have a raffle of the top voted maps, but not have the map that gets less than 5% picked.