Map Committee

[Claps]

I love this idea. Whoever thought of it is a genius!

 

[The Arena Master]

Awesome! Very interested to see what happens with this.

 

[RC_4777]

We've got Craptain and Canadian Weasley on the committee, great.

Don't worry, I love you guys and the idea ! <3

 

[Fox]

This is going to be beautifurr.

 

[Halo_0]

Dats hawt...

 

[shoottomaim]

Why do people have to be in a build team to join the map committee? Surely, the opinion of people who play MCSG frequently make a difference, no? I don't mean to insult anyone, but those on a build team don't necessarily have to be active players in the community. By inviting regulars from MCSG, you get a variety of different opinions of subjects relating (but not limited) to gameplay and aesthetics. If you limit the people who are invited onto the map committee to those in a build team, you limit yourself to people who have experience building maps, but you also limit yourself to the opinion of those who build maps.
I ask for one or two spots on the map committee to be reserved for regulars or well-known players of the MCSG community who have played the Survival Games for a long time and have experience, and can tell a well-built map in terms of aesthetics and gameplay and are mature enough to make a decision for the MCSG community as a whole.
By taking the time out of my schedule to make this post, I am by no means attempting to offend those on the current committee because truthfully, I believe those on the committee deserve the spot, but I am asking for one or two-spots on the committee to be reserved for regulars who will speak the opinion of the MCSG community and themselves as experienced players. By doing this, I believe that the committee will be improved and then will I fully accept that this is the right decision.

 

[Tree_TheBigKind]

Why do people have to be in a build team to join the map committee? Surely, the opinion of people who play MCSG frequently make a difference, no? I don't mean to insult anyone, but those on a build team don't necessarily have to be active players in the community. By inviting regulars from MCSG, you get a variety of different opinions of subjects relating (but not limited) to gameplay and aesthetics. If you limit the people who are invited onto the map committee to those in a build team, you limit yourself to people who have experience building maps, but you also limit yourself to the opinion of those who build maps.
I ask for one or two spots on the map committee to be reserved for regulars or well-known players of the MCSG community who have played the Survival Games for a long time and have experience, and can tell a well-built map in terms of aesthetics and gameplay and are mature enough to make a decision for the MCSG community as a whole.
By taking the time out of my schedule to make this post, I am by no means attempting to offend those on the current committee because truthfully, I believe those on the committee deserve the spot, but I am asking for one or two-spots on the committee to be reserved for regulars who will speak the opinion of the MCSG community and themselves as experienced players. By doing this, I believe that the committee will be improved and then will I fully accept that this is the right decision.

I see the point you're trying to make and there are parts I agree about. Getting into that position of leading a build team is extremely tough and so there's only a few that even have a chance to get on the committee (I think that's the main point you were getting at). While I definitely agree about this, I think that it should remain the way it is currently (it could change in the future, you never know). This is because those in charge of build teams have so much of their day dedicated to maps and building. Through this, we are constantly exposed to all the aspects of building. Now, as you suggested in your post, adding normal or well-known players that are knowledgeable in aesthetics and gameplay might not be the best way to go (I could be wrong here as it's all up to opinions). Like I stated previously, those on the committee dedicate an enormous part of their days, weeks, and months (etc) purely to building. This is where it contrasts to the normal/well-known players idea that you suggested. While they would still know quite a lot in terms of aesthetics and gameplay, the build team leaders would most likely (again, I could be wrong) know more since it's their job (so to say). This is why there's currently just build team leaders.
Like I said before, it could change in the future. The committee has just now started so we're still working some stuff out with it.

 

[shoottomaim]

I see the point you're trying to make and there are parts I agree about. Getting into that position of leading a build team is extremely tough and so there's only a few that even have a chance to get on the committee (I think that's the main point you were getting at). While I definitely agree about this, I think that it should remain the way it is currently (it could change in the future, you never know). This is because those in charge of build teams have so much of their day dedicated to maps and building. Through this, we are constantly exposed to all the aspects of building. Now, as you suggested in your post, adding normal or well-known players that are knowledgeable in aesthetics and gameplay might not be the best way to go (I could be wrong here as it's all up to opinions). Like I stated previously, those on the committee dedicate an enormous part of their days, weeks, and months (etc) purely to building. This is where it contrasts to the normal/well-known players idea that you suggested. While they would still know quite a lot in terms of aesthetics and gameplay, the build team leaders would most likely (again, I could be wrong) know more since it's their job (so to say). This is why there's currently just build team leaders.
Like I said before, it could change in the future. The committee has just now started so we're still working some stuff out with it.

Now that I re-read my post and have read yours, I agree with you completely, but there is one point I have to make that may seem cliché, but it's a valid point and I'd like to bring it up. The map committee was formed on the behalf of the MCSG community as a filter in a sense: to let in the better maps and block off the maps that need improving. But should the community make the decision of the maps that can be played, or a specific group of individuals who know what they're doing?

 

[Toast]

Now that I re-read my post and have read yours, I agree with you completely, but there is one point I have to make that may seem cliché, but it's a valid point and I'd like to bring it up. The map committee was formed on the behalf of the MCSG community as a filter in a sense: to let in the better maps and block off the maps that need improving. But should the community make the decision of the maps that can be played, or a specific group of individuals who know what they're doing?

I've said this several times in different threads, the community should NOT have the power to choose the map they want on the servers. Why? you may ask. Well the answer is simple. MCSG's community as a whole, at the present time, is soley PvP based, meaning: If the entire community at this moment, voted for an SG map out of EVERY existing SG map, we would have maps that are complete flatlands with dull structures(Moonlight Lake(A good example of this point I'm trying to make, because the main reason it was accepted is because the community liked it)).

 

[Tree_TheBigKind]

Now that I re-read my post and have read yours, I agree with you completely, but there is one point I have to make that may seem cliché, but it's a valid point and I'd like to bring it up. The map committee was formed on the behalf of the MCSG community as a filter in a sense: to let in the better maps and block off the maps that need improving. But should the community make the decision of the maps that can be played, or a specific group of individuals who know what they're doing?

The next thing I'm gonna say is definitely gonna seem bad....It'll probably make me seem like a jerk but I'll say it- The committee is very easily persuaded and this makes a lot of the decisions wrong sometimes. I'll elaborate on that. When people use an extreme texture pack and/or shaders when they post their map, people flip out and say they love it when the map can be really bad to be honest.... This is why we need people who won't be swayed so easily. This is why need those individuals who carefully review the details down to every last block.

 

[shoottomaim]

I've said this several times in different threads, the community should NOT have the power to choose the map they want on the servers. Why? you may ask. Well the answer is simple. MCSG's community as a whole, at the present time, is soley PvP based, meaning: If the entire community at this moment, voted for an SG map out of EVERY existing SG map, we would have maps that are complete flatlands with dull structures(Moonlight Lake(A good example of this point I'm trying to make, because the main reason it was accepted is because the community liked it)).

You have a point... but is there any way you as the committee and pick maps and have the community have a vote and see which one out of the 3 (as an example) can be picked? I still feel strongly about the community having a say..

 

[EvermoreHD]

I've said this several times in different threads, the community should NOT have the power to choose the map they want on the servers. Why? you may ask. Well the answer is simple. MCSG's community as a whole, at the present time, is soley PvP based, meaning: If the entire community at this moment, voted for an SG map out of EVERY existing SG map, we would have maps that are complete flatlands with dull structures(Moonlight Lake(A good example of this point I'm trying to make, because the main reason it was accepted is because the community liked it)).

So what your saying is that the community's opinions don't matter because they're different from map makers?