Hooraytio: I mean those CMT maps what has been selected on EQL/NQR before. ;)

Regardless of my opinion on any map, the poll was conducted in terrible fashion. Whoever made it has no concept of the psychology of polls, or of basic statistics, thus this poll is entirely unsuitable as a tool to determine popular opinion.

And this isn't just me complaining because a map I like didn't get in. In fact, my favourite custom map (cmt1b) did get in, and finished top of the poll, which seems a rather questionable event in itself. By asking for a second round of voting, I put this in jeopardy. My complaints are not for personal gain.

I have been complaining about this poll since it started. Go read the first few posts of the front page signup news on quakeworld.nu to see the arguments.

Instead of addressing any concerns, the response was "But lets be honest, what ever approach we decide on, someone will find a way to hammer it." which seems to be "we can't please everyone, so we're not going to please anyone" and I don't find that acceptable.

"HangTime, I understand that it has flaws, as does ANY type of thing you come up with to decide this issue."

It doesn't just "have flaws", this might be the poll with the least potential for accuracy I have ever seen.

It's one step away from being a lottery, and excuse me if I don't think that's a good enough system to decide the only custom maps we will see for a whole year.

'"You talked to 3 clans that... blabla" Lol they must be the biggest idiots voting 'strategically' and then getting it back in the face when their map is not included.'

I neither condone nor condemn their actions. My statement was only to illustrate one of the many inherent flaws in the poll. "Idiots" or not, it is still a flaw of the poll, and the poll alone, that this was allowed to happen.


"talked to at least 3 clans: so now you bring this strong anecdotal evidence to the table?"

Anecdotal evidence indeed, but of a large enough sample size that it does in fact change the result of the poll, making it a perfectly acceptable comment to make. Two of those clans voted for cmt1b, even though it was their second choice, and one, at the time, said they were voting for schloss.

Just this one tiny alteration to the poll and already we have a new top two maps: cmt3 and cmt4 tied for 1st place on 11 votes, while cmt1b slips out with 10.

You accuse me of selfishness, and obviously I do want what I think is best for quakeworld to happen, but I did not ask for my word to be law. I did not say "give me the maps I want and fuck everyone else". Sure, I lobbied for a map I think is important, but I didn't say "put cmt3 in"; I asked for a more accurate version of the poll.

If you are going to choose maps based on popular opinion, then you should at least try to do it correctly.

Well, since it seems that 64% of players don't even want additional maps at all, if the admins have any sense this will be the last 5 map 4on4 tournament anyway. So from that perspective it doesn't really matter which maps we play for the one last time.

We pracced cmt4 yesterday. Seems like it only has one clear strategy. Take lg > go to ra > discharge nmy rls. Gr8 map guys!

Actually there is less to no flaws with the alternative suggestions hangtime proposted.
It is just beyond me why the admins chose this election method in the first place. I guess they did not wanna bother coding an option for ppl to vote in a proper manner suited for chosing 2 extra maps.

Maybe they are also tired of the map discussion and just dont care to put more time/effort into that part of this project.

What it seems hagge is that you don't know how to play the map. ;)

Of course I'm no expert on the map, but you do have to admit that it has flaws? Obviously it's important to take ra, but how would you deal with discharging nmys? It takes a lot of time to time the lg and make sure it stays in the team all the time due to the fact that it takes a bit of time getting to the lg, no?

Im a big fan of discharging enemies but even i understand that on cmt4 you are supposed to: get ra -> get lg -> povdmm4 for quad -> own all enemies with infinite amount of quadcells -> repeat for next quad. (every now and then there is a pent which requires some teamplay)

What you think is a flaw, is what some others might think of as a strength. If I get LG, want red armor and some stupid fuck with RL jumps in and wants to take a bath with me, what does he expect me to do? Shoot sg vs his RL in an underwater corridor that is tighter than his own ass? Preferences in different map layouts are more often than not just a matter of taste.

What you think is a flaw on this map, is to me something that encourages creative thinking and using different tactics to approach an situation, and thereby might even be a positive thing :-)

Just let me play with wallhack and I can play them map :) I do see your point, but I do still think it's a flaw making the map much less fun to play. However, I will give it a try and see what creative thinking I can come up with.

I actually topfragged in yesterdays prac, so maybe the map was actually made for me? :) Can't help having the feeling that this would be like having RA in water at dm3 though..

You are very cute, Hagge!

How much does a Hagge cost you reckon? Can I buy one?

Throw grenades in both corridors before jumping into water :D

Or just hope nmy team wont pick the map.

#55: LOL, you base that on your doodle thing that you pasted as comment no. ~150 in a ~500 comments page? So we are now going to argue with statistics based on poll that is unknown to vast majority of people who are supposed to vote, vote that you give only to people you know will vote in favor of your option? Please, I believe you have higher standards :)

dm3 has the same 'flaw' in as much as discharging is easy.. problem with discharging is it can fuck up your team mates as well as enemy! so there is still an element of tactics and team play required.

I never really had a problem with discharges in cmt4.

#66 I have announced the poll with .qw bot many times. I have not done any personal promotion besides telling guys to vote at tvs private which would amount to 5 votes.

I think the sample size is more than acceptable for a poll.

Certainly it's hard to accept criticizm from a guy who references a poll where people who are not even playing can vote or people can vote as many times as they bother to create accounts and which is formed in a way that doesn't even clearly answer the question.

Rikoll: Yes, you can "buy" me. Just pay me a decent salary and I will be all yours :(

I think blAze should have cred for creating that poll. If you want to create your own poll JohnNy_cz go ahead. Post it on quakeworld.nu or somewhere similar if you now think that would change the outcome. If you want to tell your friends about blAze poll because that would change the result, then do so.

I think most of the community already knows about it considering how many people that were following the comments in that thread, and due to the several times blAze spammed about it on IRC. I think the results of the poll should be taken very seriously until someone comes up with a better way to gather peoples opinions.

Johnny_cz is not interested in any findings that opposes his opinion that we need more maps.

And if some reader is now wondering what the hell are we talking about, you can voice your opinion here: http://www.doodle.com/qckphwwun5mm48ss

Go vote, the more the better.

Im more for clanvotes instead of individual votes, and also divided by division.
Feels strange if a clear majority of one division want/dont want extra maps and are forced to play an option voted by the other divisions.

I am not for clan votes. Consider having 2 clans with 5 members. Let's say that in both clans there are 2 members that want custom maps. That's 40% of players. With clan votes it would seem that 0% want custom maps. Also we can not presume that all clans would follow democratic principles. What if the clan leader wants tb3 and everyone else customs?

However I agree with the divisional voting. It doesn't make sense that people who understand nothing about tdm mechanics and gameplay dictate what maps those who do have to play.

I agree with Mr Astley, RA discharge on cmt4 isn’t necessarily a flaw, it just requires a change in mentality from what we are used to (of tb3, only dm3 has LG and there is no line of sight from water to armours there). We are so ingrained into thinking that QW 4on4 = tb3 that anything a bit different makes us wary especially when it comes to ‘tricks’ we can perform.

Yesterday in prac I got discharged at RA when I had RL and Quad, but I didn’t think ‘man this map is flawed’, I thought OK so I need to play a little differently, the traditional tb3 tactic of ‘armour is spawning now I will go and grab it’ maybe needs a little rethink. It’s a risk that you need to weigh up or take some kind of precautions about. Like on dm3, over the years players have got much smarter, you don’t see players with quad blindly bunny jumping across high bridge looking over the edge etc. They have adapted to the risk of being discharged and over time the same should happen with regards to water on cmt4 (and any other map with LG and fluids).

Just because something in a map design is annoying, doesn’t make it a bad feature / map. Otherwise why in god’s name are we still playing dm2?

In my opinion, CMT4's biggest flaw is the huge potential reward from getting lucky by dropping on RA as it spawns; Something which happens a significant number of times each game. If anyone doesn't believe me, next time you see someone practicing cmt4, set up a spec cam in the water and count the number of hilarious, unavoidable steals done by some oblivious spawner jumping blindly into the water.

It doesn't matter how well you are timing it, and what weapons you are carrying. Even if you are on the RA every time it spawns, qw's flawed pickup system means that someone can just drop in on you (perhaps after grabbing that usefully located sng next to the high spawn, or the ssg near the tele spawn), take the RA through the wonder of cruelly arbitrary packet priority, then rape you right in the face with their newly acquired stack.

How do you stop them from taking the next lg and making their way to quad where they will be at an advantage? Jump in the water after them? If it's early enough, maybe they'll even take the mega too, and there's no chance they're going to run out of cells with 57 of them dotting the map. It's too much power given to someone who just got lucky.

Perhaps this map worked better in the past when everyone had terrible connections, terrible lg aim and no antilag, but I think its time has passed.

I'm no big fan of any CMT map to be honest. But if I have to choose one map that i think is decent enough for 4on4 is CMT3, unfortunately not chosen into the map pool. (CMT4 is just horrible in my opinion, and cmt1b is far better than cmt4, even if i don't think its very suitable for different reasons.)

Biggest reason for disliking CMT4 is that it feels like the map is in another scale than other maps. It's like taking dm3 and double it in scale while players stay unchanged. Don't know how to explain it better.

ye sure but the problem would be that
if lets say we have 3 clans with 4 members that all vote tb3, and then 1 clan with 13 members go and vote tb5.
Even thou the majority of the players want it, I still think 3 clans is worth more than 1 clan. Because every clan get the same amount of "playing-hours", cause you can't field more than 4 players.

it is probably also alot easier to manage a clan-poll rather than a player-poll.

althou.. I am pretty sure I have a couple of times seen 5 TVS players spamming me at the same time!

I guess all individual votes won't be worth equally with clan votes, but I think if one clan has 15 members then they will probably have a couple that will only play 1-2 maps, and then a couple who won't play any maps at all. And I think those votes shouldn't be worth as much as someone who plays every map through out the entire season.

The votes realy surprise me. I dont think i have talked to anyone i know who likes cmt4.

i like it, especially without antilag :P.

84 posts? What's going on?
Can't be arsed to read them all :x

#84 Whining. What else could it be in QW?

57 lg cells. 57 !!!

Uh, not sure why you guys take it so ad persona. Previous poll was done by the EQL crew, it was on the qw.nu front page, it was linked from the EQL site in the news item. It simply was much more representative than the current one, where so far only ~28% of participants voted.

I do want to know real figures just like you. More than you. If it shows that 50+% of participants want to play TB3, I will be the first one correcting anyone on spot who will claim that people want to play non-TB3 maps.

#87 Actually the previous poll has less than double amount of votes compared to this one at the moment (and hopefully we can still reduce that gap), we have no idea how many fake votes there are in that one, no idea how many votes from players who do not even play in EQL and the poll question is such that you can not clearly conclude whether people are for or against custom maps. In my opinion that poll is not representative at all.

In a more ideal world, I would think blAze should really check his values if he thinks that the clan leader won't vote based on a type of in-clan consensus. I would imagine that this still happens in most clans that care enough and in others it's just not that important and whoever is the clan admin in EQL gets to make the choice.

A bit more balanced option would be to give each clan 4 votes. Of course it would be up the clan admin again to pick the players as random might lead to picks that represent the more idle players in a clan. I'd probably go with top lineup and of course many of the clans would discuss the votes amongst themselves. In this compromise it would give a decent representation of active players in addition to not requiring everyone to vote (only the actives) and not being just a vote per clan. This would require a bit more development to the voting software and that might actually be too big of a hurdle to overcome :/

Well, the variance in clan sizes is pretty small, so to me that is a bit artificial problem. I think one vote per one player is fair, simple and representative enough.

ye althou it might end up being exploited, like people adding old/inactive players and just add a vote from them.
It's not like I care THAT much, both ways works.

Well, at least now we know who voted what, so if we really want we can filter out players who didn't play a single game, or do pretty much anything we want with the results that we think will be most fair.

4 votes per clan actually sounds pretty good to me.

1 vote per player is just too exploitable, yeah you can filter out results of players who didn't play a single game, but given the fact that the map pool has to be decided before the season starts, by definition no players will have played any games so all votes are null and void. Unless you wait until the end of the season, which has it's own problems in that you have no guarentee that those players are going to play in the next season (and you are preventing any players who for whatever reason didn't play a game from voting, maybe they are the 5th best player in the their clan and have got fed up with being benched and will be playing in a different clan next season).

IMO map voting should be 1 (or maybe 4) votes per clan but have it at the end of the season. This means that the map pool is decided a couple of months before the next season starts reducing uncertainty and giving clans time to prac. Yes this will prevent 'new' clans from voting but maybe it's not such a bad thing to promote stability and reward longstanding clans who kept going through the offseason.

It's funny how some people see this as a huge issue now when the result is not pleasing, where as totally anonymous previous vote didn't raise any questions. Like 97% of the teams have from 5 to 8 players. There is no sign of the vote being exploited.

If a clan leader is adding non active players just to affect the vote, he can do just the same to change the 4 votes inside the clan. Let's say that the votes inside the clan are 3/2, then the clan leader adds 3 non active players to support his preference and votes 4/0 with the clan vote.

Or even more simply put, if someone is so dishonest that he is adding players just so they can vote for him in this poll, then he would most likely vote what ever he wants with his 4 clan votes.

This also was not meant to be used for this season since the rules were already decided. It's just an ongoing poll that can be referenced whenever. Nothing is stopping you from removing votes with some criteria after the season and then allowing new registrations for the next season to count in also or whatever. It's also not designed to be the perfect poll to end all polls, but to be good enough and ask clearly if people want this or not (unlike previous polls).

Again the same guys, same talk. Go continue it at the qwnu post where you have over 500 comments already. We don't want to same discussion here thank you. If this doesn't stop I will personally remove them. Not because I have anything against it but this is forum talk, it's not supposed to be here.

We are playing as clans and to prevent some soloing clan leaders from deciding everything, we could give all clans an equal amount of votes that would account for a team in an actual game. If one team has 4 players and another has 8, that would give twice the voting power. Sure the average is probably 6, but by design you are already giving some clans more say and even if I'm repeating myself, when we play, we play as clans.

Popular votes, like the one you've set up blAze are good to get an overall feel for the scene.

But then again, stability is what we need, so I really hope that we aren't going to be voting about specific maps all that often in the coming years. Of course this voting can be used for something else as well.

Well to me it is definately the people who are playing the game, not clans. In my opinion a player who is less active than someone else is just ast justified to give his opinion on this issue. Otherwise we have to start counting gaming hours and put some weight factor on peoples' votes based on that. No, that wasn't a serious suggestion...

I didn't quite get what you meant by this: "to prevent some soloing clan leaders from deciding everything, we could give all clans an equal amount of votes that would account for a team in an actual game"