eh, funny read as always. same discussion but the arguments gets better and more creative every time around...on both sides :)

also its funny (or just sad) to see how ppl complaint about "the map is bad" for 4vs4, just because other maps than tb3 dont got the same tactics like tb3. wow, what a shocker hagge :)

if ppl are so tired of random discharges at cmt4, then ffs just camp LG and deny all nmy LG. then add a camper in the water who takes every RA.

oh yeah, i forgot....that would prolly be....BORING? :)

if there is some div1 acton on cmt4 or 1b, I WANNA see the demos !!

plz save them for me !!!!

I sure hope some people besides blAze and I read these things, otherwise I'm going to feel pretty foolish. :)

How about having a counter for unique hits instead then? :)

I doubt he was wrong, since I believe the same people (probably same 5) are updating this page once every 15mins :) So you don't a long time to achieve 2448 views ;)

#125 you are probably right: Views: 2448

Well, at least I was not discussing, I was merely commenting the previous comments.

Id rather not have you guys discuss the discussion about discussing discussions about discussions in the comments here.

Now, lets discuss if its right to discuss in this comments section!

Discussions here prior to quakeworld.nu attracts a lot more people to the EQL site. Isn't that a good thing?

There might not be so many people commenting here on the news page, but I think the number of people following the discussion is far greater.

Well personally I feel a thread with 3 comments that says "yay! lets start play!" "sucky maps!" and "hurray!" is rather pointless. I prefer a discussion in that case, if it is relative to the newspost, even if it is at this site. Haven't plenty of discussions taken place at every leauge sites comment sections before? :)
I never saw that as a problem as long as it isn't a redicilous flamewar.
Sure you can also discuss at QW.nu but the more places the better :)

The comment section is only there to determine who gets the first comment, but since I always win I would hardly even call it a competition :(

Razor it's called comments for a reason ;) (notice, not discussion)

I have nothing against the thing talked about here, it's just totally in the wrong place. As said, this is comments, not discussion :)

Thank you Johnny :)

@johnny_cz: I think you must have misinterpreted the blog, "tb3" was arguably first promoted by Villains (on a big scale; there may have been other smaller tournies with that map pool before).

As for the rest of you discussing the merits of various map pools, lets leave this discussion here as requested by Itsinen and continue it over at qw.nu if you feel there is more to me said.

Stev I just don't believe for one second that it is any kind of compromise for the majority of players who wanted additional maps. For me it seems that it is exactly what they wanted. If we ask how many people want a map pool that does not include TB3, I think you are going to have a far smaller share than 30%.

You will note, blAze, that my argument has not changed on one single point since the start of that 500-comment discussion (and ad hominem attacks are not a good way to debate, even if you aren't wrong). I have consistently advocated a slightly expanded, stable pool as a compromise with what I believed was the conservative majority.

In fact, if we hung out in the same channels, you would have heard me say that I predicted a 35-40% share in that poll when you announced it, and it doesn't look like I was wrong at all.

Hehe, sorry. I also don't like discussions that don't seem to have any end. Appreciate you made the poll and that you try to get people vote in there! It has already changed my mind a bit. Last comment from me here!

Well what exactly is a valid comment/discussion in this news post that you have in mind that would help you?
I don't see how a discussion about how maps should be picked and how polls should be held can hurt.

"A stable 5-map pool including tb3 isn't what the other side wants; It's the compromise."

Really? So according to you, vast majority of the people who want other maps in EQL, actually want to get rid off the TB3 altogether. I find that very hard to believe.

You guys just don't give up. When you think you have the support of the majority you go with that, when that shows as false you just find another approach to keep going.

Stop the discussion now, if you must, but don't delete any of the thread. Some interesting points have been raised and it is all extremely relevant to EQL.

Razor: This is the exactly same discussion that has just gone further. And if there is too much posts usually most people don't read through the comments and also doesn't want to write anything since they are breaking up the discussion. This should be talked about on forum (it's more general talk and not much about this season). And that 5 persons are caring about the game in 600+ comments isn't as much help for us as 10-15 peoples random comments on these news, no offense but this should still be at qw.nu thread or forum...

Well enriched by the knowledge from HangTime's blog I'm glad Challenge Smackdown guys did choose different approach then you are proposing. One community wanted dm3, other e1m2 and another dm2. They had the option to choose which community was the biggest, say "bad luck" to the other and go with one map. Luckily they chose to have map pool which was a compromise and maybe thanks to that QW could survive a bit longer.

A stable 5-map pool including tb3 isn't what the other side wants; It's the compromise. In fact, it's as much compromise as can possibly be made beyond stripping extra maps completely from quakeworld.

You try to portray the small addition of two maps in a pool still completely dominated by the original id software maps as some kind of crushing defeat, when, in fact, it is you getting 90% of what you want with one small concession made to a sizeable demographic who are getting practically nothing of what they want.

You try to tell people what I am asking constitutes some kind of incredible victory for the people who want custom maps, but, in reality, it is a pittance. It is the smallest possible concession that can be made, and anything less is just "tyranny of the majority".

So instead of EQL Pro, make EQL Noob and put as many kenyas there as you want. :)

I think it's a bit backwards that the majority should have their own special league so that the minority can get what they want in the premium league. Should it not be the other way around?

Stev according to the poll, vast majority of players do not want other maps besides TB3 in EQL. Not now, not ever. Are you saying that we should still put new maps in EQL? EQL Pro is not a solution because a) it isn't played during the normal season when people actually play Quake and b) only helps a selected few top clans if they choose to play on holidays when no one is playing.

If the kenya minority wants their own kenya league, I'm all for that.

Come to think of it, if the majority of conservatives is caused largely by so-called "divisions 1" players, then surely the tb3-only EQL:Pro caters to them perfectly, and a regular season of 5 stable maps is a perfect compromise.

Hagge: 1 vote per clan still unnecessarily reduces the sample size without being necessary at all. A 3-2 majority in a clan makes the two disappear completely, and I don't think that's fair. Poor en_karl's vote would have been swallowed up in tks last season, along with Milton's in tVS, and they are far from alone.

Which clans has a clanleader that would vote for the whole clan, and not caring at all about what the other people in the clan thinks/wants? Does that even exist? Well maybe Slackers, but we all know they are a bit special with mighty ParadokS ruling the clan with his iron fist :)

Hold on a second, blAze. A majority of conservatives means only tb3 every season, and presumably a majority of whom you so eloquently called "map people" means a bunch of new maps cycled in, but any sizeable minority receives absolutely no concessions?

Concessions like, perhaps, 1 out of every 4 seasons (including the announced tb3-only EQL:Pro for division 1 teams) having 2 extra, unchanging maps?

Or is it majority gets everything it wants and everyone else suffers? I would hate to live in a country which you were running.

itsinen it's not same discussion? to me it feels relevant to the news post about maps/votes etc.
what is so wrong with having a discussion? are we taking up bandwidth or what?
it shows that people care about the game which is a good thing.

even if it won't change anything now it is allways good with discussions in order to improve things for later seasons isn't it.

what do you even mean with "same guys", did we use up our maximum amount of opinions we can have per week?

On another note, when 100 players have voted, 65% do not want any other maps besides TB3.

As a comparison, in the EQL 10 poll, there was 137 votes (of which many are probably fake votes).

"Also I am no more worried about soloing team leaders"

Well I remember you bringing that up in pretty much all these 1 vote/clan discussions. That if it's only one vote, it doesn't represent the clans consensus view (some times).

Yes but I mean I don't understand what you are suggesting to solve that.

Also I am no more worried about soloing team leaders than I am about 'ghost member' votes in this poll. I just wanted to point out that if clan leader takes inactive members to affect this map poll, then he would probably also vote against the clan opinion in the clan vote.

Personally I don't think the problem is deeper than some individuals trying to add fake votes and messing around.

It was meant to be a counter-measure to what you've been so afraid of concerning these soloing team leaders voting against the popular opinion within the clan.

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"

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...

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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 :/

#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.

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.

57 lg cells. 57 !!!

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