Map and RGN round type rotation

[srifenbyxp]

Probably beating a dead horse with a stick but the search bar turned up empty. Ideally I wanted to see if anyone would also approve of this, and if within the realm of probability of actually implementing it. Main topics are followed:
1. Map change rotations
Roundly / Daily / weekly
I know we got box and meta but I’ve played on a few other maps on /tg/ besides these two. IIRC the other maps are: Efficiency, Asteroid, Mini. I also heard that Jungle station was up at one point but was quickly shut down. I’m assuming roundly would a no because everybody would have to wait that extra couple of minutes to play spessman on top of the 2 minute wait time. Daily or weekly mayhaps at low pop time which my glorious EST is around 2-6am. I’m not sure how the actual map process goes and I’m assuming it needs to be manually changed rather than RNG like round types. I’d like to see more frequent map changes rather than anything else.

2. Round type rotation rate

Nothing much to say, I’d just like to see more Revs/Wizards/Gangsters.

[fleure]

I'm all for it, I like variety, but as usual I'm sure it'll just be >muh box

[dezzmont]

Would it be possible to use a pseudo random distribution where the chance increases to play a mode the less it is played?

Sort of like how dota status chance effects work, the number is actually lower than displayed to start with but rises each time it doesn't happen and resets back down to the base number once it does.

[QuartzCrystal]

I voted yea to map rotation, but not to round type rotation rate. I like that it's random curently, and sometimes it's just hilarious when there's 3 revolution rounds in a row.

[Incoming]

box now, box forever

[MisterPerson]

The round type stuff is all config options that we have no control over.

Your map idea is possible if you don't mind the 2 minute wait as you said. If it happened at an upopular hour (or at least when Basil isn't also doing it), I don't think people would mind too much.

Of course that doesn't mean people necessarily actually WANT different maps.

[QuartzCrystal]

The people who don't want to play a different map, even just some of the time, have literally no compelling argument against playing Asteroid Station half the time or something.

[cedarbridge]

The people who don't want to play a different map, even just some of the time, have literally no compelling argument against playing Asteroid Station half the time or something.

Other than simply not wanting to play on another map, you mean. Just because you don't favor an argument doesn't make it less meaningful to those players that hold it. There are large numbers of players that simply don't want to play on other maps. I'm not really sure what you're expecting as a "compelling argument" to that effect.

[Alex Crimson]

The problem with map rotation is that it would require consistent map updates. As far as i know, the coders/spriters are having trouble finding people to keep these maps up-to-date with all the changes/updates that happen on /tg/. If the map makers believe they can maintain all these maps, then im all for having a weekly/monthly rotation of popular maps(except ministation, that thing is too small to have on the main server).

[paprika]

The people who don't want to play a different map, even just some of the time, have literally no compelling argument against playing Asteroid Station half the time or something.

How about "map knowledge is like 50% of being robust in ss13"?

[kosmos]

If we would reserve Sybil for BoxStation and Badger for a map rotation, then yes.

[fleure]

The people who don't want to play a different map, even just some of the time, have literally no compelling argument against playing Asteroid Station half the time or something.

How about "map knowledge is like 50% of being robust in ss13"?

Map knowledge is important in any multiplayer game. But I just don't understand hostility to any variety in maps at all. You wouldn't play counter strike and only ever play de_dust 2, or q3dm6 in Quake, even though both are excellent maps. Different maps offer different dynamics in the game.

Sure you'll have no idea where anything is when you start off playing a map you're not familiar with, but I'm sure players' egos can take a few rounds of being unrobust.

[Lo6a4evskiy]

Instead of knowing exactly what I'm going in my fate will be decided by a bunch of people who play 2D spessmen?

Nah

[ExplosiveCrate]

Seems most people who don't like other maps don't want to go through the trouble of learning a new map because it would make them "unrobust".

[cedarbridge]

I'm not sure why the tone in this thread is "State reasons why this shouldn't happen or we default to it should." The status quo rests with not making this rather drastic change. So I want to hear it. What is the argument for actually adding a map rotation to a server whose population reached this point without it?

Are we supposed to inflict the New Game Experience™ on players every round or something? In fact, lets imagine this from a new player perspective. If our map is changing constantly, that new player will have no fucking clue where they're meant to go or do to find even basic shit without spending a senseless amount of time wandering around just to have to come back and do it again when the map changes.

As has been stated, if you really want this desperately to play on a map that isn't Boxstation, then I suggest you find a team of mappers and map coders and set up a server with that other map. Taking an established server with an established map norm and deciding that because you want to play on other maps and you want to play with a high population (assuming the population will stick around after the map changes away from the norm) that the map should change is really shitty.

[cedarbridge]

If our map is changing
constantly, that new player will have
no fucking clue where they're meant
to go or do to find even basic shit
without spending a senseless
amount of time wandering around
just to have to come back and do it
again when the map changes.

Yes, people will obviously forget everything about map when round ends.

New maps provide:
- freshness
- other opportunities
- other 'feel'

I don't undersant people who want to stick with box for life.

-Familiarity
-A sense of "ownership" in their departments. You've used the same room or office for a while so you gain a sort of personal attachment to it.

Not everyone wants to feel like a migrant worker pushed from map to map.

Also your first line there doesn't make sense. If a new player starts learning the layout of the station on Map A, nothing they learned about map layouts or where to find things will translate over to Map B. They'll have to start from scratch.

[cedarbridge]

And this is a minor issue because they will learn it anyway. And there are maps on wiki. And there is not so much new players.

We've had quite a jump of new players in the last couple of months. Even considering them as their own case, SS13 already has a steep learning curve. Forcing even more of that onto those new players just because is shitty.

If you want to have "other experiences" play on other servers with other maps. Don't inflict a new map on an already established server and playerbase and drag them along for the ride. I'd be fine with Badger running whatever alternate map it wants to have, but I'm still not seeing the argument for forcibly moving an established server with a maintained and actively updated map code group to X other random maps at intervals just for the sake of being different.

[fleure]

Don't inflict a new map on an already established server and playerbase and drag them along for the ride.

You're begging the question here. The whole point of this thread is to gauge interest and discuss the idea.

[Intigracy]

     .

[cedarbridge]

Don't inflict a new map on an already established server and playerbase and drag them along for the ride.

You're begging the question here. The whole point of this thread is to gauge interest and discuss the idea.

And as been stated before, forum threads and polls are rarely a real snapshot of the playerbase because many more people play on the server without even looking at the forum than the other way around. What's been said here is true though. Setting the server to rotate maps or changing the map will just result in a loss in overall server population. But at least its ~different~ right?

[fleure]

And as been stated before, forum threads and polls are rarely a real snapshot of the playerbase because many more people play on the server without even looking at the forum than the other way around.

What's been said here is true though.

ヽ(*・ω・)ﾉ

Setting the server to rotate maps or changing the map will just result in a loss in overall server population. But at least its ~different~ right?

Assuming you're correct, I think we're stuck at a catch-22, then - Box's size is quickly becoming unsuitable for the numbers of players Sibyl attracts, but they will leave if we change to a bigger map.

You're also again assuming maintaining or growing the server population is the primary goal of map choice. If we agree to that assumption, the direction of the game is at the tyranny of the majority. If the decision is made here based on poll results, the game is run by a small forum circlejerk. Still, I'd rather not alienat an actual majority of the server.

>muh box

[Intigracy]

     .

[srifenbyxp]

Why not leave Sybil box for life and badger for map rotation? Then you only have to worry about one instead of two

[cedarbridge]

You're also again assuming maintaining or growing the server population is the primary goal of map choice. If we agree to that assumption, the direction of the game is at the tyranny of the majority. If the decision is made here based on poll results, the game is run by a small forum circlejerk. Still, I'd rather not alienat an actual majority of the server.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about the population itself being the end to which we should look when deciding. I'm telling you that the change WILL drive people off the server. For no explained reason other than "variety." So yes, you'd be alienating people in general by making this change. There's a reason its been brought up so many times and rejected each time. Quoting me without making an argument is pretty cute though.

You've still yet to explain who is going to maintain those "other" maps. Metastation has no maintainer and most of our branch only maintains Box. Maps need updates and need to be kept abreast of code updates and standards changes. If nobody does it then there will be even more desynch between player expectation and results as well as disconnect between the features and the on-server implementation. I don't think you really get that this isn't as easy as you're making it out to be.

Once again, box should be on badger because of maintainability and population issues, not preferential opinionated 'i like this map better!' shit.

It's a pain in the fucking ass to do big overhauls to the map and then have to do it AGAIN because metacide isn't around and we have no active map maintainer for metastation. I'd maintain metastation myself, but like most coders, I'd rather make an entirely new map and scrap metastation entirely, simply using metastation as a source for copy+paste because people like metastation AS IT IS NOW. I felt uncomfortable making edits to metastation on NT's code because of this, it felt weird and stupid because I'd rather maintain a map like box that everyone edits that isn't so personally tied to metacide. I'd feel bad if I was metacide and people messed with my map, and I know he probably doesn't feel that way, but that's just how it is.

Until metacide comes back, we should switch to box. Period. There's no real argument against it other than 'well the 20ish people who play badger prefer it!' which is a fucking retarded argument when the 100+ people who play sybil are having bigger issues with population and shit. If you really, REALLY like metastation, track metacide down and see if he'll put the effort in to rig it back up for server 2 and make more frequent updates.

Box is /tg/ station's development map. Coders who make changes should not have to be forced to edit metastation as well, that should be the responsibility of the person who made the alternate server 2 map. METACIDE WAS PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH THIS AGREEMENT. He does most of not all the metastation updates, coders let him do whatever the fuck he wants to it. Now that metacide is not present, we go back to box until he shows up again. It will both a) boost the population and b) increase the amount of people who like metastation.

Think about it like this: Server 2 goes box. More and more people play there. People grow used to playing on server 2 as their home server and regular on it more. Metacide comes back or we get a new map for server 2 like efficiency or something with an active map maintainer, and people on server 2 get used to it because while it's not box they don't want to leave server 2 and enjoy giving the map maintainer feedback most of the time towards the development of the map. This is how server 2 and metastation got started in the first place, this is why people like metastation, etc. Map knowledge is a VERY large part of ss13 too.

[fleure]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about the population itself being the end to which we should look when deciding.

So why bring it up? I could only infer it's an important factor to keeping Box on.

You've still yet to explain who is going to maintain those "other" maps. Metastation has no maintainer and most of our branch only maintains Box.

You're right, and it's not something I considered at all, mostly because I'm so used to Meta or NT always being around to work on it. There is no solution to that problem aside from someone being enthusiastic enough to maintian it, but paprika is right, it's probably not going to happen.

[phil235]

I'm all for keeping box on Sybil and having map rotation on badger.

[cedarbridge]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about the population itself being the end to which we should look when deciding.

So why bring it up? I could only infer it's an important factor to keeping Box on.

Try reading the rest of that line instead of stopping where you quoted. That might help.

[Wyzack]

I think that forcing boxstation on badger to alleviate sybil's population issues is horseshit, and completely disregards the people who play badger only, like myself. Our population has been rising when we got asteroid station, and using us to contain your sybil overflow is a poor solution for anyone but sybil players, as there tends to be very different playstyles between the two

[cedarbridge]

I think that forcing boxstation on badger to alleviate sybil's population issues is horseshit, and completely disregards the people who play badger only, like myself. Our population has been rising when we got asteroid station, and using us to contain your sybil overflow is a poor solution for anyone but sybil players, as there tends to be very different playstyles between the two

You were on Sybil last night you nerd.

[Wyzack]

Wat? I play sybil occasionally, usually when badger is down, but i am 100% sure i did not go there last night. Sibyl is more fast paced and at times more griefy, and occasionally that is the kind of fun i want to have. The two servers are distinct, neither is objectively better and i really hope it stays that way.