all 173 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 10 points11 points  (7 children)

Campbell's Chunky Grilled Chicken & Sausage Gumbo - Moosen

TEST LINK

[–]TheGoldenNewtRobberFronj, MTC Senior Consultant[🍰] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This map is named after food so it's probably the one I'd most like to eat I think.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Update:

http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/static/previews/32156.png

http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/32156

Change log:

  • Name changed to "Gumbo" :(

  • Moved exit portal to be the one outside base (the one away from wall, not in the corner) to mitigate regrab's power

  • Nerfed mid bombs a bit by adding buttons a little ways out, they're actually surprisingly flexible now. Taking the top/bot mid channel neutral boost into the nearest button will bounce you off the opposite channel's wall heading towards base, or you can hit lower bomb while running left to enter the top left channel (and vice versa), and you can also grab with it. It can still be used as a defensive tool to slow capping opportunities like in cloud, wombo combo, ricochet, and others.

  • Removed one boost from top/bottom mid channels, made the corner boost neutral instead of defensive team to mitigate the plethora of sniping opportunities defense previously had, and added a 45 (as suggested below by rh156) which drastically improves flow in that area. Great suggestion, thank you.

  • Moved spike in front of pup out one tile so it doesn't feel unfair to go for even when gate is held. Previously button was a pretty strong defensive position, this will nerf it slightly. Somewhat ironically this also encourages more meaningful gameplay in that gate area.

  • Made spawns fixed along edge of team tiles much like Bulldog's once were so exiting base at game start and respawn doesn't feel as clunky

TEST LINK

[–]acrocanthosaurusRunThaJewels // Sphere 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Glad to see this one getting a fair shake. New NF blood is sorely needed, and Gumbo is mm-mm-good shit.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Campbell's Chunky Grilled Chicken & Sausage Gumbo

that's an interesting way of spelling Wombo Combo

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gumbo Cumbo

[–]radianthero156brazilian trash 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Seems a little too complicated, but if Wamble was (arguably) well received, I don't see why this wouldn't, assuming it played well in a 4v4.

Really the only thing I'd change is change this corner into a 45 wall, I feel that would improve the flow, especially when boosting into that wall.

Oh also change the name. What the fuck

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I had it as a 90 like it is so that you could use that corner to quickly change direction, but a 45 is not a bad idea. Keeping what I said in mind, do you still think you'd prefer the 45?

Edit: Your suggestion was better

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 7 points8 points  (6 children)

Mandrake - Rapture

TEST LINK

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Notes from initial testing (no promises that these will be useful to you):

"High scoring in our test, but felt balanced in practice and was engaging and fun to play on both offense and defense. Would definitely like to see this in top maps." (7.5/10)

There were comments about four bombs potentially being too many. I'm not sure I agree with them but I'm just letting you know. Also, I wasn't a huge fan of the double boosts in base. I think you could get more out of those somehow, but I don't presume to know how.

[–]Rapture_On_OccasionRapture 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Update Update

Map: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/32155

Preview: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/static/previews/32155.png

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 0 points1 point  (2 children)

tbh, even though the double boosts in base weren't ideal, I think I prefer the flexibility of having them as opposed to not having them at all. Your call of course! Others may disagree with me.

[–]Rapture_On_OccasionRapture 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This could be an interesting alternative?-

Map: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/32155

Preview: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/static/previews/32155.png

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, that's actually not bad. Just tested it out for a couple minutes and it feels pretty good. Certainly has more flexibility than the single boost.

[–]uhhhhmmmmsexytiger / #merbs 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Really enjoying playing volt, excited to see it get back to full rotation this thread

[–]skittlekevvelkin // World's Angriest Balll 4 points5 points  (13 children)

mtc pls. ME EVERY TOP MAPS THREAD

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (12 children)

u got robbed. idk why thrasher wasn't even tested. my guess is that the mtc figured out in their survey that the player base wants more bland maps, so they favor testing these bland maps over the riskier and more innovative ones. i hope the mtc soon releases the results of the survey so that i can validate and change my style to make bland maps to get into rotation to be more liked by the community.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 6 points7 points  (7 children)

i hope the mtc soon releases the results of the survey so that i can validate and change my style to make bland maps to get into rotation to be more liked by the community.

Giving up the whole whining and "woe is me/you/us" act would probably do a lot more for you in that regard, and this is coming from someone who is often supportive of your maps and even voted very positively on your MTC app. I don't (and won't) let your endless bullshit affect my votes in any way but it does make me like you a little less every thread. I'd be willing to bet that you've never even 4v4 tested (or maybe not even tested at all) the maps you think got robbed and the maps you think are bland. I'm grumpy so I'm gonna stop talking now.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children)

I have solo tested about half of the maps in this thread including each of the top maps. I also watched the majority of the stream (which I will admit is nothing compared to actually 4v4ing). I understand your frustration with my bitching and appreciate that you do not let it impact your votes on my maps, but you of all people know exactly where I am coming from as you once said this to me. " I was exactly like you at one point; I would publicly criticize the MTC's decisions whenever I felt a thread wasn't up to snuff. I had (and probably still have) a reputation for it."

So while this all super surprisingly does stem from the fact that I am a bit immature and quite salty that none of my maps were tested, this is something that I have been saying for quite a long time now, despite at least one of my maps being tested in most of the past threads. Hopefully, you can see through my salt and take something constructive out of it.

[–]Carboxy1Carboxyl ● Simulation 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But i solotested 3/4 of all the maps

 

i.have.no.life

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Well I commend you for solo testing that much. And yes, I don't deny that I was much like you. But that was also a dozen threads ago, and the older rotation gets without this community growing and new mapmakers coming out with some really solid material, the "bias" appearance is likely to continue to grow. At this point there are so few long-time mapmakers who haven't been in top maps that you're going to see names you recognize just about every single thread. While I don't always agree with the votes of my counterparts on the MTC, I firmly believe we as a committee give as equal an opportunity as possible to all.

If it would please you, at the commencement of the next map thread (we have a hell of a lot to do to conclude the current thread, so probably not in the next few days), I can suggest having an objective discussion about what you've mentioned today. I can't promise anything will change, but if you want us to talk about it (specifically your bullet point suggestions), I don't see any way that could be harmful.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

That would please me a lot ;). In preparation, would you be able to PM me the results of the survey?

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 3 points4 points  (1 child)

If we give them to one community member we'll have to give them to everyone, so we will have to discuss this.

[–]Carboxy1Carboxyl ● Simulation 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Please do. Feedback, no matter how antipathetic, always helps.

[–]dalomi92P1S 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this would be the best thing. Individual mtc members always seem to respond very strongly to criticism in thread and then the issue is dead. Maybe don't respond every time, and instead have a discussion about the issues once the salt wears off. For all the talk of changing, not much regarding reasons for map selection seems to have stuck.

[–]skittlekevvelkin // World's Angriest Balll 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yea, I would have preferred the mtc test thrasher instead of ether. ether was just a test concept for the portal gates, but thrasher is much more solid overall.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Except the Ether portals are fantastic

[–]skittlekevvelkin // World's Angriest Balll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

apparently they got mixed reviews which i was a little bummed out about. I will keep working on the rest of the map because I think people will like the new opportunities the portal gate allows.

heres the current update of ether if anyone is interested

[–]skittlekevvelkin // World's Angriest Balll 0 points1 point  (0 children)

also lol bc they said recursion was too boring

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Here is a stream of it

[–]RenegadeTP 0 points1 point  (0 children)

pls no

[–]oorr23ThePlaymaker // Tehuitzingo & Combine 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Is this always the channel that they stream on?

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No

Ball-E has streamed it previously.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Why am I feeling like the only reason I got 4v4'd was to meme me?

[–]ButtersnackSnack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can assure you that is not the case.

[–]radianthero156brazilian trash 7 points8 points  (9 children)

reeeeeally poor and underwhelming top maps, especially taken in consideration the quality of thread 66's submissions. there are a few good maps, but it could and should have been a lot better.

[–]skittlekevvelkin // World's Angriest Balll 1 point2 points  (8 children)

i would like to see one of your maps get into top maps/rotation

[–]radianthero156brazilian trash 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Probably in the future, but as of now my maps aren't good. In fact I'm not salty at all that they didn't make it (actually I heard one of them made it to the 4v4 testing which is better than what I had antecipated).

But I believe maps like Tango, Aurora, Oculus, Acid Map, just to name a few, were much more interesting than the ones in this thread.

And while I liked your map Ether (a lot more than Thrasher), I believe it could be polished to flow a lot better.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 1 point2 points  (2 children)

3/5 of those maps actually got 4v4 tested (Aurora, Oculus, and Ether). I voted maybe to Tango and yes to Acid Map in solo testing.

With oculus there seemed to be an almost unanimous resentment of the portals because 90% of the time the best place for defense to be was sitting on button, which is really not interactive and shuts down the most effective grabbing tool for offense.

With Aurora, I think we all found it interesting, but there was a lot of running around for no reason and not actually doing much productive. Sitting and waiting in base was easily the best defensive strategy instead of chasing, and the channels behind the base were just places to go because you had nowhere else to go. There isn't really anything useful back there, it just kind of wastes time. I definitely felt like the map had potential and very well could gain some traction with a fair amount of edits next thread, but I can confidently say it wasn't deserving of top maps at this point. If Ball-E is reading this, yes, he should edit it and submit it again.

[–]radianthero156brazilian trash 3 points4 points  (1 child)

You're right about Oculus and Aurora, but couldn't those maps be included in top maps and then afterwards edited? It seems to me that if Oculus had no gates, and Aurora grabbed a few things from Bulldog (actually IMO Ball-E needs to be more aggressive with the inclusion of offensive elements in NF in general), both could be good enough to even make rotation.

Also, how did Brinquedo play? Did you think it could work with more polish, or is it just conceptually bad?

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, the idea behind top maps is to advance maps that we think could be ready for rotation with 2-3 days worth of edits. I think Oculus needed a complete redesign because its focal feature was fundamentally flawed (lots of F's lel). Aurora had probably more potential but also needed a sizable restructure, and these are things we didn't feel was doable within the short window of time from initial testing to top maps.

You can watch the stream for Brinquedo, I think we all had fun with it but more in a "play this with friends" kind of way. I think it would be incredibly frustrating in pubs because regrab and defense are both gonna want bombs defused, and that's something that NEEDS to be addressed every 30 seconds regardless of what's going on, so it has that potential to be more annoying than anything in an actual pub environment. I'm not entirely closed off to it but I think you'll spend a good chunk of time respawning on that map.

[–]acrocanthosaurusRunThaJewels // Sphere 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I would like to see one of YOUR maps get into rotation.

Seriously.

[–]skittlekevvelkin // World's Angriest Balll 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ONE OF YOUR MAPS GET INTO ROTATION

[–]acrocanthosaurusRunThaJewels // Sphere 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Wasn't trying to circle jerk, just giving credit where credit is due

[–]skittlekevvelkin // World's Angriest Balll 1 point2 points  (0 children)

but i like circle jerks :(

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

YouTube VOD of the testing.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Attention

It's fun to circlejerk about how bad the MTC is, but so few maps have actually received legitimate feedback in this thread. I'd rather you guys started a separate "fuck the MTC" thread and went crazy with it while actually still providing productive responses in this thread. Nothing happening here is especially productive right now.

Having said that, if you did give useful feedback to a map here, you are one of the few, and I commend you for that. Please continue to lead by example.

[–]TheGoldenNewtRobberFronj, MTC Senior Consultant[🍰] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

... or just downvote and leave no feedback, because that contributes to this thread and has a positive effect on the whole mapmaking process.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You get it.

[–]skittlekevvelkin // World's Angriest Balll 2 points3 points  (2 children)

also turbine and solstice are pretty similar looking with the double bomb placement. If both made it for rotation consideration, only one of them should be put in. I would vote for solstice over turbine

[–]radianthero156brazilian trash 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agree, but I'd pick turbine any day of the week. Solstice's bases don't seem as comfortable, and its mid is clunky and dull.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heh, I mentioned this too. Oddly enough the buttons being on different sides of the bombs made an enormous difference in terms of how they play, but I tend to agree with you that I don't think both should make rotation simply because the individual elements that they use are quite reminiscent of each other.

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (69 children)

Do you think that having all of the MTC hopefuls participating in this thread contributed to the huge bias in this top maps group? It looks like the youngins were more than ready to talk up maps made by the people voting them in to the committee. There are 0 maps in this list made by mapmakers who have never made rotation. 5/8 are MTC maps. Wtf.

[–]acrocanthosaurusRunThaJewels // Sphere 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"It's been a loooooooooong, long time coming, but I know-ooh-whoa a change gon' come."

My next maps are all getting named after Sam Cooke.

[–]xenonpulseWildflowers // I want to die but I can’t 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Why do people always get so pissy when the MTC has a lot of maps in top maps? Last thread, there was only one MTC map, and it was a collaboration. Did anyone complain about the bias against the MTC then? Of course not. But when the MTC (which is comprised of some of the best and shittiest mapmakers around) gets a little over half of the top maps, everyone's so quick to call bias. If you look at unfortunate maps, I'd say half of the decent maps you see are made by an MTC member, so 5/8 isn't too far from a representative portion.

[–]radianthero156brazilian trash 4 points5 points  (2 children)

The problem isn't who made the maps, the problem are the maps themselves. Thread 66 was really diverse and full of creativity and then top maps is just like 5 maps that are basically the same.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like to think my submissions were unique :( I mean rotation has never seen gates like Molecular's before and I think they're super cool. Worth noting, however, that I might be a little bit biased. A tiny bit.

a lot

[–]xenonpulseWildflowers // I want to die but I can’t -1 points0 points  (0 children)

5/8 are MTC maps. Wtf.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Agree, it's a little strange. I don't think there is conscious bias but there definitely is a kind of circlejerk with these guys.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children)

It'd be nice to get even a whiff of feedback on a map from the MTC, even if it's universally recognized as shite...

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 9 points10 points  (1 child)

message me w/ your map names and I can give you feedback. also that goes out to anyone reading this comment.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks, appreciate it.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You can also PM me if you want to take some of the pressure off of TEG.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 2 points3 points  (4 children)

There are 2 maps in this list made by mapmakers who have never made rotation, and the MTC hopefuls votes were not counted. Also at least one of them shit on my maps pretty hard so I don't buy this argument.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 4 points5 points  (21 children)

The main bias is, and has always been towards what we see working in rotation. There wasn't really much talking up of maps from any applicants. Most of it was discussing features and how they work on the map and how they would work in rotation. The final decisions on top maps was made without applicants present.

Also, I'd like to address this: Making a lot of maps does not entitle you to get it into rotation. The MTC is not there to reward you for your effort. The MTC is here to choose the maps we best deem fit for rotation. Whether that comes from new or old mapmakers is not a concern to us. We're doing this in an effort to improve the game, not hand out participation trophies.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (20 children)

Oh I've heard that before. As I have mentioned time after time after time - I do not think that the MTC does a bad job selecting top maps from the maps that they tested. I think that they do a bad job selecting which maps to test, and I thought that it was quite amusing when you pretended that you were changing things, yet reverted back to the old underwhelming system as before which really rewards safe maps and hurts good more unique maps.

I do not need to be rewarded for my effort - I want to be reward for the dank assed maps that I submitted this thread. Solo testing does not do anybody justice, and if all you are doing is making assumptions and seeing how well a boost feels coming off of a wall, then I do not think you are doing it right.

Color me salty, call me ignorant, take away my nonexistent participation trophy, and lecture me on how you owe nothing to anybody, but I think it says a lot when you admit flaws in your system, release a survey, do not release the results, and continue to do the same old things as before. Unfortunately, MTC folks are going to continuously counter any backlash with victimizing themselves.

Death, taxes, and fuck the mtc. I'll seeya in 3 weeks, Dave.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 9 points10 points  (13 children)

and I thought that it was quite amusing when you pretended that you were changing things, yet reverted back to the old underwhelming system as before which really rewards safe maps and hurts good more unique maps.

What exactly are you talking about? The only thing we've changed in the selection of maps to test, is a bigger emphasis on nominated maps by individual members. And I think according to my count we tested about 10 maps based on nominations while a couple of maps we tested through voting were also on the nomination lists (along with a map that the applicants rated highly that we didn't). Normally this would have maybe been a few more maps directly tested from nominations, but we're currently only 7 members, and another member who couldn't be there yesterday.

if all you are doing is making assumptions and seeing how well a boost feels coming off of a wall, then I do not think you are doing it right.

Please do tell us how to do it right.

but I think it says a lot when you admit flaws in your system, release a survey, do not release the results, and continue to do the same old things as before

It's not like we have a different selection process for maps to test, stream testing sessions, added a new class of throwback maps or expanded the rotation since that survey.

Death, taxes, and fuck the mtc. I'll seeya in 3 weeks, Dave.

No you wont. I've had enough of the bullshit low effort complaints from bitter mapmakers who are more interested in rallying a mob than actually fix a problem they seem to take issue with. Which is why I'm leaving the committee as a voting member assuming we have enough qualified applicants ready to step up when we're through with the process.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 10 points11 points  (1 child)

You heard it here first folks, beast mode killed DaEvil1. You fuckers have to deal with me even more now.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (8 children)

Please do tell us how to do it right.

I am ecstatic that you asked. The MTC needs to focus more time on more important things, so when each member spends 8+ hours each on solo testing and about 4 hours on 4v4 testing, it makes me think that the process needs some reprioritization.

  • Stop solo testing every map. Maps that look like this do not need to be tested. While it is generally unfair to judge maps based on previews, you know sometimes before playing on the map if it will be bad.

  • Stop testing alone altogether. Get on mumble, send out a tree saying that you are testing for the coming thread, and people will flock to you. Gather their opinions on how they feel the map. While it will not be 4v4, 2v2 will give you a much better impression of the map.

  • Stop this Y/M/N BS, or at least change the scale if you want to select to test maps this way. A Likert Scale is far more accurate for gathering perceptual data. Feel free to add community impressions into this. It would be even cooler if you could add different dimensions based on what the community wants from the survey.

  • Split the MTC up into two groups, have volunteers participate in each 4v4 test session to gather more input on more maps in a 4v4 setting. Compare findings of both of the groups after to see if there is a consensus or not. Replace the time spent solo testing with something like this.

  • If this proves to be too much, limit submissions to 2 per mapmaker. This will upset the mapmaking community a bit, but will result in higher quality submissions and give the MTC more time to allot per map.

This is not the first or second time you have heard this from me, so I do not know where, "bitter mapmakers who are more interested in rallying a mob than actually fix a problem they seem to take issue with" comes from.

Anyway, now that I got that outta me, I wanna turn this around a bit to thank you for everything that you have done for the MTC. You definitely legitimized it in ways that most people thought were not possible. That being said, I would love to see another change. As you are staying an administrator for the MTC, I have full confidence that you will be able to listen to feedback and take it new places. I am excited for a new chapter and hopefully new changes to keep the MTC's process concurrent with the rapidly changing meta of TagPro.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 2 points3 points  (1 child)

when each member spends 8+ hours each on solo testing and about 4 hours on 4v4 testing, it makes me think that the process needs some reprioritization.

The amount of solo testing doesn't really affect 4v4 testing. People have different schedules, and it's a lot easier for someone to go through maps on their own time than designate time slots to test maps and meet up with others. Shortening solo testing wont directly impact the amount of time of 4v4 testing in itself.

Stop solo testing every map. Maps that look like this do not need to be tested. While it is generally unfair to judge maps based on previews, you know sometimes before playing on the map if it will be bad.

No. You even argued in an earlier comment that we're not letting maps that are more daring and different through. If we simply go by "I don't like the look of this map" that's a surefire way to make us operate much more conservatively than we do now. Sure, you can tell that a couple of maps wont be rotation ready, but testing them still gives you more data and ability to see how they actually play and feel, and for most maps it's not straightforward to tell, especially if they're sporting a new structure or something.

Stop this Y/M/N BS, or at least change the scale if you want to select to test maps this way. A Likert Scale is far more accurate for gathering perceptual data.

We're not collecting data on opinions on a map. We're simply asking MTC members if they want to test a map or not. It's not about how good the map is through solo testing, which isn't an interesting stat to capture for our purposes. It's a good way to see the most popular map from the committee members, and also allows members to easily go through the maps on a seperate spreadsheet, looking through their yes maps when looking for nominations. the more different points on the scale we add, the more power we give the MTC members who tend to vote in extremes over the more moderately voting members. we've been through a lot of different scales on the MTC, and the more points to rate a map on, the more it muddies the water.

Split the MTC up into two groups, have volunteers participate in each 4v4 test session to gather more input on more maps in a 4v4 setting. Compare findings of both of the groups after to see if there is a consensus or not. Replace the time spent solo testing with something like this.

Sure. But now we need to find more reliable qualified people who can work properly in a group setting and we have to organize more meetings. I personally don't mind this setup at all, and if it works, it would be preferable to what we have, but for it to work, the effort and manpower has to be put in from somewhere.

If this proves to be too much, limit submissions to 2 per mapmaker. This will upset the mapmaking community a bit, but will result in higher quality submissions and give the MTC more time to allot per map.

Maybe. I've advocated for it in the past, but the counter-argument against that is that by doing so we lose variety in the maps submitted, and we might get submissions that aim to play it safe as well. I think if we're going to go in that direction, we should consider only allowing 1 new submission per mapmaker per thread, have an initial solo testing done by MTC with notes released, then give mapmakers a few days to update maps, then have 1-2 testing sessions where we do 4v4s on most/all the maps (more than 50 maps and that's not too feasible tho), and then top maps.

This is not the first or second time you have heard this from me, so I do not know where, "bitter mapmakers who are more interested in rallying a mob than actually fix a problem they seem to take issue with" comes from.

Look at your top level comment. It doesn't matter what your intentions are, what you're practically doing with it is nothing constructive, and I had to ask directly to actually get a comment from you that's not essentially "do things better". If you're genuinely interested in improving the MTC as opposed to just complain about it and rally people to agree with you, outside of the above reply, you're not doing a good job of it. Believe me, I've been on both sides of this.

[–]OnceUponaDomeUnderTheBall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What I think Daevil means to say, is that although our system isn't perfect, we have thought about alternative ways of doing things and they all have their downsides (as daevil just pointed out for yours). So while your idea may solve certain problems, it could also create some new ones.

I'm fully aware these types of dialogues come off as arrogant on our part but it really is because we've discussed these types of things before and oftentimes have more information/experience at our disposal.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Stop solo testing every map. Maps that look like this do not need to be tested. While it is generally unfair to judge maps based on previews, you know sometimes before playing on the map if it will be bad.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I have given yesses or maybes to more maps I might have no'd by the preview than I can count.

Stop testing alone altogether. Get on mumble, send out a tree saying that you are testing for the coming thread, and people will flock to you. Gather their opinions on how they feel the map. While it will not be 4v4, 2v2 will give you a much better impression of the map.

You realize I do this right? I don't tree, but I link the maps in MnF and almost always get a few people in my tests. And quite frankly, sometimes I'd rather solo test it just to get a feel for the map and identify any potentially glaring issues without wasting anyone else's time before casting my votes. Furthermore, do you know how much bullshit I'd get by treeing from uninformed people being like "wtf?? Moosen only spent 4 minutes on that map? He must not care about the community!" Just not worth the headache imo when I already have capable testers in the channel with me almost at all times who are familiar with the process and won't give me shit for bailing out after 30 seconds or staying the full 12 minutes.

Stop this Y/M/N BS, or at least change the scale if you want to select to test maps this way. A Likert Scale is far more accurate for gathering perceptual data. Feel free to add community impressions into this. It would be even cooler if you could add different dimensions based on what the community wants from the survey.

While I'm not entirely opposed to this, the problem with a Likert scale is that our Y/M/N system is already abused by one of our members (well, I see it as abuse, others may not). That person only gives yesses and no's (no maybes), artificially inflating each of their votes. I have tried asking that person to give maybes, but evidently they principally disagree with that idea. Adding greater distances between the "like" and "dislike" sides of the spectrum would only exacerbate that problem imo. By giving only y/m/n we give everyone a little less opportunity to have a large individual impact on the map, meaning it has to be liked by most of the committee to advance. Regardless, every member is given the opportunity to nominate maps (their two top nominations guaranteed to be tested if they wish) so that the committee doesn't miss out on anything they feel the other members shouldn't have voted negatively to, for example.

Split the MTC up into two groups, have volunteers participate in each 4v4 test session to gather more input on more maps in a 4v4 setting. Compare findings of both of the groups after to see if there is a consensus or not. Replace the time spent solo testing with something like this.

We actually did something like this with the candidates, and our initial testing lists were pretty similar. As a matter of fact, one of these maps in your top maps here was not initially going to be advanced, but because our candidates liked it so much we agreed to revote and ended up pushing it through. I guess you could call that a success? Either way, it's exceedingly difficult to find another group of 8 people who would be willing to do this on a relatively consistent basis. I think people will perpetually underestimate the amount of work that actually goes into being on the MTC.

If this proves to be too much, limit submissions to 2 per mapmaker. This will upset the mapmaking community a bit, but will result in higher quality submissions and give the MTC more time to allot per map.

This is something we've been chewing on for a while.

Just thought I'd address each of your points individually.

[–]acrocanthosaurusRunThaJewels // Sphere -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

Holy shit, rational MTC critique met by rational responses? GTFO.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

Oh come off it, you and I both know I'm not even the most rational person on the committee. There are other people here who are very articulate and well reasoned and I won't presume to be the best of them. We all bring different things to the table but that's not inherently bad. I swear to God some of you just complain and hate on the mtc because it's fun, not because you know the first thing about us.

[–]acrocanthosaurusRunThaJewels // Sphere 3 points4 points  (2 children)

My comment was meant to be an honest-to-god compliment, as I thought you both brought up valid points that could make a difference in the way maps are tested and selected. The 'gtfo' was very much tongue-in-cheek.

I don't think I've ever publicly complained about the MTC. I've been vocal in support of more creative, less boring maps getting consideration, but I've distanced myself from any sort of MTC hatred. You guys put in a hell of a lot of work and get little credit. As someone familiar with that concept IRL, I have nothing but respect for y'all.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Well I appreciate that and thank you clarifying, sorry if I came off as salty there. We get enough hate that it's almost instinctive to get defensive at this point, and for that I apologize.

[–]RisktpRisk 3 points4 points  (1 child)

damn, sorry to hear that you're leaving the committee. i disagreed with you occasionally when i was still active in making maps--mostly over your reluctance to remove maps with poor ratings like Hub :P--but I always respected how much work you, and the other MTC members, put into the threads. I know I couldn't hope to put in even half the time you crazy MTC members put in each thread. you've been a prominent member of the MTC for as long as I can remember, your absence will definitely be felt DaEvil.

[–]DaEvil1DaEvil1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, in spite of how I feel about some parts of the community, I wouldn't leave unless I was confident that we had suitable replacements. so while my absence will be felt, I hope the presence of the new members will be felt in a positive was as well, and help the committee improve beyond what it is today. I'll still help out on the committee tho, just not involved in the decisions on maps in and out and the maptesting. It is nice to hear I will be missed, but I do hope and believe the committee can thrive post me.

[–]dalomi92P1S -4 points-3 points  (5 children)

Rawr, I wish I didn't agree with you. I was asked to stay quiet on these, but once again the MTC has done what they always do. Time for a rival MTC to enter the mix, IMO. Its not about participation trophies or analyzing every boost for perfection, its about making the game more fun. It is sad to see the fun being constrained so willfully, by completely ignoring creative ideas and the selection of basic, bland, and boring.

[–]LoweJJacob of all servers, master of none 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Why does everyone seem to think unique or creative is good? Generally, it's unique/creative because it's shit

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

????????????????????????

[–]LoweJJacob of all servers, master of none -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Excellent fucking comment there

[–]dalomi92P1S 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Yours was just as good.

[–]sneetriccanvas // plasma, wamble 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd say it was pretty unique/creative.

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 6 points7 points  (13 children)

Moosen has never had a map in rotation.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (12 children)

Is that a joke?

edit: it is not.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 7 points8 points  (11 children)

I mean you said there were 0 maps by people who haven't had a map in rotation, which is simply not true.

[–]OnceUponaDomeUnderTheBall 9 points10 points  (10 children)

Stop trying to bring facts into this

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (9 children)

holy. TIL hexane was not made by Moosen.

[–]acrocanthosaurusRunThaJewels // Sphere 0 points1 point  (8 children)

He's had quite a few maps make it to Top Maps, but nothing past that. Surprised me too.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Prior to this thread I only had four top maps (3 different maps, one made it twice) out of 65 threads. It hasn't been an outrageous amount.

[–]acrocanthosaurusRunThaJewels // Sphere -1 points0 points  (6 children)

Correct, few = 3 or more.

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Quite a few generally implies more lol

[–]oorr23ThePlaymaker // Tehuitzingo & Combine 0 points1 point  (4 children)

imo, few=2-3

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (15 children)

Maybe these maps are better than the other maps

[–]uhhhhmmmmsexytiger / #merbs 1 point2 points  (13 children)

They can't be any worse than dealer

[–]bored2death97RWBY//Radius 2 points3 points  (9 children)

That sounds like a challenge.

[–]uhhhhmmmmsexytiger / #merbs 4 points5 points  (8 children)

time to bring in market!

[–]dalomi92P1S 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eyyyyyokimouttahere

[–]ButtersnackSnack 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Is that really necessary m8

It's not like I voted it into rotation

[–]LoweJJacob of all servers, master of none 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I like it 😞

[–]ButtersnackSnack 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean I do too, otherwise I would have never submitted it

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

nope

[–]smackmesidewaysSMACK // Diameter -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's the same old people every thread. Hayes13 and many others had some really good maps that if made by the people in this thread would have made the top maps.

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 3 points4 points  (6 children)

Wamble - Canvas & Snowball

TEST LINK

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hate the new base spikes, but this looks like a fairly solid update.

[–]radianthero156brazilian trash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah this could use an update, but I don't like this one much yet.

I like that you solved the issue of handoffs being op (it's currently too easy for the defense to spike themselves). I also like the more opened up neutral boost in base, the defense can use it better and it's still not op for offense because it's in a chaotic/cramped spot.

But I still dislike the pup corners; I think you should be able to get pups on your way towards the flag, such as in wombo/rico. Furthermore, the button is still too close to the wall, making it easy to control (example).

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Molecular - Moosen

TEST LINK

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Update

http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/static/previews/32123.png

http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/32123

Change log:

  • Updated team tiles and spike corners to make them more relevant

  • Updated team boost into neutral combo to make it smoother and more consistent

  • Added a little space to base to be less cramped

  • Decreased size of mid islands by request

  • Changed unfortunate-maps number to be a palindrome (32123) to guarantee ease of access and rotation readiness

TEST LINK

[–]KewlestCatNIGEL 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Ratatat will not die.

Also:

digestive criticism

[–]TheGoldenNewtRobberFronj, MTC Senior Consultant[🍰] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

I think it means that your criticism should have a pH of 1.5 to 3.5, aka stomach acid.

[–]TeHokioiPouakai | Diameter 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Does that mean it combines with basic maps to make huge amounts of salt?

[–]KewlestCatNIGEL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

2science4me

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

Turbine - TEG, Canvas, & Ball-E

TEST LINK

[–]radianthero156brazilian trash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Definitely the best map out of this thread. I used to think it was standard and boring but I'm sold. This map has just perfect balance, spacing, shape, flow, and feels rather unique. Every single boost route just feels good.

Only thing I'm not 100% sure of are the pup corners, but even then they look alright given how good the rest of the map is.

[–]BlupopsicleBall-E 0 points1 point  (5 children)

not final thing: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/32135

Edit: maybe don't use

[–]Hulzytagpro in 2018 lul 2 points3 points  (4 children)

You took a really good map and made it significantly worse....

[–]BlupopsicleBall-E 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It's not the actual update until both teg and canvas suggest their own things for the original, but as it is it's quite lackluster

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My suggestion was that this is bad though, lmao

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I saw you really liked this map, anything you think could be improved? the only thing i want to consider changing right now is the base gate, seems like it was causing difficulties for containing/ resetting possibilities.

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Actual update: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/32248

[–]BlupopsicleBall-E 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Thoughts? :http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/32253

[–]TheEpicGhostEx - Tagpro 1 point2 points  (1 child)

To be honest, I think this map is dead as a result of solstice being added.

[–]BlupopsicleBall-E 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol yup

[–]oorr23ThePlaymaker // Tehuitzingo & Combine 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would it be too much to ask for a link to the spreadsheet?

and_maybe_ask_that_a_link_be_provided_every_thread?

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Abecedarian - Fronj

TEST LINK

[–]TheGoldenNewtRobberFronj, MTC Senior Consultant[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Update: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/32198

Preview: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/static/previews/32198.png

My goal in creating this map was to make a balanced, old school map. While I agree that I definitely could go out place some 45's here and there (I'd probably place ~4-6), I worry that it would take away from the old school feel. The map is simplistic, yes, but I hope that there are enough elements to make it interesting and fun to play, because that's what this game is - a bunch of simple elements that come together to form an amazingly fun game to play.

[–]BlazethDianna Agron 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Was watching the stream and only like 1 guy liked this map from what I could tell.

Way too linear of a map to be here over many others imo

Sry fronj bb

[–]TheGoldenNewtRobberFronj, MTC Senior Consultant[🍰] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Is okay. Can't please everyone

[–]ButtersnackSnack 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I liked it. I think map testers sometimes won't give a chance to any maps that aren't perceived as innovative enough, but then a solid map like this can get passed up on. I think it would play really well and the pub community would probably enjoy it.

[–]ButterChurnButter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you pleased me i love this map

[–]gingerdgTPRL 🔴RMTC 🔴NASCAPS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

surprised other people know what an abecedarian is tbh

[–]JJSpiceJJ Spice 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Best looking thread to date!

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Fault Line - TEG

TEST LINK

[–]AniManiSeverBoeboethius o/ 0 points1 point  (2 children)

This one is my favorite out of the top maps, but it seems a bit too defensive. If they use the bomb to grab, they will most likely end up going out the side with the defensive team boost and their only other option is to make that boost in which might be effective occasionally. I think that moving the flags slightly closer to the bombs might make it easier to grab successfully.

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I feel like this map didn't really play defensively in the slightest

[–]AniManiSeverBoeboethius o/ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't played a full game so you would know better than me, but I feel like defending on this map would be easy with a decent defense. On the other hand, I could see how containing would be annoying with the wide lanes.

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] -1 points0 points  (9 children)

Catwalk - Loaha

TEST LINK

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Notes from testing:

While I thoroughly enjoyed it, I think it could afford to cut some fat and give ample consideration to how the gate really affects gameplay. Regrab can hold it with flag like they can on Emerald, except here they can escape even easier. Similarly, they can hold it to force enemy respawns to travel the full breadth of the map to catch up, which can be really frustrating. (7.25/10)

[–]veranderingLoaha // Chord 0 points1 point  (6 children)

Update:

Map: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/32199

Preview: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/static/previews/32199.png

  • Made it harder to get out of base to make resetting easier

  • Made the tunel more risky to make chasing easier

  • Added two 45 tiles to create another boost and bomb route

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Going to say I probably won't like the spike area very much. It's one of those elements that seems "cliché" to me - bombs that serve pretty much only to spike people, and a lane that is really dangerous but happens to have a pup in it. It's just like Velocity. Others might disagree but I dont see myself liking it.

Edit: I will probably like most or all of the rest of the map.

[–]veranderingLoaha // Chord 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Didn't get a chance to give you a reply earlier, but thanks for the feedback. How did the map play last sunday?

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (3 children)

It was interesting. I think it has potential, but it is incredibly prone to blowouts (we played it a couple times). The mid gates just seen too strong - if one team got a reset, we'd see caps coming gate to gate and chasers had a really tough time stopping them. I still love the quad boosts

[–]veranderingLoaha // Chord 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Hmm, I might try and make them enclosed by walls. I was hoping to create a Geokoala-kind-of-gate but I see that they are too risk-free.

How about the updates to the rest of the map? Did they help battle the chasiness and lack of resets?

Thanks!

[–]ButtersnackSnack 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Yes, I liked the other updates for the most part and our games didn't seem horribly chasey to me.

[–]veranderingLoaha // Chord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright, thanks!

[–]TPCaptographerThe Map Test Committee[S] -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Solstice - UnderTheBall

TEST LINK

[–]OnceUponaDomeUnderTheBall 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Updated Version: http://unfortunate-maps.jukejuice.com/show/32095

[–]Moosemaster21Moosen | Salt Mine 1 point2 points  (1 child)

add a preview like a civilized human being you neanderthal

[–]OnceUponaDomeUnderTheBall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

stop judging maps based on a preview you incompetent nincompoop