I think allowing map editors to edit their approved maps without losing approval status should be made easier. I think it will allow for better balanced, better flowing, and more fun maps. It should allow for better creativity because the application of a good idea can be better balanced.
Now, the arguments for allowing approved map editing are as follows:
- The mapper can respond to feedback efficiently, without having to wade through the forum and defend their changes.
- The mapper can edit small issues on their map easily.
- The forum for editing maps is often ignored by EG, or does not receive enough attention. The process is clunky and inefficient and discourages posting.
- Mappers worry about accidentally losing approved status when copying their maps (I know I do)
- Maps are often ignored, feedback-wise, until they are approved.
- Mappers can respond to feedback by 'try-hards' - not casual players whose K/D or PPP is not affected when playing the map, who don't care as much about the flow or skill cap (map testing, in my experience, is too much of a social event).
The arguments against:
- The map could lose what made the map approved in the first place
- Griefers, editing the map to make it worse, unfair, or inappropriate.
I personally think the benefits far outweigh the negatives. The system I suggest is allowing either (1) Mappers on an innocent-until-guilty system, where they can edit until they are found griefing, in which case the mapper loses rights to editing without un-approval and the map is reverted, or (2) The mapper must prove they have the maturity to edit approved maps, and then they are allowed to edit.
What are your thoughts?