Felinwe wrote:[...]
New account with a very recent reg date. Nice to see that
Felinwe wrote:Hang on a second, weren't you the one advocating for Realwar to be removed and disapproved?
I never jump straight to advocating for removing a map as a first option when making changes is within the realm of possibility. You yourself say this too:
Felinwe wrote:You asked for changes in one of your previous posts on this topic
So as much as I would love to "hang on a second," what you read and what I said were different. I never directly or outright advocated for removing the map as well as disapproving the map without providing alternative solutions.
Felinwe wrote:Even the map's new description says its a work in progress and they'll keep updating it.
What's your point? A work in progress can still be criticized or disliked, although it would be premature to do so.
On another note, it'd be nice if the description no longer said "the original realwar" because this new rework isn't the original anymore.
Felinwe wrote:Still, stick to your guns and don't flip flop between wanting it removed, wanting it fixed, wanting it to stay approved.
It looks like you're not even clear on what it is you're responding to. You're flip flopping between "aren't you advocating for disapproval" and "you're asking for changes." My post was an address to every side of the debate I could address to, not a post pandering to one side of the issue. Neutrality is an actual position that exists, believe it or not.
Felinwe wrote: they seemed to have added the kinds of things you brought up, the map now doesn't have that big spamfest in the middle anymore, the towers aren't campy anymore, there's plenty of cover and almost a second route through the water. Is that not what you asked for?
Addressing the problem is one thing. Being content with how they addressed it is another. Anyone can still very well spam on top of the floating structure in the water because that area is completely open and there are still angles from the roofs of each tower that can still allow for spamming down to the ground despite the lasers preventing people from standing closer to the edges to do the same exact thing.
I still see fundamental issues existing so no, it really isn't what I asked for. The staff aren't making solid cases or responses by citing play tests as that's observational/anecdotal evidence which are highly subjective and prone to bias.
Felinwe wrote:Let's be real, you're really getting worked up that the staff use a special account for that purpose rather than boosting their own LDRs off fixed updated and improved versions of ancient maps?
Let's be real, this was an issue brought up a long time ago:
viewtopic.php?f=117&t=14959&p=138259#p138267Why should a staff-shared account get full ~+7 LDR per approved map just for changing some elements on things they didn't even make themselves? Better yet, if the purpose is to replace maps with improved versions, then there should be no LDR benefit to the staff-shared account as LDR would be pointless to gain. The realwar map is in x death's name yet the credit and LDR technically goes to the account as if the account made the map entirely.
A better solution would be to simply disable LDR gains or hide it overall. No one needs to gain it here. It's silly that this needs to be argued with "it's better than letting staff get LDR" as if it's the best solution there is.
Felinwe wrote:It bumped whoever is at #200 down off the list, which at 12.75 LDR isn't exactly the biggest achievement in the world.
The account is meant as a place to keep reworked maps in one location and is not treated as an entity. It shouldn't take up a spot on a leaderboard as if it were an entity or person. That's common sense. It's not about being #200 or being a great achievement.
Felinwe wrote:Sure it'd be better off if the account had a fixed LDR of 0, or 5, or 10, or whatever number makes you happy, but it's not this "ethical problem".
It's certainly an ethical problem to me. Perhaps not to you. Your opinion doesn't refute mine. I consider an approved map repository account (that's mostly run and spear-headed primarily by one person if map descriptions are to be believed) overtaking people on a list it doesn't belong in simply for carrying out its purpose to be a concern. It's similar to having alt accounts on the same list.
Felinwe wrote:I know you're just stirring shit up, but 17 matches started isn't bad for like 3 days given the dire state of MP
Good accusation. You've essentially done what I said the staff would do. Wonderful, given you've given the typical "defensive staff member" tone I'm used to seeing. Looks like I've successfully begun to "stir shit up" by ringing up posts of this kind and thus my objective is done.
Felinwe wrote:but 90% of unranked realwar players will just continue to play as soon as they see a match or ID named "realwar", no matter the updates to it.
That's because the map freely uses "x death-realwar" as the map ID still. Anyone not aware of any changes would assume they're playing on the original map as soon as they see the ID.
DoomWrath wrote:Especially since all the maps on that account are currently my reworks. It'd be far from fair for me to have that much LDR boost especially when I have no current approved maps anyway.
It's not that different from having an alt gaining LDR boosts if you're the one spear-heading the operation of an account shared with multiple people who aren't even visible in how things are running. The account is really just mostly you but with a supposedly collaborative "purpose" as an excuse and red herring to justify the artificial and unneeded LDR boost.