Hey. There is a obsession for some people to always vote for these horrible 1on1 maps with very nerrow hallway while there are many players on. it makes most players suffer and get frustrated (those who actually want to play CTF)
I suggest to auto decline these maps if there are more than X amount of players on the server

Yes, I know what you mean. The mayhem is just popular among the masses. The hope is that those that enjoy that type of play will also stick around for more CTF type maps when they are played. Mostly it seems to work, you get a bit of both each day.

What you propose is definitely a good idea. We have discussed it here some before. It will take some changes in the mapvote code.

Recently, I've been thinking that it might be best to still allow the voting of the small maps when there are lots of players but to assign a lower weight to the vote. For example, maybe if there are more than 10 players on the server a vote for a small map would only be worth 3/4 of a vote. The same could be done for extra large maps when there are only a few players on the server.

You restrict those maps the player count on the server will drop significantly.

I don't think that the player count will drop... that would be debatable.. Because the ones don't like those maps with high player number will then also leave...

Nevertheless there's def. players that like that kind of messy games.

Personally I don't like it, and usually I sit out those maps... Also If I play those maps.. Usually people then complain that I'm spamming (like everyone is) just because of my nickname 😉

And you kind of cannot expect anything else other than spam on such conditions.

Having the above said - It's totally up to @snowguy
I like the idea of assigning a lower voting weight depending on the map size vs player count.

If you still find a large map with 18 players, it's because the majority are waiting to vote for a small map in the next round.

    I've never seen anyone say "You're playing a reasonable sized map so I'm leaving"
    I have seen many people, myself included, that leave when a map such as "1on1 Joust" is choosen

    BULBAFLEX I'm not suggesting large maps only. Just not these tiny single corridor maps.
    I don't mind maps like 2on2 crates with 18 players. only these Joust type maps that usually end up with 0-1 after 50 min of gameplay.

    How about, just giving a warrning to the players when such map is about to win.
    I noticed that when i spam the chat with "Careful! this map is tiny and very frustrating for 18 players" people change the vote.
    so how about giving an automatic warrning when a 1on1 map is being voted when 12+ players are online

        Well as far a big maps go 1999 called and said no one wants to play that shit either. Pugs don't even use those big ass maps, people seem to like medium maps such as Duku or Bleak ect... Don't get me wrong I probably dislike Joust maps as much as you but I would be more likely to leave if a map like Orbital and the other dog shit maps people vote for to pretend they are OG win the vote. Why do all these IG players think we could give a fuck what they think we play what we play how we play it. Forget the rules on old lame ass IG noob servers and embrace something better.

        Unfortunately, MapVoting is the same as democracy that makes people suffer.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #11

        Right now they are playing Niven Chaos... it's the only way the same 4-6 players can get frags.

        LOL worst part of Niven doubled. I do have to say Niven SE has grown on me.

        2 months later

        Unknownman

        only these Joust type maps that usually end up with 0-1 after 50 min of gameplay.

        we currently implemented a fix to these excessively/insanely long and arduous games by implementing an OverTime feature into SmartScoreBoard.
        how this works is if after a predetermined time no0ne scores or the scores remain even then the team with the less deaths & highest overall score WINS the match... no more 50min rounds on our servers at least.

        now on the note of small maps and tons of players we may also have a solution which i have posted here: https://eatsleeput.com/d/282-perhaps-a-better-utilisation-of-servers/3

        i agree with @Unknownman that small maps +tons of players ends quickly with the majority of CTF players leaving for the door after xx minutes.

          Can always play the big maps on the servers with no players.

            Ooper yeah because there is no middleground in the world. It must be either huge maps or tiny maps with hideouts for the crouching flatfooted spawnkillers.

              small and medium sized maps are probably best.

              There are a few small maps that play well with ~ 10 players that uses spaces smartly so it's still fast pace without the andaction "charm". I'm just terrible at remembering the names.

              I'm not against small maps. Maps such as: W00t, LiandriDocks, 2on2crates, fragwhore, picperfect, comboking, 2on2-OvalTech etc etc - ARE ALL FINE
              I was only talking about maps such as: BadBrothers, 1o1 Joust, Niven and the new fan favourite: 2on2Stalwartlite.
              And it's not even the maps that are not good. it's the players who abuse these maps because they aren't good enough to actually play CTF

                Unknownman as if on maps you mentioned ppl play differently. W00t, fragwhore, picperfect - is just a triggerbot firing range with ppl sitting in corners/by crates/on ramps and just doing mindless spinal cord pew-pew (assuming that they don't cheat). Crates, oval, comboking - ppl sit and spam on spawn and flagpole.
                Maps are rarely the problem , but people always are.
                p.s. Well, camping and spawnraping is kinda lame, but arguably it's might be treated as "playing ctf objective" if we adress it as "map control".