Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Back to List

Tumult Featured

Planet Scheat

By hunterw
Rating:

14 x 14. Tumult by hunterw.
Size: 14 x 14

PLAY ON THIS MAP


Downloads: 10638
Manual downloads:
http://zero-k.info/content/maps/Tumult.sd7
http://spring1.admin-box.com/downloads/spring/spring-maps/Tumult.sd7
http://api.springfiles.com/files/maps/tumult.sd7


Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort
{redacted}
7 years ago
Units don't destroy trees when walking over them. Their colvol is pretty big, so units can just hide inside them. Needs a fix.
+0 / -0
5 years ago
FAV
+0 / -0

6 months ago
This map seems quite popular, should it be featured?
+0 / -0


6 months ago
It's pretty but imo the dunes make for terrible gameplay.
+1 / -0

6 months ago
I personally don't like the dunes either. They really mess with visibility. The map seems to be popular in votes though, so I'm wondering if there are some strong supporters of it.
+0 / -0


6 months ago
Aesthetics are a powerful thing.
+0 / -0

USranko_o
6 months ago
The dune gameplay is terrible, and I know some other players who agree. I do like making a shipyard in that center pond though.
+1 / -0

6 months ago
I do like it, despite the visibility issues in the dunes. There was one battle where I plopped a stinger in the dunes to fend off Recluses, and it would not fire at them and they could shoot freely (presumably they had flea eyes and the indirect fire helped). That was irritating. On the other hand the rugged but not too rugged terrain means that although spiders are attractive, they don't necessarily crowd out other bot facs. This same map hosted the most demanding, but most interesting cloak game I've played in a long time as well.
+0 / -0


6 months ago
Someone tell me the actual difference between a Featured and a Supported map.
+1 / -0
6 months ago
Supported maps should be maps that work with Zero-K. Arbitrary game play and graphics not being a determination factor. Mex should all work and the map should give no errors. The map should also have graphics that are not broken.
+0 / -0
That doesn't quite answer my question. You've written something that could guide the humans designing and implementing a featured/supported system, and broadly, I agree with the distinction you wrote. However, the system is already designed and running. The design goals that we hold may have drifted significantly in practice as multiple people work on the same system.

Players don't care much about the theoretical distinction between featured and supported. They just care about the kinds of maps that they are automatically presented with or able to manually pick in various situations. The map tags are mostly internal features, the various map selection systems are the primary user-facing systems in this area.

As I understand it, when CHrankAdminDeinFreund added supported maps to the endgame map poll he removed the most important practical distinctions between the featured and supported tags. With this state of knowledge I have trouble answering the question "should it be featured?" because such a question seems vacuous - I don't think it will have any effect on the experience of players. That is why my question would be better phrased "What is the technical distinction between Featured and Supported?".

I also don't know what the current poll actually means, although I can see it is meant to be some sort of popularity contest.
+0 / -0
Personally I think that too many maps were removed from featured for arbitrary reasons, aka I do not like the way this map plays or icky sea map. Supported should probably be manual vote.

I think CHrankAdminDeinFreund was thinking that people would know which maps they want and vote on those. However, most players do not know which maps are good.
+0 / -0
There has been overwhelming feedback from other admins that players don't know which maps are good. Thus I'll probably be changing the map polls at the end of each game to only show featured maps. Before doing so, I'd like some more maps to be featured. This is because I'm of the same opinion as USrankAdminJasper, thinking that the current featured map pool is too arbitrary and not a representation of a popular (big teams) map pool.

In the original implementation, multi-option map polls were showing supported maps because they were intended to completely replace map polls. Most of the time, there's no chance to call manual map polls. I didn't want to rob players of the ability to choose supported maps with a UI change, so I added them to the options.

The map poll currently displays two popular maps, chosen randomly from the top 20% highest rated maps, as well as two random supported maps. This could be changed to only featured maps. I agree that this makes sense category-wise, as otherwise there's no real distinction between featured and supported.
[Spoiler]

If you have a look at the highest rated maps, you'll see that there are quite a few non-featured maps in there. I feel like there are not enough arguments to warrant many of those to be effectively unavailable in teams host.

The map ladders are generated from the results of multi-option map polls. Each poll is treated as a 4 way FFA with one winner. Maps are scored using Bayesian Elo. There has only been a very small sample set until now (many maps were only in a single vote) so don't take this too seriously.
+0 / -0


6 months ago
The most recent round of de-featuring was to drop the size of the Steam install by a few GB. New players care a lot more about being able to join a game and just play than the difference between 200 and 80 maps to choose from. We also had to protect the map download server.

I've said that more maps can be added to featured. If you want to add a lot of maps (as you did with the supported change) then you should make a list.
+0 / -0


4 months ago
Featured.
+0 / -0
Back to List