Agreed, Chunk. I After the PM's and public debate, my position remains the same on Orxgen, I thought the map was very original and played exceptionally well and valued the map with the lighting issue accordingly. I know there are many others that view 'performance' differently than the judge panel, which is why I'm very interested to get everyone's thoughts on this. If there is enough support to disqualify this map based on performance then we will do so. I personally did not think it was a huge issue since the fix was subtractive and not additive. Similar to spawning, performance doesn't affect the physical architecture of a map. If others have different views for their personal judging criteria we would like to hear your thoughts as we are receptive of feedback and want to ensure we are making acceptable decisions. @aPK : Decisions were made as a group, not by me exclusively. The performance issue was discussed and everyone agreed that the map's positive attributes outweighed the negative ones.
I don't always comment, but when I do it's to try to be helpful although I do thank you guys for the interesting posts to get through my work day... lol On a side note, it would be neat to have a community voting for maps play tested that would account towards 50% of the scoring and the judges as the other 50% or something along those lines to get people to play together and promote forge even more so. Most of the circle here doesn't even necessarily play together.
Soooooooo I definitely did not intend for this thread to turn into a discussion about the contest, but I tolerate it going off the rail all the same, as I value open dialogue between parties that have strong differences highly. However, I was really hoping that this thread would subject to creativity and throwing off the shackles of "rules" that forgers have created over the years. That it would be a thread to bring attention to how individual cliques have a tendency to form and hold in-group biases. Anyhow, as you were.
From my perspective, it's not as much a matter of people forming and holding in-group biases as it is the fact that people naturally gravitate to others who share their same view on things. Perhaps its just a matter of semantics? Regardless, as I've said numerous times, it's really unavoidable and inevitable. If someone brings a personal preference (of mine) to my attention, it may make me aware of it, but it's not going to change my preference, so ultimately it doesn't really matter. There's no way of ever eliminating this thing you keep referring to.
I'm not talking about eliminating it, but bringing it to our attention. The individual should be self aware for their biases, as well as that of their friends. The only thing I do believe should be eliminated though, are the bullshit rules that forgers concoct about level design.
I guess I'm just wondering what being aware of your biases will really change. I think I'm pretty aware of my biases. It doesn't change the fact that I have them, and in cases where I'm required to compare maps against each other, my biases are always going to be present and impact my decisions. That's why they're called biases. My awareness of them in no way lessens their impact on my decisions. To expect people to overlook their biases just isn't realistic. I mean, I get your point. I just think the point is mostly irrelevant on an individual level. If you're talking about gathering groups of people with varying biases, then that's a legitimate point, but I think people's idea of how that would change an end result is not as good as they imagine it to be. You often end up in a situation where the end result is boring and watered down.
You're so caught up in trying to convince yourself and the community that your actions were within reason that you are completely ignoring the fact you made changes to the map. I honestly cannot comprehend how someone with any integrity at all could do something so unethical. This was a contest and the map he submitted had a problem with it. The job of the judges is not to fix the map--it is to judge the map and compare it to all the other entries. What irritates me the most about this situation is that you could've simply ignored the lighting issues or the lack of weapon pads. You are the judges and you are within your rights to say: "You know what, that map is great and although there are a few changes that need to be made, it still deserves to be in the top 5. We'll contact him about what needs to be fixed if we want to consider it for matchmaking. Lets see if there are any other maps that are better and do not require any changes to be made. If there are, we might need to reconsider the placement of this map in our rankings as the version he submitted has those noticeable flaws." You could've done this and had absolutely no problem. The moment you guys touched that map in forge, your opinions on the map were no longer the opinions of the map he had entered into the competition. His entry didn't have those alterations, whether additive or subtractive. Your opinions became based on what it should have been and not what the entry was. End of story. I personally believe you need to disqualify the map from the contest and apologize to the author for unintentionally disqualifying him. He should not be able to receive any monetary prize for a map that the judges intentionally altered with or without his permission. That is a completely unethical way of running a contest and awarding him for changes made to the map after the deadline is totally disrespectful to the other entries. When it comes to whether or not it should be considered for matchmaking, I agree with @Duke of Mearl. Your earlier mistake of keeping the matchmaking reward a secret just saved his map. The people who entered maps into the contest had no official statement saying that the top 10-12 would be considered for matchmaking. During all that uprising, you had mentioned that maps from outside the contest could still be considered if the quality was there. Ethically, I see nothing stopping you from still considering his map for matchmaking as a map from outside the competition. Let him make the changes himself and feel free to include it. You are within your rights of doing so because he is not taking a prize away from someone else who knew the official prizes and participated in the contest for a chance to win that prize. Since matchmaking was not an official prize before the submission period ended, you can tag his map along with the others when you pass them on to 343. That is my view on the matter. I will be very disappointed if I see that map win a monetary prize come results time. Not surprised, just disappointed. I look forward to the next lengthy post I will have to write next time something like this happens.
That is why I recommended trying to find ways to involve the community into more of an closer community by interacting together through game nights, testing, map walk through/suggestions. To be honest maps that are posted don't even get reviews. I don't post on them often myself, so I am just as guilty. It would be cool to have a box next to the shoutbox that allowed people to post their gamertag in it and say they are available for customs at that moment so people could get custom games going easier. In regards to the cheating voting from the community, it could only allow members that have been signed up on Forgehub for more than 30 days to vote. As far as the competition goes for the maps, if the judges were fair and equally treated other maps to minor adjustments like removing lighting than, it shouldn't even be a conversation.... Also the map creator shouldn't be disqualified for the judges changes, but on the next contest create a specific scoring system for each category for all maps and clearly define performance (framerate vs. playability for example)
Can you guys stick to 1 or 2 sentence jabs at each other? It's really hard to follow all these long winded emotion poops you call replies.
Trying to be subjective: If it wasn't a problem then you would have kept playing the same version. The fact you altered it means it was a big enough of an issue to not keep testing it as it was. If you aren't going to base a map on performance then why list it as one of the criteria that you are judging on? Also changing a prize after the deadline is generally a big no-no unless the winner consents. At the end of the day it is your contest and your website and you'll do what you want. People being bitter over test results is one thing but I think this issue has unified more people against what is coming off as bias. ever since I've joined this site all the controversies have just seemed to make it if things in the community less and less credible which is sad because this website has everything this community needs. I'm hoping that in the end of the day you make the right decision, whatever that may be, and can find a way to make ForgeHub great again. Full disclosure: I've never played on this map before so can't talk about the merits of the map or many others submitted even though I think I have the most custom games played according to CAPI as last I had heard it. Hell I don't even know who the map is by nor do I want to know (I've been trying to stay ignorant to this fact).
You can't have community judged things like this. That's where stuff gets voted by people's friends & as aPK stated, people with YouTube channels & such have a massive advantage over regular Joe forgers. As far as bias, I must have a bias. I always thought that symmetrical maps were the most competitive regardless because it's a fair start on equal ground with the same opportunity for advantages in the map. I get that they aren't as interesting or as fun to forge as asyms, and I actually like asyms more even though they are harder to design. That's why I made a symmetrical map for the contest. (Oh boy there he goes again, I know) but even if my map doesn't make top 15 or even top 50 I find it hard to believe that there were no symmetrical maps that were good enough for top 15. I didn't look at all 145 so I don't know the stats exactly but I struggle thinking that there were at least 15 asyms that were better than every single symmetrical map on the contest. I hate to say this cuz it looks like I am whining because my map didn't make the cut but it's not the case. I didn't place anywhere close to the top on the H2A 1v1 & it was an asym. I didn't throw a fit but I guess that's my own bias biting me in the butt. I purposely made a symmetrical map and put far more effort into it due to this being a competitive tourney. So it's important to recognize your own bias cuz my bias mislead me in this case. --- Double Post Merged, May 13, 2016 --- I also hate to say Fropoe has to be disqualified but it really is an unfair situation. And I can say that knowing it has no affect on my placement. It wasn't his fault though so that's a tough call.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I personally never experienced any significant performance issues on the map. The issues would have had to be pretty severe to affect my view on the map. I think I've only ever personally ruled out a map solely due to performance issues once in the contests I've been involved in. I can't say performance is a non-issue for me. However, the map design and gameplay far outweigh all other factors. Unless performance makes a map almost unplayable, and/or significantly impacts the results of games on the map, I don't view it as a major issue. This isn't necessarily the case for all judges, it's just my view on it. So I guess my point is, I would've gladly played the map exactly as it was submitted, and I highly doubt it would've impacted my rating of it. Of course, it's all speculation on my part, so in that respect your point is very fair.
If the original map submitted, frame rate included, is still deemed as a top map then that's fine. But after a contests deadlines submissions should not be altered by judges, in any contest. That's the red flag here. Now if it's declared a winner then it will be seen as tainted and uprisings will continue I'm sure
Orxgen reached our top 5 prior to any 'alteration' that would affect gameplay. I placed the powerups on pads towards the end of our judging as an experiment since the map would eventually land itself in matchmaking and a tournament. That alteration didn't affect our decision to place the map in our top 5 at all.
Just to give a tiny bit of feedback regarding your maps, since I don't remember if I ever gave any on the map you submitted to the 1v1 contest, and I haven't yet commented on any of the maps submitted to the current contest... Turning point was an excellent map. With a few changes, it would've been in the running for a place in the top 3. There really wasn't anything majorly wrong with the map, it just ended up a half notch below the top tier. I think if it had been a 2v2 contest you may have had a winner on your hands. 1v1 on it was good but not great. Both of the maps you submitted to this contest were pretty good also. I know you personally favored Trestles out of the two (and I agree). The issues I personally have with Trestles have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it's symmetrical. Having seen the map progress on WAYWO, I went into the contest with high hopes for it. I'd be happy to share more specific feedback with you somewhere down the road (please remind me if I forget). Regarding the absence of symmetrical maps in general, it wasn't honestly the result of a personal bias against them. I love symmetrical maps probably more than most forgers. I think it would be great if everyone played through all of the submitted maps that they think have potential and compared them. I'd really be curious to see other peoples opinions on them, and see where they differ from mine.
I'll start by saying that I haven't used this site really since Halo 3, where I only posted one map. As such, like Duke, I've also not submitted a map into this contest. However, before I bring up how I feel about the whole thing, I'd like to ask a few questions: What was the reasoning behind locking and deleting aPK's original post on this forum? As you saw he went to Reddit and the post blew up there, enough so that this thread was even derailed to discuss it. The original point Schnitz was bringing up has now pretty much been lost while people discuss their feelings about the contest. Even if you changed fro's map by just removing lighting, did you do the same for all maps that had framerate issues, or just fro's?
I appreciate the comments, but I don't know how to explain it but I don't mean to say you or the other judges were bias towards symmetrical maps. I guess I did sort of say that I guess. I am aware of the issues trestles has, 3LG explained a little when he caught me whining in the shoutbox about not getting in MM. Of course I want it to make it but oh well. I just think symmetrical maps were more competitive but it must be a bias on my part.
I think the Asym vs sym is a thread worthy topic outside of here. Feel free to make it because I feel the discussion is certainly worth more than being a sideshow to this thread
The thread was locked because the results have not been officially announced. We weren't trying to avoid the discussion. We were trying to avoid having it until after the results have been announced. I personally didn't cut a single map due to performance issues. A map needs to be virtually unplayable for me to do that. I'm completely in favor of giving all maps equal treatment, and I would've supported taking the same steps on every single map that was submitted. For me, performance is something that's taken into account only when all other things are equal. And when I say all other things, I don't literally mean all, I mean all of the things that I consider the core attributes of a map (layout/design, weapon set and placement, gameplay flow, pace of play, overall appearance). Performance ranks below all of these in importance, unless it directly impacts these attributes in a way that I consider to be significant. If there had been another map in the contest that was on par with (or better than) most of the top maps in all areas aside from performance, I would've supported taking the same course of action. I realize that performance was listed as one of the judging criteria, and I did take it into account. It just so happens that in this particular contest it wasn't a determining factor in any of the cuts I made. That's not to say that there weren't maps with major performance issues, it's just that all of the maps that had those issues had major issues with the core attributes that resulted in them getting cut. It's so rare to see a map that's top notch in the core areas but has performance poor enough to get it cut, that it's almost a non-factor for me. I would put what was done to Orxgens in the same category as adding color coding to sections of a map to assist with orientation. It's something that can have a minor affect on the core attributes of a map, but not in a significant enough way to separate it from another map. If the changes are significant enough to separate one map from another, then I'd agree that they shouldn't be made.