I think it's just a matter of fro understanding that none of this is his fault and no one is blaming him. He did nothing wrong, considering he submitted his map on time and everything that has transpired since then was none of his own doing.
This is why I mentioned that "tier" system. I believe this is a fair system where maps are ranked in various categories and then organized into a preliminary list. I'm unfamiliar with the judging behind the 1v1 contest, but it's very possible that under the tier system I used, it could have been just 1 point below the other maps when all the categories were added up.
On the topic of Orxgens, I believe there is some information that ought to be brought to light (pun intended). http://www.forgehub.com/maps/orxgen.1871/ I posted in this thread on March 1st, the day of the deadline. I personally walked around on the map prior to the cutoff time and approached the author with normal feedback. On March 2nd, @thefro3po makes one of my suggested changes. This was after the deadline. As we all know, bookmarks update in real time. I don't believe that we were permitting changes to maps past the submission date, but these changes were not noticed to have taken place at this time. Now here's the kicker, on March 5th he posted this: Of course, this was way past the deadline. All 4 of the Judges were not present to walk on or play on maps until March 7th. Some of the maps however were played on March 3rd in an unofficial lobby, which was streamed by @Sethiroth. During our initial inspection of the map in Forge, we noticed framerate drops and deleted lights to see if this would alter its performance. This version of the map was not saved or playtested. The map was noted for having framerate problems in Forge, however we passed it onto the playtesting stage to see how it would alter the gameplay. There is no contest record of the map being played again until the 18th, wherein framerate drops were noted as being very minor. What we can conclude is that the framerate drops on Orxgens were addressed by the original author prior to its official playtest, but not before an unoffocial playtest wherein only one judge was present. The root of this whole problem is that we used bookmarks instead of files saved to a testing account at the date of the cutoff. This is the first issue we will rectify in the future.
Those who judged and those who managed this contest should have been 100 percent impartial to the end of the contest, providing key changes or advice in a maps structure, weapon layout, or even spawns is a clear violation of that and grounds for calling this a corrupted event. Whether it was intentional or accidental, this contest was not conducted in a fair manner and I'm very disappointed. I actually thought these contests were a light of the community forgers, providing a realistic and beneficial goal to enthusiasts out there, but how are people going to look at it now is up to how you guys want to handle the situation, and how you handle yourselves in the future with these contests. Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons. Maybe the word is lost on some?
The judges didn't make any changes to weapon layout, spawns or anything. We placed the powerups on pads after the map reached a top 5 position as an 'experiment'. There are too many assumptions floating around that we had a large hand in making changes to this map or playing an 'edited' version throughout our testing. The only alterations we tested were on the 8th or 9th testing round.
Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't it been said that the judges altered the map themselves regarding the lighting issues. It was "only the matter of taking a few lights off". The author eliminating some lights (after the deadline) does not mean the frame rate was fixed and that more changes weren't made by the judging parties. Warholic posted this on his comment on the second page of Thisforum - Lighting was fixed on that map by deleting them, no other treatment was made to fix performance. (done in less than 5 minutes) This leads me to believe the judges made the alterations as they have been quantified in time it took to make. Your post makes it seem that all changes were made pre contest testing
You guys really should have left the maps alone entirely, labeling them as experiments doesn't change the fact they were being edited and scrutinized before the contest was over, which could lead to unfair opinion before the contest was over. Judges don't go listen to the peoples music beforehand on america's got talent, food judges don't pre taste food at competitions, you guys shouldn't be messing with maps until it's time to do so.
Our only alteration, which consisted of placing powerups on pads, was conducted after the map reached a finalist position. I was responsible for preparing maps for the 2v2 playlist and found that the map played better with those adjustments. I handed in the final selection of maps to 343 with the adjustment I noted above shortly afterwards.
I don't know how many times I have to word the same sentiment differently, but I'll try again. If the frame-rate drops were severe enough for you as judges to have to delete them to continue playing the map for testing, then the issue is certainly severe enough to prevent the map as a whole from going through the later phases of testing, if not from continuing past the first round altogether. You cannot claim that the frame-rate correction was trivial AND justify your use of the edited map for testing. It is directly contradictory for that reason.
No matter how you justify it, its not how a contest is supposed to be handled, if your position as a cc is going to interfere with the operation of the contest you should be allowing other people to handle the contest so that you can truly be objective to these contests.
Perhaps there was a conflict of interest when I approached @thefro3po with feedback following the posting of the thread. However, I did so as someone who had been following the development of the map in WAYWO and anticipating its release, not as a judge trying to give it an extra leg in the competition. I did this for several maps prior to or on the submission deadline, however I understand how it may seem unfair since I did not offer my feedback for all 140 submissions (which obviously wouldn't have been realistic). If the judges are expected to abstain from any feedback on map submissions prior to a contest deadline, then this could potentially be something we change for the future. Perhaps we should not be permitted to offer feedback on the day of the deadline to encourage people to post their submissions earlier and seek feedback. War was referring to the day we took the lights off of the map. Orxgens is not the only map that we tinkered with in Forge; however I do not believe these "experiments" had an impact on the results, nor were any maps we edited tested because the maps were all selected from Chunk's bookmarks. War assures me that he did not alter the map in light of the factual recounting of the testing sessions I posted above - not until the weapon pad change. Indeed, the availability of the judges was perhaps the main obstacle. We have several ideas to rectify these issues in the future.
Right there. The map did suffer from FRAMERATE and visual issues so you went in and modified the map. Right there the map should of been put as not satisfactory.
This will be my last post on the topic barring someone posting some factually incorrect information that I can speak on. The power-ups being placed on weapon pads is not just a small change. Deep down, we all know this, as the difference in gameplay is staggering. Here is a snippet from a conversation with War: This was prior to me understanding that his edited version of Orxgens was actually still progressing in the contest to the later phases. Note that he says that the map "plays much better" with the power-ups on weapon pads and that he did it in the first place because that he believes it's necessary "if a map plays slow or players are lost". Again I know sharing personal conversations is looked down upon, but quite frankly it's the only way I can substantially address Warholic's claims. I've been a friend of his since Reach, but in this situation it is hard for me to not believe that he is either purposefully lying about these events or is grossly misremembering them, and as someone who had direct communication with him throughout the contest I feel like it is my responsibility to share whatever relevant and useful information I have.
I hate repeating myself as much as aPK but we did not test anything different than what the author provided for testing during the contest. If you take a look at the date of this conversation posted above you will see that it is made on March 30th, maps were handed off to 343 for the 2v2 playlist at that time. I had to make adjustments to all of the 2v2 maps to properly hand them off to 343. Maps that go in matchmaking must undergo a series of refinement checks to ensure that the general population will have the best experience possible. That requires a full inspection of the map including other changes such as player containment, name location volumes, decals and other aesthetic touches for player orientation.
I've been primarily free this last month, I would have been happy to assist with that so that you could've avoided all this, or maybe one of the other guys, all you have to do is communicate and we're on board.
@WARHOLIC I think this is what you should have started off with days ago when responding. I've been reading in the background without responding until now. Until this response of yours, the impression you've been giving is that alterations were made to the map while judging was on going, in which case the alterations would have had an impact on it's placement in the competition. This latest statement contradicts what you've been leading everyone to believe up to now. The calendar of events seems to be: Map submitted, map tested and judged, place in competition finalized, adjustments made in order to submit to 343. If it reached top 5 before any alterations, in my mind it should stay in the top 5. If alterations were made before the top 5 were placed and it had an impact on its position, then I might take issue :/ I'd probably have to be in the judges shoes to know for sure. Thank you for everything you invest in this community, this competition was no small task.
An update for everyone. We (the judges, along with other people that are directly involved) are doing our best to retrace what actually happened with Orxgens. We're making good progress in piecing everything together. Once we've gathered as much information as we can, we will make an official announcement regarding what happened. Our goal with this announcement is to be as transparent as possible, and to make the best decision we can given the situation. We will be offering all of the evidence that's available, and sharing what course of action we will be taking as a result. I can't say exactly when this announcement will come. I can only say that it's a very high priority for us, and we're actively working on it.
Good to hear but to be honest I don't see why this requires a gathering of evidence. In fact I don't see why the decision should take more than 10 minutes. There has been an overwhelming support shown in this thread that updating the map in any way should not be allowed. The only thing that people seem to find unclear is the weapon pad deal. The main issue is with frame rate. War admitted, and there has already been evidence presented that there was a slight change to better the frame rate of the map. The majority of the posts show that people are not okay with this and think the updated version of the map should be disqualified. The decision should have been made days ago and like I said should have took 10 minutes. The majority is not okay with updating a nap after submission even if it is as small as frame rate adjustments. Now, if the map is still worthy of a prize before it was altered, then by all means let that version of the map win its prize. If the original map is not worthy of a prize because of frame rate, then pick the next best map to take its place. I really don't see why this has been such a difficult decision given the evidence already provided and the overwhelming support to not letting maps be altered after submission.
The evidence that was presented was primarily conversations between individuals. We're trying to gather actual evidence of what was used during testing that's not based upon conversations, or on people's recollection of what happened (since those are often flawed). I think this will make much more sense once the announcement has been made, and I think the majority of people will be satisfied with the decision.