I feel like you're missing my point entirely. I'm not complaining about losing the contest. In fact, I couldn't care less about the contest because like I said, "It would have played better with 8v8." I never said 5v5 was the best, and that's why I don't care about the contest. The issue I'm adressing is about the CCs. The map being featured. Not specifically on the video channel, but the website. Either outlet would be fine, but like I said, It came down to Duck saying no. It's important you realize this is not me simply pouting about the past. This is about a dishonorable action taken by a CC. Plain and simple. I have no issues with you. I have issues with the CC's. Please don't talk down to me as if I'm out of line. I will not tolerate that. My OP belongs in this thread. Sorry you interpreted it as me crying.
I've got an idea that could potentially lessen any Bias, or potential leaking information that has been mentioned in the previous thread. There should be a submission system for people to submit their maps for the CCs to look at. The CCs will look at and either approve maps for consideration, or reject them (hopefully, with at least a brief reason why rejected) The approved list would be public knowledge and easily accessible and can be sorted by map type and CC. Maps for any style of game (2v2, 4v4, grifball) can be submitted and approved at any time. When 343 decides on including community maps, they will give the CCs 1-2 weeks notice about which style of map they want. Testing can begin immediately from the approved list, and the community shall know about the 343 request at the same time as the CCs. This will prevent leaks as the forgers and CCs find out at the same time, and prevent a flood of maps made just for matchmaking. This also provides people with maps that were rejected to fix anything, yet not enough time for most people/collectives to create a map from scratch. Once the list has been narrowed down a bit, a voting system similar to that of how grifball maps were determined shall take place. 343 shall have final say.
Transparency The word keeps coming up, but it seems a bit too wide spread... too general. Everyone seems to agree it is one of the areas that could see some improvement. But, what needs to be made transparent? Matchmaking If it's just CC's (when able) informing the community of opportunities to have forge maps placed into MM, than that's simply a matter of CC's communicating information through as many social media outlets as possible (and periodically afterwards) in order to ensure forgers across the known universe have a chance to hear about it and then act on it. #Exposure Easy fix But unless as a community we're aiming to change the methods in which 343i communicates their needs to the CC's, I'm not sure how much more transparent we'll be able to get. Unless We're talking about the actual process in which maps that have been gathered (after the community has been informed and are now ready to be judged) are widdled down... then that's another thing. I'm not sure how you'd remove the human bias though, when there are still humans involved in the selection process... Unless we're talking about using Sea Lions. humans Regardless Whenever you're about to take on a project of rehauling a large machine/system that has been in use for years and still needs to operate while you're rehauling it, you'll be better off focusing on one section or specific part at a time and not taking apart the whole thing and end up with parts laying everywhere. Suggestion
You guys were talking about a new map voting/feature system earlier. I think, if such a system is being considered, it would be best if it was an in-game feature, where everything is and where you could easily switch between different kinds of maps. If it's in-game, it reaches the most players in a comfortable way. An additional website by 343, which would be uniform to that in-game system would also help, I guess. Just some thoughts to help the brainstorming process.
Nitro made it clear in the OP that he didn't want this thread to be derailed into a discussion of individual cartographers' actions. This thread is for discussion regarding potential solutions to the problems that the community tends to have with the Cartographer system.
Option H for sure. I didn't have quite a clear opinion in my head when I started, I'm glad I waited to weigh in. Little bits and pieces from everyone's opinion is what's going to make this work. First and foremost there should be a specific Playlist for custom content that is set up kind of like the arena Playlist now. Each map will have to pass a standardized rubric to get into said Playlist at ANY authorized Forge site, this will trim the fat from all of our available resources, while leaving the bigger part of the voting process in game. If a map gets enough votes, it will move up in rank just like your player would for doing well. Maps that reach the onyx level get put into MM after one final look from 343 to make sure there are no floating *****'s in the sky. To summarize, about half the work would happen off scene on the various Forge sites with people who love Forge, further processing my the jackals of matchmaking, and final love by 343. This might even let us keep our resources we have right now without changing anything else, other than everyone coming together to get the rubrics together for each game mode
Let's get down to the real issue here We all spend hours and hours laboring over maps and feel that they should be given a fair shot to make match making as any other map. A map should stand on its merits and not the merits of the person who forged it. Now why does this not happen? Lack of communication about what is being looked for is brought up a lot but are we not making these maps anyways? If a thread saying "post your 4v4 map for match making consideration" then you'd have a thread with potentially a thousand posts. Most people have one, if not multiple maps they can submit. By the time the CCs went through them all halo 6 would be out. There is way too much content and content that makes match making should be given very thorough testing. Even if a map seems to play well we don't want maps that are broken or show a obvious flaw after a lot of testing. Now Id assume the window to pick maps is a short one to begin with. In my opinion the CCs should not wait until they are given a task to start compiling a list of maps we know that 343 will ask for. However, we do have to remember that the CC position is not a paid position and it is a position that we need to have knowledgable people in. So what is the solution, as I don't think a poll is the way to go as it often is very flawed for multiple reasons. Instead we need to realize the CCs are not the answer but the community is the answer. We need to create tools and resources for the CCs to use so when a calling for maps comes down they have solid resources to rely upon. There are a lot more of us then there are of them and we have to come up with ways to filter content effectively. Not all maps are great, or even good and I know this first hand as I've made a bunch of **** maps that I may have thought were great at the time. If we have ways to let them focus their testing on proven good maps then we are taking steps in the right direction. All the CCs would need to be willing to do is to not hold personal biases and utilize the resources provided to them. I have been working on something with other members of the community that we hope will aid this process and it should be announced within the next day or so.
What should the goal of the CCs be? To represent the community or to pick the best maps for matchmaking? Is it possible to do both? How--if at all--should the community at large be included in the selection process? Should we know what the CCs are looking for? Should we know the specific process used to filter maps? Should we ourselves be the mechanism by which maps are chosen? -There is nothing inherently wrong with the existence of the CCs -The CCs should either be chosen by the developer or by the community--not by existing CCs (if they were to have a role it should be secondary to the community, i.e. a veto or approval system) -Inactive CCs should be removed and replaced (I think optimally there would be 16 or more active CCs so BTB test lobbies can occur without outside involvement). Though more CCs may injure map quality it will also help eliminate prejudice. -CCs should constantly bookmark maps of MM quality -if and when 343 needs a specific task handled beyond core maps w/standard team sizes it should be made public by the developer to ensure the community is aware of an unusual request. -343 should not be required to give any timeframe for unuasual requests--maps that existed before the announcement may be given preference as they were natural creations of the community. -an official location for submitting maps for these unusual maps should exist, though other maps should never and in no way be exempt from making it in to MM -regular 2v2, 4v4, and 8v8 maps should be added as enough are collected rather than manufacturing maps to fit a certain goal or timeframe. -ultimately I could care less how the CCs go about choosing maps, whether it's by majority vote or by a veto system it doesn't matter as long as they as a group have an agreement of some kind and they are considering maps from the entire community. -the idea of the community breakout playlist and voting stucture would be a good inclusion of the community overall for regular community map updates. Once the CCs have a pool of maps make a playlist and allow the community a feeling of agency through a voting system. Ultimately quality maps should be the goal with a secondary aim to try and make sure certain communities don't feel marginalized. The CCs help ensure quality maps are chosen over a democratic system and they are more accessible than if the developer was choosing maps themselves. CCs should always be looking for quality maps for all playlists and forgers should focus on making content that they enjoy rather than focusing on winning their way into MM; however, if 343 needs something unusual everyone should have equal access to that information. Generally the problem with the maps selection system has been inconsistant distribution of information. The developer has to ensure that information is distributed fairly and they should be held accountable for that. The job of the CCs should be pick out objectively good maps to the best of their ability and nothing else.
First off, it's been a long time since I've seen Sloppy Bottom doodle! Second, this well written and neutral as you could possibly get with addressing an issue, such as the one we are plagued with ATM. I do however want to comment on some things. Both Yes. Yes, even though there will come a time when maps of all kinds are done, I still believe they will have taskings that are needed to complete and that will allow the forgers of that style to refine or create their creation. General Overview, they must meet a certain requirement that is judged equally to ALL maps. Not entirely, we can play a huge part by supporting quality maps that later can be measured by the CCs if they meet all of MM requirements Totally Agree That would alleviate a lot of concerns leading up to the what we have now Agree on the removal of inactive. I feel there should be a cap, a sweet 16 is a good number and leave the deciding vote up 343 if map selection is split. Yep I am going to have to disagree with you on this. IF there was a system that allowed community member s to give feedback on maps and a map that was in this system two months prior to selection, had huge community support/feedback and updates of this map were made to make the best possible map. If you chose a map that no one ever heard of and the map that the community support for so long was not chosen over a map that who knows how well it is or whether or not it's a playable. This would most certainly cause a rift. Put everyone out there equally on the same playing field, let the best maps make it to the top. I can discuss how much I don't like this idea and I would be saddened if a map WAS better than the community supported one and we all threw a fit. This is where 343 needs to step in by using the Message of the Day page - OFTEN allowing everyone an equal opportunity of knowing where considered maps for MM can be held. That's fair for everyone. Agree, yet the 343 is filling up the map pool to the brim currently and I think eventually it will only be a selected few every so often as time progresses. I believe it should be flipped, community backed first. CC - 343 selected. By doing this we know that community already supports the map rather than, picking out map thinking the rest of the community will share the same idea. It honestly could backfire on them. Yes. This just concluded what you mentioned above and I feel like having discussions on a better process for all rather putting the blame individual CCs. The map selection process is vague and can come across as being shady. I just want all of this to be put to rest and let the everyone go back to doing great things by pushing the Halo community to a better place rather than how they left it.
Ok this might have some of what other people have suggested but that is the beauty of ideas. Also I feel I have learned more about the current CC process and situation but I know i'm not an expert. First I think there should be an increase in the number of CC's but with the introduction of an internal structure. I will elaborate. Having additional active CC's will help spread the the power and influence especially in a community that has grown larger. We know that the CC's that are there now were chosen for there specialties in certain areas, mainly the different gametypes. I think there needs to be more CC's per major gametype without getting absurd and a good handful that are specialized in general areas like level design, lighting, and so forth. The internal structure would consist of at least 2 or 3 great forgers for each of the major gamytypes with gameplay differences (EX: Griffball, Race, Infection, Slayer, KOTH/Strongholds, ect). Then there would be around 5 to 7 forgers that present knowledge of a broad range of level design knowledge (ranging from lighting to aesthetics) that would help provide that fundamental feedback for stuff that others in their specialties might not see. the Final piece to the puzzle would be the addition of 3 communication experts, these guys would be experienced forgers but are also those that are good with the community and communicating through writing, similar to a journalist. Their focus would be to take what 343i wants and says and distribute the information in a more professional manner through the different medias to the community (Twitter, youtube, forum posts, ect). Some people are really good forgers but not the best writers and sometimes might leave things out by accident, so having people who are dedicated to that would help that flow of information. This structure would also allow the influence of decision making for the map process rely on a large group of people better suited to the requirements of the maps presented, resulting in more solid feedback and testing rather than it being too much of a mixing pot. It would also be helpful for situations that have multiple game types or inspirations, like for example an infection race map. This might seem similar to the system they have now but in my opinion it seems too sparse, considering the range and extent of specialties. Another thing is that 343i, like everyone else is saying, should be more transparent or rather allow the CC's to be more transparent. They are Community Cartographers after all, not 343 Cartographers. They should not have these secret contests or tasks that result in those maps being put into match making. For anything else that isn't making a map and/or holding a contest for matchmaking I am alright with it being secret, since it doesn't take away opportunities for other forgers to get their stuff out there for millions to see and play. Lastly, picking new/additional CC's should be based on level of understanding of the chosen position rather than popularity or who has the biggest voice, but that should be a given. This should be a process that takes a long time and is not rushed. The potential CC's should show that they are skilled in forge and not just publicizing. Other candidates that should be considered are those that are pursuing a career in some form of video game art and design since they will have a better fundamental understanding of level design than most others. it would be best to draw from the community, individuals, current CC's, and members of 343 (obviously) in order to get the broadest range of opinions rather than ones that might be bias. With this addition of more CC's and internal structure i think it would also aid in the map picking process for reasons stated in the first paragraph. The community should have some impact though because ultimately it is them whole make up the largest group of people who are going to play on them. It should not be a voting process though since it can turn into a popularity contest for the creator and other bias factors. Rather it should be based on feed back from testing lobbies that are going through and testing the top 25 final maps or something along those lines. Those lobbies could also be streamed so the feedback that is said can be reviewed by those making final decisions. Level design wise a map can be perfect in every technical way, but if a lot of people don't find it fun then it isn't a map right for matchmaking.