This discussion began here:

http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread?ThreadID=61478

In an attempt to address the difficulty in identifying good maps worth playing on from the sheer number of maps being published Apollo has posited the idea that a group of experienced mapmakers could vote on whether newly created maps would get published or not.

My concern with that suggestion is the negative effect that having their maps rejected would have on the morale of budding map makers, potentially removing their motivation to develop into quality map makers. Also increased bureaucracy will lead to a slower system and runs the risk of grinding to a halt altogether.

I would suggest having a peer voted list of quality maps to play on. An archive of the new (and very good) "Map of the week" [EDIT] http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread?ThreadID=61431 [/EDIT] scheme would serve this purpose very well I feel, and allow players who want a "sure thing" the opportunity to find one very quickly, whilst still giving others the chance to discover a "hidden gem."

Edited 11/3/2014 23:25:22

the system works, why do you wanna change it? As long as Fizzer can effort the memory space for all these maps, I cant see any reason to figure out a solution for an unexisting issue. There is also no need for an archive of very good maps - you can already find them on top of the map list.

I think that's a terrifying idea! Having just spent two months making my first map (this one: http://warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=36556, almost done), the idea that it could be arbitrarily rejected from the game by a particular group of people would be heartbreaking. By all means use the rating system, or expand the "featured maps" list instead, that's fine, but to actually go to all this effort and then not be able to even play it myself against my friends that I invite would be appalling. To be rejected on objective rules I can cope with (not least because then I'd know what I'd need to change to get it accepted) but to be chucked out on the basis of taste would feel hugely unfair. And the possibility of it would definitely have deterred me from starting.

...imho.

Edited 11/4/2014 01:31:33

Amos, I don't think any of these ideas have been terribly well out. Even if they had, it's unlikely they would make their way into WarLight policy at this stage, so please don't be disheartened. I mostly use a phone, so I can't easily follow the link you posted, but please invite me to a game on your map, and we'll see how that goes!

Wow. You actually sat down with google maps and drew every single building in your area of the city. (i should do that lmao)

Nostance could you possibly elaborate the issues with the recent system, at first. I dont really know what your concerns are about, yet.

Ranek - I haven't any issues with the current system but an interesting discussion was arising with Math Wolf and Apollo in the thread I linked in the first post, and I created this thread so that it could be discussed without hijacking that one.

The observation (first substantiated by Math Wolf, and later corroborated by a number of players, including Apollo) that there are so many maps being released that it is apparently difficult to decide which maps are worth playing.

I suggested this idea like a year ago and back then Fizzer thought that this kind of "censorship" wasn`t a good idea.

Thread: http://warlight.net/Forum/Thread?ThreadID=3990
The basic concept was to have some kind of panel that would give advise on what could be done better on the map (before its published). The mapmaker decided to either agree with it and work on his map, or to ignore it and publish the map like that. So simply a panel, excisting of people who know what a map needs, that gives advise but forces nobody to make the changes.

I wasn't being this serious, for an instant change - it wont happen. Its not really censorship if it can be published if improved.

Now of course advice/review constructive criticism is always good. But it was the idea of not being allowed to publish maps if the panel disapprove that seems disturbing.

And I haven't really found that I've had a problem picking my way through the many, many maps that exist. Between all the different sort options, in particular the sort-by-rating one, and the various recommendations you can find on the forum, I think it's quite possible to pick the wheat from the chaff.

Yeah, I wouldn`t make it so that they can stop a map from being published, just giving tips.

Some sort of rejection system is bad.

But, you could focus on identifying 'bad' maps (which is subjective) and try contacting the map maker with suggestions.

The current system works. Lets not change it what is not broken.

While I have to agree on the fact that getting your map thrown out would be disturbing, there could always be a compromise. I suggest that we have a board of people who decide if a map should get promoted to the "Featured" status. Maybe a "Weekly" maps option should exist, cycling through the good maps every single week.

---

Maybe trolly maps should get destroyed, like the Trollface map, which has absolutely no purpose at all. But then the question becomes what makes a map trolly. Poorly made maps might get eliminated and well-made maps might also be ruined

---

In conclusion, Warlight will be forever haunted by bad maps, but we must try our best not to eliminate the freedoms of others in our attempt to clean up our reat world

Rejection? That was never an option. Rejection and improvement is, If mapmakers aren't willing to make improvements they shouldn't be making maps in the first place.