ALL MAPS FROM THE CONTEST IN ONE PLACE

It's true that most players can be infuriatingly narrow-minded (especially in the CS community) when it comes to new maps, but that should be embraced as part of the challenge of mapping.

The most common mistake I see most mappers make is that they get snowblind by their own design. Once you've put the time in to design, build and tweak a map you develop a metabolic familiarity with it that no other player in the world will probably ever experience, so it can be disconcerting and infuriating to watch other players lolloping around it for the first time. The most controversial of Cottons streamed "reviews" was undoubtedly for de_sparity, partly because of 3click's outspoken reaction, but mainly because it's a map that was developed very publicly, so a lot of its fans had also developed some of that designer snowblindness and couldn't appreciate Cottons criticisms. Personally I think most of what he said was spot on for that map. Considering the number of maps he had to get through I think he was remarkably fair and diligent, and thankfully he wasn't the only judge.

When we playtest new layouts on the mapcore server, the first thing I look out for is whether one or either team adopts any sort of coherent strategy on the first round of each half. If they don't, the level designer has failed, in my opinion. It may be harsh to write a layout off so quickly, but that's what most players will do (simply because there are more maps out there than anybody has the time to enjoy) so that's the attitude you have to design for.

Maybe the theme helps selling the map, but it is also extremely dangerous, because if it is the only thing that motivates players to pl, You'll have to detail your map enough to make any layout change very painful and, you'll be less likely to do everything you should to correct the layout, because it would mean waste too many time of detailing. This is why, the primitive state is the one that should be tested the more extensively, and it is the one which the less tested.

But changes with a stubborn community will through a few map makers rather than maps. By remaking classic maps which were around for years, FMPONE has earned the trust of the community, and it is part of why his new map, which he built from scratch will be probably much more accepted than a loooot of our maps thanks to that. And the maps of these mappers should be broadening minds of some.

On another note, if feedback is often non extensive, it is mainly because too many people want feedback for their own projects, and don't really care about other projects, leading in a lack of feedback for everyone, but that is mostly a cultural feat I guess.

Quote from ics

My bet for the 4 finalists are Kharkov, Empire, Abyss and Cargo.

I am pretty sure Coast will make it to the final 4.

FMPONE is one of the judges isn't he? I couldn't think of anyone else who fits better for this job. He knows about artstyle AND gameplay and more importantly how both of these things have to work together to make a great map and I think he is really open-minded.

Really, CS:GO would be a worse game without FMPONE.

Guest judges will be great at their job I think, they can replace pros and the community with their judgements

I'm way more confident in this contest judging than in cevo-gamebanana's contest judges !

In cevo-gamebanana contests, it seems that cevo was doing a job that i personaly dislike. Looking at 3kliksphilip video about cevo review disturbs me. I don't think the map is perfect, i see lots of flaws in its design but i can feel the disappointment from 3kliksphilip. I just can't stand this kind of self-appointed "pro" judge that thinks that, because he's good at the game, knows lots in game and level design. The worst is when he tries to analyse and judge the aesthetics ... my gad just shut up, it's so much not something you're supposed to analyse and judge from a list of criterias, it feels so wrong ...

On the other side, Gamebanana's judges were also supposed to be part of this but we never heard from them, even if i'd have given them a lot more credit into the judging. Just this stupid 15 mins walk from Cotton and his friend on the map, it's really wrong.

I'm sure Vivi, Puddy, Rzl, Fmpone and Sprony will do a much better job. Some of them have been into these mapping contests and know what it is to be judged.

It seems that there are way too many entrances to give everyone a proper feedback, I don't know how it is going to be done :o

Quote from leplubodeslapin

thinks that, because he's good at the game, knows lots in game and level design.

But you don't have to be an expert on game design to know when it works and when it doesn't.

Just the same way you don't have to know how to play wind instruments to know that this is bad flute:

You don't have to be good at something to know when it's bad yes, ok.
But when you're a judge at a contest like this one, you don't just have to put away the "not good enough maps", you have to find the best ones and rank them. And from my opinion, you must be able to explain your choice. That's the big difference between a player and someone that actually knows how a design is make, the player will just be able to say what he likes and dislikes while the level designer will be able to give a lot more reasons and justifications to its judging.

I get that, but I don't think Cotton failed to meet that criteria. There's got to be a shortlisting process when you have hundreds of submissions to go through and some of them will have to get short shrift.

Ultimately I think Cotton's mistake was in being the only judge to make his process transparent. This lead to people assuming that (a) he was the only/main judge and (b) that the streamed part was the only stage of the process. He got an unfair rap if you ask me.

Quote from text_fish

But you don't have to be an expert on game design to know when it works and when it doesn't.

Just the same way you don't have to know how to play wind instruments to know that this is bad flute:

External Content www.youtube.com

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display content once Display all external content

Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

I will disagree on this. As you can see on workshop, shitty aim_ maps are often more popular than super polished maps. Players that don't know how much you can squeeze from source engine will think differently.

Quote from LizardPL

I will disagree on this. As you can see on workshop, shitty aim_ maps are often more popular than super polished maps. Players that don't know how much you can squeeze from source engine will think differently.

Yeah but you can't really compare an aim_ map to a proper map. The people playing these maps are essentially looking for a different experience, so they will judge them accordingly.

I have to say watching that video on de_sparity where cotton(?), the guy who reviews it talks about the map and 3klikphilip comments about it, is really agonizing to watch. This guy makes some valid points but also a lot of what he says is pure speculation and what he thinks will happen. He hasn't even seen live how the map plays out, how can he comment on balance? Also about textures and props? So what if you saw a cliff on another map? Hell, de_zoo uses the stone walls that are on cs_militia. Should i rate it lower because of that? No and neither should anyone else.

3klikphilip has his right to opinion and he is also spot on with some things that the reviewer made up. I also played de_sparity ages ago on a server with people and it played ok. Still, i wouldn't put the map in any operation. But philip says it nicely: "What i don't like when someone loathes up a map that i invested 100's of hours into, and within 15 minutes says what has to be done to improve it."

About workshop. It's pure luck if your map gets a lot of views or not. Basically if it gets a lot of views on the first few days (7) and there are no "really good looking maps or popupar" to compete with. It will get displayed on Steam client on CSGO page (when Steam is in games details list) and a lot, a crapload of views come from that. There is also one week time to have your map visible enough, displayed on the preview reel and after that it gets buried down. There is a 7 day handicap that is given to new maps and after 7 days are over, it's gonna go down real fast even from the most popular today, week, etc lists.

I just don't get the people who release these maps that i can make 100 within a week alone. Sure, they get happy when they do a map in 2 hours and release it but is the workshop really a proper place for those and maps which have taken months to produce?

Quote from ics

It's pure luck if your map gets a lot of views or not. Basically if it gets a lot of views on the first few days (7) and there are no "really good looking maps or popupar" to compete with. It will get displayed on Steam client on CSGO page (when Steam is in games details list) and a lot, a crapload of views come from that. There is also one week time to have your map visible enough, displayed on the preview reel and after that it gets buried down. There is a 7 day handicap that is given to new maps and after 7 days are over, it's gonna go down real fast even from the most popular today, week, etc lists.

I just don't get the people who release these maps that i can make 100 within a week alone. Sure, they get happy when they do a map in 2 hours and release it but is the workshop really a proper place for those and maps which have taken months to produce?

Oh man I have wondered myself why the top 3 spots were taken up by some thoughtless aim-maps. I really hope that proper (maps that are in the finishing-stages) maps can separate from all the no-value (in terms of being operation-worthy) maps in the future. Workshop really needs to be structured differently. I imagine the front page will first and foremost show proper maps and then players can have the option to toggle "silly" maps. They are different experiences and should be treated as such.

The workshop is definitely flawed. The problem is, if you have an automated system you have to accept the bad with the good, because believe it or not, those mappers who push out endless aim maps don't think of their own work as silly, or less worthy of front page ranking so when they upload they're not going to tick a box that says "tick here if your map is stupid".

The alternative is a moderated system, but then Valve would either have to pay somebody to keep it clean or at least identify some trustworthy volunteers from the community who are able to put their time and energy in free of charge.

What I mean is workshop needs to work on the categorizing of the different maps. To have one massive smear of both "silly"-maps that can't ever put in an operation with proper maps that are designed for competitive play you see the problem. A maps fate will be decided within the first 7 days and it just sucks that you have to compare against the popular "silly"-maps when they are not in the same category of maps.

Categorizing alone doesn't make any difference. It's already done in L4D2. People who do stuff for L4D2 just tick EVERYTHING available during upload. Nobody cares to moderate and action will be only taken if enough people report the same thing. Single report does nothing, no matter how accurate it is. So if you go browse campaigns on L4D2 workshop, this happens http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/browse/?appid=550&requiredtags[]=Campaigns - good luck finding any to play on.

They just made the workshop work like it works now and they are now done with it untill they someone invests time to do it better. Players making noise makes them scared but i guess nobody has made enough to make them notice. Though this happened with Skyrim workshop. Players got angry, Valve backed off quickly. They are too scared to change things in their games and in Steam itself.

I'm not sure why but Valve also lowered the rating of getting 5 stars on a map months ago. It used to be 250 thumbs up, now it's 150 to get 5 stars on map as rating (if you have 0 negative ones). So if you have 300 positive and 50 negative votes, that will be 4 stars (16% negative) but once you exeed 150 votes and are able to keep 96% of votes positive, your map will keep the 5 stars.

@ics

where did you get this kind of information? I've been looking myself but couldn't find anything.

Quote from esspho

@ics

where did you get this kind of information? I've been looking myself but couldn't find anything.

It's not said anywhere if that is what you are after. It comes from personal experience. I'm not even sure if you can drop under 5 stars once they have been achieved or is the percentage to keep it really 96%, could be very well be even just 90% positive ratings.

I've done CSGO & TF2 maps and L4D2 campaign and followed their ratings with great interest, just like anyone else would have. I found out that 250 ratings was kind of the limit to get that 5 star rating. Of course my maps have also some negative ratings, so i did the math and followed when they actually get that 5th and that limit was pretty much 250 as long as i had 96% positive votes at that time. My first CSGO map took 250 ratings to get that 5 star rating, so did the L4D2 campaign too. The 2 later CSGO maps and the TF2 maps i submitted seem to have 150 rating limit to gain those 5 stars.

thanks for the insight.

Could you please add this as well?