Limelight Forums

(Oct 19, 2016, 12:21 AM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]Before we start on v5p, let's talk about v2p a bit and why we stopped hosting it back in the day:

V2p was a very good map, and it was a good change from v2d and v33x. It offered a lot of varied areas such as a big farm, a big industrial area, villas, a lake with a big cliff, a big and tall city and the map was just big in general. If we want to find out why v2p failed in the end, then we should look at why maps such as v33x and v2d have been so popular for so many years.

V2d was a small and compact map, and it forced people together and it made roleplay more likely to happen. There was a lot of activity in the center, and it made the map feel less empty and more alive. The same goes for v33x. Although v33x is bigger than v2d it forces players together in the center and it still feels alive when the server-population drops. The nature of the map forces people together, which in turn makes it feel more alive and fun. V2p was too big and too empty.

Alright, so that's what made v2d and v33x so interesting, so why didn't the same apply to v2p? V2p is a good map, but it's very big. You need a full server for it to feel alive and populated, if you have a half-full population (or less for that sake) on then it'll feel desolate or empty. This was the issue with v2p. When it wasn't full, it became very boring as players were spread afar too much. The map was too big to host a medium-populated server.

---

"Yo Enzyme, why are you talking about v2p when this map is v5p?"

It's because both maps are just as big. V5p is an upgraded version of v2p but it's just as big, and with the same size, the same issues appear. We've tried hosting a big map in the past, and we should learn from our experiences with it. When the server-population drops from full to half then the server will empty out a lot faster because people don't find joy in playing in a server/map that feels empty. V2p felt empty, v5p feels empty. The map is great, don't get me wrong.. I just think that it's a map that's too big for it's own good and too big for Limelight and the player-base. The same also happened to Rockford. Among other things, many players felt that the map was too big and too empty and it was quickly abandoned for the more concentrated v33x-map. Yes, there were also other issues with Rockford such as the ping but the size was one of the issues. 

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it
We've tried v2p before and it failed. It failed because the player-base found it to be too big and too empty when the server wasn't full. The same will happen again as the size is the same. I don't think that changing our current map to v5p is a good idea at all.

There's also the point that we can't change maps whenever people get bored and find a new map on the workshop. Changing the map is a big discussion and should be discussed properly and considered carefully. If we were to change the map everytime someone requested it, we'd end up with changing our map every month and people would go crazy. 

Can we change the map? Yes
Do we need to? No
Is it a good idea? No

I simply do not see any good reasons to abandon v4b1, a good map that works, is new and popular, for a map that's basically the same map that we tried before and failed with. I'm not arguing with that v5p is a good map because it is. V5p is a well-made map. The issue is the size. 

The issue here isn't the quality, it's the size size size and... Size matters, at-least when it comes to maps and how they play out.

I see no reason for size to be a factor. Rockford was HUGE, even more empty than v5p, yet when only 20+ players were on it felt alive. 

Also, Fearless tried v2p, we haven't. This is a different community with different opinions. If I'm the only one who feels that we need a proper map change, I'll drop the discussion, but if the community agrees with a map change, then let's put some serious discussion into it. I understand 24 players isn't the majority, but if this group chooses yes to a map, then we should open to more somehow.

^I'll need to point out that we were a part of FL when we tried v2p. 
We tried that a good while before the split and the server-numbers at that time were also very good so we didn't have a lack of players at that time. People were playing on v2p while being in a queue to join v2d.

So to clarify:

- Player numbers weren't an issue at this time as we had a queue-system to join the server(s) because we had such a large playerbase.
- We were a part of FL when we tried v2p so we made that experience as a community. 

I've read through the thread again and I simply do not see any valid reason to replace v4b1 with v5p. It's such a different map compared to v4b1 and I fail to see why we'd change something that works with something that we've proven to not work before.

(Oct 19, 2016, 01:56 AM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]^I'll need to point out that we were a part of FL when we tried v2p. 
We tried that a good while before the split and the server-numbers at that time were also very good so we didn't have a lack of players at that time. People were playing on v2p while being in a queue to join v2d.

So to clarify:

- Player numbers weren't an issue at this time as we had a queue-system to join the server(s) because we had such a large playerbase.
- We were a part of FL when we tried v2p so we made that experience as a community. 

I've read through the thread again and I simply do not see any valid reason to replace v4b1 with v5p. It's such a different map compared to v4b1 and I fail to see why we'd change something that works with something that we've proven to not work before.

It didn't work on v2p due to us having 2 other options open at the time. Let's be honest, people only play on populated servers that they are familiar with (v2d and v33x). No one will commit to a trial test like that, because they want to experience fun with a populated server with their friends.

A big point why we need a good map change, is that we need a fresh look. We've always had the same map. v33x and v4b1 are the same, except for mild changes. Who's to say we can't have a knock at trying an actually more updated, recent, and better map? It doesn't even have to be v5p, it can be Chaos City, Rockford, or any map anyone wishes to choose over the rest.

Another point that sides with the changing of the map, is the feedback on this thread. Sure, I sparked it, but that doesn't mean we can't listen to their supports. If we REALLY want this map over v4b1, then we need to have a community wide vote, serious discussion (private and public), and dedication to see that this works.

Thin text is Soviets statements.
Bold text is Enzymes reply

(Oct 19, 2016, 04:40 AM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]It didn't work on v2p due to us having 2 other options open at the time. Let's be honest, people only play on populated servers that they are familiar with (v2d and v33x). No one will commit to a trial test like that, because they want to experience fun with a populated server with their friends.

So if I understand correctly:

You're saying that players didn't play on v2p because they had other options open and that they rather played on the maps they actually wanted to play instead of being forced to play v2p like you're now proposing?

Yes you are right, people only play on populated servers, BUT it DOESN'T have to be something they are familiar with. I can only talk on behalf of myself here but I've been very eager everytime we've tried a new map, either here or on the ol' community and I don't only play on the maps that I know. I play on the servers that I enjoy and it doesn't matter how good a map is if it's not populated by the player-base. V2p wasn't populated just because it took so little for it to feel empty and it didn't take long until v2p only became the servers where people joined to contrafarm in peace.

A big point why we need a good map change, is that we need a fresh look. We've always had the same map. v33x and v4b1 are the same, except for mild changes. Who's to say we can't have a knock at trying an actually more updated, recent, and better map? It doesn't even have to be v5p, it can be Chaos City, Rockford, or any map anyone wishes to choose over the rest.

Maybe we need a fresh map, but v4b1 is just as new as v5p as v4b1 is just an upgrade to v33x and v5p is just an upgrade to v2p. The only thing we know here is that v33x and v4b1 works, and we know this because of the experience that we've made in many years. This same experience can be used to consider how successful v2p and v5p is, and what the major flaws are and why it didn't work out. As for replacing the v4b1 with Chaos City, Rockford or any other map should be discussed in a separate thread when you've made this thread specifically about changing v4b1 to v5p. 

Another point that sides with the changing of the map, is the feedback on this thread. Sure, I sparked it, but that doesn't mean we can't listen to their supports. If we REALLY want this map over v4b1, then we need to have a community wide vote, serious discussion (private and public), and dedication to see that this works.

Yes, feedback is very important, but only 24 votes on "Yes" doesn't justify a massive change such as changing the map on our only server, especially not with a map that we can tell from experience doesn't work out because of the issues that come with it. 

I agree, change is good and the player-base need some variation, but then it should be with a map that is an improvement; not a downgrade on gameplay.


Due to the experiences that I've made in these past few years, I cannot bring myself to support this suggestion. I think that we need to learn from the experiences that we've made instead of telling ourselves "yeah but it's different now" when really it's anything but. Last time we tried v2p, we had a much bigger playerbase than we have now, so if it didn't work then.. then I don't see how this time would be any difference. 

As the wise man once said, if it's not broken then don't try to fix it. 
                                  ...Especially not when it's the only map that we're hosting

We could have a cycle of maps to keep things fresh? V4b1, Rockford, 2.5

That way we dont stagnate on one map foooooooooooorrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

As it cycles people build up a roster of dupes for the various maps and they would all be maps people enjoy

(Oct 19, 2016, 05:09 AM)BlackDog Wrote: [ -> ]We could have a cycle of maps to keep things fresh? V4b1, Rockford, 2.5

That way we dont stagnate on one map foooooooooooorrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

As it cycles people build up a roster of dupes for the various maps and they would all be maps people enjoy

If that would happen, would admins to it our will it just happen Randomly. If it happens randomly it might ruin a really good RP that is going on.

I like chaos city, but it will take a while for people to know their ways around it. I personally like v4b1 as its simple and detailed, but I wouldn't mind a change

Whilst I do sort of agree with the map rotation, a few concerns that I thought of:

• [font=Verdana]What about places like the Woodcutting Area? Is there sufficient space on the map to be able to do this?[/font]
  

• [font=Verdana]What are we going to do about fishing? Is there a pier on the map?[/font]
  

• [font=Verdana]The different areas left empty for people to build on, is there enough of them?[/font]
  

• [font=Verdana]What are we going to do about dupes? Considering it's (i'm assuming) a totally new map that may/may not follow the layout of V4B1, people may need to rebuild their dupes, which will be extremely time consuming for some.[/font]
  

Like others have brought up, playerbase may be an issue if we switch. Players (especially new ones) like to see maps that they're familiar with on servers they'd like to join as that way they'd already be familiar with the map. Learning the gamemode and the map at the same time may be a push for some.

(Oct 19, 2016, 01:47 AM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 19, 2016, 12:21 AM)Enzyme Wrote: [ -> ]Before we start on v5p, let's talk about v2p a bit and why we stopped hosting it back in the day:

V2p was a very good map, and it was a good change from v2d and v33x. It offered a lot of varied areas such as a big farm, a big industrial area, villas, a lake with a big cliff, a big and tall city and the map was just big in general. If we want to find out why v2p failed in the end, then we should look at why maps such as v33x and v2d have been so popular for so many years.

V2d was a small and compact map, and it forced people together and it made roleplay more likely to happen. There was a lot of activity in the center, and it made the map feel less empty and more alive. The same goes for v33x. Although v33x is bigger than v2d it forces players together in the center and it still feels alive when the server-population drops. The nature of the map forces people together, which in turn makes it feel more alive and fun. V2p was too big and too empty.

Alright, so that's what made v2d and v33x so interesting, so why didn't the same apply to v2p? V2p is a good map, but it's very big. You need a full server for it to feel alive and populated, if you have a half-full population (or less for that sake) on then it'll feel desolate or empty. This was the issue with v2p. When it wasn't full, it became very boring as players were spread afar too much. The map was too big to host a medium-populated server.

---

"Yo Enzyme, why are you talking about v2p when this map is v5p?"

It's because both maps are just as big. V5p is an upgraded version of v2p but it's just as big, and with the same size, the same issues appear. We've tried hosting a big map in the past, and we should learn from our experiences with it. When the server-population drops from full to half then the server will empty out a lot faster because people don't find joy in playing in a server/map that feels empty. V2p felt empty, v5p feels empty. The map is great, don't get me wrong.. I just think that it's a map that's too big for it's own good and too big for Limelight and the player-base. The same also happened to Rockford. Among other things, many players felt that the map was too big and too empty and it was quickly abandoned for the more concentrated v33x-map. Yes, there were also other issues with Rockford such as the ping but the size was one of the issues. 

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it
We've tried v2p before and it failed. It failed because the player-base found it to be too big and too empty when the server wasn't full. The same will happen again as the size is the same. I don't think that changing our current map to v5p is a good idea at all.

There's also the point that we can't change maps whenever people get bored and find a new map on the workshop. Changing the map is a big discussion and should be discussed properly and considered carefully. If we were to change the map everytime someone requested it, we'd end up with changing our map every month and people would go crazy. 

Can we change the map? Yes
Do we need to? No
Is it a good idea? No

I simply do not see any good reasons to abandon v4b1, a good map that works, is new and popular, for a map that's basically the same map that we tried before and failed with. I'm not arguing with that v5p is a good map because it is. V5p is a well-made map. The issue is the size. 

The issue here isn't the quality, it's the size size size and... Size matters, at-least when it comes to maps and how they play out.

Also, Fearless tried v2p, we haven't.

As enzyme stated it got no players on FL, a community with a much bigger player base, so the chances of it getting players here are even less likely Especially when v4b1 is only reaching 70% of its capacity.

After reading Enzymes comment it has given me a second though, I have to agree that map was big and empty 90% of the time and it wasn't fun. I would love to see a new map but there are not enough players off v5p ATM. If there was a map cycle, I would always want to have v2d and v41b

We rely on new players to maintain an active player base so at this time it would be suicidal in my mind with an active base of 50 on peak to go for a map that doesn't work with less than 100

Why do we NEED a map change anyhow?

Current map gives us what we need. Apart from a few things like a PD and that but players can build them sort of things if needed.

(Oct 19, 2016, 08:45 AM)evilmat360 Wrote: [ -> ]  But v2p was never used in isolation, you always had an alternative server that you could join. Where as here if it was to become the main server using v5p, having up to 75 slots available may make it feel a little less huge.

Exactly the point. People don't risk different if they are going to be alone or not have fun. If I was a player at that time, of course I would go to the populated two other servers and not the one that people ignored.

If we replace the main map, even for trial for feedback, I guarantee we would get massive community answers. If the community doesn't like it, remove it and go back to the normal map.

"There is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve: the fear of failure.” - Paulo Coelho

(Oct 19, 2016, 05:29 PM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ]

(Oct 19, 2016, 08:45 AM)evilmat360 Wrote: [ -> ]  But v2p was never used in isolation, you always had an alternative server that you could join. Where as here if it was to become the main server using v5p, having up to 75 slots available may make it feel a little less huge.

Exactly the point. People don't risk different if they are going to be alone or not have fun. If I was a player at that time, of course I would go to the populated two other servers and not the one that people ignored.

If we replace the main map, even for trial for feedback, I guarantee we would get massive community answers. If the community doesn't like it, remove it and go back to the normal map.

"There is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve: the fear of failure.” - Paulo Coelho

This is something that I would rather have in like January next year.
I just don't see why we need a map change any time soon considering one was recently done. Yes, it was an updated version of v33x but at the end of the day it was a new map. V5P or V2P is a map that feels to player 2x bigger and from it's past didn't do very well.

Either way, I would rather have a test run of suggested maps to happen on another server over the course of a week and have a day of gameplay for each map.