Wargrounds of Scape (WoS) - discussion thread

[Grey Waves]

Something worth considering is that if a map fails due to the time limit rather than the judges' votes, then the creator of the map is not going to get any useful feedback about how the map could be improved.



I wasn't around at the time of this thread's creation, but I think it's pretty clear that the time limit was originally implemented so that maps wouldn't be in limbo indefinitely if one or more of the judges stopped voting for whatever reason (as happened to Platypus), not to fail maps that didn't gain enough attention from the judges. As Sir Heroscape said, if Savage Corridor was such a bad map that there was no way on Earth it deserved to be inducted, it already would have received 2 downvotes by now. I realise the need to have some sort of time limit to keep the queue moving along, but at the same time, having a map fail on a technicality is pretty unfair to the map creator/the person who submitted it.

The fact that a map can go for 4 months without receiving enough votes to outright pass or fail does have some implications for the overall structure of the project. I think it'd be worth the judges considering whether either 1. the current time limit for casting votes is too short, or 2. whether the number of maps under a time limit simultaneously is too high (since the more maps under the time limit, the more ways in which the judges' attention/time will be split). Addressing either of these issues, if the judges deem it necessary, would go some way to prevent this situation from occurring again. An alternative solution would be to only call time on maps that have passed via the 75% rule when time runs out, however this would not solve the underlying issue of maps only getting 1-2 votes during their 4-month time period, and so I am not as enamoured towards it as a solution as I am changing the actual time limit for votes or the number of maps under a time limit at the same time.

~Grey Waves, giving his thoughts

[itsbuzzi]

If a timeout is an issue due to having too many maps to review you could have a temporary halt on new submissions to allow judges to have the space needed to review the maps already in the que and not get backed up.

In this case if a rule like this were implemented a temporary halt on submissions would be in effect post Sir's nomination due to the judges having received too many submissions and if and when Sir's map timed out (like this case) there would be a clear reason why and if this halt were still in place it would prevent Sir from simply resubmitting his map.

Otherwise without a rule like this Sir can simply resubmit his map and if having too many maps in the que is the issue the timeout did not solve it because the same amount of maps would be in the que pre and post Sir's map nomination decline.

[Typhon2222]

As a major supporter of the WoS, I'm delighted to see such community interest and investment in the project, as the recent posts demonstrate.

That said, I think worrying about the timer issue is still a tad premature. Savage Corridor doesn't time-out until 2/11. Give our judges the full time period before musing too much about this, I'd say. After all, one more negative vote — or two positive — within the next couple of days is all it would take to reject or accept it.

[GameBear]

Originally Posted by Sir Heroscape

I don’t buy that it takes 6 months for judges to decide if a map is even worth testing.

Originally Posted by Grey Waves

.. the time limit was ... not to fail maps that didn't gain enough attention from the judges.

I'm not sure these statements match what superfrog and OEAO wrote:

Originally Posted by superfrog

I know other judges were feeling like they could have used more time to decide on the map ..

Originally Posted by OEAO

Several of us are still deciding how- or if- to vote.

These posts suggest to me that Savage Corridor has been getting attention, and has been tested by at least some of the judges. I read these posts as saying the judges are trying to decide whether to vote 'yes' or 'no', not trying to decide whether to test in the first place.

In other words, Savage Corridor is somewhere between a clear 'yes' and a clear 'no'. I imagine reviews of maps in that range might be the hardest for judges to write.

Originally Posted by Grey Waves

Something worth considering is that if a map fails due to the time limit rather than the judges' votes, then the creator of the map is not going to get any useful feedback about how the map could be improved.

This is true. As a mapmaker, I always valued the feedback provided by reviews, positive or negative. At the same time, judges may feel additional pressure to write something thoughtful when voting, for this reason. Trying to put into words why a map falls short (rather than just writing "meh") can be a challenge. I've received "meh" votes before; I appreciate when judges take the time to provide additional feedback.

It's also possible that judges on the fence are waiting to see if other judges feel more strongly about the map, before writing a lackuster review. This, too, seems like an acceptable approach, and potentially leads to more constructive feedback for the mapmaker.

I would not have any objection to a judge voting 'no' on a map they weren't enthusiastic about. With the timeout in place, maybe a "no" vote at the deadline from judges on the fence (with a simple "I wasn't enthusiastic enough about this map to vote yes" review) would be more satisfying than a timeout for mapmakers? With or without an explicit deadline vote, the implication is the same:

Originally Posted by OEAO

If we were enthusiastically in support of it, we presumably would have already voted. If it times out, that’s a pretty decent indication of our opinions.

[superfrog]

Also worth mentioning that WoS had a map "fail out" before (High Ways or the Highway timed out at 0-0), so having a 1-1 vote wouldn't be the worst outcome in our history

[OEAO]

I don’t have much to add to Gamebear’s excellent post, other than that his reading of our statements is absolutely correct: there are several judges who have tested it and haven’t voted yet. And to echo Typhon’s remarks, the deadline hasn’t passed yet, making all of this quite premature. I would expect to see at least one more vote within the next few days.

[Sir Heroscape]

Originally Posted by superfrog

Also worth mentioning that WoS had a map "fail out" before (High Ways or the Highway timed out at 0-0), so having a 1-1 vote wouldn't be the worst outcome in our history

I didn't even realize that...but do you see how that's an issue? nobody ever voted on it AT ALL? so it just fails?...come on...surely you can see that that just makes no sense.

Also, can you confirm whether or not a resubmission is allowed for maps that simply time out? i.e. Highways or the Highway, I see no reason why we couldn't just resubmit it in order to provide judges time to review it.

Originally Posted by OEAO

I don’t have much to add to Gamebear’s excellent post, other than that his reading of our statements is absolutely correct: there are several judges who have tested it and haven’t voted yet. And to echo Typhon’s remarks, the deadline hasn’t passed yet, making all of this quite premature. I would expect to see at least one more vote within the next few days.

Good point that it is a bit premature...but had I not stepped in to apply a little pressure, would we have gotten more reviews on the map? I'm not so sure (heck we still might not). I take issue with the fact that you've confirmed multiple judges have tested it and yet we only might see an additional review. Granted, all it takes is a negative review for it to get canned anyway...so that puts this particular case to rest...but the issue still remains, if only 1 more positive vote comes in then you're at 2-1...so again, timing a map out simply because other judges never got around to writing the review seems very odd, to say the least.

I also want to point out, I'm not taking this personally, this isn't my map. I do love the map (having played on it a lot), but moreso I see this as an issue in process and would hope it provides outside perspective on improving the process. That is: the "timing out" rules ought to be revised. That's all.

[superfrog]

A map that fails can be resubmitted without edits. It's already happened for HotHW and Borogoves.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Sir Heroscape

I didn't even realize that...but do you see how that's an issue? nobody ever voted on it AT ALL? so it just fails?...come on...surely you can see that that just makes no sense.

It happened when the entire project went dormant - I hardly see how that's relevant. The timeout didn't make anything better or worse.

Originally Posted by Sir Heroscape

Also, can you confirm whether or not a resubmission is allowed for maps that simply time out? i.e. Highways or the Highway, I see no reason why we couldn't just resubmit it in order to provide judges time to review it.

First, it was already nominated again, is already in the queue, and already has a vote, so nominating it a third time would be a bit irrelevant.

But more generally - yes, you can nominate a map again after it fails, irrespective of how many members of the panel voted. However, to paraphrase what Gamebear noted, the timer has not not run out on the map. I would not be surprised to see another vote or two come in and render this whole debate moot. The fact that it's still in this state so late before the timer, in this case, speaks not to the judges' collective inactivity, but their ambivalence.

Originally Posted by Sir Heroscape

I see this as an issue in process and would hope it provides outside perspective on improving the process. That is: the "timing out" rules ought to be revised. That's all.

I disagree. The timer is a promise to the community. When a map is nominated, we guarantee an answer, one way or another, by a certain date.

Judges have been testing. If we reach a point where it's truly an issue where maps are in this state at the timer and very little testing has been done, that doesn't mean the timer is the issue, it means that the project has lost momentum and has deeper issues. Not having a timer won't solve that issue, it would just paper it over.

[Sir Heroscape]

Fair points. I've said my piece. I appreciate the dialogue.

Will wait to see how this pans out.

[Nomad]

Thanks for the considering Savage Corridor.

[Flash_19]

Hopefully this will help alleviate some angst.

Savage Corridor
I have played a number of games on this map, and I do like it overall, but this map sits right on the line for me in terms of acceptance into WoS. In that way, this map feels very much like Invasion - a map I also struggled with - and they share some similar features in addition to terrain sets. I wouldn’t hesitate to use either at a general tournament because the potential problems that I see will not come up too often, and likely won’t be too punishing; But, it has been difficult to determine whether both meet the high standard of WoS.

I don’t love SotM maps with a large concentration of inverse speed bumps (dips down to level 0 swamp water), particularly in a location where they are so close to the start zone and have to be traversed in order to access desirable portions of the map. These dips can make late game pushes slightly more difficult for figures left in the start zone, but more importantly, they further slow down figures with less movement. Considering that the location of these dips slows down progress towards the highest height is both good and bad. It is good in the sense that it makes it harder to obtain that height, but bad in the sense that it makes it harder to contest that height if an opponent takes up a position there. Dips that are adjacent to the start zone can also be very problematic if a player decides to wait for their opponent to come to them (usually, from my experience, a tactic that appears in the late game with range versus melee). I don’t see this happen very often, but it does happen. Also, there are only a couple same level spaces to attack into the start zone in the rare instances where that happens. Lastly, there are a couple other dips in the map that seem to punish players just a little too much for routing units through a particular path. I would also revisit the placement of a couple of the standard water tiles.

I was initially concerned about the two hills, particularly when combined with the road layout. The road doesn’t border the highest points of the map, but instead functions better as a way to rush the opponent through the center. This concern has largely been alleviated through playtesting. I don’t think this map suffers from the two hills problem despite the road placement.

Having said all that, again, I like this map. Nomad has done excellent work, and I ended up liking this map more than I thought I would when I first encountered it. Could it be better? Yes. But my playtests have alleviated my concerns with this map just enough to vote yes…. For now.