Should Custom Maps be Community Assets?

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 30.10.2015 at 13:54

I don't like the banlist either, but can you (or anyone) think of a system that can't be abused?

Something similar to League of Legends' system. Something automated that punishes leaving by temp banning the player from that map for a specific amount of time.

I heavily believe maps should not be community assets, and I will explain why:

It is not fair that moderators, who have no legitimacy in deciding maps, for that is for the mapmakers, to "nationalise" and turn into community assets maps made by private mapmakers, (regular players).
Mapmakers like me have wasted hundreds of hours of bordering, citying, editing units, balance, incomes, scenario tweaking, research, tests, another balancing, and above all committed to make a map, of them, for the community, for how long they like.

In my point of view, the person who made the product (map) should therefore decide how the product should be used, until when the product should be used and he has every right of unpublishing and/or deleting any of his property (maps) without the consent of a mere "authority", called Moderation team.

Making maps company assets demoralises mapmakers to even bother to work on map editor hundreds of hours LIKE I HAVE, just to have their pride (map) away from them, for the "interests of the community".

As I've read before, from njab, why should a map like The War to End All wars be nationalised then? Just because it's widely played in the community, simply for its gameplay aspects? (trench concept, which is pretty autistic)
It should be taken away from a mapmaker that wasted hours and hours and hours in a map to take pride of, just to see it taken away from the community?
If the map is famous, it is because players (generally autistic) made it that way, popularity should not change the map property IN ANY WAY, it remains of the mapmaker, for the community, that's the relation mapmaker-player mods should take into account.





The effects that such nationalisation measure would have would be:

Positive:
I see no positive effects in this, both short and long run.

Negative:
-Mapmakers would not be motivated to work (hard) on their maps, since they cant take pride for their job, as the product would be taken away from them
-Mapmakers would then be mere slaves
-Atwar, a half-dead game already due to HTML5 and autistic community would die
-People would quit the game, and we would face possibly a shorting of map diversity.



So to complete my argument, I strongly oppose this measure, as it is unfair for us mapmakers, who worked hard for the map, to have someone taking it away from us, not to mention it would concentrate atwar power in a reduced number of people, making this game an oligarchy. (a pretty retarded one)

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 30.10.2015 at 14:32

#1.- a term-based position who's only job is to regulate the ban lists (no more mods regulating ban lists).
- the person who holds this position is replaced every 30 days, a person can be in this position unlimited number of times but he can't be more than once in a row.

#2.- collective ban-lists are added
-a collective ban list, is a ban list in which multiple people can add/remove people to it. (bans here can also be appealed)

I don't think we should add more features based on the ban list. IMO it's a flawed system and has got to go. Therefore I think we should work on an automated ban system that satisfies both the mapmakers and the general player base. The appeal format is not reliable, since mods have periods of inactivity and all that jazz.

Kirjoittanut notserral, 30.10.2015 at 15:36

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 30.10.2015 at 13:54

I don't like the banlist either, but can you (or anyone) think of a system that can't be abused?

Something similar to League of Legends' system. Something automated that punishes leaving by temp banning the player from that map for a specific amount of time.

To be under the jurisdiction of the mapmaker, to "program" and "adjust" that system to the map rules.
That's why we need a solely mapmaker banlist, regulated by the mapmaker, whose banlist is divided into his several maps (making like those tick-a-box systems)

Kirjoittanut notserral, 30.10.2015 at 15:36

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 30.10.2015 at 13:54

I don't like the banlist either, but can you (or anyone) think of a system that can't be abused?

Something similar to League of Legends' system. Something automated that punishes leaving by temp banning the player from that map for a specific amount of time.

That won't work. Games often fail so people leave to remake them.

Kirjoittanut SyrianDevil, 30.10.2015 at 15:03

People pay money to have ability to make map=they actually bought the map editer=they have their own design=THEY DO WHAT EVER THEY WANT
if community wants to take someone's map it should offer something in return(protocoins+medals..etc)
map makers don't make the map for the community they make it to get a place they feel like owners on it as i think. so they are able to do anything they want as long as no one want to buy their work....
imagine if you built a house and then governament came and took it from you faggots

Agree people pay not to only to host, but to mapmake, if it becomes community asset, why would I buy premium? to feed a game that demoralises me?

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 30.10.2015 at 15:40

Kirjoittanut notserral, 30.10.2015 at 15:36

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 30.10.2015 at 13:54

I don't like the banlist either, but can you (or anyone) think of a system that can't be abused?

Something similar to League of Legends' system. Something automated that punishes leaving by temp banning the player from that map for a specific amount of time.

That won't work. Games often fail so people leave to remake them.

Regulated by mapmakers, if the mapmakers catches them off guard, or if he receives a ban report, he can just set up a ban (temporary) of lets say 5 hours, based on that printscreen. then after 5 hours, the ban would be automatically turned off.

Kirjoittanut Zephyrusu, 30.10.2015 at 15:40

Kirjoittanut notserral, 30.10.2015 at 15:36

Kirjoittanut EndsOfInvention, 30.10.2015 at 13:54

I don't like the banlist either, but can you (or anyone) think of a system that can't be abused?

Something similar to League of Legends' system. Something automated that punishes leaving by temp banning the player from that map for a specific amount of time.

That won't work. Games often fail so people leave to remake them.

the host could leave without penalty, and once the host leaves there should be no penalty for leaving.

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 29.10.2015 at 14:02

Kirjoittanut Guest, 29.10.2015 at 13:36

It is played every day at least a few times and remember the threads where autistic wallspammers were crying to republish it...

This should'be enough reason, Tunder.

As njab said The War to End All Wars had become the most popular scenario in atWar, and a lot of players plays it. In fact there is even a clan dedicated solely for play this map. It of course holds a very big importance in the game.

Deleting or hiding the map would cause several players to complain, which had already happened before.

.... on the other hand, I would feel bad if I make a map and the game steal it from me. So maybe Aetius should receive a reward to encourage him to keep working on the map, and that would also encourage other MapMakers to work in their map to reach what Aetius reached.

Disagree. Mapmaker should have the ultimate word regarding his maps, regardless of the visibility it has, of course taking it away for some random bitching is also a "ethical" decision of the mapmaker, but still, of the mapmaker.

And if players like Aetius are to be rewarded for maps such as the War to end all wars, you'd have to award several other players for their work in maps that keep players attached and keep players playing atwar, such as myself, due to my RP, which has caused mods to officially thanking me for keeping players on atwar, due to my map's popularity (map daily played the most), Avatar, due to ancient world, and tik tok due to ultimate ww2.


Altough such reward system could actually be plan, stimulating mapmakers to keep producing and keep making atwar better and making them keep players addicted to atwar, and have something they look forward to: their favourite map.

Kirjoittanut Al Fappino, 30.10.2015 at 15:53

Disagree. Mapmaker should have the ultimate word regarding his maps, regardless of the visibility it has, of course taking it away for some random bitching is also a "ethical" decision of the mapmaker, but still, of the mapmaker.

If they were to complain with the MapMaker or just play another map, then cool...

But this is very optimist. They will most likely leave the game and it is not good for the admins. Some of them can go extreme and riot in forums, making the game looks bad.

Fappino, I really don't see a collective banlist managed by mapmakers being implemented.

If we, instead, worked on setting up something reliable and automated it would be way better.

For instance, this is an example:

Users that _leave_ receive a temporary ban of (24 - (Turn they left * 2)) hours from that map. The user gets 1 leaver mark and the game is marked as Leavable, so players can leave without penalty if the game was fucked.

Players with 3 leaver marks are marked as Low Priority, meaning they can't rejoin once kicked, any player can kick them from a game (before it starts), they cannot join a game that has already started and they cannot play in CWs.

Leaver marks expire every 6 hours.

Numbers could be adjusted, obviously.

Kirjoittanut notserral, 30.10.2015 at 16:04

Fappino, I really don't see a collective banlist managed by mapmakers being implemented.

I never said the banlist had to be 1000% under mapmaker authority, the ban report thing to the mods would still apply, but a more effective banlist system to prevent mass ban reports to mods would be good. Still, it's not the mods competence to take away from a mapmaker a map they do not own.

Kirjoittanut Al Fappino, 30.10.2015 at 16:11

I never said the banlist had to be 1000% under mapmaker authority, the ban report thing to the mods would still apply, but a more effective banlist system to prevent mass ban reports to mods would be good. Still, it's not the mods competence to take away from a mapmaker a map they do not own.

Still, the banlist is a bandaid design, but it should be replaced with something more solid. If you want to help with suggestions that would be most welcome, but the banlist itself should be removed.

Kirjoittanut notserral, 30.10.2015 at 16:04

Users that _leave_ receive a temporary ban of (24 - (Turn they left * 2)) hours from that map. The user gets 1 leaver mark and the game is marked as Leavable, so players can leave without penalty if the game was fucked.

if you replace hours with months, then maybe it could work.
but then what happens when somebody loses at purpose? lets say i pick a important role and refuse to do anything? we would still need manual bans

Kirjoittanut notserral, 30.10.2015 at 16:04

Players with 3 leaver marks are marked as Low Priority, meaning they can't rejoin once kicked, any player can kick them from a game (before it starts), they cannot join a game that has already started and they cannot play in CWs.

leavers don't play clan wars, and how can we identify low priority users?

Kirjoittanut notserral, 30.10.2015 at 16:04

Leaver marks expire every 6 hours.

3* months

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 30.10.2015 at 16:01

Kirjoittanut Al Fappino, 30.10.2015 at 15:53

Disagree. Mapmaker should have the ultimate word regarding his maps, regardless of the visibility it has, of course taking it away for some random bitching is also a "ethical" decision of the mapmaker, but still, of the mapmaker.

If they were to complain with the MapMaker or just play another map, then cool...

But this is very optimist. They will most likely leave the game and it is not good for the admins. Some of them can go extreme and riot in forums, making the game looks bad.

game is already nearly dead we can fully kill it by some more hard hits after html5 and this shit mods we have that do what ever they want...
im already very nervous from community as i get banned at forum by meester for calling this guy http://atwar-game.com/users/profile.php?user_id=32590
a religion insulter in <off topic> at off topic forum :/
well we are under dectatorship community rule that you buttlick trollvis :/
we have found out many bugs in this game already(wont say names) but we wont help this shit community by anyway

Horrible thread. my head hurts so bad after reading. i have one question. from pulse's link of the terms of service, its clearly shown that mapmakers dont actually control their maps, rather atwar does. If that is the case why are you all having this discussion, if the matter is already decided?

Kirjoittanut Khal.eesi, 30.10.2015 at 20:09

Horrible thread. my head hurts so bad after reading. i have one question. from pulse's link of the terms of service, its clearly shown that mapmakers dont actually control their maps, rather atwar does. If that is the case why are you all having this discussion, if the matter is already decided?

the ToS is irrelevant, its a long and nice form of stating the obvious "We own this site and we can do whatever we want"
but i am not here to argue about the ToS, and I won't argue about the ToS unless they decide to sue me in which case the ToS is nothing but paperweight. >judging a non-european with the laws of estonia for a game that is hosted in UK

I made this topic to point out how stupid it would be to take away the hide feature away, and so far all i have gotten is "we will do it because we can" and "we will do it because you may hide the map in the future, and the people that you got to stay into atwar will leave" if mods decide to remove the hide feature, at least i tried and i wasn't the one who pulled the trigger.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 30.10.2015 at 16:42

if you replace hours with months, then maybe it could work.
but then what happens when somebody loses at purpose? lets say i pick a important role and refuse to do anything? we would still need manual bans

(...)
and how can we identify low priority users?

There are systems where the player can be marked as AFK by the other players. The problem is - how to prevent abuse? Manual bans and regulation of those bans being out of the question.

The low priority users could be marked with a character or something. Or could have a greyed out name.

Lainaa:

but then what happens when somebody loses at purpose? lets say i pick a important role and refuse to do anything? we would still need manual bans

Kirjoittanut notserral, 30.10.2015 at 21:14

There are systems where the player can be marked as AFK by the other players. The problem is - how to prevent abuse? Manual bans and regulation of those bans being out of the question.

perhaps i didn't explained my self properly: suppose you are in a 3v3 europe and your teammate is turkey, turkey decides to troll and instead of expanding he only moves 1 infantry and put its outside of his cap, turn after turn all turkey does is to move that infantry until he gets capped and then loses (At purpose)

how do we combat those time of trolls without manual bans? the auto-ban has no way of telling the difference between a turkey that sucked and a turkey that lost at purpose.

also AFK players should be punished too if the auto-ban is to work, getting kicked for inactivity should result in a ban. if he went afk at purpose and returned 1 turn before being kicked then how do we deal with that?

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 30.10.2015 at 21:41

Lainaa:

but then what happens when somebody loses at purpose? lets say i pick a important role and refuse to do anything? we would still need manual bans

Kirjoittanut notserral, 30.10.2015 at 21:14

There are systems where the player can be marked as AFK by the other players. The problem is - how to prevent abuse? Manual bans and regulation of those bans being out of the question.

perhaps i didn't explained my self properly: suppose you are in a 3v3 europe and your teammate is turkey, turkey decides to troll and instead of expanding he only moves 1 infantry and put its outside of his cap, turn after turn all turkey does is to move that infantry until he gets capped and then loses (At purpose)

how do we combat those time of trolls without manual bans? the auto-ban has no way of telling the difference between a turkey that sucked and a turkey that lost at purpose.

also AFK players should be punished too if the auto-ban is to work, getting kicked for inactivity should result in a ban. if he went afk at purpose and returned 1 turn before being kicked then how do we deal with that?

don't play rp! instead play competitively where this almost never occurs! problem solved =D

Kirjoittanut Dbacks, 30.10.2015 at 21:46

don't play rp! instead play competitively where this almost never occurs! problem solved =D

Maybe if you put rank 10+ as límit...

Kirjoittanut clovis1122, 30.10.2015 at 21:51

Kirjoittanut Dbacks, 30.10.2015 at 21:46

don't play rp! instead play competitively where this almost never occurs! problem solved =D

Maybe if you put rank 10+ as límit...

7+ is good enough, maybe the r7s can't handle the level of play of the others but there's rarely any trolling

it's part of the game you can't just ban someone for months cuz he didn't do what you wanted

Kirjoittanut Khal.eesi, 30.10.2015 at 20:09

Horrible thread. my head hurts so bad after reading. i have one question. from pulse's link of the terms of service, its clearly shown that mapmakers dont actually control their maps, rather atwar does. If that is the case why are you all having this discussion, if the matter is already decided?

They changed the terms of service in secret a few months ago and told no one. That in itself is criminal and if persued I'd think of suing for my money back this is not what I payed for. The very fact pulse would try to use that as a building point to Persue and justify robbing us of our work makes me wish I would of never found this game and wasted so many hours. The admins are blind and the mods are fucked in the head. I don't know what else to say. If my maps are taken from me I'll want a refund, as I was never asked to accept a new terms of service for a product I payed for which gave admins sole proprietarship over something I spent more time working on then I do on most days as a general manager for my paying career. This is illegal.

Once you publish it they should remain available for play. No to the cloning though, I am against cloning without agreement with map maker.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 30.10.2015 at 21:41

also AFK players should be punished too if the auto-ban is to work, getting kicked for inactivity should result in a ban. if he went afk at purpose and returned 1 turn before being kicked then how do we deal with that?

We need a way for players to mark other players as AFK or trolls, and if a certain threshold of votes is passed, then the user is kicked & banned. But the problem is - how to do that in a way that does not make it possible for people to kick players who are ahead? Maybe only allies can pass that vote?

First, every player should have a appraisal in his profil.
Secound, all players can evaluate this person (Every attribute has a little description like helpful = answers in help channel, trustable = no backstabler and so on)

For example:


positive: You can get an overview, when an unknown player joined your lobby,
negative: Trolls can manipulate this

Kirjoittanut notserral, 31.10.2015 at 08:48

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 30.10.2015 at 21:41

also AFK players should be punished too if the auto-ban is to work, getting kicked for inactivity should result in a ban. if he went afk at purpose and returned 1 turn before being kicked then how do we deal with that?

We need a way for players to mark other players as AFK or trolls, and if a certain threshold of votes is passed, then the user is kicked & banned. But the problem is - how to do that in a way that does not make it possible for people to kick players who are ahead? Maybe only allies can pass that vote?

what if i the afk troll doesn't have allies?

also answer the following or i will stop replying, you have ignored this weakness twice:

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 30.10.2015 at 21:41

perhaps i didn't explained my self properly: suppose you are in a 3v3 europe and your teammate is turkey, turkey decides to troll and instead of expanding he only moves 1 infantry and put its outside of his cap, turn after turn all turkey does is to move that infantry until he gets capped and then loses (At purpose)

how do we combat those types of trolls without manual bans? the auto-ban has no way of telling the difference between a turkey that sucked and a turkey that lost at purpose.

Kirjoittanut b0nker2, 31.10.2015 at 06:29

Once you publish it they should remain available for play. No to the cloning though, I am against cloning without agreement with map maker.

why?

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 31.10.2015 at 10:13

Kirjoittanut notserral, 31.10.2015 at 08:48

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 30.10.2015 at 21:41

also AFK players should be punished too if the auto-ban is to work, getting kicked for inactivity should result in a ban. if he went afk at purpose and returned 1 turn before being kicked then how do we deal with that?

We need a way for players to mark other players as AFK or trolls, and if a certain threshold of votes is passed, then the user is kicked & banned. But the problem is - how to do that in a way that does not make it possible for people to kick players who are ahead? Maybe only allies can pass that vote?

what if i the afk troll doesn't have allies?

also answer the following or i will stop replying, you have ignored this weakness twice:

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 30.10.2015 at 21:41

perhaps i didn't explained my self properly: suppose you are in a 3v3 europe and your teammate is turkey, turkey decides to troll and instead of expanding he only moves 1 infantry and put its outside of his cap, turn after turn all turkey does is to move that infantry until he gets capped and then loses (At purpose)

how do we combat those types of trolls without manual bans? the auto-ban has no way of telling the difference between a turkey that sucked and a turkey that lost at purpose.

think we already established that that shit rarely happens in competitive scene.

Kirjoittanut Dbacks, 31.10.2015 at 15:53

think we already established that that shit rarely happens in competitive scene.

The competitive scene is a tiny minority of games on atwar, so for you to dismiss this just because it doesn't affect your tiny clique really disqualifies you as incapable of creating a better solution to the present system, if one is even needed, which it is not.