/tg/Station 13

QuartzCrystal wrote:The people who don't want to play a different map, even just some of the time, have literally no compelling argument against playing Asteroid Station half the time or something.

QuartzCrystal wrote:The people who don't want to play a different map, even just some of the time, have literally no compelling argument against playing Asteroid Station half the time or something.

paprika wrote:

QuartzCrystal wrote:The people who don't want to play a different map, even just some of the time, have literally no compelling argument against playing Asteroid Station half the time or something.

How about "map knowledge is like 50% of being robust in ss13"?

Violaceus wrote:

If our map is changing
constantly, that new player will have
no fucking clue where they're meant
to go or do to find even basic shit
without spending a senseless
amount of time wandering around
just to have to come back and do it
again when the map changes.

Yes, people will obviously forget everything about map when round ends.

New maps provide:
- freshness
- other opportunities
- other 'feel'

I don't undersant people who want to stick with box for life.

Violaceus wrote:And this is a minor issue because they will learn it anyway. And there are maps on wiki. And there is not so much new players.

cedarbridge wrote:Don't inflict a new map on an already established server and playerbase and drag them along for the ride.

fleure wrote:

cedarbridge wrote:Don't inflict a new map on an already established server and playerbase and drag them along for the ride.

You're begging the question here. The whole point of this thread is to gauge interest and discuss the idea.

cedarbridge wrote:And as been stated before, forum threads and polls are rarely a real snapshot of the playerbase because many more people play on the server without even looking at the forum than the other way around.

cedarbridge wrote:What's been said here is true though.

cedarbridge wrote:Setting the server to rotate maps or changing the map will just result in a loss in overall server population. But at least its ~different~ right?

fleure wrote:You're also again assuming maintaining or growing the server population is the primary goal of map choice. If we agree to that assumption, the direction of the game is at the tyranny of the majority. If the decision is made here based on poll results, the game is run by a small forum circlejerk. Still, I'd rather not alienat an actual majority of the server.

paprika wrote:Once again, box should be on badger because of maintainability and population issues, not preferential opinionated 'i like this map better!' shit.

It's a pain in the fucking ass to do big overhauls to the map and then have to do it AGAIN because metacide isn't around and we have no active map maintainer for metastation. I'd maintain metastation myself, but like most coders, I'd rather make an entirely new map and scrap metastation entirely, simply using metastation as a source for copy+paste because people like metastation AS IT IS NOW. I felt uncomfortable making edits to metastation on NT's code because of this, it felt weird and stupid because I'd rather maintain a map like box that everyone edits that isn't so personally tied to metacide. I'd feel bad if I was metacide and people messed with my map, and I know he probably doesn't feel that way, but that's just how it is.

Until metacide comes back, we should switch to box. Period. There's no real argument against it other than 'well the 20ish people who play badger prefer it!' which is a fucking retarded argument when the 100+ people who play sybil are having bigger issues with population and shit. If you really, REALLY like metastation, track metacide down and see if he'll put the effort in to rig it back up for server 2 and make more frequent updates.

Box is /tg/ station's development map. Coders who make changes should not have to be forced to edit metastation as well, that should be the responsibility of the person who made the alternate server 2 map. METACIDE WAS PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH THIS AGREEMENT. He does most of not all the metastation updates, coders let him do whatever the fuck he wants to it. Now that metacide is not present, we go back to box until he shows up again. It will both a) boost the population and b) increase the amount of people who like metastation.

Think about it like this: Server 2 goes box. More and more people play there. People grow used to playing on server 2 as their home server and regular on it more. Metacide comes back or we get a new map for server 2 like efficiency or something with an active map maintainer, and people on server 2 get used to it because while it's not box they don't want to leave server 2 and enjoy giving the map maintainer feedback most of the time towards the development of the map. This is how server 2 and metastation got started in the first place, this is why people like metastation, etc. Map knowledge is a VERY large part of ss13 too.

cedarbridge wrote: You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about the population itself being the end to which we should look when deciding.

cedarbridge wrote:You've still yet to explain who is going to maintain those "other" maps. Metastation has no maintainer and most of our branch only maintains Box.

fleure wrote:

cedarbridge wrote: You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about the population itself being the end to which we should look when deciding.

So why bring it up? I could only infer it's an important factor to keeping Box on.

Wyzack wrote:I think that forcing boxstation on badger to alleviate sybil's population issues is horseshit, and completely disregards the people who play badger only, like myself. Our population has been rising when we got asteroid station, and using us to contain your sybil overflow is a poor solution for anyone but sybil players, as there tends to be very different playstyles between the two