Russian version here http://top-supreme-commander.ru/novosti ... a-kratere/
Probably many of you have already heard about the growing and already becoming a hot topic in the FAF community - banning (ban) maps like Astro Crater. Of course, much remains behind the curtain of secrecy, but one thing is clear, this topic has already divided the entire community into two camps: those who enjoy playing the Astro Crater and see no reason for concern, and the second camp - those who want to ban maps like Astro Crater and remove them from the map store. I propose together to understand the details of what is happening: to consider the background, the current situation and try to predict its further development. Let`s start?
Many times community problems related of the current Global rating system discussed, in particular the problem of players, who play most games on one map.
In recent years, a generation of players has grown that cannot play outside of one map. In particular, Astro Crater was named as an example of such maps. It is worth mentioning the indignation of diverse (playing on different maps) players when meeting with Crater players on the battlefield of regular maps - where crater players look like very inept players.
Therefore, returning to the topic of discussion, we can already understand that the problem is not new at all and has a great background, and together we have to try to figure it out.
It will be appropriate to mention here that I personally came to the FAF around 2015. Remembering those times, I can confidently say that the set of maps that were played in public lobbies was no longer diverse: “Gaps” (first was Gap of Rohan, then Dual Gap appeared), “Passes” (The Pass, Battle of Thermopylae) . Sometimes, when you wanted to play and opened the list of current games, you could see an impressive picture - “Passes” and “Gaps” are all that users created in lobby hall and were waiting to gather the teams.
And therefore, the fact that with the advent of the Astro Crater maps with a simplified design and game ideology, many players began to see an abundance of created games on this map, since this simplified variation essentially replaced the Passes and Gaps . Sometimes, in addition to a few "craters" in public lobby hall, it was impossible to find any other games open for connection. This is where the story begins under the name “Ban Craters”.
It is time to study the position of the opponents of Atro Crater. What are the most common arguments you can get from them:
- horrible design - no textures, the landscape does not correspond to the aesthetic idea of beautiful
- terrible gameplay - players do not learn to play and sit at their bases for hours
- lack of growth in the level of players - they play the same boring games (tactics and strategies)
- and other smaller claims
Among the best-known ideas proposed by the initiative group are the following:
- ban “craters” and similar maps and delete existing maps from the storage
- assessment of the appearance (design) and "correctness" of the gameplay of the map based on the opinion of the "appraiser"
- moderation of downloaded maps in the repository by an "appraiser" according to a list of criteria
- prohibition of loading maps into storage without pre-moderation
In response, fans of the Astro Crater maps and just ordinary players make comments and ask questions:
- the maps offered for replacement are not different from typical "Astro Craters", i.e. at the starting position is the bulk of resources
- the gameplay on many other maps is not much different - the first 10 minutes collecting resources in the center of the map and then creating “bunkers” and confronting “bunkers”
- The "meta-game" on a "astro crater" skips only the "spamming" stage of the T1 tanks and shootings by commanders, the remaining aspects are identical on each map: economy, "cheeses", "experimental rush" or other technological solutions to complete the game
- ascetic design does not distract from the game process and does not irritate the eyes
- many maps that are popular today for team games are no different from typical "Astro Craters", i.e. at the starting position is the bulk of the resources and it is assumed the "bunker" type of game
By reading both sets of arguments, we can find some truth in the words of both sides. But a reasonable question arises: do prohibitive measures and a rigid framework be needed for the open community like FAF?
If someone has forgotten or does not know, then since its inception, the community has grown and developed, based on the principles of voluntary and free participation of everyone who wants to make a feasible contribution.
Some of my interlocutors have enormous doubts about the benefits of prohibited measures and the penalties for free contributors. And also do not forget that people choose how to play and what to play on their own, and you need to respect the right of each member of a large community to play the way he wants. Even greater concerns are caused by the fact that after the punishment of map makers, a system of penalties for the players of the “wrong” maps can be announced. After all, deleting a maps from the vault does not prohibit players from continuing to play on the “wrong” maps they had previously downloaded. Similarly, players can distribute "wrong" maps through third-party sites and forums.
And then a completely harmless undertaking to ban “wrong” maps can result in the persecution of players or entire groups of players who are doing something wrong in someone’s opinion or taste. Disappointing forecast, agree?
At one time, great hopes were placed on moving the server from old technologies to new ones, as well as the use of a new client promised a lot of pleasant bonuses. To be precise, with the transition to a new server and client, which happened in January 2019, they promised to introduce a multi-player game system with a rating based on automatic selection of maps and teams, or pre-formed teams (2 by 2 players, 3 by 3, 4 by 4, etc.). And then the rating in the public game lobby could die out as a rudiment. For the assessment and distribution of the teams, one could use the number of games and the history of matches played on maps. Then the issue of rating inflation would disappear by itself.
But so far no news has been heard from the FAF development fields, nor has such an automatic team game system been implemented yet. The reader of these lines may have another question, why not send energy and petitions to the developers with the desire to introduce such a system in the near future and thereby make the rating a single and universal currency, thereby avoiding unnecessary innovations with persecution, banning and others "Joys" of prohibitive policies. I admit, I, like my reader, also ask this question.
What is this phenomenon and what can these events lead to in your opinion? Feel free to leave your comments and share your thoughts!
