Krutz wrote:guide took 110 damage, then 33 damage; i dont really know how many times i should say this
the shot wasnt fatal, because 1) he lived 2) incapacitation can be reverse with a defib
Krutz wrote:any map similar to stryde-sniper will have similar spawnkilling in deathmatches—thats just how the game works
Krutz wrote:stryde-sniper's "domination" on servers isnt a reason to unapprove the map lol
Krutz wrote:a distance of 2 pixels from a lethal line of fire requires little movement to cross, and a distance of 27 pixels requires commitment (as in self-boosting into it)
Krutz wrote:rapidfire weapons dont allow movement, they force people to maintain positions of cover; this is different to weapons with low rates of fire because there are intervals that people can take advantage of
also who cares if your location is identified after you fire your alien shotgun? just spam it at any positions that can threaten you
Krutz wrote:stryde-sniper is in violation of some standards, and id like to see maps that arent
Stryde wrote: A week goes by, Stryde-sniper, iJer-sniper, and Max teabag-sniperwars are held in server and being played consistently, with Stryde-sniper being hosted more than Max teabag-sniperwars, and that being hosted more than iJer-sniper. A map database glitch happens, and many maps get corrupted, including Stryde-sniper. I remade it the following day, and it was shortly approved (probably a week) after, as well as Max teabag-sniperwars, by PixelVoxel. PixelVoxel had a reputation of needing 25+ votes and community support (the map being hosted in servers over weeks) before approving maps. Stryde-sniper wasn't hastily approved, or created. Just because any map seems simplistic doesn't mean that map owner hasn't spent time working on that map for more than a day.
Max Teabag wrote:Map approved -> Map got popular -> People devote time into the map -> People master the map -> New players get crushed.
People would not have devoted their efforts to mastering the map if it wasn't approved in the first place.
You're saying that we should punish players who devote time to mastering one particular map by unapproving if they get too good at it.
In essence, you argue that if a map gets too popular & players are too devoted, it should be unapproved.
Players will be discouraged from playing too good, map makers will get punished if their maps get too popular.
I think your argument is deeply flawed.
Stryde wrote:Again, multiple people have posted in this thread, specifically Sparrow and tburn themselves, saying the COOP spawnkill is rare and hasn't even been observed in Plazma League, an event that's been around under different names now for about 7 months or so?
Ty Q wrote:And just because it hasn't been complained about before means it's not an apparent issue? I think the fact here is that no one even experimented with this problem. I've known about it for over half a year now after a training session in PCL. And now that I've brought this to light, people will start to use it more. Trust me.
lostmydollar wrote:Dont waste your time posting feedbacks here. Eric didn't disapprove his egrw1 map so why would he disapprove this one?
Pb2 is dying. He wont get rid of the most played maps nor edit them because in some cases players stop playing the map that looks different from the original version they liked.
Just lock the topic bro
Max teabag wrote:Bob, I understand your argument more clear now, thanks for elaborating.
You're saying the more popular a map is, the smaller margin for errors should be.
I agree to the extent that popularity isn't a good reason to keep a map approved because a map might be "popular" for the wrong reasons, it might be popular because It's easy to get a lot of kills, fast. Making the only way to get fast kills is playing an unenjoyable map. However, this is not the case.
The approval requirements are there so players feel the map is fair, not so we can find loop-holes so people with or without personal disputes can get each other maps unapproved for the sake of unapproving. Virtually nobody has complained about the map having 0.1% chance of getting spawn-killed before this topic was made. Guys, get your act together.
I would understand unapproving the map if it was mandatory to play it, however, just don't play it if you don't like it.
My main point is that nobody is playing ranked matches anymore.
Most games hosted with Stryde-sniper is unnranked.
You will not see fewer matches of this map if it were unapproved.
The only reason you'd care to unapprove this map is that of personal opinion about the map/map-maker.
Not because it "ruined pb2."
To add upon this, with the combination of the vast amount of approved maps currently, and coming, with the fact that nobody plays ranked matches, the approval is right now just a status symbol.
It used to mean a lot, when there was few approved maps and a lot of 'ranked matches'.
The vast amount of discussio for something useless reflects that nobody really cares to serve PB2 in the best way. We're currently arugeing for the sake of the arguement.
I request a topic lock.
Max teabag wrote:My point is that we overestimate the importance of the approval status.
Right now It's just an emblem of a pat on the back saying "Good job, Johnny, you made a map that met our exact standards, has a green little checkmark!" I don't have any strong opinions against this, but when people write essays and perform linear algebra in attempts to defend that symbol, that means people are completely misguided.
Max teabag wrote:And if it seems that I'm only saying this to defend my clan members, I'm not defending Krutz and Stryde particularly, I'm criticizing the overarching discussion. I'm not interested in the details.
Max teabag wrote:And yes, Krutz and Stryde has used small details to unapprove other maps --- I do not think highly of their efforts to do so.
Max teabag wrote:The efforts to reduce the number of approved maps is understandable in order to make the approval symbol mean something, however, there have been cases where Stryde and Krutz(?) have pointed out details just to unapprove a map for the sake of it. In that case, those actions should not be let uncriticized, I do not think highly of that behavior.
Max teabag wrote:For the record, Krutz made the topic about EGRW to illustrate how flawed the approval requirements are.
Max teabag wrote:The point is not who wrote the longest essay, or whatever the chances are of spawn killing. You need to climb out of that paradigm of thinking.
The attention needs to be brought at the flawed approval requirements.
Stryde and Krutz abused the requirements in order to unapprove maps to lower the number of approved maps and therefore bring more meaning to the symbol.
This fired right back at them when you, rightly so, used the same cards against them to unapprove this map.
Ty Q, I understand, your map was unapproved for a whack reason, so you want justice and unapprove a very popular map for another whack reason, and this will affect a lot of people. I'm not saying Stryde-sniper should be held to lower standard because It's popular, what I'm saying is that we need to stop playing tit-for-tat.
We need to stop arguing all of this nonesense and change the approval requirement system so it cant' be abused like this anymore.
Slashdown wrote:When a precedent is set, there are only two ways in which one can act without being a hypocrite.
1) All of that thing follow that precedent.
2) The error is seen with that precedent, and all previous situations where that precedent is used are reversed
Max teabag wrote:People would not have devoted their efforts to mastering the map if it wasn't approved in the first place.
Max teabag wrote:You're saying that we should punish players who devote time to mastering one particular map by unapproving if they get too good at it.
Krutz wrote:if anything were standardized here, it wouldnt be that stryde-sniper would get unapproved and others reapproved lol... i can literally find so many maps that violate the lemars that itll fill this forum to pages, which is the point i wanted to get across in the beginning
the lemars shouldnt even be looked at, theyre so bad
Stryde wrote:There is a precedent, however, its drastically different for popular maps, like EGRW.
It was (albeit jokingly) requested for unapproval, and it is still approved. If anyone thinks Stryde-sniper is less popular than EGRW, I mean, literally look at map votes and times hosted, the two ways to tell if a map is truly popular.
It seems popular maps don't need to follow the requirements because, I guess, their popular? If people are willing to play it and keep playing it over the course of months to years, such as Eric Gurt-railwars1, Stryde-sniper, X death-realwar, then there's some exception for these maps, coming from the developer of the game himself.
Fair? debatable
Happens? yes
There has never been consistency with anything in this game, especially with how maps get approved. Trying to apply requirements that were never followed in the first place to current approved maps will obviously cause conflict, because as Krutz has said, there's about 200 approved maps that violate some stupid requirement that no one ever knew about in the first place, including Eric.
Stryde wrote:Trying to apply requirements that were never followed in the first place to current approved maps will obviously cause conflict
Return to Removal Requests Archive
Users browsing this forum: No registered users