Grendelkeep -> post your feedback

[Pegasus]

Because it's not ONS.

I dont see the problem...[...]

It's an ONS server, man.

It's like in the supermarked, where you have bought ultimately tasty chips for years, and now you must find that they "released" a very disgusting new sort named "funky potatoe" (or so) and replaced your wonderful favourite chips with it^^.

Not that the comparison of Grendel to cheap, non-nutritional junk food does much for your argument, but if we were to stick with the analogy, I think this would be more like the food manufacturer pulling a specific brand/flavour after recent research coming to light linking one of its ingredients to some long-term health risk and replacing that product with something else, i.e. not a strictly marketing related move. Sure there could be diehards that, even after the worrisome news came out, would still clamour for the continuing of said flavour being sold just because they like it so much, but that still wouldn't make the change an objectively wrong or irresponsible move. Hope you see what I'm trying to say here.

[...]Please, dont force me to open a petition for that

A convincing, rational argument for why Grendel should remain in the roster should probably suffice.

[RottenToTheCore]

Pegasus, , we are just foolin 'round

BTW: It does! Some chips are really really really tasty!

[elect]

Because it's not ONS.

I dont see the problem...[...]

It's an ONS server, man.

Cmon peg, there are also other maps without vehicles

[...]Please, dont force me to open a petition for that

A convincing, rational argument for why Grendel should remain in the roster should probably suffice.

I cannot even image to reply and convince you on the dialectic level

in b4 wall of text

[Anik]

Because it's not ONS.

I dont see the problem...[...]

It's an ONS server, man.

It's like in the supermarked, where you have bought ultimately tasty chips for years, and now you must find that they "released" a very disgusting new sort named "funky potatoe" (or so) and replaced your wonderful favourite chips with it^^.

Not that the comparison of Grendel to cheap, non-nutritional junk food does much for your argument, but if we were to stick with the analogy, I think this would be more like the food manufacturer pulling a specific brand/flavour after recent research coming to light linking one of its ingredients to some long-term health risk and replacing that product with something else, i.e. not a strictly marketing related move. Sure there could be diehards that, even after the worrisome news came out, would still clamour for the continuing of said flavour being sold just because they like it so much, but that still wouldn't make the change an objectively wrong or irresponsible move. Hope you see what I'm trying to say here.

[...]Please, dont force me to open a petition for that

A convincing, rational argument for why Grendel should remain in the roster should probably suffice.

Can we make a poll on this subject? I think a lot of players would like Grendel back . Most of the times when we voted it it was preffered above other maps (sorry for bad english ).

[Pegasus]

Pegasus, we are just foolin 'round[...]

That's exactly the thing though, Rotten; not all of us are, esp. when it comes to matters such as content management. I'd hope that would be the stance everyone's expecting us to take when it comes to such decisions.

[...]BTW: It does! Some chips are really really really tasty!

But everyone can make up their own mind according to their own preferences and fill their own gullet with whatever kinda food they like without affecting anyone else; if a choice had to be made that would apply to everyone, factors besides taste would need to be taken into account (say, such as health impact) and, most likely, would precede it. To reiterate then, Grendel vs junk food: not exactly the most apt analogy one could make or stick with.

Cmon peg, there are also other maps without vehicles[...]

Whether a map actually adheres to the ONS gametype, which is what's important, has nothing to do with it featuring vehicles or not or terrain or several other equally alluring but still fallacious indicators (like nodes) for that matter. As I mentioned earlier, Maelstrom-NV and Katharos-NV offer actual ONS gameplay and they don't have vecs. So do SpaceJox, Pandemonium, BiggerBeerBattle, OperaHouse, Bridge (kinda) and VK's-Playground (more than Bridge actually) and Foundry for that matter. On the other hand, Grendel and Stonewall are both equally problematic in that regard because of their geometry's narrowness, the resulting lack of variety in meaningful choices and playstyles available to players, as well as the all-familiar spamminess & lag. These are known, observable and verifiable problems one cannot just brush past by way of a poll, not when they purport to be making decisions with their entire ONS playing community's benefit in mind anyway. At least that's the way I see it.

[...]I cannot even image to reply and convince you on the dialectic level[...]

You've been playing this game about as long as I have, Silvio. You really believe you can't sit down for 5mins, consider what the reasons behind your preferences are and argue in their favour? I wouldn't sell you that short myself.

Can we make a poll on this subject? I think a lot of players would like Grendel back . Most of the times when we voted it it was preffered above other maps (sorry for bad english ).

As to your latter point, considering the server has been running on the accumulative voting regime for the past few months where anyone can sit a few matches out, build up their voting strength and then push any map they want through on their own and despite any more numerous opposition, Grendel (or any other map) getting voted in against others can't exactly be accepted as direct evidence of its popularity, not without further contextual proof anyway (such as number of ppl actually voting for it). Similarly, CEONSS is a community of several dozen (hundred ?) players still active and playing daily/weekly; even ignoring past polling experiences on this msg board and their low yield, inconclusive results, the only thing a poll about a specific map's inclusion in the roster (despite whatever inherent flaws it might have) would achieve would be to measure the size of the subgroup willing to get vocal about the issue against the rest of the remaining, silent playerbase, not prove them right in their view. Typically, the most value we can get out of polls is when the community is presented a meaningful choice between previously vetted options that we know aren't liable to set the server back if picked, no matter which.

Anyways, polls are available for anyone here to create and when Heinz returns from his hiatus you can obviously ask him if he'd care to overrule his previous decision and abide by the result of whatever poll folks would care to run; Heinz owns and runs the server, so in the end his view and decision is the only one that matters. That said, no poll or debate here can affect the map's already existing and known shortcomings mentioned above, so at least as far as I'm concerned, my personal assessment of the map and recommendation regarding its place in the CEONSS roster would still remain the same.

[...]in b4 wall of text

Yeah, yeah. First he baits me into discussing these matters, then he goes all smartass on me about the reply I must provide >_>...

Apologies to Silvio for the wordwall, I'll try to make my next post more literarily... outdoorsy ?

[RottenToTheCore]

As to your latter point, considering the server has been running on the accumulative voting regime for the past few months where anyone can sit a few matches out, build up their voting strength and then push any map they want through on their own and despite any more numerous opposition, Grendel (or any other map) getting voted in against others can't exactly be accepted as direct evidence of its popularity, not without further contextual proof anyway (such as number of ppl actually voting for it). Similarly, CEONSS is a community of several dozen (hundred ?) players still active and playing daily/weekly; even ignoring past polling experiences on this msg board and their low yield, inconclusive results, the only thing a poll about a specific map's inclusion in the roster (despite whatever inherent flaws it might have) would achieve would be to measure the size of the subgroup willing to get vocal about the issue against the rest of the remaining, silent playerbase, not prove them right in their view. Typically, the most value we can get out of polls is when the community is presented a meaningful choice between previously vetted options that we know aren't liable to set the server back if picked, no matter which.

Cmon Pegasus, you have either the option to "rule" the map-cycle with no possibilties for democratic participation on the player-side, or you can start a poll in which every player can take part. The "silent playerbase" also has functioning eyes to read the info in the MODT etc. and is free to join the forums and free to post. I agree to the fact, that you can't know in the end if the majority of the players would dislike grendel to be added again. But it's pretty much the same when you decide to add it, because it also could turn out fine. You haven't asked every single player in the map-choice-process before, have you? So why should it be different in this case? You can rule, you can poll, you can try and error.

@silent playerbase: Don't be shy, join the forum, post in this and other threads. Raising your voice is the only way in life to get a cookie from the cookie box before it's empty.

[laboRHEinz]

Hi there,
sorry for replying late. Of course, I've watched this topic and always wanted to offer some feedback. Thing is, as usual, I didn't find the time. Yeah, I know, it's almost inconceivable, but even I got a real life which sometimes keeps me distracted from the virtually more important gaming stuff . Anyways, I didn't want to put you all off with an only hastily phrased post.

First off, thanks for your feedbacks, it's well appreciated we're finally having kinda content discussions here on the board so we don't have to pick your opinions about a specific map from questionable ingame comments only, like the usual "shit map" or "I like"

As for Grendelkeep and its removal from the roster, well, Pegasus already said it all: there's no playstyle plurality, it's always getting spammy and with 20+ players, laggy as well. While it possibly may be considered as ONS with up to ~16 players due to more room per player and the resulting possibilities to go for nodes, this ONS characteristic completely gets lost with 20+ players. Grendel is not suited for 20+ players.

I might be wrong, but I didn't find a single point in your posts outweighing those facts in favour of Grendel's return other than "I like" / "want it back".

If there was another voting handler available, limiting a map's eligibility according to its size and the amount of online players, we could reconsider things. Unfortunately, there's no such handler AFAIK. And even if so, would it keep the server whitelisted?

Polls vs. content management on CEONSS: Polls usually reflect a map's popularity only, which wouldn't work out all alone since they're not taking our map quality criteria into account. Thus, we're having a content management on top: Pegasus, lilalurl (if he returns), myself and, if reasonably brought up, public forum posts as well.

At any rate, maps' popularity and content management both are important, both do count, they are not replaceable by each other: While content managers set the limits and preselect maps according to quality criteria, their popularity will always be monitored regardlessly. Not only by polls though, but also by ingame feedback and the amounts of players leaving or joining a specific map. The significance of polls, by the way, will always refer to the amount of participants. For instance, about Grendel, we have elect, Anik, GLoups, Rotten and Narkotik. Okay, that's five votes, but still... would you consider this "poll" representative? Honestly, sorry no, by no means. Fortunately, we still use to have several dozens of other players. If we'd get some more players to join posts and polls, it'd be great. It'd increase their significance.

Lastly, if you really want to put it that way, Rotten: Sorry if disappointing you, but CEONSS can't be brushed off neither being an absolutistic monarchy or even dictatorship nor a people's democracy or anarchy. Well formed democracies and constitutional monarchies normally make use of division of powers. Like here on CEONSS ( ), we have an owner, content managers, ingame admins and players. Everyone has a say, noone rules in an absolutistic manner, not even me (if so, the server would be empty pretty soon ).

Never thought I'd ever had to compare a gameserver with constitutions though

[RottenToTheCore]

Lastly, if you really want to put it that way, Rotten: Sorry if disappointing you, but CEONSS can't be brushed off neither being an absolutistic monarchy or even dictatorship nor a people's democracy or anarchy. Well formed democracies and constitutional monarchies normally make use of division of powers. Like here on CEONSS ( ), we have an owner, content managers, ingame admins and players. Everyone has a say, noone rules in an absolutistic manner, not even me (if so, the server would be empty pretty soon ).:

Bad comparison, as neither you nor peg or goll or whoever were voted by the people . BUT: I llike you all nevertheless :tellya: :letskiss: :kissya: .
I will also stay without Grendel, it's a threat .

Greets by Rotten

[Anik]

I might be wrong, but I didn't find a single point in your posts outweighing those facts in favour of Grendel's return other than "I like" / "want it back".

Thanks for your answers Pegasus and Labor. But what kind of reasons do we need for having back Grendel? We simply like it because it's fun and, yes, we want it back. Just for this

[RottenToTheCore]

I fully agree. It's a game. That's what you guys told me when i was pissed and took it personal as some persons flamed around. When it's fun, it's right