27 Jan 13, 10:08AM
tl;dr: It's the dev's job to make the game, it's the players job to decide if the game is good or not.
If the people want to play douze, they will play douze. If you add a restriction so that they cannot play douze, they will not play douze, but a new map will emerge as 'overplayed'. Restricting how many servers can run a map at a time is a ridiculously heavy-handed way of forcing the community to adapt the shape that you think is 'proper'. Just because you somehow convinced yourself that map restrictions will solve bad maps, you think that restricting the choices of the community is a good way to influence their behavior. It isn't. It is unnatural and ultimately annoying and will not attract anyone to this game. Yes, "It's the dev's game", but at the same time you cannot have a game without players. You must cater to the players to a certain extent or you will end up with an online ghost town. It's the dev's job to make the game, it's the players job to decide if the game is good or not.
If the people want to play douze, they will play douze. If you add a restriction so that they cannot play douze, they will not play douze, but a new map will emerge as 'overplayed'. Restricting how many servers can run a map at a time is a ridiculously heavy-handed way of forcing the community to adapt the shape that you think is 'proper'. Just because you somehow convinced yourself that map restrictions will solve bad maps, you think that restricting the choices of the community is a good way to influence their behavior. It isn't. It is unnatural and ultimately annoying and will not attract anyone to this game. Yes, "It's the dev's game", but at the same time you cannot have a game without players. You must cater to the players to a certain extent or you will end up with an online ghost town. It's the dev's job to make the game, it's the players job to decide if the game is good or not.