Looking for Foundry opinions

[natty dread]

In the interest of creating a more welcoming atmosphere in the Foundry, I am now looking for opinions both from the mapmakers and casual visitors of the Foundry.

Many non-mapmaker Foundry visitors seem to feel a bit intimidated by the later forums, the gameplay & graphics workshops. The melting pot is currently getting the bulk of the posts simply because it is easier to approach. So how can we improve the situation?

Question to the casual visitors of the Foundry: what would you like to see in the map threads of the Foundry, that would help you leave feedback and suggestions for the mapmaker? What measures could the mapmakers take to make you feel more welcome to comment on their work?

Question for the mapmakers: what kind of feedback would you most appreciate from the visitors of the Foundry? What kind of comments irritates you the most?

Question to everyone: what kind of actions would you hope to see from the Foundry moderators & website administration to improve the Foundry?

I'm hoping to gather lots of opinions from Foundry-goers, so I'll also be sending some of the most active individuals private messages, but I also want to invite everyone who is interested in the Foundry to post their opinions here on this thread.

ps. Opinions gathered by this thread and by pm:s can be quoted in a forthcoming Foundry article in the newsletter, so if you do not wish to be directly quoted in the article please note it to me by pm.

[TaCktiX]

As a mapmaker
Whenever I post a new version, I note two things: what I've updated, and what concerns I have, both gameplay and graphics. I prefer to have some feedback on all concerns and a yay/nay on updates before I roll up the next version. I get a little bit miffed when either of those are utterly ignored (which is dang hard to do when you think about it).

As a Foundry visitor
Of course I want to see foundry moderators be active, but that's always been expected. What I also want to see is moments of Cold Hard Truth. As in, if the map is going nowhere, just say that and suggest how to fix that problem. The key is giving solutions, instead of dancing around the problem. Sunshine and rainbows doesn't make good maps, telling it like it is (nicely, no "you suck"s) does.

[MarshalNey]

Many non-mapmaker Foundry visitors seem to feel a bit intimidated by the later forums, the gameplay & graphics workshops. The melting pot is currently getting the bulk of the posts simply because it is easier to approach...

While I am in general agreement with this assessment, I think there is one other factor to consider- maps that advance to the Gameplay & Graphics workshops are more refined than maps in the Melting Pot, and thus have less obvious flaws. It's both easier and 'safer' to criticize Melting Pot maps because they have a lot of room for improvement. However, when I look at maps in the Graphics forum I usually don't see any glaring "errors" (this sometimes applies in the Gameplay workshop as well).

Part of the reason for this is that maps often get gameplay tweaking while sitting in the Melting Pot, and graphical tweaking while sitting in the Gameplay workshop. Advancement from these forums often involves a more general improvement of the map, rather than specific improvement of a map's stength of concept, and then specifically improving gameplay and then concentrating on graphics.

So, by the time a map has reached the Graphics workshop, it is a strong map overall, rather than simply strong on concept and gameplay and possibly weak on graphics.

I am not criticizing this phenomenon; I understand that creative endeavors defy all attempts at concrete analysis. To try to standardize a process as ephemeral and mysterious as creation is foolish, and ultimately frustrates the potential of creators. However, as the forums currently operate, the mods seem to desire overall improvement before advancing a map. Definition and strength of concept are not enough to get a map out of the Melting Pot; a certain minimum of graphics and gameplay must be in evidence as well.

I cannot help but wonder, what if maps could pursue alternate routes to the various forums- so that they could improve overall between forums, or improve in each specific aspect one after another? Then, the later forums might still contain maps that had some of the 'obvious' flaws that visitors could more easily comment upon.

Question to the casual visitors of the Foundry: what would you like to see in the map threads of the Foundry, that would help you leave feedback and suggestions for the mapmaker? What measures could the mapmakers take to make you feel more welcome to comment on their work?

I've already commented in my typical windbag fashion on this subject, but I'll repeat the salient points.

The Melting Pot is an overloaded forum that could use some cleaning; threads that haven't been commented on in a year or longer should be moved, recycled or deleted.

Threads themselves could often use some cleaning when they rise above 10 pages, but since this seems impractical to accomplish, they should instead have a really good, short first post. If necessary, put all of the in-depth details on a second post that more interested readers can delve into.

Mapmakers should have a short first post on their thread that has, preferably in this order:

1) A clear, concise explanation of what the map concept and goals are.

2) An outline of what the mapmaker specifically wants to get feedback about; too many mapmakers leave this stuff "buried" in their thread (e.g., 'see my post on page 34'). Take a look at natty_dread's current map threads for examples- LunarWar and Nordic Countries do an excellent job with this.

3) What the foundry mods' current concerns are for this map. I didn't mention this in my previous post, but I think it would help relay to the mods what the mapmaker thinks that they want, and relay to visitors what they can do to help advance the map.

4) A map intended for a layman that comes before any other maps (i.e., before '88' test maps, before wire maps, etc.) or, if you don't have a map made yet, an in-depth explanation of your concept and goals from #1 above.

5) Technical details and previous versions last, preferably hidden as spoilers.

Also, it's good for mapmakers to respond to all feedback given, even if they're disappointed in the content, and to respond in a positive manner that gives guidance to the visitor for future feedback.

Question to everyone: what kind of actions would you hope to see from the Foundry moderators & website administration to improve the Foundry?

If they could list, right from their first post and every post that they make thereafter, absolutely everything that they feel is necessary for a map to meet the minimum requirements of the forum and advance to next, then I think both visitors to the thread and mapmakers would feel more confident in their posts. Even if the requirements are very general/vague, it still would help to know that the list is exhaustive rather than just one step in a long chain. Then, what I proposed above in #3 for first posts in a thread would be a true Bottom Line list of needs for the map, rather than just a piece of a larger puzzle.

Of course, the foundry mods aren't gods- just very wise and experienced people- so I'd expect that the "exhaustive" list of requirements might get edited after further consideration or major map changes. I do think, however, it would help to give a mapmaker a clear list of the forum requirements that the foundry mods feel are met and those that are not, rather than just advice and guidance from time to time (which seems much appreciated as well, btw).

The Guides to Mapmaking need to eventually be updated to fit the current Foundry process.

Also, for the Guides to Mapmaking, it would help to see some examples of good and bad Design Briefs, and examples of good and bad first posts for each of the four forums (what a map should roughly look like at each stage, what info should be included in the first post). Along with these examples, it would help to have reasons why they are good or bad. The same could also be said for the guides to feedback, but I don't think that's as much of a concern at the moment.

[MarshalNey]

oip, sorry Natty. I think I killed the thread in one fell post. I need to curb my blather on these forums... sigh.

[natty dread]

No worries man... I don't think it's your fault. Just seems our mapmakers are feeling lazy... pm:s will be flying today.

[porkenbeans]

While the recent changes to the Foundry was an honest attempt to improve things, I believe that the most important areas were totally ignored. Instead of addressing the most hotly debated topics, The powers that be just decided to make things more structured, and more ridged. This is exactly what you would expect from an "administrator" mentality. Structure, structure, structure, hut, two, three, four.

I understand the need for a certain amount of structure when it comes to the basic rules. Such as map size, or color values, that are color blind kind. Certain gameplay issues are also important to keep in mind.

But, when it comes to "creativity". Structure and ridged rules, are the choking hands that kill the creative process.

I have spoke about this in the past, but it seems that the powers that be, are more administrative, rather than creative, in their mind set.

My advice is to loosen up, and let the creative minds have the required room to breath.
You can still have all the various stamps and such, just let the mapmaker make his own decisions as to how his map should evolve. So long as he gathers all the required stamps, it should not make any difference whatsoever, in which order he gets them.

Now back to the ignored ares of the Foundry debate.
I think that the most important issues concern the real or imagined "ole boys club".

Personally I do not begrudge any of the veteran mapmakers as such. Its just that a few of them seem to have a God complex going on. Instead of offering "constructive critiques" for aspiring map makers, that go to an attempt at helping, they instead offer only pokes and jabs, that are in a snickering attempt at humor.

Lately however, I have not seen as much of this behavior. This is a good thing, but It seems that if they are not playing Don Rickles, they are silent, and do not offer much guidance at all for the people that need it.

This overlooked area of improvement, has imo, been the root cause of the lack of community support in the Foundry. (and the loss of some good mapmakers as well).

Instead of trying to make things more ridged, the Foundry would become a much more welcoming place if things were loosened up. If it is not made into a friendly and fun place to visit, then why on earth would you expect anyone to want to visit ?

One simple rule that should be adopted in some form or other is, people must offer "constructive" advice. NOT just "it sucks". Especially if the person is a veteran mapmaker. His opinions carry the most weight, be them constructive or destructive.

ps. I am NOT trying to spark up any old arguments here. Just offering my opinion, as asked.

[Industrial Helix]

Question to the casual visitors of the Foundry: what would you like to see in the map threads of the Foundry, that would help you leave feedback and suggestions for the mapmaker? What measures could the mapmakers take to make you feel more welcome to comment on their work?

Question for the mapmakers: what kind of feedback would you most appreciate from the visitors of the Foundry? What kind of comments irritates you the most?

Initially I would say I want crits that offer a solution to a specific problem. But really, only other mapmakers and those familiar with this place are best suited to offer those. From the rest of the thousands-strong CC community I would want to know this: Do you want me to continue with this map? A simple, "Yes, this is a good idea and I want to play this map" would do. Or a "No, it's too similar to other maps and I really don't see this map (in its current version) becoming a map that I would look forward to playing. I'm trying to include polls on my maps, polls because they're easy info gatherers, to see if the community wants my idea. The rest can be addressed by those with specific knowledge in the area of mapmaking or whomever wants to follow the map.

Hell this just occurred to me: There ought to be a stage where a map gets a community support test. Either between melting pot and gameplay or between graphics and forge. Put it in the CC News thing, do you want this? Yes or no. Boom. Problem solved.

Question to everyone: what kind of actions would you hope to see from the Foundry moderators & website administration to improve the Foundry?

I'd like to see maps being moved from the melting pot a lot quicker than they are at this point. I'm looking at maps with 10 pages of development right now. They look great and play great, but that's not what the melting pot is for. The melting pot is for ideas and if an observer wants to watch and help a map develop then the place for that is the Gameplay Workshop (and not the gameplay tweakshop). This is where the bulk of the gameplay or graphics work needs to occur. In moving maps quicker to these workshops, I think observers and map followers will partake in more of the whole process.

I don't think that the Final Forge will ever see a whole lot of action. It's tweaks and behind the scenes stuff by definition. But realistically, the forge ought to take no more than a month at most to see a map through (all dependent on the mapmaker of course).

I'm hoping to gather lots of opinions from Foundry-goers, so I'll also be sending some of the most active individuals private messages, but I also want to invite everyone who is interested in the Foundry to post their opinions here on this thread.

ps. Opinions gathered by this thread and by pm:s can be quoted in a forthcoming Foundry article in the newsletter, so if you do not wish to be directly quoted in the article please note it to me by pm.

[ender516]

Question to the casual visitors of the Foundry: what would you like to see in the map threads of the Foundry, that would help you leave feedback and suggestions for the mapmaker? What measures could the mapmakers take to make you feel more welcome to comment on their work?

Question for the mapmakers: what kind of feedback would you most appreciate from the visitors of the Foundry? What kind of comments irritates you the most?

Initially I would say I want crits that offer a solution to a specific problem. But really, only other mapmakers and those familiar with this place are best suited to offer those. From the rest of the thousands-strong CC community I would want to know this: Do you want me to continue with this map? A simple, "Yes, this is a good idea and I want to play this map" would do. Or a "No, it's too similar to other maps and I really don't see this map (in its current version) becoming a map that I would look forward to playing. I'm trying to include polls on my maps, polls because they're easy info gatherers, to see if the community wants my idea. The rest can be addressed by those with specific knowledge in the area of mapmaking or whomever wants to follow the map.

Hell this just occurred to me: There ought to be a stage where a map gets a community support test. Either between melting pot and gameplay or between graphics and forge. Put it in the CC News thing, do you want this? Yes or no. Boom. Problem solved.

Question to everyone: what kind of actions would you hope to see from the Foundry moderators & website administration to improve the Foundry?

I'd like to see maps being moved from the melting pot a lot quicker than they are at this point. I'm looking at maps with 10 pages of development right now. They look great and play great, but that's not what the melting pot is for. The melting pot is for ideas and if an observer wants to watch and help a map develop then the place for that is the Gameplay Workshop (and not the gameplay tweakshop). This is where the bulk of the gameplay or graphics work needs to occur. In moving maps quicker to these workshops, I think observers and map followers will partake in more of the whole process.

I don't think that the Final Forge will ever see a whole lot of action. It's tweaks and behind the scenes stuff by definition. But realistically, the forge ought to take no more than a month at most to see a map through (all dependent on the mapmaker of course).

I'm hoping to gather lots of opinions from Foundry-goers, so I'll also be sending some of the most active individuals private messages, but I also want to invite everyone who is interested in the Foundry to post their opinions here on this thread.

ps. Opinions gathered by this thread and by pm:s can be quoted in a forthcoming Foundry article in the newsletter, so if you do not wish to be directly quoted in the article please note it to me by pm.

I love the idea of the Community Support checkpoint/stamp. Having this kind of feedback would avoid the situation where a map gets worked on for ages but then a Foundry mod or other pundit drops in and lobs the old grenade: "Gee, it's a wonderful map, but I don't think anyone is going to want to conquer (a molecule/the human body/a food chain/....)." There's nothing like a coloured name making a pronouncement like that to smother a baby map in its crib. It would be far better to prevent the conception of a map no one wants than to destroy it after a long gestation. I think a poll might be a simple way of handling this, but just how many responses, both positive and overall, would be needed to proceed to the Workshops is a topic for discussion elsewhere. I believe that achieving this support should be a step between the Melting Pot and the Gameplay Workshop, but I suppose the Foundry moderators would be the ones to determine which maps would be permitted to set up the appropriate poll, based on the Design Briefs presented in the Melting Pot. Perhaps a separate forum within the Map Foundry called Community Support Polls would give readers a quick way to find these polls and vote in them.

[Industrial Helix]

Well, I think there really ought to be two check points for Community support. One at the melting pot and one after the gameplay workshop. The melting pot could be amongst the foundry regulars and visitors, open to everyone. Then there should be a poll before it hits the Forge, complete with News Feed thing. It could be a weekly thing, the following maps have been approved in graphics and gameplay, will you play them? I'm glad the idea has some support though.

I think its surprising to find how many people might actually want a map. When I started 13 Colonies I thought at least 90% of people would want it, a little patriotism, some history, ect. But it got a surprising 20% "No, don't make it" and that was at the later stages of graphics. I think mapmakers might be a little delusional when it comes to their own maps, they can't see that it might not be a great idea and it might be hurting the mapmaking process over all.

As others have noticed, CC might be hitting its critical point for maps and this might be the best point to start being more picky about the maps which go through. Then again, the cost to host a map on CC might be negligible and the fact that CC has maps which just sit might not matter. I dunno, really on that.

[natty dread]

Thanks to everyone for these opinions. I'm afraid the article will probably not make it to the next newsletter issue, but I will be sure to have it ready for the one after.

[porkenbeans]

Well, I think there really ought to be two check points for Community support. One at the melting pot and one after the gameplay workshop. The melting pot could be amongst the foundry regulars and visitors, open to everyone. Then there should be a poll before it hits the Forge, complete with News Feed thing. It could be a weekly thing, the following maps have been approved in graphics and gameplay, will you play them? I'm glad the idea has some support though.

I think its surprising to find how many people might actually want a map. When I started 13 Colonies I thought at least 90% of people would want it, a little patriotism, some history, ect. But it got a surprising 20% "No, don't make it" and that was at the later stages of graphics. I think mapmakers might be a little delusional when it comes to their own maps, they can't see that it might not be a great idea and it might be hurting the mapmaking process over all.

As others have noticed, CC might be hitting its critical point for maps and this might be the best point to start being more picky about the maps which go through. Then again, the cost to host a map on CC might be negligible and the fact that CC has maps which just sit might not matter. I dunno, really on that.

I would go a step further and remove crappy maps that do not get played, to the recycle bin, or hold revamp competitions for them. I was browsing through them the other day, and there are some that are far below today's CC standards. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, yatta yatta.

[MarshalNey]

Well, I think there really ought to be two check points for Community support. One at the melting pot and one after the gameplay workshop. The melting pot could be amongst the foundry regulars and visitors, open to everyone. Then there should be a poll before it hits the Forge, complete with News Feed thing. It could be a weekly thing, the following maps have been approved in graphics and gameplay, will you play them?

Sounds like a very good idea... of course, it would be nice to establish a baseline before actually using the polls to dictate map policies. I mean, 80% isn't 90%, but it's still pretty darn good (and 13 Colonies will continue to be well-loved- I think that your effort was well worth it, Helix). If it turns out that most 'popular' maps hit only around 50% or so, then it's probably worth pursuing a map that enjoys at least half of that percentage.

Also, it should be noted that while polls indicate general approval for a map, they don't measure intensity; if a map is only popular with 10% of CC members, but those members are fanatically enthralled with it, then it would probably be worth keeping. Without the map, those fanatic supporters might not play as much, and then come renewal time just turn into freemiums or quit the site. So, if a map brings a decent number of members to CC and/or keeps them, then it's a good map, no matter how generally unpopular it may be.

Really, the ultimate quality test of a map is how many games get played on it over a specified sample period. That's more of an issue for Beta or even beyond, but I think it should be considered when talking about analyzing polls for map feasibility- polls won't ever tell the whole story.

As others have noticed, CC might be hitting its critical point for maps and this might be the best point to start being more picky about the maps which go through. Then again, the cost to host a map on CC might be negligible and the fact that CC has maps which just sit might not matter. I dunno, really on that.

Hmmm, I'm more inclined to agree with your second sentence.

If the cost to host a map isn't a serious issue, then the more quality maps, the better. A site with hundreds of unique quality maps doesn't offer as much as a site with thousands of unique quality maps; so as long as the maps meet the needs of the site, the standards should remain the same. I don't think CC is nearly as saturated as some think. There are gaping holes in several genres, notably the Sci-Fi, Horror and Fantasy genres. Historical scenario maps have only recently seen a upsurge; the plain-Jane maps of various parts of the world still constitute the vast bulk of CC's gallery.

I would go a step further and remove crappy maps that do not get played, to the recycle bin, or hold revamp competitions for them. I was browsing through them the other day, and there are some that are far below today's CC standards. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, yatta yatta.

I have also noticed that the current Foundry standards are higher than the ones seemingly set for some older quenched maps, but I think that one would have to be very careful about trashing them. Feudal War, for instance, doesn't meet the 8-player standard, but it's much loved by the community. Revamps would require permission of the mapmakers.

While it's true that "lower" quality maps do make things like Random map settings less fun, I have yet to see a quenched map that I thought was so completely awful that I refused to play on it (although I've come close).

[porkenbeans]

Click image to enlarge.

...Need I say more ?

[MarshalNey]

heh... point taken. Graphically, it's very weak, but gameplay-wise it's OK.

The aforementioned Feudal War doesn't have any mind-blowing graphics either (although it's nowhere near as bad as Tamriel).

I think if the gameplay is at least average, most players will be forgiving. The only map I can think of so far that has caused me actual visual distress is Operation Drug War.

[Industrial Helix]

Drug war is a hard to read map, in my opinion. I've been reasonably lucky on it though.

Why does the mapmaker's permission have to be given to make a revamp? Even a graphical one at that? Couldn't CC trash the map and commission its clone?

Do mapmakers own the copyright to the gameplay as well? Territory connections, ect.

[porkenbeans]

Drug war is a hard to read map, in my opinion. I've been reasonably lucky on it though.

Why does the mapmaker's permission have to be given to make a revamp? Even a graphical one at that? Couldn't CC trash the map and commission its clone?

Do mapmakers own the copyright to the gameplay as well? Territory connections, ect.

I think it should be easy enough to just ask for the mapmakers permission to hold a revamp contest for the said map. Their name and copyrights will not change for the original version, and a deal can be worked out for the revamp version as well. If the mapmaker does not agree to the revamp, that is his prerogative, Just as it is CC's prerogative to remove it from live play.

I think the best deal would be that the revamp author relinquishes any and all rights, except that his name appear on the revamp. The original author will retain all rights for the original and the revamp.

There are, (I'm sure), quite a few maps that do not see much play. We should start with the least played map, determine why it is not played much, and then get busy to bring it up to the current CC standards. Or failing that, toss it in the shit-can.

[Industrial Helix]

Well, it seems to me that in a number of cases the mapmaker doesn't approve of a revamp. Ancient Greece is a big example of this, the guy won't allow the revamp.

What is the least played map on cc?

[porkenbeans]

Well, it seems to me that in a number of cases the mapmaker doesn't approve of a revamp. Ancient Greece is a big example of this, the guy won't allow the revamp.

What is the least played map on cc?

If someone wanted to make a map of ancient Greece, There is nothing to stop him or her. You just can not take the original image and duplicate it. Nobody owns the geography, so if the author does not agree to a revamp, All you need to do is, start from scratch, and do not use any of his graphics in the way of photographing, or photocopying, or any other means, that uses his image to produce a copy.

[natty dread]

For the record, I love the Ancient Greece map. The graphics don't bother me, mainly because the gameplay is awesome.

[MarshalNey]

Well, it seems to me that in a number of cases the mapmaker doesn't approve of a revamp. Ancient Greece is a big example of this, the guy won't allow the revamp.

What is the least played map on cc?

If someone wanted to make a map of ancient Greece, There is nothing to stop him or her. You just can not take the original image and duplicate it. Nobody owns the geography, so if the author does not agree to a revamp, All you need to do is, start from scratch, and do not use any of his graphics in the way of photographing, or photocopying, or any other means, that uses his image to produce a copy.

While taking a map and switching around a bit of graphics and gameplay will avoid copyright issues, it is not a good way to go. It will most likely sour any motivation for mapmakers, who are willing to work for free often just to see that their map gets played. In my opinion, the revamps would be taking place in bad faith since you'd be largely working off of someone else's ideas and effort without giving them credit or creative control.

Admittedly, the very essence of this site sort of uses the same principles with regards to Risk, but I don't think it makes a good comparison, since the creators of Risk and the companies that bought the rights have gotten their pound of flesh and then some for their efforts. With volunteers, you really should always be on the level and respectful. I've seen dozens of volunteer programs of varying kinds driven into the ground by overly ambitious schemes that focus on production over people; this is a workable idea for business, but a bad idea for community.

Btw, I second Natty on Ancient Greece... perhaps, sometimes, the vocal minority gets too much grease (the Pearl Harbor revamp being a case in point)?

[porkenbeans]

Just because someone makes a map of a certain place, it does NOT give them some kind of domain stake on it. They do not in any since, legal or moral, have dibs on using that place for a map. And, if their map is a dud, I see nothing wrong whatsoever, in someone else taking a stab at it. If it is determined why it is a dud, then the author can be asked to revamp it to today's standards. Or at least allow a revamp contest, where he will still retain his copyrights.

CC has come a long way in 4 years, and the quality of its maps have improved over time. IMO, there is nothing improper, or disrespectful, if the shit were cleaned out from the stables now and then.

[natty dread]

I think that as long as a map gets at least some play, ie. there's at least some people who like the map, then there's no reason to remove it from play. What's wrong with having lots of maps? The more the merrier, that's my opinion.

[porkenbeans]

I think that as long as a map gets at least some play, ie. there's at least some people who like the map, then there's no reason to remove it from play. What's wrong with having lots of maps? The more the merrier, that's my opinion.

The weakest link speaks to the strength of the chain. I do not advocate the deletion of old maps, that are not able to stand next to the awesome maps, being turned out today. I am only advocating that they be improved, so that they can.

Tamriel is a perfect example of this. I have never played it because it is just so damn ugly. There does not seem to be any gameplay issues, so a graphic revamp should be all that it needs.

There are about a dozen or so maps that should be looked at. They should be caned if they can not be brought up to the current standards.

[ender516]

Perhaps the solution would come with a better "browse maps" page. Early maps which do not meet current standards could be moved to a less prominent location, where they would not detract from the overall quality of the site as much. They would still be available, if you were willing to look.

Of course, we keep throwing around the term "current standards". These are all subject to those persons active in the Foundry at the time of the quench. Can we set a date or other division which clearly states which maps are NOT subject to being revamped just because some people do not like them now? Should there be a sunset clause on the maps, making any of them subject to review after some time has passed?

[porkenbeans]

Perhaps the solution would come with a better "browse maps" page. Early maps which do not meet current standards could be moved to a less prominent location, where they would not detract from the overall quality of the site as much. They would still be available, if you were willing to look.

Of course, we keep throwing around the term "current standards". These are all subject to those persons active in the Foundry at the time of the quench. Can we set a date or other division which clearly states which maps are NOT subject to being revamped just because some people do not like them now? Should there be a sunset clause on the maps, making any of them subject to review after some time has passed?

I think that once or twice a year the least played maps should go up for review.