READ EVERYTHING PHANATICD I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH What is your suggestion? My suggestion is to replace the current castle assault map with the previous one. Why do we need this? Or What made you post this suggestion? The reason for this suggestion is that the only active mini-game is sky-flag which is quite concerning. Players are out of options when playing mini games since there are none. This is why the the old castle assault map should be reintroduced, replacing the current one. Throughout I will explain/analyse why this is the best course of action for a subset game which is in critical danger of losing its player base. The previous castle assault map was a fan favourite catering for all play styles due to the map layout. This was then replaced by a stale, lifeless map. The current map layout is much bigger and has too many routes for PVP which can put players off. Why it puts people off? Keeps players unoccupied with much less PVP. The old map had a narrow lane type layout which helped players engage with what's happening as the surface area is much smaller. Players can jump right back into action since the map is so small. The previous map allows player using both sword and bows to have an enjoyable experience whilst the the current CA enforces more sword type action. (Considering the split between the two sides is water)The lava on the old map is the pinpoint to why its so favoured. The lava seperates the two sides distinctly making it a more team based battle rather than a cluttered, no team co ordinated battle which the current CA suffers from. The partition of water makes it no risk crossing it whilst lava consists of more risk and more purpose to use the bow. This may be why skyflag out of the minigames survived since its so team grounded.(but you can be the judge of that)(im sure you can conclude why the preceding map is far greater than the one we have now) the addition of the old map would boost popularity to the stagnant mini-game satisfying loyal players (since this is what most the player base are) not only this, it sparks interest to new players since now there could potentially be 2 active mini-games in contrast to 1. IMPORTANT- PhanaticD read this Another reason why we need this is mini-games in general seems to have been swept under the rug with no major updates. The last major update i can recall was dated back in 2013. this was found through your post (PhanaticD) on the news forum regarding it. It has now been 5 years and there still hasn't been a major update. There may have been minor updates which you might've not mentioned , but from a player's perspective, none are recognised. bugs are prevalent from months back and still those in power can't seem to pinpoint the details which make the server look unattractive and it boggles me such features are shrugged off because there are supposed "learning curves" to steer away from certain problems such as micro-managing i.e (hunger not kept static) this isn't a suggestion rather an example where an issue isn't recognised or a problem is avoided due to there having functionality elsewhere which is inferior to the bigger picture ( fix micro managing or reason to do parkour?) (if you want to know what i mean by this, comment below as it seems like i'm making a request rather i'm making an example of lack of rationale being used to come to a reasonable conclusion benefiting all players) if i have the belief staff or those with authority may sometimes struggle to implement ideas which benefit the server, then of course i am going to intervene and this is exactly why i'm writing this post not for self gain but for the sake of the server.(I have reason to believe in this so don't bash me for it rather educate me if im wrong) If servers can't be innovative, they will indefinitely die and there are many examples of this.(mineplex used to own a big chunk of the market, not so much anymore) The map can be seen as a major update for this subset of the server and yes, the castle assault map we have now has backtracked. (in terms of innovating) You may be thinking “how does you're idea benefit new players?” like I said before the layout of the old map is superior to the current one. The old map is fast paced and has particular vantage points which allows players of any play style or skill set to enjoy it. If you were to join sky-flag, new players and even returning are immediately put off since sky-flag has a specific layout which really promotes bow fights. This play style is very dominating and it does discourage players. (Verify with yourself by joining the mini-game and seeing the reaction of new players if what is being said doesn't seem credible).(there are other factors which put off players i.e kits but I know its inevitable to change this and the implementation of this marketing strategy is none of my business but something to think about if you are oblivious of why players are be going elsewhere to play. This is constructive criticism nothing personal) this isn't to bash sky-flag, but having no other game as an alternative, what reason is there to stay on mini-games? Players usually quit once they are put in a disadvantage and since there's not another mini-game being played, they will look elsewhere to play.(other server)(personally see this a lot and you can go into sky-flag once again to verify if you feel what im providing doesn't convince you) The previous castle assault map is very unique as it can play universally which is attractive to any player. Both the CA maps are based on flat land which is highly preferred for a much balanced and fair fight but the old CA map takes the edge regarding its layout in contrast to the current one. Another question which pops to mind could be “what is the impact of changing a map on a single mini-game going to have on the server?” this server on average gets around 70 concurrent players. The percentage of that number which are on mini-games is around 15-20%. Considering sky flag is the only active mini-game, the addition of this map would not only boost the popularity of the mini-game with loyal players, but the effect of this is it will spread word of mouth about the “new” map. This on paper will reel in more new players and chances of them returning are much higher. (similar to a marketing, also mentioned this in my second paragraph but reiterating the point since it's vital for a server to know this and the impact it can have) The long term effect of this is player the count mini-games will increase and the player base of the whole server will also grow. (This is pretty obvious) Something i forgot to mention in the original post is a previous post regarding lowering the minimum players to start CA. Although i see benefits of this addition, i don't think it would be feasible or a change which will influence the server to a high degree. Even when the server hits its peek, players very rarely go on castle assault and when they do, it's usually on request by other players. This suggest castle assault as a whole isn't popular and everything above backs by statement. (I have mentioned foreseen questions because it's what i think PhanaticD might have but, players may also have these questions) but this request can be secondary after the map change since the current map is stagnent with ZERO activity surrounding it. Pirates doesn't have this minimum player requirement yet its also stagnant. But I question myself why this request wasn't considered? There are no drawbacks to their request and yet it was denied. This really does discourage me when writing this post since i have outlined all the good it can bring and it may be overlooked. Prove me wrong looking further back in 2014, someone suggested to add the old map back and you PhanaticD, agreed following through with the suggestion. you then reverted back the current map due to the outroar from the players. correct me if I'm wrong if I interpreted the thread incorrectly. (thread was from stake4443 so you can verify what I'm saying is correct) the same argument can't be used against me this time since nobody plays CA. (but this must be self explanatory just wanted to dig further back to see why this suggestion hasn't put in action).the outroar was pretty predictable since people were adjusting to the current map. therefore going through with it now, risk is non existent. It may come of that I am emotionally fixated on the idea of bringing the older map back but it is less time-consuming to make a completely different or enhancing the current map when the previous one obtains all the aspects which made it successful and favourable. What are the possible negative aspects of your suggestion? If the map isn't able to exceed my expectation regarding its popularity, then it would then also be dormant just like the current castle assault map. But, a map change of this scale doesn't usually go unnoticed. It would be noticed in the early stages of its addition, but there is a small possibility it will die off long term. Further more, this change could just partition the loyal players into two mini-games which could lead to low player counts in each game. But this in itself is an advantage since 2 mini-games are actively played which is attractive to new players. There is still another setback to my suggestion, kits. Kits are known to drive players away from minigames. If you use your logic and rationale, you would not implement this kit system in castle assault. If your goal is to create a broken/failing minigames community, you will implement these kits creating more problems. Not including donor kits into this minigame will give players somewhere they can play FAIRLY without any competitive disadvantage and phanaticD you will be praised for it. Don't let the servers internal influences impact your judgements on doing the right thing for the players. This disadvantage is out of my reach and only you phanaticD can make this right. You can go ahead and allow kits to be available in castle assault. the game will still gain popularity but for the expense of more disatisfied players and a bad word of mouth? That's a risk i'm not willing to take and i hope you're not either. Minigames is not being played out the way its marketed to. there are going to be people who object but please try understand my point of view on this. This would be the most rationale decision but people will argue donor kits are not being used to their full potential. The game will of course get popular and bring in more players like i just said, but i want to increase customer satisfaction to the max. If you see not including kits wouldn't be the best decision, then so be it, at least I've done my part making you aware of what the implications there are to it. Kits being a setback to this doesn't negate the whole addition, its just a factor i see can affect how things may play out. What are the positive aspects of your suggestion? Most of my advantages have been mention above in the "why do we need this" section, so I'll just bullet point what I have said under here: Map layout of the old map is superior to the current one regarding PVP. An update is always a step in the right direction. Players can have a new or a nostalgic experience. If there are no updates, the game will inevitably die out, many examples of other servers failing to do this. Given another mini-game to play opposed to just playing one. Long term impact is the playerbase of mini-games and the whole server will increase. The benefits of bringing it back clearly outweigh the drawbacks to the point there is no risk involved in going forward with this suggestion. Businesses/servers would die for this kind of opportunity, but here we are leaving the door wide open. How can this suggestions be achieved on the server? Simply by replacing the castle assault map with the old one. The map is saved since it was* right next the current castle assault map. Previous thread overview A thread about this topic has been suggested before but missed the key focal points and coming off as too brief basing their suggestion on subjectivity and purely on speculative ideas without sufficient reason to why they believe more people will play it or extended on how it can benefit new or reoccurring players ect. Looking through a previous thread about this topic, i came to the understanding it lacked certainty using words such as "might bring more players" this gives reason NOT go forth with a suggestion, i mean why would anyone go through with a suggestion if the person making the request isn't certain it will bring about what they want? Using statistical data, references/examples and using ones rationale shows an individual has considered all factors before making a request and therfore for it to seem MORE feasible than something which lacks conviction. A point which came on a previous thread regarding the same topic was the lack of detail the old map had and suggest updating it. Honestly this isn't a problem since the experience of the players is far more important than the aesthetics of the map. But, these two points co-inside since players do like aesthetics, but to counter this is from players who have experienced and played the previous CA map. These players don't voice their opinions on how the map looked, but how it played out. As far as I'm concerned, there doesn't need to be a change in the detailing of the map, just adding it back raw would be fine and its relatively easy to do. This problem seem's to have fixed itslef. Reason why i included anticipated questions is to avoid a heavy back and forth debate in the comments which indicates my suggestion has a grey area which i wasn't aware of. (But im bound to get criticism eithier way, just trying to reduce common questions which may be asked in response) This thread was made out of shear frustration due to the past CA map being teased for too long. But, I can assure you this post has mostly been objective with what I perceive could benefit this server. I made sure i prioritised making this thread and the process was very time consuming so I would love to receive a response regarding my suggestion. I know this thread is going to be overlooked since most suggestions are, but scepticism aside, this suggestion would be the perfect inclusion to revive mini-games to what it was many years ago. This idea has been rejected before so therefore PhanaticD, if you reject this suggestion again, i want a reply to why this is by rebuking my points. P.S sorry for any grammatical error's/statistical inconsistencies(if you're analysis of the server differs to mine) and apologies if I didn't stick to the structure 100% the starter sentence seems too simple for a persuasive piece of writing. And as always, if you have a conflicting view, don't be afraid to comment. Thanks for the opportunity for allowing individuals to voice their suggestions!