EDIT- 1 year later you probably weren't expecting someone to actually do their research and it seems like you don't know how to respond. why create an expectation to then not give any validation or even consideration to the post? and no your response on this thread wasn't validation since you didn't even reply to my post rather u replied to the person criticising the rejection of my post which is just blatant damage control. just a heads up for anyone reading this, you don"t need to listen to PhanaticD when he say "think of it like a persuasive essay" since threads with a couple sentences receive progressive feedback than something like this. just be short and snappy and you'll receive a response if u keep bumping, dont ever waste your time writing suggestions of this magnitude. the addition of this suggestion is only seasonal since its the only time when there is an influx of players and the only time the addition would be effective.(won't be effective if added in off season since the playerbase is literally nothing, wouldnt have been a problem if you added it a year ago when there was actually a relatively solid playerbase, but hey lets adapt to our failing situation ) READ EVERYTHING PHANATICD I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH Disclaimer My approach to this is slightly unorthodox since people dont tend to delve deep into their suggestion like I've done. There's going to be things discussed which you may or may not like/agree with but I'm not here to beat around the bush so I'm sorry in advance if I offend you in any way. 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. 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)(later edit, the water distinction is now useless and actually an unfair advantage to those who still play on earlier versions of minecraft since 1.14 players can swim much faster which further backs my point to why the lava distinction is a far better alternative)The lava on the old map is the pinpoint to why its so favoured. The lava separates 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. Considering the player base of this server, you should also consider the size of the map being played on. Bigger map for a smaller player base? No denying the player base is smaller than what it use to be, therefore the old map would be the perfect inclusion.(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. On discord you have made no announcements about minigames or the future of it just a statement accepting the game is dead when statistics show this is untrue (I wil elaborate on this later) 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/changes 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 which can be nuisance for player roaming minigames hub or not to fix it since it gives a 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.(Im talking about minigames not other games within the server I know people would turn my words against me this is why i have to put this disclaimer here) I have reason to believe in this so don't bash me for it rather educate me if I'm 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 remove this and the implementation of this marketing strategy is not something i have authority over but something to think about if you are oblivious of why players are be going elsewhere to play. This is constructive criticism nothing personal. I'll mention what I see as a reasonable solution to this further down.) 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%. (this percentage on minigames is amazing considering it hasn't been updated in years)(and of course this number fluctuates but for the most time it holds this average) since skyflag 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). (You should also take into consideration advertising the new map. I don't need to elaborate on how this can be done, you seem to advertise other updates/news about other games internally and externally so it shouldn't be a problem. This is actually really important since advertising can create a bigger influence than shear word of mouth. so please don't make the mistake of not advertising it. This goes without saying. One thing 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.( this is is like a product life cycle. The castle assault map has hit rock bottom in the decline stage. A change in mini-games should have been thought of when the games within were maturing in order to extend the the mini-games mature period. This is where this castle assault map or significant change should have been implemented not when the a mini game had no activity, but when there was indication of decline. this is simple marketing don't understand why nothing was done about it when game activity was declining. Understaffed? Priority elsewhere? Who knows.) 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. I know I said previously kits is really none of my business but know they drive players away from minigames. I beleive this is one of the main reasons why minigames can't hold onto new players and why they resort to leaving. If you use your logic and rationale, you would not implement this kit system in castle assault. 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 what's right for the players. you might be saying "well we have /fight for players who want to play fairly" you should take in account that minigames is objective based whilst /fight isn't. if kits aren't available /fight I don't understand the need for it in objective based minigame. I haven't seen any other server do this im honesty startled to why this was an implementation and why after years you haven't doubted or questioned your decision of it. Sorry if I come across condescending but do you understand what im saying? Maybe im assuming too much but what else can i do with the limited information i have. I mean just go into minigames and look at the variations between players ranks/kits, its a mess. The concept of fair play is just thrown out the window and only promotes toxiticity since it builds fraustration amongst 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 what? more disatisfied players and a bad word of mouth? Literally look at the reaction of new or returning players when they see this system in place. Can you not see how dysfunctional it is? Either that or you're ignoring it. Minigames is not being played the way it was supposed to. There are going to be people who object but please try understand my perception on this. This would be the most rationale decision for the greater good but people will argue donor kits are not being used to their full potential or there is a restriction to it. The game will of course increase in popularity 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. I'm only asking not to allow people to use kits on this particular minigame but I am completely justified to say it for the whole subset game but that's a suggestion for another time. 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 becuase they lacked innovation. Given another mini-game to play opposed to just the one. (Other minigames are dead) 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. Extension Previous thread overviews A thread about this topic has been suggested before but missed the key focal points and came off as too brief basing their suggestion purely on subjectivity and speculative ideas without sufficient reason to why they believe more people will play it or expanded on how it can benefit new or reoccurring players, server ect. Looking through a previous thread about this topic and other suggestions, through reading these posts, they 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 therefore it is more feasible than something which lacks conviction. phrases like "This is one of my favourite game modes in Minecraft, and I would love to see it on the server.'' personally, if one is making a suggestion, one should avoid sentences like this since its not a considering what the majority think. polls and comments do help contribute to get an idea of the majority but like I said, you have do delve deeper to get an understanding of the community and see if its beneficial (its like a utilitarian approach, just not an ethical decision) it also helps reduce back and forth debate so a more objective approach can be made. A point mentioned on a previous thread regarding the same topic was the lack of detail the old map had and suggested an update to it. 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 itself. Reason why i included anticipated questions and these overviews of previous threads is to avoid a heavy back and forth debate in the comments indicating a weak suggestion. (But im bound to get constructive criticism either way, just trying to reduce common questions which may be asked in response) Future of this server Previously I mentioned how minigames life cycle has been declining for years. If minigames can still get 15 to 20% of the servers player base to play minigames, it really shows the potential minigames has. Rememeber you have left minigames and its playerbase to resonate for 5+ years and still it holds a reasonable percentage of your server. Literally one minigame has helped keep this subsection aflout which is why i want a new minigame. Not much to ask for. this is a missed opportunity phanaticD and you haven't figured it out in 5+ years.(i have very compelling reasons to why i believe this) Instead you have fallen to your subjective ideas believing this aspect of the server is "dead" (these are your words not mine) when satistics show this isn't entirely true. Just do market research, look how other servers have implemented thier type of minigames and how their servers are flourishing. It may or may not be because of that aspect of the server, but still it holds a high percentage of players in their servers. I,m not atacking you personally, i,m questioning why such a crucial part of the server was left to the side. Please educate me to why you have done this. Im so confused. You seem to be doing a reasonable job of extended the mature stage of other games but puzzled to why you have literally let minigames to fail. For e.g. bending. You make frequent anouncments and updates regarding it and you are always dishing out when suggestion popup about. I can see how you have prioritsed bending since this is the most popular sector in your server and it makes sense why you put alot of work into it but prioritising comes with risks and i see you have taken a big one disbanding minigames. (if your reasons for everything above are something you don't want to share since its business operations, then that's fine but I have picked up on these grey areas and would love to get clarification on them) Look, I may not be the most diligent or the brightest person, but as a teen if i can literally make an essay to why adding a new map can benefit minigames and its player base, then surely you can see right through what im saying throughout my whole piece and see how beneficial it can be. I mean i could have literally just made a half assed suggestion bullet pointing whats good or bad and so on and looking at your current attitude of where minigames is now, you would have overlooked it. I did all the critical thinking and broke it down for you so all you need to do is to see if what im saying checks all the boxes and only after then can changes be made. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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, a reply to why this is would be nice by rebuking my points. Take your time to formulate a response and dm me if necessary. Thanks for the opportunity for allowing individuals to voice their suggestions!