Context
The term “leadernom” refers to the nomination of a specific selection of maps that are only able to be nominated by a player designated as the leader during a map vote. This selection of maps is not curated by the community and is essentially at the discretion of management. As a result, we have very inconsistent map restrictions, with some maps being deemed “too hard” or “too easy” and remaining unaligned with community perception. More glaring, however, is the fact that half the map pool was effectively culled off, with some maps rarely being chosen now.
This system was implemented due to the circumstances around its introduction. At the time, players were nominating maps back-to-back that were considered “too difficult” for general players. This behavior was observed to kill off the Zombie Escape US Server by tiring out the player base until they gradually left. There would be some players that would even nominate these types of maps knowing they would tire out the server as a means of purposely killing it.
My perspective of this can be considered biased, but my observations at the time were that only a specific set of players were doing this. Essentially, these players kept nominating hard maps or trolling nominations, resulting in the leadernom system being imposed and punishing the entirety of the player base. The irony here is that these same players are complaining about it now or have already left due to the changes they brought.
Problems
The issues this implementation poses can be subjective. All I can offer you is my perspective as someone who has played for years on the server through its highs and lows.
1. Leadernoms are too subjective.
What defines a leadernom map? Are they simply maps that require a leader, or are they maps that are just too hard even without one? One could argue that every map requires a leader to teach players at one point. Over time, players will gradually learn the map and may come to a point where a leader is not required. Some maps out there are even so simple that leaders may never be required. Purely from the standpoint that a leadernom is a map that may always necessitate a leader, there are far too few non-leadernom maps that are so simple they don’t require one.
It’s hard to dictate what does or does not fit the bill. One-stage maps can sometimes be far harder than multistage maps. Maps with lasers may actually be simpler than maps without. The discrepancies are many, so let’s look at some examples of our categorized maps.
Examples of Non-leadernom maps (that should be leadernom):
ze_silent_hill_2_illusion_skial_1
ze_biohazard2_sewer_skial_1
ze_garten_of_banbantaylorythmics_bald67selene_update_v3b
Silent Hill is a multistage map with a dark setting and multiple split defenses. It’s hard to traverse and requires knowledge beforehand to navigate unless a leader is present. Even with a leader, navigation is hardly casual due to all the detailing and close-quarters defenses. Biohazard is similar, with many hallway defenses and backtracking and tight navigation. It’s hard to do unless someone has experimented with the map or has memorized where to go beforehand.
Banban is a more subjective pick, but I believe it fits the category of other leadernom maps despite it having a “less serious vibe.” It is now multistage, but it has multiple windy sections and areas that require guidance if unfamiliar. There are mazes and even bosses that require specific strategies to get through. More interestingly, it is a map made specifically for TF2 by a TF2 ZE player. As such, maps like this should get more exposure and be more playable. One could argue that, despite its difficulties, this alone makes it fair to be non-leadernom. However, I’ll discuss a map with similar circumstances that doesn’t have the same treatment in a bit.
Examples of Leadernom maps (that should be Non-leadernom):
ze_crazy_escape_skial_3
ze_rush_b_skial_7
ze_cartender_b4
Crazy Escape used to be one of the staple casual maps that everybody would gradually join in for. It’s not that complicated and has short stages, making losses more forgiving. It was a great introductory map for common ZE mechanics, such as the DPS check and split defense on stage 1, the chaser boss and lasers on stage 2, and the positioning boss and lasers on stage 3. I believe it was set as leadernom solely because of the lasers or maybe even due to recent losses on the stage 1 DPS check. Regardless, it’s one of the better introductory ZE maps that used to be played by regulars and non-regulars alike. Now, it’s almost never played because of the leadernom restriction.
Rush B is another subjective pick here, and I would argue that it even requires a leader to get through effectively. So then why argue for it to not be leader restricted? For the brainless fun of it. This map is not anything so complicated that most people would not enjoy it. A majority of the map is point farming and close-quarters defenses, much like how ze_scp_skial_4, a non-leadernom map, is. Not only that, but this map has minigames that introduce players to lasers and other mechanics like surfing in a more forgiving manner. Only one person has to beat laser sections, and the surf section has simpler twists and turns, albeit still killing players due to bugs and other issues (there’s even a strategy to save players unavailable to TF2 players at the moment). I would argue Rush B is just another choice casual players can give themselves to have brainless fun or push further if necessary.
Cartender is another TF2-made map by a TF2 ZE player similar to Garten of Banban. It was explicitly created for the community as a beginner map. It is not too complicated aside from split defenses and is short enough as a one-stage map to forgive losses. It does offer bosses and lasers, but the boss is simple enough for players to learn the pattern from, and the lasers, while instant kill, make this map serve as a liaison into harder laser maps that players may encounter. Even so, it does not receive the same special treatment as Banban does and is restricted by leadernom. This gives the map less exposure and fewer opportunities for mappers to observe and playtest their map over time.
Examples of Special Exceptions:
ze_best_korea_skial_4
ze_santassination_s4
ze_uchiha_legacy_skial_8
The above maps obviously require a leader. These are the types of maps that were played so often, many players can get through a few stages without one. However, to beat it smoothly and in its entirety, it usually would require a leader to coordinate everyone. These maps are the type of maps given a “special exception” from leadernom restriction due to the traction they gain in gathering players. This only adds more biases and inconsistencies as to what maps are restricted.
Is this not absurd? There’s no consistency here, and it will be subjective to each player. The only statistical evidence is from tracking player numbers for each map, but aside from the maps that are common attractors, this data gets heavily skewed due to having so many restricted maps.
2. Leadernoms are not dictated by the community.
Which does make sense. See, if the entire community had to band together to decide what maps are considered casual and what aren’t, that would be impossible. It’s way too subjective, and players with more experience would simply have a larger say, pushing out the opinions of less experienced ones.
The big caveat to this is instead leaving it to management to make the decision. Now, it would make sense if they also played the server often and interacted with the community, but this currently is not the case. This has resulted in decisions that do not reflect the sentiment of a large majority and inconsistencies in choice that are alarming. It has gotten so bad that both sides of the aisle, the community and the managers controlling it, are at odds with each other and effectively lash out at or disregard one another.
3. Leadernoms reduce player exploration.
One of the biggest appeals of Skial’s Zombie Escape was being able to play whatever map you wanted without much restriction. This was utilized the most by the Zombie Escape NY server, with their community playing a variety of maps to just hang out and have fun in. This “having fun” aspect is something I think a TF2 player base cares about more intensely—often to an extreme degree—than, say, CS2 or CS:Source, where competition is more centralized. That’s not to say competition is bad either; it’s just that you can expect TF2 players to be more likely to not heavily invest in things like the game mode and are simply more interested in trying out new things for the sake of the contrast or absurdity some maps offer compared to base TF2 maps.
4. Leadernoms inhibit player testing and learning.
I have already made a suggestion similar to this by removing leadernoms on EU for the reason of testing maps. From personal experience, I used to come on the US server very early or during dead hours years ago to just play random maps and learn. This helped me retain my interest as a player and had the added benefit of growing the community as people would gradually join during these sessions to try out these rarely played or unbeaten maps. The introduction of leadernoms has ruined this aspect of player development and server bonding. This is a point I find has gone wildly unnoticed and disregarded by the community.
5. Leadernoms discourage mapping.
I already discussed a few TF2-made maps restricted by leadernoms, but there are many more. Consider quicksand, pkp, ryujin, laserheaven, laserhell, warlab, sandstone, etc. For a game mode that is solely reliant on the community and where maps make up a big factor for the gameplay loop and overall enjoyment, the idea that community members would create content for the server should be heavily encouraged (of course, with proper quality). Leadernom restrictions only discourage this by making it harder for the community to play these TF2-made maps. The rewarding feeling of making something for the community and watching it be played out is cut significantly short by the lessened likelihood of it being played. This leads one to ask themself, why then make maps for the community if they’ll be restricted in the end?
6. Leadernoms are killing the server.
We still face the same issues present even before leadernom. Currently, the ones holding the game mode together are the “regulars,” which are players who come on the server on a regular basis. Usually what happens is that these players come on to revive the server, more regulars come on, more random players come on, and the server somewhat fills out. However, once the regulars leave, the general player base slowly leaves as well.
I would argue this issue stems from a more fundamental flaw of the game mode and the plethora of issues it faces on the Skial servers. All of these can be addressed in their own discussions down the line.
Solution
Simply remove leadernoms.
This can avoid all the drama, all the overthinking, and all the subjectiveness. Players can once again freely play what they want. Repercussions can be made towards those who constantly troll nominations or leave after nominating harder maps by banning them from the nomination system on a case-by-case basis.
If this suggestion goes through, an addendum can be made to my other suggestions about the nomination system. If all players can nominate any map again, you can maintain the privileges of the leader by guaranteeing their map nomination to show up in the map pool. If multiple players vote this person in, it essentially means they trust them with their map nomination as well.
The term “leadernom” refers to the nomination of a specific selection of maps that are only able to be nominated by a player designated as the leader during a map vote. This selection of maps is not curated by the community and is essentially at the discretion of management. As a result, we have very inconsistent map restrictions, with some maps being deemed “too hard” or “too easy” and remaining unaligned with community perception. More glaring, however, is the fact that half the map pool was effectively culled off, with some maps rarely being chosen now.
This system was implemented due to the circumstances around its introduction. At the time, players were nominating maps back-to-back that were considered “too difficult” for general players. This behavior was observed to kill off the Zombie Escape US Server by tiring out the player base until they gradually left. There would be some players that would even nominate these types of maps knowing they would tire out the server as a means of purposely killing it.
My perspective of this can be considered biased, but my observations at the time were that only a specific set of players were doing this. Essentially, these players kept nominating hard maps or trolling nominations, resulting in the leadernom system being imposed and punishing the entirety of the player base. The irony here is that these same players are complaining about it now or have already left due to the changes they brought.
Problems
The issues this implementation poses can be subjective. All I can offer you is my perspective as someone who has played for years on the server through its highs and lows.
1. Leadernoms are too subjective.
What defines a leadernom map? Are they simply maps that require a leader, or are they maps that are just too hard even without one? One could argue that every map requires a leader to teach players at one point. Over time, players will gradually learn the map and may come to a point where a leader is not required. Some maps out there are even so simple that leaders may never be required. Purely from the standpoint that a leadernom is a map that may always necessitate a leader, there are far too few non-leadernom maps that are so simple they don’t require one.
It’s hard to dictate what does or does not fit the bill. One-stage maps can sometimes be far harder than multistage maps. Maps with lasers may actually be simpler than maps without. The discrepancies are many, so let’s look at some examples of our categorized maps.
Examples of Non-leadernom maps (that should be leadernom):
ze_silent_hill_2_illusion_skial_1
ze_biohazard2_sewer_skial_1
ze_garten_of_banbantaylorythmics_bald67selene_update_v3b
Silent Hill is a multistage map with a dark setting and multiple split defenses. It’s hard to traverse and requires knowledge beforehand to navigate unless a leader is present. Even with a leader, navigation is hardly casual due to all the detailing and close-quarters defenses. Biohazard is similar, with many hallway defenses and backtracking and tight navigation. It’s hard to do unless someone has experimented with the map or has memorized where to go beforehand.
Banban is a more subjective pick, but I believe it fits the category of other leadernom maps despite it having a “less serious vibe.” It is now multistage, but it has multiple windy sections and areas that require guidance if unfamiliar. There are mazes and even bosses that require specific strategies to get through. More interestingly, it is a map made specifically for TF2 by a TF2 ZE player. As such, maps like this should get more exposure and be more playable. One could argue that, despite its difficulties, this alone makes it fair to be non-leadernom. However, I’ll discuss a map with similar circumstances that doesn’t have the same treatment in a bit.
Examples of Leadernom maps (that should be Non-leadernom):
ze_crazy_escape_skial_3
ze_rush_b_skial_7
ze_cartender_b4
Crazy Escape used to be one of the staple casual maps that everybody would gradually join in for. It’s not that complicated and has short stages, making losses more forgiving. It was a great introductory map for common ZE mechanics, such as the DPS check and split defense on stage 1, the chaser boss and lasers on stage 2, and the positioning boss and lasers on stage 3. I believe it was set as leadernom solely because of the lasers or maybe even due to recent losses on the stage 1 DPS check. Regardless, it’s one of the better introductory ZE maps that used to be played by regulars and non-regulars alike. Now, it’s almost never played because of the leadernom restriction.
Rush B is another subjective pick here, and I would argue that it even requires a leader to get through effectively. So then why argue for it to not be leader restricted? For the brainless fun of it. This map is not anything so complicated that most people would not enjoy it. A majority of the map is point farming and close-quarters defenses, much like how ze_scp_skial_4, a non-leadernom map, is. Not only that, but this map has minigames that introduce players to lasers and other mechanics like surfing in a more forgiving manner. Only one person has to beat laser sections, and the surf section has simpler twists and turns, albeit still killing players due to bugs and other issues (there’s even a strategy to save players unavailable to TF2 players at the moment). I would argue Rush B is just another choice casual players can give themselves to have brainless fun or push further if necessary.
Cartender is another TF2-made map by a TF2 ZE player similar to Garten of Banban. It was explicitly created for the community as a beginner map. It is not too complicated aside from split defenses and is short enough as a one-stage map to forgive losses. It does offer bosses and lasers, but the boss is simple enough for players to learn the pattern from, and the lasers, while instant kill, make this map serve as a liaison into harder laser maps that players may encounter. Even so, it does not receive the same special treatment as Banban does and is restricted by leadernom. This gives the map less exposure and fewer opportunities for mappers to observe and playtest their map over time.
Examples of Special Exceptions:
ze_best_korea_skial_4
ze_santassination_s4
ze_uchiha_legacy_skial_8
The above maps obviously require a leader. These are the types of maps that were played so often, many players can get through a few stages without one. However, to beat it smoothly and in its entirety, it usually would require a leader to coordinate everyone. These maps are the type of maps given a “special exception” from leadernom restriction due to the traction they gain in gathering players. This only adds more biases and inconsistencies as to what maps are restricted.
Is this not absurd? There’s no consistency here, and it will be subjective to each player. The only statistical evidence is from tracking player numbers for each map, but aside from the maps that are common attractors, this data gets heavily skewed due to having so many restricted maps.
2. Leadernoms are not dictated by the community.
Which does make sense. See, if the entire community had to band together to decide what maps are considered casual and what aren’t, that would be impossible. It’s way too subjective, and players with more experience would simply have a larger say, pushing out the opinions of less experienced ones.
The big caveat to this is instead leaving it to management to make the decision. Now, it would make sense if they also played the server often and interacted with the community, but this currently is not the case. This has resulted in decisions that do not reflect the sentiment of a large majority and inconsistencies in choice that are alarming. It has gotten so bad that both sides of the aisle, the community and the managers controlling it, are at odds with each other and effectively lash out at or disregard one another.
3. Leadernoms reduce player exploration.
One of the biggest appeals of Skial’s Zombie Escape was being able to play whatever map you wanted without much restriction. This was utilized the most by the Zombie Escape NY server, with their community playing a variety of maps to just hang out and have fun in. This “having fun” aspect is something I think a TF2 player base cares about more intensely—often to an extreme degree—than, say, CS2 or CS:Source, where competition is more centralized. That’s not to say competition is bad either; it’s just that you can expect TF2 players to be more likely to not heavily invest in things like the game mode and are simply more interested in trying out new things for the sake of the contrast or absurdity some maps offer compared to base TF2 maps.
4. Leadernoms inhibit player testing and learning.
I have already made a suggestion similar to this by removing leadernoms on EU for the reason of testing maps. From personal experience, I used to come on the US server very early or during dead hours years ago to just play random maps and learn. This helped me retain my interest as a player and had the added benefit of growing the community as people would gradually join during these sessions to try out these rarely played or unbeaten maps. The introduction of leadernoms has ruined this aspect of player development and server bonding. This is a point I find has gone wildly unnoticed and disregarded by the community.
5. Leadernoms discourage mapping.
I already discussed a few TF2-made maps restricted by leadernoms, but there are many more. Consider quicksand, pkp, ryujin, laserheaven, laserhell, warlab, sandstone, etc. For a game mode that is solely reliant on the community and where maps make up a big factor for the gameplay loop and overall enjoyment, the idea that community members would create content for the server should be heavily encouraged (of course, with proper quality). Leadernom restrictions only discourage this by making it harder for the community to play these TF2-made maps. The rewarding feeling of making something for the community and watching it be played out is cut significantly short by the lessened likelihood of it being played. This leads one to ask themself, why then make maps for the community if they’ll be restricted in the end?
6. Leadernoms are killing the server.
We still face the same issues present even before leadernom. Currently, the ones holding the game mode together are the “regulars,” which are players who come on the server on a regular basis. Usually what happens is that these players come on to revive the server, more regulars come on, more random players come on, and the server somewhat fills out. However, once the regulars leave, the general player base slowly leaves as well.
I would argue this issue stems from a more fundamental flaw of the game mode and the plethora of issues it faces on the Skial servers. All of these can be addressed in their own discussions down the line.
Solution
Simply remove leadernoms.
This can avoid all the drama, all the overthinking, and all the subjectiveness. Players can once again freely play what they want. Repercussions can be made towards those who constantly troll nominations or leave after nominating harder maps by banning them from the nomination system on a case-by-case basis.
If this suggestion goes through, an addendum can be made to my other suggestions about the nomination system. If all players can nominate any map again, you can maintain the privileges of the leader by guaranteeing their map nomination to show up in the map pool. If multiple players vote this person in, it essentially means they trust them with their map nomination as well.
