david_ There is simply too much content for it to be competetive, taking into consideration the size of the active playerbase.
First, competitiveness is dictated by the player base, not the map count. If a map isn't competitive, that's because it doesn't have the necessary elements for it to be competitive, or the number of players that enjoy the map's gameplay is just not high enough. Say if I pull a Thanos on the map pool, I bet those maps that no one plays will still stay dead anyway.
Second, why do maps have to even be competitive? You shouldn't treat the API database like a leaderboard, treat it like a database. Shocking, I know.
Some people (well, me at least) don't really care that much if a map is competitive or not. Sometimes I want to enjoy the map's design and just casually play the map while listening to music. A map being global for me is just "this map isn't hot garbage with no working timer that could crash your pc". Slashing global maps for the sake of competitiveness gets a big no from me.
david_ The already large map pool creates an issue for server owners who need to make sure they have enough space for all the maps, which can get unnecessarily expensive if you are just running a small server.
KZ probably has the smallest map pool out of the KZ/Surf/Bhop trio. Bhop has like thousands of maps and I would assume that surf has less or more than that. If those servers can find a way to manage a ton of maps, then KZ can as well (maybe). If you are running a small private server, you can delete bad maps or maps that your members never play. There's no requirement for having all the maps available for a server to be global. Still, the best solution would be dynamically manage the map list using a plugin or something.
david_ To me it seems like it is very easy for a map released in a bigger release to get undervalued due to it being too much content released at once, so less players will notice it. If there was a max cap (10 for example) of how many maps that could be released per release this would not be as big of an issue.
I think this is a fair concern, but I don't agree with the solution.
Say, why does A gets approved for this month and B doesn't? It might feel reasonable to me that A is approved before B, but there is a solid 100% chance that there will be people saying otherwise. And now people are upset.
Also, if there are always more than 10 maps submitted per month, then eventually maps will just get stuck in limbo for a long, long time despite its quality. Now you have a problem. So you publish this very good map and then people will be angry that why does this map gets the priority before a map that has spent 5 months in the backlog (and yes, this can happen even with a priority system, as long as there are more maps submitted than approved). Alternatively, this very map stays in limbo for months then people forget about it upon release. And so everyone is upset. Again.
The current solution is just, in my opinion, the solution that makes the least amount of people upset (ie. completionists).
david_ However, it could also be that it creates more excitement within the community since it would create a bit of competitiveness of who gets in to which release.
It would just create more pointless drama.
david_ I would also like to add a point Steven brought up in the discord server. Every new map release adds onto the queries that kztimer hits the database with which is already very slow. Perhaps the solution to this is not to decrease the size of the already existing map pool or similar but I still think it is worth to include in here.
KZTimer bad. With the new GOKZ version coming out, I really hope that server owners would finally migrate to GOKZ and finally purge this spaghetti plugin from existence.