Why not try a rating system similar to Rsmalec's current one. IMO his system is very informative and gives you a total out of 20 and a break down into catagories: creativity, detail, experience, challenge and progression.
I'm not saying that you should copy his rating exactly, but I think it's a very good system.
I disagree with that system mainly because all CTM maps have different elements that have different balancing intended for the experience. Running it with categorical ratings could be very problematic.
Maybe a /10 rating in terms of general audience satisfaction, but sub-ratings to relate them to other maps of the same difficulty? So just adding on to the ones that Isaac did, to give more depth to what is already provided?
Nesting it like this would be okay, but you'd need to distinguish a barrier between easy, normal, hard and brutal.
How about this. Instead of making a wide range of difficulties and splitting the reviews up like that, we have a meter that ranges from noob-friendly to veteran-slaughtering, where the former is a 1, and the latter is a 10, so we can have a numerical score for difficulty in relation to a visible representation of it. From there, we make two lists: ordered by rating, and ordered by difficulty. People who want a super easy map go to the difficulty list and pick the first one, and people who want a really good experience and don't care about difficulty go to the second list.
I know I've raised this question before, but what would we do for series?
Something like this, maybe:
[Series Name]
[No. of Maps]
Maps:
Map 1:
Review Here
Map 2:
Review Here
@Skeeto Nevertheless, I have posted in this and the other CTM Community a good 100 times in my short time here. You do have a point, it was just an idea.
Also, I think we should do the reviews by date of review.
I know I've raised this question before, but what would we do for series?
Something like this, maybe:
[Series Name]
[No. of Maps]
Maps:
Map 1:
Review Here
Map 2:
Review Here
@Skeeto Nevertheless, I have posted in this and the other CTM Community a good 100 times in my short time here. You do have a point, it was just an idea.
Also, I think we should do the reviews by date of review.
Thank you for bringing this up. I hate when we just have reviews of the overarching series, when in reality, there can be many maps in that series, of varying quality. Definitely something to think about.
@Skeeto Yay! I'm a regular! <3
@Krose That sounds good, but what would we do if a map was out of date? Would we just keep it there, possibly very high up on the OP, letting people think it was perfectly up-to-date?
@SniperGoth Well, by last... do you mean that you are against our derping around on the last thread? I mean, do you mean that you want this to be really serious, and all about CTM stuff? Because derping was most of the fun.
@Fangride Thanks!
How would we judge which maps were the top maps, though?
I'd assume that would be judged by thread owners with input from community.
On a side note, I think From Ashes and From Flames deserves a 9.0. Maps are great aesthetically, gameplay wise, and reasonably tough. Anyone else agree?
I think there should be the 'top 5' or 'top 8', and then the rest, in alphabetical order. Perhaps have the top 5 in spoilers and the long list of alphabetical maps following that.
Fun is a bit subjective, we shouldn't use that as a rating and like it has been said before, difficulty (not to be confused with challenge) should be separate from the rating.
If a map is too difficult for its intended difficulty rating, then it would get a low challenge score, representing the challenge being unbalanced(low score = too easy/too hard.)
Well, balance is also subjective. When Krose gave feedback on my map (mind you, he only flew through it in creative), he said that there wasn't enough loot in some of the areas, and that I should "make players feel like they're treasure-hunters" by adding more loot. Problem was, I had designed and balanced the map around existing loot, and adding more would unbalance it. Chances are, if someone like Krose (the kind to give/expect lots of loot) were to play my map, they may incorrectly rate the "challenge score" low because of there not being "enough" loot, thus not meeting their predetermined definition of balance.
That aside, I think that if we focus on numeric scores (splitting the score into sections like difficulty, progress, looks, etc.) then we shouldn't have the reviews on the OP. Rather, we have lists on the OP categorizing and ranking the maps based on their reviews (using the color-coding system Krose mentioned and perhaps a few other modifications), and each of the map names is a link that links to a review somewhere in this thread, meaning that all reviews would need to be their own post. That would reduce clutter on the OP by a lot.
@Zombee_Kreepah spoiler*
I like the idea of averages, but that might end up with some annoying decimals (ie the ones that either a) repeat forever or b\) are irrational. Both of these make Infamy OCD rage.).
@Zombee_Kreepah spoiler*
I like the idea of averages, but that might end up with some annoying decimals (ie the ones that either a) repeat forever or b\) are irrational. Both of these make Infamy OCD rage.).
Also, you can remove it if/when I give up. I'm very unsure of myself... And just in case... no, there's no topic yet.
I disagree with that system mainly because all CTM maps have different elements that have different balancing intended for the experience. Running it with categorical ratings could be very problematic.
Nesting it like this would be okay, but you'd need to distinguish a barrier between easy, normal, hard and brutal.
Sound good? Anything you'd want to add?
Something like this, maybe:
[Series Name]
[No. of Maps]
Maps:
Map 1:
@Skeeto Nevertheless, I have posted in this and the other CTM Community a good 100 times in my short time here. You do have a point, it was just an idea.
Also, I think we should do the reviews by date of review.
[YOUR AD HERE FOR JUST $69.69]
1/4 Aesthetics
1/4 Gameplay
1/4 General Factors
1/4 Difficulty Curve
Just some ideas.
[YOUR AD HERE FOR JUST $69.69]
Thank you for bringing this up. I hate when we just have reviews of the overarching series, when in reality, there can be many maps in that series, of varying quality. Definitely something to think about.
@Krose That sounds good, but what would we do if a map was out of date? Would we just keep it there, possibly very high up on the OP, letting people think it was perfectly up-to-date?
@SniperGoth Well, by last... do you mean that you are against our derping around on the last thread? I mean, do you mean that you want this to be really serious, and all about CTM stuff? Because derping was most of the fun.
@Fangride Thanks!
[YOUR AD HERE FOR JUST $69.69]
Furries are cool.
How would we judge which maps were the top maps, though?
[YOUR AD HERE FOR JUST $69.69]
I'd assume that would be judged by thread owners with input from community.
On a side note, I think From Ashes and From Flames deserves a 9.0. Maps are great aesthetically, gameplay wise, and reasonably tough. Anyone else agree?
Sounds good!
<(^.^)>
The Infamous Seal of Approval
[YOUR AD HERE FOR JUST $69.69]
No.
That aside, I think that if we focus on numeric scores (splitting the score into sections like difficulty, progress, looks, etc.) then we shouldn't have the reviews on the OP. Rather, we have lists on the OP categorizing and ranking the maps based on their reviews (using the color-coding system Krose mentioned and perhaps a few other modifications), and each of the map names is a link that links to a review somewhere in this thread, meaning that all reviews would need to be their own post. That would reduce clutter on the OP by a lot.
Review Example:
<Map>
Difficulty: <1-10> (1 Newbie Paradise, 5 Fun for all ages, 10 Veteran Slaughter House)
SCORING:
Looks/Aesthetics- <1-10>/10
Balance- <1-10>/10
Creativity/Ingenuity- <1-10>/10
Overall Enjoyment- <1-10>/10
Average Score- <1-10>/10
Written Review: <Written Review>
Overall Score: <1-10>/10
REVIEWED BY: <Reviewer>
I like this idea of review due to the average score based on the 4 criteria AND the overall score in the reviewer's opinion.
I like the idea of averages, but that might end up with some annoying decimals (ie the ones that either a) repeat forever or b\) are irrational. Both of these make Infamy OCD rage.).
[YOUR AD HERE FOR JUST $69.69]
True, but you could always round it.
BUT THEN IT WOULDN'T BE ACCURATE!!!!!! *OCD RAGE*
[YOUR AD HERE FOR JUST $69.69]
CTM COMMUNITY
JOIN IN ON DISSCUSSIONS ON HOW BEST TO BLOW UP PEOPLE
and then tnt all around it?
HELL YEAH. That would be... awesome. Sadly, I have to use my own adz in my sig, but good idea.
[YOUR AD HERE FOR JUST $69.69]