We always encourage a challenge, we don't mind being mistaken, I want mappers to challenge the process, it creates a great discussion at times. We've rated maps horribly and had the mapper approach to discuss, we work through any misunderstandings and make sure the mapper feels the process is fair above all.
We do articles when the reviewers have something to say, otherwise if you note the definitions of the ratings you will see a pretty self explanatory statement about what the rating means. We hope to do a video for this one later on if time permits. Ultimately any review process will not be perfect, this is purely a good way of lining stuff up and taking a stab at it.
I don't believe fun factor should be lowered due to the existence of the WC3 version. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is exactly what it sounded like earlier.
Perhaps a fresh review with people who have never tried the WC3 version? By the way, did the hater dislike the map or does he just hate TDs?
It's my mistake, I had posed it in a way to where the "fun factor" appears to be confusing in the way it's rated. I used my own rationale to establish the rating based on this criteria:
5 - When you were done reviewing this game, you wanted to play it again the next morning, you went to sleep thinking about it.
4 - You bookmarked this game for personal use, you played it 2-3 times more during the week of your review.
3 - You will be playing this on your own time, you still have things to do, but you will be playing it.
2 - The map review seemed long, you don't think you'll be playing this anytime soon, maybe after you rest from it.
1 - This map flat out sucked and you wont be playing it no more.
My explanation of the rating was the influence my experience had on my ratings, and my assumption that the same influences existed in the other raters. Our fun factor is purely rated on the above statements however. The influence to my perception, affecting the rating was what I spoke to, apologies.
We can do it one of two ways, drop the lowest rater and replace or completely reboot. Also I would love to incorporate you response to whatever final rating we accomplish. It could be in a multitude of formats, even a fun one.
Regarding the lowest rater, he rated squad td well, but alot of ppl who don't normally like td's like that one, so it would be totally reasonable to request his replaced.
I am drinking coffee with the terrainer of formation td atm, (to be fair i'm married to her lol) so if you want a quick replacement rating to see what it would look like by dropping the lowest and replacing with a td fans, let me know.
I would encourage anyone interested in knowing the actual criteria to check it out in person. Also sorry I havent' responded earlier, lots goin on.
There are six measurable criteria based on a persons perception of the map they are rating, furthermore, there are a minimum of three people rating each map. Any rigid criteria outside of that system would not work for all maps, but I'm happy to say that the system thus far is working within what I expected it to. By far not perfect of course.
What confuses me, and I genuinely confuse easy folks, is why there wasn't an objection to the areas in which element td performed poorly. The map got 3/5, 4/5, 4/5 respectively for appearance, but got a 1/5, 3/5, 3/5 for fun factor.
To specifically address how it was rated for those too lazy to look for themselves, and or for those who like to guess about a process instead of just find out about it, we grade appearance based on the following criteria.
5- The game uses never before seen graphics, terrain, etc.
4 - The game uses very unique camera controls, uses wow models, etc.
3 - The game looks very good, pathing works, no eye sores.
2 - The game looks like someone spent about an hour on terrain, the equivalent to nexus wars terrain, but is still playable.
1 - The terrain looks and works horribly, pathing does not work, there are eye sores.
It works like this, you either totally qualify for a number or you do not. In essence, given the definition of appearance, I think we were spot on. This considering, one the terrain is not unique to custom maps, formation td has a similar layout and actually published slightly before elemental td, and the map has existed for some time on wc3 in the same ultimate configuration. I would encourage you to look at the squad td review as well, it rated lower in appearance because they were not responsible for the actual concept of the terrain layout, where you were karawasa. 3, 4, 4 is pretty damned good for appearance on a TD.
Needless to say, I did challenge a few aspects of the ratings provided, prior to publishing, but the replies to my challenges were acceptable. If you would like a fresh one, we'll do it with another three reviewers... remember the most important part of our process is we love to be challenged!
The fun factor is what killed me on this review, and I honestly expected a challenge on that category for sure. One reviewer hated the map pretty much and it still wasn't enough to keep it from being ranked well regardless.
Updated to include the Element TD Rating. The hard part to rate on this one was the fact it's really a sequel of the WC3 map in the truest form. Unlike a remake like Squad where someone did a legacy import of the terrain and built from there, emulating anothers work, this time we have the original maker remaking his own map on SC2... hard indeed.
It faired much better than the legion td clone, but I still felt like i was playing Element TD on WC3 ultimately.
Up Next Fleet Assault and Starship Troopers: Abandoned.
We did try to substantiate the ratings, alot of content was lost (articles mainly) due to a recent host change and software change.
As far as videos are concerned, the majority of the videos were simply intended to give a gameplay overview, and the majority were not our videos, normally another reviewer or the mapper's video. I am still working on consistent video presentation.
Over the weekend or near to it, I will totally change the format to address the different genre's of maps. When we initially conceptualized the process, it was meant to reward creativity and fun, hence the high mafia rating. We have yet to weight the six categories or change them, input is certainly valued in that respect.
@SkrowFunk: Go
Ty for your support. We geared the reviews to address the map from the players perspective. Each of our reviews has at least one map maker and two players. I spent alot of time looking at discussions on bnet and here to determine this. The subjectivity of any review is absolutely unavoidable, essentially we are trying to figure out if the darn thing is fun. Instead of technically qualifying a rating, we use subjective statements from the reviewers to obtain a score. I would LOVE feedback on how to improve the accuracy of the five available statements within the six criteria.
It was started and halted till after your most recent big update, which has occurred. I'll put it after the two in que now. The most important thing I hope everyone grasps is we prioritize all requests. When there are no active requests, we simply troll to find the mapper making the most noise about a new map. If there isn't a prominent fuss being made over the latest, greatest, then we default to looking at the popularity list and up and coming list for interesting candidates.
I think splitting the maps into genre's will help with this, but ultimately there are six factors. The appearance of a map is not limited to terrain. If you were to look at "trifaction" terrain you would be unimpressed from the editor view, but if you look at it third person, it looks pretty. It really is very subjective, ultimately that is why we use three people at a minimum to offset extremely subjective standpoints.
And all that being said, the most important aspect of the process is the challenge. If it's not accurate by your determination, please say so. Specifically. Each map reviewed gets a challenge if someone feels they got a bad bounce. The best example of this would be WW2 diplo, we rated it unfairly, it was pointed out, the rating was removed and the new one is pending my third rater finishing his end up.
ALSO I WOULD ABSOLUTELY LOVE VOLUNTEERS FOR THIS PROCESS, please let me know :)
@GlornII: Go
We always encourage a challenge, we don't mind being mistaken, I want mappers to challenge the process, it creates a great discussion at times. We've rated maps horribly and had the mapper approach to discuss, we work through any misunderstandings and make sure the mapper feels the process is fair above all.
We do articles when the reviewers have something to say, otherwise if you note the definitions of the ratings you will see a pretty self explanatory statement about what the rating means. We hope to do a video for this one later on if time permits. Ultimately any review process will not be perfect, this is purely a good way of lining stuff up and taking a stab at it.
It's my mistake, I had posed it in a way to where the "fun factor" appears to be confusing in the way it's rated. I used my own rationale to establish the rating based on this criteria:
5 - When you were done reviewing this game, you wanted to play it again the next morning, you went to sleep thinking about it.
4 - You bookmarked this game for personal use, you played it 2-3 times more during the week of your review.
3 - You will be playing this on your own time, you still have things to do, but you will be playing it.
2 - The map review seemed long, you don't think you'll be playing this anytime soon, maybe after you rest from it.
1 - This map flat out sucked and you wont be playing it no more.
My explanation of the rating was the influence my experience had on my ratings, and my assumption that the same influences existed in the other raters. Our fun factor is purely rated on the above statements however. The influence to my perception, affecting the rating was what I spoke to, apologies.
We can do it one of two ways, drop the lowest rater and replace or completely reboot. Also I would love to incorporate you response to whatever final rating we accomplish. It could be in a multitude of formats, even a fun one.
Regarding the lowest rater, he rated squad td well, but alot of ppl who don't normally like td's like that one, so it would be totally reasonable to request his replaced.
I am drinking coffee with the terrainer of formation td atm, (to be fair i'm married to her lol) so if you want a quick replacement rating to see what it would look like by dropping the lowest and replacing with a td fans, let me know.
@Karawasa: Go
I would encourage anyone interested in knowing the actual criteria to check it out in person. Also sorry I havent' responded earlier, lots goin on.
There are six measurable criteria based on a persons perception of the map they are rating, furthermore, there are a minimum of three people rating each map. Any rigid criteria outside of that system would not work for all maps, but I'm happy to say that the system thus far is working within what I expected it to. By far not perfect of course.
What confuses me, and I genuinely confuse easy folks, is why there wasn't an objection to the areas in which element td performed poorly. The map got 3/5, 4/5, 4/5 respectively for appearance, but got a 1/5, 3/5, 3/5 for fun factor.
To specifically address how it was rated for those too lazy to look for themselves, and or for those who like to guess about a process instead of just find out about it, we grade appearance based on the following criteria.
5- The game uses never before seen graphics, terrain, etc.
4 - The game uses very unique camera controls, uses wow models, etc.
3 - The game looks very good, pathing works, no eye sores.
2 - The game looks like someone spent about an hour on terrain, the equivalent to nexus wars terrain, but is still playable.
1 - The terrain looks and works horribly, pathing does not work, there are eye sores.
It works like this, you either totally qualify for a number or you do not. In essence, given the definition of appearance, I think we were spot on. This considering, one the terrain is not unique to custom maps, formation td has a similar layout and actually published slightly before elemental td, and the map has existed for some time on wc3 in the same ultimate configuration. I would encourage you to look at the squad td review as well, it rated lower in appearance because they were not responsible for the actual concept of the terrain layout, where you were karawasa. 3, 4, 4 is pretty damned good for appearance on a TD.
Needless to say, I did challenge a few aspects of the ratings provided, prior to publishing, but the replies to my challenges were acceptable. If you would like a fresh one, we'll do it with another three reviewers... remember the most important part of our process is we love to be challenged!
The fun factor is what killed me on this review, and I honestly expected a challenge on that category for sure. One reviewer hated the map pretty much and it still wasn't enough to keep it from being ranked well regardless.
@Malpheus: Go
Updated to include the Element TD Rating. The hard part to rate on this one was the fact it's really a sequel of the WC3 map in the truest form. Unlike a remake like Squad where someone did a legacy import of the terrain and built from there, emulating anothers work, this time we have the original maker remaking his own map on SC2... hard indeed.
It faired much better than the legion td clone, but I still felt like i was playing Element TD on WC3 ultimately.
Up Next Fleet Assault and Starship Troopers: Abandoned.
@MaNtEc0r: Go
Minimum of three. We're still doing it, holidays slowed us down a bit, I expect the Element TD review to be done this weekend.
@Malpheus: Go
Updated to categories. Two more due this week. Elemental TD afterwards :)
@Karawasa: Go
One of my reviewers loves ETD on WC and SC, I can't forget! We gonna put it on the list right now.
Index updated to reflect ww2 diplo in the ratings.
@zenx1: Go
We did try to substantiate the ratings, alot of content was lost (articles mainly) due to a recent host change and software change.
As far as videos are concerned, the majority of the videos were simply intended to give a gameplay overview, and the majority were not our videos, normally another reviewer or the mapper's video. I am still working on consistent video presentation.
@OneTwoSC: Go
Over the weekend or near to it, I will totally change the format to address the different genre's of maps. When we initially conceptualized the process, it was meant to reward creativity and fun, hence the high mafia rating. We have yet to weight the six categories or change them, input is certainly valued in that respect.
@SkrowFunk: Go Ty for your support. We geared the reviews to address the map from the players perspective. Each of our reviews has at least one map maker and two players. I spent alot of time looking at discussions on bnet and here to determine this. The subjectivity of any review is absolutely unavoidable, essentially we are trying to figure out if the darn thing is fun. Instead of technically qualifying a rating, we use subjective statements from the reviewers to obtain a score. I would LOVE feedback on how to improve the accuracy of the five available statements within the six criteria.
@Karawasa: Go
It was started and halted till after your most recent big update, which has occurred. I'll put it after the two in que now. The most important thing I hope everyone grasps is we prioritize all requests. When there are no active requests, we simply troll to find the mapper making the most noise about a new map. If there isn't a prominent fuss being made over the latest, greatest, then we default to looking at the popularity list and up and coming list for interesting candidates.
@Stealthsam: Go
I think splitting the maps into genre's will help with this, but ultimately there are six factors. The appearance of a map is not limited to terrain. If you were to look at "trifaction" terrain you would be unimpressed from the editor view, but if you look at it third person, it looks pretty. It really is very subjective, ultimately that is why we use three people at a minimum to offset extremely subjective standpoints.
And all that being said, the most important aspect of the process is the challenge. If it's not accurate by your determination, please say so. Specifically. Each map reviewed gets a challenge if someone feels they got a bad bounce. The best example of this would be WW2 diplo, we rated it unfairly, it was pointed out, the rating was removed and the new one is pending my third rater finishing his end up.
ALSO I WOULD ABSOLUTELY LOVE VOLUNTEERS FOR THIS PROCESS, please let me know :)
Custom Maps
Diplomacy
DOTA/Hero
Tower Defense
Tug of War
Upcoming
The rating breakdowns can be found here.
Where did we get these ratings?
If you would like to volunteer for existing or future reviews, please let me know. [email protected]