Rating maps Created 17 years ago2006-12-08 12:42:14 UTC by Kasperg

Not that anyone will care, but the above is my view on what the rating stars represent. When I rate a map, 82 out of 100 is a already 5-star map.

Other people use logarithm scales (in which 5-stars is 95 or above), others will rate the map judging only visuals or only gameplay. Another group of people will judge the map in relation to the other maps the same mapper has made, and other people will give their rating comparing the map to the rest of the TWHL map vault.
If we ever reach a minimal consensus, I think the map vault comments will become more useful and we would get rid of many flamewars (a more detailed rating system might have been discussed in the twhl3 thread, I'm not sure)

Basic guidelines wouldnt hurt anyone.

Seeing as how 5 stars is maximum, I use it as 100%. So I guess my stars "translates" into:
1: 1-25
2: 25-50
3: 50-75
4: 75-95
5: 95-100

5-ers will only be given to maps that are, in my opinion, perfect and can't be improved in any way.

maps that are, in my opinion, perfect and can't be improved in any way.

Never seen one.

No such thing as a perfect map.
There is always something to add

Showing rating in % would be l33ter than stars, ses ai

I think it might be nice to see a rating system in the Map Vault where you're required to enter a rating for different aspects, then they're all added up and the overall score is determined. Some gaming magazines use this system, and it seems to work very well. The author of the map could also be given a choice to disable ratings for certain aspects of the map. Just a thought.

I doubt there is any map that could not benefit from either some visual or gameplay change. For example, there could be a gameplay addition (some sort of bounce pads, for example) that would make the map more amusing for certain individuals. Some people will say the map is perfect without them, but those who want them will say it would be perfect with the bounce pads.
Perfection is a view just as personal and subjective as imperfection...

In visual terms, there is always room for improvement. Maps that try to simulate the real world are NEVER like the real world, so something will always be missing. Architecture is a complicated subject and every map has some incoherent structure.

A map with issues can never be considered perfect, but a map with no issues or flaws isn't always perfect either. A perfect map must provoque some sort of 'I had never seen that before!' comment.
In the end, maps should be judged exactly for what they are.
You can't say a snow-themed map needs more color variation.
You can't say a map is bad because the walls are red instead of orange.
You can't say a map is bad because it doesn't have the OMG biggest shaft for vertical gameplay ever made.
etc.

For example. You can't download my maps "hexagerate" or "floating volume" and expect some "kaufmann house"
I tend to rate maps in their context, comparing them to maps that have similar themes or ideas. I do this with films and games too. You can't watch "Toy Story" and say how emotionally empty it felt compared to "The Shawshank Redemption". You can't play "F.E.A.R" and expect the game length of "Final Fantasy VIII"

sorry for the long post!

Funny, I just vote 5 stars if it's fantastic, 4 if it's excellent, 3 if it's average, 2 if it could be better, and 1 is it sucks. You people deep rating systems, bah!

1 is for fullbright

If we ever reach a minimal consensus

Never. Happen. Period.

*This thread has been closed by a moderator

edit:
Actually, you'd get some resonable consistency if the maps had something like a Moderator rating--with the average of the same 2-3 people's rating for each map, it would at least approach being consistent.

There's simply no way to make a user rating consistent and otherwise not totally subjective to what he/she/it thinks a [u]star[/i] should be worth.

It's that simple.