Metanet Forums

One of ChaoStar's recent maps specifically commented on the fact that ratings on NUMA have degraded, and I do agree to an extent. Obviously it's only a minority; many experienced mappers know exactly what qualities to rate a map on, but some (mainly relatively new, or inexperienced mappers) either just a look at a map without actually playing it beforehand and rate it that way, or think 'A good map-maker made it - 5/5'. Ratings of some maps are just ridiculous sometimes.

Here's a link to ChaoStar's map:

Read the description first, and see if you agree with it.

What i'm trying to do here is to get people here on the forums to say what they look for in maps and what they rate it by, whether it's the aesthetics, looks, playability, anything at all.

Numerous users could visit this thread and find many different things to look for in maps than they did before. Newer users need to rate honestly; think of the good and bad points of maps, and apply them to your rating.

I'll look forward to seeing what qualities you guys rate maps on ;)

Aesthetics, Enemy Placement and Playability.

30% goes to aesthetics.
50% goes to playability, of which 40% goes to how fun it is to highscore.
20% goes to anything else that comes to mind.

Roughly.

aesthetics
playability
object placement
and whatever else comes to mind.
i always play before i read the comments so i am less biased. i also tend to not look at who the author is.

> Aesthetics in general.
> Aesthetic theming and consistency.
> Enemy placement.
> Object integration.
> Cohesion/playability.

I'd rate a map based on these criteria, when I have the time.

blackbelmoral wrote: i also tend to not look at who the author is.

Bullshit. I refuse to believe that at all. Also, it's stupid.
I rarely play the hot maps page anymore; instead I search for authors who have proven themselves. I just don't have the time to play a bunch of awful maps to get to one good one.
My point is, if you ignore the author, you're wasting a lot of time.

As for how I rate, I play the map. I decide how much fun I had. I rate the map accordingly.

I break it down. Since there's 5 total ninjas possible:

___/2 for gameplay
___/1 for tileset
___/1 for aesthetics (consistent mine/gold placement, etc.)
___/1 for branching out (not making a map similar to their last few)

Diversity in maps is very important in my opinion.

OutrightOJ wrote:One of ChaoStar's recent maps specifically commented on the fact that ratings on NUMA have degraded, and I do agree to an extent. Obviously it's only a minority; many experienced mappers know exactly what qualities to rate a map on, but some (mainly relatively new, or inexperienced mappers) either just a look at a map without actually playing it beforehand and rate it that way, or think 'A good map-maker made it - 5/5'. Ratings of some maps are just ridiculous sometimes.

Ratings have always been that way. Plenty of people give high ratings to any random user simply because they believe that the same rating will be reciprocated. It's a fundamentally flawed system, so you've just got to know which ratings and comments to really appreciate. Ignore all the rest.

Does it look cool?
Does it integrate tiles and objects well?
Is it fun?

GTM wrote:> Aesthetics in general.
> Aesthetic theming and consistency.
> Enemy placement.
> Object integration.
> Cohesion/playability.

I'd rate a map based on these criteria, when I have the time.

That's pretty much mine. Most of the time, I just think about that at the back of my head though, I don't break down a map and nail down the exact mine or piece of gold that made me rate a 5 instead of 4.

heh. I'm surprised nobody else has said that they have changed up the way they rate maps over the course of their time here.

When I first joined NUMA I generally played maps that I thought would be easier, since my skills at N were quite lacking. I gave higher ratings to easy maps and lower ratings to harder maps.
As I got more involved in the community and discovered St. Atilla's College for Ninja my N skills went way up and I was able to play harder maps, therefore rating harder maps better than most other maps because I could be challenged.
At one point I was in love with race maps and gave those an unfair advantage.
At another time I was obsessed with highscoring and speedrunning and maps that were good for that were rated higher by me.
I am guilty of rating maps with cool tilesets and shitty gameplay higher than maps with great gameplay and awful tilesets.

A while back I decided that if I liked a map then it must be decent enough to get at least a 4. If there was something special about it to me it got a 5, if it seemed like it was lacking in some way I gave it a 3.
Now I just favourite maps that I like.


What I'm trying to say is that there is no set criteria for rating maps, that it's terribly subjective and can change over the course of one's time on NUMA. Nevertheless, some important things to look for are:
- Gameplay / Replayability (Is it worth playing again?)
- Enemy / Object Placement
- Tileset
- Aesthetics
- Author (optional)

The last one is something that should be important for FINDING good maps, not something you should base your opinion of the map on. Looking for an author's maps is great if that author consistently makes good maps. Otherwise it shouldn't matter who made the map, if it's good then it's good.

These days, if I really enjoy the play of the map very much, and adore how it looks and feels, and consider it to be a top-notch map, i'll give it a five. If it somehow falls short, I won't rate it, but I'll probably give a comment. That's pretty much it.

I'll look at the author, and if I like him, I'll 5 the map. If I don't like him/don't know him, I'll snipe his map with my 7 multi accounts.

Is it only me and epigone who look for how fun it is? Surely this is the most important thing about the whole map. It can look like shit, but if it is actually fun to do, then it's 5 worthy.

I agree with mintnut.

When I play a map, I ask myself, "Do I like this?" Then, I rate. Comments will always offer a much better perspective on what people think of the map; I don't see the point in dissecting the map as if in a contest.

Is the author famous?
Does it have a good description?
Is the title referencing something I like?

>Total Aethetics - 20%
>If I enjoyed it - 20%
>If I liked the Tileset - 20%
>Playability - 20%
>Gold Placement - 20%

I'm really picky about gold placement, but most of it is how well it looked, each 20% is out of 5.

mintnut wrote:Is it only me and epigone who look for how fun it is? Surely this is the most important thing about the whole map. It can look like shit, but if it is actually fun to do, then it's 5 worthy.

I disagree. If it looks like shit, that's a flaw. Since 5 = "flawless", it can't be 5-worthy.

I rate a map based entirely on how much I enjoy it. I do like pretty maps more than ugly ones, but how it plays is much more important.

I also seem to be less generous with my ratings than most people - I frequently give out threes on maps which others are giving mostly 4 or 5.

mintnut wrote:Is it only me and epigone who look for how fun it is? Surely this is the most important thing about the whole map. It can look like shit, but if it is actually fun to do, then it's 5 worthy.

See, I could rate an ugly, unrefined map that plays amazingly a 3 or a 4, but for a map to be absolutely flawless it needs to excel in every aspect. Aesthetics are important, they add atmosphere and charm and an extra layer to the experience for the player. The aesthetic isn't something that should be overlooked as superficial, used in the right way it can enhance a map beyond its raw gameplay potential.

It depends on the type of map.

If it's an action map, I rate based on gameplay and aesthetics.
If it's a race, I rate based on flow (gameplay), atmosphere, and aesthetics.
If it's a puzzle with some type of new innovation, I rate based on how good the concept is/how well it was pulled off. If aesthetics have to be sacrificed for the sake of the concept, I'm not going to rate down for that.
If it's a puzzle with an old concept, I rate based on how fun it is to solve (Unless it's a puzzle/action type hybrid, in which I rate based on gameplay and aesthetics).
If it's a DDA with a new innovation, I rate based on excitement/close calls, and the concept.
If it's a DDA with an old concept, I rate based on excitement/close calls, and originality.
If it's a playable tileset, I rate based on playability, and aesthetics.
If it's a non-playable tileset, I rate based on aesthetics.
If it's an N-Art, I rate based on originality, and how good it looks (aesthetics?).

And blah blah blah, the list goes on.

Above all I rate on how much I enjoyed it, and if I didn't, I try to find out why and put it into those fancy words mentioned above and rate accordingly. This enjoyment can apply to any type, even if the gameplay was bad but the idea was respectful, or the tileset was fancy, etc. I only don't rate when I feel I don't quite understand the map, or don't enjoy it's genre in general (i.e. minejumpers).
I always read the description first, and curve my opinion to any exceptions and standards mentioned that the map meets. I sometimes look at authors I know to choose which maps I click on, but sometimes. It seldom affects my opinion, maybe rating rounded up if he or she is a friend, or pays attention to my maps a lot.

I use several parameters, and I never really am happy with the rating I give to a map because it isn't specific enough.
1. Difficulty. If I can't beat your map within 20 minutes (unless it's a puzzle), I'm going to enjoy it less because I find it tough. Not that I'm the best player, but if I can't beat it, I'll probably rate down.
2. Objects used. This is NOT aesthetics; I simply believe that authors should get credit for using difficult objects (e.g. chainguns) well in a map. If they're more effective, it leaves a better impression.
3. Aesthetics. I barely consider this; I give more weight to the gameplay than I do to the look. That's not saying, though, that I despise a good-looking map.
4. The category. This is a bigger section because I don't think a clear action map would deserve to be called a race. It's also how well this map would match up to others in its category.

playable: how much I enjoyed playing it and how much effort was put in.
not so playable: how cool it looks and effort put in.
Effort will bring about aesthetics, gameplay and other stuff.

I just see if I enjoyed playing it, and then if I enjoyed looking at it.