Map Maker Help

I don't want to discourage map maker by pointing out what their bad at but it would be cool if we could point out what they need to improve and then try and help them improve in that area. I think that map makers should volunteer to be rated. I also think people should be rated by multiple people because somebody may just have received a rating because of somebodies preference. So here is my idea for ranking map makers: give a 1-5 rating on each aspect of a map makers abilities. Some things do not apply to all map makers* 1.*[b]Creative Idea[/b] for a map (this mostly applies to non-Earth maps) 2. [b]Gameplay[/b] (e.g. fun to play on) 3. [b]Map Size[/b] (e.g. do you have to scroll) (this doesn't included HD maps) 4. [b]Outline[/b] (e.g. is it smooth or pixalated, realistic or over dramatic) 5. [b]Color[/b] (e.g. easy on the eyes) 6. [b]Text[/b] (e.g. easy to read, doesn't take to much room, good font) 7. [b]Textures[/b] (e.g. easy on the eyes but looks awesome) 8.*[b]Connection Lines[/b] (e.g. easy to understand, looks nice) 9. [b]Shading[/b] (e.g. too bright, too dark, too much contrast) 10.*[b]Map Border[/b] (e.g. cool but doesn't draw your eyes too much) 11.*[b]Decorations[/b] (e.g. not too fake or ugly) 12. [b]Variety[/b] (e.g. does a map makers maps all look similar) Ratings: * = Doesn't Apply 1 = Needs Improvement 2 = Acceptable 3 = OK 4 = Good 5 = Really Good You can rate me.

Do u guys not like this idea? Thorpe suggested something similar and -NoXoN- seemed to like the idea...Nobodies commented though...

i like this idea, do is the ratings for the maps or the map makers?

I love the idea! Lets me know what I am good at and what I can do better. How do you want to make this happen?

I don't know...I just thought people would just look through a persons maps...we could do ratings for maps and map makers... I'll do one for u in a little bit but I am a little busy...

This is a great idea (w/ good criteria to boot!). When it comes to feedback, I think people should look at as though "the good can always get better." I begin impressed with the hours people will spend working on maps. So, any criticism is made out of the hope that this good work can be made great. Also, we should consider the 10,000 hour rule--that is, the time it takes to become an expert at a particular thing.(a point made in Malcom Gladwell's Outliers).

[u][b]Thorpe[/b][/u] 1. 5/5 2. 3/5 3. 2/5 (I don't like ever scrolling but you don't always make it long) 4. 4/5 5. 3/5 6. 4/5 7. 3/5 (I feel like your textures are either too bland or too extreme) 8. 4/5 9. 3/5 10. 5/5 11. 5/5 12. 5/5 your average is 4 This is [b]my[/b] rating for you but I think multiple people should rate you so preference doesn't effect your ratings... (I changed some of the ratings...look above)

Somebody do me...I want to know what I need to improve on...

I think it would be better to rate particular maps.

yes I like each map to be rated..not just over all but it is nice to know overall. Thx. The main things on your maps...(remember this is just me): Your variety is real low..I know the ones you do. I have to say you have gotten better at this lately. You are still afraid to try some tough things...but when you do ...wow! Like your bridges on the San Francisco Map! Your borders need not to be so straight though they follow the real ones...mostly. You have a lot of textures that you can use yet you stick with the ones you know and you do them really good. The only map a like the game-play is the Med. Map...the rest are to easy to get a grip on. You have started to use decorations so we will see what you come up with. That is it for right now. I would love to have you help with my Middle Earth map on the mountains to see what you can do with them...HARD AND REAL HARD!

could you rate me? keep in mind keeva, as i feel my skills improved much between my first map to that one.

@Pntbttr you are 666 = evil in map making! :) To be serious. I think it would be better to rate the maps than the map makers. Then you can get your personal rate as the average value of all your maps rates. Then I don't like your parameters. They give too much importance to the graphic arrangement. You can't get an average value from them. Gameplay should be counted 10 times to balance the rate, because the game is the main task of every map. They are not paintings to watch... I've already said that. The parameters should be 3 for me: - IDEA: How to make a map. Accurancy on representing a real place and creativity, specially on a fictional place. About real places the map maker should create the best fit between representation and gameplay. Someone is better than other to find good solutions. - GAMEPLAY: It is not a must but it is a good result to have defendable regions and possible various in size. Creating interesting areas on the map that let players fight for them, but avoid to make the game too much unbalenced. - GRAPHIC: All the other things in Pntbbtr's list. It is better for me to judge how they worth all together. You can have good textures and good shading but they don't match well. And who is not expert in graphic he can just says if the whole image is nice or not. Just my thoughts. But I saw a site that put 3 different names as authors of the map corresponding to these 3 features.

I like your idea...much easier... @Thorpe I'll see what I can come up with but so far I've pretty much failed at making mountains...

Im going to rate Peanut, Thorpe and Marcoxa. But please note that I've only seen 1 1/2 map of Marcoxa, and havent played your maps alot, so its a bit difficult to give you a fair rating. [b]1.*Creative Idea for a map (this mostly applies to non-Earth maps)[/b] PntBttr: 4 Thorpe: 5 Marcoxa: 4 [b]2. Gameplay (e.g. fun to play on)[/b] Pntbttr: 5 Thrope: 4 Marcoxa: 3 [b]3. Map Size (e.g. do you have to scroll) (this doesn't included HD maps)[/b] Pntbttr: 5 Thorpe: 4 (though Westeros should get a 2, the others are better). Marcoxa: 5 [b]4. Outline (e.g. is it smooth or pixalated, realistic or over dramatic)[/b] Pntbttr: 5 (very realistic, good!) Thorpe: 4 Marcoxa: 4 [b]5. Color (e.g. easy on the eyes)[/b] Pntbttr: 5 Thorpe: 4 Marcoxa: 3 [b]6. Text (e.g. easy to read, doesn't take to much room, good font)[/b] Pntbttr: 5 Thorpe: 5 (or does this means Fendi gets the 5 :P) Marcoxa: 3 (watch were the text meets the territory borders) [b]7. Textures (e.g. easy on the eyes but looks awesome)[/b] Pntbttr: 5 Thorpe: 4 Marcoxa: 3 [b]8.*Connection Lines (e.g. easy to understand, looks nice)[/b] Pntbttr: 5 Thorpe: 5 Marcoxa: 5 (Long live Vexer) [b]9. Shading (e.g. too bright, too dark, too much contrast)[/b] Pntbttr: 4 Thorpe: 5 Marcoxa: 3 [b]10.*Map Border [i]Backgrond[/i] (e.g. cool but doesn't draw your eyes too much)[/b] Pntbttr: 4 Thorpe: 4 Marcoxa: 4 (Jungle is really good, keeva less) [b]11.*Decorations (e.g. not to fake or ugly)[/b] Pntbttr: 5 Thorpe: 5 Marcoxa: NaN [b]12. Variety (e.g. does a map makers maps all look similar)[/b] Pntbttr: 2 (I really like all your maps, but they do look the same (even though they improve over time)) Thorpe: 5 Marcoxa: 5

I thought my game play would have been better! dnag! LOL The rest Matty is about what I thought. Thank-you sure helps.