So do we have different definitions of "OK" and "Good"? To me, if you're going to be using the full scale, it should be like this:
1 - Contending for worst map in existence
2 - Bad map
3 - OK map. It is at least playable.
4 - Good map. This is where most maps that took actual effort to create should go.
5 - Outstanding map. The kind you create multiple templates for because you think it's so good.
You're literally putting 3/5 (good) as OK, which is 2/5. It can be up to various interpretations as to what is really ok, what is good, so on, but you can't say that 3/5 is OK. It's better; it's good. Same with 4/5. 4/5 is not Good, it's Great.
If 2 is "OK", then do you not differentiate between maps that are "bad" and maps that "should be deleted"?
Fizzer looks at each map, and if he thinks that they're bad, he doesn't let them be published. The few maps that are rated less than 2 are before he started doing that. Maps that are unsalvageable are very very rare, and noone hardly sees them anyway. Back to you, how do you rate maps that have no problems at all, and did everything that you could think of?
