I've been off for a few months now, and today I noticed there are a few dozen maps that dont have at least 10 ratings, so they sit at the bottom of the list with a TBA for a score. I remember when it would only be a couple like this at a time.

We as a community need to rate maps more. Even if you don't plan to PLAY these new maps more than one time, they do deserve a rating.

I get that for competitive play theres only a handful of viable maps, and most people tend to play the same rotation of maps with friends (I'm guilty of this too,) but we need to broaden out a bit and look at some of these new maps.

Remember, you don't have to write a review to leave a rating (although it's appreciated.)


Thanks for your time ;)

Edited 8/24/2016 15:07:38

Really true! I sadly didn't any maps for a long time, but you're right that it is important and encourages mapmakers to keep working on their artworks.

link us the maps cuz were lazy

It's not only about new maps. If you finish a game on a map you can just rate it. Not a lot of work but it gets forgotten easily

https://www.warlight.net/Maps

Edit: that was supposed to link to the last page on the avg rating list (which is mostly maps without 10 ratings and thus not eligible for an avg)



And like MoD said, you can easily rate a map after playing it.

Edited 8/23/2016 23:09:16

as you wish. =)

Some of unrated maps are simply bad. But I found way to rate map without wasting open game slot and waiting till it fill - start a new single player game and surrender.

AFAIK it is not affecting statistics and allows to rate map.

It is useful only for clearly horrible maps.

Edited 8/24/2016 11:58:35

It might be useful to highlight the *rate the map* button after every game. This should be an easy update.

Yea the button moved around alot. It'd be cool if there was a "rate recent maps" button on the dashboard that shows you your recent games with links to rate the maps.

Our next uservoice!

+ 1 OP.

I am very guilty of this, but we can't do anything unless we all contribute.

Fissel, I do not know why you want every discussion to be about you, but your input is not relevant here.

Fair point, I suppose Map of the week is to supposedly act as some kind to this to broaden map taste to general public.. Although I always found WGL as a great way to see new maps...

The bigger problem I think is bad and inconsistent rating of the maps. In an ideal world, there would be some kind of scale put into site, where you can only rate 10% maps as 5/5, 20% as 4/5, 40% as 3/5, 20% as 2/5, and 10% as 1/5. Something like that would keep the rating more consistent. However since there is nothing like that put into site, just following the guidelines is what I do when I rate maps.

5/5: Amazing (does it make you wonder how something this good was made? does it surprise you that something this good could be done in a warlight map? don't exaggerate. Rare rating.
4/5: Great (do you have unusually much fun on this map? Essentially the best of what would be put into 3/5.)
3/5: Good (do you find it fun and unique?)
2/5: Okay (do you find it fun but bland?)
1/5: Not recommended (I assume fizzer meant bad or something like that, since I don't recommend playing on 2/5 maps myself. Anyhow, do find barely any fun in this map? Then this grouping.)

I want to say over 80% fit in groups 4 and 3. C'mon, there are really so few bland maps or just flatly bad maps? You can count on your fingers how many maps are rated below 2.0. (https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=9175) this is an "okay" map, according to rater average? No maps over two monthes old fit in 5/5, which is surely reasonable - has a map ever really put you into wonder and not knowing on how it can be made? (https://www.warlight.net/SinglePlayer?PreviewMap=3461) this is a fun and unique map?

I think the problem arises when folk are afraid to say a hurting truth (the map sucks), bias of the folk themselves (each map as you can see, goes down in the first two monthes, as the folk who are hyped for it (if the map development was public) will play it first, then folk who are friends or fellows of the mapmaker (and the mapmaker itself, evidently), who influence other folks' thoughts about the map - but eventually it reaches the real playerbase).

Others' thoughts?

Alot of people definitely rate maps either 1 or 5 no doubt, and the only way for maps to start to even out to more 2s and 3s (because that's where most maps are really are) is for the community to start to fairly judge these maps and rate the accordingly.


While I don't think it should be required (because it'd scare off more people from rating,) I do think there needs to be more reviews as well. Not everyone needs to do this, but if you want you should make it a habit to write something small about each map you play. if you think a certain aspect of a map is neat, or you can appreciate the effort that went into it then let the creator know. It actually means alot to the creators to hear that their work is actually liked by someone lol. if you dont want people to know it's you, use an alt account to review. I know some people do this like the Nathan account.

5/5: Amazing (does it make you wonder how something this good was made? does it surprise you that something this good could be done in a warlight map? don't exaggerate. Rare rating.
4/5: Great (do you have unusually much fun on this map? Essentially the best of what would be put into 3/5.)
3/5: Good (do you find it fun and unique?)
2/5: Okay (do you find it fun but bland?)
1/5: Not recommended (I assume fizzer meant bad or something like that, since I don't recommend playing on 2/5 maps myself. Anyhow, do find barely any fun in this map? Then this grouping.)

Honestly, I think your default should be to start out at five stars and take away stars for specific problems you have with a map, not to make generic brackets that are bound to trap 90% (or 80% as you put it) of maps into a three star rating.

If you have a five star rating, you can one or two stars off if it has a whole bunch of broken connections, one or two if the map isn't that fun to play, and one it's a carelessly put together project such as having crappy names or graphics. But if a map has none of these things, it's a pretty good map and there's really no reason to give it anything less than a perfect rating.

Edited 8/25/2016 17:44:07

I don't think I can agree with the method that everything is perfect to begin with and you start subtracting off the score. Because when you start adding a value to certain aspects (like a few missing connections that can easily be fixed,) then it starts getting a little dicey.

I do agree on having words to describe the score it's easier to get that gut reaction to how you feel about a map. To me I set it up as 5=Fantastic (breathtaking , beautiful, or extremely well designed gameplay) 4=Great (extremely solid, barely any flaws, but doesn't stand out as 'special') 3=Good (either the map is very fun to play on but looks bland, or the opposite. Doesn't stand out among other maps) 2=Okay (it works as a map, but you wouldn't willingly want to play it again) 1=Bad (doesn't really do anything good)

Because I feel like it's not that hard to make a functional not ugly map, the scale should be weighted so that the only negative score is 1. There are plenty of Okay maps that I wouldn't say are Bad, just uninspired perhaps.

It's more of just a feeling to me.

5-zajebista
4-niezła
3-ujdzie
2-słaba
1-chujowa

makes sense to me

Then let's change that together. Go rate some maps

I didn't bump this