PDA

View Full Version : ONS-Ahebban Review Discussion


ArcadiaVincennes
2nd Jun 2005, 07:44 PM
I received a post over at the UCMP forums railing against my review of ONS-Ahebban. I will not reproduce the entire post as some of it was directed (unecessarily) against the UCMP team in general. I will reproduce the contents of the post that relate to the review and the map and will address them here.

Before I start, I want to say a few things...

I was honored to have been chosen to be a reviewer here and I hope that the reviews I have made thus far are fair, honest looks at maps. I like playing different maps, garnering different ideas, helping out other mappers, and learning from them. I hope that I have helped mappers and I have certaintly learned from my experience here.

I also hope that I can be considered as 'accessible' or 'approachable' in terms of a reviewer and also as a mapper. I do not consider my reviews the 'be all and end all' of a map's quality. After all, it's only one person's opinion which is always going to contain some subjectivity, although I do try to avoid this. In fact, I have gone back and edited a review because I found I had made a grievous error in the review which I felt ashamed for. I went back and fixed it and altered the review with no prompting from the author.

I encourage any author who feels I gave a bad or unfair review to to approach me for a discussion about it. I would only expect the same if I received a bad review for one of my maps.

Considering the comment in the post on the UCMP forums, and some of the comments in the comments section of the map page, I'd like to open a discussion about the specific review, reviewing in general, and the map.

Let's start with the post from the UCMP forums:

Zoo's map was extensively playtested on the best ONS server in the world (Titan Internet 32-man server), and there wasn't one single person out of HUNDREDS of players who wouldn't like the gameplay.

I don't believe I ever said the gameplay was bad or that someone would dislike it. In fact I said "The map plays well" and "the gameplay isn't bad, but is nothing exemplary either" and "nothing is done badly here".
I knew it was tested on Titan but I review by the author's reccomended player count average which is 3 - 16. so that means 9 bots and me. This would provide a much different experience than a 32 player map. Should I test every ONS map with 32 players?

Arcadia wrote that it's easy to attack cave nodes from above, through the holes in the ceiling with Raptors. This is untrue. Put one skilled player with AVRiL/Shock in the cave and NO Raptor vehicle will mount an effective attack on the node single-handedly. Put two players and a Cicada has no chance either... [QUOTE]

I would be inclined to disagree here but you do have a point. I think a raptor or cicada could easily dodge Avril fire coming from inside the cave and with persistence take down the node, but on the other hand, I think you're right in that it is harder than I described. So this may need changing.

[QUOTE="Owoc"]Arcadia also says that the stonehenge stones are too close together and don't leave enough room for comfortable fighting, and that's also bull****. The fighting in stonehenge is actually interesting, your tactics and ability to predict where the enemy will be are the most important thing here... Defending the node is not a problem either, 2 players with shock, AVRiL and some spammy weapon just do the trick.

You've got a good point here. I erroneously counted vehicle inaccessibility to this node as a gameplay deficiency and not as a lyout tactic. Now that you've pointed this out, I would be willing to rexamine gameplay at the Stonehenge node.

Looks like Arcadia REALLY wanted to lower the score, so he unreasonably pointed out un-existing gameplay flaws.

I NEVER [I]want{/I] to raise or lower the overall score. And I am insulted by that statement. I score each section individually and put a lot of thought into it. Then I see what the final score was. I recall coming up with the final score for this map and thinking 'hmmm that seems' a little off'. I wonder why.' And then I reviewed what I wrote for each section. Taking the above two gameplay errors I made that we just covered, I think you can understand why I scored it low. And this is not noted in the copy of your post above but your statement that I gave it a 1 is incorrect. It is a 1.5. But I know that's not your point.

I suggest that you first learn what 32p onslaught is about, then review a map designed for it... a mapraider member who would review the map based on screenshots and description only would make a review about as good as yours...

Well, if this was designed for 32 people then the author should have listed the player count as 3 to 32. I reviewed it per the player count I was given. Should I review all maps at the author's suggested player count and then also at 32 players?

You also point out that the primaries with the wall around them are exactly the same at both ends of the map, which causes confusion. Arcadia apparently refuses to understand what a Radar Map is - see also ONS-Mothership review... this is pathethic. The entire review is pathethic. YOU are pathethic.

IMO, one should not have to depend solely on the radar map to determine where one is on the map in question. A large part of successfull level design for any gametype is locational orientation. An ONS that relies on the radar map to provide this is, IMO, cheating it's players. A radar map I always thought was primarily as an indicator as to what nodes are available/taken/under attack so that the player would know where to go, and secondarily as an overall navigation device. What are your thoughts on that?

As for the Mothership review - what does that have to do with this review? And if you're critiquing my other ONS reviews then what are your comments on RapaNui and Scrapyard?



To be fair, I played a lot of ONS when UT2004 first came out. And I was a good player - not great, just good. However, when I started mapping I played it less and less. As such, I have probably missed out on more advanced tactics and map-specific strategies. And playing with only bots can be a detriment in terms of taking into account all the advanced strategies that players use that bots don't. Also, not all the players who are going to read this review are playing on the Titan servers, nor do some have broadband which means they'll only play with bots. Should I cater my reviews only to the 1337 ONS players on the Titan servers or should I try to address the review to everyone?
However based on the comments you made, as well as other comments from the UCMP forum and the comments on the map page here, I am more than willing to take a closer look at this map and revise the review.
In fact, if you would like, I will remove the current review entirely. I would offer the following:
I will remove the review and replace it with a placeholder. I will then, with you, arrange a date and time to play the map on the titan server.
I will then re-write the review.
However, I would expect something in return. If you, or other ONS players would kindly write up some 'advanced strategies', either general or map specific, that you think a reviewer MUST take into account when they review I would gladly read it and learn from it so I can be a better reviewer and not make such mistakes in the future.

Even if you are not willing to do this, I will be taking a second pass over the map and will make a revision to it. I'll re-examine the entire map including it's AWE, and BUILD scores in addition to its gameplay score.

I regret that I wrote a bad review and I sincerely apologize to the author, Zoo.

Also, Owoc, if you feel so strongly about my reviews here and that you truely think I am pathetic and full of BS, I will gladly post a poll in order to determine the larger community's feelings as to my reviews. The poll would be whether I should continue to be a reviewer or not.




As for other posts I've seen regarding this review that are not already addressed:

From the comments here at Nali:
:
[every vehcile on that map fits through the opening in the cave roof]
not the best of reviews i have to say. Feels like you did'nt play the map too long. Then again, I've played it loads...

I think now that I did not play it long enough. And I should have tested which vehicles fit through the hole in the cave. You are correct.

The caves are not overdefended- because the real wonder of this map has been overlooked; the node configuration. If a node is overdefended; the node can be bypassed and cut off. And dropping a tank into a cave through the roof gives the defenders a pretty hard time - prepared or not.

Yes, I probably hsould have gone into more detail abouyt the node config.

In terms of reality; caves don't tend to branch; and three enterances for caves would change the ambience and feel of the map; would change the way the whole map plays and I would hate it if the authour would take this suggestion seriously.

I have a degree in Geology and have personally visited more than 20 caves. Yes, they do branch. Just think of a river but underground. Most caves from by water erosion. Perhaps a 3rd entrance isn't good for this map, but I hold to the position that the 2 entrances should not be on the same side of the cave.


From UCMP forums:
[QUOTE="Taleweaver"]There are indeed dozens of players who like this map's gameplay, and it is indeed tweaked by onslaught players, for onslaught players. To me, this is clearly visible in just about anything that matters (vehicle positions, node setup & position, even weapon lockers). However, ArcadiaVincennes didn't noticed anything of this, which kinda makes me wonder on the whole reason of the onslaught review.

Vehicle positions, node setup and position, and weapon lockers.
I agree. I did address node setup but only sparingly and I really should have addressed these in the review. For that I am certainly remiss in my revieweing authority.




So there it is. I agree with the general community in that it was a bad review. I am willing to revise it.

Owoc - what do you say?

Reciprocity
2nd Jun 2005, 11:07 PM
Maybe I should really start reading reviews from now on...

rhirud
3rd Jun 2005, 04:54 AM
Ah a geologist

Sorry about my misunderstanding of caves mate! And we know whee the beef about mushrooms comes from. I think that our community had taken that mushroom comment as a scraping the barrel insult, and not thought that you were a caver!

I guess Zoo should clarify that this is a 6-32 player map -(p.s. I've just heard that his map is to be in the 3 on 3 clanbase summer cup)

The main thing that's changed in ONS in the last year is that we've grown to loathe chokepoints. There should never be a situation where taking down one node will force one team or another to only have one unlocked node to attack.

The shock rifle is now de rigeur, and in an environment like aheban's stonehenge, by pushing away a manta with a shockball; or setting off a combo just above the cockpit (usually gives a frag), the manta has a very difficult time.

There are now some lethal players in turrets, and any cicada, raptor, scorpion or hellbender is toast if they go anywhere near; and regular manta piolts have little chance against the most skilled turreters.

Mantas in general are a big factor in ONS; and having environments e.g. caves, where they can't come up to full speed and zoom away then zoom back in forces player vs manta close range "deathmatching."

Pop over to titan anytime; and ahebban (or ahebban summer - an excuse to have the map twice in the picking list!) will never be far off being chosen.

I'm pretty sure cainslair also runs it.

And I must admit; i've never played it against bots, so I don't have a clue how it plays with bots.

Icedancer
3rd Jun 2005, 05:30 AM
Don't let a$$holes get to ya Arcadia, you are a really great reviewer, and seem a nice guy all round, I have a lot of respect for you. Thing is, theres always gonna be someone that doesnt agree with you and wants to give you a load of crap. If Owoc is so good, why is he not reviewing maps over here :rolleyes: . Just change the name of one of the bots to Owoc or something and go and kick the **** out of him :D


Ice

rhirud
3rd Jun 2005, 06:15 AM
Owoc is a good bloke generaly; and yes I agree, an appology and concilliation from him is needed.

What's happened here is that the titan community has spent a lot of time and effort extensively beta-testing map gameplay. We do this for many maps, and ahebban went through this process; with very little modification needed, if the truth be known.

At the beta testing stage; other major servers like Cains were wanting permsiion to install the map; and online, this map has had universal acclaim. It's the only map that's been accepted without modification to the clanbase cup.

So it was taken a bit personally by the titan ONS community when the gameplay had a lukewarm review; and with that background of considerable internal discussion by us; it gives context to why owoc; to your community seemed to have a massive outburst that came out of nowhere.

When a reviewer reviews a map based mainly on mapping and aesthetics; he obviously would not, and would not be expected to know the reception that the ONS community has given a map. So essentially what's happened here that the map was reviewed without knowing the weight of suport that the map itself caried. Without being an ONS addict like us, by looking at the map; it seems nice simple and straightforward, there was no way of telling. So we can't really blame the reviewer either.

All in all, a big misunderstanding

ho hum.

W0RF
3rd Jun 2005, 08:50 AM
Arcadia -

I've gotten my share of flak doing reviews for Insite, some of it warranted, some of it not.

A couple things I think you were correct on: if the map is a 32-player map, put "32" in the suggested playercount. Don't put "4" (for example) and then complain that you didn't use 32.

You're also correct to say that areas should be distinctive and not just mirror images of each other. Even in CTF maps which in many cases ARE mirrored to keep a simple balance, each side has red and blue textures and other indicators of which base you are in. They don't make the whole level neutral and say "USE YOUR RADAR N00B"

It is good that you consider other people's input and look for areas where you can review a map more thoroughly and accurately. It's tough to do a complete top-down review of a map, there are so many different aspects to a map, and everyone sees it a little differently, and here you are trying to make sure that EVERY aspect is covered. I often spend about as much time in the editor as in the game when I'm doing a map, to sort of verify certain impressions that I get from playing a map (lack of ambient sounds, zoning issues, etc).

With that said, don't take the flamers to heart. Some people get worked up when they don't see the score they think is right and start dropping turds in the review thread. It happens to everyone. I just got a review request for a map which shall remain nameless (http://nalicity.beyondunreal.com/map_hub.php?mid=8042), that actually had the TERRAIN set as High World Detail. I usually play maps on Normal across the board to a). keep online play smooth and b). see what the lower-range machines see when playing a map. And when the terrain is set to High Detail, you see a lot of empty space and trees hanging in the middle of nowhere and other weird stuff. I actually refused to review the map unless the terrain was fixed, because I believe my review has to be based on how ALL the players would see the map, not just the people with Bat-Computers. Well, the mapper gave me a lot of grief, said all his buddies use High Detail, it's the #1 map on whatever server he plays on or whatever, he's not going to create a new version just to fix one thing that he doesn't even think is broken, yadda yadda. Well, he fixed it, but by that time, the Powers That Be had already decided it wasn't worth all the hassle and took it out of our queue.

So, sometimes yes, our decisions are unpopular, but if you feel you're right, don't be afraid to stand by it, and don't give it much thought when people start ripping you a new hole for stating your opinion. Improve in areas where you don't feel you're covering the maps as well, and just let the rest go.

Bellasadda
3rd Jun 2005, 10:56 AM
If I'm not mistaken, AV ONLY reviews maps that people explicitly request AV reviews. In other words, the author explicitly asked AV to review the map, so I don't think people should get angry at him for reviewing a map in a style he doesn't play a lot. The Truth is, AV reviews every map in his person queue. He is doing a service to the community and I think it should be at least appreciated, even if you don't agree with him.

rhirud
3rd Jun 2005, 12:02 PM
If I'm not mistaken, AV ONLY reviews maps that people explicitly request AV reviews. In other words, the author explicitly asked AV to review the map, so I don't think people should get angry at him for reviewing a map in a style he doesn't play a lot. The Truth is, AV reviews every map in his person queue. He is doing a service to the community and I think it should be at least appreciated, even if you don't agree with him.

Mea culpa on that one. The hard and technically demmanding work of map reviewing is incredibly difficult; and it's plain form browsing these fora that there are more authors wanting reviews than there are reviewers.

And a lot of ONS adddicts who have a sort of rounadbout ownership cos they nurtured ahebban;got irate.

But from this; the titan ONS community has got to know the reviewing community which can only be a good thing; and there's a lot of expertise on both sides that can be shared - so we can build a lot from here.

ArcadiaVincennes
3rd Jun 2005, 12:03 PM
Rhiridfladd:

Caves – no problem. I’m sorry they took I as an insult, but as I stated on the Titan forums, The cave had a semblance of a cave but was ‘unconvincing’ to me.

Thanks very much for providing more of a view over what gameplay tactic changes there have been in ONS over the last year. I am aware of some of those, but some of the others I wasn’t. Thank you.

IceDancer

Thanks for the words of support. I know not everyone is going to agree but I was somewhat familiar with the gentleman who wrote the comments and so took them a bit more seriously than others I may come across. Plus, I addressed some issues I thought were worth looking into. After reading a few other comments from the map page here and a few elsewhere, I think a re-evaluation of the review is in order.

Rhiridflaidd:

“When a reviewer reviews a map based mainly on mapping and aesthetics; he obviously would not, and would not be expected to know the reception that the ONS community has given a map. So essentially what's happened here that the map was reviewed without knowing the weight of suport that the map itself caried. Without being an ONS addict like us, by looking at the map; it seems nice simple and straightforward, there was no way of telling. So we can't really blame the reviewer either.”

I am aware that many players discount review scores because they think the review is biased towards the visuals. I always try to give gameplay it’s fair shake. However, going into detail on gameplay is very difficult because there are so many variations in tactics as well as how players use the tactics that most good to great maps would require a dissertation on the gameplay section. I try to avoid going into too much detail on the gameplay section when I write it out but at the same time score it appropriately. I’m always afraid that if I go into too much detail, people will disagree with my tactics, or say the score is wrong because you can do such-and-such here, why didn’t you mention that, etc… However, I think I learned from this experience that I would need to go into more detail in the gameplay section of my reviews – especially regarding ONS maps.
And you’re correct – I had no clue that there was so much support for this map. Going into the review, I was a blank slate. I did not know the mapper, I did not know of the ‘rep’ the map had garnered. All I knew was that the readme indicated it had been tested on Titan Servers. All that told me was that the map was not going to suck.
In scoring gameplay, those players who have tested the map know the ins-and-outs of it thoroughly. They know what strategies to use where, at what time, against whom, etc… I am required to score it based on much less play time, and against bots. There’s going to be a difference of opinion there.
However, based on community feedback, I don’t think I played it enough to be completely fair.

WORF:

Thanks for your support as well. I agree with many of your points and appreciate the view you take towards this situation.
However, due to feedback on Nali, Titan, and the inflammatory comments above, I do think the review should be reworked/revised, etc. I am going to stand by some of my words, but I know many of my words that need changing.

I plan to do what you state in your last sentence…
Improve in areas where you don't feel you're covering the maps as well, and just let the rest go


Bellasadda - I review the maps specifically requested from me. When that queue is empty I then grab out of the general pile. However, Ahebban was requested specifically to me.
Thanks.

Hourences
3rd Jun 2005, 02:30 PM
I wouldnt have removed the review. I wouldnt adjust it either.
But its up to you what you do with it. Another option could be to let another reviewer take a look at the map and add a second review to the page, second opinion stuff.

I can understand how they feel and where they are comming from but on the other hand youll always have stuff like this, try not to care too much.
Maybe your 6 was indeed a bit low but then again, its your review and opinion and ive only played the map 5 minutes 3 months or so ago so..

ArcadiaVincennes
3rd Jun 2005, 02:49 PM
I wouldnt have removed the review. I wouldnt adjust it either.
But its up to you what you do with it. Another option could be to let another reviewer take a look at the map and add a second review to the page, second opinion stuff.

I can understand how they feel and where they are comming from but on the other hand youll always have stuff like this, try not to care too much.
Maybe your 6 was indeed a bit low but then again, its your review and opinion and ive only played the map 5 minutes 3 months or so ago so..

If it was simply a matter of differing opinions I agree with you Hourences - I would let it stand and ride the waves.
However, from discussing this furthur with the community, and reading feedback from the author, I did post several items in the review that were inaccurate and had some bearing on the final score.
So to be fair to the author, and to myself as a reviewer, I removed it and am going to revise it.

I do appreciate your comment and understand your points. But I feel that this is the right thing to do here.

ReD_Fist
3rd Jun 2005, 03:26 PM
Well only DM maps need reviewing anyway.all those gametypes are screwing everything up,accept mabye ctf,go look yourself,goto the master server list,then look how many servers run DM compared to other gametypes.
The way the list is looking lately,hell you think this was a ctf site or somthing.
As far as your reviewing is concerned,it's pretty good,accept the map picks,but thats been hashed over allready,I must say the biggest complaints I hear about nalicity in chat and elseware is the length of time that passed by them see the review on there map.
I mean hell if you bought a new car,your gonna want to show it off and hear nice comments about it,NOT after the car is a year old.
And I seen it all before from hourences,(hear no evil,see no evil)
just because there is a zillion maps there is no excuse,nalicity ,the way it is layed out,should have like 10 minimum reviewers.

W0RF
3rd Jun 2005, 03:42 PM
It's a volunteer-run site. If they don't have 10 or more reviewers, it's because fewer than 10 people have offered their services.

Also, there's no reason to make NC a DM-only (or any other "only") site. The reviewers do what's requested of them. The maps are the ones that the mappers submit. So if you want more DM maps reviewed, request reviews of the better DM maps (better still, get the authors to request them). If you want more DM maps on site, talk to the mappers. Arcadia doesn't really have the power to do the kind of things you're suggesting.

ReD_Fist
3rd Jun 2005, 04:49 PM
It's a volunteer-run site. If they don't have 10 or more reviewers, it's because fewer than 10 people have offered their services.

Also, there's no reason to make NC a DM-only (or any other "only") site. The reviewers do what's requested of them. The maps are the ones that the mappers submit. So if you want more DM maps reviewed, request reviews of the better DM maps (better still, get the authors to request them). If you want more DM maps on site, talk to the mappers. Arcadia doesn't really have the power to do the kind of things you're suggesting.

No No not DM only,nalicity didn't make the game,just comes with the territory,all types should be reviewed.
But I would think reviews should follow the majority of what gamers are playing.Right now there is 2 DM's out of 10 maps (the A4 map is basicaly singleplayer),even then it's 3 out of 10.

And why or who are the ones to make a website work? certanly not the users,wonder why it is so hard to get seasoned mappers and players to become reviewers,who's the ones responsible to get people to sighn up? I put that 100% of the burden on the nalicity webmasters to make the site,volunteers or not and no excuses,none.

W0RF
3rd Jun 2005, 06:46 PM
no excuses? or what? You'll withdraw your funding? You'll go to a different mapsite? It's a game, dude, take a breath.

The reviews follow what is being requested, neither more nor less. You want more DM maps, request DM maps.

ArcadiaVincennes
3rd Jun 2005, 09:38 PM
Red_Fist, we know you love the DM. And I guess you think the other gametypes aren't worth anything (except CTF, as you said).

However, I think you need to accept the fact that not everyone out there feels the same way you do.

Also, I know DM is the largest server count map type. But what about the # f maps being created for the other gametypes. Perhaps DM is also the most popular for creation as well.

But I, nor do I think any reviewer should cater to popular majority. They should address what they're asked to address. Be it DM, ONS, or anything else.

And if I gave in to popular opinion with everything I would also be giving high scores to crap maps that get tons of play on servers out there. Just because a map gets a lot of play somewhere doesn't mean it's good.

And according to the media, I would also be irresistibly drawn to and facinated with Paris Hilton. :)

Popular opinion does have its place, however. For example if the community at large agreed with you, I would put some thought into changing how I review. As they do not I will not. Same goes with Paris Hilton. Lol.

Worf makes a good point. If you want more DM reviews, then find some DM maps and request reviews.

W0RF
3rd Jun 2005, 10:14 PM
to add to what Arcadia said, do us all a favor and do review requests on GOOD maps. There are plenty of DM-OMGLOLWTF maps out there, but if you find a gem, request THAT one for review so that the good maps rise more quickly to the top.

There is a real opportunity here for the users to have a big impact on the direction this site takes, and that is in user reviews of maps, and the ability to submit requests even if you are not the original author. If you want things to be different, there are ways to make it happen. :)

ArcadiaVincennes
3rd Jun 2005, 10:41 PM
to add to what Arcadia said, do us all a favor and do review requests on GOOD maps. There are plenty of DM-OMGLOLWTF maps out there, but if you find a gem, request THAT one for review so that the good maps rise more quickly to the top.

Worf makes an excellent point here, Red_Fist.

Why did you request a review from me of DM-Headake?
http://nalicity.beyondunreal.com/map_hub.php?mid=8492

You know that antagonizes me.

I take it mostly as a kick in the pants considering you know I'm going to review it.

Getting NaliCity to be more what you want is a two-way street. And you're sitting at the end of a one-way dead end.

ReD_Fist
3rd Jun 2005, 11:56 PM
Well yes,to not antagonize but to have perspective,I did that because thats how rediculas it is.
Thing is,why would anyone review that map all because it ends up in a cue someware,hell ya gotta have commen sense too.

Also I did not say to not do other gametypes,it's just logical,if 75% of the people are playing dm matches then if they played a certain map,then they come here to download it,and then see a review.

Well no big deal,ctf all over the place,then fit in all the others,it's no fault of yours or anything, variety is good.

None the less (but I will be wrong here too as usual) but like considering what the website is about and have only 1 reviewer,kinda rough don't ya think ?

W0RF
4th Jun 2005, 12:28 AM
cmon redfist, don't be a prick, you want more dm maps, recommend something you want to see getting the love, not stuff you know is crap.

Icedancer
4th Jun 2005, 05:12 AM
Redfist, I kindly suggest in the nicest possible way that you stop making stupid posts like those

Requesting a review of Headake just shows what kind of a person you are :rolleyes:

And I don't see why you are moaning, you have requested reviews of more CTF maps than DM maps :rolleyes:

"Thing is,why would anyone review that map all because it ends up in a cue someware,hell ya gotta have commen sense too."

Well thats how NC works, and it works great, until people like you abuse the system and request reviews of stupid maps.

Hourences
4th Jun 2005, 05:46 AM
We do not follow the players, if we were to follow the players we would need to rate andaction a 10.
We review maps, independently of their type. A map is a map.

And btw in UT2004 the largest majority plays ONS, followed by DM and then directly followed by CTF. In UT1 The largest majority plays CTF and only about half as many people play DM. Following your logic we would need to review a lot of ONS maps first, then a lot of CTF's and only then review DM maps. Following that logic and knowing the fact we only have 10 review spots in the latest list we would need to have 4 ONS reviews, 3 CTF reviews and 2 DM reviews and one last review reserved for misc. stuff such as an occasional DOM map or whatever
And when I currently look to the review list I indeed see 2 DM maps :)

Dont get to the logical crap man :)

ReD_Fist
4th Jun 2005, 11:06 AM
How are you deriving those totals,last i checked DM has many more servers running.
The next ut they are leaving a lot of that stuff out i hear.

ReD_Fist
4th Jun 2005, 11:10 AM
Ice....""Well thats how NC works, and it works great, until people like you abuse the system and request reviews of stupid maps.
""

All I can say is if ya aint got commen sense,then aint got commen sense.
Plus it's not a problem or a big deal,I was only pointing out DM RULEZ !!!!

ArcadiaVincennes
4th Jun 2005, 11:38 AM
How are you deriving those totals,last i checked DM has many more servers running.
The next ut they are leaving a lot of that stuff out i hear.

Having the largest number of servers running doesn't mean that it's also the larget number of people...

ReD_Fist
4th Jun 2005, 12:04 PM
ya i just checked
TYPE ..................SERVERS
DM .................... 1136
ONS ................. 504
INVASION............ 113
INSTAGIB CTF....... 314
BOBMING RUN ..... 45
CTF .................... 499
DOUBLE DOM.........15
TEAM DM...............396
VCTF.................... 72

As of this post in time

But in UT they had "players" also listed, is there a way to see number of players in ut2004 ?

Kinda hard to believe there is less players for DM,hmm isnt there that website for totals and stuff?

(regardless of ANY issue around here,ah well ,it's an age thing,youl all eventualy learn)

anyway I am glad your doing reviews period.

Hourences
4th Jun 2005, 01:58 PM
Top Mods For Unreal Tournament By Players


TO350
710 servers, 1166 players


Capture the Flag
598 servers, 816 players


Tournament Deathmatch
559 servers, 444 players


TO340
41 servers, 223 players








Top Mods For Unreal Tournament 2004 By Players


ONSOnslaughtGame
430 servers, 2254 players


xDeathMatch
1021 servers, 1747 players


xCTFGame
456 servers, 1053 players


xTeamGame
379 servers, 616 players


ASGameInfo
106 servers, 486 players






http://archive.gamespy.com/stats/

Kantham
4th Jun 2005, 02:07 PM
xVehicleCTFGame : 68 servers, 380 players

not so bad. I guess Vctf is not so official to the game and some ppl just hate having vehicles inside a CTF map.

And obviously hourences , Rankin is a monster , i guess it's ben played 3 million times online or something like that .....

W0RF
4th Jun 2005, 03:25 PM
# of servers != popularity

If I have 8 1v1 DM servers, and 1 16-player ONS server, which gametype has more support?

Kantham
4th Jun 2005, 03:32 PM
Also note the empty/Hosted-Non-dedicated servers, but you have a good point.

I also know alot of DM servers with retarded ppl or Sniper modified 300 shots per sec , wich i can't tolerate.

The best servers are moslty VCTF/DM

ReD_Fist
4th Jun 2005, 03:51 PM
Wow,I guess I am outdated then,I will stick to DM
But there is that one website that shows all the games and also unbelievable to me is halflife 1 had like 10,000 servers
and ut2004 was around 2000 servers,halflife online didn't seem all that good or somthing,now with hl2,wonder ware ut will stand.

Icedancer
4th Jun 2005, 07:09 PM
count # of players, not number of servers ;)

W0RF
4th Jun 2005, 10:50 PM
Red, taking this discussion personally is a bad idea. Making it personal (towards Aracdia et al) is an even worse idea.

You cannot win this argument. Neither can you lose it. Why? Because it's the Internet, it's not that big of a deal.

Seriously, just let it go, browse for some good DM maps, and request reviews on them. I'm sure the team will be happy to look at any maps that you think deserve a little more attention. Why? Because it's not personal. They're just doing their job.

Manticore
6th Jun 2005, 08:22 PM
AV; you can't please all of the people all of the time... and the map is not worth 9 or 9.5. I thought seven was pretty generous.

ArcadiaVincennes
6th Jun 2005, 09:40 PM
AV; you can't please all of the people all of the time... and the map is not worth 9 or 9.5. I thought seven was pretty generous.

Well, thank you Manticore. In discussion in another forum I learned that there were several inaccuracies in the review. Along with furthur playtesting, these may influence the scoring.
Because of the inaccuracies I feel I owe the author a second look, during which I'll also be addressing extended playtime.
I know I can't please all the people all the time but when I'm wrong in a review I feel it's only fair to issue a correction.

I really appreciate the support, though. Thanks very much.

RichyB
25th Jun 2005, 06:57 PM
AV; you can't please all of the people all of the time... and the map is not worth 9 or 9.5. I thought seven was pretty generous. I am with him you reveiwed it they way you felt at the time and theres not much wrong with that. I have read must of your reviewes here at NC and i found must of them to be Fair and i do not disagree with the rating you gave this map. My view well ill stop there lets just say i dont like the map. Forget all this rubbish on to the question that realy matters will you still reviewe for NC?

ArcadiaVincennes
27th Jun 2005, 07:56 PM
Well, no one really expressed a strong opinion to the contrary so I guess I am. I've posted a few others since. So I guess so...

:)