ArcadiaVincennes
2nd Jun 2005, 06:44 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?
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?