You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Scenario Design and Discussion
Moderated by HockeySam18

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.890 replies, Sticky
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Scenario Design and Discussion » The Exchequer: Review Requests, Guidelines, and Tutorials
Bottom
Topic Subject:The Exchequer: Review Requests, Guidelines, and Tutorials
« Previous Page  1 2 3 ··· 10 ··· 20 ··· 26  Next Page »
Possidon
Slayer
posted 08-03-15 03:51 PM CT (US)         





Welcome to The Exchequer!


This is a place for forummers to exchange comments, reviews and critique for files which they have downloaded and played. Here you can request reviews for your files, talk about file's you've recently downloaded and learn about how to write reviews and the rewards that come with it. Anybody can write a review for a requested file, you don't have to have any special requirements. It's not just for official reviewers.




WHY SHOULD I WRITE REVIEWS?

There are great things about writing reviews. Reviews are very useful for the file uploaders because it shows them what other people think about their files. It allows them to see what is good and bad about their files, and the reviews also offer constructive criticism that will include suggestions on how to improve the file in a future update. Reviews are also helpful for downloaders because it gives the downloader an idea of what to expect when they download the file.

Rewards
When a reviewer reaches a certain milestone they may earn rewards for their achievements:

  • 10 reviews: the ability to choose a custom title for your forum profile.
  • 25 reviews: become eligible to receive Official Reviewer status, and the denotation as such in one's Blacksmith profile.
  • Every subsequent 10 reviews (e.g. upon reaching 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 etc), the ability to choose a new custom title for forum profile.


  • BECOMING AN OFFICIAL REVIEWER


    Once a forummer has written 25 approved reviews they are eligible to become an Official Reviewer, although this is not guaranteed and may require further improvement on the reviewer's behalf. Official reviewers should be the most dedicated reviewers, writing detailed and constructive reviews that help improve the files they review. All reviews that are rated 4.0 or above by official reviewers will appear in The Blacksmith's Best Files list. Requests to become an official reviewer should be sent via email to HockeySam.




    ACTIVE THREAD REVIEWERS
    (In order of number of reviews)

    Possidon (41), Cataphract887 (198), Lord Basse (128), Mashek (125), Jatayu (84), HockeySam18 (82), Popeychops (66), Julius999 (31), Great_Artiste (28), kud13 (15)

    OFFICIAL REVIEWERS
    (In order of number of reviews)

    Possidon (241), Tanneur99 (229), Cataphract887 (198), Lord Basse (128), Mashek (125), BrandNewCar (91), Jatayu (84), HockeySam18 (82), Panel (76), Popeychops (66), CerberusXXL (36), Angel Jerusalem (34), Devestator (33), Stephen Richards (31), Julius999 (31), RoboPaul88 (26), DTrungle (25), RF_Gandalf (24), Angel Rasher (23), Angel Park (22), The Downward Spiral (22), Mr Wednesday (20), AnastasiaKafka (20), Cherub Lobby (20), Berserker Jerker (18), Mayank Sharma (12), Dark_Warrior_1_ (11), Ingo van Thiel (8), Matei (7), Cat (6), Gordon Farrell (5), Angel SpineMan (4), Cherub thurdl01 (2)




    REVIEW REQUESTS LIST

    The list below consists of a number of requests and/or downloads recently reviewed. Requests are marked R and updates U. Anybody is free to review whichever file they want, but should be aware that the designers at the top of each list are waiting the longest for a review. Files that have received a review in the time of request in this thread will be removed from the list unless a second opinion is requested.

    Cinematic Scenarios:

    Showcase Scenarios:

    Single Player:
    R Alba gu Brath, by Possidon: No Reviewer
    R Cavern Pirates - Captain's Revenge, by rewaider; No Reviewer
    R Project: Just Juice, by Lil_Lebowski; No Reviewer
    R DOOM, by HELLKNIGHT61; No Reviewer
    R Wrath of the Traibs, by Possidon; No Reviewer

    Multiplayer:
    R Ardar Diplomacy, by croatianboss; No reviewer
    R The Lord of the Rings, by croatianboss; No reviewer


    Mod Packs:
    R Wheel of Time: End of the Third Age - Beta, by Seonid; Reviewer: Mashek
    R Realism Mod v1.12 - 250 pop limit, unit/tech edits, by Keisari Tapsa; No Reviewer
    R Still in the Dark Age, by Mr Mew; No reviewer
    R Hero Expansion Redux, by Possidon; No Reviewer'
    R Tower of London, by Pepp; No Reviewer
    R Avignon Palace, by Pepp; No Reviewer
    R Duomo di Siena, by Pepp; No Reviewer
    R Borderland Empires, by Khan Ivayl; No Reviewer
    WAIFor's Amusement Mod 2.4, by WAIFor; Reviewer: Possidon 4.0
    Dover Castle, by DeathPreacher; Reviewer: Possidon 4.5
    Spartan Warrior, by Achesun; Reviewer: Possidon 5.0


    Utilities:
    R Notepad++ AI Editor, by beladar; No Reviewer
    R Custom Icons Pack, by Possidon; No Reviewer

    AI Files:

    Random Maps:

    Recorded Games:





    FILE UPDATES AND OBSELETE REVIEWS

    Please edit your review after an update. A designer can ask for the removal of all reviews after an update if he feels that they do not represent the actual version of his submission. Reviews that address issues that are fixed, altered or ameliorated do not serve the visitors of our site. A review has to be a valuable tool for the designer and the downloader.

    RECENT UPDATES/ REVIEWS TO EDIT
    (In order of date of the update)





    Please read the REVIEW GUIDELINES

    Without trying to enforce the Review Guidelines as something as law, they are still a very important part of the review system here at Age of Kings Heaven, and are used to create consistency between reviewers at the Blacksmith in order to establish fairness and equality for reviews. With the Review Guidelines’ recent update all reviewers need to take into account the new addition of rules when reviewing. However, Angel SpineMan’s primary objective for reviewing in the Old Guidelines still applies today:

    “This article will provide a description of how to write quality reviews for Age of Kings Heaven that are scored consistently between reviewers and are helpful to both the file's creator as well as the potential downloader.”

    In some cases, a small percentage of reviewers tend to review files according to their own rules, leading to inconsistency between reviews at the Blacksmith, which is neither helpful nor fair to anyone. To have reviews at the Blacksmith that are fair and helpful, reviewers have to follow some rules to score consistently.

    If you have any questions about reviewing, please do not hesitate to post in this thread!




    Single Player Campaigns and Scenarios


    There are many invaluable lessons to learn when becoming a good reviewer, and a few other things besides that will result in a good and fair review. Some things are self-evident when reviewing a file; in general, do not review game styles you do not enjoy and review files according to the date of its release. There are many files back in 2000-2002 that received a score of a high 4, which would not fit the standards of today. You have to take into account the standards of the day, and rate accordingly. In addition, if the scenario is designed for original Age of Kings, review it playing AoK.

    Below you will find a general breakdown of each category from a review for your convenience.

    PLAYABILITY is about the fun you had while playing a scenario, and here you need to mention what affected your enjoyment in a positive and/or negative way.

    BALANCE is about how easy or difficult a scenario was for you. You should mention which difficulty you played on when reviewing, although this is not mandatory. A good approach to reviewing a file would be to start with moderate and later change to standard, to see if the scenario was too easy or too hard or well-balanced overall; before ending off with hard difficulty. However, reviewers will need to take into account that not all files are difficulty-level-dynamic. In general, remember that you are rating the file according to your own skill level and not that of others.

    CREATIVITY covers every aspect of a scenario. Remember that a file does not need anything new to achieve a high score.

    MAP DESIGN scores compared to a random map which rates 2.0. Anything worse or better than a random map may be rated up or down accordingly. Some tips for rating this category is that you rate what you see during game play, which means no Marco and Polo. The map size and how much of the map was used should not affect the rating.

    STORY/INSTRUCTIONS is a little more interesting than some. Probably the most common detail reviewers tend to overlook is that this category covers two aspects of any scenario, story and instructions. Not just one or the other. If the file is lacking in one then you can make note of that in the review and mark down accordingly. However, this does not pertain to multiplayer scenarios, whereby a story is not mandatory. In general, the presence of a functional story (while not necessarily being a good story) with instructions should be midpoint, a 3. From there you should be able to give an accurate overall rating for this category.

    Non-Playable Scenarios

    For files such as those where playability is void and map design is the only feature of the file (e.g. entries to the Totally-Terrain Contest), the category should therefore be used to take a look at the technical and creative qualities of the map design, while referring to how that design pushes the boundaries of realism in an AOK environment. One particular thing to note here is that just because the file is all about pretty map design, that doesn’t mean it cannot feature any creative features that might breathe life into the design, such as towns brought to life by wandering villagers, people going about their everyday lives, and other unique devices besides. Basically, anything that goes into making the map more alive and as such realistic should be taken into consideration. As the file will likely feature little anything else other than map design, a single overall rating between 1 and 5 will be fine.

    Scenarios without Fighting

    An exception to the balance category is when the author of a particular file did not intend any fighting, or very little of, to feature in the scenario. From the review guidelines:

    One important note about scoring the balance category for scenarios is that where no fighting takes place, such as some puzzle scenarios and some RPG-style scenarios, is that just because the player cannot die in such scenarios, that doesn't mean the scenario isn't balanced. Difficulty can also be present via puzzles or other devices, and the balance of these should be taken into account.

    For files such as the Pretty Town Contest entries whereby there is a great degree of walking and nothing else much, reviewers should therefore take into account the author’s intention. If it was intended that you walk around and gaze at the beauty and wonder of a landscape, then you need to rate on that account.

    Rating Cut-scene Style Scenarios

    Cut-scenes rate like any other scenario, the defining factor being that most cut-scenes do not allow any interaction for the player, requiring only that the player sits down and watches. One thing to note is the change of the category BALANCE to PACING, which primarily denotes the flow of the cut-scene. Well timed sequences with good flow should score strongly here, while cut-scenes with little structure or planning, sound effects appearing out of sync and the like, should score poorly.




    Modification Pack Script

    A Modification Pack Script (MPS) is mainly an item for the player, which has a limited use for designers; the content will not always suit a designer’s endeavours in scenario design and is very limited to its audience. Keep this in mind when you rate mod pack scripts for USEFULNESS/NOVELTY and QUALITY/INSTRUCTIONS. The main categories are USEFULNESS and QUALITY for the overall rating of a MPS. Use NOVELTY and INSTRUCTIONS to correct the category rating. Still, for a perfect rating the MPS has to excel in all four categories.

    Utilities

    There is no official guideline for reviewing utilities, but for some ideas you can go here. A utility is a tool for the designer and has hardly any use for the player; keep this in mind when you rate utilities for USEFULNESS/NOVELTY and QUALITY/INSTRUCTIONS. Often you cannot rate the novelty factor because the file is another eye candy map of Lord of the Rings, a Volcano, Waterfall, Trigger Guide, Tutorial or collection of battle sounds. In other words, nothing new. Originally the fifth category was Creativity but this was too close to Novelty, better to have the two rated together if possible. When you feel Novelty does not apply, you can replace it with Creativity. The four categories are of equal importance for the overall rating of a utility.

    Random Map Script





    Review Thread History

    Luke Gevaerts started the Review Request Thread 03/30/2002. Tanneur took over 11/30/2002 until 7/11/2009. Mashek then hosted the thread until 05/19/2012, when it was taken over by Panel until about 01/10/14. After Panel stepped down as staff, it was left alone for about 6 months without being updated until Possidon took over the thread where it was completely revamped and turned into The Exchequer.

    [This message has been edited by Mash (edited 08-03-2019 @ 08:03 PM).]

    AuthorReplies:
    Possidon
    Slayer
    posted 08-03-15 03:52 PM CT (US)     1 / 890       
    This is the new Review Request thread that has been revamped. Here are few of the changes that you might want to know about.

    The thread has been separated into the subsequent forums for each file type. So there's 3 threads in the SD, MD & AI Forums.

    The whole Thread Reviewers system has been discarded. Now anyone who posts a review will be put onto this thread.

    We have no include certain rewards for those of you who reach certain milestones. They're not set in stone yet, but will hopefully come into play soon.
    Julius999
    Imposter
    posted 08-03-15 03:58 PM CT (US)     2 / 890       
    Why is this called the Exchequer?

    The new thread looks good. I don't understand the point of the new reviewer statuses of master and elite though. The status of official reviewer has a clear and easily understood meaning, as well as the less obvious function regarding the 'Best Files' category. The new variety just seems confusing: hierarchy for hierarchy's sake.

    Giving a custom title to those who do 50 seems fair enough though.

    1010011010
    [ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
    Member of Stormwind Studios
    Mr Wednesday
    Cavalier
    (id: matty12345)
    posted 08-03-15 04:00 PM CT (US)     3 / 890       
    So 20 reviews doesn't get you official status anymore? Because some of us shed blood to get that years ago

    Seriously, if that's not set in stone the whole official reviewer system should be discarded.

    "And Matt is a prolific lurker, watching over the forum from afar in silence, like Batman. He's the president TC needs, and possibly also the one it deserves." - trebuchet king
    Possidon
    Slayer
    posted 08-03-15 04:08 PM CT (US)     4 / 890       
    The name and Reward system was suggest by Sam.
    An Exchequer is a department or office of state in medieval England charged with the collection and management of the royal revenue and judicial determination of all revenue causes
    As Sam put it
    I thought it fitting due to the "exchange" and general importance of review requests and the reviews themselves
    The rewards are still in discussion and any suggestions are more than welcome. We want to add rewards to encourage more people to get into reviewing and do it regularly.
    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-03-15 04:12 PM CT (US)     5 / 890       
    I have reviewed Poolblood by L2D_eLF4, rating it 4.6.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    BF_Tanks
    Squire
    posted 08-03-15 04:15 PM CT (US)     6 / 890       
    To continue posting from the old review thread, I have just reviewed P O O L B L O O D V6,9, alongside Popeychops. giving it a 4.4,

    I also hope you've read my prior posts in the old review thread to consider my old reviews on my inactive account.

    Proud Member of Black Forest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009
    and The Seas of Egressa - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010

    [This message has been edited by BF_Tanks (edited 08-03-2015 @ 04:16 PM).]

    Possidon
    Slayer
    posted 08-03-15 04:19 PM CT (US)     7 / 890       
    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-03-15 04:21 PM CT (US)     8 / 890       
    Yeah, that's right. When Sam has a free night he'll be joining us.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    BF_Tanks
    Squire
    posted 08-03-15 04:21 PM CT (US)     9 / 890       
    Yeah, we're going through top rated maps and reviewing them with much better reviews.

    Proud Member of Black Forest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009
    and The Seas of Egressa - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    Julius999
    Imposter
    posted 08-03-15 04:24 PM CT (US)     10 / 890       
    The name and Reward system was suggest by Sam.
    I would definitely abandon that hierarchy of names. It's not even obvious that "master" is a higher rank than "elite" - I would think the opposite. As for rewards, I struggle to think of what rewards you can offer. It strikes me though that encouraging a give-a-review-to-get-a-review convention would be more likely than anything else to encourage people to start.

    Apropos of nothing, I just noticed that a couple of PTC08 files are in the wrong category: single player scenarios rather than showcase scenarios.

    1010011010
    [ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
    Member of Stormwind Studios

    [This message has been edited by Julius999 (edited 08-03-2015 @ 04:25 PM).]

    HockeySam18
    Dúnadan
    posted 08-03-15 04:29 PM CT (US)     11 / 890       
    I don't understand the point of the new reviewer statuses of master and elite though. The status of official reviewer has a clear and easily understood meaning, as well as the less obvious function regarding the 'Best Files' category. The new variety just seems confusing: hierarchy for hierarchy's sake.
    That's a fair critique. It was an idea that we came up with to incentivize reviewing a bit, so that those who might not feel motivated to write reviews after hitting 20 and becoming an official reviewer still might have something to aspire to. The custom title is part of that as well. Potentially it's possible to make the higher statuses have a utilitarian purpose as well if changes are made on the tech side of things, but if that doesn't work out, we can just remove the higher statuses and just have people get a custom title when hitting 50.
    So 20 reviews doesn't get you official status anymore?
    It should. The OP says so, at least.
    Why is this called the Exchequer?
    To fit in with a medieval theme given that there are other threads like the Forge, the Tavern, the Modding Guild. It's definitely a stretch on the interpretation of what an exchequer is, but given the importance of reviewing here and the way this thread could be viewed as an office of sorts where manifestations of critique are exchanged, I thought it was at least somewhat fitting

    (I'm open to better thematic ideas for the name, or even removing the name entirely if it's unnecessary)

    EDIT: (because ninja'd)
    When Sam has a free night he'll be joining us.
    Be wary that the current state of my internet might make that prospect problematic
    I would definitely abandon that hierarchy of names. It's not even obvious that "master" is a higher rank than "elite" - I would think the opposite. As for rewards, I struggle to think of what rewards you can offer. It strikes me though that encouraging a give-a-review-to-get-a-review convention would be more likely than anything else to encourage people to start.
    Good point, that seems like a better alternative.

    Storm on the Steppe | Galderton Hill RP | Proud member of Stormwind Studios

    "Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal:
    But the good name never dies of one who has done well." - Hávamál

    "Hockey is the only sport left for true men." - ax_man1

    [This message has been edited by HockeySam18 (edited 08-03-2015 @ 04:33 PM).]

    Possidon
    Slayer
    posted 08-03-15 04:33 PM CT (US)     12 / 890       
    Yeah, we're going through top rated maps and reviewing them with much better reviews.
    Sounds great. Many of the top rated Multiplayer scenario have very misleading reviews
    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-03-15 04:34 PM CT (US)     13 / 890       
    I agree that the hierarchy needs to go. I thought the staff had discussed this and had decided to remove it, in favour of the 50 reviews reward (which could possibly be reduced).
    Sounds great. Many of the top rated Multiplayer scenario have very misleading reviews
    Indeed, that's why Tanks, Sam and I plan to review as many of them as possible in the immediate future. I'm sad to hear that Sam's connection will keep him out of games with us, as three reviews for a file is better than two!

    Oh, and my last review for the day: BOAR-BALL II by JamesBlond, rated 4.0.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile

    [This message has been edited by Popeychops (edited 08-03-2015 @ 05:00 PM).]

    Mr Wednesday
    Cavalier
    (id: matty12345)
    posted 08-03-15 06:16 PM CT (US)     14 / 890       
    While it's great in theory, the fact that you both are doing this immediately after getting a disappointing score is tacky. And please save me any rebuttal. Everyone knows exactly what this is and is just being too gracious to call you two on it.

    I also love how Popey's reviews consistently average a much higher score. As if he has enough self respect to give an actually somewhat fair score, and not be the total tool that Tanks is being.

    I was given a 1/10 review on Moddb for ToME's beta. A couple actually. They sting, and there was no reason for them, because there you can just post your 1/10 with no reprisal. That's life. And because you can't control scores, these reviews will all stand. But it's worth mentioning that none of us are idiots, and I've already talked to several AoKH members who recognize the total douchebaggery on display here, particularly from Tanks.

    "And Matt is a prolific lurker, watching over the forum from afar in silence, like Batman. He's the president TC needs, and possibly also the one it deserves." - trebuchet king

    [This message has been edited by Mr Wednesday (edited 08-03-2015 @ 06:20 PM).]

    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-03-15 07:29 PM CT (US)     15 / 890       
    Matt, that's absolutely not what's happening here. While this couldn't have come at a worse time, over this next couple of months I have free time to start writing reviews. This update of the "Best files" category has been in the works for some time, and it's widely agreed that Multiplayer Scenarios is the category which is in most need of some love. Just look at the reviews I've written, and the other reviews which these files have received. There has been a great deal of change with the review guidelines.

    If you think we're reviewing things unfairly, I'd like to point out that Poolblood now has five reviews that are 4.4 or above. I would have given it a higher score, if it did not suffer from a bug that seriously imbalances the gameplay. It's a great map and deserves the praise that we've given it. I asked Tanks to play some files with me, and he has written reviews for the ones* which he felt strongly about, as is his prerogative. If you play these files and feel differently, you could write your own reviews. Alternatively, you could review some of the nine "Top Files" in that category that only have one review. A single review is not representative and some of these reviews are many years old. I'm the only person who has reviewed Dtrungle's Diablo III RPG, which is the top file on the Blacksmith. I reviewed it over five years ago.

    It seems to me that you think that because I recently discussed unfortunate personal disagreements which arose from a review of my work, I should be disqualified from reviewing Multiplayer Scenarios.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile

    [This message has been edited by Popeychops (edited 08-03-2015 @ 07:42 PM).]

    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-03-15 07:35 PM CT (US)     16 / 890       
    I've already talked to several AoKH members who recognize the total douchebaggery on display here, particularly from Tanks.
    Can we stop this crap, please? I've had an email from Nowhere along the same lines. If anybody has something to say to me, I want it said. I don't want pieces of paper passed around the classroom behind my back. This obviously isn't going to go away, so we have to deal with it here.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    BF_Tanks
    Squire
    posted 08-03-15 08:45 PM CT (US)     17 / 890       
    While it's great in theory, the fact that you both are doing this immediately after getting a disappointing score is tacky.
    Sorry, what do you mean? Where have we been recently given a disappointing score, and for what? Seas of Egressa is the highest rated map I've worked on that's on the 'smith, and Silent Evil is closely following behind that, and following that is the E.E.E. mod, all with average scores above 4.0 - Which I wouldn't ever call "tacky", considering how close that is to a full 5 stars.

    If you're talking more about the dispute between Popeychops and Sam over Silent Evil's new rating, I can tell you right now that it really didn't bother me that much, in fact I agreed quite a lot with Sam's review. It's a scenario from 2009, of course it's going to look dated. Because it is. From what I understand, the dispute isn't over the score - but over the fact Sam seemed to post the initial full-5's score as a means to entertain us or stroke our egoes. I don't personally think that's good conduct, but hey - This is my point of view on what Sam done and I am actually thankful he changed his scores to more realistic (Though I still don't think it deserves such high praise anymore) ones.

    What's "tacky" is the idea that "if the score isn't above 4 then you're being harsh" - something I strongly disagree with. There are more than 3 points, so I will not limit myself to "3" being about as valuable as a "1".
    And please save me any rebuttal. Everyone knows exactly what this is and is just being too gracious to call you two on it.
    The reason we're playing through old multiplayer scenarios is purely to give a fresh review on the top-rated files that have been sitting their with their single 5-star review, stagnating for years.

    The standards of design and reviews has grown a lot since those maps were made, and by no means does a full 5-star rating with the words "The map is fun" being an entire summary count as a legitimate review. We're doing well to follow proper review guidelines and etiquette, playing through the scenarios and then writing up a full, proper review that the scenario needs in order to make way for newer, better releases.
    I also love how Popey's reviews consistently average a much higher score. As if he has enough self respect to give an actually somewhat fair score, and not be the total tool that Tanks is being.
    There's nothing particularly unfair about my scores. I see fit to utilise the entire spectrum from 1 to 5 - and if I see the particular scenario as lacking - then I'll mark it down for being unable to keep up with standards or still present an enjoyable, working and well designed scenario, and so being poor quality.

    Myself and Popey, surprisingly, do disagree on things. For example: Where he thinks a 1v1 blood map can have a great balance, I would disagree because the first person to hold control of the central upgrade point and win the second engagement will win the game.

    This means our scores differ and I personally think that's the best thing for it. Rather than simply cloning our opinions and having an overall agreement that "this is good, this is bad", I have my own formed opinion and think "True that's good, but I think this is bad, even though you think it's not".

    I'm not being a "total tool". I'm not even being "harsh" (as Popey has called my reviews). I'm being realistic and not sugar-coating the bad points, the flaws and the problems. I'm using a rating of 1 to 5, not starting at 3 and working my way up from there. If a rating lower than 4 is a problem to a designer, then that designer should up their game and not produce anything that warrants a lower score.
    I was given a 1/10 review on Moddb for ToME's beta. A couple actually. They sting, and there was no reason for them, because there you can just post your 1/10 with no reprisal. That's life. And because you can't control scores, these reviews will all stand. But it's worth mentioning that none of us are idiots,
    That's a problem you face when putting up things that are in a widely used community. There's always going to be some kid who doesn't like your thing, and decides it's rating should be 0.1/10 purely because they didn't like it, and don't bother look at the bigger picture. Not everyone is going to take into consideration both good points and bad points - they'll only focus on the one bad thing or one good thing they saw.
    and I've already talked to several AoKH members who recognize the total douchebaggery on display here, particularly from Tanks.
    I like that. Particularly. It makes me feel like douchebaggery is the soup-of-the-day in the house of Tanks.

    Proud Member of Black Forest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009
    and The Seas of Egressa - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010

    [This message has been edited by BF_Tanks (edited 08-03-2015 @ 08:52 PM).]

    Mr Wednesday
    Cavalier
    (id: matty12345)
    posted 08-03-15 09:45 PM CT (US)     18 / 890       
    EDIT: What's the point.

    "And Matt is a prolific lurker, watching over the forum from afar in silence, like Batman. He's the president TC needs, and possibly also the one it deserves." - trebuchet king

    [This message has been edited by Mr Wednesday (edited 08-03-2015 @ 10:04 PM).]

    Nowhere
    Squire
    (id: NowhereT)
    posted 08-04-15 02:43 AM CT (US)     19 / 890       
    If anybody has something to say to me, I want it said.
    That's...exactly what happened. It seems, however, that both Matt and I gave up on trying to resolve the issues because you two are stubborn and ignoring the obvious fallout from your transparent attempt to stay relevant.

    Petition for Tanks' reviews to be removed and Popey to lose the green?

    Forummer of the Year, All in All Winner, Nicest Forummer, The Sebastien-Barbarossa Medal (FotY-2011)
    Most Missed Forummer (FotY-2012)
    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-04-15 03:22 AM CT (US)     20 / 890       
    It's clearly not, as the two of you have cooked up this unknown group of people who have taken offense, and won't name any names. I can only assume that the two of you have made them up in order to make your outrage seem credible. Tanks and I have spoken plainly, and the response from both of you offers no good faith. Neither of you seems willing to entertain the possibility that we mean what we say; that saddens me.

    You honestly think that as well as being disqualified from writing reviews, I should stop my work at the Town's Crier? It's not some trophy handed out as a prize, it's a commitment to the community that I take seriously, just like my responsibility as an official reviewer to write accurate reviews.

    As Matt put, what is the point, indeed.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    Nowhere
    Squire
    (id: NowhereT)
    posted 08-04-15 03:42 AM CT (US)     21 / 890       
    I can only assume that the two of you have made them up in order to make your outrage seem credible.

    Forummer of the Year, All in All Winner, Nicest Forummer, The Sebastien-Barbarossa Medal (FotY-2011)
    Most Missed Forummer (FotY-2012)
    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-04-15 03:43 AM CT (US)     22 / 890       
    Is that your idea of a reasonable response?

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    Nowhere
    Squire
    (id: NowhereT)
    posted 08-04-15 03:57 AM CT (US)     23 / 890       
    Because you have been a bastion of reason recently...

    Forummer of the Year, All in All Winner, Nicest Forummer, The Sebastien-Barbarossa Medal (FotY-2011)
    Most Missed Forummer (FotY-2012)
    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-04-15 04:04 AM CT (US)     24 / 890       
    Even if that were a fair comment, why are you playing that game? If you aren't going to accept that I mean what I say, nothing I say can change your mind!

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    Nowhere
    Squire
    (id: NowhereT)
    posted 08-04-15 04:16 AM CT (US)     25 / 890       
    Popey stop doublethinking. In a matter of days, you have gone from attacking Sam's review and complaining about his taste and his inability to appreciate art to now defending your own reviews with the only argument that you're being honest and fair.

    So for me as an outsider, I see you attacking one reviewer and then thinking it's preposterous that anybody might attack yours and Tanks' reviews. You are creating one set of rules for Sam and another for you and your bumchum.

    Your position is, however, less defensible than Sam's:
    Your reviews and Tanks' differ by a large margin which is totally fine, according to you two - but Sam's review (which reduced your score by a smaller margin than the typical difference between you and Tanks!) was unacceptable, despite his extensive explanation and justification.
    You and Tanks stand to gain selfishly by posting less favourable reviews for competitors to your multiplayer scenarios. Sam doesn't.

    Forummer of the Year, All in All Winner, Nicest Forummer, The Sebastien-Barbarossa Medal (FotY-2011)
    Most Missed Forummer (FotY-2012)
    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-04-15 04:30 AM CT (US)     26 / 890       
    Nowhere, what was said between Sam and I has been settled. We misunderstood each other and both said things we regret. It wasn't about a review score, it was about the changing of a review score. I'm not attacking Sam at all. I'm telling you that this is not a response to what has been said, this is separate.

    It would be very easy to indulge in slurs like you and Matt have done, I ask you to compose yourself if you're going to continue communicating with me.

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    BF_Tanks
    Squire
    posted 08-04-15 04:56 AM CT (US)     27 / 890       
    I can understand that you guys seem to think we're purposefully posting unfavorable reviews with the intent to bump Silent Evil further up the list or counter Sam's review, but this is a complete misunderstanding.

    As I stated in my reply to Matt, my intention is to provide worth-while and accurate reviews. If the scenario is worth the full 5 stars it got from that one small review, then good on them - and my review would reflect that. Just look at my review for Poolblood, which is in no way giving shoddy marks in order to downgrade it from the list. It's giving a high score it deserves.

    If I play a heavily aged scenario and leave it a poor review to reflect that, then this is in no way a deliberate attack just to promote my own files. As I have stated to Sam on Skype, I've wanted to write reviews for years - but never gotten round to doing it properly and then for half the time I was unable to due to not even having a working PC.

    The category of choice being multiplayer scenarios is also not a move made simply to promote my own and popey's work. It's because I prefer multiplayer over single-player and would rather write reviews of things I would actually want to, and enjoy, playing.

    I employ both Nowhere and Matt to actually fully read my replies and take my own point of view and opinions into consideration, I feel it's highly unfair that you're attacking Popeychops and making mention of me being part of some fantasy grand scheme.

    I say again: We aren't doing this just to promote Silent Evil or "fight back against Sam".

    Myself, Popeychops and Sam are often in a skype chat talking about this and many other things, we're in no way trying to attack Sam. I've already stated that I prefer Sam's less-shiny review and I would prefer if everyone gave honest scores.

    I'd also like to add: I feel that if me and Popeychops were to do separate reviews on different maps, we wouldn't be getting nearly the same negativity. But, how can this work? We're reviewing old multiplayer maps that aren't played that often. It's much easier for us to both play and review the same map, as then we definitely have a game ready and can both discuss what we feel about the map during play. Something that any multiplayer review should consist of - Multiple points of view.

    Proud Member of Black Forest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009
    and The Seas of Egressa - Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010

    [This message has been edited by BF_Tanks (edited 08-04-2015 @ 05:07 AM).]

    Mash
    Huskarl
    (id: Mashek)
    posted 08-04-15 05:17 AM CT (US)     28 / 890       
    Seriously guys...

    Well, at least the thread is seeing some activity.
    "The map is fun" being an entire summary count as a legitimate review.
    When I used to manage the Blacksmith, I remember making a rule to edit these reviews into comments and retracting the rating if the author didn't edit them when I mailed him. You have to at least give a single reason to justify your ratings, even if it's only a sentence. Not sure how old these reviews are that you're encountering but I'd strongly endorse just retracting the ratings, as they are more comment than review, and bloody useless!

    [This message has been edited by Mash (edited 08-04-2015 @ 06:37 AM).]

    Nowhere
    Squire
    (id: NowhereT)
    posted 08-04-15 05:25 AM CT (US)     29 / 890       
    and bloody useless!
    Oh I think the reviews are serving their intended purpose perfectly...

    Forummer of the Year, All in All Winner, Nicest Forummer, The Sebastien-Barbarossa Medal (FotY-2011)
    Most Missed Forummer (FotY-2012)
    Mash
    Huskarl
    (id: Mashek)
    posted 08-04-15 05:34 AM CT (US)     30 / 890       
    I was just reading some reviews, and it's amazing how anyone just seems to throw a perfect 5 around. I probably didn't help that cause in the past, due to my inexperience reviewing multiplayer scenarios and such.

    EDIT: I've gone ahead and re-reviewed Khan Ivayl's Age of Vampires. A long time overdue, as for everything else; but in this case I simply couldn't leave my original review of 4.3 go unchecked after Khan's astonishingly detailed update afterwards.

    To Possidon and HockeySam, can you please delete my older review here once the new one has been approved? I will retract the rating now, in any case.

    EDIT 2: Nevermind, it seems there's an automatic system that retracts the rating for my older review already. Didn't even know about that one.

    Also, I recently noticed cut-scene reviews have received a new update to the much debated Balance and the category is now entitled Pacing. When did this happen? It's a good, if not simple change.

    [This message has been edited by Mash (edited 08-04-2015 @ 06:09 AM).]

    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-04-15 06:14 AM CT (US)     31 / 890       
    Mash knows what he's talking about.

    I'm not sure how fair it would be for me to start retracting reviews I disagree with. I feel that would be a step too far, but I'd encourage the other staff to do so (and I know Sam already has in some cases).

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile

    [This message has been edited by Popeychops (edited 08-04-2015 @ 06:18 AM).]

    Mash
    Huskarl
    (id: Mashek)
    posted 08-04-15 06:27 AM CT (US)     32 / 890       
    I think one thing I've learnt over the past is people tend to rate multiplayer scenarios so highly simply because they had a good experience playing them, and didn't want to fault them or criticise too much. I guess too because there's obviously not as big a gaming crowd for multiplayers, or at least there never used to be (HD changed that somewhat), then maybe the quality of reviewers seems to be few and far between resulting in reviews of poorer quality but nonetheless giving higher ratings. Just my thoughts, though.

    EDIT: I guess where I mean to retract the ratings of some reviews is where the only explanation was "playability was good therefore 5". Such reviews are of no use, and in fact counter-productive not only to the designer but the downloader as well. We certainly can't do much about properly written reviews, even if the rating is something we don't agree with. All you can do is write a review yourself, but at the end of the day it's your rating, likewise as my reviews reflect my personal rating. Perhaps the real rating of the file is somewhere in between. I simply try to review a file to the best of my ability and hope I've given a fair and honest rating.

    [This message has been edited by Mash (edited 08-04-2015 @ 06:33 AM).]

    Possidon
    Slayer
    posted 08-04-15 06:28 AM CT (US)     33 / 890       
    Mash your review has been approved.

    I'm also going to try and start going through many of my older reviews and redo them,. Many we're written poorly with little detail and sometime quite biased. I've already rewritten my review for Revenge of the Templars just to add more detail to it but I want to do it to the rest of them as well.
    Popeychops
    "Cool" Huskarl
    posted 08-04-15 06:30 AM CT (US)     34 / 890       
    Poss, that's an admirable endeavour, but I'm relevant to the touch my 50+ backlog, and you have four times that amount

    Member of BlackForest Studios
    Co-creator of Silent Evil (4.6) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2009 (Most Fave'd Multiplayer Scenario)
    and The Seas of Egressa (4.8) Voted Best Multiplayer Scenario of 2010
    "Popey just hates everywhere." - Chocolate Jesus, on my fear of Romanian organ-traffickers
    "Hooray for Dear Leader-Comrade-Generalissimo-Presidente-Lord Protector Popey!" - Lord Sipia, on my benevolent, iron-fisted rule
    "You're not Popeychops; you don't get to physics." - Moff, in response to a clumsy muon simile
    Possidon
    Slayer
    posted 08-04-15 06:34 AM CT (US)     35 / 890       
    Might not go through all of them. It'll be a long process but we'll see how it goes.
    There a reviews for file such as the Emissary which when I reviewed back when I started was amazing to me, being one of the first campaigns I played, but now looking at it, it's pretty poor.
    « Previous Page  1 2 3 ··· 10 ··· 20 ··· 26  Next Page »
    You must be logged in to post messages.
    Please login or register

    Hop to:    

    Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames