I don't write map reviews, but I agree with Imperator.
A five out of five does not have to mean no flaws at all. But very very few at all.
What Fizzer gave as his instructions for rating in 1-5 seems pretty easy to understand but you guys are rating everything harsher than he wants.
A 4 is NOT (my opinion) an okay map. It is a good map! This means you can play it and enjoy it.. it still is missing a few things that make it not a 5.
A 3 is an OK map which probably means it isn't great. It still can be played but it's not going to be very fun..
A 1 is complete junk which should be deleted.

good ratings also encourage the creator to work on make similar maps. It is good to know if the community is appreciating your work, because maps did take a lot of time to get done.
Anyways, I second Imperators execution on the subject. there is no need to be thrifty with five and four stars, because most of the time the rating depends on opinion, which means someone will like and give it a good rating someone will not and give it a bad rating. at the end it will be an average value. no map will ever achieve 5 stars in average rating. better consider if the current average fits with your opinion.

Also agreed with Imperator. By the reasoning of some other players, no map deserves 5 stars because none of them are perfect.

For example, 2 top maps: Rise of Rome has gotten a 5/5 rating by probably half of the people rating it. I can't say they are all wrong just because the map is offset to the right, Partha is a bit overpowered, there are no custom distribution modes... Or Troll's Europe: actually has pretty messy borders up close, some eastern territories are stuck against the edge of the screen, and the bonuses are not even that balanced (Spain is easier to control than France and has 1 territory less but both are worth 6). Still, people consider these maps exceptionally good and give them 5/5. It doesn't matter what criteria they use for this, this will be different for different people and in the end comes down to taste. There really are no objective criteria. Two different people will comment with blunt confidence that your map is bad for this or this reason, and contradict eachother.

Edited 10/27/2015 16:45:50

we shall use the IGN rating system
1-7.8 means it's horrible
7.9 is meh
8- 10 means it's paid off and utterly horrible.

Ranek has a point, my reviews are mostly adressed towards the map creator rather than the people interessed in the map. Maybe I should less concern about the map creator in my responses and evade phrases like ' The map creator did a good job at this'?

It's a good thing which I should apply in my next reviews. Thanks for your remark. I didn't even figured it out by myself.

Obviously everyone know partha is stronger but why? Less chock points and pure land to tear though?

The advantage of being "stingy" with your 4's and 5's is that you use the full range of the 1-5 scale.

If everyone is giving out 5's to maps they like and 3's and 4's to maps they don't like as much, you're only using half of the scale.

The more people use the full scale for ratings, the more useful ratings are to the community. It's better for everyone.

I disagree with Raneks comment. From the test games I have played, I have found most people don't actually give feedback with most feedback being on minor things such as territory names, connections and bonus values. There is still the problem of people surrendering or being booted early in the game making the balance vary and other times, people give comments too radical and unrealistic. Yes you should give recommendations to players but you should also give tips to the mapmakers.

What Fizzer gave as his instructions for rating in 1-5 seems pretty easy to understand but you guys are rating everything harsher than he wants.

A 3 is an OK map which probably means it isn't great. It still can be played but it's not going to be very fun..

I really don't get what you're doing. We're being as strict as Fizzer wants. 3 is Good, 2 is OK, as Fizzer himself says.

I really don't get what you're doing. We're being as strict as Fizzer wants. 3 is Good, 2 is OK, as Fizzer himself says.

So do we have different definitions of "OK" and "Good"? To me, if you're going to be using the full scale, it should be like this:

1 - Contending for worst map in existence
2 - Bad map
3 - OK map. It is at least playable.
4 - Good map. This is where most maps that took actual effort to create should go.
5 - Outstanding map. The kind you create multiple templates for because you think it's so good.

If 2 is "OK", then do you not differentiate between maps that are "bad" and maps that "should be deleted"?

Edited 10/27/2015 23:44:45

So do we have different definitions of "OK" and "Good"? To me, if you're going to be using the full scale, it should be like this:

1 - Contending for worst map in existence
2 - Bad map
3 - OK map. It is at least playable.
4 - Good map. This is where most maps that took actual effort to create should go.
5 - Outstanding map. The kind you create multiple templates for because you think it's so good.

You're literally putting 3/5 (good) as OK, which is 2/5. It can be up to various interpretations as to what is really ok, what is good, so on, but you can't say that 3/5 is OK. It's better; it's good. Same with 4/5. 4/5 is not Good, it's Great.

If 2 is "OK", then do you not differentiate between maps that are "bad" and maps that "should be deleted"?

Fizzer looks at each map, and if he thinks that they're bad, he doesn't let them be published. The few maps that are rated less than 2 are before he started doing that. Maps that are unsalvageable are very very rare, and noone hardly sees them anyway. Back to you, how do you rate maps that have no problems at all, and did everything that you could think of?

For anyone who wants to practice his/her review skills according to these feedback criteria in this thread, you could start with my maps

https://www.warlight.net/Map/17568-India-Huge
https://www.warlight.net/Map/9481-Benelux-Huge
https://www.warlight.net/Map/15724-Narnian-World
https://www.warlight.net/Map/14071-Mongolia
https://www.warlight.net/Map/9755-Limburg
https://www.warlight.net/Map/8350-Belgium-Big

Some maps already have good feedback, others could be more.
Also I would like to thank Nathan for his feedback on all my maps!

Nathan is back guys!

"I don't have the energy to dig it up, but Nathan is still around quite recently. NinjaNic's newest map (I think it's called "a certain geographic area") was published less than two weeks ago and it has a Nathan review attached to it."

"Nathan is back guys!"

*shakes head* He never left dude...

Bump because IMO this should always be on first page (it's a pity there's no sticky)