Initial Plans

[Bytor offline]

[Roy Fokker offline]

i do like the idea of map of the week thing. I am not sure how you decide as to who can review them,
But i suggest using a combination of user ratings and reviews.
Most of the map i see with good rating also have a pretty good explaination of why that person though the map was good.

If you know what i mean. You could just pick the best review of the map from the list for revies made for that map by the players.

Even if you do decide to get rid of map of the week, please keep the user ratings.

[Red Shifter offline]

User ratings usually serve only to flame. I say get rid of them.

User reviews, on the other hand, often provide insightful knowledge and thoughts on a map.

Instead of a MOTW system, have a MOTF (fortnight (two weeks)) system. There's a few reasons behind this:

1) T:V maps take longer to make. You won't have a map for each week, even with a more dedicated fanbase.

2) Most importantly, et cetera.

[Roy Fokker offline]

well, there you have it , One for Keep User Ratings, another for Remove User Ratings.

And Bytor is in limbo, So i must find few ppl who agree to my POV

[Kore offline]

[Red Five offline]

Like RS, I say ditch the user ratings. These ratings are far too abused, both by users who arbitrarily assing F grades to maps as well as mappers who get all their friends to come over and give A+ grades. Leave the ability for users to post comments, as criticism is very beneficial to some of us, but don't bother setting up a user rating system.

If there absolutely must be user ratings, it is imperative that there be a system for reporting unfair grades.

On the other hand, I am entirely in support of official map reviews as long as there are dedicated, unbiased members to pick maps for reviewing and writing the reviews themselves. Many T2 mappers will undoubtedly remain, and it is very likely that the release of T:V will result in a flood of new mappers-to-be to this site, so I wouldn't worry too much about finding people qualified and willing to do the job.

As for the MOTW feature, I'm not sure. Granted, it is a good promotional feature for T2Maps. However, it would also require a steady supply of good maps, as well as reviewers to write about them and a certian site administrator to select maps to carry the honor. If there aren't enough maps to make MOTW a consistent event, I say that we shoud make it Map of the Month, or even RS's rather interesting idea.

[Kipper offline]

[Celios offline]

[TsN|Byte offline]

Sounds good Bytor. I would honestly check out some of the current websites that host files for UT2003, since in terms of 'setup' they tend to have a decent 'form' for uploads





ut2003files is one of more common, but also bloated in terms, but has some nice features. I think a rating s ystem is useable, but just a small number margin. 1-5 or something.

As far as listing files, I'd say do multiples like you have been doin. Files will more than likely have to be zip'ed, so require a readme.txt or something along those lines, if possible, and then needed map files.
Template wise, I also think current would be fine, maybe just redesigned a bit or something

[vXKitiaraXv offline]

im not all to crazy about the user ratings...as i have gotten bad grades from people i shall not name...bet definatly keep the comments..they allow the mapper to get an idea of what they must improve on.

MOTW should stay...but maybe like RS said, make it every 2 weeks, as many MOTWs are already there for that long as it is

i think the list of maps should stay in alphabetical order along with the gametype sections.

and for reviewers...keep em or get new ones. and PUs should still be here. its a tradition the forums should be basically the same as well. i like the set up.

[Bytor offline]

I'm leaning towards changing the Map of the Week to just the "Featured Map". That way it doesn't have to rotate on a set interval, and I can still have a map to highlight and display on other community sites like I do now.

I'm also leaning towards doing away with the letter grades and going with a gradient rating, kinda like how restaurants and hotels are rated, like "4 out of 5 stars" ... that kinda thing. Maybe I can use spinfusor discs instead of stars. I think this will make low grades less "harsh".

Red Five, I don't think having a system to report unfair grades will help much, if at all. "Unfair" is a subjective concept. The reporting system would be just as open to abuse as the grading system.

Here's an idea that just popped into my head: require a minimum number of words for each user rating, like 100 words for example. This will make them more like mini-reviews. It will also prevent drive-by F gradings with no comments other than "dis map sux". Granted, someone could just spam the review with "dis map sux" over and over just to meet the minimum word count, but I could also prevent that by filtering out duplicate words before checking the word count. Just thinking out loud, but this could make the user review system a lot more worthwhile and llama-proof. I would still have the gradient rating which would be used to highlight the top-rated maps on the home page, like I have now. Thoughts?

[Red Five offline]

[vXKitiaraXv offline]

[Bytor offline]

[vXKitiaraXv offline]