Coastline Racetrack: Grand Prix by CruelLEGACEY Watch the video.... it describes the map better than anything I could write Coastline supports 1-16 players, but 8-12 is really the sweet spot. Coastline Racetrack: Starting Grid by CruelLEGACEY
Hey cruel, im soo glad to see your map here. i had an absolute blast testing it. Cant wait to see your next creation. Very fun track, great work I also see that you made some great changes, good work
Thanks! I had a blast testing with you guys. It really helped me iron out the rough spots and add a level of polish it never would have had otherwise. I'm particularly proud of the starting block I built... it works great The track also got posted on both bungie.net and halowaypoint.com today, so I'm on clowd 9 right now!
Coastline Racetrack Enjoyment Coastline Racetrack is a racing map which was built on Noble Map Pack’s “Tempest”. Even though having the map pack is required, the new environment and surroundings it brings makes up for the extra cost. Coastline Racetrack’s creator brings the players across the rivers, caves, beaches and skies of Tempest and takes advantage of it unique perks. One such perk would be the energy beam which connects the map’s two main bases. When a player makes contact with the beam, their mongoose is disabled by the EMP and they lose precious time on the track as others zoom by. As a result, this kind of obstacle can tend to be great fun in such tense competitive situations. A break in the track, which can give a player an advantage over another, adds another dimension to the competitiveness of Coastline Racetrack. Sadly, only one such thing exists on the entire track and is not consistently present. One turn in the track can easily catch a player off guard. The road goes in a smooth, straight line but then turns suddenly to the left. Its devilish design can catch a lot of players off guard and send them tumbling off into a well placed kill zone. But if a player can keep their wits about them, they can manage to make it around the bend without a problem. By simple descriptions, one can only imagine the concepts. But in practice, these ideas do not actually work to make the map much better. They work, yes, but for some reason they don’t add much to Coastline Racetrack. But over all, map isn’t bad. It has shown clear attempts at spicing up the gameplay with things like launched fusion coils, EMP obstacles and dangerous U-turns, but Coastline Racetrack also has a lot to improve on in each of those areas. Balance The starting line is particularly impressive. Each player spawns on a platform behind a long barrier which makes it impossible for them to begin. After a few seconds, a slightly higher platform spawns beneath their wheels and makes it possible for them to proceed past the starting line. Although this may be hard to envision, it means that each player is ready to start and no one is caught off guard. At the very least, it makes Coastline Racetrack feel more like a real racing game’s track, and less like one forged on Halo: Reach. At one point, there is a breakaway in the road. Any player who sees it is able to take it for an advantage over the other players. However to balance it out, the player must sacrifice a bit of momentum for a shorter path. Additionally, they also risk a higher chance of being hit by falling fusion coils. Through this, the map is given a risk vs. reward element which is not found in most other racetracks. Each racer has an equal chance of making it to the finish line. There is only one track to go down, and whenever a fork appears in the road it quickly joins up again later on. No one is forced down a particular way that puts them at an overly unfair advantage or disadvantage. Durability There seems to be the most care taken when it comes to securing the durability of the map. Underneath every section of a track, large volumes of hard kill zones deny players any chance at running free from the intended path. In short, Coastline Racetrack is entirely inescapable, and fundamentally sound. Aesthetics Clearly, not much effort was put into masking the obvious borders which were placed around the track. Lines of large rocks were simply smacked along the outer edge of the racing area and look pretty ugly. However, the borders are only easily seen from the sky or from higher parts of the track. The theme of the map pops up particularly as players reach Tempest’s coastline. Here, the map’s creator has gone to greater efforts to add a bit of decoration to the borders. Along the fencing, tower pieces do well to imitate life-guard towers. Unfortunately this decoration is not consistant throughout the map. Later on, the track’s railings appear messy and hastily placed alongside the wobbly road. Brace pieces are ringed around the central energy beam. Although this feature is seemingly pointless, it looks quite nice alongside the rest of the track. Later on, next to the coastline towers, a somewhat irrelevant kill ball sits within Large Antennae pieces. It offers no functional value to Coastline Racetrack, and just sticks out like a sore thumb. Around this and the rest of the map, the track is neither smooth nor neat. In such a high-speed racing environment, players expect a nice road for them to ride on. While it may seem trivial, Coastline Racetrack’s racetrack just isn't very nice to look at. Originality Few people choose to use Tempest as their template map in Forge. Because of that, it is hard to tell how original maps like Coastline Racetrack really are. If one was to be completely generic, they would only choose Tempest over Forge World because of its large energy beam shooting across the sky. And as said before, the way that the energy beam acts as an obstacle is great fun in such tense competitive situations. Launched fusion coils are also an overly used idea, but are utilized to good enough effect. Similarly, the kill ball suspended between large antennae pieces is not an original design by far. Tempest’s other unique features are used to good effect in Coastline Racetrack. The theme of the map is supported by the sandy shores of the map and the bright fuzzy filter that goes along with it. The new geography of the map acts as refreshing new surroundings as opposed to so many maps built within Forge World. The different architecture which mimics a beach’s surroundings is also creative and enjoyable to simply look at. [floatleft]Enjoyment Rating: Balance Rating: Durability Rating: Aesthetics Rating: Originality Rating: Overall Rating:[/floatleft]3x 6/10 for 18/30 3x 10/10 for 30/30 1.5x 10/10 for 15/15 1.5x 4/10 for 6/15 1x 6/10 for 6/10 67/100 Understanding the Review Hub's Ratings Review Hub's New Rating System
Well, I'd like to thank Forge Hub and Tediums ***** for taking the time to test and review the track. I do appreciate the time you put into it. However, I must say, I am deeply dissapointed in the review. I am of course biased, but I think I have rational reasons for being so shocked by the low review score. I feel that most of the criticisms of my track are issues that absolutely do not matter to a group of people playing a game of race. I lost major points in the aesthetics catagory because the road wasn't pretty to look at. True, the pieces I used to construct the track are not the most attractive pieces available, but 'looks' isn't why I used them. I chose pieces that would give the road the width it needed. Also, I don't have any problem saying my joinery between pieces is some of the smoothest out there. The result? A forger might look at the track and say "I've seen prettier road constuction", but during actual playtests it performed extremely well. It gives drivers just enough room to compete side by side, and is also perfectly smooth to drive across. I was particularly upset by the comments regarding the large rock-walls that act as barriers along the lower road. Yes it is subjective, but driving over the central spine between the rock walls looks awesome.... like a mini-trench run. The reviewer even states that "the borders are only easily seen from the sky or from higher parts of the track". Guess what.... in the middle of an actual game, you're never going to be in the air, and when you're on the upper track, you're looking ahead at the road, not down over the edge. The reviewer seemed dissapointed that I only included one encounter with the emp-laser across the top of the map, which really shocked me. Is the suggestion that I should include 2 chances to get emp-stalled during a 75 second lap? After more than 20 full-group playtest games, I can say with absolute cetainty that a second pass through the emp laser would be too much. There are plenty of hazards on the track as it is. Other criticisms are frustratingly vague. He says the U-turn doesn't make the track any better, but gives no reason why. Again, when you actually play the track, the U turn becomes a major 'turning point' in the race; a make-or break point where sharp turning skills make a big difference in seperating good drivers from the rest of the pack. I would never claim my track was perfect, and I am always up for constructive criticism, but this review just doesn't give me the impression that Tediums ***** played any real race games on it, other than perhaps a solo run. At the end of the day, I feel that 6.7 does not come cclose to representing how fun the track is to play. I only hope this review doesn't descourage people from giving the map a try.
for someone who said they appreciated the constructive criticism, it sure didn't seem like it and that was a little uncalled far at the end there. You can disagree with a review without calling into question all the prior work the reviewer has done. Also you made the case early on, you are biased to your own track so you will see things how you designed it. He did not design it so regardless of if it was a solo run or he played with other people a review is a subjective critique of your map to the individual. The part that is not subjective is the actual categories so while the individual reviewer might be subjective to a particular kind of kind, for example say the reviewer likes competitive games more than casual games, or race games more than mini games whatever, review hub reviewers over all have to adhere their likes and dislikes to a specific scoring system. So do you honestly think the aesthetics of your map were outstanding, because if they were than sure you deserved a 10. I understand it's a race track and they cost a lot of budget to make good tracks so sometimes you need to take a hit in one category to make the others better. It's not an attack on your map, its an honest appraisal of a weak area of your map that isn't a big part of the score anyway. When Tedium talks about the hazards, he was giving you a compliment and saying more people should design branching paths/short cuts/dynamic things that effect the race into their maps. His point was simply that he would have liked some more kinds of that in your map. Not that he wanted you to specifically make another pass through the laser. Again, you have every right to defend criticism of your map, but watch what you say. The review was to help you and if you can't respond politely, people will be less inclined to help you in the future.
It's actually not that low. If you venture to the "Understanding RH Ratings" link at the bottom of the review you would find that it is well above average. When you asked us to do a review of the map you asked us to review it. We look at every aspect of everything you put in to designing that map. We don't just look at how the map plays even though that is weighted more in the end. Actually, aesthetics really don't have too much effect on your score. And aesthetics is not about performance. Hence the category name. If the track has nothing special in terms of eye-candy then it effects this portion of your score. Also, making a track smooth isn't exactly something to brag about in Reach thanks to phasing and coordinate editing. You want to brag about smoothness? Look at how smooth some Halo 3 race tracks were without coordinate editing and phasing options. He didn't say anything about a second laser encounter. He merely stated that the laser encounter was the only game changing experience. Race tracks, in all honestly, get very dull very fast. If there is not something special that sets it apart from anything else out there then it is not likely to last. Tedium praised you on having that game changer in there and simply said that was the only thing. That after the EMP blast it was just another run-of-the-mill track. While I do agree that too many hazards on a track can be frustrating, throwing the players the occasional curve-ball is pertinent. If you're going to go that route then a solo run should by all means reveal the true form of the map. The best track in the world can be chaotic if there are enough player distractions and interference, but a player racing the map by themselves should be able to have fun on it by simply enjoying the pure form of the map rather than the competitive element. So? You asked for our opinion. Not 25 random people. We put time and attention into giving an in depth review of different elements that comprise a map. Not some guy who goes, "Cool map, bro." To be totally honest with you, you're lucky I didn't review this track (I was going to) because I tend to be far more critical than our friend Tedium here. While I encourage you to use our services again, I'd also like for you to stop and think if you can handle the criticism handed to you, because if you can't then you are far less likely to be helped again in the future. I think you handled this far more maturely than many other people would, but I also think that since your track has received what you would call "Praise," you've built quite an ego over it and are not as readily able to accept negative judgment.
Points taken. I have gone back and edited out some of the remarks I made that, looking at with fresh eyes, I can see were innapropriate. I appolagise for crossing the line. Regarding the "EMP" laser, the line: "only one such thing exists on the entire track and is not consistently present " is what lead me to believe the reviewer felt I should have used it more. He used the word "Track" rather than "Map" which is probably what made me think he was reffering to my track rather than the map itself. To be fair to my response, I didn't say that the track deserved a 10 in aesthetics. But I do think there is a gap between a 4 and a 10. I took particular issue with his comments in that catagory, since his comments don't apply to what drivers see as they play the track. From the review: "borders are only easily seen from the sky or from higher parts of the track". Again, when in a race game is someone going to be in the sky looking at borders on the lower track? It just doesn't happen. There are absolutley more attractive maps out there, but given that eveything the review takes issue with was a concious sacrafice in the "looks vs gameplay" department, I was surprised to see the score so low. Again, my main argument is that 6.7 does not represent how fun the track is to drive on. Perhaps that is not the goal for Forge Hub's review scores, so I need to adjust my expectations. [br][/br]Edited by merge: Let me start by saying that despite my complaints, I am very appreciative of the time and effort Forge Hub has already given me. I want to be very clear on that. Organite, I will address your points one at a time, but a little out of order. You make one point towards the end of your post that I think is at the center of my problem with the review. "a solo run should by all means reveal the true form of the map. The best track in the world can be chaotic if there are enough player distractions and interference, but a player racing the map by themselves should be able to have fun on it by simply enjoying the pure form of the map rather than the competitive element." This is where we don not see eye to eye at all. When I built Coastline, I did so with 8-12 drivers in mind. This effects every single element of the track, from the width of the pieces I use to build the road, to the spacing and frequency of the explosive hazards, to the tightness of the turns, to the placing of the checkpoint respawns. To say that driving solo around the track will reveal the true form of the map is a completely backwards argument. Yes, it should be playable and enjoyable with only 1 driver, but I would never in a million years go into a map designed for 8 players and review it based on a single player test. You simply won't see everything the track does without a group of players on it. I'll give an example to illustrate my point: When I test the map solo, I almost never run into any of the explosive barrels. If I were to review the track based on a solo drive, I might even think the explosives don't effect the track. But play the track with a group of players, and suddenly people are hitting the explosives far more often. Thus, I balanced the hazards to be dangerous, yet avoidable, for a group of 8-12 players. Would you jump into breakpoint with 2 players, play a round of invasion, and review the map based on that experience? I doubt it. I said in my initial response that it sounded to me like the reviewer never actually played a group (i.e. at least 4 players) "race" game on the map, and your comments only reinforce my suspicions. If that is not the case, please correct me. "Also, making a track smooth isn't exactly something to brag about in Reach thanks to phasing and coordinate editing. You want to brag about smoothness? Look at how smooth some Halo 3 race tracks were without coordinate editing and phasing options." I was in no way bragging. I was saying that the road, both in shape and joinery, is perfectly smooth to drive on. This was in response to criticism that the road didn't look very good. I understood the criticism as "You used ugly forge pieces to build the road", so please correct me if I'm missing the point. I was merely saying that the pieces I used aren't the most attractive, but I feel I used them very well. Again, someone playing a solo race might look at the track and say "I wonder why he used the big ugly pieces for the road", but play the track with a group and you will see that I made the right decision. "He didn't say anything about a second laser encounter. He merely stated that the laser encounter was the only game changing experience." Ahhh.... I completely misunderstood. My mistake. "after the EMP blast it was just another run-of-the-mill track. While I do agree that too many hazards on a track can be frustrating, throwing the players the occasional curve-ball is pertinent." But there are other curve-balls! This is one of the strangest criticism to me, since the EMP is by far the least dangerous hazard on the map. As I said earlier, I just don't see how it would be possible to play this track with a group and dismiss the other hazards the way Tediums ***** did in his review. Like them or not, you can't possibly say that the emp is the only curve-ball on the track. "So? You asked for our opinion. Not 25 random people. We put time and attention into giving an in depth review of different elements that comprise a map. Not some guy who goes, "Cool map, bro."" I have removed that comment from my initial response because I see now that it is not at all relavent or helpful to our discussion. BUT, you are being a bit dismissive and condecending here. You know nothing about who I had testing the map, nor how much time went into the test process. I promise that every single tester put in more time than Tediums ***** did with his review (this is not a criticism of Forge Hub.... a map should take longer to test than to review). I was merely trying to illustrate that I wasn't just sitting at home, having a temper tantrum over a review score. I was trying to explain why I was so shocked at some of the criticisms, since they often went completely counter to the feedback I have recieved from large numbers of people who are deeply and intimately familiar with the map. "I think you handled this far more maturely than many other people would, but I also think that since your track has received what you would call "Praise," you've built quite an ego over it and are not as readily able to accept negative judgment." In no way did I mean to come off sounding egotistical. If the negative judgement is based on experiences that mirror the experiences a player would have when they drive through the map, then I am completely open to them. When those criticisms are not relavent to a real-world play experience (like complaining about bounderies that can only be seen from the sky.... in a RACE game), then I might question them being weighted as strongly as they are. If the review is based completely on a solo run around the track, with no large group testing (on a track designed for large groups of players), then I question the relevance of the entire review. Please correct me on this if I am wrong... I don't want to be making false assumptions. For the future, it might be helpful to post in the review the condisions under which the map was tested. That way a reader can see if the review is based on large-group playtests, solo playtests, or both, and thus understand the review better. As I said in my response to PacMaster, I don't feel a 6.7 gives a remotely accurate idea of how fun the track is to play. I am beggining to understand that is perhaps not the primary goal of a Forge Hub review, so I probably need to adjust my expectations. Thanks again for your time.
Ok, let's just work on the assertion that you think the score does not adequately reflect your map, (which by the way, every person who has gotten their map reviewed would probably feel the same way). You received perfect scores for both balance and durability so obviously that isn't where the problem is. Your biggest hits were with enjoyment, aesthetics, and originality. Originality will rarely get a high score for race maps, because honestly...its all been done...a lot. Besides this is not weighted. Aesthetics... its a race map. Sure you might have some "ooh...awwwh" moments but because of how much budget and forge pieces it takes to build a good race map this score will most often be adversely affected. Smoothness of the map is usually a given for race maps and if it isn't smooth your map will be crucified in more ways than just aesthetics. Again, aesthetics is a little weighted but if your map scored high in aesthetics it would be a good chance it would score a lot lower in other categories. You can't be overly aesthetic and have a good race map most of the time. Enjoyment...this is I think your largest criticism with the review and granted, enjoyment is completely subjective. It's hard to put a number to how you feel the map will play and be fun for other people. However, regardless of if tedium played it with 1 person or with many (and my guess is with many as it is a requirement of review hub to play the map with the specified gametypes and recommended # of players) his score was based on elements of your map that prior experience with racing maps have found to be not that fun. The parts he liked he praised you on. How all reviews work is we usually start your review assuming you did everything perfectly, everything is a 10/10. As we play your map and we subtract anything and everything that makes it not a perfect experience. So ending up with a 6 is entirely possible if he found 4 things that made it unfun. Lastly, the score is actually pretty good. Look at the other race maps that received reviews, (there are few), and your map is in the same range as theirs. Do you think your map is soooo much better than their maps?
Thanks for taking the time to respond again. What your saying makes a great deal of sense. I completely understand your points regarding the "originality" score. Your points regarding the Aesthetics score still confuses me a little bit. "because of how much budget and forge pieces it takes to build a good race map this score will most often be adversely affected....if your map scored high in aesthetics it would be a good chance it would score a lot lower in other categories." I don't want to get into a big debate over review policies, but it strikes me that if the "aesthetic" standards of a particular kind of map are directly effected by the requirements of building that kind of map, shouldn't it be judged accordingly? In other words, criticize the aesthetics of a race map against the aesthetics standards set by other race maps, not all forge maps in general? Based on your explanation, it is virtually impossible for a race map to score well in aesthetics without scoring low in other areas.... that sounds like a flaw in the review system to me. Also, as I stated before, I really have a problem with the reviewer being critical of visual elements of a race map that can only be seen from places the player will never actually be in a game. When designing a race map, I want it to look good to the driver, who is in a state of "tunnel-vision" through the entire game. If Tediums ***** thought the map was ugly from this perspective, that's completely fair, but one of the main criticism's he brought up referred to views no one will see during a race game. That is not useful or constructive criticism for me as a map builder, nor does it apply to people who are simply downloading racetracks to drive on. When I see a 4/10 aesthetic score, that tells me a map is butt-ugly Again, I might just not be used to your review standards. "Enjoyment...this is I think your largest criticism with the review and granted, enjoyment is completely subjective" Completely correct, on both accounts My main concern is whether or not the map was tested in a group, as many of the points made in the review simply do not sound remotely like the experiences I have witnessed with large group playtests. If it was tested in a group, then I will take the critiques as worthwhile input from an experienced reviewer who happened to have a completely different experience with the track than I have witnessed. And I do appreciate it. Lastly, not to sound like a complete ass, but when I have a group of over 25 testers... all of whom are experienced forgers with lots of time spent on community maps, who have each put in dozens of races on the track... all telling me that this map is one of the most fun racetracks they've ever played in Halo 3 or Reach, then yes, I guess I do think that it is at least substantially above average. I know, I know, it makes me sound like an arrogant prick. I try to stay objective about it. It just really surprises and disappoints me that the first person who wasn't crazy about the track happens to be the official Forge Hub reviewer... lol... I'll just have to get over it Thanks again for talking through this with me. I hope I haven't been to much of a pain in the butt for you. Just know that I would never respond negatively to criticism from a respected source such as Forge Hub unless I had MAJOR problems with some of the criticism, as I did in this case. You've been great about addressing my concerns, and I only hope seeing my name around the sight won't cause you to shudder in the future ;p CruelLEGACEY
You start perfect PAC? Every category starts at an even 5 with me and add or subtract as I see fit. Cruel, I can see your concerns with the fact that your map may have been tested improperly. We are supposed to review the map based on what the creator intended in the map. As such, the number of players you recommended should be what was played with. In all honesty, I can't guarantee Tedium played with those specs because we aren't asked to prove with bungie records that we actually even tested the maps anymore. Also, I in no way meant to sound condescending when I mentioned the people who you said would vouch for your track. This is something we deal with regularly. "oh well everybody who tested it said this map was hella lots better than you said!" This always strikes me as offensive because we are asked to do a critical review of someone's map and then when it gets some negative judgment they go off. Mind you, you have handled this far more respectfully and constructive than most, but when you reject the opinion of someone you asked to give you an opinion it feels like a low blow. When you bring other people's opinions of your map into the formula then it leads us to ask, "if you were so comfortable with those individual's opinions on your track then why did you come to us?" However, I am glad to see you no longer see that as a viable piece of your argument because that was quite honestly the largest problem I had with your argument and spearheaded everything else I said.
Thanks Organite, Ya, I cringed at my own response when I re-read it the next morning. Cooler heads, and everything I can only imagine how much crap you have to put up with from guys like me whining about review scores ;p Thanks again for your response... You and PAC have been great talking through this with me and addressing my concerns.
Oh hi. I didn't know all this discussion was going on I haven't read everything which you guys have talked about (though I've read maybe about three quarters of it) so I don't know if I'm repeating that which has already been said. Just to clear some things up, here are a few things. - I did not just fly around the map for a bit and run through it once on my own. I did two runs on my own, but also completed three games with a group of eight people. I feel like I did come to understand the map quite well, if not as well as those who tested it 20 or so times. - I've only just seen the conversation being said between the three of you, and I have to say I'm surprised that my review caused so much... controversy. I'm sorry, Cruel, if any of my comments caused you any stress or feelings of injustice though I also appreciate how you've come to realize how you affect everyone else with your reactions. - I wrote the review based on my over all impression of Coastline Racetrack. I wrote about it keeping in mind the amount of enjoyment I felt while playing both solo and with a group. It may have come across as if I wasn't speaking specifically about my experience in a multiplayer game, because I was trying to write from a perspective that showed how the map worked for solo and multiplayer. - As speculated, I was not suggesting that there should have been two EMP obstacles (and frankly, I thought that it was a great twist!) but nor did I say that there were no curve-balls later on. I enjoyed how the track's twists and angles became more accentuated up until the very end. From that, I thought that there were some pretty cool last-minute finishes! - As for that rock border, I thought that it did take away from the over-all aesthetics, but I didn't really factor it into the score for that section too much. There was some part of the track which ran above that area, but I don't think that the somewhat stark border really mattered in the grand scheme of things. I agree with you that it is a very trivial thing, and didn't really affect the map's look that much at all. I was mostly just pointing out how you could have gone "above and beyond" in that area, but instead opted to keep it adequate. Needless to say, I thought it to be worth mentioning. - Keep in mind that the 6/10 I gave for enjoyment is the total enjoyment of the map. This includes the gameplay in solo races as well as multiplayer ones. A good racing map, in my opinion, should be just as good with several people as it is with one. Individually, I'd probably say it was a 4/10 for solo races and an 8/10 for FFA as there was obviously a lot about that map which focused on making the FFA experience better. I realize now that it was in no way clear that I was trying to find a medium between describing gameplay for both situations. Sorry about that. - 6.7/10 is not a 67% grade (D+ or something like that) but more like a 126/200 (the 5/10 average equaling 100/200) -The thing which I thought was "not consistently present" was a point in the track which splits in two. I enjoyed how well the first one worked (after the trench-like rock wall area) that I was just a little sad that there wasn't more like it. I hope that's cleared a few things up, and again I sorry if I've caused you any upset. As the other RH guys have said, it is only my personal experience, and is really down to anyone to decide for themselves what they think of the map. It is good to keep in mind that every creator of a forged map is very biased. Just speaking from personal experience, I can have a certain view about my maps and can tend to shutdown any criticism by justifying the problems that they have pointed out. I'm glad that you have taken the time to express what you were feeling and talk about it, rather than just flame me because you don't like the scores. Much appreciated! Anyway, best wishes, and good luck in the future! -Tedium
Hey Tedium! Thanks for writing. There was a fair bit of discussion back and forth between Organite, PacMaster, and myself over the review. There were several things that I felt were unfair about the review at first, but thanks to Organite and PacMasters input, as well as your follow up just now, I feel much better about everything. Above all else, my main concern was that many of your criticisms gave me the impression that you were not basing the review on a group playtest, but purely on solo runs. The post you left just now does an excellent job of explaining your approach to the review, and how you determined your scores. Just some food for thought, but in the future it might be helpful for readers of your reviews if there is more clarification in the situational strengths and weaknesses of a map. In your recent response, you say that you thought Coastline was roughly an 8/10 for group play, but a 4/10 for solo play. That is very useful information for me as a map maker, and it would also be useful for readers just looking for a map to race on. Pretending that I was a reader who had no experience with the track before, your review might leave me with the overall impression that Coastline is simply a mediocre track, rather than a track that is great in some situations, and poor in others. I imagine such a distinction must be difficult to convey within a locked review structure, but it would help give far more information about the strengths and weaknesses of a map, rather than averaging out the scores, which just kinda 'normalizes' everything. Even if the scores themselves are averages between solo and group experiences, it would be nice to have that explained within the text itself. Just my 2 cents. Anyway, thanks again... both for your review and your response. It means a lot to me. Thanks! CruelLEGACEY
I totally agree with everything you said about clarifying the circumstances under which I am writing about. I'll be sure to keep that in mind in the future as this is as much a learning process for me as anything else. Anyway, thanks for the feedback and I'm glad I could help!