SuperFeign just went through your map...it seems like you spent a lot of time on it and you want a good review but I think you expect too much. The sword is a little useless outside its own spawn. I do not think haruki jitsunin gives very good reviews and likes to read his own type too much (logic is flawed horribly in some instances) but I surely do not see this map as a 9/10 in any area. The interior of sword spawn could use cleaning up (ie. flip one bridge, flip them all) and maybe the upper catwalk should connect all the way 'round. It is too hard to get up high after falling/leaving 7/10
No, i read the part of his posts that was constructive criticism, but it so happens i disagree with it. Is that a crime? Must it be the case that the one who defends his own creation is only doing so because he is biased? Maybe i genuinely disagree with his points; 'you think about that? What i was "***"'ing about was that his main two criticisms were irrelevant and unjust. I am not hoping or asking him to raise the score; i am just telling him that he has no idea how to rate maps, in general, fairly, nor based on appropriate criteria.
i invented a map that looks nothing like this like 2 weeks ago. . . and called it sanctum. Pretty crazy we both made up the same name. Your map looks better than mine so you can have the name. Nice job, i'm DLing now
Alright fair enough. What I'll do, being someone who doesn't forge, is competitive, and loves sanctuary is go through the map myself and give you a brief review of it, based on how balanced and fun the map is. That sounds fair eh?
What? Because he doesn't rate your map a 9/10 he doesn't know how to rate maps now? That's pretty egotistical. You may disagree with his rating, and that's fine, but don't go saying he doesn't know how to rate maps just because he didn't score yours as highly as you would want. And his criteria for rating maps is perfectly fine. It's the same as anyone else on the Furious Review team. Yours however, needs work. Your criteria: 1. You cannot jump out of. This falls under the durability category. 2. Is near perfectly polished. And i mean better than 99.9999% of other maps. Polish? Do you mean aesthetics? Or how smooth the floors/ramps are? Or the spawns and weapon placements? All these things are covered by our reviewers. Also, 99.9999%? Another egotistical statement. 3. Is near perfectly symmetrical. Symmetricality is not something that should be judged, except to take small points away from originality. You're map can still score well, but if it's a symmetrical remake, then you have no chance of scoring high on originality. 4. Is extremely smooth to walk around. This falls under the durability and aesthetics categories. 5. Plays similarly to an old classic. Again, shouldn't be rated except to take points away from originality.
The guy really doesn't know how to rate some maps. This map is better in certain areas than he gives it credit for. Super does expect too much out of the map though.
Before I begin, I'd note that I was only trying to be constructive to this site. I tried to remain civil and make my points in a calm manner. That said, you're apparently the type to get worked up over the slightest thing. It's unfortunate. Now I have to be an asshole. Tediously I accept this statement.. You've used some serious qualifiers so this isn't that bold of a statement. You've said that just because you talk on a forum about something doesn't make you an authority. Seems reasonable. WHOA. What the heck? Where did I say that? I said people who are MLG veterans - that means they've played under MLG standards, played with seasoned, competitive players and attended MLG tournaments. That does NOT mean that they "post on the MLG website." I have a feeling this little jump may make up the entire basis of your post... seems likely considering you just donated a paragraph showing that people who post on forums aren't authorities. Here we go - wheeee. "Been around" means I've been playing MLG games with MLG people while watching and attending MLG tournaments. Furthermore - wait, hold on, you didn't even make the argument that you set up. You misconstrued this post even more! I never claimed to be an authority on map design. The statement that I'd been around for a while was meant to demonstrate that I had seen any and all MLG gametypes throughout the years. I was here to tell you that MLG gametypes had time and again included the high ground of which we spoke. But wait, there's still more! You completely misunderstood the whole point I was making that I was using my experience to verify. High ground is high advantage is the exact OPPOSITE of the point you've been arguing. I'm saying high ground is, by DEFINITION, a high advantage. That means you DON'T HAVE to put anything else up there to make it that much better - it's already powerful. Here you're right, finally. I was under the impression that all people "allowed" to give a furious review were guilders. Obviously this is not the case, so you're not connected to the site in the way I thought. That said, you still haven't displayed any authority, only refuted a lack of it. Are you an active MLG player, gametype tester, or tournament attendee? If you are, then I've made a terrible mistake and you absolutely have an applicable and useful opinion about the competitive viability of a map. Clearly, the possibility that you're an active MLG player, tournament attendee, etc. is rapidly falling. So I guess it would be a good time to alert you that you've NO idea what MLG balance strives for. Obviously MLG has different balance standards, the fact that you would say that as if I didn't understand seems kind of silly. That's what I've been trying to get in to your head this whole time. The entire point here, in case you missed it in my last post (which you didn't address, conveniently) is that IF this map was created for MLG standards, it would be nice to have more qualified people judging its balance. It would be helpful for fellow MLG players. Now, I personally think it's likely that this map was created with that intent. That's why I chose this thread to express my concern. I could have put that first post in any thread with a map intended for MLG. Now, granted, Feign never explicitly said it was for MLG competition which I suppose creates some fuzziness. As I said in my second post, I suppose there are two tiers of "competitive" on this forum and that a map in the competitive section, even if it looks like it, may not be designed for MLG. Conclusion: maybe this was the wrong thread. Maybe this map is just another "casual competitive" that doesn't want to work with MLG gametypes or standards at all. In that case, review away, I respect your authority. But if it was made for MLG, somebody more accredited in that style of play might give an opinion more relevant to MLG players. This isn't an argument, it's a suggestion. I'm not "arguing based on authority instead of logic." That makes no sense, and even if it did, you presented no logical reason as to why MLG players wouldn't make better judges. There's not even a train of thought here to follow and disprove, you just sort of said some buzz phrases and then concluded I was wrong. "Case in point, Just because you think the MLG knows how to balance maps for a gametype they designed means nothing." was a complete non sequitur. For someone who is so obsessed with their own logic, you failed pretty miserably to create a logical progression here. Did you read the paragraph you wrote here? Your response makes next to no sense. Me: Here's three guidelines of balanced map design. Power-ups, Small loops, Big loops. You: Those guidelines suck. What about weapons and spawns? Me: Weapons are within power-ups. Spawns are pretty self-explanatory, I don't consider them a major tenet of map design. So...how do those guidelines at all suck? You: Listen, we're not talking about Sanctum here. I'm trying to show your guidelines suck. To which I'll now respond: I know, I never made any reference to Sanctum. I'm still wondering why my three points are "pretty lacking." So far, your argument is that it doesn't include spawns. I'm not seeing it. This must be some strange new usage of the word logic I was previously unaware of. What I read was a complete load that didn't make logical or fair progressions, didn't address other posts I'd made, and literally based a freaking essay off of an incorrect definition. Just to clarify so that doesn't ever happen again: MLG Vet =/= MLG Forumgoer For somebody who hates to sound like an ass, you sure don't go out of your way to avoid it.
No i have said multiple times that i do not care about his non-sensical ratings. Even if i were given a 9/10 by him, i would not care since the basis for his ratings is completely and utterly flawed. Although, i suppose it must be nice for him to know that he is not the only one wasting his time making pointless and idiotic ratings on this forum. Apparently there is a whole bunch of you guys who have no idea how to rate maps and yet attempt to assert authoriity by doing so poorly. Cute. The reason i know that he does not know how to rate maps has been explained explicitly and is nothing to do with whether or not i think this particular rating is high or not. Please read the following; apparently you have not done so yet: This is a severly flawed system for rating maps. The "Furious Review" bunch should be considered as much of a joke by everyone else as it is considered by me. You do not rate maps fairly as they should be rated. Therefore you should not be taken seriously should you bother to rate a map/write a review. I have already explained why this is the case above.
Wow I take great offense to this statement. And I think everyone on the Furious Review Team does too. SuperFeiGn you are coming across as an asshole to me. Earlier I thought that you were just trying to defend your map, but now you are just being disrespectable and rude. We have agreed on your score and given sufficient reasons. We take time out of our lives to play your map and to review, but all we get is a slap across the face because you feel like your map is the end all be all map. SuperFeiGn I have lost all respect for you.
"You're map can still score well, but if it's a symmetrical remake, then you have no chance of scoring high on originality." Are you listening Bungie? If you remake Warlock for H3 you will not score well. Also, remakes of Zanzibar and possibly Lockout (please) will fail since remakes CAN NOT be original.
You should take offense. It was the purpose of that remark to be insulting so that perhaps you would take on board what i am trying to tell you guys. It was not the purpose of the remark to be appreciative or friendly and so you should not be so surprised. Hey! This reminds me of the problem with your rating system... Personally, i don't think you are being an ass, but what do you think about your mini cohort? Were they unnecessarily rude or not? Most certainly. A bunch like those two should not ever hold any merit within the community because they are unnecessarily rude and assert authority poorly where it is not needed in order to draw attention to themselves. I could not care less if i have lost the respect of these sorts of people - i am glad they see what i think of them. I do not think my map is "the end all and be all". You are putting words into my mouth. It is this kind of childish behaviour that creates a bad image for the Furious Buddies. Finally, if you and your merry men cannot see why the system you use to rate maps is flawed then there is no hope for you. It is so darn obvious that it beggars belief that none of you have accepted the fact that you judge maps unfairly. You are rating maps based on criteria which they do not fit into. This is unfair. I can just imagine you all growing up and becoming the Furious Film Critics and giving bad reviews to comedy movies because they are not packed with enough action.
Firstly, stepping away from this flame war we have started with our reviews, that last comment made me laugh. Ok now back into the fire. I understand that you are upset with us but really people will form their own opinions about this map, I doubt anyone has actually read any of my reviews so far. Ok they might have taken a glance but thats about it. We are only writing reviews for fun, we are not trying to single people out. If you do not like how the reviews are laid out, then talk to Furious, have this discussion with him, (not trying to throw Furious under the bus here).
I'm a completely unbiased person saying this "Any feedback is welcome. I don't care if you tell me you hate it, i'd rather just know what people think. Constructive criticism will always be read and greatly appreciated." -SuperFeiGn So you asked for criticism or reviews. This "Furious Review" team gave you one. Their review is just as good as anyone's; they hold no large amount of power over maps or anything. After all, it's an opinion. If you don't like their opinion, whose making you care about it? They hold no power over you. They aren't forcing you to agree with their review. And honestly, and smart player would know opinions are just that-opinions. Therefore, I'm not a big fan of map reviews; I firmly believe my opinion is the only thing that should influence my decisions. So, they gave you a 6/10. Big deal. Some people love your map. Some people think a cow turd would look better. That's life; not everyone will love you, some people will worship you. So let go over it because one thing is for sure; this flame war is not going to end up good for either side.
Here's where the problem started. Basically a 6/10 means its good, which I think you looked at it in a more standard reviewing sense which means bad. Most maps they review get scores around there. If you want to see a near perfect map, look at different level by sendernode. That is what I call perfection. honestly I think you looked more at the numerical score rather than what people actually said about it which for the most part was positive.
HAH. Not to perpetuate this thread, but I just realized a rather amazing coincidence. I just randomly picked Haruki's post as one that was rating an MLG map without an intimate knowledge of what makes MLG maps good (this might have been a poor choice because looking back, Sanctum wasn't advertised as an MLG map so he was perfectly qualified to pass judgement). It's ironic though, because a week or two ago when I posted my map Narcosis on Bungie, guess who comes in telling me it won't be competitive before he's played the map? You guessed it, Haruki. So in fact he has tried to act as an authority on MLG sans MLG experience. Which is doubly funny considering the map he was talking about was later praised as an "A+, must download" by Killa KC (who makes all the maps for MLG settings). Another user even told him so in a later post. Anyways, this is a battle for another thread because this no longer has anything to do with sanctum. Sorry for saying you guys shouldn't have rated this, I just sort of assumed it was for MLG gametypes. But do be careful in the future, because as this post shows, it has happened in the past.
Hypothetically, if someone would want to complain, I wonder where the appropriate place would be. You know, if you had a group of guys trolling around claiming to know what they were doing, backing each others' play, and wielding influence over unsuspecting potential downloaders; how could someone combat that? Because judging from this map, Haruki has little idea what he is doing.
Why not discuss it with the people making the reviews? Don't pass liability like that. Who invites these guys to review maps anyway? ...and its disrespectful...not disrespectable...spelling should be a requirement here