Another thing that bothers me is the issue of rating levels based on their size and/or complexity. Levels of all sizes can be fun depending on the amount of players or the game-type. While size and complexity don't mean everything, they are very considerable: For example, sanguis may be considered to have the best eye-candy of dark reign, because of the complexity of the tile-set use.

I've always designed multiplayer levels mainly for duels to 3vs3s (perhaps larger, since ms and je have been used in jdc events). Duels and 2vs2s are played more often, so the levels are more likely to be played.

I've often considered large levels that use original concepts with decent eye-candy to be great; For example, I rated Rag's "Err.. More CTF Levels?" 9.0, because of the original concepts, tactics, and size of the levels. While perhaps not suitable to smaller games like duels, I thought the sheer size of the levels was enough of a justification for the rating. When Rag uploaded Starlit Summit, I thought it had good gameplay and nice ec, but it didn't have outstandingly original concepts, or a certain 'wow' factor I was looking for.

Another thing I take into consideration is rating game-types, like sp vs mp. I always considered mp levels to be worthy of high ratings if designed well, simply for the fact they are designed for you to play other people in them.