If possible, the 'players vs jcsers opinions' should be resolved with this.

Originally Posted by FawFul

This can work yes, if people will actually rate the sub-aspects too.

If they don't, the votes of those who did vote on that aspect will weigh heavier, so that's not really a problem. It might even be better to only vote on the aspects that you have a solid grasp of

I wrote 6 brief paragraphs of advice and realized I was recommending the creation of J2O's download section. I may not understand what is meant by JCS "ladder." I will say that I sense that level design is principally uncompetitive.
I did save the notes - but I think that what I had in mind is just something less efficient than sorting by rating.
One more thing: a well-executed system is very beneficial to both level designers and game players.

I'm sorry, but I can never agree with people who say eyecandy and theme is more important than it really is in terms of weighting. Yes, the level has to look normal and understandable, and not look clustered and disgusting to the eye, but really? People don't care if a level looks good, they just want it to look playable. See semi and bblair for examples. Yes, I try myself for eyecandy, but that's only just to satisfy myself, I really never expect it to get me a higher rating. Gameplay is (as Grytolle and Derby say(s)), 8x more important than eyecandy, and originality isn't even worth a section, yes, it can score you extra points but generally, I'd refer to how Derby reviews levels to get an accurate depiction of how I think reviews/ratings should be weighted.

If you're too lazy, it's "Functional Appearance" at 10%, "Visual Appearance" at 10%, then "Gameplay" at 80%. If you're confused as to the difference between functional appearance, this involves how easy it is to understand the level as such from looking at it. Visual appearance, goes more under eyecandy, theme and tilebugs. Gameplay is self-explanatory.

However, a judge must really be taking all of these things into account. So how about we actually nominate who we deem to be able to do such judging then? Since this discussion isn't gonna go anywhere unless we take action.

Who do I suggest? I'll get back to you...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ragnarok again.

Well curse you, vBulletin, because that post is beautiful.

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I'm sorry, but I can never agree with people who say eyecandy and theme is more important than it really is in terms of weighting. Yes, the level has to look normal and understandable, and not look clustered and disgusting to the eye, but really? People don't care if a level looks good, they just want it to look playable. See semi and bblair for examples. Yes, I try myself for eyecandy, but that's only just to satisfy myself, I really never expect it to get me a higher rating. Gameplay is (as Grytolle and Derby say(s)), 8x more important than eyecandy, and originality isn't even worth a section, yes, it can score you extra points but generally, I'd refer to how Derby reviews levels to get an accurate depiction of how I think reviews/ratings should be weighted.

If you're too lazy, it's "Functional Appearance" at 10%, "Visual Appearance" at 10%, then "Gameplay" at 80%. If you're confused as to the difference between functional appearance, this involves how easy it is to understand the level as such from looking at it. Visual appearance, goes more under eyecandy, theme and tilebugs. Gameplay is self-explanatory.

Well, that's the thing, nobody will agree entirely about all of this. As far as 'people don't care if a level looks good' goes, I'd stop you there. For you personally, it might be more about gameplay, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who are the same, and there's obviously nothing wrong with that. I, though, like seeing uploads with originality and nice eyecandy over levels with the majority of focus on gameplay with eyecandy and originality taking a back seat. I'm quite possibly in the minority here, but I think my point stands.
Gameplay is the most important aspect, I agree wholeheartedly, but only 10% for things like visual appearance is a bit low. I'd rather see a level with fancy eyecandy and an original concept than a level with barely any attention paid to visual/audible aspects. Nobody likes having tilebugs and clashing music.

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

However, a judge must really be taking all of these things into account. So how about we actually nominate who we deem to be able to do such judging then? Since this discussion isn't gonna go anywhere unless we take action.

Who do I suggest? I'll get back to you...

Well, I don't know who to suggest. We'd have to have a blend of levelmakers and non-levelmakers, obviously, but I don't have anyone in particular in mind yet. I'll think about it.

Imho it's better not to break level-scoring into categories. Experienced level critics should not have trouble determining the importance of eyecandy/gameplay/etc. on a case-by-case basis to make an overall judgement. These aspects are intertwined anyway. Allowing some reviews to favor different elements would cause the preferences of everyone involved to be equally represented.

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

I'm sorry, but I can never agree with people who say eyecandy and theme is more important than it really is

Well, this is more or less necessarily true.

People don't care if a level looks good, they just want it to look playable.

But wait, didn't you just take the existence of people who do care as the motivation for, well, the entire post?

Don't get me wrong, they notice if it looks good, but they don't genuinely do anything about it. It won't make the level more played will it?

I'm just justifying the small percentile. ;P

Originally Posted by Obi1mcd

Well, that's the thing, nobody will agree entirely about all of this. As far as 'people don't care if a level looks good' goes, I'd stop you there. For you personally, it might be more about gameplay, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who are the same, and there's obviously nothing wrong with that. I, though, like seeing uploads with originality and nice eyecandy over levels with the majority of focus on gameplay with eyecandy and originality taking a back seat. I'm quite possibly in the minority here, but I think my point stands.
Gameplay is the most important aspect, I agree wholeheartedly, but only 10% for things like visual appearance is a bit low. I'd rather see a level with fancy eyecandy and an original concept than a level with barely any attention paid to visual/audible aspects. Nobody likes having tilebugs and clashing music.

Really don't understand why on earth you think a level with nice eyecandy would be better than a level with better gameplay. I never said a level with good gameplay has to completely ignore eyecandy and ignore basic principles like avoiding tilebugs and having stupid music files. It feels like you're almost twisting what I said. Also just to reiiterate, levels aren't better because they have bad eyecandy, I'm just saying sometimes you have to sacrifice the attention to detail for flow/small anti-camp measures/etc... While obviously a better level would account for both.

That last sentence of yours pretty much sums up what I meant to say. Sorry if I wasn't all that clear.

I've been thinking about the one level per two months criteria. As Rag explained to me, it's there to make competition more fair, because if a better group submits 2 levels over the weaker group's 1 level, there's no contest.

But if a group is actually capable of releasing quality levels fast, then all the power to them, I guess?

Originally Posted by Ragnarok

Don't get me wrong, they notice if it looks good, but they don't genuinely do anything about it. It won't make the level more played will it?

I'm just justifying the small percentile. ;P

Actually, it does somewhat. Whilst I fully agree that gameplay is much more important in multiplayer than eyecandy, I've noticed that levels with memorable appearances recieve more initial attention than generic looking levels.

The initial attraction to a level is generally determined by how well the level looks at a glance. It's very difficult to determine how well a level plays simply by wandering around in for about 30 seconds. This is where the role of eyecandy comes in - it draws people in, making them curious enough to give the level a try, in order to determine the quality of the gameplay. If the level isn't fun to play in, then it's left in the dust.

Put it this way - you could make a level using Mez01 which has the best gameplay ever, but layer 8 was simply a black tile and there was literally no eyecandy of any sort to speak of. It's unlikely anyone would play that level because it just doesn't catch their eye, and they're likely to dismiss it as being bad anyway.

The way I see it, eyecandy's role is kind of the same as product packaging. It needs to be eye catching in order to grab your attention, which motivates you to play the level. Eyecandy alone won't keep your attention; that's where gameplay comes in. You may use examples like Semi/BBlair as levels that became popular yet have poor eyecandy, but remember that they're old and the standard of eyecandy found in those levels was actually considered good by 1998-2000 standards. Hell, levels don't even need to have a lot of eyecandy - a simple look usually suffices. It just needs to be an appealing look.

1 level/2 months sounds a bit hard. How about 1 level per month?

Wasn't that the most counter-productive solution?

Eye-candy and game-play both should make a level something to enjoy, therefore I see them as equal. Perhaps an edge to game-play, since a level is mainly meant to be interactive, exploitable and fulfilling of its purpose.

Right, again this discussion is going nowhere.

I assume these people will probably not be willing, but here's who I think should judge:

GRYTOLLE (yes I said it - believe it or not, he knows quite a bit about levels)
VIOLET (although I assume Violet would rather not (FROM BEING IN CLM!!!), I just think his opinion is probably very very valid being a JCSer himself)

And seriously my list stops there. , But if we can't really find anyone, I'd put myself forward. I can see you may not agree with my views and it will probably put you off even considering me, however I kinda know what I'm talking about too, unless you all think its a load of bogus... I do wanna compete, but if it means this thing going ahead then I'll happily step up to do it.

Shall we make a rules page and get this set up to start in say, January?

Another possibility would be that this would be a competition for single levelmakers instead of multiple. Just pitching an idea...

JCSC! xd

I'm willing, but imo you could include level makers from the groups among the judges, as long as its balanced (because I understand if its hard to find enough non-level makers).

JJB comes to mind, being the tactical genious of t3

I've heard rumours that Treylina is an intelligent player

Vegito has the same kind of experience as me, but is less outspoken in his opinions (on the other hand he actually knows how to use JCS)

I've got half a mind to suggest Slayer, because he seems to have a genuine interest in new levels and his taste isn't half as bad as his... personality.

I'm sure more players could be found with some advertising...


(Obviously I don't know if any of those players are active in a level making group... )

Originally Posted by Obi1mcd

That last sentence of yours pretty much sums up what I meant to say. Sorry if I wasn't all that clear.

My mistake btw, I sometimes come across as if I'm not listening, I appreciate your point of view too, I just wanna get mine across. =P

Originally Posted by Grytolle

JCSC! xd

I'm willing, but imo you could include level makers from the groups among the judges, as long as its balanced (because I understand if its hard to find enough non-level makers).

JJB comes to mind, being the tactical genious of t3

I've heard rumours that Treylina is an intelligent player

Vegito has the same kind of experience as me, but is less outspoken in his opinions (on the other hand he actually knows how to use JCS)

I've got half a mind to suggest Slayer, because he seems to have a genuine interest in new levels and his taste isn't half as bad as his... personality.

I'm sure more players could be found with some advertising...


(Obviously I don't know if any of those players are active in a level making group... )

Does anyone think they're suited to do the job then? I've spoken to some and they've expressed interest. Speak up if you want to, and include why you're suitable, else I think this is gonna turn into a group voting (possibly includng people from levelgroups too) rather than a small panel of judges. Not that it's a bad thing, I suppose, a group of different opinions is probably a better way to voice which levels are better anyway, and with the right focus, we could get the balance between EC and gameplay etc. down.

Is this going to happen?

where doing this man

where making this hapen

I think the more opinions the better. Oh, and please have no one making excuses like "it lacks something" when judging levels (assuming we go with a panel of judges or something similar); the judging process should be as concrete as possible.