Originality - how much of the server is original (i feel using default tiles should be like -2, we have too many servers using it)
def. graal system -2, cliche quests -2, copied ideas -2 (ie: radio or wings from enigma :mad: :mad: ), copied graphics -2

Total: 10 pts

Creativity - quests are simply "find the princess" or "kill the baddies" -2, old q-menu -1, old item system -1, no new char art (heads, bodies etc) -2, has centralized town area (place where EVERYONE is always at) -2, no new weapons -2

Total: 10 pts

Levels - uses path gen -5, plain paths -2, no original house shapes -2, doesnt use ANY new tiles -1

Total: 10 pts

Scripting - starts at 10, but -1 for every bugged, or lagged script (can go negative)

Total: 10 pts

Overworld - overworld <20x20 levels -2, has <4 towns -2, no paths connecting towns -2, 50% or more empty space (even level gen'd empty) -2, level gen'd more than just tree grass and water -1, spaced out quests -1

Total: 10 pts

Professionalism - no website -25, no map -25 (an easy 50 pts cmon)

Grand Total: 100 pts

i like :O

My commentary is in bold red.

Overall I think your playerworld reviewing idea SUCKS EGGS. You've made way too many penalties for STUPID stuff like needing 400 outside levels, not using the default tiles, needing 4+ towns, etc. This review is not allowing for diversity in playerworlds. The more restrictions and penalties you place on stupid things, the more the playerworlds will end up being the same. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound arrogant, but my method would be 1000 times better than yours. The method I suggested is what is used in reviewing most video games. With playerworlds, each server can be an entirely different game, so you're just putting boundaries on things that shouldn't have boundaries.

The thing I don't understand is that you put emphasis on making sure the playerworlds wouldn't be normal (like using default tiles, inventory, etc) yet you force them into the same groups with all the other silly restrictions.

Koni said it best in response to Warcaptains. That is the worst review set up I've ever heard. Who cares what tile set they use as long as it looks good. If it was really that bad stefan would have a rule that all player worlds must make there own tile sets. I stopped reading after that because I figured a review setup that poorly wasnt worth reading x.x and after reading koni's responses and what he was responding too... i was right those ideas are terrible. I think the number one major thing in a review should be origonality. Not saying thats all it should be based on just one of the major crucial key factors of the server. :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warcaptain
Originality - how much of the server is original (i feel using default tiles should be like -2, we have too many servers using it)
def. graal system -2, cliche quests -2, copied ideas -2 (ie: radio or wings from enigma :mad: :mad: ), copied graphics -2{





you'r kidding me right??..

Copied ideas???
[sarcasim]
well I guess if we use the same stats system hearts and have swords on the server take away some points

and o yea take away points for using the tileset they give u?

[/sarcasim]

Yes, just base it on Originality, Design, Gameplay, Content, and Lastability. That covers all areas, and it's broad enough not to be restrictive.

If people send in crap that's not even worth the reviewers time, they shouldn't even go through the review and just auto-fail the person. Obviously if they make some totally generated playerworld with no new features, and a bunch of stolen npcs and graphics, they aren't going to pass.

Playerworld reviewing is just common sense and good judgement. I think it should just be up to the reviewers to decide if it's original enough, if it has enough content, if the gameplay is good, if the design is good, if people will play the playerworld for a long time, etc. That is why the PWA exists. If you just had penalties for all the things warcaptain listed, you wouldn't have reviewers, you'd have inspectors, that are just making sure the pw passes the requirements.

The only requirements I see fit to have are:

1. The playerworld and all it's content must be put in a zip (or ace or rar or whatever file) with a text file entitled README.
2. The README text file must contain information about the playerworld, such as how many levels there are, what kind of stuff players can do, what isn't working, what needs to be done online, new features, just basically all the stuff about the playerworld.
3. The starting level name, and any other instructions needed for the reviewer to start.
4. A website url to the playerworld website

Then whatever else the pwa decide they need to have or explain.

I mean any playerworld worth it's salt has some documentation on it. My playerworld has pages and pages of information about the new features, systems, storyline, towns, creatures, npcs, quests, fighting, everything. If a playerworld doesn't even have any of the ideas written down, maybe it shouldn't be submitted in the first place.

oh yes konidias you are right

let everyone use the default tileset, because that way every world looks the same, or like its an extension from classic

if people dont have a large overworld, its pointless

someone can turn in a world like 2x2 levels with awesome scripts, large town, and nice gui system.

they pass for that?
because it looks very unprofessional to have a small overworld
and if they WANT to do that fine, but they will lose points for it.

why not take off points for using tileset they give out
picso.png are the tiles used by GraalOnline for 3d worlds... but yet no one is allowed to use them.

i think thats a good idea, if EVERYONE uses the same tileset, it loses originality.

why wouldnt we want playerworlds to be entirely normal

we already have enough UN rip offs

we need more playerworlds like 2230, oasis, and some other worlds in the making i know of

not servers that are just the SAME ideas, replayed in a new fashion.

and if we dont raise the standards for pw's

the pw's that HAVE higher standards, will dominate when released, and the rest wont

we need to set the bar a bit higher

the bar wasnt even raised when 2k1 was released

i dont feel there are any playerworlds out now that reach 2k1's standards (scripting and idea wise)

and now with 2k2 out, its time to kick it up a notch
we need worlds that can compete with 2k2, or offer a good fight

we dont need more worlds like frolic, maloria or bravo that remake over and over because they just dont have the capability to do something professional.

want to say something about enigma?
well i was working a mideval stype remake for it.
and i was going to finish it before a friend of mine hooked up and decided to make it into a game.

still complaining?
well come check it out in late feb, early march and tell me what you think

so we should let every single server have the same things?

wheres the originality then.

if you make uhm let say a uhm lets say wing system like eg (which would lose poitns ne wayz) and you dont even use your own graphics for it...they shouldnt be penalized?

(in regards to q menu) as i said, the bar has to be raised.
if you dont even try to spiffy up your q menu, then you should be penalzied... thats got alot to do with new gameplay.

(in regards to char art) you dont think a playerworld should have to make a new head graphic? or shield graphic? or SOMETHIGN
this has to do not with wheather your world is good or not, but if you can manage it and add new things efficiently when its up
if you cant get artwork made YOU shouldnt have a world.

i simply meant, have one town with EVERYTHING in it
and the rest have like little things, or all player houses.

if you use NOTHIGN but pathegen, dont try to make it look nice
wheres the originality?
where in there did you TRY to make it look better


if you use straight paths all over the place, it looks retarded and unoriginal as if you oh wait whats that again? NO EFFORT!

So a server should have all useless npc's that offer no gameplay value? if you are incapable of scripting npcs well, you SHOULDNT have a world. you will get one up, not know what to do because its all overwhelming, and then itll end up on the bottom of the list with 1-2 on all the tiem (probably all staff)

if a pw level gens EVERYTHING, water, grass, trees, bushes, flower, rocks, it looks like CRAP that all should be placed manualy.

thats why its an easy 50 points
and!! it will put you down alot of points, if you dont have a site hou could get max 75% if you have neither you automaticly fail.

you can't please everyone, so why try.

People actually like the classic tile sets. Alot of players dont want a new tile set they want the one they have. Look at the top two servers. Which tile set do they use? It is a nice tile set regardless of how much its used. If its made nicely then it doesnt matter. If the current tile set was so bad and shouldnt be used because it would make people not want to play. UN would not be averaging a 100+ people at peak times nor would classic be avering about the same at peak times. The servers with new tile sets how many players do they average? Era comes close but its player base is dropping slowly and its only averaging about 70 players at peak times that I've seen. So your logic of the classic tile set being crap and should not be allowed is greatly flawed as in this is graal these are graal servers that is the graal tile set. People like the graal look and feel. Not every one wants a server with everything brand new and non-graal.

have you ever took the time to actually hunt around in this community for excellent graphic artists? If you did or are, you're wasting your time because if there are any, they are taken.

For the terrain maps, Stefan and Unixmad want thing to be different. For the most part I believe it is so that 2k2 has its presence among high quality playerworlds using terrain as well. Heck, they paid someone to do thier graphics so why should they freely allow others to use them on other playerworlds?

Its very hard to find anyone with talent enough to go beyond the typical playerworld standards in not just graphics. Yes, its a plus if they do, but you shouldn't expect every single new PW to contain different graphics all the time albiet it may discourage those who do not put enough time and effort into making a half-way decent PW :p It is still possible to have a high quality playerworld that is rather small. Actually, its probably much easier to do that than to spend tons of time on an huge map because at some point you're just going to say to hell with it and skip doing a good job on the rest of the levels just to be done with it.

As true as that may be, most people will be turned off by the default stuff if they have never seen or heard of Graal before. I don't see anything absolutely wrong with using default so long as its done well, but that's like asking for the clouds to rain money ;)

To me, a playerworld is a product and I'm going to do my best within the abilities I am capable of to reach a level of excellence that I think will draw in customers. I want to make my product stand out from the rest. I want to give consumers a reason to "buy" my product over a generic brand. If all I do is make my product look and feel like the rest sitting on the shelf, what makes you think the average consumer is going to choose what I offer over something else that is similar? I'm pretty sure this is the same idea that Konidias is following to a degree. My focus is to bring in players that have never heard about Graal or the fence sitters that are curious but are not willing to take a risk in fear that it may not work out. Obviously, I won't please everyone but that's life.

Dont worry Genesis, youve already got 3 tilesets you dont use.

what are u mad cuz u can't make 1?