My rating system for Weekly Shorts maps in Trackmania
I build a lot of maps and submit them to Weekly Shorts, an official mode in Trackmania. I also review a lot of others' maps. I've been struggling to figure out how to rate maps consistently and (somewhat) fairly.
Here is (roughly) my current rating system. (There are always edge cases between two ratings, and when there is an edge case it is just up to my gut):
- ++: Maps that I really love. Unique and interesting routes. Good quality of life features (flag poles indicating where your tires would clip, good respawns, good speed management, good arrow placement). Good scenery. Maps can get 5* if I just really love the route, even with other criteria not being met.
- +: A map that probably deserves to be in Weekly Shorts, but just isn't my cup of tea. Good route, good scenery, good quality of life. Route kind of interesting, but maybe not my cup of tea, or maybe just not unique enough. or May contain minor QoL issues, like some bits being a little too hard / not enough space for difficult sections, or needing a couple more arrows. Some not-my-cup-of-tea maps can get bumped to 5* for being extremely high quality.
- ±: Doesn't quite deserve a 2* and doesn't quite deserve a 4*. ("deserve" is a loaded word and I recognize this rating system is very subjective)
- -: Really basic maps that are of reasonable quality. Maps I would never want to see in Weekly Shorts, but that I recognize took some effort. They have scenery, the route works, quality of life features are present, but it's just a boringggg map. or 1* maps can be upgraded to 2* by having genuinely interesting or fun routes.
- --: Low-effort maps with almost no scenery, routes that don't work, broken features, lacking quality of life features (such as needing (but not having) flag-posts to indicate where a ledge clip is), and that aren't fun.
I also sometimes give 4* or 5* to objectively bad maps that I really enjoy, taking into consideration that most reviewers will rate them poorly, so my vote is kind of coming from a "personal enjoyment" place rather than "this is a good map".
An additional consideration is relative ratings. If I just played a tech map that is a 5* that I truly love, then another tech map comes through that I really like ... it's not going to get a 5* because I'm like "I definitely pick that other map over this one".
These relative ratings pain me sometimes, but the whole point is to help Nadeo decide which maps to put in the official Weekly Shorts mode, so I feel it's important to use my discretion.
(Earlier ramblings before I devised the rating system)
I build and submit a lot of maps to Trackmania's Weekly Shorts format. I also rate a lot of others' maps.
Weekly Shorts is a newer format, but Track of the Day has been around since I started playing. I rated maps a bit more objectively for TOTD, on a scale from 1-5 based on how good the individual map is.
But I find myself rating Weekly Shorts maps relative to other Weekly Shorts maps, and I think I'm going to go more in that direction.
(Edit: At this point, I'd probably down-rate some TOTD submissions for being boring or too normal or whatever. I'm sick of boring normal maps, we need more variety, more interesting tracks. I skip COTD somewhat regularly because good maps are too boring or standard for my taste. I can't ++ those maps any more)
It's tough. There are some really high quality maps that ... just aren't as good as other maps I played. And my judgements are becoming more subjective, more about my preferences as time goes on.
For quite some time, I refuse to give 5* to a map that I don't personally love, but it was easy to get a 4* from me. As long as the map has good scenery, a well-made (not janky) route, and working checkpoints, it could pretty much get a 4*.
Now I find myself giving 3* and occasionally 2* to maps that I think are actually pretty good maps.
And a big part of that is how boring some maps are. I don't think they're bad, but I find them dull.
Other reviewers are also influencing me on this. I make some really interesting, unique maps, and they get down-voted a lot. It's not because the routes are poorly designed, or because of the scenery, or any real quality issues, as far as I can tell. It's because of style-preferences of map reviewers.
There seem to be large numbers of players who prefer ... basic maps. And these are the reviewers that I think I primarily contend with.
So, I want to give 1* to basic maps. I hate seeing basic maps in Weekly Shorts. They're boring to play, not fun to hunt, and they make bad YouTube content too (I watch 3 different YouTubers play Weekly Shorts).
But here's a problem. I don't have the heart to give a map 1* or 2* most of the time. I can typically recognize the effort that went into a map, and 1* (and sorta 2*) is kinda reserved for maps that are bad because they're low effort, not maps that are bad because I don't like the style/design they chose.