What does this thing mean?

I have written hundreds of reviews for user-created maps for the Heroes of Might and Magic games, and I have had a few questions on what the review actually says. Therefore, I describe here what one of my reviews includes. Feel free to use this as a template if you wish to write your own.
If you just want to see what maps I (dis)liked, click here.

All reviewed maps for heroes 3 are available at Maphaven. Heroes 5 maps are available at Celestial Heavens.

The main sections

1. General information

o description:this tells you the size and difficulty setting of the map. On the second line will always be the map's requirements (What version and expansion of the game is needed). The following lines list the win and loss conditions. Standard means that you can win by eliminating all opponents, and lose only be being wiped out. Since Heroes 5 doesn’t have a difficulty setting in the editor, this will be left out of the description.

o # of players:this tells you how many players are needed for the map. The following abbreviations are used here:

§ H:This signifies that a Human must play the character.

§ C:This signifies that the Computer must play that position.

§ HC:This signifies that this player can be controlled by either a human or the computer.

Example: "1 H Warlock, 2 HC Random, 1 C Multiple" means that a human must play the warlock character, up to two more humans can play random heroes (or the computer will take the unused slots), and the computer must play the multiple hero types role. For HoMM3, a typical listing would be 1H Dungeon (Alamar), 1HC Rampart (Random), 1C Inferno (Ignatious), 1C Tower (Iona), since the towns define the classes, rather than the other way around. In parenthesis will go the starting hero.
After the listing, in a map that allows multiple human positions, lists the number of human positions that were played as human, and which ones. After that is the description of what castles were assigned in Random positions (I always leave a random position as random when I start a map). In Heroes 3 any random heroes are also listed here. Note that since Armageddon's Blade features can appear in a Restoration of Erathia map, the town type "Conflux" may appear, even if the map does not require the expansion pak. Starting with review 258, I no longer list the heroes, but if I feel the specific starting hero had a major impact, it will be mentioned in the comments section.

Analysis:

Comments:This section is where personal impressions of the map and most of the insight into what makes the map good or bad. Anything that describes major flaws in the map that are not due to personal preference can be referred to here, but are usually described in more detail in "bugs and problems" Comments here should relate impressions while actually playing the map, and any documentation provided with the map.
Some Tips:General strategy notes for the map. It is hard to draw the line between a tip, and a spoiler for the map. Spoilers should not be placed in the review, although I allow more leniency in the section "the editor says"
Cooperative Notes:This section is for special tips for playing a cooperative map with a human ally. I try not to spoil anything here either, but sometimes that is unavoidable. In Heroes 3, with the more "true ally" alliances, this section may appear more often, though often the comments section will cover this as well, as the AI is a fairly competant ally, so far.

Technical Notes and Stats

Bugs and Problems:This is where problems in map design should be addressed. This includes such things as:

Map locations that cannot be visited, or can only be visited by use of a spell or artifact that may not be available. This is most often seen in tightly packed maps, where the designer may not have realized that something was blocked off. This will be rated more severely in Heroes 3, as the editor now has a function to view passable areas!
Situations that prevent the completion of the map. This can be because you cannot get to an enemy castle, or the possibility that you could be stuck without a ship or means to get one on a map that uses a lot of water. Note that since not all castles can build shipyards in Heroes 3, this last bit is more critical than before.
Blank signs, events that have no description, and sphinxes without riddles. These most often occur when the map designer is interrupted while making the map, and so forgets to return to a site and finish it. Obviously there are no blank sphinxes in heroes 3 (the sphinx is gone), but there plenty of other ways to implement events.

Score:Fairly self explanatory. Usually the score and game setting attained on the first play, although rarely other comments go here as well, usually comments on how the score could be improved easily. (such as: "If you ignore the Ultimate Artifact, that map should be completed in a couple weeks less time") Apparantly, the score in Heroes 3 is not based solely on completion time! This score may now have more meaning. In heroes 2 maps, I always play at "normal" difficulty. In heroes 3 maps, I will almost always play at "Hard", since the AI plays at full skill at this setting. If there is an event draining resources on day 1, however, I may increase the setting.

The rundown

Pros:The highlights of the map. Anything that stood out as a positive aspect of the map goes here.
Cons:The lowlights of the map. Things that stand out as a remarkably poor aspect of the map, including a reiteration of major bugs.
The Editor Says:Further comments on the map that really needed the editor to see. This includes player-specific events, riddles that you couldn't get to (not just ones you couldn't answer), starting forces, and placed events that may have been removed by the time you got there in the game. Also, to determine if a resource, artifact, or monster stack is random or deliberately placed. I usually check whenever I see an Ultimate Artifact just lying around without a related event.
Scripting: For versions that allow scripting (Heroes 3 In the Wake of Gods, and Heroes 5), if there are scripts used, comments specific to scriptwriting go here.
The Bottom Line:This section has caused some confusion in the past, and so I will describe in a bit more detail how I give the ratings. Note that these are not carved in stone (not even liths!), but rather guidelines.

1. Challenge (up to review 169):This is NOT a difficulty rating of the map! This is a rating of how appropriate the map maker's rating was to the actual level of difficulty in completing the map. Since on Large or Huge maps it often becomes simple after a certain point (what I call the "cleanup" phase of finding the last hidden castles and heroes), if this point doesn't come too early I do not penalize for it.
Description (reviews 170 through 263):This expands on the challenge rating, by also considering if the map size is apropriate for the map (previously this was included in the design rating). Maps that are too sparse or too cluttered will cause a drop in this rating. Also, many large and huge often have large, featureless expanses of water, which indicates that the map was not supposed to be so big, but just "turned out" that way. All ratings can be dropped up to one full star due to inappropriate map size.
For HoMM3: Very similar to Heroes 2 ratings, but Using very little of the underground will not necessarily be bad, and using it for small dungeons or passages may actually be an improvement in other sections (depending on the map theme).

If a map gets five stars it means that the map was given the exactly correct rating. Also, it was the proper size for the material placed in it (after #170).
If the map was either a little too easy or a little too hard, but maybe not enough to warrant changing the rating, it gets four stars.
If the rating is off by a full rating- for example an average map would have been easy, or a tough one should have been expert- it gets three stars.
Maps which are off by more than one step get two stars.
One star is reserved for maps that have too much "ramping" in them. This is a map which is either very easy or incredibly hard up to a point, and then flips to the opposite extreme without any sort of warning or preparation. For example, if you have a castle and all the building materials close at hand, and all the monster stacks are pathetic (so you can't build up any power) until you get to the enemy who has a swarm of black dragons, then this rates a severely mislabeled map at easy and average levels, and depending on how quickly the enemy's force can grow, it may be severely off at tough level, or be a broken map. In the last case it results in a drop in the design rating as well.
With the expansion of this rating at map #170, it is now possible to receive 0 stars, which occurs if the one-star condition is met, AND the map is the wrong size.
The challenge rating for multiple-player maps is slightly different. Often, the only real challenge in a map with more than one human position comes from having good or bad players as opponents, and often the computer is just not up to snuff. This is especially true if the map encourages unorthodox play styles to win. In these cases, challenge reflects the influence of computer-only players, and if there are no such positions, then it reflects the difficulty in playing the map, up to the point when either (a) the human players meet or (b) it becomes reasonable that one player could complete the special victory condition. In some cases, this category will be dropped entirely.

Reviews 264 and on: I now give a more careful breakdown of the description rating. This rating now has two main scores: Utilization, which is a 0-10 rating stating how well the map used the space for the size map that it was. Higher ratings go to maps that look like they are not cramped and not too sparce. Rating is another 0-10 point scale, indicating whether or not I thought the difficulty rating was correct. In multiplayer maps, this looks at the difficulty up to the point when human positions are likely to meet. The total score from these two is scaled back into the five-star rating scale that I still use for overall description.

Heroes 5: With no difficulty rating attached to the maps, there will be no rating category for those maps. This will cause the numerical rating for this category to be worth relatively less than in previous versions.

2. Entertainment (up to review 263): This describes how much fun the map was to play, regardless of the difficulty. Even the worst maps on challenge and design can get a good entertainment rating. Once again, it is much harder to get a good entertainment rating on huge maps. This is because monotony,lack of events, and large amounts of "wasted" space are much more common in these. If you want a good rating on a Huge map, you need to put in the extra effort the size requires. In HoMM3, This rating will also include text attached to artifact events, town events, monster events, etc. Note that background information in a documentation file is not given a lot of weight, although it does get some. For AB and SoD maps, since there is effectively unlimited length events, excessive supplementary files may actually reduce the rating!

Five stars goes to a map with a really good story, fleshed out with both timed and map location events and rumors.
Four stars goes to a map which does well at all these things, but nothing spectacular. If the map designer's personality can be read from the events, it will usually get it up to here.
Three stars is fairly easy to get. As long as there are some rumors and events, and they aren't obviously inappropriate to the scenario, this rating should be easily obtained.
Two stars goes to maps that contain little or no events and rumors, as well as maps that don't give any hint of the thrill of discovery. This should make you wonder what gets one star...?
One star goes to maps that not only have few, if any, events and rumors, but are also completely bland. These are maps where, well before I finish the scenario, I find myself thinking "all right, already. when does this end!?"

Other factors that can modify this include varied decorations (or monotonous ones), empty landscapes, unnecessary mazes, and a requirement to take an extra month just to build up forces (such as to take out a stationary hero with a huge army). Having conflicts that are placed to require little building up time can improve this.
Reviews 264 and on: The entertainment rating is now borken down into four separate scores. Appearance is a 0-10 point score based on how the actual look of the map was. Was terrain monotonous, or varied? Did the landform make sense? Story is a 0-10 point score based on use of events and other items to make an interesting story. In multiplayer, this looks at player customization, and in the case of intended battlemaps (which generally have little story), this may be dropped. Flavor is a 0-10 point rating for the polish on the map. In RoE maps, this looks at dressing such as flowers on the landscape. In AB and SoD maps, this includes things such as customized hero biographies. Finally, Style is 0-10 point rating looking for something different or unusual. Did the map do something to distinguish it from other maps of a similar genre? These four scores are them rescaled into a 0-5 star entertainment rating.
Heroes 5: The story rating will be harder to earn a good rating, as events to give messages are harder to create. (I believe that scripting is required for this). Flavor and Style will be combined into one overall flavor rating, while style will be replaced with scripting, which will only appear if a map uses scripting for non-story based purposes.

3. Design (up to review 263):This covers how well all aspects of the map mesh together. This is the only rating which can get zero stars, until review 169; after review 170, description can also get a 0. Good placement of events and signs often improve the design rating. Note that this is now the actual placement of these things, not the mere use of them. Signs that look as though they belong in the map, as opposed to being "help" from the designer are what is looked for here. Once again, it is harder to get a good rating on Huge maps. In this case the map has to seem like it should be a map of the given size. Often a lot of empty space is used, and so the map could have fit in a smaller size. Also, smaller maps that are too cluttered can get hurt here, although this is less likely. After review #170, appropriateness in the size of the map will only be considered in the design rating if a map develops a major flaw due to the size. Most of the time, an inappropriate size map will now result in a drop of the description rating instead of a drop in the design rating. For HoMM3, the logic involved with quests will also be considered here- that is, just placing a seer with no reason for it may be a detriment.

Five stars goes to a map that has everything blend seamlessly. Few, if any, aspects of the map seem simply "thrown in." Game balance between multiple possible starting positions is required for this. If the map is single player, then that last consideration obviously doesn't apply.
Four stars go to solidly constructed maps. No major flaws in terrain or logic exist (without reason), and all sites are accessible. Cleverness in ways to allow/disallow particular strategies is often a way to get up to this rating.
Three stars is for a map that has a few problems, but nothing drastic. This can be having a non-critical site that cannot be reached, or barriers that can be worked around without the password- most often seen in east-west passages.
Two stars means there are significant flaws in reasoning in the map (again, assuming that isn't the intention) there may be multiple locations that cannot be reached, or a strongly unbalanced game for multiple human players.
One star goes to a map that looks like it was just thrown together, without any real design. This is a map that could have been improved by using the random map generator.
Zero goes to a map that cannot be completed without a special ability that may not be available. The most common example is where an enemy castle is unreachable without the dimension door spell, yet there are no scrolls of dimension door available. Simply allowing 5th level guilds is not enough, since the spell is not guaranteed to show up, regardless of how many you build (Of course, in maps where you can set the spells to appear, this may not be the case). Even if the map is flawless otherwise, if it cannot be completed, it gets a 0 for design.

Review 264 and on: The design rating consists of two separate scores, each on a 0-20 scale. I have noted that in my ratings, I have often wanted more gradations than the 10 half-star increments scale allowed, and so the larger range than the other rating areas. The first is Balance, which in single-player looks at how well the ramping (if any) is implemented, as well as how forgiving the map is of choices that do not have obvious decisions (for example, if there are two paths, one guarded by a few peasants, and the other by several azure dragons, and you have a new hero approaching, this is an obvious decision. However, if these battles are ambushes, with no warning, then this is not an obvious decision, and shows an unforgiving situation). In multiplayer, this looks at how well each human position is situated relative to the others in the beginning, and at the anticipated meeting time between these factions. The second is placement, which looks at how objects are placed on the map. Are there inaccessible places? Are there easy-to-get overpowered artifacts? Has the potential for overpowered artifacts randomly appearing been addressed? And so on. This remains unchanged for Heroes 5.

4. Overall:This is the simple average of the other three (or two, if the challenge category is dropped for a given map), rounded up (usually) to the one-half. The only exception is if, somehow, a map gets a total of two stars in all three section combined- the minimum possible- in this case the map gets a zero overall.After review #170, a map needs to get a total of one star overall, as the challenge rating (now called the description rating) now has a possible 0 rating. After review 263, there will also be a numerical rating, being the sum of the eight partial scores from the above sections, giving a score on a 100 point scale. Although this score will usually be the same (within a half-star or 5 points) of the starred rating, it is possible for there to be a large gap, since description is only worth half as many points as the other two sections, but get equal weight in the star rating. This is provided so you have another indicator to guage the map by. Choose whichever you prefer.

Below the Bottom: This section appears when there is a particular feature of the map which should be of interest to other map designers, or if there is a non-HOMM link to the map (say, it is based on a work of literature) that could affect your enjoyment of the map if you do/don't know the reference. Suggestions for improvement that most map designers should know about go here.

Other sections may be added if they are deemed needed, but this is the general format that I use. Above all, if you are (un)fortunate enough to have me review your map, don't take anything personally. If I give a scathing review, the comments should explain how it could be improved. Also, don't be afraid to e-mail me for clarification on my comments. As long as you are civil, I will respond when my time permits.

Return to Qurqirish Dragon's Home Page.