Hoping everyone will check out the new community collaboration map, organized by Jigarbov this weekend!
Let me know what you think about my entry, "Downfall"!
A little bit of thread maintenance today!
I've moved 4 maps (and the upcoming rating for Multiplex 2) into a new category, "Multi-Genre".
I've adjusted the rating scale for Multi-Genre, and re-rated these 4, so for the first time in history, map ratings have gone down. Consider this a trial-basis. I will most likely refine the scale again after completing Multiplex 2.
Definition
These maps are comprised of 10+ mini-maps with an overarching meta-map. These do not necessarily have to be community/collaboration maps (e.g. Diversity) and this category does not include community/collaboration maps where the theme is consistent throughout (e.g. The Library, Pantheon). This category is only for maps where the mini-maps have different genres.
Rationale
It's impossible to rate them as a whole. I had the option of rating every mini-map and then doing an average, or taking the max() or min() rating for each category. But honestly, that never really felt right using the current 'adventure' rating scale.
TenativeRating Scale for Multi-Genre
I tried to think about what would differentiate Multi-Genre maps. Clearly, the mini-maps are going to run the gamut of quality and focus, for their particular genres. So, how much should the meta-map count toward each rating category? Here's my initial thoughts... Innovation - Variety of mechanics or special effects in the mini-maps AND the meta-map. Detail - Relative average visual detail in the mini-maps, but more heavily weighted by visuals in the meta-map. Experience - Relative average experience in the mini-maps, but more heavily weighted by overarching experience in the meta-map. Challenge - Variety of challenge in the mini-maps. Meta-map not weighted. Progression - Overall sequence of accessing the mini-maps from the meta-map.
Tenative ratings The 12 Days of Minemas, by FoamyTrampoline/Community: 17(4+3+3+4+3) , Christmas, 3.5 hrs The Toybox, by rsmalec/Community: 17(4+4+3+4+2) , Choose your own adventure, 2 - 8 hrs Sep 1Diversity, by Qmagnet: 16(4+3+2+4+3) , Multi-genre, 10 hrs Adventure Multiplex, by Jigarbov/Community: 15(4+2+3+4+2) , Collaboration, 10 - 15 hrs
Feedback?
Please let me know your thoughts on this new category, and its rating scale!
A little bit of thread maintenance today!
I've moved 4 maps (and the upcoming rating for Multiplex 2) into a new category, "Multi-Genre".
I've adjusted the rating scale for Multi-Genre, and re-rated these 4, so for the first time in history, map ratings have gone down. Consider this a trial-basis. I will most likely refine the scale again after completing Multiplex 2.
Definition
These maps are comprised of 10+ mini-maps with an overarching meta-map. These do not necessarily have to be community/collaboration maps (e.g. Diversity) and this category does not include community/collaboration maps where the theme is consistent throughout (e.g. The Library, Pantheon). This category is only for maps where the mini-maps have different genres.
Rationale
It's impossible to rate them as a whole. I had the option of rating every mini-map and then doing an average, or taking the max() or min() rating for each category. But honestly, that never really felt right using the current 'adventure' rating scale.
TenativeRating Scale for Multi-Genre
I tried to think about what would differentiate Multi-Genre maps. Clearly, the mini-maps are going to run the gamut of quality and focus, for their particular genres. So, how much should the meta-map count toward each rating category? Here's my initial thoughts... Innovation - Variety of mechanics or special effects in the mini-maps AND the meta-map. Detail - Relative average visual detail in the mini-maps, but more heavily weighted by visuals in the meta-map. Experience - Relative average experience in the mini-maps, but more heavily weighted by overarching experience in the meta-map. Challenge - Variety of challenge in the mini-maps. Meta-map not weighted. Progression - Overall sequence of accessing the mini-maps from the meta-map.
Tenative ratings The 12 Days of Minemas, by FoamyTrampoline/Community: 17(4+3+3+4+3) , Christmas, 3.5 hrs The Toybox, by rsmalec/Community: 17(4+4+3+4+2) , Choose your own adventure, 2 - 8 hrs Sep 1Diversity, by Qmagnet: 16(4+3+2+4+3) , Multi-genre, 10 hrs Adventure Multiplex, by Jigarbov/Community: 15(4+2+3+4+2) , Collaboration, 10 - 15 hrs
Feedback?
Please let me know your thoughts on this new category, and its rating scale!
I completely agree with the new category. After I finish Adventure Multiplex 2 and rate it, I will have to put the category in my thread also. For the ratings.. yes the meta map should count somewhat to the map but for detail i think the meta and mini part of the maps should be equal parts when it comes to rating its detail. So for example I'm rating Toybox I would rate the visuals of the mini part and pretend I give that a 4 out 5 then I look at the meta part and say wow this is horrible and I give it a 2 out of 5. So 2 out of 5 and 4 out of 5 why not take them both into consideration and say it gets a 3 for detail (2+4/2). Instead of having it more heavily weighted on the meta part where that score could be 2 instead of a 3 the map really deserves. Everything else I agree but I think detail should be done a bit differently.
A little bit of thread maintenance today!
I've moved 4 maps (and the upcoming rating for Multiplex 2) into a new category, "Multi-Genre".
I've adjusted the rating scale for Multi-Genre, and re-rated these 4, so for the first time in history, map ratings have gone down. Consider this a trial-basis. I will most likely refine the scale again after completing Multiplex 2.
Definition
These maps are comprised of 10+ mini-maps with an overarching meta-map. These do not necessarily have to be community/collaboration maps (e.g. Diversity) and this category does not include community/collaboration maps where the theme is consistent throughout (e.g. The Library, Pantheon). This category is only for maps where the mini-maps have different genres.
Rationale
It's impossible to rate them as a whole. I had the option of rating every mini-map and then doing an average, or taking the max() or min() rating for each category. But honestly, that never really felt right using the current 'adventure' rating scale.
TenativeRating Scale for Multi-Genre
I tried to think about what would differentiate Multi-Genre maps. Clearly, the mini-maps are going to run the gamut of quality and focus, for their particular genres. So, how much should the meta-map count toward each rating category? Here's my initial thoughts... Innovation - Variety of mechanics or special effects in the mini-maps AND the meta-map. Detail - Relative average visual detail in the mini-maps, but more heavily weighted by visuals in the meta-map. Experience - Relative average experience in the mini-maps, but more heavily weighted by overarching experience in the meta-map. Challenge - Variety of challenge in the mini-maps. Meta-map not weighted. Progression - Overall sequence of accessing the mini-maps from the meta-map.
Tenative ratings The 12 Days of Minemas, by FoamyTrampoline/Community: 17(4+3+3+4+3) , Christmas, 3.5 hrs The Toybox, by rsmalec/Community: 17(4+4+3+4+2) , Choose your own adventure, 2 - 8 hrs Sep 1Diversity, by Qmagnet: 16(4+3+2+4+3) , Multi-genre, 10 hrs Adventure Multiplex, by Jigarbov/Community: 15(4+2+3+4+2) , Collaboration, 10 - 15 hrs
Feedback?
Please let me know your thoughts on this new category, and its rating scale!
Were these re-rated as if they were rated today or as if they were rated today?
If they were all pro-rated as today, then I think the scores overall would be lower. Since you have a group of maps, you can have a more clearly defined "average". I would say for example that the detail in something like Multiplex 1 would be below that average and thus get a 1, this would then skew the other maps to be slightly lower in that category too.
Like wise, Innovation in multiplex 1, if this was as if it was rated at the time of construction it's defintley a 4, but now the innovation is closer to an average score.
I haven't played minemas or diversity, but the same line of thought could be applied to the toybox. The look is certainly above average at a minimum, but innovation? while some of the mini maps were quite innovative at the time, i would argue they lose some of their innovation if rated today. Also with the challenge in the toybox, while in multiplex you can choose the difficulty of the encounters you play, in toybox you cannot so the difficulty curve is all over the place. I remember going from an easy encounter to a very difficult encounter and going back to an easy one right afterwards.
In any case, I do like the new rating scale and do think multimap and collaboration maps really did need a different scale. Why not have the meta map as a score on its own?
Innovation - Variety of mechanics or special effects in the mini-maps AND the meta-map. Detail - Relative average visual detail in the mini-maps, but LOW weighting for meta-map. Experience - Relative average experience in the mini-maps, but LOW weighting by overarching experience in the meta-map. Meta-Map - Cohesion, style, consistency, layout, (story?). Challenge & Progression - Difficulty curve, progression through the encounters, sequence of accessing the mini maps .
and for multiplex using that rating I would go with something like: Adventure Multiplex, by Jigarbov/Community: 14 (4+2+3+2+3) , Collaboration, 10 - 15 hrs (if it was rated back at release, might add a few extra bonus points here and there because it was the first of its kind to bring it to 15 or 16 in the meta map or detail categories)
or if released today Adventure Multiplex, by Jigarbov/Community: 11 (2+2+3+1+3) , Collaboration, 10 - 15 hrs (lots of new tech in maps these days and the meta map is really bare bones when compared to other maps of its kind, however the genre/difficulty selection are stand outs so it could be argued to be slightly higher in the meta map category for layout and style for its consistent theme to bring it to 12 or 13)
Of course Adventure Multiplex 2 is a 4+4+4+4+4+4 = 24/20
edit: It should also be considered I'm a pretty tough sell, so while my opinion of my own maps may be that, given the scale yours could vary even with the same scale.
I think the new genre label is a good idea because the more these maps are made, the more people will want to try ones they haven't heard. I do prefer being specific in genres. I mean I hate maps that are labelled "Puzzle" but contain jumps. Maybe you should rate how well the mini-map tie together in the overall goal or something. If you look at something like Adventure Multiplex - the sheer feat of compiling the monster is impressive on its own, and even though a small adventure map may be more enjoyable in a single playthrough, the work behind mashing up a giant multi build shouldn't go unnoticed. As Jig says, to rate a multi-map on balance can almost seem unfair - because depending on what you're good at, you may find it unbalanced to one direction, while someone else finds it the opposite.
For the ratings.. yes the meta map should count somewhat to the map but for detail i think the meta and mini part of the maps should be equal parts when it comes to rating its detail.
The problem I have on detail is that - for all of these there are some mini-maps with great detail, and some with poor detail. If I use that in the 'equation' then it kinda turns out average and dilutes the entries.
I don't think I can compare a map with only one author, to a community map. In the case of community maps, visual detail is not something in the map compiler's control, unless they limit it only to the best entry - which I feel would defeat the purpose of a community map.
Were these re-rated as if they were rated today or as if they were rated today?
I tried to rate them against each other, as of today. Innovation doesn't necessarily mean it uses the latest tricks. If a map uses old tricks to pull off special effects, or in clever ways, that's still innovative. But I'm using 'innovative' meaning there are multiple mechanics in play. e.g. I would still classify Eronev 1 as innovating for the quantity of different mechanics (redstone, dynamic text, limited/recursive mining/axing/digging, dynamic ending, etc...).
On your other points... Not sure if I want to do a different scale for these maps. Although, that might be the best solution. I'm almost thinking that I might just NOT score multi-genre maps at all...
I think the new genre label is a good idea because the more these maps are made, the more people will want to try ones they haven't heard. I do prefer being specific in genres. I mean I hate maps that are labelled "Puzzle" but contain jumps.
This is actually a pet peeve of mine too (overuse of 'puzzle', and to a lesser degree 'adventure').
Several times I've thought about breaking puzzle down, but I struggle to find the right set of sub-categories so that it's not too granular. Since I do list a 'genre' in addition to the 'type'.
Maybe you should rate how well the mini-map tie together in the overall goal or something. If you look at something like Adventure Multiplex - the sheer feat of compiling the monster is impressive on its own, and even though a small adventure map may be more enjoyable in a single playthrough, the work behind mashing up a giant multi build shouldn't go unnoticed.
I keep coming back to the fact that all of the current multi-genre maps have a pretty strong unifying force. Hard to differentiate.
This was recommended to me the other day by Team Doctor Who, and I did some research on it.
My only hesitation is that it seems to be a long map. I can put it on my list, but there are a lot of other long maps ahead of it.
It appears to be an open-world CtM, but instead of a monument you are gathering 12 items to trade for a portal? From the 2nd video on your thread, the visuals look pretty good.
rsmalec Thank you for this great tool. Next time I;m looking for a good map and don't feel like looking through 100's of posts ill come here Thank you! (please keep updating)
rsmalec Thank you for this great tool. Next time I;m looking for a good map and don't feel like looking through 100's of posts ill come here Thank you! (please keep updating)
Don't worry - I have a long list of maps to play and I review new posts daily, looking for hidden gems.
While I appreciate a build should look nice, a map makers intentions for how the player should feel compared to how the player does feel should have some impact in the section.
I agree.
I try to think about the visuals in terms of;
- do things look in proportion
- are the textures/colors fitting
But also;
- is there a consistent level of detail (e.g. furnishings, as appropriate depending on theme)
- are the rooms too rectangular
- do you see too many spherical brush strokes in the terrain
Keep in mind, an 'above average' rating is really good. Even if it didn't "Wow!" me.
I've officially adopted the "GAME" subtype, 22 "PUZZLE" maps have been reclassified
A few "PUZZLE" maps reclassified as "ADVENTURE" or "PARKOUR" (taking into account what was listed on the map author's thread)
No ratings were recalculated with these type changes (yet)
PUZZLE maps now focus on logic puzzles, e.g. room based/trial/escape type maps.
GAME maps include miscellaneous sports, mini-games, boss fights, board game recreations, and droppers.
This change is primarily to give map makers more accurate rating within their genre, so I am not comparing apples to oranges. It should also help the player community more quickly find the experience they are looking for.
New totals:
Adventure [Adv] - 329 maps
Creation [Crt] - 19 maps
Complete the Monument [CtM] - 31 maps
Parkour [Prk] - 21 maps
Puzzle [Puz] - 46 maps
Player vs. Player [PvP] - 20 maps
Survival [Srv] - 34 maps
Multi-Genre [Multi] - 4 maps
Game [Game] - 22 maps
Review Summary
Creepy setting with an enjoyable and well written story. The gameplay itself is fairly straight forward; explore the town, navigate an enemy filled castle, assault the final boss. Mobs were fairly standard, boss fight was a bit too easy. Creepy humor was appreciated throughout the town. And I have a soft spot for maps with multiple ending choices. I do think the town exploration took a bit too long, without much payoff - leather armor was immediately replaced with chain/iron upon entry of the castle. I also felt like the (optional) mask sidequest needed a bigger role/reward.
This was recommended to me the other day by Team Doctor Who, and I did some research on it.
My only hesitation is that it seems to be a long map. I can put it on my list, but there are a lot of other long maps ahead of it.
It appears to be an open-world CtM, but instead of a monument you are gathering 12 items to trade for a portal? From the 2nd video on your thread, the visuals look pretty good.
I thought it might be a bit longer than what you requested. After the 12 dungeons the final area is available with a bunch of challenges, boss, and bonus content. You are not expected to find all of the secret areas. It is not CtM by a very wide margin, every quest item has a function, there is no monument building of any kind.
Don't worry it's not a typical empty shell adventure, it is jam packed from start to finish. With over a year in design it contains no boring areas, instant death traps, or "wtf do I do now" moments.
Thanks for taking a look into Enderbent! Remember normal not hard difficulty.
Review Summary
Two teams (of 2+) players command complex space ships in a space battle. The ships are made up of multiple rooms; e.g. weapons control, shields, life support, and a teleport room. Each room is well detailed with plenty of easter eggs and humor mixed in. Players can teleport to the other ship to sabotage rooms, defend and repair their own rooms. The game mechanics are fantastic, my favorite part being the 'scanners' that use in-game maps with live read-out of the shields and damage. Navigating the ships definitely takes some time to get used to, but experienced players should find enough variation that strategy becomes key. I also like that severely damages sections of the ship become blocked off, and you can even be teleported into space!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1943271-presumed-4-dead-4-player-co-op-adventure-map-based-on-left-4-dead-16/
Yes, but
It's on a list of multiplayer maps that I'm not sure when I'll get to play.
Let me know what you think about my entry, "Downfall"!
You can download the map at http://www.jigarbov.net
I've moved 4 maps (and the upcoming rating for Multiplex 2) into a new category, "Multi-Genre".
I've adjusted the rating scale for Multi-Genre, and re-rated these 4, so for the first time in history, map ratings have gone down. Consider this a trial-basis. I will most likely refine the scale again after completing Multiplex 2.
Definition
These maps are comprised of 10+ mini-maps with an overarching meta-map. These do not necessarily have to be community/collaboration maps (e.g. Diversity) and this category does not include community/collaboration maps where the theme is consistent throughout (e.g. The Library, Pantheon). This category is only for maps where the mini-maps have different genres.
Rationale
It's impossible to rate them as a whole. I had the option of rating every mini-map and then doing an average, or taking the max() or min() rating for each category. But honestly, that never really felt right using the current 'adventure' rating scale.
Tenative Rating Scale for Multi-Genre
I tried to think about what would differentiate Multi-Genre maps. Clearly, the mini-maps are going to run the gamut of quality and focus, for their particular genres. So, how much should the meta-map count toward each rating category? Here's my initial thoughts...
Innovation - Variety of mechanics or special effects in the mini-maps AND the meta-map.
Detail - Relative average visual detail in the mini-maps, but more heavily weighted by visuals in the meta-map.
Experience - Relative average experience in the mini-maps, but more heavily weighted by overarching experience in the meta-map.
Challenge - Variety of challenge in the mini-maps. Meta-map not weighted.
Progression - Overall sequence of accessing the mini-maps from the meta-map.
Tenative ratings
The 12 Days of Minemas, by FoamyTrampoline/Community: 17 (4+3+3+4+3) , Christmas, 3.5 hrs
The Toybox, by rsmalec/Community: 17 (4+4+3+4+2) , Choose your own adventure, 2 - 8 hrs
Sep 1 Diversity, by Qmagnet: 16 (4+3+2+4+3) , Multi-genre, 10 hrs
Adventure Multiplex, by Jigarbov/Community: 15 (4+2+3+4+2) , Collaboration, 10 - 15 hrs
Feedback?
Please let me know your thoughts on this new category, and its rating scale!
I completely agree with the new category. After I finish Adventure Multiplex 2 and rate it, I will have to put the category in my thread also. For the ratings.. yes the meta map should count somewhat to the map but for detail i think the meta and mini part of the maps should be equal parts when it comes to rating its detail. So for example I'm rating Toybox I would rate the visuals of the mini part and pretend I give that a 4 out 5 then I look at the meta part and say wow this is horrible and I give it a 2 out of 5. So 2 out of 5 and 4 out of 5 why not take them both into consideration and say it gets a 3 for detail (2+4/2). Instead of having it more heavily weighted on the meta part where that score could be 2 instead of a 3 the map really deserves. Everything else I agree but I think detail should be done a bit differently.
Were these re-rated as if they were rated today or as if they were rated today?
If they were all pro-rated as today, then I think the scores overall would be lower. Since you have a group of maps, you can have a more clearly defined "average". I would say for example that the detail in something like Multiplex 1 would be below that average and thus get a 1, this would then skew the other maps to be slightly lower in that category too.
Like wise, Innovation in multiplex 1, if this was as if it was rated at the time of construction it's defintley a 4, but now the innovation is closer to an average score.
I haven't played minemas or diversity, but the same line of thought could be applied to the toybox. The look is certainly above average at a minimum, but innovation? while some of the mini maps were quite innovative at the time, i would argue they lose some of their innovation if rated today. Also with the challenge in the toybox, while in multiplex you can choose the difficulty of the encounters you play, in toybox you cannot so the difficulty curve is all over the place. I remember going from an easy encounter to a very difficult encounter and going back to an easy one right afterwards.
In any case, I do like the new rating scale and do think multimap and collaboration maps really did need a different scale. Why not have the meta map as a score on its own?
Innovation - Variety of mechanics or special effects in the mini-maps AND the meta-map.
Detail - Relative average visual detail in the mini-maps, but LOW weighting for meta-map.
Experience - Relative average experience in the mini-maps, but LOW weighting by overarching experience in the meta-map.
Meta-Map - Cohesion, style, consistency, layout, (story?).
Challenge & Progression - Difficulty curve, progression through the encounters, sequence of accessing the mini maps .
and for multiplex using that rating I would go with something like:
Adventure Multiplex, by Jigarbov/Community: 14 (4+2+3+2+3) , Collaboration, 10 - 15 hrs (if it was rated back at release, might add a few extra bonus points here and there because it was the first of its kind to bring it to 15 or 16 in the meta map or detail categories)
or if released today
Adventure Multiplex, by Jigarbov/Community: 11 (2+2+3+1+3) , Collaboration, 10 - 15 hrs (lots of new tech in maps these days and the meta map is really bare bones when compared to other maps of its kind, however the genre/difficulty selection are stand outs so it could be argued to be slightly higher in the meta map category for layout and style for its consistent theme to bring it to 12 or 13)
Of course Adventure Multiplex 2 is a 4+4+4+4+4+4 = 24/20
edit: It should also be considered I'm a pretty tough sell, so while my opinion of my own maps may be that, given the scale yours could vary even with the same scale.
The problem I have on detail is that - for all of these there are some mini-maps with great detail, and some with poor detail. If I use that in the 'equation' then it kinda turns out average and dilutes the entries.
I don't think I can compare a map with only one author, to a community map. In the case of community maps, visual detail is not something in the map compiler's control, unless they limit it only to the best entry - which I feel would defeat the purpose of a community map.
I tried to rate them against each other, as of today. Innovation doesn't necessarily mean it uses the latest tricks. If a map uses old tricks to pull off special effects, or in clever ways, that's still innovative. But I'm using 'innovative' meaning there are multiple mechanics in play. e.g. I would still classify Eronev 1 as innovating for the quantity of different mechanics (redstone, dynamic text, limited/recursive mining/axing/digging, dynamic ending, etc...).
On your other points... Not sure if I want to do a different scale for these maps. Although, that might be the best solution. I'm almost thinking that I might just NOT score multi-genre maps at all...
This is actually a pet peeve of mine too (overuse of 'puzzle', and to a lesser degree 'adventure').
Several times I've thought about breaking puzzle down, but I struggle to find the right set of sub-categories so that it's not too granular. Since I do list a 'genre' in addition to the 'type'.
I keep coming back to the fact that all of the current multi-genre maps have a pretty strong unifying force. Hard to differentiate.
Important Note:
It was designed specifically for normal difficulty.
You can play on easy but hard will ruin the fun.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1518599-15-enderbent-maximum/
This was recommended to me the other day by Team Doctor Who, and I did some research on it.
My only hesitation is that it seems to be a long map. I can put it on my list, but there are a lot of other long maps ahead of it.
It appears to be an open-world CtM, but instead of a monument you are gathering 12 items to trade for a portal? From the 2nd video on your thread, the visuals look pretty good.
Don't worry - I have a long list of maps to play and I review new posts daily, looking for hidden gems.
I agree.
I try to think about the visuals in terms of;
- do things look in proportion
- are the textures/colors fitting
But also;
- is there a consistent level of detail (e.g. furnishings, as appropriate depending on theme)
- are the rooms too rectangular
- do you see too many spherical brush strokes in the terrain
Keep in mind, an 'above average' rating is really good. Even if it didn't "Wow!" me.
PUZZLE maps now focus on logic puzzles, e.g. room based/trial/escape type maps.
GAME maps include miscellaneous sports, mini-games, boss fights, board game recreations, and droppers.
This change is primarily to give map makers more accurate rating within their genre, so I am not comparing apples to oranges. It should also help the player community more quickly find the experience they are looking for.
New totals:
Adventure [Adv] - 329 maps
Creation [Crt] - 19 maps
Complete the Monument [CtM] - 31 maps
Parkour [Prk] - 21 maps
Puzzle [Puz] - 46 maps
Player vs. Player [PvP] - 20 maps
Survival [Srv] - 34 maps
Multi-Genre [Multi] - 4 maps
Game [Game] - 22 maps
Your feedback is welcome!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1872701-pumpkin
Review Summary
Creepy setting with an enjoyable and well written story. The gameplay itself is fairly straight forward; explore the town, navigate an enemy filled castle, assault the final boss. Mobs were fairly standard, boss fight was a bit too easy. Creepy humor was appreciated throughout the town. And I have a soft spot for maps with multiple ending choices. I do think the town exploration took a bit too long, without much payoff - leather armor was immediately replaced with chain/iron upon entry of the castle. I also felt like the (optional) mask sidequest needed a bigger role/reward.
Total Rating: 14
Innovation - 2
Detail - 3
Experience - 3
Challenge - 3
Progression - 3
I thought it might be a bit longer than what you requested. After the 12 dungeons the final area is available with a bunch of challenges, boss, and bonus content. You are not expected to find all of the secret areas. It is not CtM by a very wide margin, every quest item has a function, there is no monument building of any kind.
Don't worry it's not a typical empty shell adventure, it is jam packed from start to finish. With over a year in design it contains no boring areas, instant death traps, or "wtf do I do now" moments.
Thanks for taking a look into Enderbent! Remember normal not hard difficulty.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1974090-GSW
Review Summary
Two teams (of 2+) players command complex space ships in a space battle. The ships are made up of multiple rooms; e.g. weapons control, shields, life support, and a teleport room. Each room is well detailed with plenty of easter eggs and humor mixed in. Players can teleport to the other ship to sabotage rooms, defend and repair their own rooms. The game mechanics are fantastic, my favorite part being the 'scanners' that use in-game maps with live read-out of the shields and damage. Navigating the ships definitely takes some time to get used to, but experienced players should find enough variation that strategy becomes key. I also like that severely damages sections of the ship become blocked off, and you can even be teleported into space!
Total Rating: 19
Innovation - 4
Detail - 4
Experience - 4
Challenge - 4
Progression - 3
My Minecraft Maps: coldfusionmaps.com
You should include a link to your stuff bro
Welcome to the Library
As a side note, liking your GSW LP so far!
My Minecraft Maps: coldfusionmaps.com