User blog:Meta07/Rating Criterias

First, I have already put this on my userpage, but I decided to make this blog post just for commentary sake.

Rating CriteriasEdit
As you should've known, I'm also a conceptions critic of sorts and I rate conceptions base on these criterias (they're quite long, but please read them if you can):
 * Originality : The most important thing about a good conception is that it must be an unique, never-before-seen, and maybe even a crazy one! Don't worry if your conceptions may change the game, that's why I've put a Gameplay Mechanics category here! I'll give good reviews on conceptions that are unique, original, and doesn't seem so similar to anything already made. For towers, originality here also includes the originality of upgrade effects. I'll give good reviews for towers that have many upgrades that give an affect that's NOT generic at all and only works for that tower. I'll give bad reviews on conceptions that are generic, unoriginal, seems too similar to other conceptions or to things that're already in the game, and also towers with 3 or more upgrades that "do the same thing" will get minus points. THE WORST REVIEWS OF ALL WILL BE GIVEN TO "ZOMG CARRIERS"!!! (blimps that do nothing apart from having a whole lot of HP, being extremely slow, and spawns 4 ZOMGs or other kinds of ZOMG Carriers.)


 *  Balance:  This criteria is mostly pointed toward towers, but it can also apply to other kinds of conceptions, especially bloons. For a tower, a good "balance" means that tower and its upgrades don't seems too powerful or too weak for their prices. Now to the concept of "OP": an "OP" tower doesn't mean that tower is too powerful, it means that tower is too powerful FOR ITS PRICE. For example, I can't rate the Temple "OP" because it's very powerful, yes, but it also costs a lot so after you buy it, you may sometimes curse yourself because you wasted so much money on that thing, so it's not "OP", it's just very powerful on the right way. However, I'll rate something "OP" if it is as strong as a normal Temple, but only costs like, say, 30000$ or below. Overpriced towers will also get bad reviews. For bloons, this criteria means that bloon must be balanced for the situation where it's spawned. For example, the Chaos Bloon is very very very very powerful, but it's spawned only once in a special round where your army should be powerful enough to beat it as a boss, so it's ok. However, I'll give bad reviews if a bloon is as powerful as a ZOMG Carrier (see above) that spawns at, like, Round 86 or something. If the spawning point is not specified, your bloon won't get rated "OP" in most cases.


 * Detail: Now this actually points at the AUTHOR, not the conception itself! A good author must always explain his conceptions as carefully as possible, and leaves no confusion behind. For example, for bloons, you should state how fast they are, where do they appear, what do they spawn, explain their abilites carefully, and describe their appearance if you don't have a photo (for articles that have photos, you don't need to describe the appearance at all!), etc. Now this doesn't mean your article must be ridiculously long and filled with blabbles about how your conception is awesome, but it must include all the informations needed and leaves no one confused about the conception after he/she reads it. If I must ask about something on your conception, that conception will get minus points. Oh, and watch your vocabulary!

I don't care much about your article's grammar and format, as I can fix them for you. However, I do care about vocabulary, since it can confuse some people (see "Detail" criteria).
 *  Graphics:  Now this is a minor criteria, but worthy to point out nonetheless. You'll never get minus points if your conception's photo is the ugliest thing I've ever seen, but you'll get bonus points if said photo is nice and well-edited (for example: Hungry Croc).