Hyperintelligence
Creator: jhuni || First Published: 12/07/2006 || Players: 4 || Size: 25x25
Categories: C-Rank, FFA Multiplay, Standard
Rating: 5.45 in 31 ratings
For design map discussion or to get suggestions from other users, visit the AWBW Discord Chat!
Comments:
jhuni (12/07/2006 10:16pm):
Published based off of request.

It's likely that I'll get several 1/10's because hatefulness is abundant.

Rating's aren't of much meaning to me anyways, they would if someone gave a educated
response, and not just arbitrary 1/10's that are hate based. All of my low ratings were off
of bias, just how people didn't like me, and not my map...

-Chokepoints: the most chokepointy area is 2 space wide, and it has pipe seams.
-Balance: FTA balance is evident in addition to possible team game balance.
-Terrain variety: The biggest clump is 2x2, which is far from a issue.
-Citie/base ratio: a low amount of bases, so no overly base heavy issues, no centralized
bases so there's no centralized base issues, and there's a fairly high amount of cities.
-Airport funding: there's more then enough funding to effectively use the airports because
of the considerably high amount of cities.

Clearly there isn't going to be any valid reasons to lowly rate this map, but it'll still happen
even if this map deserves a 10/10, people will think I deserve 1/10's on my map.

Just because your map is horrible, and I rated it a 1/10, doesn't mean my map is horrible,
and just because you made your map doesn't make it good...

Ok that's all.
wareagle (12/08/2006 01:05am):
Looks great balanced for teams and FFA games nice TV 10/10.
jhuni (12/08/2006 10:42pm):
I gave myself a 10 also, because all the un-justified haters, I already got 5 low ratings.
Even though this map deserves a 10/10 for having no issues... At least it's evident that
at least five people mad horrible maps, because everyone that hates me has horrible maps,
if not several horrible maps. And they of course don't understand why it's horrible, to name
a few examples: xeliaong, smashkirby63, COSturm, theres alot more...
felix45 (12/13/2006 06:47pm):
1/10 soley on you saying you rate your own maps a 10. that is a no no.


self rating is frowned upon by most.
jhuni (12/13/2006 11:11pm):
Hehe... I rated it as 10 because of people such as yourself, and regardless of what I did you
would have rated me with a 1/10 because I rated your maps with 1's so no matter what it
doesn't matter. At least that's the most probabilistic possibility.
COSturm (12/18/2006 03:59pm | Edited: 12/18/2006 04:00pm):
I don't hate you, I hate the fact that you critisize maps and don't ever say how to fix them.

By the way, what's with the empty missle silos? Other than that, I guess it's pretty good.

8/10

Also, DON'T SELF RATE! ARG! >(
Chaoz36 (12/18/2006 04:01pm):
Stupid jhuni

-1000000000000000000000/10
jhuni (12/18/2006 06:21pm | Edited: 12/18/2006 06:26pm):
Your opinion is of no concern to me. Your maps are horrible, and I could easily get
hundreds to agree with me on this, in fact people already have look at your ratings, have
a nice day. Your rating, and offensive assertion are easily reffuted, your maps are awful.

@CO-Sturm: -- your the first person I've seen to think empty missile silos are a issue, no
offense. I'm just saying it's in no way a probem/issue.

And you want me banned so that's the general idea...I silenced myself congrats. I've
barely rated a single map other then mine in say a month. Go celebrate or something k. gg.
sirfuxalot (12/20/2006 11:40am | Edited: 12/22/2006 05:28pm):
I'd still like you to give my maps 10s.

Oh yeah, by the way, this is good.
jhuni (12/20/2006 05:24pm | Edited: 12/20/2006 07:27pm):
You don't have to give your map a 10, you have no reason to. If people aren't rating your
map lowly for no reason concerning that map you might as well leave the ratings to them,
but as we all know I'm hated by many ٭ awful ٭ map makers.

Anyways I don't go around and say anything like "1/10 OMG WTF your dumb," but I still
have other people do so to me...
sirfuxalot (12/22/2006 05:29pm):
You've done that before, you have to admit it, but it has been on...bad maps.
jhuni (12/23/2006 02:19pm):
Huh? I've never said anything along those lines. That is a clear exaggeration of my words,
the only thing I've done with considerable similarity to that is say "1/10 for clear reasons,"
and that's far different because I adduce it with the maps preset rating.
oomouwmouw (12/24/2006 03:18pm):
Looks good.
sirfuxalot (12/24/2006 04:00pm | Edited: 01/09/2007 09:43pm):
I'm editing this post because I forgot jhuni is always right.
jhuni (12/24/2006 09:44pm):
RE: -- "there's nothing wrong with that."

I'm §טгє †ha† you'd consider it wrong if it's directed at you.

There's alot in your comment that I don't understand.

RE: -- "You've said stuff like that before I'm pretty sure" -- "It's usually"

You can't possibly know if it's 'usually anything' if you eve don't ··know·· it occurs at all.
benbever (12/29/2006 01:04pm):
The map doesn't look good, but seems guite nice gameplay-wise. A bit too much open space. 8/10
jhuni (12/29/2006 02:51pm):
Open space!! Right open space is a given key to good maps. If your map is 100% wide open
with terrain variety and balance then that's great!! The problem is chokepoints.

No valid reason that this map should be rated as a 8/10 other then your prefference.
But thanks for the 8/10, at least it's more fair of a rating then most peoples ratings.
sirfuxalot (12/31/2006 02:27am | Edited: 01/08/2007 10:58pm):
I'm such a terrible person and jhuni is great.
jhuni (12/31/2006 11:19pm):
What on earth?? I'm in no way taking things out of context; your taking things out of context,
I never said anything like "OMG WTF," or "YOUR DUMB" on such maps. And acknowledging
that your post is poorly thought out and badly written isn't taking your comment out of
context for your information.
Sleep (01/08/2007 07:53am):
This map is okay. The airports and black boats bother me, but another version with no air
units might be fun too. As for this one, 7/10
jhuni (01/08/2007 01:05pm):
Oh the airports and the black boats bother you.

THANKS FOR THE 7/10 BASED OFF OF WHAT BOTHERS YOU!!1!!!1!1!1!!11111!
Heartless (01/13/2007 08:26pm):
It seems pretty good. I'd putmore forest, cause you're the one that told me terrain variety
was VERY important. I'll rate it a 9. BTW, you didn't plague some of my maps yet, and none
of my alt's maaps were commented. I like it when I get constructive critism and since the
internet is where intelligence dies, your comments are the closest things to that.
jhuni (01/14/2007 12:13am | Edited: 01/14/2007 03:53am):
Well I've been busy in other means, so I haven't had much time to "plague maps."
But since you requested it, I'll check out your maps.

"internet" gaming "is where intelligence dies." -- truth be told.
"your comments are the closest things to that." -- what exactly do you mean by
that? My comments are close to the death of intelligence? Huh?
sirfuxalot (01/14/2007 03:08pm | Edited: 01/16/2007 09:58am):
He's saying you're great.
jhuni (01/14/2007 04:51pm | Edited: 01/14/2007 04:52pm):
I wouldn't be so sure of that... I'm 98% certain that he ment that my comments are the
closest thing to constructive crisitism.
jhuni (01/14/2007 04:53pm | Edited: 01/14/2007 04:53pm):
Double post deleted.
Heartless (01/14/2007 07:00pm):
"my comments are the closest thing to constructive crisitism."

That's what I meant, and thanks. I see one of my maps got the jhuni seal of approval.
NiLonHair12345 (01/17/2007 10:13pm):
not bad
benbever (01/18/2007 07:37pm):
jhuni: "Open space!! Right open space is a given key to good maps. If your map is 100%
wide open
with terrain variety and balance then that's great!! The problem is chokepoints."

That's your opinion. Open space makes battles boring, simple and creates stand-offs. It
also makes maps boring, limiting tactics and strategy. Of course too many chokepoints is
bad too, and there needs to be some map variety, but I do think this map has too much open
space.

I'll rate the map again too, starting with a 10.
-1 Totally symmetrical, mirror moves. awbw is not chess.
-1 Awful looking pieces of pipe, broken and seamed, serving no purpose but to irritate.
-1 Rivers leading nowhere.
-1 No bases/airports/seaports/towers to fight over, it's all equally divided from the
start (cities too.)
-1 Nothing in the center. It's a desert. One lonely city saves the map from being horrible.
-1 Broken pipe blocking the road in the northwest, giving YC a disadvantage.
-1 Not enough woods where they count.
-1 FTA and TTA.
-1 Pointless reefs, just to annoy the black boats and the players eyes.

10 minus 9 gives a 1.
This map deserves a 1/10, not higher, according to my rating system.
+7 for me being in a good mood, 8/10 final rating.
jhuni (01/19/2007 03:10am | Edited: 01/19/2007 03:14am):
Let me tell me be honest with you. Your rating and your rating system both SUCK.

I no longer see why you were thought of as a respectable player.
Now let me demonstrate why you are unbelievably wrong.

RE: -1 Pointless reefs, just to annoy the black boats and the players eyes. /invalidated

Reefs are not pointless, I can see you don't beleive in terrain variety, and reefs make the
map look better nothing else, I can get at least 10 people to disagree with you.

RE: -1 FTA and TTA. /stupid and invalidated

Now this is where I think what the heck?? Are you serious??
WTF!!!!! Are you blind or do you not see the cities, and the possibility of teams??

-1 Totally symmetrical, mirror moves. awbw is not chess

Ya I stick to it, you have major eye problems... You can't even see that this map isn't
symmetrical, there cities are differing in colors. This rating is so invalid.

-1 Rivers leading nowhere.

The rivers are leading to and from cities, and cities aren't nowhere. Not only is this wrong
but the rating is also completly invalidated.

-1 Not enough woods where they count.

This map does have enough woods. It has a perfect wood terrain count. This has little to no
information on it, it's just a very brief statement, nothing worth that's worth a -1.

-1 Broken pipe blocking the road in the northwest, giving YC a disadvantage. That's
nonsense, I don't see how I'm supposed to understand that. Broken pipes don't block things.

-1 Nothing in the center. It's a desert. One lonely city saves the map from being horrible.

Contradiction. You say this deserves a 1/10. To you nothing saves this from being horrible.

-1 No bases/airports/seaports/towers to fight over

Fighting for a fundamental advantage is proven to be all that's needed.

None of your ratings are valid, there BS again.

"This map deserves a 1/10, not higher, according to my rating system.
+7 for me being in a good mood, 8/10 final rating."

Now everybody knows that the benbevers ratings are entirely based off of his moods, and
nothing else. If your feeling bad then that makes my map not good, and otherwise it is.
Now nobody can ever again consider your ratings to be objective.
benbever (01/19/2007 04:58am):
Oh no, I only ever round up because of mood. That can't be a bad thing. My ratings are
very subjective. Aren's all? Especially yours, I agree with almost none of your comments.

Reefs make the map look ugly if there's more reef than ocean. -2
FTA is not countered at all, and you stated the map can be played 1:1:1:1 or did I
misinterpreted the name? -2
Totally symmetrical except for building colours? ok -1
Rivers leading from nameless city to nameless city -1
Too few woods, but then again woods make you don't want to play FOW -1
Broken pipes are plains and block wheeled vehicles for 1mp, and in snow hinder most land
units. Why does YC deserve that? -2
The lone city saves the map from being even more horrible -2
Figthing for fundamental advantage is hard and boring on this map -3
jhuni (01/20/2007 04:01pm | Edited: 01/20/2007 04:03pm):
RE: -- "Especially yours, I agree with almost none of your comments."

Coming from someone who makes awful maps and gets mad after that's acknowledged.
What when I give you a 1/10 you get mad?? Your rating sucked before I went there!!
I have over 20 people that admit to agreeing with most of my comments, you don't.

RE: -- "My ratings are very subjective"

In that your ratings are biased because I acknowledged that your maps awful!!11!
At least argue that it isn't instead of trying to make my maps look awful when they aren't!
And yes it is a bad thing to rate maps subjectively. I rate off of the map not off of the player.

"FTA is not countered at all, and you stated the map can be played 1:1:1:1 or did I
misinterpreted the name? -2"

In FFA the seperation of the map means that BM & OS will fight YC & GE most of the
game, assuring optimal FFA FTA balance. Every recent map applies this concept.
It's FTA balance, and -2 is a very stupid rating for something completly invalid,
uncorroborated, and just wrong.

"Totally symmetrical except for building colours? ok -1"

That's not a issue, if that was a issue then no map would deserve a 10/10 because
every balanced map is symmetrical or nearly symmetrical in terms of terrain placement.
This competly not a issue because that's how perfect balance is made.

"Reefs make the map look ugly if there's more reef than ocean. -2"

Again benbever shows how he lacks knowledge of maps. Just because you think
the map's ugly isn't solid ground for a -2, seriously your horrible at rating maps.

RE: -- "Rivers leading from nameless city to nameless city -1"

Ok so say random things about a map and put -1 in front of it. IT HAS TO BE A REAL ISSUE
FOR IT TO BE 10% OF A MAP?? Stop with the BS where rivers lead isn't a issue.

"Too few woods, but then again woods make you don't want to play FOW -1"

QUOTE: This map does have enough woods. It has a perfect wood terrain count. This has
little to no information on it, it's just a very brief statement, nothing worth that's worth a -1.

Don't use your stupid comments after they've been invalidated.

"Why does YC deserve that? -2"

Everyone on the map has broken pipes. There's no asymmetrics in this map you said it
yourself. This comment is invalid and stupid.

RE: -- "The lone city saves the map from being even more horrible -2"
RE: -- "Figthing for fundamental advantage is hard and boring on this map -3"

STOP REUSING YOUR INVALID BS IF I ALREADY SAID WHY THESE ARE INVALID.

Again your left with no reason not to give this a 10/10 or my other map. No ones
going to agree with such comments anyways.

Your horrible at rating maps, benbever, and none of this is real issues.
Each -1 stands for something that's 10% of a map. You can't have a valid rating system
that has more then 10 -1's otherwise everyones going to see that your rating system
sucks. And little or no people will believe it.
benbever (01/20/2007 05:43pm):
RE: -"Coming from someone who makes awful maps and gets mad after that's acknowledged. I
have over 20 people that admit to agreeing with most of my comments, you don't."

Acknowledged by you, which doesn't say much at all seeing as to how you give random
comments and ratings to maps. I can find 20 people agreeing to my comments, but what does
that prove?

RE: - "I rate off of the map not off of the player"

It's a good thing you don't rate off the player, but you sure don't rate off the map.
Giving clearly false or random comments and making up a rating isn't considered rating off
the map by a majority of people here.

Giving player 3 and 4 a precaptured city isn't "optimal FFA FTA" at all. It's a simple
world you seem to live in. Giving negatives points for not better countering FTA is
totally valid.

RE: - "This competly not a issue because that's how perfect balance is made."

Perfect balance can be made on non-symmetrical maps. It's much harder, but the maps are
much more interesting. A perfectly balanced non-symmetrical map with no flaws deserves a
10, this symmetrical and flawed map does not.

RE: - "Just because you think the map's ugly isn't solid ground for a -2"

Of course it is, it is my opinion. Maybe your map is beautiful in your mind, but I have
different taste. I'm sure more people don't find this map the summit of beautyfulness.

RE: - "Ok so say random things about a map and put -1 in front of it. IT HAS TO BE A REAL
ISSUE
FOR IT TO BE 10% OF A MAP?? Stop with the BS where rivers lead isn't a issue."

Random comments and rating ratings seem more your forte. Pointless rivers are
easthetically unpleasant for me, and the map could me made with more nicer rivers. It's an
issue to me so I can deduct as much points as I want.

Woods are a part of AWBW but I guess you don't like them. Hiding in woods is one of the
main differences between standard and FOW play. 4 woods in a 9x9 grid (center) is not much
and most people will agree.

RE: - "Everyone on the map has broken pipes. There's no asymmetrics in this map you said it
yourself. This comment is invalid and stupid."

Only YC has a road being blocked by broken pipe. It has a road and plain switched. Why
make the map 99,7% symmetrical and leave YC with an anomaly? By all means fix it and my
rating would go up. Calling my comment invalid when the tiles are clearly switched seems
silly, but you can call it stupid if you want.

I have no reason giving this map higher than a 1 (but I did I gave it an 8.) I won't give
it a 10 unless all comments are fixed, and even then it would probably get a 9.
My rating system is not perfect, but it's proven to be better than your random ratings
because it has comments that are true and visible, not made-up or random.




sirfuxalot (01/21/2007 01:10pm):
You guys need to stop typing so many pages of meaningless...text.
jhuni (01/21/2007 03:37pm | Edited: 07/17/2007 09:56pm):
"Acknowledged by you, which doesn't say much at all seeing as to how you give random
comments and ratings to maps."

Hey did I say that?

All your doing is pointlessly criticizing me.
Nyvelion (07/26/2009 04:48pm):
tl dr
Demonsul (07/27/2009 08:54am):
@Nyvelion: jhuni is pissed because someone doesn't like his map and is getting grouchy
about it.
DuelStriker (08/27/2009 10:32am):
lol
Falconewing (08/27/2009 10:02pm):
lol
Reylly (09/01/2009 10:00am):
lol

i give this a 7/10, because the middle seems pointless, and the sides are more important.
Also, benbever is right about FTA and TTA,
give BM a city close to YCs FTA counter and YC a city close to GEs counter.
i would say that its more balanced that way.
nerd-boy (09/01/2009 05:41pm):
This is a rather boring map.
Ian301095 (09/11/2009 05:21am):
u cant make maps like a science thing, more than 2x2 clumps are fine and there are plenty of top ranked maps with
higher base/city ratio faggot jhuni
MilkSlirper1 (02/22/2011 09:51am):
I wish you people would understand that everyone has bias, and that no matter what we do
people will have it. So when you say "OMG BIAS" remember that everyone has bias including
you.
MilkSlirper1 (02/22/2011 09:51am | Edited: 02/22/2011 09:51am):
Sorry double post.



Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems. All images are copyright their respective owners.