Antenociti
New member
Just a little \"straw poll\" to see what others think about some issues with the \"Terrain\" category:
Would it be worthwhile to sub-divide the Terrain Category into more appropriate sections and thereby allow Scenery (buildings and structures that sit on the Terrain) to be distinguished from Terrain (the stuff you put the scenery on).
Additionally, and separately, would a division of the Terrain Category be worthwhile to distinguish between \"large\" items, such as full table or complete display pieces, against \"small\" pieces such as individual buildings, ruins and other small \"stand alone\" items.
Obviously CMON is not \"Cool Terrain or Not\" but I feel that the current lumping together of all terrain and scenery irrespective of size does not reflect the submissions in the category very well.
Very few people will ever be able to submit a full table or a large professional display piece and their inclusion in the general Terrain category pushes some excellent smaller work down the scale.
In addition it is often practically difficult to rate a table or large display piece accurately, or appropriately, due to the submitted image size and when combined with how the piece itself \"has\" to be shown in overview: in effect almost none of the large displays or tables show anything like the detail that is shown on smaller pieces, they are all long/wide shots: They may look great at a distance and actually be very disappointing when seen up close in detail. (This is actually quite common).
There is, clearly to me, also a tendency for people to vote comparatively i.e. if a giant table display is worth a 9 then how can anything else other than a giant table display every be worth a 9?
Going through the Terrain category it appears to me that the two above issue combine to present a rather unflattering result: that of smaller pieces being automatically worth lower scores simply because they are smaller: it would be a bit like saying a 28mm figure can never be worth a higher score than a 54mm figure: - *because* the 54mm got a 9, therefore no 28mm can ever be worth more than 8 as it is smaller….
Clearly such an approach to scoring is nonsense… but it appears that this may be what happens when people score the “Terrain” category.
If people want to consider what I mean then I invite them to look at some of the highest scored large terrain pieces: note that it is invariably impossible to see any detail, weathering, quality of seems joins, micro-detail and up-close paintwork; often none can be seen. Yet on a single small piece we can critique it down to the tiniest detail just as we do with figures because we are shown that sort of detail on the images.
Ironically where submitters of large pieces do post multiple images (in order to show detail and give a good all-round impression of quality) they are often criticised: one poster marking the excellent LotR Black Gate down to a low score simply because the submitter had posted more than one image of the model.
Now I do think that the majority of the large submission DO look like they are worth the scores they have been given. At the same time I have also seen a growing percentage of really rather average models getting ‘good’ scores “just because they are big”. It’s a bit like giving a 400-figure 40K army a score of 9 just because there are lots of figures (and none of which you can see in any proper detail).
IF the category was divided though we could imagine that large submissions are expected to submit multiple images of the same model so that we CAN see the detail (and not have people mark them down FOR submitting multiple images).
Anyway…
In summary I would like to say that I am not saying “the system is broke” – obviously it works to some large degree and I am thankful that CMON is here and even has a Terrain category at all!
At the same time I do think that some sort of sub-division of the category would be useful and, having given my opinion, would like to hear what others think.
Would it be worthwhile to sub-divide the Terrain Category into more appropriate sections and thereby allow Scenery (buildings and structures that sit on the Terrain) to be distinguished from Terrain (the stuff you put the scenery on).
Additionally, and separately, would a division of the Terrain Category be worthwhile to distinguish between \"large\" items, such as full table or complete display pieces, against \"small\" pieces such as individual buildings, ruins and other small \"stand alone\" items.
Obviously CMON is not \"Cool Terrain or Not\" but I feel that the current lumping together of all terrain and scenery irrespective of size does not reflect the submissions in the category very well.
Very few people will ever be able to submit a full table or a large professional display piece and their inclusion in the general Terrain category pushes some excellent smaller work down the scale.
In addition it is often practically difficult to rate a table or large display piece accurately, or appropriately, due to the submitted image size and when combined with how the piece itself \"has\" to be shown in overview: in effect almost none of the large displays or tables show anything like the detail that is shown on smaller pieces, they are all long/wide shots: They may look great at a distance and actually be very disappointing when seen up close in detail. (This is actually quite common).
There is, clearly to me, also a tendency for people to vote comparatively i.e. if a giant table display is worth a 9 then how can anything else other than a giant table display every be worth a 9?
Going through the Terrain category it appears to me that the two above issue combine to present a rather unflattering result: that of smaller pieces being automatically worth lower scores simply because they are smaller: it would be a bit like saying a 28mm figure can never be worth a higher score than a 54mm figure: - *because* the 54mm got a 9, therefore no 28mm can ever be worth more than 8 as it is smaller….
Clearly such an approach to scoring is nonsense… but it appears that this may be what happens when people score the “Terrain” category.
If people want to consider what I mean then I invite them to look at some of the highest scored large terrain pieces: note that it is invariably impossible to see any detail, weathering, quality of seems joins, micro-detail and up-close paintwork; often none can be seen. Yet on a single small piece we can critique it down to the tiniest detail just as we do with figures because we are shown that sort of detail on the images.
Ironically where submitters of large pieces do post multiple images (in order to show detail and give a good all-round impression of quality) they are often criticised: one poster marking the excellent LotR Black Gate down to a low score simply because the submitter had posted more than one image of the model.
Now I do think that the majority of the large submission DO look like they are worth the scores they have been given. At the same time I have also seen a growing percentage of really rather average models getting ‘good’ scores “just because they are big”. It’s a bit like giving a 400-figure 40K army a score of 9 just because there are lots of figures (and none of which you can see in any proper detail).
IF the category was divided though we could imagine that large submissions are expected to submit multiple images of the same model so that we CAN see the detail (and not have people mark them down FOR submitting multiple images).
Anyway…
In summary I would like to say that I am not saying “the system is broke” – obviously it works to some large degree and I am thankful that CMON is here and even has a Terrain category at all!
At the same time I do think that some sort of sub-division of the category would be useful and, having given my opinion, would like to hear what others think.
