@cernel
Grouping the same map with different versions can also be a solution, I do it in my mobile port.

To be clear, my starting suggestion was to have "Basic" instead of "A&A Style". Whether or not then also divide between originals and variants was merely an added item and maybe not worth it. There can be just the "Basic" category only and forget about the variants, let them be normal non-Basic maps like anything else.

@TheDog

I know I can search for them but the whole point of a category system is to not need to search for them and for people to be able to find things that they want to play in the same style. As map variety expands you'd want to be able to make to filter for category.

So for example someone looking for Domination maps might stumble on the "Steampunk" one which they otherwise wouldn't. Or if Im a fan of Total War I might stumble upon Total Ancient War. There are currently dozens of maps that are not searchable based on common map packs and these would benefit from a categorization system immediately.

For example Battle For Arda is a Middle-Earth variant, Operation Unthinkable and Ozeta's maps are Global variants, Steampunk is a Domination variant. These categories have actual utility.

Year just doesn't make any sense, it's not related to the actual thing people are searching for. There's for example 100 WW2 maps. What is "Year" going to do for anyone looking thorugh 1939-1945? Does a player playing Revised care about Total War?

Edit: An other variant instead of either of these two would be to simply have it be "Complexity". So Total War goes into 5 (most complex) Domination 4, Global/NWO 3, Revised 2, Classic 1. Non A&A would go into "Unclassified" category. Like Relic or Chess.

This would automatically group maps of the same style at least somewhat.

Regarding ratings Im fine either way, but I thought the whole reason you removed them was that people did complain. You've already rated some maps that are finished as 2. What would you rate the Capture the Flag map for example? Its (Approved/Finished) but you're rating it a 3. So its not really an equivalent of what I suggested, though it may have its own merit.

Never had a problem with the old system personally. But it was useful partly because it was so stringent So it depends on if people like that or not.

@TheDog said:

Genre, currently Im going for these
1946+ Atomic (for near our current tech levels)
Futuristic (includes Dune, Star Wars, Star Trek etc)
Again, I will give it a few days to see other opinions

Yes, I would agree that, if we do not want to have a "Near Future" category, better to have it as part of 1946+ than Futuristical. For example, if I now make a map for a World War in 2050, I think that would be better as 1946+ than staying together with Star Trek and such. However, this has the risk of the distinction being lost over time: without a "Near Future" category, every time a new map in the near future would be released, it may end up going one way or the other. Thereby, if not having a "Near Future" category, I suggest that the "Futuristical" category is named either "Far Future" or "Hyperfuturistical" to make that clear enough.