Metanet Forums

I for one think its very limiting to the rating process especially on Nv2 user levels and would've hoped that many people complained to M & R about it when it came out on NUMA maps?

I prefer an (x)/10 system than five. Simpler and more accurate to voting.

I must say something about your complaints on rating system. I think you got it wrong. James told me in PM once, that he give 4 stars to good maps and 5 for special. But thats wrong. You must be objective, that means that if there is a map, you think is good but nothing special, you shouldn't give it just 4 because you personally don't found it special.

5/5 means - map works perfect as it was planned, good idea, well processed. You can't tell what exactly is wrong if you don't like it much.

Best system is countdown. Play level and think about giving 5. And if there is something what ruins the impression, makes level worse (area where the gameplay is uncomfortable, elements that ruin the sense of the map etc.), think about how much it affect good feel from playing.

Few examples - I usually count down if:
- in the begining is part where you just run/fall without danger of death. Truly annoying.
- there is element doing unexpectable actions and completing doesn't depend on skill but more on being lucky.
- the gameplay is uncomfortable for some reason (mostly for using just full tiles on places where diagonal or curved ones would fit to gameplay more)
- there are useless elements ( rockets and gausses in groups close to each other etc.)
- ...

Look at Numa maps. The most used rating is 5/5 because it just means - good map without mapper's fault.

Real example: http://www.nmaps.net/230858

This map looks like nothing special. But even if it looks not very interesting, there is no "mapper's fault" what could you point out. It works perfect as planned, so I gave it 5/5.

In this point of view, 5 stars is enough.

Back in the day, when Sweep and I took over the reins of NUMA, we added those explanatory captions to the ratings:
0 (worthless)
1 (very poor)
2 (below average)
3 (above average)
4 (very good)
5 (flawless)

I think they're still applicable and represent a system that gives you ample opportunity to register a reasonable numerical approximation of your opinion.

Yes, but these terms are not so clearly defined so it doesn't help me with decision very much. But I think it correspond with my explanation.

lol Chiffonade I do like how you labelled 3 stars as 'above average' (as 2 is below average) instead of it counting as just plain average and hence not appealing, so I think that helps. Those descriptions you listed sound alright but they're rubbish for sorting popular maps into order, on which whether maps stay in the popular section depends.

Panstromek, there was a quote about architecture, that the worst criteria to judge a building on is excitement value -as that usually passes and then you think well its actually not that good at all. So I think its good what you say about all flawless incl fun maps should be given top rating regardless of which you would much rather play, but the bad thing about that and I think its quite an important one, is that it makes rating more boring no?

0-5 is satisfactory.

i think that comment deserves maybe 2 stars..

panstromek wrote:I must say something about your complaints on rating system. I think you got it wrong. James told me in PM once, that he give 4 stars to good maps and 5 for....
and bla bla bla
And bla.

Seriously seriously seriously panstro? Seriously?

EDIT: http://forum.droni.es/memberlist.php?mo ... file&u=128, you got a 5/5 from me.

I really donť understand your last activity on forums ZoasBE...

panstromek wrote:I really donť understand your last activity on forums ZoasBE...

Me neither.