Custom map voting

[ajasquared]

There should be a system of voting from 1 to 5 stars for custom CW2 maps like the CW1 maps. This would only be open to thoese who have actually finished the map however. This would also be another filter in the download custom maps screne in the menu.

[Sqaz]

Voting will never work, it has been tried. Every single option has its disadvantages.
The best thingt to do if you want to vote is leave a comment, that'll mean more to the author than a stupid star you give his map

[UpperKEES]

Yep, comments say it all! :)

[Grauniad]

There might still be a simple up/down vote, since a summation of votes does convey information otherwise not easily gleaned from reading a large number of comments.

[knucracker]

The simple up/down is something I have considered adding....  Right now I find myself looking at the comment count and the score count to sort of judge more popular maps.  Its like each play or each comment is a kind of vote for the map.  Of course a bad map can have lots of comments as well....

[Ranakastrasz]

[UpperKEES]

If you really consider an up/down vote, please make sure it can't be done anonymously, or even better: require a comment to be posted along with it. Just seeing 10 thumbs down won't tell a map author what to change for their next map.

Otherwise I'm afraid it will allow people to vote against a certain map authors (without even downloading the map) or people using multiple IPs or proxies to vote several times.

I believe not having a voting system will encourage people to leave a sensible comment, which is always more useful than a silly number.

[Ranakastrasz]

If you really consider an up/down vote, please make sure it can't be done anonymously, or even better: require a comment to be posted along with it. Just seeing 10 thumbs down won't tell a map author what to change for their next map.

Otherwise I'm afraid it will allow people to vote against a certain map authors (without even downloading the map) or people using multiple IPs or proxies to vote several times.

I believe not having a voting system will encourage people to leave a sensible comment, which is always more useful than a silly number.

Indeed. I personally see no way to make a system to have a simple number decide how good a map is. A possibility would be require it to be attached to a review comment, but require comments to be reviewed by someone, and disallow multiple reviews per map on one account/IP. However, The increased work-load for moderators would make it less than worth it. I suppose we could flag people as *map reviewers* and allow them to vote only, attached to a review, but I am not really sure.

[Grauniad]

I am aware of many game rating systems on the Internet that has either of a) a 1-5  or 1-10 star rating, or b) a simple up/down like/dislike percentage. I have not, in my recollection, ever come across a rating system that forces participants to either a) leave a comment on each rating or b) arrive at some pre-defined point (game completed) before it can be rated.

Do any of the posters on this thread advocating for either forcing a comment with each rating or requiring that a map be completed before it can be rated have a reference to such a system?

For instance, what prevents a player from rating a map and simply commenting "asrwefrds"?

The biggest, and most important audience Virgil has is the playing community. We should always bear them in mind and not put obstacles or barriers in their participation when all other things are equal. When a player cannot finish a map, for instance, they have legitimate cause to rate it poorly. Even if they are not a top-tier player, they may represent the majority of players.

The argument that map s have been rated negatively simply because they have been made by a specific map maker - for that I have to see some evidence. And not anecdotal evidence.

[UpperKEES]

I have not, in my recollection, ever come across a rating system that forces participants to either a) leave a comment on each rating or b) arrive at some pre-defined point (game completed) before it can be rated.

For everything there needs to be a first time. Without thinking out-of-the-box we wouldn't be fighting a liquid enemy now.... ;)

For instance, what prevents a player from rating a map and simply commenting "asrwefrds"?

Nothing, but at least he/she would be identified, which will most likely prevent him/her from doing so.

We should always bear them in mind and not put obstacles or barriers in their participation when all other things are equal.

Nothing prevents any player from posting a comment, but laziness. If someone is too lazy to type a single sentence, I don't see why it should affect the rating of a map that an author has put a lot of time into, especially when that rating can be sorted on/filtered by. And I'm saying this while I can't complain about the ratings for my CW1 maps at all....

When a player cannot finish a map, for instance, they have legitimate cause to rate it poorly.

Nonsense! This is exactly the reason ratings are silly! Custom maps are often much harder than the in-game maps and a starting player shouldn't think he/she can beat every map after playing Day 20. Is chess a bad game because I can't beat Kasparov?

The argument that map s have been rated negatively simply because they have been made by a specific map maker - for that I have to see some evidence. And not anecdotal evidence.

Correct! But with anonymous votes we will never see that prove for sure....

[knucracker]

One more thing to throw in the mix (just ideas at this point for discussion):
I've considered even the most primitive voting system... the "half vote".  In this system, there isn't even a thumbs down.  There is only a thumbs up button.  A player can either click it or not.

The half vote system discourages malicious negative votes, since there aren't any.  The pranksters only way to pick on someone is to do nothing for the author they are trying to pick on, and then click thumbs up on all other maps.  Not much of a prank and not really even noticeable.

Of course even the half vote has to have some way to prevent run-ups.  IP address, cookie, frequency of voting, etc... all of the normal irritating things to check.

And even though the half-vote discourages pranksters, it could be argued that it doesn't really provide much more than the download count or the posted score count.

[thepenguin]

I'm tempted to write my own map scoring algorithim, which takes into account all these factors (will probably end up a total fail, but its worth a shot)

I know it should be proportional to scores/downloads


how about ceiling(scores*10/downloads) :), the "easier" the map, the greater the score (of course, to turn this into difficulty, 10-ceiling(scores*10/downloads)) seems like a nice value

[Fisherck]

I truthfully, would like some sort of rating system. Almost any kind is better than none! But since we have this new oppurtunity, we might as well take advantage of it and make a good system. ;)

First off, I would prefer if for whatever system we decide, it either automatically leaves your username (with your vote) or you have to post a comment. Now I understand why people are against the required comment, which to a certain extent I agree, but I am a map maker, and opinions that are written out are much more helpfull then 5s, 1s, ups, or downs. :P But say we move the sytem to an up down vote and when you vote you leave your username with that vote. So I can check the ups, and see everyone who voted. Maybe someone I know who is equal to me in gameplay gave it a thumbs up. Then I know I myself might like it. Or maybe that person gave it a thumbs down. Then I have a good idea I probably will not like it. If you leave your username behind when you vote, many people will think twice before disliking a specific author's maps just because they don't like that author. But I can also see this making it less likely for people to voice their opinions if they dislike a map. I for one, would have to really hate a map to dislike it. :) So perhaps a 3 vote sytem may be better. Yes!, Uhh, or No! If the system will be anonymous, people are more likely to vote on the extremes (5 or 1). If it is not anonymous, people are less (in my opinion) likely give a map a negetive rating (though I know some people here are not afraid to state their opinion ;)). I think a 3 vote system (or even 5) where you leave your username behind might be a good compromise.

And I find it somewhat annoying that maps still do not have a difficulty rating yet. ::)(I am putting this in this thread because it is very much related, but a mod could move it out if they want)
.A very simple option would be to have it done automatically. You look at hard maps, and they usually have less scores per downloads than easier maps. There could just be a meter, that shows the total downloads and the percentage of scores to downloads. The more downloads, the more accurate it will be. But it would make it hard to gauge maps just submitted.
.It could be given to mapmods, and they have the ability to give it a difficulty. Multiple mods could vote to decide.
.Or only people who get a score can vote on the difficulty(including author). A new player might vote a trivial map experts only, but his vote would quickly be overrulled. Or on the otherside, an expert may vote a map easy. This is less likely to happen, and this could be overrulled too, but more slowly.
.Or, lastly, there can be multiple voting categories. One from the map author (less reliable), the mapmod community (more reliable), all players and they do not have to submit a score (less reliable), or people who submitted a score (more reliable).

Complicated stuff! 8)

[UpperKEES]

Yep, it indeed is complicated. If there really needs to be an anonymously voting system I like Virgil's last proposal best:

I've considered even the most primitive voting system... the "half vote".  In this system, there isn't even a thumbs down.  There is only a thumbs up button.  A player can either click it or not.

It's used for Facebook and I can imagine they've chosen it for the same reason I dislike down votes: keep the community a happy friendly place and use words to explain why you didn't like something. Just consider someone voting a thumbs down or plainly saying "I don't like CW2!". What does that help you in improving the game? You probably pull up your shoulders and move on, but in the meanwhile your game dropped a few places in the ranking.

I still prefer a non-anonymous rating system though....

Edit:

I have to see some evidence. And not anecdotal evidence.

A good example is the rating for Bored to Death. I asked the players to give just 1 star if they agreed this map is boring (clearly stated in the description, the intro text and the map comments). 71 people voted and this resulted in a rating of 2.24, which proves some people don't vote for the reason they should be voting. (And don't tell me you believe that about 25 people really like waiting for 2 hours! ;))

Another example is the fact that at a certain moment (about 15 months ago, when I released 2 maps per week), there were always one or two 1-star votes within the first 30 minutes after one of my maps got approved, so before anyone had a fair chance to play it (because these maps were pretty hard). Often all other votes after that were 5 stars.... I can only prove this if Virgil kept a log record, but I'm sure some others will have noticed it as well.

[Fisherck]

Another example is the fact that at a certain moment (about 15 months ago, when I released 2 maps per week), there were always one or two 1-star votes within the first 30 minutes after one of my maps got approved, so before anyone had a fair chance to play it (because these maps were pretty hard). Often all other votes after that were 5 stars.... I can only prove this if Virgil kept a log record, but I'm sure some others will have noticed it as well.

Yep! I remember commenting about it on one of my maps when I first saw it happen to me. :)