I've not yet rated a single Exchange map. Why? Here's how it works:
1. I have my filter set to show only "unplayed / in-progress maps with review scores > 8 and num_reviews > 10, sorted in descending order of score"
2. I select my next map, the as-yet-unplayed one with the highest score. At this point the game gives me the option to rate this map -- which is silly, because I've not yet played it.
3. At anytime I reload the map, it again gives me the option to rate the map, which again is silly.
4. Once I complete it, I am invited to submit my high score. The only option here is "EXIT MISSION". So I exit the mission.
5. Now I'm at the carousel again. But the map I've just completed, that I'm all ready to submit my review, is no longer visible on the carousel! And if I set the filter to display all completed maps, well, I'd have no chance of finding the one I just played amongst the huge number.
So the UI as currently set up makes it as hard as possible to review maps.
SUGGESTION:
Please have a filter checkbox to show "completed but not yet reviewed" maps, and have this checkbox enabled by default. That way it'll be easy for me to see which maps I have yet to review.
Or just allow players to rate maps immediately after completion, instead of having to quite and find the map again to rate.
Quote from: ljw1004 on November 01, 2016, 01:19:00 AM
I've not yet rated a single Exchange map. Why? Here's how it works:
1. I have my filter set to show only "unplayed / in-progress maps with review scores > 8 and num_reviews > 10, sorted in descending order of score"
This method means your missing all my maps. :'(
It is true that most maps to not meet this exacting standard. In CW3 Colonial Space, there isn't a map with a long-term score of 9 or better. The rating sort there shows nothing better than ~8.75. So either you are depriving yourself of "quite good but not fantastic" or "challenging and suffering from "ragequit-itis", or very choosy (not necessarily a bad thing, but it will give you a biased (pre-selected?) view when you do submit ratings).
I am not sure, but I think that V might be trying to keep a lid on the type of chronic (and red-queen) rating system debate that CW3 had.
Quote from: GoodMorning on November 01, 2016, 02:20:24 AM
... rating system debate that CW3 had.
In CW3 rating system was almost perfect with only one exception (by my opinion): better permit to rate map
only after completing/finishing it. If player not finished map (for instance, hard/tricky map) he/she not able rate it.
http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=20812
Hard/tricky not always means bad!
This small rule will prevent rating maps immediately (without trying to play, only based on negative emotions) after it uploads.
Quote from: yum-forum on November 01, 2016, 05:26:13 AM
Quote from: GoodMorning on November 01, 2016, 02:20:24 AM
... rating system debate that CW3 had.
In CW3 rating system was almost perfect with only one exception (by my opinion): better permit to rate map only after completing/finishing it. If player not finished map (for instance, hard/tricky map) he/she not able rate it.
http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=20812
Hard/tricky not always means bad!
This small rule will prevent rating maps immediately (without trying to play, only based on negative emotions) after it uploads.
I agree - but with the possible addition of some sort of automatic 'incomplete' or 'rage quit' label for people's ratings who have not completed/submitted a score...!
Perhaps integrate a series of mental puzzles that a person would have to complete BEFORE rating a map?
This would eliminate people who have difficulty with certain things (I'm not going to mention "tying shoes" by the way) from giving the map a poor rating simply because - even though they CAN figure out some things (I'm not going to mention "Pop Tarts") - they're unable to figure out the map. Which clearly must be a fault of the mapmaker.
So yeah, maybe one or two mental puzzles might help block unqualified people from rating maps. Maybe something like what's on parental locks in certain apps... like 7 + 3 = _____. ;D
Quote from: GoodMorning on November 01, 2016, 02:20:24 AM
I am not sure, but I think that V might be trying to keep a lid on the type of chronic (and red-queen) rating system debate that CW3 had.
Too bad it only promotes the inflation of bipolar votes. If I ragequit a map I will make sure to give it a low score no matter the interface obfuscations. Or casually give 10s at any map before playing them. I wouldn't go over the list just to give 7s and 9s however.
Quote from: yum-forum on November 01, 2016, 05:26:13 AM
In CW3 rating system was almost perfect with only one exception (by my opinion): better permit to rate map only after completing/finishing it. If player not finished map (for instance, hard/tricky map) he/she not able rate it.
http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=20812
Hard/tricky not always means bad!
This small rule will prevent rating maps immediately (without trying to play, only based on negative emotions) after it uploads.
Your link is quite funny, because you are upset over a single 1, but totally okay with several 10s (which any CW3 puzzle map doesn't deserve). So while there are indeed people who give 1s based solely on feelings, so there are people who give 10s indiscriminately.
Also locking the rating behind completion will give an unfair advantage to slogfests, since the people who are willing to get through them are also the people who will give 7+ to them.
Personally, if I can't finish a map, I give it a 10. It means it beat me. It's better than this old Sorrontis dude.
I never give below 5, unless it's a blank or achievement map. Even a bad map that's poorly balanced has some worth in my mind. Something to learn from, maybe an unfinished idea or a badly implemented one.
Red queen problem. The system will always seem improvable.
I agree that the player should have at least played the map before they can score it, but they shouldn't have the beat the map in order to give their opinion.
I liked the way CW3 was setup in that you have the chance to rate it immediately after beating it. In PF you are discouraged from rating because you're taken back to the carousel after completion. You should remain at the map's page so you can rate it.
Maybe not good idea: Let player rate map only after playing map X time in real time , if he didn't win it.
And X could be 15 minutes or something.
Edit: And maybe check in some way that player actually tried win map. Might be hard in special maps...
+1
Quote from: stdout on November 11, 2016, 02:04:10 PM
I agree that the player should have at least played the map before they can score it, but they shouldn't have the beat the map in order to give their opinion.
I liked the way CW3 was setup in that you have the chance to rate it immediately after beating it. In PF you are discouraged from rating because you're taken back to the carousel after completion. You should remain at the map's page so you can rate it.
I agree that you should have to have played but how do you implement that? If you download it and let it run while you get a glass of water that would be the same as playing to the system.
I think those that argue you have to finish a map to rate it should be forced to sit down and finish a meal they have stated they don't like because it is the very same principle. You don't need to finish something to know if you like it or not.
Cheers
I still think it would be beneficial to have some kind of "player rating" as well. Like, if a player is able to beat most maps give them a higher score. Then you could make minimum requirements for someone being able to rate maps... like, "Must have completed 400 maps and have a 7.5+ rating to rate this map". And maybe the mapmakers could even be allowed to set the level of player who could rate the maps.
Otherwise the Food Network might as well hire my 3-year old as a critic and when people don't cook Mac & Cheese she can give them two thumbs down. Or whatever kind of ratings they do on that network.
I just think it would be great if a mapmaker could prevent... (shall we just say "unskilled people?") from rating their maps. Notice I did NOT use the word that would follow this sequence:
Less off... Less on...
More off... More ___. ;)
I dislike this instinctively, on the basis that someone who has just begun should have the same power to rate as someone who has played for a long time.
My preferred solution: Give a rating option as for CW3, let difficulty be rated as distinct from quality, let the law of averages sort it out, which is the theory with ratings already. Seed the quality rating history with three 5s and three 6s to smooth the average for a recent release.
But no system is perfect, and even if it were, it would not look to be.
Quote from: Johnny Haywire on November 13, 2016, 10:09:17 PM
I still think it would be beneficial to have some kind of "player rating" as well. Like, if a player is able to beat most maps give them a higher score. Then you could make minimum requirements for someone being able to rate maps... like, "Must have completed 400 maps and have a 7.5+ rating to rate this map". And maybe the mapmakers could even be allowed to set the level of player who could rate the maps.
Otherwise the Food Network might as well hire my 3-year old as a critic and when people don't cook Mac & Cheese she can give them two thumbs down. Or whatever kind of ratings they do on that network.
I just think it would be great if a mapmaker could prevent... (shall we just say "unskilled people?") from rating their maps. Notice I did NOT use the word that would follow this sequence:
Less off... Less on...
More off... More ___. ;)
There is a lot of value in this suggestion, Just needs to be worked out, Children do ratings and sometimes they are better then the adult ratings.
The idea I have probably can't be implemented here however in future games it might be possible .
The idea being that there are a few test maps that are set to different levels. The players then would have to play those maps to get rated. The cartographers would then have to pick the level they believe you should be at to play their map, only those players that are at that level or above would be able to rate that map. Anyone would still be able to play any map, only ratings would be effected. And the player would know before hand that the map is 1 or 3 levels above or below their tested level. Part of the ratings would be suggested level and if enough players up or down voted a map it would move up or down based on that rating. That way those cartographers can then cater to the audience they like by how hard or easy they make a map.
Cheers
QuoteMy preferred solution: Give a rating option as for CW3, let difficulty be rated as distinct from quality
I really like this idea - some maps are fairly easy but very enjoyable. Some maps are difficult AND enjoyable, and some maps just feel like biting down on an ingrown toenail with abscessed teeth.
I think this is a great solution!
You could also incorporate the previously-discussed "player rating" system and do what stock market sites like Motley Fool do - so you could see a separate rating by "star players" or such.
I agree with this thread that we need easier ways to find maps we've played but not rated.
I stopped using the carousel view on the Exchange as it would often start spinning without me clicking to the side. Switching to the grid view makes it a little harder to find maps I've played. I also prefer to filter by maps I've not played but I would like to either 1) rate a map on the submit score screen or 2) have a filter to find maps that I've played that have not yet received a rating.
I my estimation this is one of the most important things that still needs to be fixed in PF.
In CW3 when you finish a map, you are taken to a screen that lets you rate it immediately. You can also choose to play it again from that same screen.
In PF when you finish a map, you are kicked back out to the exchange screen. For me, I have it in grid mode with "Not Played" checked off, so I usually can't even find the map I just finished playing. I have only once or twice in my playing PF actually gone to find the game I just finished in order to rate it.
When the player finishes or exits a game, they should be given a screen like CW3 had, where they can re-play it, or give a rating to it. That screen should have a button that when pressed sends them back to the exchange screen.
+1. Agreeeeeee! :)