This topic is for discussion of map #3567: map 91 BIG CHESS
(http://knucklecracker.com/creeperworld3/queryMaps.php?query=thumbnailid&id=3567)
Author: yum234
Size: 250x180
Desc:
Can't kep up with your maps at the moment Yum, not enough hours in the day!
This was another epic map, great work!
Quote from: D0m0nik on May 23, 2016, 05:55:35 AM
Can't kep up with your maps at the moment Yum, not enough hours in the day!
This was another epic map, great work!
Thank You! You are welcome! :)
Seconded.
New plan: Alter the Earth's rotation to extend CW playtime.
Thirded. Your maps are great yum! I love them all.
Agreed! I always look forward to trying out a new yum map.
Thank You, but rating not so high...
P.S. I like statistics. History of rating of this map:
7 9 10 9 10 9 10 10 9 10 10 (at that time rating 9.25 :) ) then
1 9 10 9 10 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 (at that time rating 9 :) :) ) then
1 9 1 9 9 9 1 9 9...
Almost 9, 10 and 1 (without playing game! :( :( :( :( ).
Moral: Median rating is more useful than mean.
Also, if you look at CS sorted by rating, nothing stays at 9+.
Anything above 6 is worth extending, and above 7.5 is very good indeed.
Remember that the forum is the true measure (as far as these things go).
How often you Yum check rating in your newest map(s)? :O
And yeah , I agree median could be more stable against haters cause it stays at middlest rating always.
Yes, ignore all rankings of 1.
Quote from: Builder17 on May 26, 2016, 08:50:10 AM
How often you Yum check rating in your newest map(s)? :O
And yeah , I agree median could be more stable against haters cause it stays at middlest rating always.
For all new maps. Easy script. ;)
Instead of median rating I already posted simple administration way - not permit rate a map without submitting a score!
Almost all of my rate "1" was without playing and submitting score! And in Your case (maps) I also noticed that several maps (when rating becomes high) was rated "1" without playing game...
Quote from: stdout on May 26, 2016, 09:27:08 AM
Yes, ignore all rankings of 1.
I can not ignore. I need feedback. And problem of haters is not only in my case. It must be solved by administration by simple improving rules:
rate a map possible only after finish game and submitting score! Who can make such decisions?
Quote from: GoodMorning on May 26, 2016, 04:27:31 AM
Moral: Median rating is more useful than mean.
Sort of, but with only 11 discrete values possible information is lost. I find that there are noticeable differences between maps with avg rating 7.1 and 7.9.
Perhaps a simpler way to annoy the haters is to simply not post the average rating until at least 10 ratings have been made.
Quote from: isj4 on May 26, 2016, 01:45:33 PM
Quote from: GoodMorning on May 26, 2016, 04:27:31 AM
Moral: Median rating is more useful than mean.
Sort of, but with only 11 discrete values possible information is lost. I find that there are noticeable differences between maps with avg rating 7.1 and 7.9.
Perhaps a simpler way to annoy the haters is to simply not post the average rating until at least 10 ratings have been made.
Haters rate maps not only at the beginning. For example yesterday they within few minutes rated "1" all my maps with rating high than 8.5. And also some other maps (#3557 of builder17 etc.)! And
without playing and submitting score! Very easy in any time!
Could Karsten75 or somebody else move this talk into other thread maybe? ???
And submitting score in end is optional in CW3. 8)
Spoiler
So... Is mean rating system mean? ;D
Quote from: Builder17 on May 26, 2016, 02:24:55 PM
Could Karsten75 or somebody else move this talk into other thread maybe? ???
Will be good! Because fair rating system will make CW3 game better! :)
Quote from: Builder17 on May 26, 2016, 02:24:55 PM
And submitting score in end is optional in CW3. 8)
Yes. Optional submitting score is fair, but
rate map without playing is very easy and unfair!If system will be changed as I suggested, rate map "1" (after playing untill end) will be too heavy for haters.
Or after playing they maybe will enjoy ( :) ) and not rate "1"... ;)
We do need to be able to rate without finishing, because there is a need for feedback on overly difficult maps.
I favour two things:
1) A split score scale: Difficulty and Quality. Quality here meaning effort, balancing, terrain... Thus a 10/2 map isbadly made and almost impossible. A 5/8 would be a not-too-hard fight, but with good design or content.
2) A score distribution: Ratings to be colour-coded, and placed in a bar. Mostly green, red stripe: 1s and 9/10s. Mostly yellow/orange/red: Bad map.
Thoughts?
Quote from: GoodMorning on May 27, 2016, 03:38:38 AM
We do need to be able to rate without finishing, because there is a need for feedback on overly difficult maps.
Sorry, but not reasonable... If difficult - rate "1"? 8) No logic.
Indicator of difficulty is time! More median time - more big or difficult game. Exception is small puzzle.
I refer you to some maps by Kalek or Sorrontis.
I don't mean that difficult maps will be rated 1.
I do mean that difficult maps can be low-rated if they are not enjoyable. Requiring victory means that only those who can (and do) finish a map can rate it. This is a self-selecting group of the better players, or those who are more patient (stubborn). Therefore, the group who finish the game are more likely to have enjoyed it, simply because they finished, whereas those who are less skilled or stubborn are unable to express their displeasure.
Consider an all-void map that ends only after 100 min, whatever is done, even nothing.
Difficult? No. Likely to be finished? No. Bad? Yes. Rated? Unlikely.
Consider a slog map that takes 10h (somehow). Also unlikely to be rated by more than a handful.
These are hyperbolic examples, to demonstrate. The equivalent turns up for people who aren't good enough to win a map, as losing is frustrating. It is easy to forget that this happens to less experienced players, for those who have played a lot/long time.
The creator of this game is soon to release a new game and is no doubt spending a ridiculous amount of time on it. this is now an old game with a small following, the rating system will not change, let it go! Be grateful of the good feedback and forget the idiots who rate one. If you care what idiots think you may as well join them!
Quote from: D0m0nik on May 27, 2016, 07:11:26 PM
... Be grateful of the good feedback and forget the idiots who rate one. ...
I really only make maps for a dozen or so players. I've stopped caring about the rating system a long time ago.
I agree with D0m0nik.
Discussion here might help with a balanced system for PF, though...
Mmm... solid map, but a bit too dispersed.
And too easy once ore is available.