Rate after Playing

[malibo29]

I liked it, when the rateingsystem went online!
But I think there are many player who play a map and than play the next one or something else and do not go straight back to the downloadsite to rate the map.

I think it would be very nice to have the thumbs up/down buttons in the "submit"-frame directly after having finished a game. This would be the best time and place to rate a map because you just finished the game and rate it by just one more click.
This way the rating system would be used even more freaquently.

Greetings!
mali

[2b3o4o]

In my opinion, the comments are a much better way to give feedback. People rate maps down simply if they can't beat it.

[Ebon Heart]

In my opinion, the comments are a much better way to give feedback. People rate maps down simply if they can't beat it.

agree. Some really good maps have a lot of thumbs down ratings because they're too hard. It's ridiculous. If anything, I would suggest removing the rating system altogether.

[Karsten75]

agree. Some really good maps have a lot of thumbs down ratings because they're too hard. It's ridiculous. If anything, I would suggest removing the rating system altogether.

So who decides if a map is "good?"  Surely if the majority of players can't beat it, then they may not think it is good. It may be good or clever or any other measure you care to give it, but it frustrated most players. Then they express that.  Early on Virgil wrote something about setting difficulty appropriately.

If there was a "leveling up" system where players could gain access to more difficult maps based on skill, then the criticism would be fair. But unfortunately, if all maps are made available to all skill levels, then the way the maps are rated are the way people see the map.


The original proposal does have merit, though.  Hopefully Virgil sees his way open to including an additional rating opportunity somewhere in-game.

[Ebon Heart]

agree. Some really good maps have a lot of thumbs down ratings because they're too hard. It's ridiculous. If anything, I would suggest removing the rating system altogether.

So who decides if a map is "good?"  Surely if the majority of players can't beat it, then they may not think it is good. It may be good or clever or any other measure you care to give it, but it frustrated most players. Then they express that.  Early on Virgil wrote something about setting difficulty appropriately.

If there was a "leveling up" system where players could gain access to more difficult maps based on skill, then the criticism would be fair. But unfortunately, if all maps are made available to all skill levels, then the way the maps are rated are the way people see the map.


The original proposal does have merit, though.  Hopefully Virgil sees his way open to including an additional rating opportunity somewhere in-game.

If you wanna see if a map is good, read the comments. The problem is... there are people who have issues with some very simple levels because there's a threat within the first few minutes. Some of them try once, die, and rate the map down and move on. They aren't a majority, sure, but there's enough of them out there that it ruins it for everyone else.

[malibo29]

I noticed this "rate-down" too.
I like the idea of skill-levels.
It had been in the original game too (in some way)

so maybe it would be y good idea not to include the rate-option after having played the map but a little box to type a comment!

Becouse comments are even less frequently used as the rationg-system.