Custom Map Difficulty Rating System

[Fisherck]

I changed my mind. I feel this deserves it's own thread. :)

Here are some options I can think of...

.You can have it the same as before. Quite simply, in my opinion, NO. ;)

.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. I kind of like this one... ;)

.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).

Any other ideas or opinions?

[Sqaz]

I like the Automatic one and the MapModerator's one.

The first didn't really work out well in CW1.
I often don't play a map fully, but still know how hard it is (happens with slog maps) so I don't really like the fourth option.

And the last one seems quite complicated and complex.

[Fisherck]

I like the Automatic one and the MapModerator's one.

The first didn't really work out well in CW1.
I often don't play a map fully, but still know how hard it is (happens with slog maps) so I don't really like the fourth option.

And the last one seems quite complicated and complex.

The mapmod and automatic options are my favorite too, and will also probably be the most consistent options.

And I agree that the last one can get overly complex. To a newbie, they might get confused by multiple difficulty opinions.

But while I agree that one can get a taste for the maps difficulty (usually) pretty quickly, having people that only submit a score be able to vote on difficulty instead of anyone, will make it much more difficult for people to vote the wrong way just because they do not like the map/map author.

[Grauniad]

... make it much more difficult for people to vote the wrong way just because they do not like the map/map author.

First of all, let's be clear here. You and others are worrying about a few  votes on a few maps in a small, almost insignificant game? In the greater scheme of things, if a map is rated at 4.5 vs. 5, how important is it? Did you ever consider that some people might have complained because Kandinsky used blue in some of his paintings and blue would not go with their home decor?

Permit me to be philosophical for a minute here.  Assuming Knuckle Cracker is a small ecosystem.  What you and a few others are saying is that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to vote. But that goes against the tenets of freedom of expression. All members of the KC ecosystem have a right to vote (conferred on them by Virgil implementing a voting system). What you advocate is a form of prescription on how they should vote.

Think carefully about that.  That is a way to curtail others' freedom to express themselves as they see fit. 

Even those who do not play (or complete) a map, has a right to vote on a map - simply because that is how they indicate who they want to make maps and what type of maps they want.

There seems to be a great deal of concern with a few negative votes. At the same time, I've not heard anyone expressing concern that perhaps some people vote a map 5/5 simply because they like the map author. Do you think the latter is also likely?

Are you really letting a few people get under your skin simply because they choose to vote negatively on a map? I would think that the ability to rise above a few slings and arrows are a requirement for getting along in modern society. If you let them get under your skin, they win.

My perspective is this:

People that vote negatively on a map are using their freedom of expression granted them to express their opinion. Maybe they don't like the map author. That is their right. If they do not like the map author, voting down a map is a way to express that. If the majority of people here don't like  a map author, then all maps from that author will get a low rating and the map author will get a specific message. I can think of one or two CW1 examples of a map maker that was not well thought of by the community. Their maps tend to have lower ratings.

It is far more likely that only a few voters in the ecosystem does this. They derive a small amount of satisfaction from doing that - that satisfaction is increased when map authors fret about these voters.

Almost all maps have lower voting counts than they have scores submitted. So a fraction of those who play a map bother to vote - and only a fraction of those who play maps even submit a score. I suggest we let the people speak as they see fit.

[UpperKEES]

Grauniad, this topic is not about map quality, but about specifying a difficulty rating as an indication to other players. See this topic for a discussion about a map quality rating.

Secondly, we are not having a discussion about what is wrong and what is right. We are having a discussion about what system deals best with reality, including people voting for different reasons.

To discuss the possible ways to reflect the difficulty decently is our right, just like it is our right to be bothered by people who abuse their voting right. Please realize that not that many people take the effort to vote (just have a look at the average CW1 map), so a single vote has quite a lot of influence, especially when cast right after a map gets approved and even more when it can be used to sort/filter maps. If 10-20% difference isn't that important, is the rating important at all?

If Virgil decides to use a certain rating system for difficulty, it has to be useful or else better not introduce it at all (my preference).

When introducing this for CW2 anyway, I'm in favour of still letting the map author specifying the difficulty. Why would a map author intentionally give his/her players the wrong impression? The only likely reason is a lack of ability to judge it correctly and this will change when more experience is gained. No-one will be more concerned about the appropriate difficulty of a map being displayed than the map author him/herself, so let him/her have that responsibility.

Edit:

My easy solution will be to use the first line of the map description:

Difficulty: Trivial/Easy/Medium/Hard/Expert Only

[Grauniad]

@UpperKEES: Did you see the line from Fisherck I quoted?  Did it say "rate" or "vote?"

[UpperKEES]

Yep, and I'm sure Fisherck means voting for the 'map difficulty rating', not for the 'map quality rating'.

Rating is voting too, see image:

[Fisherck]

@UpperKEES: Did you see the line from Fisherck I quoted?  Did it say "rate" or "vote?"

Yep, and I'm sure Fisherck means voting for 'map difficulty', not for 'map quality'.
Rating is voting too, see image:

Yes, I was commenting on the option where one could vote for difficulty the same as one could vote for score in CW1.

I understand that freedom to vote is important. And I am also aware that this is a "small, almost insignificant game". :) But I also understand that quality and accuracy are important too. I seem to remember that "Virgil is a benevolent dictator". ;)
But we must also remember that only one person could vote on the difficulty before, and that vote was final. And even I messed up a few times (usually ranking them lower than they should be :P). But the problem comes with ability. My medium difficulty maps are going to have a lot less scores than most other medium difficulty maps. ::) An automatic system, mapmod system, or a system where everyone can vote, will at least ensure accuracy, because the same group will always be voting (granted the everyone group will fluctuate a bit). And that small group that likes the 1 star can be quite annoying. Which is why I support leaving your name behind with your vote (both for difficulty and rating). This won't stop everyone (look at rchev), but it will stop most. And just because we are small and insignificant does not mean that we cannot strive for perfection! 8)

[CJY101]

I think...

First, Author of "guide" degree of difficulty.
then.....

Difficulty stars:1 to 5
Scores high to low order.
May show such a distribution.

Name      Score   Difficulty stars
players3  9400    2 stars (stager, might think simple)
players6  9300    1 stars (stager, might think simple)
players1  9200    4 stars (newbie, might think difficulties, However, the strength of a breakthrough.)
players5  8500    3 stars (General Players, might think Medium)
Author    8300    3 stars (Author, might think Medium)
players2  7600    4 stars (newbie, might think difficulties)
players4  7400    2 stars (stager, might think simple,But just want to play slowly)
players7  7100    4 stars (newbie, might think difficulties)
_________________
Average difficulty 2.875 star

Overall, this map is a general difficulty level.

[Fisherck]

I think...

First, Author of "guide" degree of difficulty.
then.....

Difficulty stars:1 to 5
Scores high to low order.
May show such a distribution.

Name      Score   Difficulty stars
players3  9400    2 stars (stager, might think simple)
players6  9300    1 stars (stager, might think simple)
players1  9200    4 stars (newbie, might think difficulties, However, the strength of a breakthrough.)
players5  8500    3 stars (General Players, might think Medium)
Author    8300    3 stars (Author, might think Medium)
players2  7600    4 stars (newbie, might think difficulties)
players4  7400    2 stars (stager, might think simple,But just want to play slowly)
players7  7100    4 stars (newbie, might think difficulties)
_________________
Average difficulty 2.875 star

Overall, this map is a general difficulty level.

That is not a bad idea. when you submite a score for a map, you can also have the option to rate it's difficulty. So you can see how well that person did and what they think the difficulty is. That could definitely work. :)

[Grabarz]

What I have thought out is that there could be two ratings: already said difficulty rating from 1-5 and something like YouTube's like/dislike counter to determine if player liked the map or not. It could have happened that players would dislike a map because of its difficulty, but the player could have gave rating of 1 instead anyway. This way, players could also filter maps that are most popular, or most difficult. But I have no idea how to not let newest maps get forgotten pretty quick after dropping on page 2 and later assuming that players would rather play the most popular maps.