Schema scheming

[Twrecks]

1st off, as H points out, 99% of the maps at NC are done by non-pros for fun/art/free. Sounding professional shouldn't really be a concern.
I'm in favor of keeping the names simple, and I have already stated arguements against most, okay, all other suggestions. Being the Devil's advocate that I am

I like "Skill", it sounds less ghey than "craft" and is easily understood what it means and runs a little deeper than "Build". It can be quantified and shows an appreciation for learning. It certainly is more of a layman's term and not something that would confuse our non-english cousins. Unfortunately "Skill" and "Art" are often mistaken for eachother, or used as synonyms (meaning more or less the same thing) so maybe I was too hasty to sacrafice "Build" for "Skill". "Build" should stay.

I would like to use "Game" instead of "Gameplay" or "Playability". If something has "Game" one naturally relates what that means. It is far more descriptive than "Cast" and it doesn't sound like we are reverting back to the old schema or copying someone elses. By all means change "Cast", but keep it simple, most ppl don't give a poo about technical stuff. "Gameplay" just sounds like we are one of the drone sites banging out reviews using catch phrases and the trade lingo. I'd rather be fly and kick these reviews out for our homeys, the players and mappers care about having a good time and Unreal is what they do to get that enjoyment.

In place of "Awe", I had proposed "Art". Now "Skill" and "Game" are possessions. "Environment" doesn't fit in this context, neither does "Art". I'm stuptified anyone has a problem with "Awe". I can't come up with a better suffix or simple yet descriptive word to replace it. Even "Art" seems hollow compared to "Awe".

Here's another run down:
AWE
BUILD
and...
GAME

It removes the one word (cast) so many were having a problem with. Hey, I had a problem with it too as I explained over and over again. It fit then, funny no one would mention it till now.

About the whole 9 point scoring system. (Mass, back me up on this), this would require some new coding and will make a split from reviews done up to this date using the current schema. Changing names is one thing, the way scores are calculated and entered is another. Changing the names will make some of the old reviews read oddly "Why does the reviewer say Cast when the 3rd catagory is Game?" I don't know if the change will effect old reviews, but it will confuse readers as if we don't already have enough scoring systems they encounter going through our archives.

Giving the reviewer that "extra point" to give where they feel, or just to do it, would make our review system seem more consistant over changing the names. "Yea, NC has a 3 catagory thing each with 3 points, but look: that map got a BONUS POINT, wOOt!". Hey, that sounds cool. BU Headline news: NC reviewers now can give a BONUS POINT, that's a gold star for you kids at home!. That would take care of the 9 point dilema/confusion. (I know Mass, you would have to code it and I would need to test it before going public).

Oh well, I type too farking much. As one of the senior admins at NC this issue concerns me and have put in more than the 2 cents most other topics wouldn't get from me. And I like my shed

 

[Twrecks]

Oh yea, that reminds me. We need to update our LINK page. Insite has a new web addy and the Infogrames Forums are now the Atari Forums. Just goes to show you how long ago I made that list

Oops, off topic! Did I mention I have a shed?

 

[Manticore]

Look Twrecks..........

Oh yea, that reminds me. We need to update our LINK page. Insite has a new web addy and the Infogrames Forums are now the Atari Forums. Just goes to show you how long ago I made that list

Oops, off topic! Did I mention I have a shed?

I hope none of my comments were taken too much too heart by the powers that be at NC.

I tried to qualify them by saying that I am a mapping non-person in the scheme of things and I am grateful for the opportunity, as a visitor to the site, to be able to express an opinion at all.

As for ENVIRONMENT I was just throwing a few coins into the fountain so, generally, what I say should be passed over.

Oh, and I'm sure IN MY OPINION, that the shed is just fine!

 

[paranoia]

Before I forget, Just wanna thank hourences for posting that link those images are unbelievable. . .so inspired now!! Oh and yeh keep chatting away. . .makes for some fascinating light reading

 

[Twrecks]

Sheesh, nobody even looks at our LINKS page.

Don't worry so Manticore. Your posts are appreciated here and so are your user comments on maps. It's all about feedback. FYI: My shed also has a triggered lightsource, too bad I didn't adjust the hue and saturation when I placed it there, I suck at lighting

 

[Manticore]

Zonelighting and sheds......

Sheesh, nobody even looks at our LINKS page.

It's all about feedback. FYI: My shed also has a triggered lightsource, too bad I didn't adjust the hue and saturation when I placed it there, I suck at lighting

I'll wait for the tutorial on lighting sheds to come out.

Time and time again in threads you have hit the nail on the head: freedom of speech and the right to an opinion; no matter what the thread starter is.

Just to prove it start at this map......:

File Name dm-lin-chinatown.zip
Author lin-design

.........and then go to "Newb of the Day" thread. After which if you choose, collectively or individually to ban me I will bow out gracefully and with gratitude. But when I see these types of things on map pages my blood just goes up as if I had connected to an extremely hardcore DM game on the net.

There's a links page now?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

[luquado]

One of the biggest mistakes I ever made was creating and then advocating that godawful formulaic approach to reviewing, but at the time it was necessary. I still apologize for it

<Gump>And that's all I've got to say about review schemas.</Gump>

 

[Twrecks]

We also have a Link for the NC3 schema. We are very cryptic shedbuilders. Maybe that's why no one showed up for the annual car wash?

Please feel free to make any comments on the schema before you are dragged away by the two men standing behind you.

 

[Bot_40]

I still ain't happy about the /9 thingy. Frieza already said, Deck_40 got 8/9, which I am 100% happy with, but he already said if it was a true /10 score then it would be a 9/10 which I would also be 100% happy with. Now you say it could have been 8/10, and if that's a case then no I wouldn't be happy because yeah, despite what you are saying, there IS a big difference between 8/10 and 9/10. In fact, I would say a VERY significant difference. This is especially the case when you get to the high end of the review scale, it's so much harder to get the extra 0.5 because feedback really starts to get extremely critical at this point. 8/10 is something you can get with perhaps a weeks work if you try and know what you are doing. 9/10 is a REALLY huge step up and takes a hell of a lot more work (month+ ?). A map has to be absolutely top notch to get that and with the current schema with things being so confused, it's in danger of not getting recognised imo.
It genuinly worries me that you can't see/don't care about the difference between an 8/10 map and a 9/10 map. Scoring = Needs clearing up

edit: and no I'm not sore about my map or anything, just using it as an example because frieza already said about the scores so it's just good proof of my point

 

[Zlal]

I really have something against awe. You know, It's not that I don't understand the word or don't like it - it's use gifted me a A* in english a few weeks ago - but IMO it doesn't sound right for a review site. Not when compared to the rest of the site.
The words used in the scema are the only thing really bugging me - it's a nice site as it is, but.... Awe? And Cast?
Cast is the worst word... awe is ok, but I just don't think it fits.
As for gameplay/game.... game sounds sounds gimmicky and kinda inapropriate though thats just my opinion.
I really havn't got any problems but theres just something about awe and cast that bugs me.

 

[Ironblayde]

I still ain't happy about the /9 thingy. Frieza already said, Deck_40 got 8/9, which I am 100% happy with, but he already said if it was a true /10 score then it would be a 9/10 which I would also be 100% happy with.

I see this not so much as a defect in the schema as inconsistency on the part of us reviewers. I argued somewhere in this thread that since a NaliCity review score is the sum of three category scores, any of which can receive full marks, a 9.0 should not be regarded as an unattainable score. That makes sense to me, but apparently not everyone sees it that way. Whatever changes come out of this thread, if any, we need to make sure that everyone understands and agrees on how the schema should be approached.

That said, I wouldn't mind if we were to add the ability to assign a bonus point (or half of one) for a map with exceptional synergy, or one in which the reviewer simply thinks that the sum of the category scores doesn't seem to accurately represent the map's quality. I don't mind this because I (and presumably others) would use it very rarely, and thus scores given out under this revised schema would still be compatible with the rest of the NC3 reviews up to this point, in terms of search options and comparability.

The other idea that was brought up that I really think we should implement is adding a link to our schema below the category scores. That information should be located as conveniently as possible for someone who wants it. Also, that page will need to be rewritten if the powers that be decide to implement the bonus point, or if we want to shift anything around between categories.

 

[Twrecks]

Okay, we don't change anything :\

It is pretty obvious we have a x/10 scale and the reviewer top score is a 9. If Frieza wanted to give your map, or any other map full marks he would give it a 9. If there was any one aspect he was not happy with it would get less, like maybe bots getting hung up or a few bsp issues. User rating for Deck_40 also place it at an 8 even though users are a 0-10. +/- 1 is a matter of opinion, +/- .5 is moot. All this "confusion" is fabricated. a 8/9? no, it's still a 8/10. You would think reviewers would read the schema and realize scores are posted as a x/10 and that they can only give 9. It's spelled out, they can't do any different. If Aristocracy is a 9/10, users kept it a 9/10. A user gave Deck_40 a 10, should a reviewer? We already know about joke maps, ppl are just having fun at the expense of the system. Unreal is about fun, we are not the fun police.

Scores are arbitrary according to a few individuals. If you are using your map as a resume, I think the company would rather see your work than care what it got at some review site. BTW, Frieza can edit the review if he feels like he made a mistake, Deck_40 could be a 9/10 if that was the intent. I gave DavidM's Alcatraz a 7.5, sure it has Game, but it has a lot of sloppy BSP/texturing etc. Deck_40 is a better map, and it got a better score, User score for alcatraz stands at 7, Deck_40 at 8.

 

[Ironblayde]

Even if we don't change anything (fine with me , I still think we should rework the schema description page a bit to make all of this clearer -- to reinforce, for example, that reviewer scores are meant to represent a position on a ten-point scale, and that while a 9.0 may be the maximum score, it doesn't signify a perfect map.

 

[Chrysaor]

I think you don't want to change anything because it requires coding.

I don't know what to do with this anymore. You want shorter different words that make NC stand out, I understand that. I want words that are more accurate.

Awe does convery a sense of wonder. The extra point would do that. If you make it sound more dialectic by using Environment or Design or something, then you haven't taken anything away from the review, just moved the less tangible part of the awe factor. Furthermore, Design, Build, Game does work as a unit.

 

[MassChAoS]

About the whole 9 point scoring system. (Mass, back me up on this), this would require some new coding and will make a split from reviews done up to this date using the current schema. Changing names is one thing, the way scores are calculated and entered is another. Changing the names will make some of the old reviews read oddly "Why does the reviewer say Cast when the 3rd catagory is Game?" I don't know if the change will effect old reviews, but it will confuse readers as if we don't already have enough scoring systems they encounter going through our archives.

Giving the reviewer that "extra point" to give where they feel, or just to do it, would make our review system seem more consistant over changing the names. "Yea, NC has a 3 catagory thing each with 3 points, but look: that map got a BONUS POINT, wOOt!". Hey, that sounds cool. BU Headline news: NC reviewers now can give a BONUS POINT, that's a gold star for you kids at home!. That would take care of the 9 point dilema/confusion. (I know Mass, you would have to code it and I would need to test it before going public).

It could be possible to keep the old name for previous reviews (to prevent those confusing Cast and "Game" or whatever names we choose).

I don't particularly care for the idea of allowing Reviewers to give the extra point. We have 3 categories that add up to 9... if we allow that extra point, I have to code something to ensure that they only add 1 bonus point, instead of 3 bonus points or something similar to to that. Also, what about that -1 point? Going to let that be done too? And then there would have to be some way to display it... Too much trouble to change scoring unless its redone totally (which I prefer to wait on NC4 to change scoring... I figure at that point we could drop the previous category scores like we did for NC2 into NC3).

 

[Twrecks]

Don't get me wrong, I like the bonus idea. Bot stating it might then be unfair to previous reviewed maps that didn't get the benifit is valid. Updating the definitions and even moving sound to AWE, I'm hip to that too. I think you grasp the scale and the schema well Ironblayde,. There will be individuals out there that will be confused no matter what we do, the idea (as I gather it) is the reduce the number. Redefining the schema and posting a link in the review to it are good solutions and should be done regardless if we do anything else. Nobody has objected to either and it is a step in the right direction.

That said, we should now focus the discussion on name changes and if we adopt a bonus point or 1/2 point. If it is a full point, can the reviewer opt for only giving .5? can the reviewer also split the point ,5 for say AWE and .5 for Build? I'm leaning to keeping it to a .5, however a full point brings the scale back into a x/10, user comments would still have the same effect as they do now no matter what it ends up being.

 

[MassChAoS]

This thread has reached 4 pages and you might as well turn it into a book with all the writing you guys have done, yet you have not reach any consensus about changing the names. The link for the schema will be put under the scores for the review, no problem with that, nothing needs to be said about that as everyone seems to agree with that. Would adding the field showing the +/- 1 by user scores help?

Round 2. Come to a conclusion on names and descriptions. Since you guys seem to be going in circles, would someone write up a new schema and see if we can agree on that?

 

[Twrecks]

DOH!, okay MassChAos. I see that it is a site issue and something to be considered only for NC4 (bonus point). I'll work on some better descriptions to clarify the current schema. If you could add a schema link to NC3 reviews that would be swell. I'm not sure if it would be retroactive or not, old reviews were saved a pages, are the nc3 reviews saved inside dynamic frames? I'm not a php guy so the terminology might be wrong.

So the only thing left is to discuss names...

 

[Bot_40]

I already said what I thought about names and a possible schema

 

[Sarevok]

Twrecks your shed has bad flow and needs more z-axis