scoring suggestion
- Thread starter Sarevok
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
but really, because people keep giving 7's for example and having to add they actually mean 7.5's. though, its hardly a big deal.
People want to be arkward and rate half way betwen a 6 and a 7.
It's alows them to express themselves more. A map might be average a be rated a 7 whihc is really quite good, but if its rated a 6.5 its doesn't sound nearly as good and is back to being average.
It's alows them to express themselves more. A map might be average a be rated a 7 whihc is really quite good, but if its rated a 6.5 its doesn't sound nearly as good and is back to being average.
I think it would make sense for reviewers and users to use the same gradations when scoring a map (even though the users' scale goes one point higher).MassChAoS said:
Because there is quite a difference between a very good map which gets an 8 and an extremely good map which gets an 8.5 and an ownage map which gets a 9. Then 9.5 can be given to maps which are just beyond cutting edge, almost impossible to get, but not quite. 10 = impossible 
Bot doesn't like to associate with scores that low. . .bad for the image Didn't it use to be in halves back in the day? Why was it changed? Anyway I reckon you should have halves. . .
Didn't it use to be in halves back in the day? Why was it changed? Anyway I reckon you should have halves. . .
Agreed........
That quote makes perfect sense.
At times the motivation does arise for a .5 score. You get a gut feeling going up +1 is just too much.
At the bottom end of the scale where things a truly horrible there may be a big difference for a mapper when looking at 0.5 instead of the dreaded zero. (Don't ask me why as they are probably going to be insulted anyway).
Up at the top end there is some difference between 8 (commercial quality) and 9 (eternal ownage).
Why not remove the 10 rating from user comments? Any map I have seen as a 10 recently has just been a spam rating and screwing the system anyway.
Ironblayde said:
That quote makes perfect sense.
At times the motivation does arise for a .5 score. You get a gut feeling going up +1 is just too much.
At the bottom end of the scale where things a truly horrible there may be a big difference for a mapper when looking at 0.5 instead of the dreaded zero. (Don't ask me why as they are probably going to be insulted anyway).
Up at the top end there is some difference between 8 (commercial quality) and 9 (eternal ownage).
Why not remove the 10 rating from user comments? Any map I have seen as a 10 recently has just been a spam rating and screwing the system anyway.
not to stray off topic but I want to bring up another subject
how about NC going back to the 10 point scale for reviews, since 9's and 10's are thrown around so recklessly almost every map gets that extra point, I've never seen a map underated, plus when a map gets a bad score then the friend or clanmate of the map maker comes by and throws in a 10 just to spite the reviewer and other people that give low scores
I've never in my 4 year stay at NC have given any map a 10 and I doubt I ever will, I've only given 2 maps 9's
how about NC going back to the 10 point scale for reviews, since 9's and 10's are thrown around so recklessly almost every map gets that extra point, I've never seen a map underated, plus when a map gets a bad score then the friend or clanmate of the map maker comes by and throws in a 10 just to spite the reviewer and other people that give low scores
I've never in my 4 year stay at NC have given any map a 10 and I doubt I ever will, I've only given 2 maps 9's
I don't know which point you were trying to get across cause you seemed to contradict yourself. You say you've given only two 9's, yet you want to allow reviewers to give 10's when only two maps have been worth 9 to you.
I think the +/-1 given by the user score does do a well job at keeping the review score from 10 because no map will ever be perfect. For a map to get a 10, everyone would have to give it a 10 and the review would have to be a 9... not likely. So why let reviewers give a map a perfect score?
I think the +/-1 given by the user score does do a well job at keeping the review score from 10 because no map will ever be perfect. For a map to get a 10, everyone would have to give it a 10 and the review would have to be a 9... not likely. So why let reviewers give a map a perfect score?
Yeah, I don't think changing the schema is a good idea. That might really scramble things around. Besides, name me a perfect map. allowing a 10 score would be almost pointless, as it probably wouldn't be used, and would be too much of a pain to implement for its worth.