Map Ratings

[Nudl9]

I feel like the map rating system favours games that have single player or more casual elements as opposed to maps with more competitive elements. I'm not sure if i'm alone in thinking this. Singleplayer maps won't leave players feeling as bitter as multiplayer maps will. Not really sure if this is a problem that can be fixed, but i thought it should be adressed.

 

[deepstrasz]

Your statement is vague. Please detail otherwise it looks like just being your feeling.

 

[Nudl9]

Thats because it really is based on feeling.
I mean i'm sure i could dig up some minor form of evidence.
I thought it might be worth a discussion though.
My assumption is that not all types of maps are rated equally.

 

[tulee]

It takes more time to play through single player maps (generalisation, though if we mean campaigns then definitely yes) than multiplayer maps, so if time spent = higher quality review, and if higher quality review means higher rating, then maybe you are right?


Be more specific if you are referring to reviewer rating or player rating. Also you randomly added "maps with casual elements" but then referred to them all as single player. Confusing.

 

[Rui]

I feel like the map rating system favours games that have single player or more casual elements

The great advantage of single player maps is: they can be tested solo. To properly test multiplayer maps, you have to assemble testing crews willing to cooperate. At least during my days, and the years afterwards, I was the only one who bothered to do that.

Two other factors further complicate things: 1) when the multiplayer map has various modes; 2) when the map, even with no/single mode, has so many aspects to it that you need to play several times to really assess how balanced things are. And even then, can you really assess balance without a few dozen playthroughs?

 

[Chaosy]

I think they are rated differently because testing a multiplayer map solo is difficult

 

[omidh]

I agree and maybe we should have team of reviewers instead of one moderator playing a map and I think many people would voluntary do this

This is not the only problem of rating system. Take a look at maps that hiveworkshop calls standard and reviewed and rated them 5/5, Many of them are broken, Unbalanced and epicwar style and clearly the moderator didn't pay much attention

 

[Daffa]

First of all, if you have personal rating issues please sort between yourselves as fellow users in kind, and if it's with reviewers or moderators, please use Staff Contact to sort the matter. I'm just stating this beforehand. Now, to the matter:

The system have much altered since Hive 2. Well, the current administration cannot tamper with old reviews as that is like dishonoring the predecessors and they review with their time of standards.

There's a reason why I try to never rate resources unless specifically demanded by the author. The current rating system has been too much of an issue that there are plans when moving to XF2 to have an alternative system for users to express their opinions. A drop hint I recall it's a like system of sort.

And in the current system, actually everyone can review (mod/reviewer just tag them as reviews), and there's no such thing as mod review anymore except for approval processing (which should be separated from rating issues). It's just that since mod/reviewer reviews are auto tagged to the review list, they get visible, which makes them kind of annoying for some people. I think I can ask for review's ratings to get removed from review list, so any rating issues becomes a personal person per person issue, which at that point is all about personal taste.

In terms of singleplayer being more likely get 5/5 from regular users, it's something that we cannot tamper much with. Regular userd have their right to express how they rate. If this irritates much, please be patient until the new system is ready.

@omidh we have a team here, but the problem is we don't share timezones and have different availability times adding complexity to multiplayer testing. Please provide maps with 5/5 rating you mentioned. I would like to see the time of it's review.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

We should transition to modern era like, comment and share combination for resource response functionality to replace star ratings. Content could then be fed to users in form of a feed, consisting of followees' shares and comments (resource reference accompanied with a comment) and likes (plain reference). Upon clicking on such reference, resource page should appear in a modal view that could be exited by clicking on outside of that view or by dedicated close button at its corner. This promotes resource engagement and visitation and hopefully interest in visiting this site overall. Also it offers a use experience similar to social media sites.

The current rating system is fundamentally flawed as we naturally have different rating behavior, i.e. the rating on a resource is not a reflection against your standards and preferences. And even if our rating behavior didn't differ we'd face a problem with user disengagement with their rating: what if user rated a resource 1/5 due to it being completely hideous at the time, then left the site or otherwise wouldn't revisit the rating while the resource would've significantly improved over time to match a 5/5 standard of that user?

 

[deepstrasz]

The current rating system is fundamentally flawed as we naturally have different rating behavior, i.e. the rating on a resource is not a reflection against your standards and preferences. And even if our rating behavior didn't differ we'd face a problem with user disengagement with their rating: what if user rated a resource 1/5 due to it being completely hideous at the time, then left the site or otherwise wouldn't revisit the rating while the resource would've significantly improved over time to match a 5/5 standard of that user?

What if that user dislikes? It's the same. Overall, the like-dislike balance will be the average of the current star system.