A guide to rating coasters in the exchange

Note to the admins: This may or may not be in the right place. Go ahead and move it if need be.


There has been a lot of complaints about how tracks are rated. So, fear not, my little coaster loving maniacs!


Step One

The first thing you want to do is ensure that the file you're downloading is for the program you think it is. I don't know how many times I've downloaded a coaster for Scream Machines and realized it after downloading. For reference:

NL - NoLimits Coaster
SM - Scream Machines
RCT - Roller Coaster Tycoon
RCT2 - Roller Coaster Tycoon 2
RCT3 - Roller Coaster Tycoon 3


Step 2
Step 2 is simple. Read the description! Too many times has a coaster been rated based on manufacturer characteristics that the track in question is not even supposed to possess. If the uploader says it's a B&M, rate it like a B&M.


Step 3
Once you've downloaded and ridden the coaster, you may or may not want to rate the coaster. Hopefully, if you're reading this, it's the former. Some people have their own system for rating, and they're not likely to read this. Chances are, you have no idea how to give a reasoning for a rating. I've seen some very effective rating methods, and you can try those if you don't like mine. Here's my template for rating:

Technical
- Shaping based on manufacturer(if any), or shaping based on industry standards. Basically, are the elements shaped properly to keep the forces in check. Barrel rolls are not flat, loops are consistent with the intended style, and hills are parabolic in shape or otherwise accurate with the style. When rating cool5's jet coasters, the hills are typically a little more triangular in shape, to conform with other jet coasters. Check with manufacturer standards when it comes to corkscrews. B&M corks are nice and round with the rider not being thrown around, while Arrow bases their corks on the shape, and very little on the forces. [2 possible points]

- Supports are structurally sound, and consistent with the intended manufacturer. If there's no intended manufacturer, the supports are able to support the track and train with the forces being exerted over any given position. [2 possible points]

- Smoothing. Every element flows nicely from one to the next, and there's no pumps, bumps, or sharp points. Pumps are more noticeable in the editor, as they occur at the vertices. They are best explained like this: The rider can easily notice the change from one segment to the next; it's not seamless as it probably should be (See: Arrow Dynamics). [2 possible points]

- Forces. The vertical forces do not get too high, which can cause discomfort of the rider, or too far in the negative, which can cause damage to the coaster/riders over time. Lateral forces do not get very high unless the intended coaster style has consistently high laterals. [2 possible points]

- Does it pass the tunnel test and e-brake test. [2 possible points. 1 for each test]


Adrenaline

- This is the only place you're allowed to make a comment about the use of speed. Unless it's a recreation, in which case the speed can be addressed in the "accuracy" section. [5 possible points]
- Near misses, and very twisty track also count towards the adrenaline score. [5 possible points]


Originality/Accuracy

- The layout is original/accurate (for recreations) [3 [possible points]
- The element selection, and placement. It's not good to put 5 inversions back to back. There should be some non inverting elements in there. [3 possible points]
- Custom scenery. Is the style of the scenery consistent with the coaster? Realistic coasters likely have realistic scenery, and fantasy coasters may or may not have realistic scenery. It's important to consider what the uploader has set for the style of coaster (realistic/fantasy/recreation). [4 possible points]





There you have it, a guideline for rating tracks. Hopefully, we won't be seeing anymore ratings that have stupid high numbers and very little reasoning for the points.

I personally believe that the problem isn't that people don't know how to rate. The reason we see ridiculously high ratings is because the "noobs" have seen less no limits rides than we have. Therefore, they ride Taurus and believe it deserves all tens because all the rides they've ridden are most likely their own. And I think it's safe to assume that we all had horrible rides when we were first starting out.

And the other small percentage of people that actually don't know how to rate don't care enough about the no limits community to actually read something like this and try to improve.

I agree about some of us having ridden more tracks. It alludes to the idea that you can't teach some things. Things like how an Intamin rides different from a Giovanola. They look similar and ride similar, but Intamin just has a certain feeling about it. Some noobs may not understand about smoothing and shaping (I didn't for a while. I figured all loops were the same). They're not going to stop rating some rides all 10s, but at least they'll have some sort of starting point to back up the numbers other than "it looks cool and goes fast. 10 10 10"

I have only one problem with this otherwise excellent rating guide and that is that you decide to take off points for lack of .3ds type scenery. That is unfair as it is a roller coaster simulator not an architecture simulator. NoLimits is a program that is hard enough to master without having to pick up autocad or sketchup. Just my two cents.

Now that I read the guide fully, it makes some misleading and quite incorrect comments...

"...loops have a bit of roll to them and have the "teardrop" shape , and hills are parabolic in shape."
That doesn't apply for all types of roller coasters.

"Adrenaline-
This is the only place you're allowed to make a comment about the use of speed."
You can't TELL people what they're allowed to do, dude. Speed can have essential factors based both technically and originally... Did it have enough speed to finish the ride? Were any new or creative styles of launches or lifts or brakes used to originally control speed?

I see you're just trying to get noobs off to the right start, but some of the point possibilities or rating scales you're presenting them give a strict impression. That's going to take such a long and tedious time which may turn noobs away from the rating process, whereas it's just as effective to ride the ride and generalize the point rating each field deserves, and come up with a few reasons that it deserves those scores for each field. This is less tedious, and seems to be what noobs do- give the rating they think the ride deserves (which they have a right to think), just lacking hugely on the reasoning; that will change with their time here.

You're right. I fixed the shaping section to be a little more vague about loops and hills. I almost forgot all about cool5 and his jet coasters. As far as the comment about speed in the adrenaline section, instead of giving new users ever single little detail about what they should look for, let them gain some experience as we all did. I'm signaling to the idea that the comments of "omg it goes fast" belong in the adrenaline part of the rating, not so much the technical or originality sections. It can become a factor as one develops their own rating style, but for beginners, let's keep it in the adrenaline.