Ratings Format Change - Provide Feedback Now!

[Oscar]

Ok, after a chat with Mike, we've decided for the recode the rating system is being overhauled. We decided that depending on what you choose for your track when you uploaded, certain rating criteria will be displayed when someone rates your track. Currently all tracks whether they are uploaded as Realistic, Fantasy or Recreations, all get rated by:

Technical
Adrenaline
Originality/Accuracy

The current idea we have is for each category to have its own rating criteria. What we've come up with is as follows but we need your feedback for the Recreations segment. More on that in just a sec.


Realistic Tracks - Realism , Technique, Adrenaline, Uniqueness, Rider Value

Realism - How real does the track feel to be. How believable is it that this track can be built in real life.

Technique - Did the designer use good building and creative technique when designing the track?

Adrenaline - Was it fun? Did it get your heart pumping as it was intended? Did it provide with you thrills?

Uniqueness - In comparison to other realistic tracks, how unique is it? If it felt like you had ridden something like this before, then perhaps it wasn't unique enough. If it had a lot of "stuff" you didn't expect, then it most likely was quite unique.

Rider Value - Do you think this track provides good value to you, the person riding it? If it was a real ride, would you have been satisfied to have paid to ride it? Consider the fee to enter your local theme park, would you go to your local theme park to ride it?

Fantasy Tracks - Technique, Adrenaline, Originality

Technique - Self Explanatory

Adrenaline - Self Explanatory

Originality - Does it feel like all the other fantasy tracks? Was there something in it that made it stand out?

Recreations - Accuracy, Adrenaline

Accuracy - How accurate was this recreation to the real thing?

Adrenaline - How accurate was the adrenaline achieved in this recreation in comparison to the real thing

---

Here's the problem, we feel Recreations should have the strictest rating criteria. However Mike and I could only think of the above 2 criteria to rate them on. He suggested Authenticity but I dismissed it since a recreation is not Authentic since it's just recreation what's already there. Other ideas escape me now, due to the stress on doing the rest of the site.

We urge you to quickly reply to this thread with other rating criteria to rate Recreations on. Do it in the following format:

Criteria - Short description on how this criteria is judged on.

Thank you,
Oscar

Accuracy- How close was it to the real ride
Technique- How did you make the ride/was the way you made it necessary (example: Newton for a Togo)

Yeah I don't really know, the only one that I think is really needed for recreations is accuracy, but then I feel like the rate isn't well rounded.

I think the above criteria is good, but maybe get rid of some of the overlapping ones such as uniqueness and technique (overlaps with originality).

[Turbo]

I love the Rider Value addition to the Realistic Track option, however under realistic tracks I think you can still keep Originality instead of Uniqueness.

Also, I think keeping the Technical, Adrenaline, and Originality without the addition of "Realism" would be a good thing. When I rate, I rate based upon seeming realism anyway. Is the technical factor realistic? Is pacing suitable and safe? What differs it from others?

That's just realistic tracks though. If there were 2 items that should be changed more it should definitely be the Fantasy and Recreations options.

[gouldy]

I feel like the Recreation ratings should be very different.

Some rides are very easy to recreate, and some are much harder. I feel almost as if there should be a difficulty multiplier, like with Olympic Diving, that the raters decide on.

Like:

An amazing recreation of a very easy ride to recreate =

Accuracy: 10
Difficulty Multiplier: 0.6
Total 6/10.

A decent recreation of a very difficult ride to recreate:

Accuracy: 7
Difficulty Multiplier: 0.9
Total: 6.3/10


That idea has some merit, I think, but it also could be flawed, in that excellent recreations of simple rides could be lost into low ratings scores. Unless someone can think up a better/fairer way of implementing something similar? It's just that I find it odd to see a perfect recreation of, say, Vertical Velocity @ SFGAM, with the same rating as a perfect recreation of something like Cheetah Hunt @ BGT.


Each rater could also vary their "Difficulty Multiplier" based on just how much detail the maker had gone in to. So an easy ride to recreate , without much detail (3Ds etc.) would have a very low multiplier (set a minimum at something like 0.5), but an easy ride to recreate with tons of detail, could still have a fairly high "Difficulty Multiplier" at each raters discretion.


Each raters "Accuracy" rating would average out to a total, and then be multiplied by the average "Difficulty Multiplier" given by each rater.


In other words, if you try to recreate an easy ride, you're going to have to go into a lot of detail in order to get a high score.

Realistic:
Looks fine to me. I like the 5 criteria and they provide a really nice balance. Uniqueness vs. originality is a nice change because unique implies that it has its own signature, while originality implies that it's totally original. For realism tracks, it's typically more applicable to be "unique" than "original".

Fantasy:
Also looks fine to me. I like the fact that Originality now carries more meaning and can be used more freely. It always felt at odds with realistic tracks, but fits for fantasy.

Recreations:
Accuracy should be the only measure. If it's accurate, then the adrenaline of the ride would have also been properly recreated, so it makes that other category a bit redundant to me. You could maybe use gouldy's idea of the multiplier, but for me it could go either way.

[Coasterkidmwm]

Maybe combine rider value and uniqueness into one thing. You don't want to overcomplicate

I have been thinking a lot about the reason for the rating system, and what I would want as someone receiving ratings, as well as providing them. The system you proposed, although better than the current one, still could use improvement. After much thought, there are a couple things that I think would allow for the best possible system.

1. There needs to be a separate ratings and feedback section, both of them are optional for people who ride the tracks. Ratings need to be number exclusive and quick, the error and lack of justification with extremely high and extremely low ratings will be compensated for by the sheer number of ratings received. As long is it is quick, and easily accessible then this would work. The feedback section is simply an attached forum style section where any sort of comments, constructive criticisms, praise or explanations of ratings may take place.

2. Weighting the rates should also be highly considered, for accuracy purposes. Every member should have a "builder score". There is the overall score, and then the subscore for each of the rating categories. (whether it be visible or not to the public is your decision Oscar). Each subscore is simply the highest rating they have received on any of the above categories amongst all of the rides they have uploaded. Each score defaults to 1.0 (out of ten), so if you never upload a track, your score is 1.0. If I have never uploaded anything accept a recreation, the only score that wont be 1.0 is accuracy, because that is the only category that applies for that kind of coaster.


Here are what I think would be the most appropriate rating categories:

When rating tracks, a persons rate on any of the following categories would be weighted based off of their "builder subscore" for that category


-Accuracy (to the style/manufacturer?)
-Technical (passes all tests everything structurally sound? Physically possible/ comfortable?)
-Charisma/Allure (how COOL was it? Did it appeal to you? Are you having a geekfest watching/ ridng it? Does it make you want to go back and inspect it further or ride it more? does it make you want to design a similar ride?)
-Environment/Atmosphere (how was the 3DS, theming, details, completeness, and general atmosphere?)
-Adrenaline (The ride experience alone. how kicka$$ was it either compared to the ride it is is most similar to or just how fun was it in general? did any elements catch you off guard? Was the layout monotonous or repetative? Before originality was used for unique track elements but I find it more suitible for adrenaline..)

Here are the ride categories and their available/applicable rating categories

Inspired Realistic- any ride built to emulate the style of a given ride or similar rides such as a B&M hyper or an Intamin Impulse

-Accuracy
-Technical
-Adrenaline
-Environment/Atmosphere
-Charisma/Allure


Original Realistic- any ride that is not meant to be any specific manufacturer, or a style ride that has not yet been created by a given manufacturer such as a Gerstlauer Hyper or an "Oscar AG" looping coaster

-Technical
-Adrenaline
-Environment/Atmosphere
-Charisma/Allure

Fantasy- no regard for physical limitations of the universe

-Adrenaline
-Environment/Atmosphere
-Charisma/Allure

Recreation- meant to come as close as possible to riding the real thing

-Technical
-Accuracy
-Environment/Atmosphere
-Charisma/Allure


So what do you think? I think the weighting as well as the sheer number of rates would make the system very fair and accurate! And each of the categories are separate and specific.

Considering "accuracy" is really the main focus of a recreation, why not make that the focus of the rating? Split up accuracy into subcategories and be rated on those. Like so:

Trackwork Accuracy: Was the trackwork exactly as it is in real life? Does the Arrow Custom Looper have genuine Arrow shaping and pumpy transitions? Does the Intamin Blitz have heartlined, snappy banking transitions? Does the B&M feel silky smooth and flowing, with whippy/sharp but smooth corkscrews? Is the ride pulling the proper forces (roughly)? That recreation of Raging Bull shouldn't be pulling -2.1 vertical g's in the back car on that first drop!

Pacing (Adrenaline) Accuracy: Did it feel like the real ride would feel? Does the ride look as if it is going much faster than in a video you've watched of it? Does the last hill have enough speed or did they do the first majority of the ride wrong and left the end to waste without going back and fixing it? Does the B&M mega gracefully crest each hill, or does it fly over too fast or even much too slow? This is an optional category, as it is majorly dependent on how perfect the trackwork is. It could be assumed as part of the trackwork rating.

Support Accuracy: Did the creator actually recreate the supportwork of the real ride, or did they just throw some on there? A trackwork-perfect GCI could have absolutely no custom bracing or such things, or a technically-great recreation of Raptor could have randomly placed prefabs with no attention to how B&M decided to strategically place them IRL.

Scene Accuracy: Is there correct terraforming? Trees? Ground texture? Some objects (not necessarily required)? I would be highly disappointed to see a perfectly-tracked perfectly-supported recreation of Tatsu with absolutely no terrainwork: just a flat grassland with accurate heights of each element.

Attention to Detail: Maybe the trackwork, supportage, and scenery/setting is perfect, but did they switch the track from 4-rail to 3-rail at the appropriate points of their Millennium Force recreation? Did the lift have only the right catwalk instead of both sides? Does the real ride's station have wheels and brakes or just brakes?

Just an idea!

Yeah I don't like the rider value category...someone could make the best Raven style woodie ever, but if a rater prefers Cedar Point scale coasters, obviously the Raven style coaster won't hold as much value to them. Is it fair for someone to lose points because the rater prefers something else? That just introduces too much subjectivity. I think one of the goals should be to keep the ratings as objective as possible...obviously when it comes to coasters, people have different tastes and ratings will reflect that anyways, so it's not necessary to have any categories that are explicitly subjective.

I like gouldy's idea a lot, and I think with some modifications that could be the way to go. How about make that difficulty multiplier reflect only 1 point? So the other categories...I'll address them in a minute...will average together and be worth 9 points, then the final 1 point will be that multiplier. I think that's simple enough. That way, great recreations won't be destroyed based on the ride choice. Maybe the person has a special attachment to Vertical Velocity...he shouldn't feel like others don't want to see it and will destroy his ratings because he chooses to recreate that instead of something more complicated. The person recreating Cheetah Hunt will feel like his extra efforts recreating such a complex ride will be rewarded, and the actual quality of his recreation will still matter most. I think that could work out great...the overall multiplier messes with ratings way too much I think, but that extra point is a big enough deal to matter without taking over.

I think one of the problems with recreations is most of the time, the rider/rater has no clue what is or is not accurate. I think the categories you have could still work though, maybe if the first category was specifically referencing the accuracy of the trackwork, supports, 3ds, landscape, etc., and the adrenaline was referencing the excitement of the experience relative to that of the real ride. It's a bit redundant, but I think there's enough distinction there to make it work.

I think adrenaline in the realistic category should be specifically relative to similar designs in real life. That way, someone who chooses to design a realistic Dinn coaster isn't at a huge disadvantage against someone who chooses to design a realistic Intamin mega, simply because of the ride style they chose. "Uniqueness" should also be relative to other designs of that style. B&M often differentiates their designs with varying element order and makes them original with interesting layouts and track interaction...and that's what I'd expect from a realistic B&M in No Limits. I'd expect something different from a realistic Intamin, because they make their designs original in other ways. I don't think someone should be penalized by making a B&M design which varies from others in the same way real ones do, just because the rater wants them to make it as crazy as an Intamin accelerator. Again, the idea is to main objectivity in the most fair way. So with all that said, I think realism/technique can be combined...definitely not enough to differentiate those two. Adrenaline is good with the notes I mentioned, and "Uniqueness" is fine, again with the notes I mentioned. Rider Value I think should be dropped. I think those three categories could average to 9, then again there could be 1 point for difficulty as mentioned before for recreations.

The Fantasy category is fine, I think.

Edit- I also like Kyle Sloans' and tiepilots' ideas.

There needs to be something in there for rating entire parks. You know if the rating system just calls for an entire rate for each coaster/ride, and then average them, that's going to get lengthy and laziness will get the better of people. Also, there needs to be some area for criticizing the entire park as whole; how it all comes together, realism, quality of zoning and use of spacing, etc. There will be flat rides, roller coasters, scenery, paths, shops, etc. (if you go all out).

The park-making feature is something I'm probably going to take advantage of constantly. I'll plan on designing one ride, and then say "hey I could make a bad-a** park with this ride and some other rides." So there should be some specifics in the rating system regarding multi-coaster parks.

Really all you need for recreations is Accuracy with some subcategories like trackwork, scenery, etc to elaborate upon in the rate. Adrenaline doesnt feel like it would be it own category, but rather another subcategory.
I like what everyone else said as well.

[hyyyper]

I agree with tiepilot. Recreations are about accuracy, but then divided into categories. For example, track/supports (tech), speed/forces (adren) and surroundings (terrain, 3ds).

As for the other categories, I would keep Tech and Adren as they are but:
-for realistic tracks, have the 3rd option realism
-for fantasy track, have the 3rd option creativity/innovation
You can add 'Rider value' (or maybe 'Enjoyment' is better).

Also, I like the idea of a 'scoring' section separate from a 'feedback' section. But I'm not sure if that'll work, but it's an interesting idea.

As for parks, based on what Gerstl posted, we could have three categories, for example:
Rides (maybe split up into coasters and other rides)
Theming (object purely for theming)
Infrastructure (paths, toilets, queues, everything not theming).

I know it's hard to predict what the best solution is, but with the current internet state of mind focused on 1-5 star ratings and upvotes/likes, I'd try to keep it as simple as possible.

[Oscar]

Alright, going to make a couple replies here. Starting off with Kyle's. It may be due to my lack of sleep these past few weeks so I was a little confused.

Starting with your first point, this is what I got from it: Ratings without feedback and they can leave feedback in a comments section.

While this may promote a lot of more ratings being provided. People who get these ratings will wonder how this person came to this rating and want to know why it got said rating. If they just rate it and don't comment, we will be inundated with rating complaints. We'll have a lot of unnecessary work because the ratings have no comment backing up the numbers. If we have people leave a comment with their numerical rating, then the uploader will know why they got such rating and there will be less complaints. We can perhaps separate ratings from comments only but I think using your method would lead to many unjustified ratings. If that's what you meant, then I have to say thanks for the idea but I can see it being a big dilemna in the future with that system

Onto your second point. I like it, but there is a problem with that as well. Say I've not uploaded a track ever and I rate someone else's track. My rating will carry full weight because I have never uploaded anything so I can't be evaluated down. Their value would be 1, or 100%

Now say there's a guy who has uploaded 16 tracks and the ratings and average rating as as follows:

1+3+5+2+3+1+4+5+2+3+6+8+9+9+9+8 / 16 = 4.875 which would indicate a 48.75% builder score or a value of .4875

I don't think its fair for this 16 track upload person to have started out rough and improved drastically where his last 6 uploads are above 8. He has far more experience than the one with 0 uploads yet gets a 100% builder score or a full 1.

This would totally mess that system up. Again, I've had little sleep so I probably misunderstodd the whole thing. If I did mess up, I apologize and would you mind clearing up the builder score for the person with the 4.875 rating average. If we are to use the 4.875 rating average as that weight versus the 1, if said person rates something a 6, would their rating infact be a 29.25 on a scale of 1-10?

I'm not trying to dismiss your suggestion or be negative towards it. It's just that's what I understood and if I sound negative towards it, I apologize as it is not my intention.

[SauronHimself]

The Realistic section looks overcomplicated. People won't want to rate as much if they have to write a dissertation.

I still think Adrenaline and Uniqueness/Originality should be combined. Rides with a lot of theming and unusual layouts feel more exciting than those which don't do those things. Building technique can stand by itself, but I think Adrenaline and Originality complement each other too much to be separate.

[Oscar]

tiepilot35, I love your ideas! I love the explanations of them. I was mulling over the Attention to Detail factor but after thinking it over a few minutes. I think it would be wrong not to include it. However, I MIGHT combine yours with gouldy's suggestion and add in the degree of difficulty. I really don't have anything negative to say at the moment. Let me think on it some more.

^
Yep your missunderstanding a bit.

1. The extreme bad ratings and good ratings will average out for the most part.
2. People who put bad ratings for rides for no reason will be those with little experience and a low builder score. The weight of the score will come from those with the most experience.
3. If it would be more accurate to do this, each individual set of ratings from members could be visible in a list with a thumbs down or something to the right of it, every thumbs down could cut the weight of the rate in half. Each member has one vote.



For the builder score, lets say I have 2 coasters and these are the ratings I have received-

Storm runner style rocket-

Accuracy- 8
Technical- 9
Adrenaline- 7
Environment/Atmosphere- 6
Charisma/Allure- 9

Rainbow Road fantasy-

Adrenaline- 9
Environment/Atmosphere- 10
Charisma/Allure- 7

My builder subscores would be 8 for accuracy, 9 for technical, 9 for adrenaline, 10 for env/atmosphere, and 9 for charisma/allure. My Builder Score would be 9.0 because that is the average of all my subscores. Every builder score is out of 10, just like a rating. Every score would default to 1.

I want the subscore to take each of the best scores, and the final score to be the average.

[Oscar]

dcs221, while I do agree all ratings should be objective versus subjective, fact of the matter is most of the ratings are subjective given that people rate it what they feel it deserves or what they feel it should be worth. It all comes down to their feeling of the track and that feeling is subjective despite having to use an objective scoring system. Though having a strictly objective rating system in place can perhaps narrow the extreme low and high values, the overall rating will still remain largely subjective to what the person was feeling at the time they rode and rated the track.

Rider Value, realistically, there are coasters that are epic, but provide poor rider value. Such as the right might be awesome but the queue moves so damn slow in real life that the rider value is low because of that factor. The rider value can also be impacted say by the appearance of the surrounding area. For example, Scream's rider value will be notched down a bit because the view you get on it is that of a parking lot versus say Tatsu where you get a nice view of the park and of the trees in the park. Some people would find Scream more thrilling that Tatsu and would rate it accordingly. Like, I personally would consider Tatsu's rider value at the end of the ride less because I am stuck hanging uncomfortably in the train waiting for it to enter the station while on Scream I'll be sitting in the seat comfortably. I would value Scream better in respect to Tatsu.

I understand what I explained above is still subjective, but can you see why it would factor into a NoLimits Coaster track? People can ride the track, and see if there is a wait at the end of the ride to enter the station. If they are on a flying track, then they would feel this lowers the value of track versus a sitting track where they may also have a wait in the end but be more confortable in it. A track with nice terrain, nice use of themeing with 3d objects will have a higher Rider Value in comparison to a track built on flat land. A track with good color choice will have a higher Rider Value than one where the colors are all contrasting, and make you feel nauseous. I hope I make my point clear on what Rider Value should be.

Moving onto the multiplier for Recreations. So they rate the track on say what tiepilot32 suggest and then we take that average rating and multiply it by the Degree of Difficulty the rater chose for that Recreation. So if the rater felt that degree of difficulty to recreate that track was a 10, meaning it was very difficult to recreate, then the Degree of Difficulty is 1 to represent 10 or 100%. If they felt the degree of difficulty was say a 7, then the multiplier would be .7 or there was a degree of difficulty of 70%. so the rating of 9, in the first scenario would be 9x1 for average rating of 9. In the case of the degree of difficulty of 7, the overall rating would be 9 x .7 for an average rating of 6.3? Is that the correct idea you are suggesting? OR did you mean this, after the overall rating, we add on the rating multiplier to the rating of the categories? So in the first case, the person got a 9 in the categories and we add the 1 since the rater chose a 10 as the degree of difficulty. The overall rating would be a 10? 9 for the average rating of the categories rated on by 1 for the overall rating to be 10. In the second example, the person averaged a 9 in the categorical rating but the rater chose a 7 as the degree of difficulty for recreating this roller coaster therefore the rating would be 9 + .7 = 9.7? Which one of these 2 scenarios are you trying to convey?

Moving further down your post. Adrenaline in realistic coasters. Don't you find an Intamin coaster much more adrenaline rushing versus a Dinn coaster? I do. Why should a Dinn coaster have an adrenaline score higher based on the track type? If the coaster doesn't produce enough adrenaline, then I feel it should be penalized since it doesn't pump up the adrenaline. There are Dinn coasters that do have good adrenaline and some don't. It's all about the experience one gets when rating Adrenaline.

Uniqueness is relative to other designs of that style. Is this Intamin hyper unique from other Intamin hypers? How much more unique is it? Rate accordingly. It really isn't that difficult rating Uniqueness in my opinion. One B&M to another B&M. If they are quite similar then they are not that Unique. So it should be a factor as it is basically the same layout, same inversion sequence, there isn't much in it to make it that Unique from another B&M.

I will consider the realism/technique aspect. I've read the other comments on it and am edging towards combining it.

[Oscar]

Originally posted by GerstlCrazy

There needs to be something in there for rating entire parks. You know if the rating system just calls for an entire rate for each coaster/ride, and then average them, that's going to get lengthy and laziness will get the better of people. Also, there needs to be some area for criticizing the entire park as whole; how it all comes together, realism, quality of zoning and use of spacing, etc. There will be flat rides, roller coasters, scenery, paths, shops, etc. (if you go all out).

The park-making feature is something I'm probably going to take advantage of constantly. I'll plan on designing one ride, and then say "hey I could make a bad-a** park with this ride and some other rides." So there should be some specifics in the rating system regarding multi-coaster parks.

So what categories should we have? Please be detailed. From your post I obtained:

Realism
Quality of Zoning
Use of Space
From hyyyper:
Rides (maybe split up into coasters and other rides)
Theming (object purely for theming)
Infrastructure (paths, toilets, queues, everything not theming).

I think quality of zoning may be related to use of space but provide your feedback.

For parks I am thinking:

Ride Placement
Overall Quality of Rides
Accessibility
Use of Space

Then again, this can negative impact people who upload parks that only have rides that they've not uploaded separately. Basically they build all the separate coasters in there versus trying to actually make a real park. This one is tricky.

Originally posted by tiepilot35

Trackwork Accuracy
Pacing (Adrenaline) Accuracy
Support Accuracy
Scene Accuracy
Attention to Detail

For my idea, you don't necessarily have to use all five. Kind of like what Hyyyper was doing, combining them. I keep thinking over the five categories I suggested and it may be too much. Separating the trackwork and supportwork, particularly, seems like too much. Eh? Comments from others may be able to improve this Recreation category idea.

Oscar, I agree that ratings remain subjective no matter what you do, as I referenced in my post, that's why I would hope that the categories are as objective as possible. That way, they don't influence riders to add even more subjectivity. As an example, asking people what they think of building technique is much more objective than asking them if they liked a coaster. Sure the former will include opinions, but those opinions are focused on an objective concept. To me, "ride value" is closer to the former of the two categories I just presented, and as such may introduce too much subjectivity into the rating criteria.

For recreations, I was suggesting using the latter example in your paragraph. A multiplier for a full score has a huge effect. Real's Wicked Twister is not a very difficult track to recreate especially with current tools, but if, for example, he is rated 10-10-10 in all categories, and the multiplier is .4 for difficulty...a realistic multiplier in that case...should he receive a 4 or a 9.4 as an overall rating? Definitely not a 4 given the quality of his work. 9.4 is much more fair. Think of the multiplier as being the icing on the top. Don't want to do a crazy complex ride? You can still earn a 9.0 as your rating. Want to really go over the top? You can earn a full 10.0.

As far as adrenaline and uniqueness goes, I'm not sure you can make a category that says how I'd personally hope people would rate. I just don't think a designer should lose lots of points because they're really interested in one style of coaster that may not be the most exciting in real life. For example, I don't think cool5 should only be able to earn a 1 max for the category of excitement...I think raters should consider how exciting jet coasters are in real life, and rate his rides in relation to the real ones. He shouldn't be able to make the best and most realistic jet coasters ever seen in NL2, and only be able to earn a maximum 6.66 overall rating on this site. By contrast, someone else shouldn't be able to design an Intamin mega that rides like a mediocre Morgan hyper and get a 10 for adrenaline just because it travels 70mph and has some floater airtime. The adrenaline of that Intamin mega I feel should be rated in relation to that of real ones. Same thing goes with uniqueness...it should all be rated in relation to the uniqueness one may expect from the real thing in a given category.

If you had "Inspired Realistic" and "Original Realistic" categories as Kyle Sloan suggested, this could all work perfectly. Inspired Realistic I'd think should be rated in relation to real rides of the type as I described in my last paragraph, and maybe Original Realistic coasters should be rated how you described in your post. How does that sound to you, Kyle?

In my eyes, multi-coaster files could become complicated to rate since there are could be so many rides in one park, but there needs to be a way to condense the process.

And you make a good point about people uploading multiple roller coasters without trying to make it seem like a "park." Hmmm... I have an idea, but I don't know how much coding you want to do for this. Just like the other file/coaster categories, the uploader could select either:
-Multiple Roller Coaster File (meaning they're not trying to make it like a park)
-Amusement Park File (meaning they've deliberately aimed to make a park collectively, unitedly, etc.)

-Multiple Roller Coaster File: I don't see why a member would even do this, but the best way to produce a score for a member who uploads multiple coasters in one file with no intention of presenting it like an amusement park, rate all of the individual roller coasters, average them up. It would truly be to the advantage of the member to upload them separately however, so that better tracks don't take the penalties of lesser quality tracks. You know? Kinda seems unnecessary.

-Amusement Park File: There should be two tiers to this rate.
1) Individual Tracks (Average the individual track rates and weight it out of 8? Or some arbitrary weight number).
2) Park as a whole (Weighted out of 2? Or some arbitrary number).
.5 for General Unity of Park (is it believable, themed, presentable?)
.5 for Use of Space (is the zoning and spatial use of the land effective and efficient?)
.5 for Infrastructure (Good call hyyyper: shops, utilities, queues, etc.)
.5 for Flat Rides/Non-Roller Coaster Attractions (are the flat rides/shows/amphitheaters/etc. used in a manner of quality?)

The numbers and categories I presented are so arbitrary, but you know what I'm getting at. If someone tries to make a park with mostly good tracks, but doesn't have any theming or amusement park extras, their number shouldn't have to take too big of a hit. That's where the weighted 8 pts. for tracks and 2 pts. for miscellaneous features comes in. Because, to be fair, this is a roller coaster simulation, and even though some members may be planning to go crazy with park objects and extras (me), some may not want to or be able to. And the sub-categories for the park as a whole are arbitrary as well. Up for discussion.

But I think at least two-tier weighted rating system would be wise for amusement parks.

GerstlCrazy, designers (myself included) often like to set the scene for one primary coaster. Check out most all of 3DVIP's stuff. Background coasters are often of lower quality since they're not intended for rating, but to improve the setting for the main design. I know I don't want to have to spend a year per coaster in my scene just because I will be rated on all of them, when I only really care about one main design.

Yes that is exactly what I meant dcs

DCS, if it's primarily one coaster, I would say upload it with the title of the coaster ("CYPHER IV") instead of a park name ("Busch Gardens Asia"). And in the description, explicitly and boldly state that the work was put into the primary coaster and not the background coasters. And also select the type as 'NL2 - [coaster style]' instead of 'NL2 Park' if we decide to use that.

Regarding parks, I keep going back and forth between liking and disliking the two different park file types. Like, "NL2 Trackpack" and "NL2 Park", explicitly stating whether this file will have just a smattering a coasters as a trackpack or if it's a full-blown park. More commentary on this from other users on this idea would be nice.