Ratings Format Change - Provide Feedback Now!

[Coasterkidmwm]

You guys need to do less math

I hope people do not give me very low rating for my jet coasters because they do not like the slower style. Can that rating issue be looked after and fixed?

Like this.

http://www.coastercrazy.com/track_exchange/detail/19895

This guy hates that the jet coaster style is boring.

[Oscar]

Originally posted by tiepilot35

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.

I'm with what he said. If you upload a Park where the focus is one coaster where the rest of the coasters in there are just to complement the primary one, then yes, upload the park file as a track file, select which track style that main coaster is for, indicate in description to rate is for that primary track and done.

I kind of like that Multiple Roller Coaster File / Theme Park File suggestion

It may be where multiple coasters is automatically made into a park file even if you want to showcase one track. My understanding was that's the case, though I'm not sure.

It shouldn't be hard to describe your goal as a designer in the description. My rating method suggestion was for designers who are trying to upload entire parks, and how the members should proceed with critiquing the park as a whole, with each of the individual roller coasters and all of the aspects that make a park what it is. DCs, I don't think it will be a problem for you to explain your single-coaster emphasis with background coasters for scenery.

That being said, mine was just a suggestion, with arbitrary factors to help explain the general structure I had in mind. Not saying it has to be like that specifically.

[hyyyper]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about the park rating system, but I still think theming should get more influence. Everyone can build 3 coasters and connect them with paths. But there are some users here who are incredible artists and can really create at atmosphere with use of scenery, landscape and 3d objects. If you see how themed some of NL1's coasters where, image how parks might look. I believe this effort should be recognized.

Originally posted by dcs221

It may be where multiple coasters is automatically made into a park file even if you want to showcase one track. My understanding was that's the case, though I'm not sure.

Would it help to have an option where a 'park file' is rated the same as a 'coaster file'. A user would be able to tick a box and state the name/type of the coaster that should be rated (in case it isn't obvious).

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.

If you want a selection of coasters, why would you combine them? Like DCS said, if you're focus is on one coaster alone, the others will serve as background or scenery. If you have multiple high-quality coasters in a single map, it's reasonable to assume that person's intention is to build a park.

On recreations I feel accuracy should be the main focus, but with sub catorgories, like if its close the actual length/height/speed, whether its way off or off just because of game vs real life inaccuracies.
On parks I feel like the coasters themselves should still be the main focus, the flat rides should still be considered scenery rather than have their own catorgory

I think it would help, hyyyper. Raters sometimes (read: often) don't read the description, and designers shouldn't lose points because the rater doesn't care to pay attention. Your thought sounds like it'll make things very clear, which is necessary in this case.

[Oscar]

k, I have the items for rating accuracy done. Now, I'm doing the park and this is what I have. I am talking about parks that are parks not parks that are really one coaster focus parks, those have been decided for already. Here's the criteria I've come up with:

Park:

Attraction Placement ????????? How well are the rides placed with one another? Is one section of the park overcrowded with 10 rides while another section is rather abandoned with only 1 ride?

Overall Quality of Rides ????????? Is the quality of rides in the park good?

Theme ????????? Is there a good theme throughout the park? Was the use of 3d objects use well enough to enhance the experience in the theme park or were they redundant and didn't add much value? Is there good terrain editing to enhance the experience? Is there good sectioning of the various themes in the park.

Accessibility ????????? Was there well planning when playing the tracks around the park. Did the designer think about getting from the exit of Track A to the entrance of Track B? Are the walkways well planned out? Can maintenance and emergency crews get in rather easily when needed?

Use of Space ????????? Given the amount of space used for the park, did they use that space widely or could they have done better? This doesn't mean putting the most amount of coasters in the smallest footprint but rather it means did the designer, given the space used, make the most of it?

Let me know if I should add more or take off something to the rating of parks. I'm not going to go into individual track rating in the park. You can do that and come up with an overall number you place in the Overall Quality of Rides rating. That's not up to debate, it would just overcomplicate stuff on our end way too much. If you feel the need to rate each track individually, then you have a long rating comment to post.

So, lets hear it. Time's on the clock and the coder is tired of waiting for me. [:p]

Alright, I should be pretty good at parks, let me break it down a bit

Attraction placement- I believe there can be more to this, some parks do this to save some pace for, possibly a future development, and they might need the area. Usually lots of rides = lots of people, making a crowded section. When planning out for attractions, make sure there is space for other rides available, and future planes for the next big ride to come to the park. Also, think about maintenance, is it easy to get too. quick to maintain, can cars even get through there without hitting anything important, like the track it's self, or a important support collum.

Quality/Rides- Simple, and sweet, like this.

Theme- usually rides in a certain area maintain a certain theme, lets take the Oktoberfest area at Kings Island, the rides are quick, and fun, while also being around a more olden style, tombs or viking ship around a lake.

Accessibility- I covered this with attraction placement.

Use of Space- Usually parks try their best to place rides relatively close to already existing path from a while ago, instead of adding new areas. sometimes old rides have to go, why not make use of that.

I think all these are grossly over complicated. A single 1-5 star score would be both more flexible and less arbitrary. Maybe go even farther and have a setup like Thumbs Up / Thumbs Down / Abstain.

[Oscar]

We had 1-5 star scoring system when we first started out. It wasn't liked by 95% of the people. They wanted more options. We gave it to them, with 1-5 stars, didn't like that, until we added numerical numbers to it. I don't think, from past experience, thumbs/up/abstain alone would satisfy the masses. I respect your opinions but its from past experience that we are expanding upon this.

I would have loved to have you on the coding side of things but I never could find you on AIM anymore to request your opinions and services [:(] I really liked the way you did the height/heat map thing you had and wish we could have that added on but don't think we can without someone that is actually knowledgeable with the track files as you are.

I stay pretty busy with professional stuff these days...building a site like CC at my rates would be...expensive. I just don't do much on the side anymore.

I don't think many people come on here, but I do. I'm trying to help out the site in the ways that I can possibly help. Just like yesterday, was helping out Oscar with the rating.

Oscar, I have made an advanced rating system for you to try out

Track
-Is it correct to B&M, Vekoma, Arrow, any of the companies that make Roller coasters in the Industry
-It it shaped well
-Is it realistic, is there elements, and things that would work right? If you add weight to the train, it wouldn't valley between hills?

Supports
-Does it pass the tunnel test? You can't hit the supports at all?
-Are they realistic? Like you can't hit them, or would it look like it would support the ride very well?

Themeing
-Is it correctly themed?
-Is the Terrain, 3D models (if there are any) Station, Ride-textures go well with the ride?
-is the ride's colour scheme correct for the ride?

3D Models (This is ONLY if they have 3D models in the ride)
-Are there no bad colouring on the models?
-Were they shaped, and made well?
-Does it fit the ride at all?

Theme Park (Only IF there is one around the ride)
-Is the ride placed correctly, it's not in a crowded section of the park where there is many rides around it?
-Think of Maintenance on the ride, is it easy for Maintenance Vehicles to get too?
-Does it fit the surrounding park?

Disagree strongly with a lot of that. Way too much emphasis on window dressing.

[Blade]

Here?????????s what I thought about.

Freestyle
Design ????????? How unique and/or appealing was the environment and/or track structure from other designs? Were there any collisions?

Geforce ????????? Were there sections of the track that had geforces that was too high, too long, and/or too quick than you would?????????ve intended?

Speed ????????? Were there sections of the track that was too fast or too slow than you would?????????ve intended?

Geometry ????????? Were there sections of the track that was too long, short, sharp, wide, banked too quickly, too much, too little than you would?????????ve intended?

Innovate This would be used for as if an existing park in real life were to add/redesign a section of the park?????????s environment and/or track.
Design ????????? How unique and/or appealing was the environment and/or track structure from other designs? Were there any collisions? Did the section of the park?????????s environment and/or track fit within the available space?

Geforce ????????? Were there sections of the track that had geforces that was too high, too long, and/or too quick than you would?????????ve intended?

Speed ????????? Were there sections of the track that was too fast or too slow than you would?????????ve intended?

Geometry ????????? Were there sections of the track that was too long, short, sharp, wide, banked too quickly, too much, too little than you would?????????ve intended?

Recreation
Design ????????? How Accurate was each section of the park?????????s environment and/or track structure?

Geforce ????????? How Accurate was the geforces for each section of the track.

Speed ????????? How Accurate was the speed for each section of the track.

Geometry ????????? How Accurate was the length, curve, banking for each section of the track.

Here's my ideal rating system:

1 number from 0 to 10

^I kind of agree with that to an extent

[Oscar]

Alright, this is what's decided, we ditched numbers altogether, no stars, no hearts, nuthin. We have replaced entire rating system with a simple Thumbs Up / Thumbs Down

We hope you like it.

[SauronHimself]

How about we have a rating system where the rater uploads a picture of their face and the track creator has to decide if it's a look of approval or disappointment?

[Dirk_Ermen]

Originally posted by SauronHimself

How about we have a rating system where the rater uploads a picture of their face and the track creator has to decide if it's a look of approval or disappointment?

I think that would fit perfectly in the comment section from the track.

cool5

[Oscar]

I was kidding about simplifying it down. Just needed a good laugh in the chatroom xD

Originally posted by Oscar


Attraction Placement
Overall Quality of Rides
Theme
Accessibility
Use of Space

I think Attraction Placement, Accessibility, and Use of Space are all too similar and redundant. You can talk about it or include it all in Attraction Placement. I always am in favor of The Big Three theory, where 3 is perfect for everything and anything:

-Coaster Quality
-Theming (can include 3ds-based fully functional rides, shops, entrance buildings, theaters, etc.)
-Attraction Placement