Ratings??

Ok,

i am fairly new to this coaster site, and i must say at present i am wondering what the hell is going on with these ratings. I find them to be completely inconsistant from one ride to another. On my latest coaster 'Cataclysm' i have been rated a 6.5 or close enough for technical, which would be fair enough, if i did not see other coasters getting 8 and 9 for rides that pump. I feel techincal marks should be rewarded for smoothness and rideability. If it were not like this, i could upload a good layout without any smoothing and score 9 or 10. What is going on with this?

Is this such a tight knit community that outsiders get shunned until they have reached 500+ posts. It annoys me to see inferior rides score such high marks. Everytime i try and create something a little different, like new elements they get slated as they are not like that in real life. Please tell me how going through zero-g rolls at 10mph is any way real, and hitting a bend, with it cutting in so hard the G's shoot to 4, and then getting a technical score of 9. It is absolutely senseless. Why the heck do people shun the use of elementary and purg, is it jealousy that some of us have taken the time to learn a new way of buidling coasters and that some people just can't be assed to change? All i can say is, pumps in real life are not tolerated, nor existant, so why does a ride that has pumps in it, gets a score of over 8 for technical. I just can't make sense of it. If you don't like tools, don't rate people down, smoothness should be one of the most technical things to do with a coaster, and whatever way you choose to obtain this should be accepted. If you are stuck in the ways of hand smoothing for years, that is up to you, the fact of the matter is, you hand smoothing can be achieved to a greater effect in half the time using tools, and its alot smoother and more realistic too.

I know my coasters are not entirely pumpless, but alot better than most i have seen on here. Its funny i tend to see a correlation between the regular posters and high ratings. If it is the case that you do rate people lower that do not post as much (i know full well you won't admit to it, but you know if you do it) then you should be ashamed. Nolimits is such a specialised simulation, you should welcome new people, not criticise their work because they are not a veteran or whatever at the simulation.

Please feel free to reply to this topic in any way you see fit. I have expressed my opinion so i don't mind listening to yours, as long as it is not just mindless insults. If i felt this did not need saying i would not have wrote this post.

You'll find that most of the raters here are full of poop and don't have any clue about proper engineering.

You also have to remember that some of our users don't rate from an engineering perspective, but more from a fun factor point of view. I don't blame them for this, after all, the last time I checked none of us are real roller coaster designers or engineers.


And also, if you notice a rating that seems to be bogus you can report it in the forum complains forum for one of the staff members to look into it.

They're not that bad ones. It's the ones who THINK they know something about engineering...

this site does have alot of people though that rate a technically perfect ride a 8 or something b/c they used tools, or b/c it wasnt fun for them enough (this goes in the Adrenaline area people) or some other stupid reason. just report it if you see it.

staff: think about expelling crappy raters please, a 5 strikes and your out sorta thing or something. it would make the site a better place.

Tyler, im glad to find someone that agrees with me on this one. I find many of my ratings are bogus and full of crap.

Fornication, i know you said some of us are not real rollercoaster designers, yet alot of the people seem to think they are. I mean ffs, criticisms of colour on supports, please some of you get a life.

[Brtnboarder495]

Just because they arent all 9 ratings don't mean we can't rate - it's our opinion of your coaster. We all rate from different backrounds and perspectives. Seeing as you seem new to NL no one expects you to be scoring high on your tracks. In your case some one rates your rides highly and then the real critics rate it after and lower, making your coaster seem awesome and then horrible.

but he has a point, alot of people here dont know how to rate correctly.

for instense, i read a response the other day that was close to this:

"BT:well, you used the AHG, so your track is prefect, but i still hate that thing. i really like your supports but i dont think it is fair you added flanges. and your colors. AHHHHH. what were you thinking, orange?

A:was fast and fun. i liked the layout but it wasnt as intense in some places where i thought it should have been.

O: ive never seen anything like that, but i still dont like it how you used tools. any how, good job, though you dont deserve it cause you cheated by using tools.

T: 7 A: 6 O: 6.5"

that is what i mean and probably Tyler mean, that is happening way too often, and it is just pure BS.

Wow, thats one of the worst ratings I've ever seen.

Anyways, yeah, 90% of the raters here are idiots and don't know what the hell their talking about. For example, if you get any rates from DjJavixxxxx, don't take them personally... He just finds it fun to downrate tracks for no apparent reason.

Ragan, what ride was that rate on?

im not sure what it was called, but its been uploaded since 1.5 i was surfing around wed. or thr. and saw a cool looking ride. opened it up and was reading the reviews and i saw that one (or something similar, all i remember is the rating sucked and it was pure BS content). the rating probably got deleted, but what do i know?[confused]

Originally posted by Brtnboarder495

Just because they arent all 9 ratings don't mean we can't rate - it's our opinion of your coaster. We all rate from different backrounds and perspectives. Seeing as you seem new to NL no one expects you to be scoring high on your tracks. In your case some one rates your rides highly and then the real critics rate it after and lower, making your coaster seem awesome and then horrible.

Lol, i aint new to nolimits my friend, so please don't patronise me, im just new to the forum, and it is exactly this patronising manner that i dislike. You immediately assume that because i have 5 posts or whatever i am new which i dispise, i take great pride in building my coasters which is why i get so pissed off when somebody puts an unjust rating up. I would like to know your reasoning for thinking i am new, please tell me how many newbs/noobs use elementary and purg to design coasters. I am annoyed with the fact that, lets be honest, i see some really crap coasters get a high rating as they are made by people who spend their life on here. I would really like to see coasters rated by a trusted panel of people who are known to have really consistent ratings, not just based on the post count.

I find it really sad when people criticise a ride that hits yellow G or spikes at a red on a smooth element. I mean come on, rides would be crap if we didn't have any that pushed you to the limits, the entire point of coasters is to thrill, thus by releasing adrenaline, thus by creating G-Force. If you can't take 5 G for a split second, then should you be riding coasters?

Originally posted by MONOLITH


I find it really sad when people criticise a ride that hits yellow G or spikes at a red on a smooth element.

Well, if the element were truly smooth, the forces wouldn't spike. Really, it isn't the forces themselves that are thrilling, it's the changes in direction. I could build a pretty exciting ride without ever exceeding 3g, and I don't think a ride that gets over 5g is any more exciting than one that hits 4.

its cause those people are MOST LIKELY (im not saying they are) junior high or immature high school students who are on here 24/7. they do not know there coaster facts, and should not be allowed to rate unless they rate properly. and another thing, the g reader's red/yellow/green system is wrong. it should be more like standards that are used in reality. someone who knows what they are doing should create something more like that (buster, im looking at you )

anyways dude, you should get over it, many people here do just dont start doing things, just ask staff to help you out. the whole downrating thing is just a plauge of locusts that cant be stopped.

[Kev]

I don't really want to delve into this discussion, since i've already been involved in many just like it. Here's something for everybody to ponder though as I go off on my merry way:

http://www.coastercrazy.com/track_excha ... p?tid=2219
The highest rated coaster on the exchange, which was uploaded late 2003. Should it be the highest rated coaster on the exchange? IMHO, No. There have been better coasters uploaded since then, but don't have a higher rating because some people are downrating for completely dumb reasons...Which brings up another question: Do we have an underrate problem around here now, or did we have an overrate problem back then? IMHO, Yes to both..which is why my coaster got where it is at to begin with, if I were to be completely honest. The way it is going around here right now, the coaster linked above will prolly be at the top spot for a very long time...

your right, i think it will be numbero uno for atleast another 3 months. word is buster is cooking up something better than megablast...

Monolith maybe my last track KEOPE is a great example of what has been said till now.[;)]We go from a perfect 10(too high)to a 2.5(too low).This is my personal opinion but I got angry so many times that now I'm not interested in ratings.My only wish is that the people of this site can enjoy themselves riding my tracks.Some do that and some don't.Go on exchanging your tracks 'cause I'm sure they are appreciated.
Bye!

I do get occasioonal crappy rates. I either ignore them and move on, or sometimes I report them.

I've got an idea. If someone gets more than x ratings deleted, he must give an explanation about why the admins should let him rate again. On the other hand, I'd like a limit to 5 tracks per month per person (1 track per week).

[Brtnboarder495]

Lol "word".

Just to clarify: What IS techincally perfect? Just the track? What about supports? You are telling me that just because their trackwork is perfect (whats perfect?) that theres no room for improvement?

No track thats ever been done, or ever WILL be done is perfect, not even techincally.


some may think highly of me and that Im knowledgeable, others may think Im a joke. I see myself as inbetween: A wealth of knowledge that is both right AND wrong and everyday is edited and re-written based on information that is learned.


Thats my own personal creed and I try to apply it to my ratings (I did rate one last week and am trying to do more than one, yes, I know) and when I get into conversations.



No one here, if they say rate Tylers tracks perfect techincally (or even Busters) is looking hard enough. Granted, maybe they dont want too. But to me thats where people throw numbers at the wind and let it ride.


Also I feel going along with that is the fact that many people just dont think outside the box. I think you can blend BT and A together because what if a ride, say, built by Tyler (so you know its mathematically very good) just has a part that doesnt feel right nor gives the right feeling?

To me thats a BT issue. It wasnt built properly because it didnt give a particular effect or to me, the effect I thought it should have given off. Of course thats more of a personal opinion but seeing as though Tyler is still young, like all of us in this quest for building coasters (some of us too into extreme realism) theres always some flaw. I find with tylers (Sorry to pick on you Tyler, you know its not malicious) rides that alot of times hell crest a hill then dive down. Well, for me most of those dives are shallow and a fault I find is that because his math is still limited, theres a lead in and out where there should be a continuation of the same radius. So you get this pausing effect.

Its not Tylers fault, but a limitation of what hes doing. Hes not a math professor or hed be making up his own formulas and probably not hanging out here with us. But he does his best with the tools he has and thats his result. Over time he will refine those techniques and get better.


So if you already give him 10's, how can he "improve"?



You can only ever improve/grow when you are not already perfect. No one here is and there fore whenever you release a ride you should always be open to any comment (unless its a ridiculous comment thats clearly coming from someone butt and not their head) because it could help you on your next ride.


@MONOLITH - your statement or rather, your opinion that you are pushing people to accept that a ride has to pull lots of G's to have adrenaline is completely bogus to alot of people, including me. Personally, its what Tyler said IMO. Its the change in G's over a period of time.

Personally, I bet theres a handful of rides that pull 5G's. And then only maybe double that that pulls over 4. But I bet theres a ton of rides that pull 3 to 4 but rank really high because the manufacturer did a perfect job on making those 3-4G's feel like ALOT more.

Example: Shivering Timbers. I can guarentee the G's are no more than -1.3 or so. Intense? Some would say so. Personally I think Ive felt more intense actual G wise but no ride to me is AS fun as that ride. Why? The change in G's. You go from nice positive G;s to being ripped out of your seat, then slammed back down, then thrown up, etc. If those changes in G's were all REALLY gradual, it would be boring.


Its the suddenness that pulls of the illusion that its more powerful than it really is.

This is also why if you ever get a chance to see the ASTM (Federal and State regulations for G Forces on coasters) that the MAIN part of the whole document is the time change per force. Its not about how many forces you pull, but for how long and how quickly did you change from one force to another. Thats what effects the human body more.


Look, I bet most people could take a centrifuge up to 6-7 G's gradually. But if you went from 1-7 in like 3 seconds, youd black out. The longer time period the easier your body can adjust. The shorter time and the harder it is, thus feeling more intense.

I bet most people could take a centrifuge up to 6-7 G's gradually. But if you went from 1-7 in like 3 seconds, youd black out. The longer time period the easier your body can adjust. The shorter time and the harder it is, thus feeling more intense.

I agree with that, but I wonder if building up to 7 gs gradually would result in blacking out for longer exposure to the gs. I don't really think that 3 seconds is a short time to build up 7 gs.

Up to 7? Of course that depends on physical conditioning and if people know how to breathe correctly and so on. Think about it, one of the most intense helicies G-Wise + time is on Goliath and its something like 4.5 for 4 seconds? Correct me there if Im wrong.

Now, it doesnt start at 4.5, but its a downward helix so its natural to think it probably started with 1.5 and got to 4.5 in closer to 5. you dont think going to 7 (or lets use 8) in almost half that time would further give people trouble? I dont think most people in 5 seconds would know to bear down on their legs and body by clenching muscles up to hold blood and to try and steady their breathing. Most would just freak out and thus black out even faster. I was saying even under good conditions.

but thats a whole nother debate

Nobody's ever complained about my ratings, so I'll stay out of this. It is true that the standards for g's are what we can safely endure. However, it is an entirely different matter about what is comfortable. Hitting the harnesses with too much force hurts, and lateral g's of more than 1.7 can cause briuses if they are too sudden. I can't ride The Legend more than a few times in a row because my sides start to hurt from hitting the sides of the train. So, I usually base my g forces off of what real coaster companies build. There is a reason that nobody pushes the limits of the g-force standards... roller coasters are not just for the die-hard enthusiasts, they are for eveyone that comes to the park. Most peeps don't like getting banged into each-other on the ride, or pushing the limits of their endurance. They like to go on a ride, go fast, have an adrenaline rush, and be comfortable through the whole ride. Believe me, the upper level of g force limits are NOT comfortable. The centrifuge at Lake Winnie was turned up to 5 g's when I rode it, and my neck really hurt afterward. Well, I think I said enough. Although 6 g's for a second or two won't make you black out, it will still hurt your neck muscles. 4 to 4.5 g's are more than enough to give you a nice thrill, so in the best interests of the guests, I try to keep my g's below 4.5 vertical, 1.7 lateral, and -1.3 negative. These are the "comfort range" of most guests.

See, and mine are a slight bit higher based off the rides I have been on.

I try to stay under 5.5 (I have no troubles at all around 4.5 it seems) vertical, 2.2 lateral (I would swear that Lost Coaster of Superstition Mountain at Indiana Beach pulls up to that and its done much harsher than most woodies and I was shaken, but fine) and -1.5 vertical mostly because I know that alot of the "most" intense airtime rides pull right near that.

[Oscar]

this is a way that I rate coaster sometimes. I like the whole smoothness and stuff that math gives to coaster, it's nice and all but if the ride is totally boring, then the designer has failed technically at designing a good paced ride that'll make MY body produce adrenaline. I'll rate coaster that have some bumps and jerks in them higher than ones that are totally smooth for the technical aspect of flow. Technically is not smoothness and shaping alone. It's a combination of a bunch of stuff. Building technique in my opinion incorporates the adrenaline, the originality, the fun factor, and good transitions. Every detail per say. That is technicality in my opinion. I have rated mathematically coasters down to 2 or less because they totally failed at the fun aspect which is technical. Anyway, I am staying out of this, not a good idea for the admin to get in the middle of the two opinions [:)]