Ratings Format Change - Provide Feedback Now!

I think it's utterly insane that apparently under many of this criteria the ACTUAL COASTER is only getting 1/3rd weight.

[Oscar]

gouldy wrote:

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.

Alright, we went with your idea and people are still confused on this. We did it exactly as you suggested and even the people leaving the rate feel guilty of hammering down the score so far down.

For example the rate by afro85: http://www.coastercrazy.com/20205/Wild-ThingNL2

Was wondering why 1.85 and I told him it was the degree of difficulty multiplier. For me it felt low as well but the match comes out right

6.5 + 6 + 4 + 2 = 18.5 / 4 = 4.625 * .4 = 1.85

The math is right, the rating multipler is what hammered it down big time. He felt it was something that was easy to recreate, easier than the average roller coaster so he picked 4 for the degree of difficulty.

I'm afraid we'll be getting even more complaints on this. Any comments on this?

[hyyyper]

Is it possible for users to see what the eventual score is going to become? That might help them in deciding a proper value for difficulty.

so is there a way to remove or change that rating?

[Oscar]

hyyyper wrote:

Is it possible for users to see what the eventual score is going to become? That might help them in deciding a proper value for difficulty.

I'm sure there is but it wasn't in the Statement of Work write I sent him and would require additional money to code it in. Money which we don't have at the moment. Our credit cards are topped off

[mkingy]

Could the difficulty rating potentially be from 1-5 and is doubled before being applied.

So an average difficulty ride would receive .75 of the total rate? Something that is really easy still receives .5 of the rate...?

Maybe consider this idea that I posted a while back?

"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."