Can we go back?

[Von Earlmann]

Anyway we can go back to the old way of rating scenarios.......it wasn't broke and at least it worked most of the time.......if we can't return to the good old days could we at least get the new way working somewhere near right?

Old von Earlmann saying"If it ain't broke don't fix it"........I figure a lot of you had heard this saying before but didn't realize I said it..:-)

[RedDevil]

Earl, Would you be interested in helping us revamp the ratings system. it's been bought up by Bootie and we're just tossing ideas back and forth for the moment

I'd also like to get Huib and Jason and any other scenario designers involved in a discussion on this as well

[Huib Versloot]

I'm in favor of the current rating system (for ladder games which I assume is discussed here). That is no wonder since Umbro made it how I suggested it could look. The problem is bugs, or programming glitches. Sometimes the average rating is not calculated correctly. As soon as that is fixed it would be OK.

Huib

[Von Earlmann]

I have never figured out why we changed......it was working just fine before.....this new system has never worked right...and you can no longer even go in and rate a scenario now.

[Huib Versloot]

There was a discussion before it was changed. I don't know if that is still stored somewhere.
It was changed to create an extra field where people could comment on the scns so that the designer had a clue why he was receiving certain ratings.
I was happy with that change (unfortunately it doesn't work 100%).

[Jason Petho]

The addition of the extra field for comments is great as I find the numerical rating system generally farcical, in terms of providing useful feedback.

[Copper]

My proposals within the officer barracks is below.


Guys would it be possible to make this change.

When a game is reported the player has the option of issuing a balance rating. Eg. 4 = Balanced scenario.

In the scenario section where you can look at the history of the scenario the balance rating is displayed as such.

Average Balance Rating = 4.00

Now this means nothing to me ( I know what it means but new members etc will not be able to associate 4 with Balanced)... can we not just have Average Balance Rating = Well Balanced.

This will provide the information mcuh easier than having a number that doesnt have a 'key' to show what it means.




So instead of the number we will have the same as the people say when they post their game result. ie... pro Axis etc.

Also whats the difference between...

How entertaining/challenging is this scenario? (Mark 1-10)

And...

Please rate the scenario? (Mark 1-5 Stars)

You can garner that information from one of the options surely. I mean your not gonna enjoy playing the scenario and then give it a bad score for design and vice versa. Im easy either way and it is just a proposal but i do think there should be some clearer lines of definition between the two.



Thanks.

Bootie


Note: I do appreciate the feedback to designers but I feel there could be a better way of presenting all this. If it can be discussed we may be able to sort out the bugs and improve upon what is their at present.

[Digger]

I agree with Huib,

I like the fact that you can place comments about the scenario in the new rating system. These are invaluable, bit like being able to read the old H2H test reports. The values don't make sense when added up sometimes though, which is a major gripe with some scenarios.

It may be possible to normalise those results by just wiping and readding the values.

Still having a reliable ratings system is important.


Matt ~Digger

[K K Rossokolski]

[Mike Abberton]