Not signed in (Sign In)

Discussion Tag Cloud


Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    I'm curious if anyone ever worked out a standard for rating coasters, like how many points, or tenths there of, are awarded or taken away for various things?

    I know it's left up to the user to decide for one's self, I'm just curious on if anyone actually did this at any time? I did some digging around here, but couldn't find a thread on it or anything close to it.

    My biggest fear is actually deducting too much, or being perceived as doing so, for technicals things such as supports entering the "ride envelope". Even worse so for more "artistic" portions of the rating. Especially with this new rating system that is in place.
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2014
    Designs are simply too different to create any kind of standard rating. It usually breaks down into how I feel about the supports, trackwork, theme (if there is one), pacing, and whether or not the flow of elements makes sense. If both the supports and trackwork are bad, I'm looking at a technical score in the 2~3 range, plus or minus some. If one's bad and the other is good, or both are just okay, looking at 4~6, and so on. Adrenaline covers pacing and interactions, either with land, water, pathways, supports, foliage, other track, etc., and the scale works similarly there (using both bad, one bad and the other good, both average, both good, etc.). Theme and layout technically overlap into both "technical" and "originality" but since originality doesn't really have anything else going for it I let them dictate that score. I don't necessarily dock any points for rides without 3DS, but in general a great ride will never earn as high a score as a great ride with 3DS. All three (or six, if you prefer to think about it that way) are then rounded up or down a bit depending on how I subjectively felt about the ride. If it wasn't very technically brilliant but had lovely pacing and a fun layout, I'm going to be more generous on the technical score, and so on.
    • CommentAuthorReal
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2014
    I rate on the entire 10pt scale. Most don't, I feel its more fair.

    1 being worst, 5 being average (a lot of rides fall between 5-7 when I rate them) and 10 being the ultimate, cannot be beaten - which never happens.

    So in my theory, your average ride that I see all over will fall somewhere between 5 and 7. 7-8 is that ride that is well built but has some nagging flaws to keep it from being elite. 8-9 is getting towards your rare rides. These rides are usually just a few ticks away from being elite. What are those ticks? I don't know. Maybe better fleshed out scenery. Now it may be better scripting, etc. 9-10 (again, Ill never hand out a 10) is the ELITE. These are the rides that set the bars. Once in a long while, maybe once in a year. Rare territory. I only know a few people I believe are even capable of this.

    I remember when I started doing this people got pretty butthurt over it. But I feel its really how we all should rate. This should not be "OMG EVERY RIDE IS SO GOOD. EVERYONE GETS A TROPHY!" mentality. Be honest. When you download and ride a ride, compare it against rides you've been on. Rides you've downloaded. Where does it stack up? Why? Then give it appropriate rating. Its quite easy when you use this method because if you establish a baseline of what is garbage and what is the Ultimate, you can slot it somewhere in between.

    Furthermore, after a history of rating (Like I had at CoasterSims) I could align all of my ratings up and you could get an accurate reading of which rides I liked and which ones I didn't. Unlike a lot of raters who just pour out 8's and 9's for the sake of not hurting the makers feelings. And then you see rides of truly varying quality all with the same rating and that shouldn't happen.

    I really push rating on the WHOLE scale. Not just from 5-10 which I feel is how people rate. They don't even bother with 1-4 and as a result, a mediocre ride is like an 8 and that's just not right. Its not accurate.
    • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2014 edited
    I once have created this one:

    - "Unterkategorie" means "sub-category", sorry for that.
    - This template was created for NL1, it would need to be adjusted for multiple-coaster parks and scripting in NL2.
    - "Other" is bonus sub-category for something like special elements, outstanding scenery or excellent supports.
    - 3ds should be only taken into account if there are any at all.
    - The weighting may be not that great, but it works as a start - and most important: It's fair for every coaster you rate (possibly not in general) because you rate every coaster in the same scheme, so those ratings produced by this spreadsheet are comparable.
    Wow, nice. cool layout there bad.

    I know it's got a lot going on, too much really as far as any rating system that could be completely fair (though bad's design there is quite well done).

    The reason I ask about this, is that there usually is an entire system for this kind of thing that a site will want you to follow to keep things fair between all parties involved. Like Rules and such, with a code of conduct for the text associated with it in regards to what should be included.
    That, and I saw the whole thing about having to include at least 300 characters and all those "rules" they have for downloading, rating, and what not. I figured with these kinds of guidelines, that there'd be some sort of system worked out. But I guess not. It's cool though, I think in waiting for these responses I managed to figure out something that is fair enough... though I do have to redefine mine as mine starts out at (org.) 8 for not having 3ds... kinda unfair for those without those kinds of skill.
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2014
    I think the problem with ratings is that majority of people will always compare to the last 'great' ride they rated. Of course comparisons are sometimes needed but if it's a different type then it just ends up being one giant rating fail because you will then only look for the negatives against the amazing track you rode.

    For me, I have no fixed guidelines I just try to be as fair and as open minded as possible. After all, every creator deserves a fair and honest rating, not one based on someone else.
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2014 edited
    Posted By: OutsideOctavesThe reason I ask about this, is that there usually is an entire system for this kind of thing that a site will want you to follow to keep things fair between all parties involved. Like Rules and such, with a code of conduct for the text associated with it in regards to what should be included.

    Something like this? When you go to rate a ride, there's a link to this page that gets displayed right on the right of each page.

    We don't enforce strict adherence to these rules, but they're a good guide. We can't expect every user downloading and rating tracks to have the same level of understanding about coasters, shaping, what's good and what's bad, etc., so we settle for providing guidelines and letting it even out as more and more people rate the track.