Zeta Flow

So, I played Layers and thought it was OK; even though it wasn't especially interesting or challenging, it did keep me moving. That's worth a fifty on my scale.

Yet the average rating was only four, and my fifty only moved it to five. Did that many people really think that level was that bad, or is something weird going on? Those average ratings really are simple averages, right?

I rated it 100 just to test your claim. Problem solved. Rating now at 6...

Yup, they're simple averages. The vote count is at 107 at the moment, and the rating at about 6, so the sum is roughly 600. then another vote of 100% would bring it to 700, divide that by the roughly 100 votes and you get a rating of 7 (Just like how Grau brought it up 1 point from 5 to 6).

Now i do see something odd, there's 107 votes, but only 95 plays. It's possible that simple network errors and such caused it. It's also possible for someone to cheat the system and vote many times, though for the amount of effort it's not really worth it so I'd doubt that's the problem.

Im guessing people didnt like the level

~MD

OK, yeah, I figured it was a simple average, but thanks for confirming that.

I guess what this means is that my standards are radically different from most people's. I think most of the levels out there are either extremely overrated or else underrated. Occasionally I'll agree with a rating, or think it's close, but that doesn't happen too often.

To each their own, I guess.

Just out of curiosity, how do you all rate levels? For me, if a level is winnable, but doesn't let me just find a sweet spot and walk away, that's worth a fifty. I'll modify that up or down based on visual design, originality, cleverness, and a very subjective sense of how fun I find it. It's rare that I rate anything over eighty.

Impossible levels get zero no matter how clever they are, unless they're marked as art. Trivially stupid levels get s 5, because at least someone sort of tried to do something, even if it wasn't much. If a level's title makes a claim that is blatantly wrong, I'll rate the level down; if the title says something like Test, I usually won't rate it at all (but I grumble to myself about people too clueless to click "hidden" when they save test levels. )

Anyway, I'm sure that's more complicated than most peoples' ratings, but so be it.

How do you all do it? What would it take for a level to get a perfect score for you? How about a zero?

That's an interesting question Swartzer. Lately, I don't even bother rating some levels if I find them unoriginal, boring or annoying. I keep my opinion to myself and let the other players set the rating.

I just replayed the LAYERS level and found that it was one of those levels that fell into that category for me. It's listed in the Puzzle category but I don't find anything remotely puzzling about it. There was nothing particularly interesting about it, and it left you with an annoyingly less than full size core to chase around while avoiding its core spread weapon. But it was easily beatable, so normally I would probably rate that 20. Since I hadn't rated it before, I gave it 100, and it's up to a 7 rating now.

I don't know that I can break down my rating system in numbers; but things (in no particular order of relevance) that will cause me to rate higher are:
Originality; Playability (I have to keep moving... if I can sit in a sweet spot and win, that's not playability... it's boring); Symmetry of design (not just a mess of parts thrown across the stage); Visual interest (use of color is a plus); Use of Triggers (major plus); Complexity of design.

A partial list of things that will cause me to rate lower are:
A truly impossible level; Overuse of force fields; Ridiculous random mess of parts; Tiny cores; Levels categorized improperly (the Art and Tutorial categories have a bunch of levels in them that don't belong there IMHO); A stupid or insulting level name (IF YOU CAN DEFEATE THIS YOU ARE A NERD!!!!!!!)

Lately there does seem to be a tendency for unfairly low ratings though.