Hey Killery -- Read your PM's!

[Baak]

(See subject)

[GodzFire]

I'd say the same thing to Killswitch, as he fell off the earth after posting that one topic about new room graphics.

[Pyro]

Maybe you scared him off.

[vinylrake]

there's a player in OoH named nokilli who went awol months ago (or has it been a year?). so looking for patterns...mb it's some curse if your player name has the word 'kill' in it?

[Killery]

im there now, and have sent reply.
Im good at netgames, high ranked, playing at times.
and I know what is good map.
my vote has non explanation but its possible to trust it

[Baak]

im there now, and have sent reply.
Im good at netgames, high ranked, playing at times.
and I know what is good map.
my vote has non explanation but its possible to trust it

Thanks.

We all know what is a good map -- based on our own opinion. That doesn't mean your opinion or my opinion is everyone else's. To think otherwise is arrogant.

You intentionally rated one of my maps 1-star to bring it's current overall rating to what you believe it should be (3-stars). That's known as abusive rating.

If you don't like it, that's fine. The 770+ other dl's say something to the contrary. And yes The Tain (unlike the OoH Battle Plan) counts dl's based on clicks, but I'd be willing to bet that 770+ is 90% of the real total. On top of that, It has 489 dl's on the OoH site -- and they don't count unless you dl the entire file -- so somebody's sure dl'ing it. It's primarily meant to be played with other plugins (like the Anywhere multiplayer series). If you don't know how to play it with those combinations, you probably wouldn't like it. That too is in the description. If you don't like WWII do you rate all WWII maps 1-star?

With Triskelion your eloquent review was: "rofl Gothic". It's not Gothic -- if you even played it once and/or read the first paragraph of the description you'd know that. Have you played Flag Rally on the 6-start light version of that map? It's one of the funnest Flag Rally games I've ever played.

Based on your PM to me it appears you believe it is your duty to rate maps based on your own agenda: your own opinion being what everyone else should think. I must have missed the vote to elect you King Rater. I think maybe you should follow that age-old advice: "if you don't have something good to say about something, don't say anything at all."

Then build your own website and include a list of the maps you like and think everyone else should play and count how many people show up to listen.

[Zeph]

im there now, and have sent reply.
Im good at netgames, high ranked, playing at times.
and I know what is good map.
my vote has non explanation but its possible to trust it

That is not a review at all, you simply rated it 1 star with no reason. Please give a review or remove your review.

[Death's Avatar]

Now I think we have to keep something in mind here. The abusive part is that his review was crummy. He can rate it however he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

One (mapmakers) must keep in mind, that it is entirely possible that people think your maps suck, and are allowed to show this through ratings (even if you have tons of downloads or whatever else).

[Zeph]

After talking with killery, he told me he didnt even try the map. he rated a 1 just because it was gothic and looked bad.

[Baak]

Now I think we have to keep something in mind here. The abusive part is that his review was crummy. He can rate it however he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

Sorry, DA, it's not that case at all. He rated it 1-star to lower the overall rating to 3-stars, what he believes is the correct overall rating of the map. That's abusive, plain and simple.

Of course people can rate something poorly if they think it sucks, but they don't have the right to rate in an abusive way, period. Read Zeph's comment above for further clarification as well, since I don't think it's anyone's right to rate something if they haven't even played the map.

If you agree this is ok, then you're saying it's ok for someone who doesn't like WWII to rate every WWII map 1-star because of that fact. Or because the map name has too many vowels in it. That's bull***.

Get rid of the ratings(stars) and leave the reviews with feedback from the mapmakers on the reviews and you'll instantly have a balanced and much more informative system of two-way feedback. People can read the reviews and make their own choice based on others opinions (good and bad).

Besides automatically eliminating this kind of abuse (whether it was intentional or not) it also automatically provides positive feedback for newbie mapmakers. I've always hated when some newbie mapmaker posts something that isn't very good -- but you know they tried (based on their description text) -- only to have one or two guys come down hard on them with scathing reviews and 1-star ratings going on and on about how much it sucks. Really encouraging. Exactly what we don't need if we want to keep this game going at all.

[Death's Avatar]

to rate in an abusive way

I am arguing that this does not exist. How they choose to rate it (however that is) is within their right to rate it.

I agree reviews of Killery's caliber are non-productive but every single solution you have proposed eliminates the feedback they have chosen to provide, in particular it eliminates their ability convey dislike for the plugin.

Beginners get bad reviews? Then that drives them to make better maps. A review's like Killery's is shitty, to be sure. But a scathing negative review? That is quite helpful I'd say.

[Death's Avatar]

Consider it this way:

The Tain is not a service for mapmakers. It is a service to players.

The goal is to provide the best experience for the players. I feel that removing the ratings detracts from this.

[The ability to host, etc the maps is the service to the mapmakers, the frontend, the actual Tain is for the players]

[Khadrelt]

...it also automatically provides positive feedback for newbie mapmakers. I've always hated when some newbie mapmaker posts something that isn't very good -- but you know they tried (based on their description text) -- only to have one or two guys come down hard on them with scathing reviews and 1-star ratings going on and on about how much it sucks. Really encouraging.

Hah, I can relate to that. I don't think any plugs I posted on the Mill or here ever got more that 1 or 2 stars, and they attract bad reviews in plenty! Admittedly, you have to have a certain twisted personality to actually enjoy most of what I make. But hey, if there happens to be someone else out there who's as demented as I am, then it's worth it, right?

[vinylrake]

In general, DA I pretty much agree with what you said above. The Tain IS a service for players, and reviews and ratings can help players choose which maps to try, and removing them would be a negative. BUT ratings of '1' by people who admittedly DIDN'T EVEN TRY A MAP isn't helping players at all. BUT the Tain also provides a service to mapmakers - it provides a means for mapmakers to distribute their creations. The Tain provides a service to both players and mapmakers.

I still think it would be good if mapmakers could respond to reviews. Seems a reasonable compromise.

[Death's Avatar]

Definitely rake, this thought came up in the other thread. I think that is an excellent compromise.

And again, I am not arguing that what Killery did was not abusive! His reviews are crap, and defeat the whole purpose. And I suppose I will retract my statement from before: if he didn't play it, that rating too is abusive, though i really do hate to say any rating is abusive.