what would happen? Leave your opinion below and vote in the poll~
forum
If mappers could decide their own star ratings...
posted
Total Posts
9
If mappers could decide their own star ratings, would it be more or less accurate?
Total votes: 53
Topic Starter
The second option seems best, and if this was implemented, it should be fairly moderated by the BATs in addition with the ranking criteria. 
As it stands, star rating is at least a somewhat accurate measure of hit object density.
If mappers could decide their own star ratings, it probably wouldn't go very well. People would probably start going, "My Normal is a 3!" just because it's a Normal, even if it's more like a 4 to a 4.5.
EDIT: And BATs and MATs are more lenient about stuff than ever IMO, so I don't trust them that much. 'Sides, do we really need even more stuff for them to be worried about? They make enough mistakes with classification as it stands.
If mappers could decide their own star ratings, it probably wouldn't go very well. People would probably start going, "My Normal is a 3!" just because it's a Normal, even if it's more like a 4 to a 4.5.
EDIT: And BATs and MATs are more lenient about stuff than ever IMO, so I don't trust them that much. 'Sides, do we really need even more stuff for them to be worried about? They make enough mistakes with classification as it stands.
This.dkun wrote:
The second option seems best, and if this was implemented, it should be fairly moderated by the BATs in addition with the ranking criteria.
I agree completely.
inb4 people giving 5 stars on easy + "MOST IMPOSIBLE MAP EVER PLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ DOWNLAOD"
What Ekaru said.
I'd take automated star ratings any day.
I'd take automated star ratings any day.
To be fair, the automated ones work decently at ratings 1-4. The problem is that the scale ends there. Let anything that is over 4 be decided by the mapper up until a maximum of 10.
I don't think mappers deciding the ratings would really change much... on the lower end, the disparity between some maps with certain difficulty names (especially Hard) suggests that people aren't really any better at this than the formula is. Fanning out the upper end would be nice though... the range of difficulty crammed into 4-5 stars is pretty ridiculous.
I kind of wonder if maybe the star system wasn't meant to be used to dstinguish among maps within the same difficulty tier. Maybe it was meant for average players to have a quick way of deciding whether a map is out of their league. Even if so, adjusting it to satisfy a larger crowd without betraying its original purpose can't be a bad thing.
I kind of wonder if maybe the star system wasn't meant to be used to dstinguish among maps within the same difficulty tier. Maybe it was meant for average players to have a quick way of deciding whether a map is out of their league. Even if so, adjusting it to satisfy a larger crowd without betraying its original purpose can't be a bad thing.
aevv_old
Star rating is shit, but making it for the mapper to decide is not nice too.
Better let BAT do it when they rank it imo
Better let BAT do it when they rank it imo