Home 
LittleBigPlanet 1 - PSP - Tearaway -Run Sackboy Run LittleBigPlanet 1 [LBP1] Everything Else LittleBigPlanet 1 [Archive]
#1
LBP Rating System BROKEN!!!
Archive: 93 posts
| The rating system is down!!! :O poms' new level "The Miracle of Life" has 2,042 plays, 378 hearts, but no rating!!! The same thing with my newest level: "Pixel Tech Demo" it has 3 plays, but no rating!!! I rated poms' newest level 5/5 stars, restarted the ps3, and wanted to play it again, still, no rating!!! MM, FIX THIS NOW! | 2009-07-25 18:53:00 Author: tjb0607  Posts: 1054 |
| I didn't notice any problems when I was playing earlier (about 2 hours ago), strange. | 2009-07-25 18:58:00 Author: Leather-Monkey  Posts: 2266 |
| That's new. Maybe you're clicking on them too fast for the screen to pop up. Happens when I rush into a level. | 2009-07-25 19:03:00 Author: Outlaw-Jack  Posts: 5757 |
| I bet it's the new update. It's only happening with the newer levels, and it shows like that to everyone. :/ | 2009-07-25 19:13:00 Author: tjb0607 Posts: 1054 |
| Yeah, I saw this too, and noticed it specifically on pom's level. | 2009-07-25 19:35:00 Author: Unknown User  |
| Actually this might not be such a bad thing y'know? Might actually been done on purpose. | 2009-07-25 19:39:00 Author: Silverleon  Posts: 6707 |
| Yeah, seriously... now people might start thinking for themselves when they rate a level, instead of going in with a predisposed negative or positive bias. | 2009-07-25 20:16:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Actually this might not be such a bad thing y'know? Might actually been done on purpose. What for? To stop ratings to be next to the level title? lol | 2009-07-25 20:27:00 Author: tjb0607 Posts: 1054 |
| "Hmm this level is definitely not a 5 star level... 1 star!" "aw come on, this level's not that great but it deserves more than 3 stars... 5 star!" "my level has 1 star, this level has 5 stars... 1 star!" "hey this level has 1/2/3 star(s)... it must suck. I'm not playing this" "hey this level has 5 stars... it must be awesome" see #1 "hey this level has 1 star... it must be retarded, let's go laugh at it, and rate it 5 stars to amuse ourselves" | 2009-07-25 20:32:00 Author: Unknown User |
| "Hmm this level is definitely not a 5 star level... 1 star!" "aw come on, this level's not that great but it deserves more than 3 stars... 5 star!" "my level has 1 star, this level has 5 stars... 1 star!" "hey this level has 1/2/3 star(s)... it must suck. I'm not playing this" "hey this level has 5 stars... it must be awesome" see #1 "hey this level has 1 star... it must be retarded, let's go laugh at it, and rate it 5 stars to amuse ourselves" Sure, but then what's the point of ratings? | 2009-07-25 20:44:00 Author: crazymario  Posts: 657 |
| I'm sure the system can still organize them accordingly without it being visible, and you can still see your own level ratings. It's probably just invisible, not gone. | 2009-07-25 20:46:00 Author: Unknown User |
| I get what the people who support the new rating system are saying, but more times than not the ratings on levels are accurate and a good indicator if a level is good or bad. The default ratings on these new levels is 3 stars, so a lot of people are going to be rating 3 stars since it's already there. I'm not really sure how this whole thing is going to work out though... | 2009-07-25 20:47:00 Author: Dr_Vab  Posts: 134 |
| I've only ever played one level that was rated 5 stars and on highest rated that I think really was almost perfect for what it was... jackofcourse's Industrial Assistance. Flaming Timberland 1 & 2 are also great, with 5 stars, but his level Construction Calamity has 4 stars and is better than both of those IMO. The only reason it's like that is because some people have bad taste or went out of there way to down rate it early on. On the other hand, I've played hundreds of levels I think are absolutely mindblowing that have 3 or 4 stars. In fact, every single one of my favorite levels are rated 3 to 4 stars. | 2009-07-25 20:53:00 Author: Unknown User |
Well.. we don't really know if it is a bug or a feature...  MM doesn't exactly relay much info to us other than a pic of moldy stuff in their fridge or hat day along with the sea of DLC costumes.  It would be nice if they had a patch listing on their site of what fixes are in each patch etc.. but I suspect even if they had that it would end up being a pic of a monkey with the caption saying "Boing BOING boing Boing"!!  | 2009-07-25 21:02:00 Author: jwwphotos  Posts: 11383 |
| Yup, noticed this as well. Only today actually...I've just installed v1.17. | 2009-07-25 21:11:00 Author: KoRnDawwg  Posts: 1424 |
| Well.. we don't really know if it is a bug or a feature... MM doesn't exactly relay much info to us other than a pic of moldy stuff in their fridge or hat day along with the sea of DLC costumes. It would be nice if they had a patch listing on their site of what fixes are in each patch etc.. but I suspect even if they had that it would end up being a pic of a monkey with the caption saying "Boing BOING boing Boing"!! They'd also have to list all the things that new patches break... | 2009-07-25 21:11:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Thanks for posting this in a thread. I found my friend Joey's level didn't have stars showing up last night and didn't know what was going on. I don't know what to think of this no star thing yet either. It doesn't seem intentional but then again, with MM who knows. | 2009-07-25 21:40:00 Author: Morgana25  Posts: 5983 |
| "Hmm this level is definitely not a 5 star level... 1 star!" "aw come on, this level's not that great but it deserves more than 3 stars... 5 star!" "my level has 1 star, this level has 5 stars... 1 star!" "hey this level has 1/2/3 star(s)... it must suck. I'm not playing this" "hey this level has 1 star... it must be retarded, let's go laugh at it, and rate it 5 stars to amuse ourselves" Exactly! I mean, the star system isn't reliable 98% of the time... Its better to leave it like that if you ask me. I mean, have you seen that Spongebob vs Sipmsons level..? The level sucks, it only has characters collected from other levels all under hundreads of explosives.... And in the middle of the level he just has a mouth that says : "Oh and rip MJ" ... That's it, and the thing was 4 or 5 stars... :/ I mean, seriously? That thing could've mbeen done in 5mins, yet people who take days, weeks or months making a well made level get 1 - 3 stars... Looks pretty broken to me. | 2009-07-25 22:22:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707 |
| They'd also have to list all the things that new patches break... LOL!! Too True!! I would be happy with at least listing what they were attempting to fix for a start. | 2009-07-25 22:27:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| Haha the level is soo good, it doesn't need stars, lol, wasn't it published sometime between v1.16 and v1.17???? meaning that it can't update or something along those lines??????????????? | 2009-07-25 22:39:00 Author: springs86  Posts: 785 |
| Exactly! I mean, the star system isn't reliable 98% of the time... Its better to leave it like that if you ask me. I mean, have you seen that Spongebob vs Sipmsons level..? The level sucks, it only has characters collected from other levels all under hundreads of explosives.... And in the middle of the level he just has a mouth that says : "Oh and rip MJ" ... That's it, and the thing was 4 or 5 stars... :/ I mean, seriously? That thing could've mbeen done in 5mins, yet people who take days, weeks or months making a well made level get 1 - 3 stars... Looks pretty broken to me. There are some pretty bad 4 star levels and some 5 star levels don't deserve the 5 star rating, but most of those 4 and 5 star levels do deserve a high rating (maybe not as high as they have, but still high). Most levels where the author puts time and effort into their level usually will get a three star rating and if they don't it's probably just bad luck that the first few people that played it didn't like it too much. I mean if they keep this rating system you will have no idea how good or bad a level is going to be before you play, where at least you had some sort of indication with the old rating system. | 2009-07-25 23:00:00 Author: Dr_Vab Posts: 134 |
| Well, the rating doesn't show up for the level author either, which is a tad annoying. I published a little demonstration level and it has like 19 plays, but no rating. I'd like to know how it's doing (not that it matters all that much). Shouldn't the rating be always available for the creator to see, assuming this was an intentional change by MM? | 2009-07-26 03:10:00 Author: comphermc  Posts: 5338 |
| The rating always seemed to discourage me when publishing levels. I like the change, even if it was an accident. | 2009-07-26 03:13:00 Author: crazymario Posts: 657 |
| I think it should be that you earn your way to be able to rate levels, don't show the "Rate This Level" thing until you earn the right. I also think that a level should be finished before rating a level. To earn your way to rate levels, I think you should do the following: 1. finish the story mode. 2. play 100 'popular' levels (with 4-5 star rating, atleast 3,000 plays, and atleast 200 hearts.) and 3. publish a level with atleast 1/2 thermo. That would eliminate most newbies that rate levels poorly or stupidly. | 2009-07-26 05:13:00 Author: tjb0607 Posts: 1054 |
| I think it should be that you earn your way to be able to rate levels, don't show the "Rate This Level" thing until you earn the right. I also think that a level should be finished before rating a level. To earn your way to rate levels, I think you should do the following: 1. finish the story mode. 2. play 100 'popular' levels (with 4-5 star rating, atleast 3,000 plays, and atleast 200 hearts.) and 3. publish a level with atleast 1/2 thermo. That would eliminate most newbies that rate levels poorly or stupidly. Um, no. The people that rate low for fun have been around just as long as everyone else. They're just immature. There's no way to fairly control who is allowed to rate levels... The problem doesn't lie in MM's system, it lies in immature people who ruin it for everyone else. | 2009-07-26 05:50:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| They are ways to improve this system. IT IS partly because EVERYONE is obligated to rate and prompted right in the face + the trophies and + immature people. Immature people is the least important thing in the design of your rating system. If your rating system is well done, they won't crap it up that much. . | 2009-07-26 18:35:00 Author: RangerZero  Posts: 3901 |
| Actually this might not be such a bad thing y'know? Might actually been done on purpose. But you can still rate it when you finish the level. But no rating shows up. So its not on purpose. | 2009-07-26 18:46:00 Author: Adam9001  Posts: 744 |
| Maybe it shows the ratings only after a good amount of votes, I don't know, surely it's strange to cut off the ratings only on newer levels. Anyway, Ninja has made a good point (as always...man, you're getting boring  ) | 2009-07-26 19:06:00 Author: OmegaSlayer Posts: 5112 |
| It's broken? Really? I never knew it was working . | 2009-07-26 23:43:00 Author: RickRock_777  Posts: 1567 |
| But you can still rate it when you finish the level. But no rating shows up. So its not on purpose. The benefit i'm talking about its the "can't see the rating" thing, that's the good thing. -_- I do know you can still rate, i did read the other posts you know? | 2009-07-27 00:17:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707 |
| I don't put much faith in how the rating system is set up right now. Because of this, I can't see the ratings not appearing as a bad thing, although I do imagine it still affects appearing on Cool Levels... | 2009-07-27 14:05:00 Author: Gilgamesh  Posts: 2536 |
| Probably an experiment to see if you get more fair ratings on newer levels if the person doesn't have any "preconceived" ideas about the level rating. However, personally I think this would only be part of the problem and would fail if players were allowed to rate the level WITHOUT PLAYING IT. I still think the idea of having a player rate a level without finishing it encourages bad behavior. Also, don't "default" the star rating to 3 but start with NO rating and have the player move it back to 5,4,3,2.... don't have them start at 1 and rate upward because many kids will rate 1 star. You have to design it to truly reflect what the player thinks, not rate on convenience or "I don't care either way" (so they leave it already defaulted to something). | 2009-07-27 14:26:00 Author: CCubbage  Posts: 4430 |
| Probably an experiment to see if you get more fair ratings on newer levels if the person doesn't have any "preconceived" ideas about the level rating. However, personally I think this would only be part of the problem and would fail if players were allowed to rate the level WITHOUT PLAYING IT. I still think the idea of having a player rate a level without finishing it encourages bad behavior. Also, don't "default" the star rating to 3 but start with NO rating and have the player move it back to 5,4,3,2.... don't have them start at 1 and rate upward because many kids will rate 1 star. You have to design it to truly reflect what the player thinks, not rate on convenience or "I don't care either way" (so they leave it already defaulted to something). I like the idea, but I'm still confused as to what MM is doing. I published a simple little test level and it still has no rating after several days and about 30 plays. In this case it doesn't matter, but when publishing a normal level, it would be nice to at least see your own level's rating. Also, I agree that it will allow for more unbiased ratings, but not being able to see the rating really makes it tougher to weed out the terrible levels, and harder to find the good ones. | 2009-07-27 14:36:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| I like the idea, but I'm still confused as to what MM is doing. I published a simple little test level and it still has no rating after several days and about 30 plays. In this case it doesn't matter, but when publishing a normal level, it would be nice to at least see your own level's rating. Also, I agree that it will allow for more unbiased ratings, but not being able to see the rating really makes it tougher to weed out the terrible levels, and harder to find the good ones. I totally agree. Unfortunately, I really don't think MM has a "handle" on ratings and collecting good analytical data - which really surprises me. In every solution they come up with there is at least one HUGE gaping hole. For instance, at the root is the fact that they're dealing with such a wide range of audience ages and skill levels. So, what might be a 5 star rated level to me or you would be a 1 star rated level to a younger person. And not being able to initially monitor the rating puts the creator at a disadvantage because they can't "see" if its being accepted. Some of the tricks I've used to steer around the kiddies may be broken with this change. (I don't LIKE using tricks... it's just been my only tool besides making my levels easy enough for me not to like them) The issues I've had with the rating system (which puts ALL levels regardless of difficulty or audience into one huge pile) already makes it difficult to be innovative with gameplay styles, and this just makes it even MORE difficult. Even though, technically, it may produce a more accurate representation of what people like, it makes it even more difficult to target a specific audience AND retain a decent rating. The way the rating system works, especially now, is one of the few things that could actually drive me away from LittleBigPlanet. My strength is arcadey games that require skill and practice (like Vertigo and the Splat Series), and my new one I'm working on is a great design but would probably make a 7-year-old cry.... My determining factor of whether I put more time into it in the future will probably depend on my publishing experience with this one. | 2009-07-27 14:55:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| Probably an experiment to see if you get more fair ratings on newer levels if the person doesn't have any "preconceived" ideas about the level rating. However, personally I think this would only be part of the problem and would fail if players were allowed to rate the level WITHOUT PLAYING IT. I still think the idea of having a player rate a level without finishing it encourages bad behavior. Also, don't "default" the star rating to 3 but start with NO rating and have the player move it back to 5,4,3,2.... don't have them start at 1 and rate upward because many kids will rate 1 star. You have to design it to truly reflect what the player thinks, not rate on convenience or "I don't care either way" (so they leave it already defaulted to something). At least with a default of any kind, since it's always 3 for every level, nobody is getting 5 stars based solely off of quick trigger fingers and laziness. Anyone who gets an unseen 5 star "weighting" to their level's playcount will have gotten it purely off a majority that actually went out of their way to consciously select a 5 star rating. It levels the playing field, so that all antsy and/or lazy players have the same effect on everyone equally. Wether you're safeguarding your level with lock and key to rely on friends and rating yourself 5 stars repeatedly, or getting lucky with a gimmick level that nets you 5 stars from the easily entertained (and easily confused) majority you're not going to get the benefit of a default 5 stars... so we're all on equal terms this way IMO. Now, maybe the first 1-100 ratings won't be the be all end all of your levels chances of success... and since I can't even get 5 stars and well wishes from some of the people on here sometimes no matter how mind bogglingly epic, original, deep, artistic and visually detailed my levels are (let alone from the casual passerby on the servers) I feel that this is a great thing, and gives me as fair a chance as everyone else... even if it is a mistake, or a temporary test that might be quickly overturned. You could get trashed by a resentful or self important player with 1 star ratings repeatedly, and the next player will never be consciously or accidentally influenced by it | 2009-07-27 14:59:00 Author: Unknown User |
| At least with a default of any kind, since it's always 3 for every level, nobody is getting 5 stars based solely off of quick trigger fingers and laziness. Anyone who gets an unseen 5 star "weighting" to their level's playcount will have gotten it purely off a majority that actually went out of their way to consciously select a 5 star rating. It levels the playing field, so that all antsy and/or lazy players have the same effect on everyone equally. Wether you're safeguarding your level with lock and key to rely on friends and rating yourself 5 stars repeatedly, or getting lucky with a gimmick level that nets you 5 stars from the easily entertained (and easily confused) majority you're not going to get the benefit of a default 5 stars... so we're all on equal terms this way IMO. Now, maybe the first 1-100 ratings won't be the be all end all of your levels chances of success... and since I can't even get 5 stars and well wishes from some of the people on here sometimes no matter how mind bogglingly epic, original, deep, artistic and visually detailed my levels are (let alone from the casual passerby on the servers) I feel that this is a great thing, and gives me as fair a chance as everyone else... even if it is a mistake, or a temporary test that might be quickly overturned. You could get trashed by a resentful or self important player with 1 star ratings repeatedly, and the next player will never be consciously or accidentally influenced by it Well, as I said - I'm going to give it a chance and see how it goes. I'm not sold on it yet and I think there are some big holes, but I'll see. Releasing levels such as Vertigo! and Starship Troopers was really taxing, and now I feel like I'm doing it blind. | 2009-07-27 15:11:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| Yeah, we'll definitely see, for sure. It's all just supposing right now. poms level still did what it was designed to do, due to a combination of quality, fanbase and reputation. I know for sure though... with an auto 3-star default, no matter what the current rating is? Even if someone rates your level 1 star right after you publish it, the next player won't have a 1 star default selection like before. You don't even need to rig your launch anymore. | 2009-07-27 15:13:00 Author: Unknown User |
| You don't even need to rig your launch anymore. But does this mean it's even harder to get your level noticed? Now we just need a catchy name or description (like "This will blow your mind - New Glitch found H4H") | 2009-07-27 15:16:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| I'd go for the 3* default, but with the addition that I'd like it to default to the rating I gave the level last time, on my subsequent plays. I accidentally rated mulberry woods 4* yesterday, because that's what came up as default. It'd be nice if it had defaulted to the 5*s I had given it in the first few times through. | 2009-07-27 15:16:00 Author: rtm223  Posts: 6497 |
| Nah... just publish it. Let it do it's thing. I'm absolutely confident that the kids who play glitch, H4H, bomb survival etc levels all go with the default rating, and only people who actually validly critique levels, or grief for fun, will go higher or lower than 3... but griefers can only rate it once, and everytime they rate it, their last rating is taken out of the equation. You'll end up with a 3 star rating at the worst, and so will everyone else who makes a great level. I'm banking on crappy levels having a harder time getting past 3 stars, and great levels having a harder time getting below 3 stars. Our creator guild's ancient secrets of timing and publishing will still work to our advantage over others though, as we have the power to help each other and consciously support with as many plays as we're willing to give, a heart and a good rating (while others won't have this advantage at all), and have an even better success rate minus the upward curve, but on much less steep a slope than it used to be. | 2009-07-27 15:19:00 Author: Unknown User |
I'm sure they would've removed the ratings from previously published levels if this was intentional. Having said that, maybe it's a work in progress and they're altering the rating system to work alongside the new web portal.  | 2009-07-27 15:22:00 Author: Kiminski  Posts: 545 |
| I'm sure they would've removed the ratings from previously published levels if this was intentional. Having said that, maybe it's a work in progress and they're altering the rating system to work alongside the new web portal. I'm not sure they did... I went in last night after reading this thread and everything I looked at had ratings. So, I haven't seen the result yet. | 2009-07-27 15:23:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| I was curious if any of the levels showing no ratings were published after 1.17 was on their machine? The only reason I ask is I think Pom's published right on the day of the update prior to the US having 1.17. If it is a feature.. as it possibly might prove to be, too bad they don't share that info with us. Oh well... thankfully the X button still means jump.  | 2009-07-27 15:41:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| I was curious if any of the levels showing no ratings were published after 1.17 was on their machine? The only reason I ask is I think Pom's published right on the day of the update prior to the US having 1.17. If it is a feature.. as it possibly might prove to be, too bad they don't share that info with us. Oh well... thankfully the X button still means jump. Umm... I heard in the next release jumping will be accomplished by clicking the triangle button while holding the right stick left at the same time. | 2009-07-27 15:42:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| Umm... I heard in the next release jumping will be accomplished by clicking the triangle button while holding the right stick left at the same time. Ahh... that makes sense, but are you sure there isn't an R1 in that sequence somewhere? | 2009-07-27 15:45:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| No, R1 is to be used to activate the L1 and L2 buttons for "run left" and "run right", respectively. | 2009-07-27 15:56:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| No, R1 is to be used to activate the L1 and L2 buttons for "run left" and "run right", respectively. Which leaves firing the paintinator down to shaking your controller viggorously. Umm... yeah... off topic a BIT. | 2009-07-27 15:59:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| Which leaves firing the paintinator down to shaking your controller viggorously. Umm... yeah... off topic a BIT. LOL!! wow.. that is going to make splat invaders quite comical to watch someone play!! ..to get back on topic. Yup.. still broken! | 2009-07-27 16:03:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| I think this new rating system (if they keep it) will make it harder for new creators to make a big time level. People may not give them a chance because they're new and have no rating to back their level up. Maybe if Mm let the author choose if they want the rating to show or not this wouldn't be such a problem. | 2009-07-27 19:05:00 Author: Dr_Vab Posts: 134 |
| I heard that the problem with the rating system is due to the new multi-layer glitch, actually. | 2009-07-27 19:11:00 Author: dandygandy2704  Posts: 1002 |
| I heard that the problem with the rating system is due to the new multi-layer glitch, actually. I was gonna post saying the exact same thing. I'm looking into it a little more... | 2009-07-27 20:20:00 Author: KoRnDawwg Posts: 1424 |
| I heard that the problem with the rating system is due to the new multi-layer glitch, actually. What's this glitch? . | 2009-07-27 20:29:00 Author: RangerZero Posts: 3901 |
| It's the ability to create layers behind the normal 7 planes (4 thin and 3 thick). They are difficult to work with, but everyone's excited over the possibilities is presents. It originated from a creator (PSN: Bakscratch) who released a level with 9 extra layers. Nobody know how he created them, but people have found out how to make more layers from his original 9. | 2009-07-27 20:41:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| Probably an experiment to see if you get more fair ratings on newer levels if the person doesn't have any "preconceived" ideas about the level rating. However, personally I think this would only be part of the problem and would fail if players were allowed to rate the level WITHOUT PLAYING IT. I still think the idea of having a player rate a level without finishing it encourages bad behavior. Also, don't "default" the star rating to 3 but start with NO rating and have the player move it back to 5,4,3,2.... don't have them start at 1 and rate upward because many kids will rate 1 star. You have to design it to truly reflect what the player thinks, not rate on convenience or "I don't care either way" (so they leave it already defaulted to something). I thought and thought and thought and thought about it... and I came up with something that imho will solve this problem: Instead of star ratings and hearts (that served a purpose that actually never worked: the ''play-create-share'' counters), only a simple red square/rectangle at the bottom of the level page that says exactly this: ENDORSE THIS LEVEL So, if you click it you will pimp the level a bit (once per account per level), viceversa don't. Plain. Simple. Neat. And with this system there's no way to intentionally bury a level, simply you can only ignore it. EASY. I will replace the hearts system with a more familiar ''add to favourites''. This will be good. Don't you think? | 2009-07-27 22:19:00 Author: Miglioshin  Posts: 336 |
| I kind of like the simplicity of it all, Miglioshin. I'm trying to find faults in the logic, but I wouldn't know how well it'd work until it was actually tested. The nice thing about it is that it does away with ratings. There would still be H4H, though (Or E4E, for Endorsement for Endorsement) | 2009-07-27 22:26:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| I think the problem is changing it all this much after you have a million levels out there already. Most of my solutions haven't been revolutionary, but have been trying to take what they have and make it work better without overhauling - in a way that would be a smooth transition. Not showing the star ratings anymore may put all levels on a more equal plane in one way, but don't put them on an equal plane with all the levels before. As a person who makes a living as a systems analyst, this whole thing makes my head swim.... BUT, that being said - I'm willing to give it a shot. I have a new level that should be ready to test it all out in a week or so.... we'll see! And Miglioshin - I do believe your idea is a good one, however I don't think MM would go for a change as radical as that. LittleBigPlanet 2??... | 2009-07-28 01:10:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| I kind of like the simplicity of it all, Miglioshin. I'm trying to find faults in the logic, but I wouldn't know how well it'd work until it was actually tested. The nice thing about it is that it does away with ratings. There would still be H4H, though (Or E4E, for Endorsement for Endorsement) The E4E will die in no time since there will be no ways to verify who endorse a particular level and who don't... and in this way if a 7 years old kid enter your latest ultra-hard-super-detailed-and-masterfully-designed level and his joypad explodes in his sticky hands at the start blasting away his randomly stickered sackboy... (err... sorry... lol)... the only thing he can actually do is NOT to endorse your level (instead of give it bad ratings...). And it will be only one possible thing left to do: F4F!! (clap clap clap clap clap) Thank you. LOL | 2009-07-28 01:16:00 Author: Miglioshin Posts: 336 |
| And Miglioshin - I do believe your idea is a good one, however I don't think MM would go for a change as radical as that. LittleBigPlanet 2??... Mumble mumble... Hope to see something similar in ModNationRacers (or is it ModRacersNation?) That game has potential... Ok it's a racing game, that has less potential than a platform actually... But let's see. To answer your question: I don't even dream LBP2... This game is so unique in its genre that it will make more sense to me to updateing LBP into LBP2... Maybe the 50th layer glitch is not so unintentional... But nowadays it is only a matter of cash... IMO. | 2009-07-28 01:27:00 Author: Miglioshin Posts: 336 |
| Yep, same thing is happening with my new level. I even republished it, losing hearts and plays in the process because I thought it was something I did. | 2009-07-28 12:51:00 Author: LemmingCounciler Posts: 16 |
| I think the easiest solution to the ratings would be to make it optional. When you complete a level, or exit out of it, I think that you should be able to go straight to a different level, and on one of the pages of that level's information, there should be a "rate" and a "tag" button that disappear after you have used them. This way, only people that believe the level should be ranked differently will take the time to actually rate and tag it. Of course there will still be abuse, but without making the ratings mandatory, you remove a lot of the "impulse" raters. Agree/Disagree? | 2009-07-28 13:26:00 Author: BSprague  Posts: 2325 |
| I think the easiest solution to the ratings would be to make it optional. When you complete a level, or exit out of it, I think that you should be able to go straight to a different level, and on one of the pages of that level's information, there should be a "rate" and a "tag" button that disappear after you have used them. This way, only people that believe the level should be ranked differently will take the time to actually rate and tag it. Of course there will still be abuse, but without making the ratings mandatory, you remove a lot of the "impulse" raters. Agree/Disagree? I don't know.... I think the biggest issue in looking at the "whole" picture (all age groups, all maturity levels, all skill levels) is that it's too EASY to rate. My personal feeling is still that you shouldn't be able to rate a level unless you cross the finish line. That would a) prevent maliceous low-rating and b) prevent A.D.D. kids from making snap judgements rating your level (such as my 7-year-old dying once, quickly exiting and rating 1 star). This is the rule used in the real world - if a professional video game critic finishes the game, they have the whole picture and therefore can give their honest opinion. Your solution definately solves the "impulse rating" issue, but that's really only part of the problem. To truly understand whats happening you have to sit and watch people. I sit and watch my son and his friends and they aren't impulse rating, they are truly rating based on their opinion - which is immature. | 2009-07-28 13:49:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| I don't know.... I think the biggest issue in looking at the "whole" picture (all age groups, all maturity levels, all skill levels) is that it's too EASY to rate. My personal feeling is still that you shouldn't be able to rate a level unless you cross the finish line. That would a) prevent maliceous low-rating and b) prevent A.D.D. kids from making snap judgements rating your level (such as my 7-year-old dying once, quickly exiting and rating 1 star). This is the rule used in the real world - if a professional video game critic finishes the game, they have the whole picture and therefore can give their honest opinion. Your solution definately solves the "impulse rating" issue, but that's really only part of the problem. To truly understand whats happening you have to sit and watch people. I sit and watch my son and his friends and they aren't impulse rating, they are truly rating based on their opinion - which is immature. But would they rate if it wasn't mandatory? Would they rate it if it wasn't right out in the open when you exit a level, and didn't require input before continuing? The only problem with making people finish the level before continuing is that not all levels have scoreboards. For example, I have a level called "Emitter Engine Demo", it's a test of a new way to move vehicles. It doesn't require a scoreboard because you are just testing a car, and if there was a scoreboard, the player might accidentally go to it from driving the car too fast. I still want to know what people think though, so I need people to rate it to find out. There are also those nearly empty levels that are absolutely terrible that don't have scoreboards. I want to rate them one star for wasting space, but I wouldn't be able to because they didn't put in a scoreboard. That is why I purposely excluded that from part of my solution. | 2009-07-28 13:59:00 Author: BSprague Posts: 2325 |
| "hey this level has 1 star... it must be retarded, let's go laugh at it, and rate it 5 stars to amuse ourselves" now how am i suppose to pick levels when i have to lead the group | 2009-07-28 14:07:00 Author: deboerdave  Posts: 384 |
| Guys, we can go back and forth on this all day, but at the end of that day, we'll just have to live with whatever MM decides to use. I think we can all agree that there are going to be problems with whatever system is in place, and it's not for a lack of understanding on MM's part - it's for the wide range of demographics playing LBP. You can't control human behavior with any system, so just relax... let it happen, give it time... | 2009-07-28 14:09:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| Guys, we can go back and forth on this all day, but at the end of that day, we'll just have to live with whatever MM decides to use. I think we can all agree that there are going to be problems with whatever system is in place, and it's not for a lack of understanding on MM's part - it's for the wide range of demographics playing LBP. You can't control human behavior with any system, so just relax... let it happen, give it time... Very true, but there isn't any harm in throwing around suggestions on how we would implement it. | 2009-07-28 14:20:00 Author: BSprague Posts: 2325 |
| Quote: Originally Posted by comphermc View Post Guys, we can go back and forth on this all day, but at the end of that day, we'll just have to live with whatever MM decides to use. I think we can all agree that there are going to be problems with whatever system is in place, and it's not for a lack of understanding on MM's part - it's for the wide range of demographics playing LBP. You can't control human behavior with any system, so just relax... let it happen, give it time... Very true, but there isn't any harm in throwing around suggestions on how we would implement it. As offtopic as this is, I can resist to wish, to imaginate how amazing it would be if we, members of LBPC, we could do somthing to -not to change the mechanics of the rating system, that's something up to MM- but to change the overall mentality about how to rate levels. Is there any way? Someone knows? The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind  | 2009-07-28 14:32:00 Author: Keldur  Posts: 628 |
| To change the way the community thinks, from our little bastion of light over here, is analagous to doing something else into the wind methinks... | 2009-07-28 14:38:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497 |
| I don't know.... I think the biggest issue in looking at the "whole" picture (all age groups, all maturity levels, all skill levels) is that it's too EASY to rate. My personal feeling is still that you shouldn't be able to rate a level unless you cross the finish line. That would a) prevent maliceous low-rating and b) prevent A.D.D. kids from making snap judgements rating your level (such as my 7-year-old dying once, quickly exiting and rating 1 star). This is the rule used in the real world - if a professional video game critic finishes the game, they have the whole picture and therefore can give their honest opinion. Your solution definately solves the "impulse rating" issue, but that's really only part of the problem. To truly understand whats happening you have to sit and watch people. I sit and watch my son and his friends and they aren't impulse rating, they are truly rating based on their opinion - which is immature. a very difficult level will still need to have some rating. even if no one makes it to the finish line. Otherwise the rating only goes to a handfull of people. I agree that there should be some tweaking of the rating system. The simplest ways to tweek it would be to give more weight to the ratings given by people who finish the level then those that dont. Even if you dont finish the level you still can voice your opinion, it just wont count as much. A more advance way would be to assign players a player ranking and a creator ranking. Then the inverse of the average of these two rankings could determine the weight of the rating that they give. This would actually be pretty cool and motivational. As your creator ranking could be some function of: Number of levels published, Number of creator hearts, average number of hearts per level created (for levels past the 7 day cut, as it is pretty static at that point), average level rating (for levels past 7 day cut), average number of plays per level (for levels past 7 day cut), and average number of replays per level (for levels past 7 day cut). A creator ranking would definitely cut out some of the junk levels out their. Then your player ranking would be based on your proformance in levels. It would be a function of how many levels you have played, the ranks you acheived on each level conditional on how many other player played that level and its difficulty (difficulty could be judged on number of people that passed a level and the number of people that attempted to pass a level, and also if the players could rate difficultty in addition to quality that would be good), the percentage of prize bubbles you have found per level, and some of these values could be computed multiple time per level as you could have played it 2player, 3 player, 4 player. This sort of system could probably cut some of the junk out of LBP as producing junk would basicly penalize you as your voice wont count very much. And increase replays on thought of rating. blah blah blah what do you think of this | 2009-07-28 14:41:00 Author: deboerdave Posts: 384 |
| That would work. As I've mentioned before, my whole "can't rate unless you've finished" thing was not a dream answer - just one that I can wrap my brain around that could be programmatically placed over the existing system without an overhaul. | 2009-07-28 15:33:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| In my opinion, performance shouldn't interfere with your capability of rating. You can totally a fair opinion of an level without finishing it. A rating isn't just about difficulty. The thing that they could do is to NOT prompt the rating at the end of a level but put it down 2-3 pages deep in the menus. This would dimimish the abuse ALOT. Also, we should enter a small "rating page" where there are different things to wich you can give stars like "gameplay", "visuals", "difficulty". (at least those 3). People would be forced to have a more detailed opinion and it would be boring to take time for this when you're a spammer. . | 2009-07-28 18:02:00 Author: RangerZero Posts: 3901 |
| Even though the previous rating system had its faults it was the best we had and for the most part was effective in weeding out the vast number of mediocre levels out there and i prefer if they just get this thing working again. I'm surprised mm hasnt officially addressed this, as this is to me a 'glitch' worth addressing sooner rather than later. | 2009-07-28 18:46:00 Author: juscallmeJ Posts: 77 |
| ya, i just posted a new thread just like this 1 sorry... but ya i notice it today, i hope they can fix it. i just posted a new level couple days ago and no rating showed on it.... | 2009-07-30 03:56:00 Author: Unknown User |
| Spaff's word on the ratings: http://forums.littlebigworkshop.com/lbp/board/message?board.id=pod&view=by_date_ascending&message.id=82382#M82382 | 2009-07-30 12:39:00 Author: ARD Posts: 4291 |
| Spaff's word on the ratings: http://forums.littlebigworkshop.com/lbp/board/message?board.id=pod&view=by_date_ascending&message.id=82382#M82382 Ahh.. so it is a bug. I may refrain from publishing my new level till after they have this bug squished. Thanks! | 2009-07-30 13:16:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| Ahh.. so it is a bug. I may refrain from publishing my new level till after they have this bug squished. Thanks! Yeah, I'm going to do the same - although, I'm EXPECTING low ratings on my new level - so maybe not having ratings could work to my benefit - I wouldn't have to watch my level free-fall and could be happily oblivious. | 2009-07-30 13:53:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| Does this mean poms new level only has 3 stars. Thats what it was on when I went to rate it last night. Seriously, if a level like that is getting 3 it really highlights some flaws in the system. | 2009-07-30 14:20:00 Author: wexfordian  Posts: 1904 |
| Does this mean poms new level only has 3 stars. Thats what it was on when I went to rate it last night. Seriously, if a level like that is getting 3 it really highlights some flaws in the system. I think since there is NO rating, it is always defaulting to 3 stars. I personally think they are having a serious database issue - they may even have hit the databases record limit. Think about this: The rating, unlike tags, are kept track of per PSN account and stored in, most likely, a SQL database on a server. So, for every single level a person has played they store the rating and the PSN account. There are a million levels in LBP. If, on average, every single level has received 2000 plays (some have 10, some have 200,000....) that's 2 BILLION indexed ratings. Some DBMS's don't handle that much..... that being said - since the levels published before last week still have their star ratings - so it isn't database corruption - they may have hit their limit and ratings may not be applied to new levels. This is a theory, of course - but if it were true they would have to redesign the code to handle ratings from multiple databases to continue.... or change the ratings back to a weighted average like it used to be - which would fix the issue but at the same time would once again allow spam-rating to lower a levels rating. Interesting. | 2009-07-30 14:41:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| I personally think they are having a serious database issue - they may even have hit the databases record limit. Yup.. I think this is the case as well. | 2009-07-30 15:12:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| What will happen to the levels published during this problem? Will my level remain 3 stars? It doesn't appear in highest ranked pages, and I searched till page 50. What a catastrophe... | 2009-07-30 20:37:00 Author: poms  Posts: 383 |
| What will happen to the levels published during this problem? Will my level remain 3 stars? It doesn't appear in highest ranked pages, and I searched till page 50. What a catastrophe... This is off-topic but, are you the poms that made "THE BUNKER" on the highest hearted? | 2009-07-30 20:47:00 Author: Adam9001 Posts: 744 |
| Yep. That's me. But let's go back to topic pls. | 2009-07-30 20:51:00 Author: poms Posts: 383 |
| I'm quite certain that the ratings are still being recorded, but are not viewable at this time. We'll see in a week or two... | 2009-07-30 20:54:00 Author: MrsSpookyBuz  Posts: 1492 |
| Yep. That's me. But let's go back to topic pls. Well, if my theory is correct (I honestly think they hit a database record limit.... but who knows), right now there is NO rating at all on your level no matter how many people rate it..... which means when this is all over, all of us can go in there really quick and give it a 5 star rating and you would be good to go! I don't think they are being recorded, because if they were it would be bringing back the average even though you don't see them when looking at cool pages. We don't even know if it's recording them for old levels - all we really know is that we SEE the ratings for the old levels - that doesn't mean its recording and weight-averaging the new ratings that are being applied to them. | 2009-07-30 20:56:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| it could simply be they are testing not showing the rating of new levels to eliminate bias of people that rated it previously, and at the end of seven day the rating will appear. Thus it could be on purpose and it defualts to 3 stars after anyone plays it. | 2009-07-31 14:03:00 Author: deboerdave Posts: 384 |
| I can't remember where, but MM released a brief statement saying that they are looking into it, which suggests that it's not intentional. | 2009-07-31 14:24:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338 |
| Not only that, but if you look at Pom's level - he went through the entire process and there is STILL no rating after tens of thousands of plays. If I were a betting man (which I'm not...) I would say they hit a database record or index limit and hadn't done the math on the shear amount of rating records that are required to run this kind of system. Every single rating for every single player for every single level is stored. I tested this several months ago when RangerZero and I were doing experimenting on the cool pages design. They may be looking for a way to scale the database. | 2009-07-31 14:50:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| If I were a betting man (which I'm not...) I would say they hit a database record or index limit and hadn't done the math on the shear amount of rating records that are required to run this kind of system. Every single rating for every single player for every single level is stored. I tested this several months ago when RangerZero and I were doing experimenting on the cool pages design. They may be looking for a way to scale the database.I agree it's possible, but would Mm really make that much of a boo-boo? That's pretty huge.  Since this happened straight after 1.17 isn't it more likely to do with that? | 2009-07-31 15:00:00 Author: Kiminski Posts: 545 |
| I agree it's possible, but would Mm really make that much of a boo-boo? That's pretty huge. Since this happened straight after 1.17 isn't it more likely to do with that? If I remember it actually started right before, but it took a bit for people to notice it. It's possible it was the update, but it seems more of a "Server" side issue. LBP separately does changes to the LBP game and the servers. If it were just some little boo boo in the patch, I'm 99% sure they would have fixed it immediately. This is where my programmers intuition comes in: a. It's obviously a big issue, but it hasn't been handled immediately. This means it isn't trivial. MM doesn't WANT this big of an issue sitting there. b. The database storage and analysis of ratings, hearts, plays.... these are all server based functions that they can actually handle/change on the server side. All the big changes in ratings and cool pages have thus far happened without any updates on the client end. c. If the database was down that was handling the ratings, ALL ratings would cease to function. But levels prior still have their ratings (although we don't know if new ratings being applied to existing levels is really registering). Since it stopped functioning at a specific time, this to me points more to a limitation. Just speculation, but to me as a software developer ALL the objective information points to one thing. And if this is true, they may be trying to scale the database right now - which could take server-side code changes and implementing new servers. This would explain why a fix wasn't instant. One thing I KNOW - they do know whats going on at this point. They just haven't been able to implement a quick fix because it probably isn't trivial. By the way, if it is a database limitation there's a good chance they DIDN'T think of it - I've never seen a situation myself where it's been necessary to store so many records that you would hit a record limitation - but in doing the math this one might just be the one. | 2009-07-31 15:11:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| Well, I wholeheartedly agree with you CCubbage. I would bet money that it is what's actually going on. . | 2009-07-31 15:18:00 Author: RangerZero Posts: 3901 |
| One more little point - if a limitation was going to be hit it would DEFINATELY be the ratings that would do it. Tags are not stored per PSN - which means you can spam tags. So, the servers only need to keep track of how MANY of each tag were selected per level. Hearts are only applied if someone likes the level - so even though it's stored per PSN there are far less to keep track of. Which leaves ratings - you MUST leave a rating for every single level you play AND it's tracked separately for every single PSN for every single level.... that's a HUUUUGGGEE amount of ratings that need to be tracked. So, if anything was going to break based on a limitation it would definately be the rating system. | 2009-07-31 15:30:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| If that *is* the problem, and with any luck, maybe they'll realize that making the rating of levels mandatory is a bad idea. One can only hope. | 2009-07-31 15:38:00 Author: Gilgamesh Posts: 2536 |
| If it is the issue, they could probably implement a change where they blow away all ratings records over a month old (which would mean storing a date/time stamp into the record). So, for each level you have the weighted average stored based on all the selected ratings, and a single PSN would be able to apply another rating a month later.... But, not to sound like a broken record... I still think requiring finishing the level to rate (which means the rating is based on an informed decision) AND not making rating mandatory would make it all a lot better. | 2009-07-31 15:45:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430 |
| MM doesn't exactly relay much info to us other than a pic of moldy stuff in their fridge or hat day along with the sea of DLC costumes. http://forums.littlebigworkshop.com/lbp/board/message?board.id=pod&thread.id=83503 It would be nice if they had a patch listing on their site of what fixes are in each patch etc.. but I suspect even if they had that it would end up being a pic of a monkey with the caption saying "Boing BOING boing Boing"!! http://forums.littlebigworkshop.com/lbp/board/message?board.id=pod&thread.id=67056 | 2009-08-04 08:47:00 Author: mnimmo1986  Posts: 552 |
LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139
Threads: 69970
Members: 9661
Archive-Date: 2019-01-19
Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.