Zaraskah

The Reviewing System.

13 posts in this topic

The system we currently have, (Detail /20, Style /10, Terrain /10 and Atmosphere /10), In my opinion, is flawed.

 

Earlier, in the past few weeks, the staff "got rid" off Purpose in a build, as some Fantasy builders, me included, said that it was unfair to us, as Fantasy does not always have a purpose. The server felt like it is favoring Medieval. This was because fantasy could never get more than 40 points without adding a "story" or forcing a story to be told. The best builders in Minecraft as a whole don't build with any purpose other than two goals: 

1: Look good

2: Have fun

The likes of lmaoki and Gestalt, Dr_Bond and Circlelight, they don't build with any other purpose. As I know, Purpose is now "removed" but some staff, some that review and some that don't, claim that purpose was "shoved into detail" to make it "easier for staff to review". This is not true, I hope. If the staff really wanted 4 categories, then Atmosphere and Detail would be the ones to shove together, as they are the two categories that are "closest".

A lot of us do not want people reviewing to claim that we cannot get more than 10 on detail as out plots have no purpose, even though our detail is fine. This is why I think that the ranking system is flawed.

 

But there is also the fact that this system will not be perfect. In my opinion, the best system would be an /100 point system, just basing on:

Consistency: /25. How consistent the style is throughout the plot. Of course, if someone built a dirt house, and then a bunch more of them, they should not get 20/20. This should be a blend, of how consistent the plot is, and how "good" the style is.

Detail: /50. Detail. Not purpose. How detailed the plot is throughout. Overdetail should not be happening, nor should underdetail. The detail will fit with the style. 

General: /25. How the build feels, generally. A bit like atmosphere, though I think the name "atmosphere" is limiting, as it feels like it needs to be good. Some builds aren't supposed to "feel nice", for example a polluted or intoxicated build.

 

This system is better than the one we currently have, and doesnt favour one particular style. If you can see a flaw in this system (a style that is favoured or disfavoured), please let me know.

 

Here's a system for Themed builds (2k17 competition, for example, or build battle.) /100.

Theme: /50. How it fits with the theme of the competition. The most important, the point of the competition.

Consistent Detail: /25 This is a mix between Detail and Consistency. Both are important, although general is more important, as it is a bit wider spread in a competition than in a ranked plot.

General: /25. How the build feels, generally. A bit like atmosphere, but a bit wider spread in competitions than in a ranked plot. Includes a bit of Consistent Detail.

 

Here's an example of a person who builds with only the two rules from earlier:

https://twitter.com/Dr__Bond

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea, works well with the current choice of some peoples styles.. no names given, and it makes the reviewing system a little fairer on those who have a nice build, with not much depth or something , still gives them a chance.

 

They've changed the reviewing system alot lately, and I think some staff are just starting to get used to doing the DAST system but I dont know, maybe they got into it when it started, and perhaps changing it wouldn't be the greatest when its changed alot, lets give it some time before we decide to change it to another mark scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

40 minutes ago, TheGameGuru said:

I love the idea, works well with the current choice of some peoples styles.. no names given, and it makes the reviewing system a little fairer on those who have a nice build, with not much depth or something , still gives them a chance.

 

They've changed the reviewing system alot lately, and I think some staff are just starting to get used to doing the DAST system but I dont know, maybe they got into it when it started, and perhaps changing it wouldn't be the greatest when its changed alot, lets give it some time before we decide to change it to another mark scheme.

I know what you mean Guru, but some people (Japhpix, ItsNoraa) are getting wrongly ranked (in my opinion) while the change is undergoing. I think we should change to a better system as soon as we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely its not the system, and every system is bound to have flaws, but it might be the reviewers personal opinion on the plot, if they mark it on something that is a givun then they're bound to get good marks. Japh builds amazing structures and everything else. but they're undetailed and have barely any depth, thats why they mark it down and remove marks for it, even if it looks good on its own it still needs some level of depth and detail to it to make the plot better..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused by your point, is your point the reviewers P.O or the fact that Japh builds a way you don't like? Japh, in my opinion (again) builds with an insanely good style, and should be awarded for making something look legendary with almost no detail, instead of degraded because of it.

 

I see what you mean, that it might not be the system, but we should still have the best system we can before the staff get used to one.

Besides, who would actually agree with my post if there was an admin I said was bad, if they liked them as an admin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a fair share of counter arguments up your sleeve I can give you that, japh does build in a good way, its not their fault they mark them down for it, its because they're used to marking down for barely any depth, I agree japh should be builder by now, but I cannot review or change that review at all, the system at the moment has its flaws, and the system you've chosen will also have its flaws, its a way of fixing those flaws that made them remove purpose, yet @Ruxiri still uses purpose -.- tagged you to see that ru xD, its a matter of how they use the system and how they review plots, if someone else had review japhs plot he would have builder, its because Ruben decided to mark down on depth that japh didn't make it, its not personal pref, its because ruben is used to marking that down. I still told japh to add a little depth to be more secure with the build. Well I tought japh what depth was xD japh does a good style, i've said that many times before, but he's gonna have to do another sometime in his building life on aliacraft, and his depth will still get marked down, his style will evolve and fit the cirteria, and all of them if you make him also fit yours. Your idea is good and so perhaps it will get used in the future, he can train for that and adapt to new ones, Its how building works. Eventually he will have master because of one of these systems.

 

if you say an admin is bad too atleast give some reasons as to why you have that thought, then maybe you could change peoples minds ;)

 

One more thing is that it's stressful on Sif, He has alot of work to do and it leaves him busy, he cant do everything like tell everyone how to do the new system at once, its impossible when he's working on another thing lets leave this up to sif.

Edited by TheGameGuru
Incorrect wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not leaving everything up to Sif, and that is why I'm making this post ;) (instead of just saying "Sif, we need a better system"). I'm not saying my reviewing system is perfect, I'm just saying it is better than the one we have. And, anyways,  I haven't had a single person post to me about a better system. If it is better, I will promote that one instead. I'm open. Still, at the current moment the staff are getting used to a new system. There is a better system that the staff could be getting used to instead. It's better in the long term that the staff start getting used to a better system now, as it's the best one we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the current system is flawed, yes, But a system on a total of 100 point is really difficult i'd say let's set it on 40 with you topics, 10 20 and 10 respectively. you thoughts are good tho. But for a medieval build for example purpose should be a thing tho, this could optionally fit into general tho (but general needs a better name tho)

 

I like the idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave this idea a bit more thought and if you look at the current system, and a lot of the reviewing criteria you mention are already implemented in the current system. For example:

 - Consistency is sort of covered by Style, but it includes more than just the consistency of a build, but also if it is properly executed, which is very important in my opinion. 

 - Detail is present in the current system

 - General as you describe it is pretty much atmosphere. 

The only thing that is really different is the terrain part, which i agree on that it is not ideal. As a compromise between the current system and the one you are suggesting, i think it should rather count as surroundings or something of the likes. This way it does not favour people who do traditional terrain but it covers a (almost) all builds.

This way you could build for instance a fantasy hound with no terrain but if there are for instance idk ghosts floating around him, it would count as surroundings (just an example).

 

The shift in points is also a thing i kind of agree with. In my opinion all criteria should be treated equally but i know this is not likely to appeal to a lot of people so i suggest that the two thing players often find most important should be the highest points. Those -in my opinion- are Detail and Style. Those should count for 15 points each while Atmosphere (or general) and Surroundings would count for 10 points each then.

 

One other thing that should be addressed is the lack of purpose. In fantasy build it is not a thing one should look at but with any historical build, there should be looked at this. For you cannot have a settlement or something without a path, a house with no one living (or having lived) there, a crop field without proximity of water, a mill without nearby fields, a village split by a ravene without a bridge, ect.

I think it should indeed sit in detail as it is not but only be mentioned when reviewing a historical build. 

 

Sincerely Kronos 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keizer, Generally I agree, but I think the more points are good for the system, and I think the admins can "handle" it. It is also easier to transfer to %.

 

I have thought more about purpose, and I think if it is an historical build, then admins should include purpose, just like Ru does. Ru, in my opinion, is the best reviewer with the current system we have. I agree with that my system reflects the current system a bit, but I think its a bit broader, and that it doesn't favor any one system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now