MAKERSCORE QUESTION ABOUT GAME RATING

author=LockeZ
Your logic makes no sense. If the content of the game is unknown then, best guess, it's probably average. Multipliers can be less than 1. A game's first review being 0.5 stars would give it a 0.2x makerscore multiplier.

You're not designing a game with stats here and justifying why it's fun. You're designing a marketing system and justifying why it's fair.

Her logic makes perfect sense. Designing a system that uses "best guess" and "probably" isn't very logical.

Reviews are opinions anyways. One persons 5 is another perons 1, so why give the power to the person giving the score? A person's MS shouldn't be reduced because some kid is butthurt that he couldn't beat the first boss. The size of a rating gives more and more MS, so people will aspire to get a high rating. Getting a low rating should not discourage a person to make more games. It removes all the objectivity of reviews and gives the dev a bonus no matter what.

Not that MS matters that much. I think you guys should stop applying meaning to things and complaining that others don't agree with what you came up with. A game giving a user more MS DOES NOT mean it's a more meaningful contribution to gaming society. I think that's where you're getting hung up. It's just not true, so no matter what people say you will not change your mind.

But whatever, I'm not worried that the system will change. As it shouldn't. The best answer is 'go make your own site'.

I actually don't know why you can't rate a game if you do a let's try video, etc... I mean I have played enough of some games (sometimes the whole game) to give a score to it. Though it should be optional at this point because I wouldn't rate every single game I did a video for, but some I think I could have.

The video review needs a little writing with it (a summary works). Otherwise, you can.

Also, they aren't considered 0 - they're considered N/A (maybe we should change the graphic to reflect that better, though). I vote removal of the star graphics completely until a review is added. Or greyed out so that there's a difference in colour to relate in the difference between rated and unrated. Frankly, though, aside from this topic I've never heard people worry that a 0 star means their game is worthless, especially because you can't give 0 star reviews. You can give N/A reviews which, once more, don't affect the average of the star rating at all. The lowest you can give is a .5

Hence why we recommend a summary - for those who don't want to watch a video but do want an idea on whether or not to play the game. ;p

Thing is, you never get deducted any MS in any other way. You only ever build on the base MS you have. The only part of the site where you can lose MS is the review system and it's based on how good your game is - you want the better MS, make the game better.

author=LockeZ
So you don't think people should be able to ever give reviews that are lower than a game's current score?

It doesn't lower their MS below what it previously was, when there were no reviews. The way you compared an unknown game to a 2.5 and suggested that 0.x multipliers should be applied made it sound like you wanted to lower their makerscore for below average games.

What makes it ok for a person to reduce makerscore with a lower than the current average review is that in most cases it reflects the true score of a game. Aside from revenge reviews, the more reviews a game has the more accurate the score. The first reviewer seems to have the most power to set the MS bonus. But sometimes if a person gives 2 stars to a 5 star game, it's because that 5 star rating is undeserved. On the flip side, MS can go up from a second review. So it's not a totally negative side effect to the current system.

their newly released game's worth to be considered lower than 0.5 stars. It says to them, "Until someone reviews your game, it is assumed to be worthless."

This can't be true. Who thinks this way(besides you)? The only time a dev gets discouraged is when someone directly says the game sucks, or submits a review with a low score. I've never seen anybody rage over their game being N/A, therefore worthless. You seem to be relying on this reasoning a lot. An unrated game is not considered anything but unrated, plus the comments people leave. And I suppose download count.

author=Treason89
I think that's true. Probably the question arose exactly because of that misconception. Where does Treason89 gets that strange ideas? Here:

author=Rpg Maker Nation
MAKERSCORE
An explanation of what it is and how it is accumulated

Makerscore is a quantitative representation of your contributions to the site.

That means exactly what it says: less makerscore is less contribution, thus leading to the idea that an unrated game, in fact, contributes less that a really bad game. Probably the reviews should give MS only to the reviewer, or give MS to the game if it's above 2.5?

If that idea of the contribution is not the real one behind MS, then the site definition phrase could be changed somehow.

It does mean what it says, but it's not the exclusive meaning to makerscore.

It's not a mantra that was created to define the sole purpose of makerscore. That is generally what it means. You get MS for submitting things to the site. And in most, if not all, other ways of gaining MS it's a set value for a certain item. But the MS you get from a game's rating is a BONUS. Handed out with a multiplier corresponding to the game's rating. So breaking free from the mantra of 'contribution to the site', MS here is being given out as a prize. For creating a game people really like. The more people like it, the bigger your bonus. Incentive.

And, to make it fair, even a shitty game will give a small amount of bonus MS. A consolation prize to being told your game sucks, and giving a second reason for a person to write a review. They are giving the dev MS, alongside their own MS for writing the review.

You are forcing yourself to think of MS as only one thing - a measure of contribution. Then you are assigning deeper meaning by saying that something that gives more MS is more worthy a contribution(let's see you get an official quote on that). Therefore, as your logic dictates, a game not receiving a MS bonus is viewed as less worthy than a 1 star game.

It's a stretch.

If you continue to stick to that one and only meaning of makerscore, then this discussion will go on forever. Yes, there are different ways of handling it, but not everyone feels the same way you do. I would suggest that you are the minority. Many of us prefer the current system.

It's better to have that MS as a bonus achievement for making good games, as opposed to removing it so that people feel better about their unreviewed games?? I really don't understand your ultimate goal here. You want to take away gobs of makerscore. That is what would happen if the system changed. Many people get like, half their MS from that bonus. It's one of the perks of joining a community project.

author=Link_2112

their newly released game's worth to be considered lower than 0.5 stars. It says to them, "Until someone reviews your game, it is assumed to be worthless."

This can't be true. Who thinks this way(besides you)? The only time a dev gets discouraged is when someone directly says the game sucks, or submits a review with a low score. I've never seen anybody rage over their game being N/A, therefore worthless. You seem to be relying on this reasoning a lot. An unrated game is not considered anything but unrated, plus the comments people leave. And I suppose download count.

This isn't something I think, I would personally be perfectly fine if I had negative makerscore. It's just something I'm worried about newbies thinking and it causing them to silently get discouraged and disappear.