Yes you're wrong it's always been this way. With MMR it is definitely up for debate with the reruns if the royal has eclipsed the LE but with that edition they made those upgrades available for purchase separately.

When you embrace that the Top 100 doesn't mean anything all these issues melt away. Stop worrying about which game is rated .1 more than another, because that's the literal difference for the top 20.

Ratings are subjective, non-scientific, and full of noise (people troll rating, pumping, etc). Minor differences simply cannot hold any meaning. Some dork giving a game all 1s because they don't like the owner of a company could be the difference between one ranking or another.

To worry that in all that mess one game is 8.851 and another is 8.843 feels so not worth anyone's time. You're obsessing over .01 for no reason. The rain has stopped for the day, go outside!

Pinside default top 100 ranking has always been determined by the highest ranked game in a game group (at least in 4+ years that I have been here). The only difference now is that Robin et. al. are trying to get all the important versions of a game to be separated/specified in a game group. As the manufacturers began making multiple versions over the past ~decade, the games have not always been added uniformly.

It just seems ridiculous to rate all Star Trek machines based on a small number of special machines that most of us will never see or play.
I've never seen a Start Trek LE, and I'm probably never going to.

People here are complaining that "it's no fair that the existence of a regular-edition should drag down the rating", well I would also claim that "it's not fair that the existence of a small number of LE machines should drag up the rating of Star Trek in general".

This is why a weighted average makes much more sense.

I've played multiple Star Trek LEs. Everyone is going to have a different experience finding pins, it's just the nature of things.

There are more Star Trek LE games in the world than Rick and Mortys. Are you suggesting that Rick and Morty shouldn't be allowed a rating because you may never see or play one?

It's not the Top 100 Pins That Provide Good Value That You Will Likely Find On Location Near You. The best fix is to simply stop assigning so much value to a number on a list. It's never going to capture what you personally feel is right.

You're both right. It's a bad rating system, but it's meaningless.

No, I'm suggesting that the existence of a small number of Star Trek LE machines shouldn't be allowed to drastically change the rating of Star Trek in general.

Are you suggesting that if there was one copy of a "super-duper" Rick and Morty machine at Spooky's headquarters, the rating of that one machine should determine how Rick and Morty is rated overall?

What if there was a super limited game, Schrödinger's Pinball, locked in a steel chamber, and the ability to play the game depended on the state of a radioactive atom, whether it had decayed and emitted radiation or not.

But it was the most amazing world under glass the world had ever seen. Triple digit coil count!

It could simultaneously be the number one game ever made, or be utterly unplayable, and you wouldn't know which unless you opened the box.

There's no point in making up silly scenarios. If there was ever a single copy of a game that was so amazing that enough people were able to play and rate it to get it on the list that sounds hilarious, I'm for it. In the meantime there are 799 Star Trek LEs, more than the 750 Rick and Mortys, it's not even that rare, and it's a pretty game. People seem to like it!

I agree, but you're the one who made up the silly scenario claiming that Rick and Morty shouldn't have a rating. I was just following your lead.

well the bottom line is the current system is disingenuous and only leads to further eroding of confidence in the purpose and meaning of the entire review and ranking system here at pinside. As long as the top 100 groups machines into families, the score and ranking of the group should be an average of all the member machines score; LE, CE, Premium, Pro, etc. That's just obvious. And the excuse that we want to protect the wealthiest collectors from having their machines ranking lowered by the entry level machines is honestly just gross. This type of elitism and, frankly, classism is exactly why so many people in the pinball community dislike Pinside. But whatever, it isn't my site and isn't a democracy; if the current system reflects the concerns and values of the moderators here, then that's their choice.

Where is The Game of Thrones LE Translite? Looks like it with the Premium. Only 4 owners of the LE as of now. Was 3 until I just updated. Very rare game

robin in the last top 100 I noticed that the original Alien was completely removed from the new ones in groupings and was wondering if that was by design???

I'm not trying to protect anyone or care what anyone's collections are worth. I don't even rate games. Look at my profile, 10 years here, never rated a single one. I really don't care about the rankings. There's no reason to make up weird conspiracies just because I don't agree with your take on averaging because it doesn't make sense to me.

I just don't have a problem with people rating a pretty game as a pretty game. Star Trek LE is a looker, I've played several. I had a Premium, sold it, it's not even a top 50 pin for me personally, but if other people like it that's okay with me.

A weighted average would allow everyone's rating to count vs only a handful of ratings. To me, the current top 100 implies a weighted average because no version is listed:

7679590E-9F7B-493E-97EF-CE7E43517ECF (resized).jpeg

"Godzilla" and "Deadpool" are generic names that encompass all versions of the game, yet the rating only reflects one version. I have to expand the group to see which version is being represented.

If I've rated a version of the game that isn't the "winner", I have to re-rate the other version of the game again in order for my vote to be counted:

B98D7701-53AD-4274-8654-05C49BB261EA (resized).jpeg

In the end - your opinion is the only one that matters, I'm just trying to give context as to why a lot of us feel it's a mixed bag.

Thank you, Robin. I asked about this earlier on and was hopeful this would someday happen. A lot of work to make it happen - much appreciated.

I dont see gotg le in the guardians group anymore. I assume jjp games also get the same split in stnd le and ce ?

robin I appreciate you taking the time to explain things clearly. My comment on the justification for the system only comes from what others have said in this thread. I see there is no perfect system (except the ungrouped listing you linked to). I'm still not sure a weighted average isn't better, despite the non-existence of LePremPro models. I'd love to see what a weighted family ranking would look like, but realize it's probably alot of work to make. Anyways, it's your site and your choice! thanks.

This seems to be an improvement for sure. For consistency, if you do this I would also recommend that it include the number of ratings applicable to the specific trim level of the group winner (vs the whole group).

I actually love this listing and find it personally more interesting than the standard.

Are there, though? In terms of gameplay, the differences between HP Alien and PB Alien are a magnet, a physical ball lock, and a backdoor entrance to a scoop. These are far smaller changes than seen on (say) many Stern Pros vs Stern Premiums/LEs, the latter of which sometimes have entire added playfields (see Foo Fighters for the latest example), yet apparently still get grouped together.

G’day robin just saying thanks for the effort doing this.

I updated my Game of thrones to LE, but after I did the picture disappeared. Just an FYI mate.

They're pretty different though. Entirely different cabinet designs. Entirely different hardware. And not just in a 'remake' way like original MM and GCG MM, because everything was really redesigned to be more reliable. The playfield screen has been deleted.

None of the new art I did could be installed on the old Heighway games. With a MM remake or a Stern Pro to Premium you can swap things like translites around, the bases are similar enough.

I think it's pretty justified to separate them, even if the gameplay is not radically different.

Maybe a good criterion for separation is, would anyone want both of them in a collection simultaneously?

No - but no one wants a Pro and Prem of the same title either.

However, I'm with Aurich and robin on this one - I agree with separating them. Different manufacturers, hardware, cabinets, art, etc

Exactly.

can we get Sterns elvira signature & Elvis Gold?

And here is where the whole thing falls apart...

So the 50 owners of Elvira Signature vote a very high score on it (very unlikely that they would pay all that money for a machine they didn't love), and that now becomes the "default" score for Elvira in general.

And no matter what other votes it gets (good or bad), the Elvira Signature votes will determine it's standing.

And then a bunch of cranky people will review bomb the Signature version, because that's how it works whenever a game gets overinflated. Unrealistic and stupid ratings work both ways, and you don't have to own a game to submit a score.

Regardless of rating, the issue is the original SLE isn't even recognized separately in the Machines tab, but the 40th is

It will have a separate entry soon. Our first pass was to separate the Prem/LE entries.

Just when you thought this thread was dead.....

1) Thanks to all involved for your hard work combining and organizing the various versions of a release on Stern pins of the past almost decade. It's definitely an improvement. Look forward to seeing the results for other manufacturers. It makes reading about, researching, comparing, selling, and buying machines easier.

2) I agree with Damonator and still think game groups should be ranked by weighted average (as in the example by robin in post #74 (https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/operation-premium-le/page/2#post-7421319). However, I do understand the arguments not to do that.

3) Suggestion: I would *LOVE* to see the custom tab have an easily accessible method to show the ranking by game groups with a weighted average for the entire group. The default custom ranking tab representation of "count every version of a machine as an individual game and spit them out" is somewhat interesting, but not very useful to me because of all the "duplicates" clogging up the rankings.

4) I think it is weird and bad form for the main tab of the top 100 rankings to:

a) list by game groups
b) rank by highest average rating for a particular "trim" within the game group

and yet

c) list the *TOTAL* number of rankings in the short summary that is seen without expanding the game group.

I would suggest not including the number of ratings in the default view (which is the unexpanded listing). It seems misleading from both representational and statistical points of view. I can glance at the list, and see that the rating numbers decrease from highest to lower values. I would submit that, like my assumption, most people's assumption would be that the rating displayed in the default view is generated by an average that includes the total number of ratings listed in the default view. That is exactly what I assumed until I started expanding some game groups 4.5 years ago when I started reading Pinside, and figured it out. But I was surprised by the result. My assumption was that Pinside would treat the statistics "correctly" the way most would assume based on the representation. I would also guess that *most* people looking at the default top 100 list don't understand the nuances.

If you must include a number of ratings in the default view, make it the number of rankings that corresponds to the "trim" that is giving the rating number represented in the default view. It really doesn't help to show a big number ("hey, everyone likes that title") and find out that the rating is really generated by a subset (and sometimes a non-majority or even a small subset) of the total game rankings.

I know that the top 100 isn't meant to be a definitive ranking and it has flaws and can be manipulated to some degree. However, showing the ranking score right next to the total number of ratings is really very confusing and bad form, IMO.

....shuffles to the back of the room again...

I liked the old collection editor with all on same page better. it's annoying not to have the marketplace link handy anymore

anybody know what happened to the personal marketplace wishlist link?

Two requests:
Can you offer the old “archived ads” link from the machine splash? I found that easier than the new way the link displays.

And can you offer a “condescend view” from the machine collection page?
I enjoy the new detailed view, however alright last night someone asked me a question and I was showing them a collection on Pinside, it was much faster to rattle them off, the new view only shows 3 machines on mobile. Before you could see 30 or so on mobile in the small/condensed list view.

Why can't I edit my collection game machine details. It says saved successfully but didn't.
For example, buy/sell, trying to change buy condition and notes/remarks.

Meanwhile: Bond 60th gets grouped with the "mainstream" Bond games, despite them being literally COMPLETELY different games.

Can we get X-MEN LE Magneto 250 and X-MEN Wolverine 300 breakouts? Both LE art packages are different, numbers made different and will have different values. Thank you.