You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider colonel_caverne.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.
Quoted from dnapac:I’ve decided that rating a pin has become useless. It should be eliminated. Too many haters and too many fanboys...or too many companies trying to sway the vote. It should be done.
So use it wisely with custom option.
In custom option, I know what means « removes outliers » but what are they exactly?
Why « games with at least 50 ratings » has been removed? It seems to me that it is exactly the numbers of ratings significant to start a fair ranking
Is it possible to add more option of ranking? There are 4 sections to rank (game design, artwork, sound, other aspects), so can we get a ranking per section?
Just thoughts.
Quoted from robin:It was actually a very deliberate decision, which I though about long and hard when implementing the game grouping.
I view the LE as the ultimate representation of the game, as it was intended by the designer. The pro version, on the other hand, is mostly a watered down "light" version (and at a much lower price point), meant to skim the market.
But to be able to realistically compare the modern games from different manufacturers to any of the Stern offerings, it makes the most sense to compare them at that high "LE" price point (i.e. other manufacturers don't offer that 'pro' version).
I hope that makes sense.
A funny thing, for me personally, is that I sometimes like Sterns pro's more than I like their Premium/LE's. For example, I think the mini playfield in GoT totally ruins the speed and flow of the game. But that's just my opinion of course
Why model games (pro, premium, le) are not grouped in custom section?
Quoted from PanzerFreak:Just my suggestion for how to improve the top 100.
Average the scores across all game models into 1 score and make that the score ranking is based upon versus the highest end model. This would eliminate the POTC CE situation we are seeing today as well as when new Stern LE's are released. POTC would still be ranked #1 at 8.92 but would have a great chance to move up and down the rankings as opposed to being rated on only a handful of reviews. This option would also discourage review bombing (or review praising). This solution would also still allow for separate model entries (good for filtering, game overview, ads, etc).All of those games in my opinion should have unique entries based on how other games are being treated. This is also why I would go with the idea posted above as it would prevent Dialed In, WOZ , Batman 66, EHOH, from being ranked unfairly high (all have a super high end model) based on only a handful of reviews of the highest end model.
There is no perfect and reliable ranking. Criteria are what they are and it looks enough to rate fairly a game. All depends on fair raters
How to tend to the most fair ranking as possible? Getting the most rates as possible. There is no other way.
Then use the custom option and put your set up as you want. Personnaly i use the remove outliers option and take into account only games with 25 rates at least. I think 35-40 would be better as 25 looks too low for me and the gap to 100 too high.
Then you get a more fair ranking. The problem is the games are not grouped like for the main top100. You have all models of a game rates separately. I asked why to Robin several times, he never answered me.
You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider colonel_caverne.
Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.
Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.
Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!
This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/the-top-100-should-be-closef?tu=colonel_caverne and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.
Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.
Biscarrosse