Talk:Rating System

References[edit]

It is hard to figure out what rating a certain PrC deserves, and we need to come up with a better way. Right now we just use words, and the person that rates the PrC is supposed to fit the PrC into these words. To fit something into Adequate, Abysmal, or Damned inspired and well implemented is too hard. I think we should give references for PrC's. For example a certain SRD PrC (because they cannot change) could be the perfect Adequate, Abysmal, or Damned inspired and well implemented example. So, what SRD Prc would be the 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, and 10 example? Please give some input.

Incomplete. Unplayable.
Poorly realized or filled with clear balance issues.
Many potential issues due to vagueness.
Mostly workable, but the class has a few show-stoppers.
Workable, yet clearly needs improvement. Needs better writing or editing.
Well-written and clear, but has a few (or one sizable) balance issues.
Just needs a bit of tweaking for it to be balanced. — The Cerebremancer is a good example of this balance level.
Well balanced. Entry is as balanced as many SRD entries.
This entry strikes out in a new direction and succeeds.
Exemplary. This entry is worth imitating. Makes you go "wow".

Change the above question marks, please do make another set of numbers. Thanks. --Green Dragon 13:48, 10 December 2006 (MST)

Good points. I took a first stab at the list.--Dmilewski 14:18, 10 December 2006 (MST)

Good job, except that you made the list go to 11 :). Anyway, its looking better already. --Green Dragon 14:25, 10 December 2006 (MST)

Maybe we should use the user PrCs as examples for categories 6 and down since we're not going to find such examples in the SRD. —Sledged 14:50, 10 December 2006 (MST)

I agree. --Green Dragon 14:52, 10 December 2006 (MST)

The number system above is far better than the current one. I vote that we implement it immediately, and can work on revising it as necessary. In fact, I think it is so much better than I am going to use it now, though for the time being I will remove references to existing PrCs. --EldritchNumen 23:24, 10 December 2006 (MST)

The implementation looks good. The only thing left to do is provide references, saying which SRD PrC would go best under which certain number (e.g. the Cerebremancer). If you would like to finish this I would be very grateful. --Green Dragon 23:35, 10 December 2006 (MST)

I concur. FYI, I used vague wording when I did the first pass, which should make it easy to port the balance system to any other category that we want. --Dmilewski 08:46, 11 December 2006 (MST)

True, like if we would want to make all the races have this included, or items, etc. Also, I made the template changeable as well. The template has the ending of |prestige_class}}, which can be changed to |race}}, etc. The template and the actual Balance System writeup are flexable, I like it. --Green Dragon 22:47, 11 December 2006 (MST)

Just so we have links to the SRD prestige classes at hand:

3 A

B

SRD:Blackguard

C

D

E

G

SRD:Guardian Paramount

H

L

M

P

S

T

U

SRD:Union Sentinel

W

SRD:War Mind

—Sledged 14:44, 10 December 2006 (MST)

Issues with the scale[edit]

This is definitely good to have a scale to place a standard on rating. However, including mentions of the articles writing probably shouldn't be included in something measuring balance. Excellent start though. --Xenophon 02:52, 12 December 2006 (MST)

How about, "Workable, yet clearly needs improvement. Needs better writing or editing to remove lingering ambiguity." --EldritchNumen 03:32, 12 December 2006 (MST)

Change it how you see fit. I, however, do think the writing should help determine it. The reason for this is because the better the writing, the more professional it is, and the more likely people will use it. People will not use a stub in the campaign, it just will not happen. I think the big reason people will use things from this site is because they are professional enough to appear like Wizards could have made them, and I think the balance should tell a person that is browsing this site how possible it is to use a certain item in their campaign. Just my opinion. --Green Dragon 16:10, 12 December 2006 (MST)

Ok, I definitely see your point. The writing doesn't have anything to do with the balance though. I feel it should be an overall article rating with balance as a factor. I think perhaps each grade should be formatted as (insert balance issues) and/or (insert writing issues), then just change the wording for the varying degrees. I'll make the changes and encourage everyone to go over it with a fine tooth comb. --Xenophon 01:22, 14 December 2006 (MST)

Often enough, the problems that I saw in the entries were directly related to writing. I see the two as intimately linked. An article with vague wording makes for a badly balanced class. (Bear Warrior is a terribly written class. I can't tell you just how many hours it took me to sort the confusing wording of that class out. That writing was completely inexcusable.) Articles with clear wording make it easy for DM's to determine what a class can do. Players get a better understanding of what the class can do. --Dmilewski 15:06, 14 December 2006 (MST)

I agree with Dmilewski, however I do not fully understand what Xenophon is talking about. Could you please explain it better? --Green Dragon 15:27, 14 December 2006 (MST)

I'm starting to see more what you're saying, I think. Badly written articles can lead to holes that people can exploit. However, what Dmilewski is saying seems only to be partially true. There can be vague or confusing wording that just takes away from flavor but doesn't effect game balance at all. So I see what you're intending but there might need to be a changing of wording again. Maybe rather than "writing" use "wording." This list is a good example of something not being poorly written but perhaps not the best wording to avoid an misconceptions or confusion. Perhaps we should revert what I changed and start back with our hopefully gained clarity. --Xenophon 06:31, 15 December 2006 (MST)

I'm fine with changing "writing" to "wording". That's a very good tweak. You get an 8 for good wording and proper formatting. You get a 9 or a 10 by being better written or well created. Does that sound good?--Dmilewski 07:04, 15 December 2006 (MST)

Sounds good to me. I wasn't terribly happy with the edits I was making. Onward! --Xenophon 12:42, 15 December 2006 (MST)

I think it would be easier to rate classes if we provided an example for each rating. --Sam Kay 03:26, 22 September 2007 (MDT)

SRD or Homebrew example? --Green Dragon 18:49, 23 September 2007 (MDT)

Homebrew example. I doubt there is an SRD of 1/10 balance. --Sam Kay 03:43, 30 September 2007 (MDT)

The only issue I see with that is that the Homebrew classes do and can change... Maybe make a static link to a bad version of a current class? --Green Dragon 10:11, 30 September 2007 (MDT)

Yes, presisely. Although the chances of a 10/10 class changing rating are slim, so we can like directly to the page rather than into the history. I'll have a scan and select some Classses and Prestige Classes that are of the required rating. --Sam Kay 08:16, 5 October 2007 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

How are these?

Rating 1/10: Anarchic Paladin

Rating 2/10: Arcane Hunter

Rating 3/10: Arcane Warrior

Rating 4/10: Animal Leader

Rating 5/10: Gravitist

Rating 6/10: Chivalic Knight

Rating 7/10: Arcanist

Rating 8/10: Death Knight

Rating 9/10: Anti Paladin

Rating 10/10: Spider Rider

Any good? --Sam Kay 08:47, 5 October 2007 (MDT)

Sure. Feel free to add them, formatted like the current example on the Balance System page. Also, I would prefer that the cerebremancer is kept as the 7 example, and maybe another SRD example for the 8, nine, or even 10... --Green Dragon 13:53, 7 October 2007 (MDT)

Alright, although I think that with the non-SRD things, people will be able to check the talk page to see why it is rated what it is rated, which could help rating things. --Sam Kay 05:17, 21 October 2007 (MDT)

Agree. Thanks for doing that :). --Green Dragon 23:27, 24 October 2007 (MDT)

Multiple Ratings[edit]

Part of the discussion moved from Talk:Bladesong Warrior (DnD Prestige Class)#Rating - 5/10 It dealt with the balance system, not that class --Green Dragon 13:36, 5 February 2008 (MST)

The thing that makes it most difficult is that there isn't a clear enough distinction between different aspects of a good Class/PrC. Some entries have great flavor but horrible rules text. Some entires have great wiki formatting, but horrible flavor. Some entries have clear wording but overpowered or underpowered abilities. I like what NBOF does and I would suggest something similar to that. Something like: Flavor/Formatting/Wording/Power. Formatting and wording could probably be compressed to one category. This class for example lost some points originally for power (big radius effects) and wording (lack of durations made some abilities unclear). --Aarnott 21:49, 4 February 2008 (MST)

I like this idea. I say let's do it. However, should each section be out of 10 (take the average), 5 (to make rating easier—it has been stated that 10 options is to much, maybe change it to 5?), or 2.5 (each part adds up to 10)? Ideas? --Green Dragon 13:40, 5 February 2008 (MST)

Out of 5 seems most intuitive. I agree that out of 10 makes too many decisions. I do like using whole numbers only as well. If we allow 3.5 then it really should be out of 10 because 3.5/5 is the same as 7/10. The sections I proposed were just an example though. I'm still sort of leery of Formatting and Wording being separate sections. It would encourage polished products though. Formatting can differentiate between using standard d20 tables, meaningful headings, emphasis where necessary, and linking. Wording covers other semantics. Supposing they are out of 5 each, we can easily multiply the final score by 5 to get a number out of 100, which makes for a nice comparable rating. I would also argue that this page will no longer be a "Balance System" and is more of a rating system. This page is better as rating system anyways though -- balance is not the only comparable thing in homebrewed material. --Aarnott 01:58, 6 February 2008 (MST)

Okay, I have changed it to be "Rating System". I agree—whole numbers only out of 5. The four categories can be: balance, flavor, wording, and power (as you stated above). What, however, do we want to do with the classes that are currently rated? Also, how should we deal with with classes when someone only rates one section? How do we want this page to look? How do we want the balances formatted? --Green Dragon 18:04, 6 February 2008 (MST)

The first thing I should comment is that I don't really see a difference between balance and power. Flavor will also be difficult to define, but is necessary.

What to do about existing ratings? I'm honestly not sure. We may just have to nullify them and ask the original raters to re-rate. I feel that it will be a lot easier to rate a class with separate categories.

I think the page should show the average ratings for each category and then a larger overall rating that is the average of the averages. On the class tables we can show all of the ratings in a column since that would be especially helpful to DMs looking for material to add. Things with a "power" of 2 I wouldn't likely allow in my game, whereas a power above 4 would likely be acceptable. Pages with a formatting of 2 show people wanting to contribute where problems lie on those pages of the wiki. --Aarnott 15:02, 7 February 2008 (MST)

Sorry, I mistyped that. I meant to type what you stated above, Flavor/Formatting/Wording/Power. Sorry about that confusion. Okay, so we will nullify all current ratings. Final question (that I can see): Should we make it so one can only rate on section? If so, how would that work? --Green Dragon 10:06, 8 February 2008 (MST)

If we allow it then we can just average out the rating for that category and it will not affect the other results. Ie:

Flavor: 5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 15/5 = 3 average
Formatting: 3 = 3/1 = 3 average
Wording: 5 + 5 + 4 + 4 = 18/4 = 4.5 average
Power: 0 + 5 = 5/2 = 2.5 average
Overall: Flavor + Formatting + Wording + Power = 3 + 3 + 4.5 + 2.5 = 13/20

We are averaging out each category anyways so I don't see a problem. I'm going to try to make a cool dpl that does the math for you (I saw this was possible when I read up on dpls). Hopefully it has an elegant way to deal with repeating decimals. --Aarnott 10:40, 8 February 2008 (MST)

I included a zero rating to reflect if that category is not used at all. --Aarnott 10:47, 8 February 2008 (MST)

You should make it an em-dash (—) instead of a zero. —Sledged (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2008 (MST)

Okay, is that really how we want it? Lets say someone just rates a class for flavor, and the class has yet to be rated. This rater gives the class a 5/5 on flavor, very good. So, would this make the entire class say it is rated 5/20, which is horrible? Or should we figure out a way to factor in one rating and make then entire thing reflect that rating (for example the 5/5 would translate to 20/20 with just one?) --Green Dragon 11:02, 8 February 2008 (MST)

Let the 5/5 only apply to the category they rated. I was thinking the — should only be used as a null rating. So I could rate it: Flavor 4/Formatting —/Wording 3/Power —. This gives an overall of 7/10 if only I rate it. If you rate it Flavor —/Formatting —/Wording 5/Power 4;, it will have an overall rating of 12/15. I would prefer to convert the rating to a percent for this reason (ie 70% after the first rating, 80% after the second). Basically, — means null, not zero. --Aarnott 11:32, 8 February 2008 (MST)

So, if that is the case, would we just show the percentage in the dpl? The issue I see is still the same. If someone rates something Flavor 5, Formatting —, Wording —, Power —, it will show up as 100%, although the class has yet to be rated. I do not think converting it to percentages would help at all, it is the same problem just out of 100 now (not 20). I think a solution may be to just not show partially rated class in the dpl page (with description page), however show the partially rated ratings only on the classes actual page. Thoughts? --Green Dragon 11:38, 8 February 2008 (MST)

Or we could have it say that the overall rating is N/A (or — if that seems more appropriate) until there is at least one rating in each category. --Aarnott 11:51, 8 February 2008 (MST)

That is to say -- still show the rating on the tables with descriptions, just show the overall as N/A or —. I think we should show all the category ratings in the tables too though. --Aarnott 11:53, 8 February 2008 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

I like that option; each category has to have a rating in order to have an overall rating. —Sledged (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2008 (MST)

I agree. Sounds good. --Green Dragon 12:55, 8 February 2008 (MST)

Implementation[edit]

How should we go about implementing the new rating system? Ideas? --Green Dragon 13:59, 8 February 2008 (MST)

You mean converting the old into the new? I'd say for each rating, half the value and make that the new rating for each category. If the original rater disagrees with the values, they can change the values to something that reflects their opinion a bit better. —Sledged (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2008 (MST)

I'm more in favor of nulling all the current ratings and MOI the user that rated it. --Aarnott 15:06, 8 February 2008 (MST)

The nullification of the ratings were discussed earlier, and I agree with Aarnott. A clean slate approach is best. I was more referring to the templates and the overall implementation method. Will we gray out the current ratings and leave a message stating why they are no longer relevant of just gray them out? How do we want the dpl pages to look? Do we still want it to default to NR or maybe should we change it to —? How do we want the templates to look? --Green Dragon 14:20, 9 February 2008 (MST)

Well it is working for all the Base Classes because I updated the base class info box. PrCs are going to be a bit different (we need to make an infobox for them I think). --Aarnott 14:50, 19 February 2008 (MST)

You mean like this one? —Sledged (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2008 (MST)

Yes like that one :). I guess all that is left is to update it, and then update PrCs that don't use it. --Aarnott 15:34, 19 February 2008 (MST)

Since we're talking about improving the rating system[edit]

Why not put it in that it shows on the list the number of people who voted also? One problem I have with the current layout is people vote for themselves and it seems like nobody else votes, so they automatically get whatever ranking they want. Hopefully if people see one person voted then that will give more incentive to vote.

Actually you aren't supposed to vote on any of your own content. Have you seen a particular page that someone did this and it wasn't caught? If so, please let an admin know. Hooper talk contribs email 18:40, 22 October 2009 (MDT)