Board Thread:Wiki Running/@comment-3225604-20150806111049/@comment-3225604-20150806113621

Catinthedark wrote: I have the same problem with this as when you first suggested it. I would support criteria for the top difficulty having something like 90% support for the rating and minimum of 15 comments. Only ones relevant are those of the current version, clearly.


 * Against point 1 - The cap of having to be in the poll should not be necessary. There may not be that many levels like this in the game, but I am against capping the number of levels to hold a given difficulty.


 * Against point 3 - Probability, stats, and the random factor, i.e. some lucky sod is going to throw the rating by passing in 10 goes and saying it's hard.

Deferring stance for now, but am inclined to oppose overall, because, as I said on Lefty's thread, I'm considering that our rating system doesn't allows for much more accuracy than the ratings we already have. Counterargument:
 * Point 1: Some very hard levels are on the poll and are doing well in the poll. If a level is "nearly impossible", it could be the player's hardest level as he is progressing through, and if not in the poll, that would be simply unconvincing because it's nearly impossible, but not the hardest. The poll has no cap in the number of levels, as long as it has votes. It is also very unfair to the very hard levels which are in the poll but not graded as nearly impossible, while levels not in the poll are graded as nearly impossible. That also sounds ridiculous to me.
 * Point 3: According to your claim, we can simply eliminate the poll too, because you could just click which difficulty you prefer and then submit your vote, without giving reasons. Now, most insanely hard levels are based on the comments rather than the poll. Comments are somehow better than poll because some votes contain reasons which convince people why the level is insanely hard. If we do according to your point, then why a difficulty is there on the first place? Why should we grade levels?
 * The accuracy: Logarithmically, the difficulty could fit into the system. For example, let's say 30 tries is very hard and 100 tries is insanely hard, then 50 tries could be extremely hard. Or let's say 100 tries is insanely hard, 1000 tries is nowhere near "insanely hard" and it's "impossible", making 100 tries to be "extremely hard" only. Similarly, the logarithmic thinking could apply to probability of passing the level and the average number of special candies or combos produced in a single level.