Voting Range

B

brombz

New member
It\'s just a thought ... the present voting system is well-established ... but i thought i\'d throw in my tuppence just the same ...:idea:
I think that tabletop quality should be lower than 5 to give us a greater \"leeway\" when voting. The \"better\" models should have a wider classification basis ... and besides, i don\'t think that people actually vote lower than 3... (I don\'t know, i haven\'t seen all the votes on all the models) Sometimes i feel that due to the congestion in the \"upper echelons\" the score does not reflect the true difference between the models.
 
F

Flashman14

Member
or maybe make it easier to vote on the half point? A lot of times I feel a mini is not quite an 8 but a 7 is kind of insulting. We all feel this sometimes but to really reflect my opinion I have to go in and vote twice to get the average vote out. i.e. a 8 and a 7 equal a 7.5

Though I don\'t have a problem with 5 being the benchmark for table top particuarly.
 
F

frenchkid

New member
Goes back to the old question
What is tabletop quality???
Some people think that just having paint on without shading or highlighting is tabletop quality while others think that it has to be decently shaded and highlighted befor it\'s tabletop quality. The over question is: What table, game table or GD table ???
 
K

kkoene

Guest
Or how about allowing voting on the sculpt, base, and paint job then combing those scores to give an overall score on the mini? Some people knock down the score due to basing, or lack thereof. Some people will comment on the sculpt, and some put emphasis on the paint job. So why not combine all three?
 
H

Hawks58

New member
I agree, there should be a vote for Base, Sculpt and Paint Job(maybe even converson??). Personally I can paint decent but my bases are lacking, and would like to know what people thought of the mini without the base into consideration.
 
F

finn17

New member
Good idea, but...

I really like the notion of being able to vote on aspects of a model, paint/base/conversion etc. I can\'t see this working in reality however. Half the debates on the forums are about vagaries in voting, even using the simplified system in place now. Secondly, if you look at the votes to views ratio it makes sad reading. Loads of folks want to gawp but few actually vote. Making the system more complex would not help I feel.
I do feel there is a problem with the notion of \'tabletop\' however\'. This clearly means different things to different people. \'Average\' would be a better term and the concept is more widely appreciated than \'tabletop\'. As has been previously stated, it depends upon whose table we are talking:flip:
 
B

brombz

New member
I cannot understand why there is this perceived ambiguity about the meaning of \"tabletop\"??? For me it is quite obvious that tabletop quality means anything other than undercoated models.
Let\'s say you show a model here and you get a 6 ... which is better than \"tabletop\" ... would you consider taking it to a GD table? Now let\'s be realistic here, guys ...
Anyway .... my original point was that too much space is given for \"basic\" painting (1 to 5) and too little for the \"artistic jobs\". To see what i mean all you have to do is browse all the models between 7 and 8 ... The half point would be a good step in this direction ....
And also ... why should the sculpt affect the final score? I mean .. it\'s what VIC is all about right? As is the CMON contest. It\'s the same model rendered differently ... in some cases it\'s an awesome job and in others it\'s only so-so ....
Thanks for having read this far ...:D
 
M

mouse

Member
Aye...Aye...Aye

I fully agree. :)

The range above tabletop quality is simply too congested. For that, the point system can either expand the range or include 0.5 into each level.

I believe tabletop quality is a term used by gamers. To them (although not all), it is sufficient to paint the pieces (sometimes these pieces can amount up to 200 Eg. Orcs & Goblin army) to be recognizable and at a standing view to the tabletop, it looks decent. My guess on tabletop quality.
 
P

paleotaur

New member
I agree that there are far too few scores above 5 relative to 5 and below, although part of that is simply the nature of the beast. I mean, it only seems natural that a site as important as this to the mini painting community will attract more better than average painters than below average painters. That said, I would still like to be able to cast a 7.5 vote. :p
As to tabletop versus average, I\'m not sure which is better. Tabletop is obviously not agreed upon, but I think average would end up being just about as vague.
 
F

finn17

New member
Originally posted by brombz
I cannot understand why there is this perceived ambiguity about the meaning of \"tabletop\"??? For me it is quite obvious that tabletop quality means anything other than undercoated models.
Click to expand...

The crucial two words here are, \"For me...\". It\'s a personal thing. I know folks who are mad about gaming who, quite frankly, are prepared to play the game with the most hideous pieces of lead you have ever seen. They don\'t care...why should they...they want to play the game. I know others who care little about playing and only participate in order to get compliments on their immaculately painted pieces of work. These two differernt groups of people have different notions about what constitutes \'tabletop\'.
Personally, I have never played and only paint. I have therefore taken \'tabletop\' not to mean any mini that is more than undercoated, but where a fair degree of talent has been displayed e.g. some blending, shading, basing etc. Personally it\'s the only way I can make sense of the scale. Interpretting the scale in the way you suggest does result in a largely redundant below 5 score. Lets face it, the majority of people with the skill and desire to post on this site should all be getting 6+. I haven\'t got an answer. That will take a brighter spark than me:flip:
 
D

dauber22

New member
Finn\'s right: It\'s a personal thing. There is no way to come up with a totally objective scale for voting on \"art\". All systems will have their flaws. To me, the primary thing is to remain consistant in the way (I, you, we) interpret the 1 - 10 scale.

As for .5 voting, I use it all the time. I simply vote more than once on a model. It\'s not really all that hard.

And on the votes/view ratio, I look upon it the same way as voting in any election. If you don\'t ceare enough about it to cast a vote, we\'re probably all better off that you don\'t. Also, I frequently go back to certain minis to refresh my memory, or for inspiration, or for comparison against a similar mini.

Sorry. Feeling log winded (for me) today.
 
S

supervike

Super Moderator
tabletop quality defined...

I believe there is a logical mathmatical argument for \"table top quality\"

if x=mini and y=sculpt and z=paint

then you can state that x=y+z only if

the unquantifiable l=the skill level of painter

and B*M*C/7 (base times manufacturer times coolness divided by Windsor Series 7 brush.

so quite simply convert this to

f1=xyz/bmc divided by 7 and then taken to the power of L, carry the two and viola.

5 is tabletop quality. :D

(no disrespect here, just joking!!)

Besides, what I lack in real mathematic knowledge, I make up for with my inane postings!!
 
D

dauber22

New member
:wow: So THAT\"S how they get it!!!!:D

You know what they say. If you can\'t bedazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your Bullsh@t:p
 
F

finn17

New member
Bullseye!

Well, I think supervike has really gotten to the nub of the argument here. I\'m convinced!
(There again I did agree to have my drive re-tarmacced by a shifty lot of blokes who said they had some tarmac left over form a previous job. That was three years ago and I\'m still treading it into the carpet).
Supervike\'s exposition is as good as any I have heard and come on, some people have paid millions for a picture of some sunflowers my senile old gran could have painted. Beauty is a personal thing and lies in the eye of the beholder.
 
M

mouse

Member
???????????????

Originally posted by supervike
I believe there is a logical mathmatical argument for \"table top quality\"

if x=mini and y=sculpt and z=paint

then you can state that x=y+z only if

the unquantifiable l=the skill level of painter

and B*M*C/7 (base times manufacturer times coolness divided by Windsor Series 7 brush.

so quite simply convert this to

f1=xyz/bmc divided by 7 and then taken to the power of L, carry the two and viola.

5 is tabletop quality. :D

(no disrespect here, just joking!!)

Besides, what I lack in real mathematic knowledge, I make up for with my inane postings!!
Click to expand...
 
D

dauber22

New member
AH, Mouse! I see where your confusion is coming from! Yes, SuperVike did leave out the variables for size of mini in mm, but I think he was just trying to simplify it for us:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back To Top
Top