Mayor rating issues

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

22 hours ago, xxdita said:

As long as people report problematic files here on the forum, then I'm sure someone will try to look and see what the issue is

Indeed, but checking all of the boxes would give positive signs that a mod is safe and sane.

[rsc204 21,815]

On 07/01/2020 at 4:31 AM, jeffryfisher said:

Wish there was a way to auto-magically attach a poll (or polls) to every STEX mod so that user feedback could check the boxes (or raise the flags) on those common QA issues.

Please god no... sounds like a good idea in theory, but as someone who uploads stuff, I really wouldn't want to deal with a load of "false" errors being thrown my way. Almost every "error" that's ever been pointed out to me from my modding, was actually borne from users who didn't read the Readme, I'd taken much care and time writing. Start bombarding creators with that and you might piss a few of us off.

Sure there is plenty of badly modded content out there, I won't deny it, but there are also far too many users who simply don't read anything and trip themselves up. Sure, I can be guilty of the latter too, but I stick to the same routine, where I check all new content and if issues arise, then the first place to look is the Readme. Likewise, skipping documentation for a couple of lots is usually no big deal, but when installing mods that alter the game hugely, even if only in a cosmetic sense, it's always a good idea to check the documentation.

Peer review is wholly different, because those reviewing your works should, in such cases, have a very good technical understanding. But left open to the general public is a really, really bad idea in my view.

Ultimately these days we have the power to get things that are properly broken fixed. I wish that this had been possible sooner, because today there are so few left who can help in this regard.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

On 1/9/2020 at 2:58 AM, rsc204 said:

I really wouldn't want to deal with a load of "false" errors

Aha, I see what you mean. So what we would want is a checklist of positives where users (and other modders) could mark what's works for them, what's included etc. Then cautious players could feel more confident about downloading content that has their concerns checked off.

If Simtropolis had red flags, then I suppose only sysadmins (with good reason) should be able to set them.

[CorinaMarie 29,619]

Just so y'all know, adding a poll to a STEX entry isn't a board software option.

[xxdita 1,097]

1 hour ago, CorinaMarie said:

Just so y'all know, adding a poll to a STEX entry isn't a board software option.

At one point, there was a ratings system on the STEX, I think it was a scale of 0 -10. It worked nicely for several years, but then became greatly abused during the whole Dependency Debate era. So I'm glad that system is no longer in place. 

I have a tendency to go on massive download sprees. This is usually to have more content for a RCI type and stage or lot size, so I don't get as much repetition in my cities. Sometimes I just like to see what else is out there. Regardless, since I use CAM, any RCI I download from anywhere other than the LEX likely needs to be updated, so I don't even bother to check the original modding. 

Worse, by the time I actually notice certain things growing, I forget where I got it from, so I don't go back to comment. I need to do better with that, maybe just start commenting as I download, because obviously what makes me download things in the first place is that I like how it looks. 

I think the absolute best way to show our appreciation for all of the things we've downloaded through the years is to show in-game pics of it. As long as there are City Journals and Mayor Diaries, to show off some of the best content available, then you'll have people asking where to find it. 

[rsc204 21,815]

11 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

So what we would want is a checklist of positives where users (and other modders) could mark what's works for them, what's included etc.

Wouldn't that already be taken care of between the description of the content and comments/reviews of the file? We have systems in place to resolve major issues with content, so long as it's brought to our attention, I don't really see the benefit in changing things in this area.

9 hours ago, xxdita said:

Worse, by the time I actually notice certain things growing, I forget where I got it from, so I don't go back to comment. I need to do better with that, maybe just start commenting as I download, because obviously what makes me download things in the first place is that I like how it looks. 

I too suffer from this issue, because when I write a review or comment, I want to have experience of the item in question to reflect upon. Every now and again I do find myself looking at previously downloaded comment and I make an effort to then write something. But I'm sure I've forgotten/missed more than I care.

[jeffryfisher 2,176]

7 hours ago, rsc204 said:

18 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

So what we would want is a checklist of positives where users (and other modders) could mark what's works for them, what's included etc.

Wouldn't that already be taken care of between the description of the content and comments/reviews of the file?

I've found reviews to be haystacks of empty star-ratings with few if any informative comments. So we don't have a checklist of standards like "occupancy by PIM-x" that tell us that a particular upload was made a certain way. Anyway, it's probably not workable to create one. I was just saying it would be nice if that info were visible. Just having such a checklist might have nudged modders toward those best practices.

[mattb325 28,880]

4 hours ago, jeffryfisher said:

I've found reviews to be haystacks of empty star-ratings with few if any informative comments. So we don't have a checklist of standards like "occupancy by PIM-x" that tell us that a particular upload was made a certain way. Anyway, it's probably not workable to create one. I was just saying it would be nice if that info were visible. Just having such a checklist might have nudged modders toward those best practices.

A small number of modders already include a full list of details and stats in the download readme and/or the description. I'm one of them.

PIM-x can do a huge amount really beautifully (just a reminder that I was part of the alpha, beta, etc, etc testing crowd for PIM-x) but it deliberately doesn't do everything and post modding work in the reader is required for more advanced lots or lots with more enhanced functionality.  That was a conscious decision made at the time.

This is, after all, a game and there is always an element of risk attached with each and every thing a user downloads as not every scenario in such an open-ended game can be effectively tested.

The modders (even prolific ones) who just list the barest stats or even none at all often tend to have fewer downloads and may end up spending a lot of time troubleshooting issues or having to re-upload fixes after bugs are discovered.

Listing all the stats in the readme is one small way to give the end-user confidence in the download, but no lists will  ever replace thorough testing prior to release, and that is what is actually lacking in many of the files that have been uploaded to date (the exchanges are open, after all). Even if every modder were forced to adhere to some checklist, caveat emptor will always apply. 

[xxdita 1,097]

@mattb325, I think what @jeffryfisher is looking for is some sort of approval, or certification if you will, from a small group of people, like maybe a squad, that checks out BATs, as well as maybe LOTs and MODs. 

 

[mattb325 28,880]

Everything old is new again . Sounds just like the BSC (Bat Squad Certification) and what I used to do as a LEX scrutineer to allow other people to upload their work onto SC4Devotion when it was a closed exchange. 

[catty-cb 4,401]

I was a LEX scrutineer ... quite a few years back now and the main problem I had was trying to find time to do it ... there used to be quite a few complaints from people both modders and users as to why things were taking so long to be released

[xxdita 1,097]

1 minute ago, catty-cb said:

I was a LEX scrutineer ... quite a few years back now and the main problem I had was trying to find time to do it ... there used to be quite a few complaints from people both modders and users as to why things were taking so long to be released

Yeah. I can't imagine being able to do the sort of testing required for something like CAM at this point. 

I don't mind taking a few minutes here and there to check something out, but it is hard to devote much energy to other people's projects. 

Still, I do miss all-night chats with dear friends on MSN. I'm amazed we ever got any work done. 

[simster007 372]

On 19.6.2017 at 4:05 PM, vedervardigt said:

Hi, I would like to get some advice on how to get my mayor rating up. It's been resting at -60 (+/- 2) since I removed the JS Seawalls linked below, about 5 saves and 20k people ago. These walls makes my mayor rating go up to 137, I've had this happen in at least two cities. And when I remove them it drops almost instantly.

Its a very old topic but:

I´d just like to point out that there is another set of sewalls causing the same issue: uki seawalls vol1

Have to sort out now how to solve it

[rsc204 21,815]

On 20/06/2017 at 1:03 AM, twalsh102 said:

The problem stems from how JayStimson categorized his seawall lots.  I looked at many of the other seawall sets available, and they seem to be categorized as Transportation (Water) lots.  JayStimson categorized his as Landmark lots.  So while each lot has a mild Landmark effect, it has a large Mayor Rating effect (10 over 256 tiles, for each lot).  So when you removed those lots, your mayor rating dropped 10 points for each lot removed.

So while adding parks may help some getting back to where you were, each park lot (at least those that I checked - primarily out of the BSC Parks collection) exerts its Mayor Rating effect over only 20 tiles.  So you would need to ADD a LOT of parks (over and above what you already have) to make up for losing the Mayor Rating effect of the seawall lots. 

The only other Maxis Landmark that has a +10 Mayor Rating effect over 256 tiles is the Great Pyramid.  All other Maxis Landmarks have a lesser Mayor Rating effect.  You would have to add 1 Great Pyramid for each seawall lot you removed.

If you plan on using this seawall set, especially if there's a chance you will later remove some or all of them, some modding might be in order.

That's basically the problem summed up there, it's not a bug so much as a feature. The drawback with having such a positive effect when plopped, is that removing them creates a negative effect that is as bad as the positive effect of plopping them was.

If you want to mod them so this doesn't happen in future, then I'd start by simply removing the Mayor Rating Effect Property altogether (from every Buildings Exemplar). Because this is what is wrecking your mayor rating when removing lots and frankly such a property is overkill in a modular set like this where you'd expect to use many lots together. Likewise, you may also want to look at any Landmark/Park Effect Properties too, the example of JS's Seawalls v3 includes some lots that use all three properties. It's quite common for modders to use these properties without giving due consideration to the cost/benefit balance that the default Maxis YIMBY does, in effect they are cheats. But when you go too extreme, it can backfire, I personally find it better to balance these effects so they don't make things too nice. Sounds counter-intuitive, but if you make everywhere lovely and expensive, where are the roughly 50% of R$ sims you are going to need to run your economy going to live? If you look at modular sets like Paeng's Parks 205, he only gave these effects to select, mostly larger pieces, rather than all of them. I agree with this, since adding such effects to every single lot means there is a good chance many such properties stack and things get unbalanced.

[simster007 372]

33 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

That's basically the problem summed up there, it's not a bug so much as a feature. The drawback with having such a positive effect when plopped, is that removing them creates a negative effect that is as bad as the positive effect of plopping them was.

I realized that by reading his topic.

35 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

If you want to mod them so this doesn't happen in future, then I'd start by simply removing the Mayor Rating Effect Property altogether (from every Buildings Exemplar).

I´d like to, but as far as I know that will not "repair" the issue in the tile where I already plopped them some times ago?

[rsc204 21,815]

Ah, we’ll yes I was specifically talking about modding them to prevent further instances. Unfortunately, there is no ‘fix’ for affected tiles, except maybe to leave the walls in place. The only way you could remove them without the hit to your mayor rating, would perhaps be if you modified the lots prior to removing them. But I warn you not doing this is like modding 101, it’s quite possible other things go screwy so if you try this ‘hail Mary’, take it easy and make backups.

As a general rule there isn’t a good solution for editing save file data. But whilst your city will take a nasty hit from removing the walls, in time the mayor rating should return. I worry though in a case like this, the effects are so big and take so long to undo, there may be catastrophic consequences for a city in the intervening time period. Maybe removing them one at a time and waiting for things to rebalance would work? Although I have no idea how many game years it takes from bulldozing one to things balancing out would be. It could be that such a process would be too time consuming to be worth it. 

[simster007 372]

On 15.11.2022 at 2:24 PM, rsc204 said:

Ah, we’ll yes I was specifically talking about modding them to prevent further instances. Unfortunately, there is no ‘fix’ for affected tiles, except maybe to leave the walls in place. The only way you could remove them without the hit to your mayor rating, would perhaps be if you modified the lots prior to removing them. But I warn you not doing this is like modding 101, it’s quite possible other things go screwy so if you try this ‘hail Mary’, take it easy and make backups.

That´s what I'm concerned about, too. I decided to tweak it in a different way and tested it already. I removed them from their original position in the old central industrial area which now is developing into a business district.

I rebuild the walls on outer shorelines which are + will be industrial areas in the future.

And: MARK THESE WALLS AS: DON`T PLOP IF YOU'RE NOT 100% SURE ABOUT WHAT THEY AFFECT!

Shouldn´t there be a topic like: "lots w/ experienced unexpected issues"?

I´m not the one who is able to check every "new" plugin about all properties, at least at present, and never thougt seawalls could contain such strange details - until my city got into trouble and read this topic.

At least: I had a backup and found a workaround....

[rsc204 21,815]

Honestly in all my time around these parts, over 10 years, I'd barely heard mention of the problem, so I suspect most people simply never noticed. Part of the reason may be because having built them, most users probably won't remove them again. I've used them myself, although not a lot and never realised the issue, although I'll probably be modding my set now to prevent it.

As for marking the download in such a manner, whilst we (the ST staff) have some control over anything on the STEX in this regard, what goes on elsewhere is very much out of our hands. To my knowledge neither sets in question are hosted here, so we don't really have any ability to influence things. Although I do tend to agree with you that a warning just so users know what they are getting into, wouldn't be without merit.

[simmering 2,656]

Here is another case of erratic mayor rating:

I was working an a large harbour and kept trying things. I am not quite sure what pushed me to 100 and then caused the drop. It wasn't the seawalls. I have a hunch it might have been BriPizza's port warehouses. How can I find out if they have a drastic landmark effect?

UPDATE

I have identified the BAT that caused it (see below). I'm not sure if this is intended behaviour though, but I asked the question.

 

  Edited May 4, 2025 by simmering  
New Information