Hydrophidian

[ QUOTE ]
They need to remove the ability from players to downrate an arc at all. Either give it a "thumbs up" or no rating at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be a start, but it doesn't address half the issue. It's not just griefers that render the ratings system pointless. The "5-star Cartels" contribute as well. Your solution doesn't do anything about them. So, you're still left with a useless system, and replacing one useless system with another is just a big waste of time.

However, if the ability to recommend arcs were limited in some fashion, that could really change the dynamics. Give players only a few recommendation tickets per month, per account. More can be earned by spending time in the MA system, but there's a cap on how many can be gained in a week. Keep these numbers low. And make it so a player can't recommend the same author more than once in a week's time.

Had a system similar to this implemented a long time ago, in a text-based game. Worked out pretty well.

But this would also have to be combined with far more robust search functionality. 'Cuz ratings systems will never give us the best of the best, only the least offensive and most accessible: a Hall of the Pretty Decent.

"Great" content is too dependent on individual tastes. It's much easier to gain a consensus on what's "okay" than it is to get wide agreement on what's "great". Thus, ratings will always give us the former.

Griefers didn't just show up when I14 went live. The assertion that they're not going to take advantage of a new way to be malicious is just silly. It's been made available to them, they're going to use it. Just because it's there.

Which is a big part of why I think the ratings system is a Bad Idea <tm>, and needs to be yanked out entirely. Anything that accommodates griefing to that extent just needs to be squashed.

Those who PVP downrate, for the sake of their own arc's visibility... those are another sort. I'm not sure they can even be called griefers, in the strictest sense.

But that doesn't change the fact that they, along with "5-star cartels", help to make the ratings system utterly worthless.

Right now the developers are planning on pulling a whole bunch of badges. If they think that move is going to significantly curb the malicious downrating that's been happening, well... I think they're in for another nasty surprise.

Helpful Playing Tip:

If anything in the first mission of this arc gives you trouble, use those crystals to your advantage! It's a big reason why I used that map.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The devs should look into a method for determining individual xp values for each custom mob, based on its power selections. For example, an extreme/extreme Mind Control/Willpower boss is an extremely nasty customer and should be worth a lot of experience, but a standard/standard Radiation/Empathy boss is worth much less.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even that is not really accurate. You could have a minion who is pretty harmless alone, but can amplify the power of the right group. Put him in one group and he is much weaker, put him in another group and he is much stronger.

[/ QUOTE ]

On top of all that, there's also the fact that different ATs are threatened by different things. What's difficult for one AT and/or power set is an easy walk in the park for another.

All of my friends who have generally nasty melee characters sort of cringe at the idea of Cimeroran missions, while my "squishy" Storm Defender finds them to be really no trouble at all.

On the other hand, it's quite the reverse situation vs. Rikti. Mezzed, mezzed, mezzed, mezzed... oh, the mission's done. "Hey, glad I could help, guys!"

[ QUOTE ]
But when someone tells me they rated my arc lower because I had a Boss name spelled with a ' in it and it shouldn't be, as well as I had "to" instead of too, but they loved the story, I think that is going way overboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

All's fair in love and war... and in the MA ratings system.

You can be given a low rating for things far more "overboard" than a spelling error. On the other hand, you can be given a high rating due to nothing more than the player's whim.

I've given high ratings to arcs that made me laugh. Mind you, it wasn't the author's intent to make me laugh, I'm sure. But I did just the same. I like to laugh. I had fun doing the arc. 5 stars.

I've also given high ratings to arcs that were "bad" but were obviously a labor of love and probably created by a kid who thinks their arc is TOTAL AWESOMESAUCE.

Everyone's criteria for rating is different, and it's all valid. No sense getting bent over it. And if you actually got a play and feedback--particularly feedback that allows you to improve your arc, even in a minor way--I'd say that's all to the good.

[ QUOTE ]
And how many times will you go back and fix minor details like that on a published arc? once, twice, 3 times?

[/ QUOTE ]

When they're found and brought to my attention (which I appreciate), I go in and fix them. I've tweaked my currently published arc approximately eleventy bazillion times. Eleventy bazillion and one isn't going to bother me.

I, personally, will not downrate an arc just because of typos and grammatical errors. In my experience, arcs that are really bad in that regard tend to be really bad in other ways as well.

And when I say really bad, I don't mean just a lot of typos. Some great writers and storytellers have horrible, horrible spelling. I mean really bad in the sense that it's obviously all been written very carelessly. To me, that's a good sign that the whole arc is going to be poor.

I recognize that players have all sorts of standards on which they base their ratings, up to and including what I'd consider the very absurd (the cigar detail encourages our children to smoke! 1 star!). It's all valid and doesn't profit anyone anything by getting bent out of shape over it.

[ QUOTE ]
Well your observations have been countered by several people in the test server thread some of whom have put forth numbers and examples of just how overpowered the custom critters have become in relation to the rewards we get for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, okay. So I haven't actually experienced what I've experienced. Got it.

[ QUOTE ]
I took that as a direct insult and that you used the term in a negative tone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not responsible for what tone you chose to read into it, but it seemed to me you were overstating the situation to make your point, yah.

[ QUOTE ]
you have the right to post your opinion you however do not have the right to be rude in doing so and not be called on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't think I was rude. Sorry, if you thought I was. And you didn't actually call me on anything, you just got all hostile and grumpy.

[ QUOTE ]
You could have been nice and ask me for clarification on my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I do that, if I didn't think it needed to be clarified? If I had any doubt as to what you were saying, I would've asked, 'is that what you're saying?' I took your words at face value. It's not my fault that you didn't express your point correctly. Again, I'm not a mind reader.

[ QUOTE ]
Yet you took the internet tough guy approach and insulted me.

[/ QUOTE ]

*laughs*

Well, that's a first!

As far as I'm concerned, I didn't insult you. I disagreed with you. Right now, my impression is: you take that as insult, and you probably would've taken it as insult no matter how I disagreed with you. My impression is, you saw disagreement, and read an adversarial tone into it that wasn't there. You then made all sorts of assumptions about my motives and replied as if those assumptions were true.

Problem is, they weren't.

That's my impression. Maybe I'm wrong on that.

And honestly, if you think I've been responding as a "internet tough guy"... well. Lemme just suggest that you might wanna reconsider posting in a lot of these forums, 'cuz... daamn. That's all sortsa funny.

Anyways, have fun out there. Sorry if my disagreement got you all bent out of shape, no insult was intended. I'll be sure not to respond to any of your posts in the future, okay?

[ QUOTE ]
i cant believe you made me save chris jenkins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, by the way...

You might wanna listen to this.

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, guy, the majority is the majority because it's what most people agree with. If it wasn't what most people agree with it wouldn't be called the majority!

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, missy, even people generally in the majority will have differing tastes. Just because most people like X, doesn't mean they'll all like Y. Some will, some would rather dig on Z.

A ratings system doesn't cater to specific tastes. And even people who're in the majority will have those. That's what I was saying. Everyone has preferences outside of the mainstream. Some more so than others. Hence "varying degrees".

[ QUOTE ]
But the rating system isn't a reflection of majority opinion

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't say it was. I'm saying, even if it was, it'd only reflect a mainstream... the arcs that were most generally accessible. That's not necessarily an indicator of quality. Especially if you happen to be looking for a specific kind of experience, be it comedy, horror, extreme game challenge, or whatever else.

[ QUOTE ]
ok so how about I say that those three minions have the damage potential of player controlled toons would that make you feel better?

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's what you're actually saying, it'd help that you were clear on it, sure.

[ QUOTE ]
you know exactly what my point was from the start you just enjoy picking posts apart in an attempt to make your point seem more valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. You has failed at mind readz!

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying you can handle these custom critters with no problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I've said is: in my experience, they're more difficult than standard mobs, but not as sharply more difficult as you and others seem to be implying.

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying people new to the game defnately will have trouble with them compared to normal content. It really doesn't matter that a veteran player as your self can adjust to this change easy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, again, some of the people I play with are brand new to the game. One started a few months ago, another just last month, and a few others have been around less than a year. They've all been adjusting just fine.

Secondly, I disagree. it does matter how I adjust, how you adjust, and how everyone else adjusts.

[ QUOTE ]
I mean for you to call my post hyperbole

[/ QUOTE ]

I called a particular assertion in your post, as I understood it, hyperbole. As it turns out, what you stated isn't precisely what you meant. No, I am not a mind reader, I had no way of knowing what you really meant. All I can go by is what you actually write in your post.

Your hostility is misplaced, and your squelch attempts aren't appreciated. You made an assertion. I disagreed with that assertion and explained why. No more, no less. I do get to do that, y'know.

And I don't think what you're saying is completely without merit either. Just seems to me you've been overstating it.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps my biggest complaint about the rating system, and MA in general, is visibility. The fact that the default search behavior favors the more popular arcs has long disturbed me; as we can already refine our search to target these.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, see, even this isn't true. You're not getting "the more popular arcs" on the front page right now. Not by a long shot.

Example:

Arc 1 has 15 ratings, all 5 stars. This isn't difficult to accomplish if the author happens to be in a moderately active SG.

Arc 2 has 100 ratings. Around half of those are 5 stars. The other half consists mostly of 4 to 2 star ratings, with a couple of 1s and 0s in there... which is just going to happen eventually if an arc gets played enough.

Obviously, Arc 2 is, by leaps and bounds, the more popular arc of the two. It has considerably more plays, and a lot more people 5-starred it.

But Arc 1 is the one that'll be at the top of the list, not Arc 2.

From reading the forums, I'm seeing that a lot of people are having success by searching for 4-star arcs with particular tags. That's how they're finding "the good stuff".

So, a 4-star rating has, in effect, become more of an indicator of quality than a 5-star rating.

I think that's laughably messed up.

[ QUOTE ]
everyone does sewers when you start a new toon.

[/ QUOTE ]

No... no they don't. It's a pretty common practice these days, sure, but by no means is it something everyone does.

[ QUOTE ]
Just to provide the other side of the coin, I find Venture's reviews far more entertaining than some of the others on this forum *because* of the use of TV Tropes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoah, there. That's not really "the other side of the coin".

I often find Venture's reviews entertaining and useful. Sometimes, though, I think he goes overboard with the TVTropes references, and those posts are skipped over by me and probably others.

He may care about that, he may not, it's just something I thought should be mentioned, given the direction the dialogue took. He's not sending these reviews directly to the authors, he's writing for an audience. I'm part of that audience, and this is something I've occasionally run into while reading his reviews.

If I were in his position, it's something I'd like to know. So, I've put it out there in case he's of the same mind. If he isn't, whatever, everything remains the same. But if he takes it to heart, I'll be able to enjoy a larger degree of his offerings, and that's good for me.

[ QUOTE ]
Very well said. With me, this raises the question, "What is the incentive that is the most common reason for abuse?"

[/ QUOTE ]

You pretty much summed it up. Rewards (tickets and badges), arc visibility, and the possibility of ruining somebody's day (whether as a retaliatory strike or just random griefing). Those are the incentives.

As to what to do about it? Well, had it been up to me, there wouldn't have been a rating system at all (at least not one players could see... it'd be there for dev purposes only). The first time I heard there was going to be a ratings system attached to MA, I cringed and predicted most of the problems we're now experiencing. It just seemed like a really bad idea to me... "bonehead" level bad.

I mean, even if the devs had somehow came up with a system that avoided most abuses, what would that've really accomplished for us? All it would've given us is a "mainstream" of arcs, right?

I don't know about you, but my tastes veer out of the mainstream quite frequently. I very often don't agree with the majority view on what's "good" and what isn't. I think most people are like that. Only the degree varies. Taste is highly subjective.

For this reason, I would've focused heavily on search functionality. On top of morality (which I may have had more options for), I would've had authors be able to set things like genre, level range, solo/team/both, game-focus or story-focus, and challenge level... basically all the stuff we see the community trying to accommodate right now on its own.

I might've even tried implementing some sort of recommendation system. Y'know, like a 'if you enjoyed that arc, you might enjoy...' type of thing. At the very least, players would've been able to search by author with but a click.

But that's me. My only condition now is, if we must have a ratings system, then it should passably accomplish what it's supposed to accomplish. The current one doesn't do that. It's completely meaningless.

Or, at the very least, we should have far more robust search functionality, so that we can just ignore the ratings completely, and let it be the weird little PVP thing it is.

In which case, I like your idea of the front page being randomly selected arcs.

[ QUOTE ]
When taken in the context of my original thought of a squishy toon absorbing an alpha strike from 3 even con minions is ALMOST like facing 3 player controlled toons is not hyperbole.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but I still disagree. Though, the crux of my disagreement is in your use of the words 'player controlled'. Custom mobs may have "player level" damage potential--which seems to be all you're really saying--but they are not even remotely akin to "player controlled" opponents.

Most of the character's I play are "squishies". Most of the people I play with play squishies. Some of the people I play with are brand new to the game, some are long-time vets. I've run MA content solo with everything from a level 50 Defender to a lowbie Psi Blaster. I've tested my own stuff with a wide range of archetypes.

I have not found custom mobs to be the sharp upturn in difficulty you and others seem to be presenting them as. Are they more difficult? Yes, certainly. Are they exceedingly more difficult? No, usually not. Can they be made to be exceedingly difficult? Yes, but, by and large, I haven't run into that, and when I have, I've called them cases of 'Killer GMing" and dropped the arc.

My fundamental issue with your presentation is you've likened facing Custom Mobs to facing opponents in PvP. And that just isn't the case, not by any stretch of the imagination. If it were, there'd be a whole lot more people freaking out about it. The boards would be bursting with complaints.

[ QUOTE ]
does anyone out there actually LIKE any of the DC arcs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup!

[ QUOTE ]
they could also force us to stick to existing enemy ratios and not allow all minion,lt, or boss spawns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be pretty ticked if they did that without increasing the allowable file size. Such a measure would break a lot of finished arcs. Every custom mob takes up a good chunk of space. Forcing people to add additional mobs they don't want nor need would probably be a bad move. Especially given that the ability to make them is probably the single-most popular feature of the MA system.

[ QUOTE ]
We wanted it now!!!!! and we got it now. full of holes and bugs that have been exploited and worked around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah, I'm not going along with blaming the player base for this one. Everyone I know would've rather they worked out more bugs before releasing it. But... the devs put it on a deadline and tied marketing to it, and so then it had to go out by X date no matter what. Nobody twisted their arms, and it's all too typical a pattern for video games (and a lot of other things).

[ QUOTE ]
When you are fighting a group of 3 minion level custom critters it is almost like being attacked by 3 player controlled toons.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is flat-out hyperbole. While generally more difficult than standard mobs, custom mobs are not even remotely in the same league with player-controlled opponents. The AI sees to that. Custom mobs are just as predictable as standard mobs, just as easily manipulated, and just as dopey.

[ QUOTE ]
for this to be fixed it will take alot of time and dev effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of this particular issue will be addressed by allowing authors to remove individual powers from custom mobs. That's supposed to be coming in I15.

The stuff is just added to your menus. It's not really distinguished in any way as maps or mobs you've unlocked.

[ QUOTE ]
Look: people aren't having significant trouble understanding me. They're just not. I'm not going to change. Get over it already.

[/ QUOTE ]

Venture,

I've read some of your reviews. I've played some of the arcs you've recommended. In terms of what we want and don't want to see in an arc, we appear to be mostly on the same page. It's not complete agreement... but, as far as I can tell, it's close.

That said, I've found some of your reviews to be so laden with TVTropes lingo, they're pretty much impenetrable and... well... not fun to read.

I don't mind looking up one or two things, but I'm not going to do that a dozen times just to get through someone's post. I just skip over the ones in which you seem to expect that. And I kinda doubt I'm the only person who does it.

So, while I'm pretty much on your side regarding this particular Mary Sue issue, I have to disagree that 'people aren't having significant trouble understanding you'. Your review posts can get rather arcane, and I don't think it's my responsibility, as a reader, to decipher them. In composing them, I don't think you always--to reference Arcanaville's post above--meet the readers halfway.

Disregard this if you'd like. But, as the subject came up, I thought it best to share my own perspective as a reader of your reviews, and as someone who chooses what to play based, in large part, on the recommendations you and other reviewers make.

Thank you for doing that, by the way, it's much appreciated.

[ QUOTE ]
What event?

[/ QUOTE ]

The arc!

Flying mobs can also be pulled into the air... which is real helpful if your character happens to be a flyer, and the mob's compatriots are groundlings.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the essential issue: there's no reason to make mission arcs with custom guys if the custom guys are going to wipe the floor with a lot of people thanks to how powerful even just the minions themselves are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see the gap being quite that wide. I suppose it can be, if an author is intent on "killer GMing", but now you're getting into the area of just straight-up bad design, and the way to deal with that is to not play the arc.

On the other end of the spectrum, I've used custom mobs a lot so far, and I've made some of them pretty weak, deliberately. Granted, that wasn't easy to do, but it's theoretically going to be much easier to pull off in the immediate future, with I15.

In any event, I've never had a custom group that I've designed "mop up the floor" with any team I've been on, even while on higher difficulties. The customs are more challenging, yes, but it hasn't been that great an increase in risk. After all, it's still the same AI.

I haven't seen any issues in 1-50 co-op, beyond the inability to give inspirations to someone of the other faction.

The Risk vs. Reward standard is not consistent throughout the game, and I don't think it ever has been. You only need to compare street hunt missions to instanced missions to see that.

That said, I think you have to put custom critters in context. Yah, they can be much more difficult. On the other hand, you're blowing through that MA arc a lot faster than you would anything "outside", because there's no travel time involved. No zoning, no courier filler, and probably no Defeat Alls. Hospital is pretty much right at the mission door.

To be fair, all that's gotta be figured in.