Remliel

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that this discussion was aimed at fixes that would better the system that's in place now, maybe even replace it. While we're at it, why shouldn't such a revision aim at making the star ratings worthwhile. It sounds as if you'd rather write them off entirely, instead of coming up with a way to make them work.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there aren't any changes, they may as well be.

Regardless, I would like to make the current system more worthwhile, yes. I'm just trying to think of ways to address the additional issues brought up. Many valid points were made, by you and many others, and we'll need to work together to find a way to make a proposal that will fix it all in the best way possible.

[ QUOTE ]
Something else to consider is that the rating system isn't just for the author's benefit. Such a system is designed to allow the casual observer to pick out the cream of the crop, to identify what's worth pursuing and what should be avoided as well. Players are likely to avoid a lower-scoring arc, more often than not for valid reasons.

If you force people to provide feedback for every mission they rate poorly, fewer people will do so, and the rating system will fail to meet this objective. There is in fact valid reason to believe that this is the primary reason for this aspect of the rating system. As has been said, simply starring an arc does little to inform an author what may be wrong with the work. But it does tell others that someone didn't enjoy it. Or a lot of someones; perhaps it's not worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we can definitely agree that the rating system as it stands now doesn't do its job in any of those ways. We may as well be using third party rating sites to figure out what arcs are worthwhile by now.

[ QUOTE ]
eah, I don't want those "follow up" comments. The last thing that I want is to start getting tells from some person whose story-arc I 1-starred four hours ago and then promptly forgot all about.

Tell---> What do you mean my story arc is too hard you idiot?!?!?! Just because the minions are AR/Dev & Psi & Rad & Dark all on extreme doesn't mean they're overpowered!! Guess you should'a brought your A-Game huh CHUMP??

Tell---> What's wrong? Nothing to say now huh moron?

Tell---> I know you're on, quit being a wuss and respond you meat-head!

Tell---> Tell ya what you *$*&($W^&&^ I'm gonna look up your global in the MA and 1-star all of your arcs. How's that sound?

These tells will happen. Know how I know this? Because I've already received them. No. I really really don't want you to "follow up" with me. I rated your arc, and now I'm busy doing something else. Go spellcheck your story-arc and just leave me alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this? People on your ignore list can't play or rate your arcs. That would fix that problem nicely. And I'm sorry that you've had such bad experiences with some people. Thankfully, not all of us are like that. Don't assume that all people who have issues with the rating system are from FF.Net.

[ QUOTE ]
Any time an artist presents work to the public he's going to have to learn to take criticism. Whether you feel said criticism is waranted or not doesn't matter. If you can't handle the criticism without trying to insist that you should be granted some sort of special rights to track people or force them to give you meaningful feedback then maybe you shouldn't be writing anything for public consumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would be right... Except that what people are getting isn't criticism. Criticism requires someone to actually look at what they're giving an opinion on so they can give proper feedback. Proper (constructive) criticism allows someone to actually make their work better.

From your viewpoint, it appears that you believe that we're angry that someone dared to give out super special awesome BEST EVER arc a low rating. While I can't say that ego has no part of it (all creative work is subject to the ego of its creator, after all, if they actually care about what they're producing), our point is that the ratings system is flawed and needs to be corrected.

[ QUOTE ]
Problem. I zone in. Four AVs kill me right after I come around the first corner. I should be able to 1-star this thread and quit. Under your proposed system I can no longer do that.

I would be in favor of a system that disallows EBs and AVs in the first mission, and then requires you to finish the first mission before you can rate the story-arc.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I stated before, the fact that no one can finish the arc would speak for itself, especially if they make 'times started' and 'times completed' visible statistics.

[ QUOTE ]
Once again: 349hgfdubjhvbnelriht4ioh!

However, changing the interface so that it prompts people to send a comment if they rate an arc at three stars or less without requiring it would be a good thing. Especially if the comments are fixed to be annonymous again and the prompt reminds people of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again: If someone can't bother to speak English when they give a comment, it's obviously not a legitimate rating.

I am also against comments being anonymous. Take responsibility for your actions. Anonymity only further allows people to abuse the system and prevents me from having dialogues with people who have actual constructive criticism to make.

[ QUOTE ]
All published arcs should have a tab that lists all feedback on that arc sorted by date/time. Only the author can see this feedback unless he choses to make it public. This way comments are stored, annonymity is preserved, and we still don't have to use that broken email system - which should either be fixed or just shut off already.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this!

[ QUOTE ]
Everytime a patch affects the MA an internet-email should be automatically sent to the person who authored the arc. The email would inform them that a recent patch has affected story-arcs. They now have 7 days to review, fix, and republish their story-arc or it will automatically lose "Devs Choice" status.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting proposal.

[ QUOTE ]
Completely disagree. You're not being griefed by ratings griefers. Seriously. Just accept the fact that you're not Stephen King already and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't like Stephen King.

And while I have been affected by this, I am not nearly the only one. If it was just me, I would just 'get over it', as you so succinctly put it.

Besides, how would you know?

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, not onlt does that require players to go out of their way to do something extra, it's making them do so when they're upset that they couldn't complete an arc. In such a situation, I probably wouldn't leave any feedback. And I love making my thoughts known. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be a common theme. Are people so afraid of actually talking to someone else and bringing up a problem that they aren't willing to type in a few words? What is the point of feedback if no one is willing to actually step up and spend the 30 seconds it takes to tell someone what they really think and give them an honest opinion?

If people care so little that they won't even deign to acknowledge the people who put time and effort into making these arcs, then we as a community have already lost.

I, for one, do not accept this.

[ QUOTE ]
There would be no way of determining if no one's been able to complete the mission, if no one's tried running the mission, or if no one has simply cared to rate the arc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Track how many people have started the arc as well, then? Really, the devs should be tracking this data anyway. Make it visible.

[ QUOTE ]
The system definitely needs an overhaul, we both agree on that. But limiting the options for providing feedback will only hurt things in the long run

[/ QUOTE ]

You ALWAYS have the option of telling them directly. After all, it lists the global handle of the arc's author in the information! If you want to let someone know a problem with their arc, tell them!

[ QUOTE ]
They would be able to regain their standing, and they wouldn't. Most that have already rated their work are unlikely to play through it again, and as such these authors have a smaller prospective audience from which to build their story's standing. Add to that the fact that these authors had to put real effort to overcome the broken system, not just writing the arc but promoting, bug fixing, and generally getting the word out. In essence, all their hard work would be thrown out, and when a player's effort and work is tossed out the window by developers, online titles begin to die. Star Wars Galaxies is the best example of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone else would be in the same boat. And really, why WOULDN'T you play a good arc again? Especially with new friends or teammates who haven't seen it? I've run through some arcs many times over. Being able to go back and do stuff again was the theme of an entire Issue.

No, their work is not being thrown out. Rating something is not work. Especially if the rating system is this flawed.

And as a former player of SWG, that title didn't die because player's work was thrown out. It died because SOE has no concept on how to properly balance, insisted on keeping broken systems in the game, and overall has no concept on how to make a good Star Wars game.

Bioware, now their product is something I'm looking forward to...

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but a previous poster did state a time when such rating is called for, when an arc cannot be completed due to too many surprise EBs. I can elaborate on a couple of others. One mission I played was placed on a tech map, but destructible object spawns were so thick they blocked doorways. There was literally no way to bypass the objects and complete the mission. On another, every unit of a custom enemy group utilized heavy End drain. The mission was slow and a headache, but doable until I get to the end and there's a surprise EB, downgraded from AV level. Possessing the same End-drain abilities as the rest of the enemy group, he and his followers dropped me to zero End after only one attack. Four times. I couldn't even kill off a minion in the group before I was out of juice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps something to keep track of what percentage of people quit the arc without completing it? I think you should be able to send comments regardless, which means you could talk to the author about the problems with their story, but the fact that no one would be able to rate the arc should speak for itself, don't you think?

As it stands now, those arcs, all with serious flaws, could have lots of 5-star ratings even though no one actually finished them. Or possibly even played them.

[ QUOTE ]
Fairness in fixing what's already been done to misuse the system is too much to ask for. Item rewards have already been received, badges have already been issued; the impact any such action will have on those that misused the system is negligible. The ones it would truly harm are those that legitimately rose above the rest, despite the obstacles. They're the ones that would be feeling the sting of such action, that would be most likely to leave the game as a result of such action. And they're the ones we want to keep around.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they were so good that they could beat out the 0-star crew, then there's no reason why they wouldn't rise to the top again even more quickly without the interference from rating system abuse. The arc isn't changing, the rating system would be.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the best we can hope for is to leave things as is for now, but design a system that will repair the damage done to the system naturally, over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The system as it stands now is, in my opinion, so flawed as to defeat half the point of using it. Right now, all people can do once they've been visited by the ratings demons is to go on a mass advertising spree in order to get people to find their arc at the bottom of page 293 or so. People can get their friends or supergroups to play their arcs just fine, but what if you want more than that? The main thing everyone uses to figure out what arcs are worth looking at is the rating system and few people that I have ever spoken with have the patience to dig down past page 10 or so.

I don't expect the system will change overnight. But I do believe the system needs to be seriously overhauled if they want it to actually do what it was meant to do.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, as a side effect someone who actually intended to publish a good mission would not be receiving any feedback, some of which might be useful to make their arc better and more enjoyable; as much as it makes it possible to grief players, being able to rate an arc without finishing it is something that's needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion, a rating system that allows someone to rate content they're not even experiencing is not a rating system at all.

[ QUOTE ]
However, there are other problems as well. Folks may simply not rate an arc, or rate such an arc as three or better for no other reason than to avoid having to give comments. Forcing people to something in an online game is one of the fastest ways of creating an unused feature. Even more so if they have to identify themselves as a result of what they are being forced to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a better solution handy on how to solve the problems with the rating system, I would be happy to hear them. I don't think I have all the answers, this is just the result of me giving it a little thought.

[ QUOTE ]
Give an author the option to create a text document for the purpose of recording such comments locally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this? This is a good idea.

[ QUOTE ]
Damaging a player's efforts in such a manner are a bad idea. Look how many folks got up in arms with Positron's recent MA use statements. With the removal of certain maps and MA resources. No, if someone thinks they have been hurt by the existing system, they have the option of republishing their arcs when a new system is implemented. And if the new system does its job, those arcs that benefited illegitimately from the current system will eventually be brought in line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain to me how that would be fair?

[ QUOTE ]
You're simply never gong to see this level of oversight in an online game. There are more pressing concerns, especiallt when players have the option of republishing to clear the slate and start over. And a successful rating system shouldn't suffer from such grieffing anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a world where the playerbase is responsible, moral, and ethical, much like the heroes we pretend to be, yes.

I would love for the system to be made functionally immune to griefing. That's why I want to help bring this up to the attention of the Devs and playerbase once more. I want to have a helpful discussion on the issue so we can help design a system that everyone can be mostly (because completely is, of course, impossible) satisfied with.

Any suggestions you have to assist with this would be welcome.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6: Unpublish all non-Developer's Choice arcs - This is the only fair way to make the field level again after the revisions are made to the rating system. DC arcs would be DC regardless, and thus wouldn't need to be unpublished. Everyone would be able to republish their arcs immediately, giving them a fresh start on the new rating system.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The DC arcs started with an unfair advantage at the publish of I14 by being made DC arcs at the start. They're right there on the first page in front of you and based on how some people talk about going through the list based on how "good" they're rated as being, that just makes it more unfair to other stories.

Do you honestly believe it'll be possible for any newly created story to make it to Hall of Fame and/or Developer's Choice without the kind of ratings push the Devs don't want to be done? Believe it or not, not everyone goes onto the Test server, and everyone certainly didn't have very early Beta access to work and tweak their stories before they were transferred over and made live, etc.

Having them as Dev's Choice from the beginning as well as even allowing them to be transferred over from Test to be published right at the beginning, is tied with the star system and tying them to badges for the Dev's greatest mistake regarding the handling of MA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhhhh, I was unaware of this. Hmm, that's a difficult situation then. Perhaps truly starting everyone from ground zero would be for the best? I'm not sure.

[ QUOTE ]
So a rating system with six, possible ratings is a bug, but one that has only five is perfectly legitimate?

How does that make sense?

Or is it just that you want the devs to tweak the math so you can feel like your arc has a higher rating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you show me a real star rating system that goes to 0 stars?

If they intended it like this, they wouldn't make you jump through those hoops to make it work that way in the first place. A 1 rating means the same thing, the only reason one would want to use a 0 rating is for maximum damage to the star rating.

[ QUOTE ]
Just scrap star ratings altogether. If you're someone like Roger Ebert and can objectively look at something, both in terms of content and context (what is the movie trying to do, etc.), then star ratings work fine, but in an online environment like this a star rating is begging for trouble. A simple "thumbs-up" system (where you can thumbs-up something if you like it, or choose to not do anything) would work the best. The arcs that people like will gradually float to the top, and the ones that aren't that good will stay at the bottom.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, I would be happy with this. It'd be just like karma on Slashdot or comments on Youtube.

[ QUOTE ]
The more categories you add, the less likely I am to rate a mission. I'm not taking a job as an arc reviewer, I'm just playing to have fun. I'm not going to bother agonizing over the qualities of various aspects of the arc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but I don't really see more than 3 or so categories being available before they become redundant anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
If I can't complete the arc due to being hit with several surprise elite bosses, I certainly want to be able to quit and give a poor rating. In fact, if I can't quit and give a rating, I probably wouldn't bother rating any arc that I can complete. I'd just throw out the rating system altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then the mission will sit there with no ratings and people won't play it. The rating system as it is now is is just as irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]
Comment: safdsadfsadf
Requiring a comment is meaningless, since you can't force people to form complete words and sentences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had a 0-star comment like that, then it would be a legitimate reason for #7... Or perhaps even seeking other recourse.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay. There are probably arcs out there I would give 0 stars to, but I think the feature isn't implemented very well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. And really, the 0-star is a loophole. Shouldn't the minimum be one star?

[ QUOTE ]
This sounds messy. I suspect they moved away from e-mails for a good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly, but these are suggestions for a reason, not demands. Maybe there's a more efficient way to do this, but I'll have to think about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Well that would be unpopular. I don't care about that myself, but I think a number of players might be coming for you with a knife if you convinced the devs to wipe out their ratings.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ratings? The ratings as they stand now are completely flawed. Come after me with a knife if you want, sure, but just like revisions to powersets come with a respec, so would a revision of the rating system require a reset. And seriously, if these arcs are honestly good, they'll get right back to where they should be very quickly. As it stands now, I could play some very good 3-star arcs and find many very bad 5-stars.

[ QUOTE ]
Creates excessive work for the GMs. Please consider the GM workload when suggesting something like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly understandable. But if a rating is invalid for some reason, shouldn't there be a way to remove it? Frankly, if someone's going to get 30 people to spam me with 0 stars with comments of 'oincaoinfaonfajnf', I'd want them all removed and those players possibly even banned from using the rating system for abuse. A ratings system requires some degree of oversight, otherwise we may as well not have one.

First, I applaud you, Devs, for creating this wonderful Architect Mission System. It is the finest example of giving the power of creation to the people who play the game that I have seen ever seen in an MMO. I've already experienced many excellent arcs, enhancing my enjoyment of the game considerably. In fact, the Architect System is what likely caused many people (including myself) to renew my account.

I, like many, many others, have created my own stories. All of us, from those who are crafting epic storylines, to those who are simply making efficient methods to progress, put time and effort into our work. We expend a significant amount of creative energy in order to craft what, in our opinion, is the finest possible expression that can be achieved within the constraints of the system. We want to show what we can do. We all want recognition. We want to know that we have done well. And above all, we all want to have fun. That's the point of playing a game, right?

However, there is trouble in paradise. As much effort as we put into our creative works, we hope to have a method by which these works can be properly evaluated and credited by our peers, the rest of the City of Heroes community. The system we have in place is unfortunately, flawed. Some accuse others of unfair rating methods and others choose to intentionally give an arc a poor rating, regardless of quality. There is so much distortion involved with the system that it defeats the entire point. I've seen multiple instances of people who have made excellent arcs, with ratings to match, fall hundreds of pages because of a handful of the dreaded '0-star ratings' for no other reason that the story arc was reaching the front page.

I know this can't be the true intention of the system. People who do good work in the spirit it was intended should be given the reward they deserve.

Therefore, I ask that these alterations to the ratings system be made:

1: Categorized rating system - Please allow us to rate an arc on multiple factors (Perhaps on traits such as Story and Challenge). This will allow us to create a more graduated scale and possibly give us ways to filter for things we as a player are more interested in than others.

2: Require the completion of an arc before it can be rated - I know many have been concerned with the players who, for whatever reasons they have, rate an arc not according to its actual worth but on other, less ethical factors. Requiring the arc to be completed will reduce the convenience factor for these people, thus allowing a more fair assessment of the entire arc instead of your impression of the first 15 seconds.

3: Require comments for ratings under 3 stars - If someone believes that your arc deserves a poor rating, the least you can get in return is some constructive criticism on how to improve it. Additionally, if you feel an arc deserves a poor rating, you should be confident enough in your assessment in order to stand by what you say.

4: Remove the 0 Star Rating - This really does look like a bug with what someone has to do to make this happen, and is one of the most powerful tools that someone can use to ensure an arc never sees the light of day.

5: Append Comments To Arcs - This will allow us to keep track of commentary and determine if there is a common trend to critique, giving us the ability to distinguish between a one-off impression and an actual general commentary. This can be stored on a separate page so as to save loading time on the main search area. As a lead-in to this, perhaps the comments can be sent to mail instead of tells.

6: Unpublish all non-Developer's Choice arcs - This is the only fair way to make the field level again after the revisions are made to the rating system. DC arcs would be DC regardless, and thus wouldn't need to be unpublished. Everyone would be able to republish their arcs immediately, giving them a fresh start on the new rating system.

7: Include a system to contest ratings - Simultaneously, allow us to contest ratings that we feel have been given unfairly. If someone rates an arc poorly and gives no actual reason, we should be given the ability to have that rating removed from our records.

Please consider these options. Please, allow us to make the Mission Architect all it truly can be.

[ QUOTE ]
I actually find I am having more fun at 30+ than at anytime before simply becuase I feel like Regulas is very much super hero like now. That will change if they up difficulty much as I won't be able to take on higher con villains solo (which is how I mostly play). Basicly what I am saying is that I would much prefer the game difficulty stay the same and that people be able to choose how difficult they want there missions via the slider.

[/ QUOTE ]

The appearance of being weaker is just that, an appearance. A perception. You're used to plowing through enemies you had no business plowing through. This isn't intended. I'll be more than happy to kill 3 white minions to get the XP that 12 whites got me before. (As a general idea. I have no idea what the actual values will be.)

[ QUOTE ]
The purple patch will never be irrelevant until it is removed. Shifting everything downward is removing the purple patch indirectly. Rather then having to essentially redo the game, wouldn't it just be easier to leave the current xp cap ingame and remove the purple patch?

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics. On the same note, you can consider it making the purple patch worse.

He aready answered your question. Easier? Assuredly. Good for the game? Hell no.

PP isn't going away, Don Quixote.

Future changes, Magister. Reworked spawns will come hand in hand with the changes.

[ QUOTE ]
I won't and neither will thousands of other players who'll find that CoH heroes are wimps in tights who have to be helped across the street by 6 sg mates. god forbid you get ambushed by 4 even con mobs.... they'll be rolling out the body bags and hearst for the mighty hero...

"Oh man... ultra dude just got his *** kicked by joey, petey, biff and ramone... 4 guys with batons." horribubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Way to exaggerate. Is the sky falling in your world too?

[ QUOTE ]
BS and you know it. In the late game you won't find any groups of THREE EVEN LEVEL MINIONS. Once you hit 40 that means one of two zones to hunt in. Crey's folly or Pegrine Island. I challenge you to find a group anywhere near that size and that level. At level 40 when I do find a spawn I'd even attempt to solo there's a boss or even 2 bosses in the same group. and several lui's and you gotta be careful about taking down the lui's because of vengence.

Maybe your perception is what's flawed... or maybe you're not playing in the same places I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Psst. Hint. We're not talking about now, so your asking me to look for something now is irrelevant, because the changes haven't happened yet. We're talking about the future. You know, what the game is SUPPOSED to be like. They're going to end up completely reworking the spawns in the game when it happens, too.

Hell, it'll be almost like an entirely new game. One I'll like even more.

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that he gets it now? I hope so. And I certainly hope that he realizes that removing the purple patch completely would clear this problem up as well as many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Purple Patch is going to be irrelevant with what Stateman's end goal is (and one I heartily endorse at that). I recommend giving up on that particular windmill.

[ QUOTE ]
3 even level minions shouldn't be a threat or even a challenge to a vetran lv 40 hero... maybe YOU don't get it. or do you and the other fanboys expect me to belive that all the minons have been working out while my hero has been sitting on a couch eating bon-bons for 20 levels and not getting any stronger despite the hours I've put into him? and honestly I don't buy into that post 30 game is to easy crap anyways... I've never been able to solo anything above orange safely. I've been held and one shotted, and spent more time in debt than out of it. and my reward for this is being relegated to picking on blues.... geeze why bother.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your perception is the problem. Not the game. If you weren't so hung up on having to fight 40-50 enemies at a time, and instead realize that you could fight 3 and get the same benefit when you won, perhaps you could get around to lowering that blood pressure.

In the end, it's an MMORPG. Change is coming. Adapt or get out.

[ QUOTE ]
Wow states I'm amazed. I didn't think you'd ever come out and say that small groups are penalized by adding more members past 3 or 4 after yesterdays declaration that there was no group penalty at all for adding team members. Kudos to you for seeing past the simple math of the group bonus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wipe the smirk off your face, Bonzo. If you acually read what he said, you'd notice that he's not talking about the same thing you're deriding him on.

(asides)

Is it just me, or are these forum posters intentionally trying to act smarter than the people who made the game and failing miserably?

My characters:

Main - Remliel (The White, Sadly it wouldn't fit).
Aldebaran
The Sapphire Knight
Persona
Hexadecimal
Antipode
The Mathemagician
(Prospective 'silly' Character: Pants Man)

Playtimes: After 9 EST on weekdays, anytime on weekends.

Always RP_OK.