Smoke_Ring

[/ QUOTE ] If the option were there to buy more slots I would feel less hampered.

Allowing unlimited slots at no cost or for tickets would be a bad idea. The first thing that would happen would be a repeat of how things were before the 5/5 patch... 50 billion farms clogging up the pipes rather than the still too many farms we have now. The people with the most tickets are, by and large, the people who publish farms. It would be like putting up a sign for an 'all the farms you can publish' buffet. Putting a price tag on extra slots is pretty much only going to appeal to SFMA writers.

The extra slots for DC or HOF is a bad joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Outside of the groupthink that occurs in the offices of paragon studious and the forumites on these boards, highhanded tactics and threatening epistles like posis don't go over to well.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only mistake Posi made was using his "dad voice", although I certainly understand why he did. His content was spot on and never threatened the player base, but did threaten (and meant to) certain individuals exhibiting certain behavior. Most rational people would read it as "well, he sounds pretty pissed, but...so?". Not as "OMG, he's going to go on a mass toon/account deleting party!! DOOOOOOOM!"

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup

It only really bothers me, when Im testing a arc. Because I want a friend to proofread everything, and he cant since its not published.
So I have to actually publish it, let him proofread it, then go back and edit.

I have the same problem with a boos MM in one of mine. It takes forever for him to call them, and alot of times hes dead before he does.

I just wanna say that of my three arcs, my two seasonal funny ones are getting all the play (Made these purely for fun and laughs).
While I am glad of that, I want to point people to my one and only arc that I took seriously when I made it, #97952 "Saving The Kingdom".
The few that have played it, seem to really love it, and I would love to see it get more play time, because it was a labor of love for me.
All custom critters, and hard to solo.
Now if you also wanna play my two funny seasonal arcs, you can look up
The Fight For Halloween #59692 All custom critters, and meant to be a challenge to solo.
and Saving Santa #80005 again all custom critters, and meant to be a challenge to solo.

[ QUOTE ]
but definitely an improvement over the devs "We'll look at arcs that generate buzz" approach.

Might as well say "We'll look at arcs of people who belong to large SGs whose members can hype it up...."

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should take pride in your work.

[/ QUOTE ]
You should take pride and proof-read your post, you missed a word......


[/ QUOTE ]

I know you were making a joke, but...

A post on a message board is quite different from a published piece of work.

I don't care when people make mistakes in chat or quick messages. That kind of fast communication doesn't need to be perfect.

A finished product like a story arc is different. That's basically a piece of published fiction. As such, a certain amount of polish and care is expected.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you would have read the holier then thou post he directed at me earlier in the thread, you would see why I had to do that to him.
He was lobbing some mighty big stones from his glass house

[ QUOTE ]
Language is too transient and filled with complexity to be taken hard-nosed serious at a game site.

I've been surrounded by english as spoken by foreigners from differing countries and at different levels; english with dialects that vary from region to region; english filled with slang and usage that varies from one social subculture to the next.

I've been exposed to the progressively expanding vocabulary of a few children and the words they've contributed to society at large; as well as those gems given to us by american advertising.

The inclusion of foreign words into the english language that we take for granted as being our own as well as the smatterings of abbreviations, acronyms and oddities like ontemonepias and written representations of vocalizations.

I was taught to appreciate poetic licenses and to read between the lines; look for additional meanings to things that appeared simple or cut-and-dry.

To listen for tone and pitch; watch for body language... pay attention to choice of letter size, their position and slope on a line.


In short, I was made to be tolerant to the ebbs and flow in communication and try to understand the point of what is being communicated to and around me to the best of my competence and to ask for clarification if that communication eluded me.

It is a near impossibility for me to be anal enough about a language that mutates (has mutated) so much and so quickly that I have to berate 'flaws' in its use from a position of rigidity.

I won't rate someone a star less; no matter how bad the spelling or grammar may be; chances are that I got what they were trying to say.

Besides, I do more button-mashing than reading here anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very good post, and well put.

[ QUOTE ]
Whee. I was not expecting lengthy responses. I'll do my best to keep it short.

[ QUOTE ]
I've been waiting for you....LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to give a story arc a 1-star rating if they some minor syntax error. I run across mistakes in published books at times.
I'll repeat my last line more emphatically:

You should take pride in your work.


[/ QUOTE ]


You should take pride and proof-read your post, you missed a word......

I wanna thank everyone that has played my arcs, and I am now all caught up on repaying the favors.
I do wanna say though that of my 3 arcs, my 2 seasonal funny ones are getting all the play (Made these purely for fun and laughs).
While I am glad of that, I want to point people to my one and only arc that I took seriously when I made it, #97952 "Saving The Kingdom".
The few that have played it, seem to really love it, and I would love to see it get more play time, because it was a labor of love for me.
And again I wanna thank you all for playing "Any" of my arcs, and as the feedback comes in I'm doing my best to play yours as quickly as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
Four hundred years ago there were "grammar elitists".

They were the few that could read Latin. With that ability they ruled the western world. It was through the efforts of many notable people that texts began to be translated so people could understand, and the treasures of western literature were brought to the average person. Out of these efforts came the Renaissance, and with that, modern science.

For a millennium, those elitists had kept themselves in power by ensuring that the common person could not write. We call that period the "Dark Ages". That is the fundamental reason why little progress was made during that time. Therefore, I have great difficulty considering anyone you would claim to be an "Elitist".

If you want to know how I feel, I wince every time I see a spelling mistake. I am disappointed that you do not care about your own work (I fixed your title in this reply). I am frustrated that you know nothing of the plight of those that went before you, and could care less about others. To be blunt, you ask for my opinion, but you do not want it - you want others to agree with you. My opinion could not be printed without censorship.

You can call me elitist, but it does not really take that much effort to join this 'club'. Nor am I necessarily 'proud' of the fact that I can in fact, form coherent sentences. I believe you have shot yourself in the foot and are now whining that your foot hurts.

If you care about your own work, you should take pride in it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been waiting for you....LOL
You can be as proper as you like, and you can rate a arc how ever you like.
My point was and still is, I do not, nor will I ever rate a arc badly, do to a few extremely minor spelling errors.
I rate it solely on rather I enjoyed it.
Now if it was riddled with horrible grammar, its a good chance that the arc will be pretty bad as well.
But I'll wait to see.
I made this thread for discussion only, and no matter what you believe on the subject, or my reasoning behind the thread, I will always feel that to rate a arc that someone says was a blast to play, but I will give you a lower rating due to the fact you used To instead of Too, is just being anal.
But that is not "why" I made this thread, I made it to see how others felt, and or rated arcs.
/e sits and waits for grammar corrections on this post

[ QUOTE ]
Spelled 'Freakshew' (though I assumed the writer was Ed Sullivan )

[/ QUOTE ]
That made me LoL, God I'm old....

[ QUOTE ]
but what is guaranteed is that Developer Choice and Hall of Fame arcs, proudly appear on the first page, and I have yet to find one of those that I have enjoyed as much as I have other more obscure ones.

[/ QUOTE ]
Amen

I thought this might be a good discussion, and so far it has been =).
And I want to add something, to just a few in the front that failed to read my whole post.
I "Love Feedback", and when people tell me that I have spelled something wrong I go and I fix it, I really do try to spell everything I can correctly, as well as have friends proof it for me before I publish it.
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.

Thought this might make another good discussion.

So were do you stand on feedback from grammar Elitist?
I'm all for feedback, especially if it concerns things I can fix. But when you receive feedback on things like "I love your arc, but I had to give you a lower rating, because you spelled a Bosses name with a ' in it, or it should have been "Too", not To...
And how many times will you go back and fix minor details like that on a published arc? once, twice, 3 times?
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are atrocious arcs out there with horrible grammar, but if I like the story, I'm not gonna lower their rating due to a few spelling errors, but I'll give them feedback so they can fix it.
And if its minor things, I don't even bother.
Where do you stand on this?
And again, I just thought this might make a good discussion for this board

[ 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 ]

I agree 100%

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Solid Post.

[ QUOTE ]
I think that any proposed change to the rating system comes with this understanding: No matter what is done, people will find a way to grief, exploit, and try to do things which are dishonest to the spirit of any quality indicator system. Some people are just jerks; and the badges, and tickets, only act as an enticement for this behavior. I wouldn't blame the devs for somebody's mother failing to raise them properly.

What I read as the major concern of this discussion is: 'How do I ensure that my arc is only being played by people who will actually give it a fair shot?" The best way I can think of is to hide the arcs from those who won't. A preference system wouldn't be out-of-line (and would be an excellent tool for finding what you want). Give players a checkbox to say what kind of mission they are looking for (i.e. no custom mobs, no AVs, or anything with a 'racy' theme), while giving creators the ability to designate their arcs with those same terms (or use the same information that is given in the basic arc description). This isn't a cure-all, but probably more of a stalling tactic to allow more 'honest' people to play before a 'griefer' happens upon it.

A major benefit I see with this is that it would allow people to avoid content that they do not wish to play (the lesbian hellion issue comes to mind with this), while also focusing on those that they want. This would also give the devs a tool, as they can now ask a person the question, "If you hate arcs with AVs in it so much, why do you keep on playing them?"

This is just an idea. But, I feel that the popularity of the MA lies with people being able to easily find the kinds of arcs they want.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems like a solid idea in theory, I like it.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the problems with the MA is that ratings are too important, and they're really the only way of increasing (or decreasing) the visibility of an arc. Honestly, I'd prefer to see some sort of categorization when I open up the MA, rather than a list of Dev's Choice and some inflated 5-star arcs.

[/ QUOTE ]

^This^

[ QUOTE ]
First off, I'd like to object to a few assumptions in the OP. Just because your friend didn't receive any tickets does not mean he received a 0 rating. A rating of 1 or 2 stars wouldn't produce any tickets either. Second, I don't know how long you waited to look. The tickets may not show up immediately. In my own experience, the lag between rating and tickets can be huge, hours or even days. Third, it's not griefing to give someone a low rating. There are a lot of reasons why someone might have given your friend's arc a low rating. Maybe they just didn't like it. Everyone seems to assume that any rating below three stars must be griefing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let me help you with your assumptions.
The only thing that having that happen to a friend of mine did was, start a debate between the 2 of us, that I felt would be a good topic for this board to discuss, rather they think the rating system is fair or not.
That is all, and it seems it is a good topic for discussion, just as I thought.

[ QUOTE ]
Any time there's any sort of material gain involved in these games there are people who will abuse the feature for their benefit and attack those who are in competition with them.

Giving arcs high ratings provides a very tangible benefit -- tickets. Giving arcs low ratings provides a less tangible detriment to the recipient -- a low rating -- but a tangible benefit to someone who is direct competition with the person receiving that low rating-- a higher relative rating.

I have seen quite a few instances of well-written arcs that are given zero or one stars (you can tell this when they start with a five which changes to a three on the second vote). These arcs function properly, have clearly stated goals that are attainable, are well-written and basically do what the description says.

The possibilities are: 1) someone accidentally rating it zero, or there is a bug that causes zero ratings if you just exit, 2) someone is intentionally running around rating arcs zero for whatever reason, 3) some aspect of the arc really ticked the person off and he zeroed it out of spite.

To my mind, if an arc delivers what the description promises it should get at least a three. The only time it should be zeroed or oned is when it uses some hideous gimmick (the infamous 5 chained AV spawns on a huge outdoor map) that makes it unplayable or excruciatingly frustrating, is socially or morally offensive while lacking any artistic merit, is so poorly written and constructed so as to be unintelligible, is a blatant farm with no story, and the like.

If we wanted honest ratings and comments about the arcs, the comments would be anonymous (to us, but traceable back to the original writer by the devs). There would be no tangible benefits from ratings (no tickets, no badges, no Hall of Fame, nothing except Dev's Choice to allow good arcs to become permanent additions to CoH). There would only be the rating, and nothing else. That still wouldn't make the ratings "fair," but it would remove the motivations for many abuses of the rating system.

Yes, there would still be people zeroing competing arcs out of spite to have a higher rating, voting cartels, vote swapping, etc., but it would just be for the ego boost and not to get tickets or badges.

But now that they've implemented this system, I don't see them retracting it. It should be adjusted in some manner. One change that should be made: if you never actually play the arc your vote should not be recorded.

Right now, if you click the PLAY button and then immediately quit the arc and vote, your vote is recorded. This is patently wrong. Players can just run through their "enemies" list and zero vote dozens of arcs in minutes. Similarly, you can easily run through your friends list and give them 25 tickets per arc every week (at least the last I read that was how it worked).

Your vote should only be recorded if you actually played at least part of the arc. How much you have to play is a good topic for debate. Basically, it should take long enough to make it not worth your while to grief or unfairly reward people. My guess is it should be one mission (considering that some arcs only have one mission).

Will people still grief others and unfairly reward their pals? Sure. But at least it will take longer, and that will make it self-limiting.

[/ QUOTE ]
Great post and I have to agree 100%.
I have 2 arcs currently that just made it to 5 stars and got pushed up to page 2.
Now rather they get shot with a zero or not, I do think the rating system as it stands "now" is borked, and I think alot of people on this thread have pointed out very good reasons why, it is.
I think I15 is suppose to help people search by taste's, and that will help people alot more to find, what they are looking for to play, including me.
But the zero needs to go IMO.
Good discussion Guys!

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you're rolling two issues into one here. The first is the one-star grieffing, which needs to be stopped by the Devs; being able to know who's doing the damage isn't going to stop most from doing so, nor are any actions that could be taken by the player community.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I agree that "Star Grieffing", is a problem, but I do think that knowing who is the one behind that rating, could help stop some of it.
Mainly because if they have a arc, they surely would not want the same thing done to theirs.
I have yet to be star griefed on mine, and the majority of the players have left me great feedback, as well as 4-5 star ratings.
But I have no doubt that it is being done to others, and the only solution would be putting a face (Or global) to the griefer IMO, but YMMV.

Im wondering how people feel about the fairness of the rating system for the arcs?
Do you think that people who rate your arcs (a 0-5), should have their global name attached so you know who gave you what?
Or is it fair the way it is right now?
The reason I ask this is, a friend of mine who has a seemingly well liked arc (Kept a consistent 4 stars through about 40 plays or so), got a "0" rating while he was online.
He knew this because he saw that it had been rated and went to claim tickets, and there were none. (now granted something could have happened, but there was no feedback left regardless).
Now that got us into a debate, that I thought might be a great topic for here.
So do you feel its fair that when a player stars your arc, but does not leave feedback, you don't know who it was?
Or is it fair like it is now?
I personally see both sides of the story, and would like to see what others thoughts are on the rating system as it stands right now.
Discuss....

This list is working very well, and thanks for the hard work put into it =)

And please remember to leave your arc #s in your feedback, so I can play yours as well.
Mine are
The Fight For Halloween # 59692 (Funny one)
Saving Santa # 80005 (Another Funny One)
Saving The Kingdom # 97952 (Serious one)
I have played and rated everyone that has left me feedback and thier arc numbers, up till 3 days ago, because I haven't been on to check =).