Discussion: Issue 14: Mission Architect - FAQ
By
8_Ball,
Posted on: 2009-02-26 13:02 in Developers' Corner
[ QUOTE ]
Because this isn't my job?
[/ QUOTE ]
Then why review it at all? Why go out of your way to review something you don't want to play? Why not just ignore it and play something you do want to play?
To do a solid to the next person, who can pass on something that looks like crap and spend their fun time having, well, fun?
I'd want others to do the same.
And as a designer/writer... well, it's on me to encourage people to enjoy my stuff. If I can't, if I can't spell, can't find a spellchecker or someone to look over my stuff?
Tough.
[ QUOTE ]
To do a solid to the next person, who can pass on something that looks like crap and spend their fun time having, well, fun?
I'd want others to do the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking as a potential 'next person?' I'd rather you actually know the subject you're reviewing before you do me said solid. 
Besides, having your review be weighted to reflect your relative lack of engagement in the arc wouldn't change the fact that when I went looking for reviews, some folks out there 1-starred it. It's not like you're blocking a flurry of 4-star reviews -- or more to the point, if you are then maybe there was something to the arc you didn't get a chance to see.
[ QUOTE ]
Why are you so dead set against the idea that someone who does complete the arc may have a better understanding of the arc as a whole, and therefore deserves to have his rating weighted more highly? Is it purely a sense of entitlement? Or do you honestly think that your opinion is as valid as that other person's because the mission creator didn't hold you to the end?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not against it at all. Remember I'm the one that said I was fine with that as long as it didn't take time away from other more (subjectively) important things. And you agreed.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to write way more than 3 arcs. I know this to be true. And sometimes I'd like to make one a sequel of another, and build off of them, and do all the rest.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I'll make 3 arcs, I'm not very confident in my creativity, but even I think that seems like a low number. Maybe it'll change.
[ QUOTE ]
The only way the system will have credibility is if you make the rater 'pay to play'.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you do 'pay to play'. You pay in Time. If I'm online for an hour and I spend five minutes finding out an arc is horrible, that's time not well spent. That said, I think for the most part I agree with what you're saying, see next...
[ QUOTE ]
I understand the idea that some will be so bad it will be obvious from the very beginning, but it's not like one of those is going to sneak into the hall of fame. Those arcs will just sit there with one or two reviews and thousands of non-reviews, which would probably tell you all you needed to know. But on the other hand, as it stands now, you could have a quality arc that just misses it's deserved hall of fame induction because of random and unwarranted 1star reviews that bring its star rating to just below the necessary level.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have any trouble with having a "dropped out" counter on an arc. I also don't have any trouble with the numbers on that counter not counting toward overall star rating. In fact I think that might be the best solution, but I confess I'm not a deep thinker.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To do a solid to the next person, who can pass on something that looks like crap and spend their fun time having, well, fun?
I'd want others to do the same.
[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking as a potential 'next person?' I'd rather you actually know the subject you're reviewing before you do me said solid.
[/ QUOTE ]This may be the devs' biggest headache regarding ratings and their impact on player's getting their arcs recognized: the player community is very diverse, and has very diverse views about not just what they like, but how they determine what they like. I fear that very few people will be completely statisfied with whatever they devs settle on.
That said, here's another half-backed idea: How about recording whether or not a rating was made without completing the arc, and let the players filter which ratings they personally see. The average rating seen by the player would be calculated off which view-option the played currently had selected.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not against it at all. Remember I'm the one that said I was fine with that as long as it didn't take time away from other more (subjectively) important things. And you agreed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Then.... um... awesome!
I feel like we should go out for pizza now.
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to review something, then you need to try it first, or your review is worthless. As it is, I could go up and down the list of arcs and star it however I want without having played it or giving it an honest review? What's that do to the credibility of the whole system? It trashes it and makes it virtually worthless.
The only way the system will have credibility is if you make the rater 'pay to play'. If you want to review an arc, you have to actually play it. Shocking, I know. The devs are usually so concerned about exploits, I'm surprised they don't see how a 'rate at will without any effort to actually play what you are rating' system could be exploited, and more importantly, what that kind of system does to the integrity of the game.
I understand the idea that some will be so bad it will be obvious from the very beginning, but it's not like one of those is going to sneak into the hall of fame. Those arcs will just sit there with one or two reviews and thousands of non-reviews, which would probably tell you all you needed to know. But on the other hand, as it stands now, you could have a quality arc that just misses it's deserved hall of fame induction because of random and unwarranted 1star reviews that bring its star rating to just below the necessary level.
Bottom line is, if you are so interested in the arc that you feel the need to review it, why is it so much to ask that you be required to actually play it through first?
[/ QUOTE ]
First off, if you're 1-starring everything willy-nilly, you will pop up on the devs' detection tools (that they have already told us will be there) and receive an appropriate response. Same thing if you're 5-starring everything willy-nilly.
Second off, one persons' actions aren't going to amount to a hill of beans compared to the total number of ratings arcs are going to receive. No one's going to be able to slew the ratings without the concerted effort of several people, all risking their accounts to do it. An arc that's getting consistently poor (or high) ratings is doing so for some internal reason, not because some leet-boy hates the author.
Finally, if I start an arc that is obviously a turd, at least in the beginning, I should not have to wade through the entire crap-fest to call it out. If only the first part is so bad that it's discouraging players, but the creator wants people to play the whole thing, then they need to change the first part. Being able to rate it without finishing it will encourage that.
If a mission achieves Hall of Fame Status and/or Dev's Choice status, is there any possibility that it will move out of the MA building, and into the real game world?
"Real" Game world....now there's an oxymoron!
From what it sounds like when we custom make a "faction", we choose 2 power sets. But do we get to add things like +jump(hurdle), +speed(Swift), +Perception, +negative energy resist, etc
@Blood Beret(2)Twitter
I am a bad speeler, use poorer grammar, and am a frequent typoist.
MA ArcID: 1197
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. Winston Churchill
I think one reason I disagree with some posters is that I don't see the Hall of Fame as a way to get around the limit of three published arcs. If you want your arcs to have a good chance of getting elected to the Hall of Fame so you'll have more room to write, we do not see HoF the same way. An arc should get voted into the Hall of Fame because it is exceptionally well written, and for no other reason.
Want to post your fourth arc? Pull one of the first three. You've still got the file, you can rotate as many arcs as you like, but only three can be published at the same time.
Some Missions have locked doors(ie glass sliding doors in office buildings, and Garage Style Doors in Warehouses), will there be a way to lock Organbega portals, ie need a key ie activiation spell to access the portal.
@Blood Beret(2)Twitter
I am a bad speeler, use poorer grammar, and am a frequent typoist.
MA ArcID: 1197
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. Winston Churchill
[ QUOTE ]
If a mission achieves Hall of Fame Status and/or Dev's Choice status, is there any possibility that it will move out of the MA building, and into the real game world?
"Real" Game world....now there's an oxymoron!
[/ QUOTE ]Yes. They have said (somewhere) that material they consider good enough will become an actual part of the game canon.
I think that's the mysterious "third tier" that has been alluded to.
[ QUOTE ]
I think one reason I disagree with some posters is that I don't see the Hall of Fame as a way to get around the limit of three published arcs. If you want your arcs to have a good chance of getting elected to the Hall of Fame so you'll have more room to write, we do not see HoF the same way.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, we do see it the same way.
I think that the Hall of Fame should reward truly excellent missions. Period. End stop.
I would much, much rather have a means by which I can go through a process, or a hoop, or gateway to earn Arc slots, because I honestly think that three slots is insufficient. This could be through badge acquiring, mission unlocking, finding or buying a recipe, unlocking one through tickets, veteran award bonuses, or good old fashioned "pay $15 and get 1 additional Arc slot."
I'm going to write the best arcs I possibly can, but the chances any of them will get one of the golden rings is negligible. At the same time, unless one of the arcs is rated low enough that it's clearly just not performing well, I'm not going to want to put that much energy into an arc and then pull it down in a week because I have six more arcs sitting on my hard drive. That's especially true if I want to do sequel arcs -- I'll want people to have the chance to play the introduction as well as the sequel.
Tying ratings to the only way to have more than three published adventures (aside from Dev fiat) clouds the issue of ratings, IMO. It encourages mission architects to write to the crowd instead of developing what they want to develop, in hopes of grabbing the brass ring. And it means that when I'm rating a mission, I'm going to feel badly if I rate it as a 3 instead of a 4, because I know it'll knock it that much further down from Hall of Fame and the benefits accrued. At the same time, it gives disproportionate power to curmudgeonly types who consider a 3 something you have to go above and beyond to earn and who live in 1s and 2s.
A lot of that becomes mitigated if we have alternate means of increasing our slots.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a mission achieves Hall of Fame Status and/or Dev's Choice status, is there any possibility that it will move out of the MA building, and into the real game world?
"Real" Game world....now there's an oxymoron!
[/ QUOTE ]Yes. They have said (somewhere) that material they consider good enough will become an actual part of the game canon.
[/ QUOTE ]
"Can." Not "will." Because the devs can decide to make anything canon they want. They are not under any obligation to make anything canon no matter how well written or well rated or even dev-choiced. They are just saying that anything is possible. I would recommend no one get their hopes up here.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a mission achieves Hall of Fame Status and/or Dev's Choice status, is there any possibility that it will move out of the MA building, and into the real game world?
"Real" Game world....now there's an oxymoron!
[/ QUOTE ]Yes. They have said (somewhere) that material they consider good enough will become an actual part of the game canon.
[/ QUOTE ]
"Can." Not "will." Because the devs can decide to make anything canon they want. They are not under any obligation to make anything canon no matter how well written or well rated or even dev-choiced. They are just saying that anything is possible. I would recommend no one get their hopes up here.
[/ QUOTE ]Meaning no disrespect, with the phrasing I chose ("material they consider good enough"), "can" vs. "will" is a meaningless difference. I think it was in the Massively article, but I'm not sure.
While I disagree with some of Scholarman's ideas, I will 'what he said' that last post.
I asked directly about public comments with our ratings, and told:
"There are no public comments available. It has been considered but will not be in for release."
Bummer.
Well, it's pretty obvious that this is a highly desired feature, so we can only hope they will implement it later.
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to review something, then you need to try it first, or your review is worthless. As it is, I could go up and down the list of arcs and star it however I want without having played it or giving it an honest review? What's that do to the credibility of the whole system? It trashes it and makes it virtually worthless.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First off, if you're 1-starring everything willy-nilly, you will pop up on the devs' detection tools (that they have already told us will be there) and receive an appropriate response. Same thing if you're 5-starring everything willy-nilly.
[/ QUOTE ]
And if you're 5-starring your friends' arcs, 1-starring those of people you don't like, and 2-, 3-, and 4-starring those of random other arcs to avoid the grief-detection software....
Then the rating system is worthless and so is the ability to detect griefers. And if I can think of it, so can others. It took me all of one brain cell and one second for this to pop into my head when I read the description of MA.
As it stands now the system of being able to rate arcs without an investment of time is flawed.
Together we entered a city of strangers, we made it a city of friends, and we leave it a City of Heroes. - Sweet_Sarah
BOYCOTT NCSoft (on Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/517513781597443/
Governments have fallen to the power of social media. Gaming companies can too.
How's investment of time going to stop griefers?
They'll just play, get the XP from killing enemies, and then give you 1 star.
[ QUOTE ]
And if you're 5-starring your friends' arcs, 1-starring those of people you don't like, and 2-, 3-, and 4-starring those of random other arcs to avoid the grief-detection software....
Then the rating system is worthless and so is the ability to detect griefers. And if I can think of it, so can others. It took me all of one brain cell and one second for this to pop into my head when I read the description of MA.
As it stands now the system of being able to rate arcs without an investment of time is flawed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Any rating system that involves human beings is worthless. Any system that involves subjective decisions by the masses is less than worthless.
If I log into a custom mission and it's annoying crap in the first 5 minutes, I don't want to have to spend the next 2 hours working through it just so I can 1-star it and move on. If you force people to wade through bad content, what you'll get is people /quitting and not rating it at all, good or bad.
Which brings up a question...are the devs tracking people who don't rate at all? And of what value would that be?
If I were create a rating system, I'd hammer out the outliers with statistics. Determine the standard deviation and boot anything outside +/- 3sd, or even 2 sd, to get a clearer indication of the "majority" of the votes, booting out all the odd people.
Out of 1000 votes, it will take what, 127 1 votes with the rest being 5's to bring it down. It wouldn't take much scrubbing to filter out the rating griefers. And it'd be a lot easier on the system if people who were consistently identified as griefing just had their votes completely ignored all the time.
[ QUOTE ]
I asked directly about public comments with our ratings, and told:
"There are no public comments available. It has been considered but will not be in for release."
Bummer.
Well, it's pretty obvious that this is a highly desired feature, so we can only hope they will implement it later.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the meantime, I figure people will start threads specifically to comment on or discuss specific story arcs, and that will have to do until an in-game way of doing that is found.
Authors may even start such threads themselves, both to get feedback and to publicize their arcs.
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ QUOTE ]
How's investment of time going to stop griefers?
They'll just play, get the XP from killing enemies, and then give you 1 star.
[/ QUOTE ]It wouldn't stop them, but it would slow them down a bit, and provide something of a disincentive. Whether this is enough of a plus to justify imposing it on all players is the question.
Will I be able to use contacts like Unai Kemen (Portal Corp in PI,) as a contact for my created mission?
Rikti Invasion Music Video
Borg King MySpace
Help support my photography!!
My RedBubble Page
My Deviant Page
My Zazzle Page
My Characters:
Lady Sheenah on Liberty
Sukothai on Liberty
The Gymnist on Liberty
[ QUOTE ]
Will I be able to use contacts like Unai Kemen (Portal Corp in PI,) as a contact for my created mission?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
"I'm not scared of anyone or anything Angie. Isn't that the way life should be?"
Jack Hawksmoor, The Authority.
Because this isn't my job?