MA option: "Force completion for ratings"
By
Ad Astra,
Posted on: 2009-04-16 18:28 in Suggestions and Ideas
(qr)
I make an arc that is essentially incompletable. Either using a bug to make the mission impossible to complete, or simply make a series of missions so absurdly hard and long that even the most devoted 1-star bandits won't bother with it. I keep the flag up almost all the time, EXCEPT I take it down for a few minutes every five days, letting my SG and global friends rate the arc 5-stars without needing to complete. I immediately put the flag back up afterwards.
Doing this, I can very easily (if slowly) climb the ranks with a permanently max-ranked arc. Regardless of it's content.
[ QUOTE ]
If it really is impossible, they're not going to (hence, impossible), which means they can't inflate their rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
Republish story to easy as hell.... let them complete.... put it back to normal. Done and done.
[ QUOTE ]
So how is that any better than a player who has only seen a portion of the arc being able to rate the arc in its entirety?
The other point that I have been consistently making and many people have been ignoring is that there would be a second factor that players would be able to incorporate. The number of attempts would be listed right next to the number of ratings. If the numbers are incredibly disparate, that's a warning right there.
If that's too complicated for you, think of it this way: there would be a second rating that simply records how many people who attempted the arc completed it. Looking at that gives you a pretty good estimate on how hard the arc is supposed to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
And thats not griefable at all? Oh wait. You just don't give a [censored] and would rather question my intelligence... which by the way is a great way to go about an argument. Really does wonders for your point.
And for all your talk of missing the point... you missed this.... arcs would STILL be highly rated and get the hall of fame and the goodies... even though they suck! But you just simply don't seem to care as long as your genius is protected.....
[ QUOTE ]
They won't because the problems you mention already exist.
[/ QUOTE ]
No but your idea would.... exacerbate the problem! If it happens now? Someone will notice it and rate it lower. Your idea? All they can do is either complete and rate it lower (which I suspect few would do), quit, or hope a mod takes it down. But once again you seem to be (conveniently?) missing that point.
[ QUOTE ]
That's my entire point. By making it so that ratings are exclusive to those who have completed the arc, people who artificially manipulate the ratings can't do so, which is good for the players
[/ QUOTE ]
What did you say to me before... oh yes.... [ QUOTE ]
If that's too complicated for you, think of it this way:
[/ QUOTE ]
If its too complicated for you: YES THEY STILL COULD! Your "solution" would only make things worse. If I want to lower your rating... now I just gotta stealth through the arc and zero-star it! Very short stories? zero starred in minutes. Short? A little Longer with everything else taking a bit more time.... but hey!
And on the otherside if I have an impossible [censored] story (a swear word before something is normally not good unless its followed by awesome or a positive adjective... fyi) which I republish to be easy and let my sg 5 star it... and then make it impossible would allow PERFECT 5's for something that doesn't deserve it as well as putting the player through crap so that your genius will get the proper recognition that you deserve.
"WAAH BUT QUINCY THEY WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE HIGH ATTEMPTS WITH FEW SUCESSES!!!"
And would that not be a form of griefing against legit arcs? Oh wait. It isn't. Because you said it wasn't. The way I'm seeing it is that you believe the attempts will stop griefers... but won't infringe on legit arcs..... which is funny because I'm pretty sure thats what the rating system is supposed to do.
[ QUOTE ]
Is it more important to protect the rights of the player pre-selection or post-selection? Answer that definitively.
[/ QUOTE ]
Pre-selection. Players shouldn't have to suffer through the works of someone who thinks they are awesome soley to protect their ego. I don't need to see more then 10 minutes of an Uwe Boll film to know it is going to suck..... even though Boll feels that he is a genius and no-one "Understands where he is coming from" nor do I feel the need to sit through a whole movie of crap to give my proper opinion.
And while the whole "walking out" idea may work in real life... I can assure you that it doesn't online.
[ QUOTE ]
(qr)
I make an arc that is essentially incompletable. Either using a bug to make the mission impossible to complete, or simply make a series of missions so absurdly hard and long that even the most devoted 1-star bandits won't bother with it. I keep the flag up almost all the time, EXCEPT I take it down for a few minutes every five days, letting my SG and global friends rate the arc 5-stars without needing to complete. I immediately put the flag back up afterwards.
Doing this, I can very easily (if slowly) climb the ranks with a permanently max-ranked arc. Regardless of it's content.
[/ QUOTE ]
And apparently thats perfectly allright as long as griefers don't hurt my feelings.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it really is impossible, they're not going to (hence, impossible), which means they can't inflate their rating.
[/ QUOTE ]Republish story to easy as hell.... let them complete.... put it back to normal. Done and done.
[/ QUOTE ]
At which point I ask you, if a single account can only rate an individual arc once, how much work would it be for a player to do this to the degree that you suggest would occur? To get 75 ratings, they would have to, on 75 different occasions, republish easy, wait for friendly raters, and then republish hard, of course assuming that the person in question has 75 people who are willing to help them out with this. And that still wouldn't award the most basic of the account wide ratings badges.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So how is that any better than a player who has only seen a portion of the arc being able to rate the arc in its entirety?
The other point that I have been consistently making and many people have been ignoring is that there would be a second factor that players would be able to incorporate. The number of attempts would be listed right next to the number of ratings. If the numbers are incredibly disparate, that's a warning right there.
If that's too complicated for you, think of it this way: there would be a second rating that simply records how many people who attempted the arc completed it. Looking at that gives you a pretty good estimate on how hard the arc is supposed to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
And thats not griefable at all? Oh wait. You just don't give a [censored] and would rather question my intelligence... which by the way is a great way to go about an argument. Really does wonders for your point.
[/ QUOTE ]
If I wanted to question your intelligence, I wouldn't do it in a roundabout way. I would be straightforward about it and simply accuse you of being obtuse and accusatory, though I think that the fact that I'm engaging you in this debate shows that I really do "give a [censored]," as you so eloquently put it. I'm very curious as to where, in any point of this discussion, you've been able to garner the observation that I don't care.
[ QUOTE ]
And for all your talk of missing the point... you missed this.... arcs would STILL be highly rated and get the hall of fame and the goodies... even though they suck! But you just simply don't seem to care as long as your genius is protected....
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I believe I appropriately addressed that point. Anyone who wants to hyper inflate their rating can do it quite easily just by bringing in people who up rate their arcs. Of course, this is harder to do when you get to the upper echelons of ratings. It's also easier to lower the ranking as it stands now. If completion was forced in order to rank an arc, it would make it so that the ratings themselves are more stable and, therefore, more trustworthy. I never said anything about forced completion completely doing away with exploitation of all kinds. I readily accept that there will be some, but, I heartily believe that there would be significantly less than there is now.
[ QUOTE ]
If its too complicated for you: YES THEY STILL COULD! Your "solution" would only make things worse. If I want to lower your rating... now I just gotta stealth through the arc and zero-star it! Very short stories? zero starred in minutes. Short? A little Longer with everything else taking a bit more time.... but hey!
[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, you prove my point. That is still a significantly larger investment of both effort and time than is required to grief or inflate ratings at this time. A vast majority of the time, griefing takes place on a large scale because it is fast, effective and easy. Whenever a player has to navigate and complete the arc in question before rating it, that player is investing significantly more time. That's nowhere near a bad thing whenever a player is playing for the content, because that's already what they're doing. It's a horrible thing for ratings griefers and exploiters because it's no longer a simple issue of join and quit. They have to actually commit some time and effort.
[ QUOTE ]
And would that not be a form of griefing against legit arcs? Oh wait. It isn't. Because you said it wasn't. The way I'm seeing it is that you believe the attempts will stop griefers... but won't infringe on legit arcs..... which is funny because I'm pretty sure thats what the rating system is supposed to do.
[/ QUOTE ]
There is a vast difference that needs to be brought up here. I haven't said "will stop the griefers". I have made sure to remain solely on the side of "inhibit the griefers and exploiters". No rating system will ever stop griefers because it is an honor system and, when an honor system is used, all you can do is make it as difficult, uncomfortable, or annoying as possible for people who have ill intentions to act upon them and hope you did enough.
The other issue is that the current system isn't performing this all important function. Uprating and downrating are running rampant. Excellently written, well constructed arcs are being downrated out of spite. Poorly written, imbalanced arcs are being uprated for no good reason. That's a failure of the system which indicates, to me at least, that the system needs to be changed fundamentally to account for certain traits and habits that weren't properly accounted for.
[ QUOTE ]
Pre-selection. Players shouldn't have to suffer through the works of someone who thinks they are awesome soley to protect their ego.
[/ QUOTE ]
You and I agree here. It's an issue of how we would see this accomplished.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't need to see more then 10 minutes of an Uwe Boll film to know it is going to suck..... even though Boll feels that he is a genius and no-one "Understands where he is coming from" nor do I feel the need to sit through a whole movie of crap to give my proper opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, you're judging the movie based purely off of the director than any of the other variables that affect the movie? That's great whenever you've already watched enough of a director's movies to be able to determine a starting point for that director's movies, but I don't really see how that applies? Are 90% of the arcs done by the same person (or even 1%)?
It also questions as to what you would think of the (hypothetical) 1 good movie that Uwe Boll puts out. You, apparently, would immediately rate it horribly simply because of the director, not bothering that it might be a wonderful flick that breaks his traditional mold.
[ QUOTE ]
And while the whole "walking out" idea may work in real life... I can assure you that it doesn't online.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you are suggesting is walking out. You go in, think it's bad, and, by decree of walking out and telling your friends never to watch it, rate it poorly.
But here's a question that I'd like to pose you, what would you consider of a movie critic who only watched the first 10 minutes of a movie and then immediately gave it a thumbs-down? It's the responsibility of the critic to partake entirely in order to give a rating that is as accurately as possible.
(Also, on the topic of modern colloquial use of expletives, especially considering the language of the specific statement and the vagueness of the point you were trying to make, it's quite easy to be confused as to whether the expletive in question is being used in a positive or negative manner, especially when the expletive is censored so it's impossible to know the exact wording used and there are no clarifying adjectives afterward. It's a use of ambiguous language that, even if you think it may have some basic connotation, should still be specified, especially when in a debate such as this one, describing a specific situation.)
[ QUOTE ]
And while the whole "walking out" idea may work in real life... I can assure you that it doesn't online.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you are suggesting is walking out. You go in, think it's bad, and, by decree of walking out and telling your friends never to watch it, rate it poorly.
But here's a question that I'd like to pose you, what would you consider of a movie critic who only watched the first 10 minutes of a movie and then immediately gave it a thumbs-down? It's the responsibility of the critic to partake entirely in order to give a rating that is as accurately as possible.
(Also, on the topic of modern colloquial use of expletives, especially considering the language of the specific statement and the vagueness of the point you were trying to make, it's quite easy to be confused as to whether the expletive in question is being used in a positive or negative manner, especially when the expletive is censored so it's impossible to know the exact wording used and there are no clarifying adjectives afterward. It's a use of ambiguous language that, even if you think it may have some basic connotation, should still be specified, especially when in a debate such as this one, describing a specific situation.)
[/ QUOTE ]
These aren't movies. If there is an EB I can't get past in the first missh, I'm quitting and 1 staring. THAT is ALSO not seeing the whole movie, if you want use that analogy.
No to this idea.
UNLESS it comes with the attempts marker, so I know what idiocy to avoid straight away without having to waste my time playing your (your in general) stupidly crafted, untested arc.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
I think a better solution would be to have 3 ratings listed:
1. Completion Rating
2. Raw Rating
3. Weighted Rating
Number 1 would be the average rating given by everyone who actually completed your arc. This would be the rating that the MA search list would sort by (primary sort followed by weighted rating).
Number 2 is the current raw rating given by the system.
Number 3 includes all ratings, but is weighted. If you have 5 chapters, and someone quit in the first mission, that person's vote would have 1/5 the weight of someone who completed the arc. (this would be the secondary sort in the MA list)
131430 Starfare: First Contact
178774 Tales of Croatoa: A Rose By Any Other Name ( 2009 MA Best In-Canon Arc ) ( 2009 Player Awards - Best Serious Arc )
Your idea is not bad.
I think the problem is larger than that, though. This rating system is a joke anyway.
With SGs asking their members to 5 star their story arcs, you end up seeing farms or very low quality stories reaching 100 votes with a 5-star average. It is worthless.
I think the best way is to simply ignore it. Have fun creating arcs and enjoy. The rating system is only frustration.
[COLOR=darkorchid]Nebulhym's AE Arcs: Try them now![/COLOR]
# 12647: Of feathers and fur...[COLOR=yellow]Winner of [B]The American Legion[/B]'s January 2011 AE Author Contest![/COLOR]
# 292389: From Tartarus with love...
# 459592: Interdimensional Headache