What about losing already earned AE badges?

[ QUOTE ]
(QR)

and in this patch, they changed Master Builder to be EQUAL to Hall of Famer. (and not just equal in number, they even draw the comparison in the notes.) I'm surprised no one's mentioned that yet: what's the point of keeping the HOF badge around anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's not equal.

Master Builder is 100 votes, HOF is 1000.

---

I think I could go with losing the "Thumbs Up" Star badges and certainly the fixed Builder to Master Builder badges.

Especially since the GMs I spoke to said that they wouldn't award the latter set retroactively even if they agreed that an arc was eligible for them when it had fewer ratings than it now does.

Badges that can be actively griefed by others and are not within the control of the player are bad. I personally don't mind a couple of "Dev Award" badges floating around but when it becomes entire sets of badges then that's a bad idea.

The others can all stay. I'll get the 50K virtual kills and 250 HoF runs eventually (IF people STOP griefing arcs that hit HoF status!).

---

The Widow's Dark Hand - leader of Faux Pas
Champion Server
Tee Hee!

[ QUOTE ]
Badges that can be actively griefed by others and are not within the control of the player are bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

and that should have always been not just a guideline but a hard rule for the devs.

---

Card Carrying DeFulmenstrator--Member Crazy 88s
We burn more Influence before 8am than you make all day.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(QR)

and in this patch, they changed Master Builder to be EQUAL to Hall of Famer. (and not just equal in number, they even draw the comparison in the notes.) I'm surprised no one's mentioned that yet: what's the point of keeping the HOF badge around anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's not equal.

Master Builder is 100 votes, HOF is 1000.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm.
patch notes say, "The Builder line of badges has had their requirements to obtain decreased substantially, so that the final badge “Master Builder” has the same requirements as getting a mission into the Hall of Fame."

the old requirement was 2,000. so dropping it to 1000 would have been a reduction.

Is Master Builder really 1,000 and the text is off by a 0? did they accidentally reduce it to 100 meaning to make it 1,000? did they intend to reduce HOF to 100 as well and forget? did they reduce HOF and not update its text? do they just not know their own requirement for HOF when they wrote the note? or do they think it's 100 and don't realize HOF is bugged?

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Badges that can be actively griefed by others and are not within the control of the player are bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

and that should have always been not just a guideline but a hard rule for the devs.

[/ QUOTE ]

and not just for badges, but for any reward. and stars, in addition to being a measurement, are a reward.

the whole system should have just been the ability to accumulate quantities of thumbs up and thumbs down, not a means of my 2 cents changing a running average.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Is Master Builder really 1,000 and the text is off by a 0? did they accidentally reduce it to 100 meaning to make it 1,000?

[/ QUOTE ] The badge art was changed to show 100 as well. 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 for that series now... maybe they will reduce hall of fame? rofl

---

[ QUOTE ][*]Made another arbitrary developer's "gift of the gods" badge. Bug hunter is bad enough, now it has a sibling.[/LIST]
[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

I hate the Dev Choice badge. Even the recent "clarification" statement issued didn't really help. Dev Choice is still as arbitrary as before. I spent a lot of time on my primary story-focused arc which is, in my opinion, as good as many of the existing Dev Choice arcs out there. But mine, like thousands of others, barely get viewed by the general player base, let alone a developer.

---

Q. Just wondering Posi, where are the new dance emotes we were told would come with GR?
A. Positron: Whoops, my bad.

1387 badges, and counting

As it stands now there's good reason to remove Dev Choice, though I would like to see a better method of attaining the honor and have it kept around. But Hall of Fame should stick around regardless, though admittedly with different requirements.

A fair amount of folks in this thread seem to be looking at the Hall of Fame badge in the wrong light; our pursuit of badges has changed our view into that of one where we think we should be entitled to earn all the badges available. We've lost sight of what badges are truly intended for, to reward an accomplishment performed in the game. That the requirements for this badge may end up more difficult for some players than most badges is not a good reason to remove it. Nor should it be removed because one has to exercise good creative, grammatical, and editing skills in order to earn it, rather than grinding mobs or spending time in a specific area.

Hall of Fame is intended to recognize those that have created content that stands out above the rest, as recognized by the players. If possible to prevent the grieffing and exploits that are occurring around it at the moment, it should remain for such a purpose. That will mean it would remain unavailable to many, but is that really so bad?

---

I'll let them have my Dev's Choice badge if they give me a straight answer once and for all if my arc is supposed to have it or not.

---

[ QUOTE ]
A fair amount of folks in this thread seem to be looking at the Hall of Fame badge in the wrong light;

[/ QUOTE ]
People can grief the ratings. No additional light is needed.

[ QUOTE ]
If possible to prevent the griefing and exploits that are occurring around it at the moment, it should remain for such a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Simply not possible with how the ratings system works.

---

[ QUOTE ]
Hall of Fame is intended to recognize those that have created content that stands out above the rest, as recognized by the players. If possible to prevent the grieffing and exploits that are occurring around it at the moment, it should remain for such a purpose. That will mean it would remain unavailable to many, but is that really so bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

wait, gotta be very clear when talking about this stuff.

Are you talking about the Hall of Fame CATEGORY LABEL for missions? Because that's a recognition.
Or are you talking about the Hall of Famer BADGE that accompanies getting a mission into that category?
Because the issue from a badge collector perspective is that the category is griefable and subjective and should not affect the badging mini-game. (Though I see that the category is useful for searching and such, plus enabling the Evaluator line of badges.)


With the possibility that the Builder line may not be subject to *total* ratings anymore, thus making it not griefable and guaranteed obtainable with the problem only being timeframe (as all badge should be) then it would seem Hall of Famer as a badge is questionable to me.
There's also this matter of the progression, the note says it would be 5, 10, 25, 50, and two at 100, live currently seems to be 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 1000 and Hall of Famer has the usual "epic" issues, neither is a good situation.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Qr - I don't mind DC and HoF staying, but they should change HoF to be sth like the suggestion of X times 3+stars or what have you, but I'd like to see the 'play x HoF arcs' badges changed so that they were for playing DIFFERENT HoF arcs.

Eco

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you post a clearer version after you get to a regular computer, instead of posting from your cell phone?

I am having a hard time understanding what you are trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry.

I don't mind Devs Choice and Hall of Fame badges staying in the game.

I'd rather see the HoF badge requirements changed to something similar to that which was suggested earlier, namely, you get HoF after a finite number of stars has been granted, not an average reached. For example, if the rew was 1000 stars, then an arc with 200 plays and with each one garnering 5 stars would get HoF, but so would an arc with 1000 plays rated at 1 star by everyone who played it. I can't see why anyone would choose to play a 1 star, 500+ plays arc though, which would help to maintain some level of quality in the HoF arcs perhaps.

I would also like to see the badges gained by playing X number of arcs (either the DC ones or the ones for normal MA arcs) have their requirements changed so that each play has to be of a different arc, ie running the same arc over and over would not count towards the badge requirement. This would encourage people to play different arcs and discourage grind.

My apologies for not being clearer earlier.

Eco.

---

MArcs:

The Echo, Arc ID 1688 (5mish, easy, drama)
The Audition, Arc ID 221240 (6 mish, complex mech, comedy)
Storming Citadel, Arc ID 379488 (lowbie, 1mish, 10-min timed)

[ QUOTE ]
I found Positron's little rant to be well...childish. In particular, he sees fit to mention "5-star badge cartels", but makes no mention of ratings griefers.

[ QUOTE ]

The constant spam of MA PL teams forming, requests for “Meow” missions, 5 star badge cartels, and the inability to find quality content in the Mission Architect listing are all things I heard complaints about over and over while I was logged in on Tuesday.


[/ QUOTE ]

Three little 1 or 0-star votes bumped my arc from page 3 down to well, at least page 250. I never did find it, but that was about the point where 4-star arcs, rather than 5-stars with 1 vote, started showing up.

So, 5-starring is "bad", but 0 & 1-starring appears to be "good".

One thing I would absolutely LOVE in the MA is for the author to see who starred their arcs and what rating was given. That would do a LOT more to cut ratings griefings than anything else. The only reason people do the 0 & 1-starring is that they can get away with it and never have to face the people they are griefing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can totally feel your pain on this one. I had my main arc get hit the same way. It started out with 61 votes 2 days ago when I logged on. I had one comment sent to me when I logged one saying... *pulls up chat log*
"awesome job! i can't imagine why this isn't a dev choice."
and another...
"Defeating Posi is always fun and we get to do it twice!!! thanks..."

Both were 5 star votes, from non badgers. While I was on that day I also got a "very fun" and "Damn good job on this I really enjoyed this mish" and 5 stars from both.. as well as about 10 other 5-star votes.

That put it up to 77 votes and easily a 5-star. Then I get 5 more votes all low and pushing it back to 4 stars, and now it's on page 44 of the "4 star arcs" behind about 400 farm missions.

And, as expected, it hasn't gotten a play or rating since... (about 36 hours)

---

I'm sort of glad I've made no effort to advertise my arc at all, and only one member of my SG has played it. I knew there'd be massive griefing.

I plan to eventually start hitting the longer arcs once I have some badges from the smaller ones, and then I'll probably just search for 4 star arcs or people I know.

---

[ QUOTE ]
I'll probably just search for 4 star arcs or people I know.

[/ QUOTE ] Don't I know you from somewhere? lol

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A fair amount of folks in this thread seem to be looking at the Hall of Fame badge in the wrong light;

[/ QUOTE ]
People can grief the ratings. No additional light is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]
If that was what I was talking about, you'd be correct. But it's not; please refrain from quoting me out of context.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If possible to prevent the griefing and exploits that are occurring around it at the moment, it should remain for such a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Simply not possible with how the ratings system works.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then the ratings system obviously needs changed. It's very much possible, and shouldn't be discarded without looking at alternatives.


[ QUOTE ]
wait, gotta be very clear when talking about this stuff.

Are you talking about the Hall of Fame CATEGORY LABEL for missions? Because that's a recognition.
Or are you talking about the Hall of Famer BADGE that accompanies getting a mission into that category?
Because the issue from a badge collector perspective is that the category is griefable and subjective and should not affect the badging mini-game. (Though I see that the category is useful for searching and such, plus enabling the Evaluator line of badges.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about the badge itself.

I'm actually glad you brought this up; this is what I'm getting at. BADGES were intended as recognition for accomplishments in the game. The badging mini-game, as you put it, is something the community did by taking the earning of badges out of context. They're not necessarily there so everyone can earn them. The "gotta to earn them all" mentality that has developed ignores what badges themselves are meant to signify, and I feel should be ignored in regard to issues such as these.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A fair amount of folks in this thread seem to be looking at the Hall of Fame badge in the wrong light;

[/ QUOTE ]
People can grief the ratings. No additional light is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]
If that was what I was talking about, you'd be correct. But it's not; please refrain from quoting me out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not quote you out of context. I directed my statement toward the quoted text. As to the rest of that paragraph, I simply don't agree with it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If possible to prevent the griefing and exploits that are occurring around it at the moment, it should remain for such a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Simply not possible with how the ratings system works.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then the ratings system obviously needs changed. It's very much possible, and shouldn't be discarded without looking at alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]
People have been asking as much since open beta to my knowledge, and from other people's statements since closed beta.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually glad you brought this up; this is what I'm getting at. BADGES were intended as recognition for accomplishments in the game. The badging mini-game, as you put it, is something the community did by taking the earning of badges out of context. They're not necessarily there so everyone can earn them. The "gotta to earn them all" mentality that has developed ignores what badges themselves are meant to signify, and I feel should be ignored in regard to issues such as these.

[/ QUOTE ]
What you are missing is that anyone can do those accomplishments, therefore it should be possible to earn them all. This is a game for fun. If a reward (or badge) is put in place, then everyone should be able to get that reward eventually.

Oh, and:
[ QUOTE ]
The badging mini-game, as you put it, is something the community did by taking the earning of badges out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not say that, MadScientist did.

---

[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually glad you brought this up; this is what I'm getting at. BADGES were intended as recognition for accomplishments in the game. The badging mini-game, as you put it, is something the community did by taking the earning of badges out of context. They're not necessarily there so everyone can earn them. The "gotta to earn them all" mentality that has developed ignores what badges themselves are meant to signify, and I feel should be ignored in regard to issues such as these.

[/ QUOTE ]

I once made a co-worker consider quitting, by forcing him to realize that his "best practices" design was conflicting so badly with how paying customers were actually using the system that, had he actually implemented it everywhere it would cause huge problems. This is because people would happily continue using it the way that worked best for them unless physically prevented from doing so, and in the latter case, they would then proceed to complain about it.

There are times that the customer base needs to be slapped with a "stop doing that!", and there are times that you have to suck it up and understand that your design needs to take into account how people are actually using the system.

---

@Mindshadow

[ QUOTE ]
I did not quote you out of context. I directed my statement toward the quoted text. As to the rest of that paragraph, I simply don't agree with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you did. You didn't even address the whole sentence. You took a fragment of said sentence, which changes its entire meaning. That is the definition of taking something out of context.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If possible to prevent the griefing and exploits that are occurring around it at the moment, it should remain for such a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Simply not possible with how the ratings system works.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then the ratings system obviously needs changed. It's very much possible, and shouldn't be discarded without looking at alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]
People have been asking as much since open beta to my knowledge, and from other people's statements since closed beta.

[/ QUOTE ]
That doesn't make it any less valid.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm actually glad you brought this up; this is what I'm getting at. BADGES were intended as recognition for accomplishments in the game. The badging mini-game, as you put it, is something the community did by taking the earning of badges out of context. They're not necessarily there so everyone can earn them. The "gotta to earn them all" mentality that has developed ignores what badges themselves are meant to signify, and I feel should be ignored in regard to issues such as these.

[/ QUOTE ]
What you are missing is that anyone can do those accomplishments, therefore it should be possible to earn them all. This is a game for fun. If a reward (or badge) is put in place, then everyone should be able to get that reward eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, I'm not missing that. Anyone can create an arc worthy of Hall of Fame status. Just because the effort put forth to earn such a badge is different that that of other badges out there doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.


[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and:
[ QUOTE ]
The badging mini-game, as you put it, is something the community did by taking the earning of badges out of context.

[/ QUOTE ]
I did not say that, MadScientist did.

[/ QUOTE ]
I never claimed you did. If you'll take the time to thoroughly read my response you'll notice that statement's directed at a quote that you did not make. Unless you made it somewhere else that I'm unaware of.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wait, gotta be very clear when talking about this stuff.

Are you talking about the Hall of Fame CATEGORY LABEL for missions? Because that's a recognition.
Or are you talking about the Hall of Famer BADGE that accompanies getting a mission into that category?
Because the issue from a badge collector perspective is that the category is griefable and subjective and should not affect the badging mini-game. (Though I see that the category is useful for searching and such, plus enabling the Evaluator line of badges.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about the badge itself.

I'm actually glad you brought this up; this is what I'm getting at. BADGES were intended as recognition for accomplishments in the game. The badging mini-game, as you put it, is something the community did by taking the earning of badges out of context. They're not necessarily there so everyone can earn them. The "gotta to earn them all" mentality that has developed ignores what badges themselves are meant to signify, and I feel should be ignored in regard to issues such as these.

[/ QUOTE ]

hold on here. in light of your replies about quotes and misquotes.
you've taken a comment about the badging mini-game and turned it into a need to earn them all.
I didn't say that. My statement has nothing to do with earning all of them.

to be clear: the ability to earn another badge, or all other badges, does not in any way address issues of balance and fairness with this one badge. The same as the ability to beat every other AV in the game would not excuse one AV being 100% immune to your character's attacks, that one would still be broken - whether you're out to accumulate a kill of every AV or simply take the ones that pop up in front of you.


So where do the other badges matter? for comparisons about general qualities of all badges. Every other badge in the game is an accumulation or a singular challenge. The first category being things like total kills, total healing, total missions, the second category being your MOSTF or Obos Challenges. That's not to say other types of goals don't exist - everything from beating TFs in certain times to uncovering every square of the map to winning costume contests - but those things have not had badges if they didn't meat those 2 types of very particular unbiased actions.

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
wait, gotta be very clear when talking about this stuff.

Are you talking about the Hall of Fame CATEGORY LABEL for missions? Because that's a recognition.
Or are you talking about the Hall of Famer BADGE that accompanies getting a mission into that category?
Because the issue from a badge collector perspective is that the category is griefable and subjective and should not affect the badging mini-game. (Though I see that the category is useful for searching and such, plus enabling the Evaluator line of badges.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about the badge itself.

I'm actually glad you brought this up; this is what I'm getting at. BADGES were intended as recognition for accomplishments in the game. The badging mini-game, as you put it, is something the community did by taking the earning of badges out of context. They're not necessarily there so everyone can earn them. The "gotta to earn them all" mentality that has developed ignores what badges themselves are meant to signify, and I feel should be ignored in regard to issues such as these.

[/ QUOTE ]

hold on here. in light of your replies about quotes and misquotes.
you've taken a comment about the badging mini-game and turned it into a need to earn them all.
I didn't say that. My statement has nothing to do with earning all of them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression the goal of the supposed badging mini-game was to earn them all. If I'm wrong please enlighten me, and I'm sorry if I'm mistaken.


[ QUOTE ]
to be clear: the ability to earn another badge, or all other badges, does not in any way address issues of balance and fairness with this one badge. The same as the ability to beat every other AV in the game would not excuse one AV being 100% immune to your character's attacks, that one would still be broken - whether you're out to accumulate a kill of every AV or simply take the ones that pop up in front of you.


So where do the other badges matter? for comparisons about general qualities of all badges. Every other badge in the game is an accumulation or a singular challenge. The first category being things like total kills, total healing, total missions, the second category being your MOSTF or Obos Challenges. That's not to say other types of goals don't exist - everything from beating TFs in certain times to uncovering every square of the map to winning costume contests - but those things have not had badges if they didn't meat those 2 types of very particular unbiased actions.

[/ QUOTE ]
And that's what I'm saying. Keep the badge, quantify its requirements, even though they may be extremely difficult for some to acquire (impossible in the minds of some, but that's a matter of perception), and keep it in game. The entire point of my post was to say that it should modified so that it cannot be awarded subjectively, and kept in the game, rather than simply removing it.

---

How about changing the current requirements for Dev's Choice? But in the process, they'd have to change their Hall of Fame system.

My thought:

Dev's Choice should be awarded to Hall of Fame arcs that the Dev's play. Meaning, fix the HoF system so that arcs can not be griefed. Once it gets Hall of Fame, it means that the players, overall, enjoy it.

From there, the Dev's can play through Hall of Fame arcs and choose from those a "Dev's Choice" arc. It be less work for the Dev's to do; meaning they don't have to sift through the hundreds of thousands of arcs.

Do I think Dev's Choice should be removed. Not in the slightest. Yes, mainly because I have it and I spent over 2 weeks making sure my arc was perfect before publishing it. But I don't think that the chosing process shouldn't be improved upon.

More people deserve the badge/title. In the past 2 weeks, I've played some arcs that definately deserve to be classified as Dev's Choice.

---

pohsyb: so of all people you must be most excited about the veats
Arachnos Commander: actually, I am
pohsyb: I mean you kinda were one already anyways ^_^
Arachnos Commander:

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression the goal of the supposed badging mini-game was to earn them all. If I'm wrong please enlighten me, and I'm sorry if I'm mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

The goal of PVP is not to defeat every single person in existence. The goal of the MA is not to entice every player to run your arc. The goal of the market is not to get every Inf in existence onto your one character.
The *game* is designed to be played and enjoyed, and to that end it needs to be balanced. Every opponent needs to be defeatable, every mission needs to be beatable, and thus every badge earnable.
Now if a player decides to set additional benchmarks for themself, that's fine, but that occurs after producing a balanced game environment.


The issue with Hall of Famer is that its earnability involves the opinions of others. Or for the more cynical, surviving the ability of griefers who see your progress and cut you back down. Thus, the badge is not balanced.



[ QUOTE ]
And that's what I'm saying. Keep the badge, quantify its requirements, even though they may be extremely difficult for some to acquire (impossible in the minds of some, but that's a matter of perception), and keep it in game. The entire point of my post was to say that it should modified so that it cannot be awarded subjectively, and kept in the game, rather than simply removing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
the only issue with that is what I asked way back above: if Famer is just like the Builder line of badges, then what is it? is the Builder line a 6-badge series? Is the last one in the series 2 badges for the price of one?

We have the Recognized series, which counts raw stars awarded. How do you make the Builder line objective without totally duplicating the raw star count?
some ideas...
1) Count the number of "good" ratings. eg, the number of 3+ ratings. with the 5 badges in the line counting different amounts of them.
2) Have the 5 badges in the line each count amounts of different qualities of ratings. eg, first badge counts 1+ ratings, 2nd counts 2+, so on to the last only tracking how many 5's you get.
3) Count the number of account-based tickets earned by ratings. Since those award for only 3, 4 and 5 star rates, this is similar to only tracking "good" ratings, but has some scaling for "even better" ones. I'd like this option the most because it's something VERY easy to identify and understand.

What all 3 have in common, though, is that you can't have your progress go backwards from bad ratings. Which is the whole point about griefability and about the badge eventually adding up. You don't lose progress on the mentor badges if your SK dies, you don't lose progress on the market badges if items you've listed sell from other people for less inf, and so on.

I would have no problem with those being VERY long-term goals. Let's see, a 5 rating is 25 tickets, we're talking 100 such rates right now, assume they make this count tickets from any of your 3 publish slots (instead of the current "best arc available" setup), round up.... 10,000 tickets from ratings for the last badge would be very achievable with a bit of writing talent, and doesn't tip over that fine like from "impressive" to "some call it epic some call it crazy".

---

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I found Positron's little rant to be well...childish. In particular, he sees fit to mention "5-star badge cartels", but makes no mention of ratings griefers.

[ QUOTE ]

The constant spam of MA PL teams forming, requests for “Meow” missions, 5 star badge cartels, and the inability to find quality content in the Mission Architect listing are all things I heard complaints about over and over while I was logged in on Tuesday.


[/ QUOTE ]

Three little 1 or 0-star votes bumped my arc from page 3 down to well, at least page 250. I never did find it, but that was about the point where 4-star arcs, rather than 5-stars with 1 vote, started showing up.

So, 5-starring is "bad", but 0 & 1-starring appears to be "good".

One thing I would absolutely LOVE in the MA is for the author to see who starred their arcs and what rating was given. That would do a LOT more to cut ratings griefings than anything else. The only reason people do the 0 & 1-starring is that they can get away with it and never have to face the people they are griefing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can totally feel your pain on this one. I had my main arc get hit the same way. It started out with 61 votes 2 days ago when I logged on. I had one comment sent to me when I logged one saying... *pulls up chat log*
"awesome job! i can't imagine why this isn't a dev choice."
and another...
"Defeating Posi is always fun and we get to do it twice!!! thanks..."

Both were 5 star votes, from non badgers. While I was on that day I also got a "very fun" and "Damn good job on this I really enjoyed this mish" and 5 stars from both.. as well as about 10 other 5-star votes.

That put it up to 77 votes and easily a 5-star. Then I get 5 more votes all low and pushing it back to 4 stars, and now it's on page 44 of the "4 star arcs" behind about 400 farm missions.

And, as expected, it hasn't gotten a play or rating since... (about 36 hours)

[/ QUOTE ]

And...it just happened again.

Yesterday, got a few more plays (all 5-stars I might add) and it bumped me back to up page 4. Think I was at about 61-62 rates. Log in today to find I'm up to 65 rates, but back down to 4-stars (no comments from anyone BTW). Didn't even bother trying to find the arc as it's most likely back down in the page 250+ range.

This rating system needs a MASSIVE overhaul. Every comment I've gotten from people basically fit along the lines of "awesome arc" or "reminds them of an official story" or that they enjoyed it. I don't mind 3-4 star ratings, provided the person rating it tells me why they 3-4 star it.

These 1-star cowards, and yes, they are cowards, are really starting to annoy the @#*$ out of me.

---

[ QUOTE ]
...
Dev's Choice should be awarded to Hall of Fame arcs that the Dev's play. Meaning, fix the HoF system so that arcs can not be griefed. Once it gets Hall of Fame, it means that the players, overall, enjoy it.

[/ QUOTE ]
you mean once it hits HOF it can't leave?
Two issues with that.
1) Posi has already expressed a concern over ratings cartels. You could arrange to skyrocket your arc into the Hall and then it's cemented there.
2) People would just grief things on their way up.

edit: To offer a constructive alternative that illustrates overcoming those points, I've heard this idea from many people,
Refresh the listings periodically, hiding every recent rating until the refresh. So an arc doesn't get into the Hall on a single rate instantly, nor does it get removed instantly. Griefers don't know who to target until it may be very safely in the Hall, and there's less instant gratification that may remove griefing's own reward. They'd need to add a "new" listing for arcs published but with no ratings visible at all.


but more importantly...[ QUOTE ]
From there, the Dev's can play through Hall of Fame arcs and choose from those a "Dev's Choice" arc. It be less work for the Dev's to do; meaning they don't have to sift through the hundreds of thousands of arcs.

Do I think Dev's Choice should be removed. Not in the slightest. Yes, mainly because I have it and I spent over 2 weeks making sure my arc was perfect before publishing it. But I don't think that the chosing process shouldn't be improved upon.

More people deserve the badge/title. In the past 2 weeks, I've played some arcs that definately deserve to be classified as Dev's Choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

... You're in a badge forum, discussing the pros and cons of the MA's search listing.

WHATEVER the system is for the search engine listing arcs, how does that affect Badges? It shouldn't.

the problem is phrases like "badge/title". The title is one thing. The title coming along with a badge is where we get into these problems. I don't think a ratings cartel to get dev attention for the Dev Choice page of the arc listings would ever be an issue - the devs could see thru it quickly enough.

---