So, how do you feel about the rating system?
By
Alari_Azure,
Posted on: 2009-05-10 18:28 in Mission Architect
No system that depends upon the opinion of the masses is fair or can be fair.
EVEN IF there were no 5 star or 0 star cartels, we would still have the split between the "If I died, it's too tough" people and the "If my team didn't wipe at least once, it's too easy" people, not to mention the people who prefer one style of storytelling over another.
It can't really be fixed, because unless you 5 starred the arc yourself, you can never be sure it is a 5 star quality in your opinion. Are you a text reader? Do you care about misspellings? Do you have author inserts on principle?
The best ratings system imaginable using RL methods would basically be a glorified spelling and syntax checker.
On the other hand...
Players should have the ability to vote people into the Hall of Fame and award them a free slot if they want to, whether the arc in question is Watchmen, Spider-Man, or Mansquito.
Devs should have the same right.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
I too feel that the rating system is broken and there are good arc in there with ratings from 0-5 stars.
I, however, try to search out missions containing content that I am interested in playing and/or creating.
From the play point of view, it's a win if I find a good one.
From the design point of view, it is good to see what other people are doing with the kind of content I'm trying to generate.
More people are using tags. Pretty much strait up at the end of their arc explanation text to aide in search results. I strongly suggest doing this if you are creating arcs. The format I'm seeing basically [ genre topic specific includes ]. So for example [ western horror werewolf werewolves invasion silver ] or something of that nature. It takes up room in the info section, but it helps me to find the kind of arcs that I want to play.
Also, I'll be honest. I don't like "kill all"s. I start the rating of a mission at 5 and count backwards from there. A "kill all" is a -1 star as far as I'm concerned. So if you have a "kill all" in your arc, I either won't play it (if I'm not so lazy as to not look in advance) or it won't get any more than 4 stars.
"Kill All" is pretty much [u]the lamest mission criteria of all time[u] from my viewpoint and should [u]never[u] be used.
[ QUOTE ]
"Kill All" is pretty much [u]the lamest mission criteria of all time[u] from my viewpoint and should [u]never[u] be used.
[/ QUOTE ]
THIS.
Although I won't take off stars for it, I have DEFINETLY quit and not rated or simply NOT PLAYED arcs that have kill alls. Unless there is some compelling reason for it, (of which the arcs I've played already DON'T have one) there really is no reason for a kill all.
With the recent cap on in mission ticket rewards there's even LESS incentive for me to bother with arcs that have Kill Alls.
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!
There's a standard list of tag abbreviations on this forum. The problem is it eats into the 300 characters for your arc so most people try to keep it short.
"Defeat All" is not the worst mission complete condition. It is, however, one of the easiest to get wrong. (I try to get it right in Dream Paper.)
Up with the overworld! Up with exploration! | Want a review of your arc?
My arcs: Dream Paper (ID: 1874) | Bricked Electronics (ID: 2180) | The Bravuran Jobs (ID: 5073) | Backwards Day (ID: 329000) | Operation Fair Trade (ID: 391172)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Kill All" is pretty much [u]the lamest mission criteria of all time[u] from my viewpoint and should [u]never[u] be used.
[/ QUOTE ]
THIS.
Although I won't take off stars for it, I have DEFINETLY quit and not rated or simply NOT PLAYED arcs that have kill alls. Unless there is some compelling reason for it, (of which the arcs I've played already DON'T have one) there really is no reason for a kill all.
With the recent cap on in mission ticket rewards there's even LESS incentive for me to bother with arcs that have Kill Alls.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is one reason why a quits/plays display would not solve things in and of itself. Different people have different 'instant quit' criteria, ranging from Kill-Alls to Vahzilok.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Yeah. It's hard enough to get your point across in 300 characters without having to use 12 different tags that only a small portion of players know anything about anyway.
I'm not touching that made up tag crap and will instead just hope my descriptions get the point across. I'm also hoping the I15 changes will help, too.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Kill All" is pretty much [u]the lamest mission criteria of all time[u] from my viewpoint and should [u]never[u] be used.
[/ QUOTE ]
THIS.
Although I won't take off stars for it, I have DEFINETLY quit and not rated or simply NOT PLAYED arcs that have kill alls. Unless there is some compelling reason for it, (of which the arcs I've played already DON'T have one) there really is no reason for a kill all.
With the recent cap on in mission ticket rewards there's even LESS incentive for me to bother with arcs that have Kill Alls.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless a map is full of a custom faction made only of bosses you are not going to hit the ticket cap, even with a kill all.
Up with the overworld! Up with exploration! | Want a review of your arc?
My arcs: Dream Paper (ID: 1874) | Bricked Electronics (ID: 2180) | The Bravuran Jobs (ID: 5073) | Backwards Day (ID: 329000) | Operation Fair Trade (ID: 391172)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Kill All" is pretty much [u]the lamest mission criteria of all time[u] from my viewpoint and should [u]never[u] be used.
[/ QUOTE ]
THIS.
Although I won't take off stars for it, I have DEFINETLY quit and not rated or simply NOT PLAYED arcs that have kill alls. Unless there is some compelling reason for it, (of which the arcs I've played already DON'T have one) there really is no reason for a kill all.
With the recent cap on in mission ticket rewards there's even LESS incentive for me to bother with arcs that have Kill Alls.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is one reason why a quits/plays display would not solve things in and of itself. Different people have different 'instant quit' criteria, ranging from Kill-Alls to Vahzilok.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it would work, if it had nothing to do with getting a 4th MA slot or badges.
The inherent problem with the stars system is that it is linked to a reward that you have NO OTHER WAY (so far) of getting except being dependent on the whim of the playerbase. That concern is valid.
But it is separate than being able to avoid dreck in the MA.
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!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Kill All" is pretty much [u]the lamest mission criteria of all time[u] from my viewpoint and should [u]never[u] be used.
[/ QUOTE ]
THIS.
Although I won't take off stars for it, I have DEFINETLY quit and not rated or simply NOT PLAYED arcs that have kill alls. Unless there is some compelling reason for it, (of which the arcs I've played already DON'T have one) there really is no reason for a kill all.
With the recent cap on in mission ticket rewards there's even LESS incentive for me to bother with arcs that have Kill Alls.
[/ QUOTE ]
Unless a map is full of a custom faction made only of bosses you are not going to hit the ticket cap, even with a kill all.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes but what of the mission bonus?
Anyway that was just an ADDITIONAL reason to avoid them.
Them being kill alls is reason enough.
There are enough stories in the MA that there really is not reason to have to trudge through a kill all. And most of the kill alls I've seen are woefully unnecessary.
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!
[ QUOTE ]
The autocomplete on entry missions are just a bug in MA that should be fixed. An Ally goal set to to Single is not a legitimate goal, and arcs containing them should not be publishable. If there are similar immediately completable goals they too should inhibit publishing.
The goal is not to take away your right to poke someone in the eye. It's to eliminate griefing and voting cartels who can vote up undeserving arcs that they never even entered.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, see, this right here... if something like this happened, it'd infuriate me.
If you're taking away options and tools from creators in order to combat abusers of a lousy ratings system, your priorities are entirely skewed, and Mission Architect is, at that point, an utter failure.
The goal of Mission Architect is to facilitate player-created content. That's what it's about. Ratings PVP is not what it's about. Taking away from the former only to make the latter more difficult isn't a viable solution. And that's all you'd be doing.
"An Ally goal set to to Single" is a legitimate goal. Sorry. I've used it for story effect multiple times. Have I ever made it the sole objective of a mission? No. Would I care if it were changed so that it couldn't be the sole objective? No, I wouldn't. But you wouldn't fix anything by doing that.
Because then all anyone would have to do is add one glowy to the front of a small map to achieve practically the same insta-complete result.
So, what then? Make it so you can't place glowies up front? Okay.
Then people will make missions that can be easily stealthed, with just one glowy to click.
What then? Remove glowies entirely? Make it so you must fight a boss in every mission? Even if you went that far, people would just make a totally gimped boss to fight.
See where this is going?
The ratings system is fundamentally and irreparably flawed. The problem is not the abusers. The problem is the built-in incentives for abuse. Any solution that doesn't involve removing those incentives is not a solution, as the abusers will always find a way around whatever obstacle you implement.
I want MA to evolve into greater functionality and versatility, not less. I'm already wrestling with its current limitations. I want to be able to do more with it. Watering it down for the sake of propping up some ridiculously broken ratings system is just... completely befuddling and "bass ackwards" to me. It's entirely the wrong direction in which to proceed.
The Cape Radio: You're not super until you put on the Cape!
DJ Enigma's Puzzle Factory: Co* Parody Commercials
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The autocomplete on entry missions are just a bug in MA that should be fixed. An Ally goal set to to Single is not a legitimate goal, and arcs containing them should not be publishable. If there are similar immediately completable goals they too should inhibit publishing.
The goal is not to take away your right to poke someone in the eye. It's to eliminate griefing and voting cartels who can vote up undeserving arcs that they never even entered.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, see, this right here... if something like this happened, it'd infuriate me.
If you're taking away options and tools from creators in order to combat abusers of a lousy ratings system, your priorities are entirely skewed, and Mission Architect is, at that point, an utter failure.
The goal of Mission Architect is to facilitate player-created content. That's what it's about. Ratings PVP is not what it's about. Taking away from the former only to make the latter more difficult isn't a viable solution. And that's all you'd be doing.
"An Ally goal set to to Single" is a legitimate goal. Sorry. I've used it for story effect multiple times. Have I ever made it the sole objective of a mission? No. Would I care if it were changed so that it couldn't be the sole objective? No, I wouldn't. But you wouldn't fix anything by doing that.
Because then all anyone would have to do is add one glowy to the front of a small map to achieve practically the same insta-complete result.
So, what then? Make it so you can't place glowies up front? Okay.
Then people will make missions that can be easily stealthed, with just one glowy to click.
What then? Remove glowies entirely? Make it so you must fight a boss in every mission? Even if you went that far, people would just make a totally gimped boss to fight.
See where this is going?
The ratings system is fundamentally and irreparably flawed. The problem is not the abusers. The problem is the built-in incentives for abuse. Any solution that doesn't involve removing those incentives is not a solution, as the abusers will always find a way around whatever obstacle you implement.
I want MA to evolve into greater functionality and versatility, not less. I'm already wrestling with its current limitations. I want to be able to do more with it. Watering it down for the sake of propping up some ridiculously broken ratings system is just... completely befuddling and "bass ackwards" to me. It's entirely the wrong direction in which to proceed.
[/ QUOTE ]
This. I wouldn't bat an eye if the silly star rating system was stripped out of the MA forever. Just give folks the option to buy or earn as a vet reward or run a shot tf to get a new mission slot.
Also make it so that you can tell how many times an arc has been abandoned or played.
The ratings system is an epic failure.
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!
[ QUOTE ]
One things the devs promised early on was that they were adding a lot of datamining tools so that they could find and punish people who did this. I haven't heard anything about that since the system went live, though. If they are punishing people for ratings griefing, they are doing it very quietly.
[/ QUOTE ]
If they are punishing anybody for ANY exploits or abuse in Mission Architect, they're doing it far too quietly. They're leaving people with the impression that they were bluffing.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One things the devs promised early on was that they were adding a lot of datamining tools so that they could find and punish people who did this. I haven't heard anything about that since the system went live, though. If they are punishing people for ratings griefing, they are doing it very quietly.
[/ QUOTE ]
If they are punishing anybody for ANY exploits or abuse in Mission Architect, they're doing it far too quietly. They're leaving people with the impression that they were bluffing.
[/ QUOTE ]
It is currently NCSoft policy not to discuss the punishment of any specific player with any other players. There could be mass bannings and you'd never know until you read about it in the papers.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
People 0 star things for a reason. If I don't like an arc, I'll 3 star it, if I hate it I'll 0 star it. I rate arcs based on how fun the content is, and how many tickets drop per mission. I don't leave feedback because it's not anonymous, and if I were forced to leave feedback when I gave something a 0 star, I would never play anybodies MA arc, and would only play mine.
I give missions I enjoy playing 5 stars. There was an arc the other day, it was awsome. It was on a boat with a custom group. I just stood there, and fought. Tons of patrols, and everything came to you. I stood in one spot, fighting for 10 minutes, and had a blast. I only gave it 4 stars because it had very little content, but deffinetly had 5-star potential IMO.
Simple enough.
[ QUOTE ]
The ratings system is fundamentally and irreparably flawed. The problem is not the abusers. The problem is the built-in incentives for abuse. Any solution that doesn't involve removing those incentives is not a solution, as the abusers will always find a way around whatever obstacle you implement.
I want MA to evolve into greater functionality and versatility, not less. I'm already wrestling with its current limitations. I want to be able to do more with it. Watering it down for the sake of propping up some ridiculously broken ratings system is just... completely befuddling and "bass ackwards" to me. It's entirely the wrong direction in which to proceed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow! Exceptional insight in two short paragraphs. I'm with you! Hope someone that can actually make a difference is listening. I happen to also believe that when it comes to the MA ratings system: "nothing" would be preferable to what we have now and "anything" more that would improve search functionality would be very worthwhile.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom (or freem?) fighter; just as one man's exploit is another man's feature.
The two biggest incentives to make ARCs (for me) are..
1. To have them played by as many people as possible
2. To earn the privilege of publishing more ARCs
The ratings system as it stands makes both of these incentives impossible. For all of the 12 pages of reasoning listed above.
Right now, I'd rather have NO rating system at all than what is presented now.
[ QUOTE ]
The ratings system is fundamentally and irreparably flawed. The problem is not the abusers. The problem is the built-in incentives for abuse. Any solution that doesn't involve removing those incentives is not a solution, as the abusers will always find a way around whatever obstacle you implement
[/ QUOTE ]
Very well said. With me, this raises the question, "What is the incentive that is the most common reason for abuse?"
If it's the prestige of being listed on the first page, I think the fair solution is to make current default behavior create a first page at random amongst all the arcs. This way, there is absolutely no point to zero-star something as it won't make your arc list that much higher.
If it's for the badges, then change the badge requirements. However, I don't see how this would be causing so much of the proclaimed griefing.
If it's cause their a jerk, then there is nothing that can be done. Except, ban them after they bomb too many arcs and remove all the ratings they have given.
For me, the whole idea of bombing people's arcs is ludicrious. Not that it isn't done. But, that I cannot see where the enjoyment comes from. Then again, some people enjoy urinating in other's cheerios.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Correct. No vote counts as no vote and doesn't impact ratings. You have to click 1 star twice to vote zero and torpedo someone's arc (deservedly or not).
[/ QUOTE ]
So as long as I don't click on any of the stars AT ALL, I'm not unintentionally 0-starring?
If I've clicked on a rating, then decide I don't want to give any rating at all, is there a way at that point to do that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, if you click on a rating and then decide you don't want to give any rating at all and so you remove that star, you will be giving it zero stars.
[/ QUOTE ]
What if you just close the window without clicking the big button?
Arc ID#30821, A Clean Break
The only problem with defeating the Tsoo is that an hour later, you want to defeat them again!
"Life is just better boosted!" -- LadyMage
"I'm a big believer in Personal Force Field on a blaster. ... It's your happy place." -- Fulmens
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Correct. No vote counts as no vote and doesn't impact ratings. You have to click 1 star twice to vote zero and torpedo someone's arc (deservedly or not).
[/ QUOTE ]
So as long as I don't click on any of the stars AT ALL, I'm not unintentionally 0-starring?
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Correct.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I've clicked on a rating, then decide I don't want to give any rating at all, is there a way at that point to do that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope, if you click on a rating and then decide you don't want to give any rating at all and so you remove that star, you will be giving it zero stars.
[/ QUOTE ]
What if you just close the window without clicking the big button?
[/ QUOTE ]
Rating a mission takes place *immediately* upon clicking a star. The big button doesn't even enter into it. You can verify this if you've got the right channels in your chat window; the instant you first click a star, you'll see the "You have rated ..." message.
Given the confusion this has caused, I'm not sure the interface is as well designed or explained as it could be.
Miuramir, Windchime, Sariel the Golden, Scarlet Antinomist...
Casino Extortion #4031: Neutral, Council+Custom [SFMA/MLMA/SLMA/FHMA/CFMA]
Bad Candy #87938: Neutral, Custom [SFMA/MLMA/SLMA/FHMA/HFMA]
CoH Helper * HijackThis
Well the rating system doesn't seem to be working terribly well.
I kinda like the thumbs up/down, abstain idea floated, it might work, but you wind up with a great deal of range there.
I think the rating could be improved by several steps
A) Holding off showing stars until after 5-10 ratings. That way an early 1 or 5 star doesn't doom/reward things.
B) Post a list on the rating page of a sample of what the stars are supposed to mean- do you start at 5 and work down? Is 3 "average"? 2 "shows promise, techical issues" so folks are on the same page.
C) You will get variability. Perhaps throwing out the top and bottom 10%..or even 20% of ratings, so that just 8 or 6 of the first 10 count might be useful.
[ QUOTE ]
Well the rating system doesn't seem to be working terribly well.
I kinda like the thumbs up/down, abstain idea floated, it might work, but you wind up with a great deal of range there.
I think the rating could be improved by several steps
A) Holding off showing stars until after 5-10 ratings. That way an early 1 or 5 star doesn't doom/reward things.
B) Post a list on the rating page of a sample of what the stars are supposed to mean- do you start at 5 and work down? Is 3 "average"? 2 "shows promise, techical issues" so folks are on the same page.
C) You will get variability. Perhaps throwing out the top and bottom 10%..or even 20% of ratings, so that just 8 or 6 of the first 10 count might be useful.
[/ QUOTE ]
The only ones I could get behind are A and maybe C.
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!
Rating system could use a tweak.
First issue: rating without leaving comment. It makes improving mission hard, since creator has no idea how the people rating mission felt about it. Making it compulsory to leave a comment while rating mission might solve this.
Second issue. Rating system in general. So far, I tried a couple of player made missions with a friend. Results were a mixed bag. While dev approved missions were ok, using star rating system to pick other mission was a disaster.
We tried about 4 different five star ranked missions to find...well.
I will say only this: most of them gave impression of being put together by almost illiterate person aged 7-9, during five minutes.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that people shouldn't try their hand at making a mission, but system that allows 'missions' like that to get 5 stars is flawed. Unfortunately, I don't have any ideas as to how to improve it at the moment.
[ QUOTE ]
Rating system could use a tweak.
First issue: rating without leaving comment. It makes improving mission hard, since creator has no idea how the people rating mission felt about it. Making it compulsory to leave a comment while rating mission might solve this.
Second issue. Rating system in general. So far, I tried a couple of player made missions with a friend. Results were a mixed bag. While dev approved missions were ok, using star rating system to pick other mission was a disaster.
We tried about 4 different five star ranked missions to find...well.
I will say only this: most of them gave impression of being put together by almost illiterate person aged 7-9, during five minutes.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that people shouldn't try their hand at making a mission, but system that allows 'missions' like that to get 5 stars is flawed. Unfortunately, I don't have any ideas as to how to improve it at the moment.
[/ QUOTE ]
issue 1: someone would then just type "a" or "4sfde4r3ewdfd3" just to be able to close the window they didn't want to leave a comment. I could only get behind 1, if EVERYTHING was completely anonymous.
issue 2: how to improve it? get rid of the star system.
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!
Well, if someone leaves a gibberish as a rating comment, it says a lot. Gibberish with one star rating means that rating was posted by an impatient person not playing for story, but for purple epic gear he or she can't find in coh. And probably asks people where are the raids here coming straight from grinder centric mmo's.
As for removing the rating system entirely...What would that achieve? As it stands now, it's next to useless (other than dev approval seal that does seem to warrant some quality). Removing rating won't change a thing, since again, no one would have any idea what stories are good and what are not good. I'll try to give it some thought and put a post up later if I come with any viable ideas.
P.S.
As for compulsory comments while rating: the assumption I made here is that rating an arc is *not* mandatory. And only when you do want to rate it you need to put couple words about stuff. So, there shouldn't be a problem with people spamming comment section just to close the rating window.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By requiring that you spend some amount of time in the mission or complete at least the first mission before you can cast a vote, the devs would eliminate most of the opportunities for griefing.
[/ QUOTE ]
With the changes recently made to custom critters, for some this would be impossible.
Again NO.
If an arc creator hasn't tested his arc to make sure that the first mission doesn't require a tank, scrapper, or brute to be even completable, that's not something that deserves to be played before it's rated down.
[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I was insufficiently clear. I said, "By requiring that you spend some amount of time in the mission or complete the mission" I mean that as an either-or.
If you gave it your best shot and spent five minutes in the arc and found that you couldn't get anywhere because only scrappers and tankers have a chance, then your vote would be registered. I also said that the amount of time required is a good topic for debate. Even a time as short as one or two minutes would be sufficient to put a crimp in griefing.
The autocomplete on entry missions are just a bug in MA that should be fixed. An Ally goal set to to Single is not a legitimate goal, and arcs containing them should not be publishable. If there are similar immediately completable goals they too should inhibit publishing.
The goal is not to take away your right to poke someone in the eye. It's to eliminate griefing and voting cartels who can vote up undeserving arcs that they never even entered.
[/ QUOTE ]
As long as the number of "quits" is also clearly visible I have no problem with the suggestion.
As I said before if it doesn't then I'm not for it.
I should be able to at a glance tell if it's something that I want to waste my time on. (And clearly the star system isn't helping that).
For me the best way to do it would be to just show the number of plays and quits, then folks can do whatever they want with the useless star system.
EDIT: Of course the actual REAL best way is if everyone published missions that appealed to wide range of folks and not just scrappers, brutes and tanks, and didn't have stupidity that counts for humor in some circles.
Of course then we'd have cured most disease and have world peace.
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!