Victims of Architect ratings griefers
By
Aliana Blue,
Posted on: 2009-05-24 15:28 in Mission Architect
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I feel the rating system is fairly broken. I'm not sure how to fix it. But I know that I've often loaded a four or five star mission with dozens of votes, only to discover that it's Yet Another Damned Meow. Even selecting only multi-mission arcs doesn't completely avoid farms. Frankly, it's gotten to the point that if I decide that a mission is a farm, I quit and one star.
I didn't realize that quitting and leaving the stars blank was actually a rating of zero - I assumed that no stars meant that I hadn't voted. I do find it annoying that I have to re-rate a mission every time I play it, even with the same character. (And even with different characters, it doesn't feel consistent. If I rate an arc, then switch characters and search only for arcs I haven't voted on, the game excludes those arcs. Which that character has never seen.)
[/ QUOTE ]
"Fixing" the rating system would be simple. Remove the 1-5 star system; only show the number of times a story has been completed. Not much of a rating, but it would remove griefing.
Currently Playing:
A bunch of toons! (Freedom, Virtue, and a few on Infinity)
[ QUOTE ]
could you be looking at it wrong? How many people see your arc if it isnt on the first page? If you are on page 43, does anyone even try your arc?
[/ QUOTE ]
I've gotten hundreds of my ratings while not on the front page and they've almost exclusively been 4 and 5 stars. This is both from feedback and dividing tickets earned by ratings. Front page? About half 0's or 1's. These instantly stop once the average hits 4.
This has happened to at least a dozen or so people I know personally. Exactly the same thing.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is rather telling. From that data, it seems that most players are inclined to rate favorably, but a core group is determined to downrate higher rated arcs. Unfortunate, but unsurprising.
I don't even look through rated arcs anymore -- I scroll through the arcs that have never been played or rated looking for something that piques my interest. I've found some really good arcs that way, but it's time-consuming. Though a little reading never hurt anyone.
[/ QUOTE ]
Really ? So if 60% of the arcs aren't 5* the system isn't working ?
Seems that data shows most of the stories are horribly overrated
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the most reasonable interpretation of the data is that statistically speaking the average rater perceives the average arc to be closer to 3.6 stars rather than 3 stars, and ratings skew towards that number. The curve is also much sharper than expected for a normal distribution, which implies that the skew is quite strong (suggesting people are reluctant to give out 5s, 2s, and 1s).
(also, there is some evidence to suggest that zero-star ratings are very rare; given that doing so requires special knowledge of how the rating system works, this is not unexpected)
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually with the situation you describe its much more likely that people are given out alot of 4 star ratings because they don't want to give the arc a bad rating but don't think its very good.
If there is raw data perhaps more could be read into it. Seeing as it hasn't been presented there is little to discuss.
[/ QUOTE ]
If that was the only effect, it should have not only increased the number of 4-star arcs, but also the number of 5-star arcs (because such a strong skew should have significantly increased the number of arcs that managed to reach 4.5 stars). I don't see that occuring, so the change can't be just an independent spike at 4-stars. The fact that the ratings distribution is off-center and spills into the 3-star category but not the 5-star category suggests that at least the average is weighted towards a number between 4 and 3, not 4 and 5. That says nothing about individual voting, only averages which is why I only mentioned averages. I don't know if there are a lot of 4 votes. I only know the *average* is skewing that way.
In the absence of additional information, the simplest conclusion is, as I mentioned, not to assume that people are "horribly overrating" arcs but rather that the ratings are skewed away from 3 (which ought to be the "average" for most rating schemes) and towards a number between 3 and 4, and higher than 3.5. Beyond that, assuming some linear interpolation its possible to roughly estimate the actual average rating of all the arcs, given the ratings distribution. Its about 3.6, which is why I stated the skew as about 0.6 or half a star. What is specifically causing that skew, in terms of individual votes, is something the data currently doesn't say (or rather, that isn't apparent to me from my current analysis of the data).
There is some additional data that I have, but I'm not ready to write it all up yet. However, I'll note something else with regard to ratings distributions. Interestingly, for all star ratings the most common arc *size* is S(mall) - this suggests that S-sized arcs are the most commonly played arc size. This is true *except* for 5-star arcs: for those, the most common arc size is actually VL(arge). In fact, the longer the arc, the more of them have 5-stars, in direct opposition to the intrinsic size distribution. The most logical conclusion is that while players seem to give out 4s more often than you'd expect, they are also extremely unlikely to give out 5s unless some critical content threshold is achieved, and while large size is not necessarily an advantage, small size is a definite penalty. This suggests, if nothing else, that 5-star ratings are not being given out trivially. The numbers say nothing about the *standards* of the raters, which might be high or low, but it does suggests something about the amount of thought placed on 5-star ratings specifically.
This also suggests a possible theory for the ratings skew: a pile-up at 4-stars where people are intrinsicly more likely to rate higher, except for 5-stars which has a critical threshold. That doesn't suggests a specific spike at 4-stars, but rather a more general trend towards higher ratings except for 5. The combination of the two doesn't generate "horribly overrated" arcs, though, since the net effect is to increase average ratings only somewhat.
Worth noting: when the discussion of the 5-star system occured during beta, I did theorize that the system combined with the DC/HoF awards would combine to skew ratings off-center, gravitating to a point probably between 3.0 (the ratings center-point) and 4.5 (the threshold for earning a ratings-induced award), and furthermore that this would be amplified by the requirement to award integer stars, and there were serious problems with the granularity of the scale, Likert notwithstanding (in this case, I don't think Likert is even applicable due to the overall nature of the ratings system).
[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 ]
Actually, the most reasonable interpretation of the data is that statistically speaking the average rater perceives the average arc to be closer to 3.6 stars rather than 3 stars, and ratings skew towards that number. The curve is also much sharper than expected for a normal distribution, which implies that the skew is quite strong (suggesting people are reluctant to give out 5s, 2s, and 1s).
[/ QUOTE ]
It seems like we are assuming that there are more 4/3 votes when there could actually be more 5/1 votes. How did you come to this conclusion when we are looking at averages? You can't conclusively separate 4/3 star ratings from 5/1 star ratings in an average, can you?
[/ QUOTE ]
See my previous post: short answer is that a) I'm specifically talking about averages above, and not specific votes, and b) there is *some* evidence that 5-votes are not more common than the averages suggest. Some of that is buried in the information that can be gleaned from the MA, however.
In all cases, we're generally talking about statistically likely theories, not demonstrative proof of individual voting patterns.
[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 ]
could you be looking at it wrong? How many people see your arc if it isnt on the first page? If you are on page 43, does anyone even try your arc?
[/ QUOTE ]
I've gotten hundreds of my ratings while not on the front page and they've almost exclusively been 4 and 5 stars. This is both from feedback and dividing tickets earned by ratings. Front page? About half 0's or 1's. These instantly stop once the average hits 4.
This has happened to at least a dozen or so people I know personally. Exactly the same thing.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are the people running your arc from page 1 hitting the easy targets and not getting what they want, while those that find you on page 43 reading your description and liking it?
Lots of 50's yada yada. still finding fun things to do.
Cthulhu loves you, better start running
I�! I�! Gg�gorsch�a�bha egurtsa�ar�ug d� Dalhor! Cthluhu fthagn! Cthluhu fthagn!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages
The only thing I can think that might help the rating system, is to drop the ability to select stars. You'd have three options at the end of the mission - thumb up, thumb down, abstain. Giving a plus on mission completion wouldn't work. I've gone ahead and plowed on through missions I fully intended to one-star. In a few cases, I was in a team that was going to do something else afterwords. In most cases, I try to complete it just to be sure that I'm being fair. (If it's a farm, or has "impossible" custom NPCs, I'll quit. If it looks like they made any attempt at actually trying to make a real story, I'll try to get to the end so that I can possibly have something constructive to say.)
With the thumb up/down, the rating would be based on the proportion of good/bad ratings. An even split would be 3 stars. Five and One stars would mean that the vast majority of the people who voted liked/hated it. (Not a unanimous vote, just a large majority - if 90% of the people who voted liked it, then it fulfills whatever it is that they're looking for.)
Votes would need to come from the global handles, rather than per character. And it would *not* ask you to vote again if you replay the mission, unless it has changed since then. (That doesn't seem too insane to track - your global name, your good/bad/non vote, and the date. If the mission file has a newer date than your last vote, it brings up the window again, preferably with your previous choice highlighted.)
[ QUOTE ]
This is old news. We've figured out that HA is not a griefer but rather just weird.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've known he's just weird for some time now. He ... I ... we ... wouldn't have it any other way.
I do rate harshly, I readily admit; my personal tastes seem to differ greatly from much of the community. And I don't pull any punches, so to speak. But I receive actual thanks from time to time, and often invitations to revisit a modified arc. I love that. So I'm going to stay weird.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is old news. We've figured out that HA is not a griefer but rather just weird.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've known he's just weird for some time now. He ... I ... we ... wouldn't have it any other way.
I do rate harshly, I readily admit; my personal tastes seem to differ greatly from much of the community. And I don't pull any punches, so to speak. But I receive actual thanks from time to time, and often invitations to revisit a modified arc. I love that. So I'm going to stay weird.
[/ QUOTE ]
This thread is not about you.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the most reasonable interpretation of the data is that statistically speaking the average rater perceives the average arc to be closer to 3.6 stars rather than 3 stars, and ratings skew towards that number. The curve is also much sharper than expected for a normal distribution, which implies that the skew is quite strong (suggesting people are reluctant to give out 5s, 2s, and 1s).
[/ QUOTE ]
It seems like we are assuming that there are more 4/3 votes when there could actually be more 5/1 votes. How did you come to this conclusion when we are looking at averages? You can't conclusively separate 4/3 star ratings from 5/1 star ratings in an average, can you?
[/ QUOTE ]
See my previous post: short answer is that a) I'm specifically talking about averages above, and not specific votes, and b) there is *some* evidence that 5-votes are not more common than the averages suggest. Some of that is buried in the information that can be gleaned from the MA, however.
In all cases, we're generally talking about statistically likely theories, not demonstrative proof of individual voting patterns.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks, Arcana. This makes sense although I admit my eyes kept crossing while reading your details. 
I would definitely be interested in seeing those stats you were talking about that pertain to 5 star ratings and very large arcs.
[ QUOTE ]
Are the people running your arc from page 1 hitting the easy targets and not getting what they want, while those that find you on page 43 reading your description and liking it?
[/ QUOTE ]
There's some of that going on, but really, the griefing is happening.
Dozens of people have the exact same story.
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is not about you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Never claimed it was, my dear londerwost.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is not about you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Never claimed it was, my dear londerwost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you do sound like a troll. Maybe we were wrong?
[ QUOTE ]
I would definitely be interested in seeing those stats you were talking about that pertain to 5 star ratings and very large arcs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a sample of data I took from May 18th:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
arcs VS S M L VL
5 3 486 446 941 1107
4 1006 6305 2620 2766 2677
3 1383 3040 1005 667 649
2 385 876 301 151 128
1 193 692 199 92 77
</pre><hr />
This is a breakdown of rating by size. This is all freely available information, by the way, if you're crazy enough to collect it: the devs are not generous with their datamining information, even with (maybe especially with) me. Note the interesting pattern that if you exclude 5-star arcs, most of the ratings regardless of rating-stars are for small arcs: this suggests that small arcs are played more often than any other size arc (they are at least rated more often). My guess is that VS arcs are much less likely to be good stories *or* good farms, and players are realizing that.
However, 5-star arcs don't fit that pattern. Since there is a clear skew towards Small sized (by flag) arcs, the fact that most 5-star arcs are VL (and the longer the arc the more 5-star arcs it has) implies that there is a very strong bias away from giving smaller arcs a 5-star rating. In fact, VS arcs have trouble getting even a 4-star rating.
There's a lot of data points I'm trying to keep track of as often as I can remember to. But given the various sources of uncertainty in the data (in terms of trying to extrapolate to information I don't have access to) I'm still gathering as much information as I can before I draw any conclusions, as suggestive as the data I have currently seems to be (also, I'm collecting more data now than when I first started, as some of the early data began to show signs of patterns I didn't expect - for instance, there's just the slightest hint that the day of the week you first publish can influence your rating, but the signal is not strong enough with my current data to conclude its statistically significant).
[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 ]
This thread is not about you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Never claimed it was, my dear londerwost.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now you do sound like a troll. Maybe we were wrong?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nah, just a bit giddy this evening. Started a new job this week, so this is the first true weekend I've had since February. And I've been going since 3:00 this morning, so I'm a bit out of sorts; I imagine any posts I make tonight will reflect that.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would definitely be interested in seeing those stats you were talking about that pertain to 5 star ratings and very large arcs.
[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a sample of data I took from May 18th:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
arcs VS S M L VL
5 3 486 446 941 1107
4 1006 6305 2620 2766 2677
3 1383 3040 1005 667 649
2 385 876 301 151 128
1 193 692 199 92 77
</pre><hr />
This is a breakdown of rating by size. This is all freely available information, by the way, if you're crazy enough to collect it: the devs are not generous with their datamining information, even with (maybe especially with) me. Note the interesting pattern that if you exclude 5-star arcs, most of the ratings regardless of rating-stars are for small arcs: this suggests that small arcs are played more often than any other size arc (they are at least rated more often). My guess is that VS arcs are much less likely to be good stories *or* good farms, and players are realizing that.
However, 5-star arcs don't fit that pattern. Since there is a clear skew towards Small sized (by flag) arcs, the fact that most 5-star arcs are VL (and the longer the arc the more 5-star arcs it has) implies that there is a very strong bias away from giving smaller arcs a 5-star rating. In fact, VS arcs have trouble getting even a 4-star rating.
There's a lot of data points I'm trying to keep track of as often as I can remember to. But given the various sources of uncertainty in the data (in terms of trying to extrapolate to information I don't have access to) I'm still gathering as much information as I can before I draw any conclusions, as suggestive as the data I have currently seems to be (also, I'm collecting more data now than when I first started, as some of the early data began to show signs of patterns I didn't expect - for instance, there's just the slightest hint that the day of the week you first publish can influence your rating, but the signal is not strong enough with my current data to conclude its statistically significant).
[/ QUOTE ]
Thank you for posting this, I really appreciate it! It's actually kinda freaky how the numbers significantly skew like you said.
EDIT: I would rationalize that very large arcs are not only more of a commitment but also possibly played by teams. Because of this there might be larger volume of 5 star ratings for those arcs. As far as small arcs, I think the opposite is true where more people are willing to play these because they are quick and easy (at least that's why I like short/medium maps).
[ QUOTE ]
It would have been nice if this is what happened to mine. I could have handled it.
BUT, I received ZERO feedback on what was wrong with my arc. And I will repeat ZERO feedback. All I got were 2 star ratings and not ONE SINGLE person gave me any indication as to what was wrong with it.
How is someone suppose to improved their arc if no one leaves feedback?????
So I just unpublished it and gave up.
[/ QUOTE ]
I tried your arc and I have to say it is decent but it needs some TLC. I ended up giving a very conflicted 3 stars because I really wanted to give it 4 stars. I would say spend a little more time on it, add more details, make sure the flow of text works and is free of grammar/spelling errors. I think everything visual works and the custom mobs are great! The plot has good pacing and the story is good. Just polish up the text, add more details (descriptions) and I promise to give you a better rating.
[ QUOTE ]
It would have been nice if this is what happened to mine. I could have handled it.
BUT, I received ZERO feedback on what was wrong with my arc. And I will repeat ZERO feedback. All I got were 2 star ratings and not ONE SINGLE person gave me any indication as to what was wrong with it.
How is someone suppose to improved their arc if no one leaves feedback?????
So I just unpublished it and gave up.
[/ QUOTE ]
Londer and I duoed your arc tonight on our scrappers. Thanks for republishing it. 
Now for the feedback:
First, I should mention that I played my 50 Kat/DA scrapper, and he played his 50 Kat/Regen scrapper. The difficulty seemed decent--probably a bit on the easy side for our scraptastic duo, but I could see it being tougher for other ATs.
The flow was good, and the missions had a good momentum to them. I never felt like it got tedious or bogged down in needless objectives, which has been the case with some other arcs I've played. So well done there!
Now for a few specifics:
Mission 1
Information seemed a bit vague. Who is this company? What do they do? What do we expect of them, and why do we care about them? Who are these security guards with letters in their names? I'd probably add some more specifics to the descriptive text and include more detailed "info" descriptions for the custom mobs.
End mission text "That was a bit harder than expected" - be careful about attributing thoughts or feelings to other peoples characters. For our scrappers it wasn't hard at all
Mission 2
Custom mobs are nicely done - could use descriptive "info" text though. The were cool enough that I wanted to know more about them though, which is why I looked for more description
Was a bit confused as to what qualifies as "security." Are you presuming that the player has stealth powers, or are they supposed to fight through the elementals? In any case we fought through them.
I liked the end mission popup text a lot more in this one
Mission 3
Boss dialog - The phrasing makes it almost sound like Blood Witch is in on the plot. Caught us off guard and was a bit confusing. Also, Pratt is supposed to be spilling their plans after we defeat him, but there wasn't anything in his dialog to indicate that. We forgot to check the clue (doh) so we were a bit confused when we saw the contact's next dialog.
I also think you want to avoid making it sound like the player is subordinate to the contact in any way (use of "lackey", "be my backup" etc..). The player wants to feel that they're the star of the story.
Also an ally with storm powers immediately inspired fear in two scrappers. She proved to be fine though, and hung back at range with her hurricane. But then she got stuck in the floor somehow. (I know that's simply a bug though, not that you can fix it)
Mission 4
Entry text redundant, already covered by mission objectives
Two scrappers dispatched the EB easily, so there were no issues there.
Last bit of overall feedback: some language is a bit awkward. I think you could tighten up some of the mission text and clue text. Perhaps read it aloud to yourself to decide if you like how it sounds.
I gave it three stars, but Londer and I both agreed that it could easily be four stars with some polish.
It was a fun romp on our scrappers. Thanks for making it!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK having looked over Heaven's Agent's review of the arc, and seeing what ludicrous things he's docking stars for, I'm absolutely convinced he's just a troll - nobody can actually be this petty and overanalytical and be serious about it.
Some highlights include (paraphrased, and this is only a handful of them):
"Arc did not go in depth to explain every nuance of Red Shift's time travel plugging all possible interpretations of it against possible plot holes by over analysis of the arc"
[/ QUOTE ]
After I read this, I couldn't believe a word you said.
You start off by saying that you may paraphrase BUT everything you attribute to Heaven is in QUOTES. Quotes mean that something ISN'T paraphrased.
So I don't believe you when you say Heaven "griefed" this arc because it didn't meet EVERY NUANCE and ALL POSSIBLE INTERPERTATIONS ... and OVER ANALYSIS ...
I believe those are your words, not his, that you're placing in HIS quotes.
And if you can't believe the messenger, you can't believe the message.
The fact that you and your SG all played and loved an arc doesn't mean that everyone else will - or should. The intensity of your anger at Heaven for what is, basically, his opinion leads me to believe that you are NOT some disinterested party defending a stranger's MArc.
Don't know what your hidden agenda is, but I don't believe a word you say.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, let me get this straight...
You think I have a "hidden agenda" (seriously now - conspiracy theories?) because...
I explicitly say I am paraphrasing and picking 'key highlights' (read: extreme outliers), you fully admit I am paraphrasing, but since I put the paraphrasing in quotes (after saying they're paraphrased, and you reading them knowing they're paraphrased, and nobody in their right mind reading it thinking they're his exact quotes especially given the preceding unless they're really stretching or not paying attention,) I am lying and not paraphrasing them at all but am claiming that he said them exactly (which I never did at any point)?
Am I just about right here? Really now...come ON, you're coming across as pretty silly here.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would have been nice if this is what happened to mine. I could have handled it.
BUT, I received ZERO feedback on what was wrong with my arc. And I will repeat ZERO feedback. All I got were 2 star ratings and not ONE SINGLE person gave me any indication as to what was wrong with it.
How is someone suppose to improved their arc if no one leaves feedback?????
So I just unpublished it and gave up.
[/ QUOTE ]
I tried your arc and I have to say it is decent but it needs some TLC. I ended up giving a very conflicted 3 stars because I really wanted to give it 4 stars. I would say spend a little more time on it, add more details, make sure the flow of text works and is free of grammar/spelling errors. I think everything visual works and the custom mobs are great! The plot has good pacing and the story is good. Just polish up the text, add more details (descriptions) and I promise to give you a better rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
This feedback (and anachrodragon's) is like gold. It's none of my business, but I sincerely hope the author takes these comments to heart. They seem to be given in the best possible spirit. If everyone rated and commented in a similar fashion we would not have a problem. But that, unfortunately, is not often the case in my experience.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom (or freem?) fighter; just as one man's exploit is another man's feature.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are the people running your arc from page 1 hitting the easy targets and not getting what they want, while those that find you on page 43 reading your description and liking it?
[/ QUOTE ]
There's some of that going on, but really, the griefing is happening.
Dozens of people have the exact same story.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think enough of both behaviors is giong on to muddy up the water. And people voting high if they are in a good mood or low if they are mad about something.
Lots of 50's yada yada. still finding fun things to do.
Cthulhu loves you, better start running
I�! I�! Gg�gorsch�a�bha egurtsa�ar�ug d� Dalhor! Cthluhu fthagn! Cthluhu fthagn!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages
[ QUOTE ]
Here's a sample of data I took from May 18th:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
arcs VS S M L VL
5 3 486 446 941 1107
4 1006 6305 2620 2766 2677
3 1383 3040 1005 667 649
2 385 876 301 151 128
1 193 692 199 92 77
</pre><hr />
This is a breakdown of rating by size. This is all freely available information, by the way, if you're crazy enough to collect it: the devs are not generous with their datamining information, even with (maybe especially with) me. Note the interesting pattern that if you exclude 5-star arcs, most of the ratings regardless of rating-stars are for small arcs: this suggests that small arcs are played more often than any other size arc (they are at least rated more often). My guess is that VS arcs are much less likely to be good stories *or* good farms, and players are realizing that.
However, 5-star arcs don't fit that pattern. Since there is a clear skew towards Small sized (by flag) arcs, the fact that most 5-star arcs are VL (and the longer the arc the more 5-star arcs it has) implies that there is a very strong bias away from giving smaller arcs a 5-star rating. In fact, VS arcs have trouble getting even a 4-star rating.
There's a lot of data points I'm trying to keep track of as often as I can remember to. But given the various sources of uncertainty in the data (in terms of trying to extrapolate to information I don't have access to) I'm still gathering as much information as I can before I draw any conclusions, as suggestive as the data I have currently seems to be (also, I'm collecting more data now than when I first started, as some of the early data began to show signs of patterns I didn't expect - for instance, there's just the slightest hint that the day of the week you first publish can influence your rating, but the signal is not strong enough with my current data to conclude its statistically significant).
[/ QUOTE ]
I took your numbers and did an analysis by percentage.
The data converted to percentage:
<font class="small">Code:[/color]<hr /><pre>
VS S M L VL
5 0.10% 4.26% 9.76% 20.38% 23.87%
4 33.87% 55.31% 57.32% 59.91% 57.72%
3 46.57% 26.67% 21.99% 14.45% 13.99%
2 12.96% 7.68% 6.58% 3.27% 2.76%
1 6.50% 6.07% 4.35% 1.99% 1.66%
</pre><hr />
I graphed the data and noticed a few things:
VL and L arcs share similar distributions
M and S arcs share similar distributions
Among 5, 3, 2, and 1 star arcs, length seems to be an important factor. VL arcs do better than L arcs, which do better than M arcs, which do better than S arcs, which do better than VS arcs.
Note: 'better' means different things for different stars. For 5 start arcs 'better' means a higher percentage of - you want your arc to receive this rating. For 1,2 and 3 star ratings, 'better' means a lower percentage - you do not want you arc to receive this rating.
Among 4 star arcs, length doesn't seem to matter as much. The ratings for VL, L, M, and S all cluster around the 55-60% range.
VS arcs look underrepresented at the 4 and 5 star ratings.
Here's some possible conclusions:
<ul type="square"> [*]people like to reward effort. They recognize that it takes more effort to craft a longer story arc, so they grade you slightly better based on that.
[*]since the longer arcs take longer to make, the authors are putting more work into them - and that results in a better story.
[*]a longer arc gives the author more time to tell their story, and thus a better story results.
[*] VS arcs may involve someone experimenting with the MA and not an actual attempt at a story.
[*] is may be more difficult to put together a high quality Very Short arc because there just aren't that many story elements to work with.
[/list]
Something that i didn't consider is that the longer the arc is, the greater the chance that the players will bail out of it before finishing it. This may cause longer arcs to be underrepresented at the lower end of the rating scale.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since there are people out there saying "I'm maliciously voting things down," and I've seen the evidence with my own eyes, I'm inclined to believe it, too.
[/ QUOTE ]
Didn't happen to me, but did happen to a friend of mine. Someone asked on a channel for recommendations on some arcs to try. My friend mentioned his arc and said he'd been trying to get some more people to play it so he could get input about how to tweak it. No spamming, no begging, just an answer to the question.
Lo and behold, someone said that because my friend said he was trying to get people to play it, said someone was deliberately going to play it and one rate it, just to 'teach him a lesson'.
Had I not seen it on channel, I wouldn't have believed it. But there it was. What a maroon.
The stated low-rater *did* play the arc, *did* give it a one star, and even stated in the comments that it wasn't because of the content, but because he'd tried to 'solicit plays'. Excuse me? How is that helpful to *anyone*?
Y'know, if my friend had been spamming, that would have been one thing (although personally, I still think that would have been an abuse of the ratings system). However, he wasn't, and I, for one, am always glad to see people mention an arc they've done. And hey, someone was *asking* for arcs to be recommended!!
The star system needs to be gutted for the same reason that the rankings on the message boards were eliminated: too much potential for abuse by trolls. It's a sad thing, because it *could* be very useful. Unfortunately, as it is, if it's not abuse by trolls, it's artificially inflated ratings to avoid hurting feelings. Either way, the information's rarely accurate.
~Elizabeth
[/ QUOTE ]
Since there was evidence in the global channel that the one-star was deliberate, premeditated, and irrelevant to the arc itself, I'd have gathered it all up and sent it in with a petition for ratings griefing.
Even if it didn't amount to anything, the talking-to the player would have gotten from the CS folks would be a BIG clue that an honest request for plays and ratings is NOT A BAD THING.
"City of Heroes. April 27, 2004 - August 31, 2012. Obliterated not with a weapon of mass destruction, not by an all-powerful supervillain... but by a cold-hearted and cowardly corporate suck-up."
[ QUOTE ]
Since there was evidence in the global channel that the one-star was deliberate, premeditated, and irrelevant to the arc itself, I'd have gathered it all up and sent it in with a petition for ratings griefing.
Even if it didn't amount to anything, the talking-to the player would have gotten from the CS folks would be a BIG clue that an honest request for plays and ratings is NOT A BAD THING.
[/ QUOTE ]
I love the copy/paste feature, makes doing this so much easier.
A post from the devs saying that valid petitions regarding this are being treating seriously with bans and/or revoked ratings priviliges would go a long way.
I don't believe anything is being done about it, even when people do petition.
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.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope you're wrong here. I have given out 1-star ratings, 2-star ratings, 3, 4 and 5. Given that each account holder can only rate an arc once, regardless of how many alts they play, I refuse to believe we have more spiteful griefers playing CoX than players who give out 1-star ratings just thinking that they deserve them.
At least, I sure hope we don't.
[/ QUOTE ]
I wish he was wrong.
The fact is that most people who have seen their arcs hit with 0 or 1 star votes (assuming of course we're talking about working missions with something attempting proper english, etc) have only seen them when they have hit the first page or two of search by ratings. Even our one Hall of Fame arc gains and loses the status over and over because as soon as he gets it, there are a flood of 0's and 1's coming in. As soon as the arc gets lost in the glut of 4 star arcs? They stop.
It's been seen by too many people on too many arcs with too many people saying "Hey, I downvote stuff on the front page because I want to be on the front page and they're taking up the space I should be filling with my Naruto fanfic" to pretend it doesn't happen.
I might have exaggerated slightly on the Naruto fanfic. There's probably also some Sephiroth loves my CoH character stuff, too.
[/ QUOTE ]
could you be looking at it wrong? How many people see your arc if it isnt on the first page? If you are on page 43, does anyone even try your arc?
Lots of 50's yada yada. still finding fun things to do.
Cthulhu loves you, better start running
I�! I�! Gg�gorsch�a�bha egurtsa�ar�ug d� Dalhor! Cthluhu fthagn! Cthluhu fthagn!
You are in a maze of twisty little passages