City of Heroes: Live Forum Archive

Victims of Architect ratings griefers

Aliana Blue

By Aliana Blue,
Posted on: 2009-05-24 15:28 in Mission Architect

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've used copy/paste for petitions, not for this, but for other harassment petitions (like racial slurs for example). You would think people would wise up. Anything you say can be copy/pasted into a petition, it doesn't matter where you say it anymore.

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.

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
Only stupid griefers brag about doing it. So if even if they get banned, it doesn't make much of a dent in the jerk population.

They need to go a step further, do some datamining, and ban anyone who habitually 1 or 0 stars arcs they haven't even started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Far better to just make it impossible to rate without at least having been in the arc. The game really doesnt need to encourage people to leave

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
Only stupid griefers brag about doing it. So if even if they get banned, it doesn't make much of a dent in the jerk population.

They need to go a step further, do some datamining, and ban anyone who habitually 1 or 0 stars arcs they haven't even started.

[/ QUOTE ]

as long as they do the same to people that habitually give 4 and 5 star ratings. After all, we are supposed to be inflating peoples ego's, not giving our opinions.

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

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
Only stupid griefers brag about doing it. So if even if they get banned, it doesn't make much of a dent in the jerk population.

They need to go a step further, do some datamining, and ban anyone who habitually 1 or 0 stars arcs they haven't even started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehm.... Some people give Missions that brags about being a farming mission an 0 before goin inside (along with Reporting it).

In general Farm-busting is already worrying enough to do as is, since people - in some cases - need to go inside the illegal mission to be sure. Let's not get the wrong people autobanned.

In general we need a cataloguing system, not a rating system.

Rating systems can only end up as fail.

//AtCbM// www.crystalblue.dk
Victory - Mare,Dagger of Pain,Keep,Hogun and Bloodpetal
The Keep-Arcs: 164260, 188373, 192610, 196090 and funny side-chapter 218575.
Mender-Arc: 266163

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only stupid griefers brag about doing it. So if even if they get banned, it doesn't make much of a dent in the jerk population.

They need to go a step further, do some datamining, and ban anyone who habitually 1 or 0 stars arcs they haven't even started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehm.... Some people give Missions that brags about being a farming mission an 0 before goin inside (along with Reporting it).

In general Farm-busting is already worrying enough to do as is, since people - in some cases - need to go inside the illegal mission to be sure. Let's not get the wrong people autobanned.

In general we need a cataloguing system, not a rating system.

Rating systems can only end up as fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to get into the farming debate, but really theres no need to be vindictive about ratings for these. If you've seen firsthand that it's exploitive, I'd just report it and move on.

I mean I'm not above giving out a one-star if I happen across something that's truly no-effort terrible, but I wouldn't anoint myself the "farm police" and seek out farming missions with the intention of downrating them.

But yeah, I do agree with you. We need more cataloging, categorization, and a better search. They seem to be making some effort toward this (at least the search) so I'll be curious to see if that helps a bit with the visibility situation, and if people feel any less of a need to downvote arcs.

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only stupid griefers brag about doing it. So if even if they get banned, it doesn't make much of a dent in the jerk population.

They need to go a step further, do some datamining, and ban anyone who habitually 1 or 0 stars arcs they haven't even started.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehm.... Some people give Missions that brags about being a farming mission an 0 before goin inside (along with Reporting it).

In general Farm-busting is already worrying enough to do as is, since people - in some cases - need to go inside the illegal mission to be sure. Let's not get the wrong people autobanned.

In general we need a cataloguing system, not a rating system.

Rating systems can only end up as fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of no group that more needs an auto ban than those you speak of. They are little more than griefers that have found targets of opportunity. Once the farm in MA situation blows over they will move on and find other ways to annoy people.

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]

Ehm.... Some people give Missions that brags about being a farming mission an 0 before goin inside (along with Reporting it).


[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the farmers want a low rating? They are using the mission for FARMING. They get far more xp and tickets by doing the mission than they do from the mission itself.

The last thing they should want is to get a high rating that exposes their farm mission to a curious public. The more people doing that mission outside of their circle of 'field hands' the greater chance there is that some busybody is going to report their farm.

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ehm.... Some people give Missions that brags about being a farming mission an 0 before goin inside (along with Reporting it).


[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't the farmers want a low rating? They are using the mission for FARMING. They get far more xp and tickets by doing the mission than they do from the mission itself.

The last thing they should want is to get a high rating that exposes their farm mission to a curious public. The more people doing that mission outside of their circle of 'field hands' the greater chance there is that some busybody is going to report their farm.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misquoted that. It was said by Crystalblue, not by me.

I disagree with the practice of zero starring farming arcs (or any arc really). If something is against the rules then people can report it and move on. There's no need to ratings "grief" over it.

 

Posted

What they really need to do is change how the rating affects page order.

1) Make 2-5 stars bump an arc up (by differing ammounts) and 1 not affect it. This way good arcs still move up without the griefers being able to drop them down. Good arcs get bumped ahead of ones that are rated poorly.

2) Make it so arcs must be finished to be rated.

2 changes that would fix most of the issues with the system.

 

Posted

I'd go for not being able to rate a mission unless you've got a currently published mission. Allow everyone to provide feedback, but only allow published authors to rate.

*I* would be one of those who would not be able to vote, by the way.

This would help the ratings system in two ways.

One, I guarantee a lot of the one-star griefers will never write an arc. They aren't the type who will spend their time producing something for others to enjoy. Therefore, they can't vote. If they do manage to publish something, then they're opening themselves up to being treated as they've treated others.

Two, anyone who's actually written a mission will know more about the abilities and limitations of the mission architect. It's very easy to be hypercritical when one doesn't realize that there are simply things one cannot do without running smackdab into memory limitations, program limitations, or what have you.

FYI, while I have not written an arc, my husband's written two, and watching him agonize over them have certainly given me a different perspective than I would have had otherwise.

This should pretty much limit all griefing to nasty feedback comments, which can be /petitioned and dealt with appropriately.

Leave the saving of the world to the men? I don't think so! -Elastigirl

The SOLUS Foundation - http://www.solusfoundation.com
A Liberty-based bastion, seven years strong.

 

Posted

I dont think that would help. It takes a couple minutes to create a one mission kill-all mission. The people who are really out for blood would have no problem getting around this very minor hurdle.

131430 Starfare: First Contact
178774 Tales of Croatoa: A Rose By Any Other Name ( 2009 MA Best In-Canon Arc ) ( 2009 Player Awards - Best Serious Arc )

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I found this information to be interesting, especially the (very reasonable) speculation about how players may rate based on the length of an arc.

My arc "Wicked, Wicked Wonderland" WAS long when I first made it. Then the patch came and it was "too long" and broken. Then another patch came and it was fixed - and it suddenly became ... Medium?????

At all times I crammed it held the same 99.xxxxxx% that it could hold ... so I've never quite been sure what the difference is in Medium and Long. (Perhaps the number of missions?)

I wish there were a way to let people (who don't read the forums) know that there is often very little relationship between the number of missions in an arc and the amount of detail, story-telling, innovation and custom mob crafting in it.

 

Posted

One of my arcs I'm working on has a lot of story but consists of 4-5 very small missions.

Unfortunately, the arc's going to be marked as very long even though it'll take maybe an hour to complete.

 

Posted

I dunno. It's sort of weird.

One of my arcs, #2701, has four missions and is classified as "Very Long."

The other arc, #195149, has five missions and is classified as "Long."

So the determination certainly isn't the amount of missions there are. I think it depends on the size of maps you choose and the number of objectives you have.

Play my MA arcs!

Tracking Down Jack Ketch - ArcID #2701
Cat War! - ArcID #2788

 

Posted

Ah, objectives are probably it. I use small-medium maps in all but one mission, but they're packed with optional objectives (patrols, collection that add story clues, ambushes, etc.) to add some flavour.

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]

2) Make it so arcs must be finished to be rated.


[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this one. I really don't see why this wasn't implemented from the start. I can understand people might think something sucks so bad at the start, but maybe it gets better, or maybe it sucks all the way through, but you should have to have seen all of it to rate it.

If the devs want to make it so people who don't or can't finish want a say, they should add a completed vs. not completed field and a mandatory comment if you want your incomplete logged. Like bosses impossible for solo defender or arch villain in the first room made it impossible for even a purpled brute to get through. Or something like that so that it can be properly evaluated (even if the comment is anonymous).

Yes it would require a little more effort on the part of the devs, but if they really want to make this work they need to put it more effort.

Taking away the badges won't solve the problem because the problem is not the badges, it's the rating system, the reporting system and the inability for individuals to log a public comment or review in the game itself for an arc.

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the practice of zero starring farming arcs (or any arc really). If something is against the rules then people can report it and move on. There's no need to ratings "grief" over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If something is illegal I report it.

If something is utterly Bad I zero or one Star it.

I never said I would *just* rate farms and not report them, where did you all get that from?

Actually, if I meet a really WELL-made Story that is also an illegal farm, I'll 5 star + report it, but in general they are mindless 0-2 star garbage.

All I said in my original piece - If they implement a system where people who zero star stuff they have had a limited look at are blacklisted for future rating, they are going to target more than just the griefers.

Also blocking you from rating something as bad just because you haven't actually gone through a city wide kill-all (where some have fallen through the world so you never can finish) isn't a good solution either.

Instead - make ratings public - show who voted! It might give some backlash with a genuine bad review I know, but it'll keep people honest at least, and draw more comments along with the votes to avoid revenge-voting (which will also be obvious), and add "%-completed" tag to each vote/comment in that log too for much needed detail, so we know where people got so tired they just voted and moved on (or if they tried at all).

//AtCbM// www.crystalblue.dk
Victory - Mare,Dagger of Pain,Keep,Hogun and Bloodpetal
The Keep-Arcs: 164260, 188373, 192610, 196090 and funny side-chapter 218575.
Mender-Arc: 266163

 

Posted

Qr - the Red Blur thing sounds like it might be great- I have no problem sitting back and being entertained for one mission out of five. I'll give it a go tonight

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:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
[The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2) Make it so arcs must be finished to be rated.


[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with this one. I really don't see why this wasn't implemented from the start. I can understand people might think something sucks so bad at the start, but maybe it gets better, or maybe it sucks all the way through, but you should have to have seen all of it to rate it.

If the devs want to make it so people who don't or can't finish want a say, they should add a completed vs. not completed field and a mandatory comment if you want your incomplete logged. Like bosses impossible for solo defender or arch villain in the first room made it impossible for even a purpled brute to get through. Or something like that so that it can be properly evaluated (even if the comment is anonymous).

Yes it would require a little more effort on the part of the devs, but if they really want to make this work they need to put it more effort.

Taking away the badges won't solve the problem because the problem is not the badges, it's the rating system, the reporting system and the inability for individuals to log a public comment or review in the game itself for an arc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The common argument I've seen against this is that some arcs are just not completeable. I've seen a few arcs where this is pretty much the truth.

Another proposal is to weight the responses.
You don't even enter the first mission? You get 1/10 of a vote (or less).
Having entered a mission, your vote is weighted by the total number of objectives you completed out of the entire arc.

You complete zero objectives, again you get 1/10 of a vote.

This doesnt help much with the 1 mission arcs, but probably the best that could be thought of.

I'd combine this with the idea of throwing out the top and bottom 10% of ratings ( have to at least get 10 votes before this makes sense).

131430 Starfare: First Contact
178774 Tales of Croatoa: A Rose By Any Other Name ( 2009 MA Best In-Canon Arc ) ( 2009 Player Awards - Best Serious Arc )

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]


Instead - make ratings public - show who voted! It might give some backlash with a genuine bad review I know, but it'll keep people honest at least, and draw more comments along with the votes to avoid revenge-voting (which will also be obvious), and add "%-completed" tag to each vote/comment in that log too for much needed detail, so we know where people got so tired they just voted and moved on (or if they tried at all).

[/ QUOTE ]

You're on the front page with a 5 star rating. I play your arc and honestly feel it's a 3. I tried to really like it but I couldn't. It was just too flat. So I give it a 3.

Then suddenly I've got a bunch of 0's on my arcs. yes they might have your name, but what's to stop you saying "well.. I thought they REALLY sucked!"? And who wants to have GM's running around investigating every instance of questionable rating? They work hard enough with EULA violations and arc content to not have to investigate who griefed who with a rating.

 

Posted

Well.. that's what I said to begin with. Ratings are always going to be fail, there is no complete solution (doesn't stop me from trying since the silly stars are still with us).

Categorizing missions is the way to go.

//AtCbM// www.crystalblue.dk
Victory - Mare,Dagger of Pain,Keep,Hogun and Bloodpetal
The Keep-Arcs: 164260, 188373, 192610, 196090 and funny side-chapter 218575.
Mender-Arc: 266163

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
If something is illegal I report it ... if I meet a really WELL-made Story that is also an illegal farm, I'll 5 star + report it ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you give me an example of this? In my mind, if an arc is a well-written story worthy of 5 stars then it can't BE a farm, it can only be used AS a farm (the same way countless dev arcs are used as farms). But the onus would be on the players of the arc and not the author.

The reason I ask you to explain this is that its entirely possible that I'm being naive and that what you say is possible. But some examples would be appreciated.

 

Posted

I'm just saying that disguising a Farm as a story isn't going to stop it from being reported if it can be abused to farm with.

I'm pretty sure I could have made an excellent Rikti Comm. officer Mission, story-wise.

Most likely the GM's will be more forthcoming in getting your mission live again in a non-explotable way in a case like that.

I wouldn't worry, but yeah - using explotable mobs in an exploitable combination will fall back on the author I'm afraid, until fixed.



I got another idea btw.

right now the mission list is DC,5,4,3,2,1

make this DC,POTD,5,4,3,2,1

Where POTD = Pick of the Day
40 random 5 star, 40 random 4 star, 20 random 3 star
chosen (random) once per day and stuck in before the "Page 1 5 Stars" and sorted randomly too, staying there like that till the next day.

Would take a lot of incitement to upvote friends/downvote enemies away.

//AtCbM// www.crystalblue.dk
Victory - Mare,Dagger of Pain,Keep,Hogun and Bloodpetal
The Keep-Arcs: 164260, 188373, 192610, 196090 and funny side-chapter 218575.
Mender-Arc: 266163