Victims of Architect ratings griefers
By
Aliana Blue,
Posted on: 2009-05-24 15:28 in Mission Architect
The funniest grief I had (zero stars) was the comment - "Your arc is bad and you should feel bad." 
Now, while I can certainly believe someone would not like that arc (although up until that point, all feedback has been positive; or actually constructive) enough to give it a zero star rating; it does come across to me as a grief by someone who somehow believes someone's ego is so 'fragile' they'd be upset over this.
Like any other system in any MMO that allows for direct player input; ANY public player ratings system they impliment will be griefable; and there will be people who enjoy griefing just for the sake of it.
So, never take anything personally, know when to accept good critisim, when to ignore bad criticism; and realize that nothing you create will ever be universally liked by anyone, and you won't always get a 'fair shake'; and their's nothing you can do to change any of that.
(Funny thing was - it was the 25th rating, so it got me a badge, and it's still at 4 stars overall )
It amazes me people bother
So....what is it when you log in and find that all three of your arcs have been rated overnight, and you have no tickets to claim and no feedback? One of these arcs gets about a play a day and mostly positive (3-star or higher) ratings, but the other two haven't been rated in days. Does that mean someone played one of them, decided it was bad, and out of sheer masochism played the other two?
Edit: And no progress on the Builder line of badges either. So someone must have started all three arcs, and thought they were so bad they couldn't even finish them.
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
Not to rain on the parade here, but this may actually not be so bad. If the griefers are indescrimnate, it will allow more arcs to get seen. As long as they grief most good arcs, then we are ok.
I personally think that they should add rules like,
1) You Must complete the arc to rate it
2) category of the number of times played, vs number of times quit
The Hero Simulator, Chapter 1, The Beta Tester
The Hero Simulator, Chapter 2, The Robot Mystery
More Info at....
https://boards.cityofheroes.com/show...0#Post13494207
[ QUOTE ]
While, after reading HA's review and processing it internally, I have a hard time turning that critique into a 1-star rating, I have to defend HA's right to give that rating. The critique was pretty specific in its complaints. And while some of those complaints may have no valid answer (who's seriously going to explain time travel in 1000 characters or less?) some of them were pretty damning (if you only have to free one EB and never fire a power again, something went wrong in your play balancing).
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and No.
We all have the 'right' to rate as we please, but I would say that something should be done to avoid baseless 1 stars, and I'm sorry but from what's been described as 'problems' to me suggest that this is at the very least a 2, if not a 3 star arc and that's jsut reading the critique and not the counter points.
Geekboy at least tried to explain some kind of time travel. That amount of thought puts him way past a lot of the junk out there that's just a bunch of hellians and skulls to kill for quick xp.
He can give it whatever he wants but I'm coming around A Lot to the idea taht lowest ratings should be dropped over time (and highest as well) because one or two really bad scores can skew data without justification.
I do stat's as a hobby, and as part of being a math teacher. If I have 20 ratings all 4's and 5's and I get one 1 rating, that 1 rating pushes me down to nearly a 4.0 rating. Now based on all the other data, I should haev something like a 4.5. In other words, the 'average' is not reflective of the data set.
In statisitcs there are formulas to determine outliers. They're not that complicated and we use them all the the time to get a good read on what numbers are telling us. Rather then letting one or two anomolus data points skew our measures of center we just toss out the data that is SOOOOO far from the norm as to be unlikely to be valid.
In other words, if 20 people give a 4 or a 5 and one person gives a 1, then it's probable, statistically speaking, that the single 1 star rating is not a valid data point.
Now if we have 10 5's and 10 1's, that's a TOTALLY different ball of wax, and in taht case, the standard deviation for the data will be substantially higher and suggest that the 1's ARE indeed valid data points. Part of the trick in stat's is that you don't toss the potentially invalid data totally, you just leave them out of the average until you have more data to either confirm that there is a downward trend, or to confirm that they are invalid.
In other words, you get 10 reviews. 9 5's and 1 1. The one is likely an outlier so the average is 5 (not counting the 1). Then you get 5 more reviews all 1. Now that implies that the 1 is in deed a valid data point, so you reinclude that 1 in the average, and then you recalculate.
It's not that hard and I've only had first year stats.
Mr. O
[ QUOTE ]
Not to rain on the parade here, but this may actually not be so bad. If the griefers are indescrimnate, it will allow more arcs to get seen. As long as they grief most good arcs, then we are ok.
I personally think that they should add rules like,
1) You Must complete the arc to rate it
2) category of the number of times played, vs number of times quit
[/ QUOTE ]
I could deal with 1 if 2 were there. I could immediately see what to avoid.
Ofcourse you realize that it's possible to grief in yet another way right?
I'll say again they need to get rid of the star system.
There are WAY better systems that have been proposed by some very intelligent posters all throughout our fourms.
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 ]
While, after reading HA's review and processing it internally, I have a hard time turning that critique into a 1-star rating, I have to defend HA's right to give that rating. The critique was pretty specific in its complaints. And while some of those complaints may have no valid answer (who's seriously going to explain time travel in 1000 characters or less?) some of them were pretty damning (if you only have to free one EB and never fire a power again, something went wrong in your play balancing).
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and No.
We all have the 'right' to rate as we please, but I would say that something should be done to avoid baseless 1 stars, and I'm sorry but from what's been described as 'problems' to me suggest that this is at the very least a 2, if not a 3 star arc and that's jsut reading the critique and not the counter points.
Geekboy at least tried to explain some kind of time travel. That amount of thought puts him way past a lot of the junk out there that's just a bunch of hellians and skulls to kill for quick xp.
He can give it whatever he wants but I'm coming around A Lot to the idea taht lowest ratings should be dropped over time (and highest as well) because one or two really bad scores can skew data without justification.
I do stat's as a hobby, and as part of being a math teacher. If I have 20 ratings all 4's and 5's and I get one 1 rating, that 1 rating pushes me down to nearly a 4.0 rating. Now based on all the other data, I should haev something like a 4.5. In other words, the 'average' is not reflective of the data set.
In statisitcs there are formulas to determine outliers. They're not that complicated and we use them all the the time to get a good read on what numbers are telling us. Rather then letting one or two anomolus data points skew our measures of center we just toss out the data that is SOOOOO far from the norm as to be unlikely to be valid.
In other words, if 20 people give a 4 or a 5 and one person gives a 1, then it's probable, statistically speaking, that the single 1 star rating is not a valid data point.
Now if we have 10 5's and 10 1's, that's a TOTALLY different ball of wax, and in taht case, the standard deviation for the data will be substantially higher and suggest that the 1's ARE indeed valid data points. Part of the trick in stat's is that you don't toss the potentially invalid data totally, you just leave them out of the average until you have more data to either confirm that there is a downward trend, or to confirm that they are invalid.
In other words, you get 10 reviews. 9 5's and 1 1. The one is likely an outlier so the average is 5 (not counting the 1). Then you get 5 more reviews all 1. Now that implies that the 1 is in deed a valid data point, so you reinclude that 1 in the average, and then you recalculate.
It's not that hard and I've only had first year stats.
Mr. O
[/ QUOTE ]
Problem is many think that 5 should only be reserved for near godhood perfect arcs. With most stuff averaging a 3. If the person REALLY feels it wasn't good then 1 in that instance to them is perfectly valid. Remember, 1 is NOT the lowest rating in this system. (And yet another flaw of why the system needs to die in FIRE btw).
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!
QR, and didn't read the whole thread yet...
[ QUOTE ]
Some people finish an arc and don't want to rate it. Maybe they're just "playing through" or what have you. I'm one of those. I didn't realize until later that whenever I completed an arc and failed to rate it, the individual was getting a 0 star rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that I know this, I will always rate an arc that I play... though I am of the opinion that one must/should finish an arc before giving it a rating.
[ QUOTE ]
QR, and didn't read the whole thread yet...
[ QUOTE ]
Some people finish an arc and don't want to rate it. Maybe they're just "playing through" or what have you. I'm one of those. I didn't realize until later that whenever I completed an arc and failed to rate it, the individual was getting a 0 star rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that I know this, I will always rate an arc that I play... though I am of the opinion that one must/should finish an arc before giving it a rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect. If you just quit it doesn't rate.
you need to click 1 TWICE for it to become a zero, as per one of the devs.
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 ]
Now if we have 10 5's and 10 1's, that's a TOTALLY different ball of wax, and in taht case, the standard deviation for the data will be substantially higher and suggest that the 1's ARE indeed valid data points. Part of the trick in stat's is that you don't toss the potentially invalid data totally, you just leave them out of the average until you have more data to either confirm that there is a downward trend, or to confirm that they are invalid.
[/ QUOTE ]
The other flaw with the rating system is that (if everyone rates honestly) the mission getting 10 "1's" and 10 "5's" is probably more interesting than the mission getting 20 "5's" and certainly more interesting than the mission with 1 "5"
That blue thing running around saying "Cookies are sometimes food" is Praetorian Cookie Monster!
Shoot on sight, please.
[ QUOTE ]
QR, and didn't read the whole thread yet...
[ QUOTE ]
Some people finish an arc and don't want to rate it. Maybe they're just "playing through" or what have you. I'm one of those. I didn't realize until later that whenever I completed an arc and failed to rate it, the individual was getting a 0 star rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that I know this, I will always rate an arc that I play... though I am of the opinion that one must/should finish an arc before giving it a rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure about this.. I think it would be better to require a comment for 0 and 1 star ratings. It is really annoying to log in and see the number of ratings on your arc increase, no ticket message, and your rating drop significantly.
Happened recently to me.. my arc was holding a 4.5 average with 8 people having played and then the next day it goes to 10 rated and a 3 star. No feedback, no tickets (so at least 2 stars) but it had to be 0 or 1 to drop it to a 3 star rating on 2 votes.
Another idea to help people decide if an Arc might be worth playing is if they have a context window over the ratings that breaks down how people rated it. Like:
3 five star
4 four star
1 three star
1 one star
1 zero star
[ QUOTE ]
Another idea to help people decide if an Arc might be worth playing is if they have a context window over the ratings that breaks down how people rated it. Like:
3 five star
4 four star
1 three star
1 one star
1 zero star
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean like Amazon.com? nah... never work. 
YES!!! THIS!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
Problem is many think that 5 should only be reserved for near godhood perfect arcs. With most stuff averaging a 3. If the person REALLY feels it wasn't good then 1 in that instance to them is perfectly valid. Remember, 1 is NOT the lowest rating in this system. (And yet another flaw of why the system needs to die in FIRE btw).
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously. If the system worked, we'd have arcs in the hall of fame. By rating GOOD arcs with a 5 instead of GODLIKE arcs, we actually increase the number of GOOD arcs to choose from. As it stands, we have crap to choose from and no HoF.
Thumbs up, thumbs down, with a weight on the thumbs up (it takes 3 down votes to counter one up) is the best way to combat griefing. Sure it won't be perfect either but at least it will act as a filter because I have to believe that there are more reasonable players out there than griefers. Over time, the good stuff will float to the top even with the griefing 24/7.
[ QUOTE ]
Another idea to help people decide if an Arc might be worth playing is if they have a context window over the ratings that breaks down how people rated it. Like:
3 five star
4 four star
1 three star
1 one star
1 zero star
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that's not bad, actually. Seeing the whole range can help get a better idea of true merit. If I see a large number of 4/5's, a smattering of 2/3's and a whole bunch of 1/0's, I'll know what the real ranking is.
I know it's not the only possible solution to a difficult situation, but it's one of the best I've heard yet.
I wouldn't mind seeing an optional setting for story rating and challenge/play rating, but that won't be easy to do either.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Problem is many think that 5 should only be reserved for near godhood perfect arcs. With most stuff averaging a 3. If the person REALLY feels it wasn't good then 1 in that instance to them is perfectly valid. Remember, 1 is NOT the lowest rating in this system. (And yet another flaw of why the system needs to die in FIRE btw).
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously. If the system worked, we'd have arcs in the hall of fame. By rating GOOD arcs with a 5 instead of GODLIKE arcs, we actually increase the number of GOOD arcs to choose from. As it stands, we have crap to choose from and no HoF.
Thumbs up, thumbs down, with a weight on the thumbs up (it takes 3 down votes to counter one up) is the best way to combat griefing. Sure it won't be perfect either but at least it will act as a filter because I have to believe that there are more reasonable players out there than griefers. Over time, the good stuff will float to the top even with the griefing 24/7.
[/ QUOTE ]
^^^
No, under that system - with the '5 star cartels' - it just means the mediocre and what remains of the explotive farms will float to, and STAY at the top; and with just a 'thumbs up' to go by; yoiu'll sift through more pages than you do now.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Problem is many think that 5 should only be reserved for near godhood perfect arcs. With most stuff averaging a 3. If the person REALLY feels it wasn't good then 1 in that instance to them is perfectly valid. Remember, 1 is NOT the lowest rating in this system. (And yet another flaw of why the system needs to die in FIRE btw).
[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously. If the system worked, we'd have arcs in the hall of fame. By rating GOOD arcs with a 5 instead of GODLIKE arcs, we actually increase the number of GOOD arcs to choose from. As it stands, we have crap to choose from and no HoF.
Thumbs up, thumbs down, with a weight on the thumbs up (it takes 3 down votes to counter one up) is the best way to combat griefing. Sure it won't be perfect either but at least it will act as a filter because I have to believe that there are more reasonable players out there than griefers. Over time, the good stuff will float to the top even with the griefing 24/7.
[/ QUOTE ]
^^^
No, under that system - with the '5 star cartels' - it just means the mediocre and what remains of the explotive farms will float to, and STAY at the top; and with just a 'thumbs up' to go by; yoiu'll sift through more pages than you do now.
[/ QUOTE ]
The ratings and the interface are two separate issues. Yes the ratings system is terrible, but the current interface is equally terrible.
Why is the front page dominated by Dev's Choice and 5-star arcs to begin with? It does absolutely nothing to help you find arcs you might be interested in. Instead they should really have some sort of categorization you can browse through, and better yet if you could customize your own front page. Then if say, you really liked lowbie arcs, or team oriented arcs, or AV arcs, or humor arcs, or whatever, then you could see those first when you click on MA.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see any indication that the current rating system has any sympathy for decent arcs that aren't pushed to the front. Novem, I would ASK people to play it and rate it, giving you feedback in the process. That is how most of the decent arcs got started is by getting people who might actually be interested play it. Otherwise it just gets lost in all the crud.
I would be more than happy to try your arc. There are others on this forum who do try, rate, and review just from people asking.
There's also the "try mine, I'll try yours" method. This seems pretty popular for getting arcs played and rated.
You don't have to go to the most popular reviewer, either. IMO some of them are a little full of themselves anyway. Just get people to play it. Ask. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
[/ QUOTE ]
I totally understand where you are coming from, honest I do. And I did just that. I had the arc in my sig here on the forums asking for people to play and critique, but all I was getting was plays, 2 star rating and no responses what so ever. Again, I can handle someone saying it sucks and here is 1 star AS LONG AS they tell me WHY.
My first and only published arc was by no means hard. I thought it had a nice variety of ranged and melee mobs. I didn't overwhelm anyone with huge groups, I even made it so the contact was available to help in the last two missions (vs the bosses)
I'm no great story teller but at least the story line made some sort of sense (at least to me). I guess what I'm saying is at least I made an attempt to make each mission mean something and each one had dialog that should have helped move the story along.
As I stated earlier I will test it out when I get home (to make sure it wasn't broken by the patches) and republish. I'll post here the new MA ID when I get it posted and I will welcome any and all honest critiquing.
edit: and I have to agree with dragon above as I think the published stories interface needs a huge facelift, for the reason stated.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
QR, and didn't read the whole thread yet...
[ QUOTE ]
Some people finish an arc and don't want to rate it. Maybe they're just "playing through" or what have you. I'm one of those. I didn't realize until later that whenever I completed an arc and failed to rate it, the individual was getting a 0 star rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that I know this, I will always rate an arc that I play... though I am of the opinion that one must/should finish an arc before giving it a rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure about this.. I think it would be better to require a comment for 0 and 1 star ratings. It is really annoying to log in and see the number of ratings on your arc increase, no ticket message, and your rating drop significantly.
Happened recently to me.. my arc was holding a 4.5 average with 8 people having played and then the next day it goes to 10 rated and a 3 star. No feedback, no tickets (so at least 2 stars) but it had to be 0 or 1 to drop it to a 3 star rating on 2 votes.
Another idea to help people decide if an Arc might be worth playing is if they have a context window over the ratings that breaks down how people rated it. Like:
3 five star
4 four star
1 three star
1 one star
1 zero star
[/ QUOTE ]
What would prevent grieffer to put comment like this: "Your arc SUX"?
[ QUOTE ]
What would prevent grieffer to put comment like this: "Your arc SUX"?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, nothing. It's just that it takes them longer and part of why they do what they do right now is because it's quick and easy.
Oh, and this thread (which I think is interesting in and of itself) has a slightly different perspective on my arc if anyone would care to see it. This is from a roleplayer who is taking a character from 1 to 50 in the MA.
[ QUOTE ]
No, under that system - with the '5 star cartels' - it just means the mediocre and what remains of the explotive farms will float to, and STAY at the top; and with just a 'thumbs up' to go by; yoiu'll sift through more pages than you do now.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is why there should only be "thumbs up" and the number of "thumbs up" a single player can give should be very limited.
I really hate the star system. But if it's going to stay, I'd want to at least see the removal of the 0-Star, see arcs ranked by the total number of stars they've earned, and see a breakdown like Dark_Aspect has suggested.
But, really, I just want to see the star system removed entirely, and I want any ratings system used to play second fiddle to robust search functionality. Give us the means to find what we want, and there'll be much less concern over ratings.
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure about this.. I think it would be better to require a comment for 0 and 1 star ratings.
[/ QUOTE ]
Problem with this:
If someone's rated an arc 1 or 0 stars, I don't think they're going to want their time wasted any further by being forced to comment.
Thus, comments would commonly be things like "no comment", "it sucked", or "hurilvijdvlknjeu"... which aren't comments at all.
On a related note, there seems to be a growing perception that giving feedback is somehow an obligation. It's not. And I think it's unrealistic to expect anyone to make some sort of investment in the work of a total stranger. Especially if that work is considered bad or even mediocre by the person being asked to make the investment.
If you want feedback, actively solicit it. Ask friends to run through your arc with you and/or solo it, and do the same for them in return. You can actually gain insight about your own stuff in a dialogue about someone else's stuff. Get a little writer's circle going. I'm sure there are a lot of people around here that'd be into that. I'm not, but that's only because I already have one. If I didn't, I'd be real interested in the idea of some sort of "Test Night" with some other authors on my server.
Bottom line, feedback from random plays shouldn't be expected. People are in MA to play, and writing feedback--no matter how brief--is taking time out from that. If they're on a team, they're even less likely to stop and write, unless everyone they're with is doing it as well. Any player feedback you get should be gravy. It should not be depended upon for your arc's improvement.
The Cape Radio: You're not super until you put on the Cape!
DJ Enigma's Puzzle Factory: Co* Parody Commercials
That is why I limited it to 0 and 1 star ratings. Let's be realistic here.. the only person likely to 0 star an arc is going to be a griefer. I'd really like to see them fix it but in the absence of that I'll take a required comment. Might, at least, slow down the griefers a bit.
I really find that most people don't leave feedback at all. I think, out of the 40 or so that have played my arc, only a fraction have rated it and only 3 or 4 have left feedback in game with a couple others doing reviews on cohmissionreview.com .
Forcing people to leave a comment along with a rating on a truly bad arc would give the author their global, and open them up to revenge 1-star griefing. Although forcing the griefer to comment would make it obvious that it was a revenge griefing, the odds of a petition getting that low rating removed are slim to none.
I rarely even comment on arcs I rate 3 stars, unless it's by someone I know has responded maturely to criticism in the past, simply because so many people don't take it well. If I rate something below 3 stars, chances are it can't be salvaged anyway.
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
[ QUOTE ]
That is why I limited it to 0 and 1 star ratings. Let's be realistic here.. the only person likely to 0 star an arc is going to be a griefer.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't consider that to be realistic. The function is there, the developers have even pointed to it, so it's a valid way to rate. Is it a stupid idea? Yah, I'd say so. Should it be yanked? Yah, I'd say so. But as long as it's there, you can't automatically label anyone who uses it as a griefer.
Everyone has their own idea about what's absolutely horrible. If 0-star comes to represent the absolutely horrible, then arcs that people believe are absolutely horrible will get 0-star ratings. The scale, as the developers have presented it, is not 1 to 5. It's 0 to 5. 0 is a legitimate rating option.
[ QUOTE ]
I'd really like to see them fix it but in the absence of that I'll take a required comment. Might, at least, slow down the griefers a bit.
[/ QUOTE ]
It won't. Won't do a thing about real griefers, I promise you. Because real griefers 1. don't care if you know who they are, and 2. will go to great lengths to grief.
It would cut back on some of the down-voting out of spite... but so what? You'd still have griefers, you'd still have 5-star Cartels, you'd still have 0-raters who believe their rating is legit. In short, you'd still have a broken, useless system.
[ QUOTE ]
I really find that most people don't leave feedback at all.
[/ QUOTE ]
That should be expected.
The Cape Radio: You're not super until you put on the Cape!
DJ Enigma's Puzzle Factory: Co* Parody Commercials
The thing is that the rating system is not and can never be indicative of quality, because it is not and can never be capable of predicting how much YOU are going to like a particular arc.
Another Fan, for instance hates arcs with too much story and prefers gameplay challenges. He is legitimately never going to rate 5 stars on the same arc that Venture would. If Venture was the be-all and end-all arbiter of what got Hall of Fame, Another Fan would be here posting about how much Hall of Fame arcs all suck.
I think the only system that might be meaningful is along the lines of what another poster offered:
- Each player can have a certain number (say 10) arcs on an "I recommend these" list. If your list is full, you have to bump something to put another on. Perhaps disallow putting your own arcs on there.
- Have some ready-made check boxes for why you recommend those: 'great action' 'emotionally gripping plot' 'challenging gameplay' and the like. These should be searchable.
- You can choose a player and see their list of recommended arcs.
This allows you to find and play arcs that are liked by players of similar taste, instead of finding that all of the 5 star arcs are farms, or have too much text, or are all Mary Sues or whatever your peeve is.
There is a downside to this: your friends bugging you to put their arcs into your list. But I think it is still infinitely better than what we have now. No stars, no griefing, and at least the 5 star cartels would be easily identifiable.
Thoughts?
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!
[ QUOTE ]
The funniest grief I had (zero stars) was the comment - "Your arc is bad and you should feel bad."
Now, while I can certainly believe someone would not like that arc (although up until that point, all feedback has been positive; or actually constructive) enough to give it a zero star rating; it does come across to me as a grief by someone who somehow believes someone's ego is so 'fragile' they'd be upset over this.
Like any other system in any MMO that allows for direct player input; ANY public player ratings system they impliment will be griefable; and there will be people who enjoy griefing just for the sake of it.
So, never take anything personally, know when to accept good critisim, when to ignore bad criticism; and realize that nothing you create will ever be universally liked by anyone, and you won't always get a 'fair shake'; and their's nothing you can do to change any of that.
(Funny thing was - it was the 25th rating, so it got me a badge, and it's still at 4 stars overall )
It amazes me people bother
[/ QUOTE ]
What is amazing is the different ways people look at the world around them. What is very funny to me, may be offensive to you. What may make me smile, may leave you feeling depressed. Dont discount some one because they rate an arc using different criteria than you do. Face it, humans are plain wierd.
Its not my damn planet monkey boy....
extra credit if you know what movie that came from.
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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
You, liking l&o, might give them 5 stars. I hate the stuff, give it 0 or 1 star. I am not griefing, but I very much did not like the offering.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was thinking the same thing, but from a different perspective. I was at a friend's house last night and she made potato salad. I don't like potato salad, but everyone else did and really liked it. The fact that I didn't eat it or wouldn't have enjoyed it didn't make the potato salad bad.
That's what separates a good reviewer from a bad one. Do you think that Roger Ebert honestly likes every movie he gives a thumbs up? He rates things based on whether it accomplished what it set out to do.
At first I assumed HA's review was entirely due to some pre-existing grudge against me (though there are still likely to be some issues there), but I've come to realize that he's just a victim of being extremely myopic. He has a narrow vision of what is good and (thankfully) very few of the arcs out there are going to fit into that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I think whether you like something DOES go into it.
Oh, and we aren't Roger Ebert here. Unlike him, we aren't being paid.
EDIT: That said I don't think HA's point was off. I'll play it when I get home.
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!