Victims of Architect ratings griefers
By
Aliana Blue,
Posted on: 2009-05-24 15:28 in Mission Architect
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would be curious if the devs could mine the raw stats on how many people vote 1 vs 3 stars.
[/ QUOTE ]
As of the last time I checked, of the arcs that were rated at all, 9.69% were rated 5-stars, 55.79% were rated 4-stars, 23.71% were rated 3-stars, 6.46% were rated 2-stars, and 4.34% were rated 1-star.
(28.22% of all arcs were unrated at the time)
This is not the same thing as an answer to your question, but its generally suggestive.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a little different than what I was going for, as you stated. 55% of all arcs at 4 stars is different than say, 55% of people voted 4 stars.
I'm willing to bet that you'll actually see a reverse bell curve with most individual votes being 4-5 stars than 1 stars being next. Which still supports my point (if it's true) that most people vote up or down as it is.
[ 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)
[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 ]
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 ]
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
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.
There appears to be a bug in the system that may set your vote to zero stars under some conditions if you exit without selecting any stars.
On some occasions I notice that upon completion of an arc it says "You have rated this arc 0 stars!" even though I have never played it before and have not made a rating. Normally it doesn't say anything unless I click one of the stars. I don't know what conditions lead up to this, as I cannot reproduce it at will.
The question is: if I click finish or just exit, does that register a rating of zero stars? From my experimentation it's not clear whether it's actually casting a zero rating.
If it is registering a zero rating in this case, it could be the source of some unexplained "griefing." It may not really be griefing, but a bug that occurs occasionally.
[ 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 ]
There appears to be a bug in the system that may set your vote to zero stars under some conditions if you exit without selecting any stars.
On some occasions I notice that upon completion of an arc it says "You have rated this arc 0 stars!" even though I have never played it before and have not made a rating. Normally it doesn't say anything unless I click one of the stars. I don't know what conditions lead up to this, as I cannot reproduce it at will.
The question is: if I click finish or just exit, does that register a rating of zero stars? From my experimentation it's not clear whether it's actually casting a zero rating.
If it is registering a zero rating in this case, it could be the source of some unexplained "griefing." It may not really be griefing, but a bug that occurs occasionally.
[/ QUOTE ]
The way it's SUPPOSED to work, is if you quit and don't touch the stars, no rating.
If you double click 1 it's 0.
If it's doing what you say as a bug, that . . .
would be EPIC FAILURE.
Blazara Aura LVL 50 Fire/Psi Dom (with 125% recharge)
Flameboxer Aura LVL 50 SS/Fire Brute
Ice 'Em Aura LVL 50 Ice Tank
Darq Widow Fortune LVL 50 Fortunata (200% rech/Night Widow 192.5% rech)--thanks issue 19!
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
THIS.
Again for the 100th time, the star system needs to die in the perpetual fiery depths of the 7th circle of hell, in a blaze-glorious and heinous way.
And yes, that's how I REALLY feel.
Numerous folks in numerous threads (including this one btw) have come up with excellent replacements. Use them, 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 ]
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 ]
[ 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 ]
This is old news. We've figured out that HA is not a griefer but rather just weird.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
This is old news. We've figured out that HA is not a griefer but rather just weird.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually don't think he's weird at all.
EDIT: And woot, post 10000. 
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 ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did you keep reading to see when I did quote all of it? Because what he's paraphrasing is a very close approximation of what was said if you choose to look for it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did you keep reading to see when I did quote all of it? Because what he's paraphrasing is a very close approximation of what was said if you choose to look for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I must need glasses. Because when I read the whole review, I didn't see what Witch was talking about. Sure, I saw some of the quotes, like the commas. But he carefully selected what to quote - and left out the meat of what was being said.
I bet if I carefully selected quotes (not even paraphrasing, but actual quotes) and eliminated all the nitpicks, even YOU might not want to place this arc.
Let's give it a try, shall we:
"Unholy Spawn of Two Exploited and Poorly Implemented Themes, Poorly Designed and Overpowered Custom Characters, Plot Holes"
"This arc, perhaps intended to be an epic tale, simply comes across as contrived and boring. Its poor use of difficult themes accompanied by the upstaging of the players due to overpowered NPCs and a plot not focused on them or their abilities leaves little for players to do and no challenge to be had."
"* Exploited Theme: Using time travel as an excuse for an army of EBs ... there's no other way to say it. That's weak."
"* Unholy Spawn of Two Exploited Themes: Your implementation of Time Travel is done poorly. Then you combine it with a poorly implemented cloning theme."
* Excess Clues ... don't feed us what we can see for ourselves. You repeatedly add clues that provide no benefit to the plot, and in fact inhibit the plot from building properly."
"Red Blur: Much too powerful as an EB. Able to defeat mobs on map solo and upstage the player."
"A custom character that put Speed Boost on you is a bad idea; some dislike this power for very valid reasons. Very bad when custom mob is a rescued hostage that can't keep up with you once power has been used."
"Plot Hole: 1960s Paragon City was never in ruins as presented. Even in relation to this story, how could I time travel to such a reality"
"Poor map selection. Map theme clashes with enemy group;"
"If there's anything worse than one overpowered ally, it's an army of them. Especially when they not only overpower the primary EB, but the army of EB clones as well."
"Dr. Aeon being the benefactor behind a time travel plot isn't surprising. Maybe a custom villain would be better."
"This mission is designed extremely poorly; if I could rate it separate from the rest of the arc, it would receive 0 Stars."
"Missions should be designed as a challenge for the players, not so they can watch a show put on by NPCs. I didn't activate any powers during the course of the mission after rescuing the first temporal clone."
"Anticlimactic ... remove this mission entirely. After the EB armies battling it out, this is a contrived conclusion at best. The big fight is done, the plot has already come to a head; this mission limps along as an afterthought, and is not a good way to end things."
"Mission Clues -- ... repetitive."
Selective editing means that someone has an agenda. Mine here, is just to show how selective editing can make somethign sound either better or worse than it is.
That's what Witch did to HA's review. And that's what you do when you select key "weak points" in HA's review, or make comments on everyone's comments.
If you've gotten 300+ plays on your arc and average 4 stars, you must be doing something right. So stop whining when someone doesn't like it. That's there right.
As for humor, what you think is funny, other people may or may not find funny. I LOVE Monty Python. My wife, she doesn't really get them.
Stop trying to prove yourself right and others wrong. You can't please everybody.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
This is old news. We've figured out that HA is not a griefer but rather just weird.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually don't think he's weird at all.
EDIT: And woot, post 10000.
[/ QUOTE ]
*gives secret Forum Cartel Handshake, which is no handshake, since there is no forum cartel!*
That blue thing running around saying "Cookies are sometimes food" is Praetorian Cookie Monster!
Shoot on sight, please.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
This is old news. We've figured out that HA is not a griefer but rather just weird.
[/ QUOTE ]
I actually don't think he's weird at all.
EDIT: And woot, post 10000.
[/ QUOTE ]
*gives secret Forum Cartel Handshake, which is no handshake, since there is no forum cartel!*
[/ QUOTE ]
*Hears flash bulb go off and watches as man with black sunglasses and suit walk away*
Ummm, what were we talking about agin? 
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 ]
Don't know what your hidden agenda is, but I don't believe a word you say.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've read the entire review. I've read the paraphrasing. I've read the rebuttal.
Frankly I put HA in a group which is neither critic nor troll, but someone who simply is overly critical. Teachers come at assignments two ways: Either they look for ways to mark a perfect paper down, or they look for ways to mark a mediocre paper up. Most are the former. We give kids 100 points and then knock off points for various mistakes. Even when we write up complex rubrics we still find ourselves saying "but if they make this mistake it bumps them down".
Of course in the context of ~this~ discussion, the only difference between a stretched for 1 star and the spiteful 1 star is that the spiteful happen a LOT more.
Nope.
Still reads like crazy person to me.
Oh, and MrOsterman is totally right in every way. Love or hate what HA wrote, he's in the minority in his opnion, his criteria, and the people who are normally handing out 1 star votes. The guy wasn't griefing me, but most people handing out 1 stars on working arcs are.
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly I put HA in a group which is neither critic nor troll, but someone who simply is overly critical.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is a fair statement.
[ QUOTE ]
Teachers come at assignments two ways: Either they look for ways to mark a perfect paper down, or they look for ways to mark a mediocre paper up.
[/ QUOTE ]
Given you're use of the word "we" here, I'm assuming your a teacher. If that's the case, I won't disagree with you -- you have real-world experience that I don't.
On the other hand, reviewers here for the most part are not teachers. So I don't think the same rule applies. If I like something I want to rate it as high as possible because I want that author to keep turning out arcs. (I haven't created any myself, yet.) I just like playing them. On the other hand, I've played enough really bad arcs to one star them without having to finish the mission.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course in the context of ~this~ discussion, the only difference between a stretched for 1 star and the spiteful 1 star is that the spiteful happen a LOT more.
[/ 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 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 ]
[ 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 ]
Honestly, I think part of this is due to the fact that visibility of arcs is so tied to the star rating system right now. I'm hoping that with the addition of keywords and better searching that some of this might diminish a bit.
I mean can you imagine if product visibility on Amazon.com was based solely on customer review ratings instead of robust search and browse features? You'd probably only ever be able to find anime, uranium ore, and a particular wolf t-shirt. Classic books would be impossible to find because too many school kids who get them as assigned reading hate them and give them low ratings.
Edit: removed comma, too many commas
[ 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 ]
Well 1 stars come in 3 types:
1 - Troll - I vote 1 star because I want to hurt people
2 - Critic without Criteria - I vote 1 star because my standards are so high that I'll find any excuse to drop someone to a 1 star.
3 - Legit - I vote 1 star to crap that deserves it.
And I've played a few missions that really are 1 star material. The text offers nothing to go on, the mission objectives are overly cluttered if existant, the custom mobs are all Lt's, it's full of hidden objectives etc etc.
So I'm all about 1 stars to those who deserve it, but honestly I think that some people try just a little too hard to justify them.
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
We probably don't.
But, as a player who thinks a 1-star rating is sometimes warranted, how often do you rate that way?
A griefer, on the other hand, will happily 1-star arc after arc after arc. Just because they can.
Then you have the ratings PVPers, who I'm not sure qualify as true griefers... but the effect is pretty much the same for the people who run afoul of them.
Overall, we likely have way more responsible, thoughtful players than griefers. I think the numbers Arcanaville presented suggest that.
But the malicious down-voting that goes on is very focused and very concerted. Most arcs don't get grief-bombed, because there's no reason to do it to them. But the ones that get visibility? They're big targets.
The Cape Radio: You're not super until you put on the Cape!
DJ Enigma's Puzzle Factory: Co* Parody Commercials
[ QUOTE ]
But the malicious down-voting that goes on is very focused and very concerted. Most arcs don't get grief-bombed, because there's no reason to do it to them. But the ones that get visibility? They're big targets.
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah. I have three arcs, one of which I've talked about and has over 350 votes. That's the only arc I've gotten hit with any significant number of low votes on since it's the only highly visible ones. Everyone I know who has an arc with that kind of visibility has seen the exact same thing happen.
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.)
Yes, the whole recommendation system would have to be based on completing arcs. That's pretty much a given, if you can't finish it, how can you recommend it?
It would seriously cut down on highly rated player-killers, that's for sure, since your friends would have to actually beat it first. There might be a way to get around that with failable missions, but at this point why would you bother?
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