AE Mission Feedback: Do you give it? Do you get it?

How often do you leave feedback for arc authors? Do you provide feedback only for arcs you enjoy, arcs you hate, or both? How detailed is your feedback?

How often do you receive feedback on your own arcs?

I generally try to provide detailed feedback on arcs I play - how I played it ("soloed with a L18 scrapper"), whether I found it easy or challenging, any errors that I noticed, what I particularly enjoyed or particularly disliked, etc. I've received feedback on my own arcs 10-15% of the time, most of it short and detail free ("Very good", "This was fun"). My hypothesis is that the small percentage of players that go into detail are fellow arc authors who understand the challenges of using the MA to its fullest potential.

What do you think?

I leave feedback basically when I feel like it. Sometimes I'm just not in a headspace where I can write something coherent and helpful. When I do leave feedback, I will list a few things I liked about the arc before getting into the nitpicky things I didn't like (often they are minor and don't affect my rating...but sometimes not). I point out spelling errors and typos when I find them, and if they are few enough to list they won't affect my rating. I am more likely to leave feedback if I have given feedback to the author in the past, and it has been politely received.

The only time I have ever gotten actual detailed in-game feedback on an arc was when someone played it after I advertised in the MA Arc Finder channel, and was doing a running commentary as he played. Usually it's of the "I liked it" variety, if people leave feedback at all. I've gotten a few "I liked the contact" or "I liked the custom group," but nothing much beyond that. The feedback that has really helped me improve my arcs has all come through reviews in the forums.

Pretty much. I had polished my arc and it looked good to me and after posting on the forums and having a few detailed reviews I could improve it further in aspects I hadn't even thought about.

Mostly it's the 'it's fun' feedback which, while nice, doesn't really help in improving.

As for me when I like an arc I post feedback stating what I liked in particular (most times the dialogue, but sometimes the NPCs or the descriptions) and if it has something lacking then I point it out.

*Detailed* reviews I only do for friends and it involves me playing with a Notepad file open and me jotting down my impressions and thoughts.

I agree with OP pretty much. I like leaving feedback (even on two and one star missions) and I love getting it... when someone actually bothers to play my two arcs (see sig). After I quit working to advertise them here on the forums, hardly anyone's touched them because they're not farms in any manner. I think the last feedback I got was about seven plays ago, which was probably like the end of June maybe.

Haven't received any in about a month, haven't given any in about that time. It's so rarely worth it.

Heroes, Villains ♦ Reviews ♦ Retrospect

I almost always leave feedback. Of course, I'm also closing in on the 150 posted reviews mark....

The majority of ratings I've gotten have come without feedback, even good ratings. Sad, but not unexpected. Most arcs don't get enough plays to drown out "vengeance ratings".

I try to say something about most arcs I manage to finish. I especially look for arcs tagged as humorous. If I can see places where more humor could have been inserted I point them out. Too many have custom mobs or bosses without patrols or non-required boss encounters that could have been used to add text.

<《 New Colchis / Guides / Mission Architect 》>
"At what point do we say, 'You're mucking with our myths'?" - Harlan Ellison

Going with what Heraclea said, I also like arcs that have a lot of flavor objectives that keep the missions interesting. If an arc has a good grasp of this but one or two missions fall short, I tend to point it out.

I almost always leave feedback. If I 5 star an arc, it is likely to be something brief. Whenever I give less than 5 stars, I always leave feedback indicating what I liked and what I didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frosty_Femme I said "ur" which is not a word. It's a sound dumb people make when you ask them to spell out "you are".

Makes sense; it's more helpful to provide detailed suggestions if you see something you think needs to be fixed.

I always thank people for their unsolicited feedback, especially when it's obvious that they put some time into it.

Every time I play an arc solo, I always jot down typos, suggestions, and compliments in the comment window as I go. And requested or not, unless it's an unrequested 1-star piece of awful, I write up some sort of review in the stories and lore section, in their thread or mine.

Speaking of 1-star pieces of awful, what do you do with those? Does anyone bother with negative feedback? If not, why not? Would you be more inclined to tell people their arc is terrible if you could do so anonymously?

I only bother with extensive feedback if an arc is particularly terrible. Unfortunately, this happens about 80% of the time when I play random arcs, and most of them are so far from being worthwhile that I constrain my response to a sentence or two of vitriol.

When it comes to good arcs, I mainly point out spelling errors or parts my team really had difficulty with.

Can't say I've seen many diguised farms...half of them have "52 Bosses" or "LT Farm" in the title. I never waste pixels reviewing these, as it wouldn't help anyone. I'd rather play a bad story written by an emo sixth grader than the most well-written farm.

I've seen a few that look like a story from the description. Sometimes they are a single mission, sometimes not. Some of them even continue the masquerade with intro text. Then the first mission will be all Lt Malaise Lunatics or a single fire melee custom Lt or something equally monotonous and chosen to do little damage to whatever the author's secondary is, with a single, easily found objective, on a large outdoor map of course. I have yet to find one where the return to contact text is anything more than "good job," or something like that, the second mission intro text is just as minimal. At this point I quit.

This is not to say that all missions that give out high rewards are farms. I have played a few that were not. They had variety in the enemies used, and had a semblance of story beyond the initial intro text.

Ok, so should non-blatant farms rate 1.1 stars?

Non-blatant farms lose points for lying, and making me waste time looking at a loading screen for a mission I would not bother starting if it said "Malaise Lunatic Lts" in the description. I don't go out of my way to seek out and 1-star blatant farms, because I am far too lazy and it won't get rid of them anyway.

I give critical feedback for arcs that I feel have promise but need some tweaking, or when I find a couple of minor spelling errors.

If the arc is just plain awful, or riddled with errors, I don't bother to say anything -- nothing I say in the space of a brief comment will be useful. I don't usually run too many truly awful arcs; the descriptions usually give them away.

If the arc is good as is I just give it a good rating -- the tickets and ratings should speak for themselves. I only write "back pats" when an arc is truly outstanding.

If the arc has bugs (a chained boss doesn't spawn, the whole mission is devoid of NPCs), I tell the author and offer suggestions for fixing it. Sometimes the author can fix the problem, but all too often the MA will randomly not spawn bosses -- I had to run one three times before I could get all the way through.

I don't really track the frequency of comments received -- I get a couple a week. Most are brief positive reinforcements. Some offer suggestions for improvements, which I attempt to address if they're reasonable (which they usually are).

I think there are some big issues with the dynamics of the feedback system, so I tend to be very selective in offering my own.

When I find an arc to be, overall, very good, but there's one or two aspects of it that really stick out to me as flaws, I'm inclined to point those things out.

I also tend to give feedback when I've had a real good time with an arc. Particularly if it was a team experience.

Finally, if, based on their activity on these forums, I have a positive impression of the architect, I'll be more likely to give feedback on their work.

But, my basic view is that architects should not be depending on the feedback feature in any way. It's too erratic (wildly varied tastes, preferences, and skill levels), probably too slanted (in general, people seem more inclined to leave positive feedback), and there are many people who either use the feature sparingly or don't use it at all (with good reasons). I think the main source of feedback should be friends/SG mates/fellow authors, with the feedback system serving only as a supplemental to that.

So my default assumption is that no one really needs my input.

I gave some feedback today to GadgetDon on one of his arcs. It was a blast and very lowbie friendly. I played a level 2 up to level 6 in it. I mention this as an indication of the lowbie friendliness, it was not a farm thing. He has 5 missions in it and they are a lot of fun.

Apparently he has an arc before this one and one after so I want to check them all out.