It's a topic that has been discussed to death since MA has been live on Test. Not meaning to rain on your parade, but even if you did manage to somehow get everyone on the boards to agree on a single rating system, that won't mean squat to those who never read the boards.
Ratings are broken, fix nao plz, etc.
A Penny For Your Thoughts #348691 <- Dev's Choice'd by Dr. Aeon!
Submit your MA arc for review & my arcs thread
the rating system isnt per se broken, but everyone rates stuff on their point of view, so people who 1 star things might have the mindset of "ill never run this again" to people who think "this needs work, but can be improved (and leaves feeback on it)"
the rating system they have now is fine, and i dont see how it can be improve since everyone has a dfferent ideology of "whats good" and "whats bad" and "what can be improved"
the only fix they can really do is not make ratings public, like the note system, you can add notes to people and give players ratings, but they and everyone else cant see it, something like this is something they could establish on the AE (if possible).
I think if when you 1 star something a little box popped up that said, "So this story was so bad that you couldnt understand what was going on at all? There was no text? and you feel the author put no effort into the story at all?"
Yes No
If you click Yes and your rating will be submitted.
and do something like that for each star possible, but I think a Dev should actually chose what that box says, I was just giving an example.
I also think that star ratings should be calculated by the length of time a person is inside said mission.
By maybe a average time it takes for someone to "complete the mission".
When one person starts a task and complete the mission, it may take an hour.. when ten other people do the mission it takes between 40 minutes and 90 minutes...
When someone goes inside a mission for 20 seconds, pops out and 1 stars it. They should get a warning, as they did not actually play the arc, and their rating would not be entered in for the mission.
i would not do that, cause with a popup, poeple are either not gonna ever bother rating anything, and that wont stop people from 1 starring something they didnt like to begin with.
as for the other thing, yes it would be a better idea to not have the rating box pop up until you completed the arc, because as is people could just get arc, rate, quit and the owner gets boatload of tickets for doing nothing.
Quote:
Except, there are a few chaps who won't rate your arc 1 star to say "I'll never run this again" or "this needs work, but can be improved", and are rating you 1 star because your arc is in the way of theirs getting to the front page, or because you have 5 stars and they'll 1 star you to bring your average down to the rating they think it deserves, or they 1 star you because you accidentally sat on their cat. In that sense, the ratings are broken.|
Originally Posted by Necrotech_Master
the rating system isnt per se broken, but everyone rates stuff on their point of view, so people who 1 star things might have the mindset of "ill never run this again" to people who think "this needs work, but can be improved (and leaves feeback on it)"
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Perfect_Pain
I think if when you 1 star something a little box popped up that said, "So this story was so bad that you couldnt understand what was going on at all? There was no text? and you feel the author put no effort into the story at all?"
Yes No If you click Yes and your rating will be submitted. and do something like that for each star possible, but I think a Dev should actually chose what that box says, I was just giving an example. |
A Penny For Your Thoughts #348691 <- Dev's Choice'd by Dr. Aeon!
Submit your MA arc for review & my arcs thread
[QUOTE=Tangler;2553034]Except, there are a few chaps who won't rate your arc 1 star to say "I'll never run this again" or "this needs work, but can be improved", and are rating you 1 star because your arc is in the way of theirs getting to the front page, or because you have 5 stars and they'll 1 star you to bring your average down to the rating they think it deserves, or they 1 star you because you accidentally sat on their cat. In that sense, the ratings are broken.[QUOTE]
doesnt mean they are broken, thats more abuse than them being broken
Quote:
Do you all disagree with something like this as well?
|
Originally Posted by Perfect_Pain
I also think that star ratings should be calculated by the length of time a person is inside said mission. By maybe a average time it takes for someone to "complete the mission". When one person starts a task and complete the mission, it may take an hour.. when ten other people do the mission it takes between 40 minutes and 90 minutes... When someone goes inside a mission for 20 seconds, pops out and 1 stars it. They should get a warning, as they did not actually play the arc, and their rating would not be entered in for the mission. |
Quote:
i think a couple posts ago i mentioned i do think you have to play through the entire arc to get the rating box.|
Originally Posted by Perfect_Pain
Do you all disagree with something like this as well?
|
its still not technically broken, but this would definitly improve the QoL in the AE
P_P, we just had this discussion a few weeks ago.
This thread pretty much covers everything and has good, practical solutions to the problem.
Craft your inventions in AE!!
Play "Crafter's Cafe" - Arc #487283. A 1 mission, NON-COMBAT AE arc with workable invention tables!
Quote:
I'm not sure if I agree with this. There are some arcs that are significantly bad arcs. They are so bad that you don't need to play through 5 missions worth of bad to recognize they are bad. Like Tangler said, playing arcs should not be a chore. Forcing someone to play through an additional 2-3 missions worth of bad before they can tell the world at large that this is bad is... well... bad.| i think a couple posts ago i mentioned i do think you have to play through the entire arc to get the rating box. |
That being said, everyone's opinion is subjective. A spread like the following should be unlikely, but I've seen it in my own arc "The Long Road Back":
5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1
Obviously there is a minority opinion that apparently thinks the arc is terrible, right? The 2 I can tolerate because PW wrote an extensive post explaining what she thought was wrong with the arc. The blind 1 I have more difficulty with because it was left with no in-game comment whatsoever and it is SO far afield from the common opinion. Basically anonymous player equated the arc with an unfinished, broken arc into which absolutely no effort was put.
And I think what Tangler is trying to say is that the system is broken because that anonymous player, (who did not even bother to try to explain what he, unlike anyone else who has played it, found so abhorrent about the story), has more inherent power than the players who liked it because his rating is the farthest from the norm.
His rating, (and almost his alone), brought the arc's average down from a 5 to a 4.
And I think that's what Tangler is really talking about... the ability for a player to essentially blindly, completely anonymously 'grief' an author.
Quote:
while what you have is a good point, how do you know the 1 or 2 starring people werent doing that out of spite? or trying to get their own arcs higher in the list? |
Originally Posted by Sister_Twelve
I'm not sure if I agree with this. There are some arcs that are significantly bad arcs. They are so bad that you don't need to play through 5 missions worth of bad to recognize they are bad. Like Tangler said, playing arcs should not be a chore. Forcing someone to play through an additional 2-3 missions worth of bad before they can tell the world at large that this is bad is... well... bad.
That being said, everyone's opinion is subjective. A spread like the following should be unlikely, but I've seen it in my own arc "The Long Road Back": 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2, 1 Obviously there is a minority opinion that apparently thinks the arc is terrible, right? The 2 I can tolerate because PW wrote an extensive post explaining what she thought was wrong with the arc. The blind 1 I have more difficulty with because it was left with no in-game comment whatsoever and it is SO far afield from the common opinion. Basically anonymous player equated the arc with an unfinished, broken arc into which absolutely no effort was put. And I think what Tangler is trying to say is that the system is broken because that anonymous player, (who did not even bother to try to explain what he, unlike anyone else who has played it, found so abhorrent about the story), has more inherent power than the players who liked it because his rating is the farthest from the norm. His rating, (and almost his alone), brought the arc's average down from a 5 to a 4. And I think that's what Tangler is really talking about... the ability for a player to essentially blindly, completely anonymously 'grief' an author. |
if the arc is so bad then just quit and never run again, if the arc is that bad, then it should get no rating and you should send a tell to author suggesting things if you reall wanted to.
90% of the time if the arc is that bad i wont even rate it
Quote:
Yeah.|
Originally Posted by BackFire
P_P, we just had this discussion a few weeks ago.
This thread pretty much covers everything and has good, practical solutions to the problem. |
Because of that thread I now rate everything that an author obviously put in a lot of time on as a five-star experience unless it was really pretty poorly done nevertheless or something - then it gets a four-star. I can recall four-starring an arc that was obviously something of a 'thrown together in five minutes and then abandoned good start' just to encourage the guy to polish it up (I really should go check and see if he ever did). Past that, they get nothing except maybe a /tell.
Farms are going to get their five star ratings, junk is going to clutter up the MA search. Any story that the author at least tried on is worth rewarding. People who put in the most work into MA arcs are the least likely to get anything out of it otherwise.
Everyone has a different criteria for rating someones arc.
I think there should be some sort of system, everyone can use. Not just 1 star, wont ever play it again... 2 stars, needs work might if I am bored play again...
But an actual system put in the game for rating.
1 star, something like... Is unfinished, needs work still. (add what you think a 1 star should be)
2 stars, something like... Needs alot more work and exploration of characters. You need to add X, X, X to make it a more finished product. (add what you think a 2 star should be)
3 stars, an average story but you still need to improve X, X, and X... for it to really become something great. (add what you think a 3 star should be)
4 stars, it's better than most but still needs XXX... (add what you think a 4 star should be)
5 stars, this was really worked on hard. I can see you put alot of time into your story. It made perfect sense and I saw no spelling errors etc.
I would think this could really help people when they are rating peoples arcs. Some sort of standard for each rating would improve this I think.
Maybe with player feedback, and some Dev that has some spare time? We could come up with a more standard system for ratings?