Far better to let 100 farms go free than unjustly lock one innocent arc. The community can't be made watchdogs - if we could be trusted with that responsibility, there wouldn't be farms in the first place.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
We're not talking about someone's life here. I disagree - far better to get anything suspicious out of the system as soon as possible, and under the scrutiny of the GMs, rather than let it sit and fester for months. I don't know how the current system with reporting arcs works but apparently it's not working well enough - or it is, and things could have been EVEN WORSE. It's hard to make suggestions for improvements when you can't tell what works and what doesn't.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Far better to let 100 farms go free than unjustly lock one innocent arc. The community can't be made watchdogs - if we could be trusted with that responsibility, there wouldn't be farms in the first place.
|
Another problem might be that the people who are likely to report exploits in the first place aren't the ones looking for them, and will in fact avoid anything that resembles one.
Winner of Players' Choice Best Villainous Arc 2010: Fear and Loathing on Striga; ID #350522
Quote:
No, we're just talking about the continued patronage of the people who are paying $15 per month for the privilege of designing some of the best content the game has to offer. I wouldn't want to risk aggravating that kind of player unless the situation was dire, especially when there are other solutions available. A better ranking system tends to sink trash pretty fast, and that's all that is really needed to improve the average user experience; the final remedy for farms is closing loopholes, not deleting arcs, and that's not something that can or should be rushed.|
Originally Posted by FredrikSvanberg
We're not talking about someone's life here.
|
I'm sympathetic to the spirit of the suggestion, but the problem is that it's not just you and I who would have this power in our hands. The kind of person who would grief-report as a joke is the kind of person for whom an account ban is not a particularly effective sanction. Remember that you have to consider all features from the perspective of a person who is thinking only "how can I use this to wreck things?"
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
In b4 either "They wouldn't mind" or "We don't want player type X anyway"
|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
No, we're just talking about the continued patronage of the people who are paying $15 per month
|
Ambush City, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Ambush - Arc #1043
Strife of the Grave - Arc #3409
Shift - Arc #529411
Quote:
You quoted the beginning of a sentence. The rest of the sentence is a pretty good rebuttal to this argument.|
Originally Posted by Demonic_Gerbil
"We don't want player type X anyway"
|
I'm not disagreeing that someone will try it, though. Probably a disgruntled PvPer with an inflated sense of self-importance.
Why yes, I am getting enough irony in my diet. :P
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
I highly doubt that.
|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Far better to let 100 farms go free than unjustly lock one innocent arc. The community can't be made watchdogs - if we could be trusted with that responsibility, there wouldn't be farms in the first place.
|
Proposal 1) How I find an arc: I try one out, I take a suggestion from someone who;s opinion I value, or I look for an Architect I've enjoyed before (For example... I've liked every arc of Fred's I've played). I could give a rats butt how many stars it got.... everyone is going to take to something differently and an arbitrary "average" isn't going to convince me to play it one way or another.
Proposal 2) See above.
Proposal 3) If the arc is good then I'm happy I played it. I might play it again if I really really liked it, or if the author changes some major component due to an update or Issue Release. The only reason to replay an MA mission over and over again is for tangible rewards... and we all know they tend to suck in AE.
Nah... ditch the rating system altogether.
Here's a better idea. Add a like button like Fred suggests, but instead of a visible rating just have a "likes" counter. Enough "likes" clicks and the author can choose to make it a "Best of" Arc. He can no longer edit it, but it no longer takes up one of his Arc slots.
That way a great arc doesn't have to get deleted to make way for another creation, and it allows for some of the better story arcs to be preserved for others to play.
It's 106 miles to Grandville, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing faceless helmets
... Hit it ...
... Hit it ...
Why are so many people making - in my opinion - pointless threads about the deficits and problems of MA, when all that brought it about was a change, and a temporary one at that, to allies...
There have been absolutely hundreds of people posting good and bad points about how to fix MA, when there really is nothing wrong with it. What is, arguably, wrong with it is that there will always be a use for it in terms of farming and abusing it's true purpose. In a direct attempt to correct this misuse, there is a large baton hitting the "correct" use of the MA. The problem does not lie with the system, rather the freedom we've been given with it.
- Point 1: Relies on the subjectiveness of the player in question, and also do you know how many arcs a GM will have to go through a day if this is implemented? It would be a waste of time, otherwise spent doing better things. The GM would physically have to play the arc, read it, analyse it in case of a rebuttal from the player - not unlikely.
- Point 2: Griefing will always exist, swapping to "like/dislike" won't change anything, in fact it's far too simple and it will create a bigger mess trying to find a good arc via search function, with a search filter of "like/dislike".
- Point 3: It is really depending on your own opinion of MA, I don't experience it enough to realise my efforts in an arc are not counted via a lack of number of players. In all honesty, if an arc has 999+ varied players thats the arc you want to play. I like the current system more. In my opinion, this could be easily abused, have you heard of claiming tickets?
Quote:
You seem to think that this thread was somehow inspired by the latest patch. These suggestions are in fact things that have been discussed by MA authors over a far longer period of time, primarily in a global chat channel called "MA Arc Finder".|
Originally Posted by Wondering_Fury
Why are so many people making - in my opinion - pointless threads about the deficits and problems of MA, when all that brought it about was a change, and a temporary one at that, to allies...
|
Quote:
| There have been absolutely hundreds of people posting good and bad points about how to fix MA, when there really is nothing wrong with it. |
Quote:
| What is, arguably, wrong with it is that there will always be a use for it in terms of farming and abusing it's true purpose. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Winner of Players' Choice Best Villainous Arc 2010: Fear and Loathing on Striga; ID #350522
Fred, question, if they implemented this and your arcs got locked, what would be an acceptable wait time for you for GM to review your arcs and unlock them?
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!
I don't know. 2-3 weeks perhaps, I haven't really thought about it. I really don't think solution #1 is all that important anyway - If we suddenly see a great number of missions abusing exploits it'll be more important.
Winner of Players' Choice Best Villainous Arc 2010: Fear and Loathing on Striga; ID #350522
Quote:
The next day. Seriously. I put arcs up for people to play, not to wait for some GM to maybe come along at some point who may or may not know what they're doing to approve them. Same goes for other people's arcs; if you put it up, and I want to play it, I want to play it today, not when some GM gets around to unlocking it.|
Originally Posted by Aura_Familia
Fred, question, if they implemented this and your arcs got locked, what would be an acceptable wait time for you for GM to review your arcs and unlock them?
|
The rating system already leaves authors too vulnerable to the actions of a single jerk. Let's not make them more so.
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:
I guarantee if this person got his/her/its arcs banned by griefers he/she/it would be in a fit of hysteria (kind of like he/she/it is in now) and DEMAND that the gms look at his arcs noa!|
Originally Posted by FredrikSvanberg
I don't know. 2-3 weeks perhaps, I haven't really thought about it. I really don't think solution #1 is all that important anyway - If we suddenly see a great number of missions abusing exploits it'll be more important.
|
Its all too easy for hysteriacs (totally made up word combining hysteria and maniacs) to want something done, until its done to them.
I vote for freedom. You dont like farms? dont join one.
Whatever qualifiers any of you have for a 'pharm' can easily be applied to your arcs.
Heck i do Radio missions which are dev approved (I know, the devs made it!) and those are exactly like a pharm, why? because i can fight whatever group i want in whatever quantity i want.
Get over your moral superiority complex. It's disingenuous at best. It's a game, its not the hobo inquisition.
ps, nobody expects the hobo inquisition.
Any solution is going require a ton of time. As it stands now there are a bunch of farm arcs
to go through. The devs are not going to dedicate time into doing it, and with the grief factor they will not have the players police it. While the devs have said they frown upon farm arcs, the reality is, they are out there because people want them to be, like it or not.
This whole report an arc idea will not work... Example: Say some creative guy decides to make a arc, and he only wants it to be very short. This can be concidered by many to be a farm no matter how much time he puts into it to make it look like a non farm. So in reality he has made a radio mission, and because it can be done fast and be done over and over it falls into the farm area even if that was his intention.
I think poeople overrate the importance of MA. While it's a nice little tool to be creative, most people that use their slots for making farm arcs, could care less if they lose those slots, and have no problem going back to reg content to farm. Exploits will always pop up be it in MA or anything things else people stumble upon, and the devs will deal with it how they see fit.
While some people here would love to see people get banned, the bottom line is it's bad for business, losing subcriptions is not what the devs want. I am sure there are people here that feel "who cares, let them quit, they are bad for the game, we don't need them" too bad it's not that simple. In order for this game to continue, it has to make money. It's never a black and white issue. It's a balance act that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Lines have to be drawn no doubt but, as with the game there is a risk reward factor for the devs as well.
Yee Haw Yall
Oh, I didnt realize you meant just two options instead of 5, instead of a mere renaming to give the player a better idea how to vote. That does of course make a difference then. My bad.
I dont think only-1-and-5-star-ratings on youtube problem is like that in CoX to that extent, as on youtube or such the majority doesnt care for a video or whatever there is to rate, and doesnt bother to click that rating thing. (Let alone log in to rate it.)
While here we have a community, people do care about the arc they just played or they wouldnt have played it to the end (I assume), and the voting pops up automatically.
I am sure there are at least more 2, 3 and 4 star votes here than on youtube. 
Quote:
Yes, the upper gives more information, but its not an all fair comparison. Just having up and down doesnt imply it tells you how many ups and downs it had. By default, such up/down votes often show just as:|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
200 plays, 100 upvotes, 25 downvotes
200 plays, 4 stars |
200 plays, 80% (80% of the votes were up votes) which leaves you hardly more informed, and the star rating could just as well show as
200 plays, 60 ***** votes, 40 **** votes, 25 *** votes 10 ** votes, 5 * votes, and still be a star system.
I totally agree that more information about how people rated would be very nice.
(Which is the reason why I'd like to be able to see WHAT they liked about it, of course.)
Quote:
Of course I have no more access to the data than you do. The devs could run the numbers, if they were so inclined. I hope they do. In the absence of information, I would call your estimate of your fellow players excessively optimistic, to put it nicely. More to the point, under the current system, any rating that is not 5 stars is a de facto downvote - the only difference is that in an up/down voting system, this would be explicitly stated.|
Originally Posted by BlueRaptor
While here we have a community, people do care about the arc they just played or they wouldnt have played it to the end (I assume), and the voting pops up automatically.
I am sure there are at least more 2, 3 and 4 star votes here than on youtube. |
Quote:
|
Yes, the upper gives more information, but its not an all fair comparison. Just having up and down doesnt imply it tells you how many ups and downs it had. By default, such up/down votes often show just as: 200 plays, 80% (80% of the votes were up votes) which leaves you hardly more informed, and the star rating could just as well show as 200 plays, 60 ***** votes, 40 **** votes, 25 *** votes 10 ** votes, 5 * votes, and still be a star system. |
200 plays, +75
This still tells us more than the average of the star ratings, for two reasons, one facile and one fundamental. The facile reason is because at least now I know that 75 more people recommended it than recommended against it.
The more fundamental reason is because the star ratings are more subjective than the simple up/down votes and thus mean less in aggregate. What star rating do you use for "this arc is good, I would recommend that others play this"? What star rating do you use for "this arc is not notably good or bad"? What star rating do you use for "this arc is terrible, I would recommend that others avoid this"? I guarantee that you will not find a consistent answer to this question. And that is why the star system is less useful: even once you know what star ratings were given to an arc, unless you can ask each person who rated it what they meant by their rating, you don't know any more than you knew before!
Quote:
|
I totally agree that more information about how people rated would be very nice. (Which is the reason why I'd like to be able to see WHAT they liked about it, of course.) |
TL;DR: I don't want to know how many "stars" anyone gave an arc. I want to know if this arc is recommended for play. Stars are a poor proxy for this information.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Captain and Eva made the point I was trying to get at.
The other solutions for fixing MA are good ones.
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:
Yeah, but that evens out. Its not like one arc is played only by people that give it a 5 for opinion X and another is played only by people who give it a 4 for that.|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Giving people more opportunities to provide more nuanced information does not make the information you get better. What you want to ask is questions that elicit specific, unambiguous responses - that way, when someone gives you a response, you can place that response in the context of other people's responses and know that because they provided the same data, they felt the same way. As it is, one person may use four stars and another may use one star to express the exact same opinion about an arc.
|
-What I meant to point out is that its not so only about the voting options people have but also, and imo even more, about how the results of that are calculated and presented.
A star system doesnt have to use the plain simple average, e.g.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
200 plays, +75
|
The current system isnt bad (only) because it uses stars, and just switching away from stars to something else wont fully solve the problem is what I say, it has to come with a decent way of presenting the rating, and that is imo the much trickier part.
Of course changing stars to 2 thums down, 1 thumb down, sideways/neutral, 1 thumb up, 2 thumbs up or whatever to give better ideas what it means still is a good idea, regardless of whether it solves the problem. (You could count that e.g. as -2, -1, +0.5, +1,5, +2,5 and get just as good a system as with counting ups and down as +1 and -1, just with finer tuning)
For each play to be counted? Yes.
Those are different things. Or did I misunderstand what you meant.
Solution 1:
Let us report arcs as potential exploits.
When an arc has been reported enough times it should be locked, automatically. A GM will then inspect the arc and if the arc is not an exploit it is unlocked and flagged in such a way that it can't be locked again. If the arc is republished the flag goes away and it can once again be locked if it is reported enough times.
Should the arc upon inspection prove to be abusing an exploit it will of course not be unlocked and appropriate action may be taken against the author, such as revoking all MA publishing rights (and giving their slots to me as a reward for coming up with this idea).
----
it's basically saying a GM has to review the arc. My point is they didn't have the manpower to do that for months while all those farms stayed up and functional, I'm not seeing anything to assume they all of a sudden do.
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!