Hall of Fame requirements need revisiting

Even longer if you count in cooldown time. A person can re-rate an arc and give the author tickets only, what, every 3-4 days? Even if it increased the total number of rates, that'd still be a long time for a small number of people to try and drive a single arc up to HoF.

Monthly update time again.

As of September 1st we now have the following breakdown of arcs with 100 or more plays and that are still rated at 5 stars.

Arcs Published Pre-15 - 7 (6 of these were published in April 09)
Arcs Published Post I-15 - 4

Total Number of arcs out of 67,340 arcs - 11

Put another way: .0001633% of the arcs in the system have more than 100 plays while still maintaining a 5 star rating.

If .0001633% doesn't equal the best of the best as selected by the players, what does? Remember this number includes 7 arcs that all had the benefit of of being published in the crazy early days of MA. To give everyone an idea of just how much of how insane of an advantage that is, there is an arc rated TWO STARS with 199 Plays from that same time period! If you don't include those 7 arcs that leaves a measly 4 arcs out of 67,340 arcs or .0000594% of the arcs in the system.

History
May - 12 (11/1)
June - 14 (11/3)
July - 14 (11/3)
August - 11 (8/3)
September - 11 (7/4)


WN

Thanks for the regular updates, Wrong Number. I hope that some day the devs will take a look at this.

Alternatively, I would hope that Dr. Aeon continues to run contests annually, if not more often, to at least have a steady increase in Dev's Choice.

Monthly update time. We now have six months of data to compare.

As of October 1st we now have the following breakdown of arcs with 100 or more plays and that are still rated at 5 stars.

Arcs Published Pre-15 - 8 (6 of these were published in April 09)
Arcs Published Post I-15 - 2

Total Number of arcs out of 68,240 arcs - 10

Put another way: .0001465% of the arcs in the system have more than 100 plays while still maintaining a 5 star rating.

After six months it's very, very clear that it's brutal for any arc published Post I-15 to hold on to 5 stars with a decent number of plays. After 15 months post I-15 we have only two arcs currently with over 100 plays and still 5 stars. This number "peaked" at 4 arcs in this category

The arcs published before I-15 don't see a lot change since there is a core group that had over 200 plays each when I started recording this data.

I initially felt that there should be two sets of requirements, one pre I-15 and one post. After studying this data for six months I feel now slightly differently.

In my opinion their should be two standards for HoF. I lean now towards cutting off at the first thirty days of the MA launch (4/8/09-5/8/09) and then everything after that time a different, more updated/realistic standard. My estimations of reasonable numbers would be:

First Month of MA Arcs - 500 plays 5 Star Average
All Other Arcs - 150 or 200 plays 5 Star depending on how rare HoF is intended to be


History

May - 12 (11/1)
June - 14 (11/3)
July - 14 (11/3)
August - 11 (8/3)
September - 11 (7/4)
October - 10 (8/2)


WN

November 1st update.

As of November 1st we now have the following breakdown of arcs with 100 or more plays and that are still rated at 5 stars.

Arcs Published Pre-15 - 10 (7 of these were published in April 09)
Arcs Published Post I-15 - 3

Total Number of arcs out of 68,843 arcs - 13

Put another way: .0001888% of the arcs in the system have more than 100 plays while still maintaining a 5 star rating.


History

May - 12 (11/1)
June - 14 (11/3)
July - 14 (11/3)
August - 11 (8/3)
September - 11 (7/4)
October - 10 (8/2)
November - 13 (10/3)

WN

I don't agree with changing the requirements for Hall of Fame. Sure, the 1000+ plays hurdle seems gargantuan in the current AE environment, but I still have hope that things will be done down the line that will revitalize it. More players means more plays. Dumbing down Hall of Fame as a response to declining interest would strike me as the devs admitting failure and throwing in the towel on resurrecting AE. I don't want that.

The label "Hall of Fame" itself sounds epic, and getting that many plays while keeping a high rating truly is epic. It's something accomplished over the long (long) term.

As a DC'd author, I can verify from experience that arcs listed on the first few pages get more plays than those that come after. I'm all for getting more plays for the better arcs, and more slots for the better authors so they can make even more great arcs!

Top-rated arcs with only 100 plays doesn't strike me as epic enough to earn the label Hall of Fame, but the benchmark has merit, and WN's already shown some data to support it as a milestone. Instead of dumbing down Hall of Fame, call the 100+ plays arcs "What's Hot" or "Hot Arcs" or somesuch. The recognition would make these arcs more visible which in turn gets them more plays, and, if they're truly worthy of Hall of Fame, they'll get there (much) later.

Just my two cents.

Are there still badges for HoF and DC?

Eco.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow [The Incarnate System is] Jack Emmert all over again, only this time it's not "1 hero = 3 white minions" it's "1 hero = 3 white rocks."

Gotta roll with Wrong Number and Lazarus here. The requirements for HFA can't possibly be "working as intended." Further, the quality of the remaining 100 plus play five star-rate arcs, is (by and large) better than much of what was lucky enough to get HFA when the MA was well-played. As a matter of fact, there are dozens of four star arcs that are better than many early DCs and HFAs.

The powers-that-be often re-vamp based on changing or improperly estimated game dynamics. There's no reason why they shouldn't do so in this case.

I'm not looking at the lists right now, but if memory serves, all 3 of you, WN, Lazarus, and Dalghryn, have arcs that would be on the What's Hot list so you'd get new slots right off the bat. I don't see the issue here, unless your true intent is to try and take something away from the current HoF authors, regardless of how they achieved it.

That's one of the disadvantages of only getting an e-mail regarding one response, but none of the others... you get a really heated argument primed, only to find out everyone else beat you to the punch. Well, I agree with everyone that posted in reply to Sumericon's last post - so there!