Three Suggestions for the Mission Architect

In my opinion, one of the chief limits on the usefulness of the Mission Architect is the system for rating, sorting, and spotlighting arcs. If it were up to me (and I remind the reader that it is not), I would make three changes to the MA system.

First, I would ditch stars. The question you want the answer to when you ask a player to rate an arc is "did you like this?" "Three stars" is a very ambiguous answer to this question, and evaluating it depends on knowing what the player means by "three stars". A less ambiguous answer would be "Yes", "No", or "no opinion", and that's what the rating system should be built around. Also, people tend to just use stars as a proxy for "yes" or "no" anyway.

Second, I would make the default sort order for arcs a function of time since the arc was posted, time since the arc was last played, total number of plays, number of positive ratings, and number of negative ratings. Examples of these sort algorithms are available; the particulars should be tweaked to meet the needs of the MA. The goal is to keep good fresh content on the top of the list.

Finally, I would ditch DC/HoF as it currently functions. Any mechanism that requires that arcs be frozen against editing in a system that is frequently updated in a way that requires editing arcs to make them functional is simply not going to work. Instead, I would award authors a badge and a free arc slot for getting a certain number of positive ratings on an arc, but not lock the arc, and not stick it on top of the default listing forever. I would create a separate listing for DC and guest author arcs, and create an alternate sort order that lists arcs by highest net rating for a "best of all time" list.

I agree with all of these, though primarily the first and third suggestions.

I'd also like to see an "Arc Spotlight" system that randomly chooses from all non-DC/HoF arcs available and puts 5 to 10 of them at the top of the list for a short period of time; a week at the most.

Obviously this could potentially highlight a farming arc or some other undesirable arc, but considering it would be getting greater attention, it would also theoretically be more likely to be reported out.

The advantage of all this is that, assuming it worked right, the system would promote arcs without bias and with less developer overhead. Instead of desperately hoping and waiting for a Dev's Choice position, getting a lucky Spotlight entry would be enough to get your arc seen and played. Plus, it's via an unobtrusive, contextual in-game advertisement rather than something clunky like an in-game billboard or of limited scope like trying to garner plays by promoting the arc on the forums.

With respect to HoF/DC and locking: I surmise that the original design intent of the locking mechanism was to preserve an arc that has been recognized as excellent in some way, in exactly the form in which it was so recognized, in perpetuity. The problem is that this doesn't work. Changes are continually made to the MA that invalidate prior arcs, and if they're locked they can't be fixed, so what you end up with is a list of arcs that used to be good, don't work now, and can't be made to work ever again. That's really not serving the design intent.

That's why I offered an alternative: instead of preserving the arc, reward the author. I don't think it necessary or beneficial to preserve any given arc for perpetuity. (Think about some of the official arcs that date back to the early days of the game. Shudder briefly.) No arc, no matter how good it was in its heyday, will always be great - at the very least, they will require fixing and updating as the MA changes. But someone who creates a good arc is a valuable resource for the game, and should be encouraged to create more good arcs. Hence the reward of a free additional arc slot - it's nice, but not impossible to obtain any other way.

It's also worth noting that if the first suggestion is implemented, HoF requirements would also have to change. I would recommend that it be made considerably easier to attain, since getting HoF would not guarantee a top spot on the list in perpetuity anymore.

The badge, I can see being... problematic. I'm not even sure why I suggested the badge. Forget the badge.

Edited to add: I would most definitely not call these changes "cosmetic". Cosmetic is changing the colors of the buttons. These are usability improvements, and that's a very different animal.

By cosmetic, I meant that it isn't really a big overhaul as much as it's fixing the search screen and putting in a new voting system. Which I guess would be considered a big change... forget I said that. =P

As for locking arcs, I would say it should stay locked unless some change invalidates the arc. Otherwise we would get scenarios like I mentioned above. Somebody getting Dev's choice and then purposefully destroying their arc while it still has Dev's choice.