Am I the only one feeling unmotivated....

As of late, I've been seeing the occasional new plays on my arcs, mainly the couple sitting currently at five stars. So far, so good. I'm not really unmotivated to write a new arc (my last given my current number of slots), but I'm in a position where I don't really have the time to write up another arc with all the stuff I have to do for work.

It's sad that real life must intrude sometimes.

You know a few things demotivated me on the AE but among the main factors that made me unpublish all my stories (other than a bunch I did specifically for my SG) is:

The MA community.

While this does not apply to many or even most (and may not apply now), I recall a culture in the MA channels about a year ago that basically enforced the following:

"If you play someone's arc you must give it 5 stars"

It's funny. I would wake up early (for me) on saturday mornings, and play with the "MA Superteam". Lots of great people to team with and we had a hoot playing through both the good and the bad in the AE. We would laugh a bit and then rate the arcs as we saw fit. We played LOTS of really bad content. Occasionally we found a gem.
Later in the day however, you could count on two or three people nerdraging in the chats about how their arc had been 4 starred, or even 3 starred, and how this constituted "griefing" their arc.
Some authors contended that a single non-5 star rating kept a newly published arc from ever getting to the front pages of the search result. I'm not hyperbolizing when I say that there were those people who would whine in open chat whenever thier arcs received anything but 5 stars about how they had been screwed over.
I played most every arc that got spammed in the architect channels. And truthfully I think I ever played maybe a half dozen that I thought were 5 star worthy.

What made this issue even worse in my mind was that these very same people would go off at points on how voting cartels were ruining the rating system, while systematically promoting a culture where their arcs were supposed to be 5 starred regardless of quality.


The other part of the culture of the MA community that left me with a bad taste in my mouth was the "story first" contingent.
There was a sizable contingent of people in the MA community that would 5 star a story NO MATTER HOW BAD IT PLAYED. A certain vocal part of the community would basically say that as long as the arc had the requisite number of "in-jokes" or correct pop culture references, then the story was good and the arc was amazing.
I think I debated with three seperate people at one time or another that the gameplay, in terms of enemy balance and fun factor was at least as important as a good story. I contend to this day that since we are creating content for a video game, that the balance and fun factor, the rewards gained ect must all be as vital to an arc as the story.
That said as long as your story was cribbing elements from the right places, your arc was met with acclaim from "the community". No matter how derisive the story was or how blandly it played.


Look, I've paid for all the available mission architech slots I can have. At a few points all those slots have been full. I paid for those slots mostly to show my support for the tool. I voted with my wallet to tell the Devs that "I like this product". I beleive in the tool. But sitting there day after day, watching a culture that enforced block voting (but only for certain people)and espoused a general attitude that said the gameplay was secondary, all for the glory of getting devs attention, left me with such a bad taste in my mouth that I simply cancelled my sub for several months and went to make stuff for another persistant online world.

I reupped my sub because of the incarnate content. I'm happy to have something to do with the 50's I've levelled across the years I have been subbed to this game. Every once in a while I eye the MA building with a sparkle in my eye going "what if....".

*shrugs*

Maybe I'll make something again, but it sure won't be for the reasons others are. For now the community surrounding this tool is not something I really want to be part of.

As a prominent member of the MA "Community", I'd just like to say that for quite a while I either rate 5 stars or not at all. I do agree with giving an arc 5 stars if I liked it at all. Minor gameplay issues can be fixed pretty easily, but honestly I will forget the arc a week from now. If the story is lacking, but the effort is there - as in "not a farm", I will often 5 star it. I don't know how the others in the superteam rate, but I believe it's become much more prevalent to self-impose a like/dislike system and use 5-stars as "like", 1-star as "farm" and ignore the rest.

Personally, I think it's valid to rate story arcs anywhere in the range from 1 star to 5 stars based on quality, and I've tried to rate the arcs I play accordingly. I've tried to be thick-skinned about low ratings from other players and distinctly remember thanking reviewers for a 2-star and a 3-star rating on some of my arcs....after all, regardless of rating, they at least were willing to spend the time to try something I had written.

There are definitely a lot of people who believe you should only rate 5 stars or leave arcs unrated, so as not to "hurt" the chances of the arcs you play. I don't agree with this philosophy (in my opinion, the idea smacks of the 5-star cartels that were prevalent when AE first opened), but it has become very prevalent on this forum. I can distinctly remember a couple of angry tirades I received for rating someone's arc "only" 4 stars. When I get these, I try to remind myself that people invest a lot of their work and spirit into their story arcs, so are naturally very sensitive about them.

But yeah, it can be a turn-off.

I don't play AE arcs much anymore, but generally I use the whole star range. I'm a pretty harsh critic though and don't hand out 5's very often; hell I don't even think all of my OWN arcs are 5 stars.

I get that people want "visibility", but honestly I don't think I've ever once played an arc just because it was on the front page (except if it was Dev's Choice). Usually if I play an arc it's either because someone posted it here, or because I ran a search for specific criteria which narrows down the options considerably.

It's been gone over a million times and I'm surprised that some people still can't see it.

The rating system is BROKEN.

No one is saying that the devs did not intend for all the ratings to be used and have actual meanings.

No one is saying that the all ratings in the ratings system should not have real meaning.

No one is saying anyone has to rate one way or another.

However be aware that the reality is that rating an arc less than 5 stars with the current system has the effect of lowering it's chance of being played. People can delude themselves into thinking that because the devs put the word "Excellent" next to the 4 star rate that's what it means, but that is just not the reality of how it works in this broken system.

No matter what you feel/want/think how the rating system should be/work, it in reality is stuck in the current broken state. In ACTUALLY rating an arc 5 stars means that it has a chance at being seen and played by others. Rating less, even a 4, means varying degrees of diminishing the chance of the arc being played. What you think/want/feel does not impact how the system actually processes the ratings.


WN

I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Granted that each person can use their rating to vote however they want, in my opinion, the purpose of rating an arc is to rate the quality of that arc. To feed false information into the database (whether 5-starring arcs that don't deserve it, 1-starring arcs that don't deserve it, or even refusing to rate arcs that you think are low quality) in an attempt to game the system essentially negates this purpose and further contributes to the general sense that the ratings system is meaningless.

While I'm sure there are plenty of arcs that got undeservedly low ratings from "griefers", there are also lots of arcs that have undeservedly high ratings from people who rate only 5 stars. I'm sure most people who have played AE arcs extensively will have run into 5-star rated arcs that just aren't that good. The MA Super Team even had a game targeting these for awhile, "Make It or Break It". I choose not to contribute to exacerbating this problem.

All of this blather about how any rating less than five stars is harmful is nonsense.

I just checked, there are over 375 pages of five-star arcs. At twenty arcs per page, the simple fact is that the odds of your arc being high enough on the list as to be seen by someone casually browsing are effectively zero and no rating system is going to change that. It's not even going to come up on a random request limited to five star ratings.

The browser needs changes, sure, but refusing to hand out five-star ratings like candy is simply not the problem.

The whole stars argument is simply a symptom of bigger problems. I was dead serious when I said it's easier for me to setup Abandoned Sewer Trials than non-farm AE. That might be skewed since I'm somewhat infamous for running them but the point still stands. The system as a whole lacks integrity to those not already invested in it and the search is not as helpful as it should be.

I think "helpful" is the key word for what's wrong with the search. For all the arguments about ratings, there's a lot of simple issues that need addressing. Searching for "my level" is effectively useless due to 1-54 being included.

On integrity...well, I'd like to ask people how many arcs have they played in the past week, not counting those run with the MA SG. I could argue that I'm mildly exempt since I was away from the game but for me it was 3. One was a replay, one was a sequel to the replay, and one was advertised on the forums. None of my plays were due to star rating but rather due to the strength of the authors involved. The star issue magnifies the fact that despite good material, people simply aren't going to the MA.

I haven't run an arc in gods-know-when. I jotted down a few numbers to review but never got to it. Hell, I was in the middle of making changes to "Blowback" and never finished.

A few random comments on the responses to my post:

1. I Get the perception that the whole ratings system is borked. I really do. I understand the desire to get people to play the arcs. I understand that when someone pours themselves into a project like an AE arc, they naturally want it out there to enjoy some form of success. When I put up my first arc and no one played it, I was a little put off. But really the arc wasn't that good. Five starring this arc would have done me no favors. It would have given me a false sense of success.
Has anyone considered the part of the lack of players in AE (non-farm) might be backlash from the "5 star culture"?
I mean if the content were interesting and compelling wouldnt there at least be pockets of players looking for it?
I think we can bet that a number of potential users of the AE over the past year have been turned off simply by playing "5 star arcs" that were undeserving of the rating. The perception would be that even the best in the AE was substandard.
And yes, I beleive that the overwhelming bulk of AE 5 Starred content is substandard. I've played alot of it.
Getting your arc played is important I agree. But as with any product, if you inflate it's worth, the consumer will know the moment they try it, as respond accordingly in the future.

2. My "Story first" comment was not aimed at Venture (despite the attempted redirect). I never held any conversation with him and generally enjoyed his reviews greatly. Story is important, of course. It's AS important as the action. The two must be balanced.

3. I am sorry if my post came off as an indictment of the community as a whole. I tried to make it clear with my language that this wasn't everyone. As a couple of people pointed out, there was(is?) a dedicated base of those who honestly and earnestly were there to help answer questions.
I remember one morning the MA Superteam being told not to rate the arc that we had just played because it was so flawed. The rationale being that rating it would tank the arc, which by all accounts, was salvagable. I understand the motivation, and at it's core it was positive in spirit.
That said, wasn't the actual way to help author to two star it, as it deserved, and encourage the author to change and republish based on objective feedback?
I dunno,I rated it.
...and then I never went back to rwz on Triumph.

4.Reading these responses has given me food for thought and I appreciate the time everyone's spent putting thier opinions down. Thanks.

-rain

I rather Create my own Story Arc that a unique Story but Stay with the lore of the game. I enjoy Creating my own Villain groups and create a Story that at same time is different form what game lore is and at same time stay true to it.