test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Suggestions for the Foundry rating system
Archived Post
Member Posts: 5,050,278 Bounty Hunter
I'd like to see the rating system for Foundry modules be a little more complex than just a single rating (eg. 5 stars or 10/10).
Mostly this is because different gamers have different things that they enjoy when it comes to modules.
Simultaneously, none of the ratings would be compulsory - so only those players interested in giving thoughtful, detailed feedback would.
I'm keen to hear what other people think suitable categories for rating might be - feel free to chime in, and I'll edit this list so Cryptic can get a good idea of the kinds of things the playerbase might look for when choosing UGC to play.
My original list:
Quantity
Quality
Other suggestions:
Mostly this is because different gamers have different things that they enjoy when it comes to modules.
Simultaneously, none of the ratings would be compulsory - so only those players interested in giving thoughtful, detailed feedback would.
I'm keen to hear what other people think suitable categories for rating might be - feel free to chime in, and I'll edit this list so Cryptic can get a good idea of the kinds of things the playerbase might look for when choosing UGC to play.
My original list:
Quantity
- Roleplay - Light / Medium / Heavy
- Combat - Light / Medium / Heavy
- Skill Challenges (eg. Traps or Puzzles) - Light / Medium / Heavy
Quality
- An overall rating
- Story - was the story of the module interesting/satisfying/original? or was it just another "rats in the cellar" quest?
- Writing - was the dialogue well-written/compelling/give you creative options that reflected your individual PC? Or was it full of spelling mistakes and railroaded you into making out of character choices?
- Module Design - was the use of tileset/placeables creative and imaginative? or did it feel particularly cookie cutter?
- Encounter Design - did combat/skill-based encounters make use of terrain? did the encounters feel necessary or unique to the module? or perhaps it felt like it was just there to give XP?
- Appropriate Difficulty - too challenging? not challenging enough?
- Enjoyment - even with its flaws, was the module just really fun to play anyway? Or perhaps it lacked that certain something, despite its strengths?
Other suggestions:
Post edited by Archived Post on
0
Comments
Have none
A tagging system like LittleBigPlanet would be nice too, so I could search for missions in the spine of the world.
These 4 I think are enough. Sure you can always make more categories but sometimes too much is just... too much.
Also a tag system like Darren_Kitlor suggested would be great. Then it won't be necessary to use points to distinguish between RP and Combat content... well if the authors would tag it appropriately.
Yes. That's actually an issue with STO is that fields are only sorting linear ratings, popularity or recentness.
Tracking the value of things like story, puzzle, combat and design would be best, IMO and then being able to search for them would be great.
It isn't ideal but I seem to remember early Mission Architect authors in CoH adopting such a convention.
Not to mention searching for said modules by keywords would be nice. So, for example, a cleric could search for modules with "undead" or by type of place "graveyard, tomb, etc." Also allow people to rate the module by archetype so said cleric could just do a general search of modules that are rated best for cleric, etc.