test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
[Brainstorm] Positive-Only Rating System...
zbkolde
Member Posts: 689 Arc User
After mentioning this in another thread, and thinking on it more, i decided to go out on a limb and start a new thread to discuss ideas for a new rating system for foundry quests. The current system includes negative ratings, actually every rating that isn't 5-star has a negative impact on ratings. I'd like to propose a positive-only system.
*Note: I haven't used the current tabs in a long time, so my assessment of them may be outdated. Instead i've been finding new quests on these forums to play. Feel free to let me know if changes have been made to the tabs.
Edit (07/06/13): Took some time this morning to look at the tabs and found a few things to clarify for myself.
- The quests on the "Best" tab aren't actually dominated by old quests, there are a lot of newer ones there. Must be some rotation system in place.
- The quests at the top of the "Best" tab still have an "adjusted rating" that sometimes seems a bit offset from what the star meter is showing.
- The "For Review" tab seemed... kinda short. I knew they had made a change to it, just wasn't aware of how the change worked.
Here are my brainstorms:
Primary Concept: Eliminate average calculations altogether, and instead tally all stars collected for overall rating.
Current System: Star Rating Given By Player
Players choose to leave a 1- to 5-star rating for the quest, which is added in to the calculation for an average. Only the most recent star rating given by an account is included in the calculation.
Positive-Only Change: Stars Given By Player
Similar to "Like" and "Vote Up" systems, stars are tallied up. Players can choose to give the quest 0-5 stars, depending on how well they like the quest. If they don't like it, they don't have to give it any stars. If they really like it, they can choose to give it 5 stars. Only the most recent stars given by an account are included in the total. At the end of the day, the more people that like the quest, and the better they like it, the more stars it gets. If it's a horrible quest, it won't get many stars, if any at all.
Current System: "Adjusted Rating" Ranking
Quests are ranked by an "adjusted rating," that seems to be some mystery calculation. It's been said that it eventually matches the actual average star rating at some point, not sure if that's true or not. It only takes a few 1-star reviews to drag down this "adjusted rating" for newer quests, and the majority of 1-star reviews are done out of spite anyway. For what ever reason they have for doing it, players are capable of trolling quests by giving 1-star ratings, taking away the higher ratings given by other players.
Positive-Only Change: Stars Collected Ranking
Ranking is determined by stars collected, no mystery adjustment calculations, no spiteful players dragging them down.
Current System: Average Star Rating
Averages all the star ratings given to the quest, shown by the gold-filled star meter. Has no bearing on actual rank, used for reference only.
Positive-Only Change: Average Stars Given
Averages all the stars given by players, shown by the gold-filled star meter. Has no bearing on actual rank, used for reference only.
Current System: Best Tab
Uses the mysterious "adjusted rating" to list a certain number of quests.
Positive-Only Change: Trending Tab
Lists a certain number of quests by total stars collected over the last 30 days.
Current System: Featured Tab
Authors can submit their quests to Cryptic for review and possible selection to be featured.
Positive-Only Change: Featured Tab
Can't think of anything to change here.
Current System: New Tab
Lists a lot of quests. Theoretically quests show up on this list after receiving 5 reviews? They stay on the list for awhile, then mysteriously fall into some void and no one can find them anymore.
Positive-Only Change: New Tab
Lists all quests that have moved from the For Review tab in the last 14 days, period. They should be listed in the order they moved to the tab. Quests that finished review 14 days ago will be at the very top. Quests moved today will start at the bottom, and move up over the next two weeks before their 14 days are up. (14 days may seem like a short time frame, but it would avoid having an overwhelming amount of quests listed on this tab. 30 days would be better for the authors, but may cause a lot of clutter.)
Current System: For Review Tab
Quests are listed upon publishing. Horribly long list.
Positive-Only Change: For Review Tab
Lists all quests last published in the last 14 days, that have not yet received 5 reviews, in the order they were last published, oldest ones at the top. Once they've received 5 reviews, their quest is moved over to the New Tab. If they have not published or republished their quest in the last 14 days, it's considered abandoned and dropped from the list. To keep their quest on the list, all they need to do is republish, which also encourages them to do some more polishing work on it. If they don't care about their quest after two weeks, it doesn't need to be in the way of other authors' quests.
Positive-Only Change: All-Time Best Tab
Lists a certain number of quests by the total stars collected, period. Yes, quests that have been around longer will have an advantage, that's why we have the Trending Tab to cycle in new quests.
Positive-Only Change: Archives Tab
A tab full of searchable and sortable options, listing a certain large number of quests at a time. Players can search by code, title, author, keyword, average duration, Daily eligibility, and maybe even add in some things here later. They can sort their results alphabetically, by duration, or by average star rating. This search function will have to, well, actually function, in order for this to work. Otherwise our quests fall into oblivion again.
Current System: Trolls
Players can anonymously give 1-star ratings for no other reason than to bring down the "adjusted rating" for an author's quest. Whatever their reason is, they can do it, and it shouldn't be that way.
Positive-Only Change: Trolls?
The worst they can do is leave a derogatory comment, which publicizes their @handle. Most of them don't want to be identified, and a negative comment will not effect the rating of the quest anyway. Having no impact on the quest, they are not likely to put forth the effort of running the quest just to leave a mean comment that has no bearing on anything.
Positive-Only Change: Conversion
All of the star ratings are stored, it should be possible to just remove the averaging calculation and switch to total stars collected. There shouldn't be much change in the ranks. The 30-day Trending Tab addresses the issue of older quests having the advantage. Ironically, the previous 1-star troll ratings will now add a small number of stars collected to the targeted quests. *giggle* (Edit: Okay, it would be more fair to remove all the current 1-star ratings while converting to the collection system. Less fun, but more fair. Also more work for the devs.)
Current System: Daily Foundry Quest
The Daily Foundry Quest awards Astral Diamonds for completing a certain number of quests, depending on character level. The minimum duration to be an eligible quest is 15-minutes, encouraging players to over-look longer quests in favor of the quicker ones.
Positive-Only Change: Astral Diamonds Awarded By Time
Instead of a "Daily Quest," Astral Diamonds are awarded in intervals based on the quests' average duration. Every 15-minutes of the average duration awards 1,000 diamonds upon completion of the quest. Players will be rewarded equally for up to 3 hours of foundry quest time, or 12,000 Astral Diamonds per day. The text "This quest is also eligible for the "Daily Foundry" quest rewards" would be replaced with "This quest rewards X,000 Astral Diamonds. (Max 12,000 earned per day.)" (This change still being discussed.)
K... what do you guys think?
*Note: I haven't used the current tabs in a long time, so my assessment of them may be outdated. Instead i've been finding new quests on these forums to play. Feel free to let me know if changes have been made to the tabs.
Edit (07/06/13): Took some time this morning to look at the tabs and found a few things to clarify for myself.
- The quests on the "Best" tab aren't actually dominated by old quests, there are a lot of newer ones there. Must be some rotation system in place.
- The quests at the top of the "Best" tab still have an "adjusted rating" that sometimes seems a bit offset from what the star meter is showing.
- The "For Review" tab seemed... kinda short. I knew they had made a change to it, just wasn't aware of how the change worked.
Here are my brainstorms:
Primary Concept: Eliminate average calculations altogether, and instead tally all stars collected for overall rating.
Current System: Star Rating Given By Player
Players choose to leave a 1- to 5-star rating for the quest, which is added in to the calculation for an average. Only the most recent star rating given by an account is included in the calculation.
Positive-Only Change: Stars Given By Player
Similar to "Like" and "Vote Up" systems, stars are tallied up. Players can choose to give the quest 0-5 stars, depending on how well they like the quest. If they don't like it, they don't have to give it any stars. If they really like it, they can choose to give it 5 stars. Only the most recent stars given by an account are included in the total. At the end of the day, the more people that like the quest, and the better they like it, the more stars it gets. If it's a horrible quest, it won't get many stars, if any at all.
Current System: "Adjusted Rating" Ranking
Quests are ranked by an "adjusted rating," that seems to be some mystery calculation. It's been said that it eventually matches the actual average star rating at some point, not sure if that's true or not. It only takes a few 1-star reviews to drag down this "adjusted rating" for newer quests, and the majority of 1-star reviews are done out of spite anyway. For what ever reason they have for doing it, players are capable of trolling quests by giving 1-star ratings, taking away the higher ratings given by other players.
Positive-Only Change: Stars Collected Ranking
Ranking is determined by stars collected, no mystery adjustment calculations, no spiteful players dragging them down.
Current System: Average Star Rating
Averages all the star ratings given to the quest, shown by the gold-filled star meter. Has no bearing on actual rank, used for reference only.
Positive-Only Change: Average Stars Given
Averages all the stars given by players, shown by the gold-filled star meter. Has no bearing on actual rank, used for reference only.
Current System: Best Tab
Uses the mysterious "adjusted rating" to list a certain number of quests.
Positive-Only Change: Trending Tab
Lists a certain number of quests by total stars collected over the last 30 days.
Current System: Featured Tab
Authors can submit their quests to Cryptic for review and possible selection to be featured.
Positive-Only Change: Featured Tab
Can't think of anything to change here.
Current System: New Tab
Lists a lot of quests. Theoretically quests show up on this list after receiving 5 reviews? They stay on the list for awhile, then mysteriously fall into some void and no one can find them anymore.
Positive-Only Change: New Tab
Lists all quests that have moved from the For Review tab in the last 14 days, period. They should be listed in the order they moved to the tab. Quests that finished review 14 days ago will be at the very top. Quests moved today will start at the bottom, and move up over the next two weeks before their 14 days are up. (14 days may seem like a short time frame, but it would avoid having an overwhelming amount of quests listed on this tab. 30 days would be better for the authors, but may cause a lot of clutter.)
Current System: For Review Tab
Quests are listed upon publishing. Horribly long list.
Positive-Only Change: For Review Tab
Lists all quests last published in the last 14 days, that have not yet received 5 reviews, in the order they were last published, oldest ones at the top. Once they've received 5 reviews, their quest is moved over to the New Tab. If they have not published or republished their quest in the last 14 days, it's considered abandoned and dropped from the list. To keep their quest on the list, all they need to do is republish, which also encourages them to do some more polishing work on it. If they don't care about their quest after two weeks, it doesn't need to be in the way of other authors' quests.
Positive-Only Change: All-Time Best Tab
Lists a certain number of quests by the total stars collected, period. Yes, quests that have been around longer will have an advantage, that's why we have the Trending Tab to cycle in new quests.
Positive-Only Change: Archives Tab
A tab full of searchable and sortable options, listing a certain large number of quests at a time. Players can search by code, title, author, keyword, average duration, Daily eligibility, and maybe even add in some things here later. They can sort their results alphabetically, by duration, or by average star rating. This search function will have to, well, actually function, in order for this to work. Otherwise our quests fall into oblivion again.
Current System: Trolls
Players can anonymously give 1-star ratings for no other reason than to bring down the "adjusted rating" for an author's quest. Whatever their reason is, they can do it, and it shouldn't be that way.
Positive-Only Change: Trolls?
The worst they can do is leave a derogatory comment, which publicizes their @handle. Most of them don't want to be identified, and a negative comment will not effect the rating of the quest anyway. Having no impact on the quest, they are not likely to put forth the effort of running the quest just to leave a mean comment that has no bearing on anything.
Positive-Only Change: Conversion
All of the star ratings are stored, it should be possible to just remove the averaging calculation and switch to total stars collected. There shouldn't be much change in the ranks. The 30-day Trending Tab addresses the issue of older quests having the advantage. Ironically, the previous 1-star troll ratings will now add a small number of stars collected to the targeted quests. *giggle* (Edit: Okay, it would be more fair to remove all the current 1-star ratings while converting to the collection system. Less fun, but more fair. Also more work for the devs.)
Current System: Daily Foundry Quest
The Daily Foundry Quest awards Astral Diamonds for completing a certain number of quests, depending on character level. The minimum duration to be an eligible quest is 15-minutes, encouraging players to over-look longer quests in favor of the quicker ones.
Positive-Only Change: Astral Diamonds Awarded By Time
Instead of a "Daily Quest," Astral Diamonds are awarded in intervals based on the quests' average duration. Every 15-minutes of the average duration awards 1,000 diamonds upon completion of the quest. Players will be rewarded equally for up to 3 hours of foundry quest time, or 12,000 Astral Diamonds per day. The text "This quest is also eligible for the "Daily Foundry" quest rewards" would be replaced with "This quest rewards X,000 Astral Diamonds. (Max 12,000 earned per day.)" (This change still being discussed.)
K... what do you guys think?
Post edited by zbkolde on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
*EDIT* by new I mean ones you have not already completed. I don't think you should be penalized for running the same quest 4 times every day for your daily if that's what you want to do, but I think with a slight nudge more people would be willing to try new things that they might just end up enjoying.
Bill's Tavern | The 27th Level | Secret Agent 34
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
If there 1 star votes don't count negatively in general then technically you could pay people to review it and the more you get the more you move up in rankings. So potentially you could exploit the system through volume. Maybe you accounted for that somewhere and I missed it
I didn't account for that, but what you describe can just as easily happen with the current system. Authors can pay or bribe people for 5-star ratings, moving them up in rank. There will always be a way to exploit any system, it's happening now, and it will happen no matter what changes are made.
Maybe some others could help come up with ideas to avoid such an exploit? I really hoped for more discussion about it.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Edit: Also added a note to the conversion thoughts.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
What happens to your quest if it falls out of the Archive Tab? Keep all quest in the archive tab.
And I would take away the Star system altogether. And The positive only system will be biased toward older (been doing it longer) authors.
Trending tab... Why does this tab get 30 days? Why not 14 like the rest?
Why do some tabs have no time limit? Best to be consistent.
All Time Best Tab. There are quests with over 30,000 reviews and getting more everyday. Quests like that will never get off the all-time best tab. And if you have a finite number of quests on that tab you may get to the point that it becomes very hard to get on that list.
It is just my opinion, but you have to have some sort of negativity to the system. Kind of a Yin and Yang thing. If you have positive, then you have to have negative.
And how about a simple search tab. No quests listed. But you can search for anything, like what you listed in the Archives Tab search.
Just my opinions...
Narayan
I appreciate your feedback.
The negative balance is that if the quest isn't any good, it won't get any stars.
Edit:
I'll go ahead and address your questions again.
As stated in the OP, the author only has to republish their quest to keep it on the tab. The purpose is to remove abandoned quests and keep the list current.
The purpose of an archive is to hold all quests. They would never "fall out" of that tab, not sure what made you assume such.
The Trending Tab will constantly cycle through newer quests, and they can stay on that list as long they are popular. This kind of removes the "Best" mentality as the quest with the most stars collected a month ago may not be at the top this month.
The 14-day durations on the other tabs is because those tabs are for new quests. Because there can be a ton of new quests, going longer than 14 days could cause clutter. The Trending Tab is not for new quests, it's for any quests that are currently being played and collecting stars. It's not that the quests stay on the tab for 30 days, it's that the collected stars are tallied for the last 30 days. A quest can be on there for one day or 90 days or more depending on the stars given by players.
Again, some tabs are for new quests. "New" by definition has a time limit.
Exactly, this tab is for bragging rights, plain and simple. At some point, even the greatest quest ever published is going to lose out in the 30-day tally, but it still deserves a place in the sun.
Again, the negativity is that poorly done quests will not collect stars. Players have the option to not give any stars at all.
The Archives Tab is the search tab you speak of.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
I have to disagree here. Getting no stars is not a negative. It is not because it has no consequence attached to it.
OK removing abandoned quests id good. But to consider a quest abandoned after 14 days is ridiculous. And that is what, essentially, you are saying.
This is taken directly from you post... " listing a certain large number of quests at a time" To me that does not say all quests will be on this list. If you say that there will be, say, 5000 quests on it... What happens when there are 5,001 quests. Plus you stated "at a time" which leads me to not all quests.
Semantics. Trending, popular, best are essentially the same thing. And I was not talking about the top of the list. How long do you think a quest would take to "fall off" the trending list?
You are saying the same thing. Not for new quests, but for those being played and collecting stars. Does that mean that a new quest is not being played and are not collecting stars?
Agreed. That is why I think there should be a search tab for quests that somehow are not on any lists.
Just opinion here... Don't like the whole bragging thing. Just complicates things. And causes animosity.
And again that is not negativity if it does not negatively affect the quest.
But you stated that it would only hold a certain number of quests. I want to be able to search for quests that me be years old.
Narayan
Prologue: Fort Neverember
NW-DL2RVQ54C
Chapter 1: The Gray Portrait
NW-DHGEFBMGD
The consequence is that the quest will not collect stars, therefore will not climb up the lists.
I agree that 14 days doesn't seem like enough time. But, as stated in the OP, this list is way too long, and many of the quests have been abandoned by their authors. 14 days keeps it fresh. Authors are encouraged to republish, which takes them back into the editor, also encouraging them to polish their quests. Getting plays will work basically the same way it does now, ask friends and advertise. There are quests sitting on my subscribed tab that have not been updated since May, other than Cryptic's mass republishing on June 13th, yet they still clutter the review tab. I agree 30 days would be better, from the authors' perspective. But from the players' perspective, 14 days reduces clutter.
I don't think you're understanding. An archive is a database, and this tab is a search tab. When you do any search, anywhere, it gives you results, right? The "certain large number of quests at a time" is the search results. When you fill in the search options, it gives you a list of results. I don't list a number here because i'm not sure what would be the best number of results to list. Too few is, well, not enough quests. Too many causes lag, and clutter.
Essentially, yes, but not exactly. People are going to return to the catalog repeatedly. Trending quests are the ones that are gaining attention and popularity right now. It doesn't mean they're the best quest ever, it means it's a good quest that people are playing. Think of the Billboard Top 40. Those are not the best songs ever, they're just what's popular right now, and mostly new stuff. Every quest ever published ever will still be available through the archive search tab.
Not sure how to explain this to you either. If you count every star given in the life span of the quest, the oldest quests will stay at the top. That's not what trending is. Trending, again, means it's what people are enjoying right now, meaning it's what they are playing and what they are giving stars to. Once everyone has played a quest, they normally move on to look for another quest to play. Therefore, the quest that was super popular last month has already been played by everyone, there is a newer quest out this month that everyone is playing now. Meanwhile, that uber quest that everyone loved still has it's place in the sun over on the "All-Time Best" tab.
Again, that it was an archive is, by definition.
Sorry you feel that way, but not everyone does. I don't think it causes animosity. Also, the current system pretty much keeps the same quests at the top of the "Best" tab for like ever, unless there's something i'm missing. That causes animosity for those authors at the top, if you don't believe me just ask them. People get angry/jealous/bored or whatever, so they try to pull those quests down via 1-star reviews... a.k.a. trolling.
Erm, well... why do you want to negatively affect the quest? I mean, if it's not good, just ignore it, right?
Again, archive = database of all quests. Search = list of results based on preference options.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Thank you.
Authors can withdraw their quests any time from the editor.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Just to clarify.
I'm not understanding i guess, sorry.
Err... you're talking about the "Submit to Cryptic" button, aren't you? If so, then yes, it bothers me that authors lose access to their quest after submitting. This is why i've never submitted mine, and never will. I have a thing about losing access to my stuff, i do a lot of editing and tweaking and polishing. If this is what you're talking about, yeah i agree they should be able to retract it.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
If your quest is selected to be featured you don't lose your quest, they make a copy of your quest and it gets featured but you still have your quest to polish or whatever you want to do. I'm talking about you have a quest and feel that it's ready but somewhere somehow in your quest an unexpected problem arises ie; a random NPC is placed on a map when you never touched that spawn during building that map, or you tested something mundane in the foundry and when you test it on the live server something changes and you didn't notice it before you submitted the quest for review. Once it is submitted for review you can not withdraw that submission, so if you make a small mistake you are totally SoL, besides making a copy of your quest, publishing your copy, going through the sometimes painful process of getting 20 plays to be able to submit the quest again.
I get the archive part. Basically. I hope what you are saying is that the tab will not have quest listed until you search for them. That is what I was talking about.
No problem.
I guess I don't have the confidence that you have. I see a lot of authors just going into the foundry and clicking publish and be done with it. Here we disagree again. I have a hard time believing that the quests that have 30,000+ plays are all or even mostly one time plays. There are several quests that I have played multiple times. And I give them the same rating.
Exactly what I am saying. Having bragging rights... aka you have a tab for bragging rights and others will try to pull them down. aha trolling.
How do I know it is a bad quest with out playing it? And if I play a bad quest... Well let's just leave it there.
I don't remember in you OP if you stated that any list would also include the number of plays. Or just the number of stars. That way I can see that quest "X" has 200 plays, but only 300 stars. Which means it is probably something I would avoid. Which would be the negativity of zero or one star rating. Which is just a long way of getting an average star rating.
PS I went back and looked... It seems you want to keep the average star rating, but only for reference. Care to explain that?
I never look at the mysterious rating of a quest I am looking to play. I only look at the average star rating. And if you use the average star rating then you have negativity of one star ratings built in.
PPS LOL I wanted to keep it short and it is still long.
Narayan
Exactly. Sometimes they're good quests, they get discovered, played, spread by word of mouth, and move up on their own. But often they are unfinished, broken, or failed experiments that just kinda sit there and mold, and clutter up the list. The theory is that the authors who put more work into it, give it more attention, or love, will be rewarded for their efforts by being easier to find on that list.
Your rating only ever counts one time though. When you replay a quest, if you choose to leave a review, it overrides your previous one. Only your last one counts. So if someone plays the same quest 100 times and gives it 5 stars every time, they still only ever give it 5 stars, that's the max they can give it.
But they can't troll with this proposed new Positive-Only system. They can get mad all they want, and they can leave a derogatory comment if they want. But they can't do anything to drag down any quests.
It's up to you whether or not you play it. If you play it and there's something you don't like, or something wrong/broken/ridiculous in it, you can type all that out in your comment, and not give it any stars. For me, seeing what other people say about a quest doesn't determine if i'll like it or not. If a quest sounds interesting to me, i'll play it. Some of my favorites are hated by other people, and some of the popular ones just irritate the bejeezus out of me.
The number of plays is currently shown on the info tab for the quests. No reason to change that, it would still be there.
The average star rating you see now is only for reference. If you hover your mouse over a quest in the list, at the top of the tooltip you will see the "Adjusted Rating." It's possible that maybe that doesn't show up anymore for the massively-played quests, since somewhere it's been said that they will equal out eventually, not sure about that. The quests on the "New" tab are listed in order of this adjusted rating. They move over to the "Best" tab when the adjusted rating is higher than 4.0, and whatever other requirements there are for it. Browsing the "New" tab, you can find quests with a 4.5- or even 5-star average rating on their star meter, but hovering over them will show their adjusted rating is like 3.0.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Sowhy not make it 21 days or 30 days? Give it a chance to be reviewed before the author has to republish it. And right now nothing clutters up the list since most are not even on the list.
Like I said, I do not use the adjusted rating. Seems a little off to me, seeing how I have no idea as to why it is adjusted.
Narayan
I'm not the right person to make the official call on the number of days, nor the number of reviews needed to move up, i'm only throwing out ideas. This is something that would need to be looked at and analyzed by the devs. My point is just that it needs changed, but changed to something consistent, fair, and organized.
That's not the way i want it to work, that is the way it works now. Your account only counts one time on the quests you review now. If you change your star rating, or your comment, from the same character or a different character, it deletes your previous one and only counts your most recent one.
As for it looking bad, that is where the average stars given comes in. You can see that the average stars given is 4 stars, and it's been played a lot, so you can tell people like it. If it were a bad quest, the average stars given would be like 1 star.
No one knows.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
OK, I am confused here now. Are you going to give "total" numbers of stars as well as the average star rating? Here is where I am confused. How do you come up with the average? If I play a quest 20 times and give it 4 stars each time only one 4 star rating counts towards the total right? Is it then only 1 play counts also? Or do you only count 1 4 star rating for the total and count the 20 plays/total number of stars given be me for the average???
Here is a scenario, you give me the total stars and the average rating. (And please show work
Quest X has a total of 10 people play it.
Player 1 plays it 5 times and gives it 5 stars every time.
player 2 plays it one time and gives it 2 stars.
player 3 plays it 20 times and gives it 13 3 star ratings, then the quest is updated and so the last 7 times he rates it with 4 stars.
player 5 plays it 5 times and gives it 3 zero stars and 2 1 stars.
player 6 plays it once and gives it zero stars.
player 7 plays it 2 times and gives it 5 stars each time.
player 8 plays it 8 times and gives it 3 stars every time.
player 9 plays it 6 times and gives it 4 stars every time.
And player 10 is the author. Can he rate his own quest? If yes, he gives it 5 stars.
Now what is the total number of stars and what is the average?
Narayan
The total number of stars is used for placement of the quest on the Trending Tab and possibly on the All-Time Best tab. It will also be displayed on the info tab for the quest. The average stars given is just that, an average of the stars that players give to that quest. Again, this is similar to how it works now. The average rating gold-filled star meter means nothing, it is just a reference. The quests are placed in rank according to the mysterious adjusted rating.
Every play counts, that is how it works now. Every time the author completes it, every time the author's spouse completes it, every time anybody completes the quest, it is counted as a play. The number of plays doesn't mean anything, and it's not used in any calculation. It's just a number stuck there for reference. The only place where the number of plays is relevant at all, is that the quest has to have 20 plays to be eligible for the Daily Foundry quests.
Fun.
Now, for your scenario...
Player 1 = 5 stars.
Player 2 = 2 stars.
Player 3 = 4 stars.
Player 4 apparently declined to review it.
Player 5 = 1 star (assuming their last rating was a 1 star, only their last rating counts).
Player 6 = 0 stars.
Player 7 = 5 stars.
Player 8 = 3 stars.
Player 9 = 4 stars.
Player 10 doesn't count.
Total stars = 5+2+4+1+0+5+3+4=24 stars total.
There were 8 reviews.
Average stars given = 24/8=3 stars.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Ravenloft
Look for@Apocrs1980 or visit the main page here or Ravenloft here
OK got it. But I would suggest not putting in the total number of plays (if that was part of your OP), as in my scenario would be 48 total plays. As that would drop the rating in the minds of some players. 24 stars with 48 plays = average of .5 stars. Some players would not understand the difference between total reviews and total plays.
Narayan
Again, this is not something i've proposed to add or change, it's part of the current system. The current system shows the number of plays, even though it has no bearing on anything past 20. I'm not sure how it could cause misunderstanding. The gold-filled star meter would still be there, front and center, just like it is now, to show the average stars given, and that's what people will see. The number of reviews is next to the star meter, which shows how many different people have played the quest. The total number of plays doesn't stand out, so i wouldn't think people would really look for that and try to calculate anything based on that number.
Thank you so much for all your questions.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Well then I was/am confused. I thought that the star average was based on the total number of stars divided by the total number of plays. If that is mnot so then their system is even more screwed up then I thought. Geez... They really need a complete revamp of the foundry and the foundry quest display.
Narayan
Currently, the average star rating, that is shown by the gold-filled star meter, is the total star ratings divided by the number of reviews. That part makes sense. But, it doesn't matter what the average star rating is really, because the quests are ranked by the adjusted rating, not the average rating. That's why i've said the average rating is just for reference. I have no idea how the adjusted rating is calculated. This is part of why i started this brainstorming process.
Okay, i just logged out like 2 minutes before i started typing this, and i had an adjusted rating of 3.5 stars. Apparently i've irritated someone, as i just got another anonymous 1-star review and it dropped my adjusted rating back down. Anyway, i finally figured out how to get a screenshot of my foundry editor (shrunk it to windowed mode), so here is an example. Maybe it will help you understand.
Edit: Actually, i'm not sure the review i got today was a 1-star. My 8th 1-star review should have been the one from yesterday. I know for sure it wasn't a 2- or 3-star. If it wasn't a 1-star it had to be a 4-star, and it is really sad to think a 4-star review would lower my adjusted rating. See how screwy it is? Just seems like total stars would be so much easier to understand.
This is from my editor, just now:
This is from the in-game catalog, just now:
My average rating is 3.9 stars. (Which makes me sad, because this is the first time it has ever dropped below 4.0 stars.) But, my adjusted rating is only 3.47 stars.
The average rating is the number of stars, from the chart, divided by the number of reviews. The adjusted rating is lower, but i have no idea how the adjustment is made.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
OK, answer me this. Under your system... Let's say the those 90 reviews you have right now are ALL from different accounts. Would your star rating change from what it is right now? And let's say that half of the 4 and 5 star rating are from the same accounts, but the 1, 2 and 3 stars are from different accounts. Under your system what would be your rating?
It seems to me that under you system a zero or 1 star rating would be a negative. And some troll with the energy could make several accounts and still 1 star bomb you. You just wouldn't have the adjusted rating. If not, what am I missing?
Narayan
Okay, again... 1 account = 1 review, only, ever, period. The 90 reviews have to be from 90 different accounts, period. I don't know how to stress that enough apparently. The only way a person can review it more than one time is by making alt accounts, not alt characters, alt accounts. 1 account = 1 review, only, ever, period.
Under the proposed system, with these ratings, my average stars given would still be 3.9. The 3.9 average stars would show up on the gold-filled star meter, just like it does now. But, just like it does now, this would only be a reference, it wouldn't hold any bearing on anything. (By removing the 8 1-star reviews, as described below, this quest's actual average stars given under the new system would be 4.2 stars (347/82), which still doesn't mean anything.)
Under the proposed system, i would have 347 stars. (In my conversion notes, i stated it would be more fair if the 1-star reviews were dropped out of the tally. The reason for this, is the 1-star reviews currently indicate they hated the quest, or were trolling, either way they gave it the lowest possible rating. If the 1-star reviews are not dropped during the conversion, they will add to the total stars, which while it's ironically humorous, it is a little bit unfair. Right now, my actual number of stars is 355, but those 8 1-star reviews, to be fair, shouldn't be counted to raise my tally.)
Here is the math:
33x5 = 165 stars.
37x4 = 148 stars.
10x3 = 30 stars.
2x2 = 4 stars.
(1-star reviews removed for fairness.)
Total stars = 347 stars.
If someone wanted to troll me, the worst they can possibly do is run my quest and leave it 0 stars. Here's the math for that:
Current total = 347 stars.
Troll rating = 0 stars.
New total = 347 stars.
See, they didn't hurt my rating, at all. By giving me 0 stars, it will lower my average stars given rating... but so what? That number doesn't mean anything, just like it doesn't mean anything now. The only number that means anything is the total stars given, and their little escapade had no effect on that what-so-ever, nothing they can do can lower my total stars.
Other quests that are better than mine will get more stars than me. If i ever made it to the "Trending Tab," the more popular quests would be higher than mine.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)