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.
Short and sweet. You are not understanding me... My point is if you leave in the average star rating, then a zero or one star rating does affect you. My point is that IMHO most players wont look at the total stars, but will look at the average rating. Your example 347/82=4.2 you then get 10 zero star ratings. 347/92 = 3.8 rounded up. So if people just look at the average rating then it does indeed affect you.
On other words if you want players to look at total stars only, then remove the average rating. If, in your system, the average star rating serves no purpose... Get rid of it.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
I just want to point out a few things, again, that are not my ideas. I'm enjoying our conversation, but most of it has been about clarification of the current system, not proposed changes to it.
1. With Cryptic's current system, each account can only ever leave one review/rating for a quest. Not my idea, Cryptic's current system.
2. With Cryptic's current system, the average star rating is calculated by adding the star ratings together, and dividing that by the total reviews. Not my idea, Cryptic's current system. (As seen in the screenshots posted.)
3. With Cryptic's current system, the average star rating does not determine ranking on any of the lists. The ranking is determined by the adjusted rating, visible on the tooltip when hovering over the quest. Not my idea, Cryptic's current system.
4. With Cryptic's current system, the total number of plays is shown on the "Overview" tab on the quest. Not my idea, Cryptic's current system. (As seen in the screenshots posted.)
5. With Cryptic's current system, there is an "adjusted rating" that no one seems to know how to calculate. Not my idea, Cryptic's current system. (As seen in the screenshots posted.)
My idea is to replace the "adjusted rating" with the total stars given. To make this work, the tabs will need reorganizing as well.
On other words if you want players to look at total stars only, then remove the average rating. If, in your system, the average star rating serves no purpose... Get rid of it.
We were typing at the same time apparently, sorry for the overlap. But, again... not my idea, already there, and i see no reason to remove it.
We were typing at the same time apparently, sorry for the overlap. But, again... not my idea, already there, and i see no reason to remove it.
LOL. My point being that more than a few players will use the average rating of a quest over the adjusted rating. So with that in mind... zero stars and 1 star rating will affect you in a negative way. Like I have said I do not look at the adjusted rating of foundry quests. But I do look at the average rating. And that does come into play deciding whether or not I will consider playing the quest. The only area that I do not use that is in the "For Review" tab.
So if you really want to get rid of the negative affect of zero and 1 star ratings you would have to get rid of the average rating. That's all I am saying. If you want to get rid of the negative affect of getting bombed remove the average rating altogether and just put the total number of stars.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
LOL. My point being that more than a few players will use the average rating of a quest over the adjusted rating. So with that in mind... zero stars and 1 star rating will affect you in a negative way. Like I have said I do not look at the adjusted rating of foundry quests. But I do look at the average rating. And that does come into play deciding whether or not I will consider playing the quest. The only area that I do not use that is in the "For Review" tab.
So if you really want to get rid of the negative affect of zero and 1 star ratings you would have to get rid of the average rating. That's all I am saying. If you want to get rid of the negative affect of getting bombed remove the average rating altogether and just put the total number of stars.
I do understand what you're saying. Just i think you are putting more weight on the average stars rating than myself, which is perfectly okay. Everyone has their own way of choosing which quests to play. I even mentioned in the OP that the archive search tab could include a sorting option to lists quests by this average meter.
The "Trending Tab" in my proposed system is there to give exposure to quests, not just to rank them. The quests would be listed in the order of the most stars they collected in the last 30 days. The stars collected 31+ days ago won't be counted for this tab, so the total number of stars collected altogether doesn't have much weight here either. If a player chooses to skim the list for the highest average, that is their choice. The other quests are still on that list, above and below, getting exposure. Under normal circumstances, this will coincide with the average anyway. While trolls can give 0-star ratings all day long, there is nothing they can do to drag any quests down. So, what's their motivation to troll?
One of the most important parts of this proposition is the archive search tab, it has to work, and work well. Through this tab, players should be able to search for the types of quests they are in the mood to play. Authors will need to be accurate and thorough with their descriptions. For example, i could search for quests that are not eligible for the daily (basically meaning less than 20 plays) by drop down menu, have an average duration of 30-45 minutes by min/max fields, and take place outside by keywords. When the tab generates my list of results, i will browse through them looking for descriptions of combat difficulty and story summary. I would not look at the average stars given, because that is not what's important to me. Neither will i look at the total stars. Other players will look at those things, and that's good, because that's the point of searches and sorting.
In short, while my proposal is quite an overhaul, it's not a major change in exposure or ranking. It's mostly a way to get rid of trolling, which is a discouragement to authors, and a waste of everyone's time and energy, including the trolls themselves. They will have time to be destructive somewhere else, or do their homework or clean their room, because there's nothing they can do to drag down someone's quest.
I do understand what you're saying. Just i think you are putting more weight on the average stars rating than myself, which is perfectly okay. Everyone has their own way of choosing which quests to play. I even mentioned in the OP that the archive search tab could include a sorting option to lists quests by this average meter.
<snip>
In short, while my proposal is quite an overhaul, it's not a major change in exposure or ranking. It's mostly a way to get rid of trolling, which is a discouragement to authors, and a waste of everyone's time and energy, including the trolls themselves. They will have time to be destructive somewhere else, or do their homework or clean their room, because there's nothing they can do to drag down someone's quest.
But you do not understand what I am trying to get across.
You think that I am putting more weight on the average star rating. And I am. And you want to put more weight on thenumber of stars, which I don't.
Now the problem is this. Unless you have clear data that show that the "adjusted rating" (old system), or the total number of stars (your new system) is used more often (by a big majority) then the average star rating in choosing quests (which is what all of this boils down to right?), getting bombed with zero or 1 star ratings will negatively affect your quest.
Example... you have 50 reviews that total 100 stars with a average rating of 4.25 stars. Using your new way and eliminating the average star rating, getting bombed by a bunch of zero and one star ratings will not negatively affect your quest. Or if the vast majority uses the total star rating and does not pay much attention to the average rating. You will not be negatively affected. Now if the vast majority uses the average rating instead of the total star rating... And your average rating goes down to say 3.5, because of getting bombed by a bunch of zero and/or one star ratings, your quest will be negatively affected.
If you want to lessen the affect of zero and 1 star ratings with your system... You need to prove that most players do not care about the average rating and therefore ignore it, or remove it.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
What is the code for your published quest? I'll give it a run here in a little bit.
It still needs work. But you are welcome to give it a look.
NW-DH86HB59L
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
0
lolsorhandMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 981Bounty Hunter
edited July 2013
I see alot of text, yet I might never truly understand what you call troll rating. I've never encountered it as such. -I'm glad for it, though I made The Dwarven Tale just as a sarcastic joke towards cryptic people seem to enjoy it. Sure i've gotten ones, or 0s', but in the end ratings still doesn't matter. It simple just does not. - The ratings as they are is a joke just as the current reward system. - And mind, i'm partially drunk while writing this, but even so. This should make sense to some of you.
(The Dwarven Tale was requested by a guild member however, yet, just look and see. The ratings is a joke, people don't care anything about the story. What they do care about is the ad/minute.) That is all.
It still needs work. But you are welcome to give it a look.
NW-DH86HB59L
Sorry for the delay, wasn't feeling well last night and went to bed early. You have a good story, but it needs more dialog. I'll send you my notes in a forum private message.
But you do not understand what I am trying to get across.
You think that I am putting more weight on the average star rating. And I am. And you want to put more weight on thenumber of stars, which I don't.
I do understand, is what you don't understand. Using your logic, since i won't play a quest that has heavy combat, then we should remove the description portion because if it says "heavy combat" i won't ever play it. For certain reasons, i won't play a quest that takes place in Blacklake District, so that needs to be removed also. Those are the things that will keep me from playing a quest, so they should be removed. Make sense? No, because these are my choices, not everyone's.
In my proposed system:
The Review tab lists quests by date last published.
The New tab lists quests by date moved over from the Review tab.
The Trending tab lists quests by most stars collected in the last 30 days.
The All-Time Best tab lists quests by most stars collected ever.
The Archive tab lists quests by the players' preference options.
So, you see, the quests are never listed by the average stars given rating, unless the player chooses that option on the Archives tab. Right now, people see quests on the "Best" and "New" tabs listed by adjusted rating, so they can drag a quest down by giving it 1-star reviews. With my proposed positive-only system, they cannot drag any quest down, period. The only way for a quest to move down, and only on the Trending or All-Time Best tabs, is for another quest to get more stars collected in the specified time frame and bump ahead of it.
Current system: Jamie gives you a 5-star rating, then Alex takes away 2 of those stars by giving you a 1-star rating. (Math: 5-((5+1)/2)=5-3=2.) Now you only have 3 stars. Alex can take away stars given. (Math uses basic actual average, since i have no idea how to calculate the adjusted rating.)
Positive only system: Jamie gives you 5 stars, then Alex gives you 0 stars. You still have those 5 stars, no one can take them, ever.
Now the problem is this. Unless you have clear data that show that the "adjusted rating" (old system), or the total number of stars (your new system) is used more often (by a big majority) then the average star rating in choosing quests (which is what all of this boils down to right?), getting bombed with zero or 1 star ratings will negatively affect your quest.
You're talking about what individual players use to decide on playing quests. I'm talking about how quests are listed. Individual player choice cannot ever be controlled, period.
Example... you have 50 reviews that total 100 stars with a average rating of 4.25 stars.
Incorrect math. 100 total stars divided by 50 reviews, 100/50, makes an average of 2.0 stars given.
If you want to lessen the affect of zero and 1 star ratings with your system... You need to prove that most players do not care about the average rating and therefore ignore it, or remove it.
And i should also prove that most players want more combat? Or should i prove that most players want less combat? Should i prove that players don't want to play quests set in Blacklake District? What else would i need to prove about individual player choices? I'd much rather let players decide for themselves what to play and what not to play. I just want authors to keep their stars and not have to worry about trolls.
I do understand, is what you don't understand. Using your logic, since i won't play a quest that has heavy combat, then we should remove the description portion because if it says "heavy combat" i won't ever play it. For certain reasons, i won't play a quest that takes place in Blacklake District, so that needs to be removed also. Those are the things that will keep me from playing a quest, so they should be removed. Make sense? No, because these are my choices, not everyone's.
In my proposed system:
The Review tab lists quests by date last published.
The New tab lists quests by date moved over from the Review tab.
The Trending tab lists quests by most stars collected in the last 30 days.
The All-Time Best tab lists quests by most stars collected ever.
The Archive tab lists quests by the players' preference options.
So, you see, the quests are never listed by the average stars given rating, unless the player chooses that option on the Archives tab. Right now, people see quests on the "Best" and "New" tabs listed by adjusted rating, so they can drag a quest down by giving it 1-star reviews. With my proposed positive-only system, they cannot drag any quest down, period. The only way for a quest to move down, and only on the Trending or All-Time Best tabs, is for another quest to get more stars collected in the specified time frame and bump ahead of it.
Current system: Jamie gives you a 5-star rating, then Alex takes away 2 of those stars by giving you a 1-star rating. (Math: 5-((5+1)/2)=5-3=2.) Now you only have 3 stars. Alex can take away stars given. (Math uses basic actual average, since i have no idea how to calculate the adjusted rating.)
Positive only system: Jamie gives you 5 stars, then Alex gives you 0 stars. You still have those 5 stars, no one can take them, ever.
You're talking about what individual players use to decide on playing quests. I'm talking about how quests are listed. Individual player choice cannot ever be controlled, period.
Incorrect math. 100 total stars divided by 50 reviews, 100/50, makes an average of 2.0 stars given.
Just a couple of things here... Yes I snipped a lot of the response. I don't think it is now needed. you will see later why.
But first me incorrect math. I guess I did not explain it good enough. What I was getting at with as little text as possible, (obviously too little text) was there were 50 reviews but some. most were from the same players. Therefore the higher rating.
Now for the real stuff
I now understand, or think I understand, your point. We are looking at it from a different perspective. You from just how it is listed on the various pages. I, on the other hand, from a player perspective, sort of. I was looking at it from how I would/do choose to play a foundry quest. How it gets ranked doesn't really mean much to me. I want to know what the majority of players think about it. And total stars don't really tell me much. For instance... A quest has 100 stars. What does that tell me? Say the quest listed above it has 125 stars and the one below it has 75 stars. Still does not tell me much. But if I look at average rating... 125* quest avg rating = 4.25* 100* quest avg rating 3.25, 75* quest avg rating 3.75*. That tells "ME" much more.
As I said and I think you agree different perspectives. You want to get rid of negativity for page listing only. Am I at least close?
PS Thanks for the review. Helps a lot.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
I now understand, or think I understand, your point. We are looking at it from a different perspective. You from just how it is listed on the various pages. I, on the other hand, from a player perspective, sort of. I was looking at it from how I would/do choose to play a foundry quest. How it gets ranked doesn't really mean much to me. I want to know what the majority of players think about it. And total stars don't really tell me much.
Now we're just about on the same page. Total stars don't matter to you, average stars don't matter to me. I just want authors to get exposure in a positive way, and not be discouraged by negative ratings.
You want to see what other people think about the quest, this system will do that in three ways:
1. Read the reviews, they're always gonna be there, good or bad.
2. The average stars given gold-filled star meter.
3. The Trending tab is good indication that people like those quests, because they're getting more stars. Just like now, or any system at all, the more people like it, not only the more stars they give it, but the more they tell their friends and guildies about it, so it gets more and more plays, and more and more stars.
With the current system, as quests get attention and move up on the "New" or "Best" tab, people can drag them back down by giving them 1-star ratings. With the new system, as they get attention and move up on the "Trending" tab and maybe later on the "All-Time Best" tab, people have no way of dragging them down. As you've seen on the forums, there are lots of threads about how people are giving negative reviews, bringing down the adjusted rating. Most people laugh at the comments left, or blow them off, they don't matter. What matters is they're being dragged down the list by these negative reviews. That's what i want to stop, the dragging down.
It's possible people will rally together to give stars to a different quest to move it up, but that's less frustrating than your work being dragged down. Also, in my own theory anyway, i don't see these 1-star-giving players going out of their way to give 5 stars to anyone else. If they do, their stars probably will not add enough to a quest to bump it up above better quests anyway. Basically the better quests will keep moving up and keep getting exposure, that's what i'm hoping for.
P.S.: Again, the "Archives" search tab is a hugely important part of this, as it's how the majority of our quests will be found by players.
Now we're just about on the same page. Total stars don't matter to you, average stars don't matter to me. I just want authors to get exposure in a positive way, and not be discouraged by negative ratings.
<snip>
P.S.: Again, the "Archives" search tab is a hugely important part of this, as it's how the majority of our quests will be found by players.
Got it. Put me down as a supporter.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
0
gornonthecobMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 421Arc User
apocrs1980Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited July 2013
Again this is a great idea for an improved system. There is only one flaw however, the daily system would need to be changed to an hour of foundry content played rather than the current system, otherwise the all time best and trending pages would be full of 15 min foundry quests.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The Cragsteep Crypt - BETA Ravenloft Look for@Apocrs1980 or visit the main page here or Ravenloft here
Again this is a great idea for an improved system. There is only one flaw however, the daily system would need to be changed to an hour of foundry content played rather than the current system, otherwise the all time best and trending pages would be full of 15 min foundry quests.
Agreed. The "Daily" thing is a nuisance to all of us.
The bulk of the system focuses on, essentially, number of plays. I'd say the majority of Foundry players don't care about anything but blitzing through with minimum time for maximum reward, and this system guarantees that mass popularity will highly reward basic missions and obscure more developed missions trying to do anything different.
Yeah, if someone sets archive options right (if I understand the proposal right) you can see average reviews which help a little.
I just don't see any net win here, other than archive (which would be solved easily with hash tags if search wasn't such a pos)
Campaign: The Fenwick Cycle NWS-DKR9GB7KH
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
The bulk of the system focuses on, essentially, number of plays.
Not sure how you are coming up with this. An account can only leave one review, so even if a person played it 100 times, at most they can only ever give it 5 stars. People, in general, will still give 4-5 stars to good quests, and 0-2 stars to not-so-good quests. The better quests still get more stars over time.
Again this is a great idea for an improved system. There is only one flaw however, the daily system would need to be changed to an hour of foundry content played rather than the current system, otherwise the all time best and trending pages would be full of 15 min foundry quests.
Trying to brainstorm this issue now. May need some help.
What if, instead of having any sort of "Daily" quest to do, astral diamonds were awarded in 15-minute intervals? Every 15-minutes of the average duration awarded 1,000 astral diamonds, and playing for more than an hour would still be rewarding. So, a 30-minute average duration awarded 2,000 astral diamonds. An hour duration awarded 4,000 astral diamonds. Same result, different method, and more incentive to run longer quests.
I guess, from Cryptic's point of view, there should be a maximum amount of diamonds earned per day from foundry quests? What would be fair? We know this is possible, because they already made it where they stop giving XP if you get too much in a certain time, right? So... let's say maximum of 12,000 astral diamonds per 24 hours from foundry quests? That's 3 hours, which is more than most people would do in a day, but those willing would get rewarded for it.
How does that sound? If it sounds alright i'll stick it on the OP too.
Replace the green "also eligible for daily" text, with "This quest rewards X,000 Astral Diamonds. (Maximum 12,000 earned per day.)"
The "per day" part would be a little misleading if it were a 24-hour timer, which aligns perfectly with all the other "per day" descriptions for 24-hour-timed things already in the game.
I think the current system is fine but needs some enforcement. If there was a way to find those that troll review and remove them from the community, I would prefer that. I have been hit by them a few times (once today) and their ability to lurk in the dark needs to be taken away. Turn the light on and the cockroaches will scurry back under the fridge where they belong.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors. Video Preview
I think the current system is fine but needs some enforcement. If there was a way to find those that troll review and remove them from the community, I would prefer that. I have been hit by them a few times (once today) and their ability to lurk in the dark needs to be taken away. Turn the light on and the cockroaches will scurry back under the fridge where they belong.
Agreed, this was an idea i not only thought about but also discussed with one of our red-names via private message a couple of times. I figured we should be able to "tag" those troll reviewers, and enough "tags" would "flag" them for violations, at which point Cryptic could step in and do something. Kind of like how the chat spam tagging works now.
The problem i see with that, however, is that it's a fine line between "troll reviews" and people who just honestly hated the quest. Myself, and several other authors, never rate any quest below 3-stars, but not everyone does that. A lot of people have systems on how they rate, and if they do leave a 1-star it's because they feel the quest deserved it for one reason or another. So, who's job would it be to determine which 1-star ratings were trolls, and which were honest ratings of a not-so-good quest? How would they enforce that? I spent a lot of time thinking about this idea, but couldn't get past that obstacle.
Turning the light on to scare the roaches off is a reactive method. Removing the crumbs they're after so they have no reason to come in anyway is more proactive.
Honest reviewers can still leave 0 stars if they don't like it. Trolls can still leave 0 stars too, but it wouldn't matter. Since it doesn't matter, what's their incentive to do it? Like i said, it will give them more time to do their homework and clean their room, since their efforts here would be futile anyway.
Trying to brainstorm this issue now. May need some help.
What if, instead of having any sort of "Daily" quest to do, astral diamonds were awarded in 15-minute intervals? Every 15-minutes of the average duration awarded 1,000 astral diamonds, and playing for more than an hour would still be rewarding. So, a 30-minute average duration awarded 2,000 astral diamonds. An hour duration awarded 4,000 astral diamonds. Same result, different method, and more incentive to run longer quests.
I guess, from Cryptic's point of view, there should be a maximum amount of diamonds earned per day from foundry quests? What would be fair? We know this is possible, because they already made it where they stop giving XP if you get too much in a certain time, right? So... let's say maximum of 12,000 astral diamonds per 24 hours from foundry quests? That's 3 hours, which is more than most people would do in a day, but those willing would get rewarded for it.
How does that sound? If it sounds alright i'll stick it on the OP too.
Yes, there was another thread about this very system, I believe it was a MOD (Ambisinister) that had mentioned instead of running 4 qualified foundrys daily that you would run a total of 1 hour of foundry time, this would open it up for a variety of quests to be played within an hour time frame, and also work with the proposed new rating system. So in effect 2 of their systems would have to change, and I think that it would be for the better.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The Cragsteep Crypt - BETA Ravenloft Look for@Apocrs1980 or visit the main page here or Ravenloft here
Yeah, if someone sets archive options right (if I understand the proposal right) you can see average reviews which help a little.
Also, about this. You would always be able to see the average stars given gold-filled star meter, just like you can now. I'm not proposing to remove it, just it has no bearing on the order of the lists. So, potentially, a quest could sit high on the list with a lower average than quests sitting below it. If you're looking for that average, you can still see it. The "Archives" tab would have a sort option to list quests by that average, but it would always be visible, just like it is now. I actually browsed the "Best" and "New" tabs earlier to compare the average ratings with the adjusted ratings, and they do not always align now either. So having the averages out of order in the new system wouldn't be any different than how it is now.
As i said a few times, the Archives search is very important to all of this. That's what's going to allow players to look for and play the types of quests they want to play. To be honest, i haven't used the "Best" tab to find a quest to play since early May. I did use the "New" tab for awhile, but generally i'd scroll to the middle or bottom of it and find something that looked appealing. I used the search a few times, but, well, we all know how well that works. Having a good search engine is vital to this proposal. I don't think i've stressed that enough, because it sort of feels like a different topic. But it is vital.
Yes, there was another thread about this very system, I believe it was a MOD (Ambisinister) that had mentioned instead of running 4 qualified foundrys daily that you would run a total of 1 hour of foundry time, this would open it up for a variety of quests to be played within an hour time frame, and also work with the proposed new rating system. So in effect 2 of their systems would have to change, and I think that it would be for the better.
Do you think they would consider a 12,000 daily max, instead of a daily quest equal to one hour? That still seems constrictive to me. There are many quests that run over an hour, and even more that run over 30 minutes. If players were limited to only getting diamonds for one hour, we'd be having the same conversation about how they choose to run two 30-minute quests all the time, and quests 45-minutes or over an hour are never played.
Comments
Short and sweet. You are not understanding me... My point is if you leave in the average star rating, then a zero or one star rating does affect you. My point is that IMHO most players wont look at the total stars, but will look at the average rating. Your example 347/82=4.2 you then get 10 zero star ratings. 347/92 = 3.8 rounded up. So if people just look at the average rating then it does indeed affect you.
On other words if you want players to look at total stars only, then remove the average rating. If, in your system, the average star rating serves no purpose... Get rid of it.
Narayan
1. With Cryptic's current system, each account can only ever leave one review/rating for a quest. Not my idea, Cryptic's current system.
2. With Cryptic's current system, the average star rating is calculated by adding the star ratings together, and dividing that by the total reviews. Not my idea, Cryptic's current system. (As seen in the screenshots posted.)
3. With Cryptic's current system, the average star rating does not determine ranking on any of the lists. The ranking is determined by the adjusted rating, visible on the tooltip when hovering over the quest. Not my idea, Cryptic's current system.
4. With Cryptic's current system, the total number of plays is shown on the "Overview" tab on the quest. Not my idea, Cryptic's current system. (As seen in the screenshots posted.)
5. With Cryptic's current system, there is an "adjusted rating" that no one seems to know how to calculate. Not my idea, Cryptic's current system. (As seen in the screenshots posted.)
My idea is to replace the "adjusted rating" with the total stars given. To make this work, the tabs will need reorganizing as well.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
We were typing at the same time apparently, sorry for the overlap. But, again... not my idea, already there, and i see no reason to remove it.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
LOL. My point being that more than a few players will use the average rating of a quest over the adjusted rating. So with that in mind... zero stars and 1 star rating will affect you in a negative way. Like I have said I do not look at the adjusted rating of foundry quests. But I do look at the average rating. And that does come into play deciding whether or not I will consider playing the quest. The only area that I do not use that is in the "For Review" tab.
So if you really want to get rid of the negative affect of zero and 1 star ratings you would have to get rid of the average rating. That's all I am saying. If you want to get rid of the negative affect of getting bombed remove the average rating altogether and just put the total number of stars.
Narayan
I do understand what you're saying.
The "Trending Tab" in my proposed system is there to give exposure to quests, not just to rank them. The quests would be listed in the order of the most stars they collected in the last 30 days. The stars collected 31+ days ago won't be counted for this tab, so the total number of stars collected altogether doesn't have much weight here either. If a player chooses to skim the list for the highest average, that is their choice. The other quests are still on that list, above and below, getting exposure. Under normal circumstances, this will coincide with the average anyway. While trolls can give 0-star ratings all day long, there is nothing they can do to drag any quests down. So, what's their motivation to troll?
One of the most important parts of this proposition is the archive search tab, it has to work, and work well. Through this tab, players should be able to search for the types of quests they are in the mood to play. Authors will need to be accurate and thorough with their descriptions. For example, i could search for quests that are not eligible for the daily (basically meaning less than 20 plays) by drop down menu, have an average duration of 30-45 minutes by min/max fields, and take place outside by keywords. When the tab generates my list of results, i will browse through them looking for descriptions of combat difficulty and story summary. I would not look at the average stars given, because that is not what's important to me. Neither will i look at the total stars. Other players will look at those things, and that's good, because that's the point of searches and sorting.
In short, while my proposal is quite an overhaul, it's not a major change in exposure or ranking. It's mostly a way to get rid of trolling, which is a discouragement to authors, and a waste of everyone's time and energy, including the trolls themselves. They will have time to be destructive somewhere else, or do their homework or clean their room, because there's nothing they can do to drag down someone's quest.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
But you do not understand what I am trying to get across.
You think that I am putting more weight on the average star rating. And I am. And you want to put more weight on thenumber of stars, which I don't.
Now the problem is this. Unless you have clear data that show that the "adjusted rating" (old system), or the total number of stars (your new system) is used more often (by a big majority) then the average star rating in choosing quests (which is what all of this boils down to right?), getting bombed with zero or 1 star ratings will negatively affect your quest.
Example... you have 50 reviews that total 100 stars with a average rating of 4.25 stars. Using your new way and eliminating the average star rating, getting bombed by a bunch of zero and one star ratings will not negatively affect your quest. Or if the vast majority uses the total star rating and does not pay much attention to the average rating. You will not be negatively affected. Now if the vast majority uses the average rating instead of the total star rating... And your average rating goes down to say 3.5, because of getting bombed by a bunch of zero and/or one star ratings, your quest will be negatively affected.
If you want to lessen the affect of zero and 1 star ratings with your system... You need to prove that most players do not care about the average rating and therefore ignore it, or remove it.
Narayan
What is the code for your published quest? I'll give it a run here in a little bit.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
It still needs work.
NW-DH86HB59L
Narayan
(The Dwarven Tale was requested by a guild member however, yet, just look and see. The ratings is a joke, people don't care anything about the story. What they do care about is the ad/minute.) That is all.
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
Sorry for the delay, wasn't feeling well last night and went to bed early. You have a good story, but it needs more dialog. I'll send you my notes in a forum private message.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
I do understand, is what you don't understand. Using your logic, since i won't play a quest that has heavy combat, then we should remove the description portion because if it says "heavy combat" i won't ever play it. For certain reasons, i won't play a quest that takes place in Blacklake District, so that needs to be removed also. Those are the things that will keep me from playing a quest, so they should be removed. Make sense? No, because these are my choices, not everyone's.
In my proposed system:
The Review tab lists quests by date last published.
The New tab lists quests by date moved over from the Review tab.
The Trending tab lists quests by most stars collected in the last 30 days.
The All-Time Best tab lists quests by most stars collected ever.
The Archive tab lists quests by the players' preference options.
So, you see, the quests are never listed by the average stars given rating, unless the player chooses that option on the Archives tab. Right now, people see quests on the "Best" and "New" tabs listed by adjusted rating, so they can drag a quest down by giving it 1-star reviews. With my proposed positive-only system, they cannot drag any quest down, period. The only way for a quest to move down, and only on the Trending or All-Time Best tabs, is for another quest to get more stars collected in the specified time frame and bump ahead of it.
Current system: Jamie gives you a 5-star rating, then Alex takes away 2 of those stars by giving you a 1-star rating. (Math: 5-((5+1)/2)=5-3=2.) Now you only have 3 stars. Alex can take away stars given. (Math uses basic actual average, since i have no idea how to calculate the adjusted rating.)
Positive only system: Jamie gives you 5 stars, then Alex gives you 0 stars. You still have those 5 stars, no one can take them, ever.
You're talking about what individual players use to decide on playing quests. I'm talking about how quests are listed. Individual player choice cannot ever be controlled, period.
Incorrect math. 100 total stars divided by 50 reviews, 100/50, makes an average of 2.0 stars given.
And i should also prove that most players want more combat? Or should i prove that most players want less combat? Should i prove that players don't want to play quests set in Blacklake District? What else would i need to prove about individual player choices? I'd much rather let players decide for themselves what to play and what not to play. I just want authors to keep their stars and not have to worry about trolls.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Just a couple of things here... Yes I snipped a lot of the response. I don't think it is now needed.
But first me incorrect math. I guess I did not explain it good enough. What I was getting at with as little text as possible, (obviously too little text) was there were 50 reviews but some. most were from the same players. Therefore the higher rating.
Now for the real stuff
I now understand, or think I understand, your point. We are looking at it from a different perspective. You from just how it is listed on the various pages. I, on the other hand, from a player perspective, sort of. I was looking at it from how I would/do choose to play a foundry quest. How it gets ranked doesn't really mean much to me. I want to know what the majority of players think about it. And total stars don't really tell me much. For instance... A quest has 100 stars. What does that tell me? Say the quest listed above it has 125 stars and the one below it has 75 stars. Still does not tell me much. But if I look at average rating... 125* quest avg rating = 4.25* 100* quest avg rating 3.25, 75* quest avg rating 3.75*. That tells "ME" much more.
As I said and I think you agree different perspectives. You want to get rid of negativity for page listing only. Am I at least close?
PS Thanks for the review. Helps a lot.
Narayan
You want to see what other people think about the quest, this system will do that in three ways:
1. Read the reviews, they're always gonna be there, good or bad.
2. The average stars given gold-filled star meter.
3. The Trending tab is good indication that people like those quests, because they're getting more stars. Just like now, or any system at all, the more people like it, not only the more stars they give it, but the more they tell their friends and guildies about it, so it gets more and more plays, and more and more stars.
With the current system, as quests get attention and move up on the "New" or "Best" tab, people can drag them back down by giving them 1-star ratings. With the new system, as they get attention and move up on the "Trending" tab and maybe later on the "All-Time Best" tab, people have no way of dragging them down. As you've seen on the forums, there are lots of threads about how people are giving negative reviews, bringing down the adjusted rating. Most people laugh at the comments left, or blow them off, they don't matter. What matters is they're being dragged down the list by these negative reviews. That's what i want to stop, the dragging down.
It's possible people will rally together to give stars to a different quest to move it up, but that's less frustrating than your work being dragged down. Also, in my own theory anyway, i don't see these 1-star-giving players going out of their way to give 5 stars to anyone else. If they do, their stars probably will not add enough to a quest to bump it up above better quests anyway. Basically the better quests will keep moving up and keep getting exposure, that's what i'm hoping for.
P.S.: Again, the "Archives" search tab is a hugely important part of this, as it's how the majority of our quests will be found by players.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Got it. Put me down as a supporter.
Narayan
Locksheon Gaming
Follow me on Twitch - Youtube - Facebook!
Ravenloft
Look for@Apocrs1980 or visit the main page here or Ravenloft here
I want authors to be encouraged to make dramatically different missions appealing to varied tastes, not 'let's run Ogre Pub Daily a billion times.'
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
Agreed. The "Daily" thing is a nuisance to all of us.
Erm... elaborate? I don't follow. How does it penalize anything? What on earth in this thread says "let's run Ogre Pub Daily a billion times"?
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Yeah, if someone sets archive options right (if I understand the proposal right) you can see average reviews which help a little.
I just don't see any net win here, other than archive (which would be solved easily with hash tags if search wasn't such a pos)
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
Not sure how you are coming up with this. An account can only leave one review, so even if a person played it 100 times, at most they can only ever give it 5 stars. People, in general, will still give 4-5 stars to good quests, and 0-2 stars to not-so-good quests. The better quests still get more stars over time.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
Trying to brainstorm this issue now.
What if, instead of having any sort of "Daily" quest to do, astral diamonds were awarded in 15-minute intervals? Every 15-minutes of the average duration awarded 1,000 astral diamonds, and playing for more than an hour would still be rewarding. So, a 30-minute average duration awarded 2,000 astral diamonds. An hour duration awarded 4,000 astral diamonds. Same result, different method, and more incentive to run longer quests.
I guess, from Cryptic's point of view, there should be a maximum amount of diamonds earned per day from foundry quests? What would be fair? We know this is possible, because they already made it where they stop giving XP if you get too much in a certain time, right? So... let's say maximum of 12,000 astral diamonds per 24 hours from foundry quests? That's 3 hours, which is more than most people would do in a day, but those willing would get rewarded for it.
How does that sound? If it sounds alright i'll stick it on the OP too.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
I think you're seeing the same issue as apocrs1980. Trying to come up with new ideas for that too now.
Also, for the record, i'd rather play "Murder on the Neverwinter Express" instead of "Bobo Daily MAXXX" anyway.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Replace the green "also eligible for daily" text, with "This quest rewards X,000 Astral Diamonds. (Maximum 12,000 earned per day.)"
The "per day" part would be a little misleading if it were a 24-hour timer, which aligns perfectly with all the other "per day" descriptions for 24-hour-timed things already in the game.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
NW-DMIME87F5
Awaiting a serious response from the developers on the abuse of the review system by other authors.
Video Preview
Agreed, this was an idea i not only thought about but also discussed with one of our red-names via private message a couple of times. I figured we should be able to "tag" those troll reviewers, and enough "tags" would "flag" them for violations, at which point Cryptic could step in and do something. Kind of like how the chat spam tagging works now.
The problem i see with that, however, is that it's a fine line between "troll reviews" and people who just honestly hated the quest. Myself, and several other authors, never rate any quest below 3-stars, but not everyone does that. A lot of people have systems on how they rate, and if they do leave a 1-star it's because they feel the quest deserved it for one reason or another. So, who's job would it be to determine which 1-star ratings were trolls, and which were honest ratings of a not-so-good quest? How would they enforce that? I spent a lot of time thinking about this idea, but couldn't get past that obstacle.
Turning the light on to scare the roaches off is a reactive method. Removing the crumbs they're after so they have no reason to come in anyway is more proactive.
Honest reviewers can still leave 0 stars if they don't like it. Trolls can still leave 0 stars too, but it wouldn't matter. Since it doesn't matter, what's their incentive to do it? Like i said, it will give them more time to do their homework and clean their room, since their efforts here would be futile anyway.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Yes, there was another thread about this very system, I believe it was a MOD (Ambisinister) that had mentioned instead of running 4 qualified foundrys daily that you would run a total of 1 hour of foundry time, this would open it up for a variety of quests to be played within an hour time frame, and also work with the proposed new rating system. So in effect 2 of their systems would have to change, and I think that it would be for the better.
Ravenloft
Look for@Apocrs1980 or visit the main page here or Ravenloft here
Also, about this. You would always be able to see the average stars given gold-filled star meter, just like you can now. I'm not proposing to remove it, just it has no bearing on the order of the lists. So, potentially, a quest could sit high on the list with a lower average than quests sitting below it. If you're looking for that average, you can still see it. The "Archives" tab would have a sort option to list quests by that average, but it would always be visible, just like it is now. I actually browsed the "Best" and "New" tabs earlier to compare the average ratings with the adjusted ratings, and they do not always align now either. So having the averages out of order in the new system wouldn't be any different than how it is now.
As i said a few times, the Archives search is very important to all of this. That's what's going to allow players to look for and play the types of quests they want to play. To be honest, i haven't used the "Best" tab to find a quest to play since early May. I did use the "New" tab for awhile, but generally i'd scroll to the middle or bottom of it and find something that looked appealing. I used the search a few times, but, well, we all know how well that works. Having a good search engine is vital to this proposal. I don't think i've stressed that enough, because it sort of feels like a different topic. But it is vital.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
Do you think they would consider a 12,000 daily max, instead of a daily quest equal to one hour? That still seems constrictive to me. There are many quests that run over an hour, and even more that run over 30 minutes. If players were limited to only getting diamonds for one hour, we'd be having the same conversation about how they choose to run two 30-minute quests all the time, and quests 45-minutes or over an hour are never played.
[UGC] Kolde Acres (Discontinued)