Troll Reviews - What to do

leinahtanwc

Well, I just got my first "troll" review.


The person gave me a 1 star review, complaining he used too many potions and pointed out there is no way back to the platform at the end if you fell off. He then went on to say I should add a portal in case people fall off...

... He fell 600 feet and survived somehow...

In response, I stuck 25 Hard Encounter Brimfire Golem Encounters at the bottom of the pit, and an NPC that says "You somehow survived a 600+ foot drop... Either go walk into those golems or do /killme.

Seriously, I really want the ability to place a "kill" zone on my map's pits...

karitr

Um, I don't think that's a 'troll' review (I've had several instances of falling from a height that should kill me but doesn't. Difference between myself and your reviewer is I wouldn't blame the author for environmental glitches that are inevitable in any game).

I do like your response though

wuhsin

karitr wrote: »

Difference between myself and your reviewer is I wouldn't blame the author for environmental glitches that are inevitable in any game

Which is why you three-starred my quest because you kept falling, and didn't have a campfire, causing you to have to use potions.. I guess when you play this guy's map, and find out you need potions, you'll three star him too, and berate him for not telling the player to bring potions in the quest description.

leinahtanwc

wuhsin wrote: »

Which is why you three-starred my quest because you kept falling, and didn't have a campfire, causing you to have to use potions.. I guess when you play this guy's map, and find out you need potions, you'll three star him too, and berate him for not telling the player to bring potions in the quest description.

I stuck the campfire right on the platform before the boss too... So a quick /killme would have landed him back at the boss where he got ringed out. I have only 1 issue with my map at the moment, and that is that some monsters (and the boss) will randomly walk off the platform and warp to the outlying platform until you suicide... It is driving me crazy trying to fix it.

wuhsin

Here's a post I made five days ago because every time I got my adjusted rating above 3.65, one bad rating would knock it back down. Since I made that post, I got it back up to 3.69 thanks to many five star ratings, and then two bad ratings knocked it back down to 3.65.. And they weren't even 1 star reviews. A couple of 2 or 3 star reviews can totally negate ten or twelve five star ratings, even if you have well over a hundred plays.

wuhsin wrote: »

I got a lot of support today from the Foundry community in the form of several good ratings. But since this thread is about how the adjusted rating system sucks, especially when dealing with campaigns, I thought I'd run some numbers by everyone to see if the progress I've made today is even relative to your ratings. It doesn't seem like it is, from my perspective.

Ratings when I posted this thread:

Campaigns & Kobolds

5 Stars - 181
4 Stars - 143
3 Stars - 76
2 Stars - 18
1 Stars - 14

Zigby's First Strike

5 Stars - 38
4 Stars - 14
3 Stars - 8
2 Stars - 4
1 Stars - 5

Here are the ratings at the moment I am typing this post.

Campaigns & Kobolds

5 Stars - 184 (3 more than when I started this thread)
4 Stars - 143 (same as before)
3 Stars - 76 (same as before)
2 Stars - 19 (1 more than before)
1 Star - 14 (Again, same as before)

Zigby's First Strike

5 Stars - 39 (1 more than before)
4 Stars - 15 (1 more than before)
3 Stars - 8 (same as before)
2 Stars - 4 (same as before)
1 Star - 5 (same as before)

IN SUMMARY:

I've received four 5 star reviews, one 4 star review, and one 2 star review. Thanks to the four 5 star reviews, and the 4 star review, my campaign gained 0.02 adjusted rating points. Then I got that 2 star review on the quest that already has over 400 ratings, which apparently don't count when it comes to the adjusted rating of my campaign. My adjusted rating for my campaign drops 0.01 points. Half the progress I made today is gone because of one rating. Now let's do some more math to see how many five star ratings I'd need in order to make the Best list.

My adjusted rating is 3.65 right now. Four five star ratings, and a four star rating gave me 0.02 adjusted rating points today. So let's say five good ratings can give me 0.02 adjusted rating points. This number might be higher for people with less ratings, or even lower for people with more ratings. But this is the current rate for me at 136 plays for my campaign.

It takes five good ratings to earn 0.02 adjusted rating points, and five times that to earn 0.1 adjusted rating points. Five times five is twenty five, people. Right now, the lowest adjusted rating on the Best list is 4.16. If my adjusted rating is 3.65, I'll have to earn 0.51 adjusted rating points. That means AT LEAST (the number can only get larger as ratings begin to have less impact on the adjusted rating) 125 good ratings plus an additional five for every rating of 3 or below along the way.

At the current ratio of one bad rating for every five, we'd get twenty five more bad reviews. In order to compensate for the progress lost for those twenty five bad reviews, you'll have to get another one hundred and twenty five good reviews, plus an additional five for every bad review.

Are you starting to see how this system is sort of broken? Bad and mediocre reviews have far more impact than good reviews.

http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?409811-The-Adjusted-Rating-Sucks-when-it-comes-to-Campaigns/page5&highlight=Adjusted+Rating+broken+Campaigns

There's a link to the original thread, so you can see screenshots of my ratings, more math, and many other Foundry authors being supportive, including even a community mod. I think the system is truly broken when bad ratings carry more weight than five to ten times as many good ones.

wuhsin

The most recent troll rating that caused me to lose my precious adjusted rating points.

Dratwiz wrote:

Very little treasure, not explained very well.

Combined with this one, all my list-climbing progress over the last week was wiped.

Antaras1128 wrote:

Poor layout on map design, mob design, mob placement and boss encounter. The use of profanities was also completely unnecessary.

Both of those reviews were on Campaigns & Kobolds, which does not even have any profanity in it like the last review said. That quest that was given five stars by distinguished authors like Dzogen, Mrthebozer, Zebular, lolsorhand, and many more. Anyway, my point is, the rating system needs fixing. It takes one bad rating to lose 0.01 adjusted rating points, and about five to gain 0.02. That means bad ratings count at least twice as much.

karitr

wuhsin wrote: »

Which is why you three-starred my quest because you kept falling, and didn't have a campfire, causing you to have to use potions.. I guess when you play this guy's map, and find out you need potions, you'll three star him too, and berate him for not telling the player to bring potions in the quest description.

I wasn't falling because of world glitches in your quest, there is no comparison.

I didn't downgrade your quest because I was repeatedly knocked off the ledge (which actually only happened in your imagination - in reality I was only knocked off twice).

I rated your quest 3* for the following reasons:

1. The overview was misleading.
2. The quest was repetitive.
3. The map looked thrown together with little thought or care for what the player will be looking at.
4. Naming a bog-standard NPC [insert famous DnD character] does not make them [insert famous DnD character]. It is no different to the 100s of Legolas's rolling around in certain MMOs.
And last but not least;
5. I was feeling very generous towards you at the time.


EDIT: Whether this is something you have done deliberately in C&K or whether it is accidental, to all gamers used to a profanity filter, your end boss does indeed scream profanities.

mrthebozer

leinahtanwc wrote: »

So a quick /killme would have landed him back at the boss where he got ringed out.

The issue with this is that /killme is not widely considered a gameplay element. It is a last resort failsafe for when /stuck does not resolve a walkmesh issue. It is a way to continue playing after your progress is hindered by a faulty design, rather than an 'undo' button for player mistakes. If your intention as a designer is for a player to die upon falling off a ledge, the burden is on you to kill them - or, if you are restricted from doing that by the mechanics of the foundry itself, provide a teleporter back to the rest stop you mentioned. Otherwise, it is just a quest breaking issue - or at least that is what the players are likely to see it as, since it renders progression impossible without resorting to something commonly associated with a bug report.

You have already taken measures to resolve this issue, so on some level you recognize this as a valid concern, as opposed to a troll review. I don't personally hand out 1 stars for any reason (if I'm having that little fun, I quit), and isolated issues such as this typically don't warrant even a 3 star rating on their own, since they can be fixed with a quick patch. But those are my sensibilities, and I've met quite a few who don't share them, and can make a compelling argument against them. In this particular case, my gut tells me that you were reviewed by an honest, but in my opinion very harsh, reviewer.

And wuhsin - I agree. I've definitely come to resent the star ratings. Not due to my own rating (I was lucky enough to find "my audience"). I do think it empowers trolling - though like an island of all female dinosaurs, trolls will always find a way. It has bred a degree of competition and animosity within a community that otherwise focuses on creating and sharing. And perhaps most importantly, it does more or less nothing to match players to content that suit their tastes. It assumes a universal standard for 'good' - that, to me, is baffling.

A recently posted screenshot shows some of the advanced search options coming next month. It might be a step in the right direction, though I hardly know enough about it to make any judgement. I'll be interested to see if the 'hashtags' help or hurt overall exposure. On paper they sound like they'll be a big step toward "finding the right quest for you" - if people use them properly.

lolsorhand

Indeed, looking forward to this new rating system quite alot Interesting times. - mrthebozer put the rest as well out there quite neatly.

wuhsin

mrthebozer wrote: »

And wuhsin - I agree. I've definitely come to resent the star ratings. Not due to my own rating (I was lucky enough to find "my audience"). I do think it empowers trolling - though like an island of all female dinosaurs, trolls will always find a way. It has bred a degree of competition and animosity within a community that otherwise focuses on creating and sharing. And perhaps most importantly, it does more or less nothing to match players to content that suit their tastes. It assumes a universal standard for 'good' - that, to me, is baffling.

I believe the quality of Foundry quests has suffered immensely due to the competitive nature of the rating system. Foundry authors have to spend so much time trying to get plays, time that should be spent editing. The game should facilitate an audience for our work.

wuhsin

karitr wrote: »

I wasn't falling because of world glitches in your quest, there is no comparison.

I didn't downgrade your quest because I was repeatedly knocked off the ledge (which actually only happened in your imagination - in reality I was only knocked off twice).

I rated your quest 3* for the following reasons:

1. The overview was misleading.

Yeah, you told me in the For Review thread that I should warn players that there isn't a campfire, and that they will die. Several Foundry authors PMed me immediately absolutely disgusted by the fact you gave me 3 stars for such a dumb reason, but I won't mention their names.

2. The quest was repetitive.

You apparently hate combat, and I warned you that it was mostly combat to begin with in the For Review thread.

3. The map looked thrown together with little thought or care for what the player will be looking at.

Here's a quote from Zovya. She's a Foundry author, so she would actually know if I just threw it together.

zovya wrote: »

I like the challenging combat on the spiral. That had to take a while to make. Loved the giant gear mothership. Zigby and his dam Foundry LOL.

4. Naming a bog-standard NPC [insert famous DnD character] does not make them [insert famous DnD character]. It is no different to the 100s of Legolas's rolling around in certain MMOs.

I can assure you that all of the NPC's had highly customized costumes. I made Dwalimor Omen, Priam Agrivar, Vartain Hai Sylvar, Foxilon Cardluck, Ishi Barasume, Bigby (Even though he's dead, you still meet him alive in the first quest of the campaign.), Mordenkainen, Melf, and Zigby. That's eight highly customized costumes modeled after either the graphic novels or canonical descriptions. Zigby was not modeled after any canon description, nor was the elf chick. They're still highly customized though, you won't find NPC's that look identical or even similar to either one of them in the Foundry assets.

And last but not least;
5. I was feeling very generous towards you at the time.

Making me LOSE adjusted rating points INTENTIONALLY is hardly generous. It's not like they come out of your paycheck.


EDIT: Whether this is something you have done deliberately in C&K or whether it is accidental, to all gamers used to a profanity filter, your end boss does indeed scream profanities.

Oh right, he blurts out a bunch of symbols to simulate profanity, because he is VULGORE THE PROFANE. Still not actual profanity.

Replies are in this color.

karitr

I'm not getting into it with you Wuhsin, just sick of how you misinterpret/ignore what is being said. You're like a kid with fingers in their ears.

You know you never ever mention the fact I said the quest is a 'good challenge' and that by not addressing this in the overview, you fail to attract the type of player who is looking exactly for something of this nature. Pretty ironic that you think the game "should facilitate an audience for our work" when you won't do the same.

Frankly, I couldn't care whether Kate PM'd you from the birthing room to tell you how disgusted she was with my review. I give my opinion no one else's and I give it for the aid of potential players, not authors who have a completely different perspective.

I respect Zovya but "That had to take a while to make" does not change the fact there is an ugly gap of nothingness between the horizon and the sky.

"Clothes do not make the man".

Your second to last point is simply absurd. If I had wanted to make you lose points intentionally, I could have done it a whole lot more effectively. I rated the quest honestly and for the most part objectively. Subjectively, it gained points with me because, contrary to your belief, I love combat, I especially love challenging combat.

Simulated profanity or actual profanity makes little difference when you are accustomed to filters. We still see them whether we 'read' them or not. Oh and please don't spend the next month picking a fight over me not liking Vulgore's choice of words. I had no issue with them, just explaining why someone else might.

chili1179

The best thing you can do about troll reviews is ignore them. We all get them. Just accept the fact that there are jerks who just want to **** on everything they come in contact with.

This is just a game, enjoy it and don't let jerkwads control your enjoyment or they win.

wuhsin

karitr wrote: »

Pretty ironic that you think the game "should facilitate an audience for our work" when you won't do the same.

I have reviewed plenty of quests, and have the achievements to prove I've done it daily for weeks. I've also spent a great deal of time trying to acquire an audience for my own quests. People like you make it a lot harder for me though. You really do not care about the consequences of your actions. You have no sympathy for authors, yet you come in this thread feigning sympathy over actually constructive feedback, and supporting bad ideas that go against your own previous feedback. I DARE you to go make a quest, publish it, and post it here for review. You need to learn what kind of work goes into this.

karitr

chili1179 wrote: »

The best thing you can do about troll reviews is ignore them. We all get them. Just accept the fact that there are jerks who just want to **** on everything they come in contact with.

This is just a game, enjoy it and don't let jerkwads control your enjoyment or they win.

The thing is though chilli, when is it a 'troll' review and when is the 1* rating justified (even if only to the one awarding the star)?

It seems to me that when many authors complain about the rating they got, they ignore the message that accompanies it. For example, when you are new - low level whereby you haven't amassed much silver and anyway you want to save it for a horse - the last thing you want to do is play any type of content that is going to rapidly deplete your potion supply. If someone designs combat to do exactly that and then doesn't warn the player, how is that likely to be received do you think? Is it the player acting the troll, or the author who didn't warn them?

karitr

wuhsin wrote: »

I have reviewed plenty of quests, and have the achievements to prove I've done it daily for weeks. I've also spent a great deal of time trying to acquire an audience for my own quests. People like you make it a lot harder for me though. You really do not care about the consequences of your actions. You have no sympathy for authors, yet you come in this thread feigning sympathy over actually constructive feedback, and supporting bad ideas that go against your own previous feedback. I DARE you to go make a quest, publish it, and post it here for review. You need to learn what kind of work goes into this.

No Wuhsin I really don't. I review from a player perspective, not an author's. If you don't want a player's perspective, feel free to make a note of it in your next review thread. The same goes for any author. You'll get no hard feelings from me I assure you.

gornonthecob

Either get a room, or take it to PM's. Sheesh.

karitr

gornonthecob wrote: »

Either get a room, or take it to PM's. Sheesh.

I hope you display more originality in your quests.

(Did I really just say that out loud :eek:)

Edit: Jests aside, I concur. I will stay on general topic instead of discussing specific quests.

wuhsin

karitr wrote: »

No Wuhsin I really don't. I review from a player perspective, not an author's. If you don't want a player's perspective, feel free to make a note of it in your next review thread. The same goes for any author. You'll get no hard feelings from me I assure you.

I'll just make a note of it now, if that's alright.

thalazar1

I have had a few one stars but so far only one with a written review which i just had to laugh at because the person was complaining that they were laggin so hard and their computer sucked so the map was too hard to play.

I see no reason to get mad at them. if it gets to the point that i get one bombed into the ground i will still make maps because i find it fun but i will never publish them. I dont play the actual game so it will not hurt my feelings at all.

redneckronin

wuhsin wrote: »

Foundry authors have to spend so much time trying to get plays,

No, they don't.

Scribe Enclave has seen newly released UGC make it out of "review hell" within Hours, and on to Daily Eligible within 24 hours.

Once that has happened what else does an Author have to do? Nothing.

Unless they are overly concerned with their "adjusted rating" and finding ways to massage it when they don't happen to like the reviews/ratings they have been given.

All The Best

wuhsin

redneckronin wrote: »

No, they don't.

Scribe Enclave has seen newly released UGC make it out of "review hell" within Hours, and on to Daily Eligible within 24 hours.

Once that has happened what else does an Author have to do? Nothing.

Unless they are overly concerned with their "adjusted rating" and finding ways to massage it when they don't happen to like the reviews/ratings they have been given.

All The Best

Scribe's Enclave hasn't been around that long. I've yet to jump on that band-wagon, because the last time I did that it didn't turn out so well for me. I'll give it some consideration though since you are so confident in the results it yields.

redneckronin

wuhsin wrote: »

Scribe's Enclave hasn't been around that long. I've yet to jump on that band-wagon, because the last time I did that it didn't turn out so well for me. I'll give it some consideration though since you are so confident in the results it yields.

I'm confident that it is working at the moment.

Whether it will continue to do so once the number of review-requests starts climbing is another matter. But the more people who sign up the better chance it has; especially if they volunteer to become a reviewer.

I do at least one review a day, and I try to do more. I also tend to focus on the quests that haven't yet got out of "review hell" or on to Daily Eligible.

If a quest is already Daily Eligible it gets bumped to the bottom of my priority list; because SE is primarily there to get Authors' content out of "review hell" and on to the DE list.


For the record, and please don't take this as an attack on you, but I think Karitr's comments about warning players that Zigby's doesn't have a respawn point is pretty valid, in fact I am sure I mentioned the exact same thing to you in the PM I sent.



I also think Karitr's comments about new players not wanting (or be able to afford) to use lots of pots on a quest is completely valid. As a F2P player it took me until level 45-ish to be able to comfortably afford my 1st horse and not risk having no money left for pots, wound kits, and gathering kits.

If we want players to be honest and non-trolling with is, we need to do the same with them.



All The Best

wuhsin

redneckronin wrote: »

I'm confident that it is working at the moment.

Whether it will continue to do so once the number of review-requests starts climbing is another matter. But the more people who sign up the better chance it has; especially if they volunteer to become a reviewer.

I do at least one review a day, and I try to do more. I also tend to focus on the quests that haven't yet got out of "review hell" or on to Daily Eligible.

If a quest is already Daily Eligible it gets bumped to the bottom of my priority list; because SE is primarily there to get Authors' content out of "review hell" and on to the DE list.


For the record, and please don't take this as an attack on you, but I think Karitr's comments about warning players that Zigby's doesn't have a respawn point is pretty valid, in fact I am sure I mentioned the exact same thing to you in the PM I sent.



I also think Karitr's comments about new players not wanting (or be able to afford) to use lots of pots on a quest is completely valid. As a F2P player it took me until level 45-ish to be able to comfortably afford my 1st horse and not risk having no money left for pots, wound kits, and gathering kits.

If we want players to be honest and non-trolling with is, we need to do the same with them.



All The Best

I respect you, Redneckronin, but let me be frank with you. I absolutely am disgusted with this entitled attitude players and even some authors seem to have in regards to challenging quests. It's not enough I design the quest so that you can make everything but the minions disappear through dialogue options. I'm apparently just a troll author because I don't warn players in the Quest description that they MIGHT die and have to use a potion or *gasp* an INJURY KIT! And even worse, I don't provide the comfort of free healing in what's supposed to be a challenging quest. I swear, if it wasn't for the cap on respawn points, we'd see authors putting one around every corner, and between every encounter. You'd see dungeons littered with campfires. It's the player's choice what they spend their gold on, and if they choose to use it on a mount instead of buying a better one with Zen like I did, and then take out their lack of potions on me by pissing all over my adjusted rating, why the Hell should I feel sorry for them? I keep at least ten potions on me at all times. It's called being prepared. If they put a tenth as much effort into being good at this game as I've spent making quests, they wouldn't need to go stand by a campfire for five minutes every five minutes.

karitr

in what's supposed to be a challenging quest

And my point is...HOW are they supposed to know that if you don't make it clear in your overview?

Edit: I'd go one further and challenge players to complete this without injury kit or healing. You might be surprised how popular a challenge like that can be.

wuhsin

karitr wrote: »

And my point is...HOW are they supposed to know that if you don't make it clear in your overview?

Bigby the Great is asking you for help, and telling you to bring back-up in the overview. When an epic-level legendary wizard says bring back-up, you should be able to figure out that you're in for a challenge. Furthermore, most challenging encounters can be easily removed through dialogue, making the difficulty rather optional. Kobold minions are not that hard to kill. The boss fight is divided into rounds that are challenging but totally doable. You're a CW, with a huge advantage, so it should be twice as easy for you than it is me. And let's be honest, even if I had put it in the overview, it wouldn't have changed your rating. I even warned you in the [UGC] thread that it was challenging.

zahinder

redneckronin wrote: »

No, they don't.

Scribe Enclave has seen newly released UGC make it out of "review hell" within Hours, and on to Daily Eligible within 24 hours.

Once that has happened what else does an Author have to do? Nothing.

Um, bs?

I worked very hard to get all my quests out of review hell, and for that I was rewarded with... continued hell of hardly anyone ever playing my quests.

I COULD set up a dozen 'trade review' stuff to try very hard to get another few plays.


But, you know, a system that requires me to put in an hour of promotion for every play I get? That's... not viable, not on top of the 40-100 hours it takes to make a quest in the first place.

wuhsin

zahinder wrote: »

Um, bs?

I worked very hard to get all my quests out of review hell, and for that I was rewarded with... continued hell of hardly anyone ever playing my quests.

I COULD set up a dozen 'trade review' stuff to try very hard to get another few plays.


But, you know, a system that requires me to put in an hour of promotion for every play I get? That's... not viable, not on top of the 40-100 hours it takes to make a quest in the first place.

This is what makes me so mad about players robbing me of my adjusted rating points I worked so hard to get just because they have to use potions, don't get good loot, or don't have a campfire around every corner. It takes two or three five star ratings to get the same amount of adjusted rating points you lose from one three star rating. A one star is even worse.

voxx75

wuhsin wrote: »

Foundry authors have to spend so much time trying to get plays, time that should be spent editing.

I hear trolls are attracted to loud noises

beckylunatic

wuhsin wrote: »

Bigby the Great is asking you for help, and telling you to bring back-up in the overview. When an epic-level legendary wizard says bring back-up, you should be able to figure out that you're in for a challenge.

Hi, not a Foundry author, and I do come from a D&D CRPG background rather than an MMO one, but I just have to ask... are you aware of just how much of the player base comes entirely from MMOs and has exactly zero exposure to D&D and therefore no way of knowing that Bigby isn't a name you just made up? Because it's a lot.

karitr

And let's be honest, even if I had put it in the overview, it wouldn't have changed your rating

I can tell you for nothing that that one change would have had me replay and rate your quest 4*. Unfortunately Wuhsin you chose to ignore constructive feedback (not just mine), thereby denying both of us the opportunity for a second appraisal and an adjusted rating.

Frankly though, I cannot understand why you seem to think I wouldn't have been prepared to reappraise your quest - I just went and looked at the feedback I gave you at the time and I said so then:

Player perspective incoming...

Revise the overview. The only surprises a player should get in a Foundry are nice ones and by warning players there are no campfires and that they will almost certainly die you will attract the audience this mission is ideal for, instead of annoying players who can get pretty ratty about using injury kits (especially when half the gold and almost all the loot flies over the edge to be lost forever).

With that, do away with the 'difficulty option'. Or have it add 'moar', not less

Continually running back up after being knocked down got tedious. To counteract that perhaps add a TP to the 'champion' ledge halfway up that only triggers once a player has reached that point?

A different skyscape may avoid the horizon/blocky map issues. Take a look at 'The Green Zone' which is a good example of creating stunning visuals, even when playing in the air.

[Famous DnD character] is kind of sacrosanct. Not sure how I felt about seeing him in your H'n'S dungeon to be honest.

I hope you don't feel deflated with my feedback, I had a lot of fun playing your quest - particularly as my CW was always going to win the battle of the knock-offs Using the environment in a way to create difficulty where it is normally lacking (due to your limited toolset) was simple yet very effective. Huge points for that.

I gave the quest three stars, but it would have been 4 if the overview gave a better idea of what to expect in the way of combat, environment and the quest itself. So that is something easily corrected.

Everything else is simple suggestion based on my personal view as a player. Collectively they could be improved to add a further point to make this a 5* jaunt in my eyes.

I've highlighted some parts that are complimentary and also suggestions to make combat even more challenging.

As I have said to you before, it's your quest and whether you decide to make changes based on feedback or not is your prerogative. But stop attacking those who provide feedback - it does you no favour and will deter others from player-reviewing your quests completely.