A new idea for the community of struggling Foundry Authors.

casekuk

I have re-written this post because I feel it was misunderstood. I will be more direct and to the point in the hope that I get my point across better.

Once our quests have had their time in a 'review trade' post, they disappear from these forums in favour of newer 'Review Trade' posts. This is fine, and expected by us all.

What happens to our quests then? The answer is simple.. Nothing happens. They sit invisible to the community, invisible to the gamers, just plain invisible full stop. There is no 'other' way to promote them, other than doing more review trades. Which again is fine.

What I propose, is to have another thread dedicated to 'finished' quests and the purpose of that thread to be 'play trades'.

Play trades in the essence that they no longer need 'reviews' they now just need plays and Star ratings to boost thier position in the in-game lists.

The way it would work would be simple. You post your quest in the thread, and everyone here, now and in the future comes along and starting at the first quest in the list, they play them. Star rate them. Write a quick 'Thank you for the fun, just replaying your quest' type review and then on to the next. - Rinse repeat.

This would:

1. Make every quest in that list a quest that would be played 'often'

2. Improve your quests Star rating (giving it more chance to be in the 'new' list in-game

3. Be convinient... Because you could start at the first in the thread and then literally play sequentially for as long as people are adding new quests.

4. Be a place we could 'list' all finished quests. And a handy way of 'knowing' what you've played. Scan down the list.. Done that one, done that one.. Oh a new one! Etc.

Hopefully you folks can now see what I mean. I dont think I did a very good job of describing this the first time.

I honestly can see NOTHING wrong with this. It's a win win situation for EVERYONE.

Please if you can see a flaw.. State it!

Thanks for listening all,

Art

wuhsin

I'm not sure if getting more plays even has an impact on your adjusted rating. My quest Campaigns & Kobolds had close to a thousand plays, but it's adjusted rating only changed when someone rated or reviewed it.

casekuk

You misunderstand me Wuhsin, please re-read now I have re-written

Art.

redneckronin

I would have thought that more plays without ratings would lower the overall adjusted rating.

All The Best

casekuk

Please Re-read Red as I have explained myself better this time.. I hope. You misunderstand me.

Art.

zebular

Good feedback and great ideas in progress, keep em coming! Thanks!

casekuk

Please read carefully what I have said in the first post. I have carefully re-written as I think it was massively misunderstood. I apologise for that, and have tried to make amends.

I feel very strongly that this could be a great thing for our community.

Art

redneckronin

casekuk wrote: »

Please Re-read Red as I have explained myself better this time.. I hope. You misunderstand me.

Art.

Agreed.

I had misunderstood.

The main problem I have is that each @handle can only rate a given quest once. If I rate "Into The Forest" again all it does is overwrite the existing rating.

And, given my experience in trying to help another Author attain Daily Eligibility, I am not at all sure that multiple plays by a single @Handle count as anything more than 1 total play.

Everything we have suggested so far, in this thread and others, means nothing until we know how the system works.

And I'll bet that Cryptic aren't going to tell us that.

So, yes I support the initiative if it works how we think it works.

All The Best

wuhsin

redneckronin wrote: »

Agreed.

I had misunderstood.

The main problem I have is that each @handle can only rate a given quest once. If I rate "Into The Forest" again all it does is overwrite the existing rating.

And, given my experience in trying to help another Author attain Daily Eligibility, I am not at all sure that multiple plays by a single @Handle count as anything more than 1 total play.

Everything we have suggested so far, in this thread and others, means nothing until we know how the system works.

And I'll bet that Cryptic aren't going to tell us that.

So, yes I support the initiative if it works how we think it works.

All The Best

Yes, I agree with Redneckronin on this. Perhaps you should test this idea with an experimental map, and see if the same author playing it twice in a row had any effect on the adjusted rating. If we can boost our adjusted ratings by giving each other replays, then it will change the whole game. However, I don't think it works like that, judging from my experience with Campaigns & Kobolds. If it did, that quest would have been at the top of the Best list, because nearly everyone who played it had to play it again at some point. Some even told me they were playing it every day for their daily. It had way more plays than ratings, and I only observed a change in the adjusted rating when it got a review/rating.

casekuk

I didnt know about this restriction, but regardless of that this is still a great idea and I fail to see why no one is bothering with this thread? Excepting you 2 of course, appreciated.

The restriction you speak of makes a difference but it doesn't change the fact that each foundry in the list will be 'at least' played once by everyone on it! (in an ideal world I understand, but the hit rate would be high!)

Lets say for arguments sake theres 20 quests in the list. Every one of those authors plays each quest once. Thats 20 foundry plays.. Not unrealistic, we all do that almost every week am I wrong? (I certainly play at least 20 foundries a week)

So lets just say 10 of those people had 'previously' played the first quest on the list. That quest would STILL get 10 'extra' plays above and beyond those people who had already rated it... IF this restriction is correct.

Now lets put some realistic numbers on it...

in a few weeks there would be maybe hundreds of quests in the list. All getting a fair playing, because we would all 'sequentially' play them as they arrived.

Can no one else see the potential of this EVEN WITH the restriction mentioned above?

Art

antonkyle

The things that need to change are few:

All quest's should be visible with the use of follow on tabs.
All quest's should be categorised by the Author, with search tabs for each, Horror, Lore, Combat...
All tabs should have an option to order by.. most plays, highest adjusted rating, newest, highest overall rating.

That would still allow the Best and featured tabs but get rid of the new and review.

This should be backed up with a system to give people a reason to play them. Like a reward for doing so, such as AD per kill.

casekuk

Um... I don't think your understanding the point of my post Antonkyle...

Nevermind though, no one else seems to see it potential either.. so I am officially out.

Done.

Art.

redneckronin

I understand the point you make.

Make sure everyone gets more plays/ratings.

But that doesn't address the root cause of the issue - appallingly bad menu/list coding in the Foundry.

Hopefully things may improve with the upcoming patch (22nd August).

All The Best

casekuk

No it doesn't mate your right.. But I was just trying to do something positive and the poll just went 3 for 2 against... I would LOVE to know what people dont like about the idea I really would, but no one will say!

It's fair... It helps 'everyone' It's not exploitive in any way. Its a genuine help to the situation.. What is it that folk dont like?

Art.

antonkyle

I didn't vote, but I don't want to play everyone's quest if truth be told. I'm not much of a PVE player and although I run at least two a day I would like to just play the ones I'm interested in. I know that's selfish but it's a game.

I'll play and review swap like anyone but lets be honest, it's a bit like work. (that's not too say they are not great)
Now I understand that many foundry gamers like PVE and that's what they want to do. But I like PVP, the time I spend reviewing takes me away from PVP. So far I have done nearly zero PVP in Neverwinter.

I think the problem is that there are quest's that are sitting on 55k plays and some that barley have 20, is it because they are that much better? Sadly I think not and that's the problem.

I'm happy with the number of plays I get, which is less than 20 for each, other than one which has less than 100. Sure I'd like more but I don't ever want someone to play one because they have to for whatever reason. I want them to read the quest description and want to play it. But to do that they must be visible.
Right now they are not.

tulipvorlax

One small problem with this, sorry if i didn't read carefully enough to notice it was already mentionned, is that maintaining a list on the forums would be a bit tedious and that most players dont come to the forums.
That been said, i have no opposition to this, at least in the mean time, while they work on a better ingame listing system.
(And should i mention that since my first language isn't english, i dont play english quests, yet.)

narayansingh

OK, here is my opposition to the idea.

You, basically, want to force authors/plays to play every quest on the list/thread.
What happens when the thread gets really long?
And your idea is inherently biased. By that I mean you want the first quest in the thread to br played first by everyone and then got down the list. So if there are 50 quests in the list... The last quest may not get played for weeks, depending on how many quest each quest player plays in a week. So the first quests get plays a lot more then those on the bottom.

As for you "this would" numbers...
Number 1. Not really in real life. In theory, yes.
Number 2. Maybe, maybe not.
Number 3. Again, the longer the list gets the less those on the bottom get plays/reviews.

Just my reasons for voting no.

casekuk

Where on earth did I say 'force' people to play?

What happens when the list gets long? I don't follow your reasoning.. I'll speak for myself and yes of course I realise this is not a perfect world!

I play Foundry quests EVERY day. If I started this thread today and got 3 quests in it, they would be played in order by me. When more quests are added, I would play them too. I would keep doing this (so in effect following the lists down) until every quest had been played. As would a great deal of other people.

The quest additions per day would wax and wane no doubt. Sometimes there would be too many to play, sometimes we would be out and not be able to catch up for a few days. But the ultimate goal is to just keep playing down the list. I'm not going to stop half way and go back to the top, I'm going to KEEP following it down. I will always know where I am, I will know what I have and haven't played.

As I have already mentioned several times I play foundries every day that I possibly can, and that usually entails me picking a random 'review trade' quest. I might miss another 5, and because of the way the forum works, I might miss them altogether!

If they are later added to this list, then they will be played! I don't see a down side to this!

The ones at the bottom WILL get played by anyone following the lists down...

And this is voluntary, it's not a 'requirement'. If you want to stop for a while, then do so.. but whenever you want to pick it up again, the list remains the same... Start from where you left off!

If you hate the idea of a quest skip it! It will be no worse than skipping on on a review trade will it?

Now I concede that this is not perfect, but I have seen NO other idea for helping people out. In the absence of no idea, isn't a non perfect one at least doing 'something'?

I accept your points really I do, but you have to accept that there are people who will play every quest.. I'm one of them, so law of averages says there must be more! I will play them all because I LIKE playing foundry quests, and to have a list of them that grows every day is for me a perfect accompaniment for finding new ones to play!

Art

casekuk

And lets not forget also, that while I accept the list will indeed get long.. It's not going to be an insurmountable number is it? I mean look at the people who have voted here.. At time of writing 'no' its not a good idea is winning, so obviously ONLY those who think its a good idea will post their quests there. So far we have 3. I can knock out 3 foundries in a night easy if I'm not writing a lengthy review!

And if the ones at the top get played more than the ones at the bottom, then so be it... I can promise that as long as I play Neverwinter I would keep playing down the list... Others would I'm sure say the same.

But isn't all of life a first come first served basis?

And as I mentioned.. Is it not better than getting NO plays?

Art

narayansingh

casekuk wrote: »

Where on earth did I say 'force' people to play?

No you did not say force... But the only way you idea has any chance to work is if everyone who posts a quest plays every quest in the order of the list. Otherwise people will just go thru and pick out quests they want to play.

What happens when the list gets long? I don't follow your reasoning.. I'll speak for myself and yes of course I realise this is not a perfect world!

I play Foundry quests EVERY day. If I started this thread today and got 3 quests in it, they would be played in order by me. When more quests are added, I would play them too. I would keep doing this (so in effect following the lists down) until every quest had been played. As would a great deal of other people.

I will try again. Question first... Do you think that the list could get as many as 50 or more quests listed?
If yes then think of this...
You have been playing quests since day one. I come along a few weeks later and find this "list". I add my quest to the bottom of the list and start with the first quest. I go thru the list as see that my quest is number 51 on the list. Now say that I play 4 quests a day. now for me to get to quest number 50, that will take me 13 days to get to that point in the list. That is if I am diligent and do these quests every day. Now most if not all of these quests will not be daily eligible. So if I want to do my daily eligible quests for the AD and do these quests... That could run into a lot of quests that I may not enjoy... Then you run into the problem where people just quit playing the quests and never got to the bottom of the list...

The quest additions per day would wax and wane no doubt. Sometimes there would be too many to play, sometimes we would be out and not be able to catch up for a few days. But the ultimate goal is to just keep playing down the list. I'm not going to stop half way and go back to the top, I'm going to KEEP following it down. I will always know where I am, I will know what I have and haven't played.

But people may just stop playing these quests. Which is an advantage to those on the top as they will get played first.

As I have already mentioned several times I play foundries every day that I possibly can, and that usually entails me picking a random 'review trade' quest. I might miss another 5, and because of the way the forum works, I might miss them altogether!

Not everyone does this.

If they are later added to this list, then they will be played! I don't see a down side to this!

In a perfect world. But this is not a perfect world. Can you guarantee that every quest will get played? No.

The ones at the bottom WILL get played by anyone following the lists down...

Again. Can you guarantee this? No you cannot.

And this is voluntary, it's not a 'requirement'. If you want to stop for a while, then do so.. but whenever you want to pick it up again, the list remains the same... Start from where you left off!

If you hate the idea of a quest skip it! It will be no worse than skipping on on a review trade will it?

Now I concede that this is not perfect, but I have seen NO other idea for helping people out. In the absence of no idea, isn't a non perfect one at least doing 'something'?

I think that something like "Scribes Enclave" is a better idea Check it out at http://scribesenclave.guildlaunch.com/

I accept your points really I do, but you have to accept that there are people who will play every quest.. I'm one of them, so law of averages says there must be more! I will play them all because I LIKE playing foundry quests, and to have a list of them that grows every day is for me a perfect accompaniment for finding new ones to play!

Art

My real point is that those at the top of the list will have an increasing better advantage as compared to those at the bottom, especially as the list gets big. Your way is that each new player starts at the top of the list and plays down the list. So the first quest will get plays more times that the ones at the bottom of the list.

And, yes, there are people who will play every quest and there are also those who will not. And that who will cherry pick quests.
listening to this community, there would seem to be more who do not play every quest. Really, your whole post is because of that.

I will tell you to go ahead and make your list. Try it. Hopefully it will work. It is just not the be all end all.

gornonthecob

A list of completed quests that are deemed FULLY COMPLETE by the community would be nice. I'd be on board. It's also a great way to push exploit maps down a peg. It would unify our direction. I'm in.

narayansingh

casekuk wrote: »

And lets not forget also, that while I accept the list will indeed get long.. It's not going to be an insurmountable number is it? I mean look at the people who have voted here.. At time of writing 'no' its not a good idea is winning, so obviously ONLY those who think its a good idea will post their quests there. So far we have 3. I can knock out 3 foundries in a night easy if I'm not writing a lengthy review!

And if the ones at the top get played more than the ones at the bottom, then so be it... I can promise that as long as I play Neverwinter I would keep playing down the list... Others would I'm sure say the same.

But isn't all of life a first come first served basis?

And as I mentioned.. Is it not better than getting NO plays?

Art

Who knows how long the list will get? Just look at how many new requests are posted here. You could have over 100 in a month.

My point is that I think that there are more players who do not look for new quests then there are those who play every request. I think this from my own experience. A while back I posted a request for reviews in these forums. Know how many reviews/plays I got from that request? Zero. So I am jaded. Whats really funny. My second quest which I never posted here got 8 plays. Figure that one out.

narayansingh

gornonthecob wrote: »

A list of completed quests that are deemed FULLY COMPLETE by the community would be nice. I'd be on board. It's also a great way to push exploit maps down a peg. It would unify our direction. I'm in.

Just out of curiosity... Could you explain "deemed FULLY COMPLETE by the community"?

casekuk

Narayansingh, you are being SO picky about this... Let me elaborate, and let me 'Try again' to explain what it is I am trying to achieve with this post and this idea...

Firstly, I accept 100% that it's not perfect, and I accept 100% that not everyone will play every quest, people will cherry pick, and people will stop playing. I will NOT dispute this, so please stop saying the same things. And please also stop pinning 'can you guarantee' that on me also! Because no, of course I can't!

Please understand that what I am trying to do here is SOMETHING in a foundry system where no one does ANYTHING about the current situation. And this is not through want of trying! There are people on this forum every day trying to improve the dire situation in many different ways... I don't think I'm allowed to name people, even in a positive light, so I won't... The community knows who they are and respects them for ALL their efforts.

However... There is not one single solution for getting plays 'AFTER' the quest has done it's own 'Review Trade' post. You yourself have tried this, and have found that you got little to NO response. This happens a lot but not as much now as it used to. Re-post your quest now, and ask again for review trades. I'd like to think you will find it a different experience. Over the last few weeks I have been watching review trade posts with interest, and nearly all are now getting multiple plays. Anyway.. I'm off on a tangent, lets get back to what we are talking about...

Every quest disappears into nothingness. Unless you are one of the VERY lucky, to get your quest 'Spotlighted' by Cryptic. This is such a small number of quests it's like playing the lottery!

By adding your quest to this new 'list' you are promoting it further. Rather than doing 'nothing' do you not see how, regardless of how well it works, this is a good thing to do?

Your main argument against this is that not all people are like me... Not all people actively seek out quests to play. My argument straight back at you is that there 'are' people just like me who will do this!

Honestly, I can't see how anyone can object to this idea... It's yet another way, (in a world where there is no way) to promote a quest.

Lets take the WORST case scenario here, the most dire it could possibly be.

Lets say that only 'I' get to the bottom of the list. Lets say that not another single person EVER gets to the bottom. (which by law of averages would simply not happen) Even then, every single quest on the 'list' gets that 1 more play... That they never would have received with their quest disappearing. It's win win...

Now to highlight one of your points that is very valid.

The quests at the top of the list will get played more than the quests at the bottom. Yes I agree, there's nothing I can do about it. When I start this list I will try and word the 'instructions' in such a way that people respect that that is probably the case, (how's that?)

And in answer to your last question regarding the 'finished quests'

Lets just worry about what I'm talking about... Rather than a 'general' feeling of what it means, because my original idea was to only allow quests in the thread that have already been through the process of 'Review Trades'.

So in answer to your question (I have added something to this list of requirements that I hope you will approve of, it's number 2 in the list and I don't think its unreasonable to ask for either)

1. The quest must have had it's own REVIEW TRADES post. That the owner must link to in the 'Play Trades' Thread.

2. The quest MUST be eligible for daily. (this is not difficult to do, it takes a bit of effort I grant you, but almost anyone can get their quest 'played' enough to make 20 plays).

3. It must be 'finished' in terms of not 'just published' and in beta. When all the wrinkles have been ironed out, and only spelling mistakes and grammar problems are left.

4. The thread must not be used for anything other than the listing of your quest. (I will be asking for help with this, if I cant get moderator help for this list, then it's all for nothing anyway)

I can't be fairer than this, I cant do anything more from where I sit at my PC...

But I am at LEAST trying to do 'something'

I thank those of you who support this, and still welcome criticism and valid argument.

Art.

narayansingh

@casekuk

I am done here. You seem to gloss over my concerns. So I will just say this... Good Luck with your endeavors.

casekuk

You have to be kidding me Naraya... That entire last post was entirely for you benefit!

Art

karitr

I don't think this is a bad idea, you just need to think of the execution. For example, designing the list in such a way that it requires moderator assistance is not workable in the long run. Likewise if you yourself take complete responsibility of keeping the list updated, you've pretty much assured that one day it will be a redundant sticky that is no longer used.

Instead of multiple threads and polls, why not just start a thread inviting players to add their quests if they need plays (and their quests comply with the criteria you have set out above*). Stipulate that it is not a trade thread. Ask people responding to the thread to start with quests that are recently added and work down the list (which will consist of author posts rather than a consolidated list in the OP that would need updating) from that point rather than from the beginning - which could be months even years in the past.

If the thread is useful it will be self-perpetuating - it won't need a sticky and it won't matter if the creator of the thread retires from game.

Give it a go, you have nothing to lose. If it doesn't take off, at least you know you will have tried to help authors get plays and that can never be a bad thing


*Off-topic, but about your point 3. Grammar and spelling should never be discounted as a 'doesn't matter' when it comes to polish. It is easily the most common reason for quests being down-rated and I would urge all authors to give as much attention to their textual content as they do other areas of their quests.

raphaeldisanto

karitr wrote: »

*Off-topic, but about your point 3. Grammar and spelling should never be discounted as a 'doesn't matter' when it comes to polish. It is easily the most common reason for quests being down-rated and I would urge all authors to give as much attention to their textual content as they do other areas of their quests.

I definitely second this.

kreed42

casekuk

Just do it brother. You will find out in short order if it works or not.

casekuk

There I go with being misunderstood again! Wow, i'm good at that!

My point 3 guys was not to 'ignore' grammar and spelling mistakes, no not at all... it's just that they are always the 'last' thing to be ironed out of quests that's all.

When you think on it, none of us are writers... and even professional writers have editors to solve their problems! As such our own quests will never be perfect... But once you get to that point, they can be classed 'finished'. (work in progress - as far as grammar etc goes)

Kreed42, I'm going to. I have thought about this quite a bit, and I see it as a positive in almost every way although I probably wont get it off the ground until Monday now, busy weekend... But It's coming!

Karitr, I hear your concerns. In fact I thought of the major ones myself, especially regarding it being moderated. Your right of course... But I have enough loyalty to the idea to make sure it is seen through certainly for the foreseeable future. I cant stop until my story is told and I have 2 parts left to write (at LEAST!)

After that, when I move on, I will take the time to pass it to someone, someone I feel can do it justice. If I can find no one, then yes it will fall into obscurity much like our quests.

I have spoken to Zebular about it, and he has told me what I need to do to give it the best possible chance.

Sometime on Monday after work, I will carefully write and re-write the rules of the post, here's hoping it does everything I expect.

But hey, if it doesn't work... I can hold my head up high and say I tried.

Art.

ash4ll

Hey, just wanted to have some words about the other thread apart from the ongoing discussion.

There exists thread dedicated to finished quests that you can playthrough. It's in there:
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?117831-The-Foundry-List-of-UGC-and-Authors
Besides, your thread bans players without their own thread. What about mine thread then?
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?365371-Review-trades

I appreciate the idea, but without forcing people to play through quests to make their quest stay on the list it will be full of people that don't play through any of those.
Best wishes.