I think 80% of the bad ratings come because of the loot.
The system works. The only problem is that people are rating 1 star because they don't get as much loot as in game. How many comments say, great quest but chest was empty, 1 star.
I bet if every Author copied and pasted these comments into this thread it would have 20 pages in a matter of hours.
Before my quest was featured I had only two 1 star ratings over 3 quest's, I only advertised here and I only swapped reviews from these boards. So I don't think there is anything sinister going on within the foundry community on these boards.
I have had nothing but support, great feedback including pm's when people have had issues.
I think Cryptic need to investigate. If people are getting no loot in the chests then that is a major problem that needs to be fixed.
It's a 'chicken and the egg' problem. I wasn't here rating and reviewing quests at the time, so I'm definitely not "part of the problem". The problem existed far before I ever participated.
So how can you possibly blame reviewers for being a part of the problem when the problem already existed? Until Cryptic/PWE finds and implements a rating system that works, you can't fault people for being kind to the community or reviewers here.
Just like the stock market, when a publicly traded name takes a nose dive you can't blame everyone else for bailing after that fact.
The adjusted rated system has been here as long as I have been playing the Foundry, I think you have misread something in my post that was not intended.
The system is there to balance extreme entries; it isn't chicken or egg, it's a proven solution in the stats world, around long before Neverwinter. Ironically it prevents the very kind of number skewing author's complain about, but I think because it is being misunderstood it is being misused in a way that harms a quest's rating rather than helps.
Or in other words, in the early life of a quest a 5* rating will do as much to bring an adjusted rating down as a 1* rating.
0
Options
lolsorhandMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 981Bounty Hunter
The adjusted rated system has been here as long as I have been playing the Foundry, I think you have misread something in my post that was not intended.
The system is there to balance extreme entries; it isn't chicken or egg, it's a proven solution in the stats world, around long before Neverwinter. Ironically it prevents the very kind of number skewing author's complain about, but I think because it is being misunderstood it is being misused in a way that harms a quest's rating rather than helps.
Or in other words, in the early life of a quest a 5* rating will do as much to bring an adjusted rating down as a 1* rating.
The adjusted rated system has been here as long as I have been playing the Foundry, I think you have misread something in my post that was not intended.
The system is there to balance extreme entries; it isn't chicken or egg, it's a proven solution in the stats world, around long before Neverwinter. Ironically it prevents the very kind of number skewing author's complain about, but I think because it is being misunderstood it is being misused in a way that harms a quest's rating rather than helps.
Or in other words, in the early life of a quest a 5* rating will do as much to bring an adjusted rating down as a 1* rating.
First: you don't have the algorithm for what Cryptic does. If you are a dev in disguise, then please set the record straight.
Second: Chicken and the egg is a reference to reviewers/authors trying to work around the rating system. That comment of mine is not about the implementation of the adjusted rating system specifically.
and by trying to circumvent it, you become part of the problem which results in the necessity for a system like this to be implemented.
If the system was in there in the first place because of intended circumvention, and doesn't work for many of us, and people still circumvent it, then how can you lay the blame on the reviewers/authors now? The chicken and the egg is between the rating system and the ratings themselves. Which one is the problem? The rating system or the reviewers? Which one started the problem? You could argue either way, but right now you're arguing that the reviewers are the problem.
I would NEVER blame the community for such things. If the rating system isn't working to put quality quests at the top quickly, then it is broken. The real argument is whether such a near-perfect system could exist that weeds out the trash, exploits, and broken quests, and elevates the quality ones. Then the secondary argument is one what is considered a quality quest.
There's always going to be a struggle for authors to get quests moved up the list in the tabs, and the ratings system is a big key to that struggle. For example a quest that has a few five-star ratings has a lower adjusted score than a quest that has a 1000 three-star ratings. Until that quest with only a few ratings gets a lot more 3 to 5 star ratings, it's never going to move up the list. I've seen that. It has less to do with ratings and more to do with plays. And if random people aren't playing those authors' quests, then we have to do review trading to help each other. To help those who care enough to be part of our community here on the forums.
So I don't understand why you want to punish that community or accuse them of trying to circumvent the system? After all, it's my privilege to rate any quest here with 5 stars regardless of what you think about. And that's your privilege to do the same, and rate any way you like. If that is somehow circumventing the system, then the system is to blame, not the community.
You're not getting it and I have tried to explain twice, so will leave it to someone more skilled with words than I am.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm just not following you then.
How I read your discussion: you link to statistical algorithms without any idea what Cryptic uses (unless you can document that?), and then argue from that standpoint as if 5-star reviews are hurting quests and/or the system. And you accuse the community of trying to circumvent that system. Please correct me if that is not what you intended to say.
Easy to say that when you're at the top. :rolleyes:
I wasn't complaining when I wasn't at the top.
Edit:
I kept going, always liked making foundries. And when people enjoy it, it's all worth the effort. I did not complain, nor did I give up because my ratings were low. I kept on going doing what I enjoy doing.
And pointing out the flaws of a rating system is complaining? When have I started any threads purely to rant about the rating system? I didn't even create my first quest with that in mind. I created it for fun to be enjoyed by those who like jumping puzzles (a niche market).
You have a featured quest. And congrats on that. I mean that genuinely, not as sarcasm. Having your quest featured means you'll have no problem getting a ton of plays. So now that you do, why would you not consider yourself bias to wanting to defend the current rating system that favors play count?
I'm sorry, I guess I'm just not following you then.
How I read your discussion: you link to statistical algorithms without any idea what Cryptic uses (unless you can document that?), and then argue from that standpoint as if 5-star reviews are hurting quests and/or the system. And you accuse the community of trying to circumvent that system. Please correct me if that is not what you intended to say.
Under ratings (and if you check the revision edits, the writer is a NWO developer). EDIT: Koboldbard2 posted the link to this in a stickied thread, if you wish to read more.
Basically throw 5* ratings at a quest and you're going to have its rating adjusted down...whether it gets adjusted down more than had you given three stars or four stars, I don't know. What I do know is that a plethora of 5* ratings for a quest will raise expectations that if not met will result in a harsher review (and rating) from the player base immediately following.
That the community - or part of it - is trying to circumvent the system is well documented in these forums. Probably in this very thread. I wasn't being accusatory, just stating fact. I also know you do it in each other's best interest.
PS: That kind of cheap remark at lolsorhand is unwarranted and even a little hypocritical for someone who stuck to doing what they wanted to do and created a quest that in theory ticks a lot of one star boxes that won't see it getting on the Best list any time soon. Don't worry though, when I get around to finishing your marathon, it will deserve every one of the five stars I award it, because it is that much fun.
0
Options
cipher9nemoMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Under ratings (and if you check the revision edits, the writer is a NWO developer).
Basically throw 5* ratings at a quest and you're going to have its rating adjusted down...whether it gets adjusted down more than had you given three stars or four stars, I don't know. What I do know is that a plethora of 5* ratings for a quest will raise expectations that if not met will result in a harsher review (and rating) from the player base immediately following.
That the community - or part of it - is trying to circumvent the system is well documented in these forums. Probably in this very thread. I wasn't being accusatory, just stating fact. I also know you do it in each other's best interest.
Thank you for the link.
EDIT: When looking at that page's history a user with no wiki page on that wiki added the reference to the specific type of algorithm used for rating quests. It's NOT official. Unless a dev told us that somewhere else? Just because a random person on the Internet edited that page does not make it fact. I'd still argue that we don't know the algorithm used by Cryptic/PWE until someone does data mining from Cryptic's Foundry DB or until Cryptic comes forward to tell us what they do.
Here's the user's contributions to that entire wiki: two entries.
As for the adjusted score I have not really seen that in my quest. I'll use it as an example...
Last I checked it had 11 five-star ratings. 20 or more plays. It's at a 3.71 adjusted rating. At an earlier point in history it was at a lower adjusted rating. So are you saying that according to this system a 1-star rating would bump up the adjusted rating faster?
Or in other words, in the early life of a quest a 5* rating will do as much to bring an adjusted rating down as a 1* rating.
I haven't witnessed that. The adjusted rating still goes up with 5 star. How much compared to 1 star I don't know. But I do know from exploring the Foundry lists is that plays matter a lot more than stars. Still, those 5 stars will help more once a quest becomes popular with many play counts.
So I ask: how are 5 stars hurting quests and the community?
And pointing out the flaws of a rating system is complaining? When have I started any threads purely to rant about the rating system? I didn't even create my first quest with that in mind. I created it for fun to be enjoyed by those who like jumping puzzles (a niche market).
You have a featured quest. And congrats on that. I mean that genuinely, not as sarcasm. Having your quest featured means you'll have no problem getting a ton of plays. So now that you do, why would you not consider yourself bias to wanting to defend the current rating system that favors play count?
I find your words funny lol - You failed to understand even the simpliest of things. Karitr even tries to explain to you. And yet you are just rambling. I am not biasad, my opinion of the ratings have not changed since I became "featured". It has nothing to do with it.
BUT. You are biased against me, because I'm featured. That much is clear. "Easy to say when you're at the top". And have fun with in your plastic box you call reality. I deem the ratings work, but then again I never cared much for them.
BUT. You are biased against me, because I'm featured. That much is clear. "Easy to say when you're at the top". And have fun with in your plastic box you call reality. I deem the ratings work, but then again I never cared much for them.
I am only stating that you views are biased because you are featured. I have nothing against you or your quests. I haven't even played them yet so I have no judgement on that.
I am only stating that you views are biased because you are featured. I have nothing against you or your quests. I haven't even played them yet so I have no judgement on that.
Just because someone has been featured does not make someone's views automatically biased. There are people capable of looking at things from a neutral standpoint. It is, however, biased to believe that all views from featured authors are biased.
lolsorhandMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 981Bounty Hunter
edited August 2013
You think I'm defending my quests now? You truly do not understand what I'm trying to tell you. Good luck with your future endeavours.
Edited:
So you may perhaps understand that, otherwise you can always start to read from the beginning of the thread - If you have done so, you may try again until you do understand the meaning of my posts
EDIT: When looking at that page's history a user with no wiki page on that wiki added the reference to the specific type of algorithm used for rating quests. It's NOT official. Unless a dev told us that somewhere else? Just because a random person on the Internet edited that page does not make it fact.
So are you saying that according to this system a 1-star rating would bump up the adjusted rating faster?
Not faster necessarily, no, though it would be interesting to make two duplicate quests as a test and see what happens if we all rated one 1* and the other 5*.
Until the sample size is large enough and robust enough to carry its own weight, these early ratings (whether 1* or 5*) will be adjusted to the median of three stars under the system for discounting outliers.
So I ask: how are 5 stars hurting quests and the community?
And I said -
Basically throw 5* ratings at a quest and you're going to have its rating adjusted down...whether it gets adjusted down more than had you given three stars or four stars, I don't know.
Here I was referring to the early life of the quest, before it has enough ratings and plays to support its own sample size. For example, if you had one play and one 5* rating, those five stars are adjusted down. I think you would agree with that observation.
I then went on to say:
What I do know is that a plethora of 5* ratings for a quest will raise expectations that if not met will result in a harsher review (and rating) from the player immediately following.
And this is where I feel the real damage happens. It hurts the credibility of the quest and the credibility of the authors who award the five stars (albeit with good intentions). As ronin so perfectly put it, some of you seem to forget that players are a part of the Foundry community too.
I understand the principles behind your post, and agree with many of them, but this statement sort of rubs me the wrong way.
If the feedback and review is the same why would you prefer a "genuine" 3 over a "false" 5 rating? Can you honestly tell me that you'd rather get 3 star ratings on your quest rather than 5 stars? Has your quest already made it 'big time' yet? Or do you think everything you'll make now and into the future deserves a "genuine" 5 star rating? I haven't played your quest yet, so you'll have to tell me.
I can tell you this; if you play my quest and no matter what you think about it you are going to give me an automatic 5 Star rating then, honestly, I'd rather you just didn't rate it - send me any feedback you feel appropriate via a PM.
The first problem is that every author will have a biased opinion of their own quest.
Not every Author.
I think my 1st part is, now its been through several revisions and polishing phases, probably a 3 - 3.5 (actual current rating is 4.5).
I think my 2nd part is 3.5 - 4 (actual current rating a 4).
I think my 3rd is 4 - 4.5 (actual current rating 4.5).
Hand on heart, I don't think I've managed to create a 5 Star quest, I'm not that technically proficient with the Foundry for a start, and I am far more interested in telling a "good story" (incidentally the one aspect of my Campaign that I do think is worthy of 4.5 - 5 stars) than I am in wowing people with special effects, and interesting and technical "workarounds".
If I review an author's quest either from the official forums here, from Scribe's Enclave, or within my guild, I will always give them a 5 star rating if they're not a featured/spotlighted quest and not near the top of the best tab. It's not because I think their quest is truly a 5 star piece of work.
That's exactly why I don't want "false" 5 Star ratings, there are as damaging and as useless and false 1 Star ratings.
It's because the rating system is broken and I'm doing all I can to support the underdogs here to get their quest attention.
That doesn't make sense.
The rating system is equally broken for all of us.
You are making a qualitative decision to artificially up-rate certain quests, when you've already been given a mechanism to qualitatively rate that quest - the rating system you claim is broken.
It is ONLY broken because people aren't being honest in how they rate quests, more dishonesty (not matter how you try and dress it up) is part of the problem, not the solution.
The rating system is broken, and I hope you agree. If you do, then why on earth would you support feeding that broken system by claiming "genuine" ratings? If not, then I hope you get a chance to reflect on that again in the future.
Actually I don't think the rating system is that broken at all.
The Catalogue is broken, the search engine is broken, the default lists are broken.
None of those can be fixed by further breaking the rating system.
The ratings as they are is a joke just as the current reward system.
(...)
The ratings is a joke, people don't care anything about the story. What they do care about is the ad/minute.
Ratings are funny, i've gotten. So many "Loot sucks - 5 stars" as well as "Loot sucks - 2-3 stars", and also a couple of three stars. Just gives me a chuckle to read reviews.
Not faster necessarily, no, though it would be interesting to make two duplicate quests as a test and see what happens if we all rated one 1* and the other 5*.
And this is where I feel the real damage happens. It hurts the credibility of the quest and the credibility of the authors who award the five stars (albeit with good intentions). As ronin so perfectly put it, some of you seem to forget that players are a part of the Foundry community too.
Oh, so this is about credibility, not about the statistics? Ok, if that's what you mean than I apologize for earlier misunderstanding what you were talking about.
As for the definition of community I would disagree with you. A community is not "everyone". It's a group of people. So as it pertains to Neverwinter, I'd consider a random author/reviewer who has never read the forums, never participated here, never read or participated in other social places for Neverwinter not to be part of that community. That might just be my feeling on it though, I won't try to pretend that's the absolute truth of the matter.
So when I want to support our community I review and rate our community members' quests positively. I might give them more critical, constructive feedback, but my ratings and are always positive, and currently so far always 5-star. Because I feel that if an author cares enough to be involved with the community at this level they deserve a fighting chance against troll ratings, exploit quests, and a ratings system that favors raw play counts and being at the top of tabs over anything else.
lolsorhandMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 981Bounty Hunter
edited August 2013
Did you also find the post where I said, have patience because an update for the review system is coming - And those are not complaints, I pointed out flaws in the current system which will all be fixed with the updated rating system. (Hashtags). You are really still not getting the point, perhaps you need a 3rd or 4th read through? I do find this amusing Gave me a chuckle. I'm sorry you feel so strongly about this, that you crawled through old forum posts to even fail with what I belive is to prove that I contradict myself?
I never contradicted myself, I'm sorry to dissappoint - But you need to learn to read and understand what the words mean my friend. Best of luck.
Edit:
And for the record, I'll repeat once again. I never believed the system to be Broken. Not perfect, but not broken. I also don't start threads crying about it
Please restate that point because you keep saying this over and over again saying that I don't understand. My opinions are my opinions, even if they don't agree with yours. That doesn't mean I lack a certain understanding.
You want to trade reviews with me? , Trials of Five in my Brethren campaign if you want. And yeah, those pesky 3 stars are well, never fun.
Yet he gave me two because apparently my music is broken, and my buildings are floating. I checked the quests in case either of those were actually true, but the music worked, and the buildings weren't floating. Hm.. Too bad the characters in my quests aren't as good as Wizard or Wizard. Then I might have earned five stars. :rolleyes:
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
lolsorhandMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 981Bounty Hunter
Please restate that point because you keep saying this over and over again saying that I don't understand. My opinions are my opinions, even if they don't agree with yours. That doesn't mean I lack a certain understanding.
No that's not it. You simply just don't get it, and i'll leave it at that. Now I'm out of here.
Yet he gave me two because apparently my music is broken, and my buildings are floating. I checked the quests in case either of those were actually true, but the music worked, and the buildings weren't floating. Hm.. Too bad the characters in my quests aren't as good as Wizard or Wizard. Then I might have earned five stars. :rolleyes:
I did have quite many points as to why your quest was average. I was nice to you, gave you fives to help/be supportive. Then you called me out, so I decided I'll just be honest from now on. You had floating buildings, barrels, crates. Lack of details, things does simple not look good. And the story/dialogue wasn't even worth mentioning in the feedback imo.
Still have the notes? I have them. So feel free to post them publicly if you so wish
Oh, so this is about credibility, not about the statistics? Ok, if that's what you mean than I apologize for earlier misunderstanding what you were talking about.
The two go hand in hand. If a quest is found to not be worthy (credible) of the five stars the early reviewers have awarded it, then it is likely to suffer a backlash of low ratings as opposed to fairer ones. This of course will lower its statistical rating.
0
Options
cipher9nemoMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Comments
The system works. The only problem is that people are rating 1 star because they don't get as much loot as in game. How many comments say, great quest but chest was empty, 1 star.
I bet if every Author copied and pasted these comments into this thread it would have 20 pages in a matter of hours.
Before my quest was featured I had only two 1 star ratings over 3 quest's, I only advertised here and I only swapped reviews from these boards. So I don't think there is anything sinister going on within the foundry community on these boards.
I have had nothing but support, great feedback including pm's when people have had issues.
I think Cryptic need to investigate. If people are getting no loot in the chests then that is a major problem that needs to be fixed.
The adjusted rated system has been here as long as I have been playing the Foundry, I think you have misread something in my post that was not intended.
The system is there to balance extreme entries; it isn't chicken or egg, it's a proven solution in the stats world, around long before Neverwinter. Ironically it prevents the very kind of number skewing author's complain about, but I think because it is being misunderstood it is being misused in a way that harms a quest's rating rather than helps.
Or in other words, in the early life of a quest a 5* rating will do as much to bring an adjusted rating down as a 1* rating.
This ^
/10c
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
First: you don't have the algorithm for what Cryptic does. If you are a dev in disguise, then please set the record straight.
Second: Chicken and the egg is a reference to reviewers/authors trying to work around the rating system. That comment of mine is not about the implementation of the adjusted rating system specifically.
It's only related to this...
If the system was in there in the first place because of intended circumvention, and doesn't work for many of us, and people still circumvent it, then how can you lay the blame on the reviewers/authors now? The chicken and the egg is between the rating system and the ratings themselves. Which one is the problem? The rating system or the reviewers? Which one started the problem? You could argue either way, but right now you're arguing that the reviewers are the problem.
I would NEVER blame the community for such things. If the rating system isn't working to put quality quests at the top quickly, then it is broken. The real argument is whether such a near-perfect system could exist that weeds out the trash, exploits, and broken quests, and elevates the quality ones. Then the secondary argument is one what is considered a quality quest.
There's always going to be a struggle for authors to get quests moved up the list in the tabs, and the ratings system is a big key to that struggle. For example a quest that has a few five-star ratings has a lower adjusted score than a quest that has a 1000 three-star ratings. Until that quest with only a few ratings gets a lot more 3 to 5 star ratings, it's never going to move up the list. I've seen that. It has less to do with ratings and more to do with plays. And if random people aren't playing those authors' quests, then we have to do review trading to help each other. To help those who care enough to be part of our community here on the forums.
So I don't understand why you want to punish that community or accuse them of trying to circumvent the system? After all, it's my privilege to rate any quest here with 5 stars regardless of what you think about. And that's your privilege to do the same, and rate any way you like. If that is somehow circumventing the system, then the system is to blame, not the community.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
I will say though, I don't want to punish anyone and I have no idea where that came from.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm just not following you then.
How I read your discussion: you link to statistical algorithms without any idea what Cryptic uses (unless you can document that?), and then argue from that standpoint as if 5-star reviews are hurting quests and/or the system. And you accuse the community of trying to circumvent that system. Please correct me if that is not what you intended to say.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
Easy to say that when you're at the top. :rolleyes:
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
I wasn't complaining when I wasn't at the top.
Edit:
I kept going, always liked making foundries. And when people enjoy it, it's all worth the effort. I did not complain, nor did I give up because my ratings were low. I kept on going doing what I enjoy doing.
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
And pointing out the flaws of a rating system is complaining? When have I started any threads purely to rant about the rating system? I didn't even create my first quest with that in mind. I created it for fun to be enjoyed by those who like jumping puzzles (a niche market).
You have a featured quest. And congrats on that. I mean that genuinely, not as sarcasm.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
http://neverwinter.gamepedia.com/Guide_to_the_Foundry
Under ratings (and if you check the revision edits, the writer is a NWO developer). EDIT: Koboldbard2 posted the link to this in a stickied thread, if you wish to read more.
Basically throw 5* ratings at a quest and you're going to have its rating adjusted down...whether it gets adjusted down more than had you given three stars or four stars, I don't know. What I do know is that a plethora of 5* ratings for a quest will raise expectations that if not met will result in a harsher review (and rating) from the player base immediately following.
That the community - or part of it - is trying to circumvent the system is well documented in these forums. Probably in this very thread. I wasn't being accusatory, just stating fact. I also know you do it in each other's best interest.
PS: That kind of cheap remark at lolsorhand is unwarranted and even a little hypocritical for someone who stuck to doing what they wanted to do and created a quest that in theory ticks a lot of one star boxes that won't see it getting on the Best list any time soon. Don't worry though, when I get around to finishing your marathon, it will deserve every one of the five stars I award it, because it is that much fun.
Thank you for the link.
EDIT: When looking at that page's history a user with no wiki page on that wiki added the reference to the specific type of algorithm used for rating quests. It's NOT official. Unless a dev told us that somewhere else? Just because a random person on the Internet edited that page does not make it fact. I'd still argue that we don't know the algorithm used by Cryptic/PWE until someone does data mining from Cryptic's Foundry DB or until Cryptic comes forward to tell us what they do.
Here's the user's contributions to that entire wiki: two entries.
As for the adjusted score I have not really seen that in my quest. I'll use it as an example...
Last I checked it had 11 five-star ratings. 20 or more plays. It's at a 3.71 adjusted rating. At an earlier point in history it was at a lower adjusted rating. So are you saying that according to this system a 1-star rating would bump up the adjusted rating faster?
You mentioned...
I haven't witnessed that. The adjusted rating still goes up with 5 star. How much compared to 1 star I don't know. But I do know from exploring the Foundry lists is that plays matter a lot more than stars. Still, those 5 stars will help more once a quest becomes popular with many play counts.
So I ask: how are 5 stars hurting quests and the community?
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
I find your words funny lol - You failed to understand even the simpliest of things. Karitr even tries to explain to you. And yet you are just rambling. I am not biasad, my opinion of the ratings have not changed since I became "featured". It has nothing to do with it.
BUT. You are biased against me, because I'm featured. That much is clear. "Easy to say when you're at the top". And have fun with in your plastic box you call reality. I deem the ratings work, but then again I never cared much for them.
-End-
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
I am only stating that you views are biased because you are featured. I have nothing against you or your quests. I haven't even played them yet so I have no judgement on that.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
Just because someone has been featured does not make someone's views automatically biased. There are people capable of looking at things from a neutral standpoint. It is, however, biased to believe that all views from featured authors are biased.
Threads: Part 1: Rising of the Dragons (NW-DNGIC6AJC) | Part 2: Abyssal Pursuit (NW-DESQ9HQAZ)
Edited:
So you may perhaps understand that, otherwise you can always start to read from the beginning of the thread - If you have done so, you may try again until you do understand the meaning of my posts
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
Thanks for that!
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
Not faster necessarily, no, though it would be interesting to make two duplicate quests as a test and see what happens if we all rated one 1* and the other 5*.
Until the sample size is large enough and robust enough to carry its own weight, these early ratings (whether 1* or 5*) will be adjusted to the median of three stars under the system for discounting outliers.
And I said -
Here I was referring to the early life of the quest, before it has enough ratings and plays to support its own sample size. For example, if you had one play and one 5* rating, those five stars are adjusted down. I think you would agree with that observation.
I then went on to say: And this is where I feel the real damage happens. It hurts the credibility of the quest and the credibility of the authors who award the five stars (albeit with good intentions). As ronin so perfectly put it, some of you seem to forget that players are a part of the Foundry community too.
I can tell you this; if you play my quest and no matter what you think about it you are going to give me an automatic 5 Star rating then, honestly, I'd rather you just didn't rate it - send me any feedback you feel appropriate via a PM.
I am only interested in honest ratings.
Not every Author.
I think my 1st part is, now its been through several revisions and polishing phases, probably a 3 - 3.5 (actual current rating is 4.5).
I think my 2nd part is 3.5 - 4 (actual current rating a 4).
I think my 3rd is 4 - 4.5 (actual current rating 4.5).
Hand on heart, I don't think I've managed to create a 5 Star quest, I'm not that technically proficient with the Foundry for a start, and I am far more interested in telling a "good story" (incidentally the one aspect of my Campaign that I do think is worthy of 4.5 - 5 stars) than I am in wowing people with special effects, and interesting and technical "workarounds".
I'm a story-teller, not a game-designer.
That's part of the problem.
I don't really care what ratings other Authors are getting.
That's exactly why I don't want "false" 5 Star ratings, there are as damaging and as useless and false 1 Star ratings.
That doesn't make sense.
The rating system is equally broken for all of us.
You are making a qualitative decision to artificially up-rate certain quests, when you've already been given a mechanism to qualitatively rate that quest - the rating system you claim is broken.
It is ONLY broken because people aren't being honest in how they rate quests, more dishonesty (not matter how you try and dress it up) is part of the problem, not the solution.
Actually I don't think the rating system is that broken at all.
The Catalogue is broken, the search engine is broken, the default lists are broken.
None of those can be fixed by further breaking the rating system.
All The Best
Looking For Reviews For Your Foundry Quest?
Drop By Scribe's Enclave & Meet Up With Volunteer Reviewers.
Now...
Then...
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
That would be an interesting test.
Oh, so this is about credibility, not about the statistics? Ok, if that's what you mean than I apologize for earlier misunderstanding what you were talking about.
As for the definition of community I would disagree with you. A community is not "everyone". It's a group of people. So as it pertains to Neverwinter, I'd consider a random author/reviewer who has never read the forums, never participated here, never read or participated in other social places for Neverwinter not to be part of that community. That might just be my feeling on it though, I won't try to pretend that's the absolute truth of the matter.
So when I want to support our community I review and rate our community members' quests positively. I might give them more critical, constructive feedback, but my ratings and are always positive, and currently so far always 5-star. Because I feel that if an author cares enough to be involved with the community at this level they deserve a fighting chance against troll ratings, exploit quests, and a ratings system that favors raw play counts and being at the top of tabs over anything else.
Deal.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
I never contradicted myself, I'm sorry to dissappoint - But you need to learn to read and understand what the words mean my friend. Best of luck.
Edit:
And for the record, I'll repeat once again. I never believed the system to be Broken. Not perfect, but not broken. I also don't start threads crying about it
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
Please restate that point because you keep saying this over and over again saying that I don't understand. My opinions are my opinions, even if they don't agree with yours. That doesn't mean I lack a certain understanding.
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD
Yet he gave me two because apparently my music is broken, and my buildings are floating. I checked the quests in case either of those were actually true, but the music worked, and the buildings weren't floating. Hm.. Too bad the characters in my quests aren't as good as Wizard or Wizard. Then I might have earned five stars. :rolleyes:
No that's not it. You simply just don't get it, and i'll leave it at that.
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
I did have quite many points as to why your quest was average. I was nice to you, gave you fives to help/be supportive. Then you called me out, so I decided I'll just be honest from now on. You had floating buildings, barrels, crates. Lack of details, things does simple not look good. And the story/dialogue wasn't even worth mentioning in the feedback imo.
Still have the notes? I have them. So feel free to post them publicly if you so wish
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
The two go hand in hand. If a quest is found to not be worthy (credible) of the five stars the early reviewers have awarded it, then it is likely to suffer a backlash of low ratings as opposed to fairer ones. This of course will lower its statistical rating.
Uh-huh. Yeah, thought so. :rolleyes:
Hammerfist Clan. Jump into the Night: NW-DMXWRYTAD