Yeah, sorry it gets confusing. There is an adjusted rating that accounts for outliers (I presume plays without ratings are outliers too), the author's rating where only the reviewed plays are counted, and a "true" rating being some point where these two numbers marry.
@koboldbard2. I'll take your word for it that it should be impossible, but some numbers would be appreciated. For example, what if a quest had 30 plays and 30 five star reviews...what would its adjusted rating be then?
I didn't think plays without reviews had any affect, kind of like voters not voting. I could be wrong. I know you can just star without leaving a comment but that still counts as a review. That's what I thought anyway.
On another note. Some of the new content is great. Loving the elven stuff and flowers. Think I will add to my current quests before I make a new one. 3d edit is like 100% better than it was. It's a shame that the problems have kind of overshadowed this really.
Hah! anton, I swear your posts have bipolar :cool:
Edit to add: Yes, I am not sure about the 'no review' status, but I think number of plays factor into the adjusted rating, so plays with no review kind of do have an impact?
Hah! anton, I swear your posts have bipolar :cool:
I think you may be right. I don't want/mean to sound so depressive. I'm just a bit gutted that my quest An Orc Massacre (Which I think is by far my best) just hit's that problem with the re-published quests in the way. I posted it a couple of days before the patch. Then I republished it just after. Had I known I would have waited a week. I'm getting a couple of plays a day so can't complain but when every other comment on part 1 asks for part two it's a little sad. It's there, they just don't look. I get the feeling that many players think every quest gets featured.
But I have had loads plays on A Magical Mystery tour, haha! I look at it now and think it's cringe worthy. Still my favourite though.
It wouldn't be so bad if other games did UGC, but Cryptic is pretty much the ONLY OPTION. But it's so bad that I'm just ... giving up on UGC for now.
I feel the same way. But then I think, if you had offered me this 3 years ago even with the problems. I'd have bitten your hand off. I'm taking a little time before I go back in, I've had a play, pretty much done my next quest which is set in and Elven house. I just lack the motivation to add the written parts. It's not my strong suit.
I'm trying to remind myself it's not just about getting plays. I think I have lost my way somewhat. Every artist should strive to get their art seen but it's not the be all and end all.
And really, what is ambiguous about the 'Best' tab? 'Most popular' may be more apt, but you can't deny the fact the quests that appear on it have achieved the highest ratings. Someone once suggested a 'what's being played currently' tab in addition to the 'all-time best'. A nice idea but I suspect the lists would be almost identical. Cue more complaining.
Narayan, I don't even know if you are an author. If you are, don't you think it a little hypocritical to expect Cryptic to be doing more to promote your quest and get it/them on the list, when you apparently have no interest in promoting it/them yourself?
Seriously? You stated (and I am in disputing you) two things. 1. That your adjusted rating must be at least 4.2?. And 2. That there is a limited number of quests that can be on the list. So you can have the needed adjusted rating and still not be on the best tab, Right? (Ambiguous: open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations) So by your own statement ( 'Most popular' may be more apt) it is indeed ambiguous. Question for you. Do you know "exactly" how the Best List works?
I was an author. I have removed my quests.
Now... hypocritical? You yourself have stated that authors cannot be trusted. Yet you expect me to come here and beg authors to play/review my quests? Isn't that a little hypocritical?
You do realize that the vast majority of players do not use these forums as a whole. Let alone the foundry sub-forum.
Cryptic should have a way to promote your quests in-game. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of quests... Yet how many quests show up on all of the lists?
And I do not promote my quests because they whole system is FUBAR. (I was a member of the Scribes Enclave and did my promoting (what little I did) there.)
I created quests, mostly, for my own enjoyment. But that has changed due to Cryptic. ( I will not go further into that ) And I will not add to Cryptics log-in numbers until something is done about the whole fiasco of the foundry and listing system.
I know this is a little jumbled, but oh well..
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
As a non-author I am afforded the luxury of being a little more pragmatic, I guess. I understand there has to be a limit to the number of quests shown in game, just as there is a limit to the number of quests we can have in a quest journal. It's probably also important to realise the OP didn't understand how the tags work, which resulted in this thread being made - basically, his initial complaint is invalid.
"Do you think it is working how it should?" Yes, I do. Which isn't to say it couldn't be improved. "Would you not rather authors tag their own quests...?" No, absolutely not. Sorry anton, this isn't directed at you or anyone personally, but it has been proven time and again that authors generally cannot be trusted to be objective and/or honest. However, you can add tags to your description and they will show up in a basic keyword search. "...or at the very least quests show up in number of tags per play when searched?" I would love tags to be weighted yes. Though everyone has to bear in mind this will still favour the most-played quests. "do you not get frustrated that some of your favourite authors are not getting on the new tab or seen?" Not really as I have my favourites on my subscribed tab. However, I do get frustrated at all the dross that gets churned out as a completed quests, especially when they have been five-starred by fellow authors.
What I would like to see is a database of quests accessible from the official website. Expect to see me say this a lot, because I truly believe the results we get from the catalogue as it is now is about as good as it is ever going to get.
Yes there has to be a limit of the number of quests listed. But would it not be better to have pages of quests? List the first 50 quests and have an option to list the next 50.
I find it rather funny that you say authors cannot be trusted. Yet, by default, you say that players can be trusted to be honest with rating and tagging.
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Sadly I agree that it will never be better. That's not to say it couldn't be. Why not display quests based on an average rating rather than an adjusted rating. All this would do is change the look of the best tab so a quest that has 30 plays and 30 5 stars will be top. If like you said it gets their by dishonest authors then it will soon fall of the list.
I have never rated a quest I would consider dross. That is not to say I haven't rated one that you would consider dross. That's just opinions I guess.
I don't see how you can say authors can't be trusted but players can be. Just look at the tags that Tired of being a hero has. Lore indeed. Great quest though and it deserves it's place at the top. Just not on a Lore search.
Like I said I don't mind which they choose, Authors tag or tag numbers mean something in the display. But imo authors are much more trust worthy than many players. My Dwarven Rebellion quest has 4 tags for adjustable combat. I must have missed something there. If the numbers had weight then it would even out over time. Which I agree would be even better than Authors tagging that's not to say authors shouldn't be able to start it off though.
Also I agree that number of quests shown should be limited. Not as much as they are though, it dose seem to be a little bigger now.. Also this recent change in republished quests should have been anticipated, why can't they set a function that means quests can only go onto the new tab once. There wouldn't be a problem then.
A database of quests accessible from the official website would be great.
What I would like to see in the tagging system is both. Let the author tag the quest the way he thinks it should be tagged. And then let the players tag it also. That way you get to see how the author was intending the quest and how the players are actually seeing it.
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Seriously? You stated (and I am in disputing you) two things. 1. That your adjusted rating must be at least 4.2?. And 2. That there is a limited number of quests that can be on the list. So you can have the needed adjusted rating and still not be on the best tab, Right?
The 4.2 was pre-patch and from memory, but there is indeed a cut-off. Yes, quests close to that cut-off can have the misfortune of falling on the wrong side, but does that mean there should be no restriction, in game, of how many quests are seen? No. It would be lag central at the job board and would result in seeing even less than we do already.
Cryptic should have a way to promote your quests in-game. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of quests... Yet how many quests show up on all of the lists?
How do you expect that to be presented? You said yourself there are 1000s of quests - over 100,000, if what I read in these forums is correct - so just HOW is Cryptic supposed to promote them all?
No one said you should come in here begging for plays. I have played plenty of quests that I only heard of because their authors were prepared to sit in PE advertising their work via Zone chat. Scribes isn't a public forum, so no idea how successful promotion is there, but I don't even remember seeing a quest in your signature here.
The 4.2 was pre-patch and from memory, but there is indeed a cut-off. Yes, quests close to that cut-off can have the misfortune of falling on the wrong side, but does that mean there should be no restriction, in game, of how many quests are seen? No. It would be lag central at the job board and would result in seeing even less than we do already.
How do you expect that to be presented? You said yourself there are 1000s of quests - over 100,000, if what I read in these forums is correct - so just HOW is Cryptic supposed to promote them all?
No one said you should come in here begging for plays. I have played plenty of quests that I only heard of because their authors were prepared to sit in PE advertising their work via Zone chat. Scribes isn't a public forum, so no idea how successful promotion is there, but I don't even remember seeing a quest in your signature here.
Why should there be a cut off if that cutoff will not allow all quests above that cutoff to be listed? Why not just have the top 50? (or whatever number you want) What ever the rating is on the 50th quest is the bottom. If a quest gets a better rating then number 50 then it gets on the list and the last one drops off.
You say you have played "plenty" of quests because of chat. Care to quantify "plenty" 5? 10? 50?
And you do realize that sitting and advertizing on the zone chat could be considered spamming? And could get you in trouble.
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Why should there be a cut off if that cutoff will not allow all quests above that cutoff to be listed? Why not just have the top 50?
That's effectively what we have already *confused*
You say you have played "plenty" of quests because of chat. Care to quantify "plenty" 5? 10? 50?
And you do realize that sitting and advertizing on the zone chat could be considered spamming? And could get you in trouble.
Over 10, below 50. Put it this way, whenever I have heard a shout from an author asking for plays, there has only been one person I ignored (the gold pit fella), so from my perspective and regardless of numbers, this is a good way for an author to get their quests played.
And anything in zone chat could be considered spamming if it is indeed spamming. What these authors are doing is communicating with other players, there is a difference between that and spamming, you know.
Oh well. You can at least link it from the editable version...that should help.
Also, I am in game right now playing around with the quick search function. 'Lore' brings up several little-played quests besides the usual suspects; I know you weren't looking for lore specifically, just non lore-breaking quests, but there is actually a ton of interesting sounding quests using 'lore' as a search term. Do what I do and look from the bottom up :cool:
After reading most of the post here. I am still left a little confused about the system that is in place but I will deal with it. I guess I am left spamming my foundry in zone chat from time to time. What other options are there besides these forums?
Hey Gang,
This is an absolutely fantastic discussion and exactly the thing we want to see about the tag system.
As I stated previously, we are going to be watching the system, how it is used and received very closely. That system has not had a lot of time to really be used, adopted and stressed. To be honest we need more data points and giving the system more time in the hands of the community will give us just that.
There are some short term adjustments we can make to how tags are added. The one bug of tags sticking around review to review is on the list to get addressed ASAP. Additionally we can try making tagging required but that is an extreme step in my opinion. Something we can also look into is increasing the visibility of tags on the review process so that more players see it before submitting their review.
We like the idea of adding weights to the tags and there are a few things we can do to the catalog and its tabs that cater to and promote specific content. We have also talked about ways to clean up the search.
I agree that the search and catalog can be improved upon and we made a huge leap forward in the catalog and search with the Fury of the Feywild update. Although there is an improvement to the catalog our job is not done. We will continue to improve search as part of our ongoing goal to help authors get their quests seen and played.
What we really need to do is get more data and see how the catalog is used before we can make big changes. I thank you very much for working with us to make the catalog better.
0
saerraelMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2013
I, personally, think a % per reviews per tag(s) used would be interesting. Though even then more visible quests will receive higher (numbers) of tags.
I also think this may be not be an easy fix.
Asides this, how about implementing an X max of tags one may give a quest?
I, personally, think a % per reviews per tag(s) used would be interesting. Though even then more visible quests will receive higher (numbers) of tags.
I also think this may be not be an easy fix.
Asides this, how about implementing an X max of tags one may give a quest?
The issue I could see with a straight %, is older quests that are just starting to be tagged will have a much smaller percentage than a new quest that benefits from having tags available since its first publish.
For example, those "Story" quests with thousands of pre-Feywild plays/reviews will have to overcome quite a lot to balance against the new quest with 20-reviews that were all marked "Story".
Some people might love that, others would have issue.
I'm not opposed to "max tags/review"... though I'm not sure what the right # would be.
That's effectively what we have already *confused*
It is not what we have if there is a minimum adjusted number to meet and a total number that will show. You can, and probably do, have quests that meet the minimum adjusted number but do not make the list number cutoff. I say get rid of the minimum adjusted number and just list the top 50, or whatever number you want.
Over 10, below 50. Put it this way, whenever I have heard a shout from an author asking for plays, there has only been one person I ignored (the gold pit fella), so from my perspective and regardless of numbers, this is a good way for an author to get their quests played.
And anything in zone chat could be considered spamming if it is indeed spamming. What these authors are doing is communicating with other players, there is a difference between that and spamming, you know.
It all depends on how you look at it. Someone communicating with other players advertising their guild could be considered spamming if done too often. The same with quest review requests.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
0
saerraelMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
The issue I could see with a straight %, is older quests that are just starting to be tagged will have a much smaller percentage than a new quest that benefits from having tags available since its first publish.
Yeah, I get you, but I'm quite for cycling older quests for newer ones.
After reading most of the post here. I am still left a little confused about the system that is in place but I will deal with it. I guess I am left spamming my foundry in zone chat from time to time. What other options are there besides these forums?
Spamming = every 30 seconds
Promotion = a couple/few times per hour especially just before Foundry events.
+1,357,982 for this. Sooo nice having you guys share even just "thoughts" about things - we know nothing is set in stone, but I think it's (hopefully) nice to hear from those of us in the trenches.
I, personally, think a % per reviews per tag(s) used would be interesting. Though even then more visible quests will receive higher (numbers) of tags.
I would like to see the option to turn off ratings and use a weighted search by a % of the tags made. (Not reviews.)
For example: Take a quest has has been tagged by players 50 times. And 40 (%80) of them tagged it Combat Heavy. Now have it show up higher than a quest that was tagged 500 times but was also tagged Combat heavy 40 (%8) times.
They could do a similar thing with the exclude. Since someone will undoubtedly (and eventually) tag our quests as everything. Have the exclude option only exclude quests if they are tagged by a % of the total times it was tagged. Maybe 5% or 10%.
It is not what we have if there is a minimum adjusted number to meet and a total number that will show. You can, and probably do, have quests that meet the minimum adjusted number but do not make the list number cutoff. I say get rid of the minimum adjusted number and just list the top 50, or whatever number you want.
And what determines the top 50? At the moment it is the adjusted rating.
If you would like a different way of calculating what determines 'Best' perhaps you should clarify that, otherwise we will continue to go around in circles.
The one bug of tags sticking around review to review is on the list to get addressed ASAP
Great news!
I'd also like to add my thanks for you popping in. It's reassuring to know the team is still working on improving the catalogue.
I think it would help a lot if there were a factsheet somewhere that explained how each tab works in terms of plays and reviews (and possibly the number of visible quests per page/search and the reason for those caps). If we have a better understanding of how the catalogue works and the limits imposed, we can provide feedback based on actual processes. A better understanding may also curtail some complaints that arise from a misunderstanding of how the catalogue works.
Lastly, I would also like to thank the team for the improvements included in the Feywild patch. The Quick Search field may not help authors find 'their' quests, but from a Foundry players perspective it has opened up the catalogue to a vast range of quests that were never visible before (at least not obviously so). I love, love, love it. Keep up the good work
And what determines the top 50? At the moment it is the adjusted rating.
If you would like a different way of calculating what determines 'Best' perhaps you should clarify that, otherwise we will continue to go around in circles.
Simple. Use the adjusted rating. Just do not have a minimum rating. In other words... If you use the top 50 for instance. Show the quests that have the top 50 adjusted rating. If that happens to be 4.3 this week then so be it. If it changes next week to 4.4 then so be it. That way you only have the top 50 no matter what the rating is. If someone wants to see how close they are to the top 50 they only have to look at the rating of the last quest.
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
@Karitr... Here is the problem as I see it.
Right now you have 5 tabs...1. Best. 2. Featured. 3. Subscribed. 4. New. 5. For Review.
Now let's say that you were right in that there are 100,000 UGC quests.
The Featured and Subscribed tabs can be tossed out since they are only for Cryptic (number 2 tab) or for the individual to follow a certain author (number 3). The Best tab is for the best of the best, so that can actually be thrown out too. Now we have no idea as to how many of the 100,000 quests would be in the "for review" tab if it listed every quest that fit in the category. Nor do we know how many would be in the "new" tab. But it really makes no difference. Now here is the count for each tab the last time I logged in. Best tab had 65 quests listed. The Featured tab had 27 quests listed. The New tab had 65 quests listed. And the For Review tab had 85 quests listed. That is a total of 242 quests listed out of 100,000. Which is 0.00242% of quests listed. That is bad.
What I would like to see is another tab that lists all quests over a certain adjusted rating. It should be at least a 1.5 maybe even a 2.0 adjusted rating. It all depends on how many quests would be above the rating cut off. Now I know it would be impossible to list all of those quest at one time, but there could be some sort of paging system that lists 50 quests per page. And a way to skip pages it the player looking at this tab wants to skip to the last page of quests or any other page for that matter. This way the decent quests would be listed, in a way, for players to just scroll through them. And it would eliminate the bad quests from being listed. The way it is now... There is no real way for a player to just browse through the quests.
I don't think we will ever see this... But a person can dream.
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Use the adjusted rating. Just do not have a minimum rating. In other words... If you use the top 50 for instance. Show the quests that have the top 50 adjusted rating. If that happens to be 4.3 this week then so be it. If it changes next week to 4.4 then so be it. That way you only have the top 50 no matter what the rating is. If someone wants to see how close they are to the top 50 they only have to look at the rating of the last quest.
And that is exactly how it works now, except by your own count we have a top 65 not a top 50. Isn't more better?
FYI, the 'Featured' tab normally only displays the quests most recently featured. So, for example, if on the next update three Foundrys are given spotlight status, then we will only see those three in the "Featured" tab. Or at least, that is how it worked pre-patch, it may have changed.
The Review tab is, in my opinion, the most problematic. If you have ever tried to beta review quests at random, you will know that several have been abandoned in a state of non-completion. Ergo, they will never be removed from the Review tab by the automatic system - as it stands now - as they will never achieve the necessary 5 reviews to move off that tab. Well, until there is a patch like the recent one where the republishing was eventually left to the authors due to the changes in the toolset, but this isn't something we can rely upon happening every time.
Now I know it would be impossible to list all of those quest at one time, but there could be some sort of paging system that lists 50 quests per page. And a way to skip pages it the player looking at this tab wants to skip to the last page of quests or any other page for that matter
This is likely to cause extreme lag in game and not just for the person searching, but for others going about their normal game. Which is why I would like to see an archive of all published quests from the website or gateway. There will still be lag of course, but it is manageable within that environment (at least from a user's perspective).
By the way, have you tried using the Quick Search field? It would seem to be as near to what you would hope to see and it is already in game.
The Review tab is, in my opinion, the most problematic. If you have ever tried to beta review quests at random, you will know that several have been abandoned in a state of non-completion. Ergo, they will never be removed from the Review tab by the automatic system - as it stands now - as they will never achieve the necessary 5 reviews to move off that tab. Well, until there is a patch like the recent one where the republishing was eventually left to the authors due to the changes in the toolset, but this isn't something we can rely upon happening every time.
I really don't know why this is a problem that isn't fixed. Couldn't they simply remove or unpublish quests that have been in for review for a couple weeks? If no players have completed them. And if the author hasn't republished any edits to them. Within that time period.
Seems like it could be completely automated. The quests would remain intact and unchanged. But this would ensure that abandoned quests wouldn't clutter up that tab for long.
Comments
I didn't think plays without reviews had any affect, kind of like voters not voting. I could be wrong. I know you can just star without leaving a comment but that still counts as a review. That's what I thought anyway.
On another note. Some of the new content is great. Loving the elven stuff and flowers. Think I will add to my current quests before I make a new one. 3d edit is like 100% better than it was. It's a shame that the problems have kind of overshadowed this really.
Edit to add: Yes, I am not sure about the 'no review' status, but I think number of plays factor into the adjusted rating, so plays with no review kind of do have an impact?
I think you may be right. I don't want/mean to sound so depressive. I'm just a bit gutted that my quest An Orc Massacre (Which I think is by far my best) just hit's that problem with the re-published quests in the way. I posted it a couple of days before the patch. Then I republished it just after. Had I known I would have waited a week. I'm getting a couple of plays a day so can't complain but when every other comment on part 1 asks for part two it's a little sad. It's there, they just don't look. I get the feeling that many players think every quest gets featured.
But I have had loads plays on A Magical Mystery tour, haha! I look at it now and think it's cringe worthy. Still my favourite though.
Sigh.
It wouldn't be so bad if other games did UGC, but Cryptic is pretty much the ONLY OPTION. But it's so bad that I'm just ... giving up on UGC for now.
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
I feel the same way. But then I think, if you had offered me this 3 years ago even with the problems. I'd have bitten your hand off. I'm taking a little time before I go back in, I've had a play, pretty much done my next quest which is set in and Elven house. I just lack the motivation to add the written parts. It's not my strong suit.
I'm trying to remind myself it's not just about getting plays. I think I have lost my way somewhat. Every artist should strive to get their art seen but it's not the be all and end all.
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
Seriously? You stated (and I am in disputing you) two things. 1. That your adjusted rating must be at least 4.2?. And 2. That there is a limited number of quests that can be on the list. So you can have the needed adjusted rating and still not be on the best tab, Right? (Ambiguous: open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations) So by your own statement ( 'Most popular' may be more apt) it is indeed ambiguous. Question for you. Do you know "exactly" how the Best List works?
I was an author. I have removed my quests.
Now... hypocritical? You yourself have stated that authors cannot be trusted. Yet you expect me to come here and beg authors to play/review my quests? Isn't that a little hypocritical?
You do realize that the vast majority of players do not use these forums as a whole. Let alone the foundry sub-forum.
Cryptic should have a way to promote your quests in-game. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of quests... Yet how many quests show up on all of the lists?
And I do not promote my quests because they whole system is FUBAR. (I was a member of the Scribes Enclave and did my promoting (what little I did) there.)
I created quests, mostly, for my own enjoyment. But that has changed due to Cryptic. ( I will not go further into that ) And I will not add to Cryptics log-in numbers until something is done about the whole fiasco of the foundry and listing system.
I know this is a little jumbled, but oh well..
Narayan
Narayan
Yes there has to be a limit of the number of quests listed. But would it not be better to have pages of quests? List the first 50 quests and have an option to list the next 50.
I find it rather funny that you say authors cannot be trusted. Yet, by default, you say that players can be trusted to be honest with rating and tagging.
Narayan
Narayan
What I would like to see in the tagging system is both. Let the author tag the quest the way he thinks it should be tagged. And then let the players tag it also. That way you get to see how the author was intending the quest and how the players are actually seeing it.
Narayan
Narayan
The 4.2 was pre-patch and from memory, but there is indeed a cut-off. Yes, quests close to that cut-off can have the misfortune of falling on the wrong side, but does that mean there should be no restriction, in game, of how many quests are seen? No. It would be lag central at the job board and would result in seeing even less than we do already.
How do you expect that to be presented? You said yourself there are 1000s of quests - over 100,000, if what I read in these forums is correct - so just HOW is Cryptic supposed to promote them all?
No one said you should come in here begging for plays. I have played plenty of quests that I only heard of because their authors were prepared to sit in PE advertising their work via Zone chat. Scribes isn't a public forum, so no idea how successful promotion is there, but I don't even remember seeing a quest in your signature here.
Why should there be a cut off if that cutoff will not allow all quests above that cutoff to be listed? Why not just have the top 50? (or whatever number you want) What ever the rating is on the 50th quest is the bottom. If a quest gets a better rating then number 50 then it gets on the list and the last one drops off.
You say you have played "plenty" of quests because of chat. Care to quantify "plenty" 5? 10? 50?
And you do realize that sitting and advertizing on the zone chat could be considered spamming? And could get you in trouble.
Narayan
Narayan
That's effectively what we have already *confused*
Over 10, below 50. Put it this way, whenever I have heard a shout from an author asking for plays, there has only been one person I ignored (the gold pit fella), so from my perspective and regardless of numbers, this is a good way for an author to get their quests played.
And anything in zone chat could be considered spamming if it is indeed spamming. What these authors are doing is communicating with other players, there is a difference between that and spamming, you know.
I can't link it to the featured one
Also, I am in game right now playing around with the quick search function. 'Lore' brings up several little-played quests besides the usual suspects; I know you weren't looking for lore specifically, just non lore-breaking quests, but there is actually a ton of interesting sounding quests using 'lore' as a search term. Do what I do and look from the bottom up :cool:
This is an absolutely fantastic discussion and exactly the thing we want to see about the tag system.
As I stated previously, we are going to be watching the system, how it is used and received very closely. That system has not had a lot of time to really be used, adopted and stressed. To be honest we need more data points and giving the system more time in the hands of the community will give us just that.
There are some short term adjustments we can make to how tags are added. The one bug of tags sticking around review to review is on the list to get addressed ASAP. Additionally we can try making tagging required but that is an extreme step in my opinion. Something we can also look into is increasing the visibility of tags on the review process so that more players see it before submitting their review.
We like the idea of adding weights to the tags and there are a few things we can do to the catalog and its tabs that cater to and promote specific content. We have also talked about ways to clean up the search.
I agree that the search and catalog can be improved upon and we made a huge leap forward in the catalog and search with the Fury of the Feywild update. Although there is an improvement to the catalog our job is not done. We will continue to improve search as part of our ongoing goal to help authors get their quests seen and played.
What we really need to do is get more data and see how the catalog is used before we can make big changes. I thank you very much for working with us to make the catalog better.
I also think this may be not be an easy fix.
Asides this, how about implementing an X max of tags one may give a quest?
[SIGPIC]http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=98570189&dateline=1372572330[/SIGPIC]
NW-DCJV53UTU
[Open for play, link to spotlight thread]
The issue I could see with a straight %, is older quests that are just starting to be tagged will have a much smaller percentage than a new quest that benefits from having tags available since its first publish.
For example, those "Story" quests with thousands of pre-Feywild plays/reviews will have to overcome quite a lot to balance against the new quest with 20-reviews that were all marked "Story".
Some people might love that, others would have issue.
I'm not opposed to "max tags/review"... though I'm not sure what the right # would be.
Thanks for keeping us updated, RoBoBo!
It is not what we have if there is a minimum adjusted number to meet and a total number that will show. You can, and probably do, have quests that meet the minimum adjusted number but do not make the list number cutoff. I say get rid of the minimum adjusted number and just list the top 50, or whatever number you want.
It all depends on how you look at it. Someone communicating with other players advertising their guild could be considered spamming if done too often. The same with quest review requests.
Narayan
Yeah, I get you, but I'm quite for cycling older quests for newer ones.
[/opinion]
[SIGPIC]http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=98570189&dateline=1372572330[/SIGPIC]
NW-DCJV53UTU
[Open for play, link to spotlight thread]
Spamming = every 30 seconds
Promotion = a couple/few times per hour especially just before Foundry events.
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
+1,357,982 for this. Sooo nice having you guys share even just "thoughts" about things - we know nothing is set in stone, but I think it's (hopefully) nice to hear from those of us in the trenches.
...now just fix all my **** bugs! :cool:
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
I would like to see the option to turn off ratings and use a weighted search by a % of the tags made. (Not reviews.)
For example: Take a quest has has been tagged by players 50 times. And 40 (%80) of them tagged it Combat Heavy. Now have it show up higher than a quest that was tagged 500 times but was also tagged Combat heavy 40 (%8) times.
They could do a similar thing with the exclude. Since someone will undoubtedly (and eventually) tag our quests as everything. Have the exclude option only exclude quests if they are tagged by a % of the total times it was tagged. Maybe 5% or 10%.
And what determines the top 50? At the moment it is the adjusted rating.
If you would like a different way of calculating what determines 'Best' perhaps you should clarify that, otherwise we will continue to go around in circles.
Great news!
I'd also like to add my thanks for you popping in. It's reassuring to know the team is still working on improving the catalogue.
I think it would help a lot if there were a factsheet somewhere that explained how each tab works in terms of plays and reviews (and possibly the number of visible quests per page/search and the reason for those caps). If we have a better understanding of how the catalogue works and the limits imposed, we can provide feedback based on actual processes. A better understanding may also curtail some complaints that arise from a misunderstanding of how the catalogue works.
Lastly, I would also like to thank the team for the improvements included in the Feywild patch. The Quick Search field may not help authors find 'their' quests, but from a Foundry players perspective it has opened up the catalogue to a vast range of quests that were never visible before (at least not obviously so). I love, love, love it. Keep up the good work
Simple. Use the adjusted rating. Just do not have a minimum rating. In other words... If you use the top 50 for instance. Show the quests that have the top 50 adjusted rating. If that happens to be 4.3 this week then so be it. If it changes next week to 4.4 then so be it. That way you only have the top 50 no matter what the rating is. If someone wants to see how close they are to the top 50 they only have to look at the rating of the last quest.
Narayan
Narayan
Right now you have 5 tabs...1. Best. 2. Featured. 3. Subscribed. 4. New. 5. For Review.
Now let's say that you were right in that there are 100,000 UGC quests.
The Featured and Subscribed tabs can be tossed out since they are only for Cryptic (number 2 tab) or for the individual to follow a certain author (number 3). The Best tab is for the best of the best, so that can actually be thrown out too. Now we have no idea as to how many of the 100,000 quests would be in the "for review" tab if it listed every quest that fit in the category. Nor do we know how many would be in the "new" tab. But it really makes no difference. Now here is the count for each tab the last time I logged in. Best tab had 65 quests listed. The Featured tab had 27 quests listed. The New tab had 65 quests listed. And the For Review tab had 85 quests listed. That is a total of 242 quests listed out of 100,000. Which is 0.00242% of quests listed. That is bad.
What I would like to see is another tab that lists all quests over a certain adjusted rating. It should be at least a 1.5 maybe even a 2.0 adjusted rating. It all depends on how many quests would be above the rating cut off. Now I know it would be impossible to list all of those quest at one time, but there could be some sort of paging system that lists 50 quests per page. And a way to skip pages it the player looking at this tab wants to skip to the last page of quests or any other page for that matter. This way the decent quests would be listed, in a way, for players to just scroll through them. And it would eliminate the bad quests from being listed. The way it is now... There is no real way for a player to just browse through the quests.
I don't think we will ever see this... But a person can dream.
Narayan
Narayan
And that is exactly how it works now, except by your own count we have a top 65 not a top 50. Isn't more better?
FYI, the 'Featured' tab normally only displays the quests most recently featured. So, for example, if on the next update three Foundrys are given spotlight status, then we will only see those three in the "Featured" tab. Or at least, that is how it worked pre-patch, it may have changed.
The Review tab is, in my opinion, the most problematic. If you have ever tried to beta review quests at random, you will know that several have been abandoned in a state of non-completion. Ergo, they will never be removed from the Review tab by the automatic system - as it stands now - as they will never achieve the necessary 5 reviews to move off that tab. Well, until there is a patch like the recent one where the republishing was eventually left to the authors due to the changes in the toolset, but this isn't something we can rely upon happening every time.
This is likely to cause extreme lag in game and not just for the person searching, but for others going about their normal game. Which is why I would like to see an archive of all published quests from the website or gateway. There will still be lag of course, but it is manageable within that environment (at least from a user's perspective).
By the way, have you tried using the Quick Search field? It would seem to be as near to what you would hope to see and it is already in game.
I really don't know why this is a problem that isn't fixed. Couldn't they simply remove or unpublish quests that have been in for review for a couple weeks? If no players have completed them. And if the author hasn't republished any edits to them. Within that time period.
Seems like it could be completely automated. The quests would remain intact and unchanged. But this would ensure that abandoned quests wouldn't clutter up that tab for long.