Yeah, a time limit should be imposed just as it is with the New tab.
Lets face it, even if a quest can be completed if it hasn't achieved 5 reviews in a week, say, then the only person responsible for that is the author.
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?
But the way it has been explain to me that is not how it works. If it worked the way you seem to think it does, the way you are telling me , the way I suggested... There would be no minimum adjusted figure. Let me explain it this way. The lowest of the top 65 needs to be above a certain adjusted rating as it is now. What I want is that adjusted number to go away. So if the lowest quest (number 65) has an adjusted rating of 3.9 so be it. But that is not how you explained it. Or how I perceive it working.
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.
Why won't they be removed? If they get no reviews, after a certain amount of time they disappear, right? I know mine did.
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).
Having a list of all quests on the website is not a good idea as far as I am concerned. You have the same problem you have with the forums. You will have a very, very small portion of players using it. Probably even smaller then the number who use these forums. And no, even a small number increase will not help.
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.
No. As I stated before I am at the present time not logging in. I refuse to give Cryptic my login numbers to increase the total.
Just my windmill to tilt at.
And if they want to ban me from posting on these forums... Then so be it.
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Yeah, a time limit should be imposed just as it is with the New tab.
Lets face it, even if a quest can be completed if it hasn't achieved 5 reviews in a week, say, then the only person responsible for that is the author.
Yeah, let's blame the authors for Cryptic's screw ups... After all they only really care about the best authors anyways. Right?
[shakes head]
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
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.
They haven't even automated locking old threads so they can't be necro-ed (and necroing results in a lock), so I wouldn't count on it.
Clearing out the catalog of "abandoned" quests is something we have looked at and something I have mentioned several times. An automated system would need to be very limited and would constantly be scrutinized for it's effectiveness or overreach. I have a feeling that most of that scrutiny would be driven by perception of the depth or accuracy of the automated system and desire to get ones quest more visibility.
Let's brainstorm a few ideas in this thread.... (please note that this is not a design of a system or a plan of action to create an automated system)
What qualifies as an abandoned quest?
- n days since author logged in?
- n days since author made edits?
- time in review >/= to n days?
I think an interesting question would be rule breakers. If we did have rules what would be allowable rule breakers? The reason I ask is that there are plenty of cases where it would be reasonable for an author to need some leeway.
Are there different rules per tab?
-can top rated/played quests become abandoned?
Let's keep it simple and stick to "abandoned" quests and what some rules COULD be to assist in cleaning out the catalog.
Clearing out the catalog of "abandoned" quests is something we have looked at and something I have mentioned several times. An automated system would need to be very limited and would constantly be scrutinized for it's effectiveness or overreach. I have a feeling that most of that scrutiny would be driven by perception of the depth or accuracy of the automated system and desire to get ones quest more visibility.
Let's brainstorm a few ideas in this thread.... (please note that this is not a design of a system or a plan of action to create an automated system)
What qualifies as an abandoned quest?
- n days since author logged in?
- n days since author made edits?
- time in review >/= to n days?
I think an interesting question would be rule breakers. If we did have rules what would be allowable rule breakers? The reason I ask is that there are plenty of cases where it would be reasonable for an author to need some leeway.
Are there different rules per tab?
-can top rated/played quests become abandoned?
Let's keep it simple and stick to "abandoned" quests and what some rules COULD be to assist in cleaning out the catalog.
That is a tough one to tackle.
Maybe start with the 20 plays and under. If they have not achieved the 20 plays to become a daily and are inactive on there account for 60 days. Then the foundry become abandon. Something along those lines. I am not sure about placing days/times to expire on foundry maps is a good idea. Accounts sound like a safer way to go.
Also some odd publish bug happening today. It is publishing older versions and bouncing from old to new when I look them up in the catalog.
What qualifies as an abandoned quest?
- n days since author logged in?
- n days since author made edits?
- time in review >/= to n days?
Hi badbotlimit, it's good of you to come and do this for us.
Here is my own thoughts.
I think two things together should decide what qualifies as an abandoned quest:
1st is no plays for 21 days.
2nd no author log in for 21 days.
Only together because I see no problem with people taking time out and then coming back. It would be a shame to lose good quests when nothing is wrong with them. perhaps when a quest gets no plays an automated message could be sent along the lines of, your quests may be broken...
Could we also have something that stops quests appearing on the new tab more than once. I'm not sure if there is when we republish our own quests but there clearly is not when the quests are republished by the game. It would avoid a situation like now where all the quests on the new tab are also on the featured tab and the best tab.
Thanks!
0
celantraMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Silverstars, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 465
edited September 2013
Immediately what comes to mind is whatever the rules are should be consistent across all quest categories. New, Best, Review, regardless all quests should fall under the same rules. Though I have to think a bit about Review.
The only exception might be featured quests as the features technically belong to Cryptic once they are featured, as authors loose all control over them.
Second I would say that rules should apply to author participation, and not be related to actions per quest or such, as that starts to become a little silly. I would say that as long as authors have been active in the foundry editor, quests should remain active.
I would say that this is a free to play game. As such the period when quests go stale do to inactivity should take into account a more transient player base then might otherwise be considered. I might suggest a two or three month period before inactivity. Now that I think about it, I would say that time in review should be less. If authors are not actively working to move their quests through the review process, then they need to be removed in order to keep this list manageable. I would give these at most four weeks to get the five reviews necessary. I have usually been able to get through this process within a few days.
I would also offer that the version currently published may be different then the version currently in progress in the Authors Library. As a result I would say that a copy of the currently published quest should be saved back to the authors quest list regardless of if there is room on the list or not. The result of simply doing a deletion could well mean that the author would be unable to recover from the removed state.
Clearing out the catalog of "abandoned" quests is something we have looked at and something I have mentioned several times. An automated system would need to be very limited and would constantly be scrutinized for it's effectiveness or overreach. I have a feeling that most of that scrutiny would be driven by perception of the depth or accuracy of the automated system and desire to get ones quest more visibility.
Let's brainstorm a few ideas in this thread.... (please note that this is not a design of a system or a plan of action to create an automated system)
What qualifies as an abandoned quest?
- n days since author logged in?
- n days since author made edits?
- time in review >/= to n days?
I think an interesting question would be rule breakers. If we did have rules what would be allowable rule breakers? The reason I ask is that there are plenty of cases where it would be reasonable for an author to need some leeway.
Are there different rules per tab?
-can top rated/played quests become abandoned?
Let's keep it simple and stick to "abandoned" quests and what some rules COULD be to assist in cleaning out the catalog.
Are you talking about completely deleting the abandoned quests from the servers?
If not then I am confused. I had a quest recently on the new list that had more then 5 reviews and 20 plays and was eligible for the daily. But after a short while it dropped completely off the new list. I have also had quests listed in the For Review tab that dropped off the list after a while. (which did not get the needed 5 reviews)
Now if you are talking about completely removing them from the servers then it needs to be a much longer time.
Narayan
Edit: PS... And why are we wanting to remove them. Broken quests I can see. But just because a quest is "abandoned" does not mean someone would not enjoy it IF they could find it.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
What qualifies as an abandoned quest?
- n days since author logged in?
- n days since author made edits?
- time in review >/= to n days?
I think an interesting question would be rule breakers. If we did have rules what would be allowable rule breakers? The reason I ask is that there are plenty of cases where it would be reasonable for an author to need some leeway.
Are there different rules per tab?
-can top rated/played quests become abandoned?
As far as I am concerned, as long as a quest is getting plays it is not 'abandoned'. Authors aren't the only people in this community (:p), so using only their log-in or edit activity isn't enough.
Review tab - I think a maximum of 7 days to attain five reviews is ample, even for authors who have difficulty self-promoting. If a quest hasn't attained 5 plays in a week, it is probably a good indication that the quest is broken. The Review tab should be moving constantly, but before Feywild it still had quests published back in May. I'd say that at least 90% of the review quests were non-completable before the patch and that's probably a conservative estimate.
New tab - as is, but use the original date of publish - not a post publish edit date - to determine newness.
In general - no plays after 30 days? remove from the catalogue. It's fair to say that after 30 days of no plays, neither author or player has any interest in this quest.
Rule breakers - RP quest maps immediately come to mind. In the act of trying not to create exploitable maps, some authors deliberately hide the end chest. As these maps are little used (by that I mean they are usually intended for a tiny sub-section of the community, i.e. the author's immediate group of friends) and/or created only so an achievement can be accomplished, my personal thought is they should be sacrificed for the greater good. That's certainly better than using the Review tab to achieve constant visibility.
Personally I think it needs to be based on whether or not the quest is still getting plays. And give the author an option to reset the time by republishing the quest.
If a quest goes 3-4 weeks without getting a single play by anyone, then imo it should be pulled from the lists. Either something broke the quest and the author isn't fixing it. (It can't be completed.) Or no one knows about the quest. (And the author isn't bothering to advertise it.)
This would clear some of the uncompletable quests in the For Review tab. But it would also stop the possibility of a high ranking abandoned quest breaking. And getting stuck taking a spot in the lists because people can't review/rate a quest they can't finish.
I don't think author log in time should have anything to do with it. As long as the quest is getting played, let the players enjoy it. If it breaks, then people won't be able to play it and it will fall off the list.
Halgarth's Legacy-NWS-DSTGFZHFR
0
saerraelMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Personally I think it needs to be based on whether or not the quest is still getting plays. And give the author an option to reset the time by republishing the quest.
If a quest goes 3-4 weeks without getting a single play by anyone, then imo it should be pulled from the lists. Either something broke the quest and the author isn't fixing it. (It can't be completed.) Or no one knows about the quest. (And the author isn't bothering to advertise it.)
I'm very strongly against this. I also find given reasons to be presumptuous. A quest can very well be conclude-able and not get plays.
Not every author is interested in broadcasting their work, I do not think they should be punished for not wishing to do such.
I would vote for author log in time as this is an indication of said author still being active. If this is in-game, in the Foundry or whatever should not matter. I do think a longer time frame should be permitted, namely three months. Especially during holiday seasons.
And only to send an automated message (mail in game, PM on these official forums, as well as a message to the e-mail associated to the account) to one may respond with a reason of inactivity.
Broken quests should be easier to report. As well as exploit quests. Maybe an option on the pop up when you discard a quest. 'Was this quest unfinishable? Yes/ No.' No field for comments, though, or we're back to square Trolling Reviews.
I'm very strongly against this. I also find given reasons to be presumptuous. A quest can very well be conclude-able and not get plays.
Not every author is interested in broadcasting their work, I do not think they should be punished for not wishing to do such.
If no one is playing the quest. And the author isn't editing it. Then how does it punish anyone to not have it on the list? And I did mention having the author able to keep the quest up by republishing it. Republishing a quest once a month or so to keep it on the lists isn't punishment.
I would vote for author log in time as this is an indication of said author still being active.
Going by author log in time doesn't solve anything unfortunately. The author could still be playing, but have quit using the foundry editor. Their quests would still be cluttering up the lists.
I don't think there is a way to report them. And I doubt its a feasible solution. It would force a GM to play through every broken quest. Which is why we were looking at automated alternatives.
Maybe an option on the pop up when you discard a quest. 'Was this quest unfinishable? Yes/ No.' No field for comments, though, or we're back to square Trolling Reviews.
This would be trolled non-stop. Negative authors would go through marking other's quests as unplayable in an attempt to get rid of the competition. They'd have to either automate it to kick a quest after so many complaints. Or have a GM play through them. Neither would turn out well.
Is the goal to remove quests from players who aren't active or to remove quests that aren't being played/aren't up to some minimum standard, i.e. "abandoned" by the author or by the players?
It seems a bad thing to remove quality quests just because the author is no longer playing, especially because this is a F2P game. I don't know any stats, but based on what I see from myself and my friends, we rotate around through such games. If I took off a few months, there is less incentive to come back if my quests had all been deleted.
Is the goal to remove quests from players who aren't active or to remove quests that aren't being played/aren't up to some minimum standard, i.e. "abandoned" by the author or by the players?
It seems a bad thing to remove quality quests just because the author is no longer playing, especially because this is a F2P game. I don't know any stats, but based on what I see from myself and my friends, we rotate around through such games. If I took off a few months, there is less incentive to come back if my quests had all been deleted.
I don't think anything would actually be deleted. They would remove them from the lists or "un-publish" them. The author could always re-publish them when they came back.
That said, I agree with you. It doesn't matter if the author is here or not. If people are playing the quest it should stay up. What matters is if the quest is completable. And the only way to know that without having someone official run it is to go by plays.
Which is why I suggest removing them only if no one is playing the quests. But to let authors reset the time and keep the quest up by republishing if they wish.
Halgarth's Legacy-NWS-DSTGFZHFR
0
saerraelMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2013
QUOTE=runebane If no one is playing the quest. And the author isn't editing it. Then how does it punish anyone to not have it on the list?
It depends on if said quest is deleted or not. I, for one, would be quite upset to have my campaign quests removed because my regulars have already played it while I am working on the newest instalment.
It punishes the author of the quest. I thought that would be obvious.
Going by author log in time doesn't solve anything unfortunately. The author could still be playing, but have quit using the foundry editor. Their quests would still be cluttering up the lists.
So you are saying only those authors that dedicate % of time in the Foundry should be allowed to have a quest up? There are people out there that have only set up an RP spot for themselves (and/ or their friends). Going from your idea these kind of quests should be removed, too.
I don't think there is a way to report them. And I doubt its a feasible solution. It would force a GM to play through every broken quest. Which is why we were looking at automated alternatives.
Automated alternatives are bound to fail without a backup plan. I still stand by that broken and exploit quests should be easier to report and that this will have to lead to a human eye going over reported content.
This would be trolled non-stop. Negative authors would go through marking other's quests as unplayable in an attempt to get rid of the competition. They'd have to either automate it to kick a quest after so many complaints. Or have a GM play through them. Neither would turn out well.
Negative authors one star to Troll right now. Reporting in the manner I have suggested will need a more open approach. Such as the handle of the reporter being visible at least to the reported. I would also not think one report to lead to action, but rather a % per (attempted) plays.
No author login in 90 days AND No plays within 90 days
Three months!
Like politics, a week is a long time in an MMO, 90 days and you may as well not even bother removing. The tabs will be as they were before the patch, dominated by the same 65 quests - and that is especially frustrating of the review tab, the author's first chance to be seen. Only they won't be
Edit: May I just remind authors that it isn't any fun for players seeing the same quests dominate the lists. A quest that isn't being played does no one any good, not the author or the player.
Edit 2: And some of you complain it is so hard to be visible, yet when suggestions are made that give you more chance to be visible, you pooh pooh them. I really don't get it. Do any of you have quests that haven't been played in 30 days?
It depends on if said quest is deleted or not. I, for one, would be quite upset to have my campaign quests removed because my regulars have already played it while I am working on the newest instalment.
It punishes the author of the quest. I thought that would be obvious.
No one said anything about deleting a quest. Only removing them from a list. And asking an author to republish a quest once a month or so that isn't getting any plays isn't much of a punishment.
So you are saying only those authors that dedicate % of time in the Foundry should be allowed to have a quest up?
All I said was that they should be required to republish their quest. I mentioned that in the post you quoted the first time. If they can't take time out to load up the foundry editor and hit the publish button... then they certainly aren't making sure their quests are still playable.
There are people out there that have only set up an RP spot for themselves (and/ or their friends). Going from your idea these kind of quests should be removed, too.
Those are kind of a sticking point. They could get by with just republishing, like I suggested. But they really should get their quests enough reviews so that they are out of the For Review section.
Automated alternatives are bound to fail without a backup plan. I still stand by that broken and exploit quests should be easier to report and that this will have to lead to a human eye going over reported content.
If that was an option, then the For Review section wouldn't have been filled with broken quests to begin with. And exploit quests wouldn't have ever been a problem. Whether we like it or not, it seems the people in charge don't have the manpower to do that.
Negative authors one star to Troll right now. Reporting in the manner I have suggested will need a more open approach. Such as the handle of the reporter being visible at least to the reported. I would also not think one report to lead to action, but rather a % per (attempted) plays.
And with the system I mentioned a single successful play within a 3-4 week period would leave the quest safe. They wouldn't need a percent. And if the quest isn't getting plays, or the author doesn't have time to play their own quest... then they could republish it.
I think I'm going to drop it at this point as an agree to disagree thing. I edited my first response to your post with a clearer message of what I meant. But even in the post you originally quoted I mentioned the re-publish thing. Making it easy for an author to keep their quest up if they want it on the lists.
Halgarth's Legacy-NWS-DSTGFZHFR
0
saerraelMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I think I'm going to drop it at this point as an agree to disagree thing. I edited my first response to your post with a clearer message of what I meant. But even in the post you originally quoted I mentioned the re-publish thing. Making it easy for an author to keep their quest up if they want it on the lists.
Very well. I just hope you did not think I was attacking you, personally. I'm basically just concerned about certain kind of authors, here.
Karitr: I got minimal plays (like one play per day between three quests) unless I actively solicited plays constantly. Which meant another handful of plays.
I don't have the energy to develop good missions AND constantly pimp them.
I think all these measures are going to be inadequate without some form of cross linking/predictive suggestion.
Campaign: The Fenwick Cycle NWS-DKR9GB7KH
Wicks and Things: NW-DI4FMZRR4 : The Fenwick merchant family has lost a caravan! Can you help?
Beggar's Hollow: NW-DR6YG4J2L : Someone, or something, has stolen away many of the Fenwicks' children! Can you find out what happened to them?
Into the Fen Wood: NW-DL89DRG7B : Enter the heart of the forest. Can you discover the secret of the Fen Wood?
Like politics, a week is a long time in an MMO, 90 days and you may as well not even bother removing. The tabs will be as they were before the patch, dominated by the same 65 quests - and that is especially frustrating of the review tab, the author's first chance to be seen. Only they won't be
Edit: May I just remind authors that it isn't any fun for players seeing the same quests dominate the lists. A quest that isn't being played does no one any good, not the author or the player.
Edit 2: And some of you complain it is so hard to be visible, yet when suggestions are made that give you more chance to be visible, you pooh pooh them. I really don't get it. Do any of you have quests that haven't been played in 30 days?
What suggestions have been put forward. Are you talking about removing quests that are not being constantly promoted? Or deleting quests? And are you seriously talking about removing quests from the Best tab? I mean what would be the point of having a Best tab?
And I will ask this one more time... On the For Review and New tabs aren't the quests ther dropping off the lists anyways? I know mine have dropped off both tabs.
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
No one said anything about deleting a quest. Only removing them from a list. And asking an author to republish a quest once a month or so that isn't getting any plays isn't much of a punishment.
Again, aren't quests dropped off the New and For review tabs now?
All I said was that they should be required to republish their quest. I mentioned that in the post you quoted the first time. If they can't take time out to load up the foundry editor and hit the publish button... then they certainly aren't making sure their quests are still playable.
Those are kind of a sticking point. They could get by with just republishing, like I suggested. But they really should get their quests enough reviews so that they are out of the For Review section.
If that was an option, then the For Review section wouldn't have been filled with broken quests to begin with. And exploit quests wouldn't have ever been a problem. Whether we like it or not, it seems the people in charge don't have the manpower to do that.
Not sure about broken quests... But exploit quests are where they are and stay there because players play them and rate them high.
And with the system I mentioned a single successful play within a 3-4 week period would leave the quest safe. They wouldn't need a percent. And if the quest isn't getting plays, or the author doesn't have time to play their own quest... then they could republish it.
I think I'm going to drop it at this point as an agree to disagree thing. I edited my first response to your post with a clearer message of what I meant. But even in the post you originally quoted I mentioned the re-publish thing. Making it easy for an author to keep their quest up if they want it on the lists.
LOL you make it sound sooo easy. Do it your way and every author can get their quests on the list and keep it there forever.
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Like politics, a week is a long time in an MMO, 90 days and you may as well not even bother removing. The tabs will be as they were before the patch, dominated by the same 65 quests - and that is especially frustrating of the review tab, the author's first chance to be seen. Only they won't be
Edit: May I just remind authors that it isn't any fun for players seeing the same quests dominate the lists. A quest that isn't being played does no one any good, not the author or the player.
Edit 2: And some of you complain it is so hard to be visible, yet when suggestions are made that give you more chance to be visible, you pooh pooh them. I really don't get it. Do any of you have quests that haven't been played in 30 days?
I agree, 90 days is forever in an mmorpg. I also think 3 months is slightly too long.
I would like to add to the review tab comments. How many quests are published in a week? Would it not be possible to have a system for this tab where one on one off is the concept? I agree with karitr that a week is enough time to get five reviews. It would be nice if every quest that was 'newly' published had it's time there.
7 days
It goes on the new tab
both should remove a quest from the review tab.
Also, I think quests should not be on two tabs. So featured quests should only ever be on the featured list, not the best list, this would avoid double list such as the top half now.
If a quest on the new tab makes it onto the best tab then it should no longer be on the new tab.
would it be possible to link the plays and reviews of a featured quest to the original?
As an extra, there should be a warning for the quests about to be removed or at least once it has been removed.
Edit: May I just remind authors that it isn't any fun for players seeing the same quests dominate the lists. A quest that isn't being played does no one any good, not the author or the player.
Edit 2: And some of you complain it is so hard to be visible, yet when suggestions are made that give you more chance to be visible, you pooh pooh them. I really don't get it. Do any of you have quests that haven't been played in 30 days?
I understand your frustration. STO authors have a similar situation, except our lists of 50 top-rated are 70% loot farms and exploits. At least your lists have stories, so far. Our stories are buried. And every time there is an auto-republish, the new lists get re-dominated by the top 50, so there really isn't a difference over time between new and best, since they continually auto-republish everything.
We're lucky if we get 3 plays for every hour we spent making the mission. If we don't have a spotlight, then we don't get plays. Players can't rely on the lists to find good missions either, so in general, everything is borked, and it has been for a long time.
Again, aren't quests dropped off the New and For review tabs now?
I think you may have missed something. The way I read it was that they are considering changing how this is done for the new and review tab. He was asking for ideas on how we think this should be done.
At no point have I seen it said that quests will be deleted from being playable. So long as you are subscribed or have the code you will still be able to play those quests.
I could be wrong though. That is just how I took it.
Comments
Lets face it, even if a quest can be completed if it hasn't achieved 5 reviews in a week, say, then the only person responsible for that is the author.
But the way it has been explain to me that is not how it works. If it worked the way you seem to think it does, the way you are telling me , the way I suggested... There would be no minimum adjusted figure. Let me explain it this way. The lowest of the top 65 needs to be above a certain adjusted rating as it is now. What I want is that adjusted number to go away. So if the lowest quest (number 65) has an adjusted rating of 3.9 so be it. But that is not how you explained it. Or how I perceive it working.
Why won't they be removed? If they get no reviews, after a certain amount of time they disappear, right? I know mine did.
Having a list of all quests on the website is not a good idea as far as I am concerned. You have the same problem you have with the forums. You will have a very, very small portion of players using it. Probably even smaller then the number who use these forums. And no, even a small number increase will not help.
No. As I stated before I am at the present time not logging in. I refuse to give Cryptic my login numbers to increase the total.
Just my windmill to tilt at.
And if they want to ban me from posting on these forums... Then so be it.
Narayan
Narayan
Yeah, let's blame the authors for Cryptic's screw ups... After all they only really care about the best authors anyways. Right?
[shakes head]
Narayan
Narayan
Let's brainstorm a few ideas in this thread.... (please note that this is not a design of a system or a plan of action to create an automated system)
What qualifies as an abandoned quest?
- n days since author logged in?
- n days since author made edits?
- time in review >/= to n days?
I think an interesting question would be rule breakers. If we did have rules what would be allowable rule breakers? The reason I ask is that there are plenty of cases where it would be reasonable for an author to need some leeway.
Are there different rules per tab?
-can top rated/played quests become abandoned?
Let's keep it simple and stick to "abandoned" quests and what some rules COULD be to assist in cleaning out the catalog.
That is a tough one to tackle.
Maybe start with the 20 plays and under. If they have not achieved the 20 plays to become a daily and are inactive on there account for 60 days. Then the foundry become abandon. Something along those lines. I am not sure about placing days/times to expire on foundry maps is a good idea. Accounts sound like a safer way to go.
Also some odd publish bug happening today. It is publishing older versions and bouncing from old to new when I look them up in the catalog.
Thank's for the open dialog
/salute
Hi badbotlimit, it's good of you to come and do this for us.
Here is my own thoughts.
I think two things together should decide what qualifies as an abandoned quest:
1st is no plays for 21 days.
2nd no author log in for 21 days.
Only together because I see no problem with people taking time out and then coming back. It would be a shame to lose good quests when nothing is wrong with them. perhaps when a quest gets no plays an automated message could be sent along the lines of, your quests may be broken...
Could we also have something that stops quests appearing on the new tab more than once. I'm not sure if there is when we republish our own quests but there clearly is not when the quests are republished by the game. It would avoid a situation like now where all the quests on the new tab are also on the featured tab and the best tab.
Thanks!
The only exception might be featured quests as the features technically belong to Cryptic once they are featured, as authors loose all control over them.
Second I would say that rules should apply to author participation, and not be related to actions per quest or such, as that starts to become a little silly. I would say that as long as authors have been active in the foundry editor, quests should remain active.
I would say that this is a free to play game. As such the period when quests go stale do to inactivity should take into account a more transient player base then might otherwise be considered. I might suggest a two or three month period before inactivity. Now that I think about it, I would say that time in review should be less. If authors are not actively working to move their quests through the review process, then they need to be removed in order to keep this list manageable. I would give these at most four weeks to get the five reviews necessary. I have usually been able to get through this process within a few days.
I would also offer that the version currently published may be different then the version currently in progress in the Authors Library. As a result I would say that a copy of the currently published quest should be saved back to the authors quest list regardless of if there is room on the list or not. The result of simply doing a deletion could well mean that the author would be unable to recover from the removed state.
Are you talking about completely deleting the abandoned quests from the servers?
If not then I am confused. I had a quest recently on the new list that had more then 5 reviews and 20 plays and was eligible for the daily. But after a short while it dropped completely off the new list. I have also had quests listed in the For Review tab that dropped off the list after a while. (which did not get the needed 5 reviews)
Now if you are talking about completely removing them from the servers then it needs to be a much longer time.
Narayan
Edit: PS... And why are we wanting to remove them. Broken quests I can see. But just because a quest is "abandoned" does not mean someone would not enjoy it IF they could find it.
Narayan
As far as I am concerned, as long as a quest is getting plays it is not 'abandoned'. Authors aren't the only people in this community (:p), so using only their log-in or edit activity isn't enough.
Review tab - I think a maximum of 7 days to attain five reviews is ample, even for authors who have difficulty self-promoting. If a quest hasn't attained 5 plays in a week, it is probably a good indication that the quest is broken. The Review tab should be moving constantly, but before Feywild it still had quests published back in May. I'd say that at least 90% of the review quests were non-completable before the patch and that's probably a conservative estimate.
New tab - as is, but use the original date of publish - not a post publish edit date - to determine newness.
In general - no plays after 30 days? remove from the catalogue. It's fair to say that after 30 days of no plays, neither author or player has any interest in this quest.
Rule breakers - RP quest maps immediately come to mind. In the act of trying not to create exploitable maps, some authors deliberately hide the end chest. As these maps are little used (by that I mean they are usually intended for a tiny sub-section of the community, i.e. the author's immediate group of friends) and/or created only so an achievement can be accomplished, my personal thought is they should be sacrificed for the greater good. That's certainly better than using the Review tab to achieve constant visibility.
Personally I think it needs to be based on whether or not the quest is still getting plays. And give the author an option to reset the time by republishing the quest.
If a quest goes 3-4 weeks without getting a single play by anyone, then imo it should be pulled from the lists. Either something broke the quest and the author isn't fixing it. (It can't be completed.) Or no one knows about the quest. (And the author isn't bothering to advertise it.)
This would clear some of the uncompletable quests in the For Review tab. But it would also stop the possibility of a high ranking abandoned quest breaking. And getting stuck taking a spot in the lists because people can't review/rate a quest they can't finish.
I don't think author log in time should have anything to do with it. As long as the quest is getting played, let the players enjoy it. If it breaks, then people won't be able to play it and it will fall off the list.
I'm very strongly against this. I also find given reasons to be presumptuous. A quest can very well be conclude-able and not get plays.
Not every author is interested in broadcasting their work, I do not think they should be punished for not wishing to do such.
I would vote for author log in time as this is an indication of said author still being active. If this is in-game, in the Foundry or whatever should not matter. I do think a longer time frame should be permitted, namely three months. Especially during holiday seasons.
And only to send an automated message (mail in game, PM on these official forums, as well as a message to the e-mail associated to the account) to one may respond with a reason of inactivity.
Broken quests should be easier to report. As well as exploit quests. Maybe an option on the pop up when you discard a quest. 'Was this quest unfinishable? Yes/ No.' No field for comments, though, or we're back to square Trolling Reviews.
[SIGPIC]http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=98570189&dateline=1372572330[/SIGPIC]
NW-DCJV53UTU
[Open for play, link to spotlight thread]
If no one is playing the quest. And the author isn't editing it. Then how does it punish anyone to not have it on the list? And I did mention having the author able to keep the quest up by republishing it. Republishing a quest once a month or so to keep it on the lists isn't punishment.
Going by author log in time doesn't solve anything unfortunately. The author could still be playing, but have quit using the foundry editor. Their quests would still be cluttering up the lists.
I don't think there is a way to report them. And I doubt its a feasible solution. It would force a GM to play through every broken quest. Which is why we were looking at automated alternatives.
This would be trolled non-stop. Negative authors would go through marking other's quests as unplayable in an attempt to get rid of the competition. They'd have to either automate it to kick a quest after so many complaints. Or have a GM play through them. Neither would turn out well.
No author login in 90 days AND No plays within 90 days
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
It seems a bad thing to remove quality quests just because the author is no longer playing, especially because this is a F2P game. I don't know any stats, but based on what I see from myself and my friends, we rotate around through such games. If I took off a few months, there is less incentive to come back if my quests had all been deleted.
CO? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
(curls up in a corner weeping)
((CO doesn't have Foundry. This is a frequent source of sadness))
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 don't think anything would actually be deleted. They would remove them from the lists or "un-publish" them. The author could always re-publish them when they came back.
That said, I agree with you. It doesn't matter if the author is here or not. If people are playing the quest it should stay up. What matters is if the quest is completable. And the only way to know that without having someone official run it is to go by plays.
Which is why I suggest removing them only if no one is playing the quests. But to let authors reset the time and keep the quest up by republishing if they wish.
If no one is playing the quest. And the author isn't editing it. Then how does it punish anyone to not have it on the list?
It depends on if said quest is deleted or not. I, for one, would be quite upset to have my campaign quests removed because my regulars have already played it while I am working on the newest instalment.
It punishes the author of the quest. I thought that would be obvious.
Going by author log in time doesn't solve anything unfortunately. The author could still be playing, but have quit using the foundry editor. Their quests would still be cluttering up the lists.
So you are saying only those authors that dedicate % of time in the Foundry should be allowed to have a quest up? There are people out there that have only set up an RP spot for themselves (and/ or their friends). Going from your idea these kind of quests should be removed, too.
I don't think there is a way to report them. And I doubt its a feasible solution. It would force a GM to play through every broken quest. Which is why we were looking at automated alternatives.
Automated alternatives are bound to fail without a backup plan. I still stand by that broken and exploit quests should be easier to report and that this will have to lead to a human eye going over reported content.
This would be trolled non-stop. Negative authors would go through marking other's quests as unplayable in an attempt to get rid of the competition. They'd have to either automate it to kick a quest after so many complaints. Or have a GM play through them. Neither would turn out well.
Negative authors one star to Troll right now. Reporting in the manner I have suggested will need a more open approach. Such as the handle of the reporter being visible at least to the reported. I would also not think one report to lead to action, but rather a % per (attempted) plays.
Agreed.
[SIGPIC]http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=98570189&dateline=1372572330[/SIGPIC]
NW-DCJV53UTU
[Open for play, link to spotlight thread]
Three months!
Like politics, a week is a long time in an MMO, 90 days and you may as well not even bother removing. The tabs will be as they were before the patch, dominated by the same 65 quests - and that is especially frustrating of the review tab, the author's first chance to be seen. Only they won't be
Edit: May I just remind authors that it isn't any fun for players seeing the same quests dominate the lists. A quest that isn't being played does no one any good, not the author or the player.
Edit 2: And some of you complain it is so hard to be visible, yet when suggestions are made that give you more chance to be visible, you pooh pooh them. I really don't get it. Do any of you have quests that haven't been played in 30 days?
No one said anything about deleting a quest. Only removing them from a list. And asking an author to republish a quest once a month or so that isn't getting any plays isn't much of a punishment.
All I said was that they should be required to republish their quest. I mentioned that in the post you quoted the first time. If they can't take time out to load up the foundry editor and hit the publish button... then they certainly aren't making sure their quests are still playable.
Those are kind of a sticking point. They could get by with just republishing, like I suggested. But they really should get their quests enough reviews so that they are out of the For Review section.
If that was an option, then the For Review section wouldn't have been filled with broken quests to begin with. And exploit quests wouldn't have ever been a problem. Whether we like it or not, it seems the people in charge don't have the manpower to do that.
And with the system I mentioned a single successful play within a 3-4 week period would leave the quest safe. They wouldn't need a percent. And if the quest isn't getting plays, or the author doesn't have time to play their own quest... then they could republish it.
I think I'm going to drop it at this point as an agree to disagree thing. I edited my first response to your post with a clearer message of what I meant. But even in the post you originally quoted I mentioned the re-publish thing. Making it easy for an author to keep their quest up if they want it on the lists.
Very well. I just hope you did not think I was attacking you, personally. I'm basically just concerned about certain kind of authors, here.
[SIGPIC]http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=98570189&dateline=1372572330[/SIGPIC]
NW-DCJV53UTU
[Open for play, link to spotlight thread]
I don't have the energy to develop good missions AND constantly pimp them.
I think all these measures are going to be inadequate without some form of cross linking/predictive suggestion.
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?
Of course not.
Head to bed, man O.o
(You're very coherent for someone up for that long, by the way!)
[SIGPIC]http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=98570189&dateline=1372572330[/SIGPIC]
NW-DCJV53UTU
[Open for play, link to spotlight thread]
What suggestions have been put forward. Are you talking about removing quests that are not being constantly promoted? Or deleting quests? And are you seriously talking about removing quests from the Best tab? I mean what would be the point of having a Best tab?
And I will ask this one more time... On the For Review and New tabs aren't the quests ther dropping off the lists anyways? I know mine have dropped off both tabs.
Narayan
Narayan
Again, aren't quests dropped off the New and For review tabs now?
Not sure about broken quests... But exploit quests are where they are and stay there because players play them and rate them high.
LOL you make it sound sooo easy. Do it your way and every author can get their quests on the list and keep it there forever.
Narayan
Narayan
I agree, 90 days is forever in an mmorpg. I also think 3 months is slightly too long.
I would like to add to the review tab comments. How many quests are published in a week? Would it not be possible to have a system for this tab where one on one off is the concept? I agree with karitr that a week is enough time to get five reviews. It would be nice if every quest that was 'newly' published had it's time there.
7 days
It goes on the new tab
both should remove a quest from the review tab.
Also, I think quests should not be on two tabs. So featured quests should only ever be on the featured list, not the best list, this would avoid double list such as the top half now.
If a quest on the new tab makes it onto the best tab then it should no longer be on the new tab.
would it be possible to link the plays and reviews of a featured quest to the original?
As an extra, there should be a warning for the quests about to be removed or at least once it has been removed.
I understand your frustration. STO authors have a similar situation, except our lists of 50 top-rated are 70% loot farms and exploits. At least your lists have stories, so far. Our stories are buried. And every time there is an auto-republish, the new lists get re-dominated by the top 50, so there really isn't a difference over time between new and best, since they continually auto-republish everything.
We're lucky if we get 3 plays for every hour we spent making the mission. If we don't have a spotlight, then we don't get plays. Players can't rely on the lists to find good missions either, so in general, everything is borked, and it has been for a long time.
I think you may have missed something. The way I read it was that they are considering changing how this is done for the new and review tab. He was asking for ideas on how we think this should be done.
At no point have I seen it said that quests will be deleted from being playable. So long as you are subscribed or have the code you will still be able to play those quests.
I could be wrong though. That is just how I took it.