test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Standardized Foundry Review Form
hercooles130uscg
Member Posts: 0 Arc User
Unless something changes between what I saw in the Beta, and release, the current reviewing system is very lackluster. The only plus it has is that all new content is hidden from the general player base and only players who specifically turned on the ability to see and review hidden content will see any new content.
However, this solves little in the overall scheme of things. Even after content makes it past the "hidden" stage, players wanting to find a quality quest that appeals to what they are looking to play is near impossible. If a player is looking for a lore driven quest for example, the only way of locating this is to read through the descriptions of quest/campaigns. With potentially thousands of Foundry quests releasing within 6 months of the games release then this can be daunting. As well, there is little to keep older content relevant. Generally the way the Foundry lists quests is by rating and date. Older high rated content will still fall lower then newer high rated content.
So I am devising an example Review System in combination a complementing Search feature and of course Quest/Campaign "Info Card".
Be mindful this is a crude representation, and obviously does not include everyone's opinions on what is important. But it does it's job of building a guideline that Cryptic could follow to build a better Foundry system that is more intuitive to use both for reviewers and for the average player.
A brief explanation of why I used these metric:
I used Story to signify the authors original story, not taking into account relevant D&D/Forgotten Realms stuff. Where as category of Lore has the job of describing specific content relating to Forgotten Realms and D&D. I also included Pacing as a Rating, separate from overall time, as a way to signify the difference between a long quest that keep the player engaged, or a long quest that has the player spending a large portion of time just running around. I also did not include a Combat Rating, as I also folded this into the Pacing category, and allowed for a Difficulty rating to signify how hard the combat was(did you die a lot or breeze through it). By folding what would be the Combat Rating into Pacing however, it allows the reviewer to take into account a quest that is very long and has bad pacing because of an endless amount of easy encounters. I did this mainly to reduce the number of categories that the reviewer had to rate, while still allowing for this metric to be included in some form. The addition of a short written review can explain why pacing had a low rating "i.e to many encounters with no meaning".
A Foundry Search Interface will take advantage of all this info. It will allow players to find a quest specific to their play style. After inputting their preferences and hitting search, they will get a listing of quests that match their query, with each quest showing the ratings and information for the specific items they selected in the order of preference. So if they selected Light story, and heavy combat, Light lore and no preference for difficulty and time, their list of matching quests would show
Combat > Rating
Story > Rating
Lore > Rating
Leaving out any No Preference items. As well, if they just select from the Basic search options Combat and Lore, then the results will ignore showing the other items.
Use the drop-down boxes to select your preference from each category to find the quest right for you. Mouseover each item for more information.
Now if the player clicks on a specific quest in the listing, either after a search or just browsing all quests, then the individual quest page will appear, breaking down the ratings and definitions to it's individual parts. This will also include a more detailed quest description or campaign information if available.
QUEST: Kill The Dragon
CAMPAIGN: Dragon War
AUTHOR: @Bobthebuilder
LENGTH: Medium-10-30 minutes
OVERALL RATING: 3/5 stars with 49 votes
Players defined the overall gameplay as: Combat(40); Story(25); Lore(0); Balanced (0)
Players defined each category as:
Combat: Heavy(47); Medium(2); Light (0); None(0)
Difficulty: Easy(15); Balanced(29); Hard(5)
Story: Heavy(21); Medium(25); Light(3); None(0)
Lore: Heavy(0); Medium(0); Light(2); None(47)
Players completed the quest in:
<10 minutes(10)
10-30 minutes(37)
30-45 minutes(2)
Overall Rating Average: 3/5 stars
5 stars: 0
4 stars: 12
3 stars: 32
2 stars: 3
1 star: 2
Story Rating Average: 2/5 stars
5 stars: 1
4 stars: 2
3 stars: 15
2 stars: 25
1 star: 6
None Present:0
Lore Rating Average: 1/5 stars
5 stars: 0
4 stars: 0
3 stars: 0
2 stars: 0
1 star: 10
None Present:38
Pacing Rating Average: 4/5 stars
5 stars: 0
4 stars: 12
3 stars: 32
2 stars: 3
1 star: 2
The above example shows to the player a quest that is of medium length, has a lot of balanced combat and just a tad bit of story. However, it also shows that most players thought the story was not told that well at all, but the high pacing score shows that despite this, players found that they did not spend endless amount of time fighting weak encounters, reading tons of fluff dialogue, or traveling trying to find an objective. Overall, a good hack-and-slash quest with just enough story(of poorly written) to add some depth.
Other Metrics that can be applied to a review are:
Grammar and Spelling; dialogue and map glitches; Continuity Errors and Contradicting stories, etc. Or these can just be left to the reviewer to sum up in their written review.
Also check out my guide as well as other players excellent opinions on creating a better story for your Foundry project. See signature.
However, this solves little in the overall scheme of things. Even after content makes it past the "hidden" stage, players wanting to find a quality quest that appeals to what they are looking to play is near impossible. If a player is looking for a lore driven quest for example, the only way of locating this is to read through the descriptions of quest/campaigns. With potentially thousands of Foundry quests releasing within 6 months of the games release then this can be daunting. As well, there is little to keep older content relevant. Generally the way the Foundry lists quests is by rating and date. Older high rated content will still fall lower then newer high rated content.
So I am devising an example Review System in combination a complementing Search feature and of course Quest/Campaign "Info Card".
Be mindful this is a crude representation, and obviously does not include everyone's opinions on what is important. But it does it's job of building a guideline that Cryptic could follow to build a better Foundry system that is more intuitive to use both for reviewers and for the average player.
Review the Quest?
RATE
* * * * * N/A
Story
Rate how well the story was presented. If none, then N/A
Define how much focus did the quest put on telling a story and on dialogue
FOCUS
None, Light, Medium, Heavy
RATE
* * * * * N/A
Lore
Rate how well Forgotten Realms canon was presented in the story, if at all
Define how much lore in the form of items, dialogues and observations was present
AMOUNT
None, Light, Medium, Heavy
DIFFICULTY
Easy, Balanced, Hard, N/A
Combat
Define overall combat difficulty
Define the level of combat present throughout the quest
AMOUNT
None, Light, Medium, Heavy
PACING
* * * * *
Length and Pacing
Rate the overall pacing of the quest, accounting for encounter frequency, downtime, travel
Define the overall time it took to complete in minutes
LENGTH
Short(<10), Medium(10-30), Long(30-45), Saga(>45)
RATE
* * * * *
Map Design
Rate How well the maps were designed, accounting for variety, creativity, accessibility and layout.
Define The average size of maps within the quest
SIZE
Cramped, Balanced, Airy, Empty Wharehouse
OVERALL RATING
* * * * *
Overall Gameplay
Give an Overall Rating of this quest.
Define what style of player the game play in this quest will appeal to. Check up to two, or select balanced for all.
GAMEPLAY STYLE
Story, Action, Lore, Balanced
[/tr]
Written Review(optional)
Here is where you write an optional short review to better describe why you rated certain areas. PLEASE no spoilers.
Leave Author Feedback
Here is where you can leave optional feedback that only the author will see. Feel free to describe specific aspects of the quest as players can not see this.
Please Rate and Define each category
Category
RATE
* * * * * N/A
Story
Rate how well the story was presented. If none, then N/A
Define how much focus did the quest put on telling a story and on dialogue
FOCUS
None, Light, Medium, Heavy
RATE
* * * * * N/A
Lore
Rate how well Forgotten Realms canon was presented in the story, if at all
Define how much lore in the form of items, dialogues and observations was present
AMOUNT
None, Light, Medium, Heavy
DIFFICULTY
Easy, Balanced, Hard, N/A
Combat
Define overall combat difficulty
Define the level of combat present throughout the quest
AMOUNT
None, Light, Medium, Heavy
PACING
* * * * *
Length and Pacing
Rate the overall pacing of the quest, accounting for encounter frequency, downtime, travel
Define the overall time it took to complete in minutes
LENGTH
Short(<10), Medium(10-30), Long(30-45), Saga(>45)
RATE
* * * * *
Map Design
Rate How well the maps were designed, accounting for variety, creativity, accessibility and layout.
Define The average size of maps within the quest
SIZE
Cramped, Balanced, Airy, Empty Wharehouse
OVERALL RATING
* * * * *
Overall Gameplay
Give an Overall Rating of this quest.
Define what style of player the game play in this quest will appeal to. Check up to two, or select balanced for all.
GAMEPLAY STYLE
Story, Action, Lore, Balanced
[/tr]
Written Review(optional)
Here is where you write an optional short review to better describe why you rated certain areas. PLEASE no spoilers.
Leave Author Feedback
Here is where you can leave optional feedback that only the author will see. Feel free to describe specific aspects of the quest as players can not see this.
A brief explanation of why I used these metric:
I used Story to signify the authors original story, not taking into account relevant D&D/Forgotten Realms stuff. Where as category of Lore has the job of describing specific content relating to Forgotten Realms and D&D. I also included Pacing as a Rating, separate from overall time, as a way to signify the difference between a long quest that keep the player engaged, or a long quest that has the player spending a large portion of time just running around. I also did not include a Combat Rating, as I also folded this into the Pacing category, and allowed for a Difficulty rating to signify how hard the combat was(did you die a lot or breeze through it). By folding what would be the Combat Rating into Pacing however, it allows the reviewer to take into account a quest that is very long and has bad pacing because of an endless amount of easy encounters. I did this mainly to reduce the number of categories that the reviewer had to rate, while still allowing for this metric to be included in some form. The addition of a short written review can explain why pacing had a low rating "i.e to many encounters with no meaning".
A Foundry Search Interface will take advantage of all this info. It will allow players to find a quest specific to their play style. After inputting their preferences and hitting search, they will get a listing of quests that match their query, with each quest showing the ratings and information for the specific items they selected in the order of preference. So if they selected Light story, and heavy combat, Light lore and no preference for difficulty and time, their list of matching quests would show
Combat > Rating
Story > Rating
Lore > Rating
Leaving out any No Preference items. As well, if they just select from the Basic search options Combat and Lore, then the results will ignore showing the other items.
Foundry Search
Basic
What type of Quest are you looking for? Select up to two options.
Basic
*Story - Focuses on telling an original in depth story, with little emphasize on combat.
*Lore - Makes an effort to include a lot of Forgotten Realms canon.
*Combat - Focuses on action and combat throughout the Quest.
*Balanced - Select this for a Quest with a good balance of everything.
*Lore - Makes an effort to include a lot of Forgotten Realms canon.
*Combat - Focuses on action and combat throughout the Quest.
*Balanced - Select this for a Quest with a good balance of everything.
Advanced Search
Use the drop-down boxes to select your preference from each category to find the quest right for you. Mouseover each item for more information.
Story Focus**********Light, Medium, Heavy, No Preference
Lore Focus***********Light, Medium, Heavy, No Preference
Combat Focus*********Light, Medium, Heavy, No Preference
Combat Difficulty*******Easy, Balanced, Hard, No Preference
Time to Complete*******Short, Medium, Long, Saga, No Preference
Lore Focus***********Light, Medium, Heavy, No Preference
Combat Focus*********Light, Medium, Heavy, No Preference
Combat Difficulty*******Easy, Balanced, Hard, No Preference
Time to Complete*******Short, Medium, Long, Saga, No Preference
Now if the player clicks on a specific quest in the listing, either after a search or just browsing all quests, then the individual quest page will appear, breaking down the ratings and definitions to it's individual parts. This will also include a more detailed quest description or campaign information if available.
QUEST: Kill The Dragon
CAMPAIGN: Dragon War
AUTHOR: @Bobthebuilder
LENGTH: Medium-10-30 minutes
OVERALL RATING: 3/5 stars with 49 votes
Players defined the overall gameplay as: Combat(40); Story(25); Lore(0); Balanced (0)
Players defined each category as:
Combat: Heavy(47); Medium(2); Light (0); None(0)
Difficulty: Easy(15); Balanced(29); Hard(5)
Story: Heavy(21); Medium(25); Light(3); None(0)
Lore: Heavy(0); Medium(0); Light(2); None(47)
Players completed the quest in:
<10 minutes(10)
10-30 minutes(37)
30-45 minutes(2)
Overall Rating Average: 3/5 stars
5 stars: 0
4 stars: 12
3 stars: 32
2 stars: 3
1 star: 2
Story Rating Average: 2/5 stars
5 stars: 1
4 stars: 2
3 stars: 15
2 stars: 25
1 star: 6
None Present:0
Lore Rating Average: 1/5 stars
5 stars: 0
4 stars: 0
3 stars: 0
2 stars: 0
1 star: 10
None Present:38
Pacing Rating Average: 4/5 stars
5 stars: 0
4 stars: 12
3 stars: 32
2 stars: 3
1 star: 2
The above example shows to the player a quest that is of medium length, has a lot of balanced combat and just a tad bit of story. However, it also shows that most players thought the story was not told that well at all, but the high pacing score shows that despite this, players found that they did not spend endless amount of time fighting weak encounters, reading tons of fluff dialogue, or traveling trying to find an objective. Overall, a good hack-and-slash quest with just enough story(of poorly written) to add some depth.
Other Metrics that can be applied to a review are:
Grammar and Spelling; dialogue and map glitches; Continuity Errors and Contradicting stories, etc. Or these can just be left to the reviewer to sum up in their written review.
Also check out my guide as well as other players excellent opinions on creating a better story for your Foundry project. See signature.
Post edited by hercooles130uscg on
0
Comments
I understand that, and the option to just plop a star rating and a quick paragraph like the current style would be there.
But since they are going to have rewards based on quality foundry creation, why not give players the tools to best review content.
As well, why not have some rewards or structure for the opposite side of the table. You can do a generic review at the end of the quest and be done, or you can do the more detailed template and get credit towards some sort of goal. Be it a title, a mount, some cool costume, who knows. I am sure there are lots of players that would be willing to put in the extra mile.
The fact you even have detailed reviews on streams, youtube, forums and external websites shows the people WANT to make a name by being "official" reviewers, why not give them the option tools to do so in game, so ALL the players can benefit from them not just ones who happen to browse the web to find reviews.
Imagine a player wants to do a Foundry quest to pass the time, but the effort to find a good one outside the game is too much, especially since the odds it fits his playstyle are 50/50 at best, so he is just going to wing it and pick one that has a high star rating and some decent reviews, or he might not even do one at all! Counter-productive to making the Foundry a focal point of the game.
Now imagine if those reviews that are abundant OUTSIDE the game were available in the game easily...That would make that him far more likely to play. He just clicks a few check boxes that match his criteria and gets a smaller list of quests, rather then the whole library.
One of the common complaints you here from the STO community is that the odds of anyone even playing the mission you spent hours and hours making is slim. Someone might want to play a foundry quest, pick one, find out it's not want he wanted to play and after finishing(if he even does) just go off and do something else, rather than try and find another foundry quest.
Even the basic rating system is flawed. Often times, players will give a poor star rating because the content was not their style. And the players browsing the content, has no way to know anything beyond what reviewers overall rating was, and a very short sentence.
And as am added bonus, when potential Foundry authors spend enough time finding quests based on a set criteria that is standard across the board, they will develop their quest with that same criteria in mind, producing better results in the end.
Another option to add is all quests with a certain amount of reviews, and an average rating of 4 or higher can be included in a Random Quest option. So the layer puts in his criteria, and hits Random. Fast, easy, and the chances of getting a quality quests that matches want he feels like doing.
The problem is, that a lot of people won't fill out such a more extensive reviewing form. Just because its too much work and they rather want to hop from one ugc to another. You have to make such a system quick and easy to use, otherwise people won't use it. And thats maybe why Cryptic went for a single 5 star rating system combined with a free form field.
Code of Conduct - Extended FAQ - PM me
Of course you can just use the star rating if your feeling a bit lazy, but it does not give credit for these incentives. However, even if you do just the basic review, that star rating is still calculated into the Overall Rating for the quest, just not calculated into the sub-categories.
Hell as a minimum just have the basic rating, then have some check boxes you can click to describe the quest.
Regardless the Foundry needs somthing more! My system seems complicated, it is, but I always shoot big when I describe something or design something. This way I feel I covered as many potential facets as possible, then I can go through and skim the more superfluous items without worry that I might have missed something.
I really hope that Cryptic does something at least similar to this, because I think that as it stands now, the sheer number of Foundry quests that will quickly exist will make both finding content you want to play and getting your own hard work found by appropriate players very difficult.
Something like this needs to happen!
You have proven that you are a well educated person and put serious thought into it. That though is seriously hard to work with for the average Joe. Is there a short form in the works? Or is all the extra simply a filler for what the game itself might have as a visual representation to vote on Foundry items?
The easiest way in my opinion is to allow the creators to flag their content as Combat, Story, Lore. Don't make this a either or but all selectable. Then just level people search by those categories. People should be able to pick to sort by just Rating or have the number of ratings be important as well. One way a 4 star rated with 1 reviewer comes up first the other war a 3.8 rating with 10,000 people rating it comes up first above the 4 star single reviewer.
If when searching for content however you could filter based on those criteria which each have their own independent star rating, the averages of which produce an overall star rating for that quest that the reviewer cannot control... that would be much, much better. after I have some experience with the game and have decided if I'm staying I might volunteer to review - and I would welcome a structured approach like that which everyone had to follow - it would mean reviewers also have a structured way to approach their task, which will focus their minds on objectivity more than just a star rating and a space for a review. It might put people off becoming reviewers that's true - but it would also help to ensure that people who did take the time to review thoroughly weren't being undermined by the fecklessness or meanness of other less altruistic folk.
I mean who reviews the reviewers, right?
Apart from that no classification for non-linearity, side quests, complexity of scripting, logical challanges etc. - the one which are unconventional.
The quests it covers will already benefit from 5-star system. It does not in any way help the non-conventional quests which will be penalized by 5-star rating system.
I would rather prefer a review in writeup by a person to this because of that.
That's not an exaggeration, btw. See the thread here for more in-depth discussion on why the 5-star rating system doesn't work by itself.
Getting good content to players in the Foundry - challenges and solutions
Handle: @zaphtastic
Did you like it? Yes (5-stars) No (1 star).
Was there lewt? Yes (5 stars) No (1 star).
Is there anything which confused you? Yes (1 star) No (random star assignment).
1. the 'form' should only apply to the initial reviewers. The public review form is fine as it is.
2. If Foundry content doesn't scale as I've heard, The initial reviewers form should include an assessment of group play if possible. We were absolutely breezing through things yesterday just from having three people in the group. We had more trouble with one of the others (which was good) because the person who made it clearly intended at least a couple of people to be involved. There needs to be some kind of clear indicator as to the rough number of people the content is balanced for (e.g. solo, 2-3 players, 4-5 players).
/breathes massive sigh of relief