I think mentioning in the quest description that certain people will not like the quest, or it must be played in a group, or by a certain class, etc. actually invites the trolls. They think it will be funny to play it and complain about something that was mentioned in the description. I personally would either suck it up or stay away from quests that need disclaimers until they fix the ratings system.
I think it would help to allow authors to respond to ratings like you would on ebay whether the feedback was good or not. Then you could let people know if a particular bug has been fixed or that you have no control over the loot. Now that might not make any difference to the original reviewer, but to someone looking at the reviews before playing it might.
Player didn't just run WoW instances for the phat lewt and XP, people actually enjoy a challenge and playing through interesting content. Make good UGC and people will enjoy playing them.
Then why did Blizzard nerf those dungeons so that people would be able to get gear faster? Not saying that it's right, just odd to use WoW as an example of a challenge. Maybe back in vanilla.
Try my quest Tucker's Kobolds, now with an all new map and encounters! Version 2.0.2 (5/11/2013)
NW-DGW8GFH6 @EB2013
Player didn't just run WoW instances for the phat lewt and XP, people actually enjoy a challenge and playing through interesting content. Make good UGC and people will enjoy playing them.
No one plays Wow Heroic dungeons for anything short of the gear grind. I do not want my foundry mission reduced to all the dialog being skipped, all the challenges being rushed, the bosses "dps blitzed" so they can get the "token" and start over. Right now UGC is in the game to give players something new and creative to spend time playing. Yes, xp and loot are important as they are an incentive to run them but UGC is currently not a gear treadmill to keep lvl 60's playing.
The problem is that developers have forgotten how to make a game so much fun you kept playing instead of the gear treadmill. Sure and upgrade is nice and being rewarded on par with effort is important, but do we as Foundry authors have to now start creating treadmill content?
Do you crave a good old fashioned dungeon crawl? One where the dungeon tells it's own story? The Dungeon Delves campaign is just for you! Start with my first release: NW-DQF4T7QYH Any cave can lead to adventure!
Then why did Blizzard nerf those dungeons so that people would be able to get gear faster? Not saying that it's right, just odd to use WoW as an example of a challenge. Maybe back in vanilla.
Hands up, I only played Vanilla (quit right before Burning Crusade), so that was my reference. I remember the amazing boss fights and just doing them for the achievement of completing them with my friends and guildies.
Those are the types of Foundry quests I want to make, I'll let everyone else make the quick XP Daily grinds and I can get one starred to hell if needs be
Then why did Blizzard nerf those dungeons so that people would be able to get gear faster? Not saying that it's right, just odd to use WoW as an example of a challenge. Maybe back in vanilla.
Blizzard didn't nerf those dungeons. They made them more casual so that more people have access to them and be able to enjoy the content with or without the gear. They add Raid Finder which is a pug-friendly version of raids so that the players that are normally unable to do raids for whatever reason (not good enough, not enough time, not in a raiding guild, don't want to be a hardcore pver) they can still do the raids. The easy raids do not give the same gear as the harder raids so saying the nerfed their dungeons to make it easy to farm the loot is incorrect.
Also @Coanunn, So guilds wasn't farming heroic DS for months on end even after having full heroic gear because they were PVE players that enjoyed dungeons, or did they all just quit once they got their gear? What about the guild I knew in WoW that use to sell FL 10 heroic to people that want to get the mount as they wasn't able to do it themselves. They had all the loot and they was good enough to basically 9man the raid that they boosted the 10th player through so they can get the mount and they'd pay the guild for it.
At the end of the day if the content is good enough people will play it regardless of what loot it drops, unless they are one of the "I NEED LOOT NOW OR I WILL QUIT!" kids that have to be rewarded for simply logging on.
0
kamaliiciousMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 0Arc User
edited May 2013
I'm so perfect I would never admit my quests have any bugs, or maybe I would publicly admit having thousands of bugs in a campaign.
0
boydzinjMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited May 2013
I personally like reading all the reviews. I have only one Foundry Quest that is published and I have tweaked it on a few recommendations. I have yet to hit 700 hits, but I am satisfied with the hits I have gotten. However, the 1 stars are the ones I pay attention to the least.
I have seen 1 stars comment something like:
"I loved it"
"Hate it"
"I dont like BBQ" (my foundry quest is about Barbecue sauce and upfront you know its not serious.
"Too easy"
"I HOPE YOUR MOM DIES. I SPENT 1 gold in potions. FU MAN FU"
There are several others. However, my FIVE star reviews out number my one and two stars combined. Anything over 100 reviews, and it should start averaging out correctly... to get rid of the trolls, 1 star givers, and people who rate you bad... JUST BECAUSE. However, the worse part... is it is hard to get past that 100 review benchmark. Too many people view the foundry as MEH... and only want hack and slash and tv shows reincarnated as foundry quests.
I love original content, and sure re-created content can be fun... but when you can surprise me... that is the fun part.
I have a foundry mission set for Roleplayers. A Nice home which people often request to be upgraded. Some guy ran in to it and complained. I laughed. I ended up putting an NPC at the door that bows, explains the place and disappears. Pretty much says 'If you expected something from the title of 'A Roleplayer's Home' then you sir are an idiot....but in nicer terms
I personally like reading all the reviews. I have only one Foundry Quest that is published and I have tweaked it on a few recommendations. I have yet to hit 700 hits, but I am satisfied with the hits I have gotten. However, the 1 stars are the ones I pay attention to the least.
I have seen 1 stars comment something like:
"I loved it"
"Hate it"
"I dont like BBQ" (my foundry quest is about Barbecue sauce and upfront you know its not serious.
"Too easy"
"I HOPE YOUR MOM DIES. I SPENT 1 gold in potions. FU MAN FU"
There are several others. However, my FIVE star reviews out number my one and two stars combined. Anything over 100 reviews, and it should start averaging out correctly... to get rid of the trolls, 1 star givers, and people who rate you bad... JUST BECAUSE. However, the worse part... is it is hard to get past that 100 review benchmark. Too many people view the foundry as MEH... and only want hack and slash and tv shows reincarnated as foundry quests.
I love original content, and sure re-created content can be fun... but when you can surprise me... that is the fun part.
A lot of people who run foundry missions are..well..they expect us to be developers. They want us to choose the loot, be able to set camera zoom ins for boss fights and more. I have a guildie that I asked to run a foundry mission of mine called Marketplace of Horrors and let me know what to change. His complaint was the boss. It was too easy. He was also level 30 at the time. I ran it at 60 and saw the challenge. Then he wanted me to actually be able to make it a boss.
We only have so many tools in Foundry and some of the missions that are out there are amazing for what we got. People just need to chill sometimes.
Multiple Personas, only 'One' me
"Why should one devolve themselves to try and entertain those of a lesser mindset around them?"
The simple solution is basically have the 1 stars moderated. If the reasoning for the one star is any of the following; it gets trashed.
1. Just because
2. No loot I can use
3. "No explanation given"
4. Module suxors, im 2 l33t 4 wo4dz In English.
5. Etc.
So if the average rating from people on a particular module is 3 to 4 stars, any one star rating would have to have a valid reason.
If said module average player rating was 1 to 2 stars, then 1 star is quite possible and within acceptable levels
~FOUNDRY MISSION~ The Village on Ebon Lake ~Check it out!~
Search Code NW-DQ3S67EKX
H.P Lovecraft style Horror
The simple solution is basically have the 1 stars moderated. If the reasoning for the one star is any of the following; it gets trashed.
1. Just because
2. No loot I can use
3. "No explanation given"
4. Module suxors, im 2 l33t 4 wo4dz In English.
5. Etc.
So if the average rating from people on a particular module is 3 to 4 stars, any one star rating would have to have a valid reason.
If said module average player rating was 1 to 2 stars, then 1 star is quite possible and within acceptable levels
You have obviously never collected feedback before. Those comments may seem non-"valid reason" to you but that does not invalidate the score the person gave. The field I worked in most of my life strives on feedback, from co-workers, superiors, and clients. I have seen "you suck" comments from a superior and when I argued the feedback I was told "I just didn't feel like writing it all out, but I gave you the score you deserved". That is how subjective feedback and rating works. You don't get to determine when it's valid or not, you just have to live with it and keep working to improve so that it averages out.
I understand how it can be hurtful to spend so much time on a project and get 1 stars with no constructive feedback to know what you need to do better, but unforunately it doesn't make the person enjoy your work any more. You may look at a comment like "loot sucks" and think "I have no control over that" but that may be all they could type even though they really thought your whole level quest sucked. And trying to force them to be more verbose is a losing battle. Looking on the forums at the number of times we see "10 characters" at the end of a post because they refused to be more verbose. The world today operates at a high rate of speed where you frankly don't rate the time it would take to type out their thoughts to some people.
All of that and I didn't even mention trolls, who's only purpose is to lower your score, tank your mission, make you feel bad. They are out there. Sites like "art of trolling" exist for a reason. We have a holiday every year dedicated to "getting" everyone in our lives, we have several words for troll behavior from prank to troll to being a ******r, all because it's part of human nature. Trying to FIX that is a never ending miasma and the worst offenders will only go out of their way to be worse and get around any fix you put in place.
Do you crave a good old fashioned dungeon crawl? One where the dungeon tells it's own story? The Dungeon Delves campaign is just for you! Start with my first release: NW-DQF4T7QYH Any cave can lead to adventure!
It seems the main flaw in the rating system is people just being mean for the sake of it. Here are some ideas to combat the issue:
1) Allow an author to "ignore" a certain number of accounts. Those accounts would not be able to see that authors quests.
- The good thing about this idea is that it saves honest people who just don't like that author's DM style from having to spend time in their quests. It also allows the author to save their quests from trolls.
2) Make the comment section more like a Yelp, or EBay feedback system where authors can respond to negative posts.
- The good thing about this idea is that it at least gives diligent quest seekers a chance to get a good idea of what quests are worth the time, beyond just the star rating.
- The bad thing about this idea is that it doesn't really protect a young author from trolls burying their quest before it gets a chance to be seen.
3) Implement a reddit style system where you can upvote and downvote reviews once you have played and reviewed a quest. It would allow the community to 'self-police' and downvote obvious troll reviews. Reviews that recieved significantly more downvotes than upvotes, would be default-collapsed. Users would have the option of searching the foundry board with default-collapsed ratings included or excluded in the average.
I would also love to see an "author rating" system. Aggregate an author's score and allow people to search for quests by author. If you see a person whose DM style is perfect for you, you can track that author and maybe even 'subscribe' to his quests and get an in game mail every time he publishes or something like that.
I guess that's a little off the thread topic, but I wanted to capture it before I notice something shiny and get side-tracked.
I would also love to see an "author rating" system. Aggregate an author's score and allow people to search for quests by author. If you see a person whose DM style is perfect for you, you can track that author and maybe even 'subscribe' to his quests and get an in game mail every time he publishes or something like that.
I guess that's a little off the thread topic, but I wanted to capture it before I notice something shiny and get side-tracked.
You know that's kind of already implemented. You can already subscribe to authors, you just don't get emails every time they update.
You know that's kind of already implemented. You can already subscribe to authors, you just don't get emails every time they update.
Ah, thanks for letting me know that. I'm very new to the game, but I really loved DM'ing basic, 1st, and 2nd ed. table top D&D when I was a teenager (I kind of got away from table top role playing before 3rd edition, so I missed out on the later editions of the game.) and I'm pretty excited about the foundry. I spent most of last weekend neglecting my character working on a quest in the foundry and I'm still kind of fiddling around and just trying to learn about it.
Anyone here recall what happened when they updated STO's Foundry so that you got 2480 Dilthium (Astral Diamonds) for the first Featured Mission you played each day?
All the Featured Missions suddenly gained so many 1 star ratings stating that they were 1 starring because it was a featured mission that Cryptic had to go in and manually remove these 1 star ratings.
So I used to be a part of The Movies Online community about a bajillion years ago. It had a massive problem with 1 star troll reviews which gradually resolved itself as the undesirables left. Problem with that everyone left were so 'nice' that they rendered the star system meaningless, giving less than 5 was considered an insult. Less than 4 and you were calling them out.
I don't know what you should take from this other than this problem isn't new. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. You're going to ruin into gits and stupid people on the Internet.
Check out Adventuring College! A 20 minute male-centric comedic solo adventure.
Quest ID: NW-DPCZNUVQ7
Meh. I am hoping that the trolls will not even be able to make it through my quest when I publish it. It's gonna be ridiculously long compared to the 30 minute-1 hour quests I've been playing.
A good example of why many don't even try foundry quests. One other would be that if I wanted to spend my time running from point A to point B for the reward of pointless dialogue that isn't as clever as the author thinks... I'd play mario brothers.
I have no problems with the foundry being there for people who want to play it... but please don't operate under the illusion that there is single "correct" way to play, or that it would be a good thing to force others to play your version of the game.
I just got a 2 star review (lowest I have had by far) and the explanation was not even in words of english, I mean english was his first language, but it was some weird nonsensical text talk. It is strange how irritating I find that.
I think that the best solution would be to continue in the spirit of community monitoring seen in spam control for zone chat. We should have an up-vote/down-vote system for reviews so that us, as a community, can rate the quality of the reviews and reviewer with a scaling system that rewards good reviewer and discourages bad reviewers. Here is my idea in a bit more detail.
X = # of +votes
Y= # of -votes
W = weight
W=(X-Y)0.01+1
W is capped at 1.50/0.50
I am hardly a math wizard, but the basics are there. The better, complete reviews will have more weight while the poor, useless reviews will be diminished. In conjunction with this, a reviewer receives an account wide rating attached to all characters.
A = average of all W scores from every review provided - 1
This will give a player an additional +/- 0.50 weight to their reviews, thus further rewarding/penalizing their reviews.
A cannot exceed (W-1) on any given review. If A > (W-1), let A = W for that review.
So as an example:
Mr. Smith gives very good reviews and has an A score of +0.38 and gave a review to a Foundry quest that has a meta of 43up/7down.
Mr. Troll gives horrible reviews and has an A score of -0.34 and gave the same Foundry quest a review with a meta of 3up/47 down.
Mr. Smith:
(43-7)0.01+1= +1.36
Since A cannot exceed 0.36, A = 0.36 for this review
So Mr. Smith's review for this Foundry quest will have a total weight of 1.72
Mr. Troll:
(3-47)0.01+1= 0.56
Since A is below -0.44 (distance to midline of 1), his entire A rating will be applied.
So Mr. Troll's review for this Foundry quest will have a total weight of 0.22.
I am sure some of you are asking, 'How is this weight applied?' Well, say Mr. Jones's Quest has 10 reviews:
1-5 star 1.68
5-4 star 1.32, 1.08, 1.79, 1.22, 1.47 = 6.88
3-3 star 1.13, 0.82, 0.57 = 1.52
1-1 star 0.18
only whole numbers are used, always round down, anything less then 1 is left out and not counter towards the star rating average, Answer is rounded to nearest whole number.
(5+24+3)/8= 4 Star rating.
Say Mr. Troll's family decided to join in adding in 3 more 1 star ratings of 0.22, 0.34, 0.28 for a total of 1.02
(5+24+3+1)/9= 3.66 which rounds up to a 4 star rating.
It took 4 trolling reviewers to even count as one vote and in the end, had no effect on the final score. Could it have an effect? Absolutely, but in my opinion, if the Quest is good, the higher weighted, honest reviews will take care of that. Also, the reviews with the most up ratings should be placed at the top of the review list while the reviews with the highest down rating should be at the bottom.
With a system like this or similar to this, people will be rewarded for proper reviews. Those that want to troll or give 1 start ratings without a reasonable reason will inevitably dig their own hole and their "voice" will not be heard and to recover will take quite a bit of time.
I think that the best solution would be to continue in the spirit of community monitoring seen in spam control for zone chat. We should have an up-vote/down-vote system for reviews so that us, as a community, can rate the quality of the reviews and reviewer with a scaling system that rewards good reviewer and discourages bad reviewers. Here is my idea in a bit more detail.
X = # of +votes
Y= # of -votes
W = weight
W=(X-Y)0.01+1
W is capped at 1.50/0.50
I am hardly a math wizard, but the basics are there. The better, complete reviews will have more weight while the poor, useless reviews will be diminished. In conjunction with this, a reviewer receives an account wide rating attached to all characters.
A = average of all W scores from every review provided - 1
This will give a player an additional +/- 0.50 weight to their reviews, thus further rewarding/penalizing their reviews.
A cannot exceed (W-1) on any given review. If A > (W-1), let A = W for that review.
So as an example:
Mr. Smith gives very good reviews and has an A score of +0.38 and gave a review to a Foundry quest that has a meta of 43up/7down.
Mr. Troll gives horrible reviews and has an A score of -0.34 and gave the same Foundry quest a review with a meta of 3up/47 down.
Mr. Smith:
(43-7)0.01+1= +1.36
Since A cannot exceed 0.36, A = 0.36 for this review
So Mr. Smith's review for this Foundry quest will have a total weight of 1.72
Mr. Troll:
(3-47)0.01+1= 0.56
Since A is below -0.44 (distance to midline of 1), his entire A rating will be applied.
So Mr. Troll's review for this Foundry quest will have a total weight of 0.22.
I am sure some of you are asking, 'How is this weight applied?' Well, say Mr. Jones's Quest has 10 reviews:
1-5 star 1.68
5-4 star 1.32, 1.08, 1.79, 1.22, 1.47 = 6.88
3-3 star 1.13, 0.82, 0.57 = 1.52
1-1 star 0.18
only whole numbers are used, always round down, anything less then 1 is left out and not counter towards the star rating average, Answer is rounded to nearest whole number.
(5+24+3)/8= 4 Star rating.
Say Mr. Troll's family decided to join in adding in 3 more 1 star ratings of 0.22, 0.34, 0.28 for a total of 1.02
(5+24+3+1)/9= 3.66 which rounds up to a 4 star rating.
It took 4 trolling reviewers to even count as one vote and in the end, had no effect on the final score. Could it have an effect? Absolutely, but in my opinion, if the Quest is good, the higher weighted, honest reviews will take care of that. Also, the reviews with the most up ratings should be placed at the top of the review list while the reviews with the highest down rating should be at the bottom.
With a system like this or similar to this, people will be rewarded for proper reviews. Those that want to troll or give 1 start ratings without a reasonable reason will inevitably dig their own hole and their "voice" will not be heard and to recover will take quite a bit of time.
This idea is reviewing the reviewers. Did you perhaps mean 'formula for reviewing the reviewer's reviewers?' Because if so, that's silly. I encourage constructive criticism, so if you would like to provide some and add to the conversation, please do.
This idea is reviewing the reviewers. Did you perhaps mean 'formula for reviewing the reviewer's reviewers?' Because if so, that's silly. I encourage constructive criticism, so if you would like to provide some and add to the conversation, please do.
Thanks for the troll reply. Your comments now carry little weight from here on.
Yes, they would if you implement a system where every review has to be reviewed.
I hand out 1 stars for those who didn't even try and all that will happen is every single person who hands out 1 star will get a negative weighted score bringing us full circle.
Thanks for the troll reply. Your comments now carry little weight from here on.
See how this works?
I'm sorry. I did not say L2P brah! or 'So what's the formula for reviewing reviewers, turtles all the way down." I am hardly trolling. I did however ask you to clarify you nonsense question and asked you to contribute. If you cannot be mature enough to contribute constructively, then that is your personal problem. I will however be willing to discuss why you think this would be a bad idea if you can provide an intelligent counterpoint.
I'm sorry. I did not say L2P brah! or 'So what's the formula for reviewing reviewers, turtles all the way down." I am hardly trolling. I did however ask you to clarify you nonsense question and asked you to contribute. If you cannot be mature enough to contribute constructively, then that is your personal problem. I will however be willing to discuss why you think this would be a bad idea if you can provide an intelligent counterpoint.
See? You're actively participating in what I am getting at. With your system all I have to do is declare that I didn't like your review and now your weight has shifted.
You can't say that review processes are flawed so the solution is to have a review process for reviewers.
Yes, they would if you implement a system where every review has to be reviewed.
I hand out 1 stars for those who didn't even try and all that will happen is every single person who hands out 1 star will get a negative weighted score bringing us full circle.
This is where you are making a mistake. You do not get negative rating for giving out 1 star ratings. If you gave a 1 star rating and said " THIS SUX I GOT LEWT FOR THE WRONG CLASS" odds are people will down vote you. However, if you gave a 1 star and wrote, "This quest had a poorly written storyline, the encounters were overstacked making it near impossible to complete and all the rooms were empty. No scenery" I personally would up vote something like this because it is constructive and explains WHY the vote was so low.
This is where you are making a mistake. You do not get negative rating for giving out 1 star ratings. If you gave a 1 star rating and said " THIS SUX I GOT LEWT FOR THE WRONG CLASS" odds are people will down vote you. However, if you gave a 1 star and wrote, "This quest had a poorly written storyline, the encounters were overstacked making it near impossible to complete and all the rooms were empty. No scenery" I personally would up vote something like this because it is constructive and explains WHY the vote was so low.
Comments
I think it would help to allow authors to respond to ratings like you would on ebay whether the feedback was good or not. Then you could let people know if a particular bug has been fixed or that you have no control over the loot. Now that might not make any difference to the original reviewer, but to someone looking at the reviews before playing it might.
Then why did Blizzard nerf those dungeons so that people would be able to get gear faster? Not saying that it's right, just odd to use WoW as an example of a challenge. Maybe back in vanilla.
Try my quest Tucker's Kobolds, now with an all new map and encounters!
Version 2.0.2 (5/11/2013)
NW-DGW8GFH6
@EB2013
Part II Coming Soon!
No one plays Wow Heroic dungeons for anything short of the gear grind. I do not want my foundry mission reduced to all the dialog being skipped, all the challenges being rushed, the bosses "dps blitzed" so they can get the "token" and start over. Right now UGC is in the game to give players something new and creative to spend time playing. Yes, xp and loot are important as they are an incentive to run them but UGC is currently not a gear treadmill to keep lvl 60's playing.
The problem is that developers have forgotten how to make a game so much fun you kept playing instead of the gear treadmill. Sure and upgrade is nice and being rewarded on par with effort is important, but do we as Foundry authors have to now start creating treadmill content?
Hands up, I only played Vanilla (quit right before Burning Crusade), so that was my reference. I remember the amazing boss fights and just doing them for the achievement of completing them with my friends and guildies.
Those are the types of Foundry quests I want to make, I'll let everyone else make the quick XP Daily grinds and I can get one starred to hell if needs be
Blizzard didn't nerf those dungeons. They made them more casual so that more people have access to them and be able to enjoy the content with or without the gear. They add Raid Finder which is a pug-friendly version of raids so that the players that are normally unable to do raids for whatever reason (not good enough, not enough time, not in a raiding guild, don't want to be a hardcore pver) they can still do the raids. The easy raids do not give the same gear as the harder raids so saying the nerfed their dungeons to make it easy to farm the loot is incorrect.
Also @Coanunn, So guilds wasn't farming heroic DS for months on end even after having full heroic gear because they were PVE players that enjoyed dungeons, or did they all just quit once they got their gear? What about the guild I knew in WoW that use to sell FL 10 heroic to people that want to get the mount as they wasn't able to do it themselves. They had all the loot and they was good enough to basically 9man the raid that they boosted the 10th player through so they can get the mount and they'd pay the guild for it.
At the end of the day if the content is good enough people will play it regardless of what loot it drops, unless they are one of the "I NEED LOOT NOW OR I WILL QUIT!" kids that have to be rewarded for simply logging on.
I have seen 1 stars comment something like:
"I loved it"
"Hate it"
"I dont like BBQ" (my foundry quest is about Barbecue sauce and upfront you know its not serious.
"Too easy"
"I HOPE YOUR MOM DIES. I SPENT 1 gold in potions. FU MAN FU"
There are several others. However, my FIVE star reviews out number my one and two stars combined. Anything over 100 reviews, and it should start averaging out correctly... to get rid of the trolls, 1 star givers, and people who rate you bad... JUST BECAUSE. However, the worse part... is it is hard to get past that 100 review benchmark. Too many people view the foundry as MEH... and only want hack and slash and tv shows reincarnated as foundry quests.
I love original content, and sure re-created content can be fun... but when you can surprise me... that is the fun part.
A lot of people who run foundry missions are..well..they expect us to be developers. They want us to choose the loot, be able to set camera zoom ins for boss fights and more. I have a guildie that I asked to run a foundry mission of mine called Marketplace of Horrors and let me know what to change. His complaint was the boss. It was too easy. He was also level 30 at the time. I ran it at 60 and saw the challenge. Then he wanted me to actually be able to make it a boss.
We only have so many tools in Foundry and some of the missions that are out there are amazing for what we got. People just need to chill sometimes.
Multiple Personas, only 'One' me
"Why should one devolve themselves to try and entertain those of a lesser mindset around them?"
1. Just because
2. No loot I can use
3. "No explanation given"
4. Module suxors, im 2 l33t 4 wo4dz In English.
5. Etc.
So if the average rating from people on a particular module is 3 to 4 stars, any one star rating would have to have a valid reason.
If said module average player rating was 1 to 2 stars, then 1 star is quite possible and within acceptable levels
Search Code NW-DQ3S67EKX
H.P Lovecraft style Horror
You have obviously never collected feedback before. Those comments may seem non-"valid reason" to you but that does not invalidate the score the person gave. The field I worked in most of my life strives on feedback, from co-workers, superiors, and clients. I have seen "you suck" comments from a superior and when I argued the feedback I was told "I just didn't feel like writing it all out, but I gave you the score you deserved". That is how subjective feedback and rating works. You don't get to determine when it's valid or not, you just have to live with it and keep working to improve so that it averages out.
I understand how it can be hurtful to spend so much time on a project and get 1 stars with no constructive feedback to know what you need to do better, but unforunately it doesn't make the person enjoy your work any more. You may look at a comment like "loot sucks" and think "I have no control over that" but that may be all they could type even though they really thought your whole level quest sucked. And trying to force them to be more verbose is a losing battle. Looking on the forums at the number of times we see "10 characters" at the end of a post because they refused to be more verbose. The world today operates at a high rate of speed where you frankly don't rate the time it would take to type out their thoughts to some people.
All of that and I didn't even mention trolls, who's only purpose is to lower your score, tank your mission, make you feel bad. They are out there. Sites like "art of trolling" exist for a reason. We have a holiday every year dedicated to "getting" everyone in our lives, we have several words for troll behavior from prank to troll to being a ******r, all because it's part of human nature. Trying to FIX that is a never ending miasma and the worst offenders will only go out of their way to be worse and get around any fix you put in place.
Search Code NW-DQ3S67EKX
H.P Lovecraft style Horror
Search Code NW-DQ3S67EKX
H.P Lovecraft style Horror
1) Allow an author to "ignore" a certain number of accounts. Those accounts would not be able to see that authors quests.
- The good thing about this idea is that it saves honest people who just don't like that author's DM style from having to spend time in their quests. It also allows the author to save their quests from trolls.
2) Make the comment section more like a Yelp, or EBay feedback system where authors can respond to negative posts.
- The good thing about this idea is that it at least gives diligent quest seekers a chance to get a good idea of what quests are worth the time, beyond just the star rating.
- The bad thing about this idea is that it doesn't really protect a young author from trolls burying their quest before it gets a chance to be seen.
3) Implement a reddit style system where you can upvote and downvote reviews once you have played and reviewed a quest. It would allow the community to 'self-police' and downvote obvious troll reviews. Reviews that recieved significantly more downvotes than upvotes, would be default-collapsed. Users would have the option of searching the foundry board with default-collapsed ratings included or excluded in the average.
I guess that's a little off the thread topic, but I wanted to capture it before I notice something shiny and get side-tracked.
You know that's kind of already implemented. You can already subscribe to authors, you just don't get emails every time they update.
Ah, thanks for letting me know that. I'm very new to the game, but I really loved DM'ing basic, 1st, and 2nd ed. table top D&D when I was a teenager (I kind of got away from table top role playing before 3rd edition, so I missed out on the later editions of the game.) and I'm pretty excited about the foundry. I spent most of last weekend neglecting my character working on a quest in the foundry and I'm still kind of fiddling around and just trying to learn about it.
Anyone here recall what happened when they updated STO's Foundry so that you got 2480 Dilthium (Astral Diamonds) for the first Featured Mission you played each day?
All the Featured Missions suddenly gained so many 1 star ratings stating that they were 1 starring because it was a featured mission that Cryptic had to go in and manually remove these 1 star ratings.
http://www.tmunderground.com/watch/7804c8ba0cbf1453da22/One%20Star%20Bandit
So I used to be a part of The Movies Online community about a bajillion years ago. It had a massive problem with 1 star troll reviews which gradually resolved itself as the undesirables left. Problem with that everyone left were so 'nice' that they rendered the star system meaningless, giving less than 5 was considered an insult. Less than 4 and you were calling them out.
I don't know what you should take from this other than this problem isn't new. It's happened before, and it'll happen again. You're going to ruin into gits and stupid people on the Internet.
Quest ID: NW-DPCZNUVQ7
A good example of why many don't even try foundry quests. One other would be that if I wanted to spend my time running from point A to point B for the reward of pointless dialogue that isn't as clever as the author thinks... I'd play mario brothers.
I have no problems with the foundry being there for people who want to play it... but please don't operate under the illusion that there is single "correct" way to play, or that it would be a good thing to force others to play your version of the game.
X = # of +votes
Y= # of -votes
W = weight
W=(X-Y)0.01+1
W is capped at 1.50/0.50
I am hardly a math wizard, but the basics are there. The better, complete reviews will have more weight while the poor, useless reviews will be diminished. In conjunction with this, a reviewer receives an account wide rating attached to all characters.
A = average of all W scores from every review provided - 1
This will give a player an additional +/- 0.50 weight to their reviews, thus further rewarding/penalizing their reviews.
A cannot exceed (W-1) on any given review. If A > (W-1), let A = W for that review.
So as an example:
Mr. Smith gives very good reviews and has an A score of +0.38 and gave a review to a Foundry quest that has a meta of 43up/7down.
Mr. Troll gives horrible reviews and has an A score of -0.34 and gave the same Foundry quest a review with a meta of 3up/47 down.
Mr. Smith:
(43-7)0.01+1= +1.36
Since A cannot exceed 0.36, A = 0.36 for this review
So Mr. Smith's review for this Foundry quest will have a total weight of 1.72
Mr. Troll:
(3-47)0.01+1= 0.56
Since A is below -0.44 (distance to midline of 1), his entire A rating will be applied.
So Mr. Troll's review for this Foundry quest will have a total weight of 0.22.
I am sure some of you are asking, 'How is this weight applied?' Well, say Mr. Jones's Quest has 10 reviews:
1-5 star 1.68
5-4 star 1.32, 1.08, 1.79, 1.22, 1.47 = 6.88
3-3 star 1.13, 0.82, 0.57 = 1.52
1-1 star 0.18
only whole numbers are used, always round down, anything less then 1 is left out and not counter towards the star rating average, Answer is rounded to nearest whole number.
(5+24+3)/8= 4 Star rating.
Say Mr. Troll's family decided to join in adding in 3 more 1 star ratings of 0.22, 0.34, 0.28 for a total of 1.02
(5+24+3+1)/9= 3.66 which rounds up to a 4 star rating.
It took 4 trolling reviewers to even count as one vote and in the end, had no effect on the final score. Could it have an effect? Absolutely, but in my opinion, if the Quest is good, the higher weighted, honest reviews will take care of that. Also, the reviews with the most up ratings should be placed at the top of the review list while the reviews with the highest down rating should be at the bottom.
With a system like this or similar to this, people will be rewarded for proper reviews. Those that want to troll or give 1 start ratings without a reasonable reason will inevitably dig their own hole and their "voice" will not be heard and to recover will take quite a bit of time.
So what's the formula for reviewing reviewers?
Turtles all the way down....
This idea is reviewing the reviewers. Did you perhaps mean 'formula for reviewing the reviewer's reviewers?' Because if so, that's silly. I encourage constructive criticism, so if you would like to provide some and add to the conversation, please do.
Thanks for the troll reply. Your comments now carry little weight from here on.
See how this works?
Oh dear, the trolls own the bridge.
WIP
Yes, they would if you implement a system where every review has to be reviewed.
I hand out 1 stars for those who didn't even try and all that will happen is every single person who hands out 1 star will get a negative weighted score bringing us full circle.
I'm sorry. I did not say L2P brah! or 'So what's the formula for reviewing reviewers, turtles all the way down." I am hardly trolling. I did however ask you to clarify you nonsense question and asked you to contribute. If you cannot be mature enough to contribute constructively, then that is your personal problem. I will however be willing to discuss why you think this would be a bad idea if you can provide an intelligent counterpoint.
See? You're actively participating in what I am getting at. With your system all I have to do is declare that I didn't like your review and now your weight has shifted.
You can't say that review processes are flawed so the solution is to have a review process for reviewers.
This is where you are making a mistake. You do not get negative rating for giving out 1 star ratings. If you gave a 1 star rating and said " THIS SUX I GOT LEWT FOR THE WRONG CLASS" odds are people will down vote you. However, if you gave a 1 star and wrote, "This quest had a poorly written storyline, the encounters were overstacked making it near impossible to complete and all the rooms were empty. No scenery" I personally would up vote something like this because it is constructive and explains WHY the vote was so low.
< I am with stupid
WIP