Best List - Constructive Ideas

dzogen · July 2013

From the other thread, I think the rating system works, just needs to be searchable & sortably refined.

The main thing missing is better search functionality & to create multiple types of best lists so that other less popular genres and lengths could be recognized by the smaller number of fans who like those types of quests.

Foundry authors would have their quest tagged using these dimensions - using only one measure from each:

1) Quest Theme - Lore, Comedy, etc
2) Quest Type - Hack n slash, story, etc.
2) Quest Duration - Short, Medium, Long (automatically sorted)

Best List examples
Most popular - all time (# of reviews)
Best Lore (by rating)
Best comedy (by rating)
Best short (by rating)
Best long (by rating)
Hottest - Trending (% increase over 48 hours - naturally skews towards newer quests)

Also quests that don't fall into any best list, obviously should still be sortable in their respective lists and not disappear into the abyss.

Add some decent rewards for running foundry and there's most of your problems solved. Thoughts?

xpurpleinsanityx · July 2013

I like it, personally. I think they should keep the "For Review" tab, but limit how long quests stay there. Authors should also be able to mark a quest as "test" so that those don't clutter up the foundry catalog either.

Edit: Players also need to be able to send a bug report directly to the author if they are unable to finish a quest.

People can say that the 5 star rating system needs to change all day long, but the fact of the matter is that no matter what rating system you put up....it's going to have a negative vs. positive impact somewhere.

vanor · July 2013

I like it too.

If I could filter based on type, theme, and duration like you list. It would do a lot to improve the visibility of the types of quests I'm likely to enjoy. That would the rating system less "competitive" because your 4.45 star quest would be in a over all smaller list of quests, which would make it more likely I'd see it and give it a try.

I think the Theme/Type/Duration would also prevent some of the issues of an unrestricted metatag type system, where people would throw in every tag possible so it would show up in more lists.

xpurpleinsanityx · July 2013

Thinking on it a little further, I think maybe allowing TWO choices from the first bracket would be a good idea. It's still limiting so that the author can't simply try to "fill the board" with tags, but there are a lot of quests that really do strongly fit at least two tags in the department.

karitr · July 2013

Looks good to me

I also agree with purple that authors should be able to tag quests they are still refining as 'beta' and, in my opinion, these should not be rateable. Only once the author is satisfied the work is ready for general release *ta-daa* should the rating system kick in.

antonkyle · July 2013

I agree with most of that.

'Add some decent rewards for running foundry and there's most of your problems solved. '

I would like to add to this.

When you run a foundry quest you should get one foundry token, when I say token I just mean anything that would fit within the feel of the game.

When you collect enough tokens you can spend them on items that are nowhere else in the game. These items could be, fireworks, pets, mounts, little toys, whatever, maybe even a weapon or two. The maths should be equal to pvp and raiding items.

This would solve any loot issues and allow us to have boss fights. Also it would encourage foundry 'grinders' which can only be good for everyone.

Honestly I am amazed this isn't already in place, but then it doesn’t directly involve money so there you go.

To follow that though, note to devs. Better game = more players, more players = more money being spent, more money being spent = more profit, happy days. We the players want you to make more profit. (but not so much that you put kung fu panda in the game.)

lovepeas · July 2013

Great thoughts. If they don't want to add all those then at least break it into two. New Best with a time limit. (Not that the quest is new but that it is new to the best list.) These can only stay in the page for 30 days. Then all -time best with would be top ranked overall. That way spaces on best are not dominated by the same quests for long periods of time and it is always highlighting different quests while old favorites still have a place as long as the score stays high enough.

zovya · July 2013

The devs did mention that they were in the process of working on this exact thing. Just a matter of time really, but who knows when that will be.

groshie · July 2013

First of all, I'm glad for the attempt to change the thread name.

dzogen wrote: »

From the other thread, I think the rating system works, just needs to be searchable & sortably refined.

I suppose we agree to disagree, then. It's still a system that causes some grief for authors as long as there aren't any clear guidelines on how to use the stars. Sure, it probably won't matter once you hit your 2000th review, but honestly - How many authors get that many reviews?
I'd say a fraction compared to quests created.

Sure, a tag system will probably help a lot, but it won't negate other issues discussed in the other thread in itself.
I'm still more for the "endorsement" kind of system with suggested quests as well.
As of this post there have been no arguments (that aren't true to the current system as well) to why we shouldn't have that system instead with an emphasis on positivity.

(And yes, you'll still be able to skip quests that are not endorsed yet if you think you won't enjoy it because of that.)

dzogen wrote: »

Add some decent rewards for running foundry and there's most of your problems solved. Thoughts?

I very much agree to this.
I don't care for gear or such things myself, but I can see that it would make players try Foundries more often.

xpurpleinsanityx · July 2013

I suppose we agree to disagree, then. It's still a system that causes some grief for authors as long as there aren't any clear guidelines on how to use the stars. Sure, it probably won't matter once you hit your 2000th review, but honestly - How many authors get that many reviews?
I'd say a fraction compared to quests created.

Sure, a tag system will probably help a lot, but it won't negate other issues discussed in the other thread in itself.
I'm still more for the "endorsement" kind of system with suggested quests as well.
As of this post there have been no arguments (that aren't true to the current system as well) to why we shouldn't have that system instead with an emphasis on positivity.

(And yes, you'll still be able to skip quests that are not endorsed yet if you think you won't enjoy it because of that.)

Because people are simply not positive. It doesn't matter what system you plop in front of them, they will find a way to add a negative side. It's part of being human. You change the way it "looks", but it's the same thing. Just more "appealing" at the moment because it's new and fresh and we can pretend it's a positive thing. It's the same thing. We'd do just fine with the 5 star system, it's the search system that is the problem.

Edit: Authors will always want to justify getting those 1 stars. Yes, I haven't even been here long and have already seen the 1 star trolling for myself, but that's life. No matter what you do...there will be 1 star trolls in pretty much everything you do that involves getting a public opinion of any sort. So, it doesn't really matter how you label or paint the rating system. The fact is, there -does- need to be -some- sort of rating system. However, if the search engine were fixed....there is no longer the excuse of, "If I get 1 star trolled, no one will ever see my quest!".

groshie · July 2013

xpurpleinsanityx wrote: »

Because people are simply not positive.

I am not saying that people are positive.
I'm saying that I think we would benefit from a positive system as well as an improved search function.
I'm interested in hearing your arguments as to why we should keep the current system that has been tried and proved to bring griefing to many authors, though.

xpurpleinsanityx wrote: »

It doesn't matter what system you plop in front of them, they will find a way to add a negative side.

I'd also like to know how to counter this, but at the moment I don't see how people would add a negative side to a positive system?
Again: These are details that, as long as there is nothing substantial to it, can be left alone until tested.

xpurpleinsanityx wrote: »

It's part of being human. You change the way it "looks", but it's the same thing. Just more "appealing" at the moment because it's new and fresh and we can pretend it's a positive thing. It's the same thing. We'd do just fine with the 5 star system, it's the search system that is the problem.

As I said before, the search system in itself won't change some of the issues and bitterness discussed in the other thread.

noctiluca74 · July 2013

I would like to see a way to find 'old' quests that have fallen off the NEW list. I feel like there are probably some great quests published in May or early June that I'll never get to see as I have no way to know they exist! I think an 'all-time' searchable by 'adjusted rating' would be a great addition. It's frustrating that the shelf life of a quest is 'a month' then it goes into limbo. Unless you subscribe to the author or someone tells you about it you have no other way to know to look for older quests.

xpurpleinsanityx · July 2013

I am not saying that people are positive.
I'm saying that I think we would benefit from a positive system as well as an improved search function.
I'm interested in hearing your arguments as to why we should keep the current system that has been tried and proved to bring griefing to many authors, though.

Honestly, it's people that are bringing grief to people and they are using the system as an excuse to do so. There -are- problems with the system (the search engine part) that do, however, contribute to people feeling that it is more necessary to knock other people down.

I'd also like to know how to counter this, but at the moment I don't see how people would add a negative side to a positive system?
Again: These are details that, as long as there is nothing substantial to it, can be left alone until tested.

Let's say the positive change is just to allow "up-voting" and removing the 5-star system. The negative side added will be people complaining about simply not having enough "up-votes" or even worse, competing about who has either more "up-votes" or a higher ratio of "up-votes" to plays.

As I said before, the search system in itself won't change some of the issues and bitterness discussed in the other thread.

Of course it won't, because nothing will. There will always be issues and bitterness. We are working with a tool where some people will be able to create more technically perfect and aesthetically appealing content than other people. We are working with a tool where some people will be able to craft a more engaging story than others. There are many more aspects to that when you really break it down, but the point is.....everyone that does this wants to succeed on some level. Everyone wants to create a gem of a quest, but not everyone -will-. Whether that is in technical aspects, or simply the opinion of the populace...doesn't really matter. The fact is that many people will not see their quest live up to the expectations they have of the public receiving their creation. When this happens, there are many that will feel forms of bitterness among other things. That is simply not something that will change.

groshie · July 2013

xpurpleinsanityx wrote: »

There -are- problems with the system (the search engine part) that do, however, contribute to people feeling that it is more necessary to knock other people down.

I'd say it's the sheer possibility, but then again, none of us know for certain so it's pointless to argue about.
An endorse system with suggestions would however remove the bad competition, so to speak.

xpurpleinsanityx wrote: »

Let's say the positive change is just to allow "up-voting" and removing the 5-star system. The negative side added will be people complaining about simply not having enough "up-votes" or even worse, competing about who has either more "up-votes" or a higher ratio of "up-votes" to plays.

There will be less competition already due to the tags and suggestion-system.
Honestly, if someone would be blaming the suggested system for not having enough plays/endorsements then they should think about it again. Today it's entirely possible to downrate a quest so it'll never see the light of day again (save for duplicating the quest), there wouldn't be if the system changed.

xpurpleinsanityx wrote: »

Of course it won't, because nothing will.

Sounds rather bitter, to me.
I hope people will learn from each other instead of bicker amonst themselves - If they do then I'm sure everyone who is dedicated to it will create true gems of quests.

Edit: Changed the word that was very wrong in this context. My apologies!

xpurpleinsanityx · July 2013

Sounds rather misogynist, to me.
I hope people will learn from each other instead of bicker amonst themselves - If they do then I'm sure everyone who is dedicated to it will create true gems of quests.

Misogynist? I don't see how it's hating on women. XD I'm a woman.

Edit: Also...I guess the rest of that (ignoring the woman-hating accusation) could be true in a utopia of sorts. XD I guess I'm a realist. :P

groshie · July 2013

xpurpleinsanityx wrote: »

Misogynist? I don't see how it's hating on women. XD I'm a woman.

Also...I guess the rest of that (ignoring the woman-hating accusation) could be true in a utopia of sorts. XD I guess I'm a realist. :P

Haha, yes you are right. Sorry. And now I totally forgot the word I did mean so I'll have to go with bitter.

Sorry for that.

Nothing wrong with being a realist, I'm one too!
But I really would like things to change for the better and stay that way, even if it's a tougher goal to achieve.

xpurpleinsanityx · July 2013

groshie wrote: »

Haha, yes you are right. Sorry. And now I totally forgot the word I did mean so I'll have to go with bitter.
Sorry for that.

I'm not really bitter either though. :P I haven't been playing this game long enough to be bitter. XD I just know how people generally are and see people living up to that as per normal.

groshie · July 2013

xpurpleinsanityx wrote: »

I'm not really bitter either though. :P I haven't been playing this game long enough to be bitter. XD I just know how people generally are and see people living up to that as per normal.

No no, sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean you were bitter, I just meant it sounded bitter.

I hope no one becomes bitter because of this, it is a game after all!

xpurpleinsanityx · July 2013

groshie wrote: »

No no, sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean you were bitter, I just meant it sounded bitter.
I hope no one becomes bitter because of this, it is a game after all!

Agreed, sadly that's one of the leading problems, though. Especially considering how much work the majority of authors -do- put into their work....it's easy to become bitter when things don't pan out right for any reason.

essenti · July 2013

groshie wrote: »

Haha, yes you are right. Sorry. And now I totally forgot the word I did mean so I'll have to go with bitter.
Sorry for that.

Nothing wrong with being a realist, I'm one too!
But I really would like things to change for the better and stay that way, even if it's a tougher goal to achieve.

I think that word you were looking for was "misanthrope." A friend of mine gets them backwards all the time, and they mean very different things. I think "a strong distrust of human nature" is probably what you were going for there.

Best List - Constructive Ideas

Comments