Time to throw the Rating system out!

thedukeofrock

With all due respect to whomever came up with the "rating" system as it
is implemented now,

IT SUCKS AND NEEDS TO BE THROWN IN THE GARBAGE! :mad:

Picture being a new author, you write and painstakingly build a mission, get a few
folks to play it, get good feedback and say 5 out of 5 stars. Gee, folks might see it
is popular and play it, right?

WRONG!

Most novice STO players unfamiliar with the Foundry think there are
spotlight missions (of which I am one of the lucky ones to have one),
or a top 50 cluttered with loot garbage missions that took 5 minutes to
make and were a clear abuse of what the Foundry was created for.

At least before, a new author with a few good ratings would be seen
at the top for players to try and perhaps discover a new and promising
Foundry author, but now, they wallow in the cellar with the new system
and soon give up any effort to create again. I have had friends experience
this, and have quit STO because of it.

You need to review the Crapola system you have implemented and give
authors with new missions a chance to flourish again. Not be stuck at the
bottom of a long list, never to be seen because of someone's "brilliant"
idea to muck with the system.

DoR

captainhunter1

thedukeofrock wrote: »

With all due respect to whomever came up with the "rating" system as it
is implemented now,

IT SUCKS AND NEEDS TO BE THROWN IN THE GARBAGE! :mad:

Picture being a new author, you write and painstakingly build a mission, get a few
folks to play it, get good feedback and say 5 out of 5 stars. Gee, folks might see it
is popular and play it, right?

WRONG!

Most novice STO players unfamiliar with the Foundry think there are
spotlight missions (of which I am one of the lucky ones to have one),
or a top 50 cluttered with loot garbage missions that took 5 minutes to
make and were a clear abuse of what the Foundry was created for.

At least before, a new author with a few good ratings would be seen
at the top for players to try and perhaps discover a new and promising
Foundry author, but now, they wallow in the cellar with the new system
and soon give up any effort to create again. I have had friends experience
this, and have quit STO because of it.

You need to review the Crapola system you have implemented and give
authors with new missions a chance to flourish again. Not be stuck at the
bottom of a long list, never to be seen because of someone's "brilliant"
idea to muck with the system.

DoR

I wouldn't say throw it out. It can be very useful.

However the 'weighting system' attached to it DOES need to go. All that 'weight' is SINKING new missions so they are never seen with the current UI.

We need a new UI (see below), not a complete toss of the rating system.

drogyn1701

The weighting system was in response to the issue of new missions getting one five-star rating from the author's buddy and suddenly being put on top of missions that had been vetted by hundreds of players. I guess it's a subjective thing as to which was better.

To foster some constructive discussion: If the 5-star system we have now were to be completely thrown out, what would you like to see in it's place?

thedukeofrock

My rant was directed at the "weighting system" as it is called.
It is a pathetic waste of what was working pretty well to help folks
be seen. Then to top that off they cut the mission list down to 50.

If someone got a 5 star from a buddy and it was worth it, then it would stand
the test of time and other players reviews. If it did not warrant such a rating, it
would be balanced out by the players trying it after.

That is what my rant is based on, not the entire system. It needs to be
put back the way it was. This new system sucks tribble turds. (putting nicely)

drogyn1701

I think maybe you're letting your emotions get in the way of your meaning.

In any case, Cryptic at the time listened to the feedback of the community, who wanted something like this (and this is at least a couple years ago if memory serves). Maybe they will this time if enough people agree.

Edit: upon further investigation it was mid-year 2013 that the weighting system was introduced.

virusdancer

Isn't it just broken?

Bring up missions, go to Foundry, go to Browse All... (on a Fed):

Select New
Select Hot
Select Top Rated

They're all the same.

You go to Custom...say you want 4 Star Missions. You get all sorts of things that did not show for Top Rated. Hell, the first one listed there even says New! but was not listed when you searched for New.

Pop back to Spotlight, and there it is. There is another one right below that with the New! as well. So you go back to New and search for that by title...it doesn't come up.

Now I'm not all that familiar with the rating system, etc, etc, etc...but if I were going there to try to find something...it doesn't look like I'd have much luck.

Isn't it just broken...period...?

lordmalak1

Oh boo-hoo, another re-hash of an age old assumption that cryptic owes prominent display rights to some mission creator who got his 4 buddies to pad the reviews. Get over yourselves, you create missions for your own satisfaction, not to show the rest of the community that you're a big deal (in your own mind).

thedukeofrock

lordmalak1 wrote: »

Oh boo-hoo, another re-hash of an age old assumption that cryptic owes prominent display rights to some mission creator who got his 4 buddies to pad the reviews. Get over yourselves, you create missions for your own satisfaction, not to show the rest of the community that you're a big deal (in your own mind).

Hey A-hole.

This is for friends. I don't need any attention. I have enough. I can tell by your response
you are probably one of the "drive-by" 1 star granters.

I will expect to see one on my missions soon, although it matters little.
Get over yourself and grow up you jerk!

lordmalak1

thedukeofrock wrote: »

Hey A-hole.

This is for friends. I don't need any attention. I have enough. I can tell by your response
you are probably one of the "drive-by" 1 star granters.

I will expect to see one on my missions soon, although it matters little.
Get over yourself and grow up you jerk!

Well thats a mature response.

..or should I say manure ?

paxfederatica

Here's a simple remedy: Instead of weighting the ratings, don't show a mission's rating at all until it hits a certain number of plays (say, 100). The lack of a star rating next to a mission would also serve to indicate to players that the mission is (relatively) "hot off the press". The "New" filter in the mission browser could also be retooled as needed to show all, and only, missions with not enough plays to show a rating.

captainhunter1

thedukeofrock wrote: »

My rant was directed at the "weighting system" as it is called.
It is a pathetic waste of what was working pretty well to help folks
be seen. Then to top that off they cut the mission list down to 50.

If someone got a 5 star from a buddy and it was worth it, then it would stand
the test of time and other players reviews. If it did not warrant such a rating, it
would be balanced out by the players trying it after.

That is what my rant is based on, not the entire system. It needs to be
put back the way it was. This new system sucks tribble turds. (putting nicely)

^ This

The old system wasn`t perfect, but it was much better than what we have currently.

The utter stagnation on the current lists because of the weighting system is terrible for the Foundry, especially for new authors - the very people Cryptic are courting to play the game.

nagorak

drogyn1701 wrote: »

The weighting system was in response to the issue of new missions getting one five-star rating from the author's buddy and suddenly being put on top of missions that had been vetted by hundreds of players. I guess it's a subjective thing as to which was better.

To foster some constructive discussion: If the 5-star system we have now were to be completely thrown out, what would you like to see in it's place?

Honestly that never was a real problem. All it takes is one 3 or 2 star review, or a couple, and the mission moves back down the list. Making it so new missions have no chance of getting any traction was a real step in the wrong direction.

This was a change that no one really asked for. There has been quite a bit of negative feedback about it, which was all ignored.

markhawkman

I think the weighted rating would be better if it had a lower cap to give you the proper rating. the premise isn't bad, but it takes far too long for a good mission to get the rating it deserves.

isthisscience

A weighting system is important, I think the problem is it is too weighted. After a mission reaches, say, 100,is should no longer impact at all. 100 is more than enough and it makes no difference in legitimacy of the rating between 100 people and 1000.

captainhunter1

isthisscience wrote: »

A weighting system is important, I think the problem is it is too weighted. After a mission reaches, say, 100,is should no longer impact at all. 100 is more than enough and it makes no difference in legitimacy of the rating between 100 people and 1000.

Many missions struggle to get 10 plays, let alone 100. That's why the weighting system, while in theory great, has been shown to be terrible in practice.

So what if someone's mission goes to the top of the list for a short time because of initial 5 star ratings? At this point I say more power to them! At least we would have new missions seeing daylight!

As was wisely said above, those missions that are good will hold their own weight on the list, others will drop away - but at least they had a chance - something they don't have now.

khreg

thedukeofrock wrote: »

With all due respect to whomever came up with the "rating" system as it
is implemented now,

IT SUCKS AND NEEDS TO BE THROWN IN THE GARBAGE! :mad:

Picture being a new author, you write and painstakingly build a mission, get a few
folks to play it, get good feedback and say 5 out of 5 stars. Gee, folks might see it
is popular and play it, right?

WRONG!

Most novice STO players unfamiliar with the Foundry think there are
spotlight missions (of which I am one of the lucky ones to have one),
or a top 50 cluttered with loot garbage missions that took 5 minutes to
make and were a clear abuse of what the Foundry was created for.

At least before, a new author with a few good ratings would be seen
at the top for players to try and perhaps discover a new and promising
Foundry author, but now, they wallow in the cellar with the new system
and soon give up any effort to create again. I have had friends experience
this, and have quit STO because of it.

You need to review the Crapola system you have implemented and give
authors with new missions a chance to flourish again. Not be stuck at the
bottom of a long list, never to be seen because of someone's "brilliant"
idea to muck with the system.

DoR

Agreed that something needs to change with the current UI. It really is a bit of a task to find quality missions and not just another grindfest. The filter doesn't help either with me excluding "combat" and getting results like "Blast-o-rama".




Didn't really see that exact result, just makin' a point.

ashkrik23

Here are the problems with this system. First of all, why are 1-stars rated more heavily than 5-stars? Why is it that it takes multiple 5 stars to get back to your original rating prior to the one-star?
1 and 5 stars should be rated equally on their respective ends.

Second, and this is the worst offender of them all, is the potential for trolling abuse. I, and many others have watched their missions all receive multiple one-stars at on time. People can pick up a mission, drop it instantly, and still write a review. Whoever made the system like that did not think it through. People should be required to complete a mission before they can assign a star rating.

And to those who will argue that prevents people from posting about issues or bugs in a mission, we have something called mail.

starfarertheta

Perhaps a DNF (Did not finish) rating could be added?

This could be automatically assigned if the last objective in a mission was not completed when a mission is dropped, with the stars greyed out or something. Sounds simple in theory, but I imagine that implementing it might be anything but.

It's just an idea.

thedukeofrock

captainhunter1 wrote: »

Many missions struggle to get 10 plays, let alone 100. That's why the weighting system, while in theory great, has been shown to be terrible in practice.

So what if someone's mission goes to the top of the list for a short time because of initial 5 star ratings? At this point I say more power to them! At least we would have new missions seeing daylight!

As was wisely said above, those missions that are good will hold their own weight on the list, others will drop away - but at least they had a chance - something they don't have now.

PRECISELY! More power to them.

The rating will balance out as it always has if a sub-par mission.

At the same time, even though I experienced the "drive-by" 1 stars Ashkrit also speaks of above,
my missions have recovered because I am a known author and received enough plays shortly
after these debacles. But that is because I have a series beginning as a spotlight mission. The many talented authors that are sitting in limbo with the current rating system do not have that luxury.
Ashkrit also has a valid point many of us have asked almost since the beginning of the
"drive by" phenomena. Please require players to complete missions prior to rating them.
I do not know the technical expertise it would require to accomplish this, but I am certain
most legitimate Foundry authors, if not all, would agree with this.

and an aside to @Lordmalek, this is an issue many Foundry authors have been dealing
with since the Foundry ratings began, so there is no Boo-hooing as you put it. Please troll
other areas of the Forum if you find the need to attempt to insult people.