Heavens_Agent

I'll give it a go as well, see if I can come up with something you'd like.

[ QUOTE ]
Slashdot front page article on MA

Seems the outside world is less than enthused as well. While appeal to majority is very weak its considerably better than because I say so that you and so many antifarmers use

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, all it demonstrates is that the outside world is simply more concerned with drama, rather than the regular "oh, and that MA thing, it's doing pretty well. Players like it, are using it, seems to have been some minor glitches but that's to be expected". Nor does it demonstrate a majority. Let's face it, those willing to voice their opinions on forums, message boards, and such articles are a the vocal minority.

What it comes down o is that it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out which is a more appealing read to someone who doesn't play the game.

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I really want to play this. Since searching for "Vampire Lord" will probably turn up a bunch of stuff, as both words are commonly used, can you provide arc numbers for the three you've published?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't bring up as many arcs as you might think. As CrazyCorsaire mentioned, just look for orange in the Author field and they're easy to spot; all three were clumped together when I looked for them.

Stories that are really good have the potential of earning Developer's Choice honors. Such arcs get saved to the servers, so they no longer take up one of your available slots. Hall of Fame arcs are supposed to be treated similarly, but both methods have problems at the moment. They should be more ... stable ... with the next Issue.

A lot of folks cycle their completed arcs, moving them into and out of those three slots as appropriate. Some even activate secondary accounts, to get additional publishing slots.

There has been talk of ways to obtain new publishing slots. I've heard mention of purchasing new slots with cash and/or with tickets in the past. I'd also like to see a few extra slots tied to existing Veteran Rewards. But I've not seen any real official news on the matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Positron didn't cause any fear. The general paranoia was caused by too many people believing forum posters or in-game broadcasts instead of reading his post themselves.

The changes to MA, even the ticket cap, effect very, very few players in this game. This is not the big deal some bitter posters make it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
Precisely. What's more, it's those few bitter posters that raise a big stink and cause the illusion that it's a major issue when there's really not much to it.

In all honesty, I'd avoid any custom enemy group that lacks minions, LTs, or bosses. Doing so is likely to get your arc flagged for review as a farm, and possibly removed by the GMs that review it. Even if the first GM to look at it OKs the arc, any time you edit it (likely every patch that effects the MA), your arc would likely be flagged for review again.

What you could do is create a second enemy group specifically for your capture the flag encounter. Your primary group would contain minions, LTs, and bosses, but you'd only put the mobs you wanted for the challenge objective in the second group.

[ QUOTE ]
Its more the conclusion any sane person would draw.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say it's more a conclusion a paranoid or guilt-ridden person might draw, myself. A sane person would realize the developers don't want to push the majority of their players to the point that they may quit. I mean, it would be kind of counterproductive for them to do so ...

[ QUOTE ]
And that would be fine if they gave a context window when you mouse over the arcs rating that broke out the overall number of different ratings.:

5 Star: 5
4 Star: 3
3 Star: 4
2 Star: 1
1 Star: 1

As it stands right now though, an Arc that was maintaning a 4 star rating gets hit with a 0 or a 1 and suddenly it is down to a 3 star rating with no way for people to see how many rated it which way. It is just a 3 star to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can definitely agree that the rating system as it stands now doesn't do its job in any of those ways. We may as well be using third party rating sites to figure out what arcs are worthwhile by now.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that this discussion was aimed at fixes that would better the system that's in place now, maybe even replace it. While we're at it, why shouldn't such a revision aim at making the star ratings worthwhile. It sounds as if you'd rather write them off entirely, instead of coming up with a way to make them work.

Something else to consider is that the rating system isn't just for the author's benefit. Such a system is designed to allow the casual observer to pick out the cream of the crop, to identify what's worth pursuing and what should be avoided as well. Players are likely to avoid a lower-scoring arc, more often than not for valid reasons.

If you force people to provide feedback for every mission they rate poorly, fewer people will do so, and the rating system will fail to meet this objective. There is in fact valid reason to believe that this is the primary reason for this aspect of the rating system. As has been said, simply starring an arc does little to inform an author what may be wrong with the work. But it does tell others that someone didn't enjoy it. Or a lot of someones; perhaps it's not worthwhile.

I've found they won't fly unless there's a reason to. Try jumping or flying away from them, or up a cliff; it'll usually cause such an ally to take to the air for a while.

In my experience, most players who take advantage of the opportunity arrive in already-formed groups, most often as a planned outing. As such, a full group comes in, plays until they're done, and doesn't return until the next planned meeting. It results in little interest or reason in standing around in that particular building on a daily basis.

Try posting it here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, not onlt does that require players to go out of their way to do something extra, it's making them do so when they're upset that they couldn't complete an arc. In such a situation, I probably wouldn't leave any feedback. And I love making my thoughts known. :P

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be a common theme. Are people so afraid of actually talking to someone else and bringing up a problem that they aren't willing to type in a few words? What is the point of feedback if no one is willing to actually step up and spend the 30 seconds it takes to tell someone what they really think and give them an honest opinion?

If people care so little that they won't even deign to acknowledge the people who put time and effort into making these arcs, then we as a community have already lost.

I, for one, do not accept this.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not a matter of not wanting to provide feedback. It's a matter of being so fed up with an arc and what it put them through that one doesn't want to provide comment at all. One just wants to be done with it and move on.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system definitely needs an overhaul, we both agree on that. But limiting the options for providing feedback will only hurt things in the long run

[/ QUOTE ]

You ALWAYS have the option of telling them directly. After all, it lists the global handle of the arc's author in the information! If you want to let someone know a problem with their arc, tell them!

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, some folks don't want to take the risk of negative backlash due to even constructive criticism of an author's work. There's a somewhat valid fear of payback, and if the only way of providing feedback is to do so directly, many simply won't do so.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone else would be in the same boat. And really, why WOULDN'T you play a good arc again? Especially with new friends or teammates who haven't seen it? I've run through some arcs many times over. Being able to go back and do stuff again was the theme of an entire Issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've run fun arcs again a second time, especially in a group. But I've never rated it a second time. Nor do I rate an arc if I run through with a group on the first go.

[ QUOTE ]
No, their work is not being thrown out. Rating something is not work. Especially if the rating system is this flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Rating something isn't work (unless you go through it with fine-toothed comb). Promoting an arc to get people to play and rate it, however, is. And that's what would be destroyed. Good authors have been promoting their work, sometimes going so far as to put cash into such promotions, to get to where they are. Removing their stars would be negating the effort and dollars put into their work, and several talented contributors would likely be lost. And I wouldn't blame them; they would be getting punished for other exploitation of the system.

[ QUOTE ]
And as a former player of SWG, that title didn't die because player's work was thrown out. It died because SOE has no concept on how to properly balance, insisted on keeping broken systems in the game, and overall has no concept on how to make a good Star Wars game.

[/ QUOTE ]
You make it sound as if you don't think I played the game. I did, and I was there as well. And I can honestly tell you everyone I knew that left the game claimed they did so because the work and effort they had put into their characters and the game were erased in one fell swoop by the developers. Claims that SOE didn't know how to make a good Star Wars game fall short of the mark, as the game was doing extremely well before they changed things. Claims that SOE has no concept on how to properly balance things fall short as well, as the company still has hit titles.

As an aside, I too have high hopes for The Old Republic. Here's to hoping Bioware doesn't botch things.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps something to keep track of what percentage of people quit the arc without completing it? I think you should be able to send comments regardless, which means you could talk to the author about the problems with their story, ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, not onlt does that require players to go out of their way to do something extra, it's making them do so when they're upset that they couldn't complete an arc. In such a situation, I probably wouldn't leave any feedback. And I love making my thoughts known. :P

[ QUOTE ]
... but the fact that no one would be able to rate the arc should speak for itself, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]
There would be no way of determining if no one's been able to complete the mission, if no one's tried running the mission, or if no one has simply cared to rate the arc.

[ QUOTE ]
As it stands now, those arcs, all with serious flaws, could have lots of 5-star ratings even though no one actually finished them. Or possibly even played them.

[/ QUOTE ]
The system definitely needs an overhaul, we both agree on that. But limiting the options for providing feedback will only hurt things in the long run

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fairness in fixing what's already been done to misuse the system is too much to ask for. Item rewards have already been received, badges have already been issued; the impact any such action will have on those that misused the system is negligible. The ones it would truly harm are those that legitimately rose above the rest, despite the obstacles. They're the ones that would be feeling the sting of such action, that would be most likely to leave the game as a result of such action. And they're the ones we want to keep around.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they were so good that they could beat out the 0-star crew, then there's no reason why they wouldn't rise to the top again even more quickly without the interference from rating system abuse. The arc isn't changing, the rating system would be.

[/ QUOTE ]
They would be able to regain their standing, and they wouldn't. Most that have already rated their work are unlikely to play through it again, and as such these authors have a smaller prospective audience from which to build their story's standing. Add to that the fact that these authors had to put real effort to overcome the broken system, not just writing the arc but promoting, bug fixing, and generally getting the word out. In essence, all their hard work would be thrown out, and when a player's effort and work is tossed out the window by developers, online titles begin to die. Star Wars Galaxies is the best example of this.

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion, a rating system that allows someone to rate content they're not even experiencing is not a rating system at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps, but a previous poster did state a time when such rating is called for, when an arc cannot be completed due to too many surprise EBs. I can elaborate on a couple of others. One mission I played was placed on a tech map, but destructible object spawns were so thick they blocked doorways. There was literally no way to bypass the objects and complete the mission. On another, every unit of a custom enemy group utilized heavy End drain. The mission was slow and a headache, but doable until I get to the end and there's a surprise EB, downgraded from AV level. Possessing the same End-drain abilities as the rest of the enemy group, he and his followers dropped me to zero End after only one attack. Four times. I couldn't even kill off a minion in the group before I was out of juice.

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a better solution handy on how to solve the problems with the rating system, I would be happy to hear them. I don't think I have all the answers, this is just the result of me giving it a little thought.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, I do not. I was just stating my opinion on your suggestion; I think it would do more harm than good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Damaging a player's efforts in such a manner are a bad idea. Look how many folks got up in arms with Positron's recent MA use statements. With the removal of certain maps and MA resources. No, if someone thinks they have been hurt by the existing system, they have the option of republishing their arcs when a new system is implemented. And if the new system does its job, those arcs that benefited illegitimately from the current system will eventually be brought in line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you explain to me how that would be fair?

[/ QUOTE ]
Fairness in fixing what's already been done to misuse the system is too much to ask for. Item rewards have already been received, badges have already been issued; the impact any such action will have on those that misused the system is negligible. The ones it would truly harm are those that legitimately rose above the rest, despite the obstacles. They're the ones that would be feeling the sting of such action, that would be most likely to leave the game as a result of such action. And they're the ones we want to keep around.

I think the best we can hope for is to leave things as is for now, but design a system that will repair the damage done to the system naturally, over time.

My suggestion: don't do it.

A mission with all bosses would be too similar to the farm missions and exploit issues raised by Positron lately. Your arc would likely be flagged for GM review and probably pulled each time you put it up. Forget making your missions a super-challenge; the Devs say its for storytelling, and in essence go on to say say a story with no supporting cast is not a story at all.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I can't complete the arc due to being hit with several surprise elite bosses, I certainly want to be able to quit and give a poor rating. In fact, if I can't quit and give a rating, I probably wouldn't bother rating any arc that I can complete. I'd just throw out the rating system altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then the mission will sit there with no ratings and people won't play it. The rating system as it is now is is just as irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, as a side effect someone who actually intended to publish a good mission would not be receiving any feedback, some of which might be useful to make their arc better and more enjoyable; as much as it makes it possible to grief players, being able to rate an arc without finishing it is something that's needed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Comment: safdsadfsadf
Requiring a comment is meaningless, since you can't force people to form complete words and sentences.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I had a 0-star comment like that, then it would be a legitimate reason for #7... Or perhaps even seeking other recourse.

[/ QUOTE ]
However, there are other problems as well. Folks may simply not rate an arc, or rate such an arc as three or better for no other reason than to avoid having to give comments. Forcing people to something in an online game is one of the fastest ways of creating an unused feature. Even more so if they have to identify themselves as a result of what they are being forced to do.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This sounds messy. I suspect they moved away from e-mails for a good reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly, but these are suggestions for a reason, not demands. Maybe there's a more efficient way to do this, but I'll have to think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Give an author the option to create a text document for the purpose of recording such comments locally.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well that would be unpopular. I don't care about that myself, but I think a number of players might be coming for you with a knife if you convinced the devs to wipe out their ratings.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ratings? The ratings as they stand now are completely flawed. Come after me with a knife if you want, sure, but just like revisions to powersets come with a respec, so would a revision of the rating system require a reset. And seriously, if these arcs are honestly good, they'll get right back to where they should be very quickly. As it stands now, I could play some very good 3-star arcs and find many very bad 5-stars.

[/ QUOTE ]
Damaging a player's efforts in such a manner are a bad idea. Look how many folks got up in arms with Positron's recent MA use statements. With the removal of certain maps and MA resources. No, if someone thinks they have been hurt by the existing system, they have the option of republishing their arcs when a new system is implemented. And if the new system does its job, those arcs that benefited illegitimately from the current system will eventually be brought in line.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Creates excessive work for the GMs. Please consider the GM workload when suggesting something like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly understandable. But if a rating is invalid for some reason, shouldn't there be a way to remove it? Frankly, if someone's going to get 30 people to spam me with 0 stars with comments of 'oincaoinfaonfajnf', I'd want them all removed and those players possibly even banned from using the rating system for abuse. A ratings system requires some degree of oversight, otherwise we may as well not have one.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're simply never gong to see this level of oversight in an online game. There are more pressing concerns, especiallt when players have the option of republishing to clear the slate and start over. And a successful rating system shouldn't suffer from such grieffing anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to be making an incredibly arbitrary distinction.

The developers have taken action to stop accounts from rating their own arcs; nowhere, to my knowledge, have they stated that they do not want individual people who own multiple accounts to rate their own arcs and their behavior is not indicative of any such want.

Again, you've decided, for entirely arbitrary reasons, that one, particular action that multiple accounts can partake in is exploitative.

I must ask, why?

[/ QUOTE ]
If my distinction is arbitrary, yours is more so. I never claimed the Developers had stated they do not want individual people who own multiple accounts to rate their own arcs. However, as you admit, they did go out of their way to stop accounts from rating their own arcs; there's valid reason to believe, based on the circumstances, that rating your own arc with one of your own alternate accounts would be frowned upon. In addition, they have gone on record stating that voting-cartel type behavior will not be tolerated, and being able to rate one's own arc, possibly multiple times, could easily qualify as such.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence supporting the idea that such behavior is acceptable in the eyes of the developers. You claim my statements are flawed due to lack of specific evidence. Your objections are flawed due to lack of any evidence.

Regardless of the situation, that this multiple-account rating is an exploit as it's bypassing a game mechanic that was actively put into the game is not an arbitrary distinction. It is fact. Whether the Developers deem it an actionable exploit, however, is something we can only determine over time.

I'm not going to say folks can't rate their own arcs with secondary accounts; anyone's free to use their account as they see fit. That said, those who do so shouldn't be surprised if they pay the price should they get their hand caught in the cookie jar. It's an exploit, one I am sure they are now aware of as a result of this discussion, if they were not already, and something they may be looking into in the future; use at your own risk.

[ QUOTE ]
Well by that logic, personal supergroups are a clear exploit, teaming with yourself to solo tfs are a clear exploit, using a second account to twink out a lowbie is a clear exploit, the list goes on.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, there's a key difference between the one-person cartel and the activities you mention. The activities you mentioned weren't singularly excluded. Rating one's own arc was.

[ QUOTE ]
Uhhh, that makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't make any sense if they allowed authors to rate their own arcs in the first place. But it's something they clearly went out of their way to keep from happening. At all. Using a second account to overcome this is bypassing a restriction the Devs placed into the game.

By definition, an exploit is something that bypasses the restrictions placed on the game. Hence, this method of rating one's own arc would qualify as an exploit.

Having more than one account does not entitle you, or anyone else, the right to partake in activities the developers have apparently decided should not occur. And in this instance, by doing so you would effectively be creating your very own personnel voting cartel. It would admittedly be smaller than most of those that have existed since the Mission Architect's implementation, but it would still be something the Developers have gone on record to state should not exist within the game.

[ QUOTE ]
... and the ability to add a single vote to an arc for every account you own (and/or PAY for).

[/ QUOTE ]
Be careful about such actions; in some cases, this would constitute grieffing. For example, consider what the impact would be on anyone's arc were you to zero-star the thing with all five accounts. Even if you simply gave the arc three stars with each account, you could effectively send that author's work to a level of obscurity from which it may not recover.

[ QUOTE ]
Really definitely an exploit ??

[/ QUOTE ]
Well yeah. The Devs have specifically designed the rating system in a manner that prevents a player from rating their own arc. By doing so on a second account you're bypassing the game mechanic in an unintended way. And because one would benefit from it directly, such action meets the definition of a game exploit rather thoroughly.

Too be honest, I've never cared for the third eye; I'm of a mind a new version needs to be added, one that isn't so reminiscent of the 1960s. With this in mind, I modified the design to utilize a conceptual third eye more than showing off the character's actual extra peeper. I added a touch of Rome in following with the character's Byzantine origins, and removed some of the arcane marking in order to emphasize it on the pants and cape.

Original Crestent
New Crestent

[ QUOTE ]
but when i play it on the account that didn't publish it, i get a message saying i cannot rate missions that i have published myself.

[/ QUOTE ]
It most likely recognizes the arc was created locally, regardless of account used to do so. I imagine if this isn't something that was done on purpose, it's something the Devs left alone when it was discovered; one shouldn't be able to rate their own arc in this manner. That said, even if it were possible to rate your arc on a second account, it would definitely be classified as an exploit.

[ QUOTE ]
They are permanent Clues. Think of them sort of as user created Badges for completing an arc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Although mine keep disappearing, with some regularity. Three times so far, in fact, I've looked up my MA souvenirs only to find they've all been lost.

It seems like you're rolling two issues into one here. The first is the one-star grieffing, which needs to be stopped by the Devs; being able to know who's doing the damage isn't going to stop most from doing so, nor are any actions that could be taken by the player community.

The second issue is that of rater anonymity, which I feel should be maintained. Authors want folks to honestly rate their arcs, for a variety of reasons. Those who want to give feedback can, and in so doing make their identity known, but you shouldn't force a rater to reveal such.