propagating UMC reviews/ratings on forums

[Iris]

Why would somebody colour the name of his era green otherwise?

You mean, in the server list? I just deployed an add-ons server (1.10) change to disallow that entirely, and the client ignores that kind of formatting starting from version 1.10.1 anyway. It wasn’t a thing we actually allowed to begin with.

[Dugi]

You mean, in the server list? I just deployed an add-ons server change to disallow that entirely, and the client ignores that kind of formatting starting from version 1.10.1 anyway. It wasn't a thing we actually allowed to begin with.

Quoting myself, I was speaking about the motivation, not about the exploit itself. I know it was fixed, the guy who was using it has his add-on coloured white as he should on the 1.11 server. Sorry for confusing.

If people really wanted to cheat in higher download numbers, all they'd have to do is repeatedly re-download their own add-on or someone else's (or just make tiny changes constantly, which as you said is already done).

Downloading it themselves is far worse, they would need to have balls of iron and do that. It overloads the server uselessly, somebody might randomly read the server log and see it, and no alibism can justify it. Uploading every petty change can be excused, and some players might even like it.

But let's say that a group of people do actually get together to promote each other's add-ons as much better than they actually are. They are successful and get a bunch more downloads than they would have gotten otherwise. It won't last, since people who read the reviews and downloaded it would come back and say that it actually is really bad. So in the end the only thing they'd really harm is their own credibility.

They can avoid harming their credibility. The add-ons are not black and white. Colosseum might be fun to play through, but it does not leave any good memories about storyline. IftU has a very nice storyline, letting you think about it like if you had read a book, but you might be deceived by the unanimated units headbutting and psychoblasting their enemies. They might promote the good things about their add-ons, but neglect its downsides. Later, people would just think that he approves different things that they do. I might bash IftU that the story is an overkill and units are unanimated, you have to fight a lot with elves in the underground et cetera, neglecting that the gamplay is awesome anyway and the story, although it is kinda an overkill, is quite good and considered cannon by many. I might promote The Tale of two Brothers (if it was an add-on) that it has well made and well balanced scenarios, not mentioning it is so short that you are not very likely to make a single max level recall. I might promote Era of Invasions for having interesting weapon specials and interesting unit appearance, not telling that it is incomplete, not animated, abandoned and unbalanced. I might promote my campaign for interesting gamplay, not telling that there are scenarios where it is hard to lose and would need some more balancing.

But I am not telling that I am against the reviews, I am just telling that some methods to avoid exploits should be developed, like a forum group of known-to-be-experienced players named 'critics' to criticise the add-ons instead of random people.

[Pentarctagon]

But I am not telling that I am against the reviews, I am just telling that some methods to avoid exploits should be developed, like a forum group of known-to-be-experienced players named 'critics' to criticise the add-ons instead of random people.

Going back to this then:

There should be a better solution for this, let's say more than 50 posts and not being friends with the author instead of 5 reviews. Or by people proven to be able to write 'this campaign is mediocre, worth playing, but only if you have finished better ones' or 'unfinished, useless garbage, though the original idea seemed to be good'. Maybe a forum group 'add-on' critic' could be created for this.
And if the possibilities of misuse get solved, maybe it would be useful if some reviews were also visible on the add-ons' server.

How would we know if they were friends or not? We could of course look at Wesnoth's friends list, but that's hardly definitive.

How would people get into the "proven" category, or how could they prove they can write good reviews other than by writing reviews?

[Dugi]

It might be done so that anyone would be able to write reviews on that forum, and based on this, official critics would be chosen. The posts of the 'official critics' would be shown first. And their posts would also appear in the game when viewing the add-ons' list, as only a small part of the players visit the forums.

[pyrophorus]

Hi,
IMHO, the idea should be tested. Of course, it can be an opportunity to cheat and reviews can be destructive and/or false. But it's a good idea anyway.
The 'problem' is there are many ways to play Wesnoth. Some like the skirmish thing and don't pay much attention to story, special effects and plot twists. Others regularly cheat because they want to read the story and wonder at the special effects. Others like the RPG style and love advancing characters and collecting items. And I don't think any add-on can fully satisfy everyone.

That's why official or unique reviews are not satisfactory. Better to have (hopefully) different reviewers giving their own rating. Reading their contributions, it should not be difficult to discover their main interests and find out what kind of add-on they declare good or bad. And maybe, reviewers even could display their preferences at the start of their thread.

As an author, I fear not this kind of rating (I already know my work don't please everyone), and as a player, I would like to read reviews from someone who share the same likings.
And about abuses, flames and so on, we have moderators to take care about it.

Friendly,

[alex23]

I agree with Dugi in many points (although I don't get why it should be bad to reupload the file if you made a few changes?) as it is really a great feeling to see your add-on beeing downloaded^^ However I think that it would be more important to promote this forum to wenoth players than improving the forum itself, as not many people who play the game know about the existence of this... I mentioned in my second scenario, in the dialogue at the beginning that I would appreciate reviews/ suggestions etc on what to improve with a link to my topic, however I don't think that this would change much. Somehow binding the forum to the game would be nice (one could for examaple make a "Forum" button in the main menu or something)..

[taptap]

Not that I matter, but I don't like ratings. Either you have to reset regularly (making the rating meaningless) or you encourage people to release only finished UMC.

Reviews (w/ version number attached) are a great idea. When starting the Guide to UMC campaigns page, I was actually thinking about reviews first, but then settled for something which just brings more information and visibility to allow an informed choice among the many different add-ons, without adding much controversial content (reviews) at that point. Ideally sth. similar would exist at least for eras and MP campaigns. But a review subforum with a thread for each UMC would be a great addition. Bring it on!

I don't get the bickering about download numbers. I understand there is a certain rivalry among authors, but it shouldn't go as far as discouraging regular updates as "download number cheating". In fact, many of the best UMC campaigns (imo) are stuck with pretty low download numbers because they lack exposure (and a catchy introduction), while the campaign w/ the second highest download number on the 1.9 / 1.10 server (the settlers of light) was never finished and is officially abandoned. In fact, more exposure will help all UMC content, the unfinished will get more feedback, the polished will get more players.

Regarding manipulation: honestly, I doubt there will be UMC contributors badmouthing other content, but there will be genuine criticism by players. E.g. I will write that Bad Moon Rising is sadly not balanced (last time I looked, version numbers to reviews are important) and supposes the player save/loads or use debug in certain situations even on medium difficulty, which I don't do and this is why I didn't continue the campaign. This kind of information does, however, help in choosing what to play according to personal preferences, which is exactly what a review section should do.

[Pentarctagon]

It sounds like people (or at least those who have posted here) are generally in favor of this then, but is there any chance of this actually being set up?

[pyrophorus]

It sounds like people (or at least those who have posted here) are generally in favor of this then, but is there any chance of this actually being set up?

Do you ask it to the posters or the forums admins ?
OP idea was to create a subforum and to restrict write access to some selected posters. This obvioulsy can't be done by ordinary members.

Of course, reviews can be done in ordinary threads by anyone, but this can result in a large mess and miss the primary goal which is to offer quick access to reliable reviews.

So what next ? I personnally hesitate to start something, but I don't care posting unwanted topics.

Friendly,

[Pentarctagon]

It was more directed at the forum admins, since it would be kind of hard to go forward with an idea about adding a sub-forum if there is no chance a sub-forum would actually be added.

[Sapient]

Not that I matter, but I don't like ratings. Either you have to reset regularly (making the rating meaningless) or you encourage people to release only finished UMC.

This is not a hard problem. The simple solution is: don't allow ratings for versions that start with a zero. Or add an attribute to PBL WML rate_me_bro="don't", etc.

I would love to see a five stars rating system with a group of authenticated and somewhat trustworthy members of the community able to vote if they choose to do so (we already have a group very similar that could be used for this: Forum Regulars). Of course there would need to be some guidelines (if it's not a genre they enjoy they won't penalize it just because of that reason, etc.) This may sound "elitist" but it's the simplest way to prevent fraudulent or misguided rank votes. As we have seen there are some people who are willing to go to great lengths to artifically boost their rating, and then it would become meaningless.

Don't get me wrong though, reviews are great. You just can't sort through them easily unless they have a rating as well.

[nuorc]

I like this review-sub-forum-idea.

How do I summon an admin? Report Pentarctagon's next post here?

or just whisper: shadowmaster!

[Iris]

How do I summon an admin?

Meh.

I have been following the topic for a while, and somehow I’m still unsure about what the actual proposal is.

[Adamant14]

I vote for a ranking system.
Sapient's proposal sounds very good to me.


And maybe also a good idea to remove adandoned 'not working stuff' from the server.
Example:Unlikely Alliance
UA has just two scenarios, non of them works.
The author didn't care about it since month.
And he seems to ignore posts in his feedback thread.

[Pentarctagon]

How do I summon an admin?

Meh.

I have been following the topic for a while, and somehow I’m still unsure about what the actual proposal is.

As it stands, I believe that the proposal is to create a forum/sub-forum where each person makes a single thread to rate/review add-ons that they've played, so that there would be a central place to look for reviews of add-ons to help people determine if they should download them or not/what the add-on plays like/etc.