Forums » Feature Wishing Well » Read Thread

Basically, there should be a better point system that encourages people to make better games. The point system is working well for rating storygames. I think many people don't think theirs will be featured and also many abuse the ten point give for games. Also there are many games in which have ideas that cannot be done better, and are good games but not feature worthy. So if after 30 ratings, if the game has a rating of

1 Unpublished, and the user fined 25 points.

2 Unpublished and the user fined 10 points

3 Unpublished

4 Given 10 points

5 Given 40 points

6 Given 75 points

7 Given 150 points

8 Given 300 points

I would leave #3 published but fine them 5 or 8 points. Still I kind of like the idea.

I agree with this, but I have no idea how hard it would be to implement.

Also, this could be easily abused by someone who has a grudge against another player, (they could create multiple accounts and screw the guy over)

Also, I've personally read games with a 3 rating that I've enjoyed, so I wouldn't like for ALL of them to be unpublished.

How about we form a sort of jury system out of long time reliable people on this website. They could be elected by the admins and when a story receives a one to three rating the jurors play the game and submit a vote whether or not it should be deleted. Then whatever the persons decided the story would be deleted or not. (again not sure how this could be implemented but it would prevent what drakillian has pointed out.)

To democratic, I thought this site was more of a Constitutional Monarchy?

This would make the process slower though, but I would be fine with it. How would we pick the people and how many people would be on the jury though?

Personally, I think that would be a bad idea. Drakilian is right. And what would happen

 if the jurry could not decide on if a story is good or not. It is too democratic. I think that we should keep it the way it is.

This has been suggested before and I agree that it could make for some real motivation to put the most into each story.

I think un-publishing is a bit harsh though and would reserve it for 1 rated games only. That way, it really couldn't be abused by anyone with a grudge against the author (as ratings outside the median are not factored in).

Here's my two cents (following galobtter's layout):       

sounds fair though i still think that you should have a game removed if it is level two. I agree with the level three being left up and no points i just think a two rating shows no effort at all.

I can agree with this but since some people will get their friends and themselves to put a #8 or #7 rating on the storygame even if it's horrible. That could boost it up to a 2-rating.

IMHO, A better layout using the double system.

(I'm a lazy ass)

What James suggested is a more cheat proof idea, as it also occurred to me (with fire play's post) that authors could also make numerous accounts and abuse the system by upvoting their stuff (which I believe some people already do)

In the long run though, it really has little impact. You only get a big boost from a member account and then only from your first vote. So there's no way to realistically compete with hundreds of real raters (or 1000's in the case of epic games)...

But if this system was implemented, any author could simply make 30 accounts (a lot of trouble but possible) and upvote his story before anyone else, giving it 8/8 numerous times (although any intelligent person would give varying votes, in order for it to not look like complete bullshit)

It would definetly have to be a select group of people, preferably comprised of people who have played most or all of the games on the site (like you)

Still the system could be that so as the rating changes, the points are deducted or given so that the total points given are the correct amount for the rating of that game. In the beinning they will get 150(or whatever for 8) but later on it will go to th correct amount

Also, the rating system weights the farther away ones, like 8 or 7 for 2 rated games less. So the rating system is quite good actually. I think 2s should be removed too.

I still support the idea of very reliable players being appointed as judges or jurors of some sort. This would help avoid the cheating that some people would attempt.

For the record, getting a story feature gives you 100 points. so they'd either need to bump that up, or you'd need to lower those bonuses, because otherwise getting a story feature wouldn't be as big a deal.

Getting (and keeping) an 8/8 is (in my opinion) a WAY bigger deal than getting your story featured

Getting a story Featured around here is a very challenging task due to how many good games there are and limited number of Feature Spots, so I agree. Featuring should be worth 300 points easy  =)

There are numerous featued games, but how many games are out there that have full 8/8's? 5. 5 games

That's mainly due to the fact that most games get down rated by trolls, generally. I tend to consider featured games better then most non-featured 8 rated games. (which is around two)

Make voting member-only?  It surprisingly weeds out a lot of idiots.

It actually depends on the category. In school based the featured games aren't super good, and 4 are there.

I like the proof reader/checked by member before bonus points are given idea, so allow me to add my two cents.

Why not have a different set of checkers for each category? For example, I've read and rated most of the Fantasy games here, so I can judge them fairly, but I haven't even touched the Educational section, so I wouldn't know what the standard is. So, if I were to be checking these (it probably wouldn't be me checking, but for the sake of example), then I should only check the categories that I enjoy reading, those being Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Modern Day and the occasional Romance.

While I like the idea, I hate the concept haha!

Anything not 100% computer automated is definitely not worth implementing. A computer will do the same job 100% of the time, while a group of people are not as reliable or enduring...

But the computer is a dumbass, while people... Are not as dumb on average.

it could be that it would only register votes by members who fulfilled certain criteria.

(I get what you mean though, with almost all of the old members having left the site)