Hey guys. So this idea dates way back into last year when I proposed this to yC. But I had wanted to start a team from RMS dedicated to simply jump servers, play briefly and make a "first impression" review of the server.
Of course now, I don't have the audacity of forming a team after this idea has been in the backburner for so long, so I just wanted to start on my own and build it from that. If this is going to go anywhere, I'd need myself to act as the guinea pig anyway.
What I do want though, is some thoughts on the process I had drafted on making first impression reviews. I think this is important since the first impression a server gives a player pretty much will be 90% of that player's decision whether to stay or not. Given the limited attention span of the general audience, if the server doesn't get the person hooked within the first few days, there's little chance of any interest after that anyway.
Anyway, here goes. Again, I'd like some ideas on how I should go about the review process, as outlined below.
Guidelines for the reviewer
1. Reviewer has to play the server daily at least for 2 hours per day for 3 days.
2. Reviewer has to participate in at least one event (if any).
3. Reviewer has to try to ask a gameplay or troubleshooting question from the GM.
4. Reviewer has to try to do either of the following community based actions: Join/Start a party, Join a Guild, Start a chatroom in town asking a question from the community.
5. (any additional guidelines to be added here)
6. Reviewer has to -try- to PvP at least for 1 hour within the 3 days.
Review Outline
1. Economy-at-a-glance.
What are the prices like vs the average income that can be made per day of play?
2. Class Balance
3. GM Responsiveness
4. Community Cohesiveness
5. "X-Factor" (Uniqueness, Special Things, etc)
That's what I came up with. Oh, and there would be no numbers to the review, rather a simple "recommended to try" or "needs improvement".
Of course, the reviewer will be anonymous; name will only be revealed upon actually reviewing the server. Also, the server to be reviewed would not know that they are being reviewed.
So, I'm interested in any questions or additions to the process you guys might have. Thanks.
I really like this idea, and I would like to participate.
Just one thing.
I don't think you will be able to review the "class balance" in every server you play, just playing there for 2h/3d.
Would you like to explain this point?
Well, the point of that was more for first impressions on the balance too. Of course one won't be able to -actually- experience the class balance since he/she wouldn't have enough time to play all the characters, let alone get a character to a pvp-able level. BUT, there is enough time to at least try to pvp with a class but more importantly, observe a pvp room while lying dead. Lol. :p
Let's put it this way, if all you see in pvp is edp sinx's killing asura-ing champs, that at least says something on the pvp balance on the server.
Ohh, I get it.
We could make novices for that xD
Exactly. Although a novice lying in the middle of a pvp room might look a tad bit suspicious, so I was thinking to build a character anyway.
Now, the question is which server to review first... humm. /hmm
I like this idea too. I wouldn't mind doing reviews for this.
You could even go as far into reviewing as adding "ease of use" to the review. As far as Downloading the client is concerned and registering. That's just something you HAVE to do on each server that can be a simple question to answer.
Questions:
Would the team review the same server together or would each team member go to a different server? I feel going into this solo there might be some partial people reviewing servers.
Would this need a separate forum topic for just the team to post in? I could see posting in the review section getting messy over time.
Quote from: Mania on Nov 04, 2009, 10:00 AM
I like this idea too. I wouldn't mind doing reviews for this.
You could even go as far into reviewing as adding "ease of use" to the review. As far as Downloading the client is concerned and registering. That's just something you HAVE to do on each server that can be a simple question to answer.
Questions:
Would the team review the same server together or would each team member go to a different server? I feel going into this solo there might be some partial people reviewing servers.
Would this need a separate forum topic for just the team to post in? I could see posting in the review section getting messy over time.
Glad you like it. :)
Ease of use is something I'm personally already coming across lol. Will add that in.
Impartiality and the questions about the reviewer might come in, but I don't feel comfortable answering that question yet since I haven't done the reviewing process myself yet either. Moreover, as unbiased as we want to be, most people that review also play certain servers, so there will be a certain degree of bias. With that said, a first impression review doesn't leave that much room for bias anyway, since there's only so many things you can comment on. In short, I'm predicting this will not be a problem if the reviewer him/herself is a decent person.
As far as arranging it in RMS, any special section will have to go through yC and RMS, so I feel that just posting in the review section for now is sufficient. If there is need for a special section, then we'll cross that bridge when the time comes.
PS. For the people who are interested in doing this, let me do a guinea pig test first and see more into how the process should work. I'll let you guys know after that on what we would be doing.
Quote from: Flip on Nov 04, 2009, 08:56 AM
Now, the question is which server to review first... humm. /hmm
I would like to review the servers at the top of RMS listings o.o
Quote from: Tom~ on Nov 04, 2009, 02:32 PM
Quote from: Flip on Nov 04, 2009, 08:56 AM
Now, the question is which server to review first... humm. /hmm
I would like to revew the servers at the top of RMS listings o.o
Good idea. Everyone knows a lot of them are totally suspicious. Maybe do them in groups? One do top low, one do top mid, one top high, one top super high? So we don't end up with massive over flow of duplicate reviews.
I was thinking this as well. But I don't want to cause controversy from the get-go; if this is going to indeed cause drama, I'd rather have a cast-iron process to back any review up lol. /heh
I'll do a lower-profile one first, post the review, we'll all edit the process/review as seen fit, then we can target the top servers.
Good idea. I'll just sit back and let you do your thang.
I disagree with this idea, mainly because of:
1) Lack of professional reviewers or impressionist.
2) Love at first sight only happen in movies.
3) Might contradict with player reviews.
4) I agree with yC.
5) First Impressions causes a type of cancer called assumption.
6) Bribery.
7) No one in their right mind would agree to jump servers just to review it.
8) No server owner in their right mind would list their server here, if this is implemented.
9) NO successful attempt of "First Impressions" as ever been acknowlegde? Source: RMS forums -> Server Reviews.
10) First Impressions does not change along with new updates and server population. Therefore, this group of professional reviewers might have to redo the process again.
11) Server owners and players will mob RMS whenever a bad first impression is written for there server.
RMS doesn't welcome bad reviews. No server owner would want bad reviews. Therefore reviewers will not give bad reviews. Same with impressions.
So if yC is going to implement "First Impressions," might as well implement "Critics" as well.
If yC changes the rating system, then server owners will boycott or mob RMS. If anything bad happens to RMS, RMS will closed. I been using RMS for years, I would like for it to stay.
I think it's overall a good idea, I wouldn't go so far as to say perfect or without risk of bias, but I think it might be doable and stay somewhat fair. Most players are too lazy to write an in-depth review, so this might give a nice visibility to some good, yet lesser known servers, as well as inform players which server to stay away from.
I suggest that each server the team reviews is reviewed by at least 2 separate reviewers at different times, that way you stand a better chance of getting an accurate first impression, the score should be an average (sum of all reviews / number of reviewers).
@tracer
First impressions are important for me. I wouldn't stay on a server where just when I log in, I see only champs, sinx, etc. I wouldn't stay on a server where just when I log in, I start being randomly insulted.
I would try a server where the community seems nice so far, where I can see variety of classes, etc.
That is what a first impressions means for me.
I don't think Flip wants that to be implemented on the website; this could be just like a normal forum review.
Criticism is something every server is exposed to.
Cool, I was waiting for some criticism lol. And I do really mean that genuinely.
Tracer: I'll address each of your points.
1. Lack of professional reviews - I doubt there's actually a professional reviewer in RMS; 99% of the reviews is written by an average person who doesn't get paid (real money) to do so. Naturally, that person will have a bias. Any review in RMS has some sort of bias, I can guarantee you that much.
2. Love at first sight only happens at movies. - I don't know about you, but if within even the first hour I don't like the server, I'm not gonna "stay for the good part" anyway. :)
3. Might contradict with RMS reviews. - Even within the RMS reviews there's a TON of contradiction. Some players say its the best thing ever, some say its the worst. What matters then is -why- they say it, which I intend to put a lot of in every review I do.
4. I agree with yC. - I'm not going to put the RMS name on the reviews unless yC himself wants it. Until that time, any review I or a team does is just as valid as the next one.
5. First impressions causes a type of cancer that is called assumption. - Sadly, assumption makes the player decide whether he/she wants to do something or not. Keep in mind that the attention span of people is generally short. If you lose that attention, they assume it's not good and move on. Cancer or not, its something server owners have to face.
6. Bribery. - As much as I would want money doing this, no one in their right mind would pay us to make a good review for the server. They can't pay us in ingame items since we dont intend to stay in that server, which only leaves real cash. I doubt server owners pay anonymous people real cash for reviews. If there is such a person, that person is wasting money. Plain and simple.
7. No one in their right mind would jump servers just to review it. - Thank you for calling me crazy lol. As of this post, I have 5 people interested. Call me loony then. :p
8. No successful attempt at first impressions has ever been acknowledged - That's because they try to pass off first impressions as something concrete or something final. They draw months worth of conclusions from 5 minutes of gameplay. That's not what my idea is about. What I want to do is pass first impressions as just that, first impressions. Like Tom~ said, this only gives the initial thoughts on the server. It's possible that it's not actually what the server is about. What's important is the first impression is what ANY new player will go by upon entering the server, whether accurate or not.
9. The server might change. - I'm well aware of this. That's why I don't look at reviews that are over 3 months old lol. If a server gets a "needs improvement" review, I'd gladly revisit their server in a month to check if they've improved or not.
10. Server owners/players mob RMS whenever there's a bad review on the server. - That already happens my friend. Thankfully we have banhammers and stfu pills to solve that, care of our loving mods and admins. :) RMS always contains some bad review; I'd be more concerned if it didn't.
11. No server owner in their right mind will list on RMS if this is implemented. - I don't intend my review to be any more or less valid than the next. If RMS wouldn't want such a review on the site, they'll tell me and I'll stop posting it. That simple.
Now, Pandora.
Thanks. I'd be more concerned if you thought it was absolutely perfect lol; I know I'm not that smart.
I've already been thinking about the concept of a team review of a server so that we get not only multiple times but also multiple perspectives. What's stopping me from saying yes outright to this is that it may be overly cumbersome for a simple first impressions review. We'll probably see if this is needed after the initial test run of the idea.
As far as score goes, I'd rather not rate this by scores but by a simple "recommended to try" or "needs improvement". Like I said, first impressions are not necessarily the "real scoop" or deal on any server, so putting a score on that server with just a few days of play seems unfair. BUT, the actual first impressions review would still be necessary, since that "real scoop" is being overshadowed by what tracer calls "cancer called assumption", which ultimately might prevent new players from trying out what otherwise might be a great server. :)
Thanks for the criticism guys. I really do like thinking about this more thoroughly.
@tracer - I'm not going to address all of your points because I tend to get wordy and it would take too long, but it seems like you are getting extremely defensive. Flip is not suggesting a wild, crazy brand new idea in order to bash servers. He is just suggesting a group with the same set of rules reviewing servers in a standardized manner. I see nothing wrong with that.
If Flip wants he can start with my server. I have nothing to hide. I know the pros and cons that my server offers and I'm fine with whatever the out come is of a non-biased review.
It's not a smart idea to give a group of individuals the right to give first impressions of a server. In-fact, you can derive first impressions from the review page yourself. A majority of them may be false, but some of them may contains some truth. I doubt that the reviewers for this team, would be any different from the rest. Especially if they are volunteers. And jugding by your respond, I think you might actually be agreeing with my points.
This idea has honest intent in it, but we all know when good things turn sour.
Take a look at my review for CharmRO. Was I wrong? I took the information straight from the control panel's donation page, I make observation base on the headgear's stats, I went in game to check out the scripting, and I even gave sources for my main points, such as the forum posting dates. What was the owner's response? "You hate me, this review is fake." I mean come on, take a look at your freaken donation page. Compare your first impression of CharmRO and my review, http://www.ratemyserver.net/forum/server-reviews/charmro-t12263/0/ maybe you could do a better job than me.
I bet that if you give them a honest first impression, they would mob your thread.
I think the whole point of the "first impression" is countered by Flips rule of 3 days of play so the review isn't based on perusing a site or forum for 10 minutes.
Quote from: tracer on Nov 04, 2009, 08:56 PM
It's not a smart idea to give a group of individuals the right to give first impressions of a server. In-fact, you can derive first impressions from the review page yourself. A majority of them may be false, but some of them may contains some truth. I doubt that the reviewers for this team, would be any different from the rest. Especially if they are volunteers. And jugding by your respond, I think you might actually be agreeing with my points.
This idea has honest intent in it, but we all know when good things turn sour.
Take a look at my review for CharmRO. Was I wrong? I took the information straight from the control panel's donation page, I make observation base on the headgear's stats, I went in game to check out the scripting, and I even gave sources for my main points, such as the forum posting dates. What was the owner's response? "You hate me, this review is fake." I mean come on, take a look at your freaken donation page. Compare your first impression of CharmRO and my review, http://www.ratemyserver.net/forum/server-reviews/charmro-t12263/0/ maybe you could do a better job than me.
I bet that if you give them a honest first impression, they would mob your thread.
I appreciate your efforts and I have seen your CharmRO thread.
I fully intend to put evidence on any point that needs it, especially if that point is potentially controversial.
To be totally honest and blunt, I really don't care if people mob my thread. If I have evidence and facts to back it up and the server owner still gives me a hard time, that shows a negative on him, not me. That shows that person is not willing to listen to reviews. Furthermore, that server owner cannot threaten me in any way, since I'm not even in that server anymore. /heh
We definitely have a difference in opinion, so I ask you to just wait and see an actual review when I put one up. You can criticize it all you want then, and I will be looking forward to answer your criticisms then.
A server's website is important as part of a first impression, specially in regards to how easy it is to obtain basic information on the server, to get the files to play it and to register, I think you should include that somewhere.
Quote from: Flip on Nov 05, 2009, 07:15 AM
I appreciate your efforts and I have seen your CharmRO thread.
I fully intend to put evidence on any point that needs it, especially if that point is potentially controversial.
To be totally honest and blunt, I really don't care if people mob my thread. If I have evidence and facts to back it up and the server owner still gives me a hard time, that shows a negative on him, not me. That shows that person is not willing to listen to reviews. Furthermore, that server owner cannot threaten me in any way, since I'm not even in that server anymore. /heh
We definitely have a difference in opinion, so I ask you to just wait and see an actual review when I put one up. You can criticize it all you want then, and I will be looking forward to answer your criticisms then.
Please do your review or first impression or whatever on CharmRO first.
Because I spend more than 6 hours on the server to give a pretty good impression. If you can write one for them, I would like to see what you have to say.
I already started on a different server, but I fully intend to do CharmRO at some point.
Posted on: Nov 05, 2009, 08:08 am
Posted a review of OracleRO. It's a day early for reasons stated in the review. Please criticize the review, but more for the format and factors included rather than the actual review itself. I'm personally more interested in what I did right and wrong. /ok
Review Link: http://www.ratemyserver.net/forum/server-reviews/oraclero-first-impressions-series/0/ (http://www.ratemyserver.net/forum/server-reviews/oraclero-first-impressions-series/0/)
Perhaps each of the reviewers can have a little thing somewhere with a quick description of what they like in servers in general?
For instance, I might be more compelled to look at what someone who likes low-rates, community orientated thinks over a SHR PvPer.
Quote from: Descent on Nov 06, 2009, 03:57 PM
Quote from: tracer on Nov 06, 2009, 03:48 PM
Lol. yC made the right choice.
No, the right choice would be smacking you in the face.
Stop trying to defend your piss-poor reviewing skills because you don't want to admit you had it in for the Admin.
yC never stopped the idea; in fact, the last message I got before I left RMS for a bit was that he/she wanted me to pursue this idea and go ahead and make an official team.
Of course now I don't know what he/she feels, hence why I'm starting from scratch.
I'm unhappy though that you don't seem to like it. May I ask what you find wrong with the review?
I know. Don't worry. /heh
My reply was directed to tracer as well.
@Team People:
I agree with Green, if implemented, I think it'd be best if each reviewer wrote like a small bio about what they like, what types of servers they played at (don't need names) as far as rates, whether it was an RP, PVP server, or regular. That way, we have people for instance, who are familiar with HR's, play the HRs.
An HR player obviously is gonna give a bad review to an LR (most LR's don't allow certain @go commands to give a more "RO" experience) citing the lack of abilities or slow level progression, whereas they might give a great review on an HR.
This would give people a general idea of which type of server to look for (oh, so-and-so does reviews only on (insert rate abbreviation here) servers, so, I should see what they recommend).
Also, I think a "hiring" process should be set up, so it's easier to establish a way to replace people, when people do decide to leave or whatever. Maybe establish some sort of "Leader" to help set things in order, keep the team updated, do hiring, firing, and overall management of the group.
My final suggestion, would be to "date" the reviews, anywhere from 3 days since the reviewer left the server, up to 2 weeks.
This prevents server owners from trying to figure out and or discover the reviewing parties IP address, while this may not be powerful in and of itself, it could allow for the creation of a "blacklist" and either allow server owners to ban potential reviewers, or, even worse, know when they arrive, and tamper with their experience, to get a better review.
That's all for now.
Quote from: GorthexTiger on Nov 07, 2009, 01:21 AM
@Team People:
I agree with Green, if implemented, I think it'd be best if each reviewer wrote like a small bio about what they like, what types of servers they played at (don't need names) as far as rates, whether it was an RP, PVP server, or regular. That way, we have people for instance, who are familiar with HR's, play the HRs.
An HR player obviously is gonna give a bad review to an LR (most LR's don't allow certain @go commands to give a more "RO" experience) citing the lack of abilities or slow level progression, whereas they might give a great review on an HR.
This would give people a general idea of which type of server to look for (oh, so-and-so does reviews only on (insert rate abbreviation here) servers, so, I should see what they recommend).
Also, I think a "hiring" process should be set up, so it's easier to establish a way to replace people, when people do decide to leave or whatever. Maybe establish some sort of "Leader" to help set things in order, keep the team updated, do hiring, firing, and overall management of the group.
My final suggestion, would be to "date" the reviews, anywhere from 3 days since the reviewer left the server, up to 2 weeks.
This prevents server owners from trying to figure out and or discover the reviewing parties IP address, while this may not be powerful in and of itself, it could allow for the creation of a "blacklist" and either allow server owners to ban potential reviewers, or, even worse, know when they arrive, and tamper with their experience, to get a better review.
That's all for now.
Thank you for the suggestions. Let me address each point.
1. Familiarity of server: Already established. Between the 4 active reviewers right now, we are keeping to servers that we are most familiar with.
2. Hiring process: As much as I personally like to keep things organized, I cannot do so due to the following reasons:
A. yC/RMS has NOT given me any right to form and organized group within RMS. Doing so would mean that RMS is directly involved in the matter. Thus, what I'm doing right now is getting anyone and everyone who wants to do the same thing I do; simply that. If I were to start hiring/firing, then that would mean RMS is my "base of operations" so to speak but without getting the "landowner's permission".
B. For right now at least, I do not intend any review that comes out of this to be more "powerful, special or valid" than any other review. I want to keep things low-key, at the very least for now, and just take people who are willing to take the effort in doing the reviews.
3. Dating the reviews/Blacklist controversy: Oh god, I personally would laugh if it gets at this point. Anyone is open to make a review on their server, and potentially a bad one at that. So if owners started banding together to ban a specific type of reviewer... well, I think that says more about those server owners rather than us. Simply put, if they do that, I wouldn't give them the time of day anyway.
As far as "skewing the reviews" go: ensuring that when we enter we get the red carpet, again, I doubt that we hold that sort of "powah" to even invoke such a reaction at least for now. This team is politically inexistent until RMS decides to take the site to a new direction and have its own review team. If/When that time comes, then this'll become an issue that needs to be tackled. But for right now, I think its a non-issue.
Hope that answers the concerns you have. /ok
@Team : Great idea, I think this will help out the RO community quite a bit.
[flame removed]
The fact that this project is either going to filled up the server review section with imcomplete and worthless first impressions or the fact that the only reason some of you even like this project is because I am against it. But honestly, even if this was implemented, I don't really care. Before this thread was derail, I advise flip that this project is a complete waste of time. On four facts.
1. These first impressions are not consistent with server updates or expansion.
2. They are 6 hours overview of a server, which mean that you won't have much to say about the server.
3. The review outline is similar to the review system on RMS, which means one thing. People would rather want a 300 comment rather than a full page of a 6 hour oveview.
4. These first impression may attract players from the server to mob your thread.
I think the honest intend in this project was to find the "real facts" about the server. Because the ratings for most servers are "fake."
But you probably already thought of that.
[flame removed]
So I have been reading and am not too sure why this is a suggestion to me.
I have no problem with anyone making a review to a server with any specific format as long as they are not lies.
As for giving power to a group of people, the technical problem comes again. Who to choose is going to be a major problem, and relationship/background checks are impossible because this is the internet. I am not even going to try at this point.
I think who came up with this idea can form the team and choose the group wisely. If the reviews are honest, helpful and worthwhile the reputation will build up without the help/power given by RMS. Further, reviewers shall be treated equally. I don't want to affect the attention given to certain reviews because of some special status that is not earned with hardwork.
tracer: Addressing your points.
1. Inconsistency with server updates/expansion: No review is consistent with the server updates since any review is simply a screenshot of the server at that time. So, I don't necessarily get what you mean with this. Staying until point X on the server versus reviewing the server at point X will result in a similar review for that point X in time. The only difference is that there's a lot more background info in staying at that server for a long time, which there should be.
2. Won't have much to say about the server: Depends on what you mean by "not much". Again, the reviews are designed for server-seeking players. These types of players will jump servers as soon as he/she/they find the server not to their liking. And, I think you'll agree with me that players will know whether they "like the feel" for the server or not during the first hours of the server. THAT is what this type of review is for, nothing more.
Again, the review is not meant to measure the full detail about the server but rather what players can expect to get during the first few hours of play; to see whether they personally want to try the server or not.
3. 300 text comment vs full page: I personally don't believe in the 300 text reviews; a lot of it seems biased and the numbers corresponding to the words said simply do not add up more often than not. The people then who are content with the 300 text reviews are not my target. They can do as they please.
4. Mobbing the thread: The way I see the current reviews that have been posted by the team and the impressive amount of evidence they take, I personally say bring on the mobs. /gg
Thank you for your criticisms.
yC:
I feel the same way about the reviewer choosing. I don't intend to screen people, since everyone is free to review in whatever style they want without my consent. If people genuinely want to join this team, then I'd personally measure their capability by seeing them write the actual review more than anything. It's kinda like testing out GM's first by giving them level 40 powers; similar to that train of thought.
But even if it's not up to my par, they are still free to jump servers and write reviews. The only thing I won't do for them is defend their thread should any controversy come up. That's why everyone on the team lets people on the team read their reviews first before posting; everyone checks on the review before its posted.
I fully agree that reviewers should be treated equally, even outside the group. I do not intend our reviews to be more valuable than the next. The idea is simply to cater more specifically to people who are server seeking. /ok
Quote from: Flip on Nov 08, 2009, 06:47 PM
wall of text wall of text wall of text
Well, I'd be more than happy to assist in helping review servers.
I just recently applied for a few positions on eA (Global Mod / eA Support Leader) so pending those applications and whether or not I am hired, I'd be happy to assist. My own server has hit kind of a snag (there's a lot of work my co-admin has to do since I am not familiar with that subject / not knowledgable enough) so I think I will have some free time.
I'd be glad to receive more help. We're currently looking at the most "controversial" servers than anything else, especially the top servers. I'll pm you more details later, should you wish to review servers.
It's a nice idea, but I don't think anyone who currently owns a server should take part. It could lead to hostility (Speedwagon, for example, in the BurnRO topic) and it could also lead to biased "first impressions".
That's just my opinion, though.
I once again reiterate:
Any and all reviews made by one person are seen first by the rest of the team.
That BurnRO review could've easily been made by me. I played Burn and I found Luna's review to be quite accurate.
I don't know why people really simply hate Luna; maybe its my own ignorance of the matter. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that the reviews that Luna has done has been based on evidence taking as well as subject to critical eyes.
Too much bitter blood against Luna I guess. /pif
I like Luna xD I have nothing against her! We even agree most of the time when it arises lol
I'm speaking in general :P
Well then Yusifer, that suggestions does sound good in theory, but I also think its pointless for reasons yC stated; this is the Internet.
Luna, if he/she really wanted to make reviews out of "spite", could easily register another forum name and join the team. By doing so, none would really be the wiser on his/her true identity, or any server owner's for that matter.
The only thing that people cannot fake is the actual review, and that passes through everyone in the team first before even going public. That is the only security measure I can think of really in terms of keeping the team as least biased as possible.
Hmm, this might as very well be a suggestion to you Yusifer since I did review Oracle. When/If you make the rules for the server, the most important thing is that it is 100% enforce-able. Anything less makes it a pointless rule. Trust me, you'll have a lot less headaches that way.
Yeah, darn that Internet :P
And our rule-enforcement has improved since your review; after the wipe, a lot of the people who generally didn't listen left. A lot of people who hated the French and the fact we went international also left lol How silly
Your review was quite accurate; so was Luna~'s in all of her reviews, and I assume the rest, too; I'm thinking moreso about people like so-called "Patapon" (I shall call him Patapouf which is French slang for "meatball") who jump at such ideas in attempt to troll or something >>
I'd join your team :P but I don't feel comfortable reviewing other servers lol
When/If you feel you're willing to try at least, let me know. /ok
Quote from: Flip on Nov 11, 2009, 11:04 AM
When/If you feel you're willing to try at least, let me know. /ok
Oki; 'will do :D
Hm, I'm not sure if I quite understand what you're suggesting.
Are you saying that all reviews will first pass through a "Review Team", in order to confirm their accuracy, before being published for public viewing?
It's a good idea, in theory, but I honestly cannot see it being accepted.
If what I am interpreting is correct, the only issue I see is this:
This idea of having a "middle man" reading through reviews labeling them fit or unfit, is a bit unfair to those who created the reviews, in my opinion. It is stated that reviews may be written in any form desired.
Like I said, it's a good idea on paper, but I don't think it would produce anything positive... in terms of supporters.
You have the wrong idea. A group of 'reviewers' go around and play a server for a set time then review their "First Impression" Of the server. Before they can post it, It is supposedly looked over by said team. I believe this is accurate.
Quote from: Final on Nov 12, 2009, 12:32 AM
You have the wrong idea. A group of 'reviewers' go around and play a server for a set time then review their "First Impression" Of the server. Before they can post it, It is supposedly looked over by said team. I believe this is accurate.
Ok, that makes sense. I was under the impression that a team deems reviews accurate or inaccurate, not the actual server. A server review team would be a good idea, if people have enough time to join the team. If such a team was formed, I have only one suggestion regarding the reviewing of a server. The review team should clock no less than one week of play-time per server, before analyzing it. Anything less than one week is not enough time to get the accurate "feel" of a server, in my opinion
I know it's a good idea to stay for like a week on a server before reviewing it but some people like me decide instantly whether or not they like the server. For example, If you log in and see 500 champs....Would you play it? Waiting to review is a good idea in many cases but Idk..Personally, A review after like 5+ hours is good enough to get a instant first impression of a server.
We are not necessarily going for "accuracy" of the server, but rather what we "get" from few hours of play.
Of course all conclusions are evidence-based, but its more to measure what the server "gives off" to newcomers in the all-important first hours of playing the server. In this sense, its not really measuring what the server is about, but what is the face the server is showing to incoming players.
I was hoping one of the more seasoned First Impression reviewer might be interested to pop in to check out BattleRO, the current Number 1 High Rate server on RMS. While pursuing the review section, I came across a very strong statement made by one of their player.
QuoteRMS YOU SHOULD BE ASSHAMED TO HAVE THIS SERVER ON YOUR LIST!!!!
As a special request, I would like to know how does WOE feel when you are able to legally bot during WOE? A concept very new to me. Thanks.
I think Luna~ and Tom~ both tried BattleRO, but you can't register there anymore. The admin turned registration off.
>I think that's what happened anyway<
I'd like to see a review of RebirthRO Tyr and LuminaRO.
I can't even log in BattleRO, thats why I didn't review it >;[
We can sum it up in one word though:
AbsolutecrapthatshouldneverbeconsideredevenifitweretobethelastROserveravailableincludingtheofficials
o.o
And maybe I'll First-Impression Review RebirthRO Tyr.
Quote from: Flip on Nov 12, 2009, 06:58 PM
We are not necessarily going for "accuracy" of the server, but rather what we "get" from few hours of play.
Of course all conclusions are evidence-based, but its more to measure what the server "gives off" to newcomers in the all-important first hours of playing the server. In this sense, its not really measuring what the server is about, but what is the face the server is showing to incoming players.
True.
It is easy to get the "feel" of the server in the begining hours of play. Still, in my opinion, a review of any kind should be based off more than one day of play, at least.
If only a few hours are comitted to a server, aspects such as WoE and events may be missed. Regardless of how much time is devoted to a server, I believe that all aspects and features should be experienced before ultimately reviewing a server, to assure consistancy.
First impressions are just that, your
first impression. Sometimes it helps to take a second, or rather, more detailed look.
I'm not attempting to shoot this idea down by any means, I think it's a great idea. I just want to make sure that these reviews are accurate and consitant, as far as server-reviews go.
Yusifer: I would like to see that.
Omni: I 100% agree. However, that is -not- our target market (so to speak). Haha. /heh I think of myself as too efficient sometimes that way. Lolz.
But if an admin makes a request for a second, more detailed look, I'd be more than happy to comply personally.
Quote from: Flip on Nov 17, 2009, 11:35 PM
Yusifer: I would like to see that.
Omni: I 100% agree. However, that is -not- our target market (so to speak). Haha. /heh I think of myself as too efficient sometimes that way. Lolz.
But if an admin makes a request for a second, more detailed look, I'd be more than happy to comply personally.
Fair enough.
QuoteI don't want to affect the attention given to certain reviews because of some special status that is not earned with hardwork.
Make the team, w/o the
special status.
I'm all for this task, I'd like to see it in action. I mean I know you've already made a test review but I'd like to see this idea full fledged. I, myself, am an RO administrator, so that pretty much disqualifies me from assisting you in your reviews but you're free to do a review of my server, since you're hitting top ranking servers first and mine is at the first page of the low rates.
I would also like to suggest that these reviews should be made unable to get replies. Consider them as a critic-journalist's article. I mean, people come here in this site to advertise, and it should only make sense that this site has authorized critics to give unbiased reviews. As you wouldn't see replies in a critic's article in the journal, so should these reviews be considered something like a blog, for people to go through when they're bored/searching for new servers to play.
One of the points that made up the initial objections however is valid, and it is the point about servers constantly changing. Perhaps you should set a ground rule to re-review every server reviewed before after a period of several months (6 maybe?), so that's 2 reviews a year per server reviewed. New review should also replace the older unless of course nothing changed in which case a simple reply to the initial review stating just that would suffice.
Well.. I can't be part of this team anymore, since i'm going to have my own server soon. Flip has been really inactive. Mania is still active. Gorthex has his own server right now.
We all saw what happened with Luna. She got flamed because she has her own server.
If anyone is still interested in this project, PM me or Mania. At least, we can help you with the reviews.
Tom~