Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Nioca

  • Rank
    Heart of Avadon
  • Birthday 03/01/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I took the test. I think most of it's spot-on, but there's a few areas that made me raise an eyebrow. EXTRAVERSION...............6 - "Your score on Extraversion is low, indicating you are introverted, reserved, and quiet. You enjoy solitude and solitary activities. Your socializing tends to be restricted to a few close friends." Click to reveal.. Friendliness.............3 - "Low scorers on Friendliness are not necessarily cold and hostile, but they do not reach out to others and are perceived as distant and reserved." Gregariousness...........4 - "Low scorers tend to feel overwhelm
  2. Slight note here: There's currently nothing in the rules that prevents a mage from joining the anama.
  3. Question: If an opponent specifically has your loss (but not death) as a victory condition, does that make them your enemy? (e.g. Pure Spirit vs. Darkside Loyalists)
  4. Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith Let's not address each other's views in ratings topics as it inspires discussion in an inappropriate forum. I think it's pretty clear that we all have different opinions on what constitutes as a good scenario. Fair enough. I removed that comment, but still... Quote: From the Warp Review Finally, a note at the other reviewers. Wow. Just wow. I am absolutely boggled by the ratings for this scenario. In my opinion, this scenario does not deserve any of the previous ratings it has been given, good or bad. It's certainly not the shining standard of scenar
  5. Originally Posted By: *i For those who asked me to use your scenario, thanks! Could you please get me: Difficulty Version number Keywords I'm guessing Difficulty refers to the level recommendation, not the actual difficulty of the scenario. Either way: Difficulty - Beginner Version Number - 1.0.3 Keywords - Linear, Combat Heavy, Avernum Universe, Short
  6. I would make a better distinction between Rank 2 and 3. I generally think of "Average" and "Mediocre" being the same thing when it comes to ranking quality. Especially since "Average" can be interpreted as median, which is about the same as Mediocre. Maybe a "Poor, Mediocre, Good, Great, Outstanding"? As for the Global Mod thing, I am a little concerned. Not with the actual mods, mind, that's fine. But I am concerned with how many of them would actually keep an eye on the board (I've counted three Global Mods that have an avested interest in BoA), and with the fact that all of them have r
  7. I'd go "Poor, Mediocre, Good, Excellent, Outstanding". But that's just me. But it raises a question: if we change the format, are we going to port old reviews over? And if so, how do we plan to make said ports compatible with the new format? Anyway, I like that idea. It could work well. As for the histogram... why not just give a list of percentages for each opinion of the scenario. Like this: Quote: Reviewer Opinions of Uber-Awesome-Scenario 0/5 (0%) Outstanding 3/5 (60%) Excellent 1/5 (20%) Good 1/5 (20%) Mediocre 0/5 (0%) Poor Simpler and easier to manage. And it coul
  8. Originally Posted By: wz. As I can't speak for Stareye, but I'd imagine the question he wants answered right now is, "If I create a CSR on the Spiderweb Boards in the way I have been describing, will you all help write reviews and/or help moderate it?" The answer, for me anyway, is yes. I'd even moderate the BoA one and would help transfer SV reviews over to it.
  9. I'm in favor of Stareye's proposal, but some guidelines do need to be set. Otherwise, it feels more like "mods let through whatever they feel like" rather than "reviews that pass muster are accepted".
  10. Originally Posted By: Naughty Salmon Nioca, I wasn't implying that some elite should have control over reviews. Instead, just the simple forum-header instructions would read "If you wish to post a review, PM a mod with the review. Once that review has been approved (then cite comprehensive list of reasons for disapproval) you will be able to post freely within this sub-forum, knowing that such permission is contingent on compliance with the rules." Oh. Well in that case, we agree completely, and your idea is better than mine.
  11. Originally Posted By: Naughty Salmon Could you not, instead, put folks that write reviews into a group authorized to post there? I'm not sure that making it so only an elite few can write reviews is a good idea. Sort of defeats the purpose of trying to get more reviews for the CSR, and it certainly won't expand the player base. Now, it might be possible to have a group that can immediately post reviews and bypass third-party checking. That seems like it'd work for long-time and short-time reviewers. Quote: Also, it still doesn't address the issues which started this whole boondoggle.
  12. What if, in addition to the normal review, they also could specify additional pre-set tags at the beginning/end of the review? Things like Combat Heavy, Linear, No Combat, Dungeon Crawl, and so forth. Nothing indicative of quality (that's what the part of the review and the score is for), just indicative of its attributes. Some of these could also be specified by the designer. Then, in the first post of the scenario's thread, the number of times a tag appears is counted up, giving you a general idea of what the scenario contains. In scenario lists, tags that get marked off a few times (or
  13. Writing reviews shouldn't be difficult, though. Others may just want to post a short review, and not spend the better half of an hour typing something up. Also, short reviews are not bad; notice how much information you got in with your hundred words. It's things like four word 'This scenario really sucks' or one word 'Awesome' reviews that we're trying to avoid, and making people write entire dissertations on scenarios probably won't bring in any more reviews. Besides, it'd be a minimum. Nothing stops you from adding more. This is also one hundred words. Would you say it's uninformative?
  • Create New...