*i

A Small Rebellion Author: Jeff Vogel Difficulty: Levels 9-20 Version: 1.0 [composite=eyJ0aXRsZSI6IkEgU21hbGwgUmViZWxsaW9uIiwidGlkIjoiMTIyMTciLCJ0YWdzIjpbXSwiYmdhc3AiOnsiNSI6MCwiNCI6MTUsIjMiOjEsIjIiOjAsIjEiOjB9fQ==] Composite Score: 3.9/5.0 Best: 0.00% (0/16) Good: 93.75% (15/16) Average: 6.25% (1/16) Substandard: 0.00% (0/16) Poor: 0.00% (0/16) [encouragenecro] [/composite]

Valley of Dying Things Author: Jeff Vogel Difficulty: Beginner (levels 1-10) Version: 1.0 [composite=eyJ0aXRsZSI6IlZhbGxleSBvZiBEeWluZyBUaGluZ3MiLCJ0aWQiOiIxMjIxNiIsInRhZ3MiOltdLCJiZ2FzcCI6eyI1IjoyLCI0IjoxNCwiMyI6OCwiMiI6MCwiMSI6MH19] Composite Score: 3.8/5.0 Best: 8.33% (2/24) Good: 58.33% (14/24) Average: 33.33% (8/24) Substandard: 0.00% (0/24) Poor: 0.00% (0/24) [encouragenecro] [/composite]

This thread is here to help you find scenarios with a specific keyword. Authors are responsible for providing keywords and we do not guarantee the accuracy of them. They are here, however, to help you. 24-Hour Scenario: Aphobia, Avatar, Bonus Army, Darkness, IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO, Out of Sight, Outpost Valley, Settlers Alternative Combat: Canopy: Manufactured Womb, Echoes: Renegade, Gluckcluck Alternative Gameplay: Avernum Universe: Adrift, Bahssikava, The Cradle, Darkness, Druids of Krell, Embers of Rebellion, Magus of Cattalon, Melliput Mobsters, Out of Sight, Outpost Valley, A Perfect Forest, Quarhag Pass, Rats Aplenty, Shades of Gray, The Siege of Copperpeak, Strange Gildra, Turn that Frown Upside-Down, Turn that Frown Upside-Down 2, Waterweb, Witch Hunt Beginner: Adrift, Always on Your Day Off, Aphobia, Enemy at the Gates, Incorruptible, Nobody's Heroes, A Perfect Forest, Rats Aplenty, Roses of Reckoning (BoA), Settlers, Turn That Frown Upside-Down, Turn that Frown Upside-Down 2 Blades of Exile Port: Nine Variations on Point B, River and Leaf, Roses of Reckoning, Branching Plot: Embers of Rebellion, Magus of Cattalon Combat Heavy: Adrift, Canopy: Manufactured Womb, Darkness, Echoes: Renegade, Exodus, The Triple Valley, Outpost Valley, Witch Hunt Contest Winner: Bahssikava Cutscene Heavy: Canopy: Manufactured Womb, Echoes: Renegade, IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO, Shades of Gray, Twilight Valley Dark: Aphobia, Avatar, Bonus Army, Canopy: Manufactured Womb, Darkness, The Eternal, Mad Ambition, Out of Sight, Twilight Valley, Waterweb Designer-Specific Universe: Avatar, Bonus Army, The Black Crown Part 1, Canopy: Manufactured Womb, Echoes: Renegade, Emerald Mountain, Enemy at the Gates, Mad Ambition, The Triple Valley Dialogue Heavy: Avatar, Bonus Army, Embers of Rebellion, Mad Ambition, Twilight Valley Difficult: Canopy: Manufactured Womb, Echoes: Renegade, Emerald Mountain, Kill Them Dead, Mad Ambition, Rats Aplenty, Waterweb Dungeon Crawl: Darkness, Outpost Valley Easy: Nobody's Heroes, Settlers Epic: Exodus Experienced Player: Canopy: Manufactured Womb Exploration: First in a Series: The Black Crown Part 1 Hack N' Slash: Canopy: Manufactured Womb Humor: Gluckcluck, Kill Prize Win Ogre, Kill Them Dead, Nobody's Heroes, Rats Aplenty, Settlers, To Hell in a Handbasket, Turn that Frown Upside-Down 2 Innovative Scripting: Canopy: Manufactured Womb, Echoes: Renegade, IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO, Mad Ambition Jungle: Incorruptible Light/No Combat: Avatar, Bonus Army, The Eternal, IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO, Twilight Valley, Warp Linear: Aphobia, Avatar, The Black Crown Part 1, Bonus Army, Canopy: Manufactured Womb, The Cradle, Druids of Krell, Echoes: Renegade, Emerald Mountain, Enemy at the Gates, Exodus, The Eternal, Gluckcluck, IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO, Incorruptible, Melliput Mobsters, Nobody's Heroes, Out of Sight, A Perfect Forest, Roses of Reckoning (BoA), Settlers, The Siege of Copperpeak, Turn That Frown Upside-Down, Twilight Valley, Waterweb, Witch Hunt Long: Bahssikava, Magus of Cattalon Mystery: The Black Crown Part 1, The Eternal, Strange Gildra, Waterweb Multiple Endings: Emerald Mountain, Kill Them Dead, Quarhag Pass, Shades of Gray, The Siege of Copperpeak, Strange Gildra, Turn that Frown Upside-Down 2, Warp Open-Ended: Plot Heavy: Avatar, Bonus Army, The Eternal, Mad Ambition, Nobody's Heroes, Twilight Valley, Waterweb Prefab Party: Avatar, Bonus Army, Puzzles: A Perfect Forest Serious: Avatar, Bonus Army, Canopy: Manufactured Womb, The Cradle, Echoes: Renegade, Emerald Mountain, The Eternal, Mad Ambition, Strange Gildra, Warp, Waterweb Short: Adrift, Always on Your Day Off, Aphobia, Avatar, The Black Crown Part 1, Bonus Army, The Cradle, Darkness, Druids of Krell, Emerald Mountain, Enemy at the Gates, The Eternal, Gluckcluck, IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO, Kill Prize Win Ogre, Kill Them Dead, Melliput Mobsters, Nobody's Heroes, Out of Sight, Roses of Reckoning (BoA), Shades of Gray, Settlers, To Hell in a Handbasket, Turn That Frown Upside-Down, Turn that Frown Upside-Down 2, Three Twenty-Three, Twilight Valley, Warp, Waterweb, Witch Hunt Singleton: Always on Your Day Off, Avatar, Bonus Army, Incorruptible, Three Twenty-Three Town Only: Bahssikava, Bonus Army, IMAGINE THIS SCENARIO, Outpost Valley, Three Twenty-Three Very Hard: Exodus

I have a thread for APF, one of my scenarios from half a decade ago. Please give some reviews to test this. For those who asked me to use your scenario, thanks! Could you please get me: Difficulty Version number Keywords See my APF post for help coming up with these.

A Perfect Forest Mac/Windows Author: Stareye Difficulty: Beginner Version: 1.0 [composite=eyJ0aXRsZSI6IkEgUGVyZmVjdCBGb3Jlc3QiLCJ0aWQiOiIxMjIxNCIsInRhZ3MiOlsiYXZlcm51bSB1bml2ZXJzZSIsImJlZ2lubmVyIiwibGluZWFyIiwicHV6emxlcyJdLCJiZ2FzcCI6eyI1IjoxLCI0IjoyMSwiMyI6MiwiMiI6MCwiMSI6MH19] Composite Score: 4.0/5.0 Best: 4.17% (1/24) Good: 87.50% (21/24) Average: 8.33% (2/24) Substandard: 0.00% (0/24) Poor: 0.00% (0/24) [encouragenecro] [/composite] Keywords: Beginner, Linear, Puzzles, Avernum Universe

Welcome to the Blades of Avernum Rewiews forum! This forum is intended as a resource for both designers and players, so that players can decide what to play next, and designers can hone their skills. Just a note, everything here must abide by the Code of Conduct. Anyone using the review system to attack others will be reprimanded. How can I find a scenario I want to play? This is tricky since no two people are alike. However, the comments of others can be helpful. There are a few things that can be helpful in addition to reading everyone's comments. First, we provide lists of scenarios that a significant portion of the community likes. We have "Top Scenarios", "Quality Scenarios", and "Worthwhile Scenarios" lists to help you find the gems. If you are interested in knowing how we decide what gets on the lists, read below. Authors are invited to provide "keywords" for the scenarios. These are words or short phrases that attempt to describe the scenario. For example, if you like puzzle scenarios, a good keyword to search for would be "Puzzles". Finally, there may be a reviewer that you particularly agree with in terms of what makes a good scenario. Reviewers are invited to write profile posts about themselves defining their philosophy in what they look for. The purpose of this is to help people pick scenarios from others who are more like them. What do I need to know about writing a review? All you need to do is reply to the scenario thread with comments on how you felt about the scenario. At the end, please give a final rank of one of the following: 5 - Best 4 - Good, 3 - Average 2 - Substandard 1 - Poor Remember, the main purpose of this forum is to help players and designers. As a consequence, please keep reviews constructive, but honest. The recommended length for reviews is 100 words or more. Reviews that are too short are of little use to people. How do I get my scenario posted? We try to add scenarios as they come out, but this may not always happen. An author may reply to this thread asking to have his or her scenario listed. A moderator will then add the scenario and delete the request post. Also, the author should consider giving a few keywords with the request to help players pick out a scenario they might like. Authors are invited to give the moderators keywords. The keywords may be modified by the moderator to make them fit the pre-existing keywords better or to ensure they are useful. A list of pre-approved keywords is given here. May I respond to a review of my scenario? Of course. Please make a separate post for each response and explain why you disagree with the reviewers comments. Remember, the Review Forums are not for discussions. Every person gets one review and the author may respond to each one only once. Of course, editing reviews and responses are permitted. May I respond to a review of someone else's scenario? You may, but not here. Take that to the Blades of Avernum forum. We want to keep the reviews clean and organized. Having to sift through pages of comments by a lot of people does not make it easy for people to find scenarios. How do you generate the recommendation lists? Lists of our best scenarios are provided to help out players and designers. The idea here is that if enough people feel well enough about a scenario, it deserves recommendation. Things are added to the lists only after a minimum of five reviews have been made. Top Scenarios: At least 30% of the reviews have rated "Best". Quality Scenarios: At least 75% of the reviews have rated "Good" or higher. Worthwhile Scenarios: At least 30% of the reviews have rated "Good" or higher. How do I write a reviewer profile? After you have reviewed at least five scenarios, you may write a reviewer profile. It should, at very least, include the following: Name Favorite Scenarios What makes a good scenario? Are old reviews ported? Old CSR reviews have been ported with the following formula: Poor (1) = 1.0-2.8 Substandard (2) = 2.9-4.8 Average (3) = 4.9-6.8 Good (4) = 6.9-8.8 Best (5) = 8.9-10 Reviewers are invited to post here. Also, any review posted here will supersede any ported review. Can I post for others? Yes. Sometimes reviewers cannot post here directly. They are welcome to designate someone to post in their place. I noticed something wrong or outdated, how do I fix that? Send a message to one of the moderators. Please be patient as it may take a few days to get things fixed.

Thanks. Yes. Volunteers for scenarios would be most appreciated.

In terms of the game start time, I do reject actions submitted prior to the start of the game. It's not fair to other players. Otherwise, earlier is better.

All right. Let's move ahead with this because if we don't need anything nothing is going to happen. Version numbers should be included and some post should be made by the moderator or author to inform people that the scenario has been updated. We can create some categories as far as genre. I think we should leave it to the author to assign them. If reviewers disagree, they may direct complaints within the reviews and adjust scores accordingly. I'm think a 1 to 5 integer scoring system is probably the best we can do. I do like thumbs up and thumbs down, but I do like having something that distinguishes between good and the best. I'm looking to start the pilot program of this on a few scenarios this weekend. Please offer any ideas.

Probably not for another week at least. I'm pretty flooded with stuff right now.

Agreed. Might I suggest we discuss a reviewer profile idea. That way players can read what reviewers look for in scenarios and can find one that matches their tastes?

Class and Creation Analysis: HP, SP, and Essence formulas Creation costs and levels Servile Guide Warrior/Guardian Guide Shaper's Guide Sorceress Survival Guide Shock Trooper's Guide Agent/Infiltrator's Guide Study of Fire Creations Study of Battle Creations Study of Magic Creations G5 Class/Gear/Skill Information for character creation Strategy and Tactics: Basic Tactics for the Geneforge Series Changes from previous games Mechanics and Leadership Challenge Area Tips Brocktree's Practical Walkthrough Faction Reputation Guide Endings Chart What and Where: Trainers Canisters and Books Items to keep for quests Crafting Description of crystal enhancement effects to armor and weapons Faction Only Areas jlsgaladriel's Walkthrough Quest List Synergy Style Item List Schrodinger's incomplete FAQ / Walkthrough Access Crystal locations for expert area in Okavano Barrier Editors and Information: DISCLAIMER: FAN-MADE CONTENT MAY DISRUPT YOUR GAME Cheat codes Scripting Information Scripting Artifacts Vendor - Fan-made Content Halt's G5 Character Editor - Fan-made Content TheKian's G5 Character Editor - Fan-made Content Alhoon Mod - Fan-made Quest Chain and Content Artifact Baton Mod - Fan-made Content Warrior / Guardian quests mod - Fan-made Content Dream-fight Mod - Fan-made Content Alternative Creations - Samcast mod - Fan-made Content Ganduv's Geneforge 5 editor

I'm going to affirm Ephesos here. This thread is too useful to be mucked up. I'm starting a new one and this one dies. Continue this there at your own peril.

I don't think the 100 word rule will be hard anymore. Nonetheless, it is highly encouraged. I agree that porting things is particularly thorny. It would be nice just to start over, but such is life. I do think we can effectively "translate" old reviews over to the new system. It won't be perfect, but it will probably do. The limiting factor is the effort required, especially on the BoE side. I agree with Ephesos. Let's do our best to make something robust and good for the long term. That's why I'm advocating simple so people a five years from now have an easy system. As much as I hate UBB at times, this is probably the most stable place we are going to have for this. I don't envision these forums folding until Spiderweb Software does.

I once thought this was a great idea a long while back. The problem is we tried them before with one of the contests a long while back. Issue is no one could agree on the definition of those terms whereas everyone can pretty much understand what the overall score is. For example, your definition of "dramatic atmosphere" or "innovative" might differ from mine. This variance in terminological understanding makes things like this problematic. It's one thing when people disagree if a scenario has "quality X", it's quite another when no one can agree what exactly makes "quality X". Also, simpler is better. Remember that real humans have to write reviews and real humans have to compile the results. The more complex the system, the greater the chance of error and the less chance of having people willing to actually do this. Also, having it span multiple sites just compounds the problem. I think we should keep things as central as possible.

If you want to update your review that would be fine. Just make a new post and the old one can be made to go away. As long as we have moderators it should be fairly easy to update that. Certain members cannot post here directly, but I do support posting by proxy here because I think it is good for the community. Really? Maybe we are talking to different groups of people. Most people I've spoken with have generally been supportive of moving it here. We get greater visibility and accessibility here, especially when it comes to people who don't know anything about Blades. I would be supportive of a poll to find out what designers and established community members think. I'm not sure if a straight vote by majority is the right thing to base a decision from, but I do think it is good to at least get everyone's opinions and concerns aired and to try and address as many as possible. EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not sure just basing things off of 50% + 1 to be a good thing. If there is significant support (hard to put an exact number) and not a massive amount of vehement oppositon then we should move it here. I am interested in hearing all of your concerns with moving it here. Hopefully we can address them or make a good effort to do so.

The other thing is if we go to a lower resolution we need to decide on what each number means. This is vital if we have any hope of accurately porting old reviews. I propose the following scale: 5 - Best 4 - Good 3 - Average 2 - Below Average 1 - Worst We can name things differently when we decide what to call each score, but we should decide up front what each number means in broad terms.

Here are a few thoughts. I think there is an inherent resolution to what humans can resolve when attempting to quantify something's quality. There is a reason so many places use a ranking of 1 to 5 stars, it is simple and people have a general feel for what the rankings mean. I propose taking it one step further and just naming 1 to 5 so we can get better agreement on what those mean. To illustrate, I can't be precise to the first decimal place. Whether you got a 7.9 or an 8.2 really depended on how generous I was feeling at the time. If I had to score it again, you would probably get a similar, but different, score. What would not change, however, is my general impression of the scenario. For me, this scenario would be pretty good, but not great category. You would get this fairly consistent. My second point is, are averages useful in this exercise? I think the answer is it depends. In the case where the scores fall along a bell curve, the average really is representative of general opinion. In cases where you have a significant number of people that like it and then a significant number that hate it, the average reflects no one's view of the scenario. In other words, the average is misleading. It is in these cases where some threshold based approach would provide more guidance.

Seriously, let's give this thought. We've been ranking scenarios as we have for so long, it's difficult to think any other way. Recently, I've been wondering if this is even a useful exercise and if there might be better ways of suggesting scenarios for people to play. Because what do people really care about from review scores? I contend that the list serves mostly to give people an impression of what is good and what is not. What do we as a community recommend? An aggregate score is one way of doing this, but not necessarily the most useful way. What are people's thoughts on this? EDIT: I suggested a threshold based approach. If a certain percentage of people liked a scenario it would make it on some list for recommendation. I do think this biases towards positive reviews, but I am personally fine with this. If a significant number of people really like something even though others may not be as fond, that means a player might as well and it would be a good idea to recommend it.

Not in the same way that we would do the rankings. But nowhere can you find a comprehensive ranking of all books ever written or sold. That's what I was implying.

Does Amazon rank books? No. What would it even mean to do so? Sure, scenarios are a bit different, but I'm skeptical that saying scenario X is better than scenario Y because of a 0.06 point difference. Perhaps this, listing scenarios by category based on the following: Top Scenarios: At least 30% of review scores are rated tier 5. Quality Scenarios: Does not meet top criteria, but at least 40% of reviews are tier 4 or better. Worthy Scenarios: Meets neither other criteria, but at least 60% of reviews are tier 3 or better. We can revise percentages however people feel fit. It's a little complicated to figure out how to categorize things, but it gives a pretty intuitive final result. EDIT: I think this meaningfully sets apart the best scenarios but does not try to rank ones that are close in quality.

Histograms provide more information. I don't think they adequately reflect the really like it versus really hate it crowd. Better people see the bimodal nature rather than something in the middle. What is your specific issue with them? EDIT: Point being, I don't see any reason to actually rank scenarios. If we skip that, there is no need for averaging.

All right, what we could do is make a distinction between past and future reviews. Just translate things as Ephesos suggests. Future reviews can use a number (which gets translated to the coarse grained qualifier) OR they can simply provide the qualifier. Instead of doing averages, we can do a histogram.

Looks good. I would suggest trying to add that reviews should try to shoot for being 100 words if possible. This gives reviewers an artificial bar about what the helpful length is.

Sorry I didn't make it more clear. The "But seriously..." was supposed to do that. Quote: So, does anybody have a simple scoring system that will appease everybody? Sadly, I don't think that is possible. If you assign numbers, that lends itself to problems. One is that there is no agreed definition of what a "7.2" means. Further, there is too much resolution when we have a decimal place -- reviews will probably be inconsistent in scoring. If you assign "qualifiers" then you avoid those problems, but it becomes very difficult to do any averaging. I really cannot think of anything else like this. One idea would be to get rid of the score and let reviewers have a "profile post" where they can discuss their favorite scenarios and their philosophy of what makes a good scenario. This might be the best alternative because you can find the reviewer(s) you most agree with and take their recommendations.