You seem to be very confused. UGC doesnt add new NPCs to the game world. It does allow players to create their own little instanced missions, but whatever is in those missions has no effect on the official game world or NPCs.
Even you.. right there.. made the distinction that you claim doesn't need to be made for UGC. You said "official game world". How do you know the official game world from from UGC unless UGC is separated in some form? How do you portray that separation sufficiently to tens of thousands of users without the separation being clear and obvious.
The content has to be separated, and obviously so, to distinguish "official" from "unofficial". It needs to have a clear line of separation so to ensure copyright holders don't prosecute every time Wookies and Ewoks are used in UGC.
UGC is going to provide a hell of a lot of content. It should be provided plenty of resources.
But a lot of played content? That remains to be seen. The game will likely become so incredibly saturated with missions--both good and bad--that only a small percentage will actually be played, let alone played enough for ratings to put them substantially above the rest.
That's not a resource problem. Data Mining is common practice in MMO's. It's a necessity to see what the masses are doing. Are they earning XP too fast or too slow, etc?
Yeah.. and when data mining is interpreted a certain way, they'll have to go and modify experience games mission by mission. And data mining is only going to be valuable if the missions are individually played enough to provide sufficient feedback to act on.
My concern here is about granting a few players power over many. It seems Cryptic is thinking of having a panel of player "reviewers" make the initial call on whether to let new UGC missions be published for others to play or not. Mike Apolis says players can sign up to be a reviewer.
Everyone should be concerned about this because the people who sign up will have their own ideas as to what should be published and what shouldn't be. Strict Canonists will be sure to sign up and stop anything that doesn't meet their personal approval.
This sounds reasonable for stopping plain inappropriate content but... Will these "reviewers" have the power to "deny" your UGC mission just because they don't think your story is canon? Or that your mission has a ship in it that they don't think should exist?
Possibly a rotating period of service with limited time in office, so to speak? This would allow everyone a somewhat equal chance to serve and should keep too many "lock-out" periods from happening. Make the council up of equal-ish numbers from all factions and always have the total number as a odd number to give a Speaker of the council.
Regardless of how any council is set to review the UGC for approval, someone will always come out and say theirs was denied due to "so and so". How would this council deal with these moments of conflict?
Are there any basic ground rules of content that will keep a UGC from being approved?
This is bothering me almost as much as The Player Council did - I don't like a select few having this much power. In my opinion, this is a rather stringent level of vetting.
What ever happened to that idea? I have never seen hide nor hair of the PC squad and honestly forgot about them.
I think any content that's too wierd or non-canon should simply be policed by everyone via the rating system. Anything wonky can be moved to the Holosuite in Quark's Bar and the Holodeck on our ships as fantasy programs.
Thats an excellent idea. The non-comformist UGC can be sent to Quarks. I like it.
[*]Diminishing Returns for UGC Mission XP - Not the savior of Klingon PvE?
Mike Apolis also says they are thinking of implementing diminishing returns for UGC content that we complete each day. The 1st UGC mission - you get ok XP. The 2nd mission - your get similar XP and an item. The 3rd mission - your XP goes way down. After the 3rd you're not getting XP at all for running UGC content that day.
That makes it niether the savior or provider for any and all factions, not just the Klingons. I find that a silly idea and counter productive to helping PvE poor factions. Put an xp CAP and Item cap on mission based on level and leave it at that. Let the Dev's be the only one's to make High XP missions, but I, like many, like the scooby snacks we find it the missions we run for fun. Please don't take my virtual carrot away.
What bothers me about this is obvious. For Klingons it's not the savior of their PvE experience like a few devs have implied. Being able to get (ok) XP from 2 missions per day won't fill the huge gaps in PvE that Klingons have.
Damned straight it won't.
In just about every interview, DStahl says Klingons will never have the same amount of episodes as Feds. Well, leveling a Klingon won't be that much better with this. Feds can log in, play PvE all day long and gain a couple ranks. Klingons still won't be able to with UGC.
Why even lead us to believe that The Foundry will fill the Klingon content gap when you knew up front you were going to implement diminishing returns?!
I'm looking foward to the UGC because I will get to do a Klingon storyline I've been working on, but this doesn't sound anything like the huge PvE content gap reducer that the Dev's have talked about in the past. Especially with "diminishing returns" on xp and items. Cryptic sure seem to love "diminishing returns" in STO and its game mechanics...........
You seem to be very confused. UGC doesnt add new NPCs to the game world. It does allow players to create their own little instanced missions, but whatever is in those missions has no effect on the official game world or NPCs.
I think you're the one who's confused, Nagus. My whole point in every post I've made in this thread is that UGC is no problem if its not part of the 'official game world', but that if its integrated into the 'official game world' it creates a bunch of problems if it isn't carefully reviewed.
My understanding from the interview which we are discussing is that the player reviewers are going to be reviewing content to be potentially added to the 'official game world', and that UGC that isn't going to be so added isn't going to be part of that review process.
Yeah.. and when data mining is interpreted a certain way, they'll have to go and modify experience games mission by mission. And data mining is only going to be valuable if the missions are individually played enough to provide sufficient feedback to act on.
We can't assume XP adjustments will be done manually mission by mission. For all we know, there is an XP Adjustment Program for this - X completion time grants Y experience. When Cryptic's data mining reveals some need for adjustment they go hit the button on this program.
There's also the fact that Cryptic is simply not stupid. Any simpleton can recognize that players are skewing data when an easy Defeat 5/5 Mission is taking on average 3 hours to be completed. Simple data mining formulas can be set up to "Red Flag" these . Perhaps such missions wouldn't pass the test in the first place.
Lastly, we don't know how many times a mission must be ran by how many different people in order for it to qualify for Mission XP. If people are exploiting this, the prerequisites themselves can be adjusted for more accurate data.
There's more than one way to skin this cat. And players should not be skinned with this Diminishing Returns when there's better ways to do it.
I think you're the one who's confused, Nagus. My whole point in every post I've made in this thread is that UGC is no problem if its not part of the 'official game world', but that if its integrated into the 'official game world' it creates a bunch of problems if it isn't carefully reviewed.
My understanding from the interview which we are discussing is that the player reviewers are going to be reviewing content to be potentially added to the 'official game world', and that UGC that isn't going to be so added isn't going to be part of that review process.
But they are clearly marked if all UGC dialogue windows are clearly marked as UGC windows.
But they are clearly marked if all UGC dialogue windows are clearly marked as UGC windows.
Depending on how they're marked, sure. But if I fly up to a star system and get a list of 8 missions, two of which are Cryptic made and 6 of which are UGC, and I have to actually click through to the mission description, for example, and scroll down to find out who wrote what, there will be issues if that content isn't reviewed first.
I guess I'd like to understand the point you're trying to make. Are you trying to argue that the player reviewers are irrelevant because UGC, no matter how its integrated into the game, doesn't have to be reviewed first? Because again, that's my point. If they're going to integrate the missions into the game world, rather than keep UGC separate, anything they integrate has to be reviewed first, and I'd rather have player volunteers take the time to read it than have devs reading it instead of creating professional content.
OK, very late to the thread, but I though Dstahl told us that anyone who publishes a UGC mission can be reviewed by all the players, if the players actively search for that mission?
The review process would be guided by a rankings system, not by some elite council. Sorry, I'll try to catch up to page 13.
OK, very late to the thread, but I though Dstahl told us that anyone who publishes a UGC mission can be reviewed by all the players, if the players actively search for that mission?
The review process would be guided by a rankings system, not by some elite council. Sorry, I'll try to catch up to page 13.
I was just listening to the new podcast today, and though I only heard the last half, Dstahl seemed to say that the Foundry members (those creating missions) would be ranking all the missions before they go live. Effectively they'd be policing themselves by reviewing/ranking before the rest of the population got their hands on them. I don't remember him saying anything about a specific council to do this, but, as I said, I did miss part of the podcast.
OK, very late to the thread, but I though Dstahl told us that anyone who publishes a UGC mission can be reviewed by all the players, if the players actively search for that mission?
The review process would be guided by a rankings system, not by some elite council. Sorry, I'll try to catch up to page 13.
Nobody ever said there was going to be an 'elite council', it was just said that there was going to be a group of player volunteers reviewing missions before they go live in game. The OP and a few others interpreted that to be a repeat of the old Player Council fiasco. But that was just their interpretation.
I was just listening to the new podcast today, and though I only heard the last half, Dstahl seemed to say that the Foundry members (those creating missions) would be ranking all the missions before they go live. Effectively they'd be policing themselves by reviewing/ranking before the rest of the population got their hands on them. I don't remember him saying anything about a specific council to do this, but, as I said, I did miss part of the podcast.
Nobody ever said there was going to be an 'elite council', it was just said that there was going to be a group of player volunteers reviewing missions before they go live in game. The OP and a few others interpreted that to be a repeat of the old Player Council fiasco. But that was just their interpretation.
They won't get rewards like skillpoints or be advertised as aggressively by Cryptic until they get reviewed.
So I think you have some valid concerns but they're being addressed.
An unreviewed UGC mission won't get advertised or provide rewards, nor will it be readily visible to someone who isn't looking for it.
Once it does pass that test, it will still be marked as UGC.
Even you.. right there.. made the distinction that you claim doesn't need to be made for UGC. You said "official game world". How do you know the official game world from from UGC unless UGC is separated in some form? How do you portray that separation sufficiently to tens of thousands of users without the separation being clear and obvious.
The content has to be separated, and obviously so, to distinguish "official" from "unofficial". It needs to have a clear line of separation so to ensure copyright holders don't prosecute every time Wookies and Ewoks are used in UGC.
There are only two ways you will be able to do UGC:
1) You go looking for it through the UGC search tool
2) Select, "Dev recommended" missions are suggested via some remote contact that also clearly tells you it is a player made mission, who made it, and have reviews from other players.
Thats the only way you can do UGC. Its not like your going to be doing some normal mission and suddenly come across UGC by accident.
ya, there is no way to 'accidently' end up in a UGC
That said...
The developers have the right, after THEIR review, to reward exceptional UGC
by making it a public mission.
In other words....if they discover a UGC mission that is as good or better than thiers AND
fits STO canon, THEY, the developers reserve the right to make it public.
It would be SO screened and examined that I would not worry, if it is that good, you would
prob. like it.
No, given the information that the devs have given us about the UGC so far, I think you have it exactly correct.
And I wouldn't call this thread an overreaction. That implies a misunderstanding.
I'd call this thread a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble on the forums. Again.
Some people just love the anger and drama.
I think you got me all wrong. If you guys haven't listened to the interview you can download it here.
Fast forward to 20:25 - this is the Q&A about the "Reviewers" who will make the initial call on whether new UGC missions can be played by everyone else in the game. Mike Apolis says these "Reviewers" actually sign a Separate EULA in order to be a "Reviewer".
The post from DStahl in this thread addresses "Raters" which everyone will be automatically. He does not address "Reviewers" at all in his post. Mike Apolis' description of this reminded me of the Player Council where a few players will have more influence over the game than others.
Something like this can be abused which concerns me. Maybe this has changed since Mike's interview. I'm actually waiting for the UGC FAQ (per DStahl's comments) so we can learn more about this.
At this point I'm more concerned about the Diminishing Returns system simply because leveling a Klingon with PvE is pretty damn boring without the same level of content that Feds have. Devs have marketed UGC as filling the content gap but that is not possible if you only get XP for 2 missions per day.
I think you got me all wrong. If you guys haven't listened to the interview you can download it here.
Fast forward to 20:25 - this is the Q&A about the "Reviewers" who will make the initial call on whether new UGC missions can be played by everyone else in the game. Mike Apolis says these "Reviewers" actually sign a Separate EULA in order to be a "Reviewer".
The post from DStahl in this thread addresses "Raters" which everyone will be automatically. He does not address "Reviewers" at all in his post. Mike Apolis' description of this reminded me of the Player Council where a few players will have more influence over the game than others.
Something like this can be abused which concerns me. Maybe this has changed since Mike's interview. I'm actually waiting for the UGC FAQ (per DStahl's comments) so we can learn more about this.
At this point I'm more concerned about the Diminishing Returns system simply because leveling a Klingon with PvE is pretty damn boring without the same level of content that Feds have. Devs have marketed UGC as filling the content gap but that is not possible if you only get XP for 2 missions per day.
An abuse of that system means that the reviews can be reported and lose their privileges. I'm sure reviewing has logs tracked by Crypitc (ones they can consult and retcon in the case of abuse).
I think you got me all wrong. If you guys haven't listened to the interview you can download it here.
Fast forward to 20:25 - this is the Q&A about the "Reviewers" who will make the initial call on whether new UGC missions can be played by everyone else in the game. Mike Apolis says these "Reviewers" actually sign a Separate EULA in order to be a "Reviewer".
The post from DStahl in this thread addresses "Raters" which everyone will be automatically. He does not address "Reviewers" at all in his post. Mike Apolis' description of this reminded me of the Player Council where a few players will have more influence over the game than others.
Something like this can be abused which concerns me. Maybe this has changed since Mike's interview. I'm actually waiting for the UGC FAQ (per DStahl's comments) so we can learn more about this.
At this point I'm more concerned about the Diminishing Returns system simply because leveling a Klingon with PvE is pretty damn boring without the same level of content that Feds have. Devs have marketed UGC as filling the content gap but that is not possible if you only get XP for 2 missions per day.
If I read DStahl's post correctly, you have to accept a special EULA (presumably the one signed by UGC authors) and opt-in to become a rater.
That indicates that raters will not be everyone automatically and that the right to rate content can be stripped from someone without banning them from otherwise playing the game if they abuse the rating system.
But anyone can opt-in to becoming a rater. They can just have the ability to rate content stripped of them if they violate the rules and try to rig the system or something like that.
I have to say that I don't really worry about the legal stuff. Cryptic has access to lawyers and what-not to handle this. If they say UGC is a go legally speaking, it's a go.
Everything else... We'll see it when we see it.
I think even with a "capped"/Diminishing return on UGC, you can use it just fine to level KDF (or prospective Romulan characters). Provided some players provide long missions, and provided you don't insist on playing 12 hours each day.
Seriously, if you could play 1 mission with some story, puzzles, dialogs and fights lasting 30 minutes to 1 hour, things would be a lot better then they are now.
If I read DStahl's post correctly, you have to accept a special EULA (presumably the one signed by UGC authors) and opt-in to become a rater.
That indicates that raters will not be everyone automatically and that the right to rate content can be stripped from someone without banning them from otherwise playing the game if they abuse the rating system.
But anyone can opt-in to becoming a rater. They can just have the ability to rate content stripped of them if they violate the rules and try to rig the system or something like that.
Mike Apolis makes a clear distinction between "Reviewer" and "Rater" in his interview at 20:25. He also clearly says Reviewers sign a separate EULA. And if any objectionable content slips past the Reviewers there is also a Rating system that is available to all UGC players to use.
Like I said, I'm waiting for the UGC FAQ to clear any misunderstandings up.
An abuse of that system means that the reviews can be reported and lose their privileges. I'm sure reviewing has logs tracked by Crypitc (ones they can consult and retcon in the case of abuse).
I sincerely hope so because any time one group of players is granted power over others it invites abuse and/or misuse.
One thing I do feel the need to comment on about these interviews with subspace radio...I find them very difficult to listen to. I find myself having to concentrate more on ignoring the nearly overpowering music, that is crappy to be quite honest, than actually digesting what is being said. If you absolutely must have music in the interviews, please tone it back to more of a background noise instead of nearly the same volume as the interview itself.
I sincerely hope so because any time one group of players is granted power over others it invites abuse and/or misuse.
But you dont disagree that if it works out it would be a good idea then? Personally, i feel its better to try, then if a shitstorm ensues pull it, than not try in fear of misuse.
Dont alot of people complain that cryptic isnt always tight on canon and stuff? And often fans claim that we always know better.
So if some missions are to be focus reviewed to determine if they can become a part of the 'actual' game world, I'd rather its a dedicated bunch of player reviewers. That way the content guys only have to pass the final say on what the panel passes on to them, and they also have more time to deal with the inevitable objectionable content that will crop up.
Actually i'll put it this way. We all know that the majority of players do not visit the forums. So those of us who are here, arent we already wielding a sort of 'power' over other players? There's alot of us, but its relatively small compared to the main population. We suggest improvements, give feedback, and change the course of development of the game.
And the devs know who are the more prolific of us and whom give useful information. Its not so different from being a reviewer, and then having to keep your reputation, i think.
They won't get rewards like skillpoints or be advertised as aggressively by Cryptic until they get reviewed.
So I think you have some valid concerns but they're being addressed.
An unreviewed UGC mission won't get advertised or provide rewards, nor will it be readily visible to someone who isn't looking for it.
Once it does pass that test, it will still be marked as UGC.
So... I'm curious as to how any UGC except that made by people with lots of reviewer buddies will actually get published to reward-granting status.
And it seems unclear to me whether or not un-reviewed missions will even be accessible to people who haven't signed up for the Foundry system, meaning people who intend to use it for, say, fleet RP might have to make sure the whole fleet signs up and jumps through whatever necessary hoops. And while it would surprise even me, they'd better not charge for that access...
Really, I much prefer CoH's system where you can publish immediately and entice people in for bug testing with promises of XP and tickets (weighed out by the risk of XP debt if your SG-mate habitually balances their missions to their tightly built Regen Scrapper instead of normal people...). It would have been nice if they'd kept in the possibility of full automatic XP for pre-balanced encounter packages, but with the universal diminishing returns I'm expecting they've tossed that out too.
why does a mission writer AND a reviewer need to sign it.
My best guess......the IP holder requires it.
What is in this SPECIAL EULA?
The usual: you will not willingly use other lic material in your mission,
Thou shalt not stick lord of the rings in STO
Thou shalt not upset George Lucas's legal team
Thou shalt not add adult only material
Thou shalt not add lex luthor
ect.....
and they have the reviewers read and sign so they know what to be on the look out for.
hmmmm bizaro here ? ........I don't think that is allowed BOINK reported.
I wanted to listen to that podcast, hopefully so that I could say that you're misinterpreting what was said.
But I just couldn't do it. That stupid music track running in the background the entire time made it difficult to hear what was being said. And after a few minutes of that constant repeating rhythm I was forced to shut it off, having heard almost nothing of what was said.
So uhm... yeah. Stupid podcasters are stupid. And I have no idea what was said in that interview, nor will I ever apparently.
I wanted to listen to that podcast, hopefully so that I could say that you're misinterpreting what was said.
But I just couldn't do it. That stupid music track running in the background the entire time made it difficult to hear what was being said. And after a few minutes of that constant repeating rhythm I was forced to shut it off, having heard almost nothing of what was said.
So uhm... yeah. Stupid podcasters are stupid. And I have no idea what was said in that interview, nor will I ever apparently.
is to cover the fact writers are putting stuff in game
so it would make sense that it would deal with copywrite stuff.
best guess
admittedly I could be way off.
There are also terms to not rig the system for pushing through your own content, to not be purposefully ganking other people's missions out of spite, etc.
I tried to give the podcast a listen and see what the UGC was going to feature. However, I found it too difficult to hear the dialog over the music and only made it to the 3-minute mark. Scanning ahead, I found that the music persisted through the entire show (?!?).
I guess I won't be hearing that one, after all.
Maybe STOked will cover the UGC, allowing me to keep my podcast resources to one.
Comments
Even you.. right there.. made the distinction that you claim doesn't need to be made for UGC. You said "official game world". How do you know the official game world from from UGC unless UGC is separated in some form? How do you portray that separation sufficiently to tens of thousands of users without the separation being clear and obvious.
The content has to be separated, and obviously so, to distinguish "official" from "unofficial". It needs to have a clear line of separation so to ensure copyright holders don't prosecute every time Wookies and Ewoks are used in UGC.
But a lot of played content? That remains to be seen. The game will likely become so incredibly saturated with missions--both good and bad--that only a small percentage will actually be played, let alone played enough for ratings to put them substantially above the rest.
Yeah.. and when data mining is interpreted a certain way, they'll have to go and modify experience games mission by mission. And data mining is only going to be valuable if the missions are individually played enough to provide sufficient feedback to act on.
Regardless of how any council is set to review the UGC for approval, someone will always come out and say theirs was denied due to "so and so". How would this council deal with these moments of conflict?
Are there any basic ground rules of content that will keep a UGC from being approved?
What ever happened to that idea? I have never seen hide nor hair of the PC squad and honestly forgot about them.
Thats an excellent idea. The non-comformist UGC can be sent to Quarks. I like it.
That makes it niether the savior or provider for any and all factions, not just the Klingons. I find that a silly idea and counter productive to helping PvE poor factions. Put an xp CAP and Item cap on mission based on level and leave it at that. Let the Dev's be the only one's to make High XP missions, but I, like many, like the scooby snacks we find it the missions we run for fun. Please don't take my virtual carrot away.
Damned straight it won't.
@#$%&&***( )_)_!#TRIBBLE%!&!
!@#$!*(!
I'm looking foward to the UGC because I will get to do a Klingon storyline I've been working on, but this doesn't sound anything like the huge PvE content gap reducer that the Dev's have talked about in the past. Especially with "diminishing returns" on xp and items. Cryptic sure seem to love "diminishing returns" in STO and its game mechanics...........
I think you're the one who's confused, Nagus. My whole point in every post I've made in this thread is that UGC is no problem if its not part of the 'official game world', but that if its integrated into the 'official game world' it creates a bunch of problems if it isn't carefully reviewed.
My understanding from the interview which we are discussing is that the player reviewers are going to be reviewing content to be potentially added to the 'official game world', and that UGC that isn't going to be so added isn't going to be part of that review process.
We can't assume XP adjustments will be done manually mission by mission. For all we know, there is an XP Adjustment Program for this - X completion time grants Y experience. When Cryptic's data mining reveals some need for adjustment they go hit the button on this program.
There's also the fact that Cryptic is simply not stupid. Any simpleton can recognize that players are skewing data when an easy Defeat 5/5 Mission is taking on average 3 hours to be completed. Simple data mining formulas can be set up to "Red Flag" these . Perhaps such missions wouldn't pass the test in the first place.
Lastly, we don't know how many times a mission must be ran by how many different people in order for it to qualify for Mission XP. If people are exploiting this, the prerequisites themselves can be adjusted for more accurate data.
There's more than one way to skin this cat. And players should not be skinned with this Diminishing Returns when there's better ways to do it.
But they are clearly marked if all UGC dialogue windows are clearly marked as UGC windows.
Depending on how they're marked, sure. But if I fly up to a star system and get a list of 8 missions, two of which are Cryptic made and 6 of which are UGC, and I have to actually click through to the mission description, for example, and scroll down to find out who wrote what, there will be issues if that content isn't reviewed first.
I guess I'd like to understand the point you're trying to make. Are you trying to argue that the player reviewers are irrelevant because UGC, no matter how its integrated into the game, doesn't have to be reviewed first? Because again, that's my point. If they're going to integrate the missions into the game world, rather than keep UGC separate, anything they integrate has to be reviewed first, and I'd rather have player volunteers take the time to read it than have devs reading it instead of creating professional content.
The review process would be guided by a rankings system, not by some elite council. Sorry, I'll try to catch up to page 13.
Nobody ever said there was going to be an 'elite council', it was just said that there was going to be a group of player volunteers reviewing missions before they go live in game. The OP and a few others interpreted that to be a repeat of the old Player Council fiasco. But that was just their interpretation.
this is a pretty good way to do it imo
They won't get rewards like skillpoints or be advertised as aggressively by Cryptic until they get reviewed.
So I think you have some valid concerns but they're being addressed.
An unreviewed UGC mission won't get advertised or provide rewards, nor will it be readily visible to someone who isn't looking for it.
Once it does pass that test, it will still be marked as UGC.
There are only two ways you will be able to do UGC:
1) You go looking for it through the UGC search tool
2) Select, "Dev recommended" missions are suggested via some remote contact that also clearly tells you it is a player made mission, who made it, and have reviews from other players.
Thats the only way you can do UGC. Its not like your going to be doing some normal mission and suddenly come across UGC by accident.
I like it that players need to promote their missions, and that they can't make the maps farm quests.
I like it that only the highest rated missions will even be reviewed by Cryptic or any kind of elite group of players.
I like it that this type of oversight will prevent abuse. Oversight is necessary.
It seems fine to me, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
That said...
The developers have the right, after THEIR review, to reward exceptional UGC
by making it a public mission.
In other words....if they discover a UGC mission that is as good or better than thiers AND
fits STO canon, THEY, the developers reserve the right to make it public.
It would be SO screened and examined that I would not worry, if it is that good, you would
prob. like it.
And I wouldn't call this thread an overreaction. That implies a misunderstanding.
I'd call this thread a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble on the forums. Again.
Some people just love the anger and drama.
I believe we call those people "Fair & Balanced."
I think you got me all wrong. If you guys haven't listened to the interview you can download it here.
Fast forward to 20:25 - this is the Q&A about the "Reviewers" who will make the initial call on whether new UGC missions can be played by everyone else in the game. Mike Apolis says these "Reviewers" actually sign a Separate EULA in order to be a "Reviewer".
The post from DStahl in this thread addresses "Raters" which everyone will be automatically. He does not address "Reviewers" at all in his post. Mike Apolis' description of this reminded me of the Player Council where a few players will have more influence over the game than others.
Something like this can be abused which concerns me. Maybe this has changed since Mike's interview. I'm actually waiting for the UGC FAQ (per DStahl's comments) so we can learn more about this.
At this point I'm more concerned about the Diminishing Returns system simply because leveling a Klingon with PvE is pretty damn boring without the same level of content that Feds have. Devs have marketed UGC as filling the content gap but that is not possible if you only get XP for 2 missions per day.
An abuse of that system means that the reviews can be reported and lose their privileges. I'm sure reviewing has logs tracked by Crypitc (ones they can consult and retcon in the case of abuse).
If I read DStahl's post correctly, you have to accept a special EULA (presumably the one signed by UGC authors) and opt-in to become a rater.
That indicates that raters will not be everyone automatically and that the right to rate content can be stripped from someone without banning them from otherwise playing the game if they abuse the rating system.
But anyone can opt-in to becoming a rater. They can just have the ability to rate content stripped of them if they violate the rules and try to rig the system or something like that.
Everything else... We'll see it when we see it.
I think even with a "capped"/Diminishing return on UGC, you can use it just fine to level KDF (or prospective Romulan characters). Provided some players provide long missions, and provided you don't insist on playing 12 hours each day.
Seriously, if you could play 1 mission with some story, puzzles, dialogs and fights lasting 30 minutes to 1 hour, things would be a lot better then they are now.
Mike Apolis makes a clear distinction between "Reviewer" and "Rater" in his interview at 20:25. He also clearly says Reviewers sign a separate EULA. And if any objectionable content slips past the Reviewers there is also a Rating system that is available to all UGC players to use.
Like I said, I'm waiting for the UGC FAQ to clear any misunderstandings up.
I sincerely hope so because any time one group of players is granted power over others it invites abuse and/or misuse.
Just sayin.
But you dont disagree that if it works out it would be a good idea then? Personally, i feel its better to try, then if a shitstorm ensues pull it, than not try in fear of misuse.
Dont alot of people complain that cryptic isnt always tight on canon and stuff? And often fans claim that we always know better.
So if some missions are to be focus reviewed to determine if they can become a part of the 'actual' game world, I'd rather its a dedicated bunch of player reviewers. That way the content guys only have to pass the final say on what the panel passes on to them, and they also have more time to deal with the inevitable objectionable content that will crop up.
Actually i'll put it this way. We all know that the majority of players do not visit the forums. So those of us who are here, arent we already wielding a sort of 'power' over other players? There's alot of us, but its relatively small compared to the main population. We suggest improvements, give feedback, and change the course of development of the game.
And the devs know who are the more prolific of us and whom give useful information. Its not so different from being a reviewer, and then having to keep your reputation, i think.
So... I'm curious as to how any UGC except that made by people with lots of reviewer buddies will actually get published to reward-granting status.
And it seems unclear to me whether or not un-reviewed missions will even be accessible to people who haven't signed up for the Foundry system, meaning people who intend to use it for, say, fleet RP might have to make sure the whole fleet signs up and jumps through whatever necessary hoops. And while it would surprise even me, they'd better not charge for that access...
Really, I much prefer CoH's system where you can publish immediately and entice people in for bug testing with promises of XP and tickets (weighed out by the risk of XP debt if your SG-mate habitually balances their missions to their tightly built Regen Scrapper instead of normal people...). It would have been nice if they'd kept in the possibility of full automatic XP for pre-balanced encounter packages, but with the universal diminishing returns I'm expecting they've tossed that out too.
why does a mission writer AND a reviewer need to sign it.
My best guess......the IP holder requires it.
What is in this SPECIAL EULA?
The usual: you will not willingly use other lic material in your mission,
Thou shalt not stick lord of the rings in STO
Thou shalt not upset George Lucas's legal team
Thou shalt not add adult only material
Thou shalt not add lex luthor
ect.....
and they have the reviewers read and sign so they know what to be on the look out for.
hmmmm bizaro here ? ........I don't think that is allowed BOINK reported.
and so on.
But I just couldn't do it. That stupid music track running in the background the entire time made it difficult to hear what was being said. And after a few minutes of that constant repeating rhythm I was forced to shut it off, having heard almost nothing of what was said.
So uhm... yeah. Stupid podcasters are stupid. And I have no idea what was said in that interview, nor will I ever apparently.
is to cover the fact writers are putting stuff in game
so it would make sense that it would deal with copywrite stuff.
best guess
admittedly I could be way off.
There are also terms to not rig the system for pushing through your own content, to not be purposefully ganking other people's missions out of spite, etc.
I guess I won't be hearing that one, after all.
Maybe STOked will cover the UGC, allowing me to keep my podcast resources to one.