Grab daily foundry - be given 4 random quests. Do them or don't do them. Rewards given after completion based on length of time. It's that simple. Problem(s) all fixed.
Grab daily foundry - be given 4 random quests. Do them or don't do them. Rewards given after completion based on length of time. It's that simple. Problem(s) all fixed.
We're free to make any style mission we want, and to different tastes we want. I don't like jumping puzzles, so I'm not going to go in and 1-star someone's jumping puzzle mission (though I might complain if that wasn't clear from the description).
I agree. If I don't want to play a jumping puzzle, I won't. But if I did I wouldn't 1 star it b/c I know what I am in store for. It different but I wouldn't even consider it a quest whatsoever. Just like the DM studio. Good tool, but its not a quest.
I say bring on the no-combat story missions. If you don't like it, go play something else.
Non-combat in an action MMO speaks something different to me. Its goes against the grain, for me personally. I can tolerate no combat, but for godsake, every story needs a set. Give me a good story in a beautiful environment. It's more palatable.
NW-DT4OV7EXH
Every time they idiot-proof something...they make better idiots.
Grab daily foundry - be given 4 random quests. Do them or don't do them. Rewards given after completion based on length of time. It's that simple. Problem(s) all fixed.
Yeah, that fixes absolutely nothing lol.
NW-DT4OV7EXH
Every time they idiot-proof something...they make better idiots.
0
xhritMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Sorry bud. I'm going to have to stick to my guns on this issue.
All story=incomplete quest. All hack 'n slash=incomplete quest.
This is a video game, not an "e-book". Just imagine releasing a movie that's just a compilation of fight scenes in a bare, white room with the same 5 guys for 45 minutes. Well received by critics? Doubt it.
On the flip side, imagine a movie released that plays out in a "black-box" theater. One guy siting in a chair, in an empty room, narrating a story. Well received? See above.
You mean like the movie 'Rope', which was filmed with a single camera in one continuous shot in a single room? The entire time the camera does not move.
That movie is the single highest rated movie on rotten tomatoes. with a rating of 97%.
Much like how my quest as 4.7 stars and is on the Best list.
Sure you could give the movie Rope a bad review for not having enough camera work or only have one set, but you would just be showing your ignorance on what makes a movie good.
Some of these story based quest wouldn't have to tell so much story if the author just dedicated some time on the environments and the encounters. Ever hears the phrase "a picture can tell a thousand words"? Heed the dogma.
I was never one to care about dogma. It is nothing but chains that shackle us to superstition and ignorance.
I tend to not pay attention to the star system at all. I read the description and maybe some reviews. If it sounds interesting I'm in if not, like my favorite Imperial Storm Trooper once said "Move Along". Dailies for foundry content? I would do away with it for the exact reason the OP gave. You get crappy Foundry quests.
"Crayons taste like purple"
Campaign: Night of Embers - NWS-DQX5GVNKO 1: A Flame In The Darkness - NW-DE47BTDI9
0
kamaliiciousMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 0Arc User
edited June 2013
According to the notes, Cryptic has to do something for each quest after the patch. They said it'd take a day or two, and they'd be starting with the feature quests. So it's "fixed" but not quite fixed yet.
0
agentjasporMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited June 2013
So uhhhh, back on topic. I honestly don't know the answer to this, and am asking out of curiosity and not to start any kind of <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, but of the quests Cryptic has made "Featured" so far, weren't most of them already very popular? I can't recall seeing one that had very few plays when it became Featured, but maybe I'm wrong.
So uhhhh, back on topic. I honestly don't know the answer to this, and am asking out of curiosity and not to start any kind of <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, but of the quests Cryptic has made "Featured" so far, weren't most of them already very popular? I can't recall seeing one that had very few plays when it became Featured, but maybe I'm wrong.
Zovya's went from very few plays to popular quickly and was featured. Its' a nice example of a good solid quest, fun story, not a daily and still got featured.
So uhhhh, back on topic. I honestly don't know the answer to this, and am asking out of curiosity and not to start any kind of <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, but of the quests Cryptic has made "Featured" so far, weren't most of them already very popular? I can't recall seeing one that had very few plays when it became Featured, but maybe I'm wrong.
Yep, I don't know what goes on in the review process to determine what makes a quest worthy of being featured because each featured quests has been vastly different on all fronts.
I am almost beginning to believe they just throw some names in a hat of a short selective list of quests and draw.
There is a rumor floating around that I am working on a new foundry quest. It was started by me.
0
agentjasporMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
Zovya's went from very few plays to popular quickly and was featured. Its' a nice example of a good solid quest, fun story, not a daily and still got featured.
Thanks, but what was the sequence? Sounds like you're saying it was "very few plays," then "suddenly popular," and THEN "featured." Or was it "very few plays," then "featured," and THEN "suddenly popular." If it's the latter, good.
Thanks, but what was the sequence? Sounds like you're saying it was "very few plays," then "suddenly popular," and THEN "featured." Or was it "very few plays," then "featured," and THEN "suddenly popular." If it's the latter, good.
Ah I get your meaning. It did get up I think (zovya correct me if I'm wrong) over 1000 plays before it got featured. I do think there was a thread where number of plays could come into their decision making on whether to feature it.
0
agentjasporMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
Ah I get your meaning. It did get up I think (zovya correct me if I'm wrong) over 1000 plays before it got featured. I do think there was a thread where number of plays could come into their decision making on whether to feature it.
Right, that's my point. In no way am I saying they don't deserve to be featured, but if that's generally the case, it's another example of why we're seeing a "the rich get richer" type pattern here.
Thanks, but what was the sequence? Sounds like you're saying it was "very few plays," then "suddenly popular," and THEN "featured." Or was it "very few plays," then "featured," and THEN "suddenly popular." If it's the latter, good.
I don't think I've seen a quest get featured that didn't already have plenty of plays. I think it's basically: Plenty of plays, sufficient rating? Ok, feature. Someone from Cryptic probably does play it to make sure there's some bare minimum standard like no thinly disguised swearing or <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> made from placeables.
0
zovyaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Thanks, but what was the sequence? Sounds like you're saying it was "very few plays," then "suddenly popular," and THEN "featured." Or was it "very few plays," then "featured," and THEN "suddenly popular." If it's the latter, good.
I don't know how they choose, but I'll tell you what happened in order. Maybe that will help.
I jumped into the foundry the first day of early release. Posted the quest 3 days later on April 28th. After the 20 plays it was on the best list, but barely. I tweaked it several times before it was as it is now, but it has always been in the 15 minute sweet spot. I planned to make the next chapters longer. It went higher on the list as I stamped out bugs and made improvements as I was learning the foundry tools. It peaked at #3 on the best list and started moving down due to lots of newer, and better quests being published. All the time I'm working on part 2, I planned to revisit part 1 to bring it up to better standards. A couple of weeks ago, it was spotlighted, not featured. That didn't really get anymore plays however. Maybe a slight bump. Then last week it was featured. I was happy and sad, happy it was featured, sad I can't go back and change it now. I had 15,000 plays on it when it was featured. Since then it's averaged 6-8k plays per day. It gets more plays than the other featured quests, I think, because of the 15 minute time.
0
zovyaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Right, that's my point. In no way am I saying they don't deserve to be featured, but if that's generally the case, it's another example of why we're seeing a "the rich get richer" type pattern here.
Can't speak for "featured" that's in Cryptic's hands. But making a really good and popular quest is still possible. Lovepeas' quest Nightmare on Market street is one of several perfect examples. She created that quest literally just a while ago. It shot straight to the top of the best page without having to really promote it that much. People just really loved it, told their friends, etc. It has thousands of plays and stays near the top.
0
agentjasporMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
edited June 2013
Thanks for sharing your experience, Zovya, much appreciated! And count me among your fans as well.
It helps that Zovya’s quest is short, eligible, polished, and you’ll want to play it at least twice to go from evil psychopath to D&D Jesus. Or vice versa. I’m sure there are people out there who only care about the first two, but try as I might, I just can’t imagine most foundry players going through quests like A Fateful Encounter or Bill’s Tavern four times in a row every day. Great as they are, that would drive me to madness.
Check out Adventuring College! A 20 minute male-centric comedic solo adventure.
Quest ID: NW-DPCZNUVQ7
0
zovyaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 0Arc User
It helps that Zovya’s quest is short, eligible, polished, and you’ll want to play it at least twice to go from evil psychopath to D&D Jesus. Or vice versa. I’m sure there are people out there who only care about the first two, but try as I might, I just can’t imagine most foundry players going through quests like A Fateful Encounter or Bill’s Tavern four times in a row every day. Great as they are, that would drive me to madness.
I agree, that would bore me to tears. But some players (not all) just look at the foundry as another daily to run. The easier it is, the better. And sometimes a quest they know well, can be run the quickest.
There are a lot of things you can do, shouldn't do, etc., but it is like trying to make a viral video. You can't do it on purpose. I try to make something that is fun for me. Fun to make as well as fun to play. Then I share it and talk it up to try to get others to play it. My only goals are to have fun making it and for my friends to enjoy it.
I got lucky. People liked my quest and played it a bunch for the dailies before the grind missions appeared. That helped me stay on the front page for a while. I had also submitted it for a contest in alpha, so it was on the Dev's radar. I still don't know what about it made them feature it or what caught their eyes, but I am very happy that I got featured. I got a lot of plays during that time, but once it went off the Featured page, my plays have dropped off.
One of the devs once posted how they pick quests to be featured. It isn't science. Whatever catches their eyes. They submit quests and someone (?) picks. They don't have a criteria or formula (from what I remember, I can't find the post). At a bare minimum, make it polished (spelling, grammar, all the little details). Best to make it unique and/or do something no one else has done.
At the end of the day, as it has been said, different strokes for different folks.
The thing is when you get the feedback comment at the end of the quest it asks for "what you like about this quest", sometimes advice is unsolicited, criticism is unwanted. Authors are VERY protective about their stuff, some people are fine getting feedback (I did Gloomlight last night and for the things that were wrong with it the good things outweighed it and so I did 5-star). I came into Vent afterwards and Nyghoma asked for the good and the bad.
Some people can take criticism; some people can't.
When someone rates your pride and joy 1-3 stars then knee jerk is to think "oh they are trolling" simply because the author thinks it's great (why release it otherwise?), but it doesn't mean everyone likes it. Personally I wouldn't like all hack n' slash, nor would I like all story.... I like a balance of them both, I like nice PvP and interesting mechanics utilized and in-depth story (even stuff that might make me cry).
Problem is that the voting is subjective, the score system is subjective. People need to not take things personally.
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited June 2013
Ok, throwing my two cents in right now:
It is up to Cryptic to encourage players to play foundry quests the players enjoy.
The current system, whether you agree or not, unjustly encourages players to play four quick missions rather than a mission which might be longer, better quality (debatable), or even simply enjoying the storylines.
If you like doing 15 minute quests more power to you but I love all of your work short and long. Sadly as a player who has really enjoyed some of the longest Foundry Quests (and can promise there are better rewards for longer quests) I feel highly encouraged to devote 60 minutes of gameplay in four 15 minute quests rather than four hour long quests simply because of the daily reward.
That's not right to me or the players who have truly designed great but longer content.
My solution would be to make the daily reward based on the average playtime. Throw out the "Four Foundry Missions" requirement and make each mission requirement 15 minutes. So if a player has to complete three missions in a day they have to devote 45 *average playtime* minutes to any number of missions.
This would fix a few major issues along the way:
1 - Giving rewards for completing quests even if physical rewards are disqualified. No more 15 minutes until the content dies nonsense
2 - This alone would also stop this requirement for mindless rushing. I would rather read your conversations and enjoy your storylines but as it stands the system is encouraging me to devote at least one hour a day into doing four of your missions and this makes me want to do them as close to 15 minutes as possible. That's not what I would prefer and I do get drawn into the more interesting content but it's something I feel discouraged to do.
And again, a longer quest gives better drops. The daily reward shouldn't be counteracting the natural reward curb so drastically.
3 - The Foundry is all about authors creating content they enjoy for players who may or may not enjoy it. Of course if you're really out there nobody will enjoy your content but the system has to be unbiased in order to encourage players to play content they enjoy too.
Authors may have to add in features they artistically don't agree with to appeal to players but it shouldn't be dictated by an exterior system rather than player appeal.
So going forward, let's keep civil and look at the issues.
Why is this content being played so much?
Is it because players enjoy it or is it because they are encouraged to do so?
Is conforming to the system truly the right move? Or should the system be changed to appeal to more authors and player styles?
And of course, what are the ways the system could be improved? Why?
The whole issue would be massively helped (I'm not going to say solved), if we could simply flag our quests with what you're likely to find in it. I don't care for reviews, they're subjective. What I'd like to see is a few categories about the quest that the author would have to give starting values for, and that the reviewers could give their own scores.
I'm not talking about just flagging a quest as story, or combat, or whatever.
But having a set of criteria:
Amount of story: 1-10
Amount of combat: 1-10
Amount of free-reign exploration: 1-10
Etc etc.. The author would put initial values in there, based on how much he or she felt was included in the quest, then the reviewers could give their own feedback based on what they felt. Sometimes, this may wildly differ, because an author hasn't been exposed to as many Foundry quests as a player (We're generally too busy making to be playing as much as someone who isn't making), so a quest that an author may think is heavy on story, actually isn't, when compared to other quests and so on.
Then allow players the ability to search based on criteria around those figures. That way, we could be sure players get the quests they want.
I mean, I'm all for removing rewards entirely from foundry quests - (I am, as my boss at work says, the least reward-driven person he's ever met) - but I know how unpopular that idea is - I know that we live in a pavlovian society and that gamers are driven to push the lever for the pellet.
You can't change human nature, and I don't try. I just separate myself from it. If people want their 15-minute dailies, they're welcome to them. I'm not about to try and change what people find fun and neither am I about to criticize them for finding it fun. They won't be playing my quests and I'm okay with that.
Having other people play my quests isn't why I make them anyway.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited June 2013
Keep asking for it raphaeldisanto! I want it added as much as you.
It was a major thing I wanted during the Closed Beta (and Alpha) Foundry testing.
The ability for players to be able to search for quests that would appeal to them is truly required. Badbotlimit had mentioned that adding in a hash tag search feature would be something up the ally he would like to add at some point. To me that's better than nothing but still I'd rather see a small list of categories.
Give the authors to ability to list themselves under ten or so categories such as Hack and Slash, Story, Exploration, Puzzles...etc...
Authors could choose more than one category for each quest and this would allow player find authors who might fit their styles more and personally I would prefer that over or alongside any hash tag search system.
But since April 30 in my opinion the big issue is that the daily rewards (and even the foundry event) rewards players based on the number of times they complete a mission rather than proportionally to the length of the quest. The system outright created a Goldilocks system where 14 minutes is too short, 16 minutes is too long and 15 minutes is just right.
To point out one specific example: I am Slayer was actually created as a 30-45 minute runtime quest. Players then rushed through it as fast as possible until the reward was no longer supplied because it ultimately had an average completion time of less than 15 minutes.
Human nature is to get rewards efficiently and so, yes, the players are doing what they are encouraged to do...
But the encouragement is massively from the thought process of doing four quests which have an average completion time of 15 minutes or more as quickly as possible.
But since April 30 in my opinion the big issue is that the daily rewards (and even the foundry event) rewards players based on the number of times they complete a mission rather than proportionally to the length of the quest. The system outright created a Goldilocks system where 14 minutes is too short, 16 minutes is too long and 15 minutes is just right.
Lets do away with the Goldilocks system please. It is doing nothing but causing a lot of discouragement, and creating division in the Foundry community. Also, lets quit rewarding players for farming the same quest over and over. The point of the daily bonus was to encourage players to play NEW quests, and the main issue here is that they aren't doing that, they're just playing the same ones over and over.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
lolsorhandMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 981Bounty Hunter
Look, I agree with some of your points, but I got distracted by the amount of space you've devoted to a certain author. So yeah, he's popular, but you've pointed it out yourself: he's sitting at the top because of the way the system is. I'm all for fixing the system but not for making examples out of authors. Also, a couple days ago that same author actually made a thread asking other foundry authors to post unpopular quests that they love. It's buried now, but I know this because I responded to it, and I've played the quest he recommended. Personally, I feel that it's distracting when OPs point out particular authors. You can actually make your point without doing so.
That said, I agree there should be rewards for playing longer and less popular quests. A few threads back, someone suggested AD rewards for playing a quest you've never played before. I'd love to see that kind of thing implemented (which would be good for me too, since I almost never play the same quest twice).
By the way, my favorite is Return From the Void NW-DRFKYD2CN by@runis12. It only has about 70 plays and I think it deserves more! Incredible environments and NPCs.
I'd also like to see which little known quests you liked.
I'll check that one out , don't have any i can recommended out in the open. ( Still patching the game, and it's slow lol ) - But I agree with the OP on certain points. But as the quoted person said, I'm not for descrediting any single author for their work. Although a rework in someway would be good. Perhaps a few different Features? For different genres?
Lets do away with the Goldilocks system please. It is doing nothing but causing a lot of discouragement, and creating division in the Foundry community. Also, lets quit rewarding players for farming the same quest over and over. The point of the daily bonus was to encourage players to play NEW quests, and the main issue here is that they aren't doing that, they're just playing the same ones over and over.
Agree completely, almost the entire setup/ system of "How to find" "How to rate" and "how to / what rewards are given" needs to be seriously reexamined and changed.
If there's one thing that appears to unite the Neverwinter author community, it’s that my quests are bad & and my popularity is due to the fact that MMO gamers have correspondingly bad taste. I bring this up here since the OP (of what turned out to be a very entertaining thread) was actually referring to me in his initial ragefest (which he then edited out).
Fortunately, the folks on MMORPG (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/634/feature/7475), Youtube, many Reddit threads, and around 98% of my reviewers disagree. As do the companies that hire me to create stories on TV (the content of which most of you have probably seen at some point).
The primary reason why people like the OP see few reviews is not due to the length of their quest, it's because they show a fundamental disrespect for the tastes of the mainstream audience for whom they seem to find it important to attract.
His premise of this entire thread is ridiculous and set up to start a flame war. As someone who has reviewed a lot of quests, in general, IMO long or short, the quests on the best list are there for a reason. Popular quests generally are creative or otherwise interesting. More new great quests are being created every day, and over time the bar for what the community deems "best" will continue to rise.
The hardest thing in the world is to make something simple. Long does not equate to better. Detailed does not equate to better. Complex does not equate to better. Look at Einstein, at Steve Jobs. They all extolled the virtue of making the complex simple. I generally create simple environments by design because of this philosophy I adhere to and several other reasons I won't go into here.
Is the system perfect? No. Is getting found initially hard? Yes. I am certain that better and more robust search functionality would help. As would fixing the beta quests - I can't even open the tab without it crashing.
Really, you have zero idea how much time and thought goes into the story & level design of a simple, well done 15-20 minute quest. Saying the end product is simple or basic is praise to me. And if you just don't like what I do or think it's boring, that's fine, it's your opinion...but it does not make your preference better than mine or anyone elses.
Finally, to the OP and other self-appointed creators of high art in this community, I say QQ more. Your negativity and one star reviews don't impact me or my ratings. To the minority of supporters here with some semblance of a sense of humor I say, thank you for your support, good day & carry on.
If there's one thing that appears to unite the Neverwinter author community, it’s that my quests are bad & and my popularity is due to the fact that MMO gamers have correspondingly bad taste. I bring this up here since the OP (of what turned out to be a very entertaining thread) was actually referring to me in his initial ragefest (which he then edited out).
Fortunately, the folks on MMORPG (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/634/feature/7475), Youtube, many Reddit threads, and around 98% of my reviewers disagree. As do the companies that hire me to create stories on TV (the content of which most of you have probably seen at some point).
The primary reason why people like the OP see few reviews is not due to the length of their quest, it's because they show a fundamental disrespect for the tastes of the mainstream audience for whom they seem to find it important to attract.
His premise of this entire thread is ridiculous and set up to start a flame war. As someone who has reviewed a lot of quests, in general, IMO long or short, the quests on the best list are there for a reason. Popular quests generally are creative or otherwise interesting. More new great quests are being created every day, and over time the bar for what the community deems "best" will continue to rise.
The hardest thing in the world is to make something simple. Long does not equate to better. Detailed does not equate to better. Complex does not equate to better. Look at Einstein, at Steve Jobs. They all extolled the virtue of making the complex simple. I generally create simple environments by design because of this philosophy I adhere to and several other reasons I won't go into here.
Is the system perfect? No. Is getting found initially hard? Yes. I am certain that better and more robust search functionality would help. As would fixing the beta quests - I can't even open the tab without it crashing.
Really, you have zero idea how much time and thought goes into the story & environment of a simple 15-20 minute quest. Saying the end product is simple or basic is praise to me. And if you just don't like what I do or think it's boring, that's fine, it's your opinion...but it does not make your preference better than mine or anyone elses.
Finally, to the OP and other self-appointed creators of high art in this community, I say QQ more. Your negativity and one star reviews don't impact me or my ratings. To the minority of supporters here with some semblance of a sense of humor I say, thank you for your support, good day & carry on.
While I support and understand your claim. I re-read what virtousviper said, and he specifically announced that he was not an author. He doesn't create quests. He's just a player who enjoys doing foundries, from what I presume.
But I agree with what you are saying wholeheartedly, this forum has gone to a flame war. But alas, I also agree with some statements made by others within this forum.
Personally, I enjoy your quests so if it was an attack against you, then bad on viper. But I don't see any evidence of this, so I cannot speculate either way.
As far as I can see it, even the community moderator is somewhat for everything being changed. I, personally don't care either way. So long as those who do my quest actually enjoy it, then my job is complete.
While I support and understand your claim. I re-read what virtousviper said, and he specifically announced that he was not an author. He doesn't create quests. He's just a player who enjoys doing foundries, from what I presume.
But I agree with what you are saying wholeheartedly, this forum has gone to a flame war. But alas, I also agree with some statements made by others within this forum.
Personally, I enjoy your quests so if it was an attack against you, then bad on viper. But I don't see any evidence of this, so I cannot speculate either way.
As far as I can see it, even the community moderator is somewhat for everything being changed. I, personally don't care either way. So long as those who do my quest actually enjoy, then my job is complete.
Thanks dzogen!
Savai,
Thanks mate.
Most of you did not see the first post which was heavily bagging on me but if you read the initial page or two, you will see it was edited to remove references to me specifically.
Comments
lol, you just killed everyone's time.
I agree. If I don't want to play a jumping puzzle, I won't. But if I did I wouldn't 1 star it b/c I know what I am in store for. It different but I wouldn't even consider it a quest whatsoever. Just like the DM studio. Good tool, but its not a quest.
Non-combat in an action MMO speaks something different to me. Its goes against the grain, for me personally. I can tolerate no combat, but for godsake, every story needs a set. Give me a good story in a beautiful environment. It's more palatable.
Every time they idiot-proof something...they make better idiots.
Yeah, that fixes absolutely nothing lol.
Every time they idiot-proof something...they make better idiots.
You mean like the movie 'Rope', which was filmed with a single camera in one continuous shot in a single room? The entire time the camera does not move.
That movie is the single highest rated movie on rotten tomatoes. with a rating of 97%.
Much like how my quest as 4.7 stars and is on the Best list.
Sure you could give the movie Rope a bad review for not having enough camera work or only have one set, but you would just be showing your ignorance on what makes a movie good.
I was never one to care about dogma. It is nothing but chains that shackle us to superstition and ignorance.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark
Campaign: Night of Embers - NWS-DQX5GVNKO
1: A Flame In The Darkness - NW-DE47BTDI9
The Crystal Relics - NWS-DMXNCNAVJ
Tower District Contest Entry: Undercover Brother - NW-DCD6OI9JE
Zovya's went from very few plays to popular quickly and was featured. Its' a nice example of a good solid quest, fun story, not a daily and still got featured.
Yep, I don't know what goes on in the review process to determine what makes a quest worthy of being featured because each featured quests has been vastly different on all fronts.
I am almost beginning to believe they just throw some names in a hat of a short selective list of quests and draw.
Thanks, but what was the sequence? Sounds like you're saying it was "very few plays," then "suddenly popular," and THEN "featured." Or was it "very few plays," then "featured," and THEN "suddenly popular." If it's the latter, good.
The Crystal Relics - NWS-DMXNCNAVJ
Tower District Contest Entry: Undercover Brother - NW-DCD6OI9JE
Ah I get your meaning. It did get up I think (zovya correct me if I'm wrong) over 1000 plays before it got featured. I do think there was a thread where number of plays could come into their decision making on whether to feature it.
Right, that's my point. In no way am I saying they don't deserve to be featured, but if that's generally the case, it's another example of why we're seeing a "the rich get richer" type pattern here.
The Crystal Relics - NWS-DMXNCNAVJ
Tower District Contest Entry: Undercover Brother - NW-DCD6OI9JE
I don't know how they choose, but I'll tell you what happened in order. Maybe that will help.
I jumped into the foundry the first day of early release. Posted the quest 3 days later on April 28th. After the 20 plays it was on the best list, but barely. I tweaked it several times before it was as it is now, but it has always been in the 15 minute sweet spot. I planned to make the next chapters longer. It went higher on the list as I stamped out bugs and made improvements as I was learning the foundry tools. It peaked at #3 on the best list and started moving down due to lots of newer, and better quests being published. All the time I'm working on part 2, I planned to revisit part 1 to bring it up to better standards. A couple of weeks ago, it was spotlighted, not featured. That didn't really get anymore plays however. Maybe a slight bump. Then last week it was featured. I was happy and sad, happy it was featured, sad I can't go back and change it now. I had 15,000 plays on it when it was featured. Since then it's averaged 6-8k plays per day. It gets more plays than the other featured quests, I think, because of the 15 minute time.
Can't speak for "featured" that's in Cryptic's hands. But making a really good and popular quest is still possible. Lovepeas' quest Nightmare on Market street is one of several perfect examples. She created that quest literally just a while ago. It shot straight to the top of the best page without having to really promote it that much. People just really loved it, told their friends, etc. It has thousands of plays and stays near the top.
The Crystal Relics - NWS-DMXNCNAVJ
Tower District Contest Entry: Undercover Brother - NW-DCD6OI9JE
Quest ID: NW-DPCZNUVQ7
I agree, that would bore me to tears. But some players (not all) just look at the foundry as another daily to run. The easier it is, the better. And sometimes a quest they know well, can be run the quickest.
I got lucky. People liked my quest and played it a bunch for the dailies before the grind missions appeared. That helped me stay on the front page for a while. I had also submitted it for a contest in alpha, so it was on the Dev's radar. I still don't know what about it made them feature it or what caught their eyes, but I am very happy that I got featured. I got a lot of plays during that time, but once it went off the Featured page, my plays have dropped off.
One of the devs once posted how they pick quests to be featured. It isn't science. Whatever catches their eyes. They submit quests and someone (?) picks. They don't have a criteria or formula (from what I remember, I can't find the post). At a bare minimum, make it polished (spelling, grammar, all the little details). Best to make it unique and/or do something no one else has done.
The thing is when you get the feedback comment at the end of the quest it asks for "what you like about this quest", sometimes advice is unsolicited, criticism is unwanted. Authors are VERY protective about their stuff, some people are fine getting feedback (I did Gloomlight last night and for the things that were wrong with it the good things outweighed it and so I did 5-star). I came into Vent afterwards and Nyghoma asked for the good and the bad.
Some people can take criticism; some people can't.
When someone rates your pride and joy 1-3 stars then knee jerk is to think "oh they are trolling" simply because the author thinks it's great (why release it otherwise?), but it doesn't mean everyone likes it. Personally I wouldn't like all hack n' slash, nor would I like all story.... I like a balance of them both, I like nice PvP and interesting mechanics utilized and in-depth story (even stuff that might make me cry).
Problem is that the voting is subjective, the score system is subjective. People need to not take things personally.
It is up to Cryptic to encourage players to play foundry quests the players enjoy.
The current system, whether you agree or not, unjustly encourages players to play four quick missions rather than a mission which might be longer, better quality (debatable), or even simply enjoying the storylines.
If you like doing 15 minute quests more power to you but I love all of your work short and long. Sadly as a player who has really enjoyed some of the longest Foundry Quests (and can promise there are better rewards for longer quests) I feel highly encouraged to devote 60 minutes of gameplay in four 15 minute quests rather than four hour long quests simply because of the daily reward.
That's not right to me or the players who have truly designed great but longer content.
My solution would be to make the daily reward based on the average playtime. Throw out the "Four Foundry Missions" requirement and make each mission requirement 15 minutes. So if a player has to complete three missions in a day they have to devote 45 *average playtime* minutes to any number of missions.
This would fix a few major issues along the way:
1 - Giving rewards for completing quests even if physical rewards are disqualified. No more 15 minutes until the content dies nonsense
2 - This alone would also stop this requirement for mindless rushing. I would rather read your conversations and enjoy your storylines but as it stands the system is encouraging me to devote at least one hour a day into doing four of your missions and this makes me want to do them as close to 15 minutes as possible. That's not what I would prefer and I do get drawn into the more interesting content but it's something I feel discouraged to do.
And again, a longer quest gives better drops. The daily reward shouldn't be counteracting the natural reward curb so drastically.
3 - The Foundry is all about authors creating content they enjoy for players who may or may not enjoy it. Of course if you're really out there nobody will enjoy your content but the system has to be unbiased in order to encourage players to play content they enjoy too.
Authors may have to add in features they artistically don't agree with to appeal to players but it shouldn't be dictated by an exterior system rather than player appeal.
So going forward, let's keep civil and look at the issues.
Why is this content being played so much?
Is it because players enjoy it or is it because they are encouraged to do so?
Is conforming to the system truly the right move? Or should the system be changed to appeal to more authors and player styles?
And of course, what are the ways the system could be improved? Why?
Play nice guys.
I'm not talking about just flagging a quest as story, or combat, or whatever.
But having a set of criteria:
Amount of story: 1-10
Amount of combat: 1-10
Amount of free-reign exploration: 1-10
Etc etc.. The author would put initial values in there, based on how much he or she felt was included in the quest, then the reviewers could give their own feedback based on what they felt. Sometimes, this may wildly differ, because an author hasn't been exposed to as many Foundry quests as a player (We're generally too busy making to be playing as much as someone who isn't making), so a quest that an author may think is heavy on story, actually isn't, when compared to other quests and so on.
Then allow players the ability to search based on criteria around those figures. That way, we could be sure players get the quests they want.
I mean, I'm all for removing rewards entirely from foundry quests - (I am, as my boss at work says, the least reward-driven person he's ever met) - but I know how unpopular that idea is - I know that we live in a pavlovian society and that gamers are driven to push the lever for the pellet.
You can't change human nature, and I don't try. I just separate myself from it. If people want their 15-minute dailies, they're welcome to them. I'm not about to try and change what people find fun and neither am I about to criticize them for finding it fun. They won't be playing my quests and I'm okay with that.
Having other people play my quests isn't why I make them anyway.
It was a major thing I wanted during the Closed Beta (and Alpha) Foundry testing.
The ability for players to be able to search for quests that would appeal to them is truly required. Badbotlimit had mentioned that adding in a hash tag search feature would be something up the ally he would like to add at some point. To me that's better than nothing but still I'd rather see a small list of categories.
Give the authors to ability to list themselves under ten or so categories such as Hack and Slash, Story, Exploration, Puzzles...etc...
Authors could choose more than one category for each quest and this would allow player find authors who might fit their styles more and personally I would prefer that over or alongside any hash tag search system.
But since April 30 in my opinion the big issue is that the daily rewards (and even the foundry event) rewards players based on the number of times they complete a mission rather than proportionally to the length of the quest. The system outright created a Goldilocks system where 14 minutes is too short, 16 minutes is too long and 15 minutes is just right.
To point out one specific example: I am Slayer was actually created as a 30-45 minute runtime quest. Players then rushed through it as fast as possible until the reward was no longer supplied because it ultimately had an average completion time of less than 15 minutes.
Human nature is to get rewards efficiently and so, yes, the players are doing what they are encouraged to do...
But the encouragement is massively from the thought process of doing four quests which have an average completion time of 15 minutes or more as quickly as possible.
Lets do away with the Goldilocks system please. It is doing nothing but causing a lot of discouragement, and creating division in the Foundry community. Also, lets quit rewarding players for farming the same quest over and over. The point of the daily bonus was to encourage players to play NEW quests, and the main issue here is that they aren't doing that, they're just playing the same ones over and over.
I'll check that one out
Brethren of the Five, Campaign. - Story focused
The Dwarven Tale - Hack 'N Slash
Fortunately, the folks on MMORPG (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/634/feature/7475), Youtube, many Reddit threads, and around 98% of my reviewers disagree. As do the companies that hire me to create stories on TV (the content of which most of you have probably seen at some point).
The primary reason why people like the OP see few reviews is not due to the length of their quest, it's because they show a fundamental disrespect for the tastes of the mainstream audience for whom they seem to find it important to attract.
His premise of this entire thread is ridiculous and set up to start a flame war. As someone who has reviewed a lot of quests, in general, IMO long or short, the quests on the best list are there for a reason. Popular quests generally are creative or otherwise interesting. More new great quests are being created every day, and over time the bar for what the community deems "best" will continue to rise.
The hardest thing in the world is to make something simple. Long does not equate to better. Detailed does not equate to better. Complex does not equate to better. Look at Einstein, at Steve Jobs. They all extolled the virtue of making the complex simple. I generally create simple environments by design because of this philosophy I adhere to and several other reasons I won't go into here.
Is the system perfect? No. Is getting found initially hard? Yes. I am certain that better and more robust search functionality would help. As would fixing the beta quests - I can't even open the tab without it crashing.
Really, you have zero idea how much time and thought goes into the story & level design of a simple, well done 15-20 minute quest. Saying the end product is simple or basic is praise to me. And if you just don't like what I do or think it's boring, that's fine, it's your opinion...but it does not make your preference better than mine or anyone elses.
Finally, to the OP and other self-appointed creators of high art in this community, I say QQ more. Your negativity and one star reviews don't impact me or my ratings. To the minority of supporters here with some semblance of a sense of humor I say, thank you for your support, good day & carry on.
Bill's Tavern | The 27th Level | Secret Agent 34
While I support and understand your claim. I re-read what virtousviper said, and he specifically announced that he was not an author. He doesn't create quests. He's just a player who enjoys doing foundries, from what I presume.
But I agree with what you are saying wholeheartedly, this forum has gone to a flame war. But alas, I also agree with some statements made by others within this forum.
Personally, I enjoy your quests so if it was an attack against you, then bad on viper. But I don't see any evidence of this, so I cannot speculate either way.
As far as I can see it, even the community moderator is somewhat for everything being changed. I, personally don't care either way. So long as those who do my quest actually enjoy it, then my job is complete.
Thanks dzogen!
Savai,
Thanks mate.
Most of you did not see the first post which was heavily bagging on me but if you read the initial page or two, you will see it was edited to remove references to me specifically.
Bill's Tavern | The 27th Level | Secret Agent 34