Stop thinking of this suggestion as a "fix" to the current broken system, or as a mechanism to prevent poor reviews, and instead a suggestion to actually improve the design.
Right now, assuming no bugs, the player gets one mostly useless reward in the end chest. Since looting that chest is the universal mechanism for completing a foundry quest, it shouldn't be an afterthought. It should be something worth doing. Cryptic obviously assumes you will complete a foundry quest that you begin, because you're given credit for the daily upon quest completion, not upon spending 15 minutes in a given quest.
I also don't see this as overly complicating things, at least from a design standpoint (though I strongly doubt it's only an additional four lines of code, heh). It's a very simple concept: The final chest will drop a percentage of the loot dropped by all mobs killed in the instance. If it's complicated from a coding or development standpoint, that's due to the code base.
Even if it would take a day or two to code and test, it would still solve a non-trivial player dissatisfaction issue. I'm not even talking about Author dissatisfaction. Nobody likes opening a chest to see nothing.
Finally, as for the rating issue - I see a lot of talk here about the need to leave accurate ratings on quests so that players know what they're getting into. Many players couldn't care less about the contents of a Foundry - they only want to play it to get credit for a daily. They will absolutely one-star a quest if the chest was empty or had <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> loot, as they're asked to rate the quest immediately after they just got screwed. Why do so many authors put right up front in their quest descriptions that they don't control loot? Because it happens all the time. Those ratings skew downward the perceived quality of a quest, making it harder for players who DO care about the content to find good quests. The fact that you're not forced to leave a comment makes it even worse, as you can't browse through the reviews to correlate the poor ratings with loot whiners.
[EDIT: Typos]
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Felling the Forgemaster: NW-DOHCJ5VE3(Elligible for Foundry Daily) Fleshrend's Big Adventure: NW-DBWJJYFDK (Elligible for Foundry Daily)
Stop thinking of this suggestion as a "fix" to the current broken system, or as a mechanism to prevent poor reviews, and instead a suggestion to actually improve the design.
Hooray! Someone that actually wants to discuss things with civility! That's far more entertaining, imo, though I will argue (half-heartedly, to get it out of the way) that at the moment that's not the case and it is entirely intended to 'fix' a perceived problem (as stated). That out of the way, moving on.
As a suggestion, I would first then ask what problem it's necessarily attempting to fix by addressing it that makes it worth the additional development time (whatever that time is - I neither know off-hand nor care to speculate this time around. I'm staying ON TASK this time, I swear!). Right now, as stated, the change is being suggested in a vacuum. It would need an intended purpose.
Right now, assuming no bugs, the player gets one mostly useless reward in the end chest. Since looting that chest is the universal mechanism for completing a foundry quest, it shouldn't be an afterthought. It should be something worth doing. Cryptic obviously assumes you will complete a foundry quest that you begin, because you're given credit for the daily upon quest completion, not upon spending 15 minutes in a given quest.
That's a fair response to question 1 right out of the gate. However, I'm not sure necessarily that deflecting n% of the total rewards one would get into a dungeon into the end chest does anything but create an illusion of getting a big payday. Realistically, you're not getting anything that you wouldn't have gotten anyway just by picking up loot along the way, and a lot of what you're getting is thereby going to be junk that you may not have picked up. Further, loot interactions with chests in this game are buggy - if your inventory is full and you loot a lootable object, you don't get a second chance at that loot once you clear space. It's gone the second you close that dialogue.
That creates a scenario where, instead of getting anything that's worth caring about, we're delaying the choice on whether I want that garbage in my bags at all and forcing the issue by saying 'Get it now or don't'. I'm not sure that's necessarily an improvement on the current system, where as it stands now I can freely ignore what I want to when it drops, rather then having to wait to ignore it later.
I also don't see this as overly complicating things, at least from a design standpoint (though I strongly doubt it's only an additional four lines of code, heh). It's a very simple concept: The final chest will drop a percentage of the loot dropped by all mobs killed in the instance. If it's complicated from a coding or development standpoint, that's due to the code base.
Simple concepts often have very complicated methods to achieve the results - hence my previous (hopping in the WABAC machine) comparison of the suggested mechanic to prestidigitation. Technically speaking, I'd just be palming a card and putting it in my sleeve without you seeing it, so that when I pull out that same card later (using a different technique) it seems like magic. In reality, there's a lot of complicated sleight-of-hand and muscle movement that goes on to pull it off, and realistically all I'm doing is playing you for a fool the entire time. That's the impression I'm getting of this mechanic as suggested - it's not reallying improving your loot at all (infact, it is being stressed that the loot would be the same). It's just delaying your acquisition of it, and thus your gratification of getting it. I find it a complex way to pull off a minor effect for no objective payoff. Unless we're assuming that I am to be impressed with the loot pinata* effect, in which case, I defer you to Diablo 3's developers (who are fighting that exact problem re: loot quality).
Even if it would take a day or two to code and test, it would still solve a non-trivial player dissatisfaction issue. I'm not even talking about Author dissatisfaction. Nobody likes opening a chest to see nothing.
Two entirely different problems. The former is what the mechanic is suggested to fix - the latter is a bug that is possibly being fixed still (and probably doesn't have an easy solution to find, given the code spaghetti that Cryptic likes to play with - citing my experience in CoH/V, CO, and STO here).
Finally, as for the rating issue - I see a lot of talk here about the need to leave accurate ratings on quests so that players know what they're getting into. Many players couldn't care less about the contents of a Foundry - they only want to play it to get credit for a daily. They will absolutely one-star a quest if the chest was empty or had <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> loot, as they're asked to rate the quest immediately after they just got screwed. Why do so many authors put right up front in their quest descriptions that they don't control loot? Because it happens all the time. Those ratings skew downward the perceived quality of a quest, making it harder for players who DO care about the content to find good quests. The fact that you're not forced to leave a comment makes it even worse, as you can't browse through the reviews to correlate the poor ratings with loot whiners.
[EDIT: Typos]
That's the elephant in the room that we're currently trying to find a solution for, and that's the one my suggested change is attempting to address. At the least, my suggestion removes the need for the Author themselves to make the claim - it's done for them, and that's more room they can use in the description of their mission for more informative things, or one less thing they have to set up at the end. I do not, however, make any definative claims (having only my own subjective data, limited as it is) that this would solve the problem. I do think that it's worth a shot before we go too crazy going forward, though.
*Too lazy to go find a proper 'n' with tilde for pinata there or here. I apologize for my inconsideration to the Spanish language.
Hooray! Someone that actually wants to discuss things with civility! That's far more entertaining, imo, though I will argue (half-heartedly, to get it out of the way) that at the moment that's not the case and it is entirely intended to 'fix' a perceived problem (as stated). That out of the way, moving on.
As a suggestion, I would first then ask what problem it's necessarily attempting to fix by addressing it that makes it worth the additional development time (whatever that time is - I neither know off-hand nor care to speculate this time around. I'm staying ON TASK this time, I swear!). Right now, as stated, the change is being suggested in a vacuum. It would need an intended purpose.
The problem is the let-down when looting a chest at the end of a foundry. It's not optional - it's something you have to do to complete the quest. It's also a giant chest that is singing to you and radiating magic. You open it up and you find...Residium? Seriously? I understand that it can't contain awesome rewards due to exploit potential. So if you can't have one awesome reward, how do you make the event satisfying? You're left with quantity. You mentioned Diablo 3 in your post - that whole genre is based on oodles of loot spilling on the floor - most of it worthless. If you also increase the chance for a useful item dropping based on total chest contents, that would be even better.
That's a fair response to question 1 right out of the gate. However, I'm not sure necessarily that deflecting n% of the total rewards one would get into a dungeon into the end chest does anything but create an illusion of getting a big payday. Realistically, you're not getting anything that you wouldn't have gotten anyway just by picking up loot along the way, and a lot of what you're getting is thereby going to be junk that you may not have picked up. Further, loot interactions with chests in this game are buggy - if your inventory is full and you loot a lootable object, you don't get a second chance at that loot once you clear space. It's gone the second you close that dialogue.
I'm assuming no bugs - they should be addressed as bugs and resolved in the order the devs see fit. Assuming the chest is properly lootable, I think providing the illusion of a larger payoff is a perfectly valid design decision. Satisfaction is based largely on perception. 'Was the payoff worth the effort'? A pile of rewards, even if some of them are worthless, is still better than one worthless reward. Also the redirection of rewards to the end chest is based entirely on the assumption that the total amount of reward from a foundry could not increase. Would it be better if all drops remained, and the final chest instead contained an additional percentage of all the loot dropped?
That creates a scenario where, instead of getting anything that's worth caring about, we're delaying the choice on whether I want that garbage in my bags at all and forcing the issue by saying 'Get it now or don't'. I'm not sure that's necessarily an improvement on the current system, where as it stands now I can freely ignore what I want to when it drops, rather then having to wait to ignore it later.
Actually I think holding some of the loot until the end could be a benefit. Inventory space is always at a premium in this game. Foundry authors must always be mindful of this, and do their best to limit the number of quest-related items they require the player to hold. That in turn has an impact on quest design. If I knew the player could pick up some of the loot at the end of the quest, knowing they could destroy quest objects before looting the final chest (or even better having that loot action destroy the quest items), that would open up design possibilities a bit.
Simple concepts often have very complicated methods to achieve the results - hence my previous (hopping in the WABAC machine) comparison of the suggested mechanic to prestidigitation. Technically speaking, I'd just be palming a card and putting it in my sleeve without you seeing it, so that when I pull out that same card later (using a different technique) it seems like magic. In reality, there's a lot of complicated sleight-of-hand and muscle movement that goes on to pull it off, and realistically all I'm doing is playing you for a fool the entire time. That's the impression I'm getting of this mechanic as suggested - it's not reallying improving your loot at all (infact, it is being stressed that the loot would be the same). It's just delaying your acquisition of it, and thus your gratification of getting it. I find it a complex way to pull off a minor effect for no objective payoff. Unless we're assuming that I am to be impressed with the loot pinata* effect, in which case, I defer you to Diablo 3's developers (who are fighting that exact problem re: loot quality).
Oh believe me, I know. I write code for a living too. Even laying out the mechanics of this solution, though, shows it's not that complex. There are any number of ways it could be accomplished efficiently using functionality that already exists in the game. At the risk of oversimplifying, it could be as simple as:
Keep a list of all mobs killed in the quest (or at least how their loot is rolled)
Roll for loot for each mob on the list
Modify the total list of loot downward to whatever amount is considered appropriate
Populate the chest with the modified loot list
Just like Eldarth shouldn't assume it's four lines of code, you shouldn't assume the solution could be so complex that it would be a waste of development time. It's easy to say that any given 'easy' concept might be difficult to implement, and I agree you should always start with that assumption. In this specific case, though, I think the implementation could be straightfoward depending on how the related systems are implemented.
And remember, this wouldn't be intended to address a minor Foundry Author concern; it would address a problem that every player faces every time they complete a Foundry quest.
That's the elephant in the room that we're currently trying to find a solution for, and that's the one my suggested change is attempting to address. At the least, my suggestion removes the need for the Author themselves to make the claim - it's done for them, and that's more room they can use in the description of their mission for more informative things, or one less thing they have to set up at the end. I do not, however, make any definative claims (having only my own subjective data, limited as it is) that this would solve the problem. I do think that it's worth a shot before we go too crazy going forward, though.
If notifying the player that the author doesn't control the loot in the quest description doesn't work, I doubt any other mechanism would either. And that notification still doesn't address what I see as the real problem here: <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> loot as my reward for completing the quest. Yes yes, I know the experience itself should be the reward, but if you're going to force me to loot this chest to finish the experience, why should that act just be a formality? You may as well remove that requirement entirely, as it sets a false expectation. Nobody plays a Foundry right now for the reward in that chest anyway.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Felling the Forgemaster: NW-DOHCJ5VE3(Elligible for Foundry Daily) Fleshrend's Big Adventure: NW-DBWJJYFDK (Elligible for Foundry Daily)
The former is what the mechanic is suggested to fix - the latter is a bug that is possibly being fixed still (and probably doesn't have an easy solution to find, given the code spaghetti that Cryptic likes to play with - citing my experience in CoH/V, CO, and STO here).
Object-Oriented Lasagna is much nicer to work with.
I agree that poor reviews due to mediocre chest rewards is an issue. And I will also agree that mediocre chest rewards is also a large issue that is irrevocably tied to the review issue. However....
...I know it has been said, and it will be said again. People do not review a quest based on the end-loot. Those that give poor reviews usually have a reason. Now, whether that reason is related to the quality of the quest or the quality of the reviewer is another matter entirely. Some people will just give bad reviews for spite. You can't change that. Some people are just lazy, and want their entertainment spoon-fed to them. You also cannot change that.
I'm getting the vibe that Foundry rewards are mostly hawkable at any rate, so why are they there? I mean, if people are going to exit the quest and sell their rewards right away, then really what's the point? Beginning GENEROUSLY instead of having to go in and nerf the chests after the fact comes to mind (imagine the outcry over that one).
Really, there are only TWO options in my opinion:
1. Improve the end-loot for Foundry quests.
2. Improve your Foundry quests.
As far as improving the end-loot, I would like to see a sliding scale based upon either player reviews or an independent review panel (by Cryptic staff or other accredited volunteers) that assigns an arbitrary level of quality to a Foundry quest. This Level of Quality (LoQ) should be based upon Storyline, Technical, Immersion, Novelity, and Innovation (or any other elements that contribute to a "good" quest). Instead of just having the same crappy loot be dynamically generated for really-really awesome quests and really bad ones.
Perhaps items can correspond to the LoQ measures and gold can correspond to average run-time? So longer quests receive more gold(copper, silver, whatever). Of course, this would be based upon the independent review panel, not the actual time the player spends at the beginning of a quest doing "other" things (ie, dinner).
As far as improving the quality of the Foundry quest....well, I'm not going to touch that topic with a 10-foot pole..... at least, not in this thread. When the day comes that I need a pot to stir, I'll no doubt stick my spoon into that one....
People do not review a quest based on the end-loot.
You're right, they don't review a quest based on end-loot. But some people absolutely provide a rating based on the contents of that chest. People that might otherwise not rate the quest at all see that as a mechanism to express their displeasure.
Have you actually browsed through reviews on foundry quests? Many of the popular ones are littered with one star reviews with the only comment "loot sucked" (or some derivative thereof). And those are just the ones we can see.
Really, there are only TWO options in my opinion:
1. Improve the end-loot for Foundry quests.
2. Improve your Foundry quests.
I actually see the options like this:
Improve the end-loot for foundry quests.
Remove the end loot entirely.
The suggestion to "improve the quest" as a mechanism for eliminating bad reviews is a bit insulting, actually. Quests that are almost universally liked for their content still get one star reviews based on loot, assuming the 'reviewers' are honest in their comments.
Still, all that aside, I don't see this as a review issue. It's a satisfaction issue. Right now the reward is not commensurate with the effort. Most people can overlook that and understand; the ones who don't leave bad reviews. Either way the root of the problem is that the end chest does not meet player expectations. Either fix it to meet more peoples' expectations (some people of course will never be happy) or remove it entirely.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Felling the Forgemaster: NW-DOHCJ5VE3(Elligible for Foundry Daily) Fleshrend's Big Adventure: NW-DBWJJYFDK (Elligible for Foundry Daily)
The problem is the let-down when looting a chest at the end of a foundry. It's not optional - it's something you have to do to complete the quest. It's also a giant chest that is singing to you and radiating magic. You open it up and you find...Residium? Seriously? I understand that it can't contain awesome rewards due to exploit potential. So if you can't have one awesome reward, how do you make the event satisfying? You're left with quantity. You mentioned Diablo 3 in your post - that whole genre is based on oodles of loot spilling on the floor - most of it worthless. If you also increase the chance for a useful item dropping based on total chest contents, that would be even better.
I actually brought it up because, in response to player complaints over that very fact, they are actively looking for ways to make that stuff useful and thus worth picking up. At present, it isn't, and they acknowledge that fact and admit by design it is merely for the loot-spill effect. Players have complained that it's pointless clutter, and the developers have agreed.
This brings us to the core of a separate issue - loot quality. While related, the problem is that there is an assumption that an Author has control over loot quality, and that is contributing to bad ratings. Symptomatic and related, but not the same problem - I agree that loot quality should be addressed, but I'm not sure that would fix the problem in specific. It would just reduce the frequency of it occuring. It doesn't really address it at all.
I'll accept that (when not speaking about bugs in specific) we can assume that any change will be bug-free at some point, and other bugs will be cleaned up (as that's a separate issue for now), for the sake of keeping focused on the issue.
Assuming the chest is properly lootable, I think providing the illusion of a larger payoff is a perfectly valid design decision. Satisfaction is based largely on perception. 'Was the payoff worth the effort'? A pile of rewards, even if some of them are worthless, is still better than one worthless reward. Also the redirection of rewards to the end chest is based entirely on the assumption that the total amount of reward from a foundry could not increase. Would it be better if all drops remained, and the final chest instead contained an additional percentage of all the loot dropped?
I refer to my comment above re: D3 and the loot-waterfall effect. Getting a pile of worthless stuff didn't really feel that good to the playerbase after the first few times, and didn't exactly feel all that rewarding. That's when the complaints started to pile up there, and that's why they're currently looking to move away from that dynamic in the future (which is taking a LOT of development time on their end). I would prefer to avoid those mistakes here if we can, going forward. Even if the final chest contained a bonus percentage, I think we would still have complaints about the quality and/or quantity of that reward. At the same time, abuse cases are going to prevent the majority of loot rewards from the Foundry from being meaningful overall - it happens every single time rewards are handed out. Even simple things like tokens (as was a previous suggestion) at the end instead can be heavily abused (manipulation to getting the most amount of tokens in the shortest amount of time - CoH/V's Mission Architect system was all about that abuse, because you could get things that actually mattered for those tokens; If you can't get anything worth getting with them, why bother getting them?).
I think that's a catch-22, don't you? Rewards can't be meaningful, because if they are, they're abused. If they're not meaningful, there will always be complaints about them. The only thing we can attempt to fix is where those complaints are leveraged - at the Author (who has no control), or at Cryptic (who has final say on rewards). I'd like to deflect those complaints to where they're most likely to have an effect, and right now, it's getting dumped on people that don't have any control over the loot. That's bad.
Actually I think holding some of the loot until the end could be a benefit. Inventory space is always at a premium in this game. Foundry authors must always be mindful of this, and do their best to limit the number of quest-related items they require the player to hold. That in turn has an impact on quest design. If I knew the player could pick up some of the loot at the end of the quest, knowing they could destroy quest objects before looting the final chest (or even better having that loot action destroy the quest items), that would open up design possibilities a bit.
I don't disagree, however I still think that maybe there could be a better designed system in place to facilitate it. I can't really find a solid point to argue beyond that, though, and as tenuous as even that is, I'm going to concede on this point. That's about as concise as I can get it, moving on!
Oh believe me, I know. I write code for a living too. Even laying out the mechanics of this solution, though, shows it's not that complex. There are any number of ways it could be accomplished efficiently using functionality that already exists in the game. At the risk of oversimplifying, it could be as simple as:
Keep a list of all mobs killed in the quest (or at least how their loot is rolled)
Roll for loot for each mob on the list
Modify the total list of loot downward to whatever amount is considered appropriate
Populate the chest with the modified loot list
Just like Eldarth shouldn't assume it's four lines of code, you shouldn't assume the solution could be so complex that it would be a waste of development time. It's easy to say that any given 'easy' concept might be difficult to implement, and I agree you should always start with that assumption. In this specific case, though, I think the implementation could be straightfoward depending on how the related systems are implemented.
When it comes to the unknown, specifically systems that I have no personal experience with and that I haven't actually poked around with myself, I find 'could be' a very, very dangerous line of thinking to get involved with. Especially with coding and the like (from my limited experience with Javascript, SQL, ASP, and C++; There's a reason I got out of code - I vastly prefer softer science, and shall leave the arcane wizardry to those with more patience for it!). I find it a bit disingenuous to suggest definatively* that it's something simple, at best, and egotistical at worst. S'a pet peeve. :U
And remember, this wouldn't be intended to address a minor Foundry Author concern; it would address a problem that every player faces every time they complete a Foundry quest.
That doesn't necessarily make it anything more then a low priority, depending on how that priority list looks and how tight coding/development time is for such activities. I think we're talking about two different things now, though - fixing the bug that prevents loot from being given upon completion affects everyone, changing the perception on negative reviews for loot that an Author has no control over doesn't affect anyone but the Author who is dealing with that score (as the player has already been shafted by the former bug, or the RNG system that is unlikely to change too much). Related but not the same issue, though one can lead into the other.
If notifying the player that the author doesn't control the loot in the quest description doesn't work, I doubt any other mechanism would either. And that notification still doesn't address what I see as the real problem here: <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> loot as my reward for completing the quest. Yes yes, I know the experience itself should be the reward, but if you're going to force me to loot this chest to finish the experience, why should that act just be a formality? You may as well remove that requirement entirely, as it sets a false expectation. Nobody plays a Foundry right now for the reward in that chest anyway.
It does, and it doesn't address the issue. While it doesn't make the loot any less crappy, it does remind the player that the Author didn't have any control over what they got from the chest (or in the mission itself), and that loot quality therefore shouldn't be something that affects their review score at the end. That should be entirely up to other factors.
Loot quality, for that specific problem, is something that needs to be addressed separately.
*Not claiming you were exhibiting this behavior. That part moved strictly into generality for the purposes of discussion. I apologize if there is any confusion there, and take full blame if there is.
roguish, I levelled to 60 for the most part playing Foundrys. The chest doesn't give anything our characters haven't picked up from half a dozen bodies on the way to the chest. Playing Foundrys is what I like to do, and while I am in the minority, I am most definitely not alone in this. Taking away enjoyment from actually playing, not completing - and taking loot off our dead foes is part of the enjoyment - does not sit well with me at all.
Other players, as you said, complete Foundry's for the Daily Reward. They couldn't care less about the chest contents either.
So who then is this 'fix' for? Given that trolls will troll, it's safe to say it is for new players who haven't yet learned that the Foundry author has no control of RNG.
ukatoenasni's suggestion that a disclaimer is made by Cryptic on behalf of authors *waves hands* somewhere in the catalogue, or by Rhix, or as a pop up when we click on the chest (though that in itself could be annoying), would seem to be a far more efficient way of getting that message out. Which is why some authors add the message themselves.
EDIT: I do agree another, and perhaps easier fix too, would be just to remove the end chest altogether. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.
roguish, I levelled to 60 for the most part playing Foundrys. The chest doesn't give anything our characters haven't picked up from half a dozen bodies on the way to the chest. Playing Foundrys is what I like to do, and while I am in the minority, I am most definitely not alone in this. Taking away enjoyment from actually playing, not completing - and taking loot off our dead foes is part of the enjoyment - does not sit well with me at all.
Other players, as you said, complete Foundry's for the Daily Reward. They couldn't care less about the chest contents either.
So who then is this 'fix' for? Given that trolls will troll, it's safe to say it is for new players who haven't yet learned that the Foundry author has no control of RNG.
So would you be ok with the end-loot being based on the number of mobs killed then, and their actual drops left alone?
Personally I think this fix would be for the player. They are presented with a 'reward' at the end, and it's an insult; an afterthought. Either that reward needs to be related to what you went through to get there, or it needs to be removed. Fixing it would have no meaningful impact on authors or ratings, as everyone is still currently operating under the same system. You'd have to assume that on aggregate, all authors are impacted by "loot whiners" with equal frequency.
ukatoenasni's suggestion that a disclaimer is made by Cryptic on behalf of authors *waves hands* somewhere in the catalogue, or by Rhix, or as a pop up when we click on the chest (though that in itself could be annoying), would seem to be a far more efficient way of getting that message out. Which is why some authors add the message themselves.
That might address poor ratings, which isn't my real issue with the chest. If it's a reward, it should be rewarding. Currently it's not.
EDIT: I do agree another, and perhaps easier fix too, would be just to remove the end chest altogether. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.
The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward this. Just take the chest out entirely. If we're expected to run four foundry quests every day to get credit for the daily, there's no way the loot in that end chest can be impactful each time without unbalancing the game.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Felling the Forgemaster: NW-DOHCJ5VE3(Elligible for Foundry Daily) Fleshrend's Big Adventure: NW-DBWJJYFDK (Elligible for Foundry Daily)
I don't think I'd disagree with removing the final loot chest, on the condition that they found something else to replace it with as an end-of-foundry identifier (as it currently is). I'd be fine with that not rewarding loot, however. Right now, it seems like the large chest is a short of visual shorthand for 'This instanced quest has ended, now here is a thing, get out'.
What it'd be replaced with, I have no idea, but a lot of code seems to be wrapped up in it for Foundry missions. A replace rather then straight removal seems like a better choice. Maybe a plaque, or a flag?
I don't think I'd disagree with removing the final loot chest, on the condition that they found something else to replace it with as an end-of-foundry identifier (as it currently is). I'd be fine with that not rewarding loot, however. Right now, it seems like the large chest is a short of visual shorthand for 'This instanced quest has ended, now here is a thing, get out'.
What it'd be replaced with, I have no idea, but a lot of code seems to be wrapped up in it for Foundry missions. A replace rather then straight removal seems like a better choice. Maybe a plaque, or a flag?
I think the final map transition would be good enough, though currently it's possible to not specify an object for that transition. In that case, the chest is interacted with to leave.
Take out the chest, require the specification of a detail for the final map transition, and be done with it IMO.
I'd still love to have the ability to put actual rewarding chests and skill nodes in my foundry, but like I said above thanks to exploiters we can't have nice things like that.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Felling the Forgemaster: NW-DOHCJ5VE3(Elligible for Foundry Daily) Fleshrend's Big Adventure: NW-DBWJJYFDK (Elligible for Foundry Daily)
So would you be ok with the end-loot being based on the number of mobs killed then, and their actual drops left alone?
No, because then combat focussed quests would be at even more of an advantage than they already are. Which would also lead to more exploit maps...no one here wants that.
Exploiters do have a tendency to reduce the quantity and quality of nice things.
An 'Exit' object to force a map transition would be acceptable (including the overworld transistion feature). Exit portal as the placeable object...
I'd be satisfied, personally, though I predict some complaints over the change once it went live. But, that should be the expected response to any change, so we're good. ob
Here is a question for those wanting the reduced loot added to the end chest...
What happens to the extra loot if the player somehow get disconnected before getting to the final chest? Will this "loot" be saved until the player gets back in? and will this add to the coding?
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
My 2 cents (with enclosed rant): I agree with this logic partially. The big thing is it would only reward extra off of killing mobs, doing a little damage to non-combat quests. And the exploiter thing, sadly. You'll visually get more off of an monster grind or hack-n-slash map, making it even more appealing to the masses.
...but taking out the chest? *start rant*
In D&D, we're all not clerics and paladins and unfortunate souls. We don't just go in just to do the task without reward and you can't always pull a player into a quest, whirlwinded in almost against their will and their reward be escape or survival. (Okay, there are a few more different types of quests like the 'for fun' ones. But my point is...)
A lot of adventures are completed, and adventurers go into jobs for teh shiny lootz. The nerfing of rewards that is already there is painfully pitiful (the rewards are dealable until 30, from 1-30 you might get something you can use!) but removing such rewards -completely- seems almost blasphemous. It's Dungeons & Dragons. What do you expect? Accomplishment, adventure, fame, power, AND loot. We're not able to give most of that being the nerfed DMs we are... then the loot...
My final complaining rant is on the whiners, exploiters, and system abusers downgrading the quality of and limiting the Foundry. Read above. When writing this and thinking on it... I say let the abuse happen. The abusers will get bored and leave. I can see a few outlines for solutions (A lot of modified concepts from NWN (limiting useability or basing it off of more dynamic tables), or binding / restricting Foundry loot to certain situations, or making a way to 'bury' exploiter quests, making it almost seem criminal / blackmarketish, etc...) but that's just me. I'm not expecting it. I just hate seeing such a fun tool get nerfed into the ground...
*ends rant, coughs*
TL;DR - You people are silly. The patchwork solution is nice but has issues. No loot is.... *facepalm*
Cryptic should (in game) notify users that authors have no control over loot.
FIX THE DANG LOOT SYSTEM.
IF easily coded (and not interfering with #2)- shave a small portion off of mob drops and add to Final Chest
AFTER #2 - Add loot-caches/multiple-loot chests placeable by foundry authors
I would also like to voice opinion against removing final loot chest.
To me anyway, D&D has pretty much always been -
Get quest details
kill encounters and search their den/burrow/nest/cave for their loot (since they don't carry it with them everywhere they go); solve puzzles; do something heroic
@eldarth - They could do better. They have prefix and suffix rules - They could allow... say... green or blue Warrior's Boots of Protection and drop the bloody things at character level rounded down (green/blue based on level, prolly level 20-30 before blue)
Or make custom items with the stats put on it driving the level. And allowing truly custom gear only in Foundries, mebbe. Also the DnD rulebooks have several loot table for different types of loot. 'Valuable Treasure' (nothing but gold and sellables) or 'Human stash' or 'Orc junk' as non-existant examples.
I wouldn't run with the gathered drop-loot system. Like I said though, it deflates what non-combat quests give as rewards and hurts those authors when the expectation is raised. Something akin to this is an algorithm that factors in objectives, faced encounters, and TIME SPENT, both from average time and actual spent time to drop loot. Despite the ignorance of the general populace, those factors are easily tracked IF THEY AREN'T ALREADY TRACKED (look at average Foundry time calculation and Slayer title calculation, objectives should be easy and a crude algorithm could be concocted by a decent programmer in a matter of minutes.) This really doesn't bode well for the exploiters when the time spent is calculated, there's little way to milk that without spending time, not to mention you could allow a once-a-day full reward limit per quest.
...so yeah.
TL;DR - There are better ways.
I'm convinced the devs or the publisher doesn't wish to spend the time to address it. "Just throw more toys in and they'll shut up somewhat for a while. Don't want to risk imbalancing our cash cow."
Note: ....yes, I'm annoyed at spending a month and a half in what seemed like a wonderful game and seeing the good parts of it run smack into the ground because of the way it's managed. It almost makes me sad.
I'm all for removing the final loot chest, but I've said that many times in the past.
I do have to agree with this one. That's one helluva good (and altogether too obvious) idea rogu3ish. The end result would be not only better quests (would you require you to think outside of the "cheese at the end" box) but also the Foundry quests would yield a higher caliber of Foundry players (albeit, those that aren't just in it "for the money" would certainly be fewer in number). I'm all for it. Heck, I've even had a tough time trying to fit that chest in with the story I'm working on....it just doesn't need to be there, but it's technically the "end" so I gotta be creative and develop a story (a small one, mind you) to justify it.
I do have to agree with this one. That's one helluva good (and altogether too obvious) idea rogu3ish. The end result would be not only better quests (would you require you to think outside of the "cheese at the end" box) but also the Foundry quests would yield a higher caliber of Foundry players (albeit, those that aren't just in it "for the money" would certainly be fewer in number). I'm all for it. Heck, I've even had a tough time trying to fit that chest in with the story I'm working on....it just doesn't need to be there, but it's technically the "end" so I gotta be creative and develop a story (a small one, mind you) to justify it.
I have some questions here...
1. So from what I understand you want the end chest removed completely. And you do not want "Cryptic" to replace it with anything?
2. And you want the Author to come up with a different way to end the quest other then getting the loot chest?
3. Do you think that this will curtail the player lowering the star rating because of the poor loot in the end chest?
(From my point of view, this will make things worse for the author. Players will be expecting an end quest chest and be upset when they don't get one.)
4. And lastly... Do you think that this will negatively affect the authors that have little to no combat? (Since the end chest would be the only reward other then some exp.)
Narayan
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Cryptic should (in game) notify users that authors have no control over loot.
FIX THE DANG LOOT SYSTEM.
IF easily coded (and not interfering with #2)- shave a small portion off of mob drops and add to Final Chest
AFTER #2 - Add loot-caches/multiple-loot chests placeable by foundry authors
I would also like to voice opinion against removing final loot chest.
To me anyway, D&D has pretty much always been -
Get quest details
kill encounters and search their den/burrow/nest/cave for their loot (since they don't carry it with them everywhere they go); solve puzzles; do something heroic
Collect reward
As long as they fix the bugged chest first. That is the thing that is killing me. Well, that and people who can't read what type of quest it is. But that's a complaint for another thread. Here is a 3 star rating I received that explains what I mean:
"no treasure at chest at end......what kind of reward is that,good dungeon but come on,man"
Imo none of it should be changed unless they fix the loot chest bugs first. Otherwise you're just going to make people more mad. Oh, and if they ever get around to #4 it should be based on the length of the quest instead of monsters killed. To balance out the extra loot from pure combat quests compared to longer quests with less combat.
The thing is, it's really hard to determine if it is a bug or part of the RNG. Plus, I remember when I didn't get an item at all (and it's been a helluva long time since that happened), 13 silver plus some copper was put into my bag instead. Considering that L60 Greens only sell for 10 silver and that's after I have expended an ID scroll, no loot in chest is not a bad thing - it just needs to be made more obvious there is some silver in there instead.
Even when there is an item in the chest, you still get niggles from the newbs when said item isn't useable by their class. And possibly lower ratings too?
If a new player has done a Dungeon Delve run - or Skirmish - and then sees the exact same chest at the end of a Foundry, it is probable this raises expectations...perhaps just changing the look of the chest to something simple and, I don't know, cheaper looking would change the perception enough to reduce the disappointment that is then reflected in the ratings.
The thing is, it's really hard to determine if it is a bug or part of the RNG. Plus, I remember when I didn't get an item at all (and it's been a helluva long time since that happened), 13 silver plus some copper was put into my bag instead. Considering that L60 Greens only sell for 10 silver and that's after I have expended an ID scroll, no loot in chest is not a bad thing - it just needs to be made more obvious there is some silver in there instead.
Pretty sure there is some type of bug involved. Yesterday I ran one of my quests 3 times while testing stuff, and every time the end chest showed me one item but a different one appeared in my inventory. I can't imagine that being intended. This could very well be related. So while I might be wrong, I'm going to consider empty chests a bug until someone proves otherwise.
Oh, and if they ever get around to #4 it should be based on the length of the quest instead of monsters killed. To balance out the extra loot from pure combat quests compared to longer quests with less combat.
I see THIS as soooo much of an oversight/flaw now that I include this in #2 FIX THE DANG LOOT SYSTEM. As it is now, the ONLY way I can "reward" someone is to "give" them some more encounter killing in the hope that they drop something decent. This totally sucks man (channeling my inner surfer-dude). I would LOVE to see some way foundry authors could give brownie-points/gold-stars/smiley-faces/widgets for "discoveries," cleverness, and sooo many other non-lethal problem solutions. We are totally handcuffed as authors in providing alternative, rich, "Story Focus" oriented material. To me this is absolutely a major (MAJOR!) part of "loot system is broken."
I see THIS as soooo much of an oversight/flaw now that I include this in #2 FIX THE DANG LOOT SYSTEM. As it is now, the ONLY way I can "reward" someone is to "give" them some more encounter killing in the hope that they drop something decent. This totally sucks man (channeling my inner surfer-dude). I would LOVE to see some way foundry authors could give brownie-points/gold-stars/smiley-faces/widgets for "discoveries," cleverness, and sooo many other non-lethal problem solutions. We are totally handcuffed as authors in providing alternative, rich, "Story Focus" oriented material. To me this is absolutely a major (MAJOR!) part of "loot system is broken."
Agreed. I mean its no secret I make and mostly play quests with lots of fighting. I label all the ones I make as such. But every now and then I like to play something different. They need to find a way to make those quests to be rewarding in a 'loot-wise' sense too.
2. And you want the Author to come up with a different way to end the quest other then getting the loot chest?
Some stories just end. In fact, most stories just end. There's no material reward/treasure chest at the end of LotR, or Star Wars. In fact, when they open the chest at the end of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Bad Things Happen. The chest is an OOC mechanic for most quests that many authors put a nod to by having their turn-in NPC say "Oh, here's some stuff as payment for your work."
It's not just those examples either. There's no Super Uber End Treasure Chest at the end of Mass Effect, or Dragon Age, or Knights of the Old Republic, or 99% of the other story-focused RPGs out there. Yes, you get shiny toys as you go through the game, but ultimately, you're playing for the story. Not for the loot box at the end.
3. Do you think that this will curtail the player lowering the star rating because of the poor loot in the end chest?
(From my point of view, this will make things worse for the author. Players will be expecting an end quest chest and be upset when they don't get one.)
I've never cared about star ratings. If a player's motivation for playing through my quest is a material object, "ph4t l3wtz", maybe I don't want them playing my quest in the first place. I want players who want to experience a deep, compelling plot, with fully-fleshed out NPCs and detailed environments. It's for this reason that I can't wait for the Feywild patch, so I can accurately and properly flag my quests.
4. And lastly... Do you think that this will negatively affect the authors that have little to no combat? (Since the end chest would be the only reward other then some exp.)
Probably. Depends on what you mean by 'negatively affect', I suppose.
I would love this, and have said so more than once in the past on these forums.
Some stories just end. In fact, most stories just end. There's no material reward/treasure chest at the end of LotR, or Star Wars. In fact, when they open the chest at the end of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Bad Things Happen. The chest is an OOC mechanic for most quests that many authors put a nod to by having their turn-in NPC say "Oh, here's some stuff as payment for your work."
It's not just those examples either. There's no Super Uber End Treasure Chest at the end of Mass Effect, or Dragon Age, or Knights of the Old Republic, or 99% of the other story-focused RPGs out there. Yes, you get shiny toys as you go through the game, but ultimately, you're playing for the story. Not for the loot box at the end.
You are correct. However, you need to know your player base. We are talking about the MMO crowd here. Who, I would say, are after the gear and loot. I would hazard a guess that if you took a survey, most players could tell you about the loot over what the story behind the quest was.
I've never cared about star ratings. If a player's motivation for playing through my quest is a material object, "ph4t l3wtz", maybe I don't want them playing my quest in the first place. I want players who want to experience a deep, compelling plot, with fully-fleshed out NPCs and detailed environments. It's for this reason that I can't wait for the Feywild patch, so I can accurately and properly flag my quests.
Probably. Depends on what you mean by 'negatively affect', I suppose.
By negatively affect I mean... Will they get the ratings and plays they need if the player knows that there will be little to no loot for playing their quest?
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
After reading general forums and talk in town and guild I realize foundry's will not be run unless loot improves. Bottom line is they need to add coins. It is the way every other element of the game is played. You have glory for pvp and that glory buys you purple items. You have Unicorn and Drake seals and they buy you purple items. You have Grym coins and it buys you.....purple items. Lets now look at foundry's, they cost you ad if you are a nice person and give tips. There exp is half of what regular world exp is to stop the exploits. The treasure sucks.
As said as it is one person on General labeled us "Poorly done fan fiction, that is to easy, not group friendly and has no rewards." This is the general played opinion. Now IGN said that the foundry is the future of this game and they are not supporting the future. I have played several foundry quests that are WAY better then any quest line in the game, yet due to lack of progressive rewards less then 4% of players do foundry missions.
Add in foundry's version of coins, give featured foundrys a chance at a pet the way your stupid re-run of skirmish was used and watch the best part of your game turn into the part that gets its fair share of plays like your developer created content.
After reading general forums and talk in town and guild I realize foundry's will not be run unless loot improves. Bottom line is they need to add coins. It is the way every other element of the game is played. You have glory for pvp and that glory buys you purple items. You have Unicorn and Drake seals and they buy you purple items. You have Grym coins and it buys you.....purple items. Lets now look at foundry's, they cost you ad if you are a nice person and give tips. There exp is half of what regular world exp is to stop the exploits. The treasure sucks.
As said as it is one person on General labeled us "Poorly done fan fiction, that is to easy, not group friendly and has no rewards." This is the general played opinion. Now IGN said that the foundry is the future of this game and they are not supporting the future. I have played several foundry quests that are WAY better then any quest line in the game, yet due to lack of progressive rewards less then 4% of players do foundry missions.
Add in foundry's version of coins, give featured foundrys a chance at a pet the way your stupid re-run of skirmish was used and watch the best part of your game turn into the part that gets its fair share of plays like your developer created content.
Foundry coins would be great.
Sweet Water and Light Laughter Till Next We Meet.
Narayan
Comments
A baby brother for little 1* rating...How sweet!
Right now, assuming no bugs, the player gets one mostly useless reward in the end chest. Since looting that chest is the universal mechanism for completing a foundry quest, it shouldn't be an afterthought. It should be something worth doing. Cryptic obviously assumes you will complete a foundry quest that you begin, because you're given credit for the daily upon quest completion, not upon spending 15 minutes in a given quest.
I also don't see this as overly complicating things, at least from a design standpoint (though I strongly doubt it's only an additional four lines of code, heh). It's a very simple concept: The final chest will drop a percentage of the loot dropped by all mobs killed in the instance. If it's complicated from a coding or development standpoint, that's due to the code base.
Even if it would take a day or two to code and test, it would still solve a non-trivial player dissatisfaction issue. I'm not even talking about Author dissatisfaction. Nobody likes opening a chest to see nothing.
Finally, as for the rating issue - I see a lot of talk here about the need to leave accurate ratings on quests so that players know what they're getting into. Many players couldn't care less about the contents of a Foundry - they only want to play it to get credit for a daily. They will absolutely one-star a quest if the chest was empty or had <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> loot, as they're asked to rate the quest immediately after they just got screwed. Why do so many authors put right up front in their quest descriptions that they don't control loot? Because it happens all the time. Those ratings skew downward the perceived quality of a quest, making it harder for players who DO care about the content to find good quests. The fact that you're not forced to leave a comment makes it even worse, as you can't browse through the reviews to correlate the poor ratings with loot whiners.
[EDIT: Typos]
Felling the Forgemaster: NW-DOHCJ5VE3 (Elligible for Foundry Daily)
Fleshrend's Big Adventure: NW-DBWJJYFDK
(Elligible for Foundry Daily)
Hooray! Someone that actually wants to discuss things with civility! That's far more entertaining, imo, though I will argue (half-heartedly, to get it out of the way) that at the moment that's not the case and it is entirely intended to 'fix' a perceived problem (as stated). That out of the way, moving on.
As a suggestion, I would first then ask what problem it's necessarily attempting to fix by addressing it that makes it worth the additional development time (whatever that time is - I neither know off-hand nor care to speculate this time around. I'm staying ON TASK this time, I swear!). Right now, as stated, the change is being suggested in a vacuum. It would need an intended purpose.
That's a fair response to question 1 right out of the gate. However, I'm not sure necessarily that deflecting n% of the total rewards one would get into a dungeon into the end chest does anything but create an illusion of getting a big payday. Realistically, you're not getting anything that you wouldn't have gotten anyway just by picking up loot along the way, and a lot of what you're getting is thereby going to be junk that you may not have picked up. Further, loot interactions with chests in this game are buggy - if your inventory is full and you loot a lootable object, you don't get a second chance at that loot once you clear space. It's gone the second you close that dialogue.
That creates a scenario where, instead of getting anything that's worth caring about, we're delaying the choice on whether I want that garbage in my bags at all and forcing the issue by saying 'Get it now or don't'. I'm not sure that's necessarily an improvement on the current system, where as it stands now I can freely ignore what I want to when it drops, rather then having to wait to ignore it later.
Simple concepts often have very complicated methods to achieve the results - hence my previous (hopping in the WABAC machine) comparison of the suggested mechanic to prestidigitation. Technically speaking, I'd just be palming a card and putting it in my sleeve without you seeing it, so that when I pull out that same card later (using a different technique) it seems like magic. In reality, there's a lot of complicated sleight-of-hand and muscle movement that goes on to pull it off, and realistically all I'm doing is playing you for a fool the entire time. That's the impression I'm getting of this mechanic as suggested - it's not reallying improving your loot at all (infact, it is being stressed that the loot would be the same). It's just delaying your acquisition of it, and thus your gratification of getting it. I find it a complex way to pull off a minor effect for no objective payoff. Unless we're assuming that I am to be impressed with the loot pinata* effect, in which case, I defer you to Diablo 3's developers (who are fighting that exact problem re: loot quality).
Two entirely different problems. The former is what the mechanic is suggested to fix - the latter is a bug that is possibly being fixed still (and probably doesn't have an easy solution to find, given the code spaghetti that Cryptic likes to play with - citing my experience in CoH/V, CO, and STO here).
That's the elephant in the room that we're currently trying to find a solution for, and that's the one my suggested change is attempting to address. At the least, my suggestion removes the need for the Author themselves to make the claim - it's done for them, and that's more room they can use in the description of their mission for more informative things, or one less thing they have to set up at the end. I do not, however, make any definative claims (having only my own subjective data, limited as it is) that this would solve the problem. I do think that it's worth a shot before we go too crazy going forward, though.
*Too lazy to go find a proper 'n' with tilde for pinata there or here. I apologize for my inconsideration to the Spanish language.
[SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
The problem is the let-down when looting a chest at the end of a foundry. It's not optional - it's something you have to do to complete the quest. It's also a giant chest that is singing to you and radiating magic. You open it up and you find...Residium? Seriously? I understand that it can't contain awesome rewards due to exploit potential. So if you can't have one awesome reward, how do you make the event satisfying? You're left with quantity. You mentioned Diablo 3 in your post - that whole genre is based on oodles of loot spilling on the floor - most of it worthless. If you also increase the chance for a useful item dropping based on total chest contents, that would be even better.
I'm assuming no bugs - they should be addressed as bugs and resolved in the order the devs see fit. Assuming the chest is properly lootable, I think providing the illusion of a larger payoff is a perfectly valid design decision. Satisfaction is based largely on perception. 'Was the payoff worth the effort'? A pile of rewards, even if some of them are worthless, is still better than one worthless reward. Also the redirection of rewards to the end chest is based entirely on the assumption that the total amount of reward from a foundry could not increase. Would it be better if all drops remained, and the final chest instead contained an additional percentage of all the loot dropped?
Actually I think holding some of the loot until the end could be a benefit. Inventory space is always at a premium in this game. Foundry authors must always be mindful of this, and do their best to limit the number of quest-related items they require the player to hold. That in turn has an impact on quest design. If I knew the player could pick up some of the loot at the end of the quest, knowing they could destroy quest objects before looting the final chest (or even better having that loot action destroy the quest items), that would open up design possibilities a bit.
Oh believe me, I know. I write code for a living too. Even laying out the mechanics of this solution, though, shows it's not that complex. There are any number of ways it could be accomplished efficiently using functionality that already exists in the game. At the risk of oversimplifying, it could be as simple as:
Just like Eldarth shouldn't assume it's four lines of code, you shouldn't assume the solution could be so complex that it would be a waste of development time. It's easy to say that any given 'easy' concept might be difficult to implement, and I agree you should always start with that assumption. In this specific case, though, I think the implementation could be straightfoward depending on how the related systems are implemented.
And remember, this wouldn't be intended to address a minor Foundry Author concern; it would address a problem that every player faces every time they complete a Foundry quest.
If notifying the player that the author doesn't control the loot in the quest description doesn't work, I doubt any other mechanism would either. And that notification still doesn't address what I see as the real problem here: <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> loot as my reward for completing the quest. Yes yes, I know the experience itself should be the reward, but if you're going to force me to loot this chest to finish the experience, why should that act just be a formality? You may as well remove that requirement entirely, as it sets a false expectation. Nobody plays a Foundry right now for the reward in that chest anyway.
Felling the Forgemaster: NW-DOHCJ5VE3 (Elligible for Foundry Daily)
Fleshrend's Big Adventure: NW-DBWJJYFDK
(Elligible for Foundry Daily)
Object-Oriented Lasagna is much nicer to work with.
I agree that poor reviews due to mediocre chest rewards is an issue. And I will also agree that mediocre chest rewards is also a large issue that is irrevocably tied to the review issue. However....
...I know it has been said, and it will be said again. People do not review a quest based on the end-loot. Those that give poor reviews usually have a reason. Now, whether that reason is related to the quality of the quest or the quality of the reviewer is another matter entirely. Some people will just give bad reviews for spite. You can't change that. Some people are just lazy, and want their entertainment spoon-fed to them. You also cannot change that.
I'm getting the vibe that Foundry rewards are mostly hawkable at any rate, so why are they there? I mean, if people are going to exit the quest and sell their rewards right away, then really what's the point? Beginning GENEROUSLY instead of having to go in and nerf the chests after the fact comes to mind (imagine the outcry over that one).
Really, there are only TWO options in my opinion:
1. Improve the end-loot for Foundry quests.
2. Improve your Foundry quests.
As far as improving the end-loot, I would like to see a sliding scale based upon either player reviews or an independent review panel (by Cryptic staff or other accredited volunteers) that assigns an arbitrary level of quality to a Foundry quest. This Level of Quality (LoQ) should be based upon Storyline, Technical, Immersion, Novelity, and Innovation (or any other elements that contribute to a "good" quest). Instead of just having the same crappy loot be dynamically generated for really-really awesome quests and really bad ones.
Perhaps items can correspond to the LoQ measures and gold can correspond to average run-time? So longer quests receive more gold(copper, silver, whatever). Of course, this would be based upon the independent review panel, not the actual time the player spends at the beginning of a quest doing "other" things (ie, dinner).
As far as improving the quality of the Foundry quest....well, I'm not going to touch that topic with a 10-foot pole..... at least, not in this thread. When the day comes that I need a pot to stir, I'll no doubt stick my spoon into that one....
You're right, they don't review a quest based on end-loot. But some people absolutely provide a rating based on the contents of that chest. People that might otherwise not rate the quest at all see that as a mechanism to express their displeasure.
Have you actually browsed through reviews on foundry quests? Many of the popular ones are littered with one star reviews with the only comment "loot sucked" (or some derivative thereof). And those are just the ones we can see.
I actually see the options like this:
The suggestion to "improve the quest" as a mechanism for eliminating bad reviews is a bit insulting, actually. Quests that are almost universally liked for their content still get one star reviews based on loot, assuming the 'reviewers' are honest in their comments.
Still, all that aside, I don't see this as a review issue. It's a satisfaction issue. Right now the reward is not commensurate with the effort. Most people can overlook that and understand; the ones who don't leave bad reviews. Either way the root of the problem is that the end chest does not meet player expectations. Either fix it to meet more peoples' expectations (some people of course will never be happy) or remove it entirely.
Felling the Forgemaster: NW-DOHCJ5VE3 (Elligible for Foundry Daily)
Fleshrend's Big Adventure: NW-DBWJJYFDK
(Elligible for Foundry Daily)
I actually brought it up because, in response to player complaints over that very fact, they are actively looking for ways to make that stuff useful and thus worth picking up. At present, it isn't, and they acknowledge that fact and admit by design it is merely for the loot-spill effect. Players have complained that it's pointless clutter, and the developers have agreed.
This brings us to the core of a separate issue - loot quality. While related, the problem is that there is an assumption that an Author has control over loot quality, and that is contributing to bad ratings. Symptomatic and related, but not the same problem - I agree that loot quality should be addressed, but I'm not sure that would fix the problem in specific. It would just reduce the frequency of it occuring. It doesn't really address it at all.
I'll accept that (when not speaking about bugs in specific) we can assume that any change will be bug-free at some point, and other bugs will be cleaned up (as that's a separate issue for now), for the sake of keeping focused on the issue.
I refer to my comment above re: D3 and the loot-waterfall effect. Getting a pile of worthless stuff didn't really feel that good to the playerbase after the first few times, and didn't exactly feel all that rewarding. That's when the complaints started to pile up there, and that's why they're currently looking to move away from that dynamic in the future (which is taking a LOT of development time on their end). I would prefer to avoid those mistakes here if we can, going forward. Even if the final chest contained a bonus percentage, I think we would still have complaints about the quality and/or quantity of that reward. At the same time, abuse cases are going to prevent the majority of loot rewards from the Foundry from being meaningful overall - it happens every single time rewards are handed out. Even simple things like tokens (as was a previous suggestion) at the end instead can be heavily abused (manipulation to getting the most amount of tokens in the shortest amount of time - CoH/V's Mission Architect system was all about that abuse, because you could get things that actually mattered for those tokens; If you can't get anything worth getting with them, why bother getting them?).
I think that's a catch-22, don't you? Rewards can't be meaningful, because if they are, they're abused. If they're not meaningful, there will always be complaints about them. The only thing we can attempt to fix is where those complaints are leveraged - at the Author (who has no control), or at Cryptic (who has final say on rewards). I'd like to deflect those complaints to where they're most likely to have an effect, and right now, it's getting dumped on people that don't have any control over the loot. That's bad.
I don't disagree, however I still think that maybe there could be a better designed system in place to facilitate it. I can't really find a solid point to argue beyond that, though, and as tenuous as even that is, I'm going to concede on this point. That's about as concise as I can get it, moving on!
When it comes to the unknown, specifically systems that I have no personal experience with and that I haven't actually poked around with myself, I find 'could be' a very, very dangerous line of thinking to get involved with. Especially with coding and the like (from my limited experience with Javascript, SQL, ASP, and C++; There's a reason I got out of code - I vastly prefer softer science, and shall leave the arcane wizardry to those with more patience for it!). I find it a bit disingenuous to suggest definatively* that it's something simple, at best, and egotistical at worst. S'a pet peeve. :U
That doesn't necessarily make it anything more then a low priority, depending on how that priority list looks and how tight coding/development time is for such activities. I think we're talking about two different things now, though - fixing the bug that prevents loot from being given upon completion affects everyone, changing the perception on negative reviews for loot that an Author has no control over doesn't affect anyone but the Author who is dealing with that score (as the player has already been shafted by the former bug, or the RNG system that is unlikely to change too much). Related but not the same issue, though one can lead into the other.
It does, and it doesn't address the issue. While it doesn't make the loot any less crappy, it does remind the player that the Author didn't have any control over what they got from the chest (or in the mission itself), and that loot quality therefore shouldn't be something that affects their review score at the end. That should be entirely up to other factors.
Loot quality, for that specific problem, is something that needs to be addressed separately.
*Not claiming you were exhibiting this behavior. That part moved strictly into generality for the purposes of discussion. I apologize if there is any confusion there, and take full blame if there is.
[SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
Other players, as you said, complete Foundry's for the Daily Reward. They couldn't care less about the chest contents either.
So who then is this 'fix' for? Given that trolls will troll, it's safe to say it is for new players who haven't yet learned that the Foundry author has no control of RNG.
ukatoenasni's suggestion that a disclaimer is made by Cryptic on behalf of authors *waves hands* somewhere in the catalogue, or by Rhix, or as a pop up when we click on the chest (though that in itself could be annoying), would seem to be a far more efficient way of getting that message out. Which is why some authors add the message themselves.
EDIT: I do agree another, and perhaps easier fix too, would be just to remove the end chest altogether. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.
So would you be ok with the end-loot being based on the number of mobs killed then, and their actual drops left alone?
Personally I think this fix would be for the player. They are presented with a 'reward' at the end, and it's an insult; an afterthought. Either that reward needs to be related to what you went through to get there, or it needs to be removed. Fixing it would have no meaningful impact on authors or ratings, as everyone is still currently operating under the same system. You'd have to assume that on aggregate, all authors are impacted by "loot whiners" with equal frequency.
That might address poor ratings, which isn't my real issue with the chest. If it's a reward, it should be rewarding. Currently it's not.
The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning toward this. Just take the chest out entirely. If we're expected to run four foundry quests every day to get credit for the daily, there's no way the loot in that end chest can be impactful each time without unbalancing the game.
Felling the Forgemaster: NW-DOHCJ5VE3 (Elligible for Foundry Daily)
Fleshrend's Big Adventure: NW-DBWJJYFDK
(Elligible for Foundry Daily)
What it'd be replaced with, I have no idea, but a lot of code seems to be wrapped up in it for Foundry missions. A replace rather then straight removal seems like a better choice. Maybe a plaque, or a flag?
[SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
I think the final map transition would be good enough, though currently it's possible to not specify an object for that transition. In that case, the chest is interacted with to leave.
Take out the chest, require the specification of a detail for the final map transition, and be done with it IMO.
I'd still love to have the ability to put actual rewarding chests and skill nodes in my foundry, but like I said above thanks to exploiters we can't have nice things like that.
Felling the Forgemaster: NW-DOHCJ5VE3 (Elligible for Foundry Daily)
Fleshrend's Big Adventure: NW-DBWJJYFDK
(Elligible for Foundry Daily)
No, because then combat focussed quests would be at even more of an advantage than they already are. Which would also lead to more exploit maps...no one here wants that.
An 'Exit' object to force a map transition would be acceptable (including the overworld transistion feature). Exit portal as the placeable object...
I'd be satisfied, personally, though I predict some complaints over the change once it went live. But, that should be the expected response to any change, so we're good. ob
[SIGPIC]Also, this poster rambles.[/SIGPIC]
What happens to the extra loot if the player somehow get disconnected before getting to the final chest? Will this "loot" be saved until the player gets back in? and will this add to the coding?
Narayan
...but taking out the chest? *start rant*
In D&D, we're all not clerics and paladins and unfortunate souls. We don't just go in just to do the task without reward and you can't always pull a player into a quest, whirlwinded in almost against their will and their reward be escape or survival. (Okay, there are a few more different types of quests like the 'for fun' ones. But my point is...)
A lot of adventures are completed, and adventurers go into jobs for teh shiny lootz. The nerfing of rewards that is already there is painfully pitiful (the rewards are dealable until 30, from 1-30 you might get something you can use!) but removing such rewards -completely- seems almost blasphemous. It's Dungeons & Dragons. What do you expect? Accomplishment, adventure, fame, power, AND loot. We're not able to give most of that being the nerfed DMs we are... then the loot...
My final complaining rant is on the whiners, exploiters, and system abusers downgrading the quality of and limiting the Foundry. Read above. When writing this and thinking on it... I say let the abuse happen. The abusers will get bored and leave. I can see a few outlines for solutions (A lot of modified concepts from NWN (limiting useability or basing it off of more dynamic tables), or binding / restricting Foundry loot to certain situations, or making a way to 'bury' exploiter quests, making it almost seem criminal / blackmarketish, etc...) but that's just me. I'm not expecting it. I just hate seeing such a fun tool get nerfed into the ground...
*ends rant, coughs*
TL;DR - You people are silly. The patchwork solution is nice but has issues. No loot is.... *facepalm*
You'd still get your spoils of war from the mobs, so I don't see the issue.
Foundry Rewards and multiple chest loot tables.
So... in summation?
I would also like to voice opinion against removing final loot chest.
To me anyway, D&D has pretty much always been -
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
Or make custom items with the stats put on it driving the level. And allowing truly custom gear only in Foundries, mebbe. Also the DnD rulebooks have several loot table for different types of loot. 'Valuable Treasure' (nothing but gold and sellables) or 'Human stash' or 'Orc junk' as non-existant examples.
I wouldn't run with the gathered drop-loot system. Like I said though, it deflates what non-combat quests give as rewards and hurts those authors when the expectation is raised. Something akin to this is an algorithm that factors in objectives, faced encounters, and TIME SPENT, both from average time and actual spent time to drop loot. Despite the ignorance of the general populace, those factors are easily tracked IF THEY AREN'T ALREADY TRACKED (look at average Foundry time calculation and Slayer title calculation, objectives should be easy and a crude algorithm could be concocted by a decent programmer in a matter of minutes.) This really doesn't bode well for the exploiters when the time spent is calculated, there's little way to milk that without spending time, not to mention you could allow a once-a-day full reward limit per quest.
...so yeah.
TL;DR - There are better ways.
I'm convinced the devs or the publisher doesn't wish to spend the time to address it. "Just throw more toys in and they'll shut up somewhat for a while. Don't want to risk imbalancing our cash cow."
Note: ....yes, I'm annoyed at spending a month and a half in what seemed like a wonderful game and seeing the good parts of it run smack into the ground because of the way it's managed. It almost makes me sad.
I do have to agree with this one. That's one helluva good (and altogether too obvious) idea rogu3ish. The end result would be not only better quests (would you require you to think outside of the "cheese at the end" box) but also the Foundry quests would yield a higher caliber of Foundry players (albeit, those that aren't just in it "for the money" would certainly be fewer in number). I'm all for it. Heck, I've even had a tough time trying to fit that chest in with the story I'm working on....it just doesn't need to be there, but it's technically the "end" so I gotta be creative and develop a story (a small one, mind you) to justify it.
I have some questions here...
1. So from what I understand you want the end chest removed completely. And you do not want "Cryptic" to replace it with anything?
2. And you want the Author to come up with a different way to end the quest other then getting the loot chest?
3. Do you think that this will curtail the player lowering the star rating because of the poor loot in the end chest?
(From my point of view, this will make things worse for the author. Players will be expecting an end quest chest and be upset when they don't get one.)
4. And lastly... Do you think that this will negatively affect the authors that have little to no combat? (Since the end chest would be the only reward other then some exp.)
Narayan
Narayan
As long as they fix the bugged chest first. That is the thing that is killing me. Well, that and people who can't read what type of quest it is. But that's a complaint for another thread. Here is a 3 star rating I received that explains what I mean:
Imo none of it should be changed unless they fix the loot chest bugs first. Otherwise you're just going to make people more mad. Oh, and if they ever get around to #4 it should be based on the length of the quest instead of monsters killed. To balance out the extra loot from pure combat quests compared to longer quests with less combat.
Even when there is an item in the chest, you still get niggles from the newbs when said item isn't useable by their class. And possibly lower ratings too?
If a new player has done a Dungeon Delve run - or Skirmish - and then sees the exact same chest at the end of a Foundry, it is probable this raises expectations...perhaps just changing the look of the chest to something simple and, I don't know, cheaper looking would change the perception enough to reduce the disappointment that is then reflected in the ratings.
Pretty sure there is some type of bug involved. Yesterday I ran one of my quests 3 times while testing stuff, and every time the end chest showed me one item but a different one appeared in my inventory. I can't imagine that being intended. This could very well be related. So while I might be wrong, I'm going to consider empty chests a bug until someone proves otherwise.
I see THIS as soooo much of an oversight/flaw now that I include this in #2 FIX THE DANG LOOT SYSTEM. As it is now, the ONLY way I can "reward" someone is to "give" them some more encounter killing in the hope that they drop something decent. This totally sucks man (channeling my inner surfer-dude). I would LOVE to see some way foundry authors could give brownie-points/gold-stars/smiley-faces/widgets for "discoveries," cleverness, and sooo many other non-lethal problem solutions. We are totally handcuffed as authors in providing alternative, rich, "Story Focus" oriented material. To me this is absolutely a major (MAJOR!) part of "loot system is broken."
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
Agreed. I mean its no secret I make and mostly play quests with lots of fighting. I label all the ones I make as such. But every now and then I like to play something different. They need to find a way to make those quests to be rewarding in a 'loot-wise' sense too.
It's not just those examples either. There's no Super Uber End Treasure Chest at the end of Mass Effect, or Dragon Age, or Knights of the Old Republic, or 99% of the other story-focused RPGs out there. Yes, you get shiny toys as you go through the game, but ultimately, you're playing for the story. Not for the loot box at the end. I've never cared about star ratings. If a player's motivation for playing through my quest is a material object, "ph4t l3wtz", maybe I don't want them playing my quest in the first place. I want players who want to experience a deep, compelling plot, with fully-fleshed out NPCs and detailed environments. It's for this reason that I can't wait for the Feywild patch, so I can accurately and properly flag my quests. Probably. Depends on what you mean by 'negatively affect', I suppose.
You are correct. However, you need to know your player base. We are talking about the MMO crowd here. Who, I would say, are after the gear and loot. I would hazard a guess that if you took a survey, most players could tell you about the loot over what the story behind the quest was.
By negatively affect I mean... Will they get the ratings and plays they need if the player knows that there will be little to no loot for playing their quest?
Narayan
As said as it is one person on General labeled us "Poorly done fan fiction, that is to easy, not group friendly and has no rewards." This is the general played opinion. Now IGN said that the foundry is the future of this game and they are not supporting the future. I have played several foundry quests that are WAY better then any quest line in the game, yet due to lack of progressive rewards less then 4% of players do foundry missions.
Add in foundry's version of coins, give featured foundrys a chance at a pet the way your stupid re-run of skirmish was used and watch the best part of your game turn into the part that gets its fair share of plays like your developer created content.
Foundry coins would be great.
Narayan