Any system that encourages an author to manipulate his way to the top of the quest list, whether through advertising or outright payments, gets two thumbs and two big toes down from me. Do not want. Not now. Not ever.
Agreed. Full stop.
I'm not saying it's wrong, or that it's a bad idea. I'm just with concurrence on Tilt's perspective and that very word: manipulation. Which I'm hopeful we'll see very little of (though the exploiters always will look for a way to exploit. So be it.)
Any system that encourages an author to manipulate his way to the top of the quest list, whether through advertising or outright payments, gets two thumbs and two big toes down from me. Do not want. Not now. Not ever.
The problem with this logic is that those players will create that system anyway. See zaphtastic's example of the CoX community. Authors literally bribed other players for 5 star ratings until they were the top module anyway. If you provide a system, but then regulate it, you're more likely to *reduce* abuse of it, than by ignoring the problem and letting a black market evolve.
Agreed. Full stop.
I'm not saying it's wrong, or that it's a bad idea. I'm just with concurrence on Tilt's perspective and that very word: manipulation. Which I'm hopeful we'll see very little of (though the exploiters always will look for a way to exploit. So be it.)
It's precisely preventing that manipulation that makes a system like this so necessary. You regulate this system so that it can't be manipulated. You have insight in to what's happening and how it's being used, so you can identify the abusers and deal with them.
Yes, they will. You subscribe to the "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality. I don't. I'm a fighter. I believe in change.
I do nothing of the sort. In fact I'm saying face the problem head on. Recognize that there will be exploiters and instead of letting them dictate the rules, change the game. There's already been plenty of discussion on how to limit exploitation of such a system since it will now be in place. No dominating the presence in front of players by spending obscene amounts of money. Instead, an equal chance to be seen, but with a cost associated so that not everyone just jumps on the band wagon.
Again, let's try to focus on providing solutions to how Authors can increase the visibility of their content. If you're so dead set against using economics to engineer that, please provide some other solutions.
It's precisely preventing that manipulation that makes a system like this so necessary. You regulate this system so that it can't be manipulated. You have insight in to what's happening and how it's being used, so you can identify the abusers and deal with them.
Ask Blizzard how well that worked out for them with Diablo 3. They've openly regretted the entire auction house system. Sure, it reduced the impact of illegal trade, but it poisoned the game's community and the joy of honest gameplay.
Ask Blizzard how well that worked out for them with Diablo 3. They've openly regretted the entire auction house system. Sure, it reduced the impact of illegal trade, but it poisoned the game's community and the joy of honest gameplay.
An Auction House is for regulating the trade of things, not regulating the visibility of things. I think we're telling two different stories here.
What I'm getting from you is that you'd rather a game company have no oversight as to what happens in their game. Should there be no terms of service? No GMs to resolve conflicts? Should all products be player produced, no loot handed out by NPCs or controlled by the game's engine and ultimately the company. Should the game's merchants and banks all be players as well, so that players are the only ones who dictate the entire economy of the game, with no oversight from the company?
I believe they tried a similar experiment in Asheron's Call 2. I don't feel it was very successful. One failed attempt by a company to regulate a problem they've discovered in their game is not an indictment of all regulation by game companies to ensure that their players are having a fun and fair experience.
I'd much rather PWE be controlling the visibility of new Foundry content, rather than exploiters. And I'd rather there be more tools made available to the players by PWE for getting their content out there, not fewer tools for doing so. And I'd much rather the methods be regulated by PWE than by players and especially exploiters.
Let's start hearing some solutions to these problems then. I'm looking for creative input from the community for what does work! How can we improve this system or, if you think it's unworkable, what other tools would work?
So you want to be able to buy some sort of credibility, from the get go, instead of relying on whatever skills you may personally possess. NO. FLAT OUT. That would break the game. lol. If they did that, then there sure would be a lot of exploiting going on.
So you want to be able to buy some sort of credibility, from the get go, instead of relying on whatever skills you may personally possess. NO. FLAT OUT. That would break the game. lol. If they did that, then there sure would be a lot of exploiting going on.
You're not buying credibility. You're buying visibility. There's a difference.
Just because a module shows up on the Bard's Stage doesn't mean it's good. But it's probably going to have had more attention paid to it by the Author, since one doesn't generally pay to advertise things they haven't worked hard on.
And it doesn't show up at the top of a list or search or anything like that. It'd be off to the side. And that space would be limited to one or two at a time, which are targeted based on what you're searching for. So you're also more likely to be interested in it.
And you're limited on how often your module gets to show up. Others have a chance too. So no exploiting.
What does break the game is having the module at the top of the only list people look at because the Author bribed 500 gold farmers to rate it 5 stars. And that's the system we have now.
Let's see some solutions. How do we solve this problem. I've proposed using economics to do it. Disagree? Let's hear your solution!
So, a system that shuffles new quests into visibility, for a time, and then shuffles like the next day, or week.. I could see that happening. It might already do that, actually.. Someone help me out there. lol I have no idea on that. But as to any actual control over it, or being able to change when yours appears.. that is soooo not gonna happen.
So, a system that shuffles new quests into visibility, for a time, and then shuffles like the next day, or week.. I could see that happening. It might already do that, actually.. Someone help me out there. lol I have no idea on that. But as to any actual control over it, or being able to change when yours appears.. that is soooo not gonna happen.
What does break the game is having the module at the top of the only list people look at because the Author bribed 500 gold farmers to rate it 5 stars. And that's the system we have now.
The featured quests will get played the most. They will be at the forfront, and those are reviewed by the big guns for that. If someone gets a crappy quest to the top of the list, with bribery, his plays will go up, but then the people he didnt bribe will get to review it.. That will hammer it back down if it isnt very good.
The featured quests will get played the most. They will be at the forfront, and those are reviewed by the big guns for that. If someone gets a crappy quest to the top of the list, with bribery, his plays will go up, but then the people he didnt bribe will get to review it.. That will hammer it back down if it isnt very good.
In theory this sounds correct. But having seen it in principle in CoX, it's not what actually happens. The ones who made it to the top by bribery stayed on top, and you never knew if you were playing a module that someone bribed to the top or one the community actually liked.
The featured system as it stands now is resource intensive on the part of PWE. The backlog of modules submitted for featured reviews will continuously grow, and they'll either need to hire more reviewers, or let it get so long that you might as well not submit.
And I'd rather PWE be hiring content developers, rather than content reviewers, so we also get more classes, races, dungeons, settings, etc...
I admit to seeing a few problems down the road when it is a mess of quests in the thousands, which is why a reshuffle every now and then would be a fair idea to me. I think the initial review process is fine, if it is given some incentive to go there and do them. (This is a topic of giant discussion in another thread). You are not taking into account how addictive the foundry is, and there are going to be a ton of people making fantastic content. I have played a few of them already, and the bar is pretty high already, for showing off something awesome. If there were a system, as you describe, and it worked somehow, Literally everyone with few exceptions would do it, leading to the same problem all over again, but with a lot of mad people cuz they paid for it.
I admit to seeing a few problems down the road when it is a mess of quests in the thousands, which is why a reshuffle every now and then would be a fair idea to me. I think the initial review process is fine, if it is given some incentive to go there and do them. (This is a topic of giant discussion in another thread). You are not taking into account how addictive the foundry is, and there are going to be a ton of people making fantastic content. I have played a few of them already, and the bar is pretty high already, for showing off something awesome. If there were a system, as you describe, and it worked somehow, Literally everyone with few exceptions would do it, leading to the same problem all over again, but with a lot of mad people cuz they paid for it.
As demand increases the price would too, which will distribute supply, in this case the ad space, to those most invested in their content.
As such I'd say the assumption I'm making is that people who are heavily enough invested in what they've built to be willing to part with enough AD to compete for that space are also confident they've delivered a quality module.
Perhaps that's a dangerous assumption.
But I strongly believe that the modules you would see "advertised" are modules that aren't popular yet, but will become popular because they are *good* and the author recognized that they just needed that break to get out there.
thetruezesban, you say that you don't follow the "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality, but that's exactly what you're doing in this thread. You're saying that the Foundry quest list will go to hell in a handbasket if Cryptic doesn't introduce a mechanic for authors to manipulate their own quest's standings. That's a very, very defeatist attitude. You're drawing a parallel that doesn't exist between "authors can't manipulate their visibility" and "the Foundry visibility will be completely out of control". There is no such link, because in between those two opposing situations stands the community and Cryptic both. You know what doesn't stand between those two and which never should? The authors.
But you cant do that in a video game. lol.. If you set a price, and then you keep raising it, that makes your player base angry as a whole.
"Oh <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, i didnt get my quest done before they raised the price.. now i dont have enough cuz i spent all my time in the foundry.. "
thetruezesban, you say that you don't follow the "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality, but that's exactly what you're doing in this thread. You're saying that the Foundry quest list will go to hell in a handbasket if Cryptic doesn't introduce a mechanic for authors to manipulate their own quest's standings. That's a very, very defeatist attitude. You're drawing a parallel that doesn't exist between "authors can't manipulate their visibility" and "the Foundry visibility will be completely out of control". There is no such link, because in between those two opposing situations stands the community and Cryptic both. You know what doesn't stand between those two and which never should? The authors.
At no point have I suggested that a module's standing would be changed by paying for it. I'm proposing a new area where modules could also show up, out side of the search results, rankings, etc...
The mechanics for manipulating a module's standing have already been introduced by adding a Star rating to the game.
But you cant do that in a video game. lol.. If you set a price, and then you keep raising it, that makes your player base angry as a whole.
"Oh <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, i didnt get my quest done before they raised the price.. now i dont have enough cuz i spent all my time in the foundry.. "
That's supply and demand. If supply is fixed, and demand is increased prices need to rise to ensure fair distribution of resources.
But if more players are searching for content as more content is being produced both supply and demand would be increasing, which would allow prices to stabilize. The same is true if interest in creating and finding content dwindled alongside each other, but hopefully that doesn't happen.
The scenario that would be frustrating then would be if only the same number of players were searching for content, but content creation continued to increase. And yes, that would be bad, and rising prices would be an indicator of that. We want people to play the game too, after all!
At no point have I suggested that a module's standing would be changed by paying for it. I'm proposing a new area where modules could also show up, out side of the search results, rankings, etc...
I don't like this idea because it adds to the already high burden of creating and marketing you quest. Now you would also have to spend AD, because if you don't, you'll be at a disadvantage relative to the players who do spend the AD.
No offense to the OP, but this is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen. I have participated in map editor communities and the idea of paying to publicize my creation is not something I want to do. I will drop the foundry like a live grenade if something like this gets implemented.
We held map creation contests as our way for people to build a public reputation, that worked quite nicely and is something I was going to suggest sooner or later.
-Agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Neverwinter isn't D&D, it is a MMO based on a game that uses D&D terms but isn't really D&D either. NW is fun (for that matter so is 4E), but it isn't D&D, and once you wrap your expectations around that you will be able to enjoy the game for what it offers and not worry about what it does not.
I don't like this idea because it adds to the already high burden of creating and marketing you quest. Now you would also have to spend AD, because if you don't, you'll be at a disadvantage relative to the players who do spend the AD.
This comment is confusing to me, because I don't imagine the Foundry as a place for competition. What does it mean to have an advantage over other Authors? Are you trying to win the Foundry? When I think of the Foundry, I think of a place for people to create and share. Some people are really good at creating, but not so great at sharing.
This gives them an easy way to do just that, but it's not free, so that there is some value still associated with sharing it. Just like the people who invest time to get the word out instead. This is just another way to tell people about the module you've taken the time to write. Further, the second component of this system is that if people are interested in your module and are playing it, you get that AD back.
Not everybody has the time to both craft quality content *and* spend time in the game role playing characters from their modules, crawling the forums to tell people about it, or recruiting people to try it out. Does that mean those people should be at a "disadvantage"?
No offense to the OP, but this is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen. I have participated in map editor communities and the idea of paying to publicize my creation is not something I want to do. I will drop the foundry like a live grenade if something like this gets implemented.
We held map creation contests as our way for people to build a public reputation, that worked quite nicely and is something I was going to suggest sooner or later.
Then don't. Advertise it in the ways you feel comfortable with. Use contests, get the word out on the forums, use your time to do it. But for people who don't have that time, or would rather use it elsewhere, this is a way for them to get the word about their creative work out there.
This isn't an exclusionary solution. Adding the Bard's Stage doesn't prevent people from holding contests, sharing with friends, or however else you'd prefer your work get out there. And it doesn't let people "win" at the Foundry. Ads don't automatically make one thing more valuable than another, they just make people *aware* of it.
With all the opposition to your idea, you might want to consider this battle lost.
0
tusslebugMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 27Arc User
edited April 2013
Seeking validation from others will likely lead to discontentment. Write content that you, yourself, enjoy. Share those stories with your friends, and then set them free. Move on to your next creation. Peek in on your modules from time to time, without expectations. After a time, somewhere in the world, a gamer will drift off to sleep with your tale still alight in their imagination – but they will not leave a critique nor an AD tip… That is not a reflection on your hard work, it is just human nature.
The greatest novels ever written were set aside – unread – by most of those that began their reading.
Then don't. Advertise it in the ways you feel comfortable with. Use contests, get the word out on the forums, use your time to do it. But for people who don't have that time, or would rather use it elsewhere, this is a way for them to get the word about their creative work out there.
This isn't an exclusionary solution. Adding the Bard's Stage doesn't prevent people from holding contests, sharing with friends, or however else you'd prefer your work get out there. And it doesn't let people "win" at the Foundry. Ads don't automatically make one thing more valuable than another, they just make people *aware* of it.
- Zesban
Nobody but you likes your idea, that should tell you something.
-Agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Neverwinter isn't D&D, it is a MMO based on a game that uses D&D terms but isn't really D&D either. NW is fun (for that matter so is 4E), but it isn't D&D, and once you wrap your expectations around that you will be able to enjoy the game for what it offers and not worry about what it does not.
Comments
Agreed. Full stop.
I'm not saying it's wrong, or that it's a bad idea. I'm just with concurrence on Tilt's perspective and that very word: manipulation. Which I'm hopeful we'll see very little of (though the exploiters always will look for a way to exploit. So be it.)
The problem with this logic is that those players will create that system anyway. See zaphtastic's example of the CoX community. Authors literally bribed other players for 5 star ratings until they were the top module anyway. If you provide a system, but then regulate it, you're more likely to *reduce* abuse of it, than by ignoring the problem and letting a black market evolve.
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
Yes, they will. You subscribe to the "if you can't beat them, join them" mentality. I don't. I'm a fighter. I believe in change.
It's precisely preventing that manipulation that makes a system like this so necessary. You regulate this system so that it can't be manipulated. You have insight in to what's happening and how it's being used, so you can identify the abusers and deal with them.
I do nothing of the sort. In fact I'm saying face the problem head on. Recognize that there will be exploiters and instead of letting them dictate the rules, change the game. There's already been plenty of discussion on how to limit exploitation of such a system since it will now be in place. No dominating the presence in front of players by spending obscene amounts of money. Instead, an equal chance to be seen, but with a cost associated so that not everyone just jumps on the band wagon.
Again, let's try to focus on providing solutions to how Authors can increase the visibility of their content. If you're so dead set against using economics to engineer that, please provide some other solutions.
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
Ask Blizzard how well that worked out for them with Diablo 3. They've openly regretted the entire auction house system. Sure, it reduced the impact of illegal trade, but it poisoned the game's community and the joy of honest gameplay.
An Auction House is for regulating the trade of things, not regulating the visibility of things. I think we're telling two different stories here.
What I'm getting from you is that you'd rather a game company have no oversight as to what happens in their game. Should there be no terms of service? No GMs to resolve conflicts? Should all products be player produced, no loot handed out by NPCs or controlled by the game's engine and ultimately the company. Should the game's merchants and banks all be players as well, so that players are the only ones who dictate the entire economy of the game, with no oversight from the company?
I believe they tried a similar experiment in Asheron's Call 2. I don't feel it was very successful. One failed attempt by a company to regulate a problem they've discovered in their game is not an indictment of all regulation by game companies to ensure that their players are having a fun and fair experience.
I'd much rather PWE be controlling the visibility of new Foundry content, rather than exploiters. And I'd rather there be more tools made available to the players by PWE for getting their content out there, not fewer tools for doing so. And I'd much rather the methods be regulated by PWE than by players and especially exploiters.
Let's start hearing some solutions to these problems then. I'm looking for creative input from the community for what does work! How can we improve this system or, if you think it's unworkable, what other tools would work?
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
Himmelville - Are you easily frightened?
Click Here
On one side of the mountain, there were bones...
You're not buying credibility. You're buying visibility. There's a difference.
Just because a module shows up on the Bard's Stage doesn't mean it's good. But it's probably going to have had more attention paid to it by the Author, since one doesn't generally pay to advertise things they haven't worked hard on.
And it doesn't show up at the top of a list or search or anything like that. It'd be off to the side. And that space would be limited to one or two at a time, which are targeted based on what you're searching for. So you're also more likely to be interested in it.
And you're limited on how often your module gets to show up. Others have a chance too. So no exploiting.
What does break the game is having the module at the top of the only list people look at because the Author bribed 500 gold farmers to rate it 5 stars. And that's the system we have now.
Let's see some solutions. How do we solve this problem. I've proposed using economics to do it. Disagree? Let's hear your solution!
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
Himmelville - Are you easily frightened?
Click Here
On one side of the mountain, there were bones...
Except that it already does.
What Class Are You?
Himmelville - Are you easily frightened?
Click Here
On one side of the mountain, there were bones...
In theory this sounds correct. But having seen it in principle in CoX, it's not what actually happens. The ones who made it to the top by bribery stayed on top, and you never knew if you were playing a module that someone bribed to the top or one the community actually liked.
The featured system as it stands now is resource intensive on the part of PWE. The backlog of modules submitted for featured reviews will continuously grow, and they'll either need to hire more reviewers, or let it get so long that you might as well not submit.
And I'd rather PWE be hiring content developers, rather than content reviewers, so we also get more classes, races, dungeons, settings, etc...
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
Himmelville - Are you easily frightened?
Click Here
On one side of the mountain, there were bones...
As demand increases the price would too, which will distribute supply, in this case the ad space, to those most invested in their content.
As such I'd say the assumption I'm making is that people who are heavily enough invested in what they've built to be willing to part with enough AD to compete for that space are also confident they've delivered a quality module.
Perhaps that's a dangerous assumption.
But I strongly believe that the modules you would see "advertised" are modules that aren't popular yet, but will become popular because they are *good* and the author recognized that they just needed that break to get out there.
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
"Oh <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, i didnt get my quest done before they raised the price.. now i dont have enough cuz i spent all my time in the foundry.. "
Himmelville - Are you easily frightened?
Click Here
On one side of the mountain, there were bones...
At no point have I suggested that a module's standing would be changed by paying for it. I'm proposing a new area where modules could also show up, out side of the search results, rankings, etc...
The mechanics for manipulating a module's standing have already been introduced by adding a Star rating to the game.
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
That's supply and demand. If supply is fixed, and demand is increased prices need to rise to ensure fair distribution of resources.
But if more players are searching for content as more content is being produced both supply and demand would be increasing, which would allow prices to stabilize. The same is true if interest in creating and finding content dwindled alongside each other, but hopefully that doesn't happen.
The scenario that would be frustrating then would be if only the same number of players were searching for content, but content creation continued to increase. And yes, that would be bad, and rising prices would be an indicator of that. We want people to play the game too, after all!
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
The difference is in semantics only.
Well I'm not one to argue semantics so I agree to disagree.
Thanks for the vigorous discussion!
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
We held map creation contests as our way for people to build a public reputation, that worked quite nicely and is something I was going to suggest sooner or later.
Realm of the Demiurge Foundry Works
Neverwinter isn't D&D, it is a MMO based on a game that uses D&D terms but isn't really D&D either. NW is fun (for that matter so is 4E), but it isn't D&D, and once you wrap your expectations around that you will be able to enjoy the game for what it offers and not worry about what it does not.
If it is implemented, it will be a huge turn off for me personally.
This comment is confusing to me, because I don't imagine the Foundry as a place for competition. What does it mean to have an advantage over other Authors? Are you trying to win the Foundry? When I think of the Foundry, I think of a place for people to create and share. Some people are really good at creating, but not so great at sharing.
This gives them an easy way to do just that, but it's not free, so that there is some value still associated with sharing it. Just like the people who invest time to get the word out instead. This is just another way to tell people about the module you've taken the time to write. Further, the second component of this system is that if people are interested in your module and are playing it, you get that AD back.
Not everybody has the time to both craft quality content *and* spend time in the game role playing characters from their modules, crawling the forums to tell people about it, or recruiting people to try it out. Does that mean those people should be at a "disadvantage"?
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
Then don't. Advertise it in the ways you feel comfortable with. Use contests, get the word out on the forums, use your time to do it. But for people who don't have that time, or would rather use it elsewhere, this is a way for them to get the word about their creative work out there.
This isn't an exclusionary solution. Adding the Bard's Stage doesn't prevent people from holding contests, sharing with friends, or however else you'd prefer your work get out there. And it doesn't let people "win" at the Foundry. Ads don't automatically make one thing more valuable than another, they just make people *aware* of it.
- Zesban
What Class Are You?
The greatest novels ever written were set aside – unread – by most of those that began their reading.
And 78% of all statistics are invented on the spot. I know this is true since I just made it up myself.
Nobody but you likes your idea, that should tell you something.
Realm of the Demiurge Foundry Works
Neverwinter isn't D&D, it is a MMO based on a game that uses D&D terms but isn't really D&D either. NW is fun (for that matter so is 4E), but it isn't D&D, and once you wrap your expectations around that you will be able to enjoy the game for what it offers and not worry about what it does not.
I'd never confuse consensus with quality, and I'm seeking feedback, not to win a battle.
- Zesban
What Class Are You?