Since rewards are based off of the average completion time of the quest, this kind of exploit wouldn't work, and you would just get trash from the chest.
This is also why we don't allow authors to directly reward XP for completing tasks. It exposes the Foundry to heavy exploitation.
How about non-combat missions like dialog puzzles etc.... ?? how u gonna calculate the amount of xp people will get and how good rewards will be ??
And even if a mission have both dialog puzzles and combat, can u guys calculate all the aspects of the mission ??
How about non-combat missions like dialog puzzles etc.... ?? how u gonna calculate the amount of xp people will get and how good rewards will be ??
And even if a mission have both dialog puzzles and combat, can u guys calculate all the aspects of the mission ??
Thanks
As was mentioned in this post
Originally Posted by crypticmapolis
You can create entire campaigns without combat if you like. You won't get the usual rewards from drops, but you still get a loot chest at the end regardless.
There are no rewards given for the non-combat parts of a quest, but if average time to complete is what determines the rewards at the end of a quest (i.e. the loot chest) then I would hazard a guess that the more complex and more time consuming the non-combat aspects of quest the more reward you get at the end.
-- My question, any chance for player created cinematics? Last time I used STO's foundry I don't remember this being an option, will this be something we can see in Neverwinter?
There are no rewards given for the non-combat parts of a quest, but if average time to complete is what determines the rewards at the end of a quest (i.e. the loot chest) then I would hazard a guess that the more complex and more time consuming the non-combat aspects of quest the more reward you get at the end.
-- My question, any chance for player created cinematics? Last time I used STO's foundry I don't remember this being an option, will this be something we can see in Neverwinter?
Well since is a non combat situation im wondering how they calculate the "average time" u will need to complete a complex dialog quest. And how they will give xp to those non combat quests ?? Will the reviwers avaliate how complex are the dialogs and determinate the xp players got ??
If theres no kind of rewards for those non combat quest i dont see any interest (at least for me) to do them.
0
vindiconMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
-- My question, any chance for player created cinematics? Last time I used STO's foundry I don't remember this being an option, will this be something we can see in Neverwinter?
Iirc, players can indeed create cutscenes in Foundry missions.
Well since is a non combat situation im wondering how they calculate the "average time" u will need to complete a complex dialog quest. And how they will give xp to those non combat quests ?? Will the reviwers avaliate how complex are the dialogs and determinate the xp players got ??
If theres no kind of rewards for those non combat quest i dont see any interest (at least for me) to do them.
I think the reward gets based on the average time it takes players to play the mission, that's how I understood it. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not sure how that works for the initial mission release though.
I think the reward gets based on the average time it takes players to play the mission, that's how I understood it. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not sure how that works for the initial mission release though.
I just wondering that because if its only about the time u take to make the mission everyone could just be sitting inside the quest/dungeon and increace the "time" they needed to finish it (if u know what i mean),
Its probably much more complex than that, maybe the amount of monsters groups, number of room, something like that. But i still dont have clue how that will work on non combat missions.
I mean about the xp Seems rewards wont be that good
I think the reward gets based on the average time it takes players to play the mission, that's how I understood it. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not sure how that works for the initial mission release though.
Yes, but also depends on monsters killed during mission. That talking only about chest end reward.
0
vindiconMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
We don't currently have this feature slated for launch, but we do have a tool that is separate from the Foundry that can record demos, and we use this tech to create our cutscenes... So it's only a matter of time before it gets added to the Foundry.
So I guess it's possible that we'll have it soon, even at launch, considering all the delays.
Originally Posted by gillrmn
iirc No. They can't at launch(you cant lock camera). But the engine does have that capability so they might add it soon.
Yep.
Correction on my part: the quote was remembering was this:
Originally Posted by crypticmapolis
We don't currently have this feature slated for launch, but we do have a tool that is separate from the Foundry that can record demos, and we use this tech to create our cutscenes... So it's only a matter of time before it gets added to the Foundry.
So I guess it's possible that we'll
have it soon, even at launch, considering all the delays.
Ah too bad, but at least it is possible for some point. I think cutscenes would really add to the DnD feel of having a DM guiding you through encounters.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
Since rewards are based off of the average completion time of the quest, this kind of exploit wouldn't work, and you would just get trash from the chest.
This is also why we don't allow authors to directly reward XP for completing tasks. It exposes the Foundry to heavy exploitation.
I'm extremely glad to hear that. It gives me hopes that we can make a fairly rewarding quest without causing players to rush through the content, sacrifice storyline or most importantly avoid puzzles.
However this leads to the next question: will there be systems in place to prevent players from AFKing Foundry missions to give a larger average completion time?
If players are willing to use 'bots' in other games to advance why wouldn't a player simply leave their character in a foundry mission for 8-16 hours while they aren't able to play the game due to sleep/school/work?
Since rewards are based off of the average completion time of the quest,...
Thank GOD! This is exactly what I have been asking for. However, this is still open to exploitation by groups such as guilds who decide to take a long time(afk macro perhaps) in a specific mission. My suggested solution is to put a cooldown on how often you can get rewards from the same mission. Anything from a week to a month would effectively kill any exploitation of any given mission.
0
katalystikMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Thank GOD! This is exactly what I have been asking for. However, this is still open to exploitation by groups such as guilds who decide to take a long time(afk macro perhaps) in a specific mission. My suggested solution is to put a cooldown on how often you can get rewards from the same mission. Anything from a week to a month would effectively kill any exploitation of any given mission.
If they are based on time, shouldn't the rewards be better if done quicker, not slower? Thus, afk macroing to drag time out would actually have the opposite effect. That doesn't feel right either though as it would just create time trials. Rewards for taking long, create botting. Reward for going quick, create time trials. Interested to see how they'll pull this off.
This is assuming the "average completion time" used meant for everyone that has ever played the mission, not just the party itself. I'm curious how they're calculating this average completion time. If this is true, then I guess it could be padded like ambisinisterr said.
If they are based on time, shouldn't the rewards be better if done quicker, not slower? Thus, afk macroing to drag time out would actually have the opposite effect.
No. If they did it like you are talking about everyone would create really quick missions to get the best reward possible. That is the very type of exploitation they are trying to avoid. Instead, the way they are doing it is the longer it takes to complete the mission on average, the better reward you get. This means no quickie exploit missions because they would reward junk.
0
katalystikMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
No. If they did it like you are talking about everyone would create really quick missions to get the best reward possible. That is the very type of exploitation they are trying to avoid. Instead, the way they are doing it is the longer it takes to complete the mission on average, the better reward you get.
Something tells me that even if you padded the average time, there is a cutoff. Some algorithm that's based on encounters and says it shouldn't take you 15 hours to complete a mission with 3 mobs in it. lol Probably caps the loot or something to prevent that kind of thing. Speculation though of course.
Something tells me that even if you padded the average time, there is a cutoff. Some algorithm that's based on encounters and says it shouldn't take you 15 hours to complete a mission with 3 mobs in it. lol Probably caps the loot or something to prevent that kind of thing. Speculation though of course.
I agree, there is probably a cap. However people will still try to exploit it all the way to the cap unless there are measures put in place to stop them. Hence my suggestion to put a cooldown on how often you can get rewards from the same mission. If you can only get rewards from any given mission once a week(or every other week, or month) then there wont be any specific mission that a group of people could try to 'gang up' and exploit, because they would rarely get a reward from that mission.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
If they are based on time, shouldn't the rewards be better if done quicker, not slower? Thus, afk macroing to drag time out would actually have the opposite effect. That doesn't feel right either though as it would just create time trials. Rewards for taking long, create botting. Reward for going quick, create time trials. Interested to see how they'll pull this off.
This is assuming the "average completion time" used meant for everyone that has ever played the mission, not just the party itself. I'm curious how they're calculating this average completion time. If this is true, then I guess it could be padded like ambisinisterr said.
Not only is what thetruthhurts say is true it seems to have already occured in STO. There's a feature in STO which basically rewards a player for completing 3 Foundry Missions a day so players have created a slew of 30 second missions in order to rush the reward.
Fast completion times are good incentives but they are often poorly designed even when player's don't have a part in content development. One game I played created a randomly generated map which gave rewards based on various variables of the map including size and completion amount.
The game gave a set amount of XP for each room opened on the map, bonuses for killing monsters, xp penalties for dieing, and a host of other small variables. Basically the system flopped. The content was designed to be an exploration style content sort of like Pen and Paper D&D but resulted in players choosing to run past monster spawns and spend the bare minimum amount of time in each map.
Basically players got better rewards for ignoring 90% of the content in each map compared to spending time killing monsters and looting resources.
Fast completion times work in some games such as first person shooters as long as an actual game developer designs the map and the reward but in RPG's if any players, such as myself, enjoy taking the time to play the game and read the storyline/solve puzzles/clear the entire dungeon/etc. you'll find a lot of players unhappy that they are punished for actually playing the content.
And considering this is a D&D game I don't think encouraging players to ignore playing content is a good idea. This may be an Action Combat MMO but they can't release a D&D game punishing playing and creating D&D style content and consider themselves capturing the "spirit of D&D."
There's a feature in STO which basically rewards a player for completing 3 Foundry Missions a day so players have created a slew of 30 second missions in order to rush the reward.
This sounds like an awful system... I hope it stays away from NWO. Reward the players for playing good content, not menial tasks. Actually, the good content should be the reward for the player. If the player is only interested in rewards and how to get them the fastest, I'm not sure a DND game is right for them. lol
This sounds like an awful system... I hope it stays away from NWO. Reward the players for playing good content, not menial tasks. Actually, the good content should be the reward for the player. If the player is only interested in rewards and how to get them the fastest, I'm not sure a DND game is right for them. lol
lol indeed. We are expecting one of the best electronic versions of D&D, let us continue to expect as much until release, at which time we will pass judgement.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited September 2012
Which is why player's shouldn't be rewarded for rushing content.
If players got better rewards for quick or easily rushed content than longer content it would negatively effect the D&D playerbase. Sadly I don't consider content 'the reward' but merely a large part of it. I'll still get ticked off if players got rewarded for ignoring the actual content as I found in other RPG's because the only person who is suffering is me.
I selfishly agree that if players don't want to play the content they should be shunned into not playing but that's my selfish side. The problem is that it's easy to reward players who don't care about content...it's hard to reward the player's who do.
And that is the problem Cryptic faces with the rewards system and why I instantly screamed in terror at your remark players should be rewarded for fast completion times. I'm glad to see you simply just spoke before considering the consequences haha!
Let's hope CrypticMapolis will be kind enough to shed some light on the possibilities of preventing exploitation of the system although I'm sure this is a touchy subject at the moment.
More than likely Cryptic will have to await the Closed/Open Beta results to give a thorough tweaking of any rewards algorithms.
There is always going to be a chance for exploitation of any system. Even the most tightly controlled system will get exploited. While it is a shame, I personally don't want to see the freedom to really create some cool stuff hindered by the fear of exploits. I'll use STO's character generator as an example, you can make some amazing looking species in that, but I've also seen some really, really stupid looking things. I'd never trade the freedom I get to create what I want for never having to see someone's HAMSTER shaped alien.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I'm extremely glad to hear that. It gives me hopes that we can make a fairly rewarding quest without causing players to rush through the content, sacrifice storyline or most importantly avoid puzzles.
However this leads to the next question: will there be systems in place to prevent players from AFKing Foundry missions to give a larger average completion time?
If players are willing to use 'bots' in other games to advance why wouldn't a player simply leave their character in a foundry mission for 8-16 hours while they aren't able to play the game due to sleep/school/work?
Can't believe nobody mentioned that until now. Good catch! Yeah, we need some sort of time out feature and anti-botting to stop cheaters from causing a timeout reset.
Not only is what thetruthhurts say is true it seems to have already occured in STO. There's a feature in STO which basically rewards a player for completing 3 Foundry Missions a day so players have created a slew of 30 second missions in order to rush the reward.
Fast completion times are good incentives but they are often poorly designed even when player's don't have a part in content development. One game I played created a randomly generated map which gave rewards based on various variables of the map including size and completion amount.
The game gave a set amount of XP for each room opened on the map, bonuses for killing monsters, xp penalties for dieing, and a host of other small variables. Basically the system flopped. The content was designed to be an exploration style content sort of like Pen and Paper D&D but resulted in players choosing to run past monster spawns and spend the bare minimum amount of time in each map.
Basically players got better rewards for ignoring 90% of the content in each map compared to spending time killing monsters and looting resources.
Fast completion times work in some games such as first person shooters as long as an actual game developer designs the map and the reward but in RPG's if any players, such as myself, enjoy taking the time to play the game and read the storyline/solve puzzles/clear the entire dungeon/etc. you'll find a lot of players unhappy that they are punished for actually playing the content.
And considering this is a D&D game I don't think encouraging players to ignore playing content is a good idea. This may be an Action Combat MMO but they can't release a D&D game punishing playing and creating D&D style content and consider themselves capturing the "spirit of D&D."
And a warning as to the most elaborate setup, people will try and find a way around it. We also have to have real people checking missions and reports about how they are being abused when applicable.
About the complete quest average time i dont think is that simple, i dont think people will be rewarded (xp or end chest loot) according to the time they do the quests (that just dont make sense IMO).
Its probably MUCH more complex than that, i dont even think is about the players who do the missions its about the authors. I personly think crypticmapolis meant the xp/rewards will be set by some kind of cryptic algorithm according to the amount and the dificulty of monsters, number of rooms, traps, puzzles, etc... And i dont rly believe the rewards/xp will be given if u take 1h or 10mins to make that mission.
I was just earlier metion in my post how will they set the amount of XP people get in a purely dialog mission (just as example) because the difuclty is all about how complex the dialog is, not how many rooms the mission have or if the monsters are elite or not.
I think we are missunderstood what crypticmapolis said about the "average time".
0
katalystikMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
About the complete quest average time i dont think is that simple, i dont think people will be rewarded (xp or end chest loot) according to the time they do the quests (that just dont make sense IMO).
Its probably MUCH more complex than that, i dont even think is about the players who do the missions its about the authors. I personly think crypticmapolis meant the xp/rewards will be set by some kind of cryptic algorithm according to the amount and the dificulty of monsters, number of rooms, traps, puzzles, etc... And i dont rly believe the rewards/xp will be given if u take 1h or 10mins to make that mission.
I was just earlier metion in my post how will they set the amount of XP people get in a purely dialog mission (just as example) because the difuclty is all about how complex the dialog is, not how many rooms the mission have or if the monsters are elite or not.
I think we are missunderstood what crypticmapolis said about the "average time".
I think you may be right about being set by Cryptic. In their Forbes interview, the guy mentions an approval process.
"Players can select these campaigns like any other quest after they?ve been approved, and local NPC?s will serve them up alongside standard content." Forbes article.
If Cryptic has to approve every mission, then the ones that make it through should be well crafted and free of any sort of exploitative behavior as well as having their rewards perfectly tuned. Could be wishful thinking here too. lol
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
aavariusMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
All of it all-toghetherly, I am not making any comments on anything else but calling it informal.
I don not understand why it is informal? It is official forum with rules not where you can break the rules and not be banned. And the purpose of forums is to discuss the game. There isn't an off-topic thread for now.
So I would say that forums here are as formal as they can be. Though 'official' forums is a better word.
Informal, as in an open place in which anyone can contribute with no requirement for referenced citations of information. A formal place of discussion would require the ability to verify not only where information came from but evidence that the information was also correct. A formal one possibly has limitations on who can contribute as well. To use an example, consider a scholarly journal vs. a wiki.
The officialness of a place of discussion is on a separate axis entirely, so I agree that is a better term for what you're describing.
And, Truth, the problem is in the manner in which you asked for a reference. It appears as if you invalidated my whole question because you did not believe the information it was based on was not reliable in the first place. It comes across better when it doesn't sound like you're giving a scolding.
Now, as to the question of exploiting the rewards based on time of completion question by taking extra long to do things, I of course won't know anything until the game's out, but I feel like that will take care of itself in the long run. If 100% of the population of players that completes Foundry mission X takes all 4 hours on purpose, then, yes, that's probably a certain kind of exploitation, but then not every player is going to do that on the same mission (I would presume). I would suspect most of them would complete it in a reasonable time and thus lower the average time of completion as compared to the fewer people trying to stretch the experience out. I could be wrong about that, though, so I guess we'll see.
However this leads to the next question: will there be systems in place to prevent players from AFKing Foundry missions to give a larger average completion time?
If players are willing to use 'bots' in other games to advance why wouldn't a player simply leave their character in a foundry mission for 8-16 hours while they aren't able to play the game due to sleep/school/work?
The average is calculated and constantly adjusted from the playtimes recorded from every player who goes through that quest, so simply going AFK wouldn't necessarily increase your reward. It would take a coordinated effort from many separate accounts to artificially raise the average, and as soon as it starts to be exploited, the average will adjust accordingly and fix itself. On top of this, we intend to have some kind of cap on how many hours of Foundry content you can be rewarded for per day, so no exploit can really get too far.
There are a number of other things we're doing under the hood to prevent botting and exploits, but I'm no programmer so I don't understand them
0
katalystikMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2012
Well, guess that answers that. We were right. /endthread
Glad to hear measures are being taken into account, we can all rest easy guys, Cryptic's got it!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
aavariusMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, SilverstarsPosts: 0Arc User
The average is calculated and constantly adjusted from the playtimes recorded from every player who goes through that quest, so simply going AFK wouldn't necessarily increase your reward. It would take a coordinated effort from many separate accounts to artificially raise the average, and as soon as it starts to be exploited, the average will adjust accordingly and fix itself. On top of this, we intend to have some kind of cap on how many hours of Foundry content you can be rewarded for per day, so no exploit can really get too far.
There are a number of other things we're doing under the hood to prevent botting and exploits, but I'm no programmer so I don't understand them
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2012
Bravo!
Consensus time everybody:
Should I include a section that would mention the Foundry XP and exploit prevention in the FAQ or is that too confusing and/or too esoteric for "New Users?"
katalystikMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2012
Yeah, that's probably not the most "need-to-know" info for new people. They can find it via Dev Tracker if they want to. If it does get brought up a bunch with new posts though, maybe?
Comments
How about non-combat missions like dialog puzzles etc.... ?? how u gonna calculate the amount of xp people will get and how good rewards will be ??
And even if a mission have both dialog puzzles and combat, can u guys calculate all the aspects of the mission ??
Thanks
As was mentioned in this post
There are no rewards given for the non-combat parts of a quest, but if average time to complete is what determines the rewards at the end of a quest (i.e. the loot chest) then I would hazard a guess that the more complex and more time consuming the non-combat aspects of quest the more reward you get at the end.
-- My question, any chance for player created cinematics? Last time I used STO's foundry I don't remember this being an option, will this be something we can see in Neverwinter?
Well since is a non combat situation im wondering how they calculate the "average time" u will need to complete a complex dialog quest. And how they will give xp to those non combat quests ?? Will the reviwers avaliate how complex are the dialogs and determinate the xp players got ??
If theres no kind of rewards for those non combat quest i dont see any interest (at least for me) to do them.
Iirc, players can indeed create cutscenes in Foundry missions.
I think the reward gets based on the average time it takes players to play the mission, that's how I understood it. But maybe I'm wrong. I'm not sure how that works for the initial mission release though.
Nice, I hope so.
I just wondering that because if its only about the time u take to make the mission everyone could just be sitting inside the quest/dungeon and increace the "time" they needed to finish it (if u know what i mean),
Its probably much more complex than that, maybe the amount of monsters groups, number of room, something like that. But i still dont have clue how that will work on non combat missions.
I mean about the xp
Yes, but also depends on monsters killed during mission. That talking only about chest end reward.
Yep.
Correction on my part: the quote was remembering was this:
So I guess it's possible that we'll have it soon, even at launch, considering all the delays.
Ah too bad, but at least it is possible for some point. I think cutscenes would really add to the DnD feel of having a DM guiding you through encounters.
I'm extremely glad to hear that. It gives me hopes that we can make a fairly rewarding quest without causing players to rush through the content, sacrifice storyline or most importantly avoid puzzles.
However this leads to the next question: will there be systems in place to prevent players from AFKing Foundry missions to give a larger average completion time?
If players are willing to use 'bots' in other games to advance why wouldn't a player simply leave their character in a foundry mission for 8-16 hours while they aren't able to play the game due to sleep/school/work?
Thank GOD! This is exactly what I have been asking for. However, this is still open to exploitation by groups such as guilds who decide to take a long time(afk macro perhaps) in a specific mission. My suggested solution is to put a cooldown on how often you can get rewards from the same mission. Anything from a week to a month would effectively kill any exploitation of any given mission.
If they are based on time, shouldn't the rewards be better if done quicker, not slower? Thus, afk macroing to drag time out would actually have the opposite effect. That doesn't feel right either though as it would just create time trials. Rewards for taking long, create botting. Reward for going quick, create time trials. Interested to see how they'll pull this off.
This is assuming the "average completion time" used meant for everyone that has ever played the mission, not just the party itself. I'm curious how they're calculating this average completion time. If this is true, then I guess it could be padded like ambisinisterr said.
No. If they did it like you are talking about everyone would create really quick missions to get the best reward possible. That is the very type of exploitation they are trying to avoid. Instead, the way they are doing it is the longer it takes to complete the mission on average, the better reward you get. This means no quickie exploit missions because they would reward junk.
Something tells me that even if you padded the average time, there is a cutoff. Some algorithm that's based on encounters and says it shouldn't take you 15 hours to complete a mission with 3 mobs in it. lol Probably caps the loot or something to prevent that kind of thing. Speculation though of course.
I agree, there is probably a cap. However people will still try to exploit it all the way to the cap unless there are measures put in place to stop them. Hence my suggestion to put a cooldown on how often you can get rewards from the same mission. If you can only get rewards from any given mission once a week(or every other week, or month) then there wont be any specific mission that a group of people could try to 'gang up' and exploit, because they would rarely get a reward from that mission.
Not only is what thetruthhurts say is true it seems to have already occured in STO. There's a feature in STO which basically rewards a player for completing 3 Foundry Missions a day so players have created a slew of 30 second missions in order to rush the reward.
Fast completion times are good incentives but they are often poorly designed even when player's don't have a part in content development. One game I played created a randomly generated map which gave rewards based on various variables of the map including size and completion amount.
The game gave a set amount of XP for each room opened on the map, bonuses for killing monsters, xp penalties for dieing, and a host of other small variables. Basically the system flopped. The content was designed to be an exploration style content sort of like Pen and Paper D&D but resulted in players choosing to run past monster spawns and spend the bare minimum amount of time in each map.
Basically players got better rewards for ignoring 90% of the content in each map compared to spending time killing monsters and looting resources.
Fast completion times work in some games such as first person shooters as long as an actual game developer designs the map and the reward but in RPG's if any players, such as myself, enjoy taking the time to play the game and read the storyline/solve puzzles/clear the entire dungeon/etc. you'll find a lot of players unhappy that they are punished for actually playing the content.
And considering this is a D&D game I don't think encouraging players to ignore playing content is a good idea. This may be an Action Combat MMO but they can't release a D&D game punishing playing and creating D&D style content and consider themselves capturing the "spirit of D&D."
This sounds like an awful system... I hope it stays away from NWO. Reward the players for playing good content, not menial tasks. Actually, the good content should be the reward for the player. If the player is only interested in rewards and how to get them the fastest, I'm not sure a DND game is right for them. lol
lol indeed. We are expecting one of the best electronic versions of D&D, let us continue to expect as much until release, at which time we will pass judgement.
If players got better rewards for quick or easily rushed content than longer content it would negatively effect the D&D playerbase. Sadly I don't consider content 'the reward' but merely a large part of it. I'll still get ticked off if players got rewarded for ignoring the actual content as I found in other RPG's because the only person who is suffering is me.
I selfishly agree that if players don't want to play the content they should be shunned into not playing but that's my selfish side. The problem is that it's easy to reward players who don't care about content...it's hard to reward the player's who do.
And that is the problem Cryptic faces with the rewards system and why I instantly screamed in terror at your remark players should be rewarded for fast completion times. I'm glad to see you simply just spoke before considering the consequences haha!
Let's hope CrypticMapolis will be kind enough to shed some light on the possibilities of preventing exploitation of the system although I'm sure this is a touchy subject at the moment.
More than likely Cryptic will have to await the Closed/Open Beta results to give a thorough tweaking of any rewards algorithms.
Can't believe nobody mentioned that until now. Good catch! Yeah, we need some sort of time out feature and anti-botting to stop cheaters from causing a timeout reset.
And a warning as to the most elaborate setup, people will try and find a way around it. We also have to have real people checking missions and reports about how they are being abused when applicable.
Its probably MUCH more complex than that, i dont even think is about the players who do the missions its about the authors. I personly think crypticmapolis meant the xp/rewards will be set by some kind of cryptic algorithm according to the amount and the dificulty of monsters, number of rooms, traps, puzzles, etc... And i dont rly believe the rewards/xp will be given if u take 1h or 10mins to make that mission.
I was just earlier metion in my post how will they set the amount of XP people get in a purely dialog mission (just as example) because the difuclty is all about how complex the dialog is, not how many rooms the mission have or if the monsters are elite or not.
I think we are missunderstood what crypticmapolis said about the "average time".
I think you may be right about being set by Cryptic. In their Forbes interview, the guy mentions an approval process.
"Players can select these campaigns like any other quest after they?ve been approved, and local NPC?s will serve them up alongside standard content." Forbes article.
If Cryptic has to approve every mission, then the ones that make it through should be well crafted and free of any sort of exploitative behavior as well as having their rewards perfectly tuned. Could be wishful thinking here too. lol
The officialness of a place of discussion is on a separate axis entirely, so I agree that is a better term for what you're describing.
And, Truth, the problem is in the manner in which you asked for a reference. It appears as if you invalidated my whole question because you did not believe the information it was based on was not reliable in the first place. It comes across better when it doesn't sound like you're giving a scolding.
Now, as to the question of exploiting the rewards based on time of completion question by taking extra long to do things, I of course won't know anything until the game's out, but I feel like that will take care of itself in the long run. If 100% of the population of players that completes Foundry mission X takes all 4 hours on purpose, then, yes, that's probably a certain kind of exploitation, but then not every player is going to do that on the same mission (I would presume). I would suspect most of them would complete it in a reasonable time and thus lower the average time of completion as compared to the fewer people trying to stretch the experience out. I could be wrong about that, though, so I guess we'll see.
The average is calculated and constantly adjusted from the playtimes recorded from every player who goes through that quest, so simply going AFK wouldn't necessarily increase your reward. It would take a coordinated effort from many separate accounts to artificially raise the average, and as soon as it starts to be exploited, the average will adjust accordingly and fix itself. On top of this, we intend to have some kind of cap on how many hours of Foundry content you can be rewarded for per day, so no exploit can really get too far.
There are a number of other things we're doing under the hood to prevent botting and exploits, but I'm no programmer so I don't understand them
Glad to hear measures are being taken into account, we can all rest easy guys, Cryptic's got it!
Consensus time everybody:
Should I include a section that would mention the Foundry XP and exploit prevention in the FAQ or is that too confusing and/or too esoteric for "New Users?"