The foundry is a feature that all dungeon masters want to get their hands in.. if there are controls placed on the foundry to make the complainers happy, honestly, that would probably take the fun out of the foundry, and the entire game is less appealing.. If it isnt an environment where you are free to create as you wish, that isnt dungeons and dragons. That is a game breaker. as for what qualifiies as something that would satisfy the requirements of a daily, without causing a general riot, my best suggestion is that none of them qualify for a daily. end of problem.
As you say, the problem is not with the tool but with the way they attach rewards to the missions. Now, certain types of rewards work pretty well: the standard xp and loot you get from the NPCs you kill in the missions. However it is the rewards that go beyond that which are subjective and require a real discussion about ways to avoid exploitation.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited August 2012
I really don't think it's worth being so hostile about something that has not yet come to pass.
My personal hope is that when Foundry missions are created they could be rewarded on a variety of aspects such as...
-Average Completion time
-Average damage taken by players
-The amount of damage dealt by players
-The amount of area unveiled by the players
-Difficulty of puzzles (voted on by the foundry reviewers Cryptomopolis mentioned)
-Rating
Players thankfully can't set their own rewards but Cryptic also can't hand pick rewards for each foundry creation either. A longer, harder and even puzzle filled quest should reward adequately for the time compared to a simple walk in, kill a monster, get a reward quest.
Furthermore I think it would be nice to see a time limitation feature added which prevented players from farming the same foundry content over and over again. Perhaps following the completion of a foundry mission if you redo it immediately afterwards you will only get 30% of the actual reward but for each day you don't play that same content the reward will increase 10%.
Therefore you can only get 100% reward once per week on repeated content.
That's my idea of an ideal system to prevent abuse, exploits and content farming...
It's not perfect but it's better than just allowing flat rate quests.
I don't think Cryptic should discriminate against short content outright, but it should be rewarded adequately. I hope the foundry reviewers (not player reviewers) will be given some power in suggesting certain quest's rewards are properly re-balanced compared to the standard system.
Allow me to interject here on the issue of Foudry missions as fast-passes for dailies.
My thought is that if there is a perceived need for a shortcut, it means that there is a problem systemic to the game itself. The reason why people want a quick pass is because there is a daily mission in the STO to complete three foundry missions, for a reward that is very much needed in almost every aspect of the game. Cryptic's thinking was, if we attach a reward to this, it will encourage more people to play foundry missions. The encouragement should have been for players to play foundry missions for the sake of the missions. But because they have attached a reward, the reward has become the goal.
to that end, some of the very ones who seek just the reward, learned enough of the Foundry to put together fast-track missions just to speed through and get the reward.
It is my hope that Cryptic will not make the same mistake in Neverwinter. No daily quests to complete x number of Foundry quests. If Foundry Missions are included as part of some sort of grind for a reward, then there will be those who will seek the path of least resistance.
By the way... I retract my earlier statement that we should be able to have as many treasure chests in our maps as we want. I see the wisdom of only allowing one.
I'm not really a John Galt,
but I play one on the forums...
:P
The encouragement should have been for players to play foundry missions for the sake of the missions. But because they have attached a reward, the reward has become the goal.
I am neither a player who plays just for the sake of the reward or a player who plays just for the sake of the mission; I play for both. I want to be able to play a mission that I enjoy for the storytelling, but I also want to be rewarded(in whatever reward system that game uses) proportionate to the amount of time I just spent. It shouldnt have to be one or the other.
And that is why I support rewards being based on average completion time. Why average? Because this means there is nothing you personally can do to game the system. You cant just waste time and go AFK and get a bigger reward. But if a mission takes 1 hour to play on average, it will give a better reward than a mission that takes 5 mins to complete on average. Initial averages can be based on the first 5 people to review it, then then an auto adjust as more people play it once its live. To prevent any 1 mission from being abused, there could be a cooldown on getting rewards from the same mission in a certain amount of time.
I don't mind having rewards attached to foundry. But when you assign a bonus reward to a repeatable daily official mission for completing X number of Foundry missions, it suddenly becomes an exercise in grinding those foundry missions as fast as possible to get the reward for doing the daily. Dilithium Ore is one of the most sought-after commodities in STO. And that's the reward for completing the daily "Officer Report" mission.
These fast-pass foundry missions are designed to cater to those who just want the dilithium and who couldn't care less about the missions themselves.
So I maintain that Cryptic should avoid repeating the same approach with Neverwinter.
I'm not really a John Galt,
but I play one on the forums...
:P
I don't mind having rewards attached to foundry. But when you assign a bonus reward to a repeatable daily official mission for completing X number of Foundry missions, it suddenly becomes an exercise in grinding those foundry missions as fast as possible to get the reward for doing the daily. Dilithium Ore is one of the most sought-after commodities in STO. And that's the reward for completing the daily "Officer Report" mission.
These fast-pass foundry missions are designed to cater to those who just want the dilithium and who couldn't care less about the missions themselves.
So I maintain that Cryptic should avoid repeating the same approach with Neverwinter.
As long as the mission reward scales to average completion time, there wont be a problem.
According to what Mapolis has told us, NW's foundry uses the same review system that STO's does. Therefore, the problems that exist with STO's review system are likely to be problems with NW's.
...
It has never been said in any interview or by crypticmapolis yet, that there would be daily rewards or buffs for completing 3 foundry missions. Also the fact you can start foundry right away after download unlike STO, means their business model for NW foundry is different.
0
zebularMember, Neverwinter Moderator, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 15,270Community Moderator
It has never been said in any interview or by crypticmapolis yet, that there would be daily rewards or buffs for completing 3 foundry missions. Also the fact you can start foundry right away after download unlike STO, means their business model for NW foundry is different.
Indeed. Having played around with STO's foundry and then watching the NWO Foundry interview videos and presentations, I can see that the NWO Foundry -- while still very similar looking -- has evolved quite a bit. I wonder if STO's foundry will get updated after NWO is released. I'm almost willing to bet it will.
It has never been said in any interview or by crypticmapolis yet, that there would be daily rewards or buffs for completing 3 foundry missions. Also the fact you can start foundry right away after download unlike STO, means their business model for NW foundry is different.
What "buffs" are you talking about? Also, what does the business model have to do with how the foundry review system works? Anyway, like I said in the post you quoted, I hope I'm wrong. I hope they have figured out some way to actually deal with this problem before NW launches. In which case, all of this discussion will be for naught. But just in case they havent, discussing ideas of how to prevent those kinds of problems will hopefully help them.
That is exactly what I am trying to say. Only EULA is something recognizable. Aesthetics of the quests differ. Haven't you heard, beauty lies in the eye of beholder? The failing system would fail in first few days. People will be failing content because "Its too cute, its stupid", "This is too tough", "This doesn't give me loot", "The author is worth ...." etc.
As long as you don't have any guidelines, what can you judge anyways?
Also, as you say, not everyone should be allowed to see it. I want to point out that you are free not to see it. Just play only high rated missions and not the 1 rated missions. If you are playing 1 rated missions, it definitely means you are looking for a surprize or diamond in the rough. Or you are a free thinker who doesn't trust the opinions of others. As simple as that.
If the review system is robust, a few failures for "being too cute and stupid" should not impact the eventual passing of a quest, they might slow down its passing, but if enough people fail the quest for "being too cute and stupid" then the quest should not be passed. Representative democracy at work, the reviewer pool is representative of the entire playerbase, why should their opinions not matter about what is and isn't allowed onto the live servers??
So yes, I have no guidelines for passing or failing a quest, I will simply know a failed quest when I play it. But if I routinely fail quests that later go on to become 5 star, my worth as a content evaluator should be adjusted.
This is a thorny issue. In my view we may have to permit some exploits to exist.
The STO "panel clicking" triad of quests is obviously an exploit. But a quest could be nearly as easy and still be legit. It could also be created for the purpose of an exploit but meant to look legit. How could you know?
We can't know, nor do we need to know. We can fail quests for any reason that we wish to. The community will get the kinds of quests that they want. Perhaps the review pool will be full of those who wish the foundry to be full of these exploit quests, we can hope that it is not, but if this does occur it would be neither right nor wrong, it would be what the community wishes their content to be.
The foundry is a feature that all dungeon masters want to get their hands in.. if there are controls placed on the foundry to make the complainers happy, honestly, that would probably take the fun out of the foundry, and the entire game is less appealing.. If it isnt an environment where you are free to create as you wish, that isnt dungeons and dragons. That is a game breaker. as for what qualifiies as something that would satisfy the requirements of a daily, without causing a general riot, my best suggestion is that none of them qualify for a daily. end of problem.
Creation should not be stifled but I for one do not wish to see these click through quests at the top of the lists. They can be created of course, but they should not pass.
... but if enough people fail the quest for "being too cute and stupid" then the quest should not be passed. Representative democracy at work, the reviewer pool is representative of the entire playerbase, why should their opinions not matter about what is and isn't allowed onto the live servers??
So yes, I have no guidelines for passing or failing a quest, I will simply know a failed quest when I play it. But if I routinely fail quests that later go on to become 5 star, my worth as a content evaluator should be adjusted.
...
Think on it again. It will cause much much more problems than it will solve. Democracy is not only about following the will of majority but also about protecting the rights and freedom of minorities. But digressing into politics anymore would be a violation of T&C so lets not discuss regarding that.
EULA and T&C etc. are important than your and mine subjective feelings because they are a contract which is agreed on by parties.
Also, remember that nobody likes imposition of somebody else's will on his or her creative work. The reason EULA is there because the creator has agreed on the contract before creating the content. What you are suggesting is very unfair to creators.
EDIT: Even outrageously unfair on a second reading...
EDIT: I upgraded it to outrageously unfair as most of the greatest pieces of art were unappreciated as soon as they were created, even criticised unfairly. It was only later that those works of art became legend.
EDIT: Also, in case people missed, this is dev reply to my quest. So the way system is designed now is much better:-
Originally Posted by gillrmn My concern regarding this is very specific. Namely, will the criteria to allow foundry quests allow flavor quests to be included?
Absolutely! The reviewer system is primarily to weed out quests that exploit, grief, or otherwise violate the EULA... Not to judge overall quality. A newly published quest must be rated by at least 5 reviewers before it's available to the public, but even if all 5 give it a 1-star rating, it should pass the initial review stage.
If the review system is robust, a few failures for "being too cute and stupid" should not impact the eventual passing of a quest, they might slow down its passing, but if enough people fail the quest for "being too cute and stupid" then the quest should not be passed.
Your use of the terms "pass" and "fail" suggest you do not understand how the review system works, so I'll try to clear it up for you. There are 2 tabs on the side of the foundry interface:
1) Community authored: all missions which have passed review.
2) Review content: brand new missions which have not yet passed review
For a new mission to be moved to the community authored tab, it has to have 5 plays. But here is the part you seem confused on: there is no "pass" or "fail". After you play a mission you get a chance to rate it from 1 to 5 stars, and write a review. But no matter what rating you give it or review you write, your review still counts as one of the 5 plays it needs to be moved. Even if every single one of the 5 people who play that mission give it 1 star and say it is the worst mission they have ever played, it will still automatically move to the community authored tab after it has 5 reviews.
The ONLY exception is if a mission breaks the rules there is an option to report it. However, even if you report it as inappropriate, it still remains in game until a dev does something about it. And if you report something as inappropriate and it doesnt actually break any rules, you will get in trouble(for repeat offenses).
Think on it again. It will cause much much more problems than it will solve. Democracy is not only about following the will of majority but also about protecting the rights and freedom of minorities. But digressing into politics anymore would be a violation of T&C so lets not discuss regarding that.
EULA and T&C etc. are important than your and mine subjective feelings because they are a contract which is agreed on by parties.
Also, remember that nobody likes imposition of somebody else's will on his or her creative work. The reason EULA is there because the creator has agreed on the contract before creating the content. What you are suggesting is very unfair to creators.
EDIT: Even outrageously unfair on a second reading...
EDIT: I upgraded it to outrageously unfair as most of the greatest pieces of art were unappreciated as soon as they were created, even criticised unfairly. It was only later that those works of art became legend.
EDIT: Also, in case people missed, this is dev reply to my quest. So the way system is designed now is much better:-
Absolutely! The reviewer system is primarily to weed out quests that exploit, grief, or otherwise violate the EULA... Not to judge overall quality. A newly published quest must be rated by at least 5 reviewers before it's available to the public, but even if all 5 give it a 1-star rating, it should pass the initial review stage.
But should a quest pass if it gets 5 zero star reviews??
There has not yet been a true implementation of democracy anywhere on this planet, we can only wait and hope...
I agree that creativity and the motives behind creation are highly personal. All creations should have the capability of being experienced. I expect a non-exclusive membership to the foundry review system would ensure this function. BUT, when it comes to the live servers and the PUBLIC VIEW OF THE GAME, the highest standards for quality should come into play. These standards are incapable of being known, however they are inherent within all of us, all we have to do is pass or fail based on our own internal metrics.
I am aware of the latency between the creation of a work of art and its appreciation by the masses, but I don't think that should be a justification for the allowance of click through dailies onto the foundry quest selection screen.
Your use of the terms "pass" and "fail" suggest you do not understand how the review system works, so I'll try to clear it up for you. There are 2 tabs on the side of the foundry interface:
1) Community authored: all missions which have passed review.
2) Review content: brand new missions which have not yet passed review
For a new mission to be moved to the community authored tab, it has to have 5 plays. But here is the part you seem confused on: there is no "pass" or "fail". After you play a mission you get a chance to rate it from 1 to 5 stars, and write a review. But no matter what rating you give it or review you write, your review still counts as one of the 5 plays it needs to be moved. Even if every single one of the 5 people who play that mission give it 1 star and say it is the worst mission they have ever played, it will still automatically move to the community authored tab after it has 5 reviews.
The ONLY exception is if a mission breaks the rules there is an option to report it. However, even if you report it as inappropriate, it still remains in game until a dev does something about it.
Yes I must have been confused. Or perhaps the devs are confused about what it means to review user generated content. Please excuse me I have to vomit.
Yes I must have been confused. Or perhaps the devs are confused about what it means to review user generated content. Please excuse me I have to vomit.
No, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word review. When someone reviews a movie or book, they dont get to decide whether that movie actually goes to theaters or the book gets published, they simply give their opinion of it. Likewise, you dont get to decide if a mission actually goes "live", you simply get to give your opinion of it. That is what review means in this context.
But the good news is that the default search function of the foundry is "top rated", meaning missions that have tons of 1 star reviews will never show up anywhere near the top of the search.
I agree that creativity and the motives behind creation are highly personal. All creations should have the capability of being experienced. I expect a non-exclusive membership to the foundry review system would ensure this function. BUT, when it comes to the live servers and the PUBLIC VIEW OF THE GAME, the highest standards for quality should come into play.
...
I am sounding like a broken record but that is what review system is for. The comments under the content and high star rating will automatically ensure that people play the missions which are popular. This is the same system used by youtube.
No even better. You may see a few bad videos occasionally on youtube but in this mission you can actually read comments before playing it. So if the video wwas fake trailer on youtube, you will see top comments before clicking on video like "Don't click it. Its a fake."
The videos that violate EULA may be popular and may take time to get removed, but the people who post <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> or other stuff on youtube risk getting their accounts banned after warnings. The people do also abuse some users by fakely reporting stuff which does not violate EULA causing headache, but it is still a smooth system.
The system is open ended and comparitively less abusable than any other system millions of great minds on this planet can think of or implement - not to mention it has worked and stood the test of facing billions of accounts.
I am sounding like a broken record but that is what review system is for. The comments under the content and high star rating will automatically ensure that people play the missions which are popular.
It wont "ensure" it, but it will strongly "suggest" it. I mean, you can sort by highest rated and then scroll all the way to the bottom of the list and play the lowest rated mission if you actually wanted to.
No, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word review.
I think you fail to understand this game is entirely different than STO, and will require a different Foundry. I also think you fail to losr that you lost this debate at calling someone in this thread a cheater, which is what you did. The STO devs apparently disagreed with you. The reviewers disagreed with you. We disagree with you. My stout well fed beagle disagrees with you.
It's time to can this. Argue about this BS in the STO forums. Neverwinter will not work this way. Different quests. Different game. Different people in charge.
But I will let you post in my next thread, you'll find it I'm sure.
When a quest is published, it gets put into a pool of quests awaiting 5 separate reviews. These reviews come from normal players that have signed up to be a Foundry reviewer, and each review includes a star rating (1-5 stars) and a comment box for a more detailed written review.
Once the quest is reviewed 5 times and is not found to have violated the EULA, it gets put into the general pool of quests that are visible to the public. At this point, anybody can play this quest, and when they complete it they are prompted to review the quest and give it a star rating and written review. This happens for ALL players, even those who have not signed up as a reviewer.
It wont "ensure" it, but it will strongly "suggest" it. I mean, you can sort by highest rated and then scroll all the way to the bottom of the list and play the lowest rated mission if you actually wanted to.
Did you read rest of the post? Taking two lines out of context and just presenting your argument for the sake of argument is not a way for a healthy discussion.
I do not have enough patience to go on this topic but I will suggest you to check the review system on:- http://www.imdb.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.flickr.com/
and any other review website which is massively popular. Then try to understand why the devs have chosen this kind of review system for the game.
While NW will have an updated version of the foundry that is in STO, Mapolis's last post in this thread confirms it will have the same review system:
blah
Who cares? You haven't proven the STO system doesn't work. From your own description, all you've proven is the reviewers and the company doesn't agree with you. Have you ever thought you might be wrong?
If this was the only "quest series" you could mention that was an exploit, then that's a pretty good system!
If you think that makes him a "cheater", you are entitled to your opinion, but I never used that word.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited August 2012
I was typing this reply when my system decided to "update now" my security software and reboot. When it rebooted my software was locked and this topic got unanswered until today. I'll answer the replies from yesterday here:
I wasn't replying earlier exactly due to this worry that inflamed responses and accusations on people's interpretations would happen over something considered "passionate" for both NWO and STO. Personally, I don't care what people think and don't care what people say or meant as long as the line isn't crossed into libel (or slander if it's voice.)
I don't see me being called as a "cheater" I see that as interpreted as others or asking if that's what I meant (but will agree it was bad form to suggest it no matter how it was "asked,") and ask you not to "attack me" or "defend me" unless Cryptic wants to make an official comment on the STO foundry "quick missions" here. This attitude resulting from all sides is why I didn't want to talk about STO here, and I hope you understand if I choose minimal to no replies if we're using this language observed.
Long story short, it matters what Cryptic chooses to enforce on the STO side and to see what the new updates do in the NWO Foundry in regards to stopping exploits as well as how the "review before release to the gen pop" handles any "violations" reported as well as how "clear violations on approved games" are also handled.
As to the "Rate 1-5 stars review after the gane has been approved ands released." Whether that means low-rated games will be pulled for NWO, and/or these practices will flow back to STO or now we will see.
But it all comes down to also what was noted for STO: What Cryptic decides to enforce and interpret and comment on will trump users' interpretations on both "exploits" and "bad mods that should be pulled since they play so poorly."
Short of any further comment from Cryptic/PWE proper, I'm not talking about STO's missions that are fast and should be pulled or not.
That all aside, without me knowing, I had suggested this before reading this thread, so since the other user(s) suggested it, it suggests
I'm not sure that's true. Suppose you get a quest from a Well-Informed Bar Maid. You run out of the inn and up the street to the temple. "Spacebar" your way though a lot of dialogue with an archivist, go down steps to the library, click on book in bookshelf, spacebar through a few pages, go back to the temple archivist and spacebar again through more dialogue. Complete quest. Perhaps this could be done in less then a minute. However it might be some of the best knowledge discovery you've ever heard. It may give new meaning to lot of your experience in Faerun.
Now consider an exploiter. He throws together a quick quest as described above and it's really lame. However we all know that some people create some lame stuff (I'm embarrassed about some of the lame stuff I made up when I first got into rpgs), but not really an exploit.
I don't think I want people in charge of subjective decisions involving created content. Objective based metrics however are not easy wield as I showed in the example.
Maybe the best solution is to say that quests that fall below an XP threshold could not be used to satisfy daily quests (or something like that).
One of the biggest mistakes made with City of Heroes' Mission Architect was the lack of oversight on content.
The STO team seems to have made an effort to prevent this mistake by establishing player reviewers. However, when signing up to be a reviewer it says that you're only to report content that is "inappropriate", which I take to mean in violation of the ESRB's 'Teen' Rating, and for violations of the Foundry EULA.
There is another type of content that I believe that Reviewers should be able to report as well: Storyless Exploit Missions.
PROBLEM: However how do we craft a definition for what is considered an Exploit? Is killing one monster or 5 monsters or 20 monsters an exploit? Where do we draw the line? One thing is certain. Everyone will never agree on one definition.
Cryptic MUST discuss exploits, and what is going to be allowed and disallowed.
Here's my current thoughts on how to stop the exploiters dead in their tracks, as well as make it easier for gamers to find quests they DO wish to run faster than in STO:
If someone's idea of fun is to play a boring map grinding through the same mobs over and over..well who am I to tell them how to best spend their time?
A solution could be to let reviewers add a category tag to their review like
farm/grind
story heavy/RPG
combat heavy
series
short/medium/long
exploit
etc.
- Once a mission gets flagged enough it gets put into that category.
- You can pick (check off) which of those types you want to see when you go looking for Foundry quests.
If a quest gets flagged as an exploit enough times, it gets put up for review again, possibly to be reviewed by a separate 5 reviewers. If they agree that the quest is not designed the way the game is "supposed to be played, it gets looked at by a Cryptic employee, who gets final say if a quest stays or goes.
In STO's foundry the author's do not have any control over the loot that drops or the xp that is awarded. They also do not get to customize NPC stats; they simply choose from a list of NPC groups that are pre-made, and can then customize appearance. I doubt Cryptic has changed any of that, so all of those things will not really be exploitable.
The main exploit that exists within STO's foundry is the daily. For those who are not familiar with STO, there is a daily mission(created by the Devs) that requires you to play 3 foundry missions for a reward. Foundry authors have exploited this daily by creating "quickie' missions that only involve clicking a button, meaning you can literally complete the mission in 1 second.
It is unknown whether NW will have such a daily mission requiring people to complete X number of foundry missions for a reward, but considering the fact that dailies are a staple of almost every MMO, I would consider it likely.
My proposed solution is to scale mission rewards on the average time required to complete the mission. Why average? Because this means there is nothing you personally can do to game the system. You cant just waste time and go AFK and get a bigger reward. But if a mission takes 1 hour to play on average, it will give a better reward than a mission that takes 5 mins to complete on average. Initial averages can be based on the first 5 people to review it, then then an auto adjust as more people play it once its live.
Since the treasure drop is based on this at the end of a module as reported for NW's foundry, I think is makes a lot of common sense. Here's to Cryptic enforcing common sense.
A good idea for a "minimum qualifying" approved mission is completing a minimum number of gateways in a mod. That doesn't mean killing x creatures is only accepted for a "gateway" as if could be a take from a to b or solving a riddle, but by having a minimum number done (say three for example,) it makes the mod a minimum of some accomplishment. This method would mean such "encounters" could be combat, puzzle solving, role playing, exploration, etc.
Or, secondly, if we're not doing the above so you could mix action and RP and puzzle solving, you'll have to have a minimum xp amount given from a mod per the difficulty rewarded from the module per its difficulty created to qualify. So a qualifying mod would need at least 600 xp and a 30 second or less granting 50 xp would not count as one of the three.
So, by having a scaled as planed XP/loot reward based on the speed and/or difficulty of the mission, and by having daily events tied to x foundry missions played, it could disallow any that do not hit that "minimum gateway" discussed by me and nimloh.
Hopefully these suggestions, paired by what is decided as exploits and what is enforced (and clearly stating anything as an exploit and anything hotly questioned whether it is or isn't,) will put this to rest in the upcoming Foundry release, and one day (why the STO had an update in the first place outside the starbases,) can trickle back and be used for the STO Foundry as well.
(Finally, apologies to the STO community that we get the newer Foundry features in NWO first though since you had the Foundry first and should be the ones to try "new things" first, but the setup for the fantasy Cryptic engine mod is completely different than the space engine STO mod parts. But I know it will be updated as discussed here on the STO end one day.)
I plan on playing a lot of foundry quests, and making some as well. That said I will simply post this from the DDO Digital panel:
Jack Emmert: "If we do allow that (players to make treasure) then we make it so that it does not exit that campaign or adventure."
"Who cares? If you want to run a Monty Haul Campain, that is fine by us. That is your fun. Heck wizards does not care. Nobody Cares. As long as you are enjoying yourself, that is the really goal of any game. You know, as long as it does not contaminate other players."
Thus I leave you with this:
IF cryptic really wanted the content removed - it would be. It is not a players job to police other players. Play, have fun, let other people play and have fun. Think a mod is exploitative, etc. ==== Do not play it.
Now me, I was a builder/dm for a HCR RP server. I like things harsh and loot to be rare. If someone else likes fast loot, etc. it is no skin off my back.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited August 2012
You're talking a different matter here I'm afraid razorrxgdb because the discussion about the reward system on STO and the NW reward system at release WILL contaminate the rest of the players.
Content rewards as of right now, XP and Loot, will be given to be used everywhere. Content unique rewards is a feature he mentioned would be nice to add in the future.
Not playing high reward Monty Haul content because I enjoy puzzles or storylines doesn't make it fair for me to get the rewards/xp shafts players are voicing distaste for regarding the STO system.
However it seems as though NWO has a different reward set-up than STO. We don't know exactly what it will be so while I do encourage you all to voice your opinions on what it should be like and state what you don't like about the STO system so we can hope for a better system in NWO let's remain civil.
We don't fully know what to expect from NW and that's scary but let's stop speaking as if this is STO with a graphical overhaul. We've already been told it won't be and have already been told some major differences just in the fact rewards will be handled completely differently.
Please, continue to voice opinions and concerns but remember this is the NWO forums. If you want to bash the STO Foundry and playing habits it would be better served to be discussed on the STO Forums.
We've lost quite a few great posts to the last few pages of, sorry to say, slander. Did anybody post any new news releases that I might have missed since page 10 or so?
This is all very interesting, but let us imagine ourselves as new players to the MMO genre, and perhaps to DND as well. We click on the Foundry and what do we see?? Will it be mostly garbage or quality?????????????????
This is all very interesting, but let us imagine ourselves as new players to the MMO genre, and perhaps to DND as well. We click on the Foundry and what do we see?? Will it be mostly garbage or quality?????????????????
It is my opinion that without the daily farming reward mechanic that exists in STO, the foundry will produce some excellent content. Look at what we were able to create in NWN1 and NWN2.
I feel that the cream will rise to the top and we will see some amazing content. Sure there will be sub par stuff, crappy stuff and just plain garbage, but there will also be amazing jewels, and that my friend is reason enough to be excited IMO.
Comments
As you say, the problem is not with the tool but with the way they attach rewards to the missions. Now, certain types of rewards work pretty well: the standard xp and loot you get from the NPCs you kill in the missions. However it is the rewards that go beyond that which are subjective and require a real discussion about ways to avoid exploitation.
My personal hope is that when Foundry missions are created they could be rewarded on a variety of aspects such as...
-Average Completion time
-Average damage taken by players
-The amount of damage dealt by players
-The amount of area unveiled by the players
-Difficulty of puzzles (voted on by the foundry reviewers Cryptomopolis mentioned)
-Rating
Players thankfully can't set their own rewards but Cryptic also can't hand pick rewards for each foundry creation either. A longer, harder and even puzzle filled quest should reward adequately for the time compared to a simple walk in, kill a monster, get a reward quest.
Furthermore I think it would be nice to see a time limitation feature added which prevented players from farming the same foundry content over and over again. Perhaps following the completion of a foundry mission if you redo it immediately afterwards you will only get 30% of the actual reward but for each day you don't play that same content the reward will increase 10%.
Therefore you can only get 100% reward once per week on repeated content.
That's my idea of an ideal system to prevent abuse, exploits and content farming...
It's not perfect but it's better than just allowing flat rate quests.
I don't think Cryptic should discriminate against short content outright, but it should be rewarded adequately. I hope the foundry reviewers (not player reviewers) will be given some power in suggesting certain quest's rewards are properly re-balanced compared to the standard system.
My thought is that if there is a perceived need for a shortcut, it means that there is a problem systemic to the game itself. The reason why people want a quick pass is because there is a daily mission in the STO to complete three foundry missions, for a reward that is very much needed in almost every aspect of the game. Cryptic's thinking was, if we attach a reward to this, it will encourage more people to play foundry missions. The encouragement should have been for players to play foundry missions for the sake of the missions. But because they have attached a reward, the reward has become the goal.
to that end, some of the very ones who seek just the reward, learned enough of the Foundry to put together fast-track missions just to speed through and get the reward.
It is my hope that Cryptic will not make the same mistake in Neverwinter. No daily quests to complete x number of Foundry quests. If Foundry Missions are included as part of some sort of grind for a reward, then there will be those who will seek the path of least resistance.
By the way... I retract my earlier statement that we should be able to have as many treasure chests in our maps as we want. I see the wisdom of only allowing one.
but I play one on the forums...
:P
I am neither a player who plays just for the sake of the reward or a player who plays just for the sake of the mission; I play for both. I want to be able to play a mission that I enjoy for the storytelling, but I also want to be rewarded(in whatever reward system that game uses) proportionate to the amount of time I just spent. It shouldnt have to be one or the other.
And that is why I support rewards being based on average completion time. Why average? Because this means there is nothing you personally can do to game the system. You cant just waste time and go AFK and get a bigger reward. But if a mission takes 1 hour to play on average, it will give a better reward than a mission that takes 5 mins to complete on average. Initial averages can be based on the first 5 people to review it, then then an auto adjust as more people play it once its live. To prevent any 1 mission from being abused, there could be a cooldown on getting rewards from the same mission in a certain amount of time.
These fast-pass foundry missions are designed to cater to those who just want the dilithium and who couldn't care less about the missions themselves.
So I maintain that Cryptic should avoid repeating the same approach with Neverwinter.
but I play one on the forums...
:P
As long as the mission reward scales to average completion time, there wont be a problem.
It has never been said in any interview or by crypticmapolis yet, that there would be daily rewards or buffs for completing 3 foundry missions. Also the fact you can start foundry right away after download unlike STO, means their business model for NW foundry is different.
Indeed. Having played around with STO's foundry and then watching the NWO Foundry interview videos and presentations, I can see that the NWO Foundry -- while still very similar looking -- has evolved quite a bit. I wonder if STO's foundry will get updated after NWO is released. I'm almost willing to bet it will.
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
What "buffs" are you talking about? Also, what does the business model have to do with how the foundry review system works? Anyway, like I said in the post you quoted, I hope I'm wrong. I hope they have figured out some way to actually deal with this problem before NW launches. In which case, all of this discussion will be for naught. But just in case they havent, discussing ideas of how to prevent those kinds of problems will hopefully help them.
If the review system is robust, a few failures for "being too cute and stupid" should not impact the eventual passing of a quest, they might slow down its passing, but if enough people fail the quest for "being too cute and stupid" then the quest should not be passed. Representative democracy at work, the reviewer pool is representative of the entire playerbase, why should their opinions not matter about what is and isn't allowed onto the live servers??
So yes, I have no guidelines for passing or failing a quest, I will simply know a failed quest when I play it. But if I routinely fail quests that later go on to become 5 star, my worth as a content evaluator should be adjusted.
We can't know, nor do we need to know. We can fail quests for any reason that we wish to. The community will get the kinds of quests that they want. Perhaps the review pool will be full of those who wish the foundry to be full of these exploit quests, we can hope that it is not, but if this does occur it would be neither right nor wrong, it would be what the community wishes their content to be.
Creation should not be stifled but I for one do not wish to see these click through quests at the top of the lists. They can be created of course, but they should not pass.
Think on it again. It will cause much much more problems than it will solve. Democracy is not only about following the will of majority but also about protecting the rights and freedom of minorities. But digressing into politics anymore would be a violation of T&C so lets not discuss regarding that.
EULA and T&C etc. are important than your and mine subjective feelings because they are a contract which is agreed on by parties.
Also, remember that nobody likes imposition of somebody else's will on his or her creative work. The reason EULA is there because the creator has agreed on the contract before creating the content. What you are suggesting is very unfair to creators.
EDIT: Even outrageously unfair on a second reading...
EDIT: I upgraded it to outrageously unfair as most of the greatest pieces of art were unappreciated as soon as they were created, even criticised unfairly. It was only later that those works of art became legend.
EDIT: Also, in case people missed, this is dev reply to my quest. So the way system is designed now is much better:-
Absolutely! The reviewer system is primarily to weed out quests that exploit, grief, or otherwise violate the EULA... Not to judge overall quality. A newly published quest must be rated by at least 5 reviewers before it's available to the public, but even if all 5 give it a 1-star rating, it should pass the initial review stage.
Your use of the terms "pass" and "fail" suggest you do not understand how the review system works, so I'll try to clear it up for you. There are 2 tabs on the side of the foundry interface:
1) Community authored: all missions which have passed review.
2) Review content: brand new missions which have not yet passed review
For a new mission to be moved to the community authored tab, it has to have 5 plays. But here is the part you seem confused on: there is no "pass" or "fail". After you play a mission you get a chance to rate it from 1 to 5 stars, and write a review. But no matter what rating you give it or review you write, your review still counts as one of the 5 plays it needs to be moved. Even if every single one of the 5 people who play that mission give it 1 star and say it is the worst mission they have ever played, it will still automatically move to the community authored tab after it has 5 reviews.
The ONLY exception is if a mission breaks the rules there is an option to report it. However, even if you report it as inappropriate, it still remains in game until a dev does something about it. And if you report something as inappropriate and it doesnt actually break any rules, you will get in trouble(for repeat offenses).
But should a quest pass if it gets 5 zero star reviews??
There has not yet been a true implementation of democracy anywhere on this planet, we can only wait and hope...
I agree that creativity and the motives behind creation are highly personal. All creations should have the capability of being experienced. I expect a non-exclusive membership to the foundry review system would ensure this function. BUT, when it comes to the live servers and the PUBLIC VIEW OF THE GAME, the highest standards for quality should come into play. These standards are incapable of being known, however they are inherent within all of us, all we have to do is pass or fail based on our own internal metrics.
I am aware of the latency between the creation of a work of art and its appreciation by the masses, but I don't think that should be a justification for the allowance of click through dailies onto the foundry quest selection screen.
Yes I must have been confused. Or perhaps the devs are confused about what it means to review user generated content. Please excuse me I have to vomit.
No, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word review. When someone reviews a movie or book, they dont get to decide whether that movie actually goes to theaters or the book gets published, they simply give their opinion of it. Likewise, you dont get to decide if a mission actually goes "live", you simply get to give your opinion of it. That is what review means in this context.
But the good news is that the default search function of the foundry is "top rated", meaning missions that have tons of 1 star reviews will never show up anywhere near the top of the search.
I am sounding like a broken record but that is what review system is for. The comments under the content and high star rating will automatically ensure that people play the missions which are popular. This is the same system used by youtube.
No even better. You may see a few bad videos occasionally on youtube but in this mission you can actually read comments before playing it. So if the video wwas fake trailer on youtube, you will see top comments before clicking on video like "Don't click it. Its a fake."
The videos that violate EULA may be popular and may take time to get removed, but the people who post <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> or other stuff on youtube risk getting their accounts banned after warnings. The people do also abuse some users by fakely reporting stuff which does not violate EULA causing headache, but it is still a smooth system.
The system is open ended and comparitively less abusable than any other system millions of great minds on this planet can think of or implement - not to mention it has worked and stood the test of facing billions of accounts.
It wont "ensure" it, but it will strongly "suggest" it. I mean, you can sort by highest rated and then scroll all the way to the bottom of the list and play the lowest rated mission if you actually wanted to.
I think you fail to understand this game is entirely different than STO, and will require a different Foundry. I also think you fail to losr that you lost this debate at calling someone in this thread a cheater, which is what you did. The STO devs apparently disagreed with you. The reviewers disagreed with you. We disagree with you. My stout well fed beagle disagrees with you.
It's time to can this. Argue about this BS in the STO forums. Neverwinter will not work this way. Different quests. Different game. Different people in charge.
But I will let you post in my next thread, you'll find it I'm sure.
TYRS PALADIUM - A Premier Neverwinter Online Guild
No Drama. Camaraderie. TEAM Focus. That's the TYRS way. If that's your style, come join us!
Research our Guild here: Read our official Recruitment thread | Sign up here: Tyrs Guild Website! | NEVERWINTER GUILD LEADERS: Join the Fellowship!
While NW will have an updated version of the foundry that is in STO, Mapolis's last post in this thread confirms it will have the same review system:
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=168001#post168001
That is exactly the way I described it in my previous post:
http://nw-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=169791&postcount=193
So as you can see, despite the fact that STO and NW are 2 different games, the way the reviews work is the same.
Did you read rest of the post? Taking two lines out of context and just presenting your argument for the sake of argument is not a way for a healthy discussion.
I do not have enough patience to go on this topic but I will suggest you to check the review system on:-
http://www.imdb.com/
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.flickr.com/
and any other review website which is massively popular. Then try to understand why the devs have chosen this kind of review system for the game.
Yes I did, and the rest of your post was accurate, so I did not need to correct anything beyond the part I quoted.
Who cares? You haven't proven the STO system doesn't work. From your own description, all you've proven is the reviewers and the company doesn't agree with you. Have you ever thought you might be wrong?
If this was the only "quest series" you could mention that was an exploit, then that's a pretty good system!
TYRS PALADIUM - A Premier Neverwinter Online Guild
No Drama. Camaraderie. TEAM Focus. That's the TYRS way. If that's your style, come join us!
Research our Guild here: Read our official Recruitment thread | Sign up here: Tyrs Guild Website! | NEVERWINTER GUILD LEADERS: Join the Fellowship!
Those who do not want to see similar exploit missions in NW.
Neither do I, but you are going about it the wrong way here by calling someone a cheater. And yes you did, call someone a cheater.
TYRS PALADIUM - A Premier Neverwinter Online Guild
No Drama. Camaraderie. TEAM Focus. That's the TYRS way. If that's your style, come join us!
Research our Guild here: Read our official Recruitment thread | Sign up here: Tyrs Guild Website! | NEVERWINTER GUILD LEADERS: Join the Fellowship!
If you are referring to iamtruthseeker, he freely admitted he did the exploit missions:
If you think that makes him a "cheater", you are entitled to your opinion, but I never used that word.
I wasn't replying earlier exactly due to this worry that inflamed responses and accusations on people's interpretations would happen over something considered "passionate" for both NWO and STO. Personally, I don't care what people think and don't care what people say or meant as long as the line isn't crossed into libel (or slander if it's voice.)
I don't see me being called as a "cheater" I see that as interpreted as others or asking if that's what I meant (but will agree it was bad form to suggest it no matter how it was "asked,") and ask you not to "attack me" or "defend me" unless Cryptic wants to make an official comment on the STO foundry "quick missions" here. This attitude resulting from all sides is why I didn't want to talk about STO here, and I hope you understand if I choose minimal to no replies if we're using this language observed.
Long story short, it matters what Cryptic chooses to enforce on the STO side and to see what the new updates do in the NWO Foundry in regards to stopping exploits as well as how the "review before release to the gen pop" handles any "violations" reported as well as how "clear violations on approved games" are also handled.
As to the "Rate 1-5 stars review after the gane has been approved ands released." Whether that means low-rated games will be pulled for NWO, and/or these practices will flow back to STO or now we will see.
But it all comes down to also what was noted for STO: What Cryptic decides to enforce and interpret and comment on will trump users' interpretations on both "exploits" and "bad mods that should be pulled since they play so poorly."
Short of any further comment from Cryptic/PWE proper, I'm not talking about STO's missions that are fast and should be pulled or not.
That all aside, without me knowing, I had suggested this before reading this thread, so since the other user(s) suggested it, it suggests
And I suggested before reading this thread in How to fortify the Foundry from exploiters (before reading the above quoted reply:)
So, by having a scaled as planed XP/loot reward based on the speed and/or difficulty of the mission, and by having daily events tied to x foundry missions played, it could disallow any that do not hit that "minimum gateway" discussed by me and nimloh.
Hopefully these suggestions, paired by what is decided as exploits and what is enforced (and clearly stating anything as an exploit and anything hotly questioned whether it is or isn't,) will put this to rest in the upcoming Foundry release, and one day (why the STO had an update in the first place outside the starbases,) can trickle back and be used for the STO Foundry as well.
(Finally, apologies to the STO community that we get the newer Foundry features in NWO first though since you had the Foundry first and should be the ones to try "new things" first, but the setup for the fantasy Cryptic engine mod is completely different than the space engine STO mod parts. But I know it will be updated as discussed here on the STO end one day.)
Jack Emmert: "If we do allow that (players to make treasure) then we make it so that it does not exit that campaign or adventure."
"Who cares? If you want to run a Monty Haul Campain, that is fine by us. That is your fun. Heck wizards does not care. Nobody Cares. As long as you are enjoying yourself, that is the really goal of any game. You know, as long as it does not contaminate other players."
Thus I leave you with this:
IF cryptic really wanted the content removed - it would be. It is not a players job to police other players. Play, have fun, let other people play and have fun. Think a mod is exploitative, etc. ==== Do not play it.
Now me, I was a builder/dm for a HCR RP server. I like things harsh and loot to be rare. If someone else likes fast loot, etc. it is no skin off my back.
Content rewards as of right now, XP and Loot, will be given to be used everywhere. Content unique rewards is a feature he mentioned would be nice to add in the future.
Not playing high reward Monty Haul content because I enjoy puzzles or storylines doesn't make it fair for me to get the rewards/xp shafts players are voicing distaste for regarding the STO system.
However it seems as though NWO has a different reward set-up than STO. We don't know exactly what it will be so while I do encourage you all to voice your opinions on what it should be like and state what you don't like about the STO system so we can hope for a better system in NWO let's remain civil.
We don't fully know what to expect from NW and that's scary but let's stop speaking as if this is STO with a graphical overhaul. We've already been told it won't be and have already been told some major differences just in the fact rewards will be handled completely differently.
Please, continue to voice opinions and concerns but remember this is the NWO forums. If you want to bash the STO Foundry and playing habits it would be better served to be discussed on the STO Forums.
We've lost quite a few great posts to the last few pages of, sorry to say, slander. Did anybody post any new news releases that I might have missed since page 10 or so?
It is my opinion that without the daily farming reward mechanic that exists in STO, the foundry will produce some excellent content. Look at what we were able to create in NWN1 and NWN2.
I feel that the cream will rise to the top and we will see some amazing content. Sure there will be sub par stuff, crappy stuff and just plain garbage, but there will also be amazing jewels, and that my friend is reason enough to be excited IMO.