I agree, Cryptic's current 5 member panel process does far too little to abate exploiters. It must be improved upon before Neverwinter launches.
As for ensuring every quest be held in limbo for a month, what else can be done? One method I can think of is to employ my method, which should give both panels and the Cryptic reps ample time to review the quest.
What is your method? By limbo I meant time spent in the foundry selection process where even if a quest did receive 5 or more reviews, if it has not been in the hopper for at least a month it cannot move onto the live servers. It would certainly cause issues for people with no patience but would go a long ways to ensure quality. I'm just assuming that most quests without this limbo time would pass in hours or days. Given the nature of the internet.
0
Options
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
I agree, Cryptic's current 5 member panel process does far too little to abate exploiters. It must be improved upon before Neverwinter launches.
As for ensuring every quest be held in limbo for a month, what else can be done? One method I can think of is to employ my method, which should give both panels and the Cryptic reps ample time to review the quest.
I hope the Foundry Reviewers can do this job.
Simply put the Foundry Reviewers position should be a job that has to be earned and maintained. Some time after launch I hope they limit the amount of people with the position and take care to make sure such reviewers remain active players.
Since the game will be new we should expect a large amount of players getting the position, even those who truly shouldn't get it, but over time that should be corrected. If it's not and players end up making smurfs to be official foundry reviewers (which as far as I know are not the general public) then something will have gone horribly wrong.
What is your method? By limbo I meant time spent in the foundry selection process where even if a quest did receive 5 or more reviews, if it has not been in the hopper for at least a month it cannot move onto the live servers. It would certainly cause issues for people with no patience but would go a long ways to ensure quality. I'm just assuming that most quests without this limbo time would pass in hours or days. Given the nature of the internet.
My method is in the OP in this color. I was assuming it was a pre-selected 5 member panel that reviewed new quests. The fact that anyone can review a quest is not a good method. I think panel members should be entrusted members of the community. That's what my method is. Two pre-selected 5 member panels, and a Cryptic rep. The panel members can change every two months, to lessen the chances of a reviewer being "on the take."
As for the rest of it I absolutely agree. There are other ways to handle it without a doubt but vote-kicking would be the best for in game dungeons.
In a game as complex as Neverwinter I believe there could/should be 3 systems.
1. The in game party system Andre explained.
2. A foundry mechanic which works extremely similar to the player report but should be UGC specific. Also this reporting should not be only about reporting rule breaking content but also reporting content which is over/under rewarded, has glitches for whatever reason (not necessarily rule breaking) or is in any other way broken.
3. A general reporting feature for users who are breaking the EULA inside the general area.
All three of these are too different in my opinion to be handled under one roof unless the one roof is simply a means to redirect to the appropriate selections. A report for UGC shouldn't be confined to EULA issues just as reporting shouldn't be limited to being in a party alone.
To me if reports are just that, reports, they don't tend to get the proper respect they deserve. If reports are categorized it's more likely that the player can get their "feedback" received without being considered a false report.
I support this setup since it covers multiple areas and is not one way and has less potential for failure with multiple options.
My method is in the OP in this color. I was assuming it was a pre-selected 5 member panel that reviewed new quests. The fact that anyone can review a quest is not a good method. I think panel members should be entrusted members of the community. That's what my method is. Two pre-selected 5 member panels, and a Cryptic rep. The panel members can change every two months, to lessen the chances of a reviewer being "on the take."
I think you vastly underestimate the amount of missions there will be. Even if they did it full time, 10 people would not be able to review missions in a timely fashion. Before long there would be a huge back log.
0
Options
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I think you vastly underestimate the amount of missions there will be. Even if they did it full time, 10 people would not be able to review missions in a timely fashion. Before long there would be a huge back log.
Yep, think several thousand to start and tens of thousands to end out.
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited August 2012
Thousands indeed.
Remember any Foundry Reviewing position is going to be a volunteer service. It's not like they will be getting paid to play what will likely be a lot of "Blah" quests and I am absolutely positive it will get tedious.
We'll need plenty of Foundry Reviewers but after initial release hopefully content creation will slow down so that it's a position that will be fairly limited and weeded of any who seek to exploit the system.
Yep, think several thousand to start and thens of thousands to end out.
Still, if they just monitored all ugc average reward/exp/completion time etc stats, and then put down a few filters so that anything that is too short or unnaturally rewarding gets auto-flagged for review by the dev team, it could be feasible. I mean, the foundry missions are gonna be a lot, sure, but the number of exploits is not gonna be that huge that 5 ppl and a few carefully picked filters can't deal with it.
Remember any Foundry Reviewing position is going to be a volunteer service. It's not like they will be getting paid to play what will likely be a lot of "Blah" quests and I am absolutely positive it will get tedious.
We'll need plenty of Foundry Reviewers but after initial release hopefully content creation will slow down so that it's a position that will be fairly limited and weeded of any who seek to exploit the system.
How many is "plenty?"
10? 20? 30? Lets pick the team. That's my first panel. The second panel can be used for flagged content.
I promise you, if we DONT have a system of checks and balances upon launch... it will be a clusterbunk forever.
Still, if they just monitored all ugc average reward/exp/completion time etc stats, and then put down a few filters so that anything that is too short or unnaturally rewarding gets auto-flagged for review by the dev team, it could be feasible. I mean, the foundry missions are gonna be a lot, sure, but the number of exploits is not gonna be that huge that 5 ppl and a few carefully picked filters can't deal with it.
As long as Cryptic sets standards for what is and is not acceptable for content there shouldn't be a problem.
Foundry Reviewers are not the general public...it's sort of like being a moderator. It will be a volunteer position and if players with such a position continually put exploitable content in game their position will (should) be taken away.
Five people against the world.
As long as the standards are clearly defined five people stand no chance against the world. Sure the content may get into the game for a while but they'll lose their privileges.
People will always try to find ways around the system...wait a second that's what this entire discussion is about! But as long as they aren't repeatedly allowed to get around the system it shouldn't be a problem.
The Program ("Star Trek Online") contains certain design, programming and processing utilities, tools, assets and other resources ("The Foundry") for use with the Program that allow you to create customized new game levels and other related game materials for personal use in connection with the Program ("New Game Materials"). The use of the Foundry is subject to the following additional license restrictions:
New Game Materials may be created only if such New Game Materials can be used exclusively in combination with the online version of the Program. New Game Materials may not be designed to be used as a stand-alone product.
New Game Materials you create using the Foundry are subject to the following rules and restrictions:
Star Trek Properties are defined as including:
Star Trek - The Original Series
Star Trek - The Next Generation
Star Trek - Deep Space Nine
Star Trek - Voyager
Star Trek - Enterprise
Star Trek - The Motion Picture
Star Trek II - The Wrath of Kahn
Star Trek III - The Search for Spock
Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home
Star Trek V - The Final Frontier
Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country
Star Trek - Generations
Star Trek - First Contact
Star Trek - Insurrection
Star Trek - Nemesis
New Game Materials may utilize the Star Trek Properties as provided by CBS and Cryptic Studios unless otherwise specified in the Prohibited Section below. You may use the names of characters (past or present) from the Star Trek Properties.
Prohibited Uses of the Star Trek Properties:
You may not use the first or last names, likenesses, or other depictions of any actors appearing in, or writers, directors, or producers of the Star Trek Properties.
You may not use copyrighted content from the Properties, including but not limited to web content, promotional materials (posters, advertisements) or existing licensed merchandise (novels, trading cards, figurines).
Other Prohibited uses of New Game Materials published using The Foundry:
You may not use New Game Materials to endorse or appose any political party, association (e.g., republican, democrat, candidates, or otherwise) or any side of any issue.
You may not use New Game Materials to depict a likeness of any real person (historical or present day).
You may not use New Game Materials to advertise any businesses, products or services of any party.
You may not publish web URLs in your content.
You may not use New Game Materials to convey any profanity, vulgar, hate language explicit sexual language, derogatory references to race, gender, religion, age, mental or physical impairment, obesity or sexual orientation, or reference any drugs (legal or illicit) or medication.
You many not make use of any copyrighted or trademarked material of third parties, and only may use the Star Trek Properties as explicitly defined in this agreement, without irrevocable licenses granted specifically for that purpose
You may not use New Game Materials to infringe on the rights of privacy and publicity of third parties.
Cryptic Studios and CBS reserve the right to remove any New Game Materials for any reason at any time, without providing cause or recompense.
You agree that, all New Game Materials produced using the Foundry becomes the property of Cryptic Studios, to use as they see fit.
As a condition to your using the Foundry, you will not use or allow third parties to use the Foundry or New Game Materials created by you for any commercial purposes, including but not limited to selling, renting, leasing, licensing, distributing, or otherwise transferring the ownership of such New Game Materials, whether on a standalone basis or packaged in combination with the New Game Materials created by others, through any and all distribution channels, including, without limitation, retail sales and on-line electronic distribution. You agree not to solicit, initiate or encourage any proposal or offer from any person or entity to create any New Game Materials for comercial distribution. You agree to promptly inform Cryptic Studios in writing of any instances of your receipt of any such proposal or offer. If you decide to make available the use of the New Game Materials created by you to other gamers, you agree to do so solely without charge.
If you sign up to be a Reviewer then you have another EULA that you must agree to as well:
Community Authored Content Reviewer - End User License Agreement
By signing up to be a Reviewer for the Star Trek Online Foundry, you are agreeing to be exposed to unreviewed community authored content. Such content will likely include offensive and distasteful information. Do not accept unless you are willing to view such content. Reviewers must be over 18 years of age or older.
You agree to review content in the context of appropriateness for all ages, and for violation of the End User License Agreement (EULA) for author that can be found on the Star Trek Online web site. The other players of the game are relying on your judgment to help identify inappropriate content.
You can revoke your reviewer status at any time.
I am over 18 and wish to accept Reviewer status.
I see two problems with this:
1) A typo. It should say; "...Agreement for authors that can be found..."
2) The Foundry EULA actually isn't on the Star Trek Online website.
10? 20? 30? Lets pick the team. That's my first panel. The second panel can be used for flagged content.
I promise you, if we DONT have a system of checks and balances upon launch... it will be a clusterbunk forever.
That honestly depends on the size of the game at launch which I don't have the slightest idea to what it will be. There's quite a few active posters in these forums but I know there's got to be hundreds for each of us. I would say Cryptic should have at least 30+ (probably higher) just to start and work their way up from there at the game's release.
Sadly we know that many players will do simple junk quests when the game comes out just because it's the first content they ever created.
As for picking the team, there's a few obvious choices on the forums but I think it would be a bit arrogant of us to not think about the faces behind ours just itching to get their hands on the game who are also more than capable of the position.
Another thing to note is that there should probably be a hierarchy in the system. For those of you familiar with League of Legends you'll know that they don't have a static player authority position. Some of them have more say than others because of the quality of feedback or time spent giving feedback and I believe that's another great way to incorporate checks and balances.
Perhaps for ever 10-20 normal reviewers there should be another who might have a more intimate say in reviewing. Think of the person at work or in class who's quiet and doesn't make a fuss over anything. When that person speaks it means something.
There should probably be a lot in order to get UGC reviewed...but there should be some who are there with higher authority for quality control.
It seems like I've found a potential kink in the armor for those who are looking forward to recreating their favorite D&D campaigns or DDO quests. It will be very interesting to see what WotC considers "off the table" and if Cryptic is going to attempt to protect the property of other IPs such as DDO to circumvent lawsuits.
However, WishStone corrected that just today with this post:
Originally Posted by WishStone View Post
This goes actually against the TOS. If you rebuild an episode, you would rebuild copyrighted material. Thank you for pointing this out, I'll make sure it is addressed.
The video and page both say "Build your Own" in several places and if indeed it says somewhere "Go on and rebuild an episode", I'll have someone strike that.
So it seems that you cannot actually re-create Star Trek episodes using the Foundry.
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited August 2012
Perhaps WotC will be especially nice to us and allow us to recreate PnP D&D campaigns as long as there's a citation to the source material.
To an extent the same rules don't apply for Star Trek as the Forgotten Realms as because if I was to create Mithral Hall I couldn't do so without adding in copyrighted characters. If we are allowed to create Forgotten Realms locations some rights of their own must be given up in the process.
Could they really expect players to design content that is supposed to depict a location and have iconic people of the realms who are *supposed* to be there not be there?
However we should all know DDO holds ALL the rights to EVERY quest they developed.
In my view Wizards should extend the rights of players to redistribute wizards'/TSR's campaigns but obviously anything written and developed by other companies such as Bioware, Black Isles or Turbine as well as any novel's storyline is going to be off limits. But even that will be asking for a big favor from wizards as technically it is not ours to redistribute.
But as far as I know they'll get royalties from us playing the game so while I may be a nobody in their eyes to me it's smarter to help the game prosper than to worry about campaign rights.
Here's a question though: How can they legally word what makes a quest appropriate other than breaking the EULA? What deams a quest too short, too easy, exploitable?
Now that is a tough cookie to tackle.
That honestly depends on the size of the game at launch which I don't have the slightest idea to what it will be. There's quite a few active posters in these forums but I know there's got to be hundreds for each of us. I would say Cryptic should have at least 30+ (probably higher) just to start and work their way up from there at the game's release.
Sadly we know that many players will do simple junk quests when the game comes out just because it's the first content they ever created.
Another thing to note is that there should probably be a hierarchy in the system. For those of you familiar with League of Legends you'll know that they don't have a static player authority position. Some of them have more say than others because of the quality of feedback or time spent giving feedback and I believe that's another great way to incorporate checks and balances.
Perhaps for ever 10-20 normal reviewers there should be another who might have a more intimate say in reviewing. Think of the person at work or in class who's quiet and doesn't make a fuss over anything. When that person speaks it means something.
There should probably be a lot in order to get UGC reviewed...but there should be some who are there with higher authority for quality control.
The number of reviewers should be infinite.
Prototype quests developed by first time DMs should not make it onto the live servers unless they have passed the infinite review.
There shall be no hierarchy, because none is needed.
Unfortunately what we seem to be dealing with is a dev team that is hoping to just throw out an infinite amount of content in the hopes that they will attract the infinite playerbase.
I could be wrong about that, in fact I hope I am wrong because I would like to play a decent game, they are so few and far between these days. I think it needs to be repeated ad nauseaum that restricting access to the live servers does not have to restrict the creators urge to create. If anything a tighter review process might spur the creator to create quests of a more substantial and entertaining nature...
...
Unfortunately what we seem to be dealing with is a dev team that is hoping to just throw out an infinite amount of content in the hopes that they will attract the infinite playerbase.
...
To me, that is very fortunate. However, devs are also throwing in a lot of other things like 'different' game mechanics etc. on which I can't form an opinion yet as they have not yet be shown to my hands. But those all look very promising.
To me, that is very fortunate. However, devs are also throwing in a lot of other things like 'different' game mechanics etc. on which I can't form an opinion yet as they have not yet be shown to my hands. But those all look very promising.
Yes the Realtime Combat looks interesting although DDO was pretty close to realtime...
The content has always been there though, we have been waiting for a filter IMO.
0
Options
vindiconMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Unfortunately what we seem to be dealing with is a dev team that is hoping to just throw out an infinite amount of content in the hopes that they will attract the infinite playerbase.
Well, an infinite amount of content would not be that bad as you make it look like. I see no problem with garbage-tier quests, those will always outnumber the good ones anyway. But the good ones will inevitably rise above the rest of the lot, sooner or later. You will not have to swim through an ocean of rubbish to find them, you'll just go to the top of the rankings.
What needs to be dealt with is content that is exploiting or against the EULA. Content that is simply bad should by all means stay there - albeit on the bottom of the rankings, where it belongs - to not discourage new DMs from trying their luck with other quests and dungeons, which they would surely not do if you forcibly removed their creations for being "garbage". What do you know, they might even manage to make something good eventually!
Barely anyone gets it done right the first time anyway. I bet even R.A. Salvatore is ashamed of some of the very first stories he'd written in his teenage years, before starting to pump out the good ones.
Well, an infinite amount of content would not be that bad as you make it look like. I see no problem with garbage-tier quests, those will always outnumber the good ones anyway. But the good ones will inevitably rise above the rest of the lot, sooner or later. You will not have to swim through an ocean of rubbish to find them, you'll just go to the top of the rankings.
What needs to be dealt with is content that is exploiting or against the EULA. Content that is simply bad should by all means stay there - albeit on the bottom of the rankings, where it belongs - to not discourage new DMs from trying their luck with other quests and dungeons, which they would surely not do if you forcibly removed their creations for being "garbage". What do you know, they might even manage to make something good eventually!
Barely anyone gets it done right the first time anyway. I bet even R.A. Salvatore is ashamed of some of the very first stories he'd written in his teenage years, before starting to pump out the good ones.
So we must decide on a filter then?? User generated genre listings? Sort by most played? Time played? I suppose I could go read about how the STO Foundry filter is set up if anyone has written a report on it, I imagine Cryptic has internal documents on the subject... Anyway, just waiting for a beta key I guess lol!
Not everything that is new is good also.I personaly hate the idea of player generated content and will probably be the one thing that will prevent me from playing this game unless it will be almost perfect in every other aspect.
I am a gamer , i play games to have fun, i dont want to do the dev's job for free.Of course some will say nobody will force you to play 3rd party content if you dont want to, but other people playing it will impact me directly since you can get the same rewards from foundry generated content, and you better bet your house this idea will bring tons of exploiters who dont give 2 ****s about the game lore or difficulty balance.
0
Options
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Not everything that is new is good also.I personaly hate the idea of player generated content and will probably be the one thing that will prevent me from playing this game unless it will be almost perfect in every other aspect.
I am a gamer , i play games to have fun, i dont want to do the dev's job for free.Of course some will say nobody will force you to play 3rd party content if you dont want to, but other people playing it will impact me directly since you can get the same rewards from foundry generated content, and you better bet your house this idea will bring tons of exploiters who dont give 2 ****s about the game lore or difficulty balance.
Trust me when I say that it's not going to be perfect but will be powerful, but players need to do this that have outside perspective than those who are looking at it from a development view; and exploits are as impossible to do as with repeating employee quests, since it simply rewards XP and treasure based on the quest difficulty and time played like the employee quests.
Really, when they say the quests are indistinguishable, they are. I've seem the Foundry and regular quests played on video now. It's true.
The quickest route to max level through the foundry will be found. Whether or not this route will be deemed an exploit is up to the devs.
0
Options
jojinraiunMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2012
From watching the most recent Video Developer Diary on the Foundry, I don't really see an issue for them being exploited.
The video shows that the loot drops are based upon the encounter placed and at the present time editors have no control over such loot. So that level 10 Drow ranger you find inside User content or Developer content has the same loot table.
The only think which will most likely happen is some dungeons will be efficient monster grinds; designed so it is just round after round of dense monster placement who are weak to specific tactics. Some may think this is an exploit, but if the players are taking the time and defeating the monster grind while having fun, then no reason to stop them.
It can actually benefit those who like to enjoy the content, take their time and read stuff or role play. As those players who just want to rush through as fast as possible will most likely avoid the more intricate designed quests and go for the straight grind ones. So the odds of getting a speed player interested in a slow dungeon into the group are diminished.
Now, it may chance as they mentioned they are trying to figure out how to implement where specific rewards can be given.
0
Options
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
From watching the most recent Video Developer Diary on the Foundry, I don't really see an issue for them being exploited.
The video shows that the loot drops are based upon the encounter placed and at the present time editors have no control over such loot. So that level 10 Drow ranger you find inside User content or Developer content has the same loot table.
The only think which will most likely happen is some dungeons will be efficient monster grinds; designed so it is just round after round of dense monster placement who are weak to specific tactics. Some may think this is an exploit, but if the players are taking the time and defeating the monster grind while having fun, then no reason to stop them.
It can actually benefit those who like to enjoy the content, take their time and read stuff or role play. As those players who just want to rush through as fast as possible will most likely avoid the more intricate designed quests and go for the straight grind ones. So the odds of getting a speed player interested in a slow dungeon into the group are diminished.
Now, it may chance as they mentioned they are trying to figure out how to implement where specific rewards can be given.
I can't find it ATM, but there ARE caps as to the number of encounters you can have. There is absolutely no other way to get xp unless you spend the time and difficulty earning it like you do with a dev mission. Many encounters? We call that a "gauntlet" or "dungeon crawl"
As for the rest of the people who are still nay-sayers:
The only way to instantly defeat enemies is to be the foundry author testing it, and those features are literally not accessible to the player (and require logging out and into the game partition) as we've seen on the videos, so no way could a author make their own "quick kill" methods (short of knowing where everything is. I call that replay.) We get a totally random treasure chest based on the total game difficulty at the very very end of the mod and monsters drop stuff scaled to the player's character IF they ever drop stuff like gold and basic basic items. See STO's foundry.
So I appreciate people telling me it will be exploited, but don't see how. Based on what I have seen listed so far, if it was tested right now, I'd be pretty skeptical in finding any exploits.
I am confused how a player exploiting the foundry would ruin anyone's game play. I myself am a slow game player. I like to roam around and see the content and play the game at my pace. Typically I like to play a rogue so searching is part of my character role play. I know there are people who like to rush through to impress others. If a player is exploiting the foundry for the purpose of leveling as fast as possible, how does that hurt someones game play. Am I missing something about people exploiting the foundry that it actually will cause a problem for others?
Einstein - "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
So does that mean you can't give people items that exist solely in the foundry? Like a quest item. For instance, in Planescape:Torment you needed junk to open a portal at one point. Could I give players a valueless item that simply ties into the quest? And as to merchants, can you even make merchants? As in, can you make a city in Foundry and put merchants in it? Not to say you control the items they have, the prices, or any of the sort. As people have previously stated, those things (like loot drop/chests) would be random and dependent on level. These are questions I need answered if I plan on using foundry. I like to create massive areas and stories, not just go here, kill the dragon, and leave. I also like making places that can only be reached by having certain items, like junk. And as for puzzles, has it been detailed as to what we can do with them? Like, outside of people giving puzzles. Example (again PS:T) there's a door painted on a building, unless you're character has a high enough score of some sort or studies the painting for a long time, they'll never realize it's a real door. I was thinking something along the lines of using illusion magic for this. Kind of like the Matrix. Don't try to open the door, it's impossible. Instead, try to realize that there is no door. Seemed like a pretty simple thing to do, but since we (or at least I) don't know the extent of Foundry abilities yet, I wasn't sure if anyone had some idea to this.
The only way to instantly defeat enemies is to be the foundry author testing it, and those features are literally not accessible to the player (and require logging out and into the game partition) as we've seen on the videos, so no way could a author make their own "quick kill" methods (short of knowing where everything is. I call that replay.) We get a totally random treasure chest based on the total game difficulty at the very very end of the mod and monsters drop stuff scaled to the player's character IF they ever drop stuff like gold and basic basic items. See STO's foundry.
So I appreciate people telling me it will be exploited, but don't see how. Based on what I have seen listed so far, if it was tested right now, I'd be pretty skeptical in finding any exploits.
Are monsters something the author can choose? Or are they randomly implemented like loot and everything else? Was kinda hoping we could choose the monsters according to level at least.
Are monsters something the author can choose? Or are they randomly implemented like loot and everything else? Was kinda hoping we could choose the monsters according to level at least.
The appearence can be changed as shown by andy by changing the appearence of a mob to ghost pirate girl. But the stats can't be. So you can fight a dragon (who is actually a zombie) at lvl 1, but the powers of dragon and stats etc would be the same as zombie.
0
Options
muzrub333Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
The appearence can be changed as shown by andy by changing the appearence of a mob to ghost pirate girl. But the stats can't be. So you can fight a dragon (who is actually a zombie) at lvl 1, but the powers of dragon and stats etc would be the same as zombie.
"We'll not risk another frontal assault. That rabbits dynamite!"
Comments
What is your method? By limbo I meant time spent in the foundry selection process where even if a quest did receive 5 or more reviews, if it has not been in the hopper for at least a month it cannot move onto the live servers. It would certainly cause issues for people with no patience but would go a long ways to ensure quality. I'm just assuming that most quests without this limbo time would pass in hours or days. Given the nature of the internet.
I hope the Foundry Reviewers can do this job.
Simply put the Foundry Reviewers position should be a job that has to be earned and maintained. Some time after launch I hope they limit the amount of people with the position and take care to make sure such reviewers remain active players.
Since the game will be new we should expect a large amount of players getting the position, even those who truly shouldn't get it, but over time that should be corrected. If it's not and players end up making smurfs to be official foundry reviewers (which as far as I know are not the general public) then something will have gone horribly wrong.
My method is in the OP in this color. I was assuming it was a pre-selected 5 member panel that reviewed new quests. The fact that anyone can review a quest is not a good method. I think panel members should be entrusted members of the community. That's what my method is. Two pre-selected 5 member panels, and a Cryptic rep. The panel members can change every two months, to lessen the chances of a reviewer being "on the take."
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!
I support this setup since it covers multiple areas and is not one way and has less potential for failure with multiple options.
I think you vastly underestimate the amount of missions there will be. Even if they did it full time, 10 people would not be able to review missions in a timely fashion. Before long there would be a huge back log.
Yep, think several thousand to start and tens of thousands to end out.
Remember any Foundry Reviewing position is going to be a volunteer service. It's not like they will be getting paid to play what will likely be a lot of "Blah" quests and I am absolutely positive it will get tedious.
We'll need plenty of Foundry Reviewers but after initial release hopefully content creation will slow down so that it's a position that will be fairly limited and weeded of any who seek to exploit the system.
Still, if they just monitored all ugc average reward/exp/completion time etc stats, and then put down a few filters so that anything that is too short or unnaturally rewarding gets auto-flagged for review by the dev team, it could be feasible. I mean, the foundry missions are gonna be a lot, sure, but the number of exploits is not gonna be that huge that 5 ppl and a few carefully picked filters can't deal with it.
How many is "plenty?"
10? 20? 30? Lets pick the team. That's my first panel. The second panel can be used for flagged content.
I promise you, if we DONT have a system of checks and balances upon launch... it will be a clusterbunk forever.
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!
As long as Cryptic sets standards for what is and is not acceptable for content there shouldn't be a problem.
Foundry Reviewers are not the general public...it's sort of like being a moderator. It will be a volunteer position and if players with such a position continually put exploitable content in game their position will (should) be taken away.
Five people against the world.
As long as the standards are clearly defined five people stand no chance against the world. Sure the content may get into the game for a while but they'll lose their privileges.
People will always try to find ways around the system...wait a second that's what this entire discussion is about! But as long as they aren't repeatedly allowed to get around the system it shouldn't be a problem.
That would be a great first step. I hope they've learned and will improve upon what they've done in the past Foundries.
Let's examine STOs Foundry Terms of Use and the Reviewer EULA:
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!
That honestly depends on the size of the game at launch which I don't have the slightest idea to what it will be. There's quite a few active posters in these forums but I know there's got to be hundreds for each of us. I would say Cryptic should have at least 30+ (probably higher) just to start and work their way up from there at the game's release.
Sadly we know that many players will do simple junk quests when the game comes out just because it's the first content they ever created.
As for picking the team, there's a few obvious choices on the forums but I think it would be a bit arrogant of us to not think about the faces behind ours just itching to get their hands on the game who are also more than capable of the position.
Another thing to note is that there should probably be a hierarchy in the system. For those of you familiar with League of Legends you'll know that they don't have a static player authority position. Some of them have more say than others because of the quality of feedback or time spent giving feedback and I believe that's another great way to incorporate checks and balances.
Perhaps for ever 10-20 normal reviewers there should be another who might have a more intimate say in reviewing. Think of the person at work or in class who's quiet and doesn't make a fuss over anything. When that person speaks it means something.
There should probably be a lot in order to get UGC reviewed...but there should be some who are there with higher authority for quality control.
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!
To an extent the same rules don't apply for Star Trek as the Forgotten Realms as because if I was to create Mithral Hall I couldn't do so without adding in copyrighted characters. If we are allowed to create Forgotten Realms locations some rights of their own must be given up in the process.
Could they really expect players to design content that is supposed to depict a location and have iconic people of the realms who are *supposed* to be there not be there?
However we should all know DDO holds ALL the rights to EVERY quest they developed.
In my view Wizards should extend the rights of players to redistribute wizards'/TSR's campaigns but obviously anything written and developed by other companies such as Bioware, Black Isles or Turbine as well as any novel's storyline is going to be off limits. But even that will be asking for a big favor from wizards as technically it is not ours to redistribute.
But as far as I know they'll get royalties from us playing the game so while I may be a nobody in their eyes to me it's smarter to help the game prosper than to worry about campaign rights.
Here's a question though: How can they legally word what makes a quest appropriate other than breaking the EULA? What deams a quest too short, too easy, exploitable?
Now that is a tough cookie to tackle.
Well, thanks for that posting of the EULA, as I suspected it is infinitely interpretable...
The number of reviewers should be infinite.
Prototype quests developed by first time DMs should not make it onto the live servers unless they have passed the infinite review.
There shall be no hierarchy, because none is needed.
Unfortunately what we seem to be dealing with is a dev team that is hoping to just throw out an infinite amount of content in the hopes that they will attract the infinite playerbase.
I could be wrong about that, in fact I hope I am wrong because I would like to play a decent game, they are so few and far between these days. I think it needs to be repeated ad nauseaum that restricting access to the live servers does not have to restrict the creators urge to create. If anything a tighter review process might spur the creator to create quests of a more substantial and entertaining nature...
b:quiet
To me, that is very fortunate. However, devs are also throwing in a lot of other things like 'different' game mechanics etc. on which I can't form an opinion yet as they have not yet be shown to my hands. But those all look very promising.
Yes the Realtime Combat looks interesting although DDO was pretty close to realtime...
The content has always been there though, we have been waiting for a filter IMO.
Well, an infinite amount of content would not be that bad as you make it look like. I see no problem with garbage-tier quests, those will always outnumber the good ones anyway. But the good ones will inevitably rise above the rest of the lot, sooner or later. You will not have to swim through an ocean of rubbish to find them, you'll just go to the top of the rankings.
What needs to be dealt with is content that is exploiting or against the EULA. Content that is simply bad should by all means stay there - albeit on the bottom of the rankings, where it belongs - to not discourage new DMs from trying their luck with other quests and dungeons, which they would surely not do if you forcibly removed their creations for being "garbage". What do you know, they might even manage to make something good eventually!
Barely anyone gets it done right the first time anyway. I bet even R.A. Salvatore is ashamed of some of the very first stories he'd written in his teenage years, before starting to pump out the good ones.
So we must decide on a filter then?? User generated genre listings? Sort by most played? Time played? I suppose I could go read about how the STO Foundry filter is set up if anyone has written a report on it, I imagine Cryptic has internal documents on the subject... Anyway, just waiting for a beta key I guess lol!
I am a gamer , i play games to have fun, i dont want to do the dev's job for free.Of course some will say nobody will force you to play 3rd party content if you dont want to, but other people playing it will impact me directly since you can get the same rewards from foundry generated content, and you better bet your house this idea will bring tons of exploiters who dont give 2 ****s about the game lore or difficulty balance.
Trust me when I say that it's not going to be perfect but will be powerful, but players need to do this that have outside perspective than those who are looking at it from a development view; and exploits are as impossible to do as with repeating employee quests, since it simply rewards XP and treasure based on the quest difficulty and time played like the employee quests.
Really, when they say the quests are indistinguishable, they are. I've seem the Foundry and regular quests played on video now. It's true.
The video shows that the loot drops are based upon the encounter placed and at the present time editors have no control over such loot. So that level 10 Drow ranger you find inside User content or Developer content has the same loot table.
The only think which will most likely happen is some dungeons will be efficient monster grinds; designed so it is just round after round of dense monster placement who are weak to specific tactics. Some may think this is an exploit, but if the players are taking the time and defeating the monster grind while having fun, then no reason to stop them.
It can actually benefit those who like to enjoy the content, take their time and read stuff or role play. As those players who just want to rush through as fast as possible will most likely avoid the more intricate designed quests and go for the straight grind ones. So the odds of getting a speed player interested in a slow dungeon into the group are diminished.
Now, it may chance as they mentioned they are trying to figure out how to implement where specific rewards can be given.
I can't find it ATM, but there ARE caps as to the number of encounters you can have. There is absolutely no other way to get xp unless you spend the time and difficulty earning it like you do with a dev mission. Many encounters? We call that a "gauntlet" or "dungeon crawl"
As for the rest of the people who are still nay-sayers:
The only way to instantly defeat enemies is to be the foundry author testing it, and those features are literally not accessible to the player (and require logging out and into the game partition) as we've seen on the videos, so no way could a author make their own "quick kill" methods (short of knowing where everything is. I call that replay.) We get a totally random treasure chest based on the total game difficulty at the very very end of the mod and monsters drop stuff scaled to the player's character IF they ever drop stuff like gold and basic basic items. See STO's foundry.
So I appreciate people telling me it will be exploited, but don't see how. Based on what I have seen listed so far, if it was tested right now, I'd be pretty skeptical in finding any exploits.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
Are monsters something the author can choose? Or are they randomly implemented like loot and everything else? Was kinda hoping we could choose the monsters according to level at least.
The appearence can be changed as shown by andy by changing the appearence of a mob to ghost pirate girl. But the stats can't be. So you can fight a dragon (who is actually a zombie) at lvl 1, but the powers of dragon and stats etc would be the same as zombie.
"We'll not risk another frontal assault. That rabbits dynamite!"
Level 50 white bunnies for everyone.