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.
I'm waiting for foundry testing and survey/posts feedback to decide what the community at large really wants. The more honesty about it then, the better people will be satisfied with its final results.
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.
Yes I am excited, I would just like to be able to be a part of the control process that allows the content to appear in the game, in fact I feel that everyone should have an equal amount of control.
Is the inclusion of garbage necessary for any UGC system?
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Yes I am excited, I would just like to be able to be a part of the control process that allows the content to appear in the game, in fact I feel that everyone should have an equal amount of control.
Is the inclusion of garbage necessary for any UGC system?
One person's trash is another person's quest reward, I mean treasure.
Opinions will vary, but that's what setting (an enforcing) standards are for.
One person's trash is another person's quest reward, I mean treasure.
Opinions will vary, but that's what setting (an enforcing) standards are for.
The bard plucks the string.
"One person's trash
is other person's stash"
He plucks the strings again
"Standards are always same
Varying opinions cause rage and shame"
*suddenly the crowd erupts with... uh they just erupt. And start throwing things. The bard hides and takes out a scroll and uses his proficiency in "using" magical devices."
"I conjure an experiment called Liquid Tension!" He uses this time to escape.
As in offiicial standards that are rules enforcable.
I can understand standards for food and software code, but not a standard for personal taste, or what someone chooses to do with the code once it is compiled...
What I mean is, I do not see any language as derogatory and yet the EULA will ask me to flag content that I deem as derogatory, This is of course not possible and it is just the tip of the iceberg if we are trying to come to any standard definition about anything.
If four others who share my view about derogatoryness were to play a quest that five others deem derogatory but did not get the chance to play while the quest was in review, the quest would make it onto the live servers.
What then? Do the five players who see things derogitorily then play the quest and flag it as derogatory?? Why should their feelings upon the matter matter more than the feelings of those who reviewed the quest while the quest was contained within the foundry??
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited August 2012
The road goes both ways.
Just because you feel like it's not derogatory doesn't mean it isn't.
It takes a lot for me to be offended. I mean I literally can't think of anything that offended me and truly made me disgusted in any entertainment medium. But I can look at things and say "that's offensive" because I know it would offend others.
The job of the reviewer is to be unbiased and not base anything off *their* opinion. Their job is to review off the rules not what they feel the rules should be.
As for personal taste, there's still a difference between quality and personal taste. Some people may like one click quest content, does that make it right to be made? Not necessarily.
Quality is something which can have standards without infringing on the terms of personal taste.
The job of a reviewer should be to review based on standards and rules and nothing more.
While it may not be easy to write down in legal terms any sentient being should be able to tell the difference between something with no effort applied in it's creation, exploitable content and poor quality content (which is not against the rules)
Your argument is your feelings matter...they don't. Of course this isn't an ideal world and people will review based on their feelings but they are not supposed to.
So to me there is NOTHING wrong with content being reviewed by those who review correctly and overruling the first 5.
Just because you feel like it's not derogatory doesn't mean it isn't.
It takes a lot for me to be offended. I mean I literally can't think of anything that offended me and truly made me disgusted in any entertainment medium. But I can look at things and say "that's offensive" because I know it would offend others.
The job of the reviewer is to be unbiased and not base anything off *their* opinion. Their job is to review off the rules not what they feel the rules should be.
As for personal taste, there's still a difference between quality and personal taste. Some people may like one click quest content, does that make it right to be made? Not necessarily.
Quality is something which can have standards without infringing on the terms of personal taste.
The job of a reviewer should be to review based on standards and rules and nothing more.
While it may not be easy to write down in legal terms any sentient being should be able to tell the difference between something with no effort applied in it's creation, exploitable content and poor quality content (which is not against the rules)
Your argument is your feelings matter...they don't. Of course this isn't an ideal world and people will review based on their feelings but they are not supposed to.
So to me there is NOTHING wrong with content being reviewed by those who review correctly and overruling the first 5.
Quite simply to this and the previous reply. I'm looking for a decision on a set of standards so a consensus on what is a violation or not is looked for and enforced. Like obscenity, I'm not looking for everybody agreeing on it, but something we can use to quickly and fairly judge (modules,) especially when they are not liked or approved by the community so a ruling can be made without bias.
The job of the reviewer is to be unbiased and not base anything off *their* opinion. Their job is to review off the rules not what they feel the rules should be.
As for personal taste, there's still a difference between quality and personal taste. Some people may like one click quest content, does that make it right to be made? Not necessarily.
But what if everyone reviewed based on what they felt the review rules should be? Would not review rules rise up organically? A sort of averaging out of the populations feelings about what should and should not be allowed onto the servers? Do we really want a group such as the ESRB to dictate what we are "allowed" to play? I submit that we do not.
The simple fact is people are going to review based upon their own personal interpretation of the rules. But the good news is people who repeatedly report missions who are not actually rule breakers will be punished.
The simple fact is people are going to review based upon their own personal interpretation of the rules. But the good news is people who repeatedly report missions who are not actually rule breakers will be punished.
Well apparently the community reviewers have no real say about what is and isn't allowed on the servers. They simply play the quest and once 5 people have played the quest the quest goes live. There is room for notes in the review though.
I still do not understand how there can be any rule that is not someone's interpretation of the way things should be...
Holy cow 20 of 24 pages of nothing but e-arguments and chest thumping
Back on track and I apologize if this has already been asked but i'm not reading all of this tripe. Can we control day/night cycles and tying npc's to these cycles?
Holy cow 20 of 24 pages of nothing but e-arguments and chest thumping
Back on track and I apologize if this has already been asked but i'm not reading all of this tripe. Can we control day/night cycles and tying npc's to these cycles?
*Thumps his chest wildly*
There has been no response to that question from devs. The idea has been proposed earlier though(archived here somewhere). Not only day/night but seasons etc too. But there has been an indication that foundry makers might be able to change these at will. But there haven't been many comments on that.
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited September 2012
Great video!
Much appreciated and well handled Squez.
I hope you enjoyed the rest you got after the last video of the day because you earned it with that one! The tools were explained in a far more concise and informative way in that video than any other one I have seen thus far. Even between steps I saw details other employees demonstrating overstep and ignore. Little features which mean a huge difference.
I do have one question though...although I'm not too positive Cryptomopolis or any of the rest of the team are still following this thread *shame on the arguing!*
Will there be any way to see the populated dungeon in a 3D Format without loading the module?
It's nice to see we will have a preview of each room's bare bones but I can quickly see myself getting tired if developers are required to the in game mode just to tweak the angle and position of each placeable because we can only place and rotate items in a 2D view.
...
It's nice to see we will have a preview of each room's bare bones but I can quickly see myself getting tired if developers are required to the in game mode just to tweak the angle and position of each placeable because we can only place and rotate items in a 2D view.
A 3d toolset will require a lot of work to remove missions which exploit, especially if there is falling damage involved or if there is a way to obstruct melee monsters. Also it might consume a lot of resources (memory etc.). Maybe a few years down the line, I see a 3d toolset as a possibility, but not in recent future.
A 3d toolset will require a lot of work to remove missions which exploit, especially if there is falling damage involved or if there is a way to obstruct melee monsters. Also it might consume a lot of resources (memory etc.). Maybe a few years down the line, I see a 3d toolset as a possibility, but not in recent future.
Yes for the future, might as well just go holographic interface...
Interesting video I noticed Andy said "having the real sword coats in our game" But it makes me wonder if it will be the entire sword coast? It would be amazing if we had acsess to the Icewind Dale maps at launch...but logically I would say that would be a add on or a expansion pack.
Oh yes back to point, least for foundry mention always a quick and fast way but also depth if you need it...lets hope that applies to character creation too:)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] I am not evil, I am just cursed.
Yeah, im also glad to see in the last video, that andy speeak about the posibility of custom weapons and armors, think the idea is to allow "DM's" to add specific attributes to the wapons according to the lvl ofc. Im also VERY glad to know (for sure now) that skill will be in game but still in development and hopefully the foundry dialog will have skills options aswell
0
mokahMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2012
Can an author of UGC change the player's appearance into other models in the game?
For example, I have a quest where the player must infiltrate a den of goblins for a local wizard. To accomplish this the player is transformed to look like a member of the goblin tribe.
Will this sort of functionality be available in the Foundry?
Can an author of UGC change the player's appearance into other models in the game?
For example, I have a quest where the player must infiltrate a den of goblins for a local wizard. To accomplish this the player is transformed to look like a member of the goblin tribe.
Will this sort of functionality be available in the Foundry?
Im sure in the video's they said something like this, could be done, a small dragon in a room, made to look like a large dragon, then your trigger will go off depending on dialouge, environment ect, to reveal that the dragon is only a small one.
0
mokahMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Im sure in the video's they said something like this, could be done, a small dragon in a room, made to look like a large dragon, then your trigger will go off depending on dialouge, environment ect, to reveal that the dragon is only a small one.
Making an NPC look like anything in the game is VERY different than making the PLAYER look like anything in the game, which is what I asked.
Playing as a dragon and flying through a village burning everything to a cinder is probably possible, if the mechanics are already in place for that sort of thing, if not then you'll probably have to wait for a patch...
0
mokahMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Playing as a dragon and flying through a village burning everything to a cinder is probably possible, if the mechanics are already in place for that sort of thing, if not then you'll probably have to wait for a patch...
I've seen nothing to indicate that that sort of mechanic exists in NWO. Also, not what I asked.
Mokah - The Grumpy Strumpet
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Can an author of UGC change the player's appearance into other models in the game?
For example, I have a quest where the player must infiltrate a den of goblins for a local wizard. To accomplish this the player is transformed to look like a member of the goblin tribe.
Will this sort of functionality be available in the Foundry?
While changing the appearance of any creature is possible for mission created content, changing the character PC image map and having animations that work with it is a whole other modeling issue as well as opening up a whole legal "right of "them" to change my character" when it is not a sanctioned build by the company mod. The liability would be tested as some could consider legal action should the worst happen.
Could you imagine if that was allowed (and it could be done BTW) and somehow the revert feature failed and there was no custom backup of the PC's original model?
Now, if Cryptic/PWE does permit this and has a guaranteed way to revert the character as they were pre-module entry, and it works with the character's stuff as if did pre-module image change, then I think it's a great idea.
But a custom monster image with limited animations and is a one-time enemy is a heck of a lot different than a PC controlled moving custom weapons character and also assuming he or she can go back to original form of course.
Comments
Yes I am excited, I would just like to be able to be a part of the control process that allows the content to appear in the game, in fact I feel that everyone should have an equal amount of control.
Is the inclusion of garbage necessary for any UGC system?
One person's trash is another person's quest reward, I mean treasure.
Opinions will vary, but that's what setting (an enforcing) standards are for.
The bard plucks the string.
"One person's trash
is other person's stash"
He plucks the strings again
"Standards are always same
Varying opinions cause rage and shame"
*suddenly the crowd erupts with... uh they just erupt. And start throwing things. The bard hides and takes out a scroll and uses his proficiency in "using" magical devices."
"I conjure an experiment called Liquid Tension!" He uses this time to escape.
How is someones standard simply not their opinion??
As in offiicial standards that are rules enforcable.
I can understand standards for food and software code, but not a standard for personal taste, or what someone chooses to do with the code once it is compiled...
What I mean is, I do not see any language as derogatory and yet the EULA will ask me to flag content that I deem as derogatory, This is of course not possible and it is just the tip of the iceberg if we are trying to come to any standard definition about anything.
If four others who share my view about derogatoryness were to play a quest that five others deem derogatory but did not get the chance to play while the quest was in review, the quest would make it onto the live servers.
What then? Do the five players who see things derogitorily then play the quest and flag it as derogatory?? Why should their feelings upon the matter matter more than the feelings of those who reviewed the quest while the quest was contained within the foundry??
Just because you feel like it's not derogatory doesn't mean it isn't.
It takes a lot for me to be offended. I mean I literally can't think of anything that offended me and truly made me disgusted in any entertainment medium. But I can look at things and say "that's offensive" because I know it would offend others.
The job of the reviewer is to be unbiased and not base anything off *their* opinion. Their job is to review off the rules not what they feel the rules should be.
As for personal taste, there's still a difference between quality and personal taste. Some people may like one click quest content, does that make it right to be made? Not necessarily.
Quality is something which can have standards without infringing on the terms of personal taste.
The job of a reviewer should be to review based on standards and rules and nothing more.
While it may not be easy to write down in legal terms any sentient being should be able to tell the difference between something with no effort applied in it's creation, exploitable content and poor quality content (which is not against the rules)
Your argument is your feelings matter...they don't. Of course this isn't an ideal world and people will review based on their feelings but they are not supposed to.
So to me there is NOTHING wrong with content being reviewed by those who review correctly and overruling the first 5.
Quite simply to this and the previous reply. I'm looking for a decision on a set of standards so a consensus on what is a violation or not is looked for and enforced. Like obscenity, I'm not looking for everybody agreeing on it, but something we can use to quickly and fairly judge (modules,) especially when they are not liked or approved by the community so a ruling can be made without bias.
Think of it as a code of conduct if you will.
But what if everyone reviewed based on what they felt the review rules should be? Would not review rules rise up organically? A sort of averaging out of the populations feelings about what should and should not be allowed onto the servers? Do we really want a group such as the ESRB to dictate what we are "allowed" to play? I submit that we do not.
Well apparently the community reviewers have no real say about what is and isn't allowed on the servers. They simply play the quest and once 5 people have played the quest the quest goes live. There is room for notes in the review though.
I still do not understand how there can be any rule that is not someone's interpretation of the way things should be...
Back on track and I apologize if this has already been asked but i'm not reading all of this tripe. Can we control day/night cycles and tying npc's to these cycles?
*Thumps his chest wildly*
There has been no response to that question from devs. The idea has been proposed earlier though(archived here somewhere). Not only day/night but seasons etc too. But there has been an indication that foundry makers might be able to change these at will. But there haven't been many comments on that.
*Goes back to noble quest of chest thumping*
GUN Video with ANdy on foundry, lap it up
Published 3rd September
Outstanding! Re-did my Foundry section on my new users FAQ and added a few questions (custom enemies, audio and treasures) there.
Much appreciated and well handled Squez.
I hope you enjoyed the rest you got after the last video of the day because you earned it with that one! The tools were explained in a far more concise and informative way in that video than any other one I have seen thus far. Even between steps I saw details other employees demonstrating overstep and ignore. Little features which mean a huge difference.
I do have one question though...although I'm not too positive Cryptomopolis or any of the rest of the team are still following this thread *shame on the arguing!*
Will there be any way to see the populated dungeon in a 3D Format without loading the module?
It's nice to see we will have a preview of each room's bare bones but I can quickly see myself getting tired if developers are required to the in game mode just to tweak the angle and position of each placeable because we can only place and rotate items in a 2D view.
A 3d toolset will require a lot of work to remove missions which exploit, especially if there is falling damage involved or if there is a way to obstruct melee monsters. Also it might consume a lot of resources (memory etc.). Maybe a few years down the line, I see a 3d toolset as a possibility, but not in recent future.
I like the use of the word incentivize.
Yes for the future, might as well just go holographic interface...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8A24a_dhB3w
Published on Sep 5
Interesting video I noticed Andy said "having the real sword coats in our game" But it makes me wonder if it will be the entire sword coast? It would be amazing if we had acsess to the Icewind Dale maps at launch...but logically I would say that would be a add on or a expansion pack.
Oh yes back to point, least for foundry mention always a quick and fast way but also depth if you need it...lets hope that applies to character creation too:)
For example, I have a quest where the player must infiltrate a den of goblins for a local wizard. To accomplish this the player is transformed to look like a member of the goblin tribe.
Will this sort of functionality be available in the Foundry?
Im sure in the video's they said something like this, could be done, a small dragon in a room, made to look like a large dragon, then your trigger will go off depending on dialouge, environment ect, to reveal that the dragon is only a small one.
Making an NPC look like anything in the game is VERY different than making the PLAYER look like anything in the game, which is what I asked.
I've seen nothing to indicate that that sort of mechanic exists in NWO. Also, not what I asked.
While changing the appearance of any creature is possible for mission created content, changing the character PC image map and having animations that work with it is a whole other modeling issue as well as opening up a whole legal "right of "them" to change my character" when it is not a sanctioned build by the company mod. The liability would be tested as some could consider legal action should the worst happen.
Could you imagine if that was allowed (and it could be done BTW) and somehow the revert feature failed and there was no custom backup of the PC's original model?
Now, if Cryptic/PWE does permit this and has a guaranteed way to revert the character as they were pre-module entry, and it works with the character's stuff as if did pre-module image change, then I think it's a great idea.
But a custom monster image with limited animations and is a one-time enemy is a heck of a lot different than a PC controlled moving custom weapons character and also assuming he or she can go back to original form of course.