I'd say a separate "Foundry FAQ" should be done instead of adding to a general one, if you are looking to write up Foundry FAQ entries.
If I write a Foundry FAQ I'd need access to the Foundry first, and it would not just be for "new users" then but advanced authors too. But if Cryptic/PWE would get me access immediately, I could consider rushing one out...(hint hint)
If I write a Foundry FAQ I'd need access to the Foundry first, and it would not just be for "new users" then but advanced authors too. But if Cryptic/PWE would get me access immediately, I could consider rushing one out...(hint hint)
That was not my intent, on rushing out a Foundry FAQ. Just that if FAQ's on the Foundry are to be made, they should probably be in their own FAQ. Whether the author of such wants to wait for more information, that would be totally up to said author and either way, I would agree to the existence of a Foundry FAQ.
Not sure why that is relevant to the quote of my words but in any case, I don't see why the wiki couldn't be used for such. We just need to keep in mind that most viewers will be looking on the forums first for information.
I think you may be right about being set by Cryptic. In their Forbes interview, the guy mentions an approval process.
"Players can select these campaigns like any other quest after they?ve been approved, and local NPC?s will serve them up alongside standard content." Forbes article.
If Cryptic has to approve every mission, then the ones that make it through should be well crafted and free of any sort of exploitative behavior as well as having their rewards perfectly tuned. Could be wishful thinking here too. lol
As far as I'm aware it will be the exact same system that STO currently uses.
That is a peer-review system.
A person signs up to be apart of this review system and they can see the missions that still need to be reviewed where as normal players can't.
To get past the approval stage a mission has to have 5 reviews by players that have signed up for this review system. As a reviewer you are expected to report missions that break the Foundry EULA. Otherwise let the standard review system run it's course.
The average is calculated and constantly adjusted from the playtimes recorded from every player who goes through that quest, so simply going AFK wouldn't necessarily increase your reward. It would take a coordinated effort from many separate accounts to artificially raise the average, and as soon as it starts to be exploited, the average will adjust accordingly and fix itself. On top of this, we intend to have some kind of cap on how many hours of Foundry content you can be rewarded for per day, so no exploit can really get too far.
There are a number of other things we're doing under the hood to prevent botting and exploits, but I'm no programmer so I don't understand them
I dont like the limit on foundry rewards per day. If your reward scaling system doesnt work, then adjust it as necessary. But why should someone with a day off and a lot of time to play be limited in the amount of rewards they can get if they are playing legitimate missions? The answer is, they shouldnt. And the solution is to simply put a cooldown on how often you can get rewards from the same mission.
I dont like the limit on foundry rewards per day. If your reward scaling system doesnt work, then adjust it as necessary. But why should someone with a day off and a lot of time to play be limited in the amount of rewards they can get if they are playing legitimate missions? The answer is, they shouldnt. And the solution is to simply put a cooldown on how often you can get rewards from the same mission.
I do not either. That being i said, i do believe repeating the same dungeon should reward one less each time they do it until there is no reward for it per character. Perahps 3 times?
I do not either. That being i said, i do believe repeating the same dungeon should reward one less each time they do it until there is no reward for it per character. Perahps 3 times?
No, If I want to play the same quest ad infinitum I should be able to, and advance just like everyone else. If we have learned anything it is that no game mechanic should be forced onto the player.
I'd prefer to see a daily "bonus" of xp for doing foundry missions and then all foundry missions we do beyond that will grant us the regular xp for that mission and nothing extra.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
katalystikMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I'd prefer to see a daily "bonus" of xp for doing foundry missions and then all foundry missions we do beyond that will grant us the regular xp for that mission and nothing extra.
Then you run into the problem mentioned before of people making 2 minute dungeons to run through just for the bonus xp. Already happens in STO from what I hear.
I guess that doesn't hurt anyone else if they want to do that as long as the rewards for that system aren't going to make it easy to farm things for use on the AH.
Then you run into the problem mentioned before of people making 2 minute dungeons to run through just for the bonus xp. Already happens in STO from what I hear.
I guess that doesn't hurt anyone else if they want to do that as long as the rewards for that system aren't going to make it easy to farm things for use on the AH.
Yeah they can get the bonus xp, but since the base xp and rewards are based off of the duration of the mission they shoot themselves in the foot by doing short missions, so really it balances out.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
kamaliiciousMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 0Arc User
Yeah they can get the bonus xp, but since the base xp and rewards are based off of the duration of the mission they shoot themselves in the foot by doing short missions, so really it balances out.
Other way around. Base xp and rewards are in a constant ratio, so you want the shortest possible UGC missions because of the (potential) bonus for them.
Other way around. Base xp and rewards are in a constant ratio, so you want the shortest possible UGC missions because of the (potential) bonus for them.
They said that the rewards that a UCG mission will give are based on average time it takes to complete the quest,
Since rewards are based off of the average completion time of the quest, this kind of exploit wouldn't work, and you would just get trash from the chest.
This is also why we don't allow authors to directly reward XP for completing tasks. It exposes the Foundry to heavy exploitation.
So if you make lots of short missions to get the bonus xp you would not get rewarded as high because those short missions would just have the trash reward.
No, If I want to play the same quest ad infinitum I should be able to, and advance just like everyone else. If we have learned anything it is that no game mechanic should be forced onto the player.
I disagree it becomes easier and easier the more you do the same content because you know what to expect now that being said if it can vary significantly from the last time you delved into the dungeon i would agree with you.
0
katalystikMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
So if you make lots of short missions to get the bonus xp you would not get rewarded as high because those short missions would just have the trash reward.
Exactly what I said earlier. This system allows people who want to rush through and snag some bonus xp to do so but will not effect anyone else because of the trash rewards for doing so. Its really their choice on how they want to spend their time.
I only take issues with a system that influences everyone negatively, such as would be the case if they received good rewards for the short missions. Glad that won't be the case.
No, If I want to play the same quest ad infinitum I should be able to, and advance just like everyone else. If we have learned anything it is that no game mechanic should be forced onto the player.
Foundry missions should work on the same principal as normal developer made missions. If you are able to fully level by repeating a normal developer made mission over and over, then so be it. However if they do not allow you to do so, then there is no reason they should allow you to do so with the foundry either.
[*] Made choice X in conversation Y with NPC Z [*] A player in the group has item X in their inventory.
I think you can do the item thing as you have NPC's give players items and check for those later, similarly, finding the item on the ground and checking. I believe Andy mentioned this in a Foundry video.
If choices are not directly supported, you may be able to use the item giving system above to track them since quest items are said to have their own bag space.
Should I include a section that would mention the Foundry XP and exploit prevention in the FAQ or is that too confusing and/or too esoteric for "New Users?"
I think when people hear about UGC in an MMO they think first, "Neato!" and then second, "That's going to get exploited." Therefore, my vote is to put it into the FAQ in a foundry section.
They said that the rewards that a UCG mission will give are based on average time it takes to complete the quest,
So if you make lots of short missions to get the bonus xp you would not get rewarded as high because those short missions would just have the trash reward.
False. Read what I said again. If there is a bonus for doing UGC, the shortest missions are preferable.
If the game awards (hypothetical to explain my point) 1xp/second for adventure completion, but there's a 1000xp (hypothetical to explain my point) award for completion, a 1 second adventure produces 1501 xp. A 5 minute adventure produces 1801 xp. The player gains xp much faster in the 1 second UGC.
The average is calculated and constantly adjusted from the playtimes recorded from every player who goes through that quest, so simply going AFK wouldn't necessarily increase your reward. It would take a coordinated effort from many separate accounts to artificially raise the average, and as soon as it starts to be exploited, the average will adjust accordingly and fix itself. On top of this, we intend to have some kind of cap on how many hours of Foundry content you can be rewarded for per day, so no exploit can really get too far.
There are a number of other things we're doing under the hood to prevent botting and exploits, but I'm no programmer so I don't understand them
Hehe! That just gave me an idea of a zoo based eyecandy mission where in the end you are rewarded by chest. Those who come and look at the artwork etc. (like a museum) and in the end get a reward.
Something non-combat like that would be excellent! And it is based on capped average time which makes it unexploitable (if you are AFK, I am guessing client will close/logout by itself as in DDO).
False. Read what I said again. If there is a bonus for doing UGC, the shortest missions are preferable.
If the game awards (hypothetical to explain my point) 1xp/second for adventure completion, but there's a 1000xp (hypothetical to explain my point) award for completion, a 1 second adventure produces 1501 xp. A 5 minute adventure produces 1801 xp. The player gains xp much faster in the 1 second UGC.
I said rewarded as highly, not rewarded as "quickly". The daily bonus for UGC would still get them the reward regardless of how much time it took, but after they did their X number (let's say five) they still get the Y number of bonus points and whatever minor xp the short missions gave them. A player who did longer missions gets that same Y number plus the higher xp from longer missions. In the end it's just five missions a day that they get a bonus for, so even those who try to exploit it really don't get that much from exploiting it and no one gets hurt by those who try.
Furthermore, one second missions I don't believe are even possible using the STO foundry, the number of steps required to have a functional quest are high enough that even basic missions usually take a few minutes to complete.
<<EDIT: quote appeared by accident. Was a general post.>>
There are a billion and one ways that the exploits can be avoided, but speculating on xp mechanics which haven't been released yet (heck we don't even know if the progression is linear or logarithmic) is premature.
Also issue at hand is XP per sec when talking about XP reward and ceiling of loot when talking about treasure chest. Both of which, crypticmapolis has already clarified - have been dealt with by the programmers. Now it would be decorous to wait for the actual details on loot and experience system on foundry before jumping to criticize them.
While there's no general difficulty level you can set for your quests, there are certainly monster encounters that range in difficulty...
Two questions:
1. Can you setup a dungeon crawl with Foundry. That is, if you want to make a large - multi-boss dungeon is that permitted, or is there a limit on how much can go into a single player created instance.
2. What are the D&D IP restrictions? Can you, for example, use T1 Village of Hommlet to create essentially the T1 adventure in Neverwinter?
Thanks
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
1. Can you setup a dungeon crawl with Foundry. That is, if you want to make a large - multi-boss dungeon is that permitted, or is there a limit on how much can go into a single player created instance.
2. What are the D&D IP restrictions? Can you, for example, use T1 Village of Hommlet to create essentially the T1 adventure in Neverwinter?
Thanks
1. Yes you can and we haven't been told the limits yet. I know we can have a whole bunch of encounters, choose the difficulty of the races (easy moderate and hard) of both solo and group enemies and we can spread out group encounters to be on different parts of th map up to a certain placement ground zero radius.
2. No living actors, but I don[t see any reason why you couldn't recreate that as long as it's not done for any profit means.
1. Yes you can and we haven't been told the limits yet. I know we can have a whole bunch of encounters, choose the difficulty of the races (easy moderate and hard) of both solo and group enemies and we can spread out group encounters to be on different parts of th map up to a certain placement ground zero radius.
2. No living actors, but I don[t see any reason why you couldn't recreate that as long as it's not done for any profit means.
So in regards to 2 you could recreate say a module and as long as you change all the actors it would be ok? Also the last bit kinda negates being able to use it since you are making a profit via the "Donate" button its not real world currency but still a profit is made.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
So in regards to 2 you could recreate say a module and as long as you change all the actors it would be ok? Also the last bit kinda negates being able to use it since you are making a profit via the "Donate" button its not real world currency but still a profit is made.
In game cash can be converted to Zen, but not to real dollars, so it's not real life commerce. Whether it would be a violation of copyright law seems exceptionally unlikely, but if a company ordered a cease and desist to a mod, it likely would have to be done.
I have taken the time to read the outstanding FAQ, Foundry compilation and this article about the Foundry. I have a couple of questions about the Foundry that largely reflects my lack of familiarity with the current STO version (e.g. I have a STO account, but have only dabbled with it).
1. Can Foundry authors create content that is group specific? If so, can they specifically recommend group size (duo, trio, full squad, etc.) and composition in their module design?
2. I note the intent on adding PVP Foundry content. Does that open the door to larger scale offerings from the Foundry?
3. I appreciate the direction you are working on with Delves. Are Delves strictly capped at 5-persons? Can Delves be created within the Foundry?
I'm impressed with what I have seen from the PAX coverage and look forwards to seeing more about Neverwinter.
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
I have taken the time to read the outstanding FAQ, Foundry compilation and this article about the Foundry. I have a couple of questions about the Foundry that largely reflects my lack of familiarity with the current STO version (e.g. I have a STO account, but have only dabbled with it).
1. Can Foundry authors create content that is group specific? If so, can they specifically recommend group size (duo, trio, full squad, etc.) and composition in their module design?
2. I note the intent on adding PVP Foundry content. Does that open the door to larger scale offerings from the Foundry?
3. I appreciate the direction you are working on with Delves. Are Delves strictly capped at 5-persons? Can Delves be created within the Foundry?
I'm impressed with what I have seen from the PAX coverage and look forwards to seeing more about Neverwinter.
Ooh, good questions! I'll add one based on that group:
4. Can we have missions that are "private" or "invite only" like a GM and players for a Campaign instead of everybody has access?
Comments
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
If I write a Foundry FAQ I'd need access to the Foundry first, and it would not just be for "new users" then but advanced authors too. But if Cryptic/PWE would get me access immediately, I could consider rushing one out...(hint hint)
Why not use the wiki?
That was not my intent, on rushing out a Foundry FAQ. Just that if FAQ's on the Foundry are to be made, they should probably be in their own FAQ. Whether the author of such wants to wait for more information, that would be totally up to said author and either way, I would agree to the existence of a Foundry FAQ.
Not sure why that is relevant to the quote of my words but in any case, I don't see why the wiki couldn't be used for such. We just need to keep in mind that most viewers will be looking on the forums first for information.
[ Support Center • Rules & Policies and Guidelines • ARC ToS • Guild Recruitment Guidelines | FR DM Since 1993 ]
As far as I'm aware it will be the exact same system that STO currently uses.
That is a peer-review system.
A person signs up to be apart of this review system and they can see the missions that still need to be reviewed where as normal players can't.
To get past the approval stage a mission has to have 5 reviews by players that have signed up for this review system. As a reviewer you are expected to report missions that break the Foundry EULA. Otherwise let the standard review system run it's course.
I dont like the limit on foundry rewards per day. If your reward scaling system doesnt work, then adjust it as necessary. But why should someone with a day off and a lot of time to play be limited in the amount of rewards they can get if they are playing legitimate missions? The answer is, they shouldnt. And the solution is to simply put a cooldown on how often you can get rewards from the same mission.
I do not either. That being i said, i do believe repeating the same dungeon should reward one less each time they do it until there is no reward for it per character. Perahps 3 times?
No, If I want to play the same quest ad infinitum I should be able to, and advance just like everyone else. If we have learned anything it is that no game mechanic should be forced onto the player.
Then you run into the problem mentioned before of people making 2 minute dungeons to run through just for the bonus xp. Already happens in STO from what I hear.
I guess that doesn't hurt anyone else if they want to do that as long as the rewards for that system aren't going to make it easy to farm things for use on the AH.
Yeah they can get the bonus xp, but since the base xp and rewards are based off of the duration of the mission they shoot themselves in the foot by doing short missions, so really it balances out.
They said that the rewards that a UCG mission will give are based on average time it takes to complete the quest,
So if you make lots of short missions to get the bonus xp you would not get rewarded as high because those short missions would just have the trash reward.
I disagree it becomes easier and easier the more you do the same content because you know what to expect now that being said if it can vary significantly from the last time you delved into the dungeon i would agree with you.
Exactly what I said earlier. This system allows people who want to rush through and snag some bonus xp to do so but will not effect anyone else because of the trash rewards for doing so. Its really their choice on how they want to spend their time.
I only take issues with a system that influences everyone negatively, such as would be the case if they received good rewards for the short missions. Glad that won't be the case.
Foundry missions should work on the same principal as normal developer made missions. If you are able to fully level by repeating a normal developer made mission over and over, then so be it. However if they do not allow you to do so, then there is no reason they should allow you to do so with the foundry either.
How much scope will we have for the pre-conditions of Foundry quests?
Something like "Quest X has been successfully completed" seems like an obvious start and probably an important essential.
What about...
I think you can do the item thing as you have NPC's give players items and check for those later, similarly, finding the item on the ground and checking. I believe Andy mentioned this in a Foundry video.
If choices are not directly supported, you may be able to use the item giving system above to track them since quest items are said to have their own bag space.
If the game awards (hypothetical to explain my point) 1xp/second for adventure completion, but there's a 1000xp (hypothetical to explain my point) award for completion, a 1 second adventure produces 1501 xp. A 5 minute adventure produces 1801 xp. The player gains xp much faster in the 1 second UGC.
Hehe! That just gave me an idea of a zoo based eyecandy mission where in the end you are rewarded by chest. Those who come and look at the artwork etc. (like a museum) and in the end get a reward.
Something non-combat like that would be excellent! And it is based on capped average time which makes it unexploitable (if you are AFK, I am guessing client will close/logout by itself as in DDO).
I am really looking forward to it now.
I said rewarded as highly, not rewarded as "quickly". The daily bonus for UGC would still get them the reward regardless of how much time it took, but after they did their X number (let's say five) they still get the Y number of bonus points and whatever minor xp the short missions gave them. A player who did longer missions gets that same Y number plus the higher xp from longer missions. In the end it's just five missions a day that they get a bonus for, so even those who try to exploit it really don't get that much from exploiting it and no one gets hurt by those who try.
Furthermore, one second missions I don't believe are even possible using the STO foundry, the number of steps required to have a functional quest are high enough that even basic missions usually take a few minutes to complete.
There are a billion and one ways that the exploits can be avoided, but speculating on xp mechanics which haven't been released yet (heck we don't even know if the progression is linear or logarithmic) is premature.
Also issue at hand is XP per sec when talking about XP reward and ceiling of loot when talking about treasure chest. Both of which, crypticmapolis has already clarified - have been dealt with by the programmers. Now it would be decorous to wait for the actual details on loot and experience system on foundry before jumping to criticize them.
Two questions:
1. Can you setup a dungeon crawl with Foundry. That is, if you want to make a large - multi-boss dungeon is that permitted, or is there a limit on how much can go into a single player created instance.
2. What are the D&D IP restrictions? Can you, for example, use T1 Village of Hommlet to create essentially the T1 adventure in Neverwinter?
Thanks
1. Yes you can and we haven't been told the limits yet. I know we can have a whole bunch of encounters, choose the difficulty of the races (easy moderate and hard) of both solo and group enemies and we can spread out group encounters to be on different parts of th map up to a certain placement ground zero radius.
2. No living actors, but I don[t see any reason why you couldn't recreate that as long as it's not done for any profit means.
So in regards to 2 you could recreate say a module and as long as you change all the actors it would be ok? Also the last bit kinda negates being able to use it since you are making a profit via the "Donate" button its not real world currency but still a profit is made.
In game cash can be converted to Zen, but not to real dollars, so it's not real life commerce. Whether it would be a violation of copyright law seems exceptionally unlikely, but if a company ordered a cease and desist to a mod, it likely would have to be done.
I have taken the time to read the outstanding FAQ, Foundry compilation and this article about the Foundry. I have a couple of questions about the Foundry that largely reflects my lack of familiarity with the current STO version (e.g. I have a STO account, but have only dabbled with it).
1. Can Foundry authors create content that is group specific? If so, can they specifically recommend group size (duo, trio, full squad, etc.) and composition in their module design?
2. I note the intent on adding PVP Foundry content. Does that open the door to larger scale offerings from the Foundry?
3. I appreciate the direction you are working on with Delves. Are Delves strictly capped at 5-persons? Can Delves be created within the Foundry?
I'm impressed with what I have seen from the PAX coverage and look forwards to seeing more about Neverwinter.
Ooh, good questions! I'll add one based on that group:
4. Can we have missions that are "private" or "invite only" like a GM and players for a Campaign instead of everybody has access?