Many here think there is little to no incentive for players to play the foundry missions, which in turn can make a number of foundry authors feel like their time is wasted in creating foundries. Others feel it is a neglected feature which should be more prominent in the game - rarely anyone visits the boards and hunters for region specific quests (outside of the PR one). If you really want to make the foundry missions more appealing, you have to offer more incentives for players to complete the foundries while at the same time making sure nothing can be exploited.
So why not create a Campaign system, similar to Modules 1 and 2, which centers around foundries? The setting could involve the Harper Organization - possibly even create a separate map outside of PR for gathering players for foundries, or you can locate a Harper Office within PR. It all depends on how far you want to go with it.
A lot of MMO players are calculating - they weigh time spent vs gains all the time. Even if the foundry mission handed them a portal gun and was a lot of fun, a majority of players will not care because they can profit faster by playing a farm/arena map. Less effort - same gain.
Many authors here can tell you stories about many of their 1-star reviews "I got nothing I could use from your chest! )!&%%! you! 1 Star!" - and we can't do anything about it. Let us create a system which can offer more and avoid these situations entirely.
First, let us design new tokens and currencies which will be used in the foundry - lets make 3 up:
***Economy of Foundry Campaign***
Harper Medallion - Players may earn only 1 of this currency each day, which is done by completing a randomly assigned featured foundry given by the Harper Organization.
Tin Coins - The basic currency, these coins are found at the end of the foundries in the treasure chests. The number of coins looted from the chest is determined by the foundries average time, number of times played that day (by others), etc. A formula which rewards MORE coins for real foundries, and less to none for farm/exploit maps. You could award bonus Tin Coins by having players complete randomly assigned normal foundries (with some restrictions of course).
Hunter Token - This currency is earned by accepting and completing foundries given by field agents (foundry boards/hunters outside of PR). These foundries are located within the regions.
***
Oh, now that we have 3 currencies (or more if need be), what can I use them for?
***
1. Boons - This would draw a large crowd of players to the foundry. They can't be traded or sold, and they only apply to the character that does it. In addition, players are paced by requiring Harper Medallions. Whether the boons are significantly helpful or not is dependent on balancing concerns. They could provide Magic Find, Gold Increase, Glory Increase, or Stat boosts.
2. Astral Diamonds - Let us remove the daily foundry quests. In their place, let us create a repeatable campaign reward that requires 20 Tin Coins and 18 Hours to complete. Every time you complete it, you get 4000 Astral Diamonds (Rough or not). If the average foundry gives 5 coins, 4 foundries, 4000 diamonds. Of course, players can stockpile more coins by completing more foundries at once instead of completing the bare minimum each day. In addition, the boons could drain coins as well.
3. Bind on pickup Gem Coffers - Simple, spend Tin coins to purchase refining stones.
4. Dungeon Keys - Purchase a dungeon key using your hunter tokens. These keys in turn can be used to open special chests located within Foundries (thus allowing foundry users to place more than one chest). What these chests contain, up to you.
5. Blue/Purple Gear - Pick up boxes that give Blue/Purple gear for your current level - Similar to the nightmare chests reward (that one that was worth nothing).
And the list goes on... and How you spin it will give players incentive to play foundries they would otherwise not care. If there is profit in it for them, they will do it.
That does sound like a great idea. The Boons can be weaker compared to the official ones. Then again, the official two campaigns are just a boring grind and not really challenging so I see no point in worrying about exploits.
If cryptic is afraid about farms/exploits too much they can only count features foundries for the thing. Not great for most of us authors but still better than the current state. Maybe introduce a specific community regulated thing like "campaign eligible" - but it's hard to make it community driven cause farms do get high scores sometimes
I have suggested this for five months in one form or another and have never heard a peep. I like the idea a ton, I even suggested they have a author contest for designing the new Harper zone. I am sure it would inspire a whole new crop of authors as well.
Many good authors quit after one event because of lack of plays. Get them some reason to play and you'll see many people returning.
Any official response would be greatly appreciated - as to whether they would or would not do this. I always thought the foundry was the centerpiece to Neverwinter being different from other MMO's and a lot of the reviews out there stated that one of the few positive things this game had was the Foundry. They mentioned the game actually depends on how far they are willing to go with the foundry - they even mentioned several foundries they played during their review.
I always thought the foundry was the centerpiece to Neverwinter being different from other MMO's and a lot of the reviews out there stated that one of the few positive things this game had was the Foundry. They mentioned the game actually depends on how far they are willing to go with the foundry - they even mentioned several foundries they played during their review.
Yeah... welcome to reality. Foundry seems to be the ugly step-sister of Neverwinter. If only Cryptic and PWE would read/hear/listen to all those reviews (AND their own bloody marketing) and actually focus some development on foundry so much more could be done. There have been "whispers" that they are doing (a lot?) of major foundry work currently and hopefully will be releasing "something" in the "real soon now" time frame.
There have been "whispers" that they are doing (a lot?) of major foundry work currently and hopefully will be releasing "something" in the "real soon now" time frame.
Agree with this. Though people also need to remember that the Forums is a double-edged sword for Developers. Anything and everything they say becomes "from the horse's mouth" and taken literally.
Dev:
"We have a plan to possibly maybe think about the vague idea to add [name your feature] but it is unlikely to happen in the next 18 months, but we'd sure like to see it if we can possibly maybe make it work, but we just don't have a clue at this particular time as to how to do it reliably"
Playerbase:
"ZOMG! New feature coming SOON!"
Playerbase (two months later):
"ZOMG! The Devs are lyingbasterdoroonies! They *PROMISED* this feature and now: NOTHING!!!11!1!!ONE!!"
There is, as I understand it, a dedicated Foundry Dev team. I also understand the high possibility they get dumped-on with other things, too. But in short: I am sure there is a lot of work going on and whatever it is that's being worked on now is likely a big project, one that gives the appearance of neglect for the main reason it's a lot of work and takes time.
I have faith in Robobo and his team. I also look at this way: though every new feature, trinket or thing that is introduced can alway bring new problems with it, I still strongly believe things will only improve and get better over time.
As for nifty feature ideas from players: I have no doubt the Devs look at them. But it's not always just a great idea, but also the coding, implementation, how it affects other aspect of the game (code-wise) and all the other considerations (such as exploits, for one) - we are seeing things through a keyhole. There is no way we, the outside bunch, can possibly see the "big picture" - which any new implementation, feature or otherwise change must be able to snuggly and neatly fit into.
A simple comment mentioning they are trying several things, with nothing specific in mind, would go a long way in calming people down. The whole point of introducing these changes is to increase player retention.
I also think, after making a foundry when I was only lvl 30 and another after I hit 60, they should change the level requirement in unlocking the foundry to lvl 60. This will cut down the foundry exploit spam by a large amount, as well as increase the quality of the foundries. After hitting 60 you have a general idea how strong certain things are.
A simple comment mentioning they are trying several things, with nothing specific in mind, would go a long way in calming people down. The whole point of introducing these changes is to increase player retention.
I also think, after making a foundry when I was only lvl 30 and another after I hit 60, they should change the level requirement in unlocking the foundry to lvl 60. This will cut down the foundry exploit spam by a large amount, as well as increase the quality of the foundries. After hitting 60 you have a general idea how strong certain things are.
Good points. Especially the leveling aspect. Though I'd prefer a tiered approach: One quest slot for every ten levels of game play (account-wise, of course): 15=one slot, 20=second slot, 30= third slot and so on, then at 60 all remaining slots open up. But I know better than to hold my breath - and such a design is a bit too late anyway, as far as helping to prevent garbage.
A simple comment mentioning they are trying several things, with nothing specific in mind, would go a long way in calming people down. The whole point of introducing these changes is to increase player retention.
While I would like this, I really, really think they would get far less chatter (and frustration) from us (the outsiders) if they would just hire a measly fresh-faced college intern to pick off some low-hanging fruit from the bugs in the Foundry.
If you take a look at the bugs that we've reported, how many are sooo simplistic an intern could easily handle?
How about these... almost assuredly one-line/flag/variable/description (text!) changes...
!! Hh Knight Suit of Armor 01 Black - anchor is about a foot above base of feet
Royal Crypts tagged "Crypt" are somehow different than normal "Crypt" tag rooms
!! Generic Box 01 - anchor at centerpoint instead of bottom plane
!! Cypress Tree 03 - anchor 10 feet offset from trunk
!! All "Ground Grass" details - anchor at centerpoint instead of bottom (or near) plane
!! Mp Bottle Round 01, Mp Bottle Skinny 01, Mp Bottle Tall 01 - all anchors are at centerpoint instead of base plane, and all seem to have invisible glass above liquid inside, Mp Bottle Skinny 01 liquid is hollow tube not filled cylinder.
!! RedCap Cage Closed Large - anchor is half selection cube too high (i.e. select cube base = item base)
!! RedCap Cage Closed Small - anchor is half selection cube too high (i.e. select cube base = item base)
I also think, after making a foundry when I was only lvl 30 and another after I hit 60, they should change the level requirement in unlocking the foundry to lvl 60. This will cut down the foundry exploit spam by a large amount, as well as increase the quality of the foundries. After hitting 60 you have a general idea how strong certain things are.
An absolutely ridiculous suggestion. I would say at least half of the authors have no interest in playing the game and only do play the game because they 'have' to in order to exchange plays.
I may as well say that all players must make a foundry quest at level 60 to continue in order to appreciate the work it takes to make one. I'm sure the player base would love that.
It would make no difference to exploits as people would still want to use them for alts and to gain tips from other players. The best and only way to handle exploits is to police them. Something they do so well on the forums so why not the foundry tabs?
As for the quality, I can only speak for myself but it would not change, in fact the more I play this game and the more I read up about D&D for my foundry quests the more I realize that in fact Neverwinter breaks the D&D Lore anyway so in a way why bother with Lore.
Creating a new account and raising a character to lvl 60 takes time. That is how it would cut down on exploit maps. As of right now, if you are caught creating exploit maps, you have your rights to make foundry maps revoked and/or banned. However, if people can create and raise lvl 15 or so characters quickly in order to make exploit maps faster than they can be banned and shut down, then it becomes a problem. They have a limited staff to respond to these issues.
As for the quality comment - a large proportion of foundries have no sense of balance when it comes to enemy encounters, especially at the lvl 60 level. Only when you hit 60 do you have first hand experience about what makes what difficult.
An absolutely ridiculous suggestion. I would say at least half of the authors have no interest in playing the game and only do play the game because they 'have' to in order to exchange plays.
Why make things for a game you do not like to play? If your thing is playing realistic cooking sims for example, then content you make for that may not see a huge audience, but the audience you do reach will be more appreciative without you needing to peddle to the tastes of people who like gameplay you do not. Its a lot more "do what you love".
Why make things for a game you do not like to play? If your thing is playing realistic cooking sims for example, then content you make for that may not see a huge audience, but the audience you do reach will be more appreciative without you needing to peddle to the tastes of people who like gameplay you do not. Its a lot more "do what you love".
It's quite simple really, the stupid pay to win elements ruin any chance this game has for me. Added to that a poor PVP system that has all of one game and the fact my time would need to be split between playing foundries, PVP and and also the PVE parts. Just to be competitive and that's before I even start on the foundry. No thanks. Come the 4th of the 4th I will dump this game quicker than you can say ESO which I have beta tested and is already a million times better in it's design. For a start it doesn't break it's own lore within the first ten seconds of game play.
I do however 'love' the foundry and the combat system is very good.
Edit: and I am not on my own in that opinion. Your cooking sims example is silly, I never said that Neverwinter wasn't the type of game I wanted to play.
Comments
If cryptic is afraid about farms/exploits too much they can only count features foundries for the thing. Not great for most of us authors but still better than the current state. Maybe introduce a specific community regulated thing like "campaign eligible" - but it's hard to make it community driven cause farms do get high scores sometimes
Bar'thok Rising Part 2 - The Hunt - Work in Progress, not yet published
Many good authors quit after one event because of lack of plays. Get them some reason to play and you'll see many people returning.
Yeah... welcome to reality. Foundry seems to be the ugly step-sister of Neverwinter. If only Cryptic and PWE would read/hear/listen to all those reviews (AND their own bloody marketing) and actually focus some development on foundry so much more could be done. There have been "whispers" that they are doing (a lot?) of major foundry work currently and hopefully will be releasing "something" in the "real soon now" time frame.
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
Agree with this. Though people also need to remember that the Forums is a double-edged sword for Developers. Anything and everything they say becomes "from the horse's mouth" and taken literally.
Dev:
"We have a plan to possibly maybe think about the vague idea to add [name your feature] but it is unlikely to happen in the next 18 months, but we'd sure like to see it if we can possibly maybe make it work, but we just don't have a clue at this particular time as to how to do it reliably"
Playerbase:
"ZOMG! New feature coming SOON!"
Playerbase (two months later):
"ZOMG! The Devs are lyingbasterdoroonies! They *PROMISED* this feature and now: NOTHING!!!11!1!!ONE!!"
There is, as I understand it, a dedicated Foundry Dev team. I also understand the high possibility they get dumped-on with other things, too. But in short: I am sure there is a lot of work going on and whatever it is that's being worked on now is likely a big project, one that gives the appearance of neglect for the main reason it's a lot of work and takes time.
I have faith in Robobo and his team. I also look at this way: though every new feature, trinket or thing that is introduced can alway bring new problems with it, I still strongly believe things will only improve and get better over time.
As for nifty feature ideas from players: I have no doubt the Devs look at them. But it's not always just a great idea, but also the coding, implementation, how it affects other aspect of the game (code-wise) and all the other considerations (such as exploits, for one) - we are seeing things through a keyhole. There is no way we, the outside bunch, can possibly see the "big picture" - which any new implementation, feature or otherwise change must be able to snuggly and neatly fit into.
I also think, after making a foundry when I was only lvl 30 and another after I hit 60, they should change the level requirement in unlocking the foundry to lvl 60. This will cut down the foundry exploit spam by a large amount, as well as increase the quality of the foundries. After hitting 60 you have a general idea how strong certain things are.
Good points. Especially the leveling aspect. Though I'd prefer a tiered approach: One quest slot for every ten levels of game play (account-wise, of course): 15=one slot, 20=second slot, 30= third slot and so on, then at 60 all remaining slots open up. But I know better than to hold my breath - and such a design is a bit too late anyway, as far as helping to prevent garbage.
While I would like this, I really, really think they would get far less chatter (and frustration) from us (the outsiders) if they would just hire a measly fresh-faced college intern to pick off some low-hanging fruit from the bugs in the Foundry.
If you take a look at the bugs that we've reported, how many are sooo simplistic an intern could easily handle?
How about these... almost assuredly one-line/flag/variable/description (text!) changes...
09-04-2013 !! Multi-shot/single-shot arrow traps firing 5' above target markers
09-07-2013 !! Identical UGC Foundry Created Items are not stackable
09-11-2013 !! Dialogs: Required Has Item if failed states "You do not have this skill"
09-11-2013 !! Confusing: "Fx - Falling Sparkles 01" and "FX - Falling Sparkles 01" (Fx vs FX)
09-22-2013 !! Fomorian "Solos" description encounter type shows (null)
10-22-2013 Incorrect Rotation: Volume Gate - Netherese Ruins Wall 20ft 01
11-13-2013 Foundry Quest Items are BOP - deters Group Friendly play
11-19-2013 [new] Thayan Mirror Image Encounter type shows (null)
11-19-2013 [new] Projectors by default project into sky
Detail Asset Issues
Encounter Matrix | Advanced Foundry Topics
An absolutely ridiculous suggestion. I would say at least half of the authors have no interest in playing the game and only do play the game because they 'have' to in order to exchange plays.
I may as well say that all players must make a foundry quest at level 60 to continue in order to appreciate the work it takes to make one. I'm sure the player base would love that.
It would make no difference to exploits as people would still want to use them for alts and to gain tips from other players. The best and only way to handle exploits is to police them. Something they do so well on the forums so why not the foundry tabs?
As for the quality, I can only speak for myself but it would not change, in fact the more I play this game and the more I read up about D&D for my foundry quests the more I realize that in fact Neverwinter breaks the D&D Lore anyway so in a way why bother with Lore.
As for the quality comment - a large proportion of foundries have no sense of balance when it comes to enemy encounters, especially at the lvl 60 level. Only when you hit 60 do you have first hand experience about what makes what difficult.
It's quite simple really, the stupid pay to win elements ruin any chance this game has for me. Added to that a poor PVP system that has all of one game and the fact my time would need to be split between playing foundries, PVP and and also the PVE parts. Just to be competitive and that's before I even start on the foundry. No thanks. Come the 4th of the 4th I will dump this game quicker than you can say ESO which I have beta tested and is already a million times better in it's design. For a start it doesn't break it's own lore within the first ten seconds of game play.
I do however 'love' the foundry and the combat system is very good.
Edit: and I am not on my own in that opinion. Your cooking sims example is silly, I never said that Neverwinter wasn't the type of game I wanted to play.