test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Second Foundry Conference Call - Audio Released
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Hi everyone,
Here is the audio for the second conference call with Cryptic, if you want to listen. This post also includes a very brief interview with Stormshade about the conferences.
Please leave feedback. Also, sorry about the quality of the recording. It was a last minute thing that I scrambled together and surprised the devs with:
Link: http://starbaseugc.com/index.php/uncategorized/cryptic-conference-calls-and-the-foundry-community/
It is unedited, so you may have to skip a few seconds at the beginning.
Here is the audio for the second conference call with Cryptic, if you want to listen. This post also includes a very brief interview with Stormshade about the conferences.
Please leave feedback. Also, sorry about the quality of the recording. It was a last minute thing that I scrambled together and surprised the devs with:
Link: http://starbaseugc.com/index.php/uncategorized/cryptic-conference-calls-and-the-foundry-community/
It is unedited, so you may have to skip a few seconds at the beginning.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Thanks for doing your bit to ensure transparency.
However, Stormshade's comments just prove the point I made when I first heard about this. A secretly hand-picked group of players are now directly influencing the development of the game. Exactly what was feared when the Advisory Council was announced last year. Nothing against the guys who were picked, you understand. It's just a terrible precedent to set.
As the Grand Nagus himself said, before he was picked to be part of this group:
I'd have posted this on SBUGC, but the front page is drenched in spoiler spam and egos. Oh, and the chat doesn't work anymore.
Just a quick fyi, because I don't have time to fully respond to many of your valid concerns. We replaced the chat that wasn't working for people yesterday with an irc client. So, it should be working again. Sorry for the problems with the chat.
I look forward to reading more relevant responses to your post.
Since you quoted me, I'd like to respond to the issues you've raised. Firstly, I still agree with what I said in that quote. Secondly, though I was picked for said group, I was unfortunately unable to make the call due to RL responsibilities.
That said, I think there is a significant difference between the advisory council and this phone conference. The reason is because the advisory council was going to be giving feedback on the overall game, and that feedback would effect everyone who played it. However, this conference group is specifically discussing the Foundry, which people dont even have to play if they dont want to. The Foundry is an optional form of gameplay, but nothing required to play the game itself.
Fair point. RL trumps game in all cases.
I'm glad you still stand by the quote - I really didn't want to get into an extended debate on the exact definition of the word 'representitive'.
I'd have to disagree with you there. MMO games are not a collection of discrete elements. Development of one game mechanic will have a knock-on effect on how the rest of the game is played.
The Foundry is another game mechanic. Although it is used at the moment for creating missions, the intent is to integrate it into other gameplay systems such as Ship Interiors, and allowing users to create new PVP maps.
A change in The Foundry is a change in the game's ecosystem. It will affect everything. Otherwise, what's the point?
I tried to relay other users' feedback during the call live from the starbase ugc chat room, and I hope that helped the devs get a wider sample of suggestions.
The reason some were chosen was due to their proficiency with the Foundry. Literally anyone could've been chosen: so long as they had met whatever internal metric Cryptic used to determine Foundry proficiency (a lot of closed beta testers were asked in on the call; probably due to their proficiency and knowing the limitations so far).
Hopefully, permission from the devs was obtained to post this recording but I think the community would appreciate the fact the devs went outside the forums to hear Foundry feature requests or bug fix needs in long-form.
That's a good idea.
And I agree that a podcast of future calls is a great idea. Transparency may not alleviate all of some concerns about elitism and a "council," but transparency certainly helps.
Agreed. And despite my reservations at the way this was introduced, you've done a sterling job for the community at large. Transparency is crucial - even if it's just to cover your own back.
Like I said, I've got nothing against those who got the golden ticket. I just don't believe "internal metrics" are the best way to involve or inspire the greater community. Especially as these metrics seem to favour "forum personalities" or those of previous privilege, (itself granted by internal metric.)
By not allowing any paying customer an equal opportunity to contribute; the community becomes fractured between 'haves' and 'have nots', with the line dividing the two obfuscated.
I'm not saying interaction with the community is a bad idea. I think it's wonderfully progressive and should be encouraged.
However, by keeping the entry criteria a secret, it's always going to appear an 'exclusive club' for the lucky few. Some of which have already been flaunting their privilege over on SBUGC, which in turn has driven away a few regular contributors.
To stave off the inevitable strawman response; note the word "opportunity". I don't expect anyone from Cryptic to be fielding conference calls with every player at once.
All they need to do is ask for contributors. To closed Redshirt betas, conference calls, or whatever other feedback-gathering events are in the pipeline. Sure, they'll get a lot of responses; but at least those responding will feel they're being heard, even if they're not ultimately chosen.
They can end up selecting the people they'd have secretly picked anyway, but this way maintains the illusion of transparency and fairness.
Which is all that really matters.
At least the people that are involved are trying to keep us all clued into what's going on... besides... I suppose they already know my opinion... I'm getting tired of reading my own posts and I guess the Dev's are as well...
It sounds like the focus group gave Cryptic some good suggestions and Cryptic is looking to come back to the focus group again in the future for more input.
However, it seems like Cryptic has found their favorite group of authors based off of some comments made, and they are a part of this group. In a sense, these authors missions could be construed as Dev Favorites already and that could carry a lot of weight with the player base (maybe even more so than the rating system). This makes me reconsider even writing anymore missions, as mine would not have such an endorsement.
As for the "bias" of having this elite group I'm not worried and would have done the same. Armchair developers are abundant here and most have neither the skill, drive, nor intelligence to be of any help. Making the metric known publically would bring cries of "that's not fair" across the land.
I do believe the devs use these forums for their decisions too, as was mentioned in the podcast by Jack I believe. But even taking these forums, we are still only a small group within the very large player base. the special group, I believe, showed that they were very serious about the Foundry, tested is a lot and were able to make great missions from them. What better group could you find to make a focus group from.
I think we should use what is given to us. Keep making suggestions here on the forums but also now, maybe throw some ideas to these fine people who were chosen to put in their personal time to help make the game better.
Here's a few of my suggestions:
1. Ability to choose transitions. Example- Beam out, fade to black already given. But how about Dream sequence blur or a strange natural event that causes you to be transported somewhere, or be memory wiped or any other thing that happened to often in Trek.
2. Actions for NPC contacts and not just NPC groups. That would be a huge help for me and others as I've read through these posts.
3. Music selection and sound effect placements within maps. Nothing adds more mood than noise!
4. A whole underwater map would be fantastic, as was mentioned in the podcast, but not just for a space map but also a ground map.
Just fyi, both of these suggestions were made during the first conference. I asked for animations to be added to the map transition tab. Since those animations are already in the foundry, then we should be able to use them as they're intended, choosing to beam out, warp in, or nothing like when transitioning into a building.
Cryptic also stated that they are very, very aware that npcs need to be beefed up. I think that they hate it that many authors aren't using the npc contacts as intended, because they are so lifeless.
I can't even imagine what Foundry might be like a year from now, though I guess it will be a lot more complicated to use as well.
Those people who are waiting to use it only when it hits Holodeck, might be seriously hard knocked when they try and make something. I've put countless hours in and I still learn new stuff by using it, watching the vids (like the ones you make), by reading up on StarbaseUGC, and by playing other people's missions.
have no problem with this and here are my reasons:
It was all about the foundry, and it involved some community members that have showed a real desire to make the foundry a good experience and real tool to develop content.
It was recorded and released, something that was thought about after but also made the information discussed available to me.
I don't have a problem with it, I just hope that in the future any other elements of the game that are discussed are talked about with people with similar knowledge in that area.
If there is a discussion it should be recorded and a feedback thread stickied so everyone gets to have a say.
or even some polling done on certain features.
either way since the advisory council was scrapped we saw that Cryptic began putting more into the forums and reaching out to everyone, they heard the reaction and responded very well to the desires of the community, something they continue to do now. I'm not to worried about something like the advisory council returning, rather I see the current mode we have becoming more refined and a great example is some of the podcasts filtering the information along.
I really appreciate the effort in recording and posting this, and the willingness of all parties to let us hear it, to me this speaks volumes on the mindset of the people involved, and their commitment to making this open to all the community.