How could cryptic make the foundry free access in a way that benefits them and the community? Simple:
1- Make Foundry free access, no character slot required. Essentially an offline mission builder.
2- Create a system where players submit their foundry missions and that mission gets added to a public access list. Important: Players can only submit an EPISODE set (5 missions minimum following a storyline).
3- Other players can see this list and play the episode set as single player only. Upon completing the episode the person playing it receives a 'review' feedback form on screen. One can review an episode set only once.
4- After 10 days the review scores are added up automatically by the computer and if a threshold score is achieved, that episode set is 'reported' to Cryptic staff for consideration.
5- If the episode set is good and is approved by Cryptic it gets added to the Foundry Episode list as a multi-player playable foundry episode.
6- If it is played X amount of times per month (cryptic decides what X is) the content maker player receives a 'spiff' of X cstore points for his efforts.
And there you have it. Incentive for people to make GOOD content; cryptic only gets to review content that receive high scores by playerbase (essentially crowdsourcing the first level of quality assurance) and if accepted, the entire playerbase then benefits from being able to enjoy an entire set of 'episodes'.
Win-win for all and cryptic gets no extra workload than what it currently does in foundry.
this is one of the possibilities how this could work!
i would only add - for the BEST episodes approved by Cryptic - if only 2 - 3 foundry episodes per month, there should be extra rewards - consoles, weapons, etc set also by cryptic.. and accolades..
so one has SOME feeling of progress from playing the missions..
The problem with this is the current review system. Most reviews aren't really reviews but simply a rating that the player gives the mission without any feedback. The review text box that one can fill out is extremely limited on character space to only like a few lines.
Not to mention the completely ridiculous ratings that some players give missions. Ratings with one word reviews that prove the player didn't even read the dialogue prompts of the mission.
The review system needs to be much more detailed and needs to be set up in such a way that if someone wants to give a really bad rating, they will need to change a bunch of things on the review form to do so. Right now, it is just too easy to change the rating to a 1 or a 2 and then click Submit without entering any feedback as to why the mission was rated so low.
The problem with this is the current review system. Most reviews aren't really reviews but simply a rating that the player gives the mission without any feedback.
....
The review system needs to be much more detailed and needs to be set up in such a way that if someone wants to give a really bad rating, they will need to change a bunch of things on the review form to do so. Right now, it is just too easy to change the rating to a 1 or a 2 and then click Submit without entering any feedback as to why the mission was rated so low.
Thing is, the review process needs to be simplified and automated by using a simple 5-star point system.
When the mission set (episode) gains enough 4 to 5 stars in the 10 day peer review period then it gets sent to cryptic for consideration.
As far as feedback for the mission maker that can simply be added as an optional box that would e-mail the feedback form to the mission maker's forum (not in-game) account.
Thing is, the review process needs to be simplified and automated by using a simple 5-star point system.
When the mission set (episode) gains enough 4 to 5 stars in the 10 day peer review period then it gets sent to cryptic for consideration.
As far as feedback for the mission maker that can simply be added as an optional box that would e-mail the feedback form to the mission maker's forum (not in-game) account.
This would not benefit the community, though. Because here is what will happen. Someone will make a fantastic mission with great dialogue, great battles, awesome puzzles, etc. Then a handful of reviewers will come along and rate it a 1 or a 2 because "there's too much dialogue", "puzzles are too hard", etc. The reviewers that basically don't read the dialogue and "lolclick" through everything will rate said missions low when there's no reason for it.
The review system needs to be much more detailed and actually require some work to submit a review rather than a single dropdown box for the rating and a button click to submit.
"The review system needs to be much more detailed and actually require some work to submit a review rather than a single dropdown box for the rating and a button click to submit."
by your logic what makes you think those that lolclick through will write a review?
if the mission is fun it will be fun even if you skip reading the text. If you're making a mission and turn it into a soap opera chances are you will deserve the 1 star rating no matter how deep the storyline is. But, make it a balanced and fun gameplay/story/eventful mission that caters to both lolcklickers and trek-opera junkies and that person will be receiving more good reviews than the other.
and that is how the market works. For apps, for products, for anything.
"The review system needs to be much more detailed and actually require some work to submit a review rather than a single dropdown box for the rating and a button click to submit."
by your logic what makes you think those that lolclick through will write a review?
if the mission is fun it will be fun even if you skip reading the text. If you're making a mission and turn it into a soap opera chances are you will deserve the 1 star rating no matter how deep the storyline is. But, make it a balanced and fun gameplay/story/eventful mission that caters to both lolcklickers and trek-opera junkies and that person will be receiving more good reviews than the other.
and that is how the market works. For apps, for products, for anything.
They may not write a review, but they will have to change several drop downs in order to purposefully give it a bad review. Since they lolclick through the dialogue, they will be less likely to take the extra steps and work to put the review application into a negative state.
Also, if they are a lolclicker, then they will just click the Accept button on the mission without reading the part that says the mission is heavy in dialogue or doesn't have a lot of combat. At that point, the reviewer has been forewarned and it is only their own ignorance that they didn't read the preview text. Why should a reviewer's ignorance in reading the Accept Mission text equate to a bad review for the mission?
Comments
i would only add - for the BEST episodes approved by Cryptic - if only 2 - 3 foundry episodes per month, there should be extra rewards - consoles, weapons, etc set also by cryptic.. and accolades..
so one has SOME feeling of progress from playing the missions..
and also - separate foundry database for STF´s
Not to mention the completely ridiculous ratings that some players give missions. Ratings with one word reviews that prove the player didn't even read the dialogue prompts of the mission.
The review system needs to be much more detailed and needs to be set up in such a way that if someone wants to give a really bad rating, they will need to change a bunch of things on the review form to do so. Right now, it is just too easy to change the rating to a 1 or a 2 and then click Submit without entering any feedback as to why the mission was rated so low.
Thing is, the review process needs to be simplified and automated by using a simple 5-star point system.
When the mission set (episode) gains enough 4 to 5 stars in the 10 day peer review period then it gets sent to cryptic for consideration.
As far as feedback for the mission maker that can simply be added as an optional box that would e-mail the feedback form to the mission maker's forum (not in-game) account.
This would not benefit the community, though. Because here is what will happen. Someone will make a fantastic mission with great dialogue, great battles, awesome puzzles, etc. Then a handful of reviewers will come along and rate it a 1 or a 2 because "there's too much dialogue", "puzzles are too hard", etc. The reviewers that basically don't read the dialogue and "lolclick" through everything will rate said missions low when there's no reason for it.
The review system needs to be much more detailed and actually require some work to submit a review rather than a single dropdown box for the rating and a button click to submit.
by your logic what makes you think those that lolclick through will write a review?
if the mission is fun it will be fun even if you skip reading the text. If you're making a mission and turn it into a soap opera chances are you will deserve the 1 star rating no matter how deep the storyline is. But, make it a balanced and fun gameplay/story/eventful mission that caters to both lolcklickers and trek-opera junkies and that person will be receiving more good reviews than the other.
and that is how the market works. For apps, for products, for anything.
They may not write a review, but they will have to change several drop downs in order to purposefully give it a bad review. Since they lolclick through the dialogue, they will be less likely to take the extra steps and work to put the review application into a negative state.
Also, if they are a lolclicker, then they will just click the Accept button on the mission without reading the part that says the mission is heavy in dialogue or doesn't have a lot of combat. At that point, the reviewer has been forewarned and it is only their own ignorance that they didn't read the preview text. Why should a reviewer's ignorance in reading the Accept Mission text equate to a bad review for the mission?