I don't care what rewards you get. I care what rewards *I* get. I don't want to have to choose between interesting story and making decent progress on the enormous sums of dilithium that things seem to take, I want to do both at once.
Unfortunately, at this point story focused missions are pretty risky, since I can't be sure of getting either one.
Better a council that can write well and judge by the spirit of the law instead of an algorithm judging by the letter of the law and letting stuff squeek through more than a human with Star Trek common sense would.
If STO is an example, and no one hardly plays Foundry if they cant get rewarded with xp and loot, then isnt Neverwinter's D&D concept dead on arrival? Someone at Cryptic going to attach rewards to all the mega tons of NW foundry content? Yeah right. If they cant make an algorithm stop all exploiting, then you must trust quality players to.
And yes, I dont care if a Watcher refuses to activate rewards with a crappy bad grammer spelling mission. That TRIBBLE dont need rewards. If their story is whack, thats on them, but Id like to see some semblance of spelling and grammar checking before rewarding a lazy author with reward activation.
STO: @AGNT009 Since Dec 2010
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
* There is no impetus for attacking what I don't want to see on the list--I won't see it anyway.
* Rating will become (more) fair since I would be rating the mission on its own merits and not a desire to push certain things onto the top of the list.
* It will encourage more people to create Foundry missions to fill-in the gaps they find in what they want to play.
* New missions will get out of review much quicker since they will be seen and part of much shorter lists. Right now almost nothing gets out of review (even by established authors) without "Rumble" or "Farm" in their titles.
* Lists generated in this way will be varied and far more of them will be noticed. Right now anything not in the top 20 or so ever gets looked at?yet another issue (which has been lost in the heated arguments going on elsewhere) solved as a bonus.
* Minimal amount of work involved on Cryptic's end so it could be done fairly easily.
If this is easily done as you say, I'm all for it. Sounds terrific even.
The problem is, it may be hard to get a mission into the rewarded category if you don't know the clique of foundry judges. Also it will get down to a sort of popularity contest where everyone tries to tap the judge in the shoulder just to get his/her mission certified for reward.
My 2 cents:
The ratings should be divided:
- Story
- Combat
- Overall
The rating should change to
- Story: Not rated, Minimal, Average, Heavy
- Combat: Not rated, Minimal, Average, Heavy
- Overall: Not rated, Unpolished, OK, Excellent
Every rating should show, even those without actual review. The default value is "Not rated"
You can't rate unless completed the mission.
The drop rate/playthrough should also show.
From all this, you can do tagging and see a lot of things automatically.
Mission: The square triangle.
Auto Rating:
An OK mission with average story content and minimal Combat based, on 10 ratings.
It takes an average of 21 mins to play
It was dropped by 78% (39/50) of the players.
Mission: Testmission 21
Auto Rating: No valid rating yet.
It takes an average of 0 mins to play.
It was dropped by 100% (2/2) of the players.
Mission: The jaggernauts
Auto Rating: An unpolished mission with minimal story content and heavy combat, based on 42 ratings.
It takes an average of 10 mins to play.
It was dropped by 48% (72/150) of the players.
There is no venom in this. If you rate my story mission as "minimal combat" I would not get offended, on the contrary. If you say my story mission has "minimal story" I would rethink of the mission itself. Heck, I would have my search permanently glued to
Story: higher than or equal to Average
Combat: lower than Average
There should be a Mission of the day tab. Containing
3 randomly selected Story heavy missions
3 randomly selected Combat heavy missions
3 randomly selected Excellent rated missions
3 randomly selected missions with at least 5 ratings
All over 20 mins of play time.
Those missions on the daily tab should be locked for editing and have reward enabled for 24 hours. After 24 hours these missions go back to the pool and Cryptic rolls the dice again.
With this, everyone has a fair chance for spotlight even with a tiny "hello world" mission. Of course if you make excellent, well rounded story missions with ample combat, then your chance for reward enabled spotlight is 4x higher. Also the whole thing is highly automatized. Because of the random nature it would be hard to exploit efficiently.
The only way I can think is to swamp the foundry with identical exploit oriented missions. To combat this, Cryptic may add a one time fee of 10k Dil for a mission to be eligible for this Mission of the day draw. The minimum 20 minutes length further removes this swamp of grinders. Who in their right mind would sit in lots of identical missions for over 20 mins without reward, just to have a fractionally higher chance that you may be able to get actual reward out of it once.
Of course the currently existing spotlight system may stay as well.
There is no return to some idyllic, halcyon time when few played the foundry and it was the plaything of only a handful of authors. Although OP's idea would be a great way to shrink the Foundry's profile and use.
It's obvious Cryptic wants to expand the number of people creating and the number of people using the Foundry and the 30min repeatable is a definite step in the right direction.
I will be honest: I absolutely hate season 7. The last IOR change mostly made up for how bad I think Cryptic screwed the game with S7. Removing it would remove a major economic fix and a major incentive to even look at the Foundry.
Personally, as a Foundry author myself, I do not feel threatened by anyone's amateur, professional, or hobbyist work be they novels, mechanics exercises or just an RP zone. None should be censored, none should cater only to my egocentric likes -- although once published they will most certainly be judged by the players-at-large!
Utimately, I'm not entirely sure what the OP is truly looking for, but it seems to me that OP is willing to burn down the game in return for some kind short-term guaranteed recognition scheme.
It's ridiculously selfish.
What solution I do find to be equitable, is an improvement to the UI -- in addition to even further enhancing Foundry mission rewards (which was someone else's idea but I thought it was brilliant).
Let's face it, many of the older systems in the game are ignored and left half-finished. CXP is one of those. Categories for missions should fall under one or more CXP types (diplomacy, science, etc.) Authors should be able to choose 1 main CXP type that their mission would fall under (though should be given the option of up to 3 secondary types). Only the main category would factor into the reward. Players can search for missions by CXP type and be rewarded a token amount of CXP (the main CXP tag designated by the author) upon mission completion, should the mission be "qualified" by the system.
tl;dr
* tie mission categories to CXP for tagging and additional play rewards.
* reinforces two in-game systems by linking them together
* uses static "Trek" categories for player mission labeling (should be easier to program instead of dealing with inconsistent player labels)
* provides additional rewards for using the Foundry system (always a plus, even though CXP doesn't really mean much)
Problems
Admittedly some categories might have to be re-labelled to make sense, like say, changing Development for "RP" -- or just outright adding additional labels for those special cases.
I do not know how hard the programming on this would be, though it seems to be a simple, elegant solution that can bolster the player experience of STO instead of tearing it down, resorting to elitist cabals or increasing exclusivity to the game.
I fully support any plans to increase rewards for spotlight missions and to enhance search features so that people can find the type of mission they want (grind or story). Anyone who goes to such lengths to make what they consider a compelling and engaging story shouldn't have such a hard time getting noticed.
That being said, even official missions in STO are little more than grinders with a story that few pay attention to after the first run. Most wouldn't qualify under IOR standards anyway. The game is a grind.
While I do respect the care that people have for themselves and their own missions, I whole heartedly disagree with the notion that struggling artists should be dictating my STO experience. It's time gated and what I do in that time is my call.
On a semi related note regarding the plight of the foundry author, people not playing your mission doesn't hurt you one bit. PvP actually rewards people who AFK. AFKing does have a negative impact on the gaming experience for everyone in the match or queued up waiting and nothing has been done about that.
__________________________________________
Foundry: Yet Another Borg Mission
It's terrible but easy, and these Borg are way cooler than the mess STO and Voyager left us.
May not actually be "way" cooler or even "slightly" cooler.
I will be honest: I absolutely hate season 7. The last IOR change mostly made up for how bad I think Cryptic screwed the game with S7. Removing it would remove a major economic fix and a major incentive to even look at the Foundry.
I think this is the voiced concerned by a majority of people for supporting the grinders, whether it is directly by them or not. That being the case, I am still of my belief the only real solution for this can not come from the foundry but the larger game as a whole.
That said, what do I think?
I still think the timed based solution for the rewards for the missions spent is the best way to go. Something that scales like the mission rewards do. Average length 15min: 466 DL & 15 FMs, 30min 944 DL 30 FM, 1h+ 1440DL 50FM. Just like those missions in game with the average expected times and investment reward (whatever those numbrers actually are).
People who only get 15 minutes to play, get their reward (albeit lower than if they AFK time out or what they get now for 15mins) and if they spend their hours timed out in missions, chances are those ones aren't going to be played by everyone who is after speedy completion and aren't going to be as popular, breaking up that ratings mumbo jumbo we now have.
And I also think this is already on the way. By the sounds of things, it's already how Neverwinter is going to look out the door.
Edit: But yeah, waaay better search feature would be baller if they could get that too us quick. I still want that!
The use of the Foundry was an excellent move by Cryptic to fix their mistakes and to bring the Foundry into wider use. More users of the system means a healthier, more rounded game. I don't think the gates can be shut to keep the impure out again without damaging the game as a whole.
I still think the timed based solution for the rewards for the missions spent is the best way to go. Something that scales like the mission rewards do. Average length 15min: 466 DL & 15 FMs, 30min 944 DL 30 FM, 1h+ 1440DL 50FM. Just like those missions in game with the average expected times and investment reward (whatever those numbrers actually are).
I am absolutely floored by those are willing to reduce or remove current levels of player rewards all in the service of trying to force some level of... fame? in a niche video game? It's rather a weird and unique situation to be confronted with after 30ish years of gaming.
I don't think punishing one style of mission to the benefit of another is the answer. Especially when the vast majority of Foundry users look for the quick and easy missions to get their reward and progress their gaming.
If you kick out the quick and easy style of missions that offer reasonable rewards, you kick out the player base of the Foundry.
This argument reminds me a lot of the FED vs KDF. Where the KDF doesn't get the same kind of attention as the FED side because the player majority happens to be FED.
You know Cryptic has Jumped the Proverbial Shark when they introduced Tractor Pulling to Star Trek Online!
Quick and easy missions should reward you with next to nothing. You know the work invested should be in line with the reward gathered.
If you cakewalk through things that don't fight back you should get a chocolate cake consumable as a reward and that is all. Work invested is in line with the reward gathered.
If you kill that swarm of though as nail battleships then you DO deserve the l33t drop. Work invested is in line with the reward gathered.
If you think you should get the l33t drop for a cakewalk, you are deeply mistaken.
Hey, I have a great idea, all get your torches and pitchforks and rage Cryptic for not giving everyone 1.000.000 EC as a log-in present each day! We deserve it because they blew the economy! We want our free stuff because they made bad design decisions! The epic loot is rightfully ours because we earned it by playing this game. GIVE GIVE GIVE!!!! YOU DARE TO DENY US OF EASY EC? YOU WILL BURN FOR THIS!!!
The use of the Foundry was an excellent move by Cryptic to fix their mistakes and to bring the Foundry into wider use. More users of the system means a healthier, more rounded game. I don't think the gates can be shut to keep the impure out again without damaging the game as a whole.
I am absolutely floored by those are willing to reduce or remove current levels of player rewards all in the service of trying to force some level of... fame? in a niche video game? It's rather a weird and unique situation to be confronted with after 30ish years of gaming.
I am really not understanding your logic here. I mean, I agreed with your position in that the economy is currently not working and as a result it's focusing a lot of attention here at foundry and said that a solution is needed for the game as a whole. Then I gave a suggestion for a system just related to foundry I thought would reward for time spent in mission like other official content runs.
Was it that I used numbers you didn't like? I can go back and change them to "X" and "X2" if you like so you can imagine what you like there?
I am absolutely floored by those are willing to reduce or remove current levels of player rewards all in the service of trying to force some level of... fame? in a niche video game? It's rather a weird and unique situation to be confronted with after 30ish years of gaming.
This is not the case so much as the grinder community has attempted to reduce it to that. I have been one of the most outspoken critics of the current system and my missions were doing very well even under this shambolic arrangement. I am concerned with the integrity and uniqueness of the Foundry, not my own ego. Most of the solutions I have suggested would probably hurt my overall number of plays in fact.
The "There are more of us so suck it" argument that the pro-grinders seem to all fallback on is firstly just character assassination in lieu of an actual point and secondly, an attempt at theft to put it bluntly. 99% of this game is all about grinding and the Foundry is, or rather was, the one place free of that. So here come a bunch of players who have shown, and continue to show, abject contempt for the foundry who are saying "Hey, we have the numbers so we're taking this one tiny thing you had away from you because we are the real players and anyone who isn't one of us is illegitimate."
I and the other authors here have put a lot of time and effort into making the game better and we get spit on for it. We have EARNED the right to feel proprietary about the Foundry and to defend it from any and all attempts at destroying it in the name of spite and/or greed.
I am really not understanding your logic here. I mean, I agreed with your position in that the economy is currently not working and as a result it's focusing a lot of attention here at foundry and said that a solution is needed for the game as a whole. Then I gave a suggestion for a system just related to foundry I thought would reward for time spent in mission like other official content runs.
Was it that I used numbers you didn't like? I can go back and change them to "X" and "X2" if you like so you can imagine what you like there?
Still, how did you equate fame out of that?
I sincerely apologize for misconstruing intent. I think 15min baseline is and should remain the current reward structure and then calculate out from there. Someone with the willpower to sit through a three hour mission should get a heap of swag. Personally, I can't run those kinds of missions as I'd probably get frustrated at the lack of story editing and give up -- but in no way should people be prevented from making and playing those missions.
What would be most problematic about that solution would be how easy it would be to program a dynamic system like that. And how easy it would be to exploit that system. Server stability notwithstanding, you can stand in a zone all day and not go AFK with just a small amount of effort. Or if a mission is set at a static reward of 2 hours, can someone run it in 1 and get 2 hours of loot?
Quick and easy missions should reward you with next to nothing. You know the work invested should be in line with the reward gathered.
If you cakewalk through things that don't fight back you should get a chocolate cake consumable as a reward and that is all. Work invested is in line with the reward gathered.
If you kill that swarm of though as nail battleships then you DO deserve the l33t drop. Work invested is in line with the reward gathered.
If you think you should get the l33t drop for a cakewalk, you are deeply mistaken.
Putting words in my mouth doesn't win you the argument. Nowhere in my post did I say any of this cakewalk do nothing get reward.
What I DID say was that the majority of the Foundry player base IS looking for quick and easy missions that offer rewards to further their game. If you seek to take that away from them, you sink the Foundry.
Seeking out and removing exploitation is not the same thing as punishing an author for not being a lengthy or creative as another.
The ego on some folks here is mind blowing.
Folks, you need to find a solution that fits the player base needs while ensuring exploitation is kept in check.
If the player base has to run a one hour Foundry mission to get 50 fleet marks, there goes your player base.
You know Cryptic has Jumped the Proverbial Shark when they introduced Tractor Pulling to Star Trek Online!
I and the other authors here have put a lot of time and effort into making the game better and we get spit on for it. We have EARNED the right to feel proprietary about the Foundry and to defend it from any and all attempts at destroying it in the name of spite and/or greed.
I've been rewatching TNG every night lately, currently in season2. It was a fairly silly episode called "Up the Long Ladder," whose main feature seems to have only been Rosalyn Landor in a crop-top sweater. But that aside it deals with two lost colonies, one that is low tech and Irish, and the other a planet of clones (5 base types). The clone planet was stagnant and would soon die out if it didn't get a fresh infusion of new genetic material. They really didn't want to merge with the Irish, because they were coarse and rowdy -- but in the end they needed each other to make a stronger whole. And Rosalyn Landor got three husbands out of the deal.
Just a cute story that I think is far better than ridiculous chest pounding.
What I DID say was that the majority of the Foundry player base IS looking for quick and easy missions that offer rewards to further their game. If you seek to take that away from them, you sink the Foundry.
...
It has nothing to do with the Foundry specifically.
Players are going to play whatever gives them the most rewards for time spent, whether if its a Foundry mission or an STF. Right now it's the easy farming missions being abused for that whereas previously it was clickie missions.
If the foundry was never implemented there would undoubtedly by something else out there that the farmers would farm.
I also don't think Foundry authors are naive enough to assume that if the "grinder" and "farm" missions were taken out that all the players would suddenly begin playing story missions.
I also don't think Foundry authors are naive enough to assume that if the "grinder" and "farm" missions were taken out that all the players would suddenly begin playing story missions.
I really don't get your problem then. The grind missions are still there like before. You can still collect the reward if you kill the battleships like before. So then what is this big fuss about "elitists" trying to ruin the foundry or something?
I really don't get your problem then. The grind missions are still there like before. You can still collect the reward if you kill the battleships like before. So then what is this big fuss about it?
He is attempting to derail the thread, not take part in it.
Alright, gimme a moment to try to be reasonable, before something different makes me rage irrationally. I will contradict my earlier sentiments.
I think that all of us, regardless of which side of the debate we're on should recognize that there is a lot of room for diversity in the Foundry. The fact that more people are learning the tool and using it is a good thing. And, the fact that more players are playing it is a good thing.
I've made a grinder myself. It's a legit use of the Foundry, although I think it's more questionable when the AFK missions are thrown into the mix.
Before the lists began to get clogged with exploits, we were a pretty united community, and now we're already talking about camp v. camp, and who counts as a "real" author, blah, blah. That's not something to be proud of.
The game is a grinder. It privileges grind over its own story content. It probably shouldn't surprise us that the lists are filled with short grinders, when that is the formula for the game.
The players are trained to get the most X, Y, and Z the quickest way possible.
What I don't like is that, like the game itself, the Foundry rewards are privileging the short 16 minute grinders.
Players are not being extra rewarded for putting in the extra time necessary to play a story mission that was a labor of love to an author. Instead, the reward system is sending the players into missions that are designed primarily to give loot or fulfill the IOR.
In this age of endless buckets and sliders, it seems unreasonable to ask somebody to spend 45 minutes to get something that can be had in 16 minutes.
So, I like it that the focus here has shifted to two things that are essential:
1. A way to sort content to find story v. grind.
2. A rewards system that privileges neither the grinder nor the story, even if the game as a whole pushes their story into a dark corner.
If a player spends an hour killing battleships or spends an hour really getting into a story, the rewards should be the same. With those two things in place, all authors would be on a level playing field, even if most players prefer to grind, baby, grind.
I really don't get your problem then. The grind missions are still there like before. You can still collect the reward if you kill the battleships like before. So then what is this big fuss about "elitists" trying to ruin the foundry or something?
The only problem I've had on these talks has been those authors that think/feel that only their missions and those like theirs matter. I'm not Pro Grind nor Pro Story Arc. I am a STO player that only seeks to protect the game he plays while maintaining a fair balance between other players of said game. I understand both arguments and I agree with both of them on the whole. What I won't do is punish one side to justify the other.
Things like One-Click missions and AFK grinders are an exploit, but I am not for imposing a harsher Foundry system that requires one hour of play just to progress the players game.
They come for the rewards first and the story second. That is just the fact of the Foundry and it will never change. That is, unless you remove the reward entirely. Doing that however, kills the player base of the foundry and would most likely create a lot of unrest in that player base.
You know Cryptic has Jumped the Proverbial Shark when they introduced Tractor Pulling to Star Trek Online!
1. The current state of the foundry in regards to effort vs reward is fine as is. Much better than previously. Other choices are solutions for a different problem not part of the foundry itself.
2. The problem was lazy, self entitled players using exploits for fat loot. Then getting angry when they couldnt and blaming a shadowy cabal of power broker authors for the fallout for their own excesses. They one-starred unrelated story missions in revenge.
Nothing can be done about this since it is part of the psychological soup that makes a geek a geek. Shame doesn't seem to work.
3. Timid creatures not dropping loot would have been a better solution than what was decided upon. A more comprehensive UI would be even better. All of these require a great deal of effort from the devs, it seems.
But maybe its less work and more likely to succeed than trying to convince Star Trek fans to live up the standards of their franchise heroes. I urge this path be taken.
1. The current state of the foundry in regards to effort vs reward is fine as is. Much better than previously. Other choices are solutions for a different problem not part of the foundry itself.
2. The problem was lazy, self entitled players using exploits for fat loot. Then getting angry when they couldnt and blaming a shadowy cabal of power broker authors for the fallout for their own excesses. They one-starred unrelated story missions in revenge.
Nothing can be done about this since it is part of the psychological soup that makes a geek a geek. Shame doesn't seem to work.
3. Timid creatures not dropping loot would have been a better solution than what was decided upon. A more comprehensive UI would be even better. All of these require a great deal of effort from the devs, it seems.
But maybe its less work and more likely to succeed than trying to convince Star Trek fans to live up the standards of their franchise heroes. I urge this path be taken.
3. Timid creatures not dropping loot would have been a better solution than what was decided upon.
AFAIK, the drop tables are assigned to type of units.
Timid creature is just a behavioral setting of a unit.
The drop tables don't check the behavior of a unit, just the type.
This means you would need to redo the entire drop calculation to check for behavior as well as type. That is a lot of work.
The problem is in the behavior of the ship so the fix was applied to the behavior settings and not to a completely unrelated section of the game.
By making the timid units act like regular combat units when they take damage, the drop tables started to function as intended again. Makes perfect sense to me.
1. The current state of the foundry in regards to effort vs reward is fine as is. Much better than previously.
I usually agree with everything you say, twg, but I just don't think it's designed well, if the player is given this choice:
"Hey you want 12 cookies? Go play a foundry mission that is at least 15 minutes long. No, you will not get more cookies for playing one of the story missions. They will take you an hour and you will get 12 cookies."
It privileges the shorter combat missions, many of which are slapped together in one evening over the missions that took months to create.
The one thing the "story" faction has got going for them is they've got Brandon. He should be asked to give the "story" group a guest blog on "How to Properly Search In the Foundry."
This is a zero effort on Cryptic's part thing that has the most likelihood of giving you what you want right now.
Give a list of approved authors they can search for. Get together and figure out a code you can put on your approved missions (ex: Search "LGSTY" for a long story! Search "FDYELT" for all approved missions!).
Changes to the game take time. This is a cheap DIY solution that could save them a bit of stress by being proactive and self-organizing instead of being destructive.
Comments
Unfortunately, at this point story focused missions are pretty risky, since I can't be sure of getting either one.
-Morgan.
If STO is an example, and no one hardly plays Foundry if they cant get rewarded with xp and loot, then isnt Neverwinter's D&D concept dead on arrival? Someone at Cryptic going to attach rewards to all the mega tons of NW foundry content? Yeah right. If they cant make an algorithm stop all exploiting, then you must trust quality players to.
And yes, I dont care if a Watcher refuses to activate rewards with a crappy bad grammer spelling mission. That TRIBBLE dont need rewards. If their story is whack, thats on them, but Id like to see some semblance of spelling and grammar checking before rewarding a lazy author with reward activation.
Capt. Will Conquest of the U.S.S. Crusader
If this is easily done as you say, I'm all for it. Sounds terrific even.
My 2 cents:
The ratings should be divided:
- Story
- Combat
- Overall
The rating should change to
- Story: Not rated, Minimal, Average, Heavy
- Combat: Not rated, Minimal, Average, Heavy
- Overall: Not rated, Unpolished, OK, Excellent
Every rating should show, even those without actual review. The default value is "Not rated"
You can't rate unless completed the mission.
The drop rate/playthrough should also show.
From all this, you can do tagging and see a lot of things automatically.
Mission: The square triangle.
Auto Rating:
An OK mission with average story content and minimal Combat based, on 10 ratings.
It takes an average of 21 mins to play
It was dropped by 78% (39/50) of the players.
Mission: Testmission 21
Auto Rating: No valid rating yet.
It takes an average of 0 mins to play.
It was dropped by 100% (2/2) of the players.
Mission: The jaggernauts
Auto Rating: An unpolished mission with minimal story content and heavy combat, based on 42 ratings.
It takes an average of 10 mins to play.
It was dropped by 48% (72/150) of the players.
There is no venom in this. If you rate my story mission as "minimal combat" I would not get offended, on the contrary. If you say my story mission has "minimal story" I would rethink of the mission itself. Heck, I would have my search permanently glued to
Story: higher than or equal to Average
Combat: lower than Average
There should be a Mission of the day tab. Containing
3 randomly selected Story heavy missions
3 randomly selected Combat heavy missions
3 randomly selected Excellent rated missions
3 randomly selected missions with at least 5 ratings
All over 20 mins of play time.
Those missions on the daily tab should be locked for editing and have reward enabled for 24 hours. After 24 hours these missions go back to the pool and Cryptic rolls the dice again.
With this, everyone has a fair chance for spotlight even with a tiny "hello world" mission. Of course if you make excellent, well rounded story missions with ample combat, then your chance for reward enabled spotlight is 4x higher. Also the whole thing is highly automatized. Because of the random nature it would be hard to exploit efficiently.
The only way I can think is to swamp the foundry with identical exploit oriented missions. To combat this, Cryptic may add a one time fee of 10k Dil for a mission to be eligible for this Mission of the day draw. The minimum 20 minutes length further removes this swamp of grinders. Who in their right mind would sit in lots of identical missions for over 20 mins without reward, just to have a fractionally higher chance that you may be able to get actual reward out of it once.
Of course the currently existing spotlight system may stay as well.
There is no return to some idyllic, halcyon time when few played the foundry and it was the plaything of only a handful of authors. Although OP's idea would be a great way to shrink the Foundry's profile and use.
It's obvious Cryptic wants to expand the number of people creating and the number of people using the Foundry and the 30min repeatable is a definite step in the right direction.
I will be honest: I absolutely hate season 7. The last IOR change mostly made up for how bad I think Cryptic screwed the game with S7. Removing it would remove a major economic fix and a major incentive to even look at the Foundry.
Personally, as a Foundry author myself, I do not feel threatened by anyone's amateur, professional, or hobbyist work be they novels, mechanics exercises or just an RP zone. None should be censored, none should cater only to my egocentric likes -- although once published they will most certainly be judged by the players-at-large!
Utimately, I'm not entirely sure what the OP is truly looking for, but it seems to me that OP is willing to burn down the game in return for some kind short-term guaranteed recognition scheme.
It's ridiculously selfish.
What solution I do find to be equitable, is an improvement to the UI -- in addition to even further enhancing Foundry mission rewards (which was someone else's idea but I thought it was brilliant).
Let's face it, many of the older systems in the game are ignored and left half-finished. CXP is one of those. Categories for missions should fall under one or more CXP types (diplomacy, science, etc.) Authors should be able to choose 1 main CXP type that their mission would fall under (though should be given the option of up to 3 secondary types). Only the main category would factor into the reward. Players can search for missions by CXP type and be rewarded a token amount of CXP (the main CXP tag designated by the author) upon mission completion, should the mission be "qualified" by the system.
tl;dr
* tie mission categories to CXP for tagging and additional play rewards.
* reinforces two in-game systems by linking them together
* uses static "Trek" categories for player mission labeling (should be easier to program instead of dealing with inconsistent player labels)
* provides additional rewards for using the Foundry system (always a plus, even though CXP doesn't really mean much)
Problems
Admittedly some categories might have to be re-labelled to make sense, like say, changing Development for "RP" -- or just outright adding additional labels for those special cases.
I do not know how hard the programming on this would be, though it seems to be a simple, elegant solution that can bolster the player experience of STO instead of tearing it down, resorting to elitist cabals or increasing exclusivity to the game.
That being said, even official missions in STO are little more than grinders with a story that few pay attention to after the first run. Most wouldn't qualify under IOR standards anyway. The game is a grind.
While I do respect the care that people have for themselves and their own missions, I whole heartedly disagree with the notion that struggling artists should be dictating my STO experience. It's time gated and what I do in that time is my call.
On a semi related note regarding the plight of the foundry author, people not playing your mission doesn't hurt you one bit. PvP actually rewards people who AFK. AFKing does have a negative impact on the gaming experience for everyone in the match or queued up waiting and nothing has been done about that.
It's terrible but easy, and these Borg are way cooler than the mess STO and Voyager left us.
I think this is the voiced concerned by a majority of people for supporting the grinders, whether it is directly by them or not. That being the case, I am still of my belief the only real solution for this can not come from the foundry but the larger game as a whole.
That said, what do I think?
I still think the timed based solution for the rewards for the missions spent is the best way to go. Something that scales like the mission rewards do. Average length 15min: 466 DL & 15 FMs, 30min 944 DL 30 FM, 1h+ 1440DL 50FM. Just like those missions in game with the average expected times and investment reward (whatever those numbrers actually are).
People who only get 15 minutes to play, get their reward (albeit lower than if they AFK time out or what they get now for 15mins) and if they spend their hours timed out in missions, chances are those ones aren't going to be played by everyone who is after speedy completion and aren't going to be as popular, breaking up that ratings mumbo jumbo we now have.
And I also think this is already on the way. By the sounds of things, it's already how Neverwinter is going to look out the door.
Edit: But yeah, waaay better search feature would be baller if they could get that too us quick. I still want that!
I am absolutely floored by those are willing to reduce or remove current levels of player rewards all in the service of trying to force some level of... fame? in a niche video game? It's rather a weird and unique situation to be confronted with after 30ish years of gaming.
If you kick out the quick and easy style of missions that offer reasonable rewards, you kick out the player base of the Foundry.
This argument reminds me a lot of the FED vs KDF. Where the KDF doesn't get the same kind of attention as the FED side because the player majority happens to be FED.
If you cakewalk through things that don't fight back you should get a chocolate cake consumable as a reward and that is all. Work invested is in line with the reward gathered.
If you kill that swarm of though as nail battleships then you DO deserve the l33t drop. Work invested is in line with the reward gathered.
If you think you should get the l33t drop for a cakewalk, you are deeply mistaken.
Hey, I have a great idea, all get your torches and pitchforks and rage Cryptic for not giving everyone 1.000.000 EC as a log-in present each day! We deserve it because they blew the economy! We want our free stuff because they made bad design decisions! The epic loot is rightfully ours because we earned it by playing this game. GIVE GIVE GIVE!!!! YOU DARE TO DENY US OF EASY EC? YOU WILL BURN FOR THIS!!!
I am really not understanding your logic here. I mean, I agreed with your position in that the economy is currently not working and as a result it's focusing a lot of attention here at foundry and said that a solution is needed for the game as a whole. Then I gave a suggestion for a system just related to foundry I thought would reward for time spent in mission like other official content runs.
Was it that I used numbers you didn't like? I can go back and change them to "X" and "X2" if you like so you can imagine what you like there?
Still, how did you equate fame out of that?
This is not the case so much as the grinder community has attempted to reduce it to that. I have been one of the most outspoken critics of the current system and my missions were doing very well even under this shambolic arrangement. I am concerned with the integrity and uniqueness of the Foundry, not my own ego. Most of the solutions I have suggested would probably hurt my overall number of plays in fact.
The "There are more of us so suck it" argument that the pro-grinders seem to all fallback on is firstly just character assassination in lieu of an actual point and secondly, an attempt at theft to put it bluntly. 99% of this game is all about grinding and the Foundry is, or rather was, the one place free of that. So here come a bunch of players who have shown, and continue to show, abject contempt for the foundry who are saying "Hey, we have the numbers so we're taking this one tiny thing you had away from you because we are the real players and anyone who isn't one of us is illegitimate."
I and the other authors here have put a lot of time and effort into making the game better and we get spit on for it. We have EARNED the right to feel proprietary about the Foundry and to defend it from any and all attempts at destroying it in the name of spite and/or greed.
I sincerely apologize for misconstruing intent. I think 15min baseline is and should remain the current reward structure and then calculate out from there. Someone with the willpower to sit through a three hour mission should get a heap of swag. Personally, I can't run those kinds of missions as I'd probably get frustrated at the lack of story editing and give up -- but in no way should people be prevented from making and playing those missions.
What would be most problematic about that solution would be how easy it would be to program a dynamic system like that. And how easy it would be to exploit that system. Server stability notwithstanding, you can stand in a zone all day and not go AFK with just a small amount of effort. Or if a mission is set at a static reward of 2 hours, can someone run it in 1 and get 2 hours of loot?
Putting words in my mouth doesn't win you the argument. Nowhere in my post did I say any of this cakewalk do nothing get reward.
What I DID say was that the majority of the Foundry player base IS looking for quick and easy missions that offer rewards to further their game. If you seek to take that away from them, you sink the Foundry.
Seeking out and removing exploitation is not the same thing as punishing an author for not being a lengthy or creative as another.
The ego on some folks here is mind blowing.
Folks, you need to find a solution that fits the player base needs while ensuring exploitation is kept in check.
If the player base has to run a one hour Foundry mission to get 50 fleet marks, there goes your player base.
I've been rewatching TNG every night lately, currently in season2. It was a fairly silly episode called "Up the Long Ladder," whose main feature seems to have only been Rosalyn Landor in a crop-top sweater. But that aside it deals with two lost colonies, one that is low tech and Irish, and the other a planet of clones (5 base types). The clone planet was stagnant and would soon die out if it didn't get a fresh infusion of new genetic material. They really didn't want to merge with the Irish, because they were coarse and rowdy -- but in the end they needed each other to make a stronger whole. And Rosalyn Landor got three husbands out of the deal.
Just a cute story that I think is far better than ridiculous chest pounding.
It has nothing to do with the Foundry specifically.
Players are going to play whatever gives them the most rewards for time spent, whether if its a Foundry mission or an STF. Right now it's the easy farming missions being abused for that whereas previously it was clickie missions.
If the foundry was never implemented there would undoubtedly by something else out there that the farmers would farm.
I also don't think Foundry authors are naive enough to assume that if the "grinder" and "farm" missions were taken out that all the players would suddenly begin playing story missions.
Foundry Mission Database
Check out my Foundry missions:
Standalone - The Great Escape - The Galaxy's Fair - Purity I: Of Denial - Return to Oblivion
Untitled Series - Duritanium Man - The Improbable Bulk - Commander Rihan
Oh, I think there are a few that are.
This is just so on topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjI6vPBFMOo#t=03m00s
And I don't think there are. I guess it's an opinion thing and the way things are going on the forum lately...Wanna fight? :P
EDIT: I approve of Epica 5/5 stars
Foundry Mission Database
Check out my Foundry missions:
Standalone - The Great Escape - The Galaxy's Fair - Purity I: Of Denial - Return to Oblivion
Untitled Series - Duritanium Man - The Improbable Bulk - Commander Rihan
He is attempting to derail the thread, not take part in it.
Thumbwrestling at dawn on Zeta Prime.
I think that all of us, regardless of which side of the debate we're on should recognize that there is a lot of room for diversity in the Foundry. The fact that more people are learning the tool and using it is a good thing. And, the fact that more players are playing it is a good thing.
I've made a grinder myself. It's a legit use of the Foundry, although I think it's more questionable when the AFK missions are thrown into the mix.
Before the lists began to get clogged with exploits, we were a pretty united community, and now we're already talking about camp v. camp, and who counts as a "real" author, blah, blah. That's not something to be proud of.
The game is a grinder. It privileges grind over its own story content. It probably shouldn't surprise us that the lists are filled with short grinders, when that is the formula for the game.
The players are trained to get the most X, Y, and Z the quickest way possible.
What I don't like is that, like the game itself, the Foundry rewards are privileging the short 16 minute grinders.
Players are not being extra rewarded for putting in the extra time necessary to play a story mission that was a labor of love to an author. Instead, the reward system is sending the players into missions that are designed primarily to give loot or fulfill the IOR.
In this age of endless buckets and sliders, it seems unreasonable to ask somebody to spend 45 minutes to get something that can be had in 16 minutes.
So, I like it that the focus here has shifted to two things that are essential:
1. A way to sort content to find story v. grind.
2. A rewards system that privileges neither the grinder nor the story, even if the game as a whole pushes their story into a dark corner.
If a player spends an hour killing battleships or spends an hour really getting into a story, the rewards should be the same. With those two things in place, all authors would be on a level playing field, even if most players prefer to grind, baby, grind.
The only problem I've had on these talks has been those authors that think/feel that only their missions and those like theirs matter. I'm not Pro Grind nor Pro Story Arc. I am a STO player that only seeks to protect the game he plays while maintaining a fair balance between other players of said game. I understand both arguments and I agree with both of them on the whole. What I won't do is punish one side to justify the other.
Things like One-Click missions and AFK grinders are an exploit, but I am not for imposing a harsher Foundry system that requires one hour of play just to progress the players game.
They come for the rewards first and the story second. That is just the fact of the Foundry and it will never change. That is, unless you remove the reward entirely. Doing that however, kills the player base of the foundry and would most likely create a lot of unrest in that player base.
2. The problem was lazy, self entitled players using exploits for fat loot. Then getting angry when they couldnt and blaming a shadowy cabal of power broker authors for the fallout for their own excesses. They one-starred unrelated story missions in revenge.
Nothing can be done about this since it is part of the psychological soup that makes a geek a geek. Shame doesn't seem to work.
3. Timid creatures not dropping loot would have been a better solution than what was decided upon. A more comprehensive UI would be even better. All of these require a great deal of effort from the devs, it seems.
But maybe its less work and more likely to succeed than trying to convince Star Trek fans to live up the standards of their franchise heroes. I urge this path be taken.
Well said.
Timid creature is just a behavioral setting of a unit.
The drop tables don't check the behavior of a unit, just the type.
This means you would need to redo the entire drop calculation to check for behavior as well as type. That is a lot of work.
The problem is in the behavior of the ship so the fix was applied to the behavior settings and not to a completely unrelated section of the game.
By making the timid units act like regular combat units when they take damage, the drop tables started to function as intended again. Makes perfect sense to me.
I usually agree with everything you say, twg, but I just don't think it's designed well, if the player is given this choice:
"Hey you want 12 cookies? Go play a foundry mission that is at least 15 minutes long. No, you will not get more cookies for playing one of the story missions. They will take you an hour and you will get 12 cookies."
It privileges the shorter combat missions, many of which are slapped together in one evening over the missions that took months to create.
Heck, you could try bribing them to go back to EVE if those options seem impossible.
This is a zero effort on Cryptic's part thing that has the most likelihood of giving you what you want right now.
Give a list of approved authors they can search for. Get together and figure out a code you can put on your approved missions (ex: Search "LGSTY" for a long story! Search "FDYELT" for all approved missions!).
Changes to the game take time. This is a cheap DIY solution that could save them a bit of stress by being proactive and self-organizing instead of being destructive.