It doesn't have anything to do with the "unwashed masses". It has to do with the fact the Foundry is for story missions, and when story missions get rated lower than missions without any story then things are not working right. If you don't care about story, then you shouldn't be in the Foundry, and that is an example of the rewards structure being flawed.
I don't complain that the STFs or fleet actions have next to no story. Different aspects of the game are for different types of people.
I completely agree with you that content outside the Foundry should provide more FM, etc. That is part of the solution. You guys just want your marks, and don't care whether it's from the Foundry, or somewhere else, and that's fine. I wholeheartedly support adding FMs to more things.
But whatever flaws there are in the rest of the game, there is no reason why the people should flood into the Foundry and start running the shortest, most combat centric missions, in order to try to fix it. The Foundry is not there to try to fix whatever problems that exist with the rest of the game.
And what exactly constitutes a story, and who will judge a mission to be a 'satisfactory' story or not ? Will a few dialog boxes suffice ?
Whats your yardstick you plan to use to measure with ?
Also, don't forget a player has to PAY for the privilege of creating foundry content. If someone has purchased their right to make missions then they can create whatever the choose so you'll just have to accept that some will want to make other than story content and others will want to play them.
As an author of a story mission and a fan of them, I'm sorry, but I don't approve of saying who should and should not use the Foundry.
I do still think stories and grinders/combat simulators can be successfully separated through the UI, though. As far as the "who decides," that's actually one of the issues I'm inviting people to debate in my "Tagging" suggestion thread, and I've proposed three options, and another player has introduced a fourth. I also brought up the issue of what to do with ambiguous cases (like "The First Battle of Chin'toka," if you've ever played that), that are pretty much combat but also draw you into a story. You could perhaps contribute to that part of the discussion (or other aspects of the proposed UI overhaul).
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Ultimately, there is a very blurry line between combat simulations and story missions. I personally have written several missions that were so heavily combat oriented that the story ended up taking a back seat to the combat.
Ultimately, there is a very blurry line between combat simulations and story missions. I personally have written several missions that were so heavily combat oriented that the story ended up taking a back seat to the combat.
Unfortunately I think the story writers are upset because the majority of foundry players feel the compensation for their time spent playing these missions is better from the shorter missions so they immediately get labeled 'grinders' because they're mainly combat. If ALL rewards were removed from foundry missions the problem would still exist as the IOR is repeatable, and that grants rewards and players would still be doing the shortest missions they could find to get those IOR rewards.
The ui discussion is a red herring as every author is free to include in the mission title or description the length of mission as well as the type of mission. This is the self policing that we as authors don't seem to be doing at the moment.
This thread has been fairly constructive this far, so let's continue to keep it that way I had to close other threads because they were not going to provide constructive feedback and instead bait, blame, and do much more harm than good. Thanks for your understanding All sides of feedback on the matter will be heard.
The ui discussion is a red herring as every author is free to include in the mission title or description the length of mission as well as the type of mission. This is the self policing that we as authors don't seem to be doing at the moment.
A UI update is the only sane solution.
Self-tagging is a good idea as an intermediate solution, forthose who feelit is imperative for their well being. It is strange no effort is being put toward it. But ultimately it is somethingthat need institutional support to create a common parameter. Without it, everyone would have theirown way to classify. Terms would be all over theplace and inconsistent -- not helpful to anyone searching.
Unfortunately I think the story writers are upset because the majority of foundry players feel the compensation for their time spent playing these missions is better from the shorter missions so they immediately get labeled 'grinders' because they're mainly combat. If ALL rewards were removed from foundry missions the problem would still exist as the IOR is repeatable, and that grants rewards and players would still be doing the shortest missions they could find to get those IOR rewards.
The ui discussion is a red herring as every author is free to include in the mission title or description the length of mission as well as the type of mission. This is the self policing that we as authors don't seem to be doing at the moment.
So? The UI fix was proposed to make searching easier. New(to the Foundry) players don't know HOW to get around this by setting search parameters.....
Truthfully, I think the IOR was always destined to be replaced. The Devs haven't yet finished writing a codebase capable of actually giving proper rewards to Foundry missions. When they do, the IOR wrapper will disappear, probably permanently.
If you'd like to create another thread that is not going to cause flaming to occur (I mean, look at the title -- what do you expect?) with a better approach, feel free. And before this thread goes down the path I know it's going to go down on, /thread -Brandon
Challenge Accepted
A thread was started regarding the removal of rewards from the Foundry system.
I fully understand that there will be people who agree or disagree, but I believe that this idea merits some serious discussion.
IOR used to provide 1440 Dilithium , once a day for 3 missions.
This made the reward for playing Foundry not at all comparable to other places in the game.
Fleet Marks were added.
In a system that both requires an inordinate amount of Fleet Marks for progression, and where the clickie exploit (which was apparently our fault for not reporting it enough), this became a small daily source of FM for many people.
In order to both fix the clickies, and I believe inject both Dilithium and Fleet Marks into the player base, the IOR was changed to now just 1 mission, with the new addition of qualified 15 minute missions, repeatable every 30 minutes.
This is a grinders dream.
This is absolutely the opposite of what Dan Stahl, Brandon and all the Devs claim the Foundry was created for.
IF rewards are going to stay in the Foundry, I suggest the following.
Investigate Officer Reports should be returned to a daily repeatable, with a reward of 1440 Dilithium, and Fleet Marks.
Spotlight missions should have some sort of reward attached to them beyond the IOR daily. A random item box, which should include up to Level appropriate Very Rare Gear.
This is my attempt to create this discussion with a better approach.
Edit: Much better, thank you I'll be passing this thread along to Stahl directly. Keep it civil, keep it constructive, keep it concise. Your feedback will be heard, whether someone posts that they are opposed or even have their own ideas -- we want to hear it all. -Brandon
Well, is this happens I guess I'll be looking for the shortest mission to play for the daily.
As of now I generally only play 3-4 foundry missions when I play, and it is a mix of real and long missions, and some boring "grindy" missions for a faster FM gain.
There arent too many great missions out there to play, and I think I've pretty much played them all, after playing foundry missions for over a year now weekly if not daily. So why punish people like me for not wanting to play your, or others missions over and over and over again when there is nothing else to play? After awhile I am going to end up treating those good story missions as just another.. click as fast as you can to get through it missions. Not too fair if you ask me.
I say leave the reward as it is, and let cryptic get rid of the exploit missions. Hey, they can even nix 90% of the drops so people won't want to EC grind them. Even better.. have someone on the cryptic team, or a group of unpaid volunteers, test each and every mission as they are introduced into the foundry.. not awarding any rewards or accepting any ratings, until they play it through and approve it first.
So? The UI fix was proposed to make searching easier. New(to the Foundry) players don't know HOW to get around this by setting search parameters.....
Truthfully, I think the IOR was always destined to be replaced. The Devs haven't yet finished writing a codebase capable of actually giving proper rewards to Foundry missions. When they do, the IOR wrapper will disappear, probably permanently.
I really want the devs working on important things instead of catering to the lowest common denominator. If new players can't figure out how to do a search then perhaps they should play checkers instead. I'm sure re-writing the search routines for the foundry UI and the exchange interface is more than a few minute job.
I have a few things that I personally would like to see.
#1. Being able to make your own cut scene/cinematics and voice overs.
#2. Custom Tailor an npc in the form of groups or just being able to say place one npc like a Boss NPC for instance.
#3. Being able to select the weapons of the npcs you want to put. For example if you wanted to make a mission like colliseum or make one like the episode where Worf, Garak, Bashir, and Martok were in the dominion prison together where you don't want energy weapons being used to give more variety into the foundry.
#4. Putting more effort into making the foundry not seem so blocky and glitchy looking. Some of the best missions made in the foundry look great but it just has this feeling of being trapped inside a box of legos.
#5. The dilithium and fleet mark reward is great but according to Stahls Q&A the Fleet marks are probally going away. So what I would suggest is implement a system that can determine whether or not a single person or team has done this and implement a loot drop at the end after it has been completed that has everything from trash drops to something special as an item reward that relates to the mission itself. If this is the only way we can get the melee and ritualistic weapons the KDF needs to have to be fleshed out some more I'd be all for it.
Anyways those are my views on how to make it better.
Self-tagging is a good idea as an intermediate solution, forthose who feelit is imperative for their well being. It is strange no effort is being put toward it. But ultimately it is somethingthat need institutional support to create a common parameter. Without it, everyone would have theirown way to classify. Terms would be all over theplace and inconsistent -- not helpful to anyone searching.
In the past, simply describing one's mission was good enough, without any consistent tags being needed--but now, with two very different objectives in using the Foundry having developed, something consistent is definitely needed.
Also, I would add from the perspective of someone who uses the Foundry quite a bit--the search is not that useful at this time. For starters, when you're in Review mode, only the keyword search works...none of the other ordering options (by rank, by "new," etc.) work. When you're in Browse All, the Review missions are showing up in the middle of the list of those who have passed review already, if you are a reviewer. (This is a fairly recent bug.) I've heard of the search by mission duration option, but for the life of me I can't find it. If it were just that last part, yeah, I could concede that it was nothing but operator error on my part, but with all of that going on, it shows that the search functions we have are barely functioning as it is.
Which all boils down to the fact that a UI overhaul really is necessary, both to end this bickering and because there are some bona fide functionality problems that need to be addressed. Sure, it would be more than a few minutes for Cryptic to handle, but I think the system is broken enough that it needs to be dealt with.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
This is (hopefully) a short, brief message to BranFlakes, who is watching the Foundry Authors on this forum, and also to the Foundry Authors, who have contributed so much to this part of the game. Oh, and BranFlakes, congrats on the Third Year Anniversary, by the way. Loving the look of the Ambassador.
To start off, I should clarify a few points. I am not "aiming to misbehave" (props to whoever gets that reference). I simply want to address the various threads that have popped up in this section of the STO Forums as of lately. And, as an end result, I want to open an active dialogue between the Foundry Authors and the Developers, and BranFlakes if he so desires to join in.
__________________________________________________________________________
Summary of what's going on in recent times:
1) Yes, there are people abusing the Foundry system and putting down good, quality missions just because they wanted a shorter mission.
2) Yes, there are people abusing the Foundry system by retaliatory attack against the grinding missions, because they are not as "reputable" as quality story-driven missions.
3) Yes, there are people in the middle, like myself, who stare and watch 1) and 2) fight it out, and even people who side on both.
I'm not here to start a thread flame war. I'm not here to aggravate one side or the other, or take one side or another. In fact, anyone who does so on my thread will be ignored,a and the Moderators are free to delete their post if they do so.
_________________________________________________________________________
What I am seeking is, simply put:
For the stability of the Foundry and all persons involved, we need a resolution.
Closing forum threads, while it is within your purview to do so, will not accomplish anything, unless a positive and constructive action is taken. I hope to address this, and solve this dispute instead of carrying it on.... and on... and on.
There have been many constructive proposals to fix the issue. I'll quote one: Proposed changes to the Foundry UI panel, to implement designated "Story" or "Combat" missions and their own respective rating system and rewards. It's a novel proposal, and will alleviate the problems with grinder and story-driven missions, which will drastically reduce the conflicts between the two parties. There are, of course, alternatives, I'm just quoting one example of a beneficial, potential solution.
I'm hoping that the Developers and the Foundry Authors can come up with an agreed tactic on how to approach and solve the ongoing dispute, and problems relating to the new Inv. Officer Reports system. I suppose, unless someone has a different idea, we should base the talks on the above proposal.
Also, and I know you and the Devs are already doing this, but keeping an eye out for good ideas throughout this section of the STO Forums, and implementing them, is crucial, not only for the settling of disputing parties, but also for letting the players know that they're being heard. Even leaving a follow-up post in a thread saying "Sounds like a great idea, we'll have something similar be implemented in a couple months!" would do wonders. I know myself, I'd like to be heard. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
If you decide to lock down this thread, I cannot stop you from doing so. But by locking it down, it would appear as if you have no interest in continuing discussions about improving the Foundry and settling the disputes. I hope it won't come to that, and I hope that each person in this situation gets to voice their unique and cherished opinions on a resolution. I myself would like to see this dispute settled, so more of our creative story-driven mission writers continue to enrich and enhance the experience that has made this game so much better than other MMOs.
To everyone else watching this: Feel free to post your comments, provided they are respectful and constructive. The goal is to settle by solving the problem, not starting flaming wars or shouting matches. This thread will serve as a positive, deflammatory, and constructive dialogue between the players and the developers of this game. Remember, two heads are better than one.
I'm hoping we get this problem settled; For the future of humanity! - oops, that's BSG :P. For the future of the Foundry and all of its players, developers, and mission authors, and the exciting and unique experience of playing Star Trek Online.
P.S. I'm sorry, this ended up a lot longer than I thought. If I could, I would send eye drops as compensation
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I've heard of the search by mission duration option, but for the life of me I can't find it. If it were just that last part, yeah, I could concede that it was nothing but operator error on my part, but with all of that going on, it shows that the search functions we have are barely functioning as it is.
It's adropdown menu with Most rated, Hot, something?, Custom -- you want Custom.
You know what I wouldlove about a ui change? they removal of thehugewall of lag of it downloading the entire list every-single-time its opened.
IMO the only way this will be resolved is by Cryptic coming in and taking a stand on what they want from the Foundry. This may also mean they will have to start enforcing, which may require them to pay people to be the "police".
Exploit missions (Timid Farming and the new afk till time runs out) should never be allowed.
It's not about Foundry Rewards, it's about solving this conflict. Completely different thread.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I'd like all discussion on the topic which you posted about, which is what is being discussed in here (rewards, conflict, etc.), to be contained in one place so that the devs I am forwarding all sides of feedback to have one, concise place to read such feedback. Thanks for understanding.
EDIT: Again, I'm passing this thread along directly to Stahl, so it will help keep everything in one place. Please remember to keep it constructive, concise, and flame/ trolling free
I'd like all discussion on the topic which you posted about, which is what is being discussed in here (rewards, conflict, etc.), to be contained in one place so that the devs I am forwarding all sides of feedback to have one, concise place to read such feedback. Thanks for understanding.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
I respect your decision; however, there is one concern: How will we have a constructive dialogue between the Devs and the authors (possibly yourself as well), like the one I mentioned, that is separate from the other unrelated proposals in this thread?
It'll be confusing separating the two topics.
stardestroyer001, Admiral, Explorers Fury PvE/PvP Fleet | Retired PvP Player
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9 My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I respect your decision; however, there is one concern: How will we have a constructive dialogue between the Devs and the authors (possibly yourself as well), like the one I mentioned, that is separate from the other unrelated proposals in this thread?
It'll be confusing separating the two topics.
Also, for Bran, as you merge further threads into this one (such as my Tagging thread, which you did a few minutes ago), if you are not going to actually merge the threads themselves so the discussions come up when opening this thread, could we at least cross-link so people can see the discussion that preceded the merger into the main thread?
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I still don't see the problem with people grinding that wish to grind and people playing stories that wish to play stories. It shouldn't matter to either group what the other is doing. It's only when you start complaining about the other does everything go to hell in a hand basket. Let each player choose play the game how he/she wants to play and for what they choose to play for.
I'm not going to play story missions that are an hour long regardless of the reward... I'm not interested. I do the grinders for the rewards because the game has been changed to reflect economic needs. This game isn't about story or exploration it's about being a Ferengi and getting enough resources to by the best gear to earn the resources faster and then play the occasional new missions they release that usually involve grinding for some other resource. I don't like grinding but its become a necessity to move forward in this game. I've been here since the beginning and I like the story behind the game but it's about economics now not story.
The backlash from grinders on the ratings is because of the number of forum comments from story authors demanding something be done with what they enjoy playing. I have read several times where story authors have suggested rating grinder missions as 1's to get them off the list and decrease the avg playtime so they don't qualify. I have also seen story authors also say lets bombard cryptic employees twitter accounts and every other form of communication until they take away grinding missions or drop rewards. So if authors stick to making what they like and each faction play what they choose to then everyone can be happy. Grinders get what they want and story authors get what they want. If anything grinder missions expose more folks to the foundry as a whole and I have enjoyed a mission or two myself beyond grinding.
If its about morality you're going to lose every time because each person has their own moral compass. Nothing needs to change, just the attitudes that one way of playing is better than another. The foundry wasn't for one subset of the player base. If Cryptic demanded missions be RP missions then it would require every mission have x number of maps, x amount of interactions, x amount of time played to just create them. It's a place for individuals to create missions they want to play. Story players play for the RP and the story... good for them. Grinders aren't playing for the joy of the mission but for getting the resources they need to complete a project. There is room for both groups. The search UI can alleviate a lot of this by improving the filtering and classification of missions. Cryptic could even make a searchable web database of available missions based on story type etc. I have searched for certain subject matter in a story and it is terribly difficult but most of the time I don't have extra time for story play because I'm inundated with leveling up toons, starbases, and other new items they add that require resources. I would love to see the economics of this game change across the board to something more like it started out as.
This game is a lot of things to a lot of diverse people and everyone has their own needs and reasons for playing. Let's face it Walmart is successful for a reason and so is Macy's each offers a flavor for different people. It doesn't mean we close Walmart because you get a lot for a little at the sacrifice of quality. Some folks are looking for cheap at Walmart and some are looking for quality and head over to Macy's. It's no different here.
I have a lot invested in this game. I have 2 lifetime memberships and lots of purchases but I find myself playing less because of the resource requirements needed to move forward in the game. I think with UI improvements to foundry search engine and a review of the games economy as a whole we could be in a much better place. There is a lot of dead content in this game that could have rewards attached to it... mission replays, deep space encounters, patrols, etc. Where I would much rather earn my fleet marks and dilithium than drumming out grinders but the costs are too high and time too short. I just want to see everyone live and let live so people can be entertained as they see fit.
Gold Sub since March 2010
Lifetime Sub since June 2010
Also, for Bran, as you merge further threads into this one (such as my Tagging thread, which you did a few minutes ago), if you are not going to actually merge the threads themselves so the discussions come up when opening this thread, could we at least cross-link so people can see the discussion that preceded the merger into the main thread?
I don't have a problem with folks grinding. It is a good source of revenue for those wishing to advance in their fleet starbase line.
What I have a problem with is the way that the whole Foundry GUI is laid out. There really needs to be some sort of tagging system put in place so one can search for only combat missions or only story missions. Require that these tags automatically be applied when listing the missions. For instance, have the player's last selected search tag automatically active when they open the Foundry window so they only see those types of missions.
This would allow players to browse through a list of missions that they are interested in playing rather than a massive unorganized list of every mission available.
I'll say this about the rewards. I very much disagree that the rewards need to be removed. After all we want people to play the Foundry, and if there are no rewards, than no one will play them. Now I will not disagree that players are using the current daily to farm fleet marks, and dilithium. There are several mission out there specifically designed to exploit this fact.
Ultimately I think, that no matter what solution Cryptic comes up with, someone will find a way around it. I would love for people to play my missions, and honestly I think the best way to accomplish something like that is as Dan Stahl suggested in one of his interviews.
A Sector needs to be set up and have the various planets randomly link to a Foundry mission. A couple of problems could be associated to this solution as well, such as the systems linking to missions that are poorly created or broken. So there would need to be something in place to ensure that missions hooked into these planets are actually functional. That either has to be Cryptic, or some method for the community to vote for missions to be added. Of course, though I could see how that system can be exploited as well.
It's a sticky situation if you ask me. Players want something for their effort, but the Foundry is so easily exploited for gains it's not intended for. (Accolades, Dilithium, Fleet Marks, Etc) Due to this fact alone so many good Foundry missions go unplayed, including my own.
Per Brandon's OK, I am linking in my now-closed thread on how the tagging and potential UI system would look. He has requested that the discussions in that thread be continued in this one.
I would really encourage you guys to take a look and comment, because I think we were hitting on some interesting subjects here.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Adding my two cents to Janok's well thought out post:
IMHO the strength of STO is the variety of gameplay available. Whether you prefer solo play, group missions or PvP, ground or space, all is available in this game. Recent changes however including the REputation Systems (which BTW I think are pretty well thought out and create a basis for constant advancement) have cause people to be essentially FORCED to participate in one typ eof gameplay they do not enjoy, in order to excel in the areas they do enjoy.
I will use myself as an example:
I absolutely abhor STFs. I have never enjoyed the idea of repeating a mission more than once after I have succesfully completed it. Prior to S7 launch I SUFFERED through countless STF runs because I wanted the Gear because it was the best for PvP, which is my first love in this game. The joy I felt when I finally got that Proto PSG drop from Infected was second to none. I announced in Fleet Chat, "I would like to announce my official retirement from STFs!!!"
When S7 rolled, I was not at all pleased to have to regrind STFs in order to abtain the passives, but I again endured it without complaint, as I feel the SYSTEM itself sets a good foundation for future advancement of the game.
The same thing applies to this discussion about Foundry.
Some people really enjoy the Grinder Missions. Some people just want to do something else but need an easy way to farm ECs for whatever they need them for, be it better gear for PvP, or to buy commodities for Reputation or Fleet projects. Either way, Grinder Missions serve a purpose just as story missions do. In fact, behind PvP, my second favorite thing to do in STO is Play so called "legit" Foundry Missions. I also played the Grinders to get that chunk of EC I needed for projects and new equips.
I stated in an earlier post and will restate here, that IMHO the issue is the overwhelming need for huge amounts of EC in order to obtain top flight equips. Purple MK XII drops are few and far between. Even Purple MK XI drops are hard to come by for most players. Having this quality of equips is not required for most PvE content but it is HUGE in PvP. Because of this it drives the exchange prices higher and higher.
I honestly don;t think there are many people that play the grinders because they think it is the most enjoyable way to play STO. They just want EC to buy shinys. That said, I use some of those grinders to practice fighting hard stuff. (Battleship Farming with the new patch changes is the closest thing to PvP difficulty there is)
Super simple solution:
Better ways, whether it be crafting update, or changing drop rates in missions, to obtain MK XI and XII Very Rare Consoles and Weapons, which are the driving force behind these grinder missions IMHO. Make true End Game Consoles available through so called "legit means" and the incentive to play Grinders goes WAY down.
Solution that will directly impact Foundry in a positive way:
Upon completion of a Foundry Mission that qualifies for IOR, receive a Drop Bag that contains ONE RANDOM level appropriate item. This item should be Very Rare Quality.
I ,myself can usually finish first or rarely second in SB24 and Gorn Minefield, so I can farm those purple MK XIs like crazy, but the player who cannot has only one source of easy ECs and that is Grinders. Attach a good drop reward to the COMPLETION of so called "legit" Foundry Episodes and the incentive to play Grinders goes way down.
It's a sticky situation if you ask me. Players want something for their effort, but the Foundry is so easily exploited for gains it's not intended for. (Accolades, Dilithium, Fleet Marks, Etc) Due to this fact alone so many good Foundry missions go unplayed, including my own.
And on what exactly do you base that last sentence?
It sounds like you think grind missions are taking people away from playing story missions. But it seems far more likely to me that those people just wouldn't be playing foundry content at all.
(As for the foundry being intended for gains or not... well, this is a MMO. Content that doesn't provide gains doesn't belong on a MMO, it belongs on fanfiction.net.)
Comment from one of the many now closed threads.
Let's try and start by talking about what seems to be the recurring theme of how UI improvements could improve the situation.
The simple separation of Combat/Story, would go a long way to making the sorts of content each of us is looking for easier to find. I think the biggest hurdle here is how tagging of missions would work.
Having read the many suggestions I have seen, I would add mine to the mix here for discussion.
Authors cannot publish a mission until they have chosen either "Combat" or "Story".
The mission is initially listed in the Tab.
For a player to leave a rating, they must choose whether they considered it "combat" or "Story" , on an extra button on the final rating screen.
Every 10 or 25 or 100 or however many ratings, the system automatically calculates the players votes, and reassigns the missions to the appropriate tab.
Comments
And what exactly constitutes a story, and who will judge a mission to be a 'satisfactory' story or not ? Will a few dialog boxes suffice ?
Whats your yardstick you plan to use to measure with ?
Also, don't forget a player has to PAY for the privilege of creating foundry content. If someone has purchased their right to make missions then they can create whatever the choose so you'll just have to accept that some will want to make other than story content and others will want to play them.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
I do still think stories and grinders/combat simulators can be successfully separated through the UI, though. As far as the "who decides," that's actually one of the issues I'm inviting people to debate in my "Tagging" suggestion thread, and I've proposed three options, and another player has introduced a fourth. I also brought up the issue of what to do with ambiguous cases (like "The First Battle of Chin'toka," if you've ever played that), that are pretty much combat but also draw you into a story. You could perhaps contribute to that part of the discussion (or other aspects of the proposed UI overhaul).
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
My character Tsin'xing
Unfortunately I think the story writers are upset because the majority of foundry players feel the compensation for their time spent playing these missions is better from the shorter missions so they immediately get labeled 'grinders' because they're mainly combat. If ALL rewards were removed from foundry missions the problem would still exist as the IOR is repeatable, and that grants rewards and players would still be doing the shortest missions they could find to get those IOR rewards.
The ui discussion is a red herring as every author is free to include in the mission title or description the length of mission as well as the type of mission. This is the self policing that we as authors don't seem to be doing at the moment.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
A UI update is the only sane solution.
Self-tagging is a good idea as an intermediate solution, forthose who feelit is imperative for their well being. It is strange no effort is being put toward it. But ultimately it is somethingthat need institutional support to create a common parameter. Without it, everyone would have theirown way to classify. Terms would be all over theplace and inconsistent -- not helpful to anyone searching.
(C) combat
See, easy !
ex. (C) my first mission
above is mission name, searchable IIRC simply by "(C)"
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
Truthfully, I think the IOR was always destined to be replaced. The Devs haven't yet finished writing a codebase capable of actually giving proper rewards to Foundry missions. When they do, the IOR wrapper will disappear, probably permanently.
My character Tsin'xing
Well, is this happens I guess I'll be looking for the shortest mission to play for the daily.
As of now I generally only play 3-4 foundry missions when I play, and it is a mix of real and long missions, and some boring "grindy" missions for a faster FM gain.
There arent too many great missions out there to play, and I think I've pretty much played them all, after playing foundry missions for over a year now weekly if not daily. So why punish people like me for not wanting to play your, or others missions over and over and over again when there is nothing else to play? After awhile I am going to end up treating those good story missions as just another.. click as fast as you can to get through it missions. Not too fair if you ask me.
I say leave the reward as it is, and let cryptic get rid of the exploit missions. Hey, they can even nix 90% of the drops so people won't want to EC grind them. Even better.. have someone on the cryptic team, or a group of unpaid volunteers, test each and every mission as they are introduced into the foundry.. not awarding any rewards or accepting any ratings, until they play it through and approve it first.
My character Tsin'xing
I really want the devs working on important things instead of catering to the lowest common denominator. If new players can't figure out how to do a search then perhaps they should play checkers instead. I'm sure re-writing the search routines for the foundry UI and the exchange interface is more than a few minute job.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
#1. Being able to make your own cut scene/cinematics and voice overs.
#2. Custom Tailor an npc in the form of groups or just being able to say place one npc like a Boss NPC for instance.
#3. Being able to select the weapons of the npcs you want to put. For example if you wanted to make a mission like colliseum or make one like the episode where Worf, Garak, Bashir, and Martok were in the dominion prison together where you don't want energy weapons being used to give more variety into the foundry.
#4. Putting more effort into making the foundry not seem so blocky and glitchy looking. Some of the best missions made in the foundry look great but it just has this feeling of being trapped inside a box of legos.
#5. The dilithium and fleet mark reward is great but according to Stahls Q&A the Fleet marks are probally going away. So what I would suggest is implement a system that can determine whether or not a single person or team has done this and implement a loot drop at the end after it has been completed that has everything from trash drops to something special as an item reward that relates to the mission itself. If this is the only way we can get the melee and ritualistic weapons the KDF needs to have to be fleshed out some more I'd be all for it.
Anyways those are my views on how to make it better.
In the past, simply describing one's mission was good enough, without any consistent tags being needed--but now, with two very different objectives in using the Foundry having developed, something consistent is definitely needed.
Also, I would add from the perspective of someone who uses the Foundry quite a bit--the search is not that useful at this time. For starters, when you're in Review mode, only the keyword search works...none of the other ordering options (by rank, by "new," etc.) work. When you're in Browse All, the Review missions are showing up in the middle of the list of those who have passed review already, if you are a reviewer. (This is a fairly recent bug.) I've heard of the search by mission duration option, but for the life of me I can't find it. If it were just that last part, yeah, I could concede that it was nothing but operator error on my part, but with all of that going on, it shows that the search functions we have are barely functioning as it is.
Which all boils down to the fact that a UI overhaul really is necessary, both to end this bickering and because there are some bona fide functionality problems that need to be addressed. Sure, it would be more than a few minutes for Cryptic to handle, but I think the system is broken enough that it needs to be dealt with.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
To start off, I should clarify a few points. I am not "aiming to misbehave" (props to whoever gets that reference). I simply want to address the various threads that have popped up in this section of the STO Forums as of lately. And, as an end result, I want to open an active dialogue between the Foundry Authors and the Developers, and BranFlakes if he so desires to join in.
__________________________________________________________________________
Summary of what's going on in recent times:
1) Yes, there are people abusing the Foundry system and putting down good, quality missions just because they wanted a shorter mission.
2) Yes, there are people abusing the Foundry system by retaliatory attack against the grinding missions, because they are not as "reputable" as quality story-driven missions.
3) Yes, there are people in the middle, like myself, who stare and watch 1) and 2) fight it out, and even people who side on both.
I'm not here to start a thread flame war. I'm not here to aggravate one side or the other, or take one side or another. In fact, anyone who does so on my thread will be ignored,a and the Moderators are free to delete their post if they do so.
_________________________________________________________________________
What I am seeking is, simply put:
Closing forum threads, while it is within your purview to do so, will not accomplish anything, unless a positive and constructive action is taken. I hope to address this, and solve this dispute instead of carrying it on.... and on... and on.
There have been many constructive proposals to fix the issue. I'll quote one: Proposed changes to the Foundry UI panel, to implement designated "Story" or "Combat" missions and their own respective rating system and rewards. It's a novel proposal, and will alleviate the problems with grinder and story-driven missions, which will drastically reduce the conflicts between the two parties. There are, of course, alternatives, I'm just quoting one example of a beneficial, potential solution.
I'm hoping that the Developers and the Foundry Authors can come up with an agreed tactic on how to approach and solve the ongoing dispute, and problems relating to the new Inv. Officer Reports system. I suppose, unless someone has a different idea, we should base the talks on the above proposal.
Also, and I know you and the Devs are already doing this, but keeping an eye out for good ideas throughout this section of the STO Forums, and implementing them, is crucial, not only for the settling of disputing parties, but also for letting the players know that they're being heard. Even leaving a follow-up post in a thread saying "Sounds like a great idea, we'll have something similar be implemented in a couple months!" would do wonders. I know myself, I'd like to be heard. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
If you decide to lock down this thread, I cannot stop you from doing so. But by locking it down, it would appear as if you have no interest in continuing discussions about improving the Foundry and settling the disputes. I hope it won't come to that, and I hope that each person in this situation gets to voice their unique and cherished opinions on a resolution. I myself would like to see this dispute settled, so more of our creative story-driven mission writers continue to enrich and enhance the experience that has made this game so much better than other MMOs.
To everyone else watching this: Feel free to post your comments, provided they are respectful and constructive. The goal is to settle by solving the problem, not starting flaming wars or shouting matches. This thread will serve as a positive, deflammatory, and constructive dialogue between the players and the developers of this game. Remember, two heads are better than one.
I'm hoping we get this problem settled; For the future of humanity! - oops, that's BSG :P. For the future of the Foundry and all of its players, developers, and mission authors, and the exciting and unique experience of playing Star Trek Online.
P.S. I'm sorry, this ended up a lot longer than I thought. If I could, I would send eye drops as compensation
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
It's adropdown menu with Most rated, Hot, something?, Custom -- you want Custom.
You know what I wouldlove about a ui change? they removal of thehugewall of lag of it downloading the entire list every-single-time its opened.
Exploit missions (Timid Farming and the new afk till time runs out) should never be allowed.
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
Um... timid farming is dead Jim.
It's not about Foundry Rewards, it's about solving this conflict. Completely different thread.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
I'd like all discussion on the topic which you posted about, which is what is being discussed in here (rewards, conflict, etc.), to be contained in one place so that the devs I am forwarding all sides of feedback to have one, concise place to read such feedback. Thanks for understanding.
EDIT: Again, I'm passing this thread along directly to Stahl, so it will help keep everything in one place. Please remember to keep it constructive, concise, and flame/ trolling free
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
I respect your decision; however, there is one concern: How will we have a constructive dialogue between the Devs and the authors (possibly yourself as well), like the one I mentioned, that is separate from the other unrelated proposals in this thread?
It'll be confusing separating the two topics.
Missing the good ol' days of PvP: Legacy of Romulus to Season 9
My List of Useful Links, Recently Updated November 25 2017!
Ya I know, I was using it as an example of an exploit vs grinder
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
Also, for Bran, as you merge further threads into this one (such as my Tagging thread, which you did a few minutes ago), if you are not going to actually merge the threads themselves so the discussions come up when opening this thread, could we at least cross-link so people can see the discussion that preceded the merger into the main thread?
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I'm not going to play story missions that are an hour long regardless of the reward... I'm not interested. I do the grinders for the rewards because the game has been changed to reflect economic needs. This game isn't about story or exploration it's about being a Ferengi and getting enough resources to by the best gear to earn the resources faster and then play the occasional new missions they release that usually involve grinding for some other resource. I don't like grinding but its become a necessity to move forward in this game. I've been here since the beginning and I like the story behind the game but it's about economics now not story.
The backlash from grinders on the ratings is because of the number of forum comments from story authors demanding something be done with what they enjoy playing. I have read several times where story authors have suggested rating grinder missions as 1's to get them off the list and decrease the avg playtime so they don't qualify. I have also seen story authors also say lets bombard cryptic employees twitter accounts and every other form of communication until they take away grinding missions or drop rewards. So if authors stick to making what they like and each faction play what they choose to then everyone can be happy. Grinders get what they want and story authors get what they want. If anything grinder missions expose more folks to the foundry as a whole and I have enjoyed a mission or two myself beyond grinding.
If its about morality you're going to lose every time because each person has their own moral compass. Nothing needs to change, just the attitudes that one way of playing is better than another. The foundry wasn't for one subset of the player base. If Cryptic demanded missions be RP missions then it would require every mission have x number of maps, x amount of interactions, x amount of time played to just create them. It's a place for individuals to create missions they want to play. Story players play for the RP and the story... good for them. Grinders aren't playing for the joy of the mission but for getting the resources they need to complete a project. There is room for both groups. The search UI can alleviate a lot of this by improving the filtering and classification of missions. Cryptic could even make a searchable web database of available missions based on story type etc. I have searched for certain subject matter in a story and it is terribly difficult but most of the time I don't have extra time for story play because I'm inundated with leveling up toons, starbases, and other new items they add that require resources. I would love to see the economics of this game change across the board to something more like it started out as.
This game is a lot of things to a lot of diverse people and everyone has their own needs and reasons for playing. Let's face it Walmart is successful for a reason and so is Macy's each offers a flavor for different people. It doesn't mean we close Walmart because you get a lot for a little at the sacrifice of quality. Some folks are looking for cheap at Walmart and some are looking for quality and head over to Macy's. It's no different here.
I have a lot invested in this game. I have 2 lifetime memberships and lots of purchases but I find myself playing less because of the resource requirements needed to move forward in the game. I think with UI improvements to foundry search engine and a review of the games economy as a whole we could be in a much better place. There is a lot of dead content in this game that could have rewards attached to it... mission replays, deep space encounters, patrols, etc. Where I would much rather earn my fleet marks and dilithium than drumming out grinders but the costs are too high and time too short. I just want to see everyone live and let live so people can be entertained as they see fit.
Lifetime Sub since June 2010
Yes, no problem in this case
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
What I have a problem with is the way that the whole Foundry GUI is laid out. There really needs to be some sort of tagging system put in place so one can search for only combat missions or only story missions. Require that these tags automatically be applied when listing the missions. For instance, have the player's last selected search tag automatically active when they open the Foundry window so they only see those types of missions.
This would allow players to browse through a list of missions that they are interested in playing rather than a massive unorganized list of every mission available.
Ultimately I think, that no matter what solution Cryptic comes up with, someone will find a way around it. I would love for people to play my missions, and honestly I think the best way to accomplish something like that is as Dan Stahl suggested in one of his interviews.
A Sector needs to be set up and have the various planets randomly link to a Foundry mission. A couple of problems could be associated to this solution as well, such as the systems linking to missions that are poorly created or broken. So there would need to be something in place to ensure that missions hooked into these planets are actually functional. That either has to be Cryptic, or some method for the community to vote for missions to be added. Of course, though I could see how that system can be exploited as well.
It's a sticky situation if you ask me. Players want something for their effort, but the Foundry is so easily exploited for gains it's not intended for. (Accolades, Dilithium, Fleet Marks, Etc) Due to this fact alone so many good Foundry missions go unplayed, including my own.
Per Brandon's OK, I am linking in my now-closed thread on how the tagging and potential UI system would look. He has requested that the discussions in that thread be continued in this one.
I would really encourage you guys to take a look and comment, because I think we were hitting on some interesting subjects here.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=7882011#post7882011
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
IMHO the strength of STO is the variety of gameplay available. Whether you prefer solo play, group missions or PvP, ground or space, all is available in this game. Recent changes however including the REputation Systems (which BTW I think are pretty well thought out and create a basis for constant advancement) have cause people to be essentially FORCED to participate in one typ eof gameplay they do not enjoy, in order to excel in the areas they do enjoy.
I will use myself as an example:
I absolutely abhor STFs. I have never enjoyed the idea of repeating a mission more than once after I have succesfully completed it. Prior to S7 launch I SUFFERED through countless STF runs because I wanted the Gear because it was the best for PvP, which is my first love in this game. The joy I felt when I finally got that Proto PSG drop from Infected was second to none. I announced in Fleet Chat, "I would like to announce my official retirement from STFs!!!"
When S7 rolled, I was not at all pleased to have to regrind STFs in order to abtain the passives, but I again endured it without complaint, as I feel the SYSTEM itself sets a good foundation for future advancement of the game.
The same thing applies to this discussion about Foundry.
Some people really enjoy the Grinder Missions. Some people just want to do something else but need an easy way to farm ECs for whatever they need them for, be it better gear for PvP, or to buy commodities for Reputation or Fleet projects. Either way, Grinder Missions serve a purpose just as story missions do. In fact, behind PvP, my second favorite thing to do in STO is Play so called "legit" Foundry Missions. I also played the Grinders to get that chunk of EC I needed for projects and new equips.
I stated in an earlier post and will restate here, that IMHO the issue is the overwhelming need for huge amounts of EC in order to obtain top flight equips. Purple MK XII drops are few and far between. Even Purple MK XI drops are hard to come by for most players. Having this quality of equips is not required for most PvE content but it is HUGE in PvP. Because of this it drives the exchange prices higher and higher.
I honestly don;t think there are many people that play the grinders because they think it is the most enjoyable way to play STO. They just want EC to buy shinys. That said, I use some of those grinders to practice fighting hard stuff. (Battleship Farming with the new patch changes is the closest thing to PvP difficulty there is)
Super simple solution:
Better ways, whether it be crafting update, or changing drop rates in missions, to obtain MK XI and XII Very Rare Consoles and Weapons, which are the driving force behind these grinder missions IMHO. Make true End Game Consoles available through so called "legit means" and the incentive to play Grinders goes WAY down.
Solution that will directly impact Foundry in a positive way:
Upon completion of a Foundry Mission that qualifies for IOR, receive a Drop Bag that contains ONE RANDOM level appropriate item. This item should be Very Rare Quality.
I ,myself can usually finish first or rarely second in SB24 and Gorn Minefield, so I can farm those purple MK XIs like crazy, but the player who cannot has only one source of easy ECs and that is Grinders. Attach a good drop reward to the COMPLETION of so called "legit" Foundry Episodes and the incentive to play Grinders goes way down.
And on what exactly do you base that last sentence?
It sounds like you think grind missions are taking people away from playing story missions. But it seems far more likely to me that those people just wouldn't be playing foundry content at all.
(As for the foundry being intended for gains or not... well, this is a MMO. Content that doesn't provide gains doesn't belong on a MMO, it belongs on fanfiction.net.)
-Morgan.
Let's try and start by talking about what seems to be the recurring theme of how UI improvements could improve the situation.
The simple separation of Combat/Story, would go a long way to making the sorts of content each of us is looking for easier to find. I think the biggest hurdle here is how tagging of missions would work.
Having read the many suggestions I have seen, I would add mine to the mix here for discussion.
Authors cannot publish a mission until they have chosen either "Combat" or "Story".
The mission is initially listed in the Tab.
For a player to leave a rating, they must choose whether they considered it "combat" or "Story" , on an extra button on the final rating screen.
Every 10 or 25 or 100 or however many ratings, the system automatically calculates the players votes, and reassigns the missions to the appropriate tab.