I just recently clicked on the option to review Foundry missions, mainly to see what's available and to be a little more active in the community. I have a few missions on the list where when you click on them, there are no starting points given. In fact, there's one (called Trolls United 1) that just has a text message saying "derpa derpa," or some other nonsense, but no clear location to start. A lot of these seem like they were either just serving as placeholders or just some player trolling the Foundry.
Is there anything in particular that Cryptic does for cases like this, other than someone giving the mission a 1 star rating? I would think that stuff like this would be a waste of space on the server. Do they actually look at stuff like this and remove it or do we report it somehow?
There's a lot of different things going on here. Some of these are what you might call "private" missions where a player makes a mission solely for themselves or their friends (this can be totally legit or an exploit attempt, impossible to say without playing the mission). Or it could be someone testing something, a map or a new way of doing things, or running a publish test before releasing the mission publicly. Or it could be someone just messing around or trolling.
In any case, if you think you see a mission that isn't above board, there is a report function on the same screen where you set a rating. This will report the mission to Cryptic.
I think there should be a freshness timer on foundry missions.
authors need to republish every 60 days or something
as far as naming or starting points. I typically make bad mission names and description whenever I am testing out a new function, ability, or a mission.
The reason is it I say the mission is incomplete, non-playable, and a work in progress, someone still plays it anyway and makes a review off of that
With all of the bugs affecting preview mode, most of us have to test our missions post-publish. So, we publish them and hide the doors, etc. Others do that with exploits.
As a result, the review listings are a mess of nonsense.
I sort of figured that it was something like that. I may have to do something like that just to test for bugs. I just wish the preview mode didn't have so many bugs. I feel bad about posting something buggy onto Holodeck even if it's just temporary.
I think there should be a freshness timer on foundry missions.
authors need to republish every 60 days or something
as far as naming or starting points. I typically make bad mission names and description whenever I am testing out a new function, ability, or a mission.
The reason is it I say the mission is incomplete, non-playable, and a work in progress, someone still plays it anyway and makes a review off of that
I'm against a freshness timer. Back in Pay to Play I took a 6 month break, in that time my first and only mission did get hit by a pretty big bug, but... it also had a lot of plays. Including a playthrough by a podcast. And it was in a random google that lead me to finding that review, and that review pulled me back into game, to stay.
While, it's true a lot of missions have been put up just to be forgotten, that isn't the case with every player who takes a break from the game from time to time. But that's my experience and two cents.
I'm against a freshness timer. Back in Pay to Play I took a 6 month break, in that time my first and only mission did get hit by a pretty big bug, but... it also had a lot of plays. Including a playthrough by a podcast. And it was in a random google that lead me to finding that review, and that review pulled me back into game, to stay.
While, it's true a lot of missions have been put up just to be forgotten, that isn't the case with every player who takes a break from the game from time to time. But that's my experience and two cents.
This. I can make 2-3months break, and come back. My missions are still playable, and played while I'm off.
I'm pretty sure some old spotlighted mission were made by people that don't play anymore.
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
In any case, if you think you see a mission that isn't above board, there is a report function on the same screen where you set a rating. This will report the mission to Cryptic.
authors need to republish every 60 days or something
as far as naming or starting points. I typically make bad mission names and description whenever I am testing out a new function, ability, or a mission.
The reason is it I say the mission is incomplete, non-playable, and a work in progress, someone still plays it anyway and makes a review off of that
As a result, the review listings are a mess of nonsense.
"No matter where you go...there you are."
I'm against a freshness timer. Back in Pay to Play I took a 6 month break, in that time my first and only mission did get hit by a pretty big bug, but... it also had a lot of plays. Including a playthrough by a podcast. And it was in a random google that lead me to finding that review, and that review pulled me back into game, to stay.
While, it's true a lot of missions have been put up just to be forgotten, that isn't the case with every player who takes a break from the game from time to time. But that's my experience and two cents.
I'm pretty sure some old spotlighted mission were made by people that don't play anymore.