Why not focus on getting everyone together in a Teamspeak server? Then we can owrry about which prop to fight over.
Hehe have you ever tried to wrangle a big group and get them to focus on something? The Foundry community may not be huge, but IMO we're not small enough to attempt a full on group discussion with everyone.
As far as I am aware, the root cause of foundry stagnation is the lack of official work time being allocated to fix or add foundry features. So I am somewhat skeptical that a player council giving advice to Cryptic could affect the type of change that many of us desire.
I would much rather see a council that addresses the players rather than Cryptic. Because frankly, the only way to get Cryptic to invest in the Foundry is to get players excited about playing foundry missions.
As far as I am aware, the root cause of foundry stagnation is the lack of official work time being allocated to fix or add foundry features. So I am somewhat skeptical that a player council giving advice to Cryptic could affect the type of change that many of us desire.
I would much rather see a council that addresses the players rather than Cryptic. Because frankly, the only way to get Cryptic to invest in the Foundry is to get players excited about playing foundry missions.
Always the negative nancy, eh, Intrinsical?
Any player council has to be beholden to BOTH the players *AND* Cryptic/PWE. It would have to reign the community from being pushy and overreactive and it would have to light a fire under the studio's butt too.
And on a personal note: you're tone and attitude towards this simply is *NOT* what is needed. Cynicism is going to get us nowhere and if you're going to have that attitude, then Cryptic and PWE is not going to listen to you nor care about you. This council could be the first step toward improving the relationship between the company and the community as well as pushing for more updates while not interfering in their development of new content. Much of the recent updates have been people working in their spare time and for the near future it is likely to remain so. So, please stop treating everyone at Cryptic and PWE like their the enemy, because that does nothing but hurt us as a community. I'll just leave you with this and think about it the next time you want to say these things.
"Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." - Stephen Colbert (out of character)
The point he brings up is one that we've talked about at length. Lack of players and attracting new ones. When then idea first came up, I'll be honest it was envisioned as an Author Council that was going to try and get some traction on author issues. I called it a player council cause that's a term I'm familiar with (and we're all players, right?). However, Cryptic isn't doing a lot to attract new players. In between asset requests, the Author Council could also look at ways to help attract players.
So, I'm really disappointed by negativity and arguments.
This seems a really simple thing to me.
We know that getting grouped assets into the Foundry is something that is possible, not guarenteed, be we are aware now that assets don't take that long to tag.
We're not talking about new systems, or anything fancy.
We are discussing the idea of forming a group (frak the word council) of concerned authors willing to look around at all the various places authors talk about what assets they want, and find what are the most widely requested assets from all over the community, and then present a short list of the top requested things out there. That's it. A group willing to forgo their own wants (heck my personal pet peeve is a freaking combadge for Fraks sake) and give small manageable lists of requested assets to cryptic to do with as they will.
We're not looking to invigorate the Foundry with some noble council, or anything.
This is about a very simple thing, and many are making it into more than it really needs to be.
Most importantly, it's not a soapbox to air our grievances, or a place for fighting, finger pointing, and bad blood.
The most difficult part of what needs to be decided is how to choose the Group that's doing this.
We appear to have many experienced authors capable of this. For my own part I wish I could take a more active role but between work and self study I'm lucky to find what time I can to play STO or author. I'm sure many of us are in the same boat.
Perhaps it's best good those with the time and experience to lead an open group that addresses those issues. They can keep us advised of their proceedings in the forums.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Please leave comments or suggestions on the main thread for Homage to Galris at the following link.
Also feel free to check out some of my other projects at the following link.
I definitely think that this council should have some kind of public record, letting people know what their recommendations are and why they feel they're important.
I definitely think that this council should have some kind of public record, letting people know what their recommendations are and why they feel they're important.
Agreed, I understand I'm but one author in a larger community. I don't see anything wrong with those who can stepping up and making suggestions.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Please leave comments or suggestions on the main thread for Homage to Galris at the following link.
Also feel free to check out some of my other projects at the following link.
I definitely think that this council should have some kind of public record, letting people know what their recommendations are and why they feel they're important.
Another one of the most needed assets is the 3D editor. It would erase so much frustration, especially on ground maps.
Yeah... It's a shame that things like that are apparently too much to ask of Cryptic, who doesn't seem to have anyone in place to actually work on improving the Foundry without taking time away from other projects.
Yeah... It's a shame that things like that are apparently too much to ask of Cryptic, who doesn't seem to have anyone in place to actually work on improving the Foundry without taking time away from other projects.
To be honest, Having used 3D editors for a while, sometimes they are more of a hassle than a benefit
But would it kill them to let us Rotate the assets?
These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
Nothing can be worse than moving an object 1 y place, loading map, exiting, moving again...loading map...checking...and so on..
Yeah... This is actually the better part of why I stopped using the Foundry. You can do neat things with it, but it seems practically designed to deter people from it so they can get back to grinding endless rep instances. >.>
Just a real quick note here guys.
Things like the 3D Nudger are NOT what we are even talking about.
That's systems and programming stuff, it's not "an asset".
we're talking about things like props, maybe costumes, not things that require a bunch of Programming and Systems time.
Just a real quick note here guys.
Things like the 3D Nudger are NOT what we are even talking about.
That's systems and programming stuff, it's not "an asset".
we're talking about things like props, maybe costumes, not things that require a bunch of Programming and Systems time.
Regardless, it should still be high on the list IMO.
Yeah... This is actually the better part of why I stopped using the Foundry. You can do neat things with it, but it seems practically designed to deter people from it so they can get back to grinding endless rep instances. >.>
^ This. All my ideas for Foundry missions went in the garbage because I couldn't stand the editor interface. Asset or not, a 3-D editor is a must-have for the near future.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them." -Thomas Marrone
This is not a request thread. Nor is it a thread about the design of the editor.
This thread is asking whether we should put together a group of authors to present a cohesive message to Cryptic about what we want added. What that message is will be decided later.
Something I've learned about Foundry requests is that 80% of the challenge is getting the right information to the right people. The Foundry is a miniaturized version of the game itself. That makes is a cross-discipline feature of the game. There is no Foundry dev because the Foundry is bigger than any one dev. Specific devs understand specific aspects. The key is to get the right requests to the right developers (and arguably at the right time when said developer has a the free time.)
Was just simply stating ideas the first council could address.
Actually, what you are doing is ignoring the intention of the idea in order to promote the thing you personally want.
This idea is born of a simple thing.
The recent addition of all the new ESD Props and water planes, etc has given us the information that assets do not take that long.
We're talking about small, lists of assets.
Please be clear. We would all like new things like the nudger. We would all like to see the company devoting enough resources to actually facelifting the Foundry. But that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
We have an opportunity here to show that we are capable of making small lists of requested assets to pass to Cryptic. We have proof that Assets don't take long. So the idea here is communicate around that.
Again. Things like the nudger, UI and interface issues, all that stuff, are NOT assets. Things that you are requesting or suggesting that this eventual group address are not assets. This is not a feature request thread, or a place to air all our grievences about the way the Foundry has been developed so far. This is about positive communication with people that are willing to help us.
We have been repeatedly assured that there is NO NEW development of systems coming to the Foundry. To ignore that very clear message and use this asset request idea to continue to poke the bear is actually pretty disrepectful.
Continuing to ask after we have been told in no uncertain terms what isn't happening is like spitting into the wind. I would personally rather engage in some positive communication with the devs, and possibly achieve something, than to use this as some sort of soapbox to address all the issues that surround a long ignored system in the game, just to spew our disappointments at them yet one more time.
There is the real potential for some great communication with Cryptic about assets. I, for one, would hate to see that ruined because some people can't accept that this isn't about anything but grouped and manageable asset requests.
We already have a wanted asset list stickied somewhere on the forum. Players council only works when both side believe in it. Considering the low amount of resources Cryptic set aside for the Foundry, I don't think a player council would do anything. We don't even have a player council for the rest of the game, and there is a lot more people concerned.
I don't think a player council would do much better than the stickied asset list. Also, players councils are supposed to do a lot more than just asking for assets. In LOTRO, they are part of the discussion for content/patch and planning, they even move to London (or somewhere else in England, can't remember exactly) once a year to meet the devs. In EVE they also used to be important, at least before the monoclegate.
If you want an effective player council, I'm pretty sure it won't happen in STO, especially in the Foundry. And if you just want a group of people making list of asset, we have a thread for that. Some people also did their own thread about it.
And yes, currently, that's the best we can do.
Currently, assets adding rely mostly of a few devs goodwill. Sometimes they feel generous, and add a bunch of asset during their free time. It's very nice of them, and the last bunch of assets is extremely appreciated, but let's face it, besides them and our CM, nobody really cares or do anything for the STO foundry. A player council may speak all day, and no matter how right they might be, nobody is listening on the other end.
We can either keep doing the same thing and hope things change, or we can try a new approach and see if we can't foster change.
Every time we've ever seen improvement or additions to the Foundry for most of it's history, it's when individuals reached out across the divide to developers. It's not enough to make lists and hope someone reads it.
Well, it could be like this. We do know from dev comments that individual devs on the different teams know their part of the Foundry. So, the council solicits feedback, looks at requests threads and all that to see what people want. Then they meet and talk it out and come up with one costume recommendation to give to the character art team, one asset, asset group or map recommendation to give to the environment art team (since they would handle both maps and assets) and one feature recommendation to give to the design team.
If or when one of those teams completes that recommendation, the council meets to come up with the next one.
As it's run now, there doesn't seem to have one guy in charge of all aspects of the Foundry, so we might have to deal with them on a team-by-team basis.
@erei: the asset request thread has been there for years, it is a gigantic mess and is completely ignored. We need a new approach to give them something that seems manageable. If on behalf of the authors, a group can give, for example, Tacofangs one thing that we all could use that he could get done without it being a huge time burden, i think we have a better chance of getting results.
And yes, we do need cooperation from Cryptic and PWE. If we decide we want to do this, the next step would be to get the ball rolling on that.
Well, it could be like this. We do know from dev comments that individual devs on the different teams know their part of the Foundry. So, the council solicits feedback, looks at requests threads and all that to see what people want. Then they meet and talk it out and come up with one costume recommendation to give to the character art team, one asset, asset group or map recommendation to give to the environment art team (since they would handle both maps and assets) and one feature recommendation to give to the design team.
If or when one of those teams completes that recommendation, the council meets to come up with the next one.
As it's run now, there doesn't seem to have one guy in charge of all aspects of the Foundry, so we might have to deal with them on a team-by-team basis.
@erei: the asset request thread has been there for years, it is a gigantic mess and is completely ignored. We need a new approach to give them something that seems manageable. If on behalf of the authors, a group can give, for example, Tacofangs one thing that we all could use that he could get done without it being a huge time burden, i think we have a better chance of getting results.
And yes, we do need cooperation from Cryptic and PWE. If we decide we want to do this, the next step would be to get the ball rolling on that.
Now I feel like I have to explain my thought process in more detail
By trade, I am a scientist / engineer / software analyst. As a person, I make decisions purely based on known facts and evidence. As a result, I tend to only do things that I know in advance is worth doing, taking only actions that will most likely result in the outcomes I desire. Conversely, I really do not like to take action that will result in nothing happening.
Here's what I already know: Back in 2012, we as a community cobbled together a list of assets we'ld like to see added to the foundry. We then voted on the list of assets and narrowed it down to around 20? 30? items. And we politely submitted the list to Cryptic and they promised to try and add them to the foundry. In fact, the thread where most of the discussion took place is still pinned at the top of this forum. It is now 2014 and as far as I am aware of, most of the items we proposed and voted on still has not been added to the foundry.
The goals of this player council is largely similar to our collective effort to get more assets into the foundry back in 2012. As is often quoted in nuBSG, "All this has happened before and will happen again". It didn't work back then, I do not observe any new changes that makes me believe it would work this time round. If you do observe any new change that I may have missed, please tell me and I will re-evaluate my position on the player council idea.
PS: Calling me a negative nancy is not productive to the conversation.
By trade, I am a scientist / engineer / software analyst. As a person, I make decisions purely based on known facts and evidence. As a result, I tend to only do things that I know in advance is worth doing, taking only actions that will most likely result in the outcomes I desire. Conversely, I really do not like to take action that will result in nothing happening.
Here's what I already know: Back in 2012, we as a community cobbled together a list of assets we'ld like to see added to the foundry. We then voted on the list of assets and narrowed it down to around 20? 30? items. And we politely submitted the list to Cryptic and they promised to try and add them to the foundry. In fact, the thread where most of the discussion took place is still pinned at the top of this forum. It is now 2014 and as far as I am aware of, most of the items we proposed and voted on still has not been added to the foundry.
The goals of this player council is largely similar to our collective effort to get more assets into the foundry back in 2012. As is often quoted in nuBSG, "All this has happened before and will happen again". It didn't work back then, I do not observe any new changes that makes me believe it would work this time round. If you do observe any new change that I may have missed, please tell me and I will re-evaluate my position on the player council idea.
I see your perspective. I think the mistake is in looking at all the ways in which we failed to get assets, but instead look at those instances where we did get assets.
The vast majority of times that we've successfully gotten assets, it was due to a player reaching out to the right developer with a specific (and concise) request, or in one or two instances, a Foundry-friendly developer privately seeking out a member of the community find out what the important needs are.
Unfortunately, from the outside, the Foundry community can sound like white noise, and often times even a developer needs help clearing the signal. We can leave these happy-accident, player-developer interactions to chance, or we can attempt to formalize things in a way that doesn't leave most out of the loop.
Comments
Hehe have you ever tried to wrangle a big group and get them to focus on something? The Foundry community may not be huge, but IMO we're not small enough to attempt a full on group discussion with everyone.
I would much rather see a council that addresses the players rather than Cryptic. Because frankly, the only way to get Cryptic to invest in the Foundry is to get players excited about playing foundry missions.
Always the negative nancy, eh, Intrinsical?
Any player council has to be beholden to BOTH the players *AND* Cryptic/PWE. It would have to reign the community from being pushy and overreactive and it would have to light a fire under the studio's butt too.
And on a personal note: you're tone and attitude towards this simply is *NOT* what is needed. Cynicism is going to get us nowhere and if you're going to have that attitude, then Cryptic and PWE is not going to listen to you nor care about you. This council could be the first step toward improving the relationship between the company and the community as well as pushing for more updates while not interfering in their development of new content. Much of the recent updates have been people working in their spare time and for the near future it is likely to remain so. So, please stop treating everyone at Cryptic and PWE like their the enemy, because that does nothing but hurt us as a community. I'll just leave you with this and think about it the next time you want to say these things.
"Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." - Stephen Colbert (out of character)
TRIBBLE Hydra! Hail Janeway!
The point he brings up is one that we've talked about at length. Lack of players and attracting new ones. When then idea first came up, I'll be honest it was envisioned as an Author Council that was going to try and get some traction on author issues. I called it a player council cause that's a term I'm familiar with (and we're all players, right?). However, Cryptic isn't doing a lot to attract new players. In between asset requests, the Author Council could also look at ways to help attract players.
This seems a really simple thing to me.
We know that getting grouped assets into the Foundry is something that is possible, not guarenteed, be we are aware now that assets don't take that long to tag.
We're not talking about new systems, or anything fancy.
We are discussing the idea of forming a group (frak the word council) of concerned authors willing to look around at all the various places authors talk about what assets they want, and find what are the most widely requested assets from all over the community, and then present a short list of the top requested things out there. That's it. A group willing to forgo their own wants (heck my personal pet peeve is a freaking combadge for Fraks sake) and give small manageable lists of requested assets to cryptic to do with as they will.
We're not looking to invigorate the Foundry with some noble council, or anything.
This is about a very simple thing, and many are making it into more than it really needs to be.
Most importantly, it's not a soapbox to air our grievances, or a place for fighting, finger pointing, and bad blood.
The most difficult part of what needs to be decided is how to choose the Group that's doing this.
- Peace
Perhaps it's best good those with the time and experience to lead an open group that addresses those issues. They can keep us advised of their proceedings in the forums.
Please leave comments or suggestions on the main thread for Homage to Galris at the following link.
Also feel free to check out some of my other projects at the following link.
Agreed, I understand I'm but one author in a larger community. I don't see anything wrong with those who can stepping up and making suggestions.
Please leave comments or suggestions on the main thread for Homage to Galris at the following link.
Also feel free to check out some of my other projects at the following link.
This man speaks truth, and seems full of wisdom.
My character Tsin'xing
Yeah... It's a shame that things like that are apparently too much to ask of Cryptic, who doesn't seem to have anyone in place to actually work on improving the Foundry without taking time away from other projects.
To be honest, Having used 3D editors for a while, sometimes they are more of a hassle than a benefit
But would it kill them to let us Rotate the assets?
Nothing can be worse than moving an object 1 y place, loading map, exiting, moving again...loading map...checking...and so on..
Yeah... This is actually the better part of why I stopped using the Foundry. You can do neat things with it, but it seems practically designed to deter people from it so they can get back to grinding endless rep instances. >.>
Things like the 3D Nudger are NOT what we are even talking about.
That's systems and programming stuff, it's not "an asset".
we're talking about things like props, maybe costumes, not things that require a bunch of Programming and Systems time.
Regardless, it should still be high on the list IMO.
^ This. All my ideas for Foundry missions went in the garbage because I couldn't stand the editor interface. Asset or not, a 3-D editor is a must-have for the near future.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
This thread is asking whether we should put together a group of authors to present a cohesive message to Cryptic about what we want added. What that message is will be decided later.
Actually, what you are doing is ignoring the intention of the idea in order to promote the thing you personally want.
This idea is born of a simple thing.
The recent addition of all the new ESD Props and water planes, etc has given us the information that assets do not take that long.
We're talking about small, lists of assets.
Please be clear. We would all like new things like the nudger. We would all like to see the company devoting enough resources to actually facelifting the Foundry. But that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
We have an opportunity here to show that we are capable of making small lists of requested assets to pass to Cryptic. We have proof that Assets don't take long. So the idea here is communicate around that.
Again. Things like the nudger, UI and interface issues, all that stuff, are NOT assets. Things that you are requesting or suggesting that this eventual group address are not assets. This is not a feature request thread, or a place to air all our grievences about the way the Foundry has been developed so far. This is about positive communication with people that are willing to help us.
We have been repeatedly assured that there is NO NEW development of systems coming to the Foundry. To ignore that very clear message and use this asset request idea to continue to poke the bear is actually pretty disrepectful.
Continuing to ask after we have been told in no uncertain terms what isn't happening is like spitting into the wind. I would personally rather engage in some positive communication with the devs, and possibly achieve something, than to use this as some sort of soapbox to address all the issues that surround a long ignored system in the game, just to spew our disappointments at them yet one more time.
There is the real potential for some great communication with Cryptic about assets. I, for one, would hate to see that ruined because some people can't accept that this isn't about anything but grouped and manageable asset requests.
I don't think a player council would do much better than the stickied asset list. Also, players councils are supposed to do a lot more than just asking for assets. In LOTRO, they are part of the discussion for content/patch and planning, they even move to London (or somewhere else in England, can't remember exactly) once a year to meet the devs. In EVE they also used to be important, at least before the monoclegate.
If you want an effective player council, I'm pretty sure it won't happen in STO, especially in the Foundry. And if you just want a group of people making list of asset, we have a thread for that. Some people also did their own thread about it.
And yes, currently, that's the best we can do.
Currently, assets adding rely mostly of a few devs goodwill. Sometimes they feel generous, and add a bunch of asset during their free time. It's very nice of them, and the last bunch of assets is extremely appreciated, but let's face it, besides them and our CM, nobody really cares or do anything for the STO foundry. A player council may speak all day, and no matter how right they might be, nobody is listening on the other end.
Every time we've ever seen improvement or additions to the Foundry for most of it's history, it's when individuals reached out across the divide to developers. It's not enough to make lists and hope someone reads it.
If or when one of those teams completes that recommendation, the council meets to come up with the next one.
As it's run now, there doesn't seem to have one guy in charge of all aspects of the Foundry, so we might have to deal with them on a team-by-team basis.
@erei: the asset request thread has been there for years, it is a gigantic mess and is completely ignored. We need a new approach to give them something that seems manageable. If on behalf of the authors, a group can give, for example, Tacofangs one thing that we all could use that he could get done without it being a huge time burden, i think we have a better chance of getting results.
And yes, we do need cooperation from Cryptic and PWE. If we decide we want to do this, the next step would be to get the ball rolling on that.
Now I feel like I have to explain my thought process in more detail
By trade, I am a scientist / engineer / software analyst. As a person, I make decisions purely based on known facts and evidence. As a result, I tend to only do things that I know in advance is worth doing, taking only actions that will most likely result in the outcomes I desire. Conversely, I really do not like to take action that will result in nothing happening.
Here's what I already know: Back in 2012, we as a community cobbled together a list of assets we'ld like to see added to the foundry. We then voted on the list of assets and narrowed it down to around 20? 30? items. And we politely submitted the list to Cryptic and they promised to try and add them to the foundry. In fact, the thread where most of the discussion took place is still pinned at the top of this forum. It is now 2014 and as far as I am aware of, most of the items we proposed and voted on still has not been added to the foundry.
The goals of this player council is largely similar to our collective effort to get more assets into the foundry back in 2012. As is often quoted in nuBSG, "All this has happened before and will happen again". It didn't work back then, I do not observe any new changes that makes me believe it would work this time round. If you do observe any new change that I may have missed, please tell me and I will re-evaluate my position on the player council idea.
PS: Calling me a negative nancy is not productive to the conversation.
I see your perspective. I think the mistake is in looking at all the ways in which we failed to get assets, but instead look at those instances where we did get assets.
The vast majority of times that we've successfully gotten assets, it was due to a player reaching out to the right developer with a specific (and concise) request, or in one or two instances, a Foundry-friendly developer privately seeking out a member of the community find out what the important needs are.
Unfortunately, from the outside, the Foundry community can sound like white noise, and often times even a developer needs help clearing the signal. We can leave these happy-accident, player-developer interactions to chance, or we can attempt to formalize things in a way that doesn't leave most out of the loop.
At the very least, we have nothing to lose.