As a fellow City of Heroes "Mission Architect" veteran, Armsman speaks for me:
First of all, you are drastically underestimating people's interest in min-maxing their XP. Early in CoH's UGC system, one faction (the Freakshow) gave about 10% more XP per hour to kill; by the end of the 3rd day, all you could find anywhere near the top 50 missions were Freakshow farms. No storytelling, no content of any kind, just the largest possible maps full of the optimum XP/minute mobs to repetitively farm. When that got nerfed, they moved on to the next-best. And the next-best. And the next-best. All you could hear in zone chat, for days on end, was "looking for (noun) farm" and "(noun) farm LF (n) members, P(lease)S(end)T(ell)." If UGC gives XP, it will work the same way.
If UGC gives rewards, it will be exploited. Period. Bet me any sum of money you care to name. You're going to end up spending the same percentage of your ongoing code maintenance budget on exploit fixes for UGC that CoH has been stuck with ever since they added it to theirs. Trust me on this; MMO players are not any different here than in any other MMO, and you're even using roughly the same engine. There is no reason, not one reason of any kind, to think that you can repeat their experiment and end up with a different result.
Secondly, any player-driven rating system that isn't at least as smart as Amazon's recommendations engine can and will be exploited, especially if there is even the most trivial reward for being in the top listings, even if it's as little as a 5 point Accolade, even if it's just a couple of slips of latinum. Fleets, in particular, will almost certainly take turns rating each others' missions the highest possible rating, so that their fleet can dominate the UGC list and monopolize the UGC rewards, however trivial they are. How do I know? Because in City of Heroes, what it gave was a ZERO-point accolade, and the badge-collectors still insisted on hogging it for themselves and their friends.
Telling me how many people rated "Vulcan Love Slave part 10" five stars doesn't tell me anything about it. Now, if you can tell me that other people who 5-starred the same stories that I did, and who 1-starred the same stories that I did, a stastistically significant number of them also 5-starred "Vulcan Love Slave part 10", that's potentially useful information.
Telling me how many people rated "Vulcan Love Slave part 10" five stars doesn't tell me anything about it. Now, if you can tell me that other people who 5-starred the same stories that I did, and who 1-starred the same stories that I did, a stastistically significant number of them also 5-starred "Vulcan Love Slave part 10", that's potentially useful information.
The more intelligent the recommendation system, the more people will moan and cry and not understand why their missions aren't being recommended more often.
Finally a more robust debate regarding the upcoming UGC.
UG content cannot, will not, and should not, be placed in a position next to developer made content. For it cannot replace professional content no matter the ratings, the material comes with no real connection to developer made content as a larger body. For the UGC missions are made to serve the individual for more reasons than can easily be listed, not the whole. Even if we assume that the motivation is beyond perfect, it will ultimately be fan creations of variable degrees of quality, and ratings does not take into account a larger frame of reference, only individual merit, once again.
And it is that which is the main problem, UGC fails to represent content within a larger context, for it is by nature an infinite collection of pieces destined to never settle down into a greater whole. You could of course pull out pieces that seemed to fit in, and place them somewhere else, in some kind of collection. But that is beyond a rating system, and the presentation format of the UGC.
I say all of this belongs on the Holodeck, for UGC creations is by nature fan creations made for other fans at best, not some kind of viable Star Trek content replacement. It is possible to find good things within a system like this, but the criteria for good quality content is yet again individual. And that transcends a rating system, some pieces will always be drowned in it's own presentation format. A system like this generate a lot of noise, compared to what might float to the top of it.
UGC do have the ability to engage and keep content creators busy. But do not push it too hard into the world at large, for it is not ready to replace real content at present time. IMHO.
Based on the CoH system, most players are only interested in playing missions that are high ranked.
But in CoHV you have many other search options than the user rating of the missions. You can find good missions there very easily, it's very simple to avoid playing terrible boring farm missions, because the players who develop and release their missions also release a description with the mission. And beside that there are headwords you can search for.
There is no problem with UGC tools, as long as Cryptic can prevent massive exp farming missions. I do not share any other concerns then this regarding the UGC tools, escpecially not about "TRIBBLE missions". If there are only 100 good missions found between the thousands of missions ppl will create i'm happy. Nobody is forced to play "TRIBBLE missions", nobody is forced to use the UGC tools yet to play UGC missions.
I found the CoHV Mission Architect a very original and good feature, and i think with what Cryptic has learned of Pragon Studios mistakes about the MA, they will release an even better UGC tool. I really look forward to the release of the STO UGC tool.
the material comes with no real connection to developer made content as a larger body.
...
But do not push it too hard into the world at large, for it is not ready to replace real content at present time. IMHO.
I think you really underestimate alot of community members at this point.
Beside that, Cryptic told it will be possible to create mission-chains in the future when they expand the tool, not only single missions. But hey .. there are alot of single missions developed by the Cryptic devs, so it will not be to hard creating UGC missions with the same quantity & quality
Keep in mind, such a UGC tool will not replace official released content, it's for sharing your own stories / missions / ideas with other players and bring in some diversion.
I think you really underestimate alot of community members at this point.
Beside that, Cryptic told it will be possible to create mission-chains in the future when they expand the tool, not only single missions. But hey .. there are alot of single missions developed by the Cryptic devs, so it will not be to hard creating UGC missions with the same quantity & quality
Keep in mind, such a UGC tool will not replace official released content, it's for sharing your own stories / missions / ideas with other players and bring in some diversion.
Quality is not the issue so much as not being the work of someone Cryptic has hired to write their story for them. If STO itself were to become a medium for fan expression as opposed to a game by Cryptic, its nature as an entity would have to shift, apparently in a way that Cryptic and/or CBS is not comfortable with because of the insistence on panel reviews and anointing some volunteer works and not others 'kosher' for being pushed alongside main game content.
Anyone who accepts the Foundry EULA can rate content. Anyone who plays the content can rate the content. I've explained in better detail that mission reward xp is being implemented as based on time to completion and content within the episode. If there are specific questions, we are setting up a Foundry forum section where we'll keep a running FAQ of this stuff.
*breathes sigh of relief*
I have no issues with there being nil rewards for UGC content missions. That includes XP, skill points, merits and BO points.
I have no issues with there being absolutely no reward for being a '5 star' rated mission. In fact, I'd prefer there to be no rewards as it lessens the likelihood of rigging.
I do, however, have a major problem with any UGC episode I create being 'approved' by some douchebag council. Let the players decide whether my missions are worthy or not.
I would rather 10,000 TRIBBLE missions with 1 pure awesome mission hidden in amongst it than 3 mediocre 'approved' missions.
Here's why. Let's say 80% of the players don't like hard missions, but you do. So any "hard" mission would only receive a 20% score, which means they'll be lost in the mass of "bad" missions. That's just an example, there are countless factors like this that will decide if its a mission you'll like or not.
Rankings need to be "personalized", that is the ranking you see on a mission needs to be calculated based on how you've scored missions in the past. So, if you've scored "hard" missions highly, then other "hard" missions should be rated highly.
This doesn't mean "categories" - there are too many variables possible for even one type of mission to try and start categorizing them. What it means is the system examining how you voted in the past and matching your votes with other players (that have voted similarly) to calculate a "personal" ranking just for you. This always ensure you'll enjoy every mission you play. It's not even that hard to do.
It's ludicrous to believe we're all the same and are going to like the same missions. I've been saying this for months (see the UGC Features), hopefully if enough people quote it someone at Cryptic will wake up about it.
If these Player-Created missions are going to be subjected to a rigorous vetting process, then they should just become regular 'missions.' If they are reviewed, vetted, and approved, there is little reason not to make them actual content.
If they are not going to become regular content, and particularly if they are going to have kneecapped rewards, then why a rigorous vetting process?
To be bluntly honest and frank, not only do I expect some of the User-Created-Content to be better than some of the regular missions, but I don't think it will be a particularly difficult goal to achieve. A portion of the existing mission content is marginal.
The only role of a reviewer on these user-content missions is to label them for vulgarity and gross inappropriateness. Barring being broken, they should all be approved. If you want to have a serious review council, let them review the user-created-content for inclusion in the regular game as a regular mission.
Perhaps one mission every week for each faction, 52 per year, can be approved as a real game mission. Inclusion into the normal game is a goal and reward worthy of vigorous vetting. And of course Cryptic developers would be free to make edits to the mission as appropriate, and assign whatever xp and treasure they see fit. I'm sure authors would be happy with a 'Mission Concept Created by X' tag at the start of the mission. That would be a great honor, to become part of the normal game in such a way.
Sooooooo... Why not use the 3-pack cooldown system on the typical 30 minute timer?
It's increasingly apparent that they really don't want people actually playing the game much per day...
If you listened to the interview, the rationale was that some missions might be an hour or more. They don't want someone to get their daily UGC mission (with full benefits for the first two) and discover the third is an hour long marathon mission created by an obsessive trek fan.
Since the mission lengths are an unknown, the 3 and done timer doesn't really reflect how long it will take the average player.
If you listened to the interview, the rationale was that some missions might be an hour or more. They don't want someone to get their daily UGC mission (with full benefits for the first two) and discover the third is an hour long marathon mission created by an obsessive trek fan.
Since the mission lengths are an unknown, the 3 and done timer doesn't really reflect how long it will take the average player.
And order-based diminishing returns doesn't TRIBBLE the person who takes the marathon as the heavily-diminished third mission instead of the first?
Also, if you want PvP queues and Fleet actions even more dead... you'd take off any cap. Listen to the 1.5 hour long interview with Mapolis.
The team's rationale and description in the interview is spot on.
Or they could make those parts of the game not suck?
I never have trouble getting teams for 'in-world' content in CoH these days** except in the off-est of off-peak hours in unpopular zones. So having actually been there post-AE now, I really don't put much credence to the crowd who says it's impossible to balance rewards properly to get people to do other things.
**I tried it pre-AE, found it rather dull, got dragged back in by a fellow refugee from STO, have been fairly impressed. CO still has a better combat system, though compared to STO it's a masterpiece.
Let's hope so, because the Player Council was a damn good idea that INCREASED the voice of the fans in Cryptic's decision-making processes, but was knee-jerk rejected by people who didn't read carefully and didn't understand what it was.
And order-based diminishing returns doesn't TRIBBLE the person who takes the marathon as the heavily-diminished third mission instead of the first?
It's done with the understanding that anything past the second scales down. marathon missions are still based on average playtime with a multiplier of (I'm making this up) 90% XP and credit gains.
You still get rewarded but the goal is not being doing ugc so much that no one sees you (remember, UGC is going to add a lot of instances).
Let's hope so, because the Player Council was a damn good idea that INCREASED the voice of the fans in Cryptic's decision-making processes, but was knee-jerk rejected by people who didn't read carefully and didn't understand what it was.
The outcry over that was strange: the devs wanted to look outside the forums for additional input but people got their nacelles bent out of shape because they weren't on the council. The point was to get non-players or players with a community of non-players active (i.e. STOked has a lot of non-subbed players that are waiting for the game to improve).
Anyways, the review system for UGC is very different. Anyone can be a reviewer - you just risk losing that privilege if you push through crappy content or are rigging the system.
Anyone who accepts the Foundry EULA can rate content. Anyone who plays the content can rate the content. I've explained in better detail that mission reward xp is being implemented as based on time to completion and content within the episode. If there are specific questions, we are setting up a Foundry forum section where we'll keep a running FAQ of this stuff.
I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence, but only people who play all the way through a mission should be able to rate it.
Let's hope so, because the Player Council was a damn good idea that INCREASED the voice of the fans in Cryptic's decision-making processes, but was knee-jerk rejected by people who didn't read carefully and didn't understand what it was.
I fully understood the plan for the council, but still didnt support it. People who arent customers shouldnt really have any say in how the game is developed. And people who are customers should all have an equal voice, not have some who have more influence than others because they supposedly "represent" other people.
actually for me it said that the less well recieved maps would still make it onto the holodeck in quarks etc..so though they are being vetted..it doesn't sound like anyone wants to just ban everyones effots. More it souns like the really good ones will make a full apearance as part of the game and the others will be accesible via in game "fanatasy" to me it seems only buigged or inappropriate missions will not make it. That sounds fair as it would just be a free for all otherwise.
maybe it's time to have some faith, and let go of the reins, we cant all be in control. If things dont seem "fair" we can addres that if and when...but for now IMHO I am much for the "lets at least give this a chance before we shoot it down" approach.
This is an exciting aspect to the future of sto. We have all complained about the content at times, this could be a major step. I would hate to see it fall before it had a chance just for the sake of some bruised ego's..naming no names I am just being generic about this
actually for me it said that the less well recieved maps would still make it onto the holodeck in quarks etc..so though they are being vetted..it doesn't sound like anyone wants to just ban everyones effots. More it souns like the really good ones will make a full apearance as part of the game and the others will be accesible via in game "fanatasy" to me it seems only buigged or inappropriate missions will not make it. That sounds fair as it would just be a free for all otherwise.
maybe it's time to have some faith, and let go of the reins, we cant all be in control. If things dont seem "fair" we can addres that if and when...but for now IMHO I am much for the "lets at least give this a chance before we shoot it down" approach.
This is an exciting aspect to the future of sto. We have all complained about the content at times, this could be a major step. I would hate to see it fall before it had a chance just for the sake of some bruised ego's..naming no names I am just being generic about this
Its pretty obvious that we have no real control over what happens either way. All we can do is tell the Devs what we want and how we want it. What happens next is really up to them. However, it makes much more sense for us to tell them how we want it BEFORE we get the system than for us to just "wait and see" and then have them go back afterwards and change what they've already made.
Ive been trying to come up with Klingon missions that would resemble the ones you get from Adm. Quinn etc. Hoping to add good missions to the Klingon side while also giving a mission with better XP than the low TRIBBLE they get now. Hopefully it will work out like that.
Why not look at what VALVe did with TeamFortress 2 user generated contnet. they held a contest after releasing the tools to create in game items/weapons/maps/game modes and then worked with the community to refine and then implement these user created elements. No need for a community panel of judges just have a monthly contest for user generatedsubmissions and then implenent them in the next months update. This way Cryptic can focus on game balancing and bug fixes and we can make our own missions and adventures within the game setting.
Its pretty obvious that we have no real control over what happens either way. All we can do is tell the Devs what we want and how we want it. What happens next is really up to them. However, it makes much more sense for us to tell them how we want it BEFORE we get the system than for us to just "wait and see" and then have them go back afterwards and change what they've already made.
Oh please dont get me wrong, the more feedback NOW regarding the foundary the BETTER. the only way it can achieve expectations is for us to display all thought on it now. it's thwe only way to improve anything..and i would really hope the devs listen to thqat feedback. My only concern is rather than giving feedback some peeps might just trya nd block it's very existence...thats what I would hope to avoid.
because IMHO with possible implimentation problems aside..it could be really healthy for the game.
I wonder about the review system..i mean one way to make it fair might be a "first come first serve" deal. Where each new mission is released on tribble. the first "x" amount of players to play the mission before "x" time could potentially review it INGAME on tribble./ this would kill two birds with one stone regarding testing and then fairness...just tossing an idea in. nothing more.
Anyone who accepts the Foundry EULA can rate content. Anyone who plays the content can rate the content. I've explained in better detail that mission reward xp is being implemented as based on time to completion and content within the episode. If there are specific questions, we are setting up a Foundry forum section where we'll keep a running FAQ of this stuff.
It has been well understood that everyone can be a "Rater" after they play UGC content. What I have concerns about is the "Panel of Player Reviewers" who make the initial decision to allow new UGC content to be played in the first place. Your comment only addresses "raters".
How "Mission Reward XP" is calculated was also well understood. But it does not address what Mike Apolis said about running multiple UGC missions in one day - that's where Diminishing Returns comes into play.
Running *the same* mission over and over should not be allowed - that is farming. Since Mission XP is balanced as you described, we should be able to run as many *different* UGC missions as we want in a day and get rewarded for them all.
It's the same as running Dev Episodes all day long because they are all different and all have balanced Mission XP.
I look forward to the FAQ so we can get into this some more.
Anyone who accepts the Foundry EULA can rate content. Anyone who plays the content can rate the content. I've explained in better detail that mission reward xp is being implemented as based on time to completion and content within the episode. If there are specific questions, we are setting up a Foundry forum section where we'll keep a running FAQ of this stuff.
Dan, i think that is rather clear however and i think the real concern surrounds that of what was said by Mr. Apolis in regards to a council of sorts would have power or influence in a way which is being seen by the community as another bad thing, could you remark on what Mr. Apolis has said for clarification?
It has been well understood that everyone can be a "Rater" after they play UGC content. What I have concerns about is the "Panel of Player Reviewers" who make the initial decision to allow new UGC content to be played in the first place. Your comment only addresses "raters".
During the first huge, seemingly never-ending round of UGC discussions, I made the point, or tried to, over and over and over again, that one of the biggest problems with UGC in a licensed game like this is that somebody has to review it before it can become part of the game. If it was all going to be holodeck, non-game altering, non-XP or reward granting stuff, then no problem, it would essentially be a fan fic forum and anything offensive could be yanked when reported.
But if UGC missions are actually integrated into the game world, that raises a whole range of issues, on the CBS side (with their rules in terms of how the license can be handled), on the MSRB side (because 'Game Experience May Change During Online Play covers you cussing in chat, it doesn't cover actual game elements), and on the intellectual property side (if I want to write a fanfic about Han Solo and Captain Kirk teaming up and post it on a forum, fine...but if I post a game with that premise in a venue that requires a paid subscription, Lucas is going to own my firstborn after the court case).
At the time I first argued this, I argued that this was inevitably going to detract from the game, because either Dev or GM time was going to have to be spent reading through UGC missions rather than making professional content or performing regular GM duties. Cryptic found a way around this with the 'player council' idea, i.e. volunteer labor, which is pretty much in the spirit of UGC, since that is, after all, what UGC is, volunteer work.
I think at the core of this new outcry is what I've said about UGC from the beginning: Like fanfic, a whole lot of people want to make/write it, and very few people want to read/play other peoples'. Since what everyone is looking forward to with UGC is expressing themselves creatively (not playing the content per se), this player council represents someone else stifling your treasured creativity.
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't want a penny of the money I pay Cryptic for this game going to pay them to read over your fanfic and censor the naughty bits. I want every penny I give them for this game to be spent on them producing content for this game, and fixing its many and varied issues. Which means since we need someone to read UGC: volunteer readers it is.
you know what would be cool? I dont know the current plans, but people have mentioned that if a mission is created. It's potential to be rejected other than being abusive etc, were things like canon. So I am thinking if a mission is going to get rated based on such things, it should be possible for the council or whoever ends up making this decision, to give PRECISE feedback
Rather than just saying "failed" or "avaible in the holodeck only" , if a mission is good but ruins canon but only in a minor capacity. Or generally if a mission is good and one thing or a set of really basic things cause it to be rejected. Then precise feedback could be provided, giving the mission creator a chance to rework that mission so that it might be reclassified or fully accepted. just thinking out loud )
I still don't get why people get so gorked (yeah, i just made that up, deal with it xD) about a "player council" thing. EVE does it and it works VERY well.
As long as Cryptic shows good judgement in who they are going to choose (I.E people who actively contribute with positive criticism and suggestions, like the guy who did mini-game images and ideas) that would be very good for the game.
Or better yet, player electing players for said council..
I still don't get why people get so gorked (yeah, i just made that up, deal with it xD) about a "player council" thing. EVE does it and it works VERY well.
As long as Cryptic shows good judgement in who they are going to choose (I.E people who actively contribute with positive criticism and suggestions, like the guy who did mini-game images and ideas) that would be very good for the game.
Or better yet, player electing players for said council..
Well, I cant speak for others, but....actually, that is exactly my point. I cant speak for others, and I dont want other speaking for me. The Devs already read and reply to the threads here on the forum, and have directly replied to some of my posts before. I dont want other people intentionally or not misrepresenting what I think to the Devs.
Comments
First of all, you are drastically underestimating people's interest in min-maxing their XP. Early in CoH's UGC system, one faction (the Freakshow) gave about 10% more XP per hour to kill; by the end of the 3rd day, all you could find anywhere near the top 50 missions were Freakshow farms. No storytelling, no content of any kind, just the largest possible maps full of the optimum XP/minute mobs to repetitively farm. When that got nerfed, they moved on to the next-best. And the next-best. And the next-best. All you could hear in zone chat, for days on end, was "looking for (noun) farm" and "(noun) farm LF (n) members, P(lease)S(end)T(ell)." If UGC gives XP, it will work the same way.
If UGC gives rewards, it will be exploited. Period. Bet me any sum of money you care to name. You're going to end up spending the same percentage of your ongoing code maintenance budget on exploit fixes for UGC that CoH has been stuck with ever since they added it to theirs. Trust me on this; MMO players are not any different here than in any other MMO, and you're even using roughly the same engine. There is no reason, not one reason of any kind, to think that you can repeat their experiment and end up with a different result.
Secondly, any player-driven rating system that isn't at least as smart as Amazon's recommendations engine can and will be exploited, especially if there is even the most trivial reward for being in the top listings, even if it's as little as a 5 point Accolade, even if it's just a couple of slips of latinum. Fleets, in particular, will almost certainly take turns rating each others' missions the highest possible rating, so that their fleet can dominate the UGC list and monopolize the UGC rewards, however trivial they are. How do I know? Because in City of Heroes, what it gave was a ZERO-point accolade, and the badge-collectors still insisted on hogging it for themselves and their friends.
Telling me how many people rated "Vulcan Love Slave part 10" five stars doesn't tell me anything about it. Now, if you can tell me that other people who 5-starred the same stories that I did, and who 1-starred the same stories that I did, a stastistically significant number of them also 5-starred "Vulcan Love Slave part 10", that's potentially useful information.
The more intelligent the recommendation system, the more people will moan and cry and not understand why their missions aren't being recommended more often.
Ultimately there's no way to win.
UG content cannot, will not, and should not, be placed in a position next to developer made content. For it cannot replace professional content no matter the ratings, the material comes with no real connection to developer made content as a larger body. For the UGC missions are made to serve the individual for more reasons than can easily be listed, not the whole. Even if we assume that the motivation is beyond perfect, it will ultimately be fan creations of variable degrees of quality, and ratings does not take into account a larger frame of reference, only individual merit, once again.
And it is that which is the main problem, UGC fails to represent content within a larger context, for it is by nature an infinite collection of pieces destined to never settle down into a greater whole. You could of course pull out pieces that seemed to fit in, and place them somewhere else, in some kind of collection. But that is beyond a rating system, and the presentation format of the UGC.
I say all of this belongs on the Holodeck, for UGC creations is by nature fan creations made for other fans at best, not some kind of viable Star Trek content replacement. It is possible to find good things within a system like this, but the criteria for good quality content is yet again individual. And that transcends a rating system, some pieces will always be drowned in it's own presentation format. A system like this generate a lot of noise, compared to what might float to the top of it.
UGC do have the ability to engage and keep content creators busy. But do not push it too hard into the world at large, for it is not ready to replace real content at present time. IMHO.
---
For a second there I thought your forum name was Sermon, and thus highly appropriate.
Anyway, yes. Especially for people like me who would prefer to make stories that are explicitly alternate to STO's events.
But in CoHV you have many other search options than the user rating of the missions. You can find good missions there very easily, it's very simple to avoid playing terrible boring farm missions, because the players who develop and release their missions also release a description with the mission. And beside that there are headwords you can search for.
There is no problem with UGC tools, as long as Cryptic can prevent massive exp farming missions. I do not share any other concerns then this regarding the UGC tools, escpecially not about "TRIBBLE missions". If there are only 100 good missions found between the thousands of missions ppl will create i'm happy. Nobody is forced to play "TRIBBLE missions", nobody is forced to use the UGC tools yet to play UGC missions.
I found the CoHV Mission Architect a very original and good feature, and i think with what Cryptic has learned of Pragon Studios mistakes about the MA, they will release an even better UGC tool. I really look forward to the release of the STO UGC tool.
I think you really underestimate alot of community members at this point.
Beside that, Cryptic told it will be possible to create mission-chains in the future when they expand the tool, not only single missions. But hey .. there are alot of single missions developed by the Cryptic devs, so it will not be to hard creating UGC missions with the same quantity & quality
Keep in mind, such a UGC tool will not replace official released content, it's for sharing your own stories / missions / ideas with other players and bring in some diversion.
Quality is not the issue so much as not being the work of someone Cryptic has hired to write their story for them. If STO itself were to become a medium for fan expression as opposed to a game by Cryptic, its nature as an entity would have to shift, apparently in a way that Cryptic and/or CBS is not comfortable with because of the insistence on panel reviews and anointing some volunteer works and not others 'kosher' for being pushed alongside main game content.
*breathes sigh of relief*
I have no issues with there being nil rewards for UGC content missions. That includes XP, skill points, merits and BO points.
I have no issues with there being absolutely no reward for being a '5 star' rated mission. In fact, I'd prefer there to be no rewards as it lessens the likelihood of rigging.
I do, however, have a major problem with any UGC episode I create being 'approved' by some douchebag council. Let the players decide whether my missions are worthy or not.
I would rather 10,000 TRIBBLE missions with 1 pure awesome mission hidden in amongst it than 3 mediocre 'approved' missions.
Rankings need to be "personalized", that is the ranking you see on a mission needs to be calculated based on how you've scored missions in the past. So, if you've scored "hard" missions highly, then other "hard" missions should be rated highly.
This doesn't mean "categories" - there are too many variables possible for even one type of mission to try and start categorizing them. What it means is the system examining how you voted in the past and matching your votes with other players (that have voted similarly) to calculate a "personal" ranking just for you. This always ensure you'll enjoy every mission you play. It's not even that hard to do.
It's ludicrous to believe we're all the same and are going to like the same missions. I've been saying this for months (see the UGC Features), hopefully if enough people quote it someone at Cryptic will wake up about it.
If these Player-Created missions are going to be subjected to a rigorous vetting process, then they should just become regular 'missions.' If they are reviewed, vetted, and approved, there is little reason not to make them actual content.
If they are not going to become regular content, and particularly if they are going to have kneecapped rewards, then why a rigorous vetting process?
To be bluntly honest and frank, not only do I expect some of the User-Created-Content to be better than some of the regular missions, but I don't think it will be a particularly difficult goal to achieve. A portion of the existing mission content is marginal.
The only role of a reviewer on these user-content missions is to label them for vulgarity and gross inappropriateness. Barring being broken, they should all be approved. If you want to have a serious review council, let them review the user-created-content for inclusion in the regular game as a regular mission.
Perhaps one mission every week for each faction, 52 per year, can be approved as a real game mission. Inclusion into the normal game is a goal and reward worthy of vigorous vetting. And of course Cryptic developers would be free to make edits to the mission as appropriate, and assign whatever xp and treasure they see fit. I'm sure authors would be happy with a 'Mission Concept Created by X' tag at the start of the mission. That would be a great honor, to become part of the normal game in such a way.
If you listened to the interview, the rationale was that some missions might be an hour or more. They don't want someone to get their daily UGC mission (with full benefits for the first two) and discover the third is an hour long marathon mission created by an obsessive trek fan.
Since the mission lengths are an unknown, the 3 and done timer doesn't really reflect how long it will take the average player.
Because otherwise there's nothing to prevent a bunch of five minute missions being created for the purpose of speed-levelling.
Frankly I'd have placed NO reward, either XP or otherwise on UGC...
Also, if you want PvP queues and Fleet actions even more dead... you'd take off any cap. Listen to the 1.5 hour long interview with Mapolis.
The team's rationale and description in the interview is spot on.
And order-based diminishing returns doesn't TRIBBLE the person who takes the marathon as the heavily-diminished third mission instead of the first?
Or they could make those parts of the game not suck?
I never have trouble getting teams for 'in-world' content in CoH these days** except in the off-est of off-peak hours in unpopular zones. So having actually been there post-AE now, I really don't put much credence to the crowd who says it's impossible to balance rewards properly to get people to do other things.
**I tried it pre-AE, found it rather dull, got dragged back in by a fellow refugee from STO, have been fairly impressed. CO still has a better combat system, though compared to STO it's a masterpiece.
Let's hope so, because the Player Council was a damn good idea that INCREASED the voice of the fans in Cryptic's decision-making processes, but was knee-jerk rejected by people who didn't read carefully and didn't understand what it was.
It's done with the understanding that anything past the second scales down. marathon missions are still based on average playtime with a multiplier of (I'm making this up) 90% XP and credit gains.
You still get rewarded but the goal is not being doing ugc so much that no one sees you (remember, UGC is going to add a lot of instances).
The outcry over that was strange: the devs wanted to look outside the forums for additional input but people got their nacelles bent out of shape because they weren't on the council. The point was to get non-players or players with a community of non-players active (i.e. STOked has a lot of non-subbed players that are waiting for the game to improve).
Anyways, the review system for UGC is very different. Anyone can be a reviewer - you just risk losing that privilege if you push through crappy content or are rigging the system.
I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence, but only people who play all the way through a mission should be able to rate it.
I fully understood the plan for the council, but still didnt support it. People who arent customers shouldnt really have any say in how the game is developed. And people who are customers should all have an equal voice, not have some who have more influence than others because they supposedly "represent" other people.
maybe it's time to have some faith, and let go of the reins, we cant all be in control. If things dont seem "fair" we can addres that if and when...but for now IMHO I am much for the "lets at least give this a chance before we shoot it down" approach.
This is an exciting aspect to the future of sto. We have all complained about the content at times, this could be a major step. I would hate to see it fall before it had a chance just for the sake of some bruised ego's..naming no names I am just being generic about this
Its pretty obvious that we have no real control over what happens either way. All we can do is tell the Devs what we want and how we want it. What happens next is really up to them. However, it makes much more sense for us to tell them how we want it BEFORE we get the system than for us to just "wait and see" and then have them go back afterwards and change what they've already made.
Oh please dont get me wrong, the more feedback NOW regarding the foundary the BETTER. the only way it can achieve expectations is for us to display all thought on it now. it's thwe only way to improve anything..and i would really hope the devs listen to thqat feedback. My only concern is rather than giving feedback some peeps might just trya nd block it's very existence...thats what I would hope to avoid.
because IMHO with possible implimentation problems aside..it could be really healthy for the game.
I wonder about the review system..i mean one way to make it fair might be a "first come first serve" deal. Where each new mission is released on tribble. the first "x" amount of players to play the mission before "x" time could potentially review it INGAME on tribble./ this would kill two birds with one stone regarding testing and then fairness...just tossing an idea in. nothing more.
It has been well understood that everyone can be a "Rater" after they play UGC content. What I have concerns about is the "Panel of Player Reviewers" who make the initial decision to allow new UGC content to be played in the first place. Your comment only addresses "raters".
How "Mission Reward XP" is calculated was also well understood. But it does not address what Mike Apolis said about running multiple UGC missions in one day - that's where Diminishing Returns comes into play.
Running *the same* mission over and over should not be allowed - that is farming. Since Mission XP is balanced as you described, we should be able to run as many *different* UGC missions as we want in a day and get rewarded for them all.
It's the same as running Dev Episodes all day long because they are all different and all have balanced Mission XP.
I look forward to the FAQ so we can get into this some more.
Dan, i think that is rather clear however and i think the real concern surrounds that of what was said by Mr. Apolis in regards to a council of sorts would have power or influence in a way which is being seen by the community as another bad thing, could you remark on what Mr. Apolis has said for clarification?
During the first huge, seemingly never-ending round of UGC discussions, I made the point, or tried to, over and over and over again, that one of the biggest problems with UGC in a licensed game like this is that somebody has to review it before it can become part of the game. If it was all going to be holodeck, non-game altering, non-XP or reward granting stuff, then no problem, it would essentially be a fan fic forum and anything offensive could be yanked when reported.
But if UGC missions are actually integrated into the game world, that raises a whole range of issues, on the CBS side (with their rules in terms of how the license can be handled), on the MSRB side (because 'Game Experience May Change During Online Play covers you cussing in chat, it doesn't cover actual game elements), and on the intellectual property side (if I want to write a fanfic about Han Solo and Captain Kirk teaming up and post it on a forum, fine...but if I post a game with that premise in a venue that requires a paid subscription, Lucas is going to own my firstborn after the court case).
At the time I first argued this, I argued that this was inevitably going to detract from the game, because either Dev or GM time was going to have to be spent reading through UGC missions rather than making professional content or performing regular GM duties. Cryptic found a way around this with the 'player council' idea, i.e. volunteer labor, which is pretty much in the spirit of UGC, since that is, after all, what UGC is, volunteer work.
I think at the core of this new outcry is what I've said about UGC from the beginning: Like fanfic, a whole lot of people want to make/write it, and very few people want to read/play other peoples'. Since what everyone is looking forward to with UGC is expressing themselves creatively (not playing the content per se), this player council represents someone else stifling your treasured creativity.
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't want a penny of the money I pay Cryptic for this game going to pay them to read over your fanfic and censor the naughty bits. I want every penny I give them for this game to be spent on them producing content for this game, and fixing its many and varied issues. Which means since we need someone to read UGC: volunteer readers it is.
Rather than just saying "failed" or "avaible in the holodeck only" , if a mission is good but ruins canon but only in a minor capacity. Or generally if a mission is good and one thing or a set of really basic things cause it to be rejected. Then precise feedback could be provided, giving the mission creator a chance to rework that mission so that it might be reclassified or fully accepted. just thinking out loud
As long as Cryptic shows good judgement in who they are going to choose (I.E people who actively contribute with positive criticism and suggestions, like the guy who did mini-game images and ideas) that would be very good for the game.
Or better yet, player electing players for said council..
Well, I cant speak for others, but....actually, that is exactly my point. I cant speak for others, and I dont want other speaking for me. The Devs already read and reply to the threads here on the forum, and have directly replied to some of my posts before. I dont want other people intentionally or not misrepresenting what I think to the Devs.