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.
Sorry, but that argument just doesnt work. There are prob Klingon players who only want their money to go towards the development of Klingon content, but they are going to get their wish no matter how many stars they pray to. That being the case, theres no reason you should get to decide where your money goes anymore than they do.
But if UGC missions are actually integrated into the game world,
Their not. You'll never get a UGC mission running around in the game world. The only way you'll get a UGC mission is by browsing the database or the select mission that Cryptic thinks is good enough to be offered to the playerbase. Either way, this will be through the remote contacts. Nothing in the game world will change for anyone who DOESNT have the mission in the first place.
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.
Yeah, adding Kilngon-centric missions has more appeal to me personally than Federation ones.
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".
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.
What's preventing a fleet or other group of players from creating different missions, all of which have identical content within? I wouldn't expect reviewers to compare a piece of content against all existing content to weed out duplicates, and duplicates would allow people to just "go down the list" of easy ones as their means of farming.
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).
This. UGC can never live alongside Cryptic-made content as equals without Cryptic personally approving and taking responsibility for the missions' content. It has to be set aside and available through another mechanic differentiating it from official content.
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
What's the end-game, though? We've seen what happens to discussions here when you have one side arguing "canon" and the other side arguing "because it's fun". They go on for a long time and periodically get pretty hostile. Then you have the holes between known canon information that we each must fill, ourselves, with what we believe to be likely. Will we be having missions rejected based on that? What will come of a reviewer explaining that in feedback? It'll just be the start of an argument.
Requiring precise feedback sounds good but it won't fix the problem- the creators will still argue that what they created is valid and should be approved. It won't matter if the mission has Captain Nemo of the U.S.S. Nautilus blowing up the Death Star; creators will feel they have the right to have everything they make approved, and they won't care about the reasons why it wasn't.
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..
Any reviewer election process that comes down to popular vote will lead to problems. The majority of players don't give a TRIBBLE about canon or how well a mission fits with the setting. They'll inevitably elect reviewers who let anything through.
And if it's up to Cryptic to choose and police the reviewer panel, that's more work for them when they have plenty on their plates already. And frankly they don't seem to be giving much of a TRIBBLE about canon or game world continuity lately, either.
Sorry, but that argument just doesnt work. There are prob Klingon players who only want their money to go towards the development of Klingon content, but they are going to get their wish no matter how many stars they pray to. That being the case, theres no reason you should get to decide where your money goes anymore than they do.
Not the same.
Cryptic putting our money towards official development for STO--even if not where we'd like--is one thing.
Cryptic putting our money towards babysitting the UGC system is another.
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),
Ones that have been solved since the developers have stated they got approval to integrate missions in to the game's fiction.
on the MSRB side (because 'Game Experience May Change During Online Play covers you cussing in chat, it doesn't cover actual game elements),
No. this isn't how the ESRB rating works. What ships on the disc or in the patchfiles aren't the UGC missions but the tools. I can't tell you how many nude mods exist for games that came bundled with tools and it didn't change the rating at all. It's surprising.
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).
The people writing these missions aren't making money - a flaw in your analogy. People can report them (as can copyright holders).
Ones that have been solved since the developers have stated they got approval to integrate missions in to the game's fiction.
Cryptic has to get approval for their missions on a per-mission basis. I find it very unlikely CBS gave them a blanket stamp of approval for anything and everything added to the game though the UGC system. And if they did, it will be with the understanding that UGC content is labeled as such or is some other way kept separate from official content in appearance and/or accessibility.
No. this isn't how the ESRB rating works. What ships on the disc or in the patchfiles aren't the UGC missions but the tools. I can't tell you how many nude mods exist for games that came bundled with tools and it didn't change the rating at all. It's surprising.
His point was that the rating covers what's delivered as content from the server, which UGC missions will be. They know a game designer can't control what every player says, so the rating covers that. The rating doesn't cover mission content given to the user by the game servers. That's something that's well within the developer's capacity to control.
The people writing these missions aren't making money - a flaw in your analogy. People can report them (as can copyright holders).
Cryptic, however, is making money. So either they would be sued by Lucas for including content in a paid-for game that includes Star Wars characters, or Cryptic passes the buck and responsibility to the creator of the content, to the player.
Cryptic has to get approval for their missions on a per-mission basis. I find it very unlikely CBS gave them a blanket stamp of approval for anything and everything added to the game though the UGC system. And if they did, it will be with the understanding that UGC content is labeled as such or is some other way kept separate from official content in appearance and/or accessibility
From the interview with Mapolis, it doesn't sound like Cryptic needs to review any of the maps before they get pushed to the community. That sounds like a blanket policy.
Cryptic only needs to be reactive in taking down problematic content rather than proactive and sorting it.
Cryptic, however, is making money. So either they would be sued by Lucas for including content in a paid-for game that includes Star Wars characters, or Cryptic passes the buck and responsibility to the creator of the content, to the player.
Cryptic only has to respond to copyright holders. They're not in anymore trouble than their avatar creation tools that allow us to create Yoda and Na'vi (I've seen both in-game).
Cryptic makes no more money than fans creating Star Wars mods for Battlefield cause DICE to get punished.
What's preventing a fleet or other group of players from creating different missions, all of which have identical content within? I wouldn't expect reviewers to compare a piece of content against all existing content to weed out duplicates, and duplicates would allow people to just "go down the list" of easy ones as their means of farming.
Duplicates come with UGC territory automatically. Some will be duplicates based off of Cryptic's own "starter maps" to help players make something simple. Then you will have unintentional duplicates... someone using the same map with different enemies around the same spawn points.
I see no problem with duplicates if the Mission XP is balanced based on average mission completion time. The reporting system can be used to eliminate farms and exploits as it was designed to - no need to punish everyone with diminishing returns for this.
Besides, if players want to bore themselves with duplicates UGC is not even needed. Just go grind something called Star Cluster Missions... *The Standard* for Duplicate Missions in STO.
From the interview with Mapolis, it doesn't sound like Cryptic needs to review any of the maps before they get pushed to the community. That sounds like a blanket policy.
Cryptic only needs to be reactive in taking down problematic content rather than proactive and sorting it.
Which can be a pretty large burden for them. I hope they're up to the task.
Cryptic only has to respond to copyright holders. They're not in anymore trouble than their avatar creation tools that allow us to create Yoda and Na'vi (I've seen both in-game).
Cryptic makes no more money than fans creating Star Wars mods for Battlefield cause DICE to get punished.
Difference being, Cryptic is facilitating the availability and delivery of the UGC here and it's only available if you give them money. Those mods for Battlefield are free downloads made available by third-party websites, free of charge.
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.
I see no problem with duplicates if the Mission XP is balanced based on average mission completion time. The reporting system can be used to eliminate farms and exploits as it was designed to - no need to punish everyone with diminishing returns for this.
Eliminate farms and more will just be created, especially if Cryptic makes UGC creation easy.
The only way to avoid that is to begin banning the creators from being able to make UGC altogether, which is another whole can of worms.
Which can be a pretty large burden for them. I hope they're up to the task.
It's less of a burden than artifically grading everything before it gets pushed out.
They only need to react to reports of bad content: not grade the content first.
Difference being, Cryptic is facilitating the availability and delivery of the UGC here and it's only available if you give them money. Those mods for Battlefield are free downloads made available by third-party websites, free of charge.
Facilitating the delivery can still mean Cryptic can take down the content via a report feature.
Sites like Rapidshare, Imageshack, and Youtube all still exist and can all pull down copyrighted works. Cryptic's fine. Don't worry.
Eliminate farms and more will just be created, especially if Cryptic makes UGC creation easy.
The only way to avoid that is to begin banning the creators from being able to make UGC altogether, which is another whole can of worms.
Which is why diminished returns discourages farming. There's no point once you've done your two (enemy XP gains are tiny: 1-2 skill points apiece).
Also, bans can go out to people for creating objectionable content (i.e. advertising their website during a mission, TRIBBLE, copyright violation, etc.)
I don't care. All diminishing returns do is make it so my time in-game, time that I pay for, is wasted. If Cryptic wants to prevent "farming," maybe they should institute some sort of balancing tool for SP rewards, based on what you do, so that the content gives out rewards equivalent to similar missions?
Oh, wait, they'll do that, but put it on the C-store.
No, diminishing returns is nothing more than devs being lazy. That was the same excuse used in FF14, a game that somehow managed to flop faster than STO.
Eliminate farms and more will just be created, especially if Cryptic makes UGC creation easy.
The only way to avoid that is to begin banning the creators from being able to make UGC altogether, which is another whole can of worms.
Kill XP is so low that it can't be farmed - only Mission XP is in question.
Mission XP is balanced based on average completion time. Same as dev created missions.
Duplicate missions are already in STO and we can do them all day long (Star Clusters, DSE's).
With points 1-3 you don't really have UGC Farms - you only have repetitive & boring content.
If there are any true exploits or content bypasses they will be continuously identified and expunged with the Reporting System.
Most players have indicated they prefer something new to play over repetitive content. How many times have we heard "Not enough content in STO!" when people could simply grind DSE's or Star Clusters? It's a non-issue.
So, there is no need for "Diminishing Returns" which punishes people who want to level up by exploring new and diverse UGC content all day long.
If we do more than 2 UGC missions in one day each one should give balanced rewards, period.
It's less of a burden than artifically grading everything before it gets pushed out.
They only need to react to reports of bad content: not grade the content first.
It's more of a burden than not having to deal with UGC at all.
The point is that having UGC at all is going to result in a new workload of moderation for Cryptic. It doesn't matter how many levels of reviewers and player-run choosing, etc. you have, Cryptic's at the top of the appeals process and is ultimately responsible for illegal activity in the UGC system.
Which is why diminished returns discourages farming. There's no point once you've done your two (enemy XP gains are tiny: 1-2 skill points apiece).
That was my point. Diminishing returns need to exist across UGC missions--not just for each one.
That is... if you believe diminishing returns should exist at all. I'm not convinced of that. If people want to farm... let them. STO is such a single-player game already that there's little practical harm.
Also, bans can go out to people for creating objectionable content (i.e. advertising their website during a mission, TRIBBLE, copyright violation, etc.)
If they're making content in clear violation of rules, sure. But farming missions? That's a much grayer area.
I dont know why we are really considering the legal side too much. Isn't that a little out of our "duristiction". thats Cryptics deal I am sure they woudn't come up with this idea without having put thought in to this aspect. I think let them worry about running thier company, all we are being askwed to do is rate some missions. Also the full ideas on how this currently intended to work have only been "mentioned" no offical thread (to my knowledge) from cryptic has dug into this properly yet. meaning we are making a lot of presumptions. And in some ways totally underestimating cryptic, we haven't even hear them out. I am just saying .
I do think people are right when they mention the forums and how the hell would people agree? Well again I say lets hear cryptic out first, but honestly? I dont see it beeing all that difficult, I think one way would to agree on requirements(such as canon issues etc) BEFORE the first mission has even been views. If the "council" has to stick to a set of spelled out rules, that could very well Do alot of quality/damage control. the council could also either CONTAIN outsiders to balance things, or be answerable to cryptic or elected outsiders. There are so many ways to "buffer" the concerns of people here. And dont get me wrong some are valid concerns, but i think the worry COULD be prematuer as much of this may have been thought about. Even if it hasn't there is plenty of time.
I do think a well in order for this to work we need to realise that being on a council sounds cool, and people feel worried that some form of "power" or "entitlement" is being given to someone and taken from them. But in the spirit of things thats the way almost everytig works..we cant ALL be on the council, but does that mean that no one should be just base don our own fears of not being "in control" or in "power".
maybe i got that part all wrong, it's just something to consider..but it couls suck being on the council LOL. But really there are many ways to handle this we are right at the beginning here nothing is broken.
Ones that have been solved since the developers have stated they got approval to integrate missions in to the game's fiction.
Not so fast. CBS has said that for legal reasons, Cryptic can't use the Kzinti or JJ Abrams Trek stuff, for example. You really think CBS doesn't care if, say, I use the Kzinti in a mission and that mission gets integrated into the game? Somehow there aren't the same legal problems? You really think Cryptic can get away with an end run like that around their licensor?
No. this isn't how the ESRB rating works. What ships on the disc or in the patchfiles aren't the UGC missions but the tools. I can't tell you how many nude mods exist for games that came bundled with tools and it didn't change the rating at all. It's surprising.
How many of those nude mods are integrated into the core game via patch and available to everyone who purchased the product? Trust me, when Johnny Ten-Year-Old flies to the Risa sector and accepts the mission 'Vulcan Bi-Orgy', neither the ESRB nor parents group are going to care whether that mission was authored by DStahl or by MisterMiracle, they're going to care that little Johnny was exposed to X-rated content in a game rated 'T' for Teen.
The people writing these missions aren't making money - a flaw in your analogy. People can report them (as can copyright holders).
No, not at all. Lucas can't sue you for making the Han Solo/Kirk fanfic if you're not making money, its true. But they can sue Cryptic for distributing it for money.
Sites like Rapidshare, Imageshack, and Youtube all still exist and can all pull down copyrighted works. Cryptic's fine. Don't worry.
YouTube, Rapidshare, and Imageshack are all distributing that content for free. Its peer-to-peer sharing.
To return to my Star Wars example, if I write a Han Solo/Jim Kirk fanfic, and put it on the internet for free, I can't be sued. If I put it up as part of a website and charge $15 a month admission to read my fanfic, Lucas can sue me. But he can sue my, not my internet service provider, and not my website hosting service.
So, to carry that through to Cryptic, if such a mission were accidentally integrated into STO, Lucas would send a Cease and Desist letter to whoever Cryptic buys their bandwidth from right off the bat, and they would be required to shut down their servers until it could be proven that there was no Lucas copyrighted material being distributed anywhere on them, and then sue Cryptic for having profited from his intellectual property.
So yeah, the guy who writes the UGC can't be (successfully) sued, nor can Cryptic's bandwidth provider as long as they shut Cryptic down immediately when the infraction is reported, but Cryptic can be, since they're the ones making the money. And this is assuming that Lucas wouldn't just file lawsuits that would bankrupt you while going nowhere just to make an example out of you/Cryptic/etc.
Sorry, but that argument just doesnt work. There are prob Klingon players who only want their money to go towards the development of Klingon content, but they are going to get their wish no matter how many stars they pray to. That being the case, theres no reason you should get to decide where your money goes anymore than they do.
We all get to decide where our money goes, but especially somebody like me with an LTS. I can play this game forever without giving Cryptic another penny for it, or I can do what I do currently and spend a large amount of money in the C-Store (I average more than $15 a month so far on C-Store purchases). They start spending my money on fanfic editing, and I stop giving them any. They use their dev money to actually develop the game, and I give them more.
See, I do get to decide where my money gets spent.
Eliminate farms and more will just be created, especially if Cryptic makes UGC creation easy.
The only way to avoid that is to begin banning the creators from being able to make UGC altogether, which is another whole can of worms.
Not necessarily. They mentioned it's a separate EULA.
Meaning they could remove someone's UGC rights without banning them, either temporarily or permanently.
Not so fast. CBS has said that for legal reasons, Cryptic can't use the Kzinti or JJ Abrams Trek stuff, for example. You really think CBS doesn't care if, say, I use the Kzinti in a mission and that mission gets integrated into the game? Somehow there aren't the same legal problems? You really think Cryptic can get away with an end run like that around their licensor?
The reason Cryptic can't use them is because CBS doesn't own them. Ditto for Star Wars characters or Marvel Comics characters or whatever.
CBS might NOT care if you use Kzinti. It's Niven who might care. (And, in fact, I believe he supports fan use of them in any universe as a matter of his personal policy.)
Now... The issue is the same issue as you have with people making their captain a Na'vi. Exact same issue. If it's obvious you did that, you can get sanctioned or banned. Cryptic may get by with not actively policing everyone but they will have to respond if someone submits a ticket/complaint, to protect against litigation.
So say someone has Patrick Stewart's likeness in a mission and it's explicitly said to be Picard. Cryptic may be REQUIRED to shut down the mission IF someone complains and an investigation reveals it is material in violation of the EULAs. Cryptic won't get in trouble as long as they take reasonable action when they discover it. The burden would be on the player as long as Cryptic responds to complaints of things that could pose a legal issue.
I'm also not sure how making a character that looks like Yoda of a Na'vi is a copyright issue. Can a specific alien appearance be copyrighted? I ask because we see "little gray aliens" all over science fiction that often look alike, and there doesn't seem to be any problem.
Now... if you name your character Yoda, I know that can be subject to penalties. And I think the naming policy already forbids it. But making a character look like Yoda? Seems different. And if it is different, then what we make with the character creator isn't the same as UGC content.
Making a character that looks like Yoda and making "Yoda" are two different things.
Making a character that looks like Yoda and making "Yoda" are two different things.
Funny Story... Zodi was first my name in Star Wars Galaxies. It was a made from the random name generator, but I made one change. When I created Zodi on SWG his original name was Zoda, but I changed it to Zodi by replacing the A with an I... ( because it would be to close to Yoda. )
But now that I'm not in a Star Wars game I'm temped to make a klingon alien with the name Zoda, and make him look like yoda... would that be breaking copyrights?
I'm also not sure how making a character that looks like Yoda of a Na'vi is a copyright issue. Can a specific alien appearance be copyrighted? I ask because we see "little gray aliens" all over science fiction that often look alike, and there doesn't seem to be any problem.
Now... if you name your character Yoda, I know that can be subject to penalties. And I think the naming policy already forbids it. But making a character look like Yoda? Seems different. And if it is different, then what we make with the character creator isn't the same as UGC content.
Making a character that looks like Yoda and making "Yoda" are two different things.
Not copyrighted but trademarked. A trademark basically says that a certain logo, word, graphic, or even distinctive color arrangement is reserved for use by a business in a particular industry.
And trademarks are lost if someone doesn't defend them by lawsuits. You have to sue anyone who uses something confusingly similar or you risk losing your rights.
So the grey alien is not very protected BECAUSE it's been commonly used without a single owner litigating violators.
Whereas if George Lucas' lawyers DON'T go around suing everyone who uses something Yoda like (and he stops aggressively using that alien model in marketing), there's a risk he could lose his TRADEMARK to the design.
So he's pretty much OBLIGATED to sue you unless you either back down or he wants everyone getting equal rights to Yoda ripoffs. (He has an out in a clear case of parody... But if it's unclear, he should probably sue you.)
And Cryptic becomes responsible if they don't stop you when they become aware that you're using their assets that way.
But now that I'm not in a Star Wars game I'm temped to make a klingon alien with the name Zoda, and make him look like yoda... would that be breaking copyrights?
Not sure. I think it would be similar to whether or not parodies of characters break the copyright of said character. They usually have very similar appearance and very similar name to make the connection obvious, but... they're not quite using the same name.
And Cryptic becomes responsible if they don't stop you when they become aware that you're using their assets that way.
How quickly should Cryptic bend?
If I make a small humanoid character with long ears who happens to be green, is that all that's necessary to be in breach of Lucas' patents?
Mind you.. I think patent/copyrights are idiotic to begin with. How can you patent a humanoid form? Or even a name that someone in the world also might have? It seems so arrogant to assume an idea can be owned.
If I make a small humanoid character with long ears who happens to be green, is that all that's necessary to be in breach of Lucas' patents?
Mind you.. I think patent/copyrights are idiotic to begin with. How can you patent a humanoid form? Or even a name that someone in the world also might have? It seems so arrogant to assume an idea can be owned.
It's a judgement call. But Cryptic will review it IF someone complains.
On this point, they aren't out to get you but they do have to cover their own tail if they become aware of it.
It's a judgement call. But Cryptic will review it IF someone complains.
On this point, they aren't out to get you but they do have to cover their own tail if they become aware of it.
Another issue, however, is that you need to pay to see the content. How can LucasArts or any other patent holder know what users are creating in STO? Do they have to buy subscriptions and check all content, themselves? That issue alone might lead to pressure being put on Cryptic to control the content directly, themselves, or to abolish the UGC system altogether.
It's kind of like the places that host Torrents. They might not be directly responsible for what others are putting online for download, but they get a lot of flak for being the middle-man helping the delivery of it.
Comments
Sorry, but that argument just doesnt work. There are prob Klingon players who only want their money to go towards the development of Klingon content, but they are going to get their wish no matter how many stars they pray to. That being the case, theres no reason you should get to decide where your money goes anymore than they do.
Their not. You'll never get a UGC mission running around in the game world. The only way you'll get a UGC mission is by browsing the database or the select mission that Cryptic thinks is good enough to be offered to the playerbase. Either way, this will be through the remote contacts. Nothing in the game world will change for anyone who DOESNT have the mission in the first place.
Yeah, adding Kilngon-centric missions has more appeal to me personally than Federation ones.
Not the same.
Cryptic putting our money towards official development for STO--even if not where we'd like--is one thing.
Cryptic putting our money towards babysitting the UGC system is another.
No. this isn't how the ESRB rating works. What ships on the disc or in the patchfiles aren't the UGC missions but the tools. I can't tell you how many nude mods exist for games that came bundled with tools and it didn't change the rating at all. It's surprising.
The people writing these missions aren't making money - a flaw in your analogy. People can report them (as can copyright holders).
Cryptic has to get approval for their missions on a per-mission basis. I find it very unlikely CBS gave them a blanket stamp of approval for anything and everything added to the game though the UGC system. And if they did, it will be with the understanding that UGC content is labeled as such or is some other way kept separate from official content in appearance and/or accessibility.
His point was that the rating covers what's delivered as content from the server, which UGC missions will be. They know a game designer can't control what every player says, so the rating covers that. The rating doesn't cover mission content given to the user by the game servers. That's something that's well within the developer's capacity to control.
Cryptic, however, is making money. So either they would be sued by Lucas for including content in a paid-for game that includes Star Wars characters, or Cryptic passes the buck and responsibility to the creator of the content, to the player.
Cryptic only needs to be reactive in taking down problematic content rather than proactive and sorting it. Cryptic only has to respond to copyright holders. They're not in anymore trouble than their avatar creation tools that allow us to create Yoda and Na'vi (I've seen both in-game).
Cryptic makes no more money than fans creating Star Wars mods for Battlefield cause DICE to get punished.
Duplicates come with UGC territory automatically. Some will be duplicates based off of Cryptic's own "starter maps" to help players make something simple. Then you will have unintentional duplicates... someone using the same map with different enemies around the same spawn points.
I see no problem with duplicates if the Mission XP is balanced based on average mission completion time. The reporting system can be used to eliminate farms and exploits as it was designed to - no need to punish everyone with diminishing returns for this.
Besides, if players want to bore themselves with duplicates UGC is not even needed. Just go grind something called Star Cluster Missions... *The Standard* for Duplicate Missions in STO.
Which can be a pretty large burden for them. I hope they're up to the task.
Difference being, Cryptic is facilitating the availability and delivery of the UGC here and it's only available if you give them money. Those mods for Battlefield are free downloads made available by third-party websites, free of charge.
As I recall, EVE players elect their council.
Eliminate farms and more will just be created, especially if Cryptic makes UGC creation easy.
The only way to avoid that is to begin banning the creators from being able to make UGC altogether, which is another whole can of worms.
They only need to react to reports of bad content: not grade the content first.
Facilitating the delivery can still mean Cryptic can take down the content via a report feature.
Sites like Rapidshare, Imageshack, and Youtube all still exist and can all pull down copyrighted works. Cryptic's fine. Don't worry.
Which is why diminished returns discourages farming. There's no point once you've done your two (enemy XP gains are tiny: 1-2 skill points apiece).
Also, bans can go out to people for creating objectionable content (i.e. advertising their website during a mission, TRIBBLE, copyright violation, etc.)
I don't care. All diminishing returns do is make it so my time in-game, time that I pay for, is wasted. If Cryptic wants to prevent "farming," maybe they should institute some sort of balancing tool for SP rewards, based on what you do, so that the content gives out rewards equivalent to similar missions?
Oh, wait, they'll do that, but put it on the C-store.
No, diminishing returns is nothing more than devs being lazy. That was the same excuse used in FF14, a game that somehow managed to flop faster than STO.
Most players have indicated they prefer something new to play over repetitive content. How many times have we heard "Not enough content in STO!" when people could simply grind DSE's or Star Clusters? It's a non-issue.
So, there is no need for "Diminishing Returns" which punishes people who want to level up by exploring new and diverse UGC content all day long.
If we do more than 2 UGC missions in one day each one should give balanced rewards, period.
It's more of a burden than not having to deal with UGC at all.
The point is that having UGC at all is going to result in a new workload of moderation for Cryptic. It doesn't matter how many levels of reviewers and player-run choosing, etc. you have, Cryptic's at the top of the appeals process and is ultimately responsible for illegal activity in the UGC system.
That was my point. Diminishing returns need to exist across UGC missions--not just for each one.
That is... if you believe diminishing returns should exist at all. I'm not convinced of that. If people want to farm... let them. STO is such a single-player game already that there's little practical harm.
If they're making content in clear violation of rules, sure. But farming missions? That's a much grayer area.
I do think people are right when they mention the forums and how the hell would people agree? Well again I say lets hear cryptic out first, but honestly? I dont see it beeing all that difficult, I think one way would to agree on requirements(such as canon issues etc) BEFORE the first mission has even been views. If the "council" has to stick to a set of spelled out rules, that could very well Do alot of quality/damage control. the council could also either CONTAIN outsiders to balance things, or be answerable to cryptic or elected outsiders. There are so many ways to "buffer" the concerns of people here. And dont get me wrong some are valid concerns, but i think the worry COULD be prematuer as much of this may have been thought about. Even if it hasn't there is plenty of time.
I do think a well in order for this to work we need to realise that being on a council sounds cool, and people feel worried that some form of "power" or "entitlement" is being given to someone and taken from them. But in the spirit of things thats the way almost everytig works..we cant ALL be on the council, but does that mean that no one should be just base don our own fears of not being "in control" or in "power".
maybe i got that part all wrong, it's just something to consider..but it couls suck being on the council LOL. But really there are many ways to handle this we are right at the beginning here nothing is broken.
Not so fast. CBS has said that for legal reasons, Cryptic can't use the Kzinti or JJ Abrams Trek stuff, for example. You really think CBS doesn't care if, say, I use the Kzinti in a mission and that mission gets integrated into the game? Somehow there aren't the same legal problems? You really think Cryptic can get away with an end run like that around their licensor?
How many of those nude mods are integrated into the core game via patch and available to everyone who purchased the product? Trust me, when Johnny Ten-Year-Old flies to the Risa sector and accepts the mission 'Vulcan Bi-Orgy', neither the ESRB nor parents group are going to care whether that mission was authored by DStahl or by MisterMiracle, they're going to care that little Johnny was exposed to X-rated content in a game rated 'T' for Teen.
No, not at all. Lucas can't sue you for making the Han Solo/Kirk fanfic if you're not making money, its true. But they can sue Cryptic for distributing it for money.
YouTube, Rapidshare, and Imageshack are all distributing that content for free. Its peer-to-peer sharing.
To return to my Star Wars example, if I write a Han Solo/Jim Kirk fanfic, and put it on the internet for free, I can't be sued. If I put it up as part of a website and charge $15 a month admission to read my fanfic, Lucas can sue me. But he can sue my, not my internet service provider, and not my website hosting service.
So, to carry that through to Cryptic, if such a mission were accidentally integrated into STO, Lucas would send a Cease and Desist letter to whoever Cryptic buys their bandwidth from right off the bat, and they would be required to shut down their servers until it could be proven that there was no Lucas copyrighted material being distributed anywhere on them, and then sue Cryptic for having profited from his intellectual property.
So yeah, the guy who writes the UGC can't be (successfully) sued, nor can Cryptic's bandwidth provider as long as they shut Cryptic down immediately when the infraction is reported, but Cryptic can be, since they're the ones making the money. And this is assuming that Lucas wouldn't just file lawsuits that would bankrupt you while going nowhere just to make an example out of you/Cryptic/etc.
We all get to decide where our money goes, but especially somebody like me with an LTS. I can play this game forever without giving Cryptic another penny for it, or I can do what I do currently and spend a large amount of money in the C-Store (I average more than $15 a month so far on C-Store purchases). They start spending my money on fanfic editing, and I stop giving them any. They use their dev money to actually develop the game, and I give them more.
See, I do get to decide where my money gets spent.
Not necessarily. They mentioned it's a separate EULA.
Meaning they could remove someone's UGC rights without banning them, either temporarily or permanently.
The reason Cryptic can't use them is because CBS doesn't own them. Ditto for Star Wars characters or Marvel Comics characters or whatever.
CBS might NOT care if you use Kzinti. It's Niven who might care. (And, in fact, I believe he supports fan use of them in any universe as a matter of his personal policy.)
Now... The issue is the same issue as you have with people making their captain a Na'vi. Exact same issue. If it's obvious you did that, you can get sanctioned or banned. Cryptic may get by with not actively policing everyone but they will have to respond if someone submits a ticket/complaint, to protect against litigation.
So say someone has Patrick Stewart's likeness in a mission and it's explicitly said to be Picard. Cryptic may be REQUIRED to shut down the mission IF someone complains and an investigation reveals it is material in violation of the EULAs. Cryptic won't get in trouble as long as they take reasonable action when they discover it. The burden would be on the player as long as Cryptic responds to complaints of things that could pose a legal issue.
Now... if you name your character Yoda, I know that can be subject to penalties. And I think the naming policy already forbids it. But making a character look like Yoda? Seems different. And if it is different, then what we make with the character creator isn't the same as UGC content.
Making a character that looks like Yoda and making "Yoda" are two different things.
Funny Story... Zodi was first my name in Star Wars Galaxies. It was a made from the random name generator, but I made one change. When I created Zodi on SWG his original name was Zoda, but I changed it to Zodi by replacing the A with an I... ( because it would be to close to Yoda. )
But now that I'm not in a Star Wars game I'm temped to make a klingon alien with the name Zoda, and make him look like yoda... would that be breaking copyrights?
Not copyrighted but trademarked. A trademark basically says that a certain logo, word, graphic, or even distinctive color arrangement is reserved for use by a business in a particular industry.
And trademarks are lost if someone doesn't defend them by lawsuits. You have to sue anyone who uses something confusingly similar or you risk losing your rights.
So the grey alien is not very protected BECAUSE it's been commonly used without a single owner litigating violators.
Whereas if George Lucas' lawyers DON'T go around suing everyone who uses something Yoda like (and he stops aggressively using that alien model in marketing), there's a risk he could lose his TRADEMARK to the design.
So he's pretty much OBLIGATED to sue you unless you either back down or he wants everyone getting equal rights to Yoda ripoffs. (He has an out in a clear case of parody... But if it's unclear, he should probably sue you.)
And Cryptic becomes responsible if they don't stop you when they become aware that you're using their assets that way.
Not sure. I think it would be similar to whether or not parodies of characters break the copyright of said character. They usually have very similar appearance and very similar name to make the connection obvious, but... they're not quite using the same name.
How quickly should Cryptic bend?
If I make a small humanoid character with long ears who happens to be green, is that all that's necessary to be in breach of Lucas' patents?
Mind you.. I think patent/copyrights are idiotic to begin with. How can you patent a humanoid form? Or even a name that someone in the world also might have? It seems so arrogant to assume an idea can be owned.
It's a judgement call. But Cryptic will review it IF someone complains.
On this point, they aren't out to get you but they do have to cover their own tail if they become aware of it.
Another issue, however, is that you need to pay to see the content. How can LucasArts or any other patent holder know what users are creating in STO? Do they have to buy subscriptions and check all content, themselves? That issue alone might lead to pressure being put on Cryptic to control the content directly, themselves, or to abolish the UGC system altogether.
It's kind of like the places that host Torrents. They might not be directly responsible for what others are putting online for download, but they get a lot of flak for being the middle-man helping the delivery of it.
gold farmers and for pay power leveling services.
understandable
I would hope that any mission deemed good enuff to be listing as publicly available mission
would be exempt from that.