test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
No, no, no, no, no, no and freaking NO!
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
And one more no for good measure.A: Members of the community can sign up as reviewers. All published community authored episodes need to be reviewed by the reviewers and given the okay before the rest of the community sees the content. If any questionable content makes it through the review process, players may report it for review.
This filtering method is totally unacceptable. There is no way, shape or form that I'm going to put weeks worth of research and creative energy into something that can get nay-sayed by a bunch of wannabe critics and over zealous Trekkies. This kind of review process is every type of wrong that you could possibly dream up.
I know for a fact that my missions will be awesome. I know this because I've spent over twenty years designing adventures for pen and paper roleplaying games and have even had some published. I know this because I put way too much effort into making them as good as they can possibly be. But I refuse to be judged by a bunch of amateur egotistical Star Trek snobs. I don't even care that I have a good chance of my missions getting approved. I do care that they can be shot down by a totally arbitrary body made up of illiterate nobodies with delusions of grandeur and no actual skill or objectiveness whatsoever.
If my missions get judged by the community in a star rating system as being TRIBBLE, that I could accept. But to have to be approved by a completely random selection of unwashed, uneducated, unemployable Internet tough guys, ****es me the Hell off.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
We love you too! Kisses!
if your missions are going to be so awesome then you will get awesome marks.
Consider that anyone with any talent whatsoever will now look at this process and realise that all their hard work and creative energy will mean nothing because it can be waylaid by a group of random people who have no skill, talent, training, knowledge or objectivity in regards to reviewing content.
This is the equivalent of saying to Stephen King or George R.R. Martin that the only way they can get a book published is if five random people picked off the street read their book and approve it. Do you seriously think either author would even bother to write anything if this was the process involved?
This will become little more than a popularity contest controlled by cliques within the MMO itself. Nothing about this can lead to anything good. Get rid of this review system or I can assure you that UGC missions will never be anything other than meh.
They will get voted as 1 star and sink to the bottom of the pile. And if they're vulgar, they'll get reported and deleted.
The last thing you need is a review process chaired by unskilled nobodies with personal agendas and zero objectivity.
If YOU really care about the system, you'll moderate your tone and try to make constructive points instead of spitting venom. The alternative is to be torn apart by trolls, and whatever message you think you have will be lost in the flames.
I think if the panel maintains a rule of subjectivity and holds opinions in reserve, this could work. Yet guidelines will have to be set. I can see where this could also hinder creativity as well. This would be the chief complaint i reckon. How and where do you draw the line from a mission concieved outside the box, and a mission that just plain stinks?
If the person that published it likes it, and it's not vulgar or a farm fest.....whats the difference?
I think that is where the OP is going with this. To hinder ones intellectual freedom of creative stride in a game that the player stands on equal footing with the rest....is illogical.
Again I guess we'll just have to see where the Devs are heading with this.
every single person in this game can join the panel. the community IS the panel.
to join you have to agree that you will be playing some untested potentially very bad missions. every single person can play any UGC mission they like. even if something gets one star you can still test it yourself. the fact a mission gets one star suggests that its not good enough or there is a problem with it to begin with.
the good ones that are not buggy and get decent marks will then join the contact list so that anyone can play it even if you have not agreed to test them.
If the OP makes a mission and its great and he advertises it in game, to his fleet on the forums, then every single person who agrees to test can play it and rate it. as long as its not horrible buggy or vulgar then it will get through.
the mission is still there available for everybody who wants to play it. his rights to have this mission available to everybody are not affected.
If a mission gets played by 2000 or 10000 people and its gets a bad score then it does not deserve to go into the game proper. if its ok then it will pass.
given that under the proposal you'll have the right to vote on mission content, in the same way as anyone else, i would like to congradulate you on calling yourself an "unskilled nobody" etc etc
talk about over dramatisation :rolleyes:
now that was funny.
as much as i dislike agreeing with people, i think the OP is right, despite his harsh tone.
As always.......you the man....in that case sign me up......
having the community decide whether a UGC mission will even see the daylight(so to speak) is totally illogical.
have is so that the missions do make it out, and if they are bad, then definitely rat it down. if its vulgar, then it will be reported and removed.
I had several ideas for missions with my favorite Star Trek character... Q(and not Q2 like we currently have in this game), not to mention the possibilites of opening up an official tribble football arena(and possibly league- with various different arenas) that i would like to see show up as playable.
imagine Klingons and Starfleet playing tribble football. it would be reminiscent of bloodbowl- if anyone has played that game.
anybody, can play any UGC mission, anytime they like by agreeing to the EULA.
people that dont want to run the risk of testing potential buggy, offensive content dont sign the EULA and they will only have access to the mission they pass the review stage.
The only other option is every mission goes straight in available to anybody and you run the risk of wading through hundreds of broken, buggy, impossible to completely missions. that is basically what the review board does. if you want to see every mission, sign the EULA.
the reviewer are the people that dont mind doing that and doing a quality control check for the people that only want a mission that works.
every single mission is still available to anybody who wants to see it.
Hrm, grumble, mumble, hrm.
I still don't like it but I will admit that if that's the case, then it's not the end of the world as we know it.
It's still too dependant on unskilled, untalented, biased hacks who will nuke content just because they don't like a person and fleets who will push their buddy's content through even if it sucks. The entire concept of a review system should be scrapped.
Cryptic could easily just make anyone who wanted to use any UGC digitally sign the EULA since that's all they really seem to be concerned about. Putting in a review system adds an unnecessary layer of complexity that muddies the waters and encourages the very abuse that they claim implementing this system will combat.
Once again...we'll see how she pans out.
We'll be the judge of that.
Your missions should be judged only after we've played them - not before you've even created them in the game. For all we know, you might create the best work of literature the world has ever know. However, let's wait to see your ideas to fruition before judging their absolute worth.
Also, not everyone who rates down your mission may be "unwashed, uneducated, unemployable." I think it's safe to say you've overstated how much you know about people who haven't even seen your missions.
I still disagree, everything in media gets reviewed, from music to games to films. everything suffers from people imposing their opinion on it. again this is about the quality of the mission not the actual story or gameplay. bad missions will still be available just wont have high marks. it up to another person to judge for themselves if they like it or not. ive watched films with poor reviews and loved it, ive seen high scored films and hated it. if you dont want your mission reviewed then why create them for people to play.
if someone has a limited amount of time they want to play a UG mission then they need to know roughly how good or bad it is.
You or I might not mind playing any mission but what about people that are easily offended, or are children or have a limited amount of time to play a mission. do they want to open a random mission and see sexual references, religious insults, racist remarks? no they wont. this review system does not muddy the water or complicate anything. it may need some tweaking which is why they are doing this as a beta launch to see how it works, but why not try the system before passing absolute judgement on it?
signing the EULA means that person is happy to see some dodgy stuff. people who dont can still enjoy user generated mission by getting other to test the water first.
and please stop calling the community unskilled and untalented hacks, insulting people and trying to come across as better than everybody else is just arrogant, you are no better or worse at reviewing other peoples mission than anybody else. there will always be someone who tries to grief another mission but potential thousands of people can and will be reviewing these missions. even if one person has a grudge their voice will be shouted out by the overwhelmingly positive reviews, if a mission warrants it.
You can't generalize everyone as unskilled, untalented, biased hacks. It's going to take a lot more ratings than five of your buddies to push through your mission, good or bad.
Plus, Cryptic can't force you to sign the new EULA and become a reviewer...that's a grown-up choice and if people aren't mature enough to do so, they shouldn't. I don't understand your complete and utter disdain for a rating system. You keep shouting abuse, like we're all going to downvote your next mission because we hate you. I'm pretty sure I'm going to downvote you because I didn't like my experience with your mission. The best possible way to avoid being downvoted it simply to make a professional level mission if you're going to toss garbage in, we're going to toss it right back out. There's really nothing else to it. Plus, how else would feedback come back to the authors?
As CBS still has a saying on the content, I would imagine that the "trekkies" will be the least of your worries, but on the other hand it will force you to think before spending too many hours conjuring weird fantasies in your head in a Trek setting.
As much as I enjoy the creative streak in people the truth is that not everyone respects the setting (as it is evident enough from the character and ship names). As a result a sort of "leash" is necessary and inevitable for such a high profile IP.
So I am sorry OP if this ruins your plans to have Orion slave girls take over the galaxy (relax its a joke) but its better to have the community rate, than allowing whatever and lose their game licence.
It goes through steps:
1. You make the mission
2. You promote your mission on these forums, starbase ugc, the wiki, etc so that people know it's out there.
3. Anyone who want to play new ugc missions (as "reviewers) plays and rates the mission.
4. If it gets high ratings, it may show up as a semi-official mission in a remote contact in the game for all players.
As soon as you publish your mission, anyone can play it. If they know how to search for it, and if they have clicked a disclaimer, then they can play your mission.
This is going to be anything but smooth sailing, I feel. Maybe a petition for re-evaluation needs to be an option is someone feels their "creation" has been purposely flamed.
Very valid point view askewed, this is what i was training on as well. But having played other MMO's with UGC, the very notion of this whole idea leaves a burning sense in my nostrils and the nostrils of others who have been burnt with MMO gameplay featuring this type of venue.
While i like the idea and want to see it prosper...The OP has some valid points of dissention. But I am willing to try anything once, even if its a variation of the same thing.
Yes I can.
The overwhelming majority of players of this game will not have degrees in professional writing or literature or script writing or even a basic understanding of story structure. Therefore a preponderance of those who will judge the worth of a mission for 'approval' will be doing so entirely based on opinion and their own prejudices. There will be close to zero objective evaluation based on any relevant standards of review or basis of knowledge.
This is akin to walking into a random bar and asking five completely random strangers to judge whether a script gets made into a movie or not. Do you believe for even a second that movies like Taxi Driver would ever have been made if they had to be vetted through this sort of process?
Again, I have no problem with the wider community giving their opinions on whether or not they like or dislike my missions. And that can be done through the star rating system. But having a minority (and really, how many people are actually going to click that EULA and review content? Remember, the world isn't made up of obsessive nerds and neither is the population of this game) of people with no objective evaluation skills or knowledge in what makes a story/mission good judge whether it gets passed on to the wider audience? That's just ridiculous.
ive never made a 100 million dollar film before but i can watch one and give an honest unbiased opinion of it.
and again this to to weed out unsuitable content not the quality of the mission.
edit - this is not the same thing as giving someone the script to Taxi Driver and asking if it should be made. your mission is made, and available in game for anyone to see. only once it passes a review to test for really offensive content and mission breaking bugs can it then go on so everybody regardless of EULA. you can make the most boring mission in the world and it can still get through as long as there are no major issues with it.
Degrees mean nothing, especially not degrees in writing/lit, when it comes to judging a gaming experience. This is a totally different medium that has its own unique challenges to making something fun and entertaining. Moreover, if you can't please a handful of introductory people enough to not flag your mission then I seriously doubt you'll make something the community as a whole will enjoy.
They do this kind of thing. It's called polling. They just tend to stick to concepts rather than full on scripts.
So wait...the community as a whole has objective evaluation skills but the people who are actively engaged in making content for the community are not going to be objective? If anything, the people who are taking time to make the UGC missions are going to be the ones with the advanced skills in writing, scripting, modeling, and level design who know the difference between a buggy mess and an excellent gaming experience.
This is another post that should help.
anyone can opt in to review something but only the inappropriate stuff is blocked so that people who have not signed the EULA dont get bad missions.
they can however at any time still go back and find any mission by manually searching. the quality of the actual mission is not what will stop it getting past the review stage, only the actual mission and if its completable and suitable.
its also my understanding that the rating system stays in affect even when it goes to everybody so you can keep rating them even past that initial review stage, so if a mission is a true five star mission the general public will review it that way. By the end you should have tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of reviews showing the true score of the mission.
If you think he's talking about "reviewing" missions, then you have completely missed the point of this post. He's talking about "approving" missions, not "reviewing" them. Those are two different things.
its also called the studio, there are millions of scripts that never make it past a bunch of guys in suits.
This is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. You can't even comprehend the sentence you're replying to.
Really now? Why don't you enlighten me then?