Profanity can be picked up programmatically. You don't need reviewers for that. Plus standard players wouldn't be good for that, anyway.... how will normal players know what words are profanity in other languages, for instance?
Erm...most people are going to review missions in languages they understand?
Erm...most people are going to review missions in languages they understand?
And what's stopping any author from slipping vulgarity into a distorted message? Or if the universal translator is down and an NPC is speaking in their "native" language. If only proper dictionary words are used then the UGC authoring tools just need a Toontown-like "Speedchat" tool that only allows known words.
And what's stopping any author from slipping vulgarity into a distorted message? Or if the universal translator is down and an NPC is speaking in their "native" language. If only proper dictionary words are used then the UGC authoring tools just need a Toontown-like "Speedchat" tool that only allows known words.
And what's stopping any author from slipping vulgarity into a distorted message? Or if the universal translator is down and an NPC is speaking in their "native" language. If only proper dictionary words are used then the UGC authoring tools just need a Toontown-like "Speedchat" tool that only allows known words.
If they have to go that far, it's probably not going to matter at that point.
In all these pages and threads of arguments about if players should be able to screen UGC or not, not a single person has proposed a viable alternative. Not one of you.
Having people sign a EULA just to be able to play is not an option. Children play this game. We all know kids like to do things they are not supposed to, so if an X rated mission makes it in, I can promise you they'll play it. Doesn't matter if it gets nixed later, because by then it could be too late. Beyond just kids, I personally don't want this to turn into Star TRIBBLE.
Having Cryptic check all these missions over themselves is not an option. There are going to be thousands of these things, and Cryptic moves at a snail's pace as it is. We don't need something else to gum up the works.
As far as software being able to weed out vulgar words? Not really. I've not seen a filter yet that someone can't find a way to pervert, or get around. Short of the Toon Town you mentioned, but going that far is just silly.
This is one time I just have to disagree with you Rikealus. If someone can come up with a working alternative, maybe. So far nobody has.
In all these pages and threads of arguments about if players should be able to screen UGC or not, not a single person has proposed a viable alternative. Not one of you.
Having people sign a EULA just to be able to play is not an option. Children play this game. We all know kids like to do things they are not supposed to, so if an X rated mission makes it in, I can promise you they'll play it. Doesn't matter if it gets nixed later, because by then it could be too late. Beyond just kids, I personally don't want this to turn into Star TRIBBLE.
Having Cryptic check all these missions over themselves is not an option. There are going to be thousands of these things, and Cryptic moves at a snail's pace as it is. We don't need something else to gum up the works.
As far as software being able to weed out vulgar words? Not really. I've not seen a filter yet that someone can't find a way to pervert, or get around. Short of the Toon Town you mentioned, but going that far is just silly.
This is one time I just have to disagree with you Rikealus. If someone can come up with a working alternative, maybe. So far nobody has.
Not to mention how paranoid people are being about this whole system. Everyone seems to think there will be conspiracies to prevent their content from getting to the masses, that there will be tons and tons of people with nothing better to do than sit around and torment content-makers with absolutely no oversight.
Personally, I would rather have people who are engaging in making UGC the ones to do the first passes to check for the things that need to be checked, rather than waiting 3 months for someone at Cryptic to check it, or worse, have every broken piece of erotic fan-fiction showing up in the main lists to drown out all the good stuff.
In all these pages and threads of arguments about if players should be able to screen UGC or not, not a single person has proposed a viable alternative. Not one of you.
Having people sign a EULA just to be able to play is not an option. Children play this game. We all know kids like to do things they are not supposed to, so if an X rated mission makes it in, I can promise you they'll play it. Doesn't matter if it gets nixed later, because by then it could be too late. Beyond just kids, I personally don't want this to turn into Star TRIBBLE.
Having Cryptic check all these missions over themselves is not an option. There are going to be thousands of these things, and Cryptic moves at a snail's pace as it is. We don't need something else to gum up the works.
As far as software being able to weed out vulgar words? Not really. I've not seen a filter yet that someone can't find a way to pervert, or get around. Short of the Toon Town you mentioned, but going that far is just silly.
This is one time I just have to disagree with you Rikealus. If someone can come up with a working alternative, maybe. So far nobody has.
well, yes we have
just have two functions
after playing the adventure ANYONE can report it for objectional material (just like you can report
objectional names)
and
a simple 5 star rating....1 , didn't like it, 3 was ok, 5 is great.
That is all that is needed
after playing the adventure ANYONE can report it for objectional material (just like you can report
objectional names)
and
a simple 5 star rating....1 , didn't like it, 3 was ok, 5 is great.
That is all that is needed
Again this is not a viable alternative. It just puts content for anyone to see out there without any kind of filtering what so ever. This will just encourage people to put crude, vulgar or otherwise obscene material out into the public view.
I'll repeat this again in case you missed it. If it just goes out to the public, anyone can see it. Including children or people that don't care to see Star TRIBBLE. Doesn't matter if it gets removed later, because by then it could be too late.
I don't care about any of your conspiracy theories of artists being suppressed, or left out. This is an obscenity / bug filter only.
Your system is just as vulnerable to the kind of abuse you guys are so paranoid about. All it takes is one guy and his fleet mates to not like you and 1 star the heck out of your missions. Then where are you? Right back where you claim to be trying to avoid.
The upside to volunteer reviewers is that they can identify reviewers who either let content slip through that shouldn't or who reject content that is valid and remove those reviewers from the review process.
Now, you may have people manipulate star systems or whatever to get their mission out but by having an initial volunteer pre-screening, you can have them vet the missions but you also have a means of disabling someone's reviewer status if they aren't following the guidelines.
My one thing is, I think you basically do need one person on staff whose job is to moderate reviewers (possibly doubling up as the UGC mod for all the games) and you might need some rewards system for reviewers to counter against a system that will remove reviewers and the natural tendency just to review friends' content. Like I say, something like a daily that awards 10 Cryptic Points for reviewing 3-5 missions. That keeps any reviewer rewards cosmetic and is still cheaper than actually having in-house professional modding for all UGC. An amount like 10 CP a day could get you, say, four starships a year or probably around 16 combinations of races and costume packs. So it's not entirely trivial but also isn't enough it would eliminate sales of C-Points.
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.
I feel like you do about Reviewers and hope it won't be abused by canon hawks.
Sounds like you'll make the kind of missions that I'd want to play or even review (if the process works).
I'd like for Cryptic to add a "Subscribe" option to Mission Authors. So when they publish something new we will know immediately and try their work.
I think there should be some way to only publish a mission to your own fleet without it having to be reviewed or accessible by outsiders. Especially if we make missions about our Fleet or characters in our fleet that no one else is interested in or that we don't want others to know.
As for the review process I think that the person writing the mission should be able to see who have reviewed the mission and what rate they gave it together with possibly a comment function.
That way if someone abuses (griefing) the rating system and stalks a writer and rate all their missions low just because they hold a grudge for their fleet being pawned by ours in PvP last night or something, then the writer can see that and you could report them for griefing.
Unless this is made apparent for the writers, mayhem might be the end result with whole fleets roaming the UGC missions and rating them poorly just for revenge. Without anyone being able to do anything about it as it would be too much work for Cryptic to handle all that drama.
As for the XP issue. I think that the XP should be based on how long it takes to do a mission, for instance the Breen missions where you flew between different systems and did different things before the mission completed should generate more XP then a mission where you go in and scan 5 anomalies.
Especially for the KDF side this will be a life saver if they remove the XP cap / day and instead insert short timers, not 30 minutes but maybe 10 or 15 minutes between missions. (but honestly I hate those timers)
I get the concerns and I get other people's point of views over said concerns.
Let us not get this too blown out of proportion and off into wild tangents.
Admittedly I find myself thinking that I may have blown this thing up a bit myself in some ways, I am human I make mistakes, go figure lol.
The main thing is, ultimately we don't want a situation akin to that of wolves guarding the cattle.
As long as cryptic is not taking a hands off approach when it comes to rejected content, then I am not worried.
If all flagged content gets auto sent to an in house cryptic review panel of some kind for a second look then I am not worried at all.
Just limit the rejection options to factual/verifiable issues such as language issues and the like then there should not be any problems.
Keep the rejection options simple and as free from opinion as possible then there should not be a problem.
Kind of like the bug report feature someone else mentioned would be fine.
I don't want to see content getting booted over canon violations, we don't all agree on what is and is not canon on a regular basis I am sure, so that should be left up to the player rating system and only the player rating system.
The more I read about what they are doing and their clarifications on some of the issues the better I feel about the whole thing and I thank them for taking the time to address some of the issues and I thank them for their hard work in getting the UGC system together.
Ultimately I look forward to getting to try each person's missions and I plan to try and look at as many as I can even if they have low ratings.
Of course if I am not in the middle of writing a mission or two of my own lol.
As for the review process I think that the person writing the mission should be able to see who have reviewed the mission and what rate they gave it together with possibly a comment function.
That way if someone abuses (griefing) the rating system and stalks a writer and rate all their missions low just because they hold a grudge for their fleet being pawned by ours in PvP last night or something, then the writer can see that and you could report them for griefing.
Unless this is made apparent for the writers, mayhem might be the end result with whole fleets roaming the UGC missions and rating them poorly just for revenge. Without anyone being able to do anything about it as it would be too much work for Cryptic to handle all that drama.
This is the exact reason it should be anonymous. Let's say hypothetically you put out a mission, you think its the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think its a bad mission so I one star it. Now you can see that I one starred it, and decide to be petty and one star all of mine.
But, this is an entirely different scenario than what the whole thread is about to start with. What this is all about is giving players the ability to bounce missions from making it public all together. However it will only be a filter for objectionable content, and general playability of the mission. Not the great conspiracy some people are seeing about having their work not make it through simply because someone doesn't like them.
You may not do it, I may not do it, but I've seen people get upset over far less. Like the fact that there will be people checking missions for content / bugs. :rolleyes:
This is the exact reason it should by anonymous. Let's say hypothetically you put out a mission, you think its the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think its a bad mission so I one star it. Now you can see that I one starred it, and decide to be petty and one star all of mine.
You may not do it, I may not do it, but I've seen people get upset over far less. Like the fact that there will be people checking missions for content / bugs. :rolleyes:
i would prefer the option to make it anonymous on both ends.
some people will want their names displayed.
i would think making it optional suits everybody and would not be too hard to add.
Again this is not a viable alternative. It just puts content for anyone to see out there without any kind of filtering what so ever. This will just encourage people to put crude, vulgar or otherwise obscene material out into the public view.
I'll repeat this again in case you missed it. If it just goes out to the public, anyone can see it. Including children or people that don't care to see Star TRIBBLE. Doesn't matter if it gets removed later, because by then it could be too late.
I don't care about any of your conspiracy theories of artists being suppressed, or left out. This is an obscenity / bug filter only.
Your system is just as vulnerable to the kind of abuse you guys are so paranoid about. All it takes is one guy and his fleet mates to not like you and 1 star the heck out of your missions. Then where are you? Right back where you claim to be trying to avoid.
In City of Heroes, missions publish directly to full public viewing, and there haven't been any insane hyperreactive 'concerned parent' organizations beating down their door. City of Heroes and Star Trek Online have the same ESRB rating.
So I'd say history shows the hoops really aren't necessary.
If you remotely care about UGC, then you'll voice your concerns against this review process. It is the antithesis of what a UGC should be about and will produce nothing but TRIBBLE content that never rises above mediocre.
Antithewhuuuuuut?.....Urm......He done gone used a big word!
I rate this stury, erm....thred wif 1 star coz its hard to reed!
Lots of Luv
A Unwashed, uneducated, unemployable Internet tough guy.
So I'd say history shows the hoops really aren't necessary.
So you mean that people on the STO forums are wildly, perhaps even insanely, overreacting? What a change from the norm.
BTW, if you're one of those people that are all kinds of upset or 'concerned' about some particular detail of the Foundry then yes, you're one of those people that I'm making fun of.
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.
In City of Heroes, missions publish directly to full public viewing, and there haven't been any insane hyperreactive 'concerned parent' organizations beating down their door. City of Heroes and Star Trek Online have the same ESRB rating.
So I'd say history shows the hoops really aren't necessary.
To be fair, the good folks over at CoH don't have the owners of the IP looking over their shoulder, either. CBS has demonstrated that it likes to keep a tight rein on the development of new models and such in this game (witness the issues with the Enterprise-J, reworking of the Nomad ship design, etc). It's not entirely surprising-however annoying-that CBS wants to protect its IP from crazy players like us, too.
Given dstahl's recent post I would say...Maybe. Maybe maybe maybe maybe just...maybe.
I'm a huge fan of letting a community monitor itself. This works great for certain things, for example, a smart phone app in my city that you log into when you get on a bus. When enough people have this running you have real time arrival estimates for all users.
However, fans are a particular group and we, the fans of Star Trek, are a particularly particular subset. The devs are going to need a system that can function with their hands off of it, or it will consume resources better spent elsewhere. It needs to allow certain things to be screened out without breaking hearts. If egos are involved and Cryptic has to pay someone to deal with complaints from the UGC then that's less money for other development areas.
Based on the amount of Foundry butt-hurt already out there pre-launch, well... Since the beginning of gaming their have been wrestling matches between geeks over DM'ing. What Cryptic needs to avoid allowing this to suck resources while breaking up these urination contestations.
I'll repeat this again in case you missed it. If it just goes out to the public, anyone can see it. Including children or people that don't care to see Star TRIBBLE. Doesn't matter if it gets removed later, because by then it could be too late.
But if anyone can sign the "reviewer EULA," including children, it's already too late, and the whole thing is pointless.
But if anyone can sign the "reviewer EULA," including children, it's already too late, and the whole thing is pointless.
Indeed.
Any parents who are genuinely concerned about their childrens' activity on the internet need to either actively and directly monitor it and not blame businesses for being unable to psychically divine that the user behind the faceless data-stream is a minor.
It's not just about profanity and whatnot. It's also about bugs/exploits.
I know. But even Cryptic's content that goes live has bugs, and anyone can report them. The MAIN purpose of the "Play Tester" system is to weed out inappropriate content. Yes, it works for people who just don't want to see bad stuff, since they don't have to sign up. But people who want all the UGC fast are going to scroll through whatever list of rules Cryptic puts up, click "I accept what I totally read and didn't just scroll to the bottom of," and see Stormshade's "[worst case scenario]". Whether this is people who don't want to wait for every mission to get X number of plays, or kids who don't know any better, doesn't matter. The system is pointless, and is there mostly because Cryptic/CBS want it there to feel better. It does NOTHING to prevent people who shouldn't see the [worst case scenario] from seeing it.
Any parents who are genuinely concerned about their childrens' activity on the internet need to either actively and directly monitor it and not blame businesses for being unable to psychically divine that the user behind the faceless data-stream is a minor.
Discussion for another thread, but this is the truth of the matter. It's parents, not Cryptic, that are going to prevent kids from seeing anything they shouldn't.
I can tell you right now that your angsty holier than thou art attitude will not get people to agree with you, even if they really do.
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.
Um.. (raises hand) I agree..
I, too have worked long and hard on gaming content, mostly for P&P RPG's like D&D (2nd edition through 4th), but also for Star Wars SE, BESM, Gurps, even Rifts. And I've had gaming groups play through them, and love them, not for their universal appeal, but because I crafted them lovingly, even tenderly, for those gamers I played with.
Similarly, I'll be designing UGC content for those players who love Trek canon and the stories Trek tells, People looking for quick, action-heavy frag-fests will not like my UGC, and some random assortment of "1337" gamers interested only in "pwnage" get to send my missions to purgatory and/or oblivion?
In City of Heroes, missions publish directly to full public viewing, and there haven't been any insane hyperreactive 'concerned parent' organizations beating down their door. City of Heroes and Star Trek Online have the same ESRB rating.
So I'd say history shows the hoops really aren't necessary.
I'd say this is a superior system. Filtering out the inappropriate content = less **** to shift through = easier to find good missions
Comments
Erm...most people are going to review missions in languages they understand?
And what's stopping any author from slipping vulgarity into a distorted message? Or if the universal translator is down and an NPC is speaking in their "native" language. If only proper dictionary words are used then the UGC authoring tools just need a Toontown-like "Speedchat" tool that only allows known words.
you lost me.
If they have to go that far, it's probably not going to matter at that point.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
(Actually, I agree with your OP)
Having people sign a EULA just to be able to play is not an option. Children play this game. We all know kids like to do things they are not supposed to, so if an X rated mission makes it in, I can promise you they'll play it. Doesn't matter if it gets nixed later, because by then it could be too late. Beyond just kids, I personally don't want this to turn into Star TRIBBLE.
Having Cryptic check all these missions over themselves is not an option. There are going to be thousands of these things, and Cryptic moves at a snail's pace as it is. We don't need something else to gum up the works.
As far as software being able to weed out vulgar words? Not really. I've not seen a filter yet that someone can't find a way to pervert, or get around. Short of the Toon Town you mentioned, but going that far is just silly.
This is one time I just have to disagree with you Rikealus. If someone can come up with a working alternative, maybe. So far nobody has.
Not to mention how paranoid people are being about this whole system. Everyone seems to think there will be conspiracies to prevent their content from getting to the masses, that there will be tons and tons of people with nothing better to do than sit around and torment content-makers with absolutely no oversight.
Personally, I would rather have people who are engaging in making UGC the ones to do the first passes to check for the things that need to be checked, rather than waiting 3 months for someone at Cryptic to check it, or worse, have every broken piece of erotic fan-fiction showing up in the main lists to drown out all the good stuff.
well, yes we have
just have two functions
after playing the adventure ANYONE can report it for objectional material (just like you can report
objectional names)
and
a simple 5 star rating....1 , didn't like it, 3 was ok, 5 is great.
That is all that is needed
Again this is not a viable alternative. It just puts content for anyone to see out there without any kind of filtering what so ever. This will just encourage people to put crude, vulgar or otherwise obscene material out into the public view.
I'll repeat this again in case you missed it. If it just goes out to the public, anyone can see it. Including children or people that don't care to see Star TRIBBLE. Doesn't matter if it gets removed later, because by then it could be too late.
I don't care about any of your conspiracy theories of artists being suppressed, or left out. This is an obscenity / bug filter only.
Your system is just as vulnerable to the kind of abuse you guys are so paranoid about. All it takes is one guy and his fleet mates to not like you and 1 star the heck out of your missions. Then where are you? Right back where you claim to be trying to avoid.
Best get used to it now.
Now, you may have people manipulate star systems or whatever to get their mission out but by having an initial volunteer pre-screening, you can have them vet the missions but you also have a means of disabling someone's reviewer status if they aren't following the guidelines.
My one thing is, I think you basically do need one person on staff whose job is to moderate reviewers (possibly doubling up as the UGC mod for all the games) and you might need some rewards system for reviewers to counter against a system that will remove reviewers and the natural tendency just to review friends' content. Like I say, something like a daily that awards 10 Cryptic Points for reviewing 3-5 missions. That keeps any reviewer rewards cosmetic and is still cheaper than actually having in-house professional modding for all UGC. An amount like 10 CP a day could get you, say, four starships a year or probably around 16 combinations of races and costume packs. So it's not entirely trivial but also isn't enough it would eliminate sales of C-Points.
I feel like you do about Reviewers and hope it won't be abused by canon hawks.
Sounds like you'll make the kind of missions that I'd want to play or even review (if the process works).
I'd like for Cryptic to add a "Subscribe" option to Mission Authors. So when they publish something new we will know immediately and try their work.
As for the review process I think that the person writing the mission should be able to see who have reviewed the mission and what rate they gave it together with possibly a comment function.
That way if someone abuses (griefing) the rating system and stalks a writer and rate all their missions low just because they hold a grudge for their fleet being pawned by ours in PvP last night or something, then the writer can see that and you could report them for griefing.
Unless this is made apparent for the writers, mayhem might be the end result with whole fleets roaming the UGC missions and rating them poorly just for revenge. Without anyone being able to do anything about it as it would be too much work for Cryptic to handle all that drama.
As for the XP issue. I think that the XP should be based on how long it takes to do a mission, for instance the Breen missions where you flew between different systems and did different things before the mission completed should generate more XP then a mission where you go in and scan 5 anomalies.
Especially for the KDF side this will be a life saver if they remove the XP cap / day and instead insert short timers, not 30 minutes but maybe 10 or 15 minutes between missions. (but honestly I hate those timers)
Let us not get this too blown out of proportion and off into wild tangents.
Admittedly I find myself thinking that I may have blown this thing up a bit myself in some ways, I am human I make mistakes, go figure lol.
The main thing is, ultimately we don't want a situation akin to that of wolves guarding the cattle.
As long as cryptic is not taking a hands off approach when it comes to rejected content, then I am not worried.
If all flagged content gets auto sent to an in house cryptic review panel of some kind for a second look then I am not worried at all.
Just limit the rejection options to factual/verifiable issues such as language issues and the like then there should not be any problems.
Keep the rejection options simple and as free from opinion as possible then there should not be a problem.
Kind of like the bug report feature someone else mentioned would be fine.
I don't want to see content getting booted over canon violations, we don't all agree on what is and is not canon on a regular basis I am sure, so that should be left up to the player rating system and only the player rating system.
The more I read about what they are doing and their clarifications on some of the issues the better I feel about the whole thing and I thank them for taking the time to address some of the issues and I thank them for their hard work in getting the UGC system together.
Ultimately I look forward to getting to try each person's missions and I plan to try and look at as many as I can even if they have low ratings.
Of course if I am not in the middle of writing a mission or two of my own lol.
At any rate. have a pleasent one all.
This is the exact reason it should be anonymous. Let's say hypothetically you put out a mission, you think its the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think its a bad mission so I one star it. Now you can see that I one starred it, and decide to be petty and one star all of mine.
But, this is an entirely different scenario than what the whole thread is about to start with. What this is all about is giving players the ability to bounce missions from making it public all together. However it will only be a filter for objectionable content, and general playability of the mission. Not the great conspiracy some people are seeing about having their work not make it through simply because someone doesn't like them.
You may not do it, I may not do it, but I've seen people get upset over far less. Like the fact that there will be people checking missions for content / bugs. :rolleyes:
i would prefer the option to make it anonymous on both ends.
some people will want their names displayed.
i would think making it optional suits everybody and would not be too hard to add.
In City of Heroes, missions publish directly to full public viewing, and there haven't been any insane hyperreactive 'concerned parent' organizations beating down their door. City of Heroes and Star Trek Online have the same ESRB rating.
So I'd say history shows the hoops really aren't necessary.
Antithewhuuuuuut?.....Urm......He done gone used a big word!
I rate this stury, erm....thred wif 1 star coz its hard to reed!
Lots of Luv
A Unwashed, uneducated, unemployable Internet tough guy.
You sir on the snob, get over yourself.
BTW, if you're one of those people that are all kinds of upset or 'concerned' about some particular detail of the Foundry then yes, you're one of those people that I'm making fun of.
You mad?
To be fair, the good folks over at CoH don't have the owners of the IP looking over their shoulder, either. CBS has demonstrated that it likes to keep a tight rein on the development of new models and such in this game (witness the issues with the Enterprise-J, reworking of the Nomad ship design, etc). It's not entirely surprising-however annoying-that CBS wants to protect its IP from crazy players like us, too.
I'm a huge fan of letting a community monitor itself. This works great for certain things, for example, a smart phone app in my city that you log into when you get on a bus. When enough people have this running you have real time arrival estimates for all users.
However, fans are a particular group and we, the fans of Star Trek, are a particularly particular subset. The devs are going to need a system that can function with their hands off of it, or it will consume resources better spent elsewhere. It needs to allow certain things to be screened out without breaking hearts. If egos are involved and Cryptic has to pay someone to deal with complaints from the UGC then that's less money for other development areas.
Based on the amount of Foundry butt-hurt already out there pre-launch, well... Since the beginning of gaming their have been wrestling matches between geeks over DM'ing. What Cryptic needs to avoid allowing this to suck resources while breaking up these urination contestations.
But if anyone can sign the "reviewer EULA," including children, it's already too late, and the whole thing is pointless.
Indeed.
Any parents who are genuinely concerned about their childrens' activity on the internet need to either actively and directly monitor it and not blame businesses for being unable to psychically divine that the user behind the faceless data-stream is a minor.
It's not just about profanity and whatnot. It's also about bugs/exploits.
I know. But even Cryptic's content that goes live has bugs, and anyone can report them. The MAIN purpose of the "Play Tester" system is to weed out inappropriate content. Yes, it works for people who just don't want to see bad stuff, since they don't have to sign up. But people who want all the UGC fast are going to scroll through whatever list of rules Cryptic puts up, click "I accept what I totally read and didn't just scroll to the bottom of," and see Stormshade's "[worst case scenario]". Whether this is people who don't want to wait for every mission to get X number of plays, or kids who don't know any better, doesn't matter. The system is pointless, and is there mostly because Cryptic/CBS want it there to feel better. It does NOTHING to prevent people who shouldn't see the [worst case scenario] from seeing it.
Discussion for another thread, but this is the truth of the matter. It's parents, not Cryptic, that are going to prevent kids from seeing anything they shouldn't.
Um.. (raises hand) I agree..
I, too have worked long and hard on gaming content, mostly for P&P RPG's like D&D (2nd edition through 4th), but also for Star Wars SE, BESM, Gurps, even Rifts. And I've had gaming groups play through them, and love them, not for their universal appeal, but because I crafted them lovingly, even tenderly, for those gamers I played with.
Similarly, I'll be designing UGC content for those players who love Trek canon and the stories Trek tells, People looking for quick, action-heavy frag-fests will not like my UGC, and some random assortment of "1337" gamers interested only in "pwnage" get to send my missions to purgatory and/or oblivion?
I am human, and my response is "Go to Hell"!
I'd say this is a superior system. Filtering out the inappropriate content = less **** to shift through = easier to find good missions
HE SO MAD
y u mad thou?