test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
The Review Board will be HUGE
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Come on guys, think about this.
The review board will not consist of a small portion of players. It will involve a ton of players. After all, what else is there to do in the game after VA besides dailies and exploration grind, in between weeklies?
Players are given a new choice. Do you want to replay the same daily, or do you want to try this random mission that a player made? It's obvious which choice is the more exciting, unpredictable, and potentially entertaining alternative to kill 5/5 bad guys.
Want an endless supply of game content? Click this disclaimer.
Want something new to do on a daily basis? Click this disclaimer.
Want to play something called "Orion Love Slave Serenade"? Click this disclaimer.
Wahla. You are now part of the review board, which will probably consist of almost every VA looking for something to do in the game.
The review board will not consist of a small portion of players. It will involve a ton of players. After all, what else is there to do in the game after VA besides dailies and exploration grind, in between weeklies?
Players are given a new choice. Do you want to replay the same daily, or do you want to try this random mission that a player made? It's obvious which choice is the more exciting, unpredictable, and potentially entertaining alternative to kill 5/5 bad guys.
Want an endless supply of game content? Click this disclaimer.
Want something new to do on a daily basis? Click this disclaimer.
Want to play something called "Orion Love Slave Serenade"? Click this disclaimer.
Wahla. You are now part of the review board, which will probably consist of almost every VA looking for something to do in the game.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
yeah because COH is a game based on existing lo-oh wait.
And your point is....
His point is that Star Trek fanfic has more of an audience of readers than CoH fanfic.
There's a reason more people know about "Spock/Kirk" than "Marcus Cole/Justin Sinclair".
You must be forgetting that COH attracts the superhero and comic book fans.
thats why the person needs to tell their friends, fleet, in game chat, forums, external websites to advertise it.
if your not going to advertise your mission chances are it will fall to the bottom of the pile. the same would happen even without a review board. if the author thinks he or she has a good mission some of the time its going to be up to them to spread the word.
and COH UGC was pretty weak.
So first it was 'the review board will be huge, theres no need to worry about missions getting reviewed', and now its 'you have to advertise your mission to everyone you know or its your fault if it doesnt get seen'?
Sure. But it doesn't use established characters or settings or technologies, which limited the appeal of its "fanfic".
well considering i never made the opening post i dont think it changes anything i said. i gave my opinion on the matter. some missions will fall through the cracks and its up to the author to then go promote it.
exactly the same as if there was not a review/approval board. because coh has no review/approval board either and as you say they have missions that go unnoticed.
so whats your point then?
My point is that in STO's system, its possible some missions will never make it live. Maybe they'll be purposely ignored, or accidentally skipped over. In COH's system, at least every mission is available for play, whether it actually gets played or not.
both will apply. Many missions will be reviewed by the review board, but in order to ensure yours gets run through at least once, you will need to do a bit of advertising.
So your saying that it will be impossible for a mission to get reviewed without advertising?
I hate to say it, but that is a small price to pay to insure that what gets out to the masses is not inappropriate content. As cryptic put it.. this is a family game.
but every mission is available to play
sign the EAUL and go play them
If you don't advertise you take the risk of nobody playing it. Tough ****.
Oh wow, you pretended to use a curse word! Your so tough!
I did not pretend, I used it. There is a filter for these forums. I will repeat myself:
If you do not take time out of your playing experience to advertise your missions in some way shape or form (UGC wiki, forums, fleet, friends, zone chat, etc), then I do not feel sorry for you when your mission does not get played.
Yes, but it's a paradox. If every mission, good and bad and spamtastic gets equal promotion in the remote contact list, the good missions would be drowned out by a sea of mediocrity. This is a better system. Every mission IS available to play if you know what to search for. If you're just wanting quality and not TRIBBLE, then consult the remote contact.
Well, if you're too lazy to at least add your ugc mission to the geographic wiki, or tell people about it, then yeah, it won't get played, and that is your own fault for not taking 5 minutes to tell people about it.
Except if you want your characters to advance at all, you still gotta slog through the daily, especially if you're reviewing rather than playing something that's passed review.
I don't believe it was in the best interests of the game or of getting UGC to be seen as relevant by the playerbase at large to force that choice.
Um...
I'm curious as to where you're getting that idea. The remote contact will still include the sea of mediocrity...
Point is Im sure there are many unforseen issues we haven't even thought of yet.
If I play a mission and it offers rewards/points/marks/drops whatever.......I'll try anything once...even a vending machine that sells live crabs.
Mmmmm, seafood snack that fights back!
Does anyone actually read zone chat anymore anyway?
I prefer a bit of a challenge.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the UGC flow, but my impression has been that reviewing missions and playing missions are two very different things.
Reviewing:
- Only available to those who sign the EULA
- Intended to assess playability, looking for bugs
- Intended to review all dialogue to ensure it's "safe"
- Flag the content appropriate or inappropriate
Playing:
- Available to everyone
- Can only play missions that have been flagged as appropriate
- Can receive experience, etc.
If they click the disclaimer and review the mission, they have a job to do. It's not all fun and games. And they won't get any reward for completing the mission.
It's much more likely all your bored VA's will opt to wait until missions have been reviewed and they can play bug-free, appropriate content and get a reward for doing so.
A lot of a hobby can feel similar to "work". Preparing a D&D adventure for my players is kinda work. But it's also kinda fun. I do it because I want to. Assembling spaceship models is kinda work, but I still enjoyed it as hobby as kid. Playing soccer is "work". It's physically stressful, it's potentially dangerous to your health. You have to do training, you have to assemble a team and work out dates with everyone. Yet people still do it as a hobby. And they are definitely not compensated for it, on the contrary, they often even have to pay membership fees.
At some point, you might say - no, this is too much. It's not fun anymore. But where the line between "Hobby" and "Work" falls depends on many subjective factors. If reviewing sounds like work to you, don't do it. If crafting missions sounds like work to you, don't do it.
But besides, what is the alternative? Should we just put the idea of UGC content to rest because it's too much work? Even though people clearly express their wish to craft UGC content and even review it? Just because some might see it as work?
The OP seemed to think that reviewers play the content just the same as people would after it's approved. They don't. The content is presented differently and for a different purpose; one that not everyone will have an interest in. I'm fully aware that a hobby can be both work and fun--I ran a WoW guild for years, after all. And that's not something everyone would openly embrace the idea of doing. That said, your reply reaffirms my point more than rebuts it, so I'm not sure what you're arguing about.