test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Content Rating and Approval Process Details
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
THIS IS ALL SUBJECT TO CHANGE
In order to avoid unnecessary speculation and bring some clarity to the review process - I'm starting this thread to show you the current plans on how Published Foundry Missions get in game.
Since this feature is still in development and the Foundry is in Beta (and not even at Closed Beta at time of first writing) all of this is SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
RATING PLAYER MADE CONTENT
Upon sign-in to STO, players have 2 options: Play or Create
If you select create, you are inside the toolset where you create, playtest and save your Foundry Projects.
Once you are happy with your Project, you can Publish it.
The Publishing process sends your Project to a queue where some AI code is added to your maps to ensure pathing functions.
Once your map is finished Publishing it is now available for Play Testing by anyone who has signed up to Play Test Foundry missions. These players are given a list of missions to play, or can look for specific missions, or can simply say play newest. As a Foundry author you can both create and play test missions.
The goals of play testing is to complete the mission. If the mission is completed, the reviewer is given the chance to rate the mission 1-5 stars (and possibly add comments).
Once a mission has been completed X number of times, it now qualifies to show up in Player Made Mission searches for any player in the game.
In order for any player to take a player made mission, they must go to the remote contact list, select the new Player Made Mission tab, search for the type of mission they want to play, and then select the mission to grant themselves.
Once they grant themselves the mission, it shows up in their mission list and it tells them where to go to start the mission. When any player completes a mission they are also given the option to rate the mission 1-5 stars (and possibly comment).
FLAGGING PLAYER MADE CONTENT
There will be a Foundry Terms of Use Doc that outlines rules that must be adhered to when making content. This will include CBS guidelines for what can and can't be used, as well as specific things that are deemed not-allowable and cause for Flagging.
While playing a Foundry made mission a player feels that the mission has violated the specific rules laid out, they can Flag the content. They will be asked to select the specific violation they are reporting and we will log their account info along with their complaint.
We will take flagging content very seriously as reporting missions in this manner can lead to a mission being pulled from the game until the author addresses the complaint.
This Flagging will not be used for things such as "I didn't like this mission" or "This sucks" or "This doesn't feel Star Trek to me"... but instead for things that violate IP license rules (example: using a character or likeness that is on the not allowed list), violating standard terms of service rules (example: advertising other products or services in your mission text), or attempting to circumvent foul language filters.
NOTES
Any player made mission can be played by anyone so long as the person playing it has signed into the Foundry and agreed they are willing to "review" missions that may or may not have crazy mind-altering badness in them (i.e. no one but the author knows what you are about to play - so be warned). Players can send other players the link to the mission. They can search for it. They can just randomly find it.
Whether or not a player made mission shows up for all players boils down to it being completed X number of times - NOT what have reviewers rated it.
Ratings are intended to give players an idea of what others who have completed the mission thought of it. They don't carry the I think this sucks therefore it will never see the light of day weight some think it will. It may impact some search filters (such as show me the highest rated content) but since you can search for missions by other filters, it is really designed as a tool to describe the perceived quality of the content. We've even talked about turning this on for Cryptic missions as well.
If a mission is Flagged for violating terms of use rules it is possible the mission will be pulled until the author addresses the issue and re-publishes. If the same mission is then again flagged for the same thing, there is a chance for further investigation and discipline (TBD). Likewise if we feel someone is abusing the Flag system and false-reporting issues, there is a chance of investigation and discipline on their end as well.
In order to avoid unnecessary speculation and bring some clarity to the review process - I'm starting this thread to show you the current plans on how Published Foundry Missions get in game.
Since this feature is still in development and the Foundry is in Beta (and not even at Closed Beta at time of first writing) all of this is SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
RATING PLAYER MADE CONTENT
Upon sign-in to STO, players have 2 options: Play or Create
If you select create, you are inside the toolset where you create, playtest and save your Foundry Projects.
Once you are happy with your Project, you can Publish it.
The Publishing process sends your Project to a queue where some AI code is added to your maps to ensure pathing functions.
Once your map is finished Publishing it is now available for Play Testing by anyone who has signed up to Play Test Foundry missions. These players are given a list of missions to play, or can look for specific missions, or can simply say play newest. As a Foundry author you can both create and play test missions.
The goals of play testing is to complete the mission. If the mission is completed, the reviewer is given the chance to rate the mission 1-5 stars (and possibly add comments).
Once a mission has been completed X number of times, it now qualifies to show up in Player Made Mission searches for any player in the game.
In order for any player to take a player made mission, they must go to the remote contact list, select the new Player Made Mission tab, search for the type of mission they want to play, and then select the mission to grant themselves.
Once they grant themselves the mission, it shows up in their mission list and it tells them where to go to start the mission. When any player completes a mission they are also given the option to rate the mission 1-5 stars (and possibly comment).
FLAGGING PLAYER MADE CONTENT
There will be a Foundry Terms of Use Doc that outlines rules that must be adhered to when making content. This will include CBS guidelines for what can and can't be used, as well as specific things that are deemed not-allowable and cause for Flagging.
While playing a Foundry made mission a player feels that the mission has violated the specific rules laid out, they can Flag the content. They will be asked to select the specific violation they are reporting and we will log their account info along with their complaint.
We will take flagging content very seriously as reporting missions in this manner can lead to a mission being pulled from the game until the author addresses the complaint.
This Flagging will not be used for things such as "I didn't like this mission" or "This sucks" or "This doesn't feel Star Trek to me"... but instead for things that violate IP license rules (example: using a character or likeness that is on the not allowed list), violating standard terms of service rules (example: advertising other products or services in your mission text), or attempting to circumvent foul language filters.
NOTES
Any player made mission can be played by anyone so long as the person playing it has signed into the Foundry and agreed they are willing to "review" missions that may or may not have crazy mind-altering badness in them (i.e. no one but the author knows what you are about to play - so be warned). Players can send other players the link to the mission. They can search for it. They can just randomly find it.
Whether or not a player made mission shows up for all players boils down to it being completed X number of times - NOT what have reviewers rated it.
Ratings are intended to give players an idea of what others who have completed the mission thought of it. They don't carry the I think this sucks therefore it will never see the light of day weight some think it will. It may impact some search filters (such as show me the highest rated content) but since you can search for missions by other filters, it is really designed as a tool to describe the perceived quality of the content. We've even talked about turning this on for Cryptic missions as well.
If a mission is Flagged for violating terms of use rules it is possible the mission will be pulled until the author addresses the issue and re-publishes. If the same mission is then again flagged for the same thing, there is a chance for further investigation and discipline (TBD). Likewise if we feel someone is abusing the Flag system and false-reporting issues, there is a chance of investigation and discipline on their end as well.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
This sounds right on target with what it should be.
Is there any (in review phase and beyond) possibility to categorize or tag missions (like we could do it in the exchange)?
eg.: Ground/Space, Solo/Team/Multiteam (Fleetaction), Diplomatic/Fight/Research, long/short, English/French/German,...
I think it would be much easier for the players to find the right mission...
Additionaly I see it especially for French and German content, no suitable reviewers could be found (because they coudln't find the missions) and an English reviewer can't rate this foreign mission... and the missions will never see the light of day.
Or do you have to play the mission first time solo?
i know you can share with friends. they can even help you edit it so i would say yes from what ive heard so far.
It did ease a lot of the concern that I had for the flagging process.
Much appreciated.
Please don't set X to a low number. And would it be possible to have a tag function for once this mission makes its way to the Holodeck server as well as a blurb into what the mission is about?
I'm wondering whether you can play it and edit it at the same time with a team member? ... we need beta lol answers needed!
Thank you for this timely explanation! Based on other statements I thought this was the case, but some of my Fleeties were convinced by some alarmist's argument that the flagging would be based on personal preferences.
I can't wait to see how those same alarmists reword and misread your statements to continue the drama!
I wish this were true, but I don't think it is. No system will ever be full proof enough to keep greifers and voting cartels from keeping missions at the bottom of the pile. While the search engine will return results on whatever criteria they put into it, most still won't play a low rated mission, regardless of how good it actually is.
A suggestion, it makes SO much sense to link this to the holodeck on our ships (well, if we had holodecks on our ship). I mean this in two ways, first instead of selecting play/create on sign in, go to your ship (or anyone's ship, or heck, they are on space docks, too). and go to a holodeck. When you're inside you have the option to create program - by selecting it, you're shown the terms of agreement, and when agreed, you're loaded into the foundry side of things.
The other thing is it would be nice to be able to create content for play INSIDE holodecks. By that I mean you'ld be able to set a location as being in the holodeck on the ship, when it's entered you'd be transfered to the selected map (ie a simulation of the 'real' place).
Just my thoughts, because holodecks are missing from the holodeck (;)) and I think it would be cool to see them there, and in my opinion this would be the perfect place reason to get them in-game.
Thanks for posting this information!
Questions:
I would have thought that this is where we'd create/access player-made content. It makes a lot of sense and would be a great way to add some functionality to ship interiors. Hopefully they'll put it there in the future.
Limiting them to your friends list only is not enough as we have friends from all over the game.
Please, pretty please with sugar on top, put in a function to only publish missions to fleet members.
Don't forget about the STO Fleets this time around.
what is the use of playtesting if it isnt for quality assurance?
you say the rating, which seems to be a simple 1 - 5 stars like / not like button doesnt determine if the mission makes it into the game?
So if say 20 Players are needed to play the mission before it gets into the game and all those 20 People say it's TRIBBLE and vote 1 star it still gets into the game?.... WHY?
Flagging a mission is only for violations so if you think it isn't true to Star Trek in any way but otherwise it is a good mission for say the Holodeck there is no way of saying that?
I think we need a discussion about what kind of ratings we want for it and what they are supposed to accomplish.
This content would best fit to:
[x] the real Game World ( = epic long missions with specific location and true to ST / STO)
[] patrol mission (simple or short mission with specific locations in mind)
[] Holodeck (not true to Trek in any way but fun mission anyway, for the crazy stuff)
[] Exploration Sectors (simple short mission with no specific location in mind, repeatable)
For the player this means,
if you want to do a short mission you switch to Patrol mode.
if you want to do some big long epic Missions you switch to Episode mode
if you want to do Exploration, but you are sick of the default missions go to exploration and enable UGC so you run into new intresting missions
if you just want to see some crazy / fun stuff go to the holodeck on your ship interrior and press the random button.
meta ratings:
overall rating: 1 - 5 stars
tech: 1 - 5* (did the creator utilize the game functions in a good way, does everything work as expected from the game? did your system provide a stable framerate or is there to much stuff on the map that slows the game down more then usual?)
Canon: 1 - 5* (is it true to the series and the game universe?) ...seriously if missions that fail canon aren't thrown out before it goes into the game then at least let me filter these out when i play.
amount ratings (these are not about the quality but to rate the ammount of action/diplomacy involved in the mission so players can filter for diplomatic or combat missions)
action / combat: 1 - 5*
diplomatic / non combat: 1 - 5* (if it gets a high enough diplomatic rating the mission could grant +10 dxp ?)
etc.
just sayin a simple 1 - 5 star like / dont like button isn't realy doing it for me, especially if it isn't even a rating that decides if the mission will get into the game or not.
once an author has a mission that has been published for anyone to play, what about getting it there for friends or fleet members faster than just scrolling through the player generated tab.
are you going to add a search by name function to it, so that we publishers can simply give the mission name to said person, or even add it to a fleet bulletin or daily message for faster access to the mission?
I have a question about being in the creator, but it's not really concerning the rating and approval process, I suppose. Will we will have any of the chat functions available while in the Foundry? I'm not expecting local or such, but it would be nice if we could still communicate with friends/fleet members and our created channels.
I ask because I plan on spending a lot of time making episodes, but if some friends are planning on running a STF or other mission, it would be nice to join in and take a break from creating for a bit.
Also, any info on which characters and likenesses that aren't allowed would be nice. (I'm worried we won't be able to use the series' casts to try to recreate our favorite episodes, but I'm hoping I'm just being pessimistic, heh.)
There was a mention of going to the holodeck to play UGC... I'd have to find it. I just wish it would be called the Holodeck, since "Foundry" sounds kind of lame and non-Star Trek.
Hmmm yup, kinda what I figured
AND
It will be fine :-D
Thanks for the post
A second suggestion would be that a mission not be removed from testing unless it receives 3 flags. For example, if the number of times it is required to be played before going live is 10, then it would seem reasonable that if the mission were REALLY inappropriate that it would be flagged as such at least 3 times if not more. This will prevent missions from getting removed from testing that ARENT really inappropriate, due to someone flagging them who doesnt know what their really supposed to be doing.
Other than these two things, I think the proposed system sounds pretty good and look forward to testing
Well some flags are worse than others....trust me
As long as a Moderator can check the flag in a reasonable time...one flag might be the safe bet.
That seems like a big "if", but the only real answer at this point is "we'll see". However, considering the fact that we're talking about the mission only being played by people who have signed the EULA at this point, I dont see why it should be removed with only 1 flag. If it REALLY is inappropriate, then it should get flagged more than once shouldnt it?
If he liked it, why should he have to play it again to rate it?
It would be a nonsense limitation.
Stop worrying that some AH will rate your mission low and flag you because he hates you. Worry about delivering a good mission within the guidelines (once you know them
It has nothing to do with someone being an "AH" as you so maturely put it. Per the Devs, the purpose of the review system is to weed out inappropriate content, not judge how "good" the mission is. However, by combining the two, it increases the chance of people, either intentionally or simply not knowing any better, combining the two into one opinion. Its better to simply avoid the issue when its not a necessary component of the system at that point.
There's nothing you can do about that, short of demanding that everyone who signs the ELUA for the Foundry provides proof of age or something of that nature.
Cryptic will cover their collective backsides by stating that anything seen in the Foundry may not be suitable to a T rated game and using the system is at your own risk.
I agree with your points about flagging. However, I don't know if people shouldn't be able to rate it based on content as well. Yes, the main purpose of play testing is to filter inappropriate stuff. However, if some of my fleetmates want to play and rate my mission, they shouldn't have to wait for 10 other, random people to play test it for appropriateness first. Sure, they could experience it, and tell me "boy that was great!", but they'd have to play it again for the rest of the community to see their 5-star rating.
I see this as the main reason for people "signing" the EULA: playing their friends' missions faster. I put "signing" in quotes here because I believe that a great portion of people playing UGC will scroll through the EULA, click the "yes I really read it" button, and go off and play stuff they would have to wait who knows how long for. Sure, there'll be a good portion of people that actually do what they're supposed to, and flag for violations, but I think the vast majority will not.
Who knows, I could be wrong. But the initial lack of missions available for everyone to play will drive people to be play testers, just to get more UGC faster.
So the only point of the separate play tester group is to allow those who don't wish to see potentially "inappropriate" material to opt-out until it's been screened? That seems a little silly. CoX released everything to the public, and it's fine. Get a three flag system as Nagus suggests, make everyone sign a EULA to play UGC, regardless, and be done with it.