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.
Iam not surprised by this statement, i do wonder at what degree and the guidelines in which Cryptic also abide's we will also be restricted by, the likeness i can understand but what all those in this game need to realize is that Cryptic is bound by that of certain things related to that of the guidelines of the IP and many times i have seen people on these forums say this and that to not understand the dynamic in which Cryptic has to maintain in the development of this IP.
Anything that violate IP license rules (example: using a character or likeness that is on the not allowed list.
This is a given, in which Cryptic is also bound by the same criteria in which are imposed on them through that of the IP.
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.
What is missing is that of what will become known as Ego's in those that will create, it is something that happens and has happened in past titles when it came to that of Modding Teams. While these aren't modding tools, the Ego's will rise and be seen no matter how anyone tries to say otherwise.
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).
Does this mean that:
1) There is a place where players go to create a mission?
2) Then their mission must be reviewed by a committee.
3) Then once the committee has played the mission 10 times, then you mission will be posted to the game.
4) Some how I am getting out of this explanation that we can write mission for a small group of people (5 or less) and they can access the mission to be played, as long as they are logged into the foundry. I have been on Tribble for the season 3 patch. I see some of the screens you are talking about, but I am still unclear about what you are describing.
For example, will I be able to write a story for my group of 5 or 6 people in a afternoon, and have them play it that evening, or will I have to write the story and wait two weeks or more to be able to play it with the people I intended to write it for?
1) There is a place where players go to create a mission?
2) Then their mission must be reviewed by a committee.
3) Then once the committee has played the mission 10 times, then you mission will be posted to the game.
4) Some how I am getting out of this explanation that we can write mission for a small group of people (5 or less) and they can access the mission to be played, as long as they are logged into the foundry. I have been on Tribble for the season 3 patch. I see some of the screens you are talking about, but I am still unclear about what you are describing.
For example, will I be able to write a story for my group of 5 or 6 people in a afternoon, and have them play it that evening, or will I have to write the story and wait two weeks or more to be able to play it with the people I intended to write it for?
1. From what I understand, when you log in, you can go to the foundry. It is separate from the actual game.
2. The mission is then posted to the game, for the "committee." The "committee" is anyone and everyone signed up to be a "reviewer," which just means they've pressed an extra button to access missions as soon as they're created.
3. Once it's been played a few times and hasn't been reported for inappropriate content, it gets opened to anyone and everyone, period.
4. The small group of people just need to press the button, and then they can log into the game, search for your mission, and play it right away (or they can wait for 10 people to play it if they don't feel like pressing a button).
Is it possible to actually create a mission where you have a brother thats lost and you cant find him, then you do and the mission is over blah blah blah... I have a good question... How long would it take to create maybe that kind of mission?
I am really waiting for the Foundry. I have Missions in my Head since March. They have to come out. *g* Although I can wait for some more weeks, if Foundry becomes really cool in the end.
I suggest a Rating, which is more differentiated. For example 5 Stars in each Categorie (Spacefight, Groundfight, Nonfight). So the Player can deside what Mission he likes to play, by the Number of Stars in each Categorie. Please don´t do a onedimensional good or bad rating.
Is it possible to actually create a mission where you have a brother thats lost and you cant find him, then you do and the mission is over blah blah blah... I have a good question... How long would it take to create maybe that kind of mission?
Very easy in fact.
You'd need a custom map: either space, ground, or interior
A costume for the borther (either a premade one by Cryptic or one you made yourself)
A reach markeron your map or have the talk to contact objective set to the "brother" character.
For more variety, you could add NPCs with default text. You wouldn't be required to speak to them but they could offer advice for finding the brother. You could even use a Sehlat cub and have it act like a bad "Lassie" spin-off.
Theres already comments suggesting someone wants the ability to mark a mission "TREK" or "NOT TREK". Problem there is it can be opinion, can be perceived different by many and someones defination of true trek might not match everyone elses. I'm talking about where there are finelines.
Fact is, we're going to get a lot of people like myself who don't care if the storyline fits in with everything else that has happening in Startrek in the past. The game is making new history, the game can be used to decide what is trek and players now have control of adding a bit of their own too that.
I will not be impressed if they give the ability to stamp a reject on a mission. Not because of quality but because so many of you will reject a mission simply because some terms and ideas used in it are different from what we have seen before.
It's UGC at the end of the day. Don't like it don't play it, Cryptic have set it all up to be very clear on that.
1 star missions, don't play them and we'll soon see 1 star becoming the rejected however they are still there to play giving everyone a bit of right to not have to know Star Trek inside and out.
I am really waiting for the Foundry. I have Missions in my Head since March. They have to come out. *g* Although I can wait for some more weeks, if Foundry becomes really cool in the end.
I suggest a Rating, which is more differentiated. For example 5 Stars in each Categorie (Spacefight, Groundfight, Nonfight). So the Player can deside what Mission he likes to play, by the Number of Stars in each Categorie. Please don´t do a onedimensional good or bad rating.
This is a great idea. As I said, one man's 5-star might be another man's 1-star and vice versa.
Maybe ratings should be based on the amount of content using these categories.
For example:
Space Combat: ***** (lots of it)
Ground Combat: *** (not so much of it)
Non-combat: * (hardly any of it)
This way players can make an informed decision about whether they want to play a mission based on its actual content, and not based on someone else's opinion of it. I'd much rather make my own mind up and I'd prefer everyone else did the same with my content.
As far as characters that cant be used, how expansive is this list expected to be?
I would imagine there are hundreds of people itching to create a mission that includes their favourite Star Trek characters, i was actually reading Memory Beta most of the day in work finding out where certain characters were in regard to a quest series i was going to make on holodeck.
As far as characters that cant be used, how expansive is this list expected to be?
I would imagine there are hundreds of people itching to create a mission that includes their favourite Star Trek characters, i was actually reading Memory Beta most of the day in work finding out where certain characters were in regard to a quest series i was going to make on holodeck.
Isn't the rule that you can recreate Starfleet or Star Trek property, so inanimate objects, but you can't recreate any of the characters, full stop?
Reason being the actors themselves own the rights to the characters they played. That's what happens when a show gets sold into syndication, I believe, and it's how those actors earn a living after the show stops producing new episodes, assuming they're lucky enough to get the show syndicated, which in this case they were. CBS owns the rights to everything not flesh-and-blood, so the ships and other locations, the weapons, uniforms etc, so they can legally allow us to use those things in the Foundry.
Now if you were able to track down Johnny Frakes and get him to do voiceover for your project then upload it with said voiceover, that's a pretty clear indication he's agreed to let you use his legally owned likeness of Riker, so that would be ok, cos you just say to Cryptic when they tell you to remove the mission "Er.. did you not hear, it's him himself doing the voice, noobs."
Since we don't have VO abilities there's no way to prove you have said permission though, unless you get it in writing, on paper, not email, sent to DStahl or one of his cohorts.
The bottom line is if you use the likeness of a Star Trek character and the actor who played that character finds out, they can sue Cryptic for an amount of money for every time the mission containing them has been played.
It's funny (strange, not haha) that we as writers can't claim the same recompense. But that's another thread entirely.
Will the missions that are made Have Diffrent level of rewards for the amount of stars they are given so if a 1 star map gives 100 xp would a 5 star mission give 500 xp
How about letting the authors categorise their mission based on content that's maybe catered to a specific career choice, so either Engineering, Science or Tactical, and maybe a General type as well. Hell, why stop there? Make your target audience Tactical plus Science. You know you're gonna need guns and a healer, you see what I mean?
Engineering and Science missions might be more puzzle/drama-based whereas Tactical would doubtless be more combat oriented. This allows people to not select missions they feel will bore them and rate them down because they were never part of the target audience to begin with.
When you're making any TV or media project, the first question the commissioning editors will ask is "Who's your target audience?" Even before they ask how much it's going to cost.
If you respond with "Everybody in the world" they're gonna laugh you out of their office.
I want, in fact I say we all need a "Target Audience" field which can be seen by potential players so they know if it'll interest them or not.
So I just started reading up on the foundry. I have a mission in mind but it involves rescuing Enterprise-E, Captain Data and Ambassador Jean-Luc Picard.
If I can't use their likenesses, that would pretty much be it for that story...(I have others not involving series characters, but this one was the first one i wanted to do).
So I just started reading up on the foundry. I have a mission in mind but it involves rescuing Enterprise-E, Captain Data and Ambassador Jean-Luc Picard.
If I can't use their likenesses, that would pretty much be it for that story...(I have others not involving series characters, but this one was the first one i wanted to do).
Best way to think about it is if its in any Star Trek show, movie, book and/or Cryptic did not use it in any of there own content then its safe to say we cant use it either. If they did make a list then it would be massive, then again you could always e-mail CBS and ask
I was thinking it would be kind of cool for the author to be able to choose to be anonymous until a certain amont of players have reviewed the mission. Flagging would still be in effect, but this would give every mission an equal chance to get a good review in the beginning and would prevent anyone from giving a bad review simply beacuse they dislike a certain player. Wether or not you like someone or not may have nothing to do with their ability to make a great story and mission. And it would give us a chance to be surprised maybe a special ceremony or something when the authors real identity is revealed.
So I just started reading up on the foundry. I have a mission in mind but it involves rescuing Enterprise-E, Captain Data and Ambassador Jean-Luc Picard.
If I can't use their likenesses, that would pretty much be it for that story...(I have others not involving series characters, but this one was the first one i wanted to do).
Is there a place to see this "not allowed list"?
Would the story not work is it would be any other ambassador or captain?
I would suggest players, or testers try creating before they rip a part someones hard work. I've created some missions and read some reviews playing other missions that are outright hurtfull and mean, that would not be if the person spent any time in foundry. I know this because all you have to do to find a mission created by a player is type in their @ name and it will bring up all missions created by that individual. I have searched for player content by some of the players with the harshest reviews, and find nothing. I did a mission that took a week to complete and it still needed massive edits in a revision. Its not an easy process by any means, and most of us are still very much learning as we go.
Next time you submit a review on a USG you might want to understand what it is you are reviewing..
I will remind everyone that submits a review that people spend their own time on these missions, they are not getting paid by Cryptc or work for Cryptic, we do it because we love the game and want new fresh content.
Most of the missions I've played are very good considering they are created by Amatures, even the worst of the USG missions do not deserve the harsh ratings, I've yet to play a USG that was anything less than three stars.
With this said I as a USG publisher very much appreciate constructive feedback and learn a lot about my missions from the people that play them, things I would never see as the publisher, please continue this but keep it civil and real!
Next time you submit a review on a USG you might want to understand what it is you are reviewing..
Although it is a sentiment I can appreciate, I don't think that, for example, movie critics are required to have directed or produced a movie before they write their reviews. I'm sure that there are some things in UGC missions that are bugged, which is no fault of the author - but someone playing the mission will expect the author to have played through and changed buggy things. That might not be the main issue, however; if the issue is people rating things based on content and story, I don't have a problem with anyone ripping missions apart.
Although it is a sentiment I can appreciate, I don't think that, for example, movie critics are required to have directed or produced a movie before they write their reviews. I'm sure that there are some things in UGC missions that are bugged, which is no fault of the author - but someone playing the mission will expect the author to have played through and changed buggy things. That might not be the main issue, however; if the issue is people rating things based on content and story, I don't have a problem with anyone ripping missions apart.
I agree with you about not having to have created missions in order to review content. That would be silly. I also agree with you about ripping a mission apart. That is up to the individual reviewer and how they want to handle it. I try to submit a review that may help the author improve the mission. In the end I feel that will improve UGC missions and make the game better for everyone.
I did ask a solicitor friend about the image rights issue as I want to make a TNG mission and apparently if you fervently claim no rights to the characters or related material and especially helpful if you cannot financially benefit, you are allowed to "PARODY" characters in the game under Fair Use as a creator, you are using Star Trek as a medium so with so many tools already given to create Star Trek like missions, giving your favorite character a look that "REMINDS" you of the actor is legally okay, just not a blatant copy and the depiction must be in a good light, so not anything to depict them in a bad light (unless they are a baddy of coarse).
I did ask a solicitor friend about the image rights issue as I want to make a TNG mission and apparently if you fervently claim no rights to the characters or related material and especially helpful if you cannot financially benefit, you are allowed to "PARODY" characters in the game under Fair Use as a creator, you are using Star Trek as a medium so with so many tools already given to create Star Trek like missions, giving your favorite character a look that "REMINDS" you of the actor is legally okay, just not a blatant copy and the depiction must be in a good light, so not anything to depict them in a bad light (unless they are a baddy of coarse).
That may work in general law, and I hope it works in the game as well, but you have to remember: when you use the Foundry, you are also agreeing to a specific set of rules, that may not include parodies (although it's been a LONG time since I've read the Foundry's terms of use).
To be honest I simply and utterly LOVE the non-canon character thing!
Coming from Fantasy and Shooter toolsets I was constantly confronted with "I'm going to create a remake/prequel/sequel/copy of <insert a well-known AAA game>".....and over time it became nearly unbearable that no one seemed to have ideas of his own.
In the Foundry people have to come up with something more creative than a lame replay of their favourite ST episode - and obviously a lot allready did. I appreaciate it.
I am known as Soleta, of 12th Fleet's Section 31 Division;
I'm a Silver player and although I've only been playing the game for about four (4) month's and in that time I've met some very Impressive and Important people! I'm enjoying the People involved in the foundry more than the game itself. I have yet to complete a faction feature episode :-), anyway over the last few weeks I've begun to see many of our visions and collaborations within the foundry community originating from these chance meetings become reality.
===================================================================================================================================
I would like to propose discussion on a Foundry rating System, I have taken much of what I've learned in my journey's through foundry missions and the forum's and would like your thoughts on the following.
The Cryptic Star rating System would split into two (2) levels of a three (3) star rating system. This is due to a growing void in the current star rating system to give a valid foundation to new Foundry authors when compared and measured against Experienced Founders. In this rating system an experienced Founder should never get a rating below Three (3), unless the work was totally below experienced community expectations. and a new beginning Founder would get a fair rating of Two (2), Unless the work was totally above average beginner or experimental level work. In this system if a beginner rates a 5 Star with their mission they will gain and deserve community celebrity status of "Accolade - Ascended". In this same system if a veteran rates a 2 Star with their mission they will gain and deserve community "Outcast" status, until they redeem themselves to a Four (4) star status or better, and maintain this level with their next two (2) or three (3) missions.
3 Stars is the middle ground it is an average rating for Level Two and above average for level one. Three missions at this rating for a 4 or 5 star rating Founder constitutes a falling from grace ("Accolade - Descended"). While three missions at this rating for a 1 or 2 star rating Apprentice constitutes a level 2 rating ("Accolade - Ascended").
Level One (Apprentice):
Rating system for Beginners, Average Founders and Daily missions (I like to leave room for growth)
No Star = Didn't Rate the story needs develop work, Only published to Flesh-out the story in real play.
1 Star = Good Effort: Needs work, Author needs to spend more time on Writing Techniques and/or Foundry Skills.
2 Stars = Very Good: well done could use more Depth of story and/or Foundry content (Actually 3 Stars for this level of rating)
Level Two (Founder):
Rating system for Experienced and Professional Founders(These Founders have a few published missions, are seriously into the Foundry as the life blood of the game and are working on Epic status).
3 Stars = Average: Was fun and entertaining but nothing Unique from the normal, or not ranking as Epic or Memorable within the STO Foundry Canon.
4 Stars = Excellent: Above average Story and Content, Author has a good storyline and foundry Skills.
5 Stars = Epic: Professional work, a Developer Level mission. Characters of Foundry mission are an important part of the story, and may even transcend the mission to become a memorable and popular figure within the STO Foundry canon.(Actually 3 Stars for this level of rating).
So in this rating System you actually have Six (6) Status's of Foundry Authors.
1 Apprentice (1 & 2 Stars)
2 Outcast (Fallen Founder)
3 Accolade (3 Stars)
3D - (Accolade - Descended)
3A - (Accolade - Ascended)
4 Founder (4 & 5 Stars)
NOTE 1: In this rating system only a Accolade or Founder, meaning only actual Foundry experienced Authors would be able to rate another Accolade or Founder below 3 stars and have it register as a statistic of the Mission/Author. All others will just register as Mission feedback, (If they leave a comment), rather than a Mission review.
NOTE 2: STO Foundry Canon = The growth of Stories and Characters developed by Star trek online Founders that have become memorable and popular within the Star trek Online Community, and has been set as part of the Star Trek online Community Canon.
this Ranking system can even evolve into a new aspect of In-Game Ranking and Title. I'd rather have a "Founder" title in my name in-game than "Diplomat" or Accolade lets people know I'm a Foundry Author.
Everyone should remember the Foundry is still in Beta and we all have a chance to mold it into the tool we want it to become.
Your Thoughts and ideals. Non Foundry authors negative Opinions will be ignored, as unknowledgeable babble.
I have stepped from the Shadows and revealed myself to you:
Are there any reviewer "teams" who review STF- or fleet-style missions meant for multiple players? If not, how does the review process work for such team missions?
Comments
Iam not surprised by this statement, i do wonder at what degree and the guidelines in which Cryptic also abide's we will also be restricted by, the likeness i can understand but what all those in this game need to realize is that Cryptic is bound by that of certain things related to that of the guidelines of the IP and many times i have seen people on these forums say this and that to not understand the dynamic in which Cryptic has to maintain in the development of this IP.
This is a given, in which Cryptic is also bound by the same criteria in which are imposed on them through that of the IP.
What is missing is that of what will become known as Ego's in those that will create, it is something that happens and has happened in past titles when it came to that of Modding Teams. While these aren't modding tools, the Ego's will rise and be seen no matter how anyone tries to say otherwise.
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).
Does this mean that:
1) There is a place where players go to create a mission?
2) Then their mission must be reviewed by a committee.
3) Then once the committee has played the mission 10 times, then you mission will be posted to the game.
4) Some how I am getting out of this explanation that we can write mission for a small group of people (5 or less) and they can access the mission to be played, as long as they are logged into the foundry. I have been on Tribble for the season 3 patch. I see some of the screens you are talking about, but I am still unclear about what you are describing.
For example, will I be able to write a story for my group of 5 or 6 people in a afternoon, and have them play it that evening, or will I have to write the story and wait two weeks or more to be able to play it with the people I intended to write it for?
1. From what I understand, when you log in, you can go to the foundry. It is separate from the actual game.
2. The mission is then posted to the game, for the "committee." The "committee" is anyone and everyone signed up to be a "reviewer," which just means they've pressed an extra button to access missions as soon as they're created.
3. Once it's been played a few times and hasn't been reported for inappropriate content, it gets opened to anyone and everyone, period.
4. The small group of people just need to press the button, and then they can log into the game, search for your mission, and play it right away (or they can wait for 10 people to play it if they don't feel like pressing a button).
I suggest a Rating, which is more differentiated. For example 5 Stars in each Categorie (Spacefight, Groundfight, Nonfight). So the Player can deside what Mission he likes to play, by the Number of Stars in each Categorie. Please don´t do a onedimensional good or bad rating.
Very easy in fact.
- You'd need a custom map: either space, ground, or interior
- A costume for the borther (either a premade one by Cryptic or one you made yourself)
- A reach markeron your map or have the talk to contact objective set to the "brother" character.
For more variety, you could add NPCs with default text. You wouldn't be required to speak to them but they could offer advice for finding the brother. You could even use a Sehlat cub and have it act like a bad "Lassie" spin-off.Theres already comments suggesting someone wants the ability to mark a mission "TREK" or "NOT TREK". Problem there is it can be opinion, can be perceived different by many and someones defination of true trek might not match everyone elses. I'm talking about where there are finelines.
Fact is, we're going to get a lot of people like myself who don't care if the storyline fits in with everything else that has happening in Startrek in the past. The game is making new history, the game can be used to decide what is trek and players now have control of adding a bit of their own too that.
I will not be impressed if they give the ability to stamp a reject on a mission. Not because of quality but because so many of you will reject a mission simply because some terms and ideas used in it are different from what we have seen before.
It's UGC at the end of the day. Don't like it don't play it, Cryptic have set it all up to be very clear on that.
1 star missions, don't play them and we'll soon see 1 star becoming the rejected however they are still there to play giving everyone a bit of right to not have to know Star Trek inside and out.
Rate missions, yes, but I don't like the idea of comments.
And remember... one man's 5-star might be another man's 1-star and vice versa.
This is a great idea. As I said, one man's 5-star might be another man's 1-star and vice versa.
Maybe ratings should be based on the amount of content using these categories.
For example:
Space Combat: ***** (lots of it)
Ground Combat: *** (not so much of it)
Non-combat: * (hardly any of it)
This way players can make an informed decision about whether they want to play a mission based on its actual content, and not based on someone else's opinion of it. I'd much rather make my own mind up and I'd prefer everyone else did the same with my content.
I would imagine there are hundreds of people itching to create a mission that includes their favourite Star Trek characters, i was actually reading Memory Beta most of the day in work finding out where certain characters were in regard to a quest series i was going to make on holodeck.
Isn't the rule that you can recreate Starfleet or Star Trek property, so inanimate objects, but you can't recreate any of the characters, full stop?
Reason being the actors themselves own the rights to the characters they played. That's what happens when a show gets sold into syndication, I believe, and it's how those actors earn a living after the show stops producing new episodes, assuming they're lucky enough to get the show syndicated, which in this case they were. CBS owns the rights to everything not flesh-and-blood, so the ships and other locations, the weapons, uniforms etc, so they can legally allow us to use those things in the Foundry.
Now if you were able to track down Johnny Frakes and get him to do voiceover for your project then upload it with said voiceover, that's a pretty clear indication he's agreed to let you use his legally owned likeness of Riker, so that would be ok, cos you just say to Cryptic when they tell you to remove the mission "Er.. did you not hear, it's him himself doing the voice, noobs."
Since we don't have VO abilities there's no way to prove you have said permission though, unless you get it in writing, on paper, not email, sent to DStahl or one of his cohorts.
The bottom line is if you use the likeness of a Star Trek character and the actor who played that character finds out, they can sue Cryptic for an amount of money for every time the mission containing them has been played.
It's funny (strange, not haha) that we as writers can't claim the same recompense. But that's another thread entirely.
Engineering and Science missions might be more puzzle/drama-based whereas Tactical would doubtless be more combat oriented. This allows people to not select missions they feel will bore them and rate them down because they were never part of the target audience to begin with.
When you're making any TV or media project, the first question the commissioning editors will ask is "Who's your target audience?" Even before they ask how much it's going to cost.
If you respond with "Everybody in the world" they're gonna laugh you out of their office.
I want, in fact I say we all need a "Target Audience" field which can be seen by potential players so they know if it'll interest them or not.
If I can't use their likenesses, that would pretty much be it for that story...(I have others not involving series characters, but this one was the first one i wanted to do).
Is there a place to see this "not allowed list"?
Best way to think about it is if its in any Star Trek show, movie, book and/or Cryptic did not use it in any of there own content then its safe to say we cant use it either. If they did make a list then it would be massive, then again you could always e-mail CBS and ask
I was thinking it would be kind of cool for the author to be able to choose to be anonymous until a certain amont of players have reviewed the mission. Flagging would still be in effect, but this would give every mission an equal chance to get a good review in the beginning and would prevent anyone from giving a bad review simply beacuse they dislike a certain player. Wether or not you like someone or not may have nothing to do with their ability to make a great story and mission. And it would give us a chance to be surprised maybe a special ceremony or something when the authors real identity is revealed.
Thats all!
'nuff said
Would the story not work is it would be any other ambassador or captain?
That's not what Stormy told us or what the EULA said.
It can't look like an actor or an attempt to resemble an actor.
But Q can show up looking like a Targ, for example.
And if Carol Marcus shows up as a generic "oldest woman you can make in the character creator", that's not an actor likeness.
Next time you submit a review on a USG you might want to understand what it is you are reviewing..
I will remind everyone that submits a review that people spend their own time on these missions, they are not getting paid by Cryptc or work for Cryptic, we do it because we love the game and want new fresh content.
Most of the missions I've played are very good considering they are created by Amatures, even the worst of the USG missions do not deserve the harsh ratings, I've yet to play a USG that was anything less than three stars.
With this said I as a USG publisher very much appreciate constructive feedback and learn a lot about my missions from the people that play them, things I would never see as the publisher, please continue this but keep it civil and real!
Although it is a sentiment I can appreciate, I don't think that, for example, movie critics are required to have directed or produced a movie before they write their reviews. I'm sure that there are some things in UGC missions that are bugged, which is no fault of the author - but someone playing the mission will expect the author to have played through and changed buggy things. That might not be the main issue, however; if the issue is people rating things based on content and story, I don't have a problem with anyone ripping missions apart.
I agree with you about not having to have created missions in order to review content. That would be silly. I also agree with you about ripping a mission apart. That is up to the individual reviewer and how they want to handle it. I try to submit a review that may help the author improve the mission. In the end I feel that will improve UGC missions and make the game better for everyone.
That may work in general law, and I hope it works in the game as well, but you have to remember: when you use the Foundry, you are also agreeing to a specific set of rules, that may not include parodies (although it's been a LONG time since I've read the Foundry's terms of use).
Coming from Fantasy and Shooter toolsets I was constantly confronted with "I'm going to create a remake/prequel/sequel/copy of <insert a well-known AAA game>".....and over time it became nearly unbearable that no one seemed to have ideas of his own.
In the Foundry people have to come up with something more creative than a lame replay of their favourite ST episode - and obviously a lot allready did. I appreaciate it.
I am known as Soleta, of 12th Fleet's Section 31 Division;
I'm a Silver player and although I've only been playing the game for about four (4) month's and in that time I've met some very Impressive and Important people! I'm enjoying the People involved in the foundry more than the game itself. I have yet to complete a faction feature episode :-), anyway over the last few weeks I've begun to see many of our visions and collaborations within the foundry community originating from these chance meetings become reality.
===================================================================================================================================
I would like to propose discussion on a Foundry rating System, I have taken much of what I've learned in my journey's through foundry missions and the forum's and would like your thoughts on the following.
The Cryptic Star rating System would split into two (2) levels of a three (3) star rating system. This is due to a growing void in the current star rating system to give a valid foundation to new Foundry authors when compared and measured against Experienced Founders. In this rating system an experienced Founder should never get a rating below Three (3), unless the work was totally below experienced community expectations. and a new beginning Founder would get a fair rating of Two (2), Unless the work was totally above average beginner or experimental level work. In this system if a beginner rates a 5 Star with their mission they will gain and deserve community celebrity status of "Accolade - Ascended". In this same system if a veteran rates a 2 Star with their mission they will gain and deserve community "Outcast" status, until they redeem themselves to a Four (4) star status or better, and maintain this level with their next two (2) or three (3) missions.
3 Stars is the middle ground it is an average rating for Level Two and above average for level one. Three missions at this rating for a 4 or 5 star rating Founder constitutes a falling from grace ("Accolade - Descended"). While three missions at this rating for a 1 or 2 star rating Apprentice constitutes a level 2 rating ("Accolade - Ascended").
Level One (Apprentice):
Rating system for Beginners, Average Founders and Daily missions (I like to leave room for growth)
No Star = Didn't Rate the story needs develop work, Only published to Flesh-out the story in real play.
1 Star = Good Effort: Needs work, Author needs to spend more time on Writing Techniques and/or Foundry Skills.
2 Stars = Very Good: well done could use more Depth of story and/or Foundry content (Actually 3 Stars for this level of rating)
Level Two (Founder):
Rating system for Experienced and Professional Founders(These Founders have a few published missions, are seriously into the Foundry as the life blood of the game and are working on Epic status).
3 Stars = Average: Was fun and entertaining but nothing Unique from the normal, or not ranking as Epic or Memorable within the STO Foundry Canon.
4 Stars = Excellent: Above average Story and Content, Author has a good storyline and foundry Skills.
5 Stars = Epic: Professional work, a Developer Level mission. Characters of Foundry mission are an important part of the story, and may even transcend the mission to become a memorable and popular figure within the STO Foundry canon.(Actually 3 Stars for this level of rating).
So in this rating System you actually have Six (6) Status's of Foundry Authors.
1 Apprentice (1 & 2 Stars)
2 Outcast (Fallen Founder)
3 Accolade (3 Stars)
3D - (Accolade - Descended)
3A - (Accolade - Ascended)
4 Founder (4 & 5 Stars)
NOTE 1: In this rating system only a Accolade or Founder, meaning only actual Foundry experienced Authors would be able to rate another Accolade or Founder below 3 stars and have it register as a statistic of the Mission/Author. All others will just register as Mission feedback, (If they leave a comment), rather than a Mission review.
NOTE 2: STO Foundry Canon = The growth of Stories and Characters developed by Star trek online Founders that have become memorable and popular within the Star trek Online Community, and has been set as part of the Star Trek online Community Canon.
this Ranking system can even evolve into a new aspect of In-Game Ranking and Title. I'd rather have a "Founder" title in my name in-game than "Diplomat" or Accolade lets people know I'm a Foundry Author.
Everyone should remember the Foundry is still in Beta and we all have a chance to mold it into the tool we want it to become.
Your Thoughts and ideals. Non Foundry authors negative Opinions will be ignored, as unknowledgeable babble.
I have stepped from the Shadows and revealed myself to you:
Solo - The Shadow Hunter
Live Long and Prosper
My Foundry missions | My STO Wiki page | My Twitter home page