Please review missions based on their merits, spelling, story, flow, etc and not on systemic things the creator cannot control.
I recently received three reviews for my missions which were 2 stars. One literally said that the two star review wasn't for my mission but because of the pathing bug. And the other listed about 5 flaws, 4 of which were system related and the other due to difficulty of a particular mob. One of these was a complaint that they had to get too close in space to loot something...
These types of reviews tend to hurt people's chances of really getting their missions out there. This, were it on Holodeck, would have permanently tainted my overall scores for these missions due to things that were totally out of my control.
Please when reviewing missions do not take stars off for things creators have no control over.
Spelling
Dialog
Story
Enemy Placement
Item Placement
Flow, etc.
The above are all things the creator CAN control
Pathing bugs
Your difficulty with a certain mob (number of mobs in a tight area or too many tough mobs IS a valid complaint)
Loading problems
Loot collection distances
Scanning items in space while moving isn't allowed, etc.
The above are all things out of the creators control and not things to downgrade them for.
Especially when the Foundry goes live keep this in mind because early on a bad score for something that wasn't their fault could be the difference between them getting some attention and their hardwork sinking to the bottom of a huge list never to be seen again.
I always read the individual reviews before accepting a mission... I would hope others do the same so they can evaluate what the rating actually means rather than just a certain number of stars...
I go out of my way to play the missions with low or no ratings or reviews and try to give a well proportioned review which awards credit were credit is due.
Unfortunately I can't control the invincibility of NPC contacts. In certain circumstances, the NPC they need to talk to in order to complete the mission might be killed by the player themselves.
I've had some negative reviews for people who couldn't find the NPC they needed, probably because it was dead. In one case, I noticed that when they were under a confused state and could shoot friendly characters, it is possible to expose and one shot kill NPC contacts...
Another case is probably when an enemy ship warp core breaches next to an NPC contact ship.
I can also imagine someone throwing a plasma grenade at an enemy standing next to an NPC contact and burning them to death.
These things I can't control other than to move NPCs away - but sometimes even that doesn't work because you could pull enemies to them on your own.
Another thing was about crates and things in hallways on maps - I didn't make the pre-made maps and they don't let you remove things from the maps - I didn't put crates all over the place - Cryptic did!
I also got a negative review about enemy placement - you could go around the enemies and not have to kill them. But the mission objective was "avoid enemies"! It was on purpose!
This one wasn't in one of my reviews, but I saw it in someone else's mission reviews: Someone left a reivew saying that they should only have the player character beam down instead of the full away team. Except that you can't control that yet
we will all have to get used to some 'dodgy reviews' shall we say.
it would be nice if people think outside themselves and review a misison on its merits and not their personal taste but dont be shocked if people are down grading you because of things out of your control. the only thing you can hope is you get enough reviews so that the true score of the mission eventually comes through.
I spent a lot of time with City of Heroes' Mission Architect. Both reviewing others' missions and reading other peoples' reviews of my missions.
First, a lot of people who review your missions will say things that are just stupid. They will criticize you for things that you have no control over. They will criticize you for a certain thing in your mission that they hate when the other 99 people who played your mission loved that same thing.
That's just how it is.
I've had people play my missions and then criticize me and rate my mission low because they didn't like the enemy faction that was in the mission. Well... if you hate Malta then why did you play the mission? It says right in the intro screen that you get to read before you ever accept the mission that Malta are in it.
That's just how it is.
Also, a lot of writers are very touchy and get offended at the slightest criticism. I've had people literally lose their marbles and send me a dozen tells because I mentioned a misspelling in their mission text. I've had people say "Oh yeah? Well I'm going to play your mission and give it a 1 star! How do you like that you [Warning Explicit Lyrics]!!!" simply because I gave their mission a well deserved low rating and even took the time to explain why and make suggestions on how they could improve their mission.
As both a mission author (at least one time over, though not sure if it's still available to play) and a reviewer, I've been more or less ignoring the number of stars. I really wish they weren't even a part of the current review process.
The way I look at it, given that the Foundry isn't live yet, everything I do and play in it is a rough draft. Who knows how many of the missions currently up will even make it to the live server (either because people don't want to put the work into replicating them or because they get bored) and when they do, they're likely to be substantially different. Specific feedback is important so that the author can make improvements. But assigning some sort of grade seems artificial and a little ridiculous at this point.
I understand the politics of star ratings. Higher ratings may (or may not) single out good missions. But they will certainly get people noticed and increase the odds that their subsequent missions will be played. I'm sure once the Foundry goes live, there will be a hierarchy of stars, so to speak, with some people at the top and some people at the bottom. One quick side note: I think while UGC itself may be a means of building a more robust STO community (or at least one centered around the Foundry), star ratings are going to be a pretty potent means of dividing it.
I suppose there may be some value in rehearsing all that now, before the Foundry goes live, but I tend to doubt it. It seems rather early to begin the process of division and hierarchy--everyone should be playing all sorts of missions, good, bad, and indifferent, not just gravitating to the "good" ones, both to give feedback and to share ideas.
I suppose that my main point is all that matters now, IMO, is the feedback people give. Everything else strikes me as totally irrelevant.
There are two sides to the story. First of all, your right that mission authors arent responsible for pathing errors. But that said, you should test your mission before you publish it, and not just once. If you discern that pathing errors are causing too much of a problem on your mission, then you either have to figure out how to "fix" the issue or not publish your mission. If you decide to go ahead and publish anyway knowing there is a significant(key word) problem, then its partly your fault if you get bad reviews.
Remember no matter how 'good' a mission may be, you'll always get 3 types of responses:
1) Those that love it and really like the story and other elements you had.
2) Those that are completely ambivilent (ie they played it, but didn't see anything either noteworthy, or terribly bad.
3) Those that dislike it (and no matter what you do short of pulling it and replacing it with something else.)
NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, you will ALWAYS receive reviews in one of the 3 groups, as nothing written is universally loved by everyone. You know you have something nice when the reviews from point one, outnumber those in point three.
Also, if you're going to put something out fpr public consumption and review, know HOW to take criticism, and realize not everyone will see things through your eyes. Know when to accept and process good criticism (and I don't mean 'good' in the sense someone liked what you did, but rather, pointed out something bad/wrong that on reflection you agree with, and can improve); and be able to process 9or ignore) 'bad' criticism - ir someone who just hates an aspect of something; and can't get past sais aspect; bit in the long run, there's really nothing wrong objectively; the person reviewing just hates/can't get past it.
As for ignoring the 'technical aspects'; that's unfair in that, if you KNOW something can happen that will completely TRIBBLE up the experience for players on a consistent basis; BECAUSE all the players want to do is complete a mission (and bugs like these either outright prevent compleion, or greatly detract from the experience); then it's up to you (or me) as an author to recognize the limitations of the system I'm working in (bugs and all); and tailor and design my content to account for; and minimize these things wherever possible.
If the state of the Foundry improves to that point where you CAN do what you orginally envisioned, go back and redo the encounter at that point, but don't fault a reviewing player because you as an author, who may realize a flaw due to a Foundry bug; refuse to adjust because in your opinion, the bug shouldn't exist in the first place; and it's not your fault if it does and you failed to account for it.
All the above said, IF you're doing something to trick the Foundry; and it works for 90% of the players you play your mission; but (for whatever reason) 10% encounter it; that might be good enough for you overall, but again, you can't fault the player if he/she encountered something that detracted from his experience and he/she either couldn't finish the mission, or found something extremely frustrating due to no fault of his or her own.
In the end, a good author is one who knows the limits of the tool - can vcraete something enjoyable within those limits; and is able to take and process feedback, and know what to accept and what to ignore in this regard to improve their work.
(And hell, I'm going to risk it and pimp my own mission here as it's (I think) two reviews from getting out of the 'Review Content' area and on to the 'Community Authored' section, so if you have th time and would be so kind, give "A Relic's Retrurn" a try )
Don't just discount such a critic "I have no control over this".
I remember getting a review mentioning that he didn't like the bridge I used in my mission since it wasn't his. Well, of course that's a technical limitation. Either he or someone else suggested just to use the Ready Room for the mission, since it is the same for all bridges. And that made perfect sense and was a great work-around.
I went a step further and decided that this encounter could or should be conducted in the Brig instead, which I think lead to an even better result.
The critic was based on a limitation I had no control over. But was it unfair? It was still wrong, and it did impede the player's enjoyment (it did actually also impede the author's enjoyment). But in this case, there was a work-around, and someone playing the mission after I changed it did actually comment on how he liked my interiors.
So, overall, the review did something good for the mission. It helped convince me to find a better work-around for the technical limitations of the Foundry and overall improved the experience.
Every time a patch comes out, how many people come on these boards screaming and yelling at Cryptic about 'system limitations' and things that Cryptic, in general, had no control over? How many people lambast them for not testing something more before release and letting a bug through?
My prediction is already coming true. Now that the kind of criticism levelled at Cryptic since release is being levelled against players' creations, they can't handle it.
If you're going to publish missions in the Foundry for public consumption, I'd spend a couple of hours reading these boards to prepare yourself for what you're about to be in for. Thinking that they're going to go easier on you as a player than they do on Cryptic is naive.
I wish that the text box was bigger in order to give more in-depth feedback to mission authors. I also wish it was possible to provide reviews and bug reports separately for UGC, so I can provide as much feedback as possible.
I agree with the overall sentiment of the thread as a reviewer. Let's try to be constructive, people.
I wish that the text box was bigger in order to give more in-depth feedback to mission authors. I also wish it was possible to provide reviews and bug reports separately for UGC, so I can provide as much feedback as possible.
Couldn't you use these forums to solve both of those problems?
I agree with Peregrine_Falcon... Serious and helpful reviews should be used in either a P.M. or in the forums if the subject seems relevant to other authors... the idea being to be actually helpful and convey the actual impressions and problems and possibly solutions.
Couldn't you use these forums to solve both of those problems?
No, I can't. It's extra work. I want to do it directly after the mission, when the memory is still fresh. I don't want to alt-tab to the forums or open the mail and work out what name I have to send it to.
Am I lazy? Yes, absolutely. But in the end, Cryptic has to design its UI once. I have to jump through the hoops every time. It's just as with the idea that you explicitly state a mission goal or the planet in Sector Space where your missiion starts from. Sure, every player can search for the information himself, but that means every player has to, instead of just the mission-creator.
I agree that the in game ratings and reviews need some serious work and I believe it is up to us a testers and authors to examine the current system and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses and to come up with alternatives that may be helpful.
In the meantime... I try to be helpful to a particular author whose mission I'm reviewing. If that involves taking the time to P.M. or post in the forum, then I'm happy to do so... because I would appreciate the same thing to be done for me.
It should be a two-way street with each of us trying to be helpful to each other. There is no one else that will do it... just us.
I wish that the text box was bigger in order to give more in-depth feedback to mission authors. I also wish it was possible to provide reviews and bug reports separately for UGC, so I can provide as much feedback as possible.
I agree with the overall sentiment of the thread as a reviewer. Let's try to be constructive, people.
You can always mail the author in game. A couple of the players who've played my mission have done that; (and I've done that for some of the missions I've played and reviewed as well) and it's nice in that I get a better feeling for aspects they really liked, or didn' like. Yes, it's not as easy as typing in the review field, but it's always available as an option.
But in the end, Cryptic has to design its UI once. I have to jump through the hoops every time. It's just as with the idea that you explicitly state a mission goal or the planet in Sector Space where your missiion starts from. Sure, every player can search for the information himself, but that means every player has to, instead of just the mission-creator.
I completely agree with you that Cryptic should design the UI for the Foundry right the first time. And I honestly hope that happens.
But since I'm convinced that it will not happen, I was attempting to make a suggestion as to how we, the players, could work around the limitations that will be built into the Foundry's rating/review system.
I like both of those suggestions, Armsman and Peregrine_Falcon. Thank you I had been hoping that there would be a dedicated subforum for reviewing UGC on here, but I now see that others are using this discussion sub-forum for exactly that.
There are two sides to the story. First of all, your right that mission authors arent responsible for pathing errors. But that said, you should test your mission before you publish it, and not just once. If you discern that pathing errors are causing too much of a problem on your mission, then you either have to figure out how to "fix" the issue or not publish your mission. If you decide to go ahead and publish anyway knowing there is a significant(key word) problem, then its partly your fault if you get bad reviews.
Ok... how can I fix the ESD hallways in a mission that takes place on ESD with NPCs and BOFFs?!
If people had to "Fix" or not publish their missions then there wouldn't be a single freakin ground map in the Foundry right now...
My prediction is already coming true. Now that the kind of criticism levelled at Cryptic since release is being levelled against players' creations, they can't handle it.
If you're going to publish missions in the Foundry for public consumption, I'd spend a couple of hours reading these boards to prepare yourself for what you're about to be in for. Thinking that they're going to go easier on you as a player than they do on Cryptic is naive.
Well the thing is... when people fuss about limitations and bugs in the game...they're fussing at the people who have control over the game...the Foundry pathing and bugs...are another thing for people to fuss at Cryptic about, not mission makers. Cryptic employees get paid to make missions, people spending 10+ hours don't get any payment other than a lil fame and joy from a decent review. No need to stomp on them for things Cryptic can control that they can't Especially when the same people come on here and say there's no content in-game and go discourage new content makers with stupid scores/reviews.
I have to agree with the OP, most of my reviews (all 10 of them for both missions) mostly knock points off for things I can't really do anything about. I still am shaking my head after having someone tell me my mission's storyline and characters were too complex. . .too complex? I don't get it. Are they asking me to dumb it down?
I completely agree with you that Cryptic should design the UI for the Foundry right the first time. And I honestly hope that happens.
But since I'm convinced that it will not happen, I was attempting to make a suggestion as to how we, the players, could work around the limitations that will be built into the Foundry's rating/review system.
Well, with that said, you are certainly correct. Mailing is a good option as a work-around, as are the forums.
Note: Cool option for Cryptic that might be a minor thing to do: Add a link to the mission where you can directly get to the ingame mail system with the author already filled in, and the title of the mission.
Making reviews a subform of the Foundry forums might make sense, too.Though maybe such a forum would end up in flames and hate and hurt feelings?
Starbase UGC has a live chat window functioning now... we did a "live" review for the author last night... a very nice solution.. oh... by the way... Foundry mission teaming works now...
Starbase UGC has a live chat window functioning now... we did a "live" review for the author last night... a very nice solution.. oh... by the way... Foundry mission teaming works now...
Oh, teaming works now? Anyone tried out how the space encounters actually scale with team size? What type of ship ends up in which slot?
I kinda wish a star rating wasn't shown until 'x' number of reviews are made. Right now, if a mission gets 1 review of 1 star, it goes to the bottom never to be seen again.
I kinda wish a star rating wasn't shown until 'x' number of reviews are made. Right now, if a mission gets 1 review of 1 star, it goes to the bottom never to be seen again.
Same is true in reverse...5 star 1 reviews > 4 star 5 reviews...it's all averages.
There should be some "number of reviews" weighting to sort that out for both cases. Say like 5 reviews...then your score should start counting. AFAIK you could just as easily (right now) review yourself for "5 Stars" to get to the top of the list.
Another addition would be to have a "I Feel Lucky" search that would pull a random selection of non-top 10 or 20, etc. missions for you to peruse.
I think another factor that should go into it is "number of plays" & "number of plays completed" -- because it seems like most ppl are *not* reviewers.
This should factor into "hottest" with an "ageing" of the "last played" date/time.
Comments
Shame the textbox is so small.
Good reviews help others find good missions.
They also help the mission writters to improve their missions.
I also like to play low rated missions however to see if there isn't a diamond in the rough...
I've had some negative reviews for people who couldn't find the NPC they needed, probably because it was dead. In one case, I noticed that when they were under a confused state and could shoot friendly characters, it is possible to expose and one shot kill NPC contacts...
Another case is probably when an enemy ship warp core breaches next to an NPC contact ship.
I can also imagine someone throwing a plasma grenade at an enemy standing next to an NPC contact and burning them to death.
These things I can't control other than to move NPCs away - but sometimes even that doesn't work because you could pull enemies to them on your own.
Another thing was about crates and things in hallways on maps - I didn't make the pre-made maps and they don't let you remove things from the maps - I didn't put crates all over the place - Cryptic did!
I also got a negative review about enemy placement - you could go around the enemies and not have to kill them. But the mission objective was "avoid enemies"! It was on purpose!
This one wasn't in one of my reviews, but I saw it in someone else's mission reviews: Someone left a reivew saying that they should only have the player character beam down instead of the full away team. Except that you can't control that yet
it would be nice if people think outside themselves and review a misison on its merits and not their personal taste but dont be shocked if people are down grading you because of things out of your control. the only thing you can hope is you get enough reviews so that the true score of the mission eventually comes through.
I spent a lot of time with City of Heroes' Mission Architect. Both reviewing others' missions and reading other peoples' reviews of my missions.
First, a lot of people who review your missions will say things that are just stupid. They will criticize you for things that you have no control over. They will criticize you for a certain thing in your mission that they hate when the other 99 people who played your mission loved that same thing.
That's just how it is.
I've had people play my missions and then criticize me and rate my mission low because they didn't like the enemy faction that was in the mission. Well... if you hate Malta then why did you play the mission? It says right in the intro screen that you get to read before you ever accept the mission that Malta are in it.
That's just how it is.
Also, a lot of writers are very touchy and get offended at the slightest criticism. I've had people literally lose their marbles and send me a dozen tells because I mentioned a misspelling in their mission text. I've had people say "Oh yeah? Well I'm going to play your mission and give it a 1 star! How do you like that you [Warning Explicit Lyrics]!!!" simply because I gave their mission a well deserved low rating and even took the time to explain why and make suggestions on how they could improve their mission.
That's just how it is.
The way I look at it, given that the Foundry isn't live yet, everything I do and play in it is a rough draft. Who knows how many of the missions currently up will even make it to the live server (either because people don't want to put the work into replicating them or because they get bored) and when they do, they're likely to be substantially different. Specific feedback is important so that the author can make improvements. But assigning some sort of grade seems artificial and a little ridiculous at this point.
I understand the politics of star ratings. Higher ratings may (or may not) single out good missions. But they will certainly get people noticed and increase the odds that their subsequent missions will be played. I'm sure once the Foundry goes live, there will be a hierarchy of stars, so to speak, with some people at the top and some people at the bottom. One quick side note: I think while UGC itself may be a means of building a more robust STO community (or at least one centered around the Foundry), star ratings are going to be a pretty potent means of dividing it.
I suppose there may be some value in rehearsing all that now, before the Foundry goes live, but I tend to doubt it. It seems rather early to begin the process of division and hierarchy--everyone should be playing all sorts of missions, good, bad, and indifferent, not just gravitating to the "good" ones, both to give feedback and to share ideas.
I suppose that my main point is all that matters now, IMO, is the feedback people give. Everything else strikes me as totally irrelevant.
1) Those that love it and really like the story and other elements you had.
2) Those that are completely ambivilent (ie they played it, but didn't see anything either noteworthy, or terribly bad.
3) Those that dislike it (and no matter what you do short of pulling it and replacing it with something else.)
NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO, you will ALWAYS receive reviews in one of the 3 groups, as nothing written is universally loved by everyone. You know you have something nice when the reviews from point one, outnumber those in point three.
Also, if you're going to put something out fpr public consumption and review, know HOW to take criticism, and realize not everyone will see things through your eyes. Know when to accept and process good criticism (and I don't mean 'good' in the sense someone liked what you did, but rather, pointed out something bad/wrong that on reflection you agree with, and can improve); and be able to process 9or ignore) 'bad' criticism - ir someone who just hates an aspect of something; and can't get past sais aspect; bit in the long run, there's really nothing wrong objectively; the person reviewing just hates/can't get past it.
As for ignoring the 'technical aspects'; that's unfair in that, if you KNOW something can happen that will completely TRIBBLE up the experience for players on a consistent basis; BECAUSE all the players want to do is complete a mission (and bugs like these either outright prevent compleion, or greatly detract from the experience); then it's up to you (or me) as an author to recognize the limitations of the system I'm working in (bugs and all); and tailor and design my content to account for; and minimize these things wherever possible.
If the state of the Foundry improves to that point where you CAN do what you orginally envisioned, go back and redo the encounter at that point, but don't fault a reviewing player because you as an author, who may realize a flaw due to a Foundry bug; refuse to adjust because in your opinion, the bug shouldn't exist in the first place; and it's not your fault if it does and you failed to account for it.
All the above said, IF you're doing something to trick the Foundry; and it works for 90% of the players you play your mission; but (for whatever reason) 10% encounter it; that might be good enough for you overall, but again, you can't fault the player if he/she encountered something that detracted from his experience and he/she either couldn't finish the mission, or found something extremely frustrating due to no fault of his or her own.
In the end, a good author is one who knows the limits of the tool - can vcraete something enjoyable within those limits; and is able to take and process feedback, and know what to accept and what to ignore in this regard to improve their work.
(And hell, I'm going to risk it and pimp my own mission here as it's (I think) two reviews from getting out of the 'Review Content' area and on to the 'Community Authored' section, so if you have th time and would be so kind, give "A Relic's Retrurn" a try )
I remember getting a review mentioning that he didn't like the bridge I used in my mission since it wasn't his. Well, of course that's a technical limitation. Either he or someone else suggested just to use the Ready Room for the mission, since it is the same for all bridges. And that made perfect sense and was a great work-around.
I went a step further and decided that this encounter could or should be conducted in the Brig instead, which I think lead to an even better result.
The critic was based on a limitation I had no control over. But was it unfair? It was still wrong, and it did impede the player's enjoyment (it did actually also impede the author's enjoyment). But in this case, there was a work-around, and someone playing the mission after I changed it did actually comment on how he liked my interiors.
So, overall, the review did something good for the mission. It helped convince me to find a better work-around for the technical limitations of the Foundry and overall improved the experience.
My prediction is already coming true. Now that the kind of criticism levelled at Cryptic since release is being levelled against players' creations, they can't handle it.
If you're going to publish missions in the Foundry for public consumption, I'd spend a couple of hours reading these boards to prepare yourself for what you're about to be in for. Thinking that they're going to go easier on you as a player than they do on Cryptic is naive.
I agree with the overall sentiment of the thread as a reviewer. Let's try to be constructive, people.
Am I lazy? Yes, absolutely. But in the end, Cryptic has to design its UI once. I have to jump through the hoops every time. It's just as with the idea that you explicitly state a mission goal or the planet in Sector Space where your missiion starts from. Sure, every player can search for the information himself, but that means every player has to, instead of just the mission-creator.
In the meantime... I try to be helpful to a particular author whose mission I'm reviewing. If that involves taking the time to P.M. or post in the forum, then I'm happy to do so... because I would appreciate the same thing to be done for me.
It should be a two-way street with each of us trying to be helpful to each other. There is no one else that will do it... just us.
You can always mail the author in game. A couple of the players who've played my mission have done that; (and I've done that for some of the missions I've played and reviewed as well) and it's nice in that I get a better feeling for aspects they really liked, or didn' like. Yes, it's not as easy as typing in the review field, but it's always available as an option.
But since I'm convinced that it will not happen, I was attempting to make a suggestion as to how we, the players, could work around the limitations that will be built into the Foundry's rating/review system.
Thanks again.
Ok... how can I fix the ESD hallways in a mission that takes place on ESD with NPCs and BOFFs?!
If people had to "Fix" or not publish their missions then there wouldn't be a single freakin ground map in the Foundry right now...
Well the thing is... when people fuss about limitations and bugs in the game...they're fussing at the people who have control over the game...the Foundry pathing and bugs...are another thing for people to fuss at Cryptic about, not mission makers. Cryptic employees get paid to make missions, people spending 10+ hours don't get any payment other than a lil fame and joy from a decent review. No need to stomp on them for things Cryptic can control that they can't Especially when the same people come on here and say there's no content in-game and go discourage new content makers with stupid scores/reviews.
~D
Note: Cool option for Cryptic that might be a minor thing to do: Add a link to the mission where you can directly get to the ingame mail system with the author already filled in, and the title of the mission.
Making reviews a subform of the Foundry forums might make sense, too.Though maybe such a forum would end up in flames and hate and hurt feelings?
Same is true in reverse...5 star 1 reviews > 4 star 5 reviews...it's all averages.
There should be some "number of reviews" weighting to sort that out for both cases. Say like 5 reviews...then your score should start counting. AFAIK you could just as easily (right now) review yourself for "5 Stars" to get to the top of the list.
Another addition would be to have a "I Feel Lucky" search that would pull a random selection of non-top 10 or 20, etc. missions for you to peruse.
I think another factor that should go into it is "number of plays" & "number of plays completed" -- because it seems like most ppl are *not* reviewers.
This should factor into "hottest" with an "ageing" of the "last played" date/time.