test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Open Discussion on Submitting for Spotlights
designationxr377
Member Posts: 542 Arc User
I figure with the fact the new spotlighting feature is going live when foundry does again, we should get all our thoughts out and in one place for open discussion as well as for supplying to the Devs feedback. Granted, I'm not sure if we will see the direct agreement we will be signing over yet, but figure we can at least start talking about it in one solid place.
As far as my knowledge the previous spotlight winners have been informed of the new system going live and its major requirement of releasing control. It was also stated to be compulsory (how I read it) in that for our missions to be included in the spotlight list we'd have to choose to accept ourselves from the Mission Editor when foundry goes live.
The biggest concern I have, which is the one that I'd assume is in everyone else's mind, is that of being unable to edit the project after submission.
To start, the reason why they are asking this makes sense to me. They need to have complete control of what they are putting out there as content. This is beyond a little message pop up or a post on the website. This is an in your face button directing someone to a mission they okayed. Although any kind of offense there like suddenly turning your mission winner into a political manifesto or a fan-fic shade's of gray film would no doubt result in a permaban, it happening at all is something Cryptic (and their legal team) can't allow. I understand and I'm cool with that for reasoning.
As far as the implementation my concerns of handing over editing are mainly: upgrading mission features when new ones are available, the fixing of later accumulating bugs via new systems and seasons, and general QA like spell checking or text editing post submission.
Some of these I can see as a hand off if that's what Cryptic is wanting; they take this as official content then go off and populate the Klingon Storymode. They take over all QA, do a spelling once through, deal with any bug fixes themselves once they've gotten it handed over. Buuut, means any upgrading would be out.
Worse, it could just be: "That's it. No work done anymore. By anyone. It's now no one's problem but the players in the mission."
However, if it worked in a way where a previous submission can still be edited, and then when you want that version updated you can re-submit it for another eval before that version goes live... I can see that too. In fact I see that as a best of both worlds. We keep creative control, the publish to live isn't automatic so Cryptic can still monitor it and control it. Everybody wins.
I figure the main reason it is a "Do not get the Option to Edit" is the only system we've worked with has relied on us pressing that publish button. This system has to have a mission log that goes to a separate buffer for QA and whoever to decide what gets up. That's the safety Cryptic needs right there. Sure, no promises how fast our updated version get out and published, but it's something.
(A possible problem to this exists if it's just a list that's looking at missions already published on live. Then it wouldn't be a separate list. If that's the case though, maybe some time to get that kind of a work in for NW and the Future here.)
Other thoughts? Discuss.
One I didn't talk about was a time requirement. Now that we will have the average counter, it could be obvious how long a mission takes and probably something Cryptic will be able to directly consider rather than infer. That being the case, would the longer Nagorak Epic-esk and so on missions be able to apply?
As far as my knowledge the previous spotlight winners have been informed of the new system going live and its major requirement of releasing control. It was also stated to be compulsory (how I read it) in that for our missions to be included in the spotlight list we'd have to choose to accept ourselves from the Mission Editor when foundry goes live.
The biggest concern I have, which is the one that I'd assume is in everyone else's mind, is that of being unable to edit the project after submission.
To start, the reason why they are asking this makes sense to me. They need to have complete control of what they are putting out there as content. This is beyond a little message pop up or a post on the website. This is an in your face button directing someone to a mission they okayed. Although any kind of offense there like suddenly turning your mission winner into a political manifesto or a fan-fic shade's of gray film would no doubt result in a permaban, it happening at all is something Cryptic (and their legal team) can't allow. I understand and I'm cool with that for reasoning.
As far as the implementation my concerns of handing over editing are mainly: upgrading mission features when new ones are available, the fixing of later accumulating bugs via new systems and seasons, and general QA like spell checking or text editing post submission.
Some of these I can see as a hand off if that's what Cryptic is wanting; they take this as official content then go off and populate the Klingon Storymode. They take over all QA, do a spelling once through, deal with any bug fixes themselves once they've gotten it handed over. Buuut, means any upgrading would be out.
Worse, it could just be: "That's it. No work done anymore. By anyone. It's now no one's problem but the players in the mission."
However, if it worked in a way where a previous submission can still be edited, and then when you want that version updated you can re-submit it for another eval before that version goes live... I can see that too. In fact I see that as a best of both worlds. We keep creative control, the publish to live isn't automatic so Cryptic can still monitor it and control it. Everybody wins.
I figure the main reason it is a "Do not get the Option to Edit" is the only system we've worked with has relied on us pressing that publish button. This system has to have a mission log that goes to a separate buffer for QA and whoever to decide what gets up. That's the safety Cryptic needs right there. Sure, no promises how fast our updated version get out and published, but it's something.
(A possible problem to this exists if it's just a list that's looking at missions already published on live. Then it wouldn't be a separate list. If that's the case though, maybe some time to get that kind of a work in for NW and the Future here.)
Other thoughts? Discuss.
One I didn't talk about was a time requirement. Now that we will have the average counter, it could be obvious how long a mission takes and probably something Cryptic will be able to directly consider rather than infer. That being the case, would the longer Nagorak Epic-esk and so on missions be able to apply?
Post edited by designationxr377 on
0
Comments
Yes, I think that's the best way.
I think that instead of a set number of missions you have to play for the daily, it instead counts how long you spend doing Foundry missions. The Daily would complete after, say, half an hour. That way people are more likely to pick a "serious" mission, and still don't have to invest a ton of time on it.
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
Whether a mission gets broken by an update is certainly a concern. Obviously as it stands BranFlakes hasn't been entirely clear. Would like to hear more on the subject.
I tend to agree. There are quite a number of 'epic' missions out there (such as Nagorak's as stated in the OP) which are fantastic, but do not qualify currently for 'spotlighting' due to their length. It would be nice to have the daily credit for Foundry missions based on mission length - say 3 roughly half-hour missions or one 1.5 hour mission. The only trouble is how to avoid exploiting this system (jump into 1.5 hour mission, immediately drop (leaving a one star rating of course :rolleyes:) and collect credit for entire daily).
But back to the OP and address XR377's main concern, honestly I don't think there will be an issue here. If for any of the reasons stated, an author wanted to update their mission, I'm sure Cryptic would be glad to 'unlock' it for them on request - and then review/playtest it before republishing it again. I understand the concern, but I don't think Cryptic will bite the hand that feeds them awesome free content. :P
arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1203368/pve-content-a-list-of-gamewide-polishing-pass-suggestions
The system knows if you've actually completed a mission or not.
Foundry Mission Database
Check out my Foundry missions:
Standalone - The Great Escape - The Galaxy's Fair - Purity I: Of Denial - Return to Oblivion
Untitled Series - Duritanium Man - The Improbable Bulk - Commander Rihan
My character Tsin'xing
Well if it worked so that the previous version remained online as a spotlight until the new version passed the test... then it'd be perfect.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Writers are, by and large, obsessive editors and will NEVER be done with something if they don't have to be. Cryptic also don't have the manpower available to constantly replay these missions every time an author decides "This guy would be better standing a meter and a half this way." Live with it.
Now, missions that break are another matter. Hopefully these missions will be specifically checked as Foundry updates happen. They might also allow a grace period when truly major changes are made that radically effect the way such missions work but even then, the author should (simply out of practicality) expect to have to inform the publisher (Cryptic) of the issue or need to modify and approve it.
Keep in mind that the Foundry is pretty low-priority as things go in STO. I think it should be otherwise, but it is what it is. Any system that allows for altering already spotlighted missions would, by necessity, need to be highly limited to special circumstances.
If this isn't acceptable to you, if a mission is really needing something that isn't available in the Foundry yet--Don't Submit it.
As XR-377 deduced, one of the primary reasons for not permitting editing after submitting a mission for featuring is to allow us to control and approve the content that gets spotlighted (i.e. because we're driving players to play it). This is an automatic process once you hit the button, so it will be important that once you do hit it, it's after you've made any final changes/ spelling corrections/ updates, etc., as you won't be able to edit the mission again.
I completely understand the notion that as an author/ artist, "you're never done" -- I would personally want to tweak my mission all the time and make updates. At this time though, bring the first implementation of the system, the mission won't be able to be edited. I'm not saying that this will not change, or it will change, but we're definitely watching for feedback and will take it into consideration for future updates.
While this is a valid concern, we're not anticipating missions breaking. If there is something that creeps up, we can look at this on a case-by-case basis. All spotlight authors basically have direct access to reaching out to me via the ticket/ email I originally sent to you about being featured. Just reply to the ticket/ email and I'll get it and can investigate
I'm fairly certain that this button only works up until the time the mission becomes featured. If you submit a mission, but it's not featured yet, you can remove it with this button. So, once we put it up as a spotlight mission, that button becomes disabled.
Side-note: In case you were all wondering, Spotlighted missions still show the original author's name, authors will continue to get Dilithium tips that are submitted during the review stage, and players will still be able to find your mission through normal searches.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
"Critics who say that the optimistic utopia Star Trek depicted is now outmoded forget the cultural context that gave birth to it: Star Trek was not a manifestation of optimism when optimism was easy. Star Trek declared a hope for a future that nobody stuck in the present could believe in. For all our struggles today, we haven’t outgrown the need for stories like Star Trek. We need tales of optimism, of heroes, of courage and goodness now as much as we’ve ever needed them."
-Thomas Marrone
I want to make sure not to get your hopes up -- that's why I mentioned "...I'm not saying that this will not change, or it will change..." above. But, never say "never" in a MMO
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
As is, I can understand that with some missions there is a nice point where things even off and you don't need to go back. Granted, some I will hold back from submitting because I feel there are features that could make it better, but that isn't all of my missions. So, chances are you'll see my already spotlighted mission on the list.
The one thing that still worries me is the spell checking, but, that may be a personal issue. One of my fleets in jokes is poking fun at my horrific spelling at times in game and remarking about their disbelief I put out what missions I do. I've always had issues with spelling and grammar (read as "grammer") in English so it's part of my internal struggles. I'll be flat out and say it, if I submit a mission for spotlighting and loose that control, and see one of my spelling errors I missed (and they will always be there) it's going to stick out in my mind like a cut diamond inside my shoe.
Unfortunately, with the current setting that is something I will have to live with. But I will remark now some kind of way to clear that up a little better for something Cryptic is saying is alongside their content would be beneficial to both parties. Don't know how to make that happen, cause I really believe a Cryptic QA team sweeping through it once to edit themselves for a single "thier" is a bit of an outlandish expectation. Still, it's a concern I'd like to voice.
Every author gets a low rating for a miss spelled word. If Cryptic backs something officially with a few in there, you'll have some crazy ragers blaming you as well as us.
Lol, the problem is that the breaking is UNanticipated... but I suspect you know that. Anyway I'm satisfied, you're very good about looking into stuff for us so I think if we notice a problem with a spotlighted mission you'll help us get it resolved. Thanks for clarifying.
Click here for my Foundry tutorial on Creating A Custom Interior Map.
Foundry Mission Database
Check out my Foundry missions:
Standalone - The Great Escape - The Galaxy's Fair - Purity I: Of Denial - Return to Oblivion
Untitled Series - Duritanium Man - The Improbable Bulk - Commander Rihan
I believe they are one in the same -- hitting the button will explain more + provide any additional requirements that need to be agreed to (e.g. won't be able to edit going forward, etc.).
I look for outstanding, community recommended missions. I personally play through them and choose those that get spotlighted. Winning missions of my Foundry Challenges also make the spotlight.
I think the "submit" button is being taken two ways: 1) Community recommends, I play through and agree, I reach out to the author, and author submits it to us for featuring; and 2) A player would like to recommend themselves and hit the button to send it to me.
I'm sure I won't be able to have the time to play through every mission that is submitted using "way 2," but I will try my best. I'm planning on continuing to use the "community recommended missions" method ("way 1"), but I have no doubt that outstanding missions can also be found through "way 2", even if the community has not played it yet.
As for length, that's a tough one. Most past spotlights have been at least 15-20 minutes, but not more than an hour or so -- it has kinda just worked out that way so far, but that doesn't mean a longer mission couldn't be spotlighted.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
Make foundry missions have a look of being smooth and polished and then maybe they wouldn't make my eyes bleed out from trying to play one. To be honest though the only people who can really enjoy these are people that can accept what they are and do a lot of fan fiction writing and reading because if you aren't into that these aren't worth really bothering to do.
But, since the re-opening of Foundry play today, problems have cropped up. In my mission "Orion Trilogy, part 3: Rebellion" for example, NPCs (including contacts) suddenly disappear partway through the first level, making the mission uncompletable. This didn't happen in S6. A thread in these forums indicates that at least one other Foundry author has had this happen to his mission as well.
What really sucks is that there's nothing I can do about it for at least another week (since I can't edit or unpublish the mission). Anyone who plays my mission for the next week is going to think it's poorly authored, and rate it accordingly.
So, I think you guys a.) need to review your assumption that season updates won't break missions, and b.) give Foundry authors some way to unpublish/disable their missions until the editor goes live again and we can fix the bugs that S7 created in our missions.
Please.
It could just need a simple y value tweak or something. But without the ability to edit and fix the issues caused by each season update, I'd have to wait in a "let me fix my mission!" queue.
Let's see how many of us are missing vital npcs before we freak out.
If what you say is true, I bet this has something to do with the new ability to despawn enemies and NPCs. Before they couldn't be hidden, so they were never hidden. Now they are hidden automatically by the engine at a certain distance.
Click here for my Foundry tutorial on Creating A Custom Interior Map.
At this point, I'd almost like to ask Cryptic to just leave the Foundry alone. They aren't adding anything to it, beyond a few minor things here and there. Mostly, they mess up what is working.
Awoken Dead
Now shaddup about the queues, it's a BUG
As I previously mentioned in this thread, if an author reports that there is an issue with their spotlighted mission, we'll look at it on a "case-by-case" basis. I'll be managing the in-game spotlighted missions list, so I'm inclined not to leave a mission up that can not be completed
Yes -- we hope to have it back up next week, and then reviewing after that.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
I passed the info along yesterday, but we're out for the holiday. We'll begin investigating as soon as we are back in the office.
Cheers,
Brandon =/\=
I would assume that once they find the bug on the back end and push a fix, the problem will be solved for all missions. But yeah, holiday...
The NPC problem existed before Season 7. It was pretty uncommon but it did crop up now and again; especially on the more complicated maps. The frequency is just much higher now.
The ability to set patrol routes is a real boon though so I am content enough on that score to give it a chance. Foundry still needs a lot of attention but this is a good step forward.
I'm curious to know whether I as a foundry player would see more 3 part missions or trilogy collections that both offer a decent mission or story arc while still satisfying the new officer reports daily criteria.
I appreciate the work people put into foundry content (it's the only worthwhile end game content as far as I'm concerned) but on some days I would be happy to just play a single mission in 3 parts that last 50 mins or so.
As it stands we have plenty of single missions, lots of series missions and stories that seem to be anything from 2 parts to 6.
This isn't a request, just curious to know if anyone has plans to do things that take advantage of the new daily criteria really.
I think you might see more of this.
I have made a three-part KDF series (see my sig), which can be played in any order. Unfortunately right now one of them doesn't qualify. Quite annoying, it may be that the people playing it have averaged it in under 20 minutes, might have to add a map or something to slow it down slightly.
Obviously my 5-part "Dissent" series would qualify, though I do hope people play the last two. And I do plan to add a two-part sequel to my Mirror Universe mission "Over There," so that would be one that would work.
And thank you coupaholic, you are the kind of person we make these missions for.
Didn't they take this out of tribble because it wasn't ready?