A new interface would work wonders I think.

captainhunter1 · December 2013

I was a little disheartened by the "Why bother to make new Foundry missions" thread - because much of what was said is true. I really liked that folks turned it around and offered solutions to the problem and did some brainstorming myself to find a way to make it so all Authors and all Missions have a fair shake at seeing play.

What I came up with was a new interface incorporating ideas that have been suggested on this very Forum.

You can find it in the "Art of Star Trek Online" section, here: http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=943411

Let me know what you think.

drogyn1701 · December 2013

I'm very impressed. Filtering results before a mission list appears is something I definitely think we need.

Also I like that you had fun with it

this is all supposed to be fun after all!

zorbane · December 2013

Very nice

I had a similar idea for the "find random mission where you are" thing.

Instead of having it be at specific Star Systems (because really how many people are going to fly to a random star) it should be a "Hail" option in Sector space, not unlike how it works in the Tau Dewa Sector Block. You'd talk to this guy and he'll give you a set of missions that start in that Sector.

It will copy a lot of tech from Neverwinter to minimize the amount of new work needed. The only "new" thing would be figuring out what missions start in a specific Sector Block.

This is how it looks when you talk to a Harper Agent in NW - http://i.imgur.com/DgcE8Hs.png

nagorak · December 2013

I agree wholeheartedly with these suggestions. In my opinion this should be the highest priority for the Foundry. Forget all other changes/additions/fixes, this should be #1 on the list.

And I really feel that something like this needs to be done soon. In its current state the Foundry is currently dying. If things continue as they are the damage will eventually be irreparable.

labtinnion · December 2013

What a great set of ideas, a simple solution for a complex set of problems. One of the drawbacks of the Foundry from a story perspective has always been the question of "Why would they call me for this?" In other words, why would I be getting an emergency hail for immediate help from a sector on the other end of explored space--especially if something like ESD is between me and the location I have to get to in order to help. A simple DISTRESS CALL in the sector I happen to be passing through makes much more sense for RP immersion.

wombat140 · December 2013

This is a BRILLIANT plan. I've been vaguely trying to think about how some of these things could work, hadn't even thought of others, but you've done them all together in one neat, achievable-looking and rather snazzy parcel.

I have to disagree with Zorbane about the likelihood of flying to random star systems - no, I don't visit them deliberately, but I pass close enough to one for a message to appear usually several times a flight, and that's all you need. Also, the only reason nobody visits those systems is that nothing's there - once people realised (there's the catch, of course) that there now WAS likely to be something in random star systems, they'd stop. All the same, having a sector-wide "hail" as well does sound a good idea.

zorbane · December 2013

wombat140 wrote: »

This is a BRILLIANT plan. I've been vaguely trying to think about how some of these things could work, hadn't even thought of others, but you've done them all together in one neat, achievable-looking and rather snazzy parcel.

I have to disagree with Zorbane about the likelihood of flying to random star systems - no, I don't visit them deliberately, but I pass close enough to one for a message to appear usually several times a flight, and that's all you need. Also, the only reason nobody visits those systems is that nothing's there - once people realised (there's the catch, of course) that there now WAS likely to be something in random star systems, they'd stop. All the same, having a sector-wide "hail" as well does sound a good idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgk-lA12FBk

captainhunter1 · December 2013

wombat140 wrote: »

I have to disagree with Zorbane about the likelihood of flying to random star systems - no, I don't visit them deliberately, but I pass close enough to one for a message to appear usually several times a flight, and that's all you need. Also, the only reason nobody visits those systems is that nothing's there - once people realised (there's the catch, of course) that there now WAS likely to be something in random star systems, they'd stop. All the same, having a sector-wide "hail" as well does sound a good idea.

Why not have both?

After all, this is about opening up Foundry content in as many ways as possible.

wombat140 · December 2013

I agree. Would that work code-wise? I hope so. (It even makes in-character sense, too. You might be just passing a system and stumble on something, or you might radio the nearest base for new orders and hear about it that way.)

It would be good too if the Exploration Zones (Delta Volanis and so on) could have their share of Foundry missions under this system, alongside the usual random and rapidly boring "Explore Unknown System" missions. That was actually suggested by the development team a while ago, causing great excitement, but doesn't seem to have come to pass.

zorbane · December 2013

wombat140 wrote: »

I agree. Would that work code-wise? ...

I think it would share a lot of code which is nice. Just the filter that brings up the list or random selection of missions would be different (Missions in System vs Missions Sector Block)

kirksplat · December 2013

I really support this set-up. It has everything we need for common sense and functional UI that benefits authors and players.

lincolninspace · December 2013

It does look good so far. I cannot foresee any big hazards to the idea. I would add the idea of a daily spotlight in the story and combat menu's that would change every day and give different missions exposure.

captainhunter1 · December 2013

I've been doing some more thinking about the new interface, and about some nagging questions I had about it when I was throwing it together. I'm hoping for some ideas which will put those questions to rest.

First, I think the interface will solve a number of major problems (no more 'weighting' system will be needed, missions will be way easier to find by type, new missions will get lots of exposure, we will be able to browse through more than 50 missions, the 'search' menu will no longer be hidden to the average player, etc.), but...

And this is something that has been brought up before....how do the missions fall into the major categories?

The "Spotlight" and "New" categories are easy as they are straight forward and use the existing system.

The problem that was nagging me as I put up the "Story" and "Combat" categories is how missions will fall/be tagged in these areas. I think these two have to be exclusive, otherwise what's the point of having two separate categories? If they aren't exclusive, for example, Bobo will still end up on the Story side because thousands of players will tick the 'story' box when they finish, because it does have some story. Whereas a story mission like "Worst of All Worlds" could end up on the Combat list, because it has heavy amounts of combat.

I think authors should initially get a say as to what category the mission will be listed under once it comes out of the review process. However, that should be overridden by player feedback if for some reason it is wrong (like, say the author to Bobo really thought he was making a story mission).

The tricky part here is how to work this.

Does the Author get one vote for the category he wants the mission in? Meaning it only takes two players to mark it as the other category to have it end up there? Does he get 50 votes, meaning it could stay on the 'wrong' list for some time (if the author intentionally tries to 'grief' the system). Should a mission be placed in a category by a simple majority of votes? (25 people tag it as a Story mission, 26 people tag it as a Combat mission - it's now on the Combat mission list). Should it be a 2/3 majority? 3/4? Should the Author get full say in which category it will be listed under? - only using the "Report" function to have Cryptic step in and change it (I can see this going very badly). Or what?

And how do we start the process? Right now all missions are a blank slate when it comes to Story or Combat categories. Giving authors the ability to at least start the category they wish their missions will be listed in will help - but what about those missions where the author no longer plays the game? Should the 'default' category be Story?

Honestly this would be easy if we had a human being go through each mission in the game and categorize them - but that isn't going to happen.

So what do you think? I know there are a lot smarter people out there than I am - I've seen your work!

What ideas can you think of that will avoid the problems above? Remember, the solutions should be simple and work as part of an automated system in order for our talented Cryptic team to implement them.

nagorak · December 2013

I would have the author get five votes and then have it be majority vote. That way if it's tagged wrong, by the time it gets through review it should be fixed. I also think the category tagging for combat vs story should be mutually exclusive. You choose whichever fits better, not both.

pendra8080 · December 2013

The combat, story tagging is not a good solution because most missions contain both elements. So it is not a digital measure. The question is the quantity. So these should be rated instead. One rate for combat, one for story with this scale: None, Minimal, Ok, Heavy, Extreme

And then, you can order by the star rating. You can find high combat missions with pretty good story. Why would you exclude those from story missions?

Since the system can measure zone times and all, why not count the time spent in Red alert during the mission? Say the average playtime is 40 mins and the average red alert time is 10 mins. So the mission is a story mission with some combat.

starswordc · December 2013

It's really a question of the raison d'etre of the mission. To wit, is the author using violence as a storytelling element (most story missions), or using a story as an excuse for violence (Bobo)?

thegalaxy31 · December 2013

I would like it too, but refer to Posts #21 and #23 on that thread.

strugler2k · December 2013

kirksplat wrote: »

I really support this set-up. It has everything we need for common sense and functional UI that benefits authors and players.

Me too! and i am a new player

captainhunter1 · December 2013

nagorak wrote: »

I also think the category tagging for combat vs story should be mutually exclusive. You choose whichever fits better, not both.

I too am thinking that this would be the only way to truly tag a mission one way or the other. If you click on one in the review box, the other one grays out.

Has anyone used this new system on Tribble?

From what I can see on the live server, it looks like people can tick as many or as few boxes as they like after finishing a mission. This means they could tag a mission as both story and combat.

About the only way for the new interface to be effective would be to have the 'story' and 'combat' review boxes work as the quote and first sentence above (mutually exclusive to each other).

Unknown · December 2013

This content has been removed.

kirksplat · December 2013

It takes 10 clicks to custom search for a story mission:

Click journal, click Foundry, click browse all, click arrow, click type, click custom, click all, click story, click outside of tags to access search, click search.

10 clicks!

New UI would do wonders? Absolutely.

thedukeofrock · December 2013

Yep, and with that system, 95% will just look at
the spotlights or the top 50, still clogged up with the farm BS.

Great way to devise an easy system for folks to use.....Not!!!

And again, any new authors are screwed with the "wonderful" new rating system
making them flipping invisible till eternity!

BRING BACK THE OLD RATING SYSTEM AND
SEPERATE THE FRIKKING FARM CRUD PLEASE!!!!

zorbane · December 2013

capthunter1 and my idea of having the player being provided missions to play by either flying to a star or clicking on a button in Sector space would work better in getting players to play a larger variety of missions. Instead of the player having to reach out and find them, the missions would be served on a plate for the player to play.

When I'm bored and free enough, I might do something like what capthunter1 did and write some nice pretty proposal

bazag · December 2013

We definately need some version of Neverwinter's Harpers.

nagorak · December 2013

zorbane wrote: »

capthunter1 and my idea of having the player being provided missions to play by either flying to a star or clicking on a button in Sector space would work better in getting players to play a larger variety of missions. Instead of the player having to reach out and find them, the missions would be served on a plate for the player to play.

When I'm bored and free enough, I might do something like what capthunter1 did and write some nice pretty proposal

I honestly think that we need both. I believe something like this was even suggested back at the Foundry's Skype conference call, however long ago that was.

At this point the ball is really in Cryptic's court. They can either do something or not, but if they do nothing then I have doubts about the long term viability of the Foundry.

kirksplat · December 2013

nagorak wrote: »

They can either do something or not, but if they do nothing then I have doubts about the long term viability of the Foundry.

I have my doubts about the short term.

Unknown · December 2013

This content has been removed.

drogyn1701 · December 2013

Without actually being on the team and seeing the inner workings of Cryptic's system, even those few of us who actually know UI design and programming (which does not include yours truly) could not give you a time estimate to make a change like this.

lincolninspace · December 2013

They have made changes to the interface relatively quickly in the past. I remember it being said the mission journal as a whole was due for an overhaul, so I would not expect any changes until then.

ashkrik23 · December 2013

lincolninspace wrote: »

They have made changes to the interface relatively quickly in the past. I remember it being said the mission journal as a whole was due for an overhaul, so I would not expect any changes until then.

When did they say that?

thegreendragoon1 · December 2013

drogyn1701 wrote: »

Without actually being on the team and seeing the inner workings of Cryptic's system, even those few of us who actually know UI design and programming (which does not include yours truly) could not give you a time estimate to make a change like this.

This isn't something that could be done in someones spare time. It would need to be an actual scheduled feature. In fairness though, if that did take this on, it would be apart of a larger misson journal overhaul. In the entire mission journal is in need of an overhaul, not just the foundry tab. (Does any one even bother to look at the Available tab?)

The plus side to this is that if they do opt to redesign the mission journal, it's an opportunity for the team to look at Foundry mission integration with the whole game.

A new interface would work wonders I think.

Comments