STOked 37: What You want in a UGC Engine

[Archived Post]

STOked Episode 37: We asked you what you want to see in version 1.0 of a User Generated Content Engine for Star Trek Online, and you told us! We read your ideas on the show.

Plus! We show you some of the high-lights from our recent live STO gaming session this passed weekend!

Season 1.2 released — here are some things they “slipped in”

Don’t buy PC Gamer for the STO Trial!

And more

Watch it HERE
(http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/?p=2055)

:disclaimer: I have nothing to do with STOked or Jupiter broadcasting, I'm just one small person who is a big fan, and who enjoys bring information to the forums. So please don't send me anyone mail, videos, or gifts. instead follow the link above, and send it to them.
but a gift would be nice it gets lonely in this small world as a small person ):

ENJOY :)

[Archived Post]

I really enjoy STOKED and look forward to it each week. Regrettibly, half of this episode is the new 'tactical view' segment, and this week they feature not one but two different walkthroughs (one live, one described). I don't think this segment should be featured. My reasoning is either;

A) You've been through the content already, or

B) You haven't seen the mission yet and don't want spoilers.

Chris... Jeremy... please reconsider the inclusion of Tactical View. Or at the very least, please preface it by saying 'skip to XX minute' if you don't want to see what's coming.

[Archived Post]

Chris... Jeremy... please reconsider the inclusion of Tactical View. Or at the very least, please preface it by saying 'skip to XX minute' if you don't want to see what's coming.

I agree their needs to be a skip to XX minute pop up.

I do enjoy watching older missions ( I'm just weird like that ) but I hate spoilers.

[Archived Post]

Tactical View at the STFs would be nice! The other Stuff is not really interesting.

I hope in the next Episode they talk more about the 1.2 Update, new Mathed and so on.

[Archived Post]

I'm surprised they didn't mention [tags] for UGC by both players and authors (similar to LittleBigPlanet)

For example:
[farm] to warn of a farming mission.
[TNG] could denote The NExt Generation era.
[Time] could mean time travel.
[Q] could mean - well, you know what it means.
[Part 1 of 2] could demonstrate part of a story arc.


Have an accolade to [tag] missions. This would encourage people to check content out and judge it based on its own merits.

[Archived Post]

Again, thanks Zodi for the heads up.

[Archived Post]

I really enjoy STOKED and look forward to it each week. Regrettibly, half of this episode is the new 'tactical view' segment, and this week they feature not one but two different walkthroughs (one live, one described). I don't think this segment should be featured. My reasoning is either;

A) You've been through the content already, or

B) You haven't seen the mission yet and don't want spoilers.

Chris... Jeremy... please reconsider the inclusion of Tactical View. Or at the very least, please preface it by saying 'skip to XX minute' if you don't want to see what's coming.

I agree. If they want to keep it in the show, try to stick to one per episode. I found myself simply skipping through half of this weeks episode, and was pretty disappointed when they never really discussed 1.2 other than mentioning that they were doing the first Tactical view mission using the Squad system.

Some great suggestions for UGC content though. I think Darren's suggestion above is awesome as well.

[Archived Post]

i know the guys at stoked have received some criticism about reviewing missions, i'm quite happy for them to be doing so.

this weeks tactical review may as well not have been included, it lacked any real details, so no it didn't spoil things, but it was just blah blah blah, you can't follow this.....so it was a total waste of time in the episode at all

ugc content summary was good, helping give feedback to the players. it can be hard to keep up with posts on the forum regarding 'hot' matters especially when you log in a day later and see another 20 pages of responses, so that was good what you guys did.

clipping on mic's is bad. :p

looking forwards to seeing reviews on future game development. gg guys.

[Archived Post]

This is what the UGC designer will look like

Location type: Rocky, Sandy, Cave, Memory-Alpha-Inside, Klingon inside, Federation Inside
Mishun Text: blah blah blah
Mishun Type: Kill, Scan
if Kill:
What to kill:
# Mobs: 1-10
Type: Klingon, Feg, Orion, Cardassian, Ferengi, Romulan etc...
# Bosses: 1-10
Type: same as above

If scan:
What to scan:
# Of scannable things: 1-10
Type: Physical, Energy, etc etc

Reward (Auto Generated)

I'll be crap like that.

[Archived Post]

I'll be crap like that.

You'll be crap like that? :confused:

[Archived Post]

The Episodes are as intresting as what goes on with the game.

nothing happening in STO, nothing worthwhile to report for STOked.

easy as that

...
It was mildly entertaining though, if you do something like that again (if nothing in STO is going on) bring the thin 80s movies guy from the left back, he has good skills in talking funy crap and loves bashing on the game.

[Archived Post]

I found the idea of the teired system interesting but it begs the question:

If the "good stuff" is all at Quarks bar as part of the 3rd Tier, top shelf stuff, why would anyone bother going to Memory Core Alpha to do the "crap?" Do they really think that there won't be enough content at Quarks to keep people interested and we'll have to go to the "crap" to have stuff?

A tier system just means that unless you're in the top teir no one sees your content.

Also, the idea of using this to fill otu content for the Klingons runs counter to the idea of "no rewards/ limited rewards" for UGC. We'll see a lot of stuff tied to 'farming' if you can get XP on it as a Klingon.

[Archived Post]

I'm surprised they didn't mention [tags] for UGC by both players and authors (similar to LittleBigPlanet)

For example:
[farm] to warn of a farming mission.
[TNG] could denote The NExt Generation era.
[Time] could mean time travel.
[Q] could mean - well, you know what it means.
[Part 1 of 2] could demonstrate part of a story arc.


The problem with tags is quantity and meaning. For example, [Time] and [TNG] in your list overlap a touch and TNG indicates a need for TOS, DS9, etc. The UGC Features (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=159672) thread has a new suggestion for handling "personal" preferences, but ideally there would be Google-like search features on the web so you could, for example, get a list of all "Q" missions and the players ratings too.

I found the idea of the teired system interesting ... We'll see a lot of stuff tied to 'farming' if you can get XP on it as a Klingon.
I don't like the tiered-system as it sounded as if all UGC would always be restricted to the holosuites. I'd love to see UGC in-game (with heavy filtering to separate the wheat from chaff :D) as well as in the Holosuites (for those great Westerns with Sheriff Worf). I'd also like to see no possibility of "farming", but still have "reduced" rewards and XP from player generated missions (that is they're handed out by the system, not the designer). Based on what's in the UGC Features thread I think this is possible.

[Archived Post]

I found the idea of the teired system interesting but it begs the question:

If the "good stuff" is all at Quarks bar as part of the 3rd Tier, top shelf stuff, why would anyone bother going to Memory Core Alpha to do the "crap?"


NO NO NO... NOT crap!
"New untested Stuff", to go where NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE ...and VOTE on it = Memory Alpha.
Hall of Fame, Best of, 1000+ positive Votes = Quarks

[Archived Post]

NO NO NO... NOT crap!
"New untested Stuff", to go where NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE ...and VOTE on it = Memory Alpha.
Hall of Fame, Best of, 1000+ positive Votes = Quarks

And again, how woudl it get into the hall of fame if it's at the place where the "crap" is?

Or once they have 10 good missions in the Hall of Fame, how do you get more when the majority of people go Quarks rather than go test the 'crap'? Why would people do that in the numbers required to get stuff up into the Hall of Fame?

THat kind of system is going to go this way:

A bunch of stuff will be released.
The best of it will end up in the hall of fame.
Then anything in the hall of fame will rack up reviews to solidify it there, getting 3-10 times as many reviews as anything still in "testing".

And the entire "game" of creating UGC will be over because nothing newly released will be able to get the nessecary votes to get up into that Hall of Fame tier if it misses out on that first tier.

And before you call me alarmist I already played this game with NWN. I was lucky enough to get out in the front wave and released (I flatter myself to think) a kickbutt moduale. It was very well played and reviewed and quickly got in the top 10. Where it stayed. 6 months later much better modules came out that used new tools they released but my mod still remained on teh "top 10 list" simply because the algorithm rated it the best. It had a ton of downloads and a really good number of positive ratings. Even after the ratings started to drop, the sheer number of plays with the early high ratings (when that was the standard), kept my average high.

There were a ton of new mods that came out that had to fight 4 times as hard as I did to get where I was because the momentum of a solid early release catapulted me to the top ahead of them.

I do ~NOT~ want to see that again.

[Archived Post]

I do ~NOT~ want to see that again.

Then propose an alternative. (If you haven't already - sorry, haven't had a chance to read the entire UGC thread.)

[Archived Post]

I dont mean to troll this thread or bash anyones ideas, but I dont support this whole ugc thing myself.
Just posting my vote on it.

Ill leave it at that and see my way out as to not upset nor argue with anyone who is for this proposition.

[Archived Post]

Then propose an alternative. (If you haven't already - sorry, haven't had a chance to read the entire UGC thread.)

No problems.

The biggest thing is that an automated review system simply favors the first out of the gate, and the ones who can game it the best. It has nothing to do with quality. How well would the real publishing industry work if it published the first 30 manuscripts it got each year, or it only reprinted books that had been bought a certain number of times. Like everyone's novel gets 30 free copies and if those don't sell out within 24 hours, no more books for that title EVER.

It'd suck wouldn't it?

I had a lot of ideas so here's a few recaps:

1) One idea was to create a model similar to the publishing industry. IF you want to make a custom mission you have to "sell it" to someone, either a Cryptic Staffer hired to manage these, or perhaps a group of "hired volunteers" to do that. Only approved stories even get to the point where the board actually plays them to checks them for content. Rather than having everyone make missions you limit to those people who can actually make good ones. This takes out the need for a rating system because every holodeck mission will be a quality mission. The downside is that it will be very frustrating to people not used to rejection.

But hey, we're nerds, aren't we used to rejection? Or am I the only one who tried to get a date in High School?

2) Actually hire people to generate the content first. Not hire hire, but as above, "Hire Volunteers". If you want to make missions, send a resume, hours you can work per week, and some sample writing in the Trek Verse. If they like what they see, here's a toolset. Again, it cuts down wildly on the 'crap' but it limits what goes out to the masses.

3) Forget a rating system at all. Rely on word of mouth, content tags, and perhaps comments. But the problem here is that if we can sort by "times played" then it again becomes a case of "as long as you get it out first you win" because people will play the most 'popular' even if it's crap.

4) Forget mission writing as the ONLY way to do UGC:
4A) Open the UI for modding. I'd love to see people try different ways of organizing the interface. The Mod community of ******** is freaking huge and there's a lot of investment in setting up the look of your screen not just where you want everything but with the kind of feedback you want as well.

4B) Custom Starbases and Head Quarters. You can get a lot of investment out of people when they have space to develop and use for their own. When someone can create a space and share it with others you've got that UGC but not with the need for it to be another mission to fly through like all the rest.

Lastly I see the following as really key bullet points in all this:

I. If people are making missions as UGC then they ~should~ regardless of the system have a way to make them to share with friends and play within their fleets provided that there are no rewards asside from the mission itself. This would help allow custom missions to be a means for Fleet RP and Story Building but not open it to abulse.

II. If the goal of UGC is to fill in the 'content gaps' in the game, then it is going to need to have rewards attached and attaching rewards practically garuntees that it will be abused to powerlevel. THis itself isn't a bad thing but look at what happened in the early days of UGC in COX. No one did anything but powerlevel in the Mission Architect and then sit and complain there wasn't enough content at the level cap.

When someone says "this is a way to get content for Klingons!" it says to me that they see UGC as a way to PVE level a Klingon and that says to me "Danger!"

III. I feel the goal of any UGC should be to create a personal buy-in from the player. Another hook to keep them logging in. As such it does not need to be Custom Missions. There are lots of other ways to let a player feel that they've got somethign going that needs tending and work. Things like the Guild Group effort to build a 1st Rate Ship of the Line in Pirates of the Burning Sea and similar massive superships in EVE do just that. I want to log in to contribute to my fleet's effort to build something grand, and I want to go on missinos with it to see the fruit of my labors in battle.

My personal take is that too many people assume that all the pitfalls of Custom Missions in COX will be solved and that even if a system can "kind of" be gamed it will be minor. I'd much rather see the developers find a way to create good and engaging general content than to open the tools up for us to use.

Top of my List?

Branching Stories in a given Mission. Just giving me the option 3 times to chose between 2 outcomes (for a total of 8 different resolutions) will not only make the missions more interesting than they are now, but it will also create incentives for me to replay the content with a different character or to encourage a team leader to make different choices on a second playthrough.

But taht's me.

I'm cynical and Jaded.

[Archived Post]

You'll be crap like that? :confused:

it'll, rather :P

[Archived Post]

The problem with tags is quantity and meaning. For example, [Time] and [TNG] in your list overlap a touch and TNG indicates a need for TOS, DS9, etc. The UGC Features (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=159672) thread has a new suggestion for handling "personal" preferences, but ideally there would be Google-like search features on the web so you could, for example, get a list of all "Q" missions and the players ratings too.
Let the community tag and the most commun tags (using the dictionary autocomplete) would be assigned.

Having a search-able system would be awesome and [tags] are some of the simplest ways of doing this. If you've played LittleBigPlanet, you might understand just how useful this could be.

[Archived Post]

Storm-Herald's caution about the issues surrounding a "Hall of Fame" seem pretty common-sense, and as far as solutions go the obvious one is that a "hall of fame" concept really isn't needed.

I like most of Storm-Herald's ideas, but would like to add some discussion to them. The "publishing" system where someone is given an "approval step" acts as a roadblock. That could be good to prevent a lot of junky missions, but introduces a dependency on Cryptic personnel which costs them money and us time. It also empowers them to decide what they don't like, for example they might not approve a Klingon Religious Jihad. I think this can be reasonably community-policed with the "personal" rating system described here (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=2736343#post2736343). I can't see doing away with a ranking system and relying on word of mouth though - many of the players never visit the forums nor should they have to.

When "hiring" volunteers I see two issues. First, you may have a burning desire to create missions and not be chosen. Secondly, as a volunteer you might not have the creative freedoms you desire.


4B) Custom Starbases and Head Quarters.
Be still my beating heart! Starbases!! Yes, please! Not as empty husks, but as described in the Starbase thread (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=2712921#post2712921). Now that's new content!


When someone says "this is a way to get content for Klingons!" it says to me that they see UGC as a way to PVE level a Klingon and that says to me "Danger!"
It speaks more of frustration to me that people have no faith Cryptic understands the Klingon heart, religion, honor, or politics (Like KvK where you're randomly assigned a house - needed perhaps for the PvP mechanism, but it's just plain scary in terms of understanding Klingons). I suspect there will be a lot of Klingon missions, mainly as the Klingon culture is so incredibly rich and diverse.

I believe the point of UGC is for both the designers and the players to have more fun, not to screw the game up. For everyone to have fun, there needs to be a good set of tools for the designers, then a great way for the players to find the missions they'll like most, and of course some way to ensure no famers can profit from the system.

Of course, I'm jaded too.

Let the community tag and the most commun tags (using the dictionary autocomplete) would be assigned.

Having a search-able system would be awesome and [tags] are some of the simplest ways of doing this. If you've played LittleBigPlanet, you might understand just how useful this could be.
Tags are good when they're consistent, but you're right - haven't played it so I could be all wet.

[Archived Post]

It speaks more of frustration to me that people have no faith Cryptic understands the Klingon heart, religion, honor, or politics (Like KvK where you're randomly assigned a house - needed perhaps for the PvP mechanism, but it's just plain scary in terms of understanding Klingons). I suspect there will be a lot of Klingon missions, mainly as the Klingon culture is so incredibly rich and diverse.
.



Acutally I have a lot of confidence in Cryptic's writers, I just don't have any faith in their development executives.

Executive: We need to get keep people playing in the Klingon Faction. Those players are quitting in droves and cite "lack of content."
Developer: Well we've this UGC system close to being done but those players won't be able to level up so we still need to get some real content for them done.
Executive: Then just give them full XP for the missions and push it live.
Developer: But it'll be exploited like CoX did. It could sap the main PVE gameplay.
Executive: Nah, just give them something to do.

Two weeks later:

Executive: We have Klingon Players quitting in droves now that they all leveled to the level cap. Put in some way for them to faction swap to Federation.
Developer.....

I was really on board again with UGC until someone said "this will replace the lack of content for Klingons!" and now I'm off again.

When it went live it nuked COX and only after months of work did they finaly tweek it right. So far all of the conversation tells me that STO's UGC will be:

a) Another game breaker as the AE was when it first went live

or

b) Have so few rewards (as the AE does now) that everyone whines that it was pointless to offer.

[Archived Post]

What I suggested to Stoked was this:

UGC should be a subsection of the crafting system titled "Holo-novelist"

Edit: to be less wordy

1 There could be a dedicated room at Memory alpha for creating Holo-novels.

2. You would level your profession as Holo-novelist by mastering the tools required to make a holo-novel So basically making through an detailed tutorial is how you level up to master holonovelist.

3. You will only be able to make public released Novels once you have reached max level as a holo-novelist. However you would be able to create anything you want and invite friends to test it out as often as you like before that.

4. Once you reach max level and have created a holonovel you will then submitt it for testing in the Memory Alpha novel testing Holo-deck as a tier 1 Holo-novel. Users can test and rate the Novels on how fun and interesting they were. Novels that revcieve a few positive votes will move to tier 2

5. Novels that do not make it are returned to the author for thier private collection. they can play these novels and invtie others to play them as well. Or they can decide to sign them off to be placed in a "scrap bin" where people can play them freely or even use them and improve upon them and resubmit them with credit going to the origional author as a contributor.

6. Tier 2 novels will be sold by NPC vendors at a set EC price(this is to ensure that some people do not charge an arm and a leg for content) There could be a peruse fee and if you really enjoyed the novel you can choose to buy it outright for a higher fee.

7. as an incentive to test the free stuff at memory alpha. Free credits could be offered to play tier 2 novels for free for every few novels you test. so a person who essentially tests a lot can play tier 2 novels for free as well. However a free token used on a novel still would count as a sale for the author.

8. The author would get a cut of the tier 2 sales.

Now to add a twist (and prevent someone from becoming independently wealthy), if a holo-novel becomes super popular, for example sells a certain amount of copies, it will mysteriously disappear(stolen) from the NPC's and appear at Quarks bar in the holo-suites. This will prevent the most popular novels from making too much money for users. Having one novel at quarks gives the author free access to any holo-suite and once a player gets, let's say 5 holo-novels at quarks bar. you then have access to a secret cargo compartment in the back of the bar where you can choose from certain special items. At a discounted price of course. And maybe if you get 20 novels there you can obtain a flyable Ferengi ship. This will be something to strive for, for any gifted holo-novelist and encourage quality content. And at the same time allow the novelist the chance to make some EC's but not way too much, but also have access to some awesome special equipment at quarks bar. All decent rewards for all your hard work. Flying around the Ferengi ship will let people know you are one of those that have created a lot content that they have enjoyed.


This plan:

1. helps the crafting system
2. makes UGC a fun and enjoyable endeavor and allows at the very least someone to create holo-novels that they and their friends can play no matter what skill level. or allows the more experienced to excel and create novels that might become stuff of legends.
3. Makes sure that whoever creates UGC knows how to use the system before they are allowed to attempt it for public use. (since leveling your holo-novelist professions is basically mastering the UGC tools and you cannot make a publicly used holo-novel until you are a master holo-novelist)
4. Ensures many levels of quality control for UGC.
5. gives a nice reward system for those that create decent content.
6. ensure that the UGC stays in one place, the Holo-deck, rather then potentially making the universe a tangled mess of missions that may be well crafted but don't seem to fit the time-line. Also would eliminate cryptic having to waste their own manpower to do continuity checks since it is on a holo-deck where you should be able to create anything.

[Archived Post]

And again, how woudl it get into the hall of fame if it's at the place where the "crap" is?

Or once they have 10 good missions in the Hall of Fame, how do you get more when the majority of people go Quarks rather than go test the 'crap'? Why would people do that in the numbers required to get stuff up into the Hall of Fame?

THat kind of system is going to go this way:

A bunch of stuff will be released.
The best of it will end up in the hall of fame.
Then anything in the hall of fame will rack up reviews to solidify it there, getting 3-10 times as many reviews as anything still in "testing".

And the entire "game" of creating UGC will be over because nothing newly released will be able to get the nessecary votes to get up into that Hall of Fame tier if it misses out on that first tier.

And before you call me alarmist I already played this game with NWN. I was lucky enough to get out in the front wave and released (I flatter myself to think) a kickbutt moduale. It was very well played and reviewed and quickly got in the top 10. Where it stayed. 6 months later much better modules came out that used new tools they released but my mod still remained on teh "top 10 list" simply because the algorithm rated it the best. It had a ton of downloads and a really good number of positive ratings. Even after the ratings started to drop, the sheer number of plays with the early high ratings (when that was the standard), kept my average high.

There were a ton of new mods that came out that had to fight 4 times as hard as I did to get where I was because the momentum of a solid early release catapulted me to the top ahead of them.

I do ~NOT~ want to see that again.

Read my reply above. it has the whole post I sent to Stoked on the 3 tier system idea.

The content at quarks will cost you EC to play. the best stuff at quarks wont be free by any means. no Ferengi is going to give anything away for free. 2nd most of new the content wont be just "crap" it will be made by people who have mastered the tools. and know how to at least put together a mission as you have to reach master level holo-novelist in order to post a public mission. So some of that stuff will be decent and also it is free to test. There will always be those who want to try the UGC missions but don't have any EC so they will become testers at Memory alpha to play for free(EC's). a few positive votes will kick it to tier 2 so there is a fast turnaround.

Also there will be a lot of less expensive holo-novels at the star bases or you can upload them to your own holo-deck once ship interiors allows that. The tier two missions will already be tested and approved by others and less expensive.

And who knows maybe there can be some incentive for testing the newly created holo-novels. Like free credits for tier 2 quests. So if you beta test a ton of new novels then you could play a lot of the tier 2 onces for free as well. even though someone uses a free token for a tier 2 novel it still counts as a sale for the author.

there would be a lot more novels in the tier 2 as someone must sell quit a few copies of their novel to get the attention of quarks bar. so most of the novels would be in tier 2. And those also cost credits but are less expensive and if you want to play those for free you need to do some testing to earn credits for tier 2 novels.

[Archived Post]

I have a few suggestions, like Pikoy seems to mention if your holo-novel isn't good enough for tier 2, it mysteriously vanishes. I would like to see it stay there indefinitly, cause playing a bad holo-novel may be like watching a bad movie...fun nonetheless;)

Id also like to use the holodeck on my ship, so maybe if I bought the holo-novel once, it's on my ship's library files until I delete it.

These, of course, are all nitpicks. I'm nitpicking, cause this is such a GREAT idea. I really love the idea of user rated content becoming "official" holo-novels and being able to make money off of them.

And about no one playing "crap" and memory alpha? There's always gonna be testers out there. When I play LBP, I dont just play the best rated worlds...that would get boring eventually.

Recap: Good Idea!:D

[Archived Post]

I have a few suggestions, like Pikoy seems to mention if your holo-novel isn't good enough for tier 2, it mysteriously vanishes. I would like to see it stay there indefinitly, cause playing a bad holo-novel may be like watching a bad movie...fun nonetheless;)

Id also like to use the holodeck on my ship, so maybe if I bought the holo-novel once, it's on my ship's library files until I delete it.

These, of course, are all nitpicks. I'm nitpicking, cause this is such a GREAT idea. I really love the idea of user rated content becoming "official" holo-novels and being able to make money off of them.

And about no one playing "crap" and memory alpha? There's always gonna be testers out there. When I play LBP, I dont just play the best rated worlds...that would get boring eventually.

Recap: Good Idea!:D


I didn't say they would mysteriously vanish. they would remain in the authors database and they would be able to still play them and invite friends to play them as well. But I do like the idea of there being a kinda of "scrap bin" for those who want to try out those novels that were rejected. I myself LOVE MSTK3000.

So I can completely see your point there. and love your idea of keeping them around. Maybe the scrap bins can be used by others to use as a ready made template to rework into a new idea. Maybe the author has a great idea but couldn't figure out how to implement it. so a new person can take it and make it great. the original author's signature can remain on it as well as a contributer.


edit: I added your ideas to my original post. they are very nice.

[Archived Post]

I dont mean to troll this thread or bash anyones ideas, but I dont support this whole ugc thing myself.
Just posting my vote on it.

Ill leave it at that and see my way out as to not upset nor argue with anyone who is for this proposition.

Is there a reason why? I can see no adverse affect to you should it be implemented.
If you don't want to create anything, don't. If you don't want to play any creations, don't. Are either of those a reason to not allow anyone else to do so, or do you have another reason for not liking the idea?

[Archived Post]

I dont mean to troll this thread or bash anyones ideas, but I dont support this whole ugc thing myself.
Just posting my vote on it.

Ill leave it at that and see my way out as to not upset nor argue with anyone who is for this proposition.

Hey, thats cool. When UGC is added you dont have to use it :o

[Archived Post]

I definitely like the idea of holonovels (as soon as I heard the term used I knew it was from you :D), but we part company in regards to restricting UGC to the holosuite. Mainly because I believe this can be done without making the universe a tangled mess of missions or wasting Cryptic's manpower in review.

[Archived Post]

Is there a reason why? I can see no adverse affect to you should it be implemented.
If you don't want to create anything, don't. If you don't want to play any creations, don't. Are either of those a reason to not allow anyone else to do so, or do you have another reason for not liking the idea?

I think these are the reasons:
I've been to every post I can find on the topic, and while there is a lot of nay-saying there's very little in the way of concrete issues. The legal problem is Cryptic's, since they've been talking about doing this I can only assume it's possible rather than impossible.

Just pointing to another system that has failed is like saying one plane fell out of the sky. Assuming from that all future planes are doomed to fall out of the sky isn't worth serious consideration. Just as people can point to one that failed, I can point to NWN, FreeSpace or Fallout to show you were it succeeded. It's far more important to learn why that plane fell out of the sky so future planes don't crash. If Cryptic decides to do this they will, the best we can do is to help guide them away from invisible pitfalls.

From this and other threads we know these major problems:

Tons of junk missions can overwhelm the ability to find good missions
Ranking missions isn't simple as different players represent different factions and have different tastes (e.g., a tribble lover might find it hard to find a mission because the overwhelming number of tribble haters will rank it poorly)
The danger of loopholes that allow exploiters to get undue rewards



I believe the UGC Features thread has workable solutions to all these problems.

[Archived Post]

I definitely like the idea of holonovels (as soon as I heard the term used I knew it was from you :D), but we part company in regards to restricting UGC to the holosuite. Mainly because I believe this can be done without making the universe a tangled mess of missions or wasting Cryptic's manpower in review.

Maybe your right that it would not congest things to much to allow UGC to be actual in game missions. However those missions I feel should be treated like live rattlesnakes. Handled very carefully to make sure they fit into the timeline. that they make sense to what is happening in the rest of the galaxy. and what has happened already as far as any of the major story arcs that has been presented throughout the game or what will happen later in the game if the UGC missions are for lower level areas. :)

Edit: How would you suggest they be handled? and how would you suggest these potential problems be avoided?

[Archived Post]

The biggest thing is that an automated review system simply favors the first out of the gate, and the ones who can game it the best.
Not necessarily. A rating system can also be set up to decay ratings over time. If linked with a decent search engines that includes story categories, genres and a good amount of search and exclude options, you'd have a good system that will still allow new missions to advance to the top.

And my response to your numbered points is:

1) The problem with this is the huge amount of man power it would require on Cryptic's part to screen missions that are submitted by players. Then of course you'll have angry people complaining on the forums that Cryptic plays favorites, etc. There are also legal issues with using volunteers, which is why companies don't use volunteer moderators on their forums any more. The best way to handle this is a ratings system. Let the player base decide if they like your mission or not.

2) Once again, the primary purpose of a UGC system from Cryptic's point of view, is to bring more content into the game without requiring more work on their part. And once again you still have manpower issues, legal issues with volunteers, and the possibility of accusations of Cryptic playing favorites.

3) The problem with "word of mouth" is that it really doesn't work very well. Sure, with a rating system you're going to experience junk. That's just how it is. But it makes it a lot easier for an unknown author who's written a truly great story to get his work recognized.

4A) The Cryptic devs have already said that they're considering this.

4B) Yes, I agree that building our own fleet bases would be a good thing, as long as those bases are also useful and integrated into game play in some way.

Top of my List?

Branching Stories in a given Mission.
I couldn't agree more. In fact I was pretty surprised that Cryptic didn't have this available in game already.

[Archived Post]

Is there a reason why? I can see no adverse affect to you should it be implemented.
If you don't want to create anything, don't. If you don't want to play any creations, don't. Are either of those a reason to not allow anyone else to do so, or do you have another reason for not liking the idea?

They said the same thing in CoX when the AE launched.

And for those of us who didn't wnat to be a part of it, the game died.

And yes, they did ~fix~ it later.

I however have no faith the Devs of STO won't make the same mistakes that the Dev's of CoX did.

[Archived Post]

I'm having a difficult time with

And for those of us who didn't wnat to be a part of it, the game died.



It seems you're being a little cagey, or witholding.
I didn't play COX, so why did the game die for you in relation to UGC? Coyld you not participate, or did you just not want to? If not, why not?
If it's fears over 1000s of crappy UGC creations, there's been lots of suggestions for rankings to weed out the chaff. I still do not see how the UGC can be harmful if it doesn't promote farming maps .
I admit, some of us have lofty ideas concerning UGC that will most probably never see the light of day, but the concept surely is a good one if there's any sort of customisation of missions allowed.

[Archived Post]

It seems you're being a little cagey, or witholding.
I didn't play COX, so why did the game die for you in relation to UGC? Coyld you not participate, or did you just not want to? If not, why not?
.

I'm getting tired of repeating this.

I want to say "Do a search" but here goes:

When AE launched NO ONE played the core game of COX any more. The rewards in the AE were so good that literally EVERYONE on the Virtue server sat in the AE and farmed. If they didn't farm they just ran missions. Why? Because there was no travel time to the mission. It was instant opportunities to kill and get XP.

No one did door missions. No one grouped to street sweep. No one was doing TF's. If it wasn't a AE mission, it didn't happen.

As someone who did not liek farming, and did not like doing CRAP missions written in 10 minutes by a 10 year old I had, literally, nothing to do except solo. And all of my characters were team based characters I had built to support teams so I pretty much couldn't do a thing.

My game was over. It was dead.

Yes, I know they fixed it later. They nerfed the rewards down to nothing. They did what they could to stop the farming. They tried to deal with the accolade farming.

I tried to make missions to particpate as a writer but I wasn't in the front wave and despite really good reviews for having good stories, I never got more than 10 plays on a given mission unless I did nothing but sit and recruit for it, and then deal with a tone of people quitting because it wasn't a farm. I'd get 8 people together and then the second we started 4 would drop with a "wat? not farm?". I also made it clear they weren't farms but hey, why listen?

So yeah, the great Content Saving UGC was nothing but a dissaster to me and by the time they fixed it I was long gone.

IF the goal is to "save" STO by letting users make up their own content, I really DO see them going where COX did, and I DO see it being more damaging than good.

[Archived Post]

PvP missons where the last boss is a player either ground or space same level as them self .

[Archived Post]

However those [UGC] missions ... should be treated like live rattlesnakes. Handled very carefully to make sure they fit into the timeline. that they make sense to what is happening in the rest of the galaxy. and what has happened already as far as any of the major story arcs that has been presented throughout the game or what will happen later in the game if the UGC missions are for lower level areas. :)

Edit: How would you suggest they be handled? and how would you suggest these potential problems be avoided?

So, you couldn't ask about the bits of the UGC Feature thread I'm most proud of (e.g., the Ranking system and mission filter or how its immersive where I could whip out the pretty pictures). No, you have to ask hard questions. Well, you know the old saying, One human's Rattlesnake problem is just lunch for a Klingon. :D

First, what's in the UGC Features list now is that you can only build with era appropriate content. To get other content, you have to check that the mission is a "holonovel" (yes, I used your term, but did give you credit in the acknowledgments and there's a whole post dedicated to you when one poster said, "What the **** are those? :o). So, you won't see anything inappropriate in terms of content for in-game missions while the sky's (& beyond) the limit for holonovels.

Now, you sly old dog, the next part of your question is more insidious as you're asking how do you prevent missions that don't follow the major plot lines (e.g., a designer mission has you release an "Undine" virus guaranteed to wipe them out at lt. Cmdr). The simple answer is you don't. But wait! Before you conclude the Rattlesnake eats the Klingon I would like to point a few things out:

There's really not much in the way of a "major" plot in the timeline now, so not a lot to screw-up really.
If someone did write an "Undine" solution (or similar plot-counter), obviously it didn't work - so the mission was ultimately a failure for some unknown reason to the captain & crew.
Using "Personal" Rankings (first couple of paragraphs in Post #2 of UGC Features), the system would auto-correct to where you would only see missions that fit your tastes. Sure, someone has to play "bad" missions and rank them appropriately to begin with - but only those brave soles that volunteer for the duty (with any luck, designers will see it as their "due", which gives you the folks with the best insight into the process making the initial assessments).
Each mission also has a description, if you see the mission has a plot-breaking storyline you'd probably just pass over it.



A rating system can also be set up to decay ratings over time.
I'm not sure that a ranking "decay" would be worth it for a "hall of fame". I rather eliminate the "hall of fame". Does the "Hall of Fame" really serve any point?

Now, I could see poorly rated missions being automatically dropped over a period of time so that eventually all the "older" missions were 4+ stars only. Which means that except for the most recent content, everything in the game would be "hall of fame" quality.

I'm getting tired of repeating this.
I understand, but also thank you for it. Whether UGC happens or not is outside our control. The best anyone can do is try to illuminate the facts to prevent a fiasco. If it's any consolation, the UGC Features threads had heard that caution and because of it suggests phasing in the UGC where initially there are no rewards of any sort - it asks that rewards come later (retroactively) after all the bugs and potential loopholes people might use to create "farmable" missions have been eliminated. Lots of reasons to rush UGC, but few reasons to rush the reward aspects to UGC.

[Archived Post]

IIF the goal is to "save" STO by letting users make up their own content, I really DO see them going where COX did, and I DO see it being more damaging than good.
And my point is, and always has been, that I want Cryptic to make a UGC system for STO that is like the CoH/V MA, but I want them to learn from the mistakes that the CoH/V devs made so that they won't repeat them.

Is it possible for people to learn from mistakes you know.

[Archived Post]

Is it possible for people to learn from mistakes you know.

Touche`

But will they? IT's a half full vs half empty philosophy. Even setting asside my frustration with the automated rating system or the wonky tickets, the question is whether or not STO feels it can 'afford' to have reward-free UGMisssions or not.

Personally I think the "lesson" from COX is not how to do UGMissions, it's that UGMissions is a very dangerous form of UGC.

But... that's me. I'm just $15/ month.

[Archived Post]

Is it possible for people to learn from mistakes you know.
Touche`

But will they?

That is exactly why we need to band together with a unified voice and why saying "it's bad" isn't as effective as saying "here's what we need to do to be a success".

[Archived Post]

When AE launched NO ONE played the core game of COX any more.

I never had a problem finding teams for TFs/SFs or any other mission content when AE was launched. My SG and Coalition friends never had problems either. Claiming "NO ONE" did anything but AE is an overeggeration and completely false.

[Archived Post]

Wanted to add... I know they said this was the No. 1 request, but IMO any player ranking system - regardless if it is tied to accolades or not - is going to be "gamed" and abused to the point of being meaningless.

[Archived Post]

I never had a problem finding teams for TFs/SFs or any other mission content when AE was launched. My SG and Coalition friends never had problems either. Claiming "NO ONE" did anything but AE is an overeggeration and completely false.

Fine.

I couldn't find anyone to play with because my SG's were barely active, my coalition had more or less broken up and everytime I sat and tried to get a group I got nothing back but "sure, but only if it's an AE farm."

I'm not making this up and frankly I'll thank you guys to stop saying that.

For me, the AE destroyed COX and I did not remain long enough for them to realize the damage done and "fix it". For me, it was a case of either spending an hour begging for a group, doing AE farms, or doing nothing.

So ya, bully for you that you still had an active SG. All of my efforts to find such were met with silence. Go you.

[Archived Post]

i am a die hard disliker of STOked and the people that run it...

with that said though, Zodi, I thik they should make you a prime time member for doing their job of informing people as you do.

kudos to you Zodi. (and Zodi only...lol)

[Archived Post]

Wanted to add... I know they said this was the No. 1 request, but IMO any player ranking system - regardless if it is tied to accolades or not - is going to be "gamed" and abused to the point of being meaningless.

That's one of the "great" things about the "Personal" ranking system, it ignores the rankings of some players - should make it harder to "game". Even better, those that do try to "rig" it, will most likely suffer for it.

[Archived Post]

That is exactly why we need to band together with a unified voice and why saying "it's bad" isn't as effective as saying "here's what we need to do to be a success".

Sadly though I see very few, universally accepted ways that it can be done "successfullly" because success has many many different benchmarks.

If "Success" is to create content for Klingons to PVE their way along, then it MUST have XP rewards. However those XP rewards for missions which were tailored to be as easy as possible are the very reason so many people stopped playing the core PVE game in COX. The solution in COX was to nerf the rewards into nothingness.

Thus, if you don' thave XP rewards, as the COX experience taught me, then it won't be a success for those who want this to be a replacement for lacking Klingon content.

If "Success" is that a lot of people use it, then you'll need some incentive to get people to use it, otherwise it'll just be a side note. This leads back to a reward system, and that reward system will be gamed. Which is unavoidable, but for those who would like to try it to get some rewards but not 'invest' to make themselves on par with the people who can rig the system it will be incredibly frustrating.

If "success" is simply having it available for fleets for RP, then you can push it with nothing but the ability to make fun missions but the result will be people screaming about the waste of developer time on a side show. If it doesn't advance a character, or give drops, then why is it there? Isn't that the point of an MMO?

Now for me the only way for it to be a "Success" is just that. You make it completely reward free, you do not bill it as "content replacement" or "expansion" and simply as a tool for people to have fun. If you want a ranking system, fine, but make it meaningless beyond bragging rights. No "your mission is sent to quarks", no "you're in the hall of fame". Nothing.

Do that and I'll call it a "success".

Granted I'm not just bitter about CoX's AE.

I tried out "The Movies" a few years ago, a game where you made little short films and posted them on the official website. There you got "points" based on how often your movie was watched and what kinds of reviews it got. If you had a 'top rated' movie, you of course got viewed more, and you got more points. These points could then be redeemed for in game items. You could get more costumes, more sets, more camera angles. These were NOT available any other way.

The result was that to get any additional content you had to "cheat". YOu had to make a movie that was 'offensive' so that you'd get waves of views to see how offensive it was. Nothing draws the eyes like "don't call it offensive until you see it." There were movies at the top of the 'popular' chart with a 1 star rating because it was horrible but viewed a lot to verity how horrible it was! I ended up "cheating" and buying a set with the few points I could scrape up and then posting a 'movie' of the various shots in the set so people could see before they bought. It got me a TON of points because, well, everyone wanted to see if it was worth it. My "movie" had a 2 star rating but again, a TON of views.

UGC was the core of this part of the game. It also, in my opinion, was crap.

I really do think that the majority of people clamoring for UGC (MIssions) in STO really don't have experience with those systems and those of us who do are just labeled as nay-sayers and cynics.

I did the UGC going back to NWN and going forward to COX's Mission Architect. I'm not talking out of my bottom here and I still see companies and websites making the same "mistakes" because they're very very hard mistakes to avoid.

And, as I said at the start, because "success"... is not a word we all agree on.

[Archived Post]

I'm not making this up and frankly I'll thank you guys to stop saying that.

Hang on... nowhere did I say you were "making it up", nor am I disagreeing with you in that the AE Farming was rampant when it first launched. I'm only pointing out that your choice of words tend to be over exaggeration rather than fact.

No question that AE was heavily farmed when it launched, yet that does not mean "everyone" was AE farming or that "no one did anything but AE farm". No question it caused you and others to abandon the game and there is nothing wrong with that.

Some coalition and SG mates and I ran an Abandoned Sewer Trial not long after AE launched on Triumph server. We had the pleasure of having Mod08 from NCSoft tag along with us for the trial.

The highlight of the whole event was when we finished and were hanging in Atlas Park chatting, and Mod08 got invited to an AE Farm team. It was hysterical to say the least.... once all the farmers truly realized Mod08 really was Mod08 from NCSoft, the AE building quickly cleared.

[Archived Post]

That's one of the "great" things about the "Personal" ranking system, it ignores the rankings of some players - should make it harder to "game". Even better, those that do try to "rig" it, will most likely suffer for it.

Personally, I don't think it would need a ranking system. I'd rather it have a robust search capability to allow me to filter through all the available stories to find what I'm looking for, and allow me to personally rank stories for my own use. It would also be nice if it were able to offer similar arcs for stories that I rank.

Everyone has different tastes, so if there really must be a ranking system it should be an individual one that doesn't show for everyone.

[Archived Post]

So, you couldn't ask about the bits of the UGC Feature thread I'm most proud of (e.g., the Ranking system and mission filter or how its immersive where I could whip out the pretty pictures). No, you have to ask hard questions. Well, you know the old saying, One human's Rattlesnake problem is just lunch for a Klingon. :D

First, what's in the UGC Features list now is that you can only build with era appropriate content. To get other content, you have to check that the mission is a "holonovel" (yes, I used your term, but did give you credit in the acknowledgments and there's a whole post dedicated to you when one poster said, "What the **** are those? :o). So, you won't see anything inappropriate in terms of content for in-game missions while the sky's (& beyond) the limit for holonovels.

Now, you sly old dog, the next part of your question is more insidious as you're asking how do you prevent missions that don't follow the major plot lines (e.g., a designer mission has you release an "Undine" virus guaranteed to wipe them out at lt. Cmdr). The simple answer is you don't. But wait! Before you conclude the Rattlesnake eats the Klingon I would like to point a few things out:

There's really not much in the way of a "major" plot in the timeline now, so not a lot to screw-up really.
If someone did write an "Undine" solution (or similar plot-counter), obviously it didn't work - so the mission was ultimately a failure for some unknown reason to the captain & crew.
Using "Personal" Rankings (first couple of paragraphs in Post #2 of UGC Features), the system would auto-correct to where you would only see missions that fit your tastes. Sure, someone has to play "bad" missions and rank them appropriately to begin with - but only those brave soles that volunteer for the duty (with any luck, designers will see it as their "due", which gives you the folks with the best insight into the process making the initial assessments).
Each mission also has a description, if you see the mission has a plot-breaking storyline you'd probably just pass over it.




I'm not sure that a ranking "decay" would be worth it for a "hall of fame". I rather eliminate the "hall of fame". Does the "Hall of Fame" really serve any point?

Now, I could see poorly rated missions being automatically dropped over a period of time so that eventually all the "older" missions were 4+ stars only. Which means that except for the most recent content, everything in the game would be "hall of fame" quality.


I understand, but also thank you for it. Whether UGC happens or not is outside our control. The best anyone can do is try to illuminate the facts to prevent a fiasco. If it's any consolation, the UGC Features threads had heard that caution and because of it suggests phasing in the UGC where initially there are no rewards of any sort - it asks that rewards come later (retroactively) after all the bugs and potential loopholes people might use to create "farmable" missions have been eliminated. Lots of reasons to rush UGC, but few reasons to rush the reward aspects to UGC.

HEHE Love your Klingon proverb One human's Rattlesnake problem is just lunch for a Klingon

I really like the rating system you have there. Kinda like Netflix. Gives you suggestions based on your ratings and tastes.

I would like to take credit for the term Holo-novel but it is cannon term used in the series. :p

I read over your post in your link and there are a lot of great ideas there. Holo-novels or quests of any kind should not be sold in the exchange though. If a quest is really great a person might sell it for 5 million credits or more. There needs to be a way to ensure that doesn't happen. Or maybe a cap on how much you can sell. I suggested to have NPC vendors sell them at a set price. One price for per-use and a second to buy the novel outright and upload it to your database. The authors would get a cut for each sale.

I am not a fan of the term "hall of fame" What i was suggesting is if a novel sells a certain amount of copies at the vendors it will mysteriously disappear and end up somehow at quarks bar. Ferengis take notice to things that sell a lot.And want to get their hands on them to get a piece of the action. So the "hall of fame" stuff is really holo-novels that are stolen and end up at quarks.(descent immersion i think) Any authors that have a novel there gets free access to all holo-suites. If you get 5 novels there you get access to the bars private cargo bay where you can purchase gear that is not available anywhere else and maybe even a rare item to add to your ready room. (a reward system for creating great content since I propose holo-novelist be a crafting profession) if you get maybe 10 or more novels into quarks you can purchase a Ferengi flyable vessel. thats better I think then just having a "hall of fame" leaderboard style thing. and has better immersion.

As far as Novels vs actual in game missions. Novels I suppose can give XP. maybe. But defiantly not loot. anything that would drop in a holodeck novel missions would never be able to be taken off the holo-deck. but flying missions in a holo-deck would give you XP.

I like your idea of in game missions(non holo-deck) having a standard xp and loot table applied to it automatically. That would go far to help prevent exploiters if the missions creators do not have control over that.

Might be cool and add immersion if those creating in game missions were creating them like they were giving the orders. So if you if I decided to do a quest you created there would be an avatar of your character or a new character you create giving me the mission. Like this is some new intel you have been made aware of and this is your mission you are personally giving.

[Archived Post]

...Thus, if you don' thave XP rewards, as the COX experience taught me, then it won't be a success for those who want this to be a replacement for lacking Klingon content....

And, as I said at the start, because "success"... is not a word we all agree on.
All good points. I doubt it's possible to make everyone happy, but we can hopefully ensure it doesn't make everyone miserable. Just a reminder, the requirements in the UGC Features thread do call for rewards (e.g., XP); just not until everyone's sure it can't be abused.

... it have a robust search capability to allow me to filter through all the available stories to find what I'm looking for, and allow me to personally rank stories for my own use. It would also be nice if it were able to offer similar arcs for stories that I rank.

Everyone has different tastes, so if there really must be a ranking system it should be an individual one that doesn't show for everyone.
That's pretty much what's in the requirements now; except (the "recommendation system" is listed as "Extra Credit" in the "Future" section.

HEHE Love your Klingon proverb One human's Rattlesnake problem is just lunch for a Klingon

I really like the rating system ... there [UGC Features]. Kinda like Netflix. Gives you ...[ratings] based on your ... tastes.
Yes, I was particularly worried about the ranking system as I see it to being crucial to the success (if people can't find good missions they'll just stop looking and that would hurt everyone); and it was pretty obvious with a little thought that an average would just lead to disaster. Best advice I got on it was the equivalent of a kick in the pants to see how others had solved it. The evilness that will occur to those that try to spoof it is just icing on the cake. There's also a plus in that when people discover they're ranking missions for them rather than posterity, some crazy hall of fame, etc, I think they'll have a lot easier time of it.

I would like to take credit for the term Holo-novel but it is canon term used in the series. :p
No Jive? You were the first poster I'd seen use it and I thought it too perfect not to use. So, you're not a super-genius? :eek:

Holo-novels or quests of any kind should not be sold in the exchange though. If a quest is really great a person might sell it for 5 million credits or more. There needs to be a way to ensure that doesn't happen. Or maybe a cap on how much you can sell. I suggested to have NPC vendors sell them at a set price. One price for per-use and a second to buy the novel outright and upload it to your database. The authors would get a cut for each sale.
My god man! Don't you have any Ferengi blood? Hang on, I'm sure I can find a Ferengi that doesn't really need theirs....

I see your point, winning the lotto has ruined many a person's life. Personally I like the idea of putting them on the exchange for sale.

I'd like to suggest a slight modification to your solution. That is holonovels are published by Quarks & Son Publishing Co. For the opportunity to have your work translated to holosuite you only need to pay them a relatively small fee, sort of a partnership costs for all the overhead they'll encounter. In turn, your magnum opus will appear for a month on the exchange and you'll actually get cold hard pressed latimum for each sale up to a limit.

This system has a couple of advantages. First, because people have to pay to have a mission put up, it means people just won't throw random stuff out - and they have to pay every month to keep it out in the public. Now, if the mission is a success, it should more than cover the fee, but it should also be capped. This way designers can get something back in-game for their efforts (unlike the in-game missions where designers would receive nothing). If the mission has been popular for a long time (say a year) then as you suggested holopiracy would ensue and the designer would no longer recieve rewards (or need to pay) to have the mission published. Finally, no need for new Ferengi to get a holonovel - they'll be digitally available at all Exchange Outlets.

authors that have a novel there...get access to
I really would hate to see holonovelists rewarded beyond energy credits. As for in-game designers, I really don't want to see them get any type of reward other than perhaps a trophy for their ready room.

Part of my logic for this is that those who are building "missions to get rich quick" will jump on the holonovels because they can make quick credits on it. (Can you imagine gold-sellers actually doing something useful?) That would also keep them from trying to figure ways around the blocks in place that prevent farming. Serious mission designers who do so for the love of trek rather than rewards would be building the missions that we see in-game. Sort of a psychological win-win.

As far as Novels vs actual in game missions. Novels I suppose can give XP. maybe. But defiantly not loot. anything that would drop in a holodeck novel missions would never be able to be taken off the holo-deck. but flying missions in a holo-deck would give you XP.
Agreed, holosuite missions should definitely not give loot! I see your point about rewarding XP and certainly there's canon for it (e.g., Worf's training simulations). I'm not crazy about it though. I guess I could go either way on this one.

I like your idea of in game missions(non holo-deck) having a standard xp and loot table applied to it automatically. That would go far to help prevent exploiters if the missions creators do not have control over that.
Not my ideas, those were from the community (Pergrine_Falcon was the first I think). It also calls for reduced rewards rather than standard as a safety precaution. I think everyone fears that if the demon "farming" got out it there would be a significant mess that might not clean up easily.

Might be cool and add immersion if those creating in game missions were creating them like they were giving the orders. So if you if I decided to do a quest you created there would be an avatar of your character or a new character you create giving me the mission. Like this is some new intel you have been made aware of and this is your mission you are personally giving.
One human's cool is a swealtering day for an Andorian (Couldn't resist). The trick I think is not to preclude things you don't have to with artificial constraints. For example, I think via the requirements there now what you suggest is very doable - but there's nothing specific in the requirements about it. The more open ended the system is the more it frees the imagination (but not so free farmers find exploits).