Star Trek Online

Star Trek Online (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Online General Discussion (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=128)
-   -   All Foundry missions need to be peer-reviewed before they can be played? (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=191332)

Archived Post 12-01-2010 10:17 PM

All Foundry missions need to be peer-reviewed before they can be played?
 
So I had some fleetmates tell me that every single Foundry mission has to pass a "peer review" before anyone can actually play it.

Is this... actually true? Is this how it's set up? I can't just make a mission for myself and my fleetmates, without having to put it out into the public?

If this is true... it's the most painfully boneheaded decision Cryptic's made with the game.

First, the more immediate problem. This makes it very hard to make content "just" for your own fleet/storylines/whatever. If you want to use the Foundry to make something that's really just for you and your friends, who'd understand what's going on immediately, then you still have to present it to the public who might not "get" it and may reject it out of hand. It'd make private(ish) content impossible.

More importantly however, if every mission has to pass "peer review" then the potential for griefing is so vast as to be profound. What, exactly, prevents me from pulling up a peer-review mission and simply rejecting it after playing because I can? How, exactly, would malicious rejection be handled? How could such a thing even be proven?

I'd like some confirmation on this, as "peer-review" for everything strikes me as so incredibly dunderheaded that I can't imagine that's really how the system works.

Archived Post 12-01-2010 10:25 PM

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...d.php?t=185900

Read this. Fleetmates are as good as general public in most cases.

Your friends and fleet can be the peers, then done, Played.

My first few are going to be for me and friends, who cares who reviews it? (aside from friends). If some one gives you a review that is bad, why care? it wasn't written for them and if they couldn't see that, then they really aren't good reviewers huh? My tests won't be for the public, they will have access that's a default, so buck up and don't worry.

Archived Post 12-01-2010 10:27 PM

The idea of the peer review system is more to weed out inappropriate content as well as gratuitous violations of IP license stuff as opposed to bad spelling and grammar, or a mission that a player doesn't feel fits their own Trek world.

Archived Post 12-01-2010 10:28 PM

One might consider that there are criteria for rejection. Very simple criteria... And that people who reject for reasons outside the supplied criteria will lose their right to review.

Say there's a list of ten easily verifiable things a mission can be rejected for (obscene language, drug use, illicit sex) and that none of them are really qualitative. If someone does reject a mission for the wrong reasons, it shouldn't take long to check and mark a strike against them for abusing their review powers.

Beyond that, I think reviewing is essential to verify that it's even possible to complete a mission as a robust tool will likely make it possible for authors to write impossible to complete missions.

Beyond that, pretty sure they've said that many features like fleet-only content will probably happen but that the initial BETA release in December is simply not going to have most or all of the features that Cryptic wants or plans to include longterm. It's a first baby step, not the complete system that will give you everything you can imagine right away, based on the comments I've seen.

Archived Post 12-01-2010 11:55 PM

Anyone can review a mission. Anyone can still search for your mission. Anyone can still play your mission.

The review process only exists as a control gate to filter good content from bad content in the Mission suggestion window. This is so untested content won't be offered as a random, level-appropriate mission for new players. This ensures they have the best possible experience and also weeds out problem content (i.e. copyright issues, pornography, etc.)

Without this control, I suspect CBS would be less likely to allow missions to just be handed randomly to players. It also improves the user experience - they can still find it if they please. On their own that can search what missions are "Hot" (some combination of views and rating) "Most Highly rated" or "Most recently Rated." These are searching tools that should be available from your window right now.

You can still find any Foundry content on your own but it must be vetted before being handed out randomly to uninitiated players.

Archived Post 12-02-2010 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
Anyone can review a mission. Anyone can still search for your mission. Anyone can still play your mission.

The review process only exists as a control gate to filter good content from bad content in the Mission suggestion window. This is so untested content won't be offered as a random, level-appropriate mission for new players. This ensures they have the best possible experience and also weeds out problem content (i.e. copyright issues, pornography, etc.)

Without this control, I suspect CBS would be less likely to allow missions to just be handed randomly to players. It also improves the user experience - they can still find it if they please. On their own that can search what missions are "Hot" (some combination of views and rating) "Most Highly rated" or "Most recently Rated." These are searching tools that should be available from your window right now.

You can still find any Foundry content on your own but it must be vetted before being handed out randomly to uninitiated players.

Ahhhhhh, so when I publish a mission it'll be available to anyone right away so long as they search for it?

Perfect, then, that solves a number of "fleet-only" issues I had. So long as people can find it (and not get spoiled ahead of time having to "review" it ;) ) then everything is solid.

I still remain concerned about the avenues for griefing with this system, however. It seems to me that there's no real dis-incentive to someone simply flagging or downvoting missions purely for the sake of being a jerk.

Archived Post 12-02-2010 12:22 AM

Yeah, unless your question is really code for 'I want to make X-rated RP content for me and my friends', you don't really have anything to worry about. If it is code for that, then this family game based on a family television show probably isn't the place for you to indulge in those particular activities.

Archived Post 12-02-2010 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceDrake (Post 3197709)
I still remain concerned about the avenues for griefing with this system, however. It seems to me that there's no real dis-incentive to someone simply flagging or downvoting missions purely for the sake of being a jerk.

Well, the disincentive to flagging things inappropriate that aren't is losing the ability to review missions, and potentially use the Foundry. So that's pretty significant.

In terms of giving your mission a low rating...that's impossible to control. Ratings are going to be, by nature, subjective. If somebody simply doesn't like it, there's not really a way to argue with them that they really should.

I'm sure that everyone who makes missions will consider all of their missions to be five-star. But others opinions will vary. Folks are just going to have to get used to that.

Archived Post 12-02-2010 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceDrake (Post 3197709)
Ahhhhhh, so when I publish a mission it'll be available to anyone right away so long as they search for it?

Perfect, then, that solves a number of "fleet-only" issues I had. So long as people can find it (and not get spoiled ahead of time having to "review" it ;) ) then everything is solid.

I still remain concerned about the avenues for griefing with this system, however. It seems to me that there's no real dis-incentive to someone simply flagging or downvoting missions purely for the sake of being a jerk.

Anyone can find it and play it. They can even just browse highly rated content if they choose.

What the reviewing does is prevent untested or low quality content from being passed on to the user who just wants a suggested mission handed to them each day. Better missions to the users will encourage the users to create better content. :)

Archived Post 12-02-2010 01:09 AM

said suggestion, didn't give one.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceDrake (Post 3197709)
Ahhhhhh, so when I publish a mission it'll be available to anyone right away so long as they search for it?

Perfect, then, that solves a number of "fleet-only" issues I had. So long as people can find it (and not get spoiled ahead of time having to "review" it ;) ) then everything is solid.

I still remain concerned about the avenues for griefing with this system, however. It seems to me that there's no real dis-incentive to someone simply flagging or downvoting missions purely for the sake of being a jerk.


The people you want to have play this mission can play (if they agree to the terms).

If tons of people play it and give it one star, it still shows up on a list of most play'd.

Flagging you for griefing purposes will hurt them more than you.

You can send a link/whatever to your fleet friends, they don't have to search.


The idea works in a extreme like this, 500 members of your rival fleet has to complete the mission to rate it, they give you 1 star. 50 of your fleetmates play it and give it 5 stars. The average star count sucks for you and is skewed, but it's been play'd 550 times. Hence a large play count, and then made public.

Likewise, your 50 friends play it and rate it 5 stars, but no one else does. Doesn't look as good as above. This system balances grief with stacking ratings (and assumes a bit of intelligence on future players).

This system, by standards listed in my first post, allows all content to be play'd by people who agree to see it. You only lose out if you cross the line. Likewise it allows people to give reviews that turn "bad" missions" into cult favorites. Think of movies or TV shows, Star trek is a great example. Also "bad" crap can get rated bad, but continue because it's play'd.

Also please note to play it at first, your fleet will have to review it. Each and everyone of them will have to agree to a new terms of use as well before.

But if enough people play it (regardless of ratings and/or quality), it becomes open to the "general public". Kind of like the "kardashians".

Read the link in my first post, I may have not been a tester of the tools, but it's not required to figure out how the vetting system works based on what they've said.

Get ready for crap. Get ready to make crap. I know I will. Send your fleet only mission links to me if you want, I'll play them, if I think they suck (I'm actually pretty forgiving), you'll at least have +1 play count.

The only problems I can see is, "Got to play MR. X's missions, they got to be cool!!!!" and when you find out it sucks, all you really did is add +1 to missions play'd. Oh well worked for Lucas on the last 3 movies.


My last suggestion, lost on most. Writing a simple mission is not like fan fiction. Writing styles vary, any Game design tool like this is more like writing a Graphic novel or script, not a short story. I'm not a "tester" of the closed Foundry(beta), but from doing this in many games over the years, first launch will seem more like "story board" writing than anything else. EDIT= The suggestion here is to write for the medium, not to think the way to write a "paper" or "lab report" or even a "bug test" is the way to write a game mission. Highlighting text, structuring paragraphs, etc makes bad entertainment. Poetry shows that as a written medium, Star Trek in general should show you that more than anything.:p


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 PM.