View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 102
11-29-2010, 11:38 PM
Originally Posted by Felderburg View Post
Eh, people don't spam zone chat in CoX, they won't in STO.
Um, did you start playing CoX after Issue 17? When the Architect launched, zone chat in Atlas Park and Cap au Diable was inundated with people spamming their missions for plays. That, and folks recruiting for farm teams, was what you saw in zone chat more often than not. It wasn't until the feature was gutted through 'bug fix via nuclear device' that people lost interest and stopped using it. Saying that won't happen here is misguided IMO. There's more spam in ESD here than even in RWZ during a Mother Ship raid (and at least that "spam" has a purpose).

Originally Posted by MisterMiracle View Post
Editted to Add: If the new board is only going to be allowed to feature positive comments, and no negative ones, that's going to make it a pretty lousy place to look for good missions, isn't it? I mean, there will be no way to judge how good something is. Seems like using the in game tool and checking ratings will be far more efficient and effective.
Just like everything else, new sites will pop up with less....restrictive moderation where folks can speak freely about what they honestly feel about a mission. Whether folks admit it or not, just as there are some people who can produce outstanding content, there are similarly folks who should probably stay far, far away from content creation tools (for any number of reasons). I've seen it with Ryzom Ring, I've seen it in CoX, I'll see it here. I've learned that there are many folks who, for example, don't think spelling is at all important when making a mission. "Judge it by the content!" Really? And the instructions and dialogue aren't part of the content? The big honkin' wall of text with no punctuation isn't part of the content? That's just one example though.

Originally Posted by Kasensal
What about people posting threads specifically asking for feedback?

What about people posting threads where people can submit their missions for review?

If you limit these two things, your UGC community will be dead in the water.

I cannot stress what a shortsighted move this is. The success of the Foundry will be dependent on the community that is involved with it, sharing missions and ideas, trading reviews and feedback, collaborating, running contests, and helping each other improve. You don't have enough faith in the creative side of this community to build something great.

If you prevent these kinds of threads, this UGC will go underutilized because you were afraid that there was CHANCE that people would be uncivil... nay that you COUNTED on us to be uncivilized and unconstructive.
While I agree with this sentiment, Kasensal, please be real. It won't be "most" of anyone doing the bashing. It'll be a small minority of very vocal/loud/active folks doing the slamming. Those people, as in all MMO communities, because of their activity, fervor, and the sheer volume of vitriol they spew, make the entire community look bad. I understand where Cryptic is coming from, even if I cringe at the possibility of how strict they'll be. In a day and age of "everyone gets a trophy for participating", it can be hard to truly recognize brilliance and quality. In other words, if all missions are 4 and 5 star (because people are afraid to hurt someone else's feelings by giving them honest feedback, straight from the gut), how do you find the TRUE five star quality stories? This part though, is ludicrous:

Originally Posted by Kasensal
This lack of faith is us is not encouraging, and not giving us the chance is an insult, a slap in the face.
I knew someone would toss out ye olde "slap in the face" line. Shame it had to be at the end of what was an excellent post with valid concerns.

Cryptic isn't paid to have faith in "us". They're paid to make "us" as large a number as is possible. If promoting a "feel good" environment around this feature is the best way to do that, then that's what they should do. Look, I don't like censoring or filtering feedback either. But Cryptic has to make sure this feature is viable for as long as possible. In order to do that, they have to encourage as many people to use it as they can. Get a couple thousand missions in the system inside of six months. Some (heck, most) of it will be garbage (or nearly so) but there will be gems in the steaming piles. They're looking for critical mass and in order to get that, they have to preserve everyone's feelings (for fear of "scaring away" shrinking violet types).

Like I said, I can almost guarantee that there will be sites that sprout up where folks will share info about missions they've played and recommended and other folks will post their missions for feedback. I'm not talking about the current UGC fansite either (though that will undoubtedly draw a good crowd). Whether it's the STO forum at or at IGN or wherever, people will gather in places (virtually speaking) and share info about the good, the bad, and the OMG ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?.

Originally Posted by Kingdox View Post
Anyone who asks for reviews should be ready for people to give honest input. I'm more interested if the authors will take the input people give them and acutally make changes based on it.

I fully expect folks to ask for input, get said input then ignore it completely because they think everyone else is wrong or "didn't get it".
Yeah, this always happens. But it's part of the experience, I think. Think of the good/bad or good/evil relationship. You have to experience some truly awful missions in order to appreciate the truly great ones. I just hope UGC is a bit more freeform and open than CoX's. I know that there were several features left out of the Architect specifically because they made farming easier (ambush code, for example, is different in the devs' tools). Not like that omission actually did anything. :p