All Foundry missions need to be peer-reviewed before they can be played?
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
said suggestion, didn't give one.
12-02-2010, 12:09 AM
Originally Posted by
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
-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.
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