View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
01-08-2011, 08:41 AM
As both a mission author (at least one time over, though not sure if it's still available to play) and a reviewer, I've been more or less ignoring the number of stars. I really wish they weren't even a part of the current review process.

The way I look at it, given that the Foundry isn't live yet, everything I do and play in it is a rough draft. Who knows how many of the missions currently up will even make it to the live server (either because people don't want to put the work into replicating them or because they get bored) and when they do, they're likely to be substantially different. Specific feedback is important so that the author can make improvements. But assigning some sort of grade seems artificial and a little ridiculous at this point.

I understand the politics of star ratings. Higher ratings may (or may not) single out good missions. But they will certainly get people noticed and increase the odds that their subsequent missions will be played. I'm sure once the Foundry goes live, there will be a hierarchy of stars, so to speak, with some people at the top and some people at the bottom. One quick side note: I think while UGC itself may be a means of building a more robust STO community (or at least one centered around the Foundry), star ratings are going to be a pretty potent means of dividing it.

I suppose there may be some value in rehearsing all that now, before the Foundry goes live, but I tend to doubt it. It seems rather early to begin the process of division and hierarchy--everyone should be playing all sorts of missions, good, bad, and indifferent, not just gravitating to the "good" ones, both to give feedback and to share ideas.

I suppose that my main point is all that matters now, IMO, is the feedback people give. Everything else strikes me as totally irrelevant.