Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Wishstone came down pretty hard on the issue of Violator Foundry missions
Quote:
Making these missions is abuse of the system and we will remove such missions and revoke publishing rights to players who make them.
But the larger concern I have, is that this policy puts focus on the abusing mission suppliers, but no enforcement against the abusing mission consumers.

Cryptic knows which missions we play, they know what reviews have been posted by us, and they know who is sending in the EULA violation reports. If they can see the authors of the abuse missions they can also see who has been playing abuse missions. If we crack down only on those who make these missions, why aren't we equally cracking down on those who are consuming them?

Ridding ourselves of the peddlers, only works to a point. If we don't reduce the consumers, than it become a shell game of account hopping.

Are we suppose to believe that consuming a Bad mission, is somehow a lesser offense than making one? And for those who point out "what if we play an abuse mission by accident, or for review purposes?"

My answer is simple: If you see something say something.

If you accidentally play one of these missions, you have a responsibility to report it, and if you remain silent you are as guilty of exploiting as the maker.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
04-25-2011, 02:03 PM
Since I'm hopeful the Foundry might improve the game, I'm against stuff that have a high chance of killing it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
04-25-2011, 02:22 PM
I personally only consider missions exploits when I spawn in a horde of fighters, e.g., die and get the glorious XP for my "efforts". Or if a mission states "Gain Accolades" as its only goal.

There are bad stories out there with lots of enemy waves, some might consider grind. There are good stories out there that have no combat at all and will be loved now as a "daily" by the some of the XP-only hungry crowd.

Do not put too many limitations and censorship on the tool. You take away the bad with the good.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
04-25-2011, 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leirus
Do not put too many limitations and censorship on the tool. You take away the bad with the good.
Don't think of it as censorship. That is not what they are trying to do, they are trying to protect us. These rules are here b/c they protect us and the game.

Besides, consider this, the restrictions and rules and punishments are almost like the rules of stylized literature. Does an artist complain about the syllable restrictions of Haiku?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
04-26-2011, 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennjahn View Post
Don't think of it as censorship. That is not what they are trying to do, they are trying to protect us. These rules are here b/c they protect us and the game.

Besides, consider this, the restrictions and rules and punishments are almost like the rules of stylized literature. Does an artist complain about the syllable restrictions of Haiku?
LOL - I like your Haiku comparison.

Anyway, the rules of a Haiku are pretty formalized. If you ignore them, it's just not a Haiku, even though it still might be pretty neat poetry. (Even the japanese now have several "standards").

The rules of Foundry are not formalized.

If I wanted to create a grind mission and I'd put a description like:
"The Emperor of the long lost planet Fnark has asked for your help. His planet is being under an embargo by the Romulans. Can you free the good emperor from his palace?"
And then I go ahead and put lots of Romulans to grind away and I put some one sentence dialogue in between waves. Is it a grind mission? Or is it just a bad story mission?

The same goes for a RP location. So far they didn't hurt anyone. Now people will complain that they are exploits, because you can just go in and out and have a mission completed. (And I think the people creating them were the last ones crying for a reward for playing Foundry missions anyway. I at least didn't. Playing other peoples and creating my own missions was enough reward.)

So: In the end: Yes, this is a kind of uncontrolled (should I say "trolled? ) censorship. We do not truly often need the devs or the masses or a few who consider themselves "Foundry police" or complicated algorithms to decide what is good and bad for us. If I don't like a mission, I quit it or never play it again and leave a review and a one-star rating.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
04-25-2011, 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennjahn View Post
[snip]
If you accidentally play one of these missions, you have a responsibility to report it, and if you remain silent you are as guilty of exploiting as the maker.
EULA reference or Developer quote, or I believe you are just making up and posting nonsense.

It has already been stated that the violation you initially referred to was using the Foundry tool to create missions to abuse the system. Playing any missions is no where close to this and it's ridiculous to imagine them creating a scenario under which players are punished for not reporting a questionable mission.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
04-25-2011, 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspired View Post
Playing any missions is no where close to this and it's ridiculous to imagine them creating a scenario under which players are punished for not reporting a questionable mission.
I am suggesting here that without users playing these abuse missions, there would be no wide-spread abusing missions. Merely correcting the errant author(s) is not enough. The player base itself should be given infraction points if they support these missions by playing them.

The community itself needs to be responsible for its own actions, and not just play the "blame the writers" card. If there were some sort of consequences for players for playing abusive foundry missions, then the number of abusive missions would drop dramatically.

All I'm asking is that Cryptic holds it player base to the same level of responsibility it holds its new foundry authors.

if you ban a mission Cryptic, you at the very least should punish the players who played it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
04-25-2011, 06:28 PM
They couldn't play it if it wasn't there, and you'd punish the people that played it and one starred it in reviews. If you only want the people that play it multiple times, since they now know exactly what it is they are playing, maybe... but it is still a stretch.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
04-25-2011, 06:36 PM
You can report a mission for Eula violation rather than rate it. In the menu you have that choice. If you are worried, that you might accidentally star rate an abuse mission, your other option would be to stop reviewing missions.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
04-26-2011, 12:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jennjahn View Post
You can report a mission for Eula violation rather than rate it. In the menu you have that choice. If you are worried, that you might accidentally star rate an abuse mission, your other option would be to stop reviewing missions.
I know how it works, but I've played some things that start terrible and end better. Dialogue in one mission had some very offputting lesser race, extermination stuff to it, if I had stopped there I would have been wrong because that wasn't where it was going. Outside forces were influencing things and the people under the extermination threat ended up being crucial to defeating the antagonist, which is why the outside force wanted them gone..... lot of other stuff but I prefer to finish a mission to see where it goes --if it works-- before rating/reporting it.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:25 PM.