Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
I have a couple concerns and questions about UGC after listening to the Subspace Radio Interview with Mike Apolis where he discusses in length how the devs think The Foundry will operate:
  1. UGC Reviewers - Player Council all over again?

    My concern here is about granting a few players power over many. It seems Cryptic is thinking of having a panel of player "reviewers" make the initial call on whether to let new UGC missions be published for others to play or not. Mike Apolis says players can sign up to be a reviewer.

    Everyone should be concerned about this because the people who sign up will have their own ideas as to what should be published and what shouldn't be. Strict Canonists will be sure to sign up and stop anything that doesn't meet their personal approval.

    This sounds reasonable for stopping plain inappropriate content but... Will these "reviewers" have the power to "deny" your UGC mission just because they don't think your story is canon? Or that your mission has a ship in it that they don't think should exist?

    I wouldn't take anyone's fun away from piloting a T5 NX-Class but there are others who would in an instant. I do not want them making a "judgment call" on my UGC missions.

    Who will the initial "reviewers" be? Perhaps the players chosen to be in The Foundry's Closed Beta?

    Is there voting on who can be a reviewer? And who is going to review the reviewer to make sure they aren't being too lenient or too strict?

    This is bothering me almost as much as The Player Council did - I don't like a select few having this much power. In my opinion, this is a rather stringent level of vetting.

    I think any content that's too wierd or non-canon should simply be policed by everyone via the rating system. Anything wonky can be moved to the Holosuite in Quark's Bar and the Holodeck on our ships as fantasy programs.

  2. Diminishing Returns for UGC Mission XP - Not the savior of Klingon PvE?

    Mike Apolis also says they are thinking of implementing diminishing returns for UGC content that we complete each day. The 1st UGC mission - you get ok XP. The 2nd mission - your get similar XP and an item. The 3rd mission - your XP goes way down. After the 3rd you're not getting XP at all for running UGC content that day.

    What bothers me about this is obvious. For Klingons it's not the savior of their PvE experience like a few devs have implied. Being able to get (ok) XP from 2 missions per day won't fill the huge gaps in PvE that Klingons have.

    In just about every interview, DStahl says Klingons will never have the same amount of episodes as Feds. Well, leveling a Klingon won't be that much better with this. Feds can log in, play PvE all day long and gain a couple ranks. Klingons still won't be able to with UGC.

    Why even lead us to believe that The Foundry will fill the Klingon content gap when you knew up front you were going to implement diminishing returns?!

I realize what Mike Apolis disclosed isn't set in stone. However, it's the direction Cryptic is moving in and so worthy of discussion. What do you think?
 

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 02:27 AM.