Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
10-27-2010, 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The.Grand.Nagus View Post
That seems like a big "if", but the only real answer at this point is "we'll see". However, considering the fact that we're talking about the mission only being played by people who have signed the EULA at this point, I dont see why it should be removed with only 1 flag. If it REALLY is inappropriate, then it should get flagged more than once shouldnt it?
I agree with your points about flagging. However, I don't know if people shouldn't be able to rate it based on content as well. Yes, the main purpose of play testing is to filter inappropriate stuff. However, if some of my fleetmates want to play and rate my mission, they shouldn't have to wait for 10 other, random people to play test it for appropriateness first. Sure, they could experience it, and tell me "boy that was great!", but they'd have to play it again for the rest of the community to see their 5-star rating.

I see this as the main reason for people "signing" the EULA: playing their friends' missions faster. I put "signing" in quotes here because I believe that a great portion of people playing UGC will scroll through the EULA, click the "yes I really read it" button, and go off and play stuff they would have to wait who knows how long for. Sure, there'll be a good portion of people that actually do what they're supposed to, and flag for violations, but I think the vast majority will not.

Who knows, I could be wrong. But the initial lack of missions available for everyone to play will drive people to be play testers, just to get more UGC faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solarfox
There's nothing you can do about that, short of demanding that everyone who signs the ELUA for the Foundry provides proof of age or something of that nature.

Cryptic will cover their collective backsides by stating that anything seen in the Foundry may not be suitable to a T rated game and using the system is at your own risk.
So the only point of the separate play tester group is to allow those who don't wish to see potentially "inappropriate" material to opt-out until it's been screened? That seems a little silly. CoX released everything to the public, and it's fine. Get a three flag system as Nagus suggests, make everyone sign a EULA to play UGC, regardless, and be done with it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
10-27-2010, 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solarfox
There's nothing you can do about that, short of demanding that everyone who signs the ELUA for the Foundry provides proof of age or something of that nature.

Cryptic will cover their collective backsides by stating that anything seen in the Foundry may not be suitable to a T rated game and using the system is at your own risk.
The funny thing about the EULA is that its meaningless for minors anyway. A minor cant enter into a legal contract, so if they DO "sign" it its automatically void and doesnt "protect" Cryptic from anything. That said, its not like their going to get sued or anything. Any minor that is playing has to have done so with their parents consent(to pay for the monthly sub at least), and its the parents responsibility to investigatge the product.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
10-27-2010, 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The.Grand.Nagus View Post
Per the Devs, the purpose of the review system is to weed out inappropriate content, not judge how "good" the mission is.
It's both actually.

A mission can go though the testing system and come out as a open to everyone mission, with a rating of 1 star, because it's not very good.

You have two different things happening by playtesters, one is completing the mission, once it's been completed X times, it's pushed to live. This allows missions to be checked for inappropriate material before it's open to the public.

The other is rating it for how good or bad the mission is, but this is also done by the playtesters before the mission is made open to the public.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
10-27-2010, 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felderburg View Post
Get a three flag system as Nagus suggests, make everyone sign a EULA to play UGC, regardless, and be done with it.
That's not how Cryptic wants to do it however. I also think it's a bad idea.

Why should anyone be forced to see something they'd rather not? If someone doesn't want to take the risk of seeing something inappropriate then they should have that option.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
10-27-2010, 09:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
The goals of play testing is to complete the mission. If the mission is completed, the reviewer is given the chance to rate the mission 1-5 stars (and possibly add comments).
What if the mission cannot be completed? How should it be processed? As a playtester can only vote after they have completed the mission, is there a clause in the Terms of Use doc to allow flagging of missions that cannot be?

If so, are there any checks and balances in place to differentiate between impossible missions (Target objective hidden behind terrain glitches), and merely difficult missions (clicking six consoles in an order determined by mission text without spamming Zone chat for help.)?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
10-27-2010, 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felderburg View Post
I agree with your points about flagging. However, I don't know if people shouldn't be able to rate it based on content as well. Yes, the main purpose of play testing is to filter inappropriate stuff. However, if some of my fleetmates want to play and rate my mission, they shouldn't have to wait for 10 other, random people to play test it for appropriateness first. Sure, they could experience it, and tell me "boy that was great!", but they'd have to play it again for the rest of the community to see their 5-star rating.
I'll concede the voting issue. However, I do think there needs to be multiple flags required to remove a mission from testing, as I explained.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
10-27-2010, 09:50 AM
Thanks for the OP, good read, hopefully it's cleared up any misconceptions and speculations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The.Grand.Nagus View Post
I do think there needs to be multiple flags required to remove a mission from testing, as I explained.
The following was stated in the OP, which suggests (but doesn't confirm) that authored missions will not be pulled after being flagged just once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
We will take flagging content very seriously as reporting missions in this manner can lead to a mission being pulled from the game until the author addresses the complaint.
If your mission is flagged for a genuine reason, the author is made aware of the reason for their mission getting flagged. The author can then edit their mission and remove the content which violates the EULA. If your mission is flagged for no reason that violates the EULA, then the person who flagged your mission may or may not get disciplined (TBD), depending on the circumstances.

P.S. I am happy to see that your concerns have been addressed.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
10-27-2010, 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
[

The Publishing process sends your Project to a queue where some AI code is added to your maps to ensure pathing functions.
Is this done by the system or by some poor Cryptic employee? How long is the wait?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
10-27-2010, 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3R0B4NG View Post
you say the rating, which seems to be a simple 1 - 5 stars like / not like button doesnt determine if the mission makes it into the game?

So if say 20 Players are needed to play the mission before it gets into the game and all those 20 People say it's crap and vote 1 star it still gets into the game?.... WHY?
i believe you can also comment on missions for people to read as well to make it more clear to people who decide to play it or not.

the reason 1 star missions will get in is because everybody has the right to have their mission published as long as its not breaking any rules. if you dont then want to play a 1 star mission that is of course your choice, you dont have to but likes and dislikes are personal preferences. someone else might play that mission and think its the best mission ever because that is their choice.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
10-27-2010, 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo
i believe you can also comment on missions for people to read as well to make it more clear to people who decide to play it or not.

the reason 1 star missions will get in is because everybody has the right to have their mission published as long as its not breaking any rules. if you dont then want to play a 1 star mission that is of course your choice, you dont have to but likes and dislikes are personal preferences. someone else might play that mission and think its the best mission ever because that is their choice.
Then how about publishing everyone's vote history? If you find yourself liking a mission that someone voted five stars, even though the average score is lower, then you might like other missions they vote for.
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 10:02 PM.