Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 41
10-27-2010, 10:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeathenStorm View Post
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.
im not sure if thats easy to set up or not but im all for improving the way to search missions through different criteria.

i assume you mean something like 'find missions rated highly by this player' or something?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 42
10-27-2010, 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo
im not sure if thats easy to set up or not but im all for improving the way to search missions through different criteria.

i assume you mean something like 'find missions rated highly by this player' or something?
That would work for starters, taking into account that people have different tastes.

Or as I posted about five months ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeathenStorm View Post
If the Community takes to User Generated Content, then there's going to be a lot of missions to choose from. Most of them will, unfortunately, be test missions and simple single-room-full-of-hostile-NPCs maps.

So we need a way to separate the wheat from the chaff.


Others have suggested that Cryptic appoint some kind of 'Advisory Council' to judge which User Content is worthy. This is a very dangerous path to go down. As proven a few months ago, the Community doesn't like being told what it's supposed to like. If a 'first among equals' board is implemented, then the possibilities offered by UGC will be restricted by politics and favouritism, and overwhelmed by volume.


I would rather there be anarchy, with the Community creating anything they like within the confines of the UGC toolkit. I have the right to say that I like other players' content, and I have the right to say that I don't like it. That is the limit of my influence.

In the rare case where someone else thinks I have impeccable taste, they should be able to see what content I like and dislike. That way, each player can publish their recommendations to others.

This can be formalised by allowing players to group missions together under Categories, creating catalogues of content.


Categories can be both global and personal. When a mission is created, the author could place it under a Global category of 'Space Missions' or 'Ground Missions', for example. That way, another player can look through these categories and find what type of mission they want to play.

If a player feels that an author has mis-categorized their content (e.g. putting a Ground map in a Space mission), then the player can choose to block that mission, or the author, from appearing to them in the catalogue. (Only in extreme EULA-breaking cases should an author be banned from UGC altogether.)


Personal Categories are more fun. These can be created by individual players and can be named anything. The player can then place any content they wish into these personal categories, be it missions they've created themselves, or missions they've discovered in the wild.

Personal Categories can then be subscribed to by other players. So if a player creates a category like "Experimental Storytelling", others can subscribe to it and be notified when new content is added.

Another player could create a Personal Category such as "LOLCATS ROOL LULZ!!!!111!!!", and be perfectly within their rights to do so, without an Advisory Council deeming their perspective irrelevant.


This also leaves the door open to create Competition Categories, run by both Cryptic and the Community. A player could suggest a theme to create against, and offer an in-game prize to whoever 'wins'. Entries to these competitions can be added to a Category that others can subscribe to and vote on.


I feel that putting the ability to filter content into the hands of the community will make for a better experience than allowing a demagogic cabal to rule the show.
(Presented unedited and with the appreciation that the scope and purpose of UGC has changed in the interim.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 43
10-27-2010, 12:24 PM
Quote:
It has nothing to do with someone being an "AH" as you so maturely put it. Per the Devs, the purpose of the review system is to weed out inappropriate content, not judge how "good" the mission is. However, by combining the two, it increases the chance of people, either intentionally or simply not knowing any better, combining the two into one opinion. Its better to simply avoid the issue when its not a necessary component of the system at that point.
I see no c hance for confusion. The "flagging" thing doesn't sound like "hey, I didn't like this" but "Mission content uses likeness of Spock naming him Spuck." "Swear Words".

I have a little more trust in a reviewer to distinguish between "Vulcan should never laugh" and "Sexually explicit dialogue". The first affets the rating, the second sets a flag.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 44
10-27-2010, 12:33 PM
Do we know the policy on using pre-existing characters? There have been a few examples already of people using, for example, Spock or 7 of 9. Surely that's not against the rules? How could it be?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 45
10-27-2010, 12:40 PM
I think this question belongs here. We shall see!

Will the content created by /ignored players be visible to those who did the /ignoring?

That is, let's say Player A has put Player B on /ignore for whatever reason -- something in the forums, something in the game, whatever. (I am given to understand the two are tied together.) Player A jumps into the game to play some UGC.
  • If Player A did NOT sign up to review UGC, will he see Player B's missions?
  • If Player A DID sign up to review UGC, will he see Player B's missions?
  • Will Player B show up in any filtered search or 'browsing' for UGC -- explicit or implicit -- done by Player A?

Let's turn it around. Let's say Player B is playing some UGC and plays one of Player A's missions. (Player A still has Player B on /ignore.) If Player B comments on Player A's UGC, will Player A see those comments?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 46
10-27-2010, 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felderburg View Post
Do we know the policy on using pre-existing characters? There have been a few examples already of people using, for example, Spock or 7 of 9. Surely that's not against the rules? How could it be?
CBS might have a different view on that.

What CBS's policy will be remains to be seen. At the most extreme end, it is entirely possible that players will not be allowed to make use of any planet, ship, or person mentioned in any of the TV series, movies, books, or other licensed works. It is likely not to be that strict, but I do not think that CBS will allow players to create missions with any of the major cast members or prominent ships (like Defiant, Enterprise (any letter), Excelsior, Voyager.) There will also likely be all sorts of other caveats, that any UGC becomes the property of Cryptari, may not contradict existing canon, may not alter origin stories, may not involve certain time periods or events*, may not be republished in any form, etc. etc. etc. *burp* legalaase.

In short, considering the hoops that professional Trek book writers go through to write in the Trek universe, CBS is not going to let a random person off the Internet have their merry wicked way with any major/regular Trek character.

Sure, you can complain about it. But the complaints have to go to CBS, and I doubt that the CBS 'zecks and their army of barely-domesticated Briefcase-Armed Assault Lawyers, Esq., will listen to you or I. (Heck, I would say that the more people who clamor for us to be allowed to use a particular element, the more CBS will say 'no' on the grounds of Rule 34 and oh hell no).


* - For example, considering the Abramsverse Trek films, I can see CBS saying 'BigNO!' to any mission set in TOS. Might not make sense to us, but I can see them doing that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 47
10-27-2010, 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shonsu02 View Post
I would have thought that this is where we'd create/access player-made content. It makes a lot of sense and would be a great way to add some functionality to ship interiors. Hopefully they'll put it there in the future.
He already said in STO general that it should be a part of the Foundry upon release. a moment to find it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
We expect to hook up a Holodeck door to the Foundery so you can make a mission and then play it by going to your Holodeck.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 48
10-27-2010, 01:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Mink
CBS might have a different view on that.

What CBS's policy will be remains to be seen. At the most extreme end, it is entirely possible that players will not be allowed to make use of any planet, ship, or person mentioned in any of the TV series, movies, books, or other licensed works. It is likely not to be that strict, but I do not think that CBS will allow players to create missions with any of the major cast members or prominent ships (like Defiant, Enterprise (any letter), Excelsior, Voyager.) There will also likely be all sorts of other caveats, that any UGC becomes the property of Cryptari, may not contradict existing canon, may not alter origin stories, may not involve certain time periods or events*, may not be republished in any form, etc. etc. etc. *burp* legalaase.

In short, considering the hoops that professional Trek book writers go through to write in the Trek universe, CBS is not going to let a random person off the Internet have their merry wicked way with any major/regular Trek character.

Sure, you can complain about it. But the complaints have to go to CBS, and I doubt that the CBS 'zecks and their army of barely-domesticated Briefcase-Armed Assault Lawyers, Esq., will listen to you or I. (Heck, I would say that the more people who clamor for us to be allowed to use a particular element, the more CBS will say 'no' on the grounds of Rule 34 and oh hell no).


* - For example, considering the Abramsverse Trek films, I can see CBS saying 'BigNO!' to any mission set in TOS. Might not make sense to us, but I can see them doing that.
I do believe there will be an "approved use of likeness" list
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 49
10-27-2010, 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The.Grand.Nagus View Post
I would suggest that the people who are testing the mission orginally dont even get to rate it, as that is not the purpose of the review per your comments. The purpose of the review is only to determine whether the mission contains inappropriate content or not. That being the case, what the person thinks of the mission really doesnt matter at that point. This will allow missions that make it past the review and go live to do so with a "fresh start", without any positive or negative ratings attatched to them.

A second suggestion would be that a mission not be removed from testing unless it receives 3 flags. For example, if the number of times it is required to be played before going live is 10, then it would seem reasonable that if the mission were REALLY inappropriate that it would be flagged as such at least 3 times if not more. This will prevent missions from getting removed from testing that ARENT really inappropriate, due to someone flagging them who doesnt know what their really supposed to be doing.

Other than these two things, I think the proposed system sounds pretty good and look forward to testing
I like these suggestions. From DStahl's latest I get the feeling Reviewers will have a drop-down box of reasons to flag a mission instead of an open ended "Your mission isn't canon, I'm denying it".

Making sure missions are flagged by multiple Reviewers before taking it down is also much better.

We'll have to see how it goes. At this point, I think not having enough Reviewers may be a bigger problem than having Rogue Reviewers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 50
10-27-2010, 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by V-Mink
CBS might have a different view on that. *snip*
I REALLY hope that CBS does not take the draconian view that you described. Let us have a little fun with it! If I want people to be able to time travel and hang out with Picard and crew, where's the harm? If I keep them all in character, and don't do anything inappropriate, no harm no foul, right?

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the policy is... but if a dev could comment, either generally or even on my specific TNG time travel question, that would be the preferable option.
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 10:28 AM.