Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
06-09-2010, 09:24 AM
The Episodes are as intresting as what goes on with the game.

nothing happening in STO, nothing worthwhile to report for STOked.

easy as that

...
It was mildly entertaining though, if you do something like that again (if nothing in STO is going on) bring the thin 80s movies guy from the left back, he has good skills in talking funy crap and loves bashing on the game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
06-09-2010, 09:28 AM
I found the idea of the teired system interesting but it begs the question:

If the "good stuff" is all at Quarks bar as part of the 3rd Tier, top shelf stuff, why would anyone bother going to Memory Core Alpha to do the "crap?" Do they really think that there won't be enough content at Quarks to keep people interested and we'll have to go to the "crap" to have stuff?

A tier system just means that unless you're in the top teir no one sees your content.

Also, the idea of using this to fill otu content for the Klingons runs counter to the idea of "no rewards/ limited rewards" for UGC. We'll see a lot of stuff tied to 'farming' if you can get XP on it as a Klingon.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
06-09-2010, 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
I'm surprised they didn't mention [tags] for UGC by both players and authors (similar to LittleBigPlanet)

For example:
  • [farm] to warn of a farming mission.
  • [TNG] could denote The NExt Generation era.
  • [Time] could mean time travel.
  • [Q] could mean - well, you know what it means.
  • [Part 1 of 2] could demonstrate part of a story arc.
The problem with tags is quantity and meaning. For example, [Time] and [TNG] in your list overlap a touch and TNG indicates a need for TOS, DS9, etc. The UGC Features thread has a new suggestion for handling "personal" preferences, but ideally there would be Google-like search features on the web so you could, for example, get a list of all "Q" missions and the players ratings too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm-Herald
I found the idea of the teired system interesting ... We'll see a lot of stuff tied to 'farming' if you can get XP on it as a Klingon.
I don't like the tiered-system as it sounded as if all UGC would always be restricted to the holosuites. I'd love to see UGC in-game (with heavy filtering to separate the wheat from chaff ) as well as in the Holosuites (for those great Westerns with Sheriff Worf). I'd also like to see no possibility of "farming", but still have "reduced" rewards and XP from player generated missions (that is they're handed out by the system, not the designer). Based on what's in the UGC Features thread I think this is possible.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
06-09-2010, 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm-Herald
I found the idea of the teired system interesting but it begs the question:

If the "good stuff" is all at Quarks bar as part of the 3rd Tier, top shelf stuff, why would anyone bother going to Memory Core Alpha to do the "crap?"

NO NO NO... NOT crap!
"New untested Stuff", to go where NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE ...and VOTE on it = Memory Alpha.
Hall of Fame, Best of, 1000+ positive Votes = Quarks
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
06-09-2010, 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3R0B4NG View Post
NO NO NO... NOT crap!
"New untested Stuff", to go where NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE ...and VOTE on it = Memory Alpha.
Hall of Fame, Best of, 1000+ positive Votes = Quarks
And again, how woudl it get into the hall of fame if it's at the place where the "crap" is?

Or once they have 10 good missions in the Hall of Fame, how do you get more when the majority of people go Quarks rather than go test the 'crap'? Why would people do that in the numbers required to get stuff up into the Hall of Fame?

THat kind of system is going to go this way:

A bunch of stuff will be released.
The best of it will end up in the hall of fame.
Then anything in the hall of fame will rack up reviews to solidify it there, getting 3-10 times as many reviews as anything still in "testing".

And the entire "game" of creating UGC will be over because nothing newly released will be able to get the nessecary votes to get up into that Hall of Fame tier if it misses out on that first tier.

And before you call me alarmist I already played this game with NWN. I was lucky enough to get out in the front wave and released (I flatter myself to think) a kickbutt moduale. It was very well played and reviewed and quickly got in the top 10. Where it stayed. 6 months later much better modules came out that used new tools they released but my mod still remained on teh "top 10 list" simply because the algorithm rated it the best. It had a ton of downloads and a really good number of positive ratings. Even after the ratings started to drop, the sheer number of plays with the early high ratings (when that was the standard), kept my average high.

There were a ton of new mods that came out that had to fight 4 times as hard as I did to get where I was because the momentum of a solid early release catapulted me to the top ahead of them.

I do ~NOT~ want to see that again.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
06-09-2010, 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm-Herald
I do ~NOT~ want to see that again.
Then propose an alternative. (If you haven't already - sorry, haven't had a chance to read the entire UGC thread.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
06-09-2010, 12:52 PM
I dont mean to troll this thread or bash anyones ideas, but I dont support this whole ugc thing myself.
Just posting my vote on it.

Ill leave it at that and see my way out as to not upset nor argue with anyone who is for this proposition.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
06-09-2010, 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borticus View Post
Then propose an alternative. (If you haven't already - sorry, haven't had a chance to read the entire UGC thread.)
No problems.

The biggest thing is that an automated review system simply favors the first out of the gate, and the ones who can game it the best. It has nothing to do with quality. How well would the real publishing industry work if it published the first 30 manuscripts it got each year, or it only reprinted books that had been bought a certain number of times. Like everyone's novel gets 30 free copies and if those don't sell out within 24 hours, no more books for that title EVER.

It'd suck wouldn't it?

I had a lot of ideas so here's a few recaps:

1) One idea was to create a model similar to the publishing industry. IF you want to make a custom mission you have to "sell it" to someone, either a Cryptic Staffer hired to manage these, or perhaps a group of "hired volunteers" to do that. Only approved stories even get to the point where the board actually plays them to checks them for content. Rather than having everyone make missions you limit to those people who can actually make good ones. This takes out the need for a rating system because every holodeck mission will be a quality mission. The downside is that it will be very frustrating to people not used to rejection.

But hey, we're nerds, aren't we used to rejection? Or am I the only one who tried to get a date in High School?

2) Actually hire people to generate the content first. Not hire hire, but as above, "Hire Volunteers". If you want to make missions, send a resume, hours you can work per week, and some sample writing in the Trek Verse. If they like what they see, here's a toolset. Again, it cuts down wildly on the 'crap' but it limits what goes out to the masses.

3) Forget a rating system at all. Rely on word of mouth, content tags, and perhaps comments. But the problem here is that if we can sort by "times played" then it again becomes a case of "as long as you get it out first you win" because people will play the most 'popular' even if it's crap.

4) Forget mission writing as the ONLY way to do UGC:
4A) Open the UI for modding. I'd love to see people try different ways of organizing the interface. The Mod community of ******** is freaking huge and there's a lot of investment in setting up the look of your screen not just where you want everything but with the kind of feedback you want as well.

4B) Custom Starbases and Head Quarters. You can get a lot of investment out of people when they have space to develop and use for their own. When someone can create a space and share it with others you've got that UGC but not with the need for it to be another mission to fly through like all the rest.

Lastly I see the following as really key bullet points in all this:

I. If people are making missions as UGC then they ~should~ regardless of the system have a way to make them to share with friends and play within their fleets provided that there are no rewards asside from the mission itself. This would help allow custom missions to be a means for Fleet RP and Story Building but not open it to abulse.

II. If the goal of UGC is to fill in the 'content gaps' in the game, then it is going to need to have rewards attached and attaching rewards practically garuntees that it will be abused to powerlevel. THis itself isn't a bad thing but look at what happened in the early days of UGC in COX. No one did anything but powerlevel in the Mission Architect and then sit and complain there wasn't enough content at the level cap.

When someone says "this is a way to get content for Klingons!" it says to me that they see UGC as a way to PVE level a Klingon and that says to me "Danger!"

III. I feel the goal of any UGC should be to create a personal buy-in from the player. Another hook to keep them logging in. As such it does not need to be Custom Missions. There are lots of other ways to let a player feel that they've got somethign going that needs tending and work. Things like the Guild Group effort to build a 1st Rate Ship of the Line in Pirates of the Burning Sea and similar massive superships in EVE do just that. I want to log in to contribute to my fleet's effort to build something grand, and I want to go on missinos with it to see the fruit of my labors in battle.

My personal take is that too many people assume that all the pitfalls of Custom Missions in COX will be solved and that even if a system can "kind of" be gamed it will be minor. I'd much rather see the developers find a way to create good and engaging general content than to open the tools up for us to use.

Top of my List?

Branching Stories in a given Mission. Just giving me the option 3 times to chose between 2 outcomes (for a total of 8 different resolutions) will not only make the missions more interesting than they are now, but it will also create incentives for me to replay the content with a different character or to encourage a team leader to make different choices on a second playthrough.

But taht's me.

I'm cynical and Jaded.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
06-09-2010, 01:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_Drake
You'll be crap like that?
it'll, rather
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
06-09-2010, 02:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarbasePrime
The problem with tags is quantity and meaning. For example, [Time] and [TNG] in your list overlap a touch and TNG indicates a need for TOS, DS9, etc. The UGC Features thread has a new suggestion for handling "personal" preferences, but ideally there would be Google-like search features on the web so you could, for example, get a list of all "Q" missions and the players ratings too.
Let the community tag and the most commun tags (using the dictionary autocomplete) would be assigned.

Having a search-able system would be awesome and [tags] are some of the simplest ways of doing this. If you've played LittleBigPlanet, you might understand just how useful this could be.
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 08:22 AM.