Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
10-22-2010, 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
The reality is anyone can be on the UGC panel, reviewing missions.
And the people who let everything through are the ones who will be applauded. Every time a mission gets rejected you'll have the player base up in arms screaming, "OMG WHY ARE YOU RUINING MY FUN!?"

Quote:
The diminishing returns are to prevent farming.

Both positions sound fair: democracy on one hand and preventing abuse on the other.
If Cryptic is responsible for setting the rewards then there's no "abuse" in farming UGC, anymore than there's "abuse" in farming DSE's.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
10-22-2010, 11:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikaelus View Post
And the people who let everything through are the ones who will be applauded. Every time a mission gets rejected you'll have the player base up in arms screaming, "OMG WHY ARE YOU RUINING MY FUN!?"
Except the reviews are done anonymously and consistently playing favorites means players can report suspicious voting. Do so means restricting access for those who would rig the system.

players can simultaneously report missions that are pants on head stupid meaning the devs can take away reviewing rights from sloppy reviewers.

And any can sign up to review - you just have to work to keep it that way.
Quote:
If Cryptic is responsible for setting the rewards then there's no "abuse" in farming UGC, anymore than there's "abuse" in farming DSE's.
The diminished returns are to prevent people from creating crap farming missions. If you've seen other games with UGC, you'd understand why this is necessary.

Also, they put a cooldown on DSEs to prevent farming. I remember exploiting the DSEs to get through the game's content gaps. I can't do it the same way anymore (which also happened to get rid of farmers who'd instance hop for it, due to no cooldown).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
10-22-2010, 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
Except the reviews are done anonymously and consistently playing favorites means players can report suspicious voting. Do so means restricting access for those who would rig the system.

players can simultaneously report missions that are pants on head stupid meaning the devs can take away reviewing rights from sloppy reviewers.

And any can sign up to review - you just have to work to keep it that way.
If reviewers are anonymous and we (ie, the mission creator) appeals, who reviews the reviewer? Cryptic? What's to prevent a reviewer from letting crap UGC missions through? If a crap mission gets through, will it be pulled back if the reviewer is determined by Cryptic to have been making poor judgments? Or will the mission then be given to another reviewer to approve or reject?

It sounds like quite the clusterf*ck setup to me, ultimately dependent either on the population choosing reviewers without knowing who they are and/or dependent upon Cryptic to watch the watchers.

Quote:
The diminished returns are to prevent people from creating crap farming missions. If you've seen other games with UGC, you'd understand why this is necessary.

Also, they put a cooldown on DSEs to prevent farming. I remember exploiting the DSEs to get through the game's content gaps. I can't do it the same way anymore (which also happened to get rid of farmers who'd instance hop for it, due to no cooldown).
Cryptic is suppose to be responsible for determining UGC rewards, no? If so... they have the capacity to prevent "farming missions".

And considering I find most episode missions crap (save the new weeklies), I rely pretty heavily on farming DSE's. I do all the patrols that pop up, but DSE's are necessary for my leveling. So yup. I farm them, and I instance hop. The 30 minute cooldown doesn't prevent farming all that much.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
10-22-2010, 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
The diminished returns are to prevent people from creating crap farming missions. If you've seen other games with UGC, you'd understand why this is necessary.

Also, they put a cooldown on DSEs to prevent farming. I remember exploiting the DSEs to get through the game's content gaps. I can't do it the same way anymore (which also happened to get rid of farmers who'd instance hop for it, due to no cooldown).
From what I understand Cryptic themselves will be setting the xp and item reward for UGC missions from the get go. So it should be impossible to create farm missions from the way I understand it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
10-23-2010, 12:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hravik
From what I understand Cryptic themselves will be setting the xp and item reward for UGC missions from the get go. So it should be impossible to create farm missions from the way I understand it.
Actually, no. The XP/credit rewards are determined by average playthrough for the mission.

Quote:
If reviewers are anonymous and we (ie, the mission creator) appeals, who reviews the reviewer? Cryptic? What's to prevent a reviewer from letting crap UGC missions through? If a crap mission gets through, will it be pulled back if the reviewer is determined by Cryptic to have been making poor judgments? Or will the mission then be given to another reviewer to approve or reject?

It sounds like quite the clusterf*ck setup to me, ultimately dependent either on the population choosing reviewers without knowing who they are and/or dependent upon Cryptic to watch the watchers.
You report a bad review or vetting of a mission. Cryptic's GM/Community team can then determine who let what through.

Nothing prevents them from putting crap missions through. however, the risk of being cut-off from reviewing UGC will discourage letting crap through. Crap will still occur but people will be mindful that allowing it to slide (to be popular) could mean losing their privileges.
Quote:
Cryptic is suppose to be responsible for determining UGC rewards, no? If so... they have the capacity to prevent "farming missions".

And considering I find most episode missions crap (save the new weeklies), I rely pretty heavily on farming DSE's. I do all the patrols that pop up, but DSE's are necessary for my leveling. So yup. I farm them, and I instance hop. The 30 minute cooldown doesn't prevent farming all that much.
Cryptic doesn't quite set the rewards. The rewards are based off average playtime and also how many missions that player has run that day. Funnily enough, this system is more progressive. You can play as much UGC as you want - it's just that after a certain point, it is more efficient to do other content to level per day.

As for DSEs, the 30 minute cooldown does mean that the rate of XP gain is decreased - before you could simply hop complete hop complete - now there's a 30 minute wait before you can accept the mission again.

Cryptic's system for managing UGC rewards actually sounds like it would discourage Ker'rat and Ortha farmers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
10-23-2010, 12:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikaelus View Post
If Cryptic is responsible for setting the rewards then there's no "abuse" in farming UGC, anymore than there's "abuse" in farming DSE's.
Yes, right, that's why over at City of Heroes half the patches are just exploit fixes for their Mission Architect system for players who found ways to abuse the automated reward system. Yep, that would be great for STO, wouldn't it?

Personally, while I think the review system sounds good in theory, in practice it won't work well. Why? It supposes that everyone will rate content fairly and objectively; but here's what will happen (imo):

1) you'll get reviewers who pass (and put a 5 star rating on ANYTHING) for the right 'price' (be it in game equipment, EC, etc). yes cryptic can monitor and start to 'kick people' from being reviewers if they want; but that will just start a round of bad feelings in game, cause lost subs, and the reputation of STO and it's UGC system will drop and be seen as a liability.

2) Fleets will (again) pass (and 5 star) ANYTHING done by a Fleet mate; and if some don't, you can be sure it'll cause 'drama' in the Fleet, again leading to lost subs, bad feelings, etc.

3) Exploiters will band together to make and pass stuff that exploits the system.

And again, anytime Cryptic (rightfully) uses the 'exclude' option for these type of reviewers; it'll just cost subs as the people excluded feel cheated, and the argument will always be: "Hey, you guys MADE the system and set the rules. How can it be abuse if the Foundry editor doesn't 'red flag' what I did? It just goes to show Cryptic doesn't know what it's doing...etc."

And lets not get stated on the storm that will erupt even when missions that RIGHTLY deserve to be rejected or get one star start to show up. The forums will explode about the unfairness of the rating system, the review process, etc.

Personally, I do think the OP read too much into the interview comments; as (like has been stated) - anyone who accepts the Foundry EULA can see any published mission (whether 'accepted into the game' or not); but I really do think, given the nature of the average MMO player; and what we saw in the implementation of the CoX Mission Architect - no player run rating system will do what the Devs intend ONLY because they honestly think (much like the NCSoft Paragon Devs did); that players will be objective, and want to mostly create and honestly rate good content; when in reality, the majority will be the ones who want to 'game' the UGC system to create loot farms, Power Leveling farms, Accolade Farms, etc. And anything Cryptic does to curtail that will be seen as negative because "We're just using the system you Devs gave us" along with; "Why does anyone care if WE want to play STO 'this way' as we pay of $15 a month like everyone else.

I admit, I was optimistic thinking that perhaps Cryptic, with this extra level of player review might be on to something; but seeing the reaction of many people in this thread to just that, shows that whatever tools they give to the playerbase; the majority will just be out to exploit or 'game' it to the largest extent possible; and when Cryptic swoops in to try and regain control, it'll end up with the same result that the MA had for CoX.

So, yeah, at this point after seeing some of the player reactions in this thread; I honestly don't see any real benefit to STO in adding a full featured UGC system to the game. I REALLY DO hope I'm wrong; but (like what happened with CoX and the Mission Architect); 60+ Devs can't compete vs thousands of exploiters; and the one who will loose are the general players of the game; as well as the small minority of players who DO (and would) use the UGC as the Devs and CBS hoped they would.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
10-23-2010, 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armsman View Post
Personally, while I think the review system sounds good in theory, in practice it won't work well.
For once we're in complete agreement. With regards to the UGC system, anyway.

I think Cryptic is doing a lot of things that sound good on paper but, in practice, will ultimately only cause problems for the game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
10-23-2010, 12:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rikaelus View Post
For once we're in complete agreement. With regards to the UGC system, anyway.

I think Cryptic is doing a lot of things that sound good on paper but, in practice, will ultimately only cause problems for the game.
The canon purists complained and we're forced to have a review system that both gates content and has potential for abuse by reviewers.

It's a shame a simple report feature was used and been done with.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
10-23-2010, 12:41 AM
I'm not in favor of reviewers determining which missions are allowed in. The ratings process should, for the most part, take care of that by itself. Based on the CoH system, most players are only interested in playing missions that are high ranked. Low ranked missions don't "make the cut" so to speak since fewer people enjoy playing them, thus the search results always display them last. Naturally there should be a built in option that allows anyone playing to report a mission for possible abuse/inappropriate content.

As for the XP issue, that should be determined based on mission length (there should at least 3 different time lengths; short, medium, long) and whether or not the enemies scale to your level or remain static. Some type of algorithm or formula should be used based on the above, IMHO.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
10-23-2010, 12:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
Actually, no. The XP/credit rewards are determined by average playthrough for the mission.


You report a bad review or vetting of a mission. Cryptic's GM/Community team can then determine who let what through.

Nothing prevents them from putting crap missions through. however, the risk of being cut-off from reviewing UGC will discourage letting crap through. Crap will still occur but people will be mindful that allowing it to slide (to be popular) could mean losing their privileges.
I still don't understand what makes this system a good thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
As for DSEs, the 30 minute cooldown does mean that the rate of XP gain is decreased - before you could simply hop complete hop complete - now there's a 30 minute wait before you can accept the mission again.

Cryptic's system for managing UGC rewards actually sounds like it would discourage Ker'rat and Ortha farmers.
Sooooooo... Why not use the 3-pack cooldown system on the typical 30 minute timer?

It's increasingly apparent that they really don't want people actually playing the game much per day...
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 07:44 AM.