Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
10-26-2010, 05:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo
there seams to be some confusion of what the panel is

every single person in this game can join the panel. the community IS the panel.

to join you have to agree that you will be playing some untested potentially very bad missions. every single person can play any UGC mission they like. even if something gets one star you can still test it yourself. the fact a mission gets one star suggests that its not good enough or there is a problem with it to begin with.

the good ones that are not buggy and get decent marks will then join the contact list so that anyone can play it even if you have not agreed to test them.

If the OP makes a mission and its great and he advertises it in game, to his fleet on the forums, then every single person who agrees to test can play it and rate it. as long as its not horrible buggy or vulgar then it will get through.

the mission is still there available for everybody who wants to play it. his rights to have this mission available to everybody are not affected.

If a mission gets played by 2000 or 10000 people and its gets a bad score then it does not deserve to go into the game proper. if its ok then it will pass.
As always.......you the man....in that case sign me up......
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
10-26-2010, 05:25 AM
I too, am in agreeance with the OP.

having the community decide whether a UGC mission will even see the daylight(so to speak) is totally illogical.

have is so that the missions do make it out, and if they are bad, then definitely rat it down. if its vulgar, then it will be reported and removed.

I had several ideas for missions with my favorite Star Trek character... Q(and not Q2 like we currently have in this game), not to mention the possibilites of opening up an official tribble football arena(and possibly league- with various different arenas) that i would like to see show up as playable.

imagine Klingons and Starfleet playing tribble football. it would be reminiscent of bloodbowl- if anyone has played that game.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
10-26-2010, 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by apt.pupil

having the community decide whether a UGC mission will even see the daylight(so to speak) is totally illogical.
anybody, can play any UGC mission, anytime they like by agreeing to the EULA.

people that dont want to run the risk of testing potential buggy, offensive content dont sign the EULA and they will only have access to the mission they pass the review stage.

The only other option is every mission goes straight in available to anybody and you run the risk of wading through hundreds of broken, buggy, impossible to completely missions. that is basically what the review board does. if you want to see every mission, sign the EULA.

the reviewer are the people that dont mind doing that and doing a quality control check for the people that only want a mission that works.

every single mission is still available to anybody who wants to see it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
10-26-2010, 05:40 AM
quote from Dstahl

Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
and here's my 2cents added...


There is no council. That was a bad choice of words - or pure fan speculative paraphrasing.

Anyone who loads up the Foundry tools (and accepts the EULA) can rate content.

When you make a mission, it can be shared with friends and they can play it and test it.

The new remote contact window has a separate tab for Player Authored Missions that returns a list of all available player made missions. The search results can be filtered by a bunch of different criteria.

In order for a mission to show up automatically in this search results window, it must first be played and completed x number of times (this is the only gating feature to prevent a published mission from showing up randomly for any player). This means that players who use the Foundry must play it through first to ensure it can be completed and doesn't have a thousand vulgar jokes in it.

So think of it this way - before we "push" any new player authored mission to any random player, the community must play test the mission first. You can't just hit publish and instantly have it appear in game. That would lead to abuse fast. We fully expect there to be players who enjoy playing and rating new content but because we (Cryptic) have no idea what could be in the mission - you must agree to a EULA stating - play at your own risk first. (this is very similar to other sites where you can't just post a video and expect it to show up instantly online - and it must be watched by people who have agreed to potentially see something objectionable first).

If a player finds something objectionable or in violation of the authoring policies, they can flag the mission. If a mission is flagged as inappropriate, it is pulled until the issues is addressed.

Rewards are still very much TBD and even once we go into beta, will most likely be tweaked and tuned many times as our biggest concern is preventing abuse and ensuring that missions have fair rewards.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
10-26-2010, 06:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo
quote from Dstahl
Hrm, grumble, mumble, hrm.

I still don't like it but I will admit that if that's the case, then it's not the end of the world as we know it.

It's still too dependant on unskilled, untalented, biased hacks who will nuke content just because they don't like a person and fleets who will push their buddy's content through even if it sucks. The entire concept of a review system should be scrapped.

Cryptic could easily just make anyone who wanted to use any UGC digitally sign the EULA since that's all they really seem to be concerned about. Putting in a review system adds an unnecessary layer of complexity that muddies the waters and encourages the very abuse that they claim implementing this system will combat.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
10-26-2010, 06:30 AM
Thnx for layin it out Revo.....the right information for the right idea.

Once again...we'll see how she pans out.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
10-26-2010, 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekvar
I know for a fact that my missions will be awesome. I know this because I've spent over twenty years designing adventures for pen and paper roleplaying games and have even had some published. I know this because I put way too much effort into making them as good as they can possibly be. But I refuse to be judged by a bunch of amateur egotistical Star Trek snobs. I don't even care that I have a good chance of my missions getting approved. I do care that they can be shot down by a totally arbitrary body made up of illiterate nobodies with delusions of grandeur and no actual skill or objectiveness whatsoever.

If my missions get judged by the community in a star rating system as being crap, that I could accept. But to have to be approved by a completely random selection of unwashed, uneducated, unemployable Internet tough guys, ****es me the Hell off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekvar
It's still too dependant on unskilled, untalented, biased hacks who will nuke content just because they don't like a person and fleets who will push their buddy's content through even if it sucks. The entire concept of a review system should be scrapped.
We'll be the judge of that. :p

Your missions should be judged only after we've played them - not before you've even created them in the game. For all we know, you might create the best work of literature the world has ever know. However, let's wait to see your ideas to fruition before judging their absolute worth.

Also, not everyone who rates down your mission may be "unwashed, uneducated, unemployable." I think it's safe to say you've overstated how much you know about people who haven't even seen your missions.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
10-26-2010, 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekvar
Hrm, grumble, mumble, hrm.

I still don't like it but I will admit that if that's the case, then it's not the end of the world as we know it.

It's still too dependant on unskilled, untalented, biased hacks who will nuke content just because they don't like a person and fleets who will push their buddy's content through even if it sucks. The entire concept of a review system should be scrapped.

Cryptic could easily just make anyone who wanted to use any UGC digitally sign the EULA since that's all they really seem to be concerned about. Putting in a review system adds an unnecessary layer of complexity that muddies the waters and encourages the very abuse that they claim implementing this system will combat.


I still disagree, everything in media gets reviewed, from music to games to films. everything suffers from people imposing their opinion on it. again this is about the quality of the mission not the actual story or gameplay. bad missions will still be available just wont have high marks. it up to another person to judge for themselves if they like it or not. ive watched films with poor reviews and loved it, ive seen high scored films and hated it. if you dont want your mission reviewed then why create them for people to play.
if someone has a limited amount of time they want to play a UG mission then they need to know roughly how good or bad it is.

You or I might not mind playing any mission but what about people that are easily offended, or are children or have a limited amount of time to play a mission. do they want to open a random mission and see sexual references, religious insults, racist remarks? no they wont. this review system does not muddy the water or complicate anything. it may need some tweaking which is why they are doing this as a beta launch to see how it works, but why not try the system before passing absolute judgement on it?

signing the EULA means that person is happy to see some dodgy stuff. people who dont can still enjoy user generated mission by getting other to test the water first.

and please stop calling the community unskilled and untalented hacks, insulting people and trying to come across as better than everybody else is just arrogant, you are no better or worse at reviewing other peoples mission than anybody else. there will always be someone who tries to grief another mission but potential thousands of people can and will be reviewing these missions. even if one person has a grudge their voice will be shouted out by the overwhelmingly positive reviews, if a mission warrants it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
10-26-2010, 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekvar
Hrm, grumble, mumble, hrm.

I still don't like it but I will admit that if that's the case, then it's not the end of the world as we know it.

It's still too dependant on unskilled, untalented, biased hacks who will nuke content just because they don't like a person and fleets who will push their buddy's content through even if it sucks. The entire concept of a review system should be scrapped.

Cryptic could easily just make anyone who wanted to use any UGC digitally sign the EULA since that's all they really seem to be concerned about. Putting in a review system adds an unnecessary layer of complexity that muddies the waters and encourages the very abuse that they claim implementing this system will combat.
You can't generalize everyone as unskilled, untalented, biased hacks. It's going to take a lot more ratings than five of your buddies to push through your mission, good or bad.

Plus, Cryptic can't force you to sign the new EULA and become a reviewer...that's a grown-up choice and if people aren't mature enough to do so, they shouldn't. I don't understand your complete and utter disdain for a rating system. You keep shouting abuse, like we're all going to downvote your next mission because we hate you. I'm pretty sure I'm going to downvote you because I didn't like my experience with your mission. The best possible way to avoid being downvoted it simply to make a professional level mission if you're going to toss garbage in, we're going to toss it right back out. There's really nothing else to it. Plus, how else would feedback come back to the authors?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
10-26-2010, 06:51 AM
I would imagine some sort of screening process needs to be implemented to stop every one and their grandmas creating bizzare and ridiculous situations with established events, factions and characters.

As CBS still has a saying on the content, I would imagine that the "trekkies" will be the least of your worries, but on the other hand it will force you to think before spending too many hours conjuring weird fantasies in your head in a Trek setting.

As much as I enjoy the creative streak in people the truth is that not everyone respects the setting (as it is evident enough from the character and ship names). As a result a sort of "leash" is necessary and inevitable for such a high profile IP.

So I am sorry OP if this ruins your plans to have Orion slave girls take over the galaxy (relax its a joke) but its better to have the community rate, than allowing whatever and lose their game licence.
Closed Thread

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 03:45 PM.