Perks should not be based on how highly rated your missions are,
however they should be linked to how many missions you create that are published (passes basic
rules for published mission)
In that way the perks arrive as the writer gets more experience with the tool.
The perks should reflect the amount of experience the writer has..as in, the early rewards
are simple to use....placeables and such. The later rewards, scripted items, kick in later
as the writers experience increases to the point where they can make better use of them.
.... a compromise
Problem.is.. there's nothing preventing abuse. In fact it would give authors an incentive to make a lot of crappy missions. They'll all be approved so long as they don't violate the EULA, and they'll be rewarded with items for doing so.
Any reward really has to include quality in some manner, to avoid being exploited with many crappy missions. Even ratings isn't safe since it'd be so easy for fleets or third-parties to speed through the content and slap a 5-star rating on it.
The best way to programmatically detect quality is go by total amount of time played with a safe-guard time cap per playthrough to prevent idlers. The only way to exploit that system requires third-parties to dedicate massive account time which, with low-increment rewards, isn't worth their effort--there'd be no profit.
Publish count, playthrough count, rating... all of those statistics are too easy to exploit.
You know I am amazed that a rewards system is being considered a necessity, if we were being ORDERED to make missions or ELSE (lol) THEN I would understand. Even though us making content does help cryptic on some level, the end product is a "feature" not a flaw. We are being given the chance to create our own stories and missions IF WE CHOSE TO. For anyone with a creative mind that is a reward in itself. If anyojne feels like it's some massive chore and they dont want to do it, then they dont have to. They can continue the STO experience unhindered...with the added bonus of extra missions to play.
For mission makers it is anything up to a dream come true. Dont get me wrong if cryptic considered a rewards system of some type that would be great. But it would be a bonus not (IMHO) a necessity.
As far as SPOKK and CIRK, well I understand that people can do what they want. Just as they can name ships the way they want to etc etc. But as the OP asked for opinions, mine is simple. I would be really dissapointed to see that in this game, in some way(for me) it woud cheapen things badly. My hope is that the missions we make add not only content, but new characters and rather than the missions "feeling " player made, we are going to have a toolset(by the looks of it) that will enable us to make equal..or even better missions than many that are currently available. For me personally thats is the goal, to creat missions that feel likle they were meant to be in the game. Missons that ADD to the game. With such a huge universe I also wonder if we even need to look at known names when there is so much scope for originality.
Like i said it is each to thier own and i am certainly not even close to trying to tell anyone what to do, but for me personally..even a really good mission is going to feel a bit "cheesy" with thse kinds of names in it. But it's just an opinion no offense intended here.
After 100 posts to this thread, is it about time that you gatherd your core statements together and started a fresh thread called 'compensation' or something relavent? I think that you have a good point on your side, I just see it spread kinda thin through 100 posts, a bit of a big read for the newcommers to the conversation.
Been considering that. Going to write up a formal proposal to send to dstahl.. might make a thread based on that writeup.
Update: Well, wrote up a proper proposal with all points and sent it to dstahl, but I imagine he gets a billion messages a day so I don't know if he'll ever see it.
Unfortunately I don't think I can access the Beta... and would love to be able to read the EULA....
However, a thought,, I believe US laws allot us the right to make Parodies in which we can use likenesses of characters without licenses as long as it can no way be consider the real deal or possibly be endorsed as canon.
Granted, then were likely to see mission that are so demented, we know it can only have been caused by Q on an acid trip.
I too would very much like to see the content restrictions for what is acceptable use of the IP. I guess we'll get an iteration of it soon. It also makes sense to compare with the CafePress restrictions, which I believe are fairly lenient.
I'll say that however restrictions are implemented, I'll review personally with an open mind. Star Trek means things to different people. I'll review against the restrictions but then rate if the mission was fun and interesting, regardless of whether it was "Trek". That's of course my opinion.
I'd like to ask specifically about characters Cryptic has already used. To my knowledge, Cryptic only has used McCoy, Leeta, and Worf as a kind of crazy older version with radically different skin pigmentation (which perhaps suggests either someone else called Worf or, more likely, the rights were not completely secured). Of course, there are probably more; feel free to correct me. Could these be implemented with such likeness restrictions in mind?
Third, I'd like to be somewhat philosophical and ask what we're defining as "likeness". In my opinion, Mr. Nimoy has expressed his likeness in the game as Spock through the use of his voice talent. So therefore, could we express Spock in Nimoy's image if his sonic likeness exists in adition to character models that Cryptic have used?