Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
03-02-2012, 04:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by h2orat
Looks like we may of found the issue for NPC contacts being killable and a fix is ready to be checked in.. but needs to be internally tested a bit. Not sure when it will actually go live though...

You can thank Scott S for the fix.
Quick! Lets get him to make more missions with other long standing bugs!

Does... anyone remember what some are? I kinda got so used to doing my Killable NPC work-arounds I forgot its importance. I wonder what else I am doing by habit now...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
03-02-2012, 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by XR-377 View Post
Quick! Lets get him to make more missions with other long standing bugs!

Does... anyone remember what some are? I kinda got so used to doing my Killable NPC work-arounds I forgot its importance. I wonder what else I am doing by habit now...
Make a mission where two map dialogues (each one on a different map) appear after an Objective Complete trigger, and a third map dialogue that appears after Objective In-Progress trigger.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
03-02-2012, 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
Make a mission where two map dialogues (each one on a different map) appear after an Objective Complete trigger, and a third map dialogue that appears after Objective In-Progress trigger.
Why should that work? Map objects are bound to the map they are on and trashed after zoning. That includes dialogs. The only that that gets carried on is the story tab.
So the game should not trigger dialogs from past maps upon reaching the trigger event. It should, however trigger the dialogs on the following maps. Logically, that dialog should come up after zoning.

I had funny things happen when I attached a dialog to a reach objective. Then I replaced the reach objective with an interact objective and it started to work.

How about using a Prop as a contact image? Once out of every 3 load for edit, my missions forget the prop turret/crate images and substitue the default costume instead. Fun fun fun to fix it all the time. It is okish of that was the default costume, because it shows up as an error, but not if the prop was used in the middle of the dialog.

Oh and how about working on the trigger evaluation? Right now, it is done as they happen. If all the spawn out triggers are met before all the spawn ins, then the object will be spawned in and never spawned out.
Instead, upon spawn in, the object should check the spawn out triggers first. If they are met, then the object should not spawn in at all.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
03-03-2012, 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendra80 View Post
Why should that work? Map objects are bound to the map they are on and trashed after zoning. That includes dialogs. The only that that gets carried on is the story tab.
So the game should not trigger dialogs from past maps upon reaching the trigger event. It should, however trigger the dialogs on the following maps. Logically, that dialog should come up after zoning.
It's because the Objective triggers are bugged as hell. I was responding to the suggestion to encourage the creation of a mission with long standing bugs. If you set a map dialogue to show with Objective Complete, it won't show that dialogue but instead a random different dialogue which may not even be from the same map. It's actually probably not necessary to set two dialogues to appear via Objective Complete, just one, and to place a second dialogue so the bug can present itself.

There's actually nothing wrong with Objective In-Progress trigger, except that it creates an erroneous message that makes it so the mission can't be published (it works fine in the preview). The Objective In-Progress bug is actually more frustrating because it's probably like a 10 minute fix to remove the erroneous error message.

Actually, both are probably easy fixes, I suspect. It's just no one actually fixes things. It's the same issue with the contacts being killable. It's been a problem forever, but no one at Cryptic who can do anything about it ever gets the message.

What we really need is to have someone devote one single week to simply addressing the top bugs in the Foundry, and allow us to present the top bugs (actually they're already listed here: http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...d.php?t=252643 ). It wouldn't take much to fix these major bugs and it would make life a lot easier for everyone who uses the Foundry.

Anyway, I'm sorry for going off topic about bugs when this should really be about the mission.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
03-04-2012, 12:04 AM
Was curious and decided to try out H2's mission.


I really felt that the dialogue was very Trekish and really moved the mission along. Though not too thrilled by compounding every advanced technology in the story (Omega Particles, Thalaron, Borg, Time Travel). I really hope you can bring these together in a logical manner later on.

With the maps, I really liked what you did, especially with the Klingon interior. But the Romulan base, think you should've gone with a customized map. I know Romulan maps are far too limited (hopefully that's part of a Foundry expansion).

The Space Maps, seemed rather cluttered to me. Too bad there isn't a way to change proportions. Because I think it would've been nice if you had something like Khitomer Space Map and have a battle in the orbit and make things look smaller in proportion.

The Volcanic Moon, think you could've gone with quick camera shakes than the constant. And the mobs, should've been intregrated into the storyline than KOS, like have them warn you and then attack when approaching the base.

The one thing I hated the most in this mission is you spawning Captain level mobs on top of you. Especially with the Romulans pull out that Thalaron device. (Always wished you could turn off abilities with NPCs, I really would love that for my Briar Patch Foundry Mission).


Overall I give it a 4+stars.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
03-04-2012, 11:28 AM
I really enjoy your mission and I hope more devs get envolve with the foundry!

Thank you!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
03-05-2012, 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkfat View Post
H20rat, please share your experience with the ratings system, mission listings, and player feedback in this thread.
This is a tough thing to really answer Kirkfat, because ultimately Cryptic really needs to let the community be the judge on how good a mission is as it does seem to be a fair way for a "community content" ranking system to work.

That being said I do think Irish's ideas during your Foundry conference call has a lot of merit. The current rating system's main issue is new players who don't know what the Foundry can and can't do have the habit of rating missions low. Or rank a mission low due to issues outside the author's control (such as slow map load times, a bugged critter on spawn, etc.) It is also difficult for a new misson to be listed on the search, so may never see the light of day for players. There needs to be other factors that make up the ranking system besides the general feelings from the player.

How often has the mission been played?
Has the player who left a 1 star ranking made a Foundry before?
etc.

I also think we need to do a better job at parsing the search for new missions - and I really thought you guys hit a home run with adding in parsing data like - Time ERA (is the mission TOS, TNG, 2409, etc?), as well as simple check boxes to set meta data for searches such as:

Is the mission story driven?
Are there puzzles?
Is there ground combat?
Is there space combat?
Is there diplomacy?
Is there exploration?
Listings by playtime (10-30 minutes) (30 min to 1 hour) (1 - 2 hours) (more than 2 hours)

You get the idea.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
03-05-2012, 06:03 PM
Instead of having just a blind 1-5 star system why not have people fill out some questions and give an average of that score?

Also, make it so you have to actually MAKE a foundry mission before you get to judge other people's work.

Then again, if that and having to do Normal STFs before queing for Elites were both in game we'd all be far too happy and you guys like us kinda mean
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
03-05-2012, 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by h2orat
This is a tough thing to really answer Kirkfat, because ultimately Cryptic really needs to let the community be the judge on how good a mission is as it does seem to be a fair way for a "community content" ranking system to work.

That being said I do think Irish's ideas during your Foundry conference call has a lot of merit. The current rating system's main issue is new players who don't know what the Foundry can and can't do have the habit of rating missions low. Or rank a mission low due to issues outside the author's control (such as slow map load times, a bugged critter on spawn, etc.) It is also difficult for a new misson to be listed on the search, so may never see the light of day for players. There needs to be other factors that make up the ranking system besides the general feelings from the player.

How often has the mission been played?
Has the player who left a 1 star ranking made a Foundry before?
etc.

I also think we need to do a better job at parsing the search for new missions - and I really thought you guys hit a home run with adding in parsing data like - Time ERA (is the mission TOS, TNG, 2049, etc?), as well as simple check boxes to set meta data for searches such as:

Is the mission story driven?
Are there puzzles?
Is there ground combat?
Is there space combat?
Is there diplomacy?
Is there exploration?
Listings by playtime (10-30 minutes) (30 min to 1 hour) (1 - 2 hours) (more than 2 hours)

You get the idea.
Great post.

Can you find your mission in the "new" listings? I can't find mine. I'm relying almost solely on my forum sig at this point.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
03-05-2012, 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirkfat View Post
Great post.

Can you find your mission in the "new" listings? I can't find mine. I'm relying almost solely on my forum sig at this point.
Adding to this, I agree that we need more categories, but frankly the current categories don't even work now.

"New" doesn't seem to actually list new missions. Apparently what constitutes "new" is too broad (like everything made in the last year is new). I think the criteria for "new" should be the number of plays, not creation date. New should only list missions with less than X number of plays (I'd say 500 or 1000 max, which would remove all of the top rated missions).

Right now "Hot" is also irrelevant because the top rated missions get the most plays, and thus also make the "Hot" list.

I say make the change to "new" so that it only displays missions with less than 1000 ratings, and then make it so that the category shown by default is randomly determined (33% top rated, 33% new, 33% hot). Since Top Rated and New will be shown equally, Hot should end up being a mix of the two.

Alternatively, "new" could be the default category shown, giving missions more publicity when they are newer. I think most authors would be happy if their missions received 1000 plays, and after that someone else should get more prominent display.

Maybe a new category could be added which had "classics" (those missions with more than 1000 or 2000 plays).
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 On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:30 AM.