I just don't see the point in personally insulting people who have put in effort and time creating Foundry missions.
If I find something in a mission I don't like, I realize that people are not the same and that tastes differ. Foundry missions are stories. They are not opportunities for people to feel like the panel of Idols, or "STO's got Talent".
If there is something technically wrong with the mission, making it impossible to play, I contact the author, thus given them an opportunity to correct the issue, before adding my impressive "Fail! Cr@p" vote to it. PS. This says more about the reviewer than the story line by the way.
As an Author, I am an ordinary person. I am not developer. I do not have access to code to make all your wildest expectations and dreams come true. I am only trying my best to tell my own story. If you don't enjoy it, please stop immediately what you are doing, and move onto something else. Why put yourself through my mission then, only to come out at the other side so you can slate it? One example is a person who complained that a KDF mission referenced to the player as being Klingon, but he was an alien... Or G@d forbid, I used canonical Klingon names and linenames used in most fiction, because someone thought them childish.
If you really feel the need to express your outrage, please refrain from personal insults, and just give some constructive feedback.
For those who really do enjoy the good slating, please create a foundry mission and see how it feels when something you put a great deal of effort into, gets torn apart.
I would like Cryptic to institute a system whereby like on YouTube or Linkedin, your missions are your profile to manage.
Allow authors to decide which reviews can be made public, and which offensive ones can be removed.
I would even like to be able to place people on Foundry ignores. That way they can be permanently assisted from having to "endure" the missions I create.
Last edited by drkfrontiers; 09-15-2012 at 10:00 AM.
I agree with you that some are insulting, and shouldn't be. However, I don't think that authors should be able to "block" certain reviews. What if somebody blocked all negative reviews to make their mission look better?
Pretty much anything one does is going to be critiqued. The best way to put up with overly-aggressive reviews is to just ignore them. Don't take them personally.
That's my thoughts, anyway.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured ... the first thought forbidden ... the first freedom denied ... chains us all irrevocably."
Welcome to the world of a spotlight author. I had all kinds of ridiculous reviews on mine a couple weeks ago.
One said it had "coding issues." A. I don't have access to the code, and B. WTF do does "coding issues" even mean? ERG!
I think a lot of it stems from fundamental ignorance as to how the foundry works from a large part of the people who only pop in to play spotlight missions. And it'll get WORSE once they attach a reward to it.
Also, some people are just jerks.
The Foundry Roundtable live Wednesdays at 7:30PM EST/4:30PM PST on twitch.tv/thefoundryroundtable Forums are like Sanctuary Districts, complete with Gimmes, Ghosts and Dims.
Also, most people who play the mission don't write reviews. We only get the vocal ones; good, bad, or troll.
Like you said in the OP, these are stories, ones we wanted to tell. Take pride in the fact Cryptic chose yours because of what it is! I mean, only reason I got a spotlight was I won a contest. Your mission was just good.
Yea same here, thanks for this post. Here is what I find, most of the positive reviews I get are from actual Star Trek fans that know what I am trying to do. The trolls and D!cks are not. It is a good thing that we do not know who these people actually are. Reason being is not only am I a damn good foundry author I also slaughter in PVP. If I ever knew who these trolls were I would hunt them down and repeatedly emasculate them in PVP.
Check out the review. Nope: "Way too many Romulans."
My first response is "NO. There are not. See for yourself. There are 6 groups, just like on the Federation mission that you just gave me 5 stars for. THIS is the type of review to I would like to ignore completely. Someone who understands how the Foundry works would not have left this review."
We cannot force people to use the Foundry (nor should we), and so we cannot avoid reviews like this. I am going to ask the person what they meant, and maybe see if they might change the rating if I can change it, or whatever.
Did the map itself simply feel cluttered?
Were the respawn points poorly placed?
Did they mean that the placement was crowded?
Because they're all completely different issues.
But they don't know that. They're using the terms that they do know to communicate what they thought was wrong with it. And what more can they do, really? As the Author, it's in my benefit to find out what they meant.
So I would LIKE to ignore it, but it's an opportunity for education: Mine, as to what the person means, and the person's, because they might learn something about the Foundry. Or not, or whatever. The point is that it's done in the spirit of cooperation.
Also, in this example: I've overlooked the fact that the person also gave me two 5 Stars, and that they played 3 of my missions the first place - they spent time on my work (getting it closer to leaving the review stage), and gave me some attention and feedback. Really, that's kinda neat (as Archie Andrews might say, if he played STO).
Don't overlook stuff like that. It's important, because you need to look at the good stuff too. It's important for your sense of worth as an Author. Don't overlook stuff that makes you feel good! Not to sound like a Deferi, but balance is important.
And just like you spent time making it, they spent their time playing it. They could have been farming STFs or lockboxes instead. Yes, you probably spent more time making it, but they definitely spent their time playing it. As a Consumer, they just want a product that they enjoy. As an Author, it's up to us to give it to them, overcoming all the restrictions that are in our way. Even when 'their knowledge of the Foundry' is one of the restrictions.
You don't need to know how a music studio works to know whether or not you like a piece of music, and this is essentially no different.
2: "Your time limit is wrong"
I had no idea what this meant, so I mailed the person and asked them. They replied "You say it takes 45 minutes, but it took me well over an hour."
Firstly: They played my work for over an hour. I want to give THEM dilithium, dang it! Can I give THEM 5 Stars? AWESOME. Credit where it's due, eh?
Secondly, no matter what excuses you use (valid or otherwise) you cannot control other people's experience of your work, only influence it. That's part of being a creator. It's the best part, I think - everyone gets a different experience, because everyone is different.
Finally, in both cases (1 and 2), they didn't make it a personal attack. They simply said what they thought the problem was, and left it at that. That's how do it: Stay classy, reviewers.
In conclusion, I would like to state that I don't know how to close essays properly but I've said everything I wanted to.
(*PLUG* Defense Extra: Azure is the KDF one with "way too many Romulans", if you wanted to judge it for yourself. Currently still in review stage. *PLUG*)