Metatron_NA

1) If no one wanted to farm, then farmers would be in the minority and no one would be complaining.
2) However, there are a lot of people looking to gain rewards without beating their head against a rock - and as such, there are a LOT of people engaging in some amount of "farming" - possibly even the majority. But if that's the case, why should a majority of the players have their play constrained to make them do what a vocal minority on the forums want?

I mean, I really don't think you can have it both ways, either a) there aren't many people farming - therfore it isn't much of a problem and there isn't much of an impact, OR their are a TON of people farming - therefor why should a playstyle that apparently a TON of people are doing be curtailed or attacked just because a few malcontents want them to be forced to do something else?

Right?

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of which, one can get in trouble for abusing the report system, so I suppose one could report as much as one wanted, if one wants to get in trouble oneself.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I certainly hope that those who wish to abuse the system to harass folks for pursuing XP instead of RP will reap such rewards.

Sounds like wise advice.

Isn't there an unofficial RP server? Perhaps that one can be for those types and Freedom for people who just play the game as a fun game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You might try making them patrols rather than allies. They will then ignore the player and act independently.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I add 20 Patrols, this *suppresses* the normal spawning of baddies. For example, after setting up patrols to be triggered on the glowie, upon entry to the map there were almost no baddies present.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well so do allies if you add 20 of them. They use the same spawn points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I can set 20 Allies to spawn (and have) on glowie trigger, and that does NOT supress the normal spawn of baddies upon mission load.

[ QUOTE ]
You might try making them patrols rather than allies. They will then ignore the player and act independently.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I add 20 Patrols, this *suppresses* the normal spawning of baddies. For example, after setting up patrols to be triggered on the glowie, upon entry to the map there were almost no baddies present.

[ QUOTE ]
I judge a mission solely by how much I enjoy it. Sometimes its the story that draws me, sometimes its a really well designed custom group, sometimes its using a combination of former groups to come up with something new and cool. Sometimes its just a great and exciting series of non-stop challenging, but not completely overwhelming, battles that makes it fun.


I ran into a mission yesterday that was a variation on what is currently one of the more popular 'farms'. The map was different, the objectives tweaked, but essentially, it was the same. The major difference was that there was indeed a story behind it. It was a fairly good attempt at a story as well, though slightly forced. Not saying it was the best story in the world, mind you, but it was more than just a quick whitewash. I gave it 3 stars because I felt the author deserved some tickets for making this work.

Oh, just FYI, this one was not tagged SFMA, but I would not have taken points off if it had been. There was effort behind the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome

Perhaps if stories can attend to both nice rewards *and* a good story, it can be win-win for everyone.

OK, I have a story I am working on turning into a mission. In the final mission, one of the objectives is to turn off the quantum scrambler so that the Freedom Force can send in forces to clean the streets. So I have a blinkie which is the quantum scrambler, and I have 15 Allies that spawn when it is clicked. I have set them to wander/aggressive/single and yet they do NO wandering or fighting unless the player stays close to them.

Is there a way for me to get an allied force to spawn in and start kicking butt all over the map, or is this the best I can do?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can't I just report lame stories and let the GM decide about that?

Can't I just report mission with baddies that I feel are overkill and abusive?

Why don't we ALL just report EVERY SINGLE mission that we don't like, just to see if the devs will be OK with taking it out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you can if you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Touche - heh heh.

Nah, they will do the smart thing - either keep it the same, or eliminate xp entirely. They are smart enough to know that there is no point in the middle.

Since when is effectively making a point trolling?

Oh, when you don't like that point, got it.

Have to say, I did "tee hee" a little at being called a trol by someone named Karl Rove Man, heh heh.

Like I have said before, if people want to make their mission reward based, but fly under the radar by slapping a SFMA tag on it, just spend an hour coming up with a halfway decent story and go ahead and do so. Just don't make the story part lame or obviously a paint job.

Then if people have a problem with your use of the holy SFMA tag, the have to pick one of the following two:

a) They don't like your story - which will lead them into the possible truth that only stories *good enough* qualify for the SFMA tag - and they want to be the one that decides which is "good" enough, or 2
b) They think your story is fine, but they can't stand the SFMA tag being used if the XP rewards are too nice. Which will be admitting that the SFMA tag in their eyes is NOT about story at ALL, its about making sure they don't feel dirty by playing in an numerically effective mission.

On the other hand, you could dare hope that instead, option C happens:

c) these folks would NOT have a problem that your mission uses the SFMA tag and produces awesome rewards, given that a decent story is within, and instead would be quite pleased at the idea that even so-called "xp" mission might be being influenced to have decent stories themselves.

Wouldn't that be cool?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, you both are making the common fallacy of "I know it when I see it."

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't I just report it and let a GM decide?

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't I just report lame stories and let the GM decide about that?

Can't I just report mission with baddies that I feel are overkill and abusive?

Why don't we ALL just report EVERY SINGLE mission that we don't like, just to see if the devs will be OK with taking it out?

For the record, I would personally be in favor of allowing NO xp in MA (therefor killing it off most likely) rather than keeping the amount of xp/hour that gets you in trouble secret.

I can't abide secret rules.

[ QUOTE ]
See? You're rules lawyering already, even without the rules being explicit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have nothing more to say than that?

I guess you surrender the high ground, and I have made my point.

...and I trust that calling a mob to arms will work out *just* fine...

what could go wrong?

I withdraw my previous defense of a Rewards based tag.

So long as devs are keeping secret the specific yardstick by which some missions are potentially being judged to be "too" rewarding, adding a RBMA - Rewards Based Mission Arc tag is nothing more than inviting trouble.

In fact, if you want to MAKE a rewards based arc, you would be best to cover your bases until or unless the devs decide to more clearly define how much rewards is too much.

The best way to do this is quite simple - dress the mission up!

I mean, how hard is it to think of a half decent story? I have seen some really lame stories in these missions - and these weren't RBMAs because the rewards sucked. So if you want to make a mission that does *invite* being measured against the secret measuring stick the devs may be using, then spend a couple of hours and make a story up for you mission - and put a little though in it. Don't do some lame "Stop the ticket girls mission" and don't name your custom baddie the "XP master". Use some common sense, spend more than five minutes, and cook up a non lame story idea.

Then the mission will not be as much of a lightning rod, since among other things, you will have earned the right to add the SFMA holy tag to your mission. That's right, by adding a real story to your mission arc, you will have earned the right to use the SFMA tag - and what better way to cover your bases? And who knows, the RP auteurs that seem to be in charge these days may even like your arc, despite the fact that is grants good XP/tickets/etc, if they also like your story.

Anyways, for now, given the current climate and the dev's secret reward penalty box, just play it safe, add a decent story over your existing reward based mission arcs, and instead label them SFMAs.

Of course, this unfairly penalizes us by not allowing us to find our RBMAs that we really want, for fear of running afoul of the secret limit, but that apparently is for now how the devs seem to want it.

Note: I will explicitly state that I believe we ALL want to follow the rules. But when we are not TOLD the rules, the secret standards we are being held to, then we have to make a decision - we have to guess what is OK and what is not.

For example, a highway with a speed limit sign on it that says not a number, but the word "reasonable". So how fast should I drive? Is the point that everyone should slow down to a crawl just to make sure not to break the secret speed limit that they won't tell us? Or if we think 55 MPH is reasonable should we do so, hoping that that speed is OK? The turht is, no matter how much we truly feel 55 MPH may be fine on this highway with the secret speed limit, if we see a cop, we will probably slow down to 25 or so just to be safe.

Does this reaction, slowing down to 25 in the presence of the cop mean we *want* to drive too fast? NO. It means the cops just won't tell us what "too fast" is.

That's not our fault.

Ah, you both are making the common fallacy of "I know it when I see it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

The phrase "I know it when I see it" is a colloquial expression by which the user attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly-defined parameters. This phrase is best known as a description of a threshold of obscenity, no longer used, which is not protected speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Exhibition of obscene material may be a criminal offense. The phrase notably appeared in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), decided by the United States Supreme Court.

But this isn't really about that. Its about expecting people to follow rules, but since you never tell them exactly what the rules are, they have no way to ensure they are doing so.

This is no different than when some ISP (was it Comcast?) declared they would terminate your internet service for exceeding their bandwidth cap - BUT they refused to tell us what that cap was.

You can understand WHY they wanted to keep it secret, but it's still wrongity wrong to do that.

Having secret rules people are punished for breaking is WRONG.

I can't be more clear than that.

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. If you find a blatant farm abusing our beloved [SFMA], report it immediately. Get that crap kicked out of here. SFMA should be for, y'know, STORY Focused Mission Arcs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me fix that for you:

[ QUOTE ]
If you find a mission you don't find aesthetically pleasing using our beloved [SFMA], harass the authors by reporting it immediately. Get that crap kicked out of here. SFMA should be for, y'know, STORY Focused Mission Arcs - and if you don't like their story, screw 'em - get 'em in trouble with the devs! Go us!

[/ QUOTE ]

Fix't.

After all, why hide your light when you are so obviously better than everyone else different from you?

Here's a different thought though - everyone who *thinks* their mission is STORY based should feel free to use the tag, even if not approved by this guy?

Unless differences of opinion are VERBOTEN.

[ QUOTE ]
Adapt! Improvise! Overcome!

[/ QUOTE ]

Submit! Surrender! Capitulate!

What? I wanted to play too. ;p

[ QUOTE ]


Here you go, direct from Positron:

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I should probably take this moment to talk about what the Mission Architect is not meant for. It is not meant for “easy leveling” or “badging” or “farming”. Those are things that we specifically wanted the Mission Architect NOT to do. This may be a disappointment to some, I know. The goal was to give creative minds an outlet to tell the stories they have in their heads. We didn’t want the system clogged with Farm missions, so actually finding someone’s story that they lovingly crafted became more a chore than it was worth.

[/ QUOTE ] - Original Post

[ QUOTE ]
This Mission Architect primary purpose is for telling stories. We do not want people to spend days making a great story only to find it shuffled into a list of missions with titles like "Get your Rikti Monkey badge here", "10 badges in 5 minutes", "Down on the AV Farm", etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ] - Original Post

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason we need further guidance is precisely because that is not clear enough.

Let me try to be VERY clear and VERY simple:

Among the ways missions can be examined is how rewarding the mission is. There are THREE broad categories of mission with this regard:

1) Missions that require more effort to gain a certain reward
2) Missions that require less effort to gain a certain reward, BUT not so MUCH less as to run afoul of the rules.
3) Missions that run afoul of the rules.

What devs have NOT done is clearly defined the difference between Category #2, which is clearly fine, and Category #3, which is clearly not. The blurb you quoted does NOTHING to shed ANY light on this.

I can, if I want, create a very aesthetically pleasing story-based mission, which ALSO happens to be very rewarding. As far as I can see, from the devs mouths themselves, its not whether or not the mission has a story that breaks the rules - for example, the devs do NOT CARE if you make a lame and superficial mission, if that mission has poor rewards.

Missions with poor stories, as far as I know, do not break the rules and have not been removed - I know because I see so many on MA.

Missions with greater rewards than the devs like seem to be what the devs are going after. However, until they give use much more specific guidance, neither they nor anyone else can be sure where that line is drawn.

We need to be explicitly told. The only ones who would disagree are just the people who are RP snobs and don't like people playing this as a game in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it wouldn't hurt for the devs to interact with the playerbase and let them know that the devs know the difference between people and missions that pursue XP and those that break the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it would. Because everyone who currently thinks they can't tell the difference, or believe if the devs act in a way contrary to their desires it must be due to lack of understanding, won't be convinced by anything the devs say. But it will open them to the additional charge that silence equals acquiesence or agreement with whoever calls them out.

Which is why calling them out is explicitly against the forum rules, by the way. To ensure dev silence cannot be interpreted as anything other than nothing.

I don't need the devs to tell me they are aware of the difference between extended play and reward exploit any more than I need them to notify me on a regular basis they are aware of the day of the week or the color of the sky. Perhaps my willingness to skip the stupid questions allows me to get the smarter ones answered at a higher rate than average.

I doubt the devs are going to pull the plug on XP in the MA any time soon. That decision was not made trivially in the first place. But even if they did, it would not be due to their lack of understanding of the facts, but rather a disagreement over their significance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow - I am so disappointed in you Arcanaville - not saying this because you care what I think, only because I am so floored because I normally find your posts so wise and intelligent. Wow.

I am chalking this up to the fact that even the person with the most to offer can have one inexplicable skeleton in their closet - like Einstein, being an awesome scientist, and yet still refusing to believe in Quantum Physics because it conflicted with his religious beliefs.

Wow.

[ QUOTE ]
there are too many people driving those automobiles and not enough people in horse drawn buggies! the end is near.....please get rid of those roads so i can find people who want to ride along in my buggy with me

[/ QUOTE ]

/quoted for truth and it's darn funny

[ QUOTE ]
To quote someone else here on the forums:

"It's like stream of consciousness without the consciousness."

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
I read it as: Okay, devs' balls in your court

God I need to get my mind out of the gutter.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! (in real life)

'Course, it wouldn't hurt for the devs to interact with the playerbase and let them know that the devs know the difference between people and missions that pursue XP and those that break the rules. Because a lot of *players* and *posters* either don't think the devs see the difference or don't think that there *is* a difference.

C'mon devs, it's time to settle this simple matter with a few short words from you.

[ QUOTE ]
Also good with [RBMA]. I think it'll be a fine way to say "Mods, come annihilate me!" but hey. Caveat author.

[/ QUOTE ]

...and is this the *guy* - the one who says "people who pursue XPz are EBIL and they should be STOPPED so me and my emo friends can act out our drama ambitions"? Is this the guy who says, "You can play CoX any way you like so long as me and my friend approve"?

Or does he just believe the devs are incapable of making the distinction between rewards based missions that obey the rules, and missions that break the rules?

Guesses?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suggest you also incorporate

[FARM] - For All, Reasonable Missions ... To denote arcs which could be played by anyone... :P

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanted to briefly comment on this. I have no problem coming up with a tag that designates farms. As someone mentioned above, it needs to be an acronym that would not be likely to show up as otherwise legit text. However, I can't see a case where anyone would use it, from the author side. It would be like painting a big red sign on your mission that said "Ban Me" (maybe the tag could be BMMA ). Don't get me wrong, I do think that players would love to have such a tag so that they could find (or avoid) those missions. I just don't see it getting used unless the devs were to define what was an "allowable farm". In other words, don't hold your breath

[/ QUOTE ]

You MUST differentiate between two different kinds of missions - because if you don't, you are basically claiming that the devs don't know the difference, which isn't very nice in my opinion.

There are missions that BREAK the rules in the pursuit of rewards. These are the ones being banned.
There are missions that DO NOT break the rules in the pursuit of rewards. I have not yet seen any of these be banned.

We OBVIOUSLY do NOT need a tag for the former. But we must be CRYSTAL clear that ANY tag we create for the latter is NOT intended for use by rule-breakers. We CANNOT lump those two very different categories of missions in the same basket, any more than it is right to lump in people who like stories and the emo crowd. Its a slur and a slander, and nothing more than discrimination, and possibly even harassment.

As far as I know, it is NOT rule breaking to pursue game rewards intelligently and effectively. Neither is it rule breaking to ignore rewards and focus on the narrative of the mission.

Maybe if both kinds of players don't attack the other, that would be a good start. Maybe we ought to all agree that as long as we aren't breaking rules, we aren't doing anything wrong - that people who could care less about rewards are not better or worse than people who could care less about narrative text.

It needs to start by fixing the original post

The perception that Rewards based gaming is breaking the rules is WRONG and it is DAMAGING.

Greyhawke, if you want to do the right thing, you need to EDIT your original post at the top - your responsibility is ever greater now that you have been stickied.

It now unfortunately says:

[RBMA] - Rewards Based Mission Arc (Use at your own risk. Don't blame me if the GMs ban your arc)

Why slur both the devs and the players who wish to play by pursuing effective (and permitted) reward options ?

It would be better, fairer to both players who prioritize rewards and to the devs themselves (why assuming they would unfairly punish non-rule-breakers? I am sure they can see the difference between an exploit and play-choice.):

[RBMA] - Rewards Based Mission Arc (Intended ONLY for valid rule-abiding missions that prioritize rewards, NOT for missions with exploits, which will get banned)

That's much clearer and much less of an implied attack on either the devs ability to see the difference or the player's choice to pursue permitted rewards.

Make sense?