Tripp Hazzard

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ][*] Players create content in game through a computer terminal within one of the Architect Entertainment buildings. Architect Entertainment is the name of an in-game company that’s developed this type of ‘simulated experience’ for heroes and villains of Paragon City and the Rogue Isles. You can think of this like a holo-deck or a simulated mission tool. Players go to these facilities that are spread through out most of our zones and interact with a computer that walks through the creation process. Here is where they pick all of their options for a mission as well as write all the dialog and build their custom characters. Once they’ve gotten their story together, they can test it out and see how it plays. Once they’ve gotten it perfect, they can publish the story up to our Arc Server. This server is cross shard and cross game. So, any content published will be seen by everyone on every server, regardless of where they play.

[/ QUOTE ]


Here's my little beef about this system (from the Blue side perspective). I don't really care for the "entertainment" or Holo-deck explanation for this tool. If I'm role playing, would a hero actually go to a store and make a "simulated" game for other heroes to play? This doesn't seem to really fit into the general theme of the game-- fighting bad guys-- not simulated bad guys.

Basically, I'm playing a game (COH), where my character makes a game (Simulator) for another gamer to play? I don't get it.

My suggestion for the back story for the mission architect would be the following:

Evil is spreading faster than our contacts can deal with the problems. Hero Corps requests all heroes of Paragon to identify and defeat all signs of evil, even the new threats that our present contacts do not know about. If you come across a new threat (IE the one you build in the mission architect creator) enter it into the "mission Architect" computer and hopefully other heroes can help in defeating these ever-growing threats.

Even if you don't know of new evil threats, check the "mission Architect" computer for wrongdoing to stop. (e.g. playing other players' missions)

I just don't think we need to build into the lore of COH that players build simulated missions. For example, if the missions are "simulated" why would you receive merits and/or salvage?

Does anyone else think like this?

PS: I love the idea; I'm just not fond of the backstory justifying the mission architect.

[/ QUOTE ]Even though we'll have to use a character to get to the editor, arcs will be attributed to our Global Name, not to that specific character. So it's not really your specific character that's creating the story. (Yes, the fourth wall is getting a little thin here.)

And while the current story is that these are completely fictional, virtual realities, you don't have to accept that. If you want to rationalize it as they are actually accessing alternate realities, no one's stopping you. That's a better explanation for the stories that eventually become a part of the game canon than "that story just happens to match previously unrevealed actual events."

Master Architects Run Vista

RUMMY

Going To Film Cute Kitten

HALT

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason not to allow trial accounts to play MA arcs. However I think ratings should be disabled for them.

[/ QUOTE ]Sounds good to me.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't see this question answered (not sure if it was asked actually) but will trial accounts be able to rate missions/arcs?

[/ QUOTE ]Hopefully not, lest we get flooded with arcs full of RMT ads. (I had to have this pointed out to me, I must admit.)

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if it's been suggested (too lazy to read through 10-15 expanding pages) but instead of 1 starring content right away if its terrible, why not have a separate rating for bad content such as this? If it horrible, flag it as such, if X number of players do this, it gets some sort of icon in the mission list indicating it is a horrible arc.

Also, Y number of good reviews could cancel this out if there are too many people abusing the system, and as soon as a player marks Z number of arcs as horrible that end up getting good star ratings he is no longer allowed to use that rating, possibly account wide.

If this has been suggested, I apologize for my laziness! Feel free to poke holes in my little suggestion too.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that you've simply described the star rating system itself. What else is a 1-star rating for if not to identify an arc the rater thinks is garbage? And the relative numbers of each rating will certainly provide some kind of balance.

As for the second part, different people have different tastes. Just because a person has a distinctly different preference than the majority, that's not a good reason to bar them from expressing that.

You should skim the first few pages for redname posts. That'll give you a pretty good overall picture. An important detail is that ratings will be by account. We will only be able to rate an arc once per account.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Positron, I am a little concerned about the possible rate griefing involved with being able to rate an arc that hasn't been played. Especially when there are badges involved in rating unrated arcs or ones that don't have many ratings. A lot of people will probably get their badges simply by going down the line of unrated arcs, slapping a 1 star rating on them, and getting their badge in the process. I've seen rating systems on web-published content experience things like that, and that's WITHOUT the enticing badge. Please reconsider allowing someone to rate an unfinished arc.

*EDIT* Been here since CoH beta, and this is the first time I've posted after a redname.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to listen to ideas on how truly horrible content can get rated without having to endure all of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow rating only if you have completed the arc, or completed at least one mission in it, OR if you have died in the arc. That way a character must at least have tried a bit before rating it.

[/ QUOTE ]First mission: "Rescue the hostages". You get in and it's "15 Fusionette clones to lead out". And each one you rescue spawns a nasty ambush. Forcing me to suffer through that or to collect debt just so I can give it an appropriate rating, is Not a Good Thing. (If you think there won't really be missions that are that bad, I honestly envy your optimism. You are a better person than I am.)

[ QUOTE ]
Limit an account to making only one rating every hour. Allow them to "delay" a rating if they rate one arc, then immediately run another and finish it in 20 minutes, but don't allow them to put a rating vote more quickly than once per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if I play 5 short, sweet, truly worthy arcs in a single play session, it'll take me 4 hours of game time to rate each of them? And if I continue to play MS arcs during that time, each one adds another hour before I can rate them? That would discourage rating arcs at all. Also Not a Good Thing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I asked directly about public comments with our ratings, and told:

"There are no public comments available. It has been considered but will not be in for release."



Bummer.

Well, it's pretty obvious that this is a highly desired feature, so we can only hope they will implement it later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't desire it. I think comments should only be seen by the mission author. When you go to write a comment, who is the target audience? The author, or other players? I'd much rather see people giving feedback to the author than to the rest of the audience.

[/ QUOTE ]Nor did I intend to imply that it was a unanimous desire. But if you've waded through this thing, you know it's something several posters have expressed a desire for.

We will be able to send comments to the authors. That has been confirmed. But being able to leave a short comment along with our ratings would make them MUCH more useful.

I asked directly about public comments with our ratings, and told:

"There are no public comments available. It has been considered but will not be in for release."



Bummer.

Well, it's pretty obvious that this is a highly desired feature, so we can only hope they will implement it later.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a mission achieves Hall of Fame Status and/or Dev's Choice status, is there any possibility that it will move out of the MA building, and into the real game world?

"Real" Game world....now there's an oxymoron!

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. They have said (somewhere) that material they consider good enough will become an actual part of the game canon.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Can." Not "will." Because the devs can decide to make anything canon they want. They are not under any obligation to make anything canon no matter how well written or well rated or even dev-choiced. They are just saying that anything is possible. I would recommend no one get their hopes up here.

[/ QUOTE ]Meaning no disrespect, with the phrasing I chose ("material they consider good enough"), "can" vs. "will" is a meaningless difference. I think it was in the Massively article, but I'm not sure.

[ QUOTE ]
If a mission achieves Hall of Fame Status and/or Dev's Choice status, is there any possibility that it will move out of the MA building, and into the real game world?

"Real" Game world....now there's an oxymoron!

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. They have said (somewhere) that material they consider good enough will become an actual part of the game canon.

I think that's the mysterious "third tier" that has been alluded to.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to review something, then you need to try it first, or your review is worthless. As it is, I could go up and down the list of arcs and star it however I want without having played it or giving it an honest review? What's that do to the credibility of the whole system? It trashes it and makes it virtually worthless.

The only way the system will have credibility is if you make the rater 'pay to play'. If you want to review an arc, you have to actually play it. Shocking, I know. The devs are usually so concerned about exploits, I'm surprised they don't see how a 'rate at will without any effort to actually play what you are rating' system could be exploited, and more importantly, what that kind of system does to the integrity of the game.

I understand the idea that some will be so bad it will be obvious from the very beginning, but it's not like one of those is going to sneak into the hall of fame. Those arcs will just sit there with one or two reviews and thousands of non-reviews, which would probably tell you all you needed to know. But on the other hand, as it stands now, you could have a quality arc that just misses it's deserved hall of fame induction because of random and unwarranted 1star reviews that bring its star rating to just below the necessary level.

Bottom line is, if you are so interested in the arc that you feel the need to review it, why is it so much to ask that you be required to actually play it through first?

[/ QUOTE ]
First off, if you're 1-starring everything willy-nilly, you will pop up on the devs' detection tools (that they have already told us will be there) and receive an appropriate response. Same thing if you're 5-starring everything willy-nilly.

Second off, one persons' actions aren't going to amount to a hill of beans compared to the total number of ratings arcs are going to receive. No one's going to be able to slew the ratings without the concerted effort of several people, all risking their accounts to do it. An arc that's getting consistently poor (or high) ratings is doing so for some internal reason, not because some leet-boy hates the author.

Finally, if I start an arc that is obviously a turd, at least in the beginning, I should not have to wade through the entire crap-fest to call it out. If only the first part is so bad that it's discouraging players, but the creator wants people to play the whole thing, then they need to change the first part. Being able to rate it without finishing it will encourage that.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to ruin somebodys rating by slapping a one on it, you should have to 'endure all of it'. I've read some books and watched some movies that seemed to suck at first, but after 'enduring all of it' found them to be rather good after all.

[/ QUOTE ]I, on the other hand, have never stuck with a questionable book or movie, and had it improve by the end. If an MA story starts out crap, and there's nothing to indicate it's anything else, I should not have to suffer through the whole thing to call it out.

A rating option of no stars, but "Did not finish" would satisfy me, assuming we'll have comments, too.

There is no rating system that cannot be griefed. That's why the devs are putting in tools to help them identify and neuter griefers.

[ QUOTE ]
I am confused over the level issues, will we be designating the levels of our story arcs for players to see?

Example: Rescue the Fusionette Clones (Level 50)

[/ QUOTE ]The level ranges of the enemies in the missions will determine the overall level of the arc. Whatever the final overlap range is, that's the level range of the arc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought of a question! With so many account wide unlockables in the MA, are the tickets going to be account wide/tradable? If some of the more awesome unlockables are pricey, it might be difficult for someone who doesn't stick to one alt to unlock them.

[/ QUOTE ]

When people play your arcs, tickets earned that way go into a pool.

You can then claim tickets out of that pool onto any character.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats how Merits should be. On redside and Blueside.

Please consider.

[/ QUOTE ]You the player create and upload Mission Architect arcs, not any specific character. So the rewards for other people playing your arcs could not be awarded any other way and still be fair. But, according to what we know so far, MA tickets your character earns while you play other people's arcs will not be shared.

The official stand is that your characters do not have any special link simply because they are all your characters. And the rewards you earn while playing a specific character belong to that character. That would also seem to be the rationale behind costume and weapon unlocks being character-only, and Vanguard merits being untradeable. Those all represent accomplishments of that specific character. (I personally wish costume unlocks were account wide, but they're not.)

Vet rewards are awards to the player, not to a specific character, so those are usable on all your characters. This does appear to contradict the "no special link" rationale, but that's still the official stand.

[ QUOTE ]
The reader never owes it to the author to finish the book. The author owes it to the reader to keep them up till three in the morning because they can't put the book down. I've had books I never finished, that I am perfectly willing to dismiss as trash. I've walked out on movies as early as fifteen minutes in. If you ask, I can tell you why I set the book aside and moved on, but I don't owe it to the author to finish the work just to make sure it doesn't get better. If your story can't glue the reader to the page they leave dissatisfied, and your reputation suffers for it -- quite rightly, since you have offered to entertain them, and failed.

[/ QUOTE ]^ This. Honto desu!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that sometimes it really is clear the mission is an absolute turd from minute one.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you should be able to one-star it and drop the arc.

The thing is, if it really is that bad? Most of the ratings will be from people who saw the first bit, didn't like it, one-starred it and dropped the arc. And that means that even if they only counted 1/4 to 1/5 (say) what a person who played the whole arc counted as, the volume would more than make up for it.

[/ QUOTE ]And if the creator has nothing in the mission text or anywhere else to indicate there's a good reason to persevere, then they have indeed created a 1-star arc. Assuming we can also leave comments, the comments will make it very clear why the arc is getting 1-starred.

[ QUOTE ]
i've read thrugh most of the thread andmight have missed it. Will there be an in game comment part to the MA so either praise, scorn or suggestions can be directed toward the arc creator?

[/ QUOTE ]We seem to still be waiting for a redname to "comment" on comments.

[ QUOTE ]
I had to laugh at http://www.cityofheroes.com/news/gam..._overview.html

'The First MMORPG to Offer User Created Content!'

Yeah. Way to do your homework.

[/ QUOTE ]Not to be snarky, nor to challenge your assertion, but because I am ignorant of MMORPGs in general, who else has done so? CoH is my first and only.

[ QUOTE ]
But that means you're going to one star it based on 20% of the arc. If the rest of it is good, wouldn't that maybe deserve better than 1? Similarly, what if this gets explained after? If you're going to one star for something that would be explained or shown to be relevant the second you leave, doesn't that show the problem in the system?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that shows a problem in the arc. If it gets better later, the creator needs to start me off with enough information to get me past that first ugly part. They don't have to reveal the entire mcguffin, just give me enough to keep me going. If they don't, they have not done their job well.


[ QUOTE ]
And my point with the reviewer is that someone who leaves after 20 minutes has only seen the start of the movie, so how can they truly rate the movie?

[/ QUOTE ]

And I see that I failed to communicate that I agree, they cannot rate the whole movie. But, provided they give their reasons, they can rate it to the extent of why they walked out. Their reasons may be valid for me, too, and thus would prevent me from seeing the movie, at least until I had more information.

An arc rating of 1 star and a comment of "Quit after finding the third Fusionette that I had to lead out." would be a perfectly valid "review", explaining exactly why I quit without finishing it, and giving you enough information to decide whether you want to go in and see if there's more to it or not.

(Poor Fusionette. Scapegoat for the entire NPC following AI in the game, when she's actually not bad. She's just programmed that way.)


[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you on the comments, I definitely want that. Seems a little unfair that if I mark an arc down for, say, writing a novel in every single text box (Which is a bad thing IMO), I want to be able to tell them that this is the reason

[/ QUOTE ]
Can we get a redname comment on whether we'll be able to leave comments? Oddballica and I have discovered a "comment" interest, here.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Positron, I am a little concerned about the possible rate griefing involved with being able to rate an arc that hasn't been played. Especially when there are badges involved in rating unrated arcs or ones that don't have many ratings. A lot of people will probably get their badges simply by going down the line of unrated arcs, slapping a 1 star rating on them, and getting their badge in the process. I've seen rating systems on web-published content experience things like that, and that's WITHOUT the enticing badge. Please reconsider allowing someone to rate an unfinished arc.

*EDIT* Been here since CoH beta, and this is the first time I've posted after a redname.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to listen to ideas on how truly horrible content can get rated without having to endure all of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
But how can you rate something if you instantly leave it? Would you put weight in a movie reviewer who walked out of a movie after 10 minutes? What if the arc starts a little slowly?


People are going to be putting a lot of effort into these arcs, and some people might instantly get 1 starred by someone after a badge. Instantly their arc is stigmatised, as nobody is going to want to play a 1/5 arc.



If people aren't going to be expected to play the whole arc, IMO they should at least be made to have done a certain amount. Maybe you have to complete a proportionate amount of missions (1-3 missions needs one completed, 4-5 needs two maybe?), or maybe a time limit.

[/ QUOTE ]There are going to be arcs posted that you do NOT have to finish to know they're garbage. If I run into a second Fusionette, that I also have to lead to the exit, and there was nothing in the mission text to tell me that, I don't have to go any further to know I'm NOT going to finish it, and I AM going to 1-star it. I no longer care if it's "Rescue both Fusionette and her sister", or "Rescue the 25 Fusionette clones".

If it's supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek challenge, then the writer needs to put enough info in the mission text for us to be in on the joke. Otherwise it's not a good story.

(I wonder how many actual "Rescue the 25 Fusionette clones" stories are going to show up.)

Your reviewer example is not very good, because any actual reviewer would either say he didn't watch it and can't rate it, or he would say why he walked out after 15 minutes. And my trust or distrust would depend on those reasons. I've enjoyed several movies that every review I saw panned, because their reasons for panning it told me I'd enjoy it.

I'm not seeing anything that confirms we'll be able to leave comments with the ratings, but I'll be surprised (and disappointed) if we can't.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm willing to listen to ideas on how truly horrible content can get rated without having to endure all of it.

[/ QUOTE ]How about let the player rate without completing only one mission per week or month? To ensure that it's only used to get out of "bad" missions, the rating for such an aborted mission would always be "one star".

[/ QUOTE ]

That would have both ups and downs:

Good: It would prevent the mass 1-star griefing and 5-star gaming of arcs without having played them (both things I have heard discussed by actual players).

Bad: It could affect the rating of an undeserving arc simply because a player chose to quit the arc for normal reasons.

If this kind of system is implemented, and I strongly suggest that it be done, then something needs to be done to make it clear to the lesser knowledgeable players that the 1-star drop rating is only for BAD content, not a default because he is dropping the arc.

[/ QUOTE ]They have already said, repeatedly, that they have added the ability to track excessive extreme rating. Since ratings are tracked at the account level (both getting AND giving them), griefers are going to expose themselves pretty quickly.

I think we're worrying too much about this this early in the game.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I may have missed it.

I know we'll be able to play MS arcs co-op.

Will we also be able to simply play cross faction?

That is, will Heros be able to play Villain stories without having to team with Villains, and vice versa?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes

[/ QUOTE ]Obviously I did miss it. Where is that? (I'm compiling all the redname answers for my personal reference.)

Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know I saw it in the info from HeroCon (ImpulseKing's Guide). I can't remember if it was mentioned in the tsunami of info we got yesterday.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
From the FAQ:

[ QUOTE ]
We have language filters that check for bad words and won’t let you publish them until you remove them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can we please get a list of the "bad words"? I know that stuff like cursing will be out, that's obvious. But what else? Some of us folks might want to take advantage of the game's rating and make stories that have slightly darker elements. I'd hate to waste time writing a story that ultimately cannot be published because a particular criminal action is considered a "bad word", for instance.

Thanks,

[/ QUOTE ]Given how versatile the English language is, it can't be that hard to find an acceptable synonym or euphemism. And if you can't come up with something that'll pass the filters, maybe it doesn't belong in a "T"-rated game?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Will players have to complete arcs before they are able to rate them (please, please, to make it harder to grief or game the system).

[/ QUOTE ]

If they have to complete them before rating them, how do they give low ratings to ones that can't be beaten?

(See your previous post for an example of when they'd want to do this.)

[/ QUOTE ]Or even just a "Rescue all 25 Fusionette clones". No, we have to be able to rate crappy ones without having to complete them.