Million dollar idea or Million ton failure?
By
2hawks,
Posted on: 2007-05-19 01:13 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
I would absolutely Love to get my hands on a mission editor; if you gave me one, I'd probably spend most of my non-CoH time figuring out new things to do with it or trying to do really huge story arcs. It's stupid how much time tinkering with editors for other games-- I can't begin to imagine what would happen if you gave me the keys to the editor for my favorite one.
Off the top of my head, I'd suggest something like this: issue the toolset, but only let players upload missions to a test server (or something similar). Then, re-institute the player-driven mission rating system from the beta, so players could rate missions after completion on things like difficulty, story, length, etc. Make it random 'drop', and each player can only rate a mission once (so people trying to get all their friends to boost the rating of a poorly designed mission is hard to do), but give kind of reward (maybe a rare recipe or maybe a badge when you fill out X of them) for rating the mission so people have an incentive to fill it out. Then, pull the highest rated missions on a regular basis (say, the ones that have garnered the highest ratings in the 30 days since they were introduced) and have an in-house QA team evaluate the mission independently. Granted, it's not an ideal system, but it makes something that's already in abundance (mission hungry players) remove some of the load from the Cryptic staff.
Ascendant
Now, more than ever, Paragon City needs heroes. Do your part to save it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with OK'ing submissions is partially an issue because of manpower. Depending on the number of submissions, you'd need people entirely devoted to reviewing, approving and ultimately putting that stuff into the game. That's not trivial, to be honest, when dealing with 100,000+ subscribers.
[/ QUOTE ]
This can't be anymore of a problem than creating the content yourself. In fact if anything it'd be much less manpower intensive. It's going to work because the game tools provided ensure that it must. The only thing you'd have to do it skim the text to make sure it doesn't contain improper language, and then play the mission once to see what you think of it. Once you pick one you like add it to test. If there's any problems the players will certainly find them.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if they only had to judge a submission from one person who plays the game, and it was an exceptionally high quality submission, and that person managed to come up with a fairly balanced design and put it together in such a way that there were few or no problems with it, sure that would be less manpower intensive than creating it in-house for the Cryptic devs. On the other hand, if 10,000 players submitted stuff, and 9,000 of those submissions could be determined improper in the first 30 seconds of play, that would still leave 1,000 submissions requiring enough play time to see if they were good enough to warrant serious consideration for inclusion plus that 75+ hours wasted just testing 9,000 submissions that were immediately rejected. And I certainly hope no development studio would include user-created content after playing it once.
You know, I'm not seeing the simple process where Cryptic devs can just open the door, know by the weight of the bits in the submission which are good, and throw the user-created content into the game.
RagManX
"if the market were religion Fulmens would be Moses and you'd be L. Ron Hubbard. " --Nethergoat to eryq2
The economy is not broken. The players are
Another solution would be to create an ingame editor/submission method for ideas....only accessible to people with 300+ badges and only after completing the STF and/or LRSF along with a specially created TF/SF just for unlocking the submission system, and make it horribly long and tedious such as the Shadow Shard TFs that you guys keep saying you'll look at 
That way only the people who desperately want to submit an idea will be able to.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are certainly entitled to post your opinions. Equally we are entitled to point and laugh when you post arrant nonsense simply because you can.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's 'errant'. >_>
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually... 
Kam
[ QUOTE ]
Not allowing player created content in fear of things that are buggy or inappropriate is ridiculous. Other games have PCC and they are just fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which games and what content?
I'd just like to be sure we are comparing apples with apples, rather than a full player made CoH mission against flags in PotBS.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not allowing player created content in fear of things that are buggy or inappropriate is ridiculous. Other games have PCC and they are just fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which games and what content?
I'd just like to be sure we are comparing apples with apples, rather than a full player made CoH mission against flags in PotBS.
[/ QUOTE ]
In MMOs? I'd agree it's rare and fraught with problems, but for single player games, player mods are the lifeblood of a lot of games. If the devs were to release a mission designer, I would suggest that missions could be off-line only, The best of those will naturally rise to the top and the devs could put them into the game if they chose to.
I'd like to see some type story arc situations that would have an affect on the overall game. Like monthly story arc missions for heroes and villians, which could enhance or change powers. All levels would be allowed to do the missions.
Example...........
The Lost Rikti Ship.
1st month.... There are rumors that the Rikti are looking for some type of weapon/ device. Both Heroes and Villians begin to investigate to determin what the Rikti are after and if they can exploit/stop the Rikti. "Will have a 4 to 5 level TF/ST"
Badge for completing.
Whomever wins the most percentage wise, heroes or villian, that group gets a 2% increase to stamina.
2nd Month...... Both heroes and villians learn of a possible rikti ship that was damaged during the war. Both heroes and villians have their own "TF/SF" missions to uncover the location of the ship.
Badge for completing.
Whomever wins the most percentage wise, heroes or villian, that group gets a 2% increase to health.
3rd month....... Now the truth has been revealed about this abandoned weapon/device, it's only a matter of time before either the heroes or villians get their hands on it.
Badge earned.
Whomever wins the most percentage wise, heroes or villian, that group gets a 2% increase to damage.
Badge awarded to the overall winners, heroes or villians.
[ QUOTE ]
Which games and what content?
[/ QUOTE ]
Saga of Ryzom, which allows you to create entire areas of your own.
And task forces for duos, I love how someone you have to work, just two character to defeat some enemies.
Ryzom Ring wasn't all that big of a deal. At least when it was initially implemented. Maybe it improved sometime after I stopped playing.
My Going Rogue Trailer
Virtue (blue) - Wes The Mess
Virtue (red) - Jess The Best
@Razoras
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with OK'ing submissions is partially an issue because of manpower. Depending on the number of submissions, you'd need people entirely devoted to reviewing, approving and ultimately putting that stuff into the game. That's not trivial, to be honest, when dealing with 100,000+ subscribers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Would it really be non-trivial? You've had contests before that required judging of entries. Remember the costume screenshot contest, the one where the reward was a guest shot in the comic book? You probably had nearly all 100,000 subscribers enter that one, and you got it judged on time. You've held other contests, too. And I think you're probably over-estimating the number of submissions you'd get; I'm certain it wouldn't be anywhere near 100,000. I'd be startled if it reached 1,000; the numbers on this one probably wouldn't be much higher than, say, any of the previous video contests.
As I said, you don't have to release the mission editor to have a story arc text contest. And you could review the text descriptions of missions in next to no time, no? Considering they'd be re-using existing mission maps, how long would it really take to populate them once you picked the winners? A day? Two?
I just love how many people aren't even commenting on the subject. Instead all they're doing is commenting negatively on my posts because I had the gall to disagree with a Dev.
Now I remember why I wanted to stay on the forums.
For every "counterstrike" there are ten "Second life flying [censored] viruses" player created content is hard, but the payoffs are huge, which is what I was going on about here:
http://boards.cityofheroes.com/showflat....rue#Post8076959
Perhaps Cryptic should impliments a 10% "own project" time like Google, where their art/code/numbers people get 10% of their paid time to devote to any feature they like.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are certainly entitled to post your opinions. Equally we are entitled to point and laugh when you post arrant nonsense simply because you can.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's 'errant'. >_>
[/ QUOTE ]
WRONG.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Cryptic should impliments a 10% "own project" time like Google, where their art/code/numbers people get 10% of their paid time to devote to any feature they like.
[/ QUOTE ]
It hasn't worked out real well for Google - it has (mostly) produced a bunch of poor-to-middling applications that will be fixed and finished at some uncertain future date.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
[ QUOTE ]
We've always talked about ways to get player material into the game...imagine using the base creator tools to make your own missions!
[/ QUOTE ]
Could you start by having player-created text linked to placeable items?
You know, plaques, books, display screens, that sort of thing... so we can click on a plaque on the wall and read something a fellow SG member has written.
[ QUOTE ]
Or a your own training room? Maybe some day we can figure a way to put this stuff into the game. The imagination just on these forums alone is so amazing; I can only hope we find a way an outlet for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, one way that occurred to me is to have placeable, destructible items that you can pick from the base building menu, which then enable you to pick a 'NPC Base Raid' mission from the Mission Computer.
Let's say you have to place three Crystals of Zob before the 'CoT Raid' mission becomes available. When you start the mission, which is timed like a base raid and has to be joined, groups of CoT start to spawn in the doorways and make for the Crystals of Zob. The objective is to defend them until the timer runs out.
If you implemented something like that, it would give a PvE use for all those base defences that otherwise don't get used, and provide a platform for SG roleplaying (and a level of customizability, too, inasmuch as you can choose where the objectives go, within certain limits so as to make them non-exploitable).
Detailed design document for Mission Crafting System with much player content.
http://murat.ca/rules/missioncrafting.htm
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps Cryptic should impliments a 10% "own project" time like Google, where their art/code/numbers people get 10% of their paid time to devote to any feature they like.
[/ QUOTE ]
It hasn't worked out real well for Google - it has (mostly) produced a bunch of poor-to-middling applications that will be fixed and finished at some uncertain future date.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it's worked out just terribly for them. Would that CoH enjoyed the same level of failure as Google.
Just for reference: there are plenty of ways to offer player created content. After apparently realizing that they drove away everyone BUT roleplayers, the SWG devs have introduced "storyteller" tokens that allow players to drop items & spawns on the map to create their own events.
Hundreds of things, from parked starships, wreckages, and containers to critter spawns of any level to starship battles flying overhead- everything in the event coordinator's toolbox save the ability to actually take control of one of these NPC's (to reduce griefing issues, only the people "participating in the story" aggro the dropped combat mobs.
With all that flexibility, the STILL haven't given players the ability to create NPC character dialogue. (They used too... but had too many obscene-spewing slavegirl NPC's, I guess). I find that funny, as it would probably be VERY easy to identify the author and sanction him (remove storyteller rights, for example... or banning) enough to prevent repeat offenders.
Like many other players, I would love the opportunity to design a mission or group of missions to share with the game community. Based on the posts in this thread, and from Statesman's first reply in it, there are factors which would need to be considered in order to make such ability a safe addition to the game. Here are some thoughts on these topics:
1. Schedule / submission quantity and requirements / staff manpower / quality assurance / testing
Like other resources, the amount of staff time which can be devoted to the testing of player submissions, with regards to whatever considerations/qualities (balance, rewards, story canon, etc.) the company decides are applicable is, limited. A flood of simultaneous submissions might overwhelm any staff, as might a lack of knowing when such submissions are to be expected. Limiting the potential number of submissions can provide a means towards preserving staff resources.
A scheduling system could be put into place in order to help stem the tide of player submissions. This would reduce the potential number of entries offered for consideration within a given period, as well as encourage a minimum amount of time to be alloted towards development of a submission.
For example, if a player with an active account is allowed to make a single submission once every 3 or 6 months, then that player might be more likely to take steps to better ensure the quality of his/her submission, due to the relative scarcity of submission opportunities. The player would also know the timeframe in which to aim for project completion. This could also help staff persons to determine how much time and what schedule is necessary for their own review of qualifying entries.
Additionally, restrictions might be put into place so that only players who have been active for a certain amount of time can make submissions, perhaps only players with a year or more of time spent in-game, using a system like that which tracks playtime for the veteran rewards. Access to such a system might even require purchase of a code, or upgrade of an account.
2. System / tools / balance
At this point, the most easily-foreseeable system by which missions could be created seems to be a modification or subset of the tools which the developers currently use, but altered for player use. It seems like something akin to the base editor may be a possibility, but these development tools are probably not the hardest system to integrate and offer to users.
A method of filtering out inappropriate missions appears necessary, and is likely a harder tool to create. I like the idea of having players upload missions to the Test server, or to another server dedicated to player-made missions, for testing and for critique. The idea of players rating submissions by their peers, and of a specific number of the most popular of these missions (like the top ten) being reviewed by the developers on a scheduled basis might allow quality player-created missions to be added to the game. Prior to submission, however, an automated filtering process must be in place.
I suggest that criteria for consideration for publication include appropriateness, in terms of language (profanity) and objectionable material. Player developers who submit a given number of missions which violate such criteria standards (for example, submitting missions which include offensive language or content three times) should have their development privileges revoked. This would have the effect of weeding out caustic or troublesome player developers from the mix for future consideration.
In terms of balance, I'm sure that the developers will have something in mind to ensure that player-created missions don't get out of hand. Maybe missions will be built using a point system, with costs associated to objects, enemies and other placeable items, and restricted by the level range for which the mission is being built. Perhaps mob placement will follow a similar design to placing objects in a base, so that mob groups must be placed a certain distance from each other. Missions might need the ability to adjust, based on the players' difficulty levels (moving from heroic to invincible). Delivery to players might come from special contacts, of which some might be origin-dependant.
I'm actually going to stop now. I didn't realize I was writing this much...
Level 50 at last:
VICTORY HEROES: Stonefall (Grav/Kin/Psy), Earthwave (Earth/Rad/Fire), Nae'bliss (Invul/Fire), Paradox Black Omega (Kat/Reg/Weap)
PROTECTOR VILLAINS: Ba'alat (SS/Will/Soul), Mechalomaniac (Bots/Dark/Soul)
Or imagine forking off the game to a single-player edition where you can play to your heart's content with your own content\pink energy blasts\fluffy bunny villains ...
I've said the same long ago but there are apparently also legal issues involved that are near impossible to untangle. In the US no matter what people sign there is always some basis for them to come back later and sue because Cryptic is making money off of their uncompensated submission.
Just ask the UO people about how that works. They used "Freely submitted" code and then got sued for it and lost.
And that doesn't even get into the people trying to sneak cheats into the game for themselves and their friends issue. This means the Devs have to go everything with a fine tooth comb to make sure there isn't a hidden mob with 1 hp that drops only rares hidden behind a wall or something. Plus 100's of submissions from people who have trouble designing a costume, much less a story arc and artwork LOL. Everyone wants to get in on it, even if they aren't qualified.
Sadly again the jerks and the over-eager ruin things for everyone else which I suppose is the way of the world. Look at the downloadable stuff for other games and you can see what could happen to a MMO that could tap into that kind of fan base. Unfortuantely because of a relatively few people it is probably cheaper to develop in house than to accept submissions.
----------------------------
You can't please everyone, so lets concentrate on me.
I love the idea of new content. New missions/TFs would be great, but even better would be new tilesets or just new floorplans using existing graphics assets. I'm soooo sick of knowing the exact layouts of mission floorplans.
You know, if you talk with a venture capitalist nowadays who invest in software, what they all get excited about are businesses with user created content. Look at sites like Youtube, Digg, Flixster, heck even Dogster (don't laugh, it's highly profitable!). All of them have a TINY staff because their content is entirely user-created. The appeal is obvious.
But there's no way Cryptic could do a user created content initiative for free, or even on the cheap; at the very minimum they'd need 1-2 FTEs entirely dedicated to managing submissions and overseeing the testing/feedback/approval process. They'd need new software tools built that would allow submissions of complicated collections of data assets via the web, and they'd need to spend money and time creating tools that could be used by motivated modders (forget casual users); I know in my company there is a huge difference between the polish of internal tools vs. tools we release to customers. More money and resources would have to be spent to create a system that allows player submitted content to be moved inexpensively and rapidly to the test server, an automated system created to inform test users of what's new/changed, a method for them to give feedback, etc. etc. Realistically, this type of initiative would have to take place instead of a normal Issue (or two), in terms of total money/time/planning required. It can't just be thrown in on top of everything else. Complicating it is the fact that dev resources would be from Cryptic but the ongoing facilitators would be NCsoft, so now you have two companies that have to buy in on it and pony up the dough.
However, even with all those caveats I'd be all for it! Imagine a game where your Police Scanner missions were wildly diverse because they were player submissions, and where at least one new TF and one major story arc is added every month. Heck, after a while we'd have to have TFs being retired due to the sheer number of them; what a refreshing embarrassment of riches that'd be! Plus it'd add an entirely new aspect of the game for veteran players: make sure to award accolade badges for players who get their submissions to the live servers and you'll have folks knocking themselves out to create good stuff.
Realistically I don't know if Cryptic will ever attempt any of this. It's hard and costly and risky to move from centrally created content to user created content. They have a ton of stuff in the pipeline, so even if they wanted to go full speed on this, it's probably a minimum of 12-18 months out. Still, as Cryptic has shown by releasing their animation rig, they're a very creative bunch who're not afraid to test new ideas.
Ultimately, I think it's just a matter of time before some MMO figures out a slick way to work in user created content, and it'll be a seismic shift because no old-school type of game will be able to keep pace.
Freedom: Blazing Larb, Fiery Fulcrum, Sardan Reborn, Arctic-Frenzy, Wasabi Sam, Mr Smashtastic.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This can't be anymore of a problem than creating the content yourself. In fact if anything it'd be much less manpower intensive.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just on this point, the big difference is that the devs can trust internal resources so don't have to pour over every molecule of such content. QA can catch the bugs before the players see them. The systems already exist internally to develop new content.
However, player submitted content, especially complex content such as a mission, needs a lot of scrutiny. I could easily be racist, sexist or any other of a whole lot of -ists without ever using an offensive word. I could do it so that my language only means something offensive to other Australians, because the US doesn't necessarily understand Australian slang.
Also, simply skimming for offensive language misses the issue of players creating / violating existing game canon. I can only imagine the fanfic that might be possible if players are allowed to write a mission that (for example) allows players to discover Numina's and Ghost Widow's 'special secret frienship'.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think I read that fanfic.
While this IS a serious issue, it's simply an upscaled version of what we experience at the individual character level. We have obscene bio's, lewd or suggestive character names, and enough attempts at the naked toons, creative animation use, and selective screenshotting. What do we do? Hold the players accountable.
More than a rating system, a reporting system needs generated. The mission-creator's name must be tied to his project so he knows he'll be held accountable for improper content. Removing "publishing rights" should be a very early response.
[ QUOTE ]
And then there is the whole management of testing. Players can rate player missions, but who is going to do it? If it's up on Test, over time fewer and fewer players are going to be interested in testing another cruddy player mission, or such testing will stop when new dev content is launched. But if it is on the live servers where player submitted missions are tested, Cryptic runs the risk of offensive material and / or buggy material (and I mean really buggy, holes in the mission maps, completely uncompletable mission buggy) being seen by their customer base.
It's not necessarily developing the content that is the time intensive bit. It's QA, it's continuity, it's management of the process that takes up the time.
[/ QUOTE ]
My take on this:
No test server. Everything's in-game from the start. No XP, no "signature characters" no reward. This is simply a "fun experience." At every stage, an anonymous reporting system will allow for dev intervention, if needed. Most common intervention is the suspension of the mission's availability and/or removal of all authoring rights.
Every mission has a title, a description, an author name and endorsement names. Endorsement names may be supergroup or individual. They may be listed via special channels in the police band radio or newspaper classifieds (even multipart pseudo task-forces).
1. Player creates content. Invitation-only.
This allows the player a first tier of peer review and since he's letting people in that he knows, he's unlikey to risk his reputation on stuff they'd find offensive. (Note:this still allows for stuff that others may find offensive. A mission that parodizes Living Hellfire might be met with glee by the Hellfire haters, but be quite insulting and offensive should Hellfire himself discover it.
This serves as a bit of an alpha test and a peer review. Many will never go farther than this, and that might be all the original author wants.
2. Supergroup/Coalition and Friends Availability
At this tier, the author opens the game up to everyone on his friends (or global friends) list. His supergroup leader (or leaders of any supergroup in his coalition) with sufficient rights can opt to make it available to his group. This adds the group as a "endorser" -tying their reputation to the content.
You still have a rather small network of players viewing it, and they likely do know the author, so he can't hide between anonymity too long. Not only that, but supergroup reputation can be tarnished (as it's name is attached) giving them an incentive as well. Changes can still be made at this level.
Again, if everyone absolutely loves to make fun of Miss_Kitty in a custom mission, then a parody mission at her expense may last for some time, but it will at least have a very small community accessing it.
3. Viral Growth
From here, individuals with access to the mission may choose to personally endorse the mission. Now, their name is attached to the endorsement (maybe even a small star-rating system saying HOW MUCH they endorse it, and all THEIR friends may see the mission in the search menu.
This way, a friend of Chase_Arcanum could filter for all missions I endorse. if you like what I like, you may find the mission entertaining. We'd strat to see reviewers serve as a "nexus" rating systems that are or are not up to their personal preferences. Others discovering the mission can add their own endorsement, spidering access out to all their friends.
Once enough people endorse a mission, it becomes available to the entire server. Only active accounts count in this tally. If edits are made to the mission at this stage, everyone endorsing it is notified, and they may revoke their endorsement. This prevents a really innocent mission to be modded into something offensive after a reviewer has endorsed it.
4. Ultimate Recognition
The ultimate recognition is rare and never guaranteed. It's used by the devs to identify the truly awesome creations. The devs release a style guide that includes the "do's and dont's" for applicants (including spawn sizes, language, etc.) Once a mission is server-wide accessible, the author can initiate a petition to the devs to "make it official."
When that petition is started, every endorser may opt to add his name to it. Some stories can be really great, but not right for "official" status- maybe it's a uberhardcore way-too-imbalancing map that's fun to play but everyone knows it wouldn't balance if it was made official. Once enough people sign the petition (maybe offset by a "no vote"), it's flagged for a dev review. Devs always have the right to veto.
Should the devs agree not to veto, the mission becomes "official." Rewards are enabled and the mission may even be moved into the regular mission cycle. Credits are given to the author(s) but it's otherwise just like any other adventure in-game.
Unless harmi9ng Loheniens will help in its develpoment in which case I can have a death ray ready in a few minutes.