Discussion: Issue 14: Mission Architect - FAQ
By
8_Ball,
Posted on: 2009-02-26 13:02 in Developers' Corner
[ 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.
Together we entered a city of strangers, we made it a city of friends, and we leave it a City of Heroes. - Sweet_Sarah
BOYCOTT NCSoft (on Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/517513781597443/
Governments have fallen to the power of social media. Gaming companies can too.
[ QUOTE ]
On 'Exploits':
Imagine a very efficient way for you to play the game doing regular missions, a TF here or there, and occasional street-sweeping that garners you a very good XP/minute reward. A rate that may even be better than the average player. That's fine.
.
Now, let's say you suddenly find a way to manipulate the mechanics of the game, perhaps by running across a bug, that enables you to triple your XP/minute reward. That's not fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that unless it's an obvious, unreported bug, manipulating the mechanics can't seriously be considered an exploit. A geometry bug, wherein, if you stand here just right you can kill Hamidon without injury is exploiting a bug.
Figuring out a way to kill Hamidon without killing through the blooms, just using a very well crafted strategy and the right powers would technically increase the reward well beyond what was intended.
[ QUOTE ]
An exploit is finding an arc that gives you ten times the reward because you found a way to bypass a required objective and exploiting that bug for personal gain.
[/ QUOTE ]
What I just suggested would qualify under your statement here, but IMO would not be an exploit.
The best thing I can say about exploits, is that it's not like obscenity, in that you know it when you see it. The only thing you can assume safely is that everything that has not been explicitly sanctioned by the devs is an exploit and report it.
Even if they really don't think it's an exploit, you should report it, loudly and often so that when they come up with some crap about it actually BEING an exploit, you can point out where you told them about it multiple times and they decided to do nothing about it.
Case in point. Why the heck are you giving 4 merits for the Negotiator Ouroboros mission which takes all of 8-12 minutes to do? Jeez, you can earn rewards better or equal to most TFs in the same time frame repeating that mission. Is that an exploit? I don't know, as I and others have pointed this out repeatedly yet it went live anyway.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
[ 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 ]
Question:
Can you redo Reward Merits that way? It'd be helpful for people who play alot of alts and never accumulate many merits on any one character.
EDIT: Also, first after Redname. 
[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt this will happen. The reward merits are for content that one specific character of yours has done. The MA tickets are really rewarded to you personally, since you design the mission, not your character.
It makes sense to me that it would be that way. At least you can buy a recipe and pass it on to one of your alts.
My Deviant Art page link-link
CoH/V Fan Videos
So my head is bubbling over with ideas, as I am sure everyone else is too! One of my ideas involves exploring an abandoned base whose defenses are still active! Will gun turrets be available as placable mobs? Both the pop up kind as well as the larger ones? What about proximity bombs?
In the lgtf there is a map with "defeated" mobs lying about near the door....will that be an option? Would be a nice story telling flavor!
[ QUOTE ]
Figuring out a way to kill Hamidon without killing through the blooms, just using a very well crafted strategy and the right powers would technically increase the reward well beyond what was intended.
[/ QUOTE ]
The flip side of this is that the method most folks use to do a Hami Raid (go through the waves of mitos) is not the intended way to do the raid, but one that works anyway, and in fact, the Blitz raid as you describe is indeed the intended way to do a raid. Or neither way is intended, but works.
The mechanics of the game determines what's intended and what's not. Glitches in code, or holes in the geometry of a map aren't part of the mechanics. They are unintended, and if used, exploits. I think we're suffering from poor use of the word exploit in the past. Not all bugs are exploits, but all exploits are bugs. Many things people keep bringing up as exploits are really either poor design or human error, and when they're figured out, they're fixed, and the Devs let us know about them. The rest are the true exploits, and we don't hear about the fixes because they don't tell us what they did per policy.
Loose --> not tight.
Lose --> Did not win, misplace, cannot find, subtract.
One extra 'o' makes a big difference.
[ QUOTE ]
As for the exploit thing, I think the problem is that the devs, Castle in particular I think, have used the word "exploit" rather carelessly in the past
[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't say "carelessly." The term simply means different things in different contexts, and at least some of the confusion is the accidental or deliberate attempt to use the definition from one context in an unrelated one.
For example, "exploiting the game mechanics" simply means finding a clearly unintended game mechanical behavior, and using it to some advantage - any advantage. The Hover unrooting bug is an example of that. On the other hand, exploiting the reward system has a different meaning: usually this requires performing a sequence of tasks that generate a much higher level of reward earning rate than the devs originally designed for. Neither of these is related to the definition in use when the term is used within the context of punishment - i.e. Exploitive behavior: this is when players knowingly act in a manner that is detrimental to the game (at least as the devs interpret such actions).
There are degrees of exploit: if the devs believe that task force X is harder than task force Y but the players know different, they can exploit that knowledge to earn more rewards by playing X more often than Y. The devs would call that exploitive because it *is* exploitive, but the most that would happen is that they would correct their error, by altering the reward rate of X. That is *not* "punishing people for being good at X." Its essentially fixing a bug in the reward tables: addressing an error.
On the other hand, if the devs think X is hard, but a player realizes that if they end the mission while in the air and backflipping, the reward window will repeat itself after collecting the reward, earning the player an unlimited number of rewards, *that* is Exploitive with a capital E, and repercussions are likely to ensue. No one can reasonably assert that the game is designed so that smart enough players earn the right to tamper with the in-game reward mechanism for their own profit.
In this case, Positron is probably specifically addressing reward-system exploits when he refers to "moral compass." If you think you're getting a free lunch, you probably are, and its probably unintented on the part of the devs.
The only term casually used by players that has more specific context-sensitive meanings than the word "exploit" is probably the term "balance."
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
[ 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 ]
I think we're worrying too much about this this early in the game.
[/ QUOTE ]Until I get my hands on the MA, all I can do is dream and worry! 
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]
Given the requirements for an arc to get into the Hall of Fame, I disagree. If it is so very easy to 1-star, without even the effort of attempting the arc required, just browsing the list of arcs and rating, there will be people doing it, just as there will be people 5-starring their own and friends' arcs.
I hope the developers tracking tools really are good. I can already think of ways to evade them and still grief or game the system, I'll PM my "griefing" theories, but whom would be best to send them to, pohsyb or Positron?
Together we entered a city of strangers, we made it a city of friends, and we leave it a City of Heroes. - Sweet_Sarah
BOYCOTT NCSoft (on Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/517513781597443/
Governments have fallen to the power of social media. Gaming companies can too.
[ 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 ]
If you're going to be passing rated judgement on content, I
have to ask. Why SHOULDN'T you have to endure all of it to
judge it? Those ratings are going to be visible to everybody.
Some arcs might be awful, sure, but having to endure it to rate
it strikes me as a natural end result. I'm a bit boggled it would
be seen any other way.
Who thinks this thread is really a clever way for pohsyb to pad his post count?
[ 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 ]
Sure. If you limit the Mission Architect to one or so bad arcs being added during the same period.
Orc&Pie No.53230 There is an orc, and somehow, he got a pie. And you are hungry.
www.repeat-offenders.net
Negaduck: I see you found the crumb. I knew you'd never notice the huge flag.
[ 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 ]
Oh! Better idea... Is there any way you can give certain ratings more 'weight' than others? If someone rates a mission without playing it, it would have a low weight against the total rating, while someone who completes it has a greater effect on the overall rating. What do you think?
*EDIT* This could count more towards the badge, too, in some way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like that idea too.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm willing to listen to ideas on how truly horrible content can get rated without having to endure all of it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe give the player an incentive for rating an arc they played all the way through? If you rate an arc without playing it, you get nothing; if you rate it after completing some missions, you get a number of architect tickets per mission completed (say, 2 tickets if you completed only the first mission, 10 if you completed all five); that way, someone would have an incentive to actually *play* the mission rather than blind-rating, at least giving it a honest shot before deciding it's horrible. It won't prevent someone from rate-griefing if that's truly what they want to do, but I don't think there's anything that can be done to prevent that. Of course such an incentive should apply only once per arc.
www.SaveCOH.com: Calls to Action and Events Calendar
This is what 3700 heroes in a single zone looks like.
Thanks to @EnsonsDeath for the GVE code that made me VIP again!
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe give the player an incentive for rating an arc they played all the way through? If you rate an arc without playing it, you get nothing; if you rate it after completing some missions, you get a number of architect tickets per mission completed (say, 2 tickets if you completed only the first mission, 10 if you completed all five); that way, someone would have an incentive to actually *play* the mission rather than blind-rating, at least giving it a honest shot before deciding it's horrible. It won't prevent someone from rate-griefing if that's truly what they want to do, but I don't think there's anything that can be done to prevent that. Of course such an incentive should apply only once per arc.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this sounds like the start of a pretty good idea.
The promise of a few extra tickets to complete an arc could well motivate a lot more players to continue, even if the introductory content isn't completely to their liking. As someone else said, certain stories may take some time to build up steam, so bonus tickets can be a proverbial carrot-on-a-stick for them.
Not sure if this would require much rebalancing in terms of current ticket rewards from regular mission/arc completion though.
Justice Hunter, 50 Inv/SS Tank
Slenszic, 50 Sword/Energy Stalker
MA Arc IDs: 1355, 2341, 2350
[ 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 ]
The fact that horrible content would not be rated in a "finish before rating" system is not bad. Users could look at the date created (assuming there is one) and notice that it has no ratings. This would be a flag to the user that the content is horrible if it is an old mission. And for people who make a good one and start at no rating can get some friends to help rate it so it doesn't look like it's a crap mission. Plus it would be a recent submittion, so people wouldn't automatically think it was bad.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh! Better idea... Is there any way you can give certain ratings more 'weight' than others? If someone rates a mission without playing it, it would have a low weight against the total rating, while someone who completes it has a greater effect on the overall rating. What do you think?
*EDIT* This could count more towards the badge, too, in some way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I like that idea too.
[/ QUOTE ]
Could go by a mission completion percentage for that star rating (how you work out how far through a mission you are is beyond me)... say you only give the mission 1 star, but only complete 5% of the mission, you give it 5% of a 1 star rating ... someone else comes along, completes 35% of the mission, rates it 1 star, it now has a total of 40% of 1 star, it's not until it say reaches 75% that it actually obtains the star rating (rounding up obviously). Another person comes along, and completes 50% of the mission, and still rates it 1 star, so the total is now 90%, and still just 1 rating of 1 star. Only completing a mission gives it a 100% weight rating for that star value. (although it could also be based on how many actual missions are in the arc aswell, so a 5 mission arc, would be 20% weight per mission, a person only does 5% of the first mission, would count as 1% of that actual rating given).
This would help alleviate people entering the first mission of a fantastic arc, quitting it, and giving a 1 star and bringing down that person's rating, because it would only count as a tiny percentage of an actual rating, aswell as stopping people from not actually playing through an arc, and rating it 5 stars to bump up ratings, as it would only count as a small percentage of a 5 star rating. It also means that it would take quite some time to actually have truly horrible arcs even gain a rating.
Now, whether the devs can actually do this is another question. Just my thoughts.
CHAMPION!
[ 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 ]
[ 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 ]
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 relevent the second you leave, doesn't that show the problem in the system?
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?
I agree with you on the comments, I definately 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
Personally, I don't want to have to play through a truly horrible arc in order for my vote to be worth anything. Plus I'm honestly not convinced the problem of mass-downvoting will be as bad as some people are fearing. However, I do like the idea of encouraging people to finish arcs before they rate (though not necessarily punishing them when they don't finish).
So, I propose a type of token that lets you make one of the votes on your mission now count. So, if I have a mission with a dozen "5"s and three "1"s, I can remove three of the "1"s with three tokens, and be left with all "5"s. So, it lets you counter those nasty downvoter groups that are gonna bring down the entire system apparently.
Make the tokens reward for every ten arcs you complete and rate (not necessarily all at once. If I drop an arc and rate it a 1, but then complete it anyway at a later date, I still get credit). So you get one credit for every 10 unique arcs you do. You don't get credit for repeating the same arcs over and over (since you can only vote once). This SHOULD keep them rare enough to avoid being abused, but still plentiful enough to be useful.
Of course there'd be the problem of people hording them, and then using them all on their really BAD arc to keep it from getting a bad rating... but really, if people play a 5-star arc and it's completely horrible, they're naturally gonna downvote it. As long as people keep their bad arcs on the list with good ratings, it's eventually gonna have enough exposure and enough low scores that it will be impossible to keep it up. Especially if there's a limit on how many tokens you can use on an arc.
[ QUOTE ]
What if someone gets a mad on for a given player, and goes in and 1 or 2 stars all his arcs out of hand? If he doesn't do that for every arc he comes across, just the arcs that have a specific global name attached to them, how can an architect avoid having his stuff sabotaged out of the Hall of Fame?
[/ QUOTE ]
That same question was asked at PAX and the response was that if logs showed that a supergroup or coalition were to go through the mission list and 1 star all of a particular architects missions then that would be considered griefing and could result in action being taken against the griefers. Just one person low rating missions wouldn't do much harm but if a group were to do it then the sudden surge in low ratings would show up as a spike that could lead to investigation.
Don't count your weasels before they pop dink!
I have a question, if this is public knowledge or if something devs want to comment on.
I understand that missions are cross-faction. Will the players be able to see anything about the person who made it?
Of course, for maximum exposure I intend to make a mission that either heroes or villains can do without feeling like they're playing for the wrong team, but I'd rather create it on a villain character since it's the one I'll be playing the most and be getting architect badges and unlocks with. So will people be able to see that a Night Widow made the mission they're about to do, and skip over it because they think it's not a mission intended for heroes? Is there any sort of short summary we can put to note that the arc is intended for both heroes and villains?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PRAF68_EU
Dispari has more than enough credability, and certainly doesn't need to borrow any from you.
|
Is there a way for players to rate the difficulty of the mission separate from the overall rating?
and
Is there a way for the creator to post how long the mission is (should take to complete)
I think these are important factors to consider when thinking about playing an arc.
Oh, and once a mission is rated high enough and given the high sign by the dev's can it be given the mantle of needing a team of a certain size in order to play?
13
Ah, that makes much more sense. Though, that still means a mission COULD be created that a single team could not overcome, or at least be extremely unbalanced.