I hope that most if not all of FFMs list makes it in, I have a story arc I'd like to make and the ability to design the end boss is almost a necessity.
Don't get me wrong, I could do it without creating the unique bosses and renaming another enemy and promoting them to boss level.
I just don't want to.
Sticking needed mobs or glowies in inaccessable locations probably won't be to hard.
I really should do something about this signature.
[ QUOTE ]
I hope that most if not all of FFMs list makes it in, I have a story arc I'd like to make and the ability to design the end boss is almost a necessity.
Don't get me wrong, I could do it without creating the unique bosses and renaming another enemy and promoting them to boss level.
I just don't want to.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's not MY list. 
It's NC's own list. From what we can tell, THEY said these are ALL features of the mission creator...
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[ QUOTE ]
Seeing how often official content is broken (misplaced glowies, hostages that vanish or don't follow etc.), I have a feeling we'll see some broken player-created missions as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair point.
"Idealism is such a wonderful thing. All you really need is someone rational to put it to proper use." - Kerr Avon
Myopic Aardvark on Twitter
[ QUOTE ]
THEY said these are ALL features of the mission creator...
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it would be more fair to say that they have said they are all potential features of the mission creator.
I really should do something about this signature.
[ QUOTE ]
3. Players can build powers for some NPCs by selecting from a group of primary and secondary power pools and attaching them to the NPCs
4.Players can build a boss (and other NPCs) to place within their mission by creating its looks in the Character Creator and assigning it the powers of an existing NPC (non playable character)
[/ QUOTE ]
These two points are what interest me most from a gaming POV.This can open up possibilities of creating awsome encounters.I would like to see a bit of depth added to that.Like scripting rules that once met events are triggered.
Would like to be able to determine who the Boss hits,at what HP it hits,arc or radius of some powers.possibilities to use intangibility powers on a rotation and so on.
Would give chance to create some very unique and challenging encounters.
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt cut scene's will make it in. When I was chatting with War Witch at Omega Sektor, she said they were incredibly difficult to set up. It's a lot more than just the dialog; it's the avatar positions and emotes, plus the camera angles as well. The timings are big issue also. I'd be surprised if they let us do them, considering they themselves find them a chore.
[/ QUOTE ]
Cutscenes are incredibly difficult to set up in NWN2, a game designed so that ordinary spods with half a brain and a PC can create their own modules. I somehow can't imagine that setting up a cutscene in CoX, where the editor systems are designed for use by professionals like War Witch, is going to be any easier. 
Okay, regarding the rating system and unlockable content: Hell no. Dumbest bit of the entire scheme. Why does everything have to be a damn competition?
To give an example, let's say I don't care about creating competitive missions for rating by some bloke in Texas, let's say I want to create some missions for a roleplay session I'm going to have with friends. I make them and use them, but I'm not designing them to be challenging, or make sense because the bloke in Texas won't have me there telling people what's going on. So, my missions are consistently rated low and I never/very slowly get access to this higher end unlockable content (which may or may not improve the modules I can write in the future, but I won't know because I'm not interested in catering to the masses).
Example two, and one that someone has pointed out, I'm sure, is that people who aren't that good are going to continue to be rated low because people who are better constantly get access to new unlockables faster.
As the library of missions grows larger and larger, it's going to be harder and harder to get anyone to play any of your missions, so you are going to get fewer and fewer ratings. In all likelihood, the system will devolve into people playing their friends' missions most of the time.
I would suggest that the system work at two levels. When you create a mission, you can keep it private and run it with other people on an invitation basis. Most importantly, you can keep it that way. If you want to publish it for others to use, then there's an option to do that. Put a rating system in and have a league table. But don't unlock extra mission aspects based on rating, hand out badges or award rare recipes, or something, so there's an even playing field for the content.
My 2 Inf.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
How about a little pop up at the end, with the rating system, that says: This arc was brought to you by @[insert name here]. ?
I like the idea of anonymity from the start. And I know I'm a horrible person for suggesting such a thing, but if a spellchecker/grammar checker could be included, that would make my experience more enjoyable.
By far the Content Creator is my most-wisehd for item on the list. The possibility of creating individual bosses is not only fanboi-squealworthy, but actually makes sense. I mean, if we have access to the CC for our own characters, then why not utilise it for the Content Creator. Hey, kinda makes sense now why they've included those pre-sets in the drop downs, don't it? (Yes I am aware it was also to make the CC easier to pick out a basic costume, but it does suggest to me that this ties in with proposed custom content too - [/speculation])
Whilst the vain monster in me would love for everyone on Union to go, "Wow! He's the coolest!", I also agree with Brighteyes - some of the content I create would be for a specific group of people. I've already asked a friend of mine to be my guines pig when it comes to running missions, to see if they work. The price? Double vodkas and redbulls are bleedin' expensive!
You have a very good point there, Birdy; and I agree with you. I think it would be best to either have no ratings system, and all content available for everyone, or a 2 tier system, private and public.
@FloatingFatMan
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
[ QUOTE ]
No harder than facing Banished Pantheon with a Dark for example.
[/ QUOTE ]
*Shudders at the memory*
If it's going to be in a Danger Room environment, can we have this room back please?
@Dante EU - Union Roleplayer and Altisis Victim
The Militia: Union RP Supergroup - www.themilitia.org.uk
[ QUOTE ]
I would suggest that the system work at two levels. When you create a mission, you can keep it private and run it with other people on an invitation basis. Most importantly, you can keep it that way. If you want to publish it for others to use, then there's an option to do that. Put a rating system in and have a league table. But don't unlock extra mission aspects based on rating, hand out badges or award rare recipes, or something, so there's an even playing field for the content.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry Ravenswing, only just saw this!
I agree. It could be set up in an Arena-style event listing.
I'd also hope that the server team were able to go through periodically and do some housekeeping. A mission that was created a month ago and has had no play whatsoever should be deleted. I'm sure even the generous timescale of a month would cause an uproar, wailing and a gnashing of teeth. But heck.
[ QUOTE ]
How about a little pop up at the end, with the rating system, that says: This arc was brought to you by @[insert name here]. ?
[/ QUOTE ]
And then person does mission and tells SG "Hey, want to annoy @ [insert name here]? Go and petition that mission/give it a bad rating".
Nope anonymity at all times or it'll be impossible to fairly judge someone.
Because jerks are everywhere, even if not constantly.
"Idealism is such a wonderful thing. All you really need is someone rational to put it to proper use." - Kerr Avon
Myopic Aardvark on Twitter
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Ravenswing, only just saw this!
[/ QUOTE ]
That's okay, only just posted it. 
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
I would suggest that the system work at two levels. When you create a mission, you can keep it private and run it with other people on an invitation basis. Most importantly, you can keep it that way.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that having the option to keep missions private would almost guarantee that most missions would be kept private. Or maybe just most good missions which are done for friends... I'm sure we'd see a more than adequate supply of poorly written dross just so that prepubescents can play at being god/a dev.
Thinking to P&P scenarios, I'd rather see missions written so that they make sense to everyone, but make more sense to your RP group if you're there to elaborate... Heck if we need a 2-tier system have it act like customising a bought scenario works, so one standard mission and a few 'tweaks' for your RP group. i.e. have a set mission with some changes conditional upon the mission creator being in the team.
I think I was the person who pointed out that unlockables based upon ratings would lead to mission-writing monopolies. I'm wary of that as it would create a 2-tier system, but I'm also wary of keeping missions private/invitation-only for similar reasons.
Of course they'll have to be some way to test missions and test them at various team sizes, so there'll probably have to be some scope for private testing... but I'd limit it by number of missions or by time to persuade people not to horde PCC missions. Maybe something like 1 arc per account in invite-only multiplayer test, or each account stays in test for 7 days from last edit unless actively published.
By my mohawk shall ye know me!
my toons
Funny: Ee-Ai-Ee-Ai-Oh! #3662 * The foul-mouthed Handyman! #1076 * City of Norms #132944
Serious: To Save A Single World (#83744) * Marketing Opportunity (#83747)
[ QUOTE ]
I think that having the option to keep missions private would almost guarantee that most missions would be kept private. Or maybe just most good missions which are done for friends... I'm sure we'd see a more than adequate supply of poorly written dross just so that prepubescents can play at being god/a dev.
[/ QUOTE ]
The Neverwinter Nights modding community suggests that you are both right and wrong. Yes, there will be a plentiful supply of rubbish, but there will also be a plentiful supply of well written story arcs produced by people who (if it isn't all anonymous) will become famous, and appear in web articles, and eventually get jobs at NCNC.
[ QUOTE ]
Thinking to P&P scenarios, I'd rather see missions written so that they make sense to everyone, but make more sense to your RP group if you're there to elaborate... Heck if we need a 2-tier system have it act like customising a bought scenario works, so one standard mission and a few 'tweaks' for your RP group. i.e. have a set mission with some changes conditional upon the mission creator being in the team.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fair, but you're thinking of published P&P scenarios. Those have to be fairly open to all. 90% of actual P&P scenarios are created by the GM for the specific group. Those are almost always the best since the GM can place things in the set designed to challenge the specific capabilities of the characters.
[ QUOTE ]
I think I was the person who pointed out that unlockables based upon ratings would lead to mission-writing monopolies. I'm wary of that as it would create a 2-tier system, but I'm also wary of keeping missions private/invitation-only for similar reasons.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I don't get the connection between those.
The unlockable system promotes people getting good ratings for getting good ratings.
Private maps lets people not take part in the competition if they don't want to, and believe me, plenty of talented people will want to.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course they'll have to be some way to test missions and test them at various team sizes, so there'll probably have to be some scope for private testing... but I'd limit it by number of missions or by time to persuade people not to horde PCC missions. Maybe something like 1 arc per account in invite-only multiplayer test, or each account stays in test for 7 days from last edit unless actively published.
[/ QUOTE ]
A really well crafted NWN module takes months to get right.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
How about a little pop up at the end, with the rating system, that says: This arc was brought to you by @[insert name here]. ?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And then person does mission and tells SG "Hey, want to annoy @ [insert name here]? Go and petition that mission/give it a bad rating".
Nope anonymity at all times or it'll be impossible to fairly judge someone.
[/ QUOTE ]
But how do you judge someone if they're anonymous?
[ QUOTE ]
Because jerks are everywhere, even if not constantly.
[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think that's a good enough reason to simply make it anonymous. You cant let jerks win. Couldnt it simply have an option to publicise name? Then you can if you want to and when you want to.
Me? Ide publish name AFTER I got a good rating. Assuming I got one in the first place.
Don't get into a flap. It's only my opinion and I'm thick
Arc 56763 Lord Anarchys heaven
2 mission arc. Bring friends cause Lord Anarchy means business...
[ QUOTE ]
Me? Ide publish name AFTER I got a good rating.
[/ QUOTE ]
In that case, you should probably use a false name.
[ QUOTE ]
But how do you judge someone if they're anonymous?
[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't supposed to be judging the person, you're supposed to be judging the mission or story arc. You don't need to know who created it to do that.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But how do you judge someone if they're anonymous?
[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't supposed to be judging the person, you're supposed to be judging the mission or story arc. You don't need to know who created it to do that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo. That's actually what I mean 
"Idealism is such a wonderful thing. All you really need is someone rational to put it to proper use." - Kerr Avon
Myopic Aardvark on Twitter
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I was the person who pointed out that unlockables based upon ratings would lead to mission-writing monopolies. I'm wary of that as it would create a 2-tier system, but I'm also wary of keeping missions private/invitation-only for similar reasons.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I don't get the connection between those.
[/ QUOTE ]
Similar reasons, not the same reasons.
The unlockable system promotes people creating better-rated missions because they created a few initial missions that got good ratings. So, especially with 'play more from this author' type links, a few people end up creating the universally acknoeledged great missions and everyone else may as well give up as their missions will pale into insignificance without the same unlockables.
So here the playing masses lose out and end up only really seeing content from a relatively few people (the early ratings-winners).
The private-invitation-only system could easily, in my opinion, lead to most people keeping all their output as private-only. Why bother trying to create a good mission accessible to the masses when you mainly want something for you and your mates? Why risk the ridicule of the general playerbase? Though I'm still sure that the less mature would love to foist their latest magnificent octopus upon us, no matter how poor it may be. These will be the ones that really should have been proof read at the very least...
So here the masses lose out as they end up only really seeing content from a relatively few people (as most keep their works private).
Of course I may be overly pessimistic about the standard of public works if the private/public split was used. But it's worth bearing in mind that the potential mission creators are your teammates on the last PuG you were in with 2 or 3 jumped up, aggressive teenagers who couldn't spell 'hi' without a typo or 1337txtspk.
I'm expecting some decent quality missions and some real gems, but also expecting a lot of dross. And I think it highly likely that either ratings-based unlockables or the option to keep missions private would probably restrict the quality output far more than the run-of-the-mill detritus.
[ QUOTE ]
A really well crafted NWN module takes months to get right.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't play NWN and we haven't a definite idea of the CoX PPC features/process, so comparing them is somewhat difficult!
But note that my 7 days from last edit is merely an example time span, and that it is 'from last edit' - so you could take years on a mission arc if you wanted.
By my mohawk shall ye know me!
my toons
Funny: Ee-Ai-Ee-Ai-Oh! #3662 * The foul-mouthed Handyman! #1076 * City of Norms #132944
Serious: To Save A Single World (#83744) * Marketing Opportunity (#83747)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about a little pop up at the end, with the rating system, that says: This arc was brought to you by @[insert name here]. ?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And then person does mission and tells SG "Hey, want to annoy @ [insert name here]? Go and petition that mission/give it a bad rating".
Nope anonymity at all times or it'll be impossible to fairly judge someone.
[/ QUOTE ]
But how do you judge someone if they're anonymous?
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess they could make it so you wouldn't be judging the mission designer, just the scenario. There could still be a list of mission designers with their average rating if necessary, but no-one would know who their ratings were scoring.
That said, even anonymously rated missions would be open to abuse as someone could post their mission then tell their SG which one it is and get them to give it top ratings regardless of whether it deserves it. Less scrupulous SGs could even set a policy of giving all non-members' missions low ratings.
I don't think there's any way to prevent people getting round the system to over- or under-rate player missions altogether, so they might just give a "post anonymously" option and let the chips fall where they may.
Even if they do offer such an option I'd still want to post with my name attached, that way people who like my missions will be able to play my others and live with the fact that I'd be open to rating griefing. I won't be making missions for the ratings rewards anyway, but maybe that's just me.
Personally I see three major problems:
1. People naming the "villain" or "hero" in the mission as a way to ridicule or bully another player. I mean, you HAVE to name the villains/heroes and it's highly unlikely you can come up with a completely non-offending name, and it's - for that reason - as likely you could explain any name to GM's when it's being petitioned.
2. The maps are getting REALLY boring. While I understand the problem of introducing a map maker, this will need to be adressed rather soon'ish. Being able to piece together different parts could help, at least if some more pieces are introduced, but I'd really like to see some more "special" maps.
3. We could REALLY do with more variety in the missions. I've previously suggested several ways of making the city zones more alive and a mission generator could help with that as well. Doesn't look like that's gonna happen, but there are ways of making instanced missions more fun as well.
Ideas:
Dialogue with hostages and people you save and other choises, offering optional secondary goals. Might happen if I understand things right.
Puzzles - I do hate getting stuck myself, but I guess it might make some people happy.
One mission branshing out, you get to choose mission and that choise affects the outcome of the story arc.
and... aaah, can't be bothered...
[ QUOTE ]
The unlockable system promotes people creating better-rated missions because they created a few initial missions that got good ratings. So, especially with 'play more from this author' type links, a few people end up creating the universally acknoeledged great missions and everyone else may as well give up as their missions will pale into insignificance without the same unlockables.
So here the playing masses lose out and end up only really seeing content from a relatively few people (the early ratings-winners).
[/ QUOTE ]
Totally agree.
[ QUOTE ]
The private-invitation-only system could easily, in my opinion, lead to most people keeping all their output as private-only. Why bother trying to create a good mission accessible to the masses when you mainly want something for you and your mates?
So here the masses lose out as they end up only really seeing content from a relatively few people (as most keep their works private).
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, I disagree here, otherwise we wouldn't be having the discussion. And, yes, I think you are being pessimistic.
[ QUOTE ]
Of course I may be overly pessimistic about the standard of public works if the private/public split was used. But it's worth bearing in mind that the potential mission creators are your teammates on the last PuG you were in with 2 or 3 jumped up, aggressive teenagers who couldn't spell 'hi' without a typo or 1337txtspk.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, you aren't being pessimistic about the number of pretty sucky missions/arcs we'll see out there. There will be loads of them. However, making everything public will not improve that in the least.
[ QUOTE ]
Why risk the ridicule of the general playerbase?
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry to take that out of context, but it relates heavily with the section above. If everyone's work goes public, and you don't want to risk the ridicule of the masses, then that means you don't create missions. You have been locked out of a game mechanism by that game mechanism's competitive function. If you don't want to compete, don't want the ridicule, then disallowing you from creating something while avoiding the ridicule is not going to result in more good modules, it's going to result in less people creating anything.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A really well crafted NWN module takes months to get right.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't play NWN and we haven't a definite idea of the CoX PPC features/process, so comparing them is somewhat difficult!
But note that my 7 days from last edit is merely an example time span, and that it is 'from last edit' - so you could take years on a mission arc if you wanted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you could, making that limit pretty much useless. Plus, what happens when someone goes on holiday for a week...
I am not expecting the in-game mission creator to have even 10% of the flexibility of NWN's module editor. (Aside from anything else, if you were good at modelling, or voices, or art, you could add your own objects into game, or have your NPCs give voice-overs, and that's not going to happen in CoX.) However, creating a well crafted mission is going to take time, and your limitation is based entirely on the idea that all missions must be published in order to get any reasonable content out. Obviously, I disagree with that premise and so don't agree that creation times should be limited.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
I would think the in game rating system would simply be limited to 1-5 stars. I don't see that being awarded one star would be so painful.
However, if it follows the NWN course missions will be reviewed on the forums, by mission name, so even if your mision is anonomous you could still be confronted by a bad review.
And how difficult will it be to figure out who created what mission anyway? You can often tell on the forums who wrote what post by the content, phrasiology, and spelling patterns without looking at the name.
I think it boils down to if you are going to create a mission for public access you are going to need a thick skin.
I really should do something about this signature.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully, you would need to play through the entire mission/arc before you could rate it.
[/ QUOTE ]You'd need some way to mark content that's either really hard or just plain unfinishable due to being broken though.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine the creator would allow you to set a broken mission and since it'll still just adjust things depending on team size/difficulty, it's not going to be "too hard", as such.
No harder than facing Banished Pantheon with a Dark for example.
[/ QUOTE ]Seeing how often official content is broken (misplaced glowies, hostages that vanish or don't follow etc.), I have a feeling we'll see some broken player-created missions as well.