188 replies to this topic

[Adridos]

Allfex, on 26 March 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

Edit 2: I think in another way to help PGI... cockpit-items... they are cheap and very fast to produce. There are so many "clans" out there. Would it be cool if all the "Clan"-members can get there clanspecific cockpit-item? for maybe *insert MC-Value here*? You dont need the cryengine for that.

I would totally buy this items to show my clan in the cockpit!

Merc groups.

Clans are a different beast. Altough a Timber Wolf figurine would probably sell like hot rolls.

[Solidussnake]

I think one of the things PGI posted that annoyed me the most is one that assumed if we had community map makers they would not live up to PGI's quality. (lol PGI and quality have they really played any of there own games). The other thing is letting *us* make the map for a free year of premium or a few premium mechs here / there wouldn't hurt them at all. And would easily quadruple there content

[Tice Daurus]

Solidussnake, on 26 March 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

I think one of the things PGI posted that annoyed me the most is one that assumed if we had community map makers they would not live up to PGI's quality. (lol PGI and quality have they really played any of there own games). The other thing is letting *us* make the map for a free year of premium or a few premium mechs here / there wouldn't hurt them at all. And would easily quadruple there content

Again, I don't see that there would be any way they do this because again, any compensation, whether it would be a prize or actual payment would work. This would strictly be a labor of love type of deal for anyone doing the work. And we've already suggested that there be a committee review before the maps be checked out before submitted to make sure the map would be done properly.

[Adridos]

Bump for justice. We won't let this thread die so easily.

[anonymous175]

[Tice Daurus]

As much as I don't want to bump my own post, I'm doing it so we can keep this on top and noticed so we can hopefully get an answer from the dev's on this...

[JokerVictor]

No dev input? Color me surprised, heh.

[S3dition]

JokerVictor, on 26 March 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

No dev input? Color me surprised, heh.

Sorry, the devs aren't being paid to reply to your posts. It's not forumwarrior online .

As I keep saying, the quickest and easiest way to get their attention is support@mwomercs.com.

[JokerVictor]

S3dition, on 26 March 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Sorry, the devs aren't being paid to reply to your posts. It's not forumwarrior online .

As I keep saying, the quickest and easiest way to get their attention is support@mwomercs.com.

Couldn't just let that go, huh? You're such a rockstar dude, community contributor nominee! How could I ever hope to be as cool as you?

P.S. - Yes that was a personal attack. Forumwarrior mode en-f*cking-gage

[Tice Daurus]

JokerVictor, on 26 March 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

Couldn't just let that go, huh? You're such a rockstar dude, community contributor nominee! How could I ever hope to be as cool as you?

P.S. - Yes that was a personal attack. Forumwarrior mode en-f*cking-gage

Guys, seriously? Look I understand some people think that the dev's and mods don't care, but they do, and personal attacks aren't going to help. Please guys, take the hate levels down a couple of notches.

As to see if we can get the dev's attention on this, I am now going to submit a ticket via support@mwomercs.com so we can get their attention so that they can respond so we can all see their response and if they reply personally just to me, I'll post the response.

EDIT: I've just sent a support ticket to the dev's to invite them to respond to this here so we can all get an answer to this soon. I'll keep you all posted.

Edited by Tice Daurus, 26 March 2013 - 05:03 PM.

[JokerVictor]

Tice Daurus, on 26 March 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

Guys, seriously? Look I understand some people think that the dev's and mods don't care, but they do, and personal attacks aren't going to help. Please guys, take the hate levels down a couple of notches.

As to see if we can get the dev's attention on this, I am now going to submit a ticket via support@mwomercs.com so we can get their attention so that they can respond so we can all see their response and if they reply personally just to me, I'll post the response.

No offense Tice, I hope the idea takes off. However, drama generates interest, and he's been a b*tthole the entire thread. He is right though, this likely won't get a response. PGI doesn't take suggestions very well.

[S3dition]

JokerVictor, on 26 March 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

No offense Tice, I hope the idea takes off. However, drama generates interest, and he's been a b*tthole the entire thread. He is right though, this likely won't get a response. PGI doesn't take suggestions very well.

Care to quote where I've been such? Sorry, I can't really take one of the main trolls here seriously.

PS - You're right, you'll never be as cool as me

[MadSavage]

I already submitted a support ticket and emailed pgi's main contact email about making a map with the cryengine sdk and submitting it for review over a month ago. No response yet.

http://i1063.photobu...uh_building.jpg

a wip a while ago for mwll

Edited by MadSavage, 26 March 2013 - 05:56 PM.

[Fusea]

So a few pages back I noticed that some posters were saying that pvp and story are like ships passing in the night and never the tween shall meet. I don't think that's the case. All you have to do is include different objectives for different lances when they drop. Complete your added objective for big bonuses. It's not fool proof, but add it to the CW aspect and you have a strong incentive to do something other than 'run over there and pound some mechs to scrap.'

Its not a perfect solution of course. But since some of us will go for the bonus, it can certainly change the shape of the battle.

[Delas Ting Usee]

Bump

[c0mbatphil]

Bump for justice... and hopefully some crazy weird content.

[Tice Daurus]

Feldor, on 26 March 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

I've gone through this topic and was quite surprised no one mentioned this. User content user reviews/voting. If someone wants to submit a map it will have to go through community review. Many F2P games out there use user created content (Star Trek Online, City of Hero's [may it rest in peace], Champions, the list goes on). They also have a volunteer program to review user submitted content. It's no small task to set up, 1.2 to 1.5 million in over all labor costs on average with no tools/workshops pre-made for the development department (the tool/workshop is almost 1 million of the estimated cost and is based on known costs from over 5 years ago). The cost is great but the rewards are greater.

Users will always and forever be able to out produce game creators. They will always and forever be able to review more content then the game creator as well. A user based review system requires a reward system. An example would be the foundry in Star Trek Online (it's a good example because it also shows how a review system can be abused).

The foundry review system has 3 tiers of review. The first tier is an automatic review generated base users playing the content, it looks at how long the player takes to complete the content and how much loot/exp/currency they gain from it. The automatic tier takes what it gets from the first few players to complete the content and uses that to decide if the content will be worth reviewing by the rest of the community. The next tier is completely decided by users. After completing a user created mission, the player/user is automatically propped to give a review of the content. The review has a rating (1 to 5 in STO anything will do as long as it has a low mid and high score the more range the better to a point [going over 100 for a rating system and funny things {funny bad} start happening with review logs]) which will decide if the content goes to the final tier. The final tier is a review by staff. The staff review is just to see if there are any ToS breaches or offensive content. It can also be used to create a "staff pick" or "high light" selection of content.

- 3 Tier review system in short:

Tier 1 - automatic review based on how long it takes and what the users get in that time frame.

Tier 2 - User created reviews and ratings after playing the content.

Tier 3 - Staff review of the content of ToS and offensive matterial as well as creating a "high light"/"staff pick" short list for users.

In the case of MWO tier 1 would likely only be time based, for example a map that takes 2 min for one side or the other to win would be to short and one that takes over an hour for ether team to engage would be far to long. For tier 2 nothing would change, user would submit scores based on how they like the map as well as short review for why they did or did not like it (optional for the written part but extremely help for new map makers). Tier 3 will be a short list of maps that have made it through the first 2 tiers with a glowing (or very close to) average review score, 150 different user reviews seems to be the norm before content is even consider to be moved to tier 3.

This is just a rough idea to work with to create a much easier to handle "flood" of user content. A lot of the poorly build content will be stopped at tier 1 and almost all the bad content would never get past tier 2 (there will always be exceptions that sneak past). The content that does get to staff will have been seen by no less then 150 different users (the number of users can always be adjusted that's just an average base on other review systems). Anything that makes it past tier 3 should (in theory) be safe, balanced, and fun.

As for legal issues with some user content being a form of hate speech/**** or some other equally undesirable content. Reviewing the content is voluntary and will require agreeing to a disclaimer that would make PGI/IGP not liable to anything found in the user created content to be offensive (widely used to avoid lawsuits and the like).

Now i did mention a reward system and that they can and will be abused if not planned out carefully. Making a reward to great and repeatable for the same content will always lead to abused by both the reviewer and the creator. The reward needs to be enough to interest a player in reviewing content and have the option to give some of the reward to the content creator ( reviewers discretion on how much if any up to a point). Maybe a health sum of CBill's or Exp or Gxp, MC is an option but will almost guarantee players will try and find ways to abuse the system (which could be a good thing, for a little while, to figure out how it can be abused and plug those holes).

As for amounts, that will be a little bit of a guessing game. If CBill's are used I'd say 150,000 to 250,000 would likely be the golden range (my experience with user based review systems of this nature is limited to the last 6 years or so, so bear with me on my guesstimates). For EXP 350 - 500 and for GXP 50 - 150. As for MC, if it's used the reward should be low, 5 - 25.

All of this is far down the road thinking. I would love to see some of the user made maps I have played on in the past given a face lift and thrown into MWO. However, there are far more important large scale projects to implement in MWO. Namely CW, but after that has been launched then CC (community content) should be the next big project.

Almost everything (some Baa'ing from sheep here and there) discussed on this thread has been informed and informative. This isn't a new idea, but is most certainly a good one. The scale of getting it done is massive as it will require the means to upload maps to MWO and download them to reviewers without risking the MWO servers or the reviewers with malware/spybot/keylogger/etc piggy backs (making the content creator not accept outside data or be an always online feature are a few ways to reduce that risk). An incentive program to get maps reviewed ( I know, not something that would be required at first but it will be as the list of maps expands). A 3 tier review process (more tiers are possible but nothing less then the 3 tier process I discribe will work effectively) before non reviewers see the user created map. There is also the all improtant creation of the tool/workshop that user will need to us (if you make it always online) or a list of accepted workshops/file types and upload requirements/disclaimers.

Feldor, this is a great idea and I hope that when the dev's read this we can use something like this. I'm loving how this thread is taking shape with some really good ideas!

[Adridos]

Common Garth. You must have seen this thread already...

[Krazyjim]

Adridos, on 27 March 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Common Garth. You must have seen this thread already...

He is waiting for this to reach 100 pages. We can do this, we have the power!!!

[Tice Daurus]

If the dev's think that this will sneak away unanswered they are mistaken. I've also posted this in the Ask the Dev's 35 just recently along with someone else who saw this thread. It will get answered, and not just some yes or no answer. Of this, I can promise. I won't be a d*** about it, but I will make sure that we keep the pressure on them until it gets answered. Politely of course.

Edited by Tice Daurus, 27 March 2013 - 07:27 AM.