You should also mention, if you are writing a complete review, where it is posted. Tranman was good about this. It’s VERY important to not slag them on the STO forum and not in the review column in the game, unless they ask for it. It’s a good policy as SBUGC is always looking for solid contributors/reviewers.

I do not want to hinder on anyone’s involvement what soever and believe everyone has something to contribute, however just logged onto find a spam allot front page of reviews. I had written more, but deleted it, just to leave a little statement. Not happy. Was hopping to find some info on the Foundry Features.

Ok…. Just saying this is a creator driven website, I hope, we can AND will do both. Since the Foundry update people have gone back to the task of reviewing. Constructive criticism and making better missions should always be our priority…

When i review a mission, I like to include my thoughts and experiences as I play the mission. I’m sorry, but that does often result in spoilers to those that have not played the mission. However, I think this method provides insight to the author about what people are actually feeling and encountering as they progress.

After all, an initial reaction to something may have a consequence that they did not foresee, and may ultimately never make it into the review at the end of the mission. For instance, I recently played a mission that I thought was really good, but one little aspect of it, threw me for a loop. It pulled me a way from the story and left me wondering about it.

Then, when I post a review, I include those thoughts and experiences, not as spoilers, but as points of possible discussion by the community. I was hoping to generate conversations that the author could monitor and see how other people who have played it or read the review reacted to a specific portion of the mission. But, it appears my approach backfired and stirred up a lot of issues within the community. I am truely sorry about that.

For example, if the issue pertained to the size of a particular mob, a variety of opinions about their placement, their size, their difficulty could help the author fine tune the mission in such a way that the next time we play it, we find a mission so close to perfection, that we have no other choice but to give it 5 stars.

After all, isn’t that why we’re here? At least, it is for me. I want to help my fellow authors make the best missions they can. In fact, I would love it if someone disected my mission and pointed out all of the little issues with it. Cryptic has a staff that does this, but individuals Foundry authors are alone in their creative endeavors. i thought that was the point of Starbase UGC. But, it appears my approach backfired and stirred up a lot of issues within the community. I am truely sorry about that.

Sorry about the rant. I just had a few things I wanted to get off my chest.

In the future, I will will include a SPOILER warning just above the More button.

Just so that Im perfectly clear, I never implied that all those reviews on the front page was spam. That must be someone else. I wasnt miffed they were there, I was miffed they were long articles, that lengthened the scrolling distance, and the long text in the reviews sucked my eyes into reading what I didnt want to read. I dont care if one day I log in and the top 10 posts are review posts (in the new format), just as long as they are formatted the way Soreidem adjusted his to. Thank you Soriedem, by the way. Then my eyes can see, without even reading anything, that hey, thats a review, dont zoom your eyes in, scroll quickly to the next post.

Obviously reviews must contain some spoilers, and full reviews spoil everything. And when I start playing these missions, I’ll be going back to read these reviews to see if my thoughts were in line with other reviewers. But not until then.

Im not a fan of reviews getting buried either. Honestly Ive never tried to find a review here on a particular mission, because I havnt wanted to. I just want the review operating rooms, where you disect missions to be off down the hall, and you have to turn a few corners, and no chance of walking by and seeing split open bodies, thats all. When I want to scrub up, and join the operation, THEN I’ll make the effort to find the OR with the other surgeons, discussing how best to fix the patient, as the patient lays there conscious, torso cracked open, and talking back to his doctors, lol.

If I want to be an OR surgeon reviewer, I come here. If I just want the final review, after the mission is polished, and Ive already played it too, I go to…FoundryMissions.com?

Really, Starbase UGC is a Foundry Medical Facility. Patients come in, other doctors diagnose the problems, we operate, the authors work gets fixed, then we stich them back up without a scar showing. FoundyMissions.com is the Fashion Show runway where the finished product is displayed, and the reviews there are reviewing the final version.

Unless UGC wants to have a Runway here too, I think we all have to accept our true roles in the STO universe, Foundry Physicians, where sometimes it can get bloody and gruesome, and where hopefully the patients walk out looking and feeling like a million bars of gold pressed latinum.

I hope you can still see that even FoundryMissions.com should be using two types of reviews in my opinion. The report card version I mentioned, that uses raw numbers to help potential players decide if they want to play that mission next, and then the final review. The final review (hopefully good), acts like a badge of honor that goes with the mission screenshots etc, and discusses all the great things about the mission. That version is meant for and worded toward the player that has ALREADY played the mission, then the reviewer can go into detail how awesome a particular story feature was, plot stuff etc.

Thats why I was trying to encourage you guys here, the best foundry review surgeons in the business, to lead the way in developing the official formats for these three types of reviews. Operating Reviews (what we do here): discuss in detail the mission, with other reviewers and hopefully the author, and this gets updated as the mission gets updated. Report Card Reviews: Just raw numbers on a 1-10 type of scale rating several aspects, where the grading criteria could be applied to any type of mission, and doesnt utter a word of spoilage. Final Review: where reviewers are gushing over how great parts of the mission, combat, plot, Trekkiness of the mission, etc is discussed in full spoilerific detail.

Hopefully, Starbase UGC becomes synonymous with Starbase 515 in Star Trek Online lore when people think of the Foundry. That would be a great compliment to this website.

Agreed w/ AGNT. We have the ability, in verbage, to disguise certain elements. If you’ve built a mission, you understand the lexicon and process. You can say “The talk to contact was vague”, and NOT name names. Not including named objectives could be a way to avoid spoilers…