Incentive to get people to play, player created missions

[Aribella Lafonte]

Firstly, I want to say, that I can relate to mission makers being a mission maker myself and how much I spent creating missions and have also been one to suffer less plays because players prefer the shorter, faster (more efficient) missions which is very discouraging considering the amount of time/effort that I put into them. It isn't about how much they cost me. It's not necessary for me to remind everyone of that every time I comment on the effort I put into them. It's about me spending a good 1-3 weeks to create them between decorating, writing and programming them, not the hour or two to create them, similar to what you said and the love that I put into creating them and sharing my stories. I get it. BUT .... I also identify with the mission players as well so I can't dismiss them just because they prefer to play someone else's shorter mission. I also want missions with more wow to get more recognition, but not at the cost of dismissing all the other mission makers or a majority of all the other missions out there and that is what you did in your comment. So, if you don't think it is fair for me to think of your attitude toward them to come off as snobbish, you might want to review your comment, putting it together with your own mission expenses/quality, you have to admit, it can potentially be taken the wrong way;

Maybe it's just better to just keep flooding Smallverse with cheap, short, low-quality missions instead as they seem to be the ones that have been having a lot more success in the community due to the current system

.

Who made you the critic to define what a "low quality" mission actually is? Trying to promote wow level of efforts doesn't make judging others and labeling them "low quality" okay.

Good examples of short, easy missions on the approved panel that are relatively good missions (not lesser quality because they don't have the fancy ultra expensive decor, flashy flash interactions )

A Day At the Dentist
Tipsy Bean Cafe
The Tavern
The Local Coffee Shop
Psycho
The Flight Plan
A Single Pale Rose
Barbie's Studio
The Boogeyman
Behind the Lens
The Great Fairy Fountain

There are more, this is just an example. I stand by my initial opinion of "snobbish" attitude.

Regarding 14 missions per week, yes, some of us do in fact can play 14 missions in one day, especially if they are short missions. This allows players to get more tokens/xp vs playing missions that take twice as long. Of course they won't bother to do that. And I have played that many in one day to complete loyalty (doing it all last minute after putting it off), get xp for a wearable or do it for fun simply because I am bored. And once you add gold to the reward other than just tokens/xp, they will have more reason to. It raises the incentive alright .... to go on to continue to play short, easy missions. Not just players that enjoy playing missions will play that many, if a player has a good enough reason to (xp leveling or incentive), they will play that many too. There is even a player on here that is leveled max level on every single path!

Why will players continue to play short, easy missions?

1. Loyalty still exists (however, we will all be disappointed to discontinue loyalty rewards so that will never happen)
2. XP leveled wearables exist - faster missions = more xp
3. A player's own personal preferences for easy, quick missions with little efforts as special effects with time delays extend the time to complete a mission and not to mention, there's missions out there with more challenging annoyances to players such as in order programming, rotation, traveling etc making mission playing less efficient.
4. Quick, easy missions will ALWAYS be the most popular missions to play.

Giving players a gold payout doesn't fix anything since these factors exist and gold payout will be for every single mission on the panel. Players don't have a problem playing missions, they just don't like to since it's forced upon them. A majority of players don't play them solely to enjoy them.

So, since you oppose these shorter missions so much, exactly who is to gain this gold reward, because if you are in favor of it, that is rewarding every player for EVERY type of mission that exists. How will it gravitate mission players to missions that you find to be of a more rewarding, higher quality? Answer this question please. They will continue to play what the like/want to play.


__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______

I don't try to disagree with suggestions made by my fellow mission makers, but I can see many times, that they get so lost in their emotions and love for their mission making, that they fail to consider the PROS and CONS to how such suggestions can affect the game as a whole in other aspects (if technically possible, economy, or if it is fair to all players) In that case, I will tend to disagree if I have considered those things. It is not because I don't support them or promoting missions. So, dislike me if you will, I don't care. I will always consider suggestions on all aspects/perspectives and if I choose to "nit pick" which is in reality providing a reason to be in favor/not in favor of a certain detail to make a point, I will continue to do so. It's only those lacking considering other points of view that call it "nit picking" I'm not just going to commend and clap at a suggestion and say, "good idea!" You're going to hear way more from me on why I agree/disagree. I see no harm in that. In fact, that is how changes/improvements are made. And what makes us a community. We as mission makers are only a small part of it.


If the gold reward is applied to featured missions only, I think this can limit how many missions can be played for the gold reward since there will be way less featured missions on panel. This makes iit less likely to be exploited or affect economy. It encourages mission makers to inspire to put more effort into their missions to impress. And it specifically features and entices players to play those missions that have a little extra put into them, which is what we want.

[Shane Fahey]

Firstly, I want to say, that I can relate to mission makers being a mission maker myself and how much I spent creating missions and have also been one to suffer less plays because players prefer the shorter, faster (more efficient) missions which is very discouraging considering the amount of time/effort that I put into them. It isn't about how much they cost me. It's not necessary for me to remind everyone of that every time I comment on the effort I put into them. It's about me spending a good 1-3 weeks to create them between decorating, writing and programming them, not the hour or two to create them, similar to what you said and the love that I put into creating them and sharing my stories. I get it. BUT .... I also identify with the mission players as well so I can't dismiss them just because they prefer to play someone else's shorter mission. I also want missions with more wow to get more recognition, but not at the cost of dismissing all the other mission makers or a majority of all the other missions out there and that is what you did in your comment. So, if you don't think it is fair for me to think of your attitude toward them to come off as snobbish, you might want to review your comment, putting it together with your own mission expenses/quality, you have to admit, it can potentially be taken the wrong way;

Who made you the critic to define what a "low quality" mission actually is? Trying to promote wow level of efforts doesn't make judging others and labeling them "low quality" okay.

Just gonna address both these points together, if that's alright!

I've never said once that these shorter missions or "low-quality" missions would be unapproved or go anywhere - my suggestion still means they can remain exactly as they are, so people can still keep doing the current method of mission playing if they prefer. It just essentially means there's another Featured mission tab, which allows Monthly rotated missions which the SV team would decide (based on their own criteria), those Mission Makers would receive gold and visibility for being Featured. As for players themselves, the gold/enchanced rewards should apply to featured missions only and be capped weekly.

In regards to who made me a critic - well ME actually, since every single one of us is a critic really - even now we are giving critiques on each other's opinions if you truly think about it!
Everytime you finish a mission you will have an opinion on it, it's just whether you choose to voice it or not.
I'm not so rude as to name and shame any missions I consider "low-quality" that are out there, as that's not the purpose of my post - but my personal definition of a low-quality mission would be things such as no story, random tasks, repetitiveness, very unclear instructions, missions which use the absolute bare minimum.
Again, that's just my opinion though as I know not every mission is perfect - at the same time if you were to put 2 missions & spaces side by side, there are some which would far outshine others.

So, since you oppose these shorter missions so much, exactly who is to gain this gold reward, because if you are in favor of it, that is rewarding every player for EVERY type of mission that exists. How will it gravitate mission players to missions that you find to be of a more rewarding, higher quality? Answer this question please. They will continue to play what the like/want to play.

I think I kind've already answered this above, just to reclarify though - players can still do their Approved missions for XP/tokens exactly as they are so can reap the same benefits!
Mission Makers Gold Benefit from Featured Missions - 10k-20k Gold per Featured Monthly Mission
Players Benefit from Featured Missions - Capped at 250-500g per week - but the extra rewards would only apply to Featured missions.
Perhaps on a milestone basis, such as Complete 10 Featured Missions for the whole week and you will receive that weekly bonus or a small gold payout per mission up to the capped amount.

In all honesty though, you could also just give the Featured Missions double or triple XP/Tokens for playing those higher quality and longer missions.

I don't try to disagree with suggestions made by my fellow mission makers, but I can see many times, that they get so lost in their emotions and love for their mission making, that they fail to consider the PROS and CONS to how such suggestions can affect the game as a whole in other aspects (if technically possible, economy, or if it is fair to all players) In that case, I will tend to disagree if I have considered those things. It is not because I don't support them or promoting missions. So, dislike me if you will, I don't care. I will always consider suggestions on all aspects/perspectives and if I choose to "nit pick" which is in reality providing a reason to be in favor/not in favor of a certain detail to make a point, I will continue to do so. It's only those lacking considering other points of view that call it "nit picking" I'm not just going to commend and clap at a suggestion and say, "good idea!" You're going to hear way more from me on why I agree/disagree. I see no harm in that. In fact, that is how changes/improvements are made. And what makes us a community. We as mission makers are only a small part of it.


If the gold reward is applied to featured missions only, I think this can limit how many missions can be played for the gold reward since there will be way less featured missions on panel. This makes iit less likely to be exploited or affect economy. It encourages mission makers to inspire to put more effort into their missions to impress. And it specifically features and entices players to play those missions that have a little extra put into them, which is what we want.

Just also want to clarify I have not even an inkling of hate against you, Aribella, and would even very much like to try some of your missions you've made... So please don't misunderstand that either
I think we're actually agreeing for the most part, so not sure if there's some sort of miscommunication just because of my branding of "low-quality missions", which I agree looking back can come across as snobbish - but it was more of a point, by playing devils' advocate, that I could throw out a bunch of very quick approved missions to flood them on the daily, which would hypothetically overshadow the "higher quality" missions that might be hidden and reap the financial gains from everyone being more attracted to those missions as opposed to creating quality missions which might benefit the community.
My point from the gold being mentioned was just to echo Kissy's point that making missions can be very expensive - and for people who do it because they enjoy it and want to give an enjoyable experience to the community they once loved (like me), it can very quickly become financially draining. I made my choice to spend that amount, again I agree but again it echoes my point... I don't make missions for financial gains, I do it to create as enjoyable of an experience as possible for anyone who may try them.

Anytime I get feedback or even a critique on something that could be clearer/improved it makes my day!
It's clear we both have the same goals, Aribella, which is to promote quality missions so let's not get our wires too twisted now!

[Aribella Lafonte]

I've never said once that these shorter missions or "low-quality" missions would be unapproved or go anywhere - my suggestion still means they can remain exactly as they are, so people can still keep doing the current method of mission playing if they prefer. It just essentially means there's another Featured mission tab, which allows Monthly rotated missions which the SV team would decide (based on their own criteria), those Mission Makers would receive gold and visibility for being Featured. As for players themselves, the gold/enchanced rewards should apply to featured missions only and be capped weekly.

I can agree with adding a featured mission tab and I never assumed that you meant for the missions to be removed from the approved panel. I just find referring to missions that you don’t like or consider a “lower quality” as being offensive; considering the fact that the initial statement was generalized to include most missions and not going into detail what type of features these missions lack to explain your opinion of them and that there are exclusions. Now just imagine those same missions and their creator’s opinions wondering if you are including their missions as “lower quality “. 😔

I consider "low-quality" that are out there, as that's not the purpose of my post - but my personal definition of a low-quality mission would be things such as no story, random tasks, repetitiveness, very unclear instructions, missions which use the absolute bare minimum.

I can agree with this, however, I would call these type of missions “less engaging” or simplistic as they lack using actions, interactions or enhanced story line to be more interesting for the mission player, not so much insulting their quality. Even so, they still have a credible argument to how much they spent to create them as we do. Simply put, not everyone is as knowledgeable in interactions or as savvy in story telling as some of us. And when the game was first released and in beta, there was a desperate need for missions to test the mission system, so demands and expectations were much less than they are today. And that’s why so many have been getting rejected recently since there are so many missions on panel now and so many that are the same; standards are higher now. Wanting better mission options, but yet we complain about all the rejections .. it’s all fine and good until it includes us in those high standards; it’s probably hard for Staff to clearly understand what we want as far as this. But featured missions will resolve this issue too, since that can provide more flexibility for approved missions while still applying high standards for featured. And really, what is a mission anyway? What sets one apart from another?

Mission Makers Gold Benefit from Featured Missions - 10k-20k Gold per Featured Monthly Mission

Players Benefit from Featured Missions - Capped at 250-500g per week - but the extra rewards would only apply to Featured missions.

Perhaps on a milestone basis, such as Complete 10 Featured Missions for the whole week and you will receive that weekly bonus or a small gold payout per mission up to the capped amount.

I agree with having Featured Missions and giving mission players a small reward when playing them. That is where it ends. I don’t agree with mission makers getting 10-20k gold for making a featured mission unless it is a reward from a mission making contest and having a featured mission is part of their winnings. I also don’t agree with the mission creator getting gold with each mission play they receive. I am strongly opposed actually. It’s one thing to provide an extra incentive to entice players to play them and as a result, taking plays away from other approved missions, but it’s not fair to other mission creators. Yes, they have the ability to step their missions up a notch, but I think it’s insult to injury if their mission isn’t featured. Featured missions have always been about the recognition, not rewards, and I think it goes beyond what the main reason is to have them and feeds into the Mission Maker Elite clique when you involve gold rewards for the mission maker. We can do without that.

Perhaps those mission makers who already have approved missions on panel can resubmit their missions for consideration for featured to provide an equal opportunity as well because there are already some on panel that are worthy, even the faster, easier missions.

It's clear we both have the same goals, Aribella, which is to promote quality missions so let's not get our wires too twisted now!

I can agree with this, I just don’t agree with certain terminology or specific details on rewards. But in the end, I will always support mission makers/missions even if their missions aren’t exactly what I look for in a mission. I believe in equality and fairness for all.


This thread (my interpretation) isn’t really about incentive to play missions, it’s more about mission maker rewards and trying to get more plays for those missions/creators. It is not inclusive to all missions or their mission creators (as far as a gold rewards for them) For the mission player, there is equal opportunity.

Questions for Kissy:

How do missions (all included) need more promotion? One can see that there are favorites that have thousands of plays? It is clear missions are played, it’s just that players are more “selective “ to what get the most plays.

Are you trying to promote missions for those that are receiving less plays and want them to gain more attention?

Are you trying to receive gold rewards for the mission maker of these missions if this was introduced into the game?
I ask this since many times you bring up mission costs which wouldn’t be as important if mission plays were your objective.

Asking for clarity because I don’t really understand how giving gold rewards are promoting missions when they will be played regardless based on their xp/loyalty reward requirements. Unless you are wanting to promote specific missions to be played that are normally hidden on panel among all the rest. As the thread suggests, it is for all missions and players playing them, but then by doing so, the suggestion contradicts itself since there is already rewards for playing missions. (any approved mission) and players still play them.

[Noctus Silvet]

This is a good point as well, Noctus, but is a separate issue entirely to what Kissy highlighted - this should be managed by the Smallverse team themselves, if there are players using those methods this should be easily detectable especially whilst the player base is currently smaller in it's early stages and should be punished
I think the issue with muling is moreso people creating many accounts to hoard monthlies/gain mass amounts of monthly loyalty items/mission items to resell! The greedy players are apparent too

Adding a small gold incentive for mission makers and players wouldn't tie into this I believe, as it still takes time and effort to complete a mission - the reason those people mule is because they're looking for a quick buck.
For example, your Bloodstone mission clearly had a lot of time and effort put into the creation of it - so why should those mulers benefit more than you? You're putting yourself at a deficit for the good of the community!!

And from a business perspective, their selling point isn't just "Rares and Wears" - there's a whole bunch of communities out there who play this game for others reasons, whether it be missions, art, social, sculpting, arena, etc... So if they want to expand the player base from the usual 200 players they need to start looking after these other communities and pronto, before established players start leaving and using their talents elsewhere!

Hi Shane,

Thank you for the feedback. I was not expecting someone to take my words apart piece by piece like that. Never had that happen before, but it's a risk we all take by leaving any form of comment in a thread such as this. I'm sure your intentions are good and you mean well. It's my personal belief the forums should encourage a place for respectful exchanges without fear of judgement. I will share my closing thoughts on Kissy's thread here, in addition to, your feedback:

Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with the judgement made about my response not being relevant to Kissy's suggestion. Here's why, it's important to consider every angle, every perspective, before rolling out something new. My intention is to help Kissy, and others reading this thread, understand how the business owner may perceive Kissy's suggestions, and why the silence, specifically, as she has pointed out. This is a direct response to Kissy's proposed idea of earning gold from missions.

Suggesting a change that impacts the game's economy, the player's buying power, and mitigating risks of unethical behavior, is all relevant to the subject at hand. The possibility of earning gold from missions, and, at a high level, why, from the game's actual business owner perspective, change may not be happen. It's all food for thought. Some people are just starting to walk through the woods of this game's economy that the game owner, the business owner, created. I'm looking down at the forest, and others are, too, as they see players enter and exit it. Maybe, some day you will see what I am getting at. Maybe, not. I encourage you all to keep sharing your thoughts on the need for change, so, it can be reviewed here. And, perhaps, one day granted.

Looking forward to seeing different perspectives on earning gold from missions as proposed by Kissy.

[Shane Fahey]

Hi Shane,

Thank you for the feedback. I was not expecting someone to take my words apart piece by piece like that. Never had that happen before, but it's a risk we all take by leaving any form of comment in a thread such as this. I'm sure your intentions are good and you mean well. It's my personal belief the forums should encourage a place for respectful exchanges without fear of judgement. I will share my closing thoughts on Kissy's thread here, in addition to, your feedback:

Respectfully, I'm going to disagree with the judgement made about my response not being relevant to Kissy's suggestion. Here's why, it's important to consider every angle, every perspective, before rolling out something new. My intention is to help Kissy, and others reading this thread, understand how the business owner may perceive Kissy's suggestions, and why the silence, specifically, as she has pointed out. This is a direct response to Kissy's proposed idea of earning gold from missions.

Suggesting a change that impacts the game's economy, the player's buying power, and mitigating risks of unethical behavior, is all relevant to the subject at hand. The possibility of earning gold from missions, and, at a high level, why, from the game's actual business owner perspective, change may not be happen. It's all food for thought. Some people are just starting to walk through the woods of this game's economy that the game owner, the business owner, created. I'm looking down at the forest, and others are, too, as they see players enter and exit it. Maybe, some day you will see what I am getting at. Maybe, not. I encourage you all to keep sharing your thoughts on the need for change, so, it can be reviewed here. And, perhaps, one day granted.

My intentions are well, Noctus - which is why I said it was a good point! I agree with every word you said about the issue on muling! My sincere apologies if it felt like I was trying to deconstruct everything you said! I think your points were very valid! Perhaps my communication skills are off this weekend

When I said a "separate issue entirely" this was perhaps a bit exaggerated but was more in direct reference to the fact that Mulers are the cause of the problem with the economy right now, as in the act of muling for financial gain. Genuine players aren't the cause of that problem and shouldn't have to pay the price for it - which is why I used your fantastic mission as an example! It's the mulers who are the cause of that problem and like you said, they will continue to mule for monthlies/missions/gold/etc for as long as they're allowed to do so unpunished.

Upon reflection though, I can see further into what you mean with it being an extra medium for them to achieve gold and which affects the overall economy. But let me counter your muling argument with this:
As of this moment players currently get 50 gold just for logging in each day - don't have to do anything at all to get this gold, just login and click Collect!
With this current feature in the game, I could make 350g per week for doing nothing, which is more than Kissy's suggestion... Which means if I was to mule, I could make 1400 gold per month, per account and do nothing.

Why not just replace this with complete a Featured/Approved mission to receive 50g daily instead? Literally just do an Approved/Featured mission if you want your 50g daily?

This would in essence make passive gold muling more difficult, as those with multiple accounts can't just login and claim their free gold anymore + missions have more incentive, as there's now a 50g reward attached for just doing 1 a day.

[Kissy My]

Love the passion mission makers have ... some very valid points and concerns have been made...
Yes, there are a lot of things to consider and issues that should be dealt with ....

Some things really stuck out and bothered me…
The word “snobbish” or “entitled” shouldn't even be in this conversation, same with comparing missions to each other.. Please, stop doing that.
Like the real world there are many different choices and preferences.

The amount of gold I “suggested”, note Suggested..
The amount was just an example…
the amount could be 1or 2 gold and a cap was included.
It would just get more people to play approved missions.. ANY of them..
It would also give people who can’t get or afford gold a way to earn small amounts.

And no, not just certain missions, because they have “fancy ultra expensive decor, flashy flash interactions”.. ALL approved.
BTW the missions listed as examples… I have played those missions listed and umm
most of those are not cheaply made missions and several of them have quite impressive “flashy, impressive interactions”

To clarify….
I used the amount I spent just as an example of… not as a “bragging point”, just like I know others who have mentioned what they have invested are doing so just to give an idea of whats being invested …
it is NOT in anyway trying to say those missions are more “entitled” or “better”

The interesting part is trying to make “featured” a preferred option… because it would be more “inclusive” .. that is absolutely not true…
“featured” IS very exclusive, because only a relatively small number would be selected, and most often involves "favoritism"

I didn’t even mention gold for mission creators on this particular post, but that should be a thing.. Along with earning xp for making missions.
Would you tell painters and sculptures that they shouldn’t be able to make gold off their works of art? That they should just simply enjoy the art of creation?
Because making missions IS a form of art and creation.. Even the most simplistic

When it comes to money spent in games like this … mission makers are up there..
It may not be a huge amount, I have no clue since I cant see the financials..
But it is consistent, steady flow of investment
Especially for the ones that don’t have other talents that they can make gold off of.

It will never cease to amaze me… that some treat missions like they are undeserving.
Hmmm, but it isnt just that … maybe it is more because of who posted the suggestion..
And I for sure … am always wrong or have “personal ulterior motives” … right…

Well, as always fun and some parts discouraging .. time to go refocus and try to lift up my optimism

---

[Penguin Disco]

Would you tell painters and sculptures that they shouldn’t be able to make gold off their works of art? That they should just simply enjoy the art of creation?
Because making missions IS a form of art and creation..

---

I think this is the sticking point for me... most other communities have a way to make gold: artists can sell their paintings and sculps; gamers can place bets on pool or host community games where you can win gold prizes; sellers and traders can make gold off of their items; etc. Now, I suppose a key difference is that all of those things transfer gold from one player to another without adding new gold the economy, and I think charging a gold entry fee to missions is something none of us would even think of suggesting. But the truth of the matter is that ALL missions, regardless of style/type/length require some degree of effort that adds content and playability to the game - even if some of us feel like our missions don't get the attention they deserve. I think that deserves some compensation, even if it's something small like getting small a gold payout every time your mission gets approved (and getting approval as a requirement would limit people who would abuse the system).

I do still like Kissy's original suggestion of compensating players though, and I'd settle for something as low as 1g for completing an approved mission... it's better than nothing, after all. While it doesn't necessarily address our desire for our our "high effort" missions get more plays, it might soften the blow for other players who view playing missions as a chore.

At the end of the day, we all want recognition/compensation for the hard work we put into creating and playing missions. We're passionate about what we do! We're not all going to agree on everything, but if nothing else, I am grateful that most of us are so supportive of each other, and I hope we hold onto us even in the face of our frustrations.

[Aribella Lafonte]

Current issues:
Lack of appreciation/acknowledgement by Staff for mission creators
Recent missions being listed in the back of the Approval Panel by default (using selection does not fix the issue as most do not know how or won't bother to do this)
High cost of mission making
Flux of simulation missions that are much too similar
Need of more balance for mission plays?!
Missions are too short 3-5 minutes
Missions are found not to be enjoyable by many players
Mission Guidelines are too vague and need to be updated for more clarification, caught up with most recent reasons for rejection
Too many mission rejections; nitpicking from testers
Bring more attention to missions that really impress us (also fits under acknowledgement)

Incentive for mission makers (although question resides to whether this means rewards (defined as receiving a prize) or actual incentive (defined as what inspires us to create) This term probably means different things for each of us.


Even with Kissy replying to supposedly clarify things, I am still confused with this thread as the main questions still go unanswered to how this is a solution to one of our issues (as a community) and how it fits in with those we currently have; (Personally, I need solutions in order to support this and not limiting gold more in some way, I find problematic.)

How is giving gold supposed to help with mission plays?
I don't see how mission plays (as a whole) are suffering.

How is this going to help missions that get less plays or change anything from how it is now?
Players will still keep choosing the fastest missions or those in the front of panel, the only thing that changes is that they get gold on top of their current payout.

Is this supposed to help players enjoy them more?
Somehow, I don't see that happening. Either someone enjoys playing missions or they don't, most use them for their reward. I don't see a gold reward changing things.

How does this help the mission makers since those of us complaining are the ones that have less plays? (compared to hundreds, thousands)
I really don't see how this is the solution. I don't see how mission makers like me, one who also gets less plays for most of my missions, are going to benefit from this.

Why do mission players need more gold, even if just a little more?
Personally, the xp/tokens are good enough rewards and players in need of more gold can exchange those tokens for gold, I don't see why they need more gold given to them when we also have free gold from logging in and gold offers. They can sell their mission reward items as well which is probably the most profitable. How much more do we have to hand them?


Gold for creator is mentioned on page 1

I personally think mission makers should not only earn xp for making missions, but should earn gold for each one they create.. even a miniscul amount..
We invest and support this game... they should return the favor...
at the very minimum have something to encourage players to play missions.
Is that really asking too much?

Gold payout to the mission creator is even more concerning as a few of us had concern for the economy and its balance. Adriella even mentioned to how changes like this can affect the prices we pay; i.e. prices in store, catalog and can affect prices in player owned shops. As suggested (by Kissy or others) gold for the mission player, gold to its mission creator as well as any sort of suggested reward payout for having a featured mission (suggested by Shane) That is a whole lot of free gold handed out outside of store. I am all about players being able to make a profit and making it on their own in this game, but there is something that we need to consider; without this game's funding (players purchasing from Store), without enough coming in to support it, we have no game to play. Much like what was SW's demise in 2018... I think Adriella brought up the most valuable concerns and predictions if this suggestion were to take effect.

The interesting part is trying to make “featured” a preferred option… because it would be more “inclusive” .. that is absolutely not true…
“featured” IS very exclusive, because only a relatively small number would be selected, and most often involves "favoritism"

The featured option is a way to provide solutions to a couple of the known issues, mission maker incentives, acknowledgement, bring more attention to missions that impress us, and will also help introduce gold rewards to players and not introduce it in such a way that it harms the economy. It is inclusive since anybody can create a mission and apply their hard efforts; this is the same type of efforts that are put into official mission making contests which most of us have no problem with. Those are judged just as well.

BTW the missions listed as examples… I have played those missions listed and umm
most of those are not cheaply made missions and several of them have quite impressive “flashy, impressive interactions”

These were mentioned to offer a variety, showing missions that were role play, story which included simple and those with more interactions. Most are in small spaces and nothing really grand that costs a huge amount of gold. And a few of these were created when the game first began when we got 15,000 gold given to us and when the gold incentive was in place. Another that I didn't mention was Hornswoggled. The Boogeyman is mine, and was done cheap, it was one of the mission studio type of spaces. Boogeyman part 2 reuses its space and adds another starter space. THE POINT WAS THAT GOOD MISSIONS DON'T ALWAYS INVOLVE LARGE SPACES, TONS OF INTERACTIONS OR LOTS OF GOLD TO CREATE AND WE AS MISSION MAKERS CAN BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE. IT ALSO MADE THE POINT THAT THERE ARE GOOD MISSIONS ON PANEL, EVEN SHORTER 5 MINUTE MISSIONS. HOPEFULLY, WE CAN USE SOME OF THEM FOR INSPIRATION, MORE AFFORDABLY.

It will never cease to amaze me… that some treat missions like they are undeserving.
Hmmm, but it isnt just that … maybe it is more because of who posted the suggestion..
And I for sure … am always wrong or have “personal ulterior motives” … right…

Kissy, this is a good example of reading into things and taking things personally. I for once would LOVE to be able to have my own opinions (not being pressured to follow those within my community) and provide honest feedback and mention each concern I have with a suggestion (this is to you or anyone) To strictly stay on point of the topic itself and not what my personal feelings are toward someone. I don't have a problem with ppl, I have a problem with topics. You just happen to be the most outspoken for suggestions, and those involving our community (which includes me) and missions are a topic I will gravitate to. It's not about you. If I may suggest something - please consider that everyone is entitled (sorry for using that word) to an opinion, even if it's something that you don't agree with - if it is upsetting to you, just take it with a grain of salt that it is only an opinion and move on from it, your day/life will go on the same tomorrow.

But anyway ... for clarification; so far, for all of your suggestions and any I have seen on Discord (by others as well), ALL I seem to have a problem with. Not because of who made them, not because I am unsupportive of mission makers/missions or feel as though they are "undeserving" (majorly reading into things when someone disagrees with one of your suggestions) .... It is because each and every suggestion isn't just asking for what is reasonable for what concerns us as a community, it is asking for the extra mile!!! And much of it is rewarding the mission makers with gold, items to be sold for gold, having rewards/benefits only given to those who create a lot of missions or only those who have the most mission path xp or going as far as asking for full gold reimbursement of our mission spaces that we have purchased. I'm sorry, that's just crazy and asking for too much.(please do not read into this that I am saying that mission makers/missions are undeserving) I have mentioned on more than one thread that I have a big issue with mission makers profiting off of their missions or introducing a way one can take advantage or a big one, making things exclusive, more so to feed one's ego (featured missions is not a part of this since recognition is done by Staff and are not chosen by the players) For mission rewards/recognition or whatever other things you can throw at me, I personally don't find myself someone that needs to feed an ego, or be rewarded by gold/items in order to make me feel important, nor am I materialistic. (do not read into this to insinuate that I am saying anyone in the community is) I create missions because I enjoy (love) to share my stories and make them more interactive to make them more "real". To experiment with interactions and create types of missions that few if any exist in game, I like to play around with interactions. But ..... I would like to think that there are many others like me that love to share their stories and creations and really just want a balanced mission panel where my own (their own) missions get noticed by others and in turn, are appreciated by those that play them. I want plays and not have spaces/items we use not cost so much. (I have a feeling that this is what most of us really want, it's really that simple) I don't want the tangible things like gold or item rewards. That to me isn't what mission making is about. So, each time those things are thrown out at me, I will likely refuse them every single time. But for lots of the suggestions, some sort of gold/item to sell for gold is a benefit, so I can see that you are more interested in what rewards creating a mission can provide to yourself (and other mission makers) I do get it to why you are asking for these things, (mission making incentives (rewards) but is it really what lots of us are asking for when we complain about how much a mission costs? We can just easily ask for cheaper prices (that everyone in game can benefit from) and avoid the controversy. Do things that we need to address our concerns all require more complicated solutions that have more involved behind them? This is what is so discouraging and disappointing for me, (to the point of being disgusted, that is what you see in my posts) more so than the messed up Approved Panel and the little recognition that really good missions going unnoticed on panel deserve. That a simple solution can't be made, one that can possibly start turning things into the right direction for all of us. I don't see these extra miles happening for us, since it involves the economy, involves complicated technical changes or only certain mission makers/missions' can take part in. With so much controversy/cons behind these suggestions, I think that we are starting to fall into a stalemate on just to how to go forward. Can we just please go for more simpler solutions that maybe Staff can work with since they are easy to do?

[Jamie Bondason]

How is giving gold supposed to help with mission plays?
I don't see how mission plays (as a whole) are suffering.

How is this going to help missions that get less plays or change anything from how it is now?
Players will still keep choosing the fastest missions or those in the front of panel, the only thing that changes is that they get gold on top of their current payout.

Reading this did make me reconsider my thoughts on this; effectively, the only "solution" to making longer, more creative missions desirable to play would be reverting back to the old equation of calculating a mission reward, where it took time taken into consideration, or something similar, where longer missions' payouts reflect the time and effort needed to complete them because you're so right, Aribella, that for the sake of efficiency, if a 20-minutes mission and a 5-minutes mission pay the same rewards, 99% of people will choose the 5-minutes mission.

The way I see it is that only a scaled reward system will incentivise players to choose longer missions, the flat rate of payout right now benefits shorter missions only. Of course, this assumes that longer missions are the more "creative" missions, whereas shorter ones are more simulation-style, which is absolutely not a uniform rule, but for the sake of the mission community, shorter yet still creative missions may have to take the loss so that longer ones become more attractive incentive-wise to play. It does seem like somewhere something is going to have to give, and either mission quality and length will need to be sacrificed so mission makers actually get plays on their mission, or the shorter missions will need to be sacrificed (not entirely; their payout just becomes far less) to give longer missions their fair shot at plays.

[Kissy My]

ugh ari.. you exhaust me LOL
I am not going to go into a line by line break down... it is and has been beyond clear... you simply think little of me, my missions and believe that my suggestions are done so in a self serving way...
simply disagree with anything I have to say, in a "sugarcoated" manner... not just on this, but everything and that's fine..
Contrary to belief.. I dont have a problem with people disagreeing or added their view/opinion... it's simply a discussion and oftentimes people add things/perspectives that also should be taken into consideration.

Do I need to put disclosures and reasonings everything I post? Sorry this may be long winded... I know most dont/wont care ... but I feel I need to clarify

Let's start with my motivations:
In General, my personal opinion (note: personal opinion, and no, I do not expect everyone to agree with me) is that missions are treated and thought of as bottom of the barrel in priorities, by games like this.
In all the other areas of game play, there are "benefits". Ability to earn xp, levels etc...
The incredible talented artists and sculpterers earn xp as they created their masterpieces and then are able to sell those items to get returns/profits on their work.
The farmers/crafters who invest time also earn xp and are able to sell these items to gain returns/profits.
Even arena earns xp.

Resellers/Shopkeepers is a whole different can of worms... not even going to go into that, other then to say... massive market manipulation and hoarding..'nough said.

I do not, contrary to beliefs... I do not post these suggestions to benefit myself. If people pay attention, I rarely mention my own missions.
but truth be told and ugh I hate to even say this.. my missions do ok..
Do I have 100s and 100s or thousands of plays? No, but majority of new missions dont.

Another tidbit about me, which no one will care about LOL ... I have an ocd, adhd, analytics type brain..

I have gone through the missions list, forum posts and noticed trends.
The missions who have 100s and 100s of plays are even thousands are older missions, when player created missions were first starting and there weren't a lot of options.
and of course the super quick easy missions, which many are able to be completed with "cheats".. cut and paste "speaking".. and no, I am absolutely not saying that is the case for all of them, but a disturbingly large number. They have even formed groups to pass on the "cheats", but people do what they must do.. I guess LOL

I only mentioned what I spend on missions as a point that mission makers invest a considerable amount, it is not meant as a bragging point.
I am just 1 of many and there are others who spend way more then I do...
I think the game should seriously take that into consideration in terms of money being spent on the game, it could be a steady, consistent flow of income.

Here's an unrelated, unnecessary bragging point ... I give away a lot more then I spend to try and help others get started making missions.. am I allowed to say that?

So, in summary... LMAO .. yes, ari.. I do laugh that much and often... Tho I might come off as serious, I take everything in life lightly and joyfully.

I truly believe that Mission Makers deserve more...
I believe when making missions....
they should earn xp, there should be rewards, be it items like already available things, such as capes, crowns, staff etc. in different unique colors.
Also believe they should earn small amounts of gold for each mission they create and that missions should add gold to player payout, even if it is only 1 gold, even include caps so put limitations on abuses ... cause sadly there are always those who find ways to abuse systems...

Featured missions would be awesome ... but having previous experience/knowledge with that... I have great concerns.. cause I know for fact ... that in prior versions there was a LOT of favortism that played a huge factor in which missions were featured...
IF feature gets implemented in this version.. maybe consider something like ... have players nominate or submit missions to be featured.


Lastly and I think important....
I want to thank Smallverse ...
I truly appreciate the fact that you did add a drop down with newest that has the missions listed in most recent order... makes it so much quicker/easier to find them.
and please... let the ... telling which task/action was an issue in and reason for a mission to not be approved be ... that is a massive help for people to correct the mission.

ok.. show of hands.. whose sick of me?

[Jamie Bondason]

IF feature gets implemented in this version.. maybe consider something like ... have players nominate or submit missions to be featured.

Funnily enough I have floated a similar idea! I like the idea of "featured" missions (not sure keeping the same name is a good thing; maybe call it Highlighted Missions or Favourite Missions or something...) being a community-led initiative; effectively, allow players to nominate missions every month, then there's a brief 48 hour window of voting at the end of each month, where the best (most voted for) social/explorer/artist/gamer mission would then be highlighted for the entirety of the next month, and the process repeats. I'm not sure SV team is big enough to handle a featured missions system on their own, so having it community-led is probably the best choice!

ok.. show of hands.. whose sick of me?

Never, Kissy!

[Aribella Lafonte]

ugh ari.. you exhaust me LOL
I am not going to go into a line by line break down... it is and has been beyond clear... you simply think little of me, my missions and believe that my suggestions are done so in a self serving way...
simply disagree with anything I have to say, in a "sugarcoated" manner... not just on this, but everything and that's fine..
Contrary to belief.. I dont have a problem with people disagreeing or added their view/opinion... it's simply a discussion and oftentimes people add things/perspectives that also should be taken into consideration.

Here we go again. This is getting exhausting, once again, this has nothing to do with you or your missions at all, DO NOT refer to it being based on anything personal about you again. You have tunnel vision and fail to see what this suggestion/kind of suggestions entail. No matter what I say, it is not getting through to you so I’ll just break it down.

• I am trying to get you to see the other perspectives and how changes can affect the game overall and affect other communities (not just mission makers) It’s not just about what we want, it affects other people.

• I am trying to also try to get you to answer as to how this suggestion fixes one of the current issues to help support why it should be implemented. Your only support behind it is “missions/mission makers deserve it”. That doesn’t explain anything.

• I am trying to get you to realize that maybe, just maybe that you are asking too much for “us.” And because there are some different thoughts/suggestions on this, maybe there needs to be some compromise to come together as a community and work together for change. We all want the same thing and have the same goal. But your unwillingness for compromise (it has to be your way all the way and ooo let’s throw this more into it and then go on to say that anyone not supporting the idea is not being supportive of missions etc) is not working together and will throw a monkey wrench into getting things done. But this happens time and time again on every thread and since you are playing “advocate” and also speaking for me as part of the same community, I have a say too. 😔 I don’t want what you want (these specific things)

• I am also trying to get you to focus on the issue at hand and not read into comments taking everything personally and that is making it impossible to be able to get our goal met and me & you work together (again, same goal).

• I am also trying to get clarification to whether or not your main objective is more plays for missions or mission maker incentives (gold for creators) or both.

Objective means goal

Motivation/motive means what makes you do something

They mean two entirely different things.

I am not asking you to explain what is behind this thread as if you are seeking it for yourself, I am asking what the overall goal is that you wish to achieve. It’s not asking you what this suggestion is about per say, it’s asking you about what exactly you are asking for since it’s not clear since gold payout is thrown in there too for creators with mission plays (thread title, introduction) so what is the overall outcome you hope to see if this is implemented and how will it change for us as mission makers/players in the end. What do you hope that it achieves? I am asking this to help us understand how this benefits us as creators (including me, how it will improve plays on my missions) and also helps Staff.

Maybe this is too involved for you, and it makes me want to throw my hands up in the air and give up completely and not even bother anymore. To give up on missions, staff and the game. If there is no coming together, me, you, many others in the community, how can we make improvements happen? Others in the community are silent.

I am trying to get things to move forward so we can see more of our needs/suggestions met. You see me as countering you, but I am trying to get you to think beyond what you want and problem solve and apply it to make changes/improvements happen since you have taken it upon yourself to be our advocate. I want to solve some of the issues we have, not add two or three more of them if something is implemented into the game affecting something/someone else or breaking things. We have enough problems without adding anything more. That’s not solving anything for us as a community.

Featured missions would be awesome ... but having previous experience/knowledge with that... I have great concerns.. cause I know for fact ... that in prior versions there was a LOT of favortism that played a huge factor in which missions were featured...
IF feature gets implemented in this version.. maybe consider something like ... have players nominate or submit missions to be featured.

Funnily enough I have floated a similar idea! I like the idea of "featured" missions (not sure keeping the same name is a good thing; maybe call it Highlighted Missions or Favourite Missions or something...) being a community-led initiative; effectively, allow players to nominate missions every month, then there's a brief 48 hour window of voting at the end of each month, where the best (most voted for) social/explorer/artist/gamer mission would then be highlighted for the entirety of the next month, and the process repeats. I'm not sure SV team is big enough to handle a featured missions system on their own, so having it community-led is probably the best choice!

Just adding one more thing, you are implying that Staff show “favoritism”. While that may have been existent on SW many, many years ago, you can’t apply that here on SV. That would also imply that mission contests show favoritism too. If there is favoritism, it will be players nominating their friend’s missions.

It’s one thing to nominate (suggest) but it’s a whole different story if players were to vote on which missions become featured. (per Jamie’s suggestion for voting)

[Shane Fahey]

Funnily enough I have floated a similar idea! I like the idea of "featured" missions (not sure keeping the same name is a good thing; maybe call it Highlighted Missions or Favourite Missions or something...) being a community-led initiative; effectively, allow players to nominate missions every month, then there's a brief 48 hour window of voting at the end of each month, where the best (most voted for) social/explorer/artist/gamer mission would then be highlighted for the entirety of the next month, and the process repeats. I'm not sure SV team is big enough to handle a featured missions system on their own, so having it community-led is probably the best choice!

Loved all of that, Jamie, until the underlined part - as I don't want everything to rely on a popularity contest, I don't think I'd win many of those either after all!

I think the idea of Featured/Highlighted missions is great and like the idea of player-nominated missions (to shortlist). I do think that it should be down to SV to determine their own criteria for narrowing down those nominations though!

Bear in mind that the Missions that are going to get Featured/Highlighted as well under that process, they would need to be Approved first and be played by part of the SV team regardless.
Plus, if they're able to prepare a month in advance and test missions up to a deadline date (like this recent mission contest) they can select their favourites/most suitable criteria after giving missions 'Approved' status - those missions could then go onto the featured monthly rotation for the 1st of each month

I think the anticipation of having a mission 'Featured/Highlighted' is an exciting thought too personally...

[Jamie Bondason]

If there is favoritism, it will be players nominating their friend’s missions.

Loved all of that, Jamie, until the underlined part - as I don't want everything to rely on a popularity contest, I don't think I'd win many of those either after all!

Yeah, I did think after posting that it could become a popularity contest/favouritism based on friendships. It's a tough one because I'm not entirely sure a big undertaking like featured/favourite missions would be well-received by the SV team, which makes the chance of any sort of featured/favourite missions idea being implemented pretty slim. After all, who likes an increase in their workload? However, you make a good point, Shane, that if, to be eligible to be labelled a "favourite mission," a mission must be approved, they could effectively combine the system into the approved mission testing they do, thereby decreasing a massive amount of the workload. Maybe if the mission approval tester really enjoyed the mission, they can add it to a shortlist for the other testers to try; if there's a consensus amongst the testers that a mission is of a higher standard, it is then further shortlisted to be a "favourite mission," which is then finally shortened down into the favourite explorer, social, artist and gamer missions of the month. Oooh, that's a good name for the scheme actually: Missions of the Month!

Thanks for the feedback both, always valuable to hear what others think! Glad my brain wasn't the only crazy one that sort of realised the whole initiative being community-led could be a popularity contest! I should think before I type really haha

[Kissy My]

I think the anticipation of having a mission 'Featured/Highlighted' is an exciting thought too personally...

always valuable to hear what others think!

Another option and a starting point ... is something SW did and that was form a player mission commission ... that way it doesn't take time from the staff/team