Why stop there? Why not do what they did in Archeage or TERA and just upload an image? Make sure people can report offensive images and you're done. This makes more sense that having to write code for our own design tool.

Lothic wrote:

At this point it's not a question of whether the game technology would allow players to make customized logos/symbols as much as how the Devs would police/prevent people from making the obviously offensive ones (i.e. Nazi swastikas, etc.)... I'm just not sure it's entirely that "simple" especially for a group like MWM who aren't going to be able to afford a huge staff of GMs to monitor the game in the first place.

That's a potentially mammoth ongoing task... I think their money would be best spent elsewhere.

I meant uploading images alone - weeding out inevitable nude images and copyrighted logos would be the mammoth task. Having a function to edit together images of great complexity like APB would be okay, as most people would probably not waste their time and great effort on the ditor just to draw swastikas and penises, and APB's success with it bears that out.
At the same time, the statement you thought I meant is also valid: having a complex editor at all would be money and time I'd probably rather went elsewhere all things considered. Maybe let us layer 4 or 5 symbols as one and have some simple stretch and distort function, similar to Star Trek Online and their tattoos and scars facial features.

Huckleberry wrote:

It will be no more effort to moderate guild logos than the moderation of people's character names. Wait for the report, spend 30 seconds looking at it, make a decision that it is or is not offensive, delete it or not, and go on.
If MWM does not have the staff to assume this level of moderation after the game has gone public, then we have bigger problems to solve.
Besides, even using in-game tools can result in offensive images with enough creativity. Let's not create dragons just so we can slay them. This is not an issue.

Names can have automatic censors in place for expletives. Images, for the most part, cannot. This is why APB has the editor but not a means to upload directly. people can and do use the editor to make nude images occasionally, but then APB has a mature age rating. CoT doesn't.

Gluke wrote:

I meant uploading images alone - weeding out inevitable nude images and copyrighted logos would be the mammoth task. Having a function to edit together images of great complexity like APB would be okay, as most people would probably not waste their time and great effort on the ditor just to draw swastikas and penises, and APB's success with it bears that out.

At the same time, the statement you thought I meant is also valid: having a complex editor at all would be money and time I'd probably rather went elsewhere all things considered. Maybe let us layer 4 or 5 symbols as one and have some simple stretch and distort function, similar to Star Trek Online and their tattoos and scars facial features.

Actually you perfectly (ironically?) reversed these ideas as far as what you thought I thought you meant. But it all comes out in the same wash.

Gluke wrote:

Names can have automatic censors in place for expletives.

Lothic wrote:

To be fair setting up name filters to automatically prevent most of the "naughty word" combos out there already exist (as Gluke said) and represent relatively little time and effort on the Devs' part. For the few that get through there's always the "after the fact" GM policing that can be done like you said.
On the other hand being able to adquately police graphical/visual customizations would require far more effort than the names issue. Sure we can hope the Devs will take a "we'll allow it until you prove you can't handle it" approach. But given how much more trouble could be generated via offensive imagery than offensive names I'm not going to automatically assume our Devs are going to be incredibly liberal about this kind of thing until I see it. *shrugs*

I'm glad you mentioned the ones that get through, because word filters will prevent the naughty words as Gluke mentioned. Remember when Trayvon Martin got shot and killed and the whole nation was divided over the issues of the case? In a short time there were Trayvon Martins all over the place in games, and they kept coming up as the Zimmerman trial went on. I had to report one myself. No amount of filtering will prevent name-griefers from finding something controversial and divisive to use. Add to that the use of chat for people to harass each other, spew racial and other bigotry-fueled pablum and otherwise disrupt other people's enjoyment, and you end up with a full-time moderation staff. And since "online interactions" are unrated in this game, the staff at MWM can very literally take a wait and see approach and get away with it. To be on the safe side, they might implement a guild emblem approval process where someone has to look at each one and 'swipe left' or 'swipe right'. But whether they have a pre-approval process or take a wait until they complain approach, it will be their call.

In my opinion it would be far less effort overall than coming up with their own library of acceptable shapes, creating a tool and a tool UI to use and then test it and publish it. And oh by the way, they would still have to maintain a moderation staff for all the other things you need moderators for in an MMO.

Add to that the flexibility of people being able to make whatever logo they want, and you have the best solution in my opinion. Take a look at some of the crests in TERA and Archage and even Aura Kingdom, which is definitely geared towards a younger audience. (a web search will do).

APB and APB: R unfortunately is a big example of how that could go wrong. The companies behind that game and it's revival went through absolute hell trying to police the game and it's still happening with the new company that possesses the game.

It's honestly really sad really as I remember seeing plenty of good art coming out of the symbol creator in that game. But for every good piece of art there was damn near hundreds of bad pieces, some deliberately made to be offensive and/or crudely sexual. That system unfortunately is a blatant example of Sturgeon's Law in practice.

APB isn't the only game that has happened in either. Even a small time offender such as Mario Cart 7 had a system like that in practice and it was abused horribly (You wouldn't expect that out of a game like that but unfortunately it happened). It was very common in the original Black Ops for Call of Duty as well.

If you give people in-dept customization tools like this then it's guaranteed a bunch of idiots will abuse it and ruin it for everyone. Even the City of Heroes community way back in the day still had it's bad apples. Infact I recall a very popular thread on the old City of Heroes forums that had people talking about their experiences with bad apples.

desviper wrote:

Foradain wrote:
desviper wrote:
Aight, maybe the libertarian in me is coming out again, but is it really worth policing every tween who wants to have a swastika or something anatomical for their logo for a T rated game?
Worth it for MWM and the City of Titans community? I'd say no, personally, as my Inner Libertarian waves at yours. But with regards to the swastika the German government disagrees with us.
Are they really so -- ironically ;) -- Nazi about Nazi symbolism to disallow or otherwise punish a game that allows people to generate a swastika for their RPG character?

You seriously comparing a ban on the propagation of Nazi symbols with the policies of the Nazis themselves? I'll try to keep this civilized... that is one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard outside of Breitbart in quite a while.
Okay, the inner liberal in me reminds me to be fair about this, and look at the big picture - I have no problem whatsoever with the use of controversial and even offensive imagery FOR ARTISTIC PURPOSES, and one can define anything creative as art, just as, sadly, some people can be offended by anything. I also have no problem at all with the portrayal of racism and bigotry in fiction, and to be unflinching about it. Indeed, I am a huge purist about historical fiction, that it should not reflect political correctness for the sake of it, but be realistic whereever possible, taking into account only the age-group of the target audience.
I would also welcome characters in an MMO like this one that were clear fascistic analogues, clearly intended to represent elements of racist, nationalist and fascist ideology as they occur in real-life, but adapted to the setting of a superhero-game and thus with all the exact elements that would shock and offend in real-life removed and replaced with something else. It's true that modern neo-Nazis make up a significant element of the criminal world in many countries, so to see some alternate-history version of them (or what they are in psychological and sociological terms) in a suoerhero setting, using fantastical bigotry and ficitonal fascist rhetoric in place of the real kind (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism) would be interesting. In fact, while in CoH I somewhat based a few of my villain toons on fictional criminals, I even toyed with the idea of an expy of a fictional neo-Nazi (refocused somewhat on mutants and psychics, maybe), osentsibly as a tribute to that character.

However, I am simply not so deluded as to think there would be nothign wrong with just turning a blind eye to anyone using an MMO to start spreading racial hate on principle, and the easiest way to do that would be to let people put swastikas on their toons. I can't believe I'm actually hearing that made as a serious suggestion, even from a self-professed libertarian...

Interdictor wrote:

Maybe if they offer it as a feature through the store? $10 to submit a ready-to go vector or PNG, and if it's okayed by a mod you get it applied to your account/supergroup - however it would work. That would keep a lot of the kiddies and trolls away, and even if some trolls continue to send in stylized wangs only to see them rejected, at least MWM gets some cash from it.

I have actually suggested/supported some kind of "GM vetting" submission scheme for this kind of thing in the past on both the CoH and these forums. I even suggested it cost a nominal fee to keep most of the "idiots" from bothering to try. There are natuarlly some hurdles to this idea that would have to be overcome but its key advantage is that it would nearly eliminate the chance for any "silliness" getting into the game.

Lothic wrote:

Interdictor wrote:
Maybe if they offer it as a feature through the store? $10 to submit a ready-to go vector or PNG, and if it's okayed by a mod you get it applied to your account/supergroup - however it would work. That would keep a lot of the kiddies and trolls away, and even if some trolls continue to send in stylized wangs only to see them rejected, at least MWM gets some cash from it.
I have actually suggested/supported some kind of "GM vetting" submission scheme for this kind of thing in the past on both the CoH and these forums. I even suggested it cost a nominal fee to keep most of the "idiots" from bothering to try. There are natuarlly some hurdles to this idea that would have to be overcome but its key advantage is that it would nearly eliminate the chance for any "silliness" getting into the game.

I think it would be quite unfair to charge everyone merely for the privilege of submitting a symbol for approval. If the symbol isn't approved then they've lost $10 with nothing gained? A solution to that might be for the devs to request changes to be made, and then a resubmit, but then if the resubmit fails they've still lost the $10. And if the person never chooses to resubmit after the first rejection (assuming it'll be rejected again and losing the $10) then the devs have spent time and effort evaluating the symbol for nothing. And if this happens a lot, which I think is inevitable, I'd call the whole process a waste of time, that would be better spent on something else.
Maybe if they held occasional contests for logo design, with the various grades of winners getting their unique custom symbol (able to be shared with their league but not traded or given in any other way) along with some other rewards. The brief window of opportunity would encourage those who enter to make real effort, and would reduce the otherwise considerable time that the approval process would take up if it ran all the time, all year round.

desviper wrote:

Good idea to paywall it though, that'd keep the trolls at bay. Although there's still the occasional person who honestly wants a Nazi super[villain]group (which is super basic btw).

If that was aimed at me, I said there was potential in analogues of neo-Nazis as villains. Neo-Nazis are not Nazis, despite what they may like to think, they are criminals and thugs first and foremost, and an entirely modern social problem and criminal element. I was making that important distinction, while there is also more to fascism than Nazism. I too think WWII-era, original Nazis have been used as comicbook villains enough, I'm tired of seeing them, although no concept used to its full potential is "super basic", IMO.

Lothic wrote:

I wouldn't be against the idea of the Devs offering customized symbols as contest prizes. But the "brief window" you mentioned wouldn't ensure the winners would submit acceptable symbols or change how the GMs would review submissions any more or less than the "pay for" scenario. Basically you haven't shown that the "contest winner" method is any better or worse than the paid for submissions as far as how the GMs would have to approach it.

I'd argue that the contest option would be worse since people can create these images in advance, therefor the time-window for the contest itself is irrelevant. Heck it would be way easier for a group to make a "coordinated effort".

Having to pay for it ensures that you are either somewhat serious about your submission or you're willing to waste money.

blacke4dawn wrote:

Lothic wrote:
I wouldn't be against the idea of the Devs offering customized symbols as contest prizes. But the "brief window" you mentioned wouldn't ensure the winners would submit acceptable symbols or change how the GMs would review submissions any more or less than the "pay for" scenario. Basically you haven't shown that the "contest winner" method is any better or worse than the paid for submissions as far as how the GMs would have to approach it.
I'd argue that the contest option would be worse since people can create these images in advance, therefor the time-window for the contest itself is irrelevant. Heck it would be way easier for a group to make a "coordinated effort".
Having to pay for it ensures that you are either somewhat serious about your submission or you're willing to waste money.

The dangers of trolls pranking the context entry process is the same in all such contests, but having time for planning won't make much difference if every troll has to go through the same entry procedure within a narrow time span, and for most of them that will put them off. It won't be a big deal to weed out prank entries in comparison with entries that just don't make the grade, and the chances of so many players making a coordinated effort in time for the entry period purely to troll is also small, in comparison with them having the option to do so all year round, together or on their own. If players want to troll, I don't see that the contest process would make it any easier than giving them the opportunity all the time.

Gluke wrote:

Lothic wrote:
Basically you haven't shown that the "contest winner" method is any better or worse than the paid for submissions as far as how the GMs would have to approach it.
Because it wouldn't take up as much of their time, by a potentially vast margin.

I still have no real clue what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to suggest that the "pay for" version of this would somehow "waste more time" by forcing the Devs to have to consider submissions on a regular basis instead of maybe like once every few months via your "contest only" idea? That's absolutely counter-intuitive and borderline nonsensical.

Remember the Devs would be completely free to PROCESS the submissions in any manner they wanted. The Devs might decide to save up a bunch of submissions and only review them like once a month. Just because people would be technically paying for submissions wouldn't require the Devs to drop everything else they're doing and ONLY work on submissions the millisecond they are received.

If you're that desperately against the idea of a "pay for submission" scheme at least come up with an argument against it even remotely makes any sense. The idea that this would "take too much Dev time" could easily be leveled more directly at your "contest only" method because that would "force" the Devs to run contests specifically for something that could be handled via an automatic submission dropbox scheme.

Lothic wrote:

desviper wrote:
So, an in-game tool to craft logos from simple shapes and offensive logos being reportable is out of the question? :p
The ability to report people to GMs for any legitimate reason will always be a cornerstone of the game. But just because we will be able to report people if they do offensive things doesn't let the Devs off the hook from their responsibility of doing everything in their power to PREVENT the ability of players from creating offensive content in the first place. Reporting people to GMs should be the last line of defense against stupid idiots, not the ONLY line of defense.
What part of making sure this game doesn't get the reputation of being a place where we're constantly near the point of giving any yahoo out there the legitimate grounds to sue don't you understand? Rest assured if the Devs of this game ever did give us an "in-game tool to craft logos from simple shapes" it will be very generic and heavily tested to make sure nothing even remotely offensive could be created and it'll get nerfed the second anyone manages to figure out a way to trick it into doing anything even vaguely questionable.
To be clear I'm not against having all sorts of customizable player content in the game. I'm just telling you when it comes to logos/symbols it will never be allowed in the game without some form of GM vetting, automatic filtering or control via a restrictive in-game tool of some kind. Nothing "raw" is ever likely going to get into this game directly from the players.

Sadly this. You give people tools and they will find some way to abuse it eventually. I am not even sure if you could proof something like this as someone out there will always find a way to make bad icons.

It's sad really as ideally a system like this would be really good if people didn't abuse it. Classic case of why we can't have nice things

Gluke wrote:

The dangers of trolls pranking the context entry process is the same in all such contests, but having time for planning won't make much difference if every troll has to go through the same entry procedure within a narrow time span, and for most of them that will put them off. It won't be a big deal to weed out prank entries in comparison with entries that just don't make the grade, and the chances of so many players making a coordinated effort in time for the entry period purely to troll is also small, in comparison with them having the option to do so all year round, together or on their own. If players want to troll, I don't see that the contest process would make it any easier than giving them the opportunity all the time.

Having to pay for submitting it will almost completely remove people who submits items "just for the heck of it", thus it's a pretty good first tier "weeding process".

As Lothic said, competitions will have a limited number of "winners" regardless of the amount of submissions so a lot of people with perfectly good and valid submissions will be left out and would have to wait and hope for the next contest. I would also bet on that competitions would on average, including the time between competitions, get more submissions than a pay-for scheme. Considering that MWM would most likely have to pause a significant portion of their other activities to concentrate on the contest instead of taking it little by little doesn't make it look like such a good option, comparatively speaking.

Lothic wrote:

I still have no real clue what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to suggest that the "pay for" version of this would somehow "waste more time" by forcing the Devs to have to consider submissions on a regular basis instead of maybe like once every few months via your "contest only" idea? That's absolutely counter-intuitive and borderline nonsensical... If you're that desperately against the idea of a "pay for submission" scheme at least come up with an argument against it even remotely makes any sense.

Okay, first, somebody needs to calm down, that melodrama isn't constructive. Next, you should think through the consequences of this idea, for example:

Lothic wrote:

The whole point of charging anything for something like this is to "encourage" players to make absolutely sure they not only want the symbol in question but to make sure they are submitting something that has a reasonable expectation of being accepted. I would consider it reasonable to allow one "appeal" for any rejected submission, but if it gets rejected twice then that's the lesson the player will learn. If you seriously think there's any chance you're going to "lose" the $10 (for whatever reason) then you’re likely not going to waste the GMs' time in the first place... Again by charging money for this there won't be THAT many submissions because unless the players involved are clinically insane there will be few if any "frivolous" submissions.

Except for little kids, maybe, given this game is aimed at a teen audience and updwards. If a pre-teen player submits the crudely drawn vulture they spent ages on and it is rejected, they paid the $10 and got nothing in return, they'll be straight on YouTube, Gamefaqs or some other gamer forum to vent about how unfair it is. How do you think The Internet is going react to this? Pay-for-play is an extremely unpopular principle amongst gamers regarding MMOs, so for an MMO to charge money simply for a CHANCE to get a customized logo for your toon... That's not a fair exchange, IMO, by a longshot. CoT will be depending on online reviews and word of mouth for its publicity, and needs all the positive exposure and popularity it can get. I think if they go with this plan of yours, many of those reviewers will have kittens over it.

Lothic wrote:

Gluke wrote:
And if the person never chooses to resubmit after the first rejection (assuming it'll be rejected again and losing the $10) then the devs have spent time and effort evaluating the symbol for nothing.
The Devs will have made $10 for perhaps 5 seconds worth of effort regardless if they accept the submission or not. Seems like a pretty good deal for the Devs/GMs doesn't it?

FIVE SECONDS to decide if you deserve to get what you paid for, on the basis of your drawing/MS Paint skills? Yeah, a pretty good deal, I can't wait to see what those reviewers have to say about it.

Lothic wrote:

Remember the Devs would be completely free to PROCESS the submissions in any manner they wanted. The Devs might decide to save up a bunch of submissions and only review them like once a month... And even by some miracle the GMs do get millions of submissions regardless then guess what... they just made a ton of money off this which is only a good thing for everyone.

Uh, I don't think so. How many submissions do you think they'd get a month? Even with the inevitable reduction in popularity of the idea, by those who don't want to pay in order to possibly get a logo, which I admit would indeed reduce the number of entries? If the devs did save up "a bunch", then how many is that bunch? You mentioned "millions", so I guess it's a lot. If they then devoted five seconds to judging each one, how much time would that eat up each month? What if they can't spare enough staff time, some submissions have to spill over to the next month, or even longer? The add the time for all the rejection appeals, as people try to get their money's worth, which I presume would be a different, maybe lengthier process (like TEN seconds)?
So, people are paying $10 each time to possibly get a logo no-one else has, with a waiting time of at least a month, maybe longer, and a judgment process of a staff member scrolling entry after entry on a screen for five seconds and clicking yes or no? Doesn't sound like real value for money, to me, and I think a lot of people would agree with me...

Huckleberry wrote:

I disagree with you all completely. The three games I mentioned earlier: Aura Kingdon, TERA Online and Archeage have all done fine with user generated and uploaded images for guild crests. None of them has a reputation for reprehensible behavior. You do not give yourselves enough credit. Yes, yourselves. Because it is people just like you who make up this game community. The reason we all call people asshats for doing immature and offensive things is because they are the outlyers.
I do not subscribe to your pessimistic view of the world.
However, if we open this game up to the console market, I will respectfully withdraw what I said. The level of maturity and social responsibility therein continues to disappoint.

The "we" in that are, what? Gamers invested enough in this game to come here and make suggestions and offer feedback to development, YEARS before beta. Most of the people who eventually end up playing the game are not here and are not represented by this forum. There's going to be a lot of immature gamers, that's inevitable, and they would abuse the hell out of a feature like the one you suggest. If you took away the name censoring function during character creation, what do you think would happen? This is simply the visual equivalent.
But I still have hope for the human species, Huck, honest. ;)

desviper wrote:

Gluke wrote:
desviper wrote:
Huckleberry wrote:
I disagree with you all completely. The three games I mentioned earlier: Aura Kingdon, TERA Online and Archeage have all done fine with user generated and uploaded images for guild crests. None of them has a reputation for reprehensible behavior. You do not give yourselves enough credit. Yes, yourselves. Because it is people just like you who make up this game community. The reason we all call people asshats for doing immature and offensive things is because they are the outlyers.
I do not subscribe to your pessimistic view of the world.
However, if we open this game up to the console market, I will respectfully withdraw what I said. The level of maturity and social responsibility therein continues to disappoint.
scapegoat much? :p
I guess I'm either naive to the effects abusive players have on a game, or fervently against authoritarian measures to put up a fight :p
Not letting you put a swastika on your avatar in an MMO aimed at teens is "authoritarian"?
Well, technically, in spirit, yes, but I refer to the policies of Germany and Austria in banning and charging Nazi sympathizers with hate speech. I understand the politics and history of it, but banning a game with the far-fetched ability to craft a swastika if a player worked for it is ludicrous

Like I said before, the idea of a character using a Nazi or neo-Nazi styled toon shouldn't be out of the question, IMO, but if you allow anyone to use a swastika as if it were no different in meaning to any other symbol, you are asking for spam of game-breaking proportions.
Regarding German policy, anyone sympathizing with the Nazis generally IS invoking their hatred for their target demographics. You can't suggest you agree with them without on some levels condoning their actions, which were undeniably genocidal and hateful towards various demographics and imagined demographics. It is therefor reasonable to conclude that someone flying a Nazi flag is echoing their hate-filled views, just as someone flying an American Confederate flag is echoing racism and sympathies for slave-owners, since the whole meaning of that flag is loyalty to slave-owning states in the South, there is no ambiguity there.

Lothic wrote:

Gluke wrote:
Okay, first, somebody needs to calm down, that melodrama isn't constructive. Next, you should think through the consequences of this idea
Despite the sober facts I've provided I understand you're fundamentally against the idea of having to "pay" for the privilege of being able to get customized logos/symbols into a game like this. Regardless of any other point you've made this is definitely not a "pay for play" scheme because there is absolutely no need or in-game advantage to be gained by having a customized logo. You can't "pay for play" purely optional cosmetic items/features - this is why cash shops are full of things like costume items and other non-game affecting items.
I don't really see any reason why anything player customized in a game like this should be a "free" thing to begin with. If this game's own Kickstarter is any clue to you all of the offers for things like "customized" weapons, logos, costumes. mogul buildings, etc. all cost players extra money, and in most cases those things cost a LOT of extra money. Basically suggesting that any future customized items should require a relatively nominal fee (like $10 would be) is in perfect keeping with what we've already seen our Devs are willing to provide.
I'm sorry you seem to think $10 for something like this would be ridiculously out of the question. Again compared to the Kickstarter prices that would actually be a bargain. *shrugs*

You're not listening. You haven't presented "sober facts", you've suggested possible benefits, which I've suggested were not worth the possible drawbacks.
I also never said I was against buying cosmetic benefits with real cash via a store, nor even that I was against the notion of pay-to-play. I said it was very unpopular in principle amongst MMO players and reviewers, which in my experience in it is. I'd be happy to pay for costume and other items, for DLC and any of the those dream features we'd all personally like to see, but your idea falls well outside of that, for the reasons I gave. My previous reply covers everything.

Lothic wrote:

Gluke wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Gluke wrote:
Okay, first, somebody needs to calm down, that melodrama isn't constructive. Next, you should think through the consequences of this idea
Despite the sober facts I've provided I understand you're fundamentally against the idea of having to "pay" for the privilege of being able to get customized logos/symbols into a game like this. Regardless of any other point you've made this is definitely not a "pay for play" scheme because there is absolutely no need or in-game advantage to be gained by having a customized logo. You can't "pay for play" purely optional cosmetic items/features - this is why cash shops are full of things like costume items and other non-game affecting items.
I don't really see any reason why anything player customized in a game like this should be a "free" thing to begin with. If this game's own Kickstarter is any clue to you all of the offers for things like "customized" weapons, logos, costumes. mogul buildings, etc. all cost players extra money, and in most cases those things cost a LOT of extra money. Basically suggesting that any future customized items should require a relatively nominal fee (like $10 would be) is in perfect keeping with what we've already seen our Devs are willing to provide.
I'm sorry you seem to think $10 for something like this would be ridiculously out of the question. Again compared to the Kickstarter prices that would actually be a bargain. *shrugs*
You're not listening. You haven't presented "sober facts", you've suggested possible benefits, which I've suggested were not worth the possible drawbacks.
I also never said I was against buying cosmetic benefits with real cash via a store, nor even that I was against the notion of pay-to-play. I said it was very unpopular in principle amongst MMO players, which in my experience in it is. I'd be happy to pay for costume and other items, for DLC and any of the those dream features we'd all personally like to see, but your idea falls well outside of that, for the reasons I gave. My previous reply covers everything.
Perhaps I'm simply disregarding your supposed "drawbacks" as immaterial given the facts we do have. The Devs of CoT have already charged players for "customized" content: I see no reason why that would not continue to be the case for any future opportunities to get customized content incorporated into this game.
I know you absolutely "hate" that concept but we already have it as a stark reality. I'm sorry but THAT reply covers everything of importance concerning this issue.

...Okay, I'll say it once more (and if you miss it this time, I'm starting to think it's deliberate): I'm not against paying for customized content, or for costume pieces. I've said this more than once already (and never said I "hate" anything). What I think is unfair is charging people for something they may not get, depending on their drawing ability, or at least charging $10 for it. I paid exactly that amount for a playable Superman in Legends PVP on DCUO. With that, I can play again and again and again as the big boy scout, I now have that toon for life. If they instead offered a 50/50 CHANCE to play as him, and if I got lucky I had to wait at least a month to receive it, I wouldn't have paid the $10. Doesn't seem a fair exchange.
I think many people would feel the same about a custom logo, however good their drawing skill (and thus chances). And I think online reviewers and gamers in general would also not like the idea, and would say so in their reviews. Which would be bad.
Even if you skim this post, as I think you may have skimmed my previous ones, I'm sure you can follow me. You may feel your opinion covers "everything of important concerning this issue", but that's my two cents, and I think it's correct.

@desviper, you bring up a good point with Copyright I had not thought of until you mentioned it. As soon as we make mandatory review of logos a paid service, the company performing the review has taken liability for the logo, not just with its social acceptability, but its legal acceptability as well.

In contrast, a moderated system retains responsibility and liability with the submittors until a complaint is filed by an aggrieved party. Then, once the complaint is received, the moderating authority will need to take appropriate action. I would expect the action would err on the safe side and the offending logo would be removed and the offending player be informed and even penalized depending on the infraction.

For copyright issues, I would expect no penalty. You see this with Youtube videos when somene has used an audio file without permission or proper citation, the audio is just disabled but otherwise the video remains.

For offensive crests, I would expect the player may be suspended. In order to make it objective and fair, a standard suspesion sentence should be implemented so players won't think they are being treated unfairly if they think they were suspended for a longer period than someone else etc. etc. as things like that go. A hard, consistent stance will always aid the perception of fairness and once publicized, may deter offenders.

But I think copyright is not going to be an issue. You see the Fairy Tail (re: anime by the same name) logo in just about every MMO that has guild logos, for instance. The use of a logo in this game would be so incidental as to not warrant the lawyers required to submit a copyright infringement complaint. However, if a player had a logo for their own supergroup called, maybe, the Interminables, (http://cityoftitans.com/forum/interminables-out) and someone else made their guild crest the interminables logo. The player may want to make a copyright complaint to ensure that only her group could use that logo and name.

In any case, so long as it is moderated and not a paid service, the use of 'appropriate' logos will remain a player responsibility. Where would MWM want this to be?

Gluke wrote:

...Okay, I'll say it once more (and if you miss it this time, I'm starting to think it's deliberate): I'm not against paying for customized content, or for costume pieces. I've said this more than once already (and never said I "hate" anything). What I think is unfair is charging people for something they may not get, [u]depending on their drawing ability[/u], or at least charging $10 for it. I paid exactly that amount for a playable Superman in Legends PVP on DCUO. With that, I can play again and again and again as the big boy scout, I now have that toon for life. If they instead offered a 50/50 CHANCE to play as him, and if I got lucky I had to wait at least a month to receive it, I wouldn't have paid the $10. Doesn't seem a fair exchange.
I think many people would feel the same about a custom logo, however good their drawing skill (and thus chances). And I think online reviewers and gamers in general would also not like the idea, and would say so in their reviews. Which would be bad.
Even if you skim this post, as I think you may have skimmed my previous ones, I'm sure you can follow me. You may feel your opinion covers "everything of important concerning this issue", but that's my two cents, and I think it's correct.

Really, really??

I have no idea how you got that impression that MWM would be screening the payed for submissions based upon how "pretty" or well composed or other "artsy" stuff instead of only "offensive matter" and/or those they can see breaking copyright, thus ones ability to draw wouldn't be an issue. Honestly, it seem like you think that the payed for submission would be judged the same way as if it was a competition.

As for your parallel to DCUO, as long as it's explicitly mentioned in a prominent enough place/way before purchase then people can make an informed choice if they actually want to take that chance or not.

Lothic wrote:

Gluke wrote:
What I think is unfair is charging people for something they may not get, depending on their drawing ability, or at least charging $10 for it.
So if someone didn't want to have a logo/symbol get rejected it would behoove the player in question to follow the rules and not waste the Devs' time with submissions that are even remotely questionable. The $10 fee is a straightforward "behavioral motivator" for this, especially if as suggested the player would also likely get the chance for a single appeal to correct whatever might have made a submission unacceptable in the first place. Frankly if the player can't produce something that would be socially acceptable for the game after two tries they really deserve to lose the nominal submission fee as a "teachable moment".
I suppose we'll just have to accept that our respective definitions of what's "fair" may be drastically different. Asking the Devs to do special customized work for you should COST you something and potentially wasting their time with frivolous submissions should be PUNISHED with the loss of the submission fee as a reasonable deterrent. *shrugs*
P.S. If someone's "drawing ability" is bad enough that they think they are creating a stylized rainbow and it turns out to look like a deranged swastika then they may need more help than losing $10 would provide.

I think I see where we were at cross-purposes - you didn't fully explain what you meant and I assumed incorrectly, so sorry. I thought you meant that judging the logo as worthy of graphic rendition was one of the purposes of the judging process, not merely to censor out obscene images.
(I still don't know where you got the idea I was against paying for costume pieces, though...)
However, your approach here is still extremely unreasonably harsh and presumptious (on the hypothetical behalf of the developers), IMO.
It is not the place of any dev to "punish" or "teach" a player submitting their logo for wasting their time, especially when you propose that time should be approx FIVE SECONDS. If someone cannot follow the rules, or some younger player overlooks or forgets them, as is expected some of the time, then they should not get their logo, fine. They should not be cheated out of their payment on top of that...! You have to accept that not all gamers are the same age-group as you, and online transactions with an MMO are not the place for such an absurdly Victorian approach to some of them failing to pay attention. I'm reminded of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgVS1OhucbI
Young teens and adolescents can make extraordinarily gross errors of judgement. It happens. If they drew four jagged lightning bolts joined at their base, they'd lose their $10? If they based their toon on the Red Skull, the well-established Marvel villain, or on a KKK Grand Cyclops (or whatever it is now) or any of the other racially and politically-motivated archetypes throughout superhero publishing history, they could lose their money?
My point, once again, is that the reaction to this on the part of online gamers and reviewers (the people CoT will be partly relying on for publicity and positive reviews) would be nuclear.

Lothic wrote:

blacke4dawn wrote:
Really, really??
I have no idea how you got that impression that MWM would be screening the payed for submissions based upon how "pretty" or well composed or other "artsy" stuff instead of only "offensive matter" and/or those they can see breaking copyright, thus ones ability to draw wouldn't be an issue. Honestly, it seem like you think that the payed for submission would be judged the same way as if it was a competition.
Exactly. It's not like MWM would be "judging" any submissions for artistic merit or staying within the lines.

It would have helped if you had said that earlier, since I think it was clear what I was reacting to.

Gluke wrote:

I'm reminded of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgVS1OhucbI

Wonka was harsh with Charlie as a "final test" to see if he was truly worthy of everything he was offering the boy. Charlie showed true humility, maturity and sacrifice in his reaction to what Wonka did, thus proving he was in fact worthy.

While I've always loved that story/movie it's obvious that this proposed submission fee situation is quite a bit different. Still if having $10 on the line would help "motivate" a player to be mindful of all the rules and help eliminate people wasting the Devs' time with obviously "bad" submissions I'm going to continue to be for that unless you can come up with a better tool that would accomplish the same thing.

Gluke wrote:

Young teens and adolescents can make extraordinarily gross errors of judgement. It happens. If they drew four jagged lightning bolts joined at their base, they'd lose their $10? If they based their toon on the Red Skull, the well-established Marvel villain, or on a KKK Grand Cyclops (or whatever it is now) or any of the other racially and politically-motivated archetypes throughout superhero publishing history, they could lose their money?
My point, once again, is that the reaction to this on the part of online gamers and reviewers (the people CoT will be partly relying on for publicity and positive reviews) would be nuclear.

Presumably if a submission is rejected the GM involved would briefly explain WHY it was rejected. Sure innocent mistakes could be made by naive/young players. But with a FAIR chance to correct and resubmit any rejected items (using the "built-in appeal" I agreed was necessary) most of the cases of "innocent mistakes" should be accounted for in an equitable fashion.

I simply remain unconvinced that a submission policy of this nature would be considered "too harsh" all things being equal.

desviper wrote:

Also, aren't there copyright issues with taking a picture online and rendering it for submission?

Good point - fee or no fee - there are almost certainly legal ramifications on submitting artwork. Hey - if MWM finds a way to make it work someday, cool. That said I would completely understand if they don't want to/don't have the manpower to wade through the stuff that is sent in and/or have to deal with the legalities of it.

Interdictor wrote:

desviper wrote:
Also, aren't there copyright issues with taking a picture online and rendering it for submission?
Good point - fee or no fee - there are almost certainly legal ramifications on submitting artwork. Hey - if MWM finds a way to make it work someday, cool. That said I would completely understand if they don't want to/don't have the manpower to wade through the stuff that is sent in and/or have to deal with the legalities of it.

Fairly sure that 90%+ of looking for existing pictures published on the web can be automated, either by building their own system or utilizing some service provider.

Because, an externally submitted logo, no matter how well-drawn, still has to be re-created in the game, and that takes staff-time, which is not cheap. The whole question of externally submitted art does not really save time and effort, as is sometimes advertised. Besides, there are vast libraries of logos and symbols, already drawn by eager five-year-olds and older, which are fully vetted for copyright and not-a-dickness.

Be Well!
Fireheart

desviper wrote:

The uploading pictures seem aside. I'm suggesting using a similar system to put decals anywhere on a costume to make savable logos for characters or a supergroup.
So any offense or copyright is already present in the general costume system. Are they going to manually review every costume?

Of course not, vetting (or manual review) would only be applied to submitted content. Anything that is done purely inside the game would have to rely effectively exclusively on the reporting system.

That doesn't mean that both systems can't exist, in that if you want a "simpler" logo you can create one by combining a few pre-made shapes and/or overlays (or a whole pre-made decal) but if you want something more "complex" you would have the option to submit an image of yours for future inclusion into the game.

It's under the [url=https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/missingworldsmedia/the-phoenix-project-city-of-titans/description]Kickstarter[/url] Campaign tab, "Fashionista" pledge. Described as a custom chest logo. There's perhaps less than 20 pledges at that level or higher.

Not sure that's exactly what is being referenced, but it has the gist of it.

Edit: woops, and if you scroll waaay down that page there was an add-on called "Iconic" which added just the icon for a whole lot less :)

Huckleberry wrote:

Yeah, I saw that, but that surely does not seem to be what Lothic was talking about. That's a complete costume, with a logo as just one of the elements that will be put into the game. Lothic alluded to a mandatory logo submission for approval of all logos.

Apparently you did not read all of what Airhead wrote, even though you quoted the bit he edited on as well as the Fashionista bit:

Airhead wrote:

Edit: woops, and if you scroll waaay down that page there was an add-on called "Iconic" which added just the icon for a whole lot less :)

That "whole lot less" was $150. I have no doubt that the "Work with one of our artists" will be including vetting for legality or rating or other issues (if it hasn't already) but for $150 I would assume that if there are legality etc. issues the response would be "Sorry, we can't do that because (x). But your second choice should be OK. Here's what we were thinking about it." I do know that for the Mogul add-on, they asked us for three ideas, first choice through third, to cut the response loop time in case some ideas were not doable.

desviper wrote:

So we're all game for an in-game system to assemble and save logos from simpler decals without being Nazis about Nazis? :p

There's a fundamental difference between having a service for players to submit customized logos and having an in-game tool to "create" in-game logos. The submission service would require the Devs to (among other things) vet all submissions for appropriateness. On the other hand an in-game tool can be "pre-designed" to limit/prevent any player from being able to create anything naughty in the first place. See the difference?

Even if CoT had both of these things (a submission service AND an in-game logo tool) the game would still always need the presence of GM monitoring because despite the Devs' best efforts to mitigate a player's ability to get bad stuff into the game (via filters and any other automated protection schemes) there's still always the chance someone would manage to sneak something through that would have to be reported.

Regardless of anything else the game will always be "a Nazi" about things like swastikas because there's really no way they can NOT have some degree of control over what happens in the game when it comes to things like that. As I implied before the games that find themselves in legal trouble are the ones that (for whatever reasons) are too lax in their oversight and let too many people do too many stupid things. The squeaky wheel gets the grease - as long as this game doesn't give anyone a legitimate reason to sue us then we won't get sued. It's really just that simple.