Page 1 of 1

Introducing "thumbs" ala BGG

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 12:34 pm
by lighterfuel
Would a system of showing approval for posts be a good idea? Doesn't have to be thumbs, it could be something suitably apocalyptic.

Re: Introducing "thumbs" ala BGG

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:19 pm
by admin
lighterfuel wrote:Would a system of showing approval for posts be a good idea? Doesn't have to be thumbs, it could be something suitably apocalyptic.

I can easily add star ratings just like in the Scenario section if you think that would be useful.

Jean-Charles
Ludically

Re: Introducing "thumbs" ala BGG

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:40 pm
by Chimaera
Thumbs or stars all sounds good to me.

Re: Introducing "thumbs" ala BGG

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:50 pm
by lighterfuel
Cool, an averaged rating with the number of votes underneath. Instead of stars we could have the red to-hit splash from the game or bullets or something, for fun? Anyway, at your leisure, I don't know how useful a rating system for the forum would be especially at this early stage; for the scenarios, yes.

Thanks, for your reply :)

Re: Introducing "thumbs" ala BGG

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:54 pm
by admin
I spoke too soon, a post-level instead of topic-level rating system is a bit more involved. But I'm looking into it.

Jean-Charles

Re: Introducing "thumbs" ala BGG

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:12 pm
by El Cuajinais
For the record, I don't see the value in this. There's many other things around here that could use some attention. Both versions of the scenario editors come to mind. Why are the online and offline versions different? Both could use a zoom feature.

I do agree that for the user scenarios, a rating system is definitely a must. In fact, I would suggest an official "requirements for publishing a scenario" page be created to list all minimum requirements for publishing a user scenario. Something like requiring a small, proofread backstory and having playtested the scenario at least 5 times before uploading it for example. This would ensure some thought goes into every scenario, rather than having players fool around with the editor for an hour and then upload a piece of crap. As part of the submission process, there could be a form that asks for data on playtesting. How many times was the scenario playtested? Which side won? etc. Make submitting a scenario a process rather than pushing a button. Submissions that do not meet requirements should be denied being published. With this "filter" in place scenario ratings would still be necessary, but at least the worst rated ones would still be fun scenarios to play. And we all have the excellent scenario generating system anyway so there's little point in using pre-defined scenarios unles they are well thought out.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that 6 months from now, I would prefer to see that there are only 4 user scenarios available, but that all are well balanced and fun to play. Rather than seeing 25+ scenarios, all with very low ratings because they were a waste of time for the people who tried to play them. At that point players will lose faith in user created scenarios and rely only on the game designers to provide new pre-defined scenarios.

For the record, I have no idea how publishing a scenario currently works, but this is how I believe it should work for the benefit of all. Also, I have not seen the single user scenario that is currently available.