Lack of new people is killing the backroom and the entire forum

Quote:

---

There most certainly is an issue of direction for the org and 9 months ago there was a less heated, but actually nearly identical discussion here in the wathctower: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...-to-this-forum , where among other people i made the very same points about accessibility and opening up the forum in terms of atmosphere and intrinsic direction by staff to the younger breed of TW fans and young forum members.

---

This is the one thing I hate about forums. Everything I say can be read after the discusison is over.

I just re-read the thread.

Can't believe some of the stuff I said.

I think I'll stop posting in here, I'm not helping.

You are actually helping a lot pever. Don't get discouraged, you are maturing fine ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

You are actually helping a lot pever. Don't get discouraged, you are maturing fine ;)

---

You make it sound as if I'm a teenager :tongue:

Regardless, I got bigger things to worry about. Flooding, for example.

Small issues account for large ones sometimes. But yes, flooding should be a priority :)

TWC has had a much stronger modding community since the release of Rome which has, imo, contributed to the Org decline in members. I frequent both forums from time to time. I don't particularly find anything childish over at TWC but then again I only turn up from time to time to look at some of the modifications which are outstanding. I've found most of its members as friendly as over here.

In fact, the mods section for RTW in the twc accounts for 500+k posts and the M2TW mods section for about a million.

On the other hand, the STW/MTW section and mod section is at least poor compared to the one here, which kind of speaks for itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

You make it sound as if I'm a teenager :tongue:

Regardless, I got bigger things to worry about. Flooding, for example.

---

Flooding passes. But those Justin Bieber tattoos... well those are forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

In fact, the mods section for RTW in the twc accounts for 500+k posts and the M2TW mods section for about a million.

On the other hand, the STW/MTW section and mod section is at least poor compared to the one here, which kind of speaks for itself.

---

I'm quite positive that if we take out mods section from twc then the number of visitors will drop 60-70%.
If Org wants to survive then one thing is to really start thinking about S2TW modding.
The first people who get the game should start finding ways how to mod it.
If most of the S2TW mods come from the Org then we have a chance to attract more people to join and most of all.. participate.

Edit: Also, increasing the number of PM's allowed to store in your Inbox doesn't hurt.

I don't know whether all twc members can have as much PM's but...

Quote:

---

Inbox contains 54 messages.
You have 87 messages stored, of a total 1,000,000(?) allowed.

---

If you check the equivalent stats for the org you will see that RTW mods account for about 330k posts - that is (more than) half with respect to twc ie not bad.

The big break comes in M2TW in which twc has about a million posts in its M2TW mod forums while the org figures drop to less than 50k.

I think that this was a sort of "downward spiral" effect, that is modders simply flooded en masse to the centre due to the fact that this was the hub of modding of the time to begin with, and there is very little the org could have done more to attract them - as Ludens said people either come or they don't.

Also back in the M2TW days, there was a dedicated following of the game in the org in terms of SP, as well as a strong PBEM circle and knowledgeable home modders, so saying that participation has only to do with the org being frequented by veterans, having stricter rules of conduct and entrance requirements and less individuality in appearance is simply not true, although all these factors played their part.

The shift of the modding community to twc was a major factor that is often overlooked as well as the fact that the org's core members was focused around the STW/MTW mp community that became badly disillusioned with the release of RTW and M2TW and Empire. All these are factors that were not in the hands of the org staff/administration. CA releasing game after game with moronic AI, little, if any, playtesting, unbelievable bugs and more and more emphasis on flashy graphics after hyping it up to the stars and caring naught for multimultiplayer also didn't help.

All these are major factors and cannot be overlooked or oversimplified in a candid assessment of the situation. Its true that the org should do what it can to improve its position, but blaming everything to the things and members that made it and make it what it is and rejecting its character, past and tradition - the very same character, past and tradition that attracted and kept most of us here - doesn't help either.

If you check the org stats you'll see that the most people online for the day were recorded in Spring 2009 - that's during the high era of Empire. Expectations for the game were high and people did buy and started playing it - however the game was dissapointing from a good deal of perspectives and people stopped bothering. This is neither moronic nor an excuse - it happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

If you check the equivalent stats for the org you will see that RTW mods account for about 330k posts - that is (more than) half with respect to twc ie not bad.

---

I may be wrong but most of those posts have been made in the Europa Barbarorum subforum.

Edit: I was correct.

Quote:

---

* Threads: 14,769
* Posts: 256,759

---

Those are stats for Europa Barbarorum.

Edit2: The only part in the Org that can show as many posts/threads is the off topic part of the forum.
If it's possible to bring those members from the EB subforum to participate other parts of the forum then the future doesn't look that dark anymore.

You are right of course - but then again, isn't EB part of the org?

In fact, a lot of people came to be regulars after being introduced through EB.

EB is of course part of the Org.
However, there are many members who only visit EB subforum and not the other parts of the Org.
If that could be changed somehow..

NM. I'm behind on the times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

However, there are many members who only visit EB subforum and not the other parts of the Org.
If that could be changed somehow..

---

I agree, although I am not sure how to achieve that. I've pointed people to the OT and Arena forums, but many prefer to stay inside the EB community.

be nicer to new posters. sometimes old guard can be sort of rude

in backroom

I think the only suitable solution is an amalgamation.

I'm to old to find a new forum

I plan to go down with the ship

And you are not the only one.

I had an idea. There are currently only 3 skins + vB4 default one. What if a competition is held where people can propose their own ideas for skins? Best ones will be picked and new styles will be created based on those ideas? This could bring some life to the Org.

Thinking how to save our skin.

Just clicking in here to save my favourite forum. :balloon2:

After five and a half years of posting around here, I just want to say that we need a revamp. We need new players in. The S2TW announcement brought back some oldies but that forum is still half dead. I remember the good ol days in 2005 and 2006 when this forum was FULL, bustling with people, TWC couldn't even compare. :book:

And then came M2TW and ETW. ETW killed us. M2TW still kept us strong because people had EB over here and they wanted their Ancient fix.

It's time we revamp guys, I mean we have dozens of lurkers but we have to encourage them to sign up for our forum and post!

I propose a week of "Welcome to the Org" sort of thing, where everything is free and everyone comes and posts. Backroom is viewable by everyone, just like TWC, and we set up competitions and everything else. That way we bring in more viewers, we bring in more posters, the lurkers will sign up to participate and that way we animate this whole forum. And perhaps we get more Backroom posters as well that way.


Here's some ideas:

Writing Competition
STW Multiplayer Competition (cmon, we're good at STW)
EB Multiplayer Competition (EB is ours...)
EB Singleplayer Competition (best screenshots, best achievements...)
S2TW raffle/competition (give away a free copy of S2TW with the courtesy of CA to win a competition)

Winners get a huge stash of porn and Org badges. That way we entice them to stay here and post.

Any thoughts?

I neglect to answer your post EDYZ because it bestows insufficient glory upon the Main Hall, whence all things civilised traverse.


---------

Yes! Skins! Bring back the 'Arabique' skin, for I was highly dissapointed by its removal!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Just clicking in here to save my favourite forum. :balloon2:

After five and a half years of posting around here, I just want to say that we need a revamp. We need new players in. The S2TW announcement brought back some oldies but that forum is still half dead. I remember the good ol days in 2005 and 2006 when this forum was FULL, bustling with people, TWC couldn't even compare. :book:

And then came M2TW and ETW. ETW killed us. M2TW still kept us strong because people had EB over here and they wanted their Ancient fix.

It's time we revamp guys, I mean we have dozens of lurkers but we have to encourage them to sign up for our forum and post!

I propose a week of "Welcome to the Org" sort of thing, where everything is free and everyone comes and posts. Backroom is viewable by everyone, just like TWC, and we set up competitions and everything else. That way we bring in more viewers, we bring in more posters, the lurkers will sign up to participate and that way we animate this whole forum. And perhaps we get more Backroom posters as well that way.


Here's some ideas:

Writing Competition
STW Multiplayer Competition (cmon, we're good at STW)
EB Multiplayer Competition (EB is ours...)
EB Singleplayer Competition (best screenshots, best achievements...)
S2TW raffle/competition (give away a free copy of S2TW with the courtesy of CA to win a competition)

Winners get a huge stash of porn and Org badges. That way we entice them to stay here and post.

Any thoughts?

---

I love this idea.


I'd also love it if there were some way to bring back the old skins, I really miss the Sengoku skin.

Competitions make sense in subfora/areas where there is a core at least audience that can attract others; if there is very little core audience a competition can accommplish little. The EB forums should be doing competitions as they want and please, not by request to save the org. There are people that hang around the sword dojo and the main hall, the collosseum and the Citadel and they seasonally scatter and recollect when something is going on. For example, there was a thread about the Golden Horde in automn 2009 that revitalised the Main Hall considerably and very quickly for the 2 weeks it did a run.

While policy changes along the lines kikuchiyo, kagemusha and others suggest will make some head way to help things, taking initiatives by people who frequent sub fora will also help. AARs for TW subfora are particularly good for this, as everyone likes to read stories while at the same time it garnishes appetites to revisit the game.

Unfortunately its not all to the admin and staff hand; things can conspire sometimes against your will, and the nature of an internet forum means that people cannot be "organised" as they would in an office to take action, neither that taking action will guarantee the desired result. Its all still on a voluntary basis, it must be borne in mind.

Helping out streamlining the forum structure as it appears to outsiders and make more visible fora that are traditionally strong points of the org will also help.

Chuchip, i thought the STW skin is currently the default skin for the forum?

Thanks to Tosa for fixing my account. (Kikuchiyo=me)

To clarify somewhat, my references to TWC mean simply that there is still demand for a fansite for these games. I am not for one moment suggesting that the .org become like TWC. Having two sites that are much the same would be pointless... it would also be bad for the .org and is not what the .org is about. Getting rid of JMs and letting members choose avatars won't turn the .org into TWC. I also think the staff trying new methods of moderation can only be a good thing (again I'm not implying the staff are bunch of control freak nazis, when they're clearly anything but). The staff are a level headed bunch and most are better mods than I ever was.

:bow:

Hmm. Having just read this thread, I am very depressed.
EDIT: Who was Kikuchiyo? I got the impression that some people knew.

Having just read this thread, you should have some idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPQRules

Hmm. Having just read this thread, I am very depressed.
EDIT: Who was Kikuchiyo? I got the impression that some people knew.

---

Read above, it's Caravel, a senior member.

That being said - I have an idea. When was the Org founded? The exact date.

April 10th 1999, there was a 10 year celebration in April 2009 with a special forum and a big samurai themed mafia game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

April 10th 1999, there was a 10 year celebration in April 2009 with a special forum and a big samurai themed mafia game.

---

April 10th 2011, 12th anniversary of Total War Org.

This is our chance to realise a new samurai themed mafia game (S2TW), lax the barriers of entry to the forum and promote different competitions and special events to bring in people. Perhaps a committee to draw up plans formed of mods and members could be organised?

This is a very good chance of bringing people back in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

April 10th 2011, 12th anniversary of Total War Org.

This is our chance to realise a new samurai themed mafia game (S2TW), lax the barriers of entry to the forum and promote different competitions and special events to bring in people. Perhaps a committee to draw up plans formed of mods and members could be organised?

This is a very good chance of bringing people back in.

---

I'll second that idea. But here comes the difficult part - who should be there from the members side? How can we pick the people who have time and are willing to commit themselves into such thing?

I think that if we want to regain our popularity in comparison to the Center, it is better to concentrate on improving ourselves in areas where they are weak rather than areas where they are strong. Therefore, I think it's instructive to compare the main pages and forum indeces, starting with the latter.

Examining the number and compisition of each site's categories and forums is very illuminating, albiet subjective. By my count, the Guild is divided into eleven categories, of which I count eight being directly related to discussion of Total War. These include six categories for the PC games, one category for the console games, and one category for the series as a whole. By contrast, the Center has three more categories in total but two less for Total War, owing to it not having a category for console games and the fact that it merges the first three PC games into one, while we merge Empire and Napoleon together.

The difference is even more stark comparing forums. The Guild's main page shows 41 forums, 34 of which directly relate to Total War. These are the forums for guides in the 'New Members' section, as well as the forums for the games and the series. The Center has as whopping 59 forums but only 26 are directly related to Total War! They have twenty for the games (including a special forum for NTW tournaments, which is a nice touch), three for the series and a forum each for artists, writers and Community RPGs. These last three are debateable however, as unlike their Orgah equivalents they are not placed within the "Totalwar Series" category but rather in categories for the TWCenter community. They seem less focused on Total War in particular.

Just to summarize, here are the numbers showing what fractions of each sites categories and forums are devoted to the Total War series. Keep in mind some cases are subjective.

Org Categories: 8/11 (approx. 75%)
Org Forums: 34/41 (80%+)

Center Categories: 6/14 (>50%)
Center Forums: 26/59 (>50%)

This comparison shows where we can focus on our strengths without trying to compete with the Center's strengths. The talk about getting rid of the JM/SM distinctions seems sound, and we should go one further and reorganize the Guild. I would eliminate the "New Members" and "HoF 2010" categories, placing the "Guides" forums into the same category as their respective games while the rest of the forums go into the "Miscellaneous" category. Let's make it so that all the categories either have "Total War"/"TW" in the name if they're not the "Miscellaneous" category, and make so that the first category listed is the one hosting discussion of the latest game. IMHO, new members don't want to stick around in the new members section because that's never where the real conversations are. If the first thing they see are the forums for Shogun 2, that'll give them a better impression. And if they see that almost all of the forums at the Org are for the Total War series while most of the forums at the Center aren't, it'll look like the Org is the place for talking about Total War. That's the kind of distinction that will attract high-quality members.

The Org! Now with 25% more irrelevant content!

I don't think we would have much of a problem at all if you folks weren't so bored with the games. You want to have a grown up forum and pretend that this is based on more than playing Hitler in a computer representation of Europe. If that's what you want, then you are contributing to the loss of the forum. This forum would be bursting with activity if you were all avidly playing TW games, because then you would be too busy discussing your favourite little habits and enjoying the debate of the common thread between us all.

I have disappeared without thinking of returning thrice from this forum, and the only reason I have ever come back is because I have been playing MTW again and have thought of discussing the fun with like-minded people.

Not because I want to see ignorant political rants spouted all over the place and what you all had for breakfast.

It was suggested in the last discussion, by a number of people I believe, that a Paradox expansion is the best way to go forward.

Its close-ish to the TW games, and quite a few people play it already.

I SUGGEST A NEW PARADOX GAMES SUBFORUM (Eu3, Vicky2, HoI 3, CK2 etc etc etc)

Hi Caravel. ~:wave: Good to have a camel lover back. :tongue:

I've been away from this thread, and I finally caught up.
I'll keep it short by saying, if we get couple of projects across this forum going, we will feel more united.
I'm liking Edyz idea very much. More of this should be able to turn the tides.

I've been very inactive in forums other then the gameroom. For now I'll try to contribute in other part of the forum as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

I don't think we would have much of a problem at all if you folks weren't so bored with the games.

---

Perhaps, so where can we get brainwashed to become interested again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn

Not because I want to see ignorant political rants spouted all over the place and what you all had for breakfast.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

And Pevergreen, I wouldn't mind a Paradox strategy subforum if there were already several, lasting and huge threads about these games in the Arena, but there aren't, I'm not sure that subforum would be very active.

I'd love some brainwashing, but i fear for some of us no less than lobotomy is needed to be interested.

In any case, Glenn has an absolute point, In 2009 spring, just during the release of ETW there was a thread in the tavern polling "your favorite TW game". The results speak for themselves: STW, MTW and RTW top of the list with about 30 votes each and M2TW came far behind.

TW fora dedicated to new TW games need leaders/moderators/regulars that first and foremost play and enjoy the games themselves, in order for conversations to happen and heat/attract people. The last generation of regular orgahs from TW fora are probably that of ATPG, that came in through the Citadel.

If you aren't interested in politics or what we had for dinner than simply ignore the tavern, nobody will care. To each their own, backroom especially benefits from a lack of people imho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

I'd love some brainwashing, but i fear for some of us no less than lobotomy is needed to be interested.

---

Very true, but also part of the perceived attitude here no? A comment like that implies that TW these days is targeted at the drooling fanboy hordes and that some of us are now simply too "elite" for it. True in my opinion and doubtless quite a few of the staff agree with me as well, but to continue to be a TW fansite that's surely not the type of attitude that's needed here? Regardless of the criticism though, what's needed first and foremost is the end to the junior member system. I can see it doing no harm to remove this first and take it from there. Senior Members should go as well - no need for it. I am happy to add my name to a list of those willing to step down from senior membership.

Bingo. As you say about the attitude. Not sure about the senior membership, but i would have absolutely no trouble giving up mine.

Having said all that, i am hopeful that STW2 will be good; less factions, less units, same engine and so less chance for bugs, 4 turns per year, Sengoku Jidai, role playing elements and lots of behind the scene politics; i'm definitely in for it.

Also apparently NTW isn't bad either, especially with the new Lordz NTWIII modification for multiplayer only. It seems top notch:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053248948

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Chuchip, i thought the STW skin is currently the default skin for the forum?

---

Yes but the current STW one is fairly new, there used to be other forum skins that were disabled by an upgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Regardless of the criticism though, what's needed first and foremost is the end to the junior member system. I can see it doing no harm to remove this first and take it from there. Senior Members should go as well - no need for it. I am happy to add my name to a list of those willing to step down from senior membership.

---

But would it really help? The mark of Senior Member is attributed to those who have contributed to the Org, and having the stamp of Senior Member and helping out newcomers would only strengthen our own resolve. It's not about being elite, it's about using the elite to help the new.

That's very true edyz, but it may not be how it's perceived by someone on the outside. On messageboards, ranks are often seen as a sign of elitism or cronyism. There is also the matter as to how Senior Members are selected, which is a strictly internal affair. It's ultimately up to Tosa of course, but personally I think an award selected transparently by way of a public vote rather than a rank would be a better means of rewarding those members (it could be fully incorporated into the HoF). At the moment Senior Membership is pretty much token anyway, so it won't make a lot of difference. At present I have, I think, a reduced posting flood time and a 500 inbox capacity? Members I think have much less, like 100 or something along those lines? Junior Members are even less still IIRC.

With the activity how it is here currently, I don't think the strict posting flood control, if indeed there is any these days, is justified. The inbox restrictions come across as somewhat draconian, especially considering the inbox limit over at the center is 1,000,000! Another small forum I'm active on has a 9999 limit - they're only about as active as us and are running phpBB. Considering this, would a flat 500 - 1000 for all members regardless, not be reasonable? This would certainly help new patrons getting involved in the gameroom as well.

About the ranks. TWC is mentioned as the site that is doing well and should be learned from.

Seldom have I seen a site where there is so much distinction between members. Post count gives a rank. They have that rep system. How many different badges, titles (citizen? civitate? artithingy?) and whatnot are there? It doesn't seem to hurt them.

:shrug:

TWC has a mostly very different userbase, and not everything that TWC does is good (far from it in my wholly biased opinion). There is not really that much for the .org to learn from the TWC that it cannot learn from elsewhere. The TWC is definitely all about ranks, status, pomp and ceremony. It awards its members "toys" for participation. For the .org to go down that route would be to abandon what the .org is all about - this is not about getting the kind of numbers seen at TWC, but about getting the kind of members that make the .org what it is and maybe getting some of our old timers back as well. As I've already said: We do not need two sites that are essentially the same, we simply need to offer members that which conforms to reasonable expectations and stop thinking that giving someone a 500 post inbox is some kind of "extra privilege", it might have been back in 2000, but not by today's standards. I think the staff need to be aware that no one has to come to the .org nor do they need to stay here. I also remember one of the mods making such a point sometime last year.

I am sure that by loosening off on the moderation somewhat, flattening out the ranks system (Junior/Member/Senior -> Member) and giving all members the same same rights (personal avatars, a decent PM box size, full access to the backroom and gameroom), the .org can appeal to those people that prefer not to go the other TW fansites for whatever reason. I can't see it hurting the .org and can't understand all the aversion to it.

Some people are resistant to change.

I am one of those people.

Quote:

---

I am sure that by loosening off on the moderation somewhat, flattening out the ranks system (Junior/Member/Senior -> Member) and giving all members the same same rights (personal avatars, a decent PM box size, full access to the backroom and gameroom), the .org can appeal to those people that prefer not to go the other TW fansites for whatever reason. I can't see it hurting the .org and can't understand all the aversion to it.

---

I'd prefer to keep the senior member/member, but definately remove junior. Same rights yes, gameroom is fully open now, PM size should be doubled for everyone. I've had to empty mine twice in the last 2 months, and I get the 500. The avatars, however, I still won't budge on. The profile pic can be displayed, and thats free.

Andres: yeah the TWC rank system immediately caused me to cease participation there. I can't even play mafia there because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Some people are resistant to change.

I am one of those people.

---

Resistant to change for the better as well though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

I'd prefer to keep the senior member/member, but definately remove junior. Same rights yes, gameroom is fully open now, PM size should be doubled for everyone. I've had to empty mine twice in the last 2 months, and I get the 500.

---

If senior members and members were to become exactly the same, then what would the point of senior membership as purely a title be? Why not just add it as an award as with the CoH and HoF? Why not have all members open to vote on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

The avatars, however, I still won't budge on. The profile pic can be displayed, and thats free.

---

While the profile pic is a step in the right direction, it is merely an albeit improved replacement for the old URL avatars and does not go far enough. For someone that is thinking of registering at the .org who does not see the profile pictures, as they are not visible to guests, it's the same old gallery of portraits and boring uniformity they are presented with. They will have no idea that there are personal avatars available and simply note the apparent "restrictions".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

Andres: yeah the TWC rank system immediately caused me to cease participation there. I can't even play mafia there because of it.

---

I don't participate much at TWC these days. In the past I've posted a few times at their STW and MTW fora, without getting involved elsewhere so I don't really understand the politics there. What I do see though I dislike.

People that dislike change, dislike it because it is change. Regardless of to what, or the reasoning or the benefits.

I'd be happy with the different usergroup and a global increase in the PM box to normalise member/SM. I do want to keep the usergroup different.

Perhaps we need to see beyond simply what we want if we want this place to survive? Why label yourself as a "person that dislikes change", for starters you're too young to have your views set in stone (leave that to the likes of me) and change is necessary to liven things up and brush away the cobwebs.

You're happy with your avatar and that's great, but what about others?

The Senior Membership may suit you (though you've said that you felt undeserving?), but to the majority of our members that are not seniors and to those on the outside, it probably looks very different. I admit that I don't think Senior Membership is the major issue here, but it's still an important one. The removal of JMs and the lifting of restrictions on avatars is more important IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Why not just add it as an award as with the CoH and HoF? Why not have all members open to vote on it?

---

CoH is not exactly an award. You have to post in the CoH thread and you will receive that badge. That is all. Whether you will follow the idea behind it is up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Why label yourself as a "person that dislikes change", for starters you're too young to have your views set in stone (leave that to the likes of me)

---

I label myself that way because I am.

I hardly think my age should play part in this discussion, nor my viewpoints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibn-Khaldun

CoH is not exactly an award. You have to post in the CoH thread and you will receive that badge. That is all. Whether you will follow the idea behind it is up to you.

---

Heh, yes I'm aware of that. I signed up the CoH. I think you misunderstand me. The forum has a facility where awards can be added to a members account. I am saying to make use of that facility for rewarding senior members (I referred to it earlier in this thread as the ".org award") instead of having a different rank.

To cut a long story short, I think the current member rank should have all the rights of senior member and the juniors and seniors abolished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pevergreen

I label myself that way because I am.

I hardly think my age should play part in this discussion, nor my viewpoints.

---

Fair points, I apologise if I've cause you any offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Fair points, I apologise if I've cause you any offence.

---

Some points you made were true and forced me to look at myself, but no offence taken.

Much like a PM I found from you today, while sorting out my PM box.

I still chuckle when I read the title of it: "Inter-camel order communication"

I think we all need to look at ourselves.

I don't remember that one, not sure what it was about. Sage advice? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I don't remember that one, not sure what it was about. Sage advice? :laugh4:

---

You were giving me a slap on the behind for misbehaving. :laugh4:

I think a fair compromise would be to remove junior membership, keep senior membership but don't bestow any perks from having it. Have it just be a signifier that you have contributed to the community.

Despite posting here for nearly 7 years, I have no attachment whatsoever to my avatar. In fact, I've always been a little annoyed that I couldn't use my standard avatar on this forum (which I am attached to and use everywhere but here). As I understand it, the reasons we force people to use these avatars are (1) uniformity of site layout and (2) tradition. (1) is no longer a good excuse, as the forum itself doesn't have any particularly glitzy or polished appearance. The 'popular' skins are popular simply due to tradition and not do to actual aesthetic value. The Org has always been a relatively ugly forum that was more about content than looks, so I don't think that keeping the current avatar rules are doing anything beneficial. For (2), tradition isn't worth squat if the site dies.

As for the retort that we have URL avatars available, that's a very poor option. URL avatars doesn't change the fact that I have to have a regular avatar as well. Who wants to look at two avatars in every post? That makes the site look even worse than it does normally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

As for the retort that we have URL avatars available, that's a very poor option. URL avatars doesn't change the fact that I have to have a regular avatar as well. Who wants to look at two avatars in every post? That makes the site look even worse than it does normally.

---

The URL avatars are pretty much pointless because guests cannot see them - they still see the portraits - and most users don't have them turned on or use them anyway. You can turn off the gallery avatars altogether and switch to the URL avatars, but as most members here aren't using them, it's pointless as you'll mostly only see the default one.

My whole argument about avatars is centred around improving perception of the .org and thus helping to bring new people in, what is the point in the URL avatars if they will achieve neither?

Avatars don't make the site less attractive to join. Actually I like the avatars the way they are. Not so disturbing or irritating, flashy or childlike as on many other forums. It gives the .org a more mature look IMO.

Personally I'm not completely pro junior membership. But I do think it might have some use. But abolishing might not be a bad idea. And I think it will indeed have a good influence on getting newcommers to stay.

Re: Avatars,

There is a lot of confusion created by having three distinctly different types of avatars. Why have three? Are the benefits (not potential, but actual), of having three worth the cost of maintaining two additional sets of interface, process/function, and data requirements on the system side, and documentation/end-user support? Personally, I don't think so.

Having one type of avatar cuts down on the confusion considerably. What's important is granting patrons the flexibility to make or choose their own, and making that as easy and intuitive to do as possible to minimize support requirements. Having one set of interface processes and parameters to manage one function would make for less work for those supporting the system, and education/explanations easier for those supporting the patrons. Finally, it would be less confusing to patrons themselves.

My opinion is (taking into account all of your hard work, Tosa): instead of having three, use only one, preferably the "standard" avatar because it's the easiest to find and change via the interface. Assuming this is possible, set the "standard" avatar to behave as the "free" avatar does currently--so that patrons can select or create their own avatar and display it within set size/dimension limits, and stated guidelines. Set things up so that both the standard and urlavatar image libraries can be accessed if a patron prefers to select one from them.

We would simply stop using the other two avatar types. Any reference to them would best be removed from the Patron's view in the USER CP. Default account settings would remain as they are (with only the "standard" avatar displaying and being viewed--but now fully customizable).

If the standard avatar cannot support this functionality, then use the "free" avatar as is, and deactivate the other two after making their image libraries accessible via the "free" avatar interface. The downside to this method is that default display/view parameters on new accounts would have to be changed too.


Re: Sigs,

I feel the same way about sigs. Why two? Do actual benefits justify the costs associated with maintaining two discrete objects/functions which essentially serve the same purpose?

I agree with a previous poster, that large sigs can be very distracting. I recently tested the 'extra' sig, and when both were active, they took up a lot of space. If everyone did that ... it wouldn't be very practical.

Again, my opinion is, use one--the standard signature. Set the size/dimension limits to the max that we feel is appropriate for display in a post. The 'extra' sig/broadband option isn't needed and could be hidden and not used.

A lot of ideas come and go in these threads while we're on another subject--need to collect them somehow.

I second Togakure's suggestions.

The several avatar thingy is confusing. First, you have to find out which "avatar" you have to use to be able to implement your own. Then you have to find out how to set your profile so that you don't see all three avatars of all members. It's very confusing and kinda annoying (not anymore for me, since I figured out how I could get things back to "normal", but new members will find the forum very confusing and ugly).

I'd very much prefer one and only one avatar with, as Togakure suggested, the possiblity either to chose from the current TW avatars or to upload your own avatar.

Idem dito for the sigs. Only one sig, please.

I'm a strong believer in simplicity.

It's really very simple. There is no need for the URL avatars or the profile picture display as vbulletin (the software this forum runs on) supports avatar uploads by default.

There are three sections to the avatar config screen as seen in this example from the TWC (sorry I'm not on any other vbulletin forums at the moment hence why I have to use TWC as an example): "Your current avatar", "pre determined" and the third section, "custom avatar" which allows uploading or directly linking to an image hosted at an image hosting site (e.g. imageshack, photobucket etc).

https://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4659/new1wa.jpg

At the .org the third section, "custom avatar", is clearly missing - not because something needs to be installed, but because it's simply been turned off at the admin panel.
https://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4871/new3cul.jpg

There is no extra work involved in this, it's a built in feature that simply needs to be enabled in order to function.

My thoughts on the issue:

I think it should be clear to all of us that the lack of custom avatars or swears is not the reason why the .Org is the Sick Man of Europe Forum of the Internet . I've seen forums die with custom avatars, and others thrive with a limited choice. The latter is, in fact, the Paradox Interactive forums. Why do the Paradox Forums thrive when ours do not? There are a number of reasons, and I'm going to state them in big type with elaborations in smaller print if you're too lazy to read explanations. This is going to be blunt and hard hitting, because, to be honest, the .Org as a community needs some blunt and hard hitting criticism

PROBLEM: SMALLER COMMUNITY GENERATES LESS CONTENT GENERATES SMALLER COMMUNITY - Were I to quit on the Paradox Forums, nobody would notice at all. The amount of content produced by me as a percentage of content produced on the forum is insignificantly small. However, when I quit the .Org for a few months this year, and I had a feeling that I was missed, and not just because I'm a really cool guy, but because I was a guy who filled up slots on mafia, hosted games, debated in the backroom and was noticed for it. If, say, ten relatively frequent Orgers quit this forum, it would be the kiss of death for the .Org. How do we resolve this, in the short term at least? Simple; poach people from Total War Centre. Find people who look exasperated with the nationalist rants, the juvenile atmosphere and the inability for serious discussion and kidnap them and stuff them in a sack invite them over here and introduce them to the Backroom, mafia etc. But wait, I hear you say, that's a horrible thing to do to the TWC forum you jerk! Sure it is. But desperate times call for desperate measures. If you want, you can sit here hoping that people will pop in for a few posts once SII:TW is released and stick around for a reason you can't really articulate to them or to me. Or we can take action. SOLUTION: RECRUIT NEW FORUM MEMBERS FROM TWC

PROBLEM: LACK OF GAME RELATED ACTIVITY- This, in case we all forgot, is a Total War forum. And yet, nobody discusses the games. This is in huuuuuge contrast to the Paradox fora. They're not even mentioned on the sub-fora I frequent. If this was called the "TotalTangerine.Org" or "TotalZappa.Org" it would not make any impact on the activities the vast majority of people are involved in. Were it not for the Gameroom, Backroom, and the Wikipedia Article on Europa Barbarorum this place would have died a sad little death all alone a year or so after MII:TW was released. This is not because there is nothing to write about; MAA's AAR with Makedonia in EB was awesome! Although I simply do not have the time to write an AAR or something similar, there must be people on the forum who call themselves fans who do. Can those people please spare the time to talk more about the series? I would help now, and will during the summer holidays. SOLUTION: MAKE MORE GAME RELATED ACTIVITY

PROBLEM:THE LAYOUT OF THE FORUM IS CONFUSING, WEIRD AND ANTI-SOCIAL - The separation of the Tavern into various sub-fora means that all my time at the .Org is spent in the Tavern. Once I have checked out all the threads I want to in the Backroom, I press the Tavern link, and see the three different rooms, and anything else I might be interested in commenting on. It could surely be redesigned to be made more accessible, as I feel very restrained to the Tavern by the nature of the design. There are also too many sub-fora as it is; Why are there S:TW, M:TW etc. Multiplayer sub-sub-fora when there is already a sub-fora for TW multiplayer, the Throne Room? The main page feels really long and drawn out, and not comfortable to navigate. A Classic Games sub-forum should be created, with all the S:TW, M:TW and Battle for X (LOL) games relegated to this to save space on the main page. The modifications fora can surely be reorganised as well. SOLUTION - READ THIS PARAGRAPH, REDESIGN THE MAIN FORUM PAGE UNTIL IT IS COMFORTABLE TO BROWSE AGAIN

PROBLEM:LACK OF CONTACT BETWEEN CREATIVE ASSEMBLY AND THE .ORG - One of the best things, no, the best thing, about the Paradox Interactive forum is the amount of developer/player communication there is. Devs will drop in onto the offtopic fora, comment on AARs, and more importantly, TALK ABOUT THE GAMES. I honestly had no idea about what the devs' vision for SII:TW was until I found a random link on the .ORG Homepage for a Youtube video that doesn't really say that much apart from what looks like a cool new system for forts. This is wrong and silly, and harmful to both sides. I am not at all hyped up about SII:TW; maybe I would be interested in buying it if the devs said "Right, what we want our game to look like is X", "We're implementing Y feature now, to make the game more fun and more historically realistic", "We really want to improve the Z, as we thought this feature could really be expanded upon". This happens all the time at Paradox; can you believe that the devs, when making Victoria II released THIRTY THREE developer diaries (Basically, posts about an A4 Page long talking about some new mechanic complete with a screenie), and that the index for these has been viewed over 70,000 times? It's a win-win situation for CA and us; we get interested in the game and happy about it's release and CA makes money, and retains a loyal fan-base for minimal effort. Also, if we can grab some exclusive player/dev communication, we will surely get other people who are interested in the game visiting, and hopefully staying SOLUTION: ARRANGE FOR MORE DEV/PLAYER CONTACT ON THE ORG

PROBLEM: THE NEW TOTAL WAR GAMES HAVE ALL SUCKED - This is something which is beyond our control, I admit, but it is unfortunately true. Sure, I was younger when I started playing R:TW, but I remember being absolutely entranced by it, even before EB.* This was because it was absolutely ground-shattering for its time, blowing conventional RTS out of the water through actual diplomacy, epic battles, historical realism and depth (compared to AoE at least) and the equivalent of a "Hero" system you cared about without all the goofy powers in Warcraft III.
And yet, I played MII:TW for a very short time period, and although I have subsequently played E:TW a bit and found it more fun than I remembered, both were poor games. Why was this? Was it because of gunpowder? No, clearly not. Gunpowder made the tactical level more challenging by forcing you to consider position and alignment, making the tactical level much more interesting for me than simple Melee. The problem lies on the campaign map, with the sheer and utter boneheaded-ness of the diplomatic ai. I'm sympathetic to programmers, I know that creating a diplomatic AI is incredibly, amazingly difficult. But, the game needs a diplomatic AI that works for the game to be enjoyable. The occasional stupid or non-sensical move by the AI, I can tolerate. But having an AI which is mates with you for a hundred years and then stabs you in the back the instant you gain a border with them is not an AI at all! If this was resolved, I would buy SII:TW the day it came out. SOLUTION: PRAY FOR AN AMAZING SII:TW, OR, FAILING THAT, ABSOLUTELY GODLY MOD TOOLS.

These are the main problems IMHO. Sure, there's probably others, like what are we going to do once EBII finishes development, but that's for another thread another day.

*That said, we should not spend all our time whining and complaining about how bad the new ones are and how much better it would be if CA just released S:TW or M:TW again in a different box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

I think it should be clear to all of us that the lack of custom avatars or swears is not the reason why the .Org is the Sick Man of Europe Forum of the Internet .

---

Of course not, but improving the image of the .org to prospective new members can only be a good thing. (no one suggested simply "allowing swearing" btw, that has already been discussed). Getting rid of junior members is one of the central issues IMHO. Perceptions do count and when faced with a choice between two forums, people often go to TWC.

I've seen a lot of noobs turning up at the pathetic STW/MTW section of the TWC in the last several months - they should be at the .org (which is the home of STW/MTW), but unfortunately they seem to be passing us by and heading for the "bigger site". It's sad, because they could be here discussing the game and getting help instead of getting crap one line advice about how the game is "too old" or how the graphics are "crap" by those that have probably never even played it.

Of all the members which myself and one or two others, advised to "head over the .org", and there have been a few, I don't know of any that actually turned up here and registered. To be clear these are not members that were told "TWC is ****, get yourself over to the .org", they were simply linked to an existing thread. I don't think "poaching" from TWC is ethical or right, nor do I think it will work anyway.

The .org definitely has quality over quantity, but in this case it's not helping us much. We need more exposure for our quality to be noticed and in order to keep bringing in new the people that have made the .org what it is over the years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

PROBLEM:THE LAYOUT OF THE FORUM IS CONFUSING, WEIRD AND ANTI-SOCIAL

---

This issue arose when I was on the staff, there was some debate though I'm not sure what came of it as when I left it was still ongoing. Some feedback from those in the know would be much appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

PROBLEM:LACK OF CONTACT BETWEEN CREATIVE ASSEMBLY AND THE .ORG
SOLUTION: ARRANGE FOR MORE DEV/PLAYER CONTACT ON THE ORG

---

This is an issue, but the lower activity here is likely to send this place further down CA's list of priorities. I'm not sure what your mode of execution for said solution would be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

PROBLEM: THE NEW TOTAL WAR GAMES HAVE ALL SUCKED
SOLUTION: PRAY FOR AN AMAZING SII:TW, OR, FAILING THAT, ABSOLUTELY GODLY MOD TOOLS.

---

I think this is a matter of opinion, to the 'veteran' player that started with a particular game in the series, that game is likely to be where they set the bar for future titles. For example in my opinion STW was the best, followed very closely by MTW. RTW did not even come close and was a large bag of excrement. M2TW was a second bag of excrement and that's where I gave up on the TW series. This will differ to your opinion where you probably see RTW as the pinnacle and everything else that came afterwards as sub par?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Of course not, but improving the image of the .org to prospective new members can only be a good thing. (no one suggested simply "allowing swearing" btw, that has already been discussed). Getting rid of junior members is one of the central issues IMHO. Perceptions do count and when faced with a choice between two forums, people often go to TWC.

---

Sure, but it seemed to me as though the consensus was by doing that alone that somehow the decline of the forum could be reversed, which I disagree with.

Quote:

---

I've seen a lot of noobs turning up at the pathetic STW/MTW section of the TWC in the last several months - they should be at the .org (which is the home of STW/MTW), but unfortunately they seem to be passing us by and heading for the "bigger site". It's sad, because they could be here discussing the game and getting help instead of getting crap one line advice about how the game is "too old" or how the graphics are "crap" by those that have probably never even played it.

Of all the members which myself and one or two others, advised to "head over the .org", and there have been a few, I don't know of any that actually turned up here and registered. To be clear these are not members that were told "TWC is ****, get yourself over to the .org", they were simply linked to an existing thread.

---

I don't like the general atmosphere at TWC for that reason. There is a sizeable minority of people that are very confrontational. A lot of the "serious debate" appears to mainly be smart people correcting stupid people.

Quote:

---

I don't think "poaching" from TWC is ethical or right, nor do I think it will work anyway.

---

If it's good for international financial institutions, it's good enough for the .Org. Besides, it's not as if by inviting people over here and making ourselves more well known at TWC we're going to be preventing people from visiting TWC. A lot of people here visit both as you know, and if we get more people who mainly visit TWC to visit here as well can only be a good thing.

Quote:

---

The .org definitely has quality over quantity, but in this case it's not helping us much. We need more exposure for our quality to be noticed and in order to keep bringing in new the people that have made the .org what it is over the years.

---

The kind of quality we have isn't the kind which attracts new people though. Sure, debate and mafia games are great, but if I'm a player who has just got into TW the Org is disappointingly poor. We can increase the other kind of quality and our quantity without sacrificing the other.

Quote:

---

This issue arose when I was on the staff, there was some debate though I'm not sure what came of it as when I left it was still ongoing. Some feedback from those in the know would be much appreciated.

---

I don't know much about the mechanics to be fair. The Org is pretty ugly I'm afraid though.

Quote:

---

This is an issue, but the lower activity here is likely to send this place further down CA's list of priorities. I'm not sure what your mode of execution for said solution would be?

---

Idk, I was assuming the admins/mods were in contact with CA.

Quote:

---

I think this is a matter of opinion, to the 'veteran' player that started with a particular game in the series, that game is likely to be where they set the bar for future titles. For example in my opinion STW was the best, followed very closely by MTW. RTW did not even come close and was a large bag of excrement. M2TW was a second bag of excrement and that's where I gave up on the TW series. This will differ to your opinion where you probably see RTW as the pinnacle and everything else that came afterwards as sub par?

---

Pretty much, yeah. But that's just a TW ting; I got introduced to Civ 3 first, and I adore Civ 4, I prefer Vicky 2 to Vicky 1 etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Togakure

Re: Avatars,

There is a lot of confusion created by having three distinctly different types of avatars. Why have three?

---

The forum supported one type of picture, that was some years ago. There were already different requests back then, to accommodate the two main ones, we sticked to the system avatars and created additional ones. At some point we had system avatars, Urlavatars, profilepictures, signature pictures.

Now we are some years further, the upgrade to the vbulletin Suite knocked out many hacks, including the option to have extra pictures.


Today we have a new discussion about avatars. If I read it correctly, some people still want the systemavatars, the reason is an easy reading experience, others want more choice.

I do recall the discussion about the URLavatars from some years ago. People wanted a wider theme, bigger avatars yet still a theme. To say you the truth: I wasn't all too happy with that decision because it meant I had to do a lot of extra administration, instead of setting it up just once.

But that was the mission: three avatar systems: old-style, new style theme and freedom.

I got the coding done after figuring out how bits had to be called. It was working nicely too: each user could decide to turn each of the three on or off. So, nothing like being forced to see three pictures against your will.

Something itched though and after some chat I decided to simplify it. The people being attached to URlavatars may get very angry at me, mea culpa.

Now we have two systems left, both built in, just tweaked a little in how they work. Every user can choose from the start whether they want old-style or new style pictures. I posted about this here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...?132544-Avatar

Quote:

---

Are the benefits (not potential, but actual), of having three worth the cost of maintaining two additional sets of interface, process/function, and data requirements on the system side, and documentation/end-user support? Personally, I don't think so.

---

Not really, one of the three was dropped. There's only some data still in the database, when a user doesn't have a profile picture set, the code will grab that one (quite a few people used the old systems). The user won't be able to find anything about it in his settings though. It's confusing and only serves for internal legacy. The two systems left are standard and built in functionality of this software.

Quote:

---

Having one type of avatar cuts down on the confusion considerably. What's important is granting patrons the flexibility to make or choose their own, and making that as easy and intuitive to do as possible to minimize support requirements. Having one set of interface processes and parameters to manage one function would make for less work for those supporting the system, and education/explanations easier for those supporting the patrons. Finally, it would be less confusing to patrons themselves.

---

Surely, but there are clashing expectations. Some won't like the mix of shapes, sizes, themes and so on.

Quote:

---

My opinion is (taking into account all of your hard work, Tosa): instead of having three

---

Two.

Quote:

---

, use only one, preferably the "standard" avatar because it's the easiest to find and change via the interface.

---

The profile is as easy, it's a built in function of the board today.

Quote:

---

Assuming this is possible, set the "standard" avatar to behave as the "free" avatar does currently--so that patrons can select or create their own avatar and display it within set size/dimension limits, and stated guidelines.

---

It will use maximum dimension limits, nothing stops it from having all kinds of shapes and dimensions. And I don't think any of us wants to moderate avatars every day. Of course we'll remove offensive ones, but that's it.

Quote:

---

Set things up so that both the standard and urlavatar image libraries can be accessed if a patron prefers to select one from them.

---

There's an image library: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/local....php?catid=206

Quote:

---

We would simply stop using the other two avatar types.

---

One is removed. I don't know whether the other can be removed. Telling the tidy guys to turn it off completely sounds harsh. In terms of operation, and support, I'm fine with the two systems we have now.

Quote:

---

Any reference to them would best be removed from the Patron's view in the USER CP.

---

It's confusing indeed, thus dropped and thus also cleaned from the UserCP.
I was hesitating to mention URL avatars in my post, but some users might wonder why they have a custom picture, while not having selected any. So, just to be complete I mentioned it. I'll probably remove that message after some time.

Quote:

---

Default account settings would remain as they are (with only the "standard" avatar displaying and being viewed--but now fully customizable).

---

I think that is the interesting question. I haven't tried it yet, but I guess it's fairly easy to have one or the other being default.

Quote:

---

Re: Sigs,

I feel the same way about sigs. Why two? Do actual benefits justify the costs associated with maintaining two discrete objects/functions which essentially serve the same purpose?

---

I know. The number of discussion about signatures equals the ones about avatars. A couple of years back it still was clear that some people suffered from loading large graphical images, yet others wanted big and bigger. Images beyond 100 kb weren't rare (just included).

Quote:

---

I agree with a previous poster, that large sigs can be very distracting. I recently tested the 'extra' sig, and when both were active, they took up a lot of space. If everyone did that ... it wouldn't be very practical.

---

I don't recall we ever set restrictions on that. Apart from the question whether it would be of much use.

Quote:

---

Again, my opinion is, use one--the standard signature. Set the size/dimension limits to the max that we feel is appropriate for display in a post. The 'extra' sig/broadband option isn't needed and could be hidden and not used.

---

We have a new discussion about it, the 10 kb limit is from 2002. Posters mentioned something I haven't thought of. We'll see how that discussion goes.

Quote:

---

A lot of ideas come and go in these threads while we're on another subject--need to collect them somehow.

---

I think we always did, not that we have a database file with ideas though. But there are these topics. Point is just that:

-a it should be possible to make
-b not clash with other needs
-c not create a security risk or bring discomfort (not really the issue here)
-d has to be durable
-e not create loads of work for months to come

:wall:

Tosa, wouldn't the default thingy be worth a try?

See:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

It's really very simple. There is no need for the URL avatars or the profile picture display as vbulletin (the software this forum runs on) supports avatar uploads by default.

There are three sections to the avatar config screen as seen in this example from the TWC (sorry I'm not on any other vbulletin forums at the moment hence why I have to use TWC as an example): "Your current avatar", "pre determined" and the third section, "custom avatar" which allows uploading or directly linking to an image hosted at an image hosting site (e.g. imageshack, photobucket etc).

https://img40.imageshack.us/img40/4659/new1wa.jpg

At the .org the third section, "custom avatar", is clearly missing - not because something needs to be installed, but because it's simply been turned off at the admin panel.
https://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4871/new3cul.jpg

There is no extra work involved in this, it's a built in feature that simply needs to be enabled in order to function.

---

One avatar (no "profile pic" or "url avatar"). The default system, where you can chose between a) a pre-defined avatar; b) upload your custom avatar (certain rules can be applied, about size and the usual "no pr0n, nothing offensive (racist avatar) etc.).

If I understand it well, the default system means no work at all. It's also simple, easy to use and allows more freedom for the membership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

One avatar (no "profile pic" or "url avatar"). The default system, where you can chose between a) a pre-defined avatar; b) upload your custom avatar (certain rules can be applied, about size and the usual "no pr0n, nothing offensive (racist avatar) etc.).

---

If the issue is moderation, then I would like to point out the following:

1) Display pictures will be much harder to moderate than the url avatars because:

a) Not all members will have them enabled, thus reports of abuse will be reduced, making it difficult to spot offensive avatars early.
b) All Mods will have to enable the show gallery picture in posts display, in doing so either viewing two avatars in every post or disabling the portraits.

2) Anything that applies to a URL avatar also applies to a signature or any image posted by a member. Members could potentially stick anything in their signature, I haven't seen anything pornographic racist or offensive yet.

3) There are easy ways to control it using a few simple rules and restrictions, i.e:

a) Limit file size (this in itself controls most annoying animations).
b) Limit dimensions.

4) Abuse it and you lose it. The avatar (and signature) can be disabled from the admin panel, on a per user basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Tosa, wouldn't the default thingy be worth a try?

...

One avatar (no "profile pic" or "url avatar"). The default system, where you can chose between a) a pre-defined avatar; b) upload your custom avatar (certain rules can be applied, about size and the usual "no pr0n, nothing offensive (racist avatar) etc.).

If I understand it well, the default system means no work at all. It's also simple, easy to use and allows more freedom for the membership.

---

I would far prefer this system to the existing one. I've used that system on pretty much every other vbulletin forum I've ever posted on or run, and it's super easy for both admins and users.

You forgot the rivarly between MP players and SP/Modders and CA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

My thoughts on the issue:

I think it should be clear to all of us that the lack of custom avatars or swears is not the reason why the .Org is the Sick Man of Europe Forum of the Internet . I've seen forums die with custom avatars, and others thrive with a limited choice. The latter is, in fact, the Paradox Interactive forums. Why do the Paradox Forums thrive when ours do not? There are a number of reasons, and I'm going to state them in big type with elaborations in smaller print if you're too lazy to read explanations. This is going to be blunt and hard hitting, because, to be honest, the .Org as a community needs some blunt and hard hitting criticism

PROBLEM: SMALLER COMMUNITY GENERATES LESS CONTENT GENERATES SMALLER COMMUNITY - Were I to quit on the Paradox Forums, nobody would notice at all. The amount of content produced by me as a percentage of content produced on the forum is insignificantly small. However, when I quit the .Org for a few months this year, and I had a feeling that I was missed, and not just because I'm a really cool guy, but because I was a guy who filled up slots on mafia, hosted games, debated in the backroom and was noticed for it. If, say, ten relatively frequent Orgers quit this forum, it would be the kiss of death for the .Org. How do we resolve this, in the short term at least? Simple; poach people from Total War Centre. Find people who look exasperated with the nationalist rants, the juvenile atmosphere and the inability for serious discussion and kidnap them and stuff them in a sack invite them over here and introduce them to the Backroom, mafia etc. But wait, I hear you say, that's a horrible thing to do to the TWC forum you jerk! Sure it is. But desperate times call for desperate measures. If you want, you can sit here hoping that people will pop in for a few posts once SII:TW is released and stick around for a reason you can't really articulate to them or to me. Or we can take action. SOLUTION: RECRUIT NEW FORUM MEMBERS FROM TWC

PROBLEM: LACK OF GAME RELATED ACTIVITY- This, in case we all forgot, is a Total War forum. And yet, nobody discusses the games. This is in huuuuuge contrast to the Paradox fora. They're not even mentioned on the sub-fora I frequent. If this was called the "TotalTangerine.Org" or "TotalZappa.Org" it would not make any impact on the activities the vast majority of people are involved in. Were it not for the Gameroom, Backroom, and the Wikipedia Article on Europa Barbarorum this place would have died a sad little death all alone a year or so after MII:TW was released. This is not because there is nothing to write about; MAA's AAR with Makedonia in EB was awesome! Although I simply do not have the time to write an AAR or something similar, there must be people on the forum who call themselves fans who do. Can those people please spare the time to talk more about the series? I would help now, and will during the summer holidays. SOLUTION: MAKE MORE GAME RELATED ACTIVITY

PROBLEM:THE LAYOUT OF THE FORUM IS CONFUSING, WEIRD AND ANTI-SOCIAL - The separation of the Tavern into various sub-fora means that all my time at the .Org is spent in the Tavern. Once I have checked out all the threads I want to in the Backroom, I press the Tavern link, and see the three different rooms, and anything else I might be interested in commenting on. It could surely be redesigned to be made more accessible, as I feel very restrained to the Tavern by the nature of the design. There are also too many sub-fora as it is; Why are there S:TW, M:TW etc. Multiplayer sub-sub-fora when there is already a sub-fora for TW multiplayer, the Throne Room? The main page feels really long and drawn out, and not comfortable to navigate. A Classic Games sub-forum should be created, with all the S:TW, M:TW and Battle for X (LOL) games relegated to this to save space on the main page. The modifications fora can surely be reorganised as well. SOLUTION - READ THIS PARAGRAPH, REDESIGN THE MAIN FORUM PAGE UNTIL IT IS COMFORTABLE TO BROWSE AGAIN

PROBLEM:LACK OF CONTACT BETWEEN CREATIVE ASSEMBLY AND THE .ORG - One of the best things, no, the best thing, about the Paradox Interactive forum is the amount of developer/player communication there is. Devs will drop in onto the offtopic fora, comment on AARs, and more importantly, TALK ABOUT THE GAMES. I honestly had no idea about what the devs' vision for SII:TW was until I found a random link on the .ORG Homepage for a Youtube video that doesn't really say that much apart from what looks like a cool new system for forts. This is wrong and silly, and harmful to both sides. I am not at all hyped up about SII:TW; maybe I would be interested in buying it if the devs said "Right, what we want our game to look like is X", "We're implementing Y feature now, to make the game more fun and more historically realistic", "We really want to improve the Z, as we thought this feature could really be expanded upon". This happens all the time at Paradox; can you believe that the devs, when making Victoria II released THIRTY THREE developer diaries (Basically, posts about an A4 Page long talking about some new mechanic complete with a screenie), and that the index for these has been viewed over 70,000 times? It's a win-win situation for CA and us; we get interested in the game and happy about it's release and CA makes money, and retains a loyal fan-base for minimal effort. Also, if we can grab some exclusive player/dev communication, we will surely get other people who are interested in the game visiting, and hopefully staying SOLUTION: ARRANGE FOR MORE DEV/PLAYER CONTACT ON THE ORG

PROBLEM: THE NEW TOTAL WAR GAMES HAVE ALL SUCKED - This is something which is beyond our control, I admit, but it is unfortunately true. Sure, I was younger when I started playing R:TW, but I remember being absolutely entranced by it, even before EB.* This was because it was absolutely ground-shattering for its time, blowing conventional RTS out of the water through actual diplomacy, epic battles, historical realism and depth (compared to AoE at least) and the equivalent of a "Hero" system you cared about without all the goofy powers in Warcraft III.
And yet, I played MII:TW for a very short time period, and although I have subsequently played E:TW a bit and found it more fun than I remembered, both were poor games. Why was this? Was it because of gunpowder? No, clearly not. Gunpowder made the tactical level more challenging by forcing you to consider position and alignment, making the tactical level much more interesting for me than simple Melee. The problem lies on the campaign map, with the sheer and utter boneheaded-ness of the diplomatic ai. I'm sympathetic to programmers, I know that creating a diplomatic AI is incredibly, amazingly difficult. But, the game needs a diplomatic AI that works for the game to be enjoyable. The occasional stupid or non-sensical move by the AI, I can tolerate. But having an AI which is mates with you for a hundred years and then stabs you in the back the instant you gain a border with them is not an AI at all! If this was resolved, I would buy SII:TW the day it came out. SOLUTION: PRAY FOR AN AMAZING SII:TW, OR, FAILING THAT, ABSOLUTELY GODLY MOD TOOLS.

These are the main problems IMHO. Sure, there's probably others, like what are we going to do once EBII finishes development, but that's for another thread another day.

*That said, we should not spend all our time whining and complaining about how bad the new ones are and how much better it would be if CA just released S:TW or M:TW again in a different box.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Tosa, wouldn't the default thingy be worth a try?

See:

---

Yes, that's how it works.

Quote:

---

One avatar (no "profile pic" or "url avatar"). The default system, where you can chose between a) a pre-defined avatar; b) upload your custom avatar (certain rules can be applied, about size and the usual "no pr0n, nothing offensive (racist avatar) etc.).

If I understand it well, the default system means no work at all. It's also simple, easy to use and allows more freedom for the membership.

---

The problem is that the board considers them the same then. Right now we make use of two easy to use, built in board tools and each user can decide for himself what to see. That user choice will not be possible when we use only that one avatar.

This default system means no work at all either, there was some work and that's done a week ago.

It's also simple, easy to use and allows even more freedom to the membership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ELITECubKingWarman88

You forgot the rivarly between MP players and SP/Modders and CA.

---

What rivalry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

Yes, that's how it works.



The problem is that the board considers them the same then. Right now we make use of two easy to use, built in board tools and each user can decide for himself what to see. That user choice will not be possible when we use only that one avatar.

This default system means no work at all either, there was some work and that's done a week ago.

It's also simple, easy to use and allows even more freedom to the membership.

---

But it's confusing and very different from what people are used to on most other fora.

With the profile pic and avatar visible, the threads look ugly. Also, if I chose to see profile pics only, I see a whole lot of default profile pics, which means that everybody looks the same. It's confusing. If I chose to see avatars only, those who use profile pic also all look the same.

I fail to see why not using what all other fora use is better :shrug:

Having two sorts of avatars is confusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Having two sorts of avatars is confusing.

---

Although I don't agree on some avatar points, this is true.

There needs to be a single avatar type that everyone uses, and everyone sees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Having two sorts of avatars is confusing.

---

Andres is correct. It feels like a messy compromise intended to please everyone, but leaves no-one happy :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

With the profile pic and avatar visible, the threads look ugly.

---

It's possible to turn one or both off, that's an individual choice.

Quote:

---

Also, if I chose to see profile pics only, I see a whole lot of default profile pics, which means that everybody looks the same. It's confusing.

---

Agree, but that's easy to fix.

Quote:

---

If I chose to see avatars only, those who use profile pic also all look the same.

---

Not true, excisting accounts are already different. People get a default by creating a new account.

Quote:

---

I fail to see why not using what all other fora use is better :shrug:

---

Not everything offered by forum software is good.

Quote:

---

Having two sorts of avatars is confusing.

---

Users ask totally different things.

Edit: sorry mixed accounts, this is TosaInu

Having the admin using two sorts of accounts is confusing :mean:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tosa

People get a default by creating a new account.

---

And that's annoying. It's annoying to have to go to your settings and switch this or that on or off to view the forum how you want. You undervalue simplicity. One avatar. Size is preset. Chose between a) predefined b) upload custom. Easy, simple, forum looks good, regardless of your settings.

Default should be no avatar instead of everybody who doesn't chose an avatar having the same pic/avatar. Every new member looking the same is confusing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tosa

Users ask totally different things.

---

We're not talking about the desiderata of the occasional oldtimer, we're talking about making this forum more accessible for new members by making it user-friendly. Simple and "just like any other forum you're used to" is being user friendly.

Have different browsers open to test things and have to do that now with a useraccount: just avatars is not the only to do here.

It's set automatically when creating an account, so people don't have to do anything for it.

I don't underestimate simplicity, but there are other needs too.

The simplicity displayed there isn't available:

Quote:

---

Chose between a) predefined b) upload custom. Easy, simple, forum looks good, regardless of your settings.

---

It's impossible to keep those two seperate and that's exactly what we want (now).

It's not occasional imho, and I'm not going to brush excisting users expectations aside.


We'll see in a couple of weeks from now who of the active users is using what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TosaInu

Have different browsers open to test things and have to do that now with a useraccount: just avatars is not the only to do here.

---

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to annoy you (it was mean as poking fun at you).

Anyway, to visualise what I mean:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i156.photobucket.com/albums/...ing/orgJPG.jpg

They all look the same.