Forum Restructuring

[Secura]

The staff are currently discussing a restructure of the Org; we feel that things are a little cluttered and potentially overwhelming to new visitors, so we're consolidating some sub-fora that are not as frequently visited, grouping like-for-like areas and promoting others that we feel deserve more attention.

While there are several ideas in place that we'll be showing you once we have some testing screenshots available, the team would like input from the rest of the community; which fora do you visit most? What needs more attention? What needs less?

[Maltz]

The original differentiation of forums is really thoughtful and functional (when the traffic flow is great). But as now we are missing users, some forums do feel a little empty, and people tend to hestitate to post as they doubt whether all they will hear are echos from the wall.

Since I am more familiar with Single Player forums, my suggestion is to...

(1) Combine AAR/story into General Discussion of individual TW games, while maintaining an index of stories there.
(2) Combine Mechanics Research with Guides.

So we have a more "general public" forum and a more "serious" forum.

p.s. For Shogun 2, please leave Fall of the Samurai forum separated because it is a totally different game.

[rickinator9]

(1) Combine AAR/story into General Discussion of individual TW games, while maintaining an index of stories there.

That would be a good idea. I would like to suggest a Non-TW AAR subforum to The Arena.

Maybe also put the gameroom to the 'Miscellanious' and The Arena to the tavern, so the tavern is purely discussion forums.

[TinCow]

p.s. For Shogun 2, please leave Fall of the Samurai forum separated because it is a totally different game.

What do you think about NTW? Should that be separate from ETW or part of the same section? When NTW first came out we had difficulty figuring out what to do with it. Previously, all expansions had logically fit into discussions in the main game forum as they were just expansions. NTW was clearly just ETW's exapansion pack, but the fact that it didn't require ownership of ETW to install slightly differentiated it at the time. The release of Fall of the Samurai now gives NTW a companion in the stand-alone expansion pack arena... and we're treating it a bit differently due to the community's reaction to it. I feel like we should standardize policy on these stand-alones, as they appear likely to continue from now on, but I'm not exactly sure where they belong. The fact that they are stand-alones technically makes them individual games, but they are also clearly expansions of the main games they spawn from. How can we best fit these games into the forum structure?

[Maltz]

I did not play ETW and NTW, so I am not so sure about the exact difference between the two. If they do not require each other to play, it is reasonable to differentiate them just like Shogun 2 and Fall of Samurai. However ...

I guess we can get away with more condensed forum structure for past TW games due to their reduced interests. If people did not complain about having a separate NTW forum back then, they will care less now. For distantly past TW games, I think it is sufficient to aim for three forums: "Single player (subforum: guides), Multiple player, Modding". And maybe all TW titles will be reduced to these three forums eventually.

If the goal of restructuring forums is to provide body heat warmth for scattered participants, it is probably better to have as few forums as possible. And if there are more users later on, we can then again discuss more detailed categorization. (Poor staffs. )

[Axalon]

What do you think about NTW? Should that be separate from ETW or part of the same section? When NTW first came out we had difficulty figuring out what to do with it. Previously, all expansions had logically fit into discussions in the main game forum as they were just expansions. NTW was clearly just ETW's exapansion pack, but the fact that it didn't require ownership of ETW to install slightly differentiated it at the time. The release of Fall of the Samurai now gives NTW a companion in the stand-alone expansion pack arena... and we're treating it a bit differently due to the community's reaction to it. I feel like we should standardize policy on these stand-alones, as they appear likely to continue from now on, but I'm not exactly sure where they belong. The fact that they are stand-alones technically makes them individual games, but they are also clearly expansions of the main games they spawn from. How can we best fit these games into the forum structure?

I hear you, however...

This should be a very easy matter if we just keep the definitions straight and in order, and trust them. If a game is able to function in its own right, without any evident dependencies on any other games in order to function properly and fully - it is by definition a game (in this particular context anyway).... All this "standalone expansions" BS is a marketing ploy. A devised sham-hybrid, to disguise an actual game to supposedly be something else. It is usually and essentially spin-off products that "leans" on the brand of another more established product to improve it own chances for commercial success. FOTS is exactly this kind of product. By definition it is game, however it is marketed as an expansion. NTW would probably be marketed in the exact same way if it had not been that the ETW-brand was so tarnished at the time - so they, the SEGA marketing people, promoted it as a "full game" instead...

By definition both NTW and FOTS are "full games" in their own right, not expansions... Setting, theme and features etc. etc are irrelevant. That are non-factors in terms of functionality as a game. If we stick to the definitions this is a non-matter. In terms of the forum this certainly screws things up, but personally I think it is better to stay true and straight then to bunch up stuff that does not really have any evident dependencies. FOTS has no true dependencies to STW2, as I understand it. Similarities perhaps, but then again so does MTW1 and MTW2 as well. Similarities are irrelevant in terms of definition. Either it meet the criterions of the definition or it fails to do so.

I say, keep things apart. In terms of NTW, it is promoted by SEGA as a game in its own right, by definition it also successfully meet such criterions - and it clearly has no evident dependencies to ETW. FOTS was promoted as an expansion, but by definition it is a game. I'm certainly inclined to say that CA should face consequence for screwing around like this and bunch it up with STW2. However, in a strict, more accurate and proper sense, any title (including FOTS) that can by definition be considered as a game deserve their own sections. Therefore give the damn thing its own section. This will also make things easier for the future as definition can serve as a solid, accurate and unquestionable tool for policy on future TW-releases...


...

Now, I realize that this does create blatant problems for the plans of "shortening" the entire size of forum and its sections. Personally, I regard that idea (even if I can fully understand the motive for it) as rather dubious and unrealistic as it basically aims to wet-nurse people who are openly too lazy to do some mere scrolling. It also makes the highly questionable assumption that new TW-releases will not ever happen and yet again expand the forum all over again... And in addition to all that, why should other and older games be punished, as to cater people who are so lazy that they can not bother themselves to scroll? Are such people really the future of this site? I seriously doubt that, to be perfectly honest here. I have yet to see anything that would actually support that with some credibility (by all means forward it, if it exists).

The forum length will get ever longer, regardless what you guys do, as another and another TW-game are released eventually. To shorten it, in effect "dumb-it down" with careless cuts in sub-sections will only make various people scream and possibly even make them leave this site. How is that a good thing? All for the sake of wet-nursing people who are too lazy to scroll. It just don't add up... Am I missing something?

- A

[Montmorency]

Why the removal of that illustration from the Guild skin?

[TinCow]

Now, I realize that this does create blatant problems for the plans of "shortening" the entire size of forum and its sections. Personally, I regard that idea (even if I can fully understand the motive for it) as rather dubious and unrealistic as it basically aims to wet-nurse people who are openly too lazy to do some mere scrolling. It also makes the highly questionable assumption that new TW-releases will not ever happen and yet again expand the forum all over again... And in addition to all that, why should other and older games be punished, as to cater people who are so lazy that they can not bother themselves to scroll? Are such people really the future of this site? I seriously doubt that, to be perfectly honest here. I have yet to see anything that would actually support that with some credibility (by all means forward it, if it exists).

The forum length will get ever longer, regardless what you guys do, as another and another TW-game are released eventually. To shorten it, in effect "dumb-it down" with careless cuts in sub-sections will only make various people scream and possibly even make them leave this site. How is that a good thing? All for the sake of wet-nursing people who are too lazy to scroll. It just don't add up... Am I missing something?

- A

You seem to be missing the point of reorganization. The purpose is to make it easier to navigate the site with a streamlined structure, not by hiding anything. You seem to assume that we will be making "careless cuts", and I think that criticism is unjustified. You haven't even seen our proposal yet, so concluding that we will hide important sections is, I think, a bit premature. If anything I expect that it would make some areas more visible, because at the moment many people simply collapse existing categories altogether if they do not regularly read them to reduce scrolling. With the new system, collapsing will hopefully not be needed to keep the forum manageable. Our objective is to keep as much information as possible on the main index, while at the same time reducing the number of clicks and scrolls that people have to engage in to get to the content they want to see. Yes, the forum length will get longer as time goes on, but the scale of that length can make a big difference. The basic forum structural layout has not changed since MTW, when there were only two games to list fora for. Now there are six, and each one takes up, on average, four entire forum lines on the main index. We think it will be possible to shrink those four lines down into a smaller unit while still maintaining the accessibility of the information on the main page. The idea at the moment is to reduce the index space of all TW games except Shogun 2 in this way, with Shogun 2 retaining its current size. Whenever the next game comes out, Shogun 2 will then get the compressed size, while the new game take the top slot with the current full sized selection.

In any case, we will be posting screenshots of the way the final product would look for public feedback before we make any decision to implement it. At the moment we are still discussing the changes ourselves.

Why the removal of that illustration from the Guild skin?

I was doing some work on multiple skins today, and it occurred to me that it was odd that the Org logo was missing on three skins, so I added appropriately colored versions.

[Montmorency]

I'm referring to the "Men in hats standing in room".

[TinCow]

I'm referring to the "Men in hats standing in room".

Yes, so was I. I replaced the random image in the logo slot on the Guild skin with the actual Org logo. Would you prefer to have the Org logo superimposed on top of the random guys in hats?

[Montmorency]

There is room for it in its old place.

Can't it be pasted in?

[TinCow]

Is that better?

[Montmorency]

[Axalon]

Hello TinCow,

You seem to be missing the point of reorganization. The purpose is to make it easier to navigate the site with a streamlined structure, not by hiding anything. You seem to assume that we will be making "careless cuts", and I think that criticism is unjustified.

Alright, “user-friendliness” – that is a decent goal…

However, all this come at a price and I see little worries about that here. There are no guarantees that people will not hide/collapse stuff anyway – only the (reasonable) hope that people will be less inclined to do so if the main-index is shortened. That’s still strikes me as pretty thin especially since the price of all this will be that the main index will lose detail on each game – utterly regardless what sub-sections are cut, it will lose detail. It is the only way to do this, something has too be cut to get the main index shorter, and there is little that suggests that such cuts will not be permanent once all this is fully implemented.

In light of that, it is fair to say that this will only yield temporary gains in exchange for what is probably permanent loses in detail on the main index – this on virtually all games. That’s a rather hefty price. Furthermore, the latest game is also supposedly to be exempted from this treatment which I am fundamentally against (currently STW2) – why should that be treated with privilege and favours while the other games will have to pay for this manoeuvre? There are no solid grounds for it, if there is – let’s see it. I have already explained in some detail as for why such privileges are clearly questionable if we look at these things soberly (see post: 148 and 159 in “...what would the ORG specialize in?”-thread). I have yet to see something solid that suggest otherwise and truly speak in favour for treating the latest game differently (all things considered). Thus it does strike me as warranted to raise questions about this. So far no solid enough reasons that clearly add up once we also actually consider the price involved – which should be considered here as well. And, I actually don’t need to see any proposal to be able to figure all this out. Its simple deductive logic.

As for the claimed increased visibility, I find that questionable as well, the channels (read sub-sections) for that visibility will decrease in numbers for each game (also inevitable in order to do this stuff), making each game less visible as direct result on the main index. Not the other way around. This is also plain deductive logic.

As for the forum not changing since MTW or there about… We both know that this is not true, if we are supposed to be honest here. This staff has already moved the guides sub-section from the index to a sub-for a under the regular game section. I did not question that as I can clearly see the benefits of that transfer as well. The reasons for it strike me as good enough to warrant it. Tosa in his time tried to change the forum main index as well – at least once – the result was a vivid discussion filled with objections (I was there and objected as well, even drafted a possible layout). In short, people screamed and he changed it all back again. Prior to Tosas reign, there were also structural changes to the index, but my memory is fuzzy on the details for it as I was not a member here back then. But there is little doubt that there have been both changes and attempts to change the main index after MTW was released. Besides it is a non-argument as it fails to provide actual valid grounds that speak in favour for this planned index-change anyway. The reality is that the index will get ever longer – regardless…

Now, I’ll play ball and see this proposal anyways (actually with interest) - but I will put it under some healthy scrutiny. At least somebody around here has to do it. As seemingly nobody else will, I guess I’m stuck with the task…

- A