New Forum Structure Proposals

[Axalon]

Continuation from previous post
--------------------------------------

Now, as to show that I am willing to do something here to have at least a lesser evil on the main forum index - I created a draft which can serve as a possible example/suggestion on how things could look like in closer detail - this on any given regular TW-game/section. This stuff is created out of a new-member perspective in mind. Um, I think it can serve as a startingpoint somehow for further input and suggestions regarding the forum index changes - as that seems to be a must...

Again, it is a draft…


...
...
Modding & Development Area (sub-index section)
***************************
========================================
XTW Index Section (Last post show on main index on ALL sub-sections for visibility)…
========================================
***************************
Regular/Basic Area (sub-index section)
- Game Guides (archive/sub-forum)
-- Game Patches (archive/sub-forum)
--- Hosted Mods Area (index sub-section - gateway/link)
---- Modding & Development Area (index sub-section - gateway/link)
----- Multiplayer Area* (sub-forum)
------ Tech Help Area (sub-forum)
………………………
Stickys: (suggested)
- XTW Mod-index
-- XTW Game Guide Index
--- XTW Section News & Noteboard (mod-releases, fixes, mini-interviews, contests as they/that appear. Stuff of interest somehow basically)
---- XTW Pics & screens thread
----- ?

***************************
Hosted Mods Area (sub-index section) – Major work created, developed and ready for instant use/play basically…
- X1 (sub-forum)
-- X2 (sub-forum)
--- X3 (sub-forum)
---- X4 (sub-forum)
----- Regular Basic Area XTW (index sub-section - gateway/link)
------ Modding & Development Area (index sub-section - gateway/link)
------- Modders general Discussion - "cross-game" (section/sub-section – gateway/link)

***************************
Modding & Development Area (sub-index section) – Ongoing work related and created for XTW basically…
- Modding guides (archive/sub-forum)
-- Modding tools (archive/sub-forum)
--- Modding help Area (sub-forum)
---- Mod Graveyard (Subforum/arcive) – Abandoned, dead and unfinished, non-functional mods/works on stasis, for posterity.
----- Modders Network & Ads (sub-forum)
------ Hosted Mods Area (index sub-section – gateway/link)
------- Regular Basic Area (index sub-section – gateway/link)
-------- Modders general Discussion - "cross-game" (section/sub-section – gateway/link)
………………………
Stickys: (suggested)
- XTW Mod-index
-- ?

***************************
========================================
YTW Index Section
========================================
The same standardized layout as showed above in XTW etc. etc.
...
...
…end of draft...

***

Obviously, this is just for the regular TW-stuff… As for all the non-TW stuff that this site keeps on the index - I have currently no opinion about it other then that site-administration and all related stuff should have its own index-section – for the sake of clarity. Also a general TW-discussion index-section seems advisable and meaningful as well (for instance placed after STW1). Again clarity, sense and fairness should be the guiding star(s) here – it’s the only way to keep people relatively happy and content to ANY changes made on the index – if we must change it. If off-topic/non-TW related stuff needs more sections/sub-sections for the sake of clarity - then let them have it, whenever it can be truly warranted (if in multiple instances). Personally, I see the non-TW stuff as secondary - all the same, the choice between - some scrolling - vs - giving people the sections/sub-sections they want - sure strikes me as a ridiculously easy one to make - non-TW stuff included. After all, the forum-index is supposed to also serve the people that are into such stuff as well...

Reactions?

- A

[Montmorency]

I can only say that proliferating sub-fora will merely create useless dead-zones, and extra weight for the moderation team to pull. Furthermore, it would require the administration to go meticulously through every single thread in existence and categorize them.

If reducing the index sections to a minimum is, as you say, senseless, then creating more and more for no discernible benefit surely is as well.

I feel as though your design may have been merited a decade ago. Perhaps.

The Org is old today, and no sort of clever design tricks will conjure up the thousands of users necessary to validate all the proposed subsections and subfora.

The Org does not need more junk for the Attic, which a general TW discussion area would absolutely become.

The Org does not need to standardize its subsections beyond the present extent.

The Org does not need to adopt a Chinese model of infrastructure.

[Axalon]

I can only say that proliferating sub-fora will merely create useless dead-zones, and extra weight for the moderation team to pull.

First, creating a sub-forum for the sake of creating a sub-forum is ridiculous. That said, setting up a sub-forum with solid and clear purpose (whatever that may be) will however create increased order in any section/sub-section - ultimately making all information easier to find - that is desirable (traditionally anyways). And, in the event that a sub-forum actually did turn out to be a supposed "useless dead-zone" beyond doubt - we remove it, and we can all safely assume that the purpose assigned to it was not a very good one - should it ever happen.

Sub-forum certainly can function as archives for storing information of a specific kind and does function as filters as well - the effects are the same - making information easier to find (if maintained properly). Again, that is usually considered desirable. If we do recognise that reality, your argument here strike me as rather thin. The motive here is creating clarity, order and easier access to information - not littering the forum with blatantly pointless and redundant sub-forums for sport. (If my suggestions in draft fit that bill, feel free to explain upon what grounds and basis that is the case. If it is solid and reasonable enough to make good and proper sense, I will agree with you. After all, if things makes proper sense it is just stupid to deny that. Besides it is unreasonable to believe or expect that one has constantly brilliant ideas all the time, I am no exception to that. I can have stupid ideas just as anybody else).

As the for extra moderation-weight you are talking about, that is a non-argument as it is hardly relevant in this context. We do not - or at least we should not - create anything, section/sub-section/sub-forum or otherwise, according to what is viewed as "comfy" for the moderation team - that's just plain ridiculous and screwed up. It should be set up because it is expected to work beneficially somehow - not because of any moderation team-considerations happens to be favourable at the moment. Period.

Furthermore, it would require the administration to go meticulously through every single thread in existence and categorize them.

Nope, that is extreme, nor is it very realistic for the Org and you know it. That said, information-blur is hardly desirable anywhere. Lax enforcement of topicality does not help much either. And doing little or nothing to counter it will not make things any better at some magic point, now will it?

In order for things to improve information-wise some work has to be done somewhere, somehow - there is no way around that. So obviously some sort of limited categorization-work will have to be done for any additional sub-forum whenever set up anywhere - that can't be avoided. Furthermore, go thru thread titles, categorize and transfer them are regular tasks for moderators - that is what they do among other things - and it is not that extreme or heavy work either (I have done it elsewhere) and especially so if it is an ongoing process, things must not happen over night, right? In the event that we can't somehow expect the staff to do such regular things we might try the "unthinkable" and delegate to rational people/members interested in cleaning up their sections of interest somehow - just an idea...

If reducing the index sections to a minimum is, as you say, senseless, then creating more and more for no discernible benefit surely is as well.

No arguments there, at least to the general circumstance as such.

Anyway, the how "discernible benefit" is to be determined and defined is probably wide-open for debate - this on a collective/non-personal level at least - which happens to be the only thing that (should) matter in this context. Listening to your gut or even mine won't do. Our personal whims, opinions and notions are plain irrelevant on that level. This should go for staff as well (ideally anyways). We basically need something that is universally valid and solid for all, something preferably beyond doubt and questioning. The new index is hardly beyond neither as it is - which is the very reason I am posting here in the first place. If "discernible benefit" are to ever be determined in a way that is both viable and credible at a collective level the only alternative left is to rely on stuff like solid basis, grounds, reason and relevance etc. etc.

Anyway, as far as I can tell the supposed motives for this index change goes basically like this: "the index must be short because we can't be expected to scroll, scrolling is unacceptable and there is too many TW-games anyway at this point. Nah, screw that. We should all focus on playing and discussing STW2 anyways... Why? Because it is the latest game, people only play the latest game - didn't you know that?"-type of reasoning (feel free to correct me at any time)... Which to me is utterly absurd.

I feel as though your design may have been merited a decade ago. Perhaps.

If you had played any TW a decade ago you would probably also know that TW was not that evolved back then.... The modding-scene for starters... It's kind of reflected in the draft you see... Anyway, I am certainly open for the possibility that this draft it is not perfect somehow - it is just a draft, to provide us with some possible ideas, something to go on etc.

The Org is old today, and no sort of clever design tricks will conjure up the thousands of users necessary to validate all the proposed subsections and subfora.

What?! We don't need any conjured up horde of forum-testers and that's just ridiculous. What we need is to get our priorities straight and do what is good for this site and above all its members of which this site depends on. This place is supposed to be about TW - the site is called "TotalWar.Org" you know - however this change of the forum index fails to reflect that properly and seriously - as I have already pointed out. As it is, it just screws everybody that is not especially into STW2 (as this is the latest game, which is a dubious doctrine to begin with, as I have explained in full detail in the past). I have already highlighted several reasons as for why that is. People do play other TW-games - and as long as they do and remain active here - it does not serve this site somehow - or make them any happier here - to just run them over and structurally discriminate them, now does it?

The Org does not need more junk for the Attic, which a general TW discussion area would absolutely become.

Clearly you are ignorant of the fact that the TWC has such a section - and had it for years, and it seems to do fairly well at that, plenty of posts and threads... All the same, your certainty of the outcome is absolute anyways... Well, I can't help but to find that circumstance amusing.

The Org does not need to standardize its subsections beyond the present extent.

Again, you are so certain. Well, I for one believe that it is possible to standardize some more somehow and that there are some possible advantages to be gained by doing it. At least I am willing to explore such possibilities - unlike you. My personal fave candidate is tech-help for instance. Oh well, maybe it is just me...

The Org does not need to adopt a Chinese model of infrastructure.

Which is exactly? According to you that is - in the event that it actually matters here.

- A

[Husar]

Drastic loss in visibility in the index for all proceedings and happenings for all regular TW-stuff (whatever it may be) and this regardless the game - save STW2 (as usual).

What exactly do you mean by this? That the sub-sections are now closer together and don't have huge section borders between them makes them less visible?

Drastic loss in detail in the index for all regular TW-stuff (whatever it may be) and this regardless the game - save STW2 (as usual).

Again, where exactly is the huge loss in detail? That the newest reply isn't shown for each subsection anymore?
The SP and MP sections for example are still there as before, the links to them are just shown in a less space-consuming manner.

Drastic loss in detail and visibility in the index for all serious and released TW-work hosted here and this regardless the game/engine - no exceptions. All visibility and traces of discussions and posts related to that are now shut down on the index. That is just hostile. It is even worse then over at the CA boards that has done similar crap to mods - severing them from the engines/games they clearly belong too. It is just counterproductive.

Where's the "drastic" loss of detail here and visibility here? Are you just saying that making an extra section for mods sections instead of listing them right below the SP and MP sections for each game is hostile towards modders? How is that hostile? it's just a reorganisation and I find it provides a much better overview over the mod fora than there was before. Unless you're mad that the latest post in that subsection isn't shown but I cannot imagine how that is a huge problem.

The bunching up of all TW-games in one section. It gives a very unserious impression of this site - besides that it is plain stupid and totally unwarranted. The games are games in their own right as each engine is different and functions differently - that is a matter of fact - we all know this. And, it is counterproductive. Just because the CA-boards does this kind of crap does not mean that it has too be or should be repeated here…

Why is it unserious? You think an effective manner of organization is not serious? Most people we asked thought the old organization was cluttered, ineffective, overloaded and uhm, counterproductive. And because so many people thought that, we changed it. Calling it stupid is a little offensive towards the people who thought long and hard about how to do it but you probably know that.

We still need to scroll the damn index anyhow so that excuse/motive for doing all this and the actual nominal gains in scrolling truly achieved here is done at unacceptable and horrendous costs in both detail, visibility and sections on the index. It does not stand in any reasonable proportion to the price it demands. If people can't be expected to scroll somehow then they basically have no future or business on the internet as practically everything needs to be scrolled somehow - it comes with the territory. And, this sites purpose is not to cater to or wet-nurse people who can't manage to scroll. And, there is no future in aiming for such people either - not for this site.

If only everyone were more like you, the world would be a better place.
We're talking about a layout here and you feel the need to insult people and tell us who does and who does not belong on the internet?
Please calm down and try again.

Another claimed motive for this change was the supposed increased visibility that all this would lead to. Which is ridicolous nonsense. It is plain impossible to ignore that the effect has been the very opposite of such claimed intentions. It has thus been explicitly counterproductive in that very regard.

All the modding subsections fit onto my screen at the same time now. This obviously means increased visibility. Claiming otherwise is complete bollox. It's absolutely not possible not to see that the increase in visibility is huge and all goals have been met. The productivity increase for daily forum browsing is impossible to miss.

If this site was actually called "ShogunTotalWar2.Org" or some such - then all this would make some limited sense. However it is "TotalWar.Org" and because of that none of it makes much sense or is very beneficial for this site - or for many people that come here. There are plenty of people who have invested ridiculous amounts of energy, time and effort that obviously have benefited this site in various ways over the years - this beyond the staff - AND it is not all done in the name of STW2 (or the latest TW-game). There are other games in TW, and there are other people here that is interested in them and who frankly don't give a rats ass about STW2 (more or less). If that were not so, then the other TW-games would have no posts and discussions anywhere - we all know that this is hardly the case. This goes across the board and it is valid for all TW-games and stuff related to them. I wager that in reality, there are more people - this in 2012 - concerned with TW-stuff not related to STW2 somehow then the other way around. This index-stunt does not reflect nor does it correspond to that, it just ignores it... That is just counterproductive and destructive for this site.

You sound like the subsections for older games are gone but they're still there, do you want a huge banner and trumpets sounds at mouse over for each of them? Shogun 2 will probably join the composed section once a new TW game is out. There's some emphasis on the current game because, well, it's the current game. Noone is stopping you or anyone else from talking about the older games, that's why the sections were not deleted, just composed. You might as well complain that Sega aren't running TV ads for Medieval or Rome anymore.
Or that Intel doesn't advertise your favourite Pentium 3 anymore. And quite honestly, while I can understand that you are not in favour of it, your argument that this is the end of the world seems completely overblown and out of proportion. Noone is trying to make the old games or their fans go away, they just shouldn't take up as much space anymore because unlike you, many though that was a bad thing in the long run.

For starters, realize that there is a point when cutting sections and sub-sections does not create clarity and advantages but confusion and drawbacks - when that happens it becomes counterproductive and just stupid to do it. We are well beyond that point here. Thus, if change of index is a must - we are left no choice but go back and have more sections again somehow. There is no way around that if we look at these things rationally and what is good for this site.

That's a lot of statements but I see no real explanation. What's confusing about having an SP, MP, mods and guides section?

The purpose of it is to help us find and locate the stuff that interest us - not to work against us by hiding and shutting down things that can be reasonably expected to be regarded as interesting on general terms somehow (ex. hosted mods, modding etc.).

What do you mean? Those sections weren't shut down, they were rearranged, at least for me, the Hosted Mods section exists.

Now, the only way to do this - and actually get a functional and relatively non-controversial result long term - which is desirable - is to do this seriously and sensibility. That means that we must be fair and reasonable when building up the forum index again. This means that each TW-game get their own index section. Each game, get some visibility and detail on the index (last posts show up on index etc.).

Really? Such a long post because the last post isn't shown anymore? And why is it not fair for Medieval to be in a section with Rome? Does it hurt Medieval's feelings?

As for the in increased length of the index as a direct result - it can't be helped as it simply is impossible have a serious and reasonable index that does not need to be scrolled somehow – that is just how things are.

No, that's how things were but we've not avoided any effort to do the impossible and our new index is absolutely perfect, every sensible intelligent human being must admit this.

Regular/Basic Area (sub-index section)
[SIZE="1"]- Game Guides (archive/sub-forum)
-- Game Patches (archive/sub-forum)
--- Hosted Mods Area (index sub-section - gateway/link)
---- Modding & Development Area (index sub-section - gateway/link)
----- Multiplayer Area* (sub-forum)
------ Tech Help Area (sub-forum)

[...]

All the "-" confuse me, they make all the sections look like sub-sections of the previous one, yet you marked some as sub-sections and others not. For an expert on layout who wants us to make things less confusing, you managed to confuse me quite fast with your layout.

Listening to your gut or even mine won't do. Our personal whims, opinions and notions are plain irrelevant on that level.

Even if we ignore that your posts are full of your gut, why are you the sole authority on what makes good forum index design?
You say even you can be wrong, but reading your opinions on the matter, you present everything as fact, call differing opinions stupid or unreasonable and generally present yourself like you have created hundreds of fora and and know the opinions of all users.

Anyway, the how "discernible benefit" is to be determined and defined is probably wide-open for debate - this on a collective/non-personal level at least - which happens to be the only thing that (should) matter in this context.

Please look at the date of the first post, there was plenty of time to discuss this and after a while we decided to act. Even now you're the only one to have provided considerable resistance here. If you know so many people who dislike the changes, please ask them to post here. And it would also help your argument to look down a little less on others, you sound like a chinese party spokesman who thinks he fell into a bucket of truth as a child.

Additionally, writing three paragraphs of what boils down to "I think my favourite TW game is being bullied because the forum index doesn't show the last post for the section anymore and I'm absolutely right and everyone who disagrees is unreasonable!!!!111" is rather, let's say counterproductive, confusing and not bringing your point across very well. Or maybe I'm just too stupid to get your point, in which case I'll humbly ask you to explain it in simpler terms for simpletons like me.

[Montmorency]

I see no need for a huge surge in the number of subsections or a systematic standardization of the names or number of subsections. Is it so bad that most have three, while a couple have four? Is it so bad that a few of the subfora have 'creative' names? Distinguishing into loads of highly specific subfora is very nice when you're filing your bills, but not when you're just trying to browse a forum.

nyway, the how "discernible benefit" is to be determined and defined is probably wide-open for debate - this on a collective/non-personal level at least - which happens to be the only thing that (should) matter in this context. Listening to your gut or even mine won't do. Our personal whims, opinions and notions are plain irrelevant on that level. This should go for staff as well (ideally anyways). We basically need something that is universally valid and solid for all, something preferably beyond doubt and questioning. The new index is hardly beyond neither as it is - which is the very reason I am posting here in the first place. If "discernible benefit" are to ever be determined in a way that is both viable and credible at a collective level the only alternative left is to rely on stuff like solid basis, grounds, reason and relevance etc. etc.

The "collective" is a few hundred active users. I think their "gut feelings" should be worth something here. As should yours, but not as of maximal weight.

Clearly you are ignorant of the fact that the TWC has such a section - and had it for years, and it seems to do fairly well at that, plenty of posts and threads... All the same, your certainty of the outcome is absolute anyways... Well, I can't help but to find that circumstance amusing.

The Org is not the TWC. The Org is far less active, as I pointed out just a couple of sentences above. Why should a section be created for the sake of clarity alone? Would it be significantly more clarity? Is such a section actually merited by present activity? These are my main overall concerns, as regards your notion of what should be done for the site organization.

Which is exactly?

[A fitting image, though one which I can't locate now, is of a man standing by the entrance to a Chinese metro station in a vast mud field about a mile away from an empty, unoccupied developed area of skyscrapers.

[Beskar]

[A fitting image, though one which I can't locate now, is of a man standing by the entrance to a Chinese metro station in a vast mud field about a mile away from an empty, unoccupied developed area of skyscrapers.

Don't know that picture, but I know it is a reference to the Ghost Cities.


The thing with the changes is that they are trying to keep the Org as succinct, easy-to-use and relevant as possible. Over the years the Org grew very cluttered with random ad-hoc changes added per whim without any real oversight to their purpose or position.

You used to have mutually similar forum purposes scattered and hidden all over the place, such as the Throneroom, Chapter House and Gameroom. You used to have three areas which covered a very similar purpose and there was quite a bit of overlap between them, Gameroom and Chapter House especially. People used to end up scattered to their corners blinded to what is going on elsewhere even though the content was relevant to their desires and wishes from the forum. This is why these sections were brought underneath the same category roof in-order to increase the visibility of that content to people interested in accessing that content.

There were other examples such as the Apothecary being really redundant as people just used to post in the Hardware/Software forum. It would make sense for these areas to become together since the current layout obviously was not working for the patrons.

Overall, a majority of the changes were much needed and desired.

[Axalon]

Alright Husar, I’ll try another way and we’ll see how that goes… First, as it seems necessary...

***

The concept of "visibility", explanation…

“Visibility” (as I use the term in this context) = the level of visible information (posts, threads, topics, general fields, authors etc.) of XTW (for instance) displayed on main forum index (the context).

A low level of such visibility means less information displayed and exposed, and the total mass of information related to subject/focus X is smaller, on index. A high level of visibility means more such information displayed and exposed, and the total mass of information related to X is greater, on index – ultimately making it more visible in total. The more such visibility XTW has on index, the more exposure, detail and depth of XTW is attained on index – making it more visible as it is harder to ignore/miss all XTW related stuff in total. This, both in general regards due to total mass of information and for the specific information which creates that mass. Like a sign exposing XTW that increases in size, detail and depth all at the same time basically. Making that sign smaller in total - size, detail and depth – will make things less visible as it reduces the level of visibility (if using outlined definition above).


Collapse, customization and visibility…

If you choose to “collapse” a section - any visibility in that section is cancelled (and making the index shorter) obviously. However that is a choice consciously and actively made as to customize the index to the stuff we are specifically interested in. This is normal and should be respected and considered. Not ignored and disregarded. In the new index-design that is practically the case, as the sections cover so much (too much) that collapsing one section will likely mean the stuff you might be interested in disappears as well.

If I happen to like STW1 but care little for about ETW - for instance – then I have little choice but to accept that ETW sub-section as well - as seen from main index. I can’t collapse ETW because it is no longer distinct enough to hold a regular section of its own with that design. It is sub-section that shares the same section with the STW1 sub-section – this despite the fact that they have little common ground as such, or that any discussions related to them are likely to be very different and distinct as well. That sort of clear structural distinction and separation is lost in this new design.

It’s like reading a newspaper, reading the stuff and sections you are interested in and ignoring the rest – by choice. In current design, we basically can’t do that as the design basically does not allow it or consider it. Stuff is now bunched up and, whether we like it or not, shares the same “page” (section). It is like having separate 5 articles (obviously shorter and less exposed in general as to fit) on 1 page, rather the having 1 article/coverage on 1 page essentially. Having 5 articles on 1 page does not increase the general visibility of each article individually - less so in fact. Things will get less visible and detailed the more and more articles are included on that 1 page (section).

If turning a that page is scrolling, then cramming every article together at all costs on the first page on a newspaper as to kill all scrolling/turning of pages, then the visibility of all the contents of that newspaper will get less visible and exposed as a result – not more so… Individual visibility, is not attained (or increased) by reduction in categories, size, detail and depth, it just make less things appear and that in a poorer way. Making fewer things appear does not mean that - whatever is left - becomes more visible individually somehow - it only makes fewer things appear and thus becomes easier to overview as a whole. Overview as a concept is not visibility, nor does it increase any visibility individually or generally – it decreases it. At least the kind of visibility I am talking about. Feel free to prove me wrong at any time.


Other terminology, explanation…

In current layout, the main forum index - the STW2 game has its own dedicated section, as in 1 section, on the main forum index, that section has in turn 4 sub-sections on the index. In the "TW:S2 Single player" sub-section, I count 2 sub-forums. If my terminology on that is somehow wrong, give me the ones you use so we don't to have to struggle with that at least.


Visibility loss, explanation...

In previous layout, 1 TW-game had 1 section on the main forum index (save NTW), each such section had usually 4 sub-sections with X sub-forums (save STW1), all posts and threads (determined by latest post) in every sub-section were visible directly in the main forum index. There was in effect 4 channels active for displaying information directly on the main index. More information means more detail as well on the index. These conditions were valid for 6 TW-games.

In the new layout, 1 TW-game have 1 sub-section on the main index (save STW2), each TW-game has no sub-sections as they already are sub-sections. That means they have in effect 1 channel available for displaying info directly on the main index. That means less visible info and thus also less detail on the main index. These circumstances are valid for all TW-games - save STW2.

The math is simple, 4 are more then 1, 1 channel can not display as much information (and detail) as 4 channels... Previously, there was some 23 channels (whatever it was) dedicated for TW-games in total. Now, there are 10 channels of which 4 are dedicated to STW2 alone. The remaining 6 channels, allows 1 channel per each remaining TW-game. Now in terms of visible information displayed directly on the main index – the level of that “visibility” has decreased. 23 is more then 10. 4 is more the 1. The level of visibility has decreased on index.


Detail loss, explanation...

In previous layout there was about 23 channels (over several sections) displaying info on TW-games, that in turn provides detail and depth as to what was goin on. As channels are cut, the possible detail (and depth) is also cut on the main index – as seen from the main index.


Visibility and detail loss, “Hosted Mods”, explanation...

The “hosted mods” are, with current layout, severed from their respective engines/games. The people that might be interested in - say the MTW1 section – will now have to go and search elsewhere as to find the hosted mods for MTW1. There are no links, no nothing as to help them do that, nor any hints or gateways anywhere, they must do it, and find it, on their own. That circumstance is not favourable for the hosted mods.

These circumstances work against any hosted mods – especially so if the visitor/member is unaware of their existence either in particular or the concept in general in the first place. The MTW1-community, new and old, is thus distanced in general from the hosted mods for MTW1. That is undesirable. Maybe it does not matter for some games, but for stuff like MTW1, it does matter, as that game is hardly a mainstream at this point and it is unlikely that is will ever change (TW never was mainstream, Skyrim and Half-life, now that is mainstream). It needs every possible help and exposure to savour any chance and “customer” it gets. This is true for the hosted mods as well. The current layout does not reflect this circumstance, nor does it counter it somehow.

As it is, no information is displayed at all as to posts, threads, authors and timestamps. The one channel that was previously available for hosted mods is gone (regardless the engine). Thus some small exposure, sign of activity, and all such visibility and detail are gone - as viewed from the main index. It has all been replaced with a small blob…


Serious/unserious coverage of TW, explanation...

With the exception of STW2, all TW-games have been compressed, transferred and put in 1 section. That means that TW-games are no longer truly separated and distinguished from the next on the main index (there are no actual sections anymore, only sub-sections). The distinctness of each TW-game is thus structurally ignored on the main index, this in plain sight. It is by that design deemed as not important enough to separate games like RTW from ETW by section. This despite that the game-experience in respective game is clearly distinct, and different. The discussions about them however, on this forum, are not regarded as such - that is a very possible signal this current design emits (if viewed soberly). The difference of a sub-section and a section is massive, and so are the signals that it generates.

Not separating RTW and ETW (or any TW-game) by section is hardly a serious treatment of TW on conventional terms. It is like not bothering to separate the films of Ridley Scott (as a director) on a forum that is about Ridley Scott as a filmmaker. It does not inspire confidence in that site. Ignoring all that for the sole sake of saving space/size on the main index is unserious and it gives an unserious impression of this site for newcomers/visitors and at least to some (old/regular) members as well. The risk for it is certainly there and ignoring that is hardly serious either. It seems plausible that the risks are also higher for RTW, MTW2, ETW and NTW in particular. How does it serve this site to ignore or disregard that risk for any TW-game somehow?


Scrolling, damn scrolling, explanation...

Scrolling comes with using the internet; there is little we can do without scrolling. Example, write “wikipedia” on your search-engine (Google, Yahoo etc.) and go to front page. Now, once that is up - don’t scroll - at all - and see how far you get… Another example, select freely any thread here at the Org with 100+ posts, wherever you like. Say the “Babe-thread” to be obvious. Open up - don’t scroll. You get nowhere almost instantly, right? …Scrolling comes with using the net, it is bizarre in the extreme to claim that it is unacceptable to do so on a forum index. This site – Totalwar.Org - is no exception to that circumstance, nor is it rational/conventional to strive for that (at any cost).


“Some get their way, others have to pay”, explanation..

Let’s use a cake-analogy. Let’s say that the cake represents a “section of interest” (insert any TW-game) on the main forum index. Now, we have 12 cakes, all flavoured differently and these are favoured by 12 different people. We give the cakes to the people. Let them keep them for a while. Then, we take them back, take 10 out of the 12 cakes and cut them by roughly 75% and give back all cakes back to the people. Now, how many of the 10 people with the cut cakes will say; “hey that was really a great idea, cutting my fave cake by 75%!”. How many?

Common sense and experience says that 9 out 10 people will think it was a really bad idea – that utterly regardless, if the reasons for all that were actually totally brilliant or not (it does not get any more convincing to people by leaving two cakes untouched either and that fact will not go unnoticed either. It is favouritism and will be hailed as such). Same thing applies here, on this site, and to its members (and visitors)…


Structural favourites, explanation...

This site – totalwar.org - deals with TW universally, it has done so, ever since it was created (1999?). The name reflects that, it suggests that, and the place were known for that (at least up to the release of NTW). This means, until now, that it previously dealt with all TW-games somehow and not structurally focusing on the latest title alone. That reality was also reflected in the previous index - it is no longer. The latest title had its due by being placed on top of the index – and that is enough. Leave it at that.

Since 2000 there has been an increase of TW-games, but what of it? Why can’t STW1 (2000) then be treated in the same fashion as STW2 (2011) on this site? Because it is older? That is poor excuse to discriminate and neglect it and its players in order to structurally favour of the latest game. Why is it now so impossible to be the niche-site it has always been before? Corresponding to all niches that are TW combined?

Tailoring the index upon the notion that basically only the latest game (STW2) counts – is absurd. It is like having a restaurant that actively disfavours to serve any food based on old recipes essentially. Anyway, in doing so, and you now have, you are in effect screwing everybody else that has the supposedly “wrong”/“unfashionable” preferences and interests here. How is that desirable? People come here for the stuff they are interested in – that does not automatically mean the latest game, now does it? Why is it then so impossible and unthinkable to treat all these other games fairly and not playing structural favourites? People come here for TW whatever, why can’t the index reflect that? How can that be secondary in the first place?


The latest game-focus fallacy, explanation...

That is essentially covered here, post:159.


Response/reaction time, explanation...

I did try to discuss this stuff even before this thread was ever set up… I did try to warn about/point out some of the obvious drawbacks and dangers and that long before any of this happened (evidently with little success). That is, the few things I knew at the time, as this turned out I missed all the rest and this thread, until now. Anyway, you can see it right here…. Post:6 and 14.

Hopefully the points are clearer at this stage. It is possible that people did not get it back then, or see the value of it. That is possible – but – it does not explain why it was ignored, disregarded or not further examined. I certainly tried to highlight the typical problems and drawbacks - that long before this index-change was ever implemented. Once it was implemented - I tried all over again (also unsuccessfully) a few (2-3) days after it had happened. If above mentioned things does not have merit, feel free to forward the basis and grounds that credibly suggests just that, and explains why that is – and ultimately why it is reasonable to disregard it. By all means, go right ahead. That is how things should be….

- A

[Axalon]

I see no need for a huge surge in the number of subsections...

Neither do I or seemingly anybody else so that is not a problem then, now is it? I do see that some additions would be good and beneficial however (I guess that is the difference between us then)…

…or a systematic standardization of the names or number of subsections.

A systematic approach does create clarity – which is desirable. A raw basic template on how TW is covered and treated should be standardized as to make things as clear and straight forwards as possible. Whatever is done beyond that basic template, I see generally little problems with…

Is it so bad that most have three, while a couple have four? Is it so bad that a few of the subfora have 'creative' names?

Nah, I have no problem with that as long as the basics for all TW are the same. There is more gained by that then lost by doing it. As for naming conventions, self-explanatory names are hard to beat in terms of clarity and functionality – “personalized” names for each TW-section can not truly compete with that, or so I believe…

Distinguishing into loads of highly specific subfora is very nice when you're filing your bills, but not when you're just trying to browse a forum.

Sub-forums hardly takes any space at the index. We could easily have six in each sub-section and it would still only have a rather nominal impact on the index and the length of it (as I understand it). Nah, I am only saying that sub-forum does create advantages whenever applied with solid purpose and function (and no, I am not saying that the existing ones does not have that). Little else. I do believe that it is still possible to find such purposes and functions in regards to TW and I think it is worth while to at least consider such things some more. I never said that we should set up sub-forums for kicks…

The "collective" is a few hundred active users. I think their "gut feelings" should be worth something here. As should yours, but not as of maximal weight.

I generally disagree, my reason is this; gut-feelings have no true place here as that will basically result in popularity polls and votes – this site is not about what is popular, it is about TW universally regardless of that. TW is niche to begin with, not a sort of popularity movement, let’s just try to treat that niche fairly and respect that we do have different preferences and interests within that niche and adjust the site as to reflect that reality accordingly. Besides screwing (either perceived or actual) minorities is neither desirable or make things any better in general, only worse I think. Equal treatment of all TW is fairer then any popularity calls can ever be.

The Org is not the TWC. The Org is far less active, as I pointed out just a couple of sentences above.

Yes and yes… Still, we will never know for sure if your prediction was accurate or not unless we try it out. Then we will know for sure. Until then, we can only speculate on this note.

Why should a section be created for the sake of clarity alone? Would it be significantly more clarity?

I can only say this on general principle, it will obviously apply here as well, never underestimate the benefits of clarity. My own posts proves that, had they been perfectly clear at all times they could have been cut in size by 75-80% probably. However, I don’t have the capacity for it, I can only do the best I can and that is hardly any perfect clarity even if would like it to be. Otherwise, I would not have too (more or less) constantly clarify things somehow as people don’t get it, or misinterpret them and what I actually had in mind etc. etc. Clarity is golden, and does make things both easier, faster and clearer - that is desirable. It saves time and effort as well – also desirable.

Is such a section actually merited by present activity?

I do see a point there – but…. People must have “roads” to travel there or anywhere. We can not begin to build a road after people have begun to use it. We must build the road first so people can use it. Traffic-levels will never increase anywhere if there is no infrastructure for traffic in the first place. The possibility of activity comes after infrastructure, not the other way around… No possibility, no traffic… Simple logic.

A fitting image, though one which I can't locate now, is of a man standing by the entrance to a Chinese metro station in a vast mud field about a mile away from an empty, unoccupied developed area of skyscrapers.

Again, I see the point and yes that is real stupid. However, I have never suggested that this is something that we should strive for. I think it is the result of a misunderstanding on your part as to what I was actually talking about which is how a standardized minimum treatment and coverage of TW, any TW, should look like and what it needs to deliver acceptable levels of "seriousness" in that treatment and coverage of it. A kind of template of minimum requirements that can be expected of this site at all times on the index and elsewhere in regard to TW-coverage. My draft was a draft and little else.

Ironically, I think there is another point to that Chinese example, the aspect of when a result is dictated and driven by ambition rather then reason. When result overrides and disregards all non-compliant considerations and factors as to be achieved as desired. I think that stuff is relevant here and that we have some elements of that in this new index and structure design. Ignoring things will not make it go away somehow, nor will it make the new index and structure any better (as it is). At least I make that conclusion.

There is no doubt that if we do limit the perspective to just reduced index-length and scrolling – then this new index design is a (limited) success. However, once we do apply a somehow broader perspective then that, that limited success disappear as it will then be clear that most other things have had to pay somehow for it. A circumstance that so far has yet to be truly recognized, considered, sorted out and countered properly.

- A

[Axalon]

Overall, a majority of the changes were much needed and desired.

I can't really tell, but... I take it that you have excluded all regular TW-coverage (ETW, RTW, STW1 etc. etc.) in that statement, right?

- A

[Beskar]

I can't really tell, but... I take it that you have excluded all regular TW-coverage (ETW, RTW, STW1 etc. etc.) in that statement, right?

The old sections took up far too much room and were pretty pointless. The whole making a single discussion area with sub-forums was my idea originally and it works very well.

To put it this way, the last time NTW got a post for example was back in Jun. Under the old format, this took up a ton of screen real estate and it made the area look like a barren ghost-town with no clear directions for new users (and arguably, existing users). Under the new format, the activity is far more condensed which allows refreshment of content more easily and giving people what they want access to.

The idea with the design was to make the layout far more succinct. The old format was sprawling and unwieldy. Obviously many people have different ideas of what this means and there were several different ideas, plans and formats and the resulting design brought about the most compromise.

The separate mod section was to bring the mods to the forefront of the index instead of being hidden away within subsection of subsection within subsection. People needed a guide dog just to be able to find something simple like EB stored away upon the first visit, which is why many people found it mostly through google search. The new section was meant to be there to try to provide far more support for the modding community as well in the form of a dedicated section and meeting place for all those involved and interested. Though taking a look at it now, it is different than what I thought it was.. so I would say there is room for improvement there in my opinion.

[Axalon]

Your post it’s… Well, there is no way I am going to let such a post go unquestioned… So here goes…

The old sections took up far too much room and were pretty pointless. The whole making a single discussion area with sub-forums was my idea originally and it works very well.

Really?

Reality check 1A: this is a TW-site, as such it is about TW and is supposed to cover TW, and properly, if want to have any chance whatsoever of competing with other existing TW-sites. TW is a niche phenomenon, as such the possible “customer-base” for it is limited – thus this site can not afford to not compete somehow in order to survive long-term. Thus it has too compete regardless if you like it or not, and that regardless what you personally deem as pointless and what not. Besides, this place is called “Totalwar.org” I would think that it is rather self-explanatory what the intended and actual concept for this site is supposed to be and have been for over 10 years – TW, whatever the game. In order for that to happen it has too cover TW-games. In order for it to survive, it has to do so seriously or it will be beaten by the competition. Thus TW has to be allowed to take some serious space on the index, that regardless the game or the competition will simply kill this site in whatever TW-game it fails to cover properly and seriously. That is the reality I see.

Now, you can have whatever personal opinion you like on TW – I have zero problems with that. What I do wonder about is what you are doing on a TW-site in the first place if you think the coverage of TW is “pretty pointless”. I mean it’s just ridiculous and bizarre. How can you possibly miss that this site is called “Totalwar.org”? Did not that give it away what this site is about?! …Something along the lines that this is a TW-site, specializing in covering TW? It’s like saying that I don’t care much for the coverage of cats because I personally find that pretty pointless – and that at site that clearly specializes in cats and have done so over 10 years… And, to top it all off, the site is actually called “Cats.Org”. It’s just ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous still is that you are actually doing all this in a seemingly official capacity (and no attempts what so ever has been made from other staff-members as to indicate anything else) – that’s just priceless…

That said, I would love to see the actual grounds for your assessment there, the reasons why people in general should ever take that statement seriously anywhere. Until you do, I have little choice but to go “dismissed as unserious”. - As standard tradition dictates.

To put it this way, the last time NTW got a post for example was back in Jun. Under the old format, this took up a ton of screen real estate and it made the area look like a barren ghost-town with no clear directions for new users (and arguably, existing users).

I’ll put it in other way for you… Using NTW as a reference to judge all other TW-games (save STW2, as usual) as you do right there as to make some point towards that end is just unfair, screwed up and questionable. NTW is hardly representative for any other TW-game on this site, nor has it been treated in the same way as any other TW-game prior to this change. It had no dedicated section at all – it was the only TW-game prior to this change that had to endure such a treatment on this site. Symptomatically, the people that actually were interested in NTW, naturally searched out other TW-sites instead of bothering with this one - as could be expected – since this forum could hardly compete at all in regards to NTW. Why? The coverage of NTW was so ridiculously inferior to the competition - and that was obviously reflected somehow in the activity it actually have had here.

Once NTW was recognized as a full TW-game around here (despite controversy), it was turned to a sub-section – as that would somehow make things any better for it. The damage was already there at that point and it has never had a sporting chance of recovering somehow from that as seemingly nothing has been done to remedy things on that note by responsible staff. So, the treatment of NTW was unserious from day1 – structurally speaking – and NTW has obviously never recovered from that. In short, NTW-people don’t seem to have much confidence in this site – and have acted accordingly. Had that not been the case, then the traffic levels would obviously be higher somehow.

Even ETW and STW1 that usually show low levels of traffic here as far as I can tell – exceeds NTW at virtually all times. Thus, using NTW as a universal argument for all TW-games is hardly fair nor does it convince if examined properly and soberly. I somehow doubt you turned to NTW by mere chance but rather to serve an agenda, that regardless of any actual grounds - evidently. As a further perspective on your statement I could also point out that both RTW, MTW2 and even MTW1 regularly exceeds the number of visitors STW2 receives (spiderbots or not), as far as I can tell. This despite the fact that staff has in various ways has favoured that game at the expense of others ever since Tosa died (current index design is yet another example of the fact, now taken further then ever before). In short, that jive won’t fly… And, I have just explained why….

Under the new format, the activity is far more condensed which allows refreshment of content more easily and giving people what they want access to.

Let’s use the analogy of an auditorium to set that statement into perspective, shall we? If we have six separate auditoriums, discussing six different fields at their own pace we will get a circumstance that does generate more clarity, less confusion thus better discussions (and thus information) on whatever X then we would get if we took all those six auditoriums and their respective crowds and put them all into one single auditorium and then let them carry on as if nothing had happened. Yes that auditorium sure will be more crowded no doubt but the possible levels of clarity and attention, will decrease, while levels of confusion and obscurity, will increase. Now, how is that a good thing generally speaking? For whom exactly? Same thing applies to this site….

Refreshment-rates does not seem to have a much value of its own, what people have to say in their posts is usually more interesting in contrast, or so I would like to believe. I like responses/replies to my posts as much as the next guy but cramming all activity together will not improve or actually serve this forum much (especially if done to extremes), now will it? This considering the auditorium-analogy and all that, right? As for activity levels, that is one thing, access to whatever information/content is quite another – the two are hardly explicitly linked somehow at all times, now are they? Why should we strive for that? I’m lost…

The idea with the design was to make the layout far more succinct.

Well, you/I/we can only dumb things down to a degree before the drawbacks exceeds the benefits gained by trying to do it (simple deductive logic). In order to cover TW properly, it can not be magically compressed somehow and still not lose detail, depth, (individual) visibility and general coverage (also deductive logic, or we could just start counting channels, previous and current - to kill all doubts about it). I pointed out that very fact months ago – and still it is just ignored by the likes of you and the staff in general. TW has too be allowed to take some space on index, obviously more space then this new change has allowed it.

You regard TW-coverage as pretty pointless and so I would think it be rather self-explanatory that you are hardly suitable or ideal for determining such matters or how that coverage should be devised anywhere. All the same, you still have views on this very stuff nonetheless and clearly you have been forwarding ideas on that very matter anyhow. I find that circumstance questionable and hard to accept on general principle. Reading your overall argumentation on it makes me even more doubtful to it still. I mean have you ever played any TW at all? If the answer is no, then I rest my case, full stop. If the answer is yes, then explain how it can be pointless to you in the first place? It does not add up, now does it? Regardless, it is obvious to me that you hardly act with the best interests in mind for TW - maybe something else - but TW, hardly. Thus I certainly do question if you are suited to act in any such capacity anywhere (on general principle) - as you evidently already have...

Anyhow, the fact is that most people that visit this site are still primarily interested in TW – I mean, the site-name alone certainly acts like a filter here – “TotalWar.Org”. If we are interested in cats or cars or whatever - “TotalWar.Org” is hardly the first place that comes to mind or we go to, now is it? However, if it is TW somehow, then “TotalWar.Org” could be a possible candidate for just that (certainly was in the past) – assuming it is allowed to function as that. “Succinct” does not lend itself as a concept to that end, all things considered, now does it? The TW-folks have probably little actual use for succinct/dumbing things down in general - but they do have a use for an improved index however, especially now – in whatever way that is truly achieved.

The old format was sprawling and unwieldy.

TW-wise, that statement can certainly be questioned all over. The previous 1 section, 1 game, and a few sub-sections as to provide further detail and depth etc. etc. was hardly sprawling or unwieldy in any traditional sense of these terms. The only way that the old format could possibly be “unwieldy” is we are actively trying to overview ALL TW-games at the same time - which is hardly a standard or common practice anywhere as far as I can tell, nor does it does it provide natural practical uses to do that. In my experience (I have been lurking on and off since 2000) TW-people seek out their section(s) of interests and usually don’t give a rats ass about the rest (either they collapse sections or just ignores them or some such. Much like most folk read a newspaper). I have yet to see anybody posting on the boards along the lines – “oh man it is so hard to see all TW-sections at the same time, which is important to me as I play them all at the same time, all the time!” or some such. I basically find that circumstance to be artificial at best on general terms.

My question is thus; what is the actual grounds and practical use - thus relevancy - is there to even consider such a concept (seeing ALL TW-games at the same time) – as that is the only way to make the previous index-structure unwieldy (because TW-wise it was anything but sprawling, section-wise it was not sprawling, neither was the sub-sections in those sections. The previous index had a clarity, order and superiority on TW-coverage that was well beyond the current index. Ironically, the new index can be argued as sprawling as it have several games in one section etc. etc.). The TW-gamers I have seen on multiple boards hardly uses the concept of “seeing all TW-sections at the same time”. So, who does? To whom is this concept of cramming everything together actually relevant? If it is not relevant, then why even consider it here? Irrelevant is irrelevant. Basically, I fail to see any actual credible grounds for that statement, thus I don’t buy it. Unless you provide some actual and valid grounds for that claim, I’m inclined to go “dismissed as unserious” on it.

Obviously many people have different ideas of what this means and there were several different ideas, plans and formats and the resulting design brought about the most compromise.

Really? …Dismantling 6 full TW-sections into 6 sub-sections (even if we temporarily disregard what happened to all hosted mods) - a “compromise”? …On a TW-site? Well if that is true, it certainly puts the expression “a camel is a horse designed by a committee” - to royal shame. Then that’s just sheer kindergarten by comparison to what has happened here.

The separate mod section was to bring the mods to the forefront of the index instead of being hidden away within subsection of subsection within subsection.

First of all, you are in effect talking about the “hosted mods”, not plain mods. There is a difference in several regards in this context and you fail to make that distinction (plain mods were hidden away in a similar fashion as outlined, and still are btw, so no benefits gained for those either so far). Secondly, as it is the hosted mods you are actually talking about here – and as I happen to be one of the few still around that actually is on the receiving end of this particular stuff - I would imagine that I do have a better grasp on how things really were and how things now are on this note - unlike you.

That said, I can only say that the result has created the very opposite circumstances it was intended to achieve (as outlined above, by you). My mod/work (for instance) has never been as invisible and hidden away as it is today - due to this change (both on the index, and in general). In short, if the goal “was to bring the mods to the forefront of the index”, then the result have clearly failed that plan. Anyway, as I pointed out several times now...

Previously hosted mods….

• Were directly connected to the relevant game and community on index by section.
• Had 1 available dedicated channel for direct display on the index, making it possible to track; related activity, latest post, author, topic and timestamp – thus creating some small additional exposure for mod X on the index (generally valuable and desirable, from a modder-perspective).
• Were clearly distinguished by engine and section clearly apart from all other “hosted mods” based on other and different engines/games.

Currently hosted mods…..

• Have no dedicated channels to index – at all. Any tracking of related activity, latest post, author, topic and timestamp or any small additional exposure and visibility for mod X are all gone. Vanished. All of it has been replaced by a small blob. Thus no such info whatsoever displayed on index.
• Severed from the engines/games they depend on as that is placed in another section altogether (placed in sub-sections).
• Severed from the relevant communities they rely on and serve as they (the community) are now directed to various sub-sections in different section. The distance to the relevant people that might be interested in the hosted mods for whatever XTW has never ever been as far as it is today.
• No visible or obvious gateways whatsoever (save one that is hidden away in a sub-sub-section, it was pure luck that I found it at all) as to somehow reconnect the hosted mods to the communities they actually benefit and serve. The overall visibility of each individual hosted mod on the index has never ever been as poor as it is today – no exceptions. Ironically, the “non-hosted” plain mods on this site have now in effect more individual exposure and visibility possible then any “hosted mod” on this site can ever hope to achieve with the current system in terms of posts and activity etc. etc.
• Are all bunched up in 1 section that makes no distinctions on engine-dependencies and differences which is just nonsensical and impractical. Ask any serious and established TW-modder anywhere and they will tell you the same – I doubt there will be any deviation from that conclusion.
• All sorted by the concept of “all hosted mods area”-section. The CA-boards do this and I have yet to see the actual advantages of that and I had my stuff there for 4 years and counting. The CA-boards is a commercial site which primary purpose is to cater to their own products (the original games) first and that’s why they keep all mods distanced away from all that and bunched up in one section to symbolically cover it (as it is secondary to their objective). Why have this been done here? For what actual benefits for the mods, modders and gamers? Again, overview of “all hosted mods” with little or no distinctions does not have any practical or obvious uses by itself, now does it?

People needed a guide dog just to be able to find something simple like EB stored away upon the first visit, which is why many people found it mostly through google search.

How can you possibly know that? The rational answer is that you have no way in hell of knowing that, you have no actual means of knowing that universally – the alternative is that you are sitting on some magic statistics that is not available for anybody else anywhere. Is that it? Let’s see it then, in all it’s glory, shall we? Then I might consider to take that statement seriously.

The new section was meant to be there to try to provide far more support for the modding community as well in the form of a dedicated section and meeting place for all those involved and interested. Though taking a look at it now, it is different than what I thought it was.. so I would say there is room for improvement there in my opinion.

Well, I would be happy to see any such support happen as much as any other modder would but considering all my criticisms regarding mods in particular and TW in general I fail to see any such declared support has actually happened. Again, it is one thing to declare something, it quite another to make it happen in reality and turn out as intended. People certainly had a “dedicated section and meeting place for all those involved and interested” within the previous relevant sections were it belonged, this for the “hosted mods”. Now people have not, now they have a severed section based on the artificial concept of all “hosted mods area” (regardless of any engine etc.).

The CA-boards do this as well and it has little obvious practical use on its own, being severed from games and communities they benefit and rely upon. The CA-boards has a commercial objective to keep the distance between the games, the communities and mods for it – as it is there a matter of catering to their products first (the original games), not the community and what it creates (which is at best secondary there). All of this is reflected in their designs. Since when does this site have a commercial objective like the CA-boards? Again, what actual benefits will supposedly be achieved for this site by adopting such doctrines? The only product this site can offer is information compiled, sorted and highlighted and whatever else its community creates such as mods etc. etc. That is quite another circumstance altogether.

The reality I see is that this change did not serve or benefit me as a modder (for given reasons above etc.), nor did it benefit me as a plain member (also for given reasons above etc.). Now, if it does not serve me as either a modder in general or as a member in general – I have hard time seeing how it would still benefit this site much in general. I also have a hard time seeing how this circumstance would somehow be unique or valid for just me specifically. So, yes there sure seems to be room for various improvements all over (more then ever). I can certainly agree with you on that much at least.

- A

[TinCow]

Previously hosted mods….

• Had 1 available dedicated channel for direct display on the index, making it possible to track; related activity, latest post, author, topic and timestamp – thus creating some small additional exposure for mod X on the index (generally valuable and desirable, from a modder-perspective).

Currently hosted mods…..

• Have no dedicated channels to index – at all. Any tracking of related activity, latest post, author, topic and timestamp or any small additional exposure and visibility for mod X are all gone. Vanished. All of it has been replaced by a small blob. Thus no such info whatsoever displayed on index.

I have modified the current version to display the same info as the old version.

[Beskar]

Reality check 1A: this is a TW-site, as such it is about TW and is supposed to cover TW...

Cut short because you are obviously going to win an argument against a strawman which I never created or had any part in and what I did say taken out of context.

Let’s use the analogy of an auditorium to set that statement into perspective, shall we? If we have six separate auditoriums, discussing six different fields at their own pace we will get a circumstance that does generate more clarity, less confusion thus better discussions (and thus information) on whatever X then we would get if we took all those six auditoriums and their respective crowds and put them all into one single auditorium and then let them carry on as if nothing had happened.

Analogy is incorrect due to some factors since there is still separation. It is like having six separate auditoriums (romantic comedy, stand-up comedy, thriller, drama, adventure and action) and instead of all six, there is now "comedy", "drama" and "adventure and action" merged. It is pointless having empty auditoriums when they can easily be side-by-side together enjoying constant input and energy from each other. There is no loss, only gain from such a merger.

You regard TW-coverage as pretty pointless and so I would think it be rather self-explanatory that you are hardly suitable or ideal for determining such matters or how that coverage should be devised anywhere...

I enjoy how you take statements completely out of context. I would like to see where I said "Total War is pointless for this forum" in any shape and form, and no, calling a couple of sub-sections as "redundant"(/pointless) as they impede total war discussion rather than encourage it does not in any shape of form imply anything remotely that you are suggesting.

How can you possibly know that? The rational answer is that you have no way in hell of knowing that, you have no actual means of knowing that universally

Personal experiences of a multitude of totalwar.org visitors is a very good indicator. But I guess I did the impossible of "not knowing that".

[a completely inoffensive name]

To be honest, I really like the new structure, and I hope you keep it this way.

[Mouzafphaerre]

​
From an objective point of view it's a nice, tidy layout this new one. Forum gaming has been given its independent section, which is an especially good decision.

From my subjective viewpoint though, it's not so nice since I used to minimize all post-RTW junk except MiNO mods to read what's going on with EBII.

Well, it's been a long time since I've ceased to be an active member here and I'll simply live with the new layout whatever my personal taste.
​

[Axalon]

I have modified the current version to display the same info as the old version.

That is one possible criticism less as a result. Excellent. Hopefully, we will se more of that eventually on this stuff.

- A

[Axalon]

First of all, Tiaexz you have yet to answer this question – “have you ever played any TW at all”? If so, what TW-games then and how many years?

***

Cut short because you are obviously going to win an argument against a strawman which I never created or had any part in and what I did say taken out of context.

Really? Alright.... Yes or no….

• This is a TW-site, is not? Y/N?
• Have this site not been so for more the 10 years?
• Has not the index on this site been changed (since Aug 2012)?
• Does not other TW-sites exist?
• Does not this site have too compete with them somehow?
• Did you not forward ideas and suggestions about TW-coverage on that new index change, on this site?
• Did that idea not concern 6 TW-games, at least?
• Are not 6 out of 7 existing TW-games, a majority of such?
• Did not you somehow advocate your idea before it was implemented?
• Was not your basic idea on TW-coverage for 6 TW-games basically implemented on this index change?
• Have not the effects of your idea on TW-coverage now materialized on this site, as it is now implemented?
• Does not that change and have an impact on the overall and general coverage of TW, on this site?
• Does not that change influence the circumstances people (interested in TW) get on this site?
• Did you not make statements as to support and defend these changes made on TW-coverage, on this site (after my first question to you)?
• Have you not provided your reasons and basis for this change in TW-coverage - as in “the why” it should be done?
• Have not I then questioned both your provided reasons and basis for it?
• Have not I done that within the framework outlined above?

Do you deny anything of the above?

All I have done beyond that context, was to use the analogy of cats, the coverage of such etc. etc. as to show how (seemingly) screwed up your statements on TW-coverage are once placed and viewed in full context. I replaced “TW-coverage” with “cat-coverage” as to set things into a more striking perspective as to make the point come across more clearly. Before all that I asked you directly if you had excluded TW (ETW, RTW, STW1 etc. etc.) in your statement of post:36. You then answer, I quote…

The old sections took up far too much room and were pretty pointless. The whole making a single discussion area with sub-forums was my idea originally and it works very well.

If there were any doubts whatsoever that your statement here was as not intended to concern TW-coverage somehow, your next sentence killed that possible doubt in full… I quote…

To put it this way, the last time NTW got a post for example was back in Jun. Under the old format…

It was then obvious that you did include TW in your statement and that you had also actually played an active part in advocating and creating the new circumstances that we now on TW-coverage on this site – due to the changes made on index. It was basically your idea, and you pointed that out…. Dedicated sections for TW-games, and bothering to make distinctions between TW-games by section was - by you – in effect declared as “pretty pointless”. And, you have certainly acted accordingly as that is clearly reflected in the result we now have on the index, by your initiative. So, you don’t get to say “which I never created or had any part in…” because we both know that it not true.

As for the “and what I did say taken out of context.” Really? The context I have discussed with you are TW, TW-coverage in general and in regards to the index-change on this site in particular, is it not? I have not deviated from that context, neither have your claims and statements that I have questioned and responded to, right? If in doubt, read the above all over again. If you are still want to be serious in your claim, by all means explain how so then…

Analogy is incorrect due to some factors since there is still separation. It is like having six separate auditoriums (romantic comedy, stand-up comedy, thriller, drama, adventure and action) and instead of all six, there is now "comedy", "drama" and "adventure and action" merged.

There is not separation enough… Not by section there is not, which is what matters in regards to the index. A sub-section, as is now the case for 6 out of the 7 existing TW-games. Sub-sections will never be as powerful and clear borders as regular sections. Sub-sections can not be collapsed as they are not significant enough to enable to such possibilities on the index. Sections are however… Sections are the ultimate borders and each and every TW-game deserves and should have that distinction - and especially so on a TW-site. Now - correct me if I am wrong - TW is as far as I can tell, the most important thing this particular site can cover on general terms, as it is a TW-site, specializing in covering TW universally - that is what it is supposed to do, that is what this site is about. TW, regardless the game, is thus the very stuff that more then anything else should have separate sections on this site as everything else should be secondary on such a site. Why? Because it is a TW-site.

Yet by your initiative that is no longer the case - save STW2 (as usual). As all other TW-games no longer have any separate sections anymore due to this change. So, now you explain to me (and the rest of the world) the grounds and basis for the “why TW-games should not be treated and distinguished as separate games” by section, on this TW-site? Whenever ready….

It is pointless having empty auditoriums when they can easily be side-by-side together enjoying constant input and energy from each other.

That’s an assertion. Upon what grounds and basis exactly are all this somehow true? This in the relevant TW-context obviously. So how does a RTW related discussion somehow make an input on an ETW related discussion, on a regular basis? How does MTW1-coverage lend energy to NTW-coverage (for instance) on a regular basis? If you ever want me (and others) to believe that somehow - then you will simply have to prove it. As simple as that. Otherwise, “dismissed as unserious”. Your call…

There is no loss, only gain from such a merger.

Another assertion… Upon what grounds and basis this time? Prove it, or have another “dismissed as unserious”. Your call…

I would like to see where I said "Total War is pointless for this forum" in any shape and form, …

Yup, me too.... Anyway, you did however say that the previous coverage of TW-games were “pretty pointless” to keep. And, you did say that the now existing 6 sub-sections in 1 section that have now replaced all the previous TW-coverage on the index, works very well - according to you. STW2 excluded here, of course… So in effect, roughly 85% of all (now) existing TW-games and the previous coverage of all that have been dismantled into 6 sub-sections in 1 section to cover it all. Which obviously is not the same thing as "Total War is pointless for this forum" - but - it does kind of lend it self to the interpretation and impression that “Total War is pretty pointless for this forum” – if you ask me (all things considered). Anyway, there are still those 15% that is not supposedly “pretty pointless” to distinguish by dedicated sections, according to you, right? Thus it will never truly be a "Total War is pointless for this forum". It’s close, but that will still not suffice to go all the way to make up a juicy “Total War is pointless for this forum”-statement. Fully agreed. Those mighty 15% and them 6 sub-sections in 1 section certainly do make a difference on that note. No arguments there…

“…and no, calling a couple of sub-sections as "redundant"(/pointless) as they impede total war discussion rather than encourage it does not in any shape of form imply anything remotely that you are suggesting.”

More of the same… Let’s at least try to be honest, shall we? What according to you was supposedly “a couple of sub-sections” was in reality some 5 full TW-sections (STW1, MTW1, RTW, MTW2, ETW/NTW) with 3 sub-sections each (so, some 15 sub-sections then), was it not? So, it was more then “a couple of sub-sections”, right? Had it been some 4-5 sub-sections then “a couple of sub-sections” would be true but 15 sub-sections and 5 sections? No way that will ever be just “a couple of sub-sections”…Anyway, was it not your idea that all that should be compressed into 1 section with 6 sub-sections, as that – according to you - supposedly would work very well? The provided (still unsupported btw) reason for all that was as far as I can tell…

The old sections took up far too much room and were pretty pointless. The whole making a single discussion area with sub-forums was my idea originally and it works very well.

Your provided (and dismissed) basis for all that was…

To put it this way, the last time NTW got a post for example was back in Jun. Under the old format, this took up a ton of screen real estate and it made the area look like a barren ghost-town with no clear directions for new users (and arguably, existing users).

I have already commented on both these two statements as such in previous post (post:41). You have also yet to provide any actual valid grounds for you first statement - as I have already explained to you why the second will never work as such… That jive don’t fly… And so, I still fail to see how it all somehow add up and truly benefit this site and the people that come here in general in regards to TW, and the coverage of such. What I have done is to put your statements under scrutiny, applied some clearly healthy and relevant perspectives on it, such as including this site, what it is, what it is supposed to be, what it has been, what kind of people can be (reasonably) expected to come here, why that people might come here, and how poorly your ideas and notions seem to reflect or consider such realities. I have put your statements into full context - not out of context. Other then that, this following claim…

…as they [sections or sub-sections] impede total war discussion rather than encourage it…

Let’s have the actual basis and grounds for that assertion, shall we? I realize that this very notion is central for both your argumentation and actions and thus take this chance to convince me (and others) of its merits… Prove it… Otherwise have another “dismissed as unserious” on this stuff.

Personal experiences of a multitude of totalwar.org visitors is a very good indicator. But I guess I did the impossible of "not knowing that".

How many is this multitude of visitors of yours? 5? 10? 20? 30 people?

Even if it was a 100+ people (which I doubt) it will still only be truly valid for them, it is ridiculous and stupid to assume that this will be valid for all others or even a majority of others. It only serves as an indicator for the person(s) that actually made such claims – hardly for everybody else - which is exactly my point. You argue as if that would be supposedly valid for all (or possibly a majority), while you have no way in hell of knowing if that is actually true or not. This is exactly why it will not survive any serious scrutiny – ever. You can obviously claim or declare it to be true if you like, but you can never actually prove it and that’s the problem with it right there. This is “the why” your “very good indicator” is not that good after all. If it makes you feel any better this is a universal circumstance that applies to all of us, including yours truly.

- A

[Axalon]

A general remark...

I have offered the (responsible) staff to come forward and explain "the why" this new index-design is supposedly so great in all regards and to answer all my criticisms head on - I did so some 3 weeks ago (post:37, last section). Yet none of that has truly happened here, now has it? Is that just a mere coincidence? I somehow doubt that.

So far, all I see is a general inability to credibly defend by reason what has been done on the index TW-wise and a striking silence once you guys apparently run out of viable arguments as to counter the criticisms I pointed out. I wonder, is that the Org way of playing the pitiful "admin-wins" card? As to have it your way even if you can no longer credibly argue for it? Is that it? If not true, then explain and forward the solid grounds and basis for the current index - the stuff that supposedly is beyond questioning (and that cancels all criticisms - already pointed out and explained). The stuff I have yet to see...

If this index-change truly is that fantastic and solid as some of you clearly want it to be - then there should be no problems at all in explaining why that actually is - this to any outsider such as myself - and why all (or most) criticisms are somehow invalid or irrelevant. And all that would add up. Yet none of that has actually happened so far, now has it? Surprise me and prove me wrong...

- A

[Beskar]

First of all, Tiaexz you have yet to answer this question – “have you ever played any TW at all”? If so, what TW-games then and how many years?

Every single one (except fall of the samurai), over the space of ten years. Thank you for asserting I have never played a TW game before.

[caravel]

Not good enough - you should have played the last game - in fact we need to get proof you've played those games... if you can get some photocopies of the receipts sent through to the .org administration...

[Axalon]

First of all, Tiaexz you have yet to answer this question – “have you ever played any TW at all”? If so, what TW-games then and how many years?

Every single one (except fall of the samurai), over the space of ten years. Thank you for asserting I have never played a TW game before.

Asserting? Me? There? ...In the traditional definition of the term I was not asserting anything there - I was asking - which is hardly the same. And, I was asking as that is the only way for me to somehow find out if you have played any TW whatsoever. As simple as that.

Had the answer actually been a "no", it would have explained a lot. As it turns out, your answer is a "yes" which does not explain nearly as much. I would imagine that - as you apparently have played almost all official TW-games in existence - then you would also be more receptive to the idea that TW-games deserves distinction as separate entities due to their different traits and experiences they provide as games (STW1 is not the same as MTW1, MTW1 is not same as RTW, RTW is not the same as MTW2 etc. etc.), and that the way to do that is to have them covered in separate and dedicated sections because of the it - especially so on a TW-site - not as some sub-sections within one section, as is now the case of 6 out of 7 TW-games. Which hardly do them any justice, or to their communities or can be expected to truly serve this site beneficially somehow - once the existing competition to this site is also considered.

Or for that matter that it will ever be realistic to assume that everybody's fave game is always the latest game and all other TW-games can thus with good conscience be discriminated/neglected/bunched up on the index as sub-sections as to supposedly maximize the exposure of that latest game at their expense or some such - all because of that premise. Assuming and accepting the notion that supposedly everybody comes here for that latest game to begin with, and that ALL people have the same and ever constant preference as well - which are utterly ridiculous ideas in the first place. I would imagine that figuring that out would be a mere child's play to a person that played TW for some 10 years. Yet that is apparently not the case as you have instead actively advocated against all such TW-sections and in effect thus further enforced the questionable doctrine that basically only the latest game (STW2) matters and such distinctions can now only be allowed/afforded that game specifically - on this TW-site and it's index.

Nah, something is clearly wrong with that picture as it does not add up properly or naturally, not for somebody that essentially played ALL TW-games and that for 10 years... Why would you want to dismantle the coverage of virtually all TW-games you played for some 10 years? On a TW-site? That does not make much sense, now does it?


At any rate, you still have plenty of explaining to do (as pointed out in my previous posts), if you ever want me (and others) to take any of your previous claims and declarations seriously regarding the index we now have. If it actually had been a good idea TW-wise, then the reasons for it would have been sound and solid from day1. The possible criticisms would have been fewer, harder to maintain, and they would probably have been addressed and examined a long time ago - instead of being ignored and failing that, greeted with silence. It would all add up properly and naturally, thus making sense to outsiders (such as myself) as well - not only the people responsible for it (and their friends etc. etc.). It would survive and withstand scrutiny better and that in whole other way. It would be able to handle broader and relevant perspectives more successfully and not be confined to strict specifics in order to somehow add up at all. And, you guys would have had little problems explaining and forwarding valid reasons and grounds for it all. Now, has any of that happened here, so far? Do you actually believe that it ever will at this point? Because I don't...

Get my drift?

- A