Org Promotion

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If mods are archived, then archive them in subsections under their game; that's better than the alternative of a "Archived mods" section.

I had had a few pints last night. What I meant to say was "Crucially mods would go under a special 'Mods' section for their respective games."

i.e. not how it is now.

You don't mean a forum skin here, right?

yes, a new forum skin.

One thing to note about legacy forums for legacy games is that most of the activity for them is dedicated either to tech support (i.e. running the game) or design (i.e. user modding and scenarios). As I mentioned, people who come for the latter usually only have the one post to make on their specific issue. They're not coming here for anything else. For the second, well, what's left is what's left.

The problem, I think, with a lot of the proposals I have seen here is that it's just all about the games, not the community. It's right to say that the later games were not as well served by the site from M2 onwards (a lot of them were pretty bad at release) but that misses the point. A forum is a community - the strategy should be "come for the Total War, stay for the people"

is a weird sentiment. I'm not saying everyone should stop their modding for TW games if that's what they are interested in currently, but for EB it's painful given that TW has next-to-nothing to do with the project besides being the host engine. I hope they invest in a serious game with bespoke or alternative engine, or just move on with their lives. When I said "Sisyphean", I meant it in a negative way.

From a design perspective Attila has a lot of what we wanted to do for EBI built into the engine, unit balance even plays somewhat like EB and it has all the requisite formations and mechanics to make it work. M2 simply doesn't.

[ghostofxmaspast]

Ax is about as subtle as a piece of rusty farm machinery, but I have to grudgingly agree with his general position at least, in particular his first post.

The forum is about TW games and however much some members love the backroom/frontroom/gameroom, those are not about TW games, those are the sideshow and no site will ever survive focusing on offtopic alone. It doesn't matter how much traffic they get. Offtopic, is always high traffic chat, it's not an indicator of activity. And in the case of the .org's offtopic, it's the preserve of a few regulars generating an awful lot of posts. Traffic in offtopic is not "traffic" in your on topic sections.

I respect Philippus' opinion on this, but I find the idea of grouping e.g. Shogun 1 and Shogun 2 together or Medieval 1 and Medieval 2 together, to be borderline offensive ( :) ). I'm also surprised, if not a little bemused, at the suggestion to stick offtopic at the top. I've not seen any forum where the offtopic is at the top of the forum index and it makes no sense here either.

There is only one game which MTW should be grouped with (if at all) and that's STW of course. And I also agree that all modding related to those games should be contained within, or visibly attached to, those sections. Index length is irrelevant in this case, as it's important to "expose" what's on offer. A ridiculously long index could be a bad thing, but reducing visibility with the only goal being shortening the index is not a good strategy.

I think this new format isn't bad as such, it's just an unnecessary shake up of the index which wasn't needed. The old format probably needed a little tidy up, not a drastic overhaul. But at this stage discussing "board configuration" amounts to fiddling while Rome burns.

edyz, people wrote tens of thousands of words about "content creation" several years ago and it got us here. Most of the people who discussed that and pushed for more "content" are no longer here. "Synthetic" or forced activity to give an appearance of activity still isn't activity when all is said and done and is just a short lived boost, which cannot be sustained.

Forums are not about "content". This is the realm of blogs, etc. The .org was about a community and people with a shared interest, getting together and discussing this. The forum software only facilitates that. Much of the .org ontopic posts were about questions and answers about the games, posting about campaigns and just advising new players on strategy, game mechanics, etc, etc. A lot of this was repetition. If we turned this into "content", i.e. a nice guide or wiki with all the info you'd ever need on game xyz, in theory you'd kill traffic in the forum - in practice it doesn't work like that because gamers like to come to a forum and discuss these things with other gamers.

Unless people just get in there and start posting about the games again, activity will remain low. It's up to long term, influential members to just do that, rather than sitting around and waiting for a solution from staff/someone else.

In my opinion, what stifled things a few years ago, (around the time of ETW/NTW), was the culture of moderator intrusion. It was not possible to actually get into a heated debate or discussion without a moderator being on your case. I can remember threads going "off topic", but not in a bad way, the moderator appearing and cleaving the thread in half - and effectively killing it. When you do that, especially in a low traffic forum, you don't make me want to continue to participate (you're just letting me know that you're bored).

Pre-emptive moderation ("oh this looks like it might get heated, I'll jump in...") was the accepted norm and it prevented people from being themselves, making their mistakes and stopped things from flowing. I hold my hands up and admit that I did this, at least once, during my time on the staff here.

My point is that, the staff can't make the forum or generate traffic (or content), it's up to the members. In past we used to have a bit of a drive (or revival), every so often, in the MTW(1) forum. I would just post about playing the game, others would chip in and it would snowball from there. Then it would snowball into talking about tactics, modding, etc. That's how it works. You can't "invite" it, create it or "promote" it, you just have to be it.

The staff are important in that if they lose interest in the TW games and running the board for the sake of running the board becomes a hobby/duty/chore, then it will become detrimental to the community. This has happened before and it's partially why we're here discussing this kind of thing (again).

Traffic/activity can also be a false hope. A forum can have high traffic and still be pretty poor and not be a place I'd want to frequent.

Lastly, the idea of aping TWC, looking at TWC and comparing with TWC is not new and it just doesn't help the .org for staff and members to have that approach/mindset. I said it years ago - there cannot be two TWCs and there isn't room for two. .org needs to be radically different, to offer something different - and maybe - to a different kind of player.

As I said in another thread, .org has to follow the whims of CA and TW games became mediocre at best. Pining for CA reps to visit is futile and not at all necessary to the board's health/survival.

Activity - creates content, visits by CA reps (if that's desirable) and new member registration + keeps existing members here. It doesn't work the other way round.

[ReluctantSamurai]

A forum is a community - the strategy should be "come for the Total War, stay for the people"

A community...yes. But I strongly agree with AX that it's a community made up of micro-communities. Everyone has their favorite TW title(s), and primarily devote their attention to those favorites and essentially ignore the rest. I am certainly selective in this manner. I have my favorites, and I ignore the rest (never, ever have posted in ETW/NTW). I post occasionally in the Backroom/Frontroom, but I detest discussions about religion & politics which more often than not lead to heated confrontations where folks rarely back down, or change their opinion. But I do respect that others find these topics interesting.

The gist of AX's index restructure (as I understand it) is to cater to each "micro-community" and make it easier for any member to find what they want, be it tech info, mod info, or guides.

The forum is about TW games and however much some members love the backroom/frontroom/gameroom, those are not about TW games, those are the sideshow and no site will ever survive focusing on offtopic alone. It doesn't matter how much traffic they get. Offtopic, is always high traffic chat, it's not an indicator of activity. And in the case of the .org's offtopic, it's the preserve of a few regulars generating an awful lot of posts. Traffic in offtopic is not "traffic" in your on topic sections.

This. Spot on, and the sad indicator of what the Org has become (no offense meant to off-topic lovers)

My point is that, the staff can't make the forum or generate traffic (or content), it's up to the members.

[Montmorency]

The gist of AX's index restructure (as I understand it) is to cater to each "micro-community" and make it easier for any member to find what they want, be it tech info, mod info, or guides.

In that case, as the grognard mentions, the index circa 2010 would have been just about right.

[Beskar]

I have a poll here about forum structure.

I would prefer the talk on that subject to be within that topic now, as it is a little different to "Org Promotion" which is a different matter.

[edyzmedieval]

Thank you very much for the forum structure poll, Beskar.

I am glad that we're taking a step forward in the right direction, let's keep at it. Please everyone go vote in the thread!

--> https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...orum-Structure

[ghostofxmaspast]

Posted in the "forum structure" thread, but my post has to be "approved"?

Someone seems to have forgotten how long and hard we fought to get rid of "junior members" and other such things...