New Guidelines & Changes: Discussion Area!

[Laya Eteric]

Jul 11, 2015 23:02:34 GMT Mac Bargett said:

Perhaps instead of a tier, we could give each weapon a score based on how common and lethal it is, standard issue rifles would be like a 1 and Jet fighters would be at the top. And then when a battle is opened, it gets it's own score, and each side tries to match it. One side brings a tank, the other side brings a bazooka and a handful of anti tank grenades. One side is an officer, so gets more men, the other gets an MG. And so on.

So basically like Axis & Allies Miniatures, but without the 100 point limit?

[PuNk! ™]

Yeah, it's not a bad idea Mac. Although I think to generalize everything, using a tier system might be better, otherwise it's going to be a lot more hassle rating every single piece of item in the shop (and even not in the shop) opposed to putting them in generic tier categories.

Saves a lot of hassle, work and complicating things more than we need too. Honestly, it's not a bad idea and if we didn't have a lot to do already, it might be worth pulling in a ranking score system like you mentioned, but seeing as we've still got a fair few things to do to get this place back into shape, it might be worth keeping that idea for later or for larger hosted battles where the Moderator has time to make a score system for everyone to pick from to build their forces for the battle (like Seejay suggested with the CP system, but a score system instead).

For now, I think a generic tier system is probably best. Just until we get this place properly up on it's feet.

[Deleted]

Well, the King Tiger/MG42 comparison is kind of a bad one. Infantry weapons and armor will always be unbalanced.

The same issue everyone seems to have is excess. What's to stop someone tiering up and THEN going overboard? I'm kind of in favor of just buggering it and requiring a roster to be approved. A quick glance and a little common sense might save a lot of headaches.

On the other hand, yes it would be nice to have something to work for.

In any case, vehicles, infantry weapons, and artillery should probably be tiered independently of each other. Don't forget that if we can change our rosters more freely, we'd be much more able to balance our own battles. That's one reason I love IO, is the give-and-take.

[Woof]

Heyyo!

I used to hang around this site a lot...can't remember my account or handle right now, so I'll just go with Woof. In my experience, and from what I've read from lurking and my short stint here, this is what I think will help IO if you guys choose to reboot the site:

1. Put an age limit on the place. This site dealt with some heavy shit. Really, really heavy shit. There is no point for 8-year olds, 12-years old, etc. to be playing on here when you consider the kind of stuff that caused WWII, what WWII meant for a number of minorities, and the graphic horror of battle and injury in war. Plus, even though you can mark threads as Mature, many of us have, at some point, done the whole "lie about your age thing" to get into a restricted site or area. The M-rated thread tags should stay as they are - a lot of people don't like to go past a 14+ in a thread, and heavier, M-rated subjects may aggravate a trigger or be NSFW - but as a whole, I think there should be an age restriction on people joining. 18+ or bust.

2. Friendlier help section. A point that's already been raised, I believe, but we absolutely need a friendlier, more organized FAQ section. It's a bit of a headache trying to figure out what's outdated and what's not.

3. More realism and a fixed timeline. I feel historical accuracy, since it's such a big thing for the battles here, should be more persistently enforced for better quality writing. The old writing was filled with anachronisms both subtle and glaring — this could easily be remedied if we had a "how to write a WWII character" section, with websites for research, book recommendations, and listings and titles of documentaries and period/era films. Furthermore, I feel there should be an effort to clearly lay out timelines for each character, to give continuity and give stronger plot-building options to said characters. It's very hard to go back and claim someone knew something when they really didn't when a timeline shows that character having not received in-game knowledge until a certain point.

4. A stronger administrative presence. One of the reasons sites die is when an admin takes sudden, long absences. When this happens, the head of the snake is cut off, so to speak, as the admin's direction and guidance is no longer there to set a path. Staff can do as much as possible to keep up the spirit and theme of a site, but it is the admin who, ultimately, knows where they want to go and how to go about it.

The admin also acts as a landlord for a forum — if they disappear, then the forum loses a valuable source of tech support, guaranteed hosting, and maintenance and repair. If someone's landlord went and left for several months, no word on where they were going or why, people would get frustrated.

5. Keep the apps, but don't let posting happen until an app is made. I'm all for people making accounts that don't need to be approved, but before they can access anything outside of the C-box, they need to post an app. An edited, complete, realistic and fitting app, with proper style and grammar (or as close to such as the person can get). The last thing the site needs is people coming on, harassing and bugging others about leaving the site for another's own or some other issue, and then never apping at all. Restrict account privileges until it's clear that the account is going to be used for RPing.

6. More advertisements. It's a big part of RP forum culture, nowadays, to have an advertisement area. Some forums will not let you advertise until you link back to them, as well, and from what I've seen, that's the majority of forums out there. If PuNk still wishes not to have an ad section on the board, then the staff (and perhaps even the forumites) will have to work doubly hard to advertise themselves out, finding sites that don't require linking-back and finding active listings where IO's link could be put out.

Anyhow, that's my twopence.

[Heiko Alkema]

@woof

Solid points throughout.

1. Age Limit
- I think we will all agree that the subject matter and contents of the site require a greater maturity than other games of this type. But like you mentioned, enforcing any kind of age limit on any portion of Internet is next to impossible. That said, I'll try to look into the site settings and see if there is way to include some kind of disclaimer during the account creation process that states that the site is intended for an older more mature audience/player base.

2 & 3a. Help Section & Period Resources
- Agreed that the help section is essentially useless. I'm leaning toward simply nuking the existing section and rebuilding from scratch. I'd like to hear the thoughts of others on what to do you with it.

We could also fold those resources you mentioned into a new help section.

3b. Time lines and continuity
- While I would like see more continuity amongst characters and story arcs, the massive scope of Issuing Orders (no time or place is off limits) makes it very easy to break. We're all just amateur writers here (I assume), and with that we have limited capacity to create sufficiently interesting and differentiated characters to cover the possible times and dates locations in which role play may occur. I only have four characters and I'll admit they're just shades of the same character/personality. If we were to strictly enforce character continuity I think we would lose character diversity as players create more and more characters and lose track of them eventually having character bleed into one another.

So with that said, I would encourage players to attempt to maintain a personal time line for their own characters, but ultimately I think it would be unwise to mandate it. This part is wholly just opinion with no evidence to back it up, so feel free to provide some counter points.

4. Staff Presence
- All true. One of my goals as of late has/had been to decentralized some staff functions like battle moderation, application acceptance, etc, all in an attempt to reduce the burden on individual staff members and generally make the site more resilient to staff abscence.

5. Applications
- This seems to be the concensus, so I'll retract my previous proposal to change the application process.

6. Advertising
- I'll defer to Punk on whether he would want to open the site up to outside games advertising here, but I would certainly agree that advertising ourselves in the wider RP community would be essential to maintain IO as a viable game. I, personally, found the site through an advert on another site (actually a counter-advert in response to an advert for Winters' copycat site). We can't grow and diversify without bringing in newblood, and we can't get newblood if we cut ourselves off from potential players.

That said, we would need to get our house back in order before showcasing ourselves. So at a bare minimum some sort of revamp of the help section and coming to an agreement on what IO 4.0 should look like would have to happen before we begin an advertising campaign.

And as bit of side note, we should organize an actual campaign for advertising. Announce to the IO community that heavy advertising will be beginning so that we can try to have staff and/or players available for newcomers as much as possible for the duration.

____

I'll have longish post tomorrow focused on battle aspects.

Heiko Alkema

[Heiko Alkema]

Okay, guys. I think I've figured out how to kill three Hitlers with one dart. This should cover three issues: 1) Allowing players to have their own independent formations if they choose, 2) reward players for being part of an existing formation, 3) help balance battles in the instance that the sides may be mismatched in equipment.

Let's take this one layer at a time, and build a big beautiful parfait.

1. Characters will command exactly what their rank would be able to command in the war; e.g. a captain commands a company, LT a platoon, etc.

2. Character will command a particular type of equipment chosen by the player; e.g. tank captain commands a tank company, infantry captain commands an infantry company, etc.

3. Characters may use resources available to the formation he is part of, with permission from the appropriate commander without the owner being present in the battle; e.g.

- 1) Lt. Smith is an infantry commander fighting Lt. Schmidt who is a tank commander. Lt. Smith does not personally have access to armour and antitank equipment. But he is part of Cpt. Doe's company which does have an antitank platoon, so Lt Smith asks for and is permitted to use a number of bazookas for the duration of the battle.

- 2) Lt. Smith is in trouble again. He's fighting Cpt. Schmidt who has a hell of a lot more men than he does. But again Lt. Smith is part of company a that has a weapons platoon with a number of heavy machine guns. So again Lt. Smith asks for and receives access to them to even the odds.

- 3) If Lt. Smith were not part of Cpt. Doe's unit, he would not have had access to these support elements and would be on his own.

4. Characters will have access to all types of equipment that would be appropriate to their command. But newer players will only be permitted earlier models of said equipment.

4. ALTERNATE - Characters will have access to all types of equipment that would be appropriate to their command. However, newer players will be limited to basic commands, e.g. infantry commander will be limited to a rifle unit as opposed to a specialized weapons command; a tank commander will be limited to standard tanks as opposed to tank destroyers/tracked artillery.

Heiko Alkema

[Liesl Von Stauffenberg]

-raises hand- Can we have the stuff for the nurses and medics back in the shop? Like the gauze, vitamins, morphine and the standard issued medic bag? ;w;

Also gonna throw in my 2 cents about the application process.

- Honestly, I would really love to keep it. I personally joined this forum because---well I really enjoy the 1940's era----that and the 15 line minimum challenged me as a writer. It both helped me improve my writing skills and in some ways gave me the confidence to write detailed replies. If we were to get rid of it, I donno how we will be able to form a good reaction and or reply if your partner replies with a (for example) one liner or a few paragraphs without giving you something to work off of can be difficult...that and it doesn't move the story along.

After spending sometime away from RPing on IO...I really missed the detailed and thought out replies. So yeah~ I hope we keep the application process.
Q w Q

- Also I agree with the age limit---perhaps we should also include that in some ways this RP Forum is historical fantasy. While we are trying to be historically accurate we do boarder a little fantasy here and there (not like dragons and magic). However, we also deal with really heavy material(as woof has stated). There needs to be a level of maturity like RPER doesn't equal OC or mun(mundane) doesn't equal muse. You and your character are completely opposite---I mean there comes a point where you can put only so much of yourself into a character before it becomes a complete self insert but,...these are super touchy subjects that we will be dealing with and lets face it war isn't pretty. So yeah...there needs to be a level of maturity to differentiate that your OC is not you [[whether you RP an Axis soldier, Allied officer or Civilian]].

[PuNk! ™]

Guess I should give a quick bounce off a few points made here;

1. Age Limit:
As already mentioned, this is something we can scarcely monitor by ourselves and even then, the Internet being the Internet, makes it near impossible to keep monitored. The best we can do as a site, is make disclaimers and outline the site being a very explicit and mature orientated threshold - we can't stop younger people wandering in, but it's the best we can do to monitor and moderate a mature community.

2. Help Section:
Agree with Heiko here. We should completely revamp the entire help area, considering we making a "new dawn" for the site, most of which is outlined in the help area will be made redundant.

3. Timeline:
I'll echo what I've said over the past several years when people have asked for a timeline or some sort of large battle map to track the war on the forum; it will give the site a day it dies. By branding the forum in a timeline format, it essentially has a ticking-down period where the war will eventually end and everyone here role plays with their characters in different timeline events and paradoxes where they're engaging in different story arch scenarios or battles.

If you wish to keep a personal summons on your character's timeline, then I'd say you'd have to do that yourself and both date and outline all your character's events as an individual and not rely on the site to keep track of the time. The site will always remain in limbo, so to speak, but it doesn't stop you from recording your own timeline if you so wish and keeping a consistency.

4. Staff Presence:
There will always be a staff presence and although I can't guarantee from one day to the next I'll always be online (as like anyone else can at the best of times) I'm personally making efforts to boost staff numbers and providing better moderation powers and authorities to those who are around more often; plus slashing the need of staff presence so much, so this place can run with just members here by themselves. No need for battle moderation posts by a staff member, no need for a staff member to issue and handout CP to purchase things from the shop, this site is slowly unfolding so the staff presence isn't demanded as much.

5. Application process:
I'm going to have to refrain that all members are required to create a character via' the application process to role play - regardless. We could scrap the approval process of making an account, but to role play, you must create a character. No IFs or BUTs, you can't simply make an account, name it and jump straight into role play - you have to flesh your character out with an application, which is created so others can read their back-story, personal attributes and such forth...

6. Advertising:
I used to advertise... I had a large scrolling marquee at the bottom of the main-page with various (and even countless) other RP forum affiliate tags and in return those forums would host mine on their marquee. Then guess what? I had an influx of ill-mannered squabbling children and BOTs that used to post malicious links and advertisements.

Perhaps I'm to blame for advertising on the wrong boards? Either way, it brought more trouble than it was worth and so advertising is limited on the forum it's self. As a forum we can advertise, but I will not use the affiliate scheme of "you link me, I'll link you" as this caused the most problems when it came to retaining member security and besides, looks like enough mature people are finding this place, I'm not one to boast for a large community that may become harder to maintain - to be honest.

Heiko Alkema
I'm sort-off understanding the concept you're trying to get across, but what exactly do you mean? Would this involve the divisional rosters to keep track of "who is who's commander" sort of ordeal you're trying to make with the structural scheme? Because it also raises a big question as well if it is - do these characters have to give permission for their units to be used?

I feel most of this update talk is becoming quite complex and it's frustrating because I'm trying so hard to keep it as simple as possible.

So really... We need to make our minds up here.

I think we should knock out these tier categories first and foremost, before we venture down a path of Joe using Steven's bazooka squad or Larry using Greg's panther tanks. In hind sight, sure, could work - but on the flip side, what's the point of having a loyalty tier structure if we're allowing lesser inexperienced members access to higher tier weaponry and armoury so easily?

Begs to differ - would it be abused as a loophole. That's if I'm understanding all of this rightly.

[Sgt. John Walters]

I've read through everyone's posts, and here is my opinion.

1. Regarding Divisions, I highly recommend we keep them. Not only was it fun to create a historically accurate formation of units, it helped bring members together. It provided writers with a way of interacting with each other, rather then asking for someone to join their thread.

Some things that can be added to the Unit aspect is realistic sizing and rewards. No longer should Captains be able to command Brigades, Regiments or Divisions. If you want to Command a Unit, keep it to a size that your character can physically control. Something I've learned is called the Span of Control, and a Commander can't control more than 5 people without losing his/her grasp on things.

Rewards can be simply given for the amount of UNIQUE characters on the roster (1 IP Address, not Jim Bob with three characters), as well as battle rewards. Similar to the CP system I suppose, but everything would go towards the unit. That unit would spend these points on buying special equipment and vehicles such as Artillery, Tanks and even Airplanes.
Another idea that comes to mind, is having someone with a specific qualification/training in your unit. For example, Sgt John Walters is a experienced Infantry Soldier. His "bonus" would enable his unit to purchase support weapons such as Machine Guns and Anti-Armour. This brings another reason for people to band together in a unit.


2. Applications are a must. Making accounts freely is a definitely a good thing, as it lets new people discuss or ask questions on the new forums (this can be done though the sub-forum permissions). Not having applications being approved means having people with inexperience, or the unwillingness to cooperate, thus resulting in huge problems. This is definitely not a good thing.

3. In terms of the shop, I like the idea a lot. However I think the "higher tier" equipment should only be accessed by Unit commanders, specifically for that unit. (Read 1 for more explanation.)

4. As much as I'd like to see Mod-Marking go away, I really don't want it too. I've had experiences on other forums where people won't call hits, and it gets extremely frustrating. Having someone in moderation avoids these problems, and makes a smoother transition.

That being said, I think a list of APPROVED members should be made for the purpose of Mod-Marking. The Staff could evaluate a member's abilities or w/e to mod a battle, and eventually approve or deny someone of doing such thing. If that person for someone reason turns out to be a huge jerk, then a staff member could easily remove him/her from the role. It also provides a larger roster in which people can draw from, rather then waiting on a staff member to reply days or weeks later.

_________________________________

Just my two cents. Glad to see everyone is back though! I really hated putting up those threads before, but it just seemed like no one was interested. Thank god I was wrong.

[Deleted]

I kind of wondered if we could use Facebook to advertise IO. There's a Proboards page that you can advertise on, I believe. You'd already be reaching some of the extended writing community. Just a suggestion.

Starting off, I like Heiko's scheme for the most part. Almost spot-on with what's swimming around in my own grey matter.

There are so many things that get in the way of balancing. You've got different equipment used by different branches at different levels and in different amounts. Reconciling it all is damned difficult, as we found out during the first revamp.

I'm hesitant at restricting anything, especially when there is historical precedence not to. If it's a balancing issue, I'll state now that you only make things unnecessarily hard on yourself. It's like a bunch of interconnected gears. You turn one, and it turns everything else. It doesn't take much fooling around to gum up the works.

A fine example of imbalance is the Japanese. Their units were larger, and they had more support due to light guns and grenade-dischargers. However, while they may be ahead in one area (numbers, support), they are behind in another (rifle type, training level).

It's so easy to devolve WW2 into cookie-cutter Starcraft-style win-by-math gameplay. A loyalty system that rewards you with stuff you should already have is kinda lame.

There are two ways we can handle overpowered units:

1. All unit organizations must be approved.

or

2. Allow it, and let the community self-balance.

I'm in favor of self-balancing. Nobody is required to fight against 20 bazookas if someone is stupid enough to make such a formation. If a battle sign-up was made like that, I'd likely suggest they pick a more realistic force before taking them seriously.

As far as a loyalty system? Crap, just reward them with a promotion, or shiny profile medal or something. I haven't been around for this long because of rewards, but because I've been having fun.

F is for friends who do stuff together.
U is for U and me.
N is for N-yware and N-ytime at all, down here at IO, see?

Either way, if you notice any bad trends in unit design, put a sticky up. Too large, inaccurate, or impossible, just address it as it comes. It's like weird warnings labels, like 'don't blow-dry hair while in the shower'. I can think of a hundred other things not to do with a blow-dryer, but that label was placed there in response to something that actually happened at one point. We can foresee a 20-bazooka squad just like I can foresee things to do with a blow-dryer, but it doesn't mean it will ever happen. When it does, label.

Hit it as it comes, long live freedom.

*climbs off of soapbox*

[Raushan Ilyinichna Kaptsova]

We could always make an FB page to advertise I.O owo

[PuNk! ™]

I haven't forgotten everyone's latest posts on this matter; it's just been my birthday and I've refrained from anything tedious the last day or two. I'll take a proper read through and evaluate a things over the next few days, but I am going to have to start pressing matters, as it seems we're going around in circles with various different opinions and possibilities. All of which I am wholly grateful to get from the community, but not everyone's views and opinions will be set in stone, as it's impossible to capture several different angles when we're punching for one.

I also appreciate everyone getting excited and proposing new ideas and updates, it really shows you're all intrigued and excited to get this place back on track. However, any new updates proposed will have to take a back-seat for the meantime whilst we try and iron out the current affairs of the forum. As you can imagine, revamping an "active" forum that's also several years old now is no easy feat and it involves a lot of changes around you all at the same time, whilst trying to keep the place a comfortable nest in which you can all still be within whilst these changes occur.

I've also made it public interest in how we're changing this place; considering it involves you all and I want you all to be involved as well. At the same time, this can delay the process of how things are done, as myself, Heiko and any other member of staff willing to put in the hard graft to change this place, will want to keep all your ideas and opinions alive as we do so. Incorporating your view on how this place should be. We all know we can't get everything crammed in, so bear with us as we try our best is all.

On that note, I'll be having a word with Heiko in private and we'll have to come to some decisions on how we're going to best manage this and where we're going to go. Once we've decided, you'll all be notified of the new policies and terms. Then we can crack the next bad egg in this line of revamps.

Thanks again everyone for being so supportive!

[Deleted]

I'm curious, where are we right now? >.>

[Heiko Alkema]

Jul 24, 2015 0:24:07 GMT @friedrich700 said:

I'm curious, where are we right now? >.>

I'll post a list of improvement projects and some milestones therein later today. That way the community can know where we are, where we need to be, and what they can do to help.