Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 76

Thread: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

  1. #1

    Default Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    There are many possible paths this plan could take if its decided to be viable.

    We could just create new twcenters, but for different games. I think we should keep the forum personally intact as a whole so everyone has the same Thema Devia but each game would have its own mod forums, articles, and front pages. These sites would also function very similar to twcenter as it is now. This idea would probably be the easiest so long as we make good choices on what games we should have.

    Another option, a variant of the last, is to just create genre based fansites. Like a strategycenter, rpgcenter, etc. This way similar games are all hosted at the same spot like Neverwinter and Oblivion mods, for example. However since its more of a jack of all trades focus that has its disadvantages. We could always go for a combination as well. Have a strategy site and have sites for specific games that are popular enough to demand separate attention.

    The option that differs the most from the way things works now is to expand TWCENTER into a single general gaming site. Something like a Gamespot or IGN. We would be different in that there could be hosted modifications and many different sub-fansites that are hosted. We would have reviews and, if it gets popular enough, companies could send products for preview as well.

    The final option is just to leave everything the way it is now and not expand deciding that this is not a viable option. I think, however, that we can find something to expand into even if its just one game.

    What other ideas are viable? Also what do you think the strengths and weaknesses of each of these ideas are? I'd guarantee that there are ideas that I didn't think of as well. We need to hear them all.
    Last edited by Kanaric; May 24, 2007 at 10:21 PM.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    I would suggest we expand with a network-based approach. The ON model was somewhat successful, it was just staffed with incompetent and abstentee individuals, and they didn't give the fansites enough autonomy (well they did but it was only out of absentee-ism). I would take the same approach; create TWC sister-sites for specific games. The logistics of this would be difficult, but they are for any sort of expansion. If we allow each site complete autonomy, the technical aspect becomes difficult or impossible to manage (hosting, downloads, mods, wiki, etc), because the nature of the beast is a centralized technical system. However, if we do not allow enough technical autonomy, we risk running into the ON-issue, where a couple individuals are responsible for everything; if they dont' do their job, animosity builds from the people who could be doing it, and have to work double time to overcome mistakes from the people on top.

    As far as the types of expansion, though, the only one I could get behind is a network/satellite site. Doing something genre-based I don't think would get any popularity, and combining everything into TWC would become wholly unwieldy. Not to mention bland with the lack of a theme and game-specific content, themes, events, etc.
    Count no man happy until he is dead.


  3. #3
    Leonidas The Lion's Avatar Until we win! Or die.
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    UK/Der Freistaat Griechenland
    Posts
    10,406

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanaric

    We could just create new twcenters, but for different games. I think we should keep the forum personally intact as a whole so everyone has the same Thema Devia but each game would have its own mod forums, articles, and front pages. These sites would also function very similar to twcenter as it is now. This idea would probably be the easiest so long as we make good choices on what games we should have.
    I think this would be our best option.
    The other options will clutter things too much.
    There are not many of us we are about 3,500 active members that actually could count as members.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jom View Post
    When using the stick and carrot approach, remember that what you have to do is shove the carrot up their arse and then beat them with the stick.
    Check out my YouTube Channel here
    Under The Patronage Of jimkatalanos
    Patron Of
    Murfios,
    Bolkonsky and DekuTrash


  4. #4

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Firstly these committees can be rather slow - I think we should speak to each other on msn when we can - most of the suggestions will take a hell of allot of preparation just to get to a feasibility stage.

    The sister site has allot of merits - the forum index is already very large and it could confuse people further if another section was added.

    But it certainly could work - around Christmas time, I persuaded General Sun to set-up a Invasio Barbarorum website - it was a complete failure but it used it was on the same server as the generals collective and had a joint user database so when one person joined one site they joined the other - but they were still two different sites with different Admin CP's. I dont know about the tech side of it you would have to ask general sun, but it could work for TWC.

    I am in favour of setting up a site (or at least a section at TWC) based on the Paradox series of games (e.g. EUIII, hearts of iron etc), they are stratagy games so they would have a similar user type to TW games.

    If Kanaric is all right with it I could look into the feasibility of a ParadoxCenter.net style site with a couple of other gaming sub forums - I could then report back to the committee saying whether its technically possible, whether it would be practical to run, whether any moderators would be interested in moderating a sister site and whether Ian is happy with the idea (which for a network site would be more important than normal).
    Under the Patronage of Imb39
    Patron of julianus heraclius, TheFirstONeill, Boz and midnite





  5. #5

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Quote Originally Posted by Professor420 View Post
    I would suggest we expand with a network-based approach. The ON model was somewhat successful, it was just staffed with incompetent and abstentee individuals, and they didn't give the fansites enough autonomy (well they did but it was only out of absentee-ism). I would take the same approach; create TWC sister-sites for specific games. The logistics of this would be difficult, but they are for any sort of expansion. If we allow each site complete autonomy, the technical aspect becomes difficult or impossible to manage (hosting, downloads, mods, wiki, etc), because the nature of the beast is a centralized technical system. However, if we do not allow enough technical autonomy, we risk running into the ON-issue, where a couple individuals are responsible for everything; if they dont' do their job, animosity builds from the people who could be doing it, and have to work double time to overcome mistakes from the people on top.

    As far as the types of expansion, though, the only one I could get behind is a network/satellite site. Doing something genre-based I don't think would get any popularity, and combining everything into TWC would become wholly unwieldy. Not to mention bland with the lack of a theme and game-specific content, themes, events, etc.
    Ok. If we did did it this way though should we merge the forums so there is one forum communities and have different sections on it for the various games, like TWCENTER is now with the various sequels? That way the off topic forums, like Thema Devia, is the same for all the sites.

    The thing is if the site expands into other games we have to find the people to run it. ONs idea was good in some ways, but like you said, flawed in others.

    Here is a site that I think does this way well as far as its core design:
    http://vault.ign.com/

    I believe if the contributors to these sites, the people who make articles and moderate forums, are kept autonomous and if the sites are closely linked that it should be fine. Which is why I think there should be just one forum but with different sections for the games.
    The logistics of this would be difficult, but they are for any sort of expansion. If we allow each site complete autonomy, the technical aspect becomes difficult or impossible to manage (hosting, downloads, mods, wiki, etc), because the nature of the beast is a centralized technical system. However, if we do not allow enough technical autonomy, we risk running into the ON-issue, where a couple individuals are responsible for everything; if they dont' do their job, animosity builds from the people who could be doing it, and have to work double time to overcome mistakes from the people on top.
    Finding the people to run it, like you say caused problems in the past, would be a difficult job.

    It could be hard to find webmasters, for example, each site will need its own. Before we establish a expansion site we need to find these people beforehand. One person cannot do multiple sites and shouldn't as well. However one person could design the initial site and try to make it easy to use. I'm not sure how its done on twcenters main page but other sites have had like more of a blog way of posting articles. The site isn't edited in HTML but those who have access can post an "article" on the main page. The way this site allows the uploading of mods/downloads and wiki's own nature is automated enough once its design has been completed.

    As far as hosting is concerned when the site decides a new game to host we need to make sure we find the staff that is needed beforehand.

    What aspect of the site has to be managed after its been completed? Also what is contained in management? Is it just "moderating" it like deleting files in the mods section?

    As far as people not doing their job you could have a "council" that is appointed or elected whose only purpose is to make sure that this is being done. They could have the power to remove people who are not doing their job, including people who run the expansion site itself, and appoint/elect new ones.

    The separate "twcenters" for each game is probably the best idea like both of you have said and is the one I favor myself.

    I think if we are going to decide this course is the one to take that we should come up with a list and describe every job that is required for the expansion to take place and to maintain it after its been completed. Then we could see which jobs should be considered up to the individual expansions and up to the core management.
    Last edited by Kanaric; May 25, 2007 at 02:13 PM.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  6. #6
    Darkragnar's Avatar Member of Ordo Malleus
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    India
    Posts
    3,958

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Quote Originally Posted by Elrond View Post
    I persuaded General Sun to set-up a Invasio Barbarorum website - it was a complete failure but it used it was on the same server as the generals collective and had a joint user database so when one person joined one site they joined the other - but they were still two different sites with different Admin CP's. I dont know about the tech side of it you would have to ask general sun, but it could work for TWC.

    I am in favour of setting up a site (or at least a section at TWC) based on the Paradox series of games (e.g. EUIII, hearts of iron etc), they are stratagy games so they would have a similar user type to TW games.
    Im not sure about the idea of setting up different sites at the very beginning,
    As you said that the invasio barbarorum site had a shared User database, well a shared database does nothing to improve the quality of a site , neither is it a sure fire way to gauge the no. of users that have actually come for the new site's content, A Shared User database dose not guarantee a successful site, it can be used as a support structure to further fuel more people but it shouldn't be our foundation Pillar for the Expansion's site.

    Infact i think its too early to start setting up new sites, even with an competent staff we are not guaranteed enough interest will be generated to keep the site afloat,

    Instead i Suggest in forestalling the decision to setup sister sites altogether, first layout the main Features of the plan; work on them , these are going to be our main points with which we are going to attract interest, after we have our ground work of main features we can see how to go about implementing them, whether they are too cumbersome of this site and require a new sister site or not that is a decision that comes later.
    Member of the House of Marenostrum
    They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say ****, it's raining!

  7. #7

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    If Kanaric is all right with it I could look into the feasibility of a ParadoxCenter.net style site with a couple of other gaming sub forums - I could then report back to the committee saying whether its technically possible, whether it would be practical to run, whether any moderators would be interested in moderating a sister site and whether Ian is happy with the idea (which for a network site would be more important than normal).
    We have to ask Johan and Paradox if this is ok. There was a problem in the past with CA and this site being named TotalWarCenter as its domain name and they even got lawyers after the site. I doubt they are the same but i'll make sure he says its fine anyways.

    As far as having a "shared database" or separate forums this is an important discussion so i'm making a topic for it.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  8. #8
    Leonidas The Lion's Avatar Until we win! Or die.
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    UK/Der Freistaat Griechenland
    Posts
    10,406

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    The most important thing is to keep the site or sites connected.
    If one user registers for one part of the site it should count for all of it.
    BTW talking on MSN is a good idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jom View Post
    When using the stick and carrot approach, remember that what you have to do is shove the carrot up their arse and then beat them with the stick.
    Check out my YouTube Channel here
    Under The Patronage Of jimkatalanos
    Patron Of
    Murfios,
    Bolkonsky and DekuTrash


  9. #9

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leonidas The Lion View Post
    The most important thing is to keep the site or sites connected.
    If one user registers for one part of the site it should count for all of it.
    BTW talking on MSN is a good idea.
    see my post in other thread.

    btw the domian name used to be legiontotalwar.com but although that was a problem for CA, its main problem was that TWC was illegaly hosting time commander episodes.
    Under the Patronage of Imb39
    Patron of julianus heraclius, TheFirstONeill, Boz and midnite





  10. #10

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Ok how about:

    www .stratagycenter.net:

    With three forum index sections:

    Paradox section:

    EU (with subforums for older versions)
    HofI II
    General paradox discussion +

    Stratagy section:

    Forums for other stratagy games such as imperial glory, the civ series etc

    MMorph section:

    forums for star craft and other such games
    This follows into a "genre" based site.

    If we go this path and we want to still keep sites for specific games as well we can. We could have a Starcraft 2 or Civ 4, or Paradox games site separate and have every other strategy game that we haven't decided on or dont have a huge following on its own in this one general site.
    A mix between a genre site and sites for specific games in that genre could work out.
    Last edited by Kanaric; May 25, 2007 at 03:02 PM.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanaric View Post
    This follows into a "genre" based site.

    If we go this path and we want to still keep sites for specific games as well we can. We could have a Starcraft 2 or Civ 4, or Paradox games site separate and have every other strategy game that we haven't decided on in this one general site.
    A mix between a genre site and sites for specific games in that genre could work out.
    One new site is enough - its a matter of how it can be organised best, what its domain name should be, what games should have forums and how it can be implemented
    Under the Patronage of Imb39
    Patron of julianus heraclius, TheFirstONeill, Boz and midnite





  12. #12

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Also
    As far as the types of expansion, though, the only one I could get behind is a network/satellite site. Doing something genre-based I don't think would get any popularity, and combining everything into TWC would become wholly unwieldy. Not to mention bland with the lack of a theme and game-specific content, themes, events, etc.
    What he said about a genre based site is true. Its jack of all trades and doesn't focus on one game so the fans of a specific game wont see it as a "Paradox" fan site but a generic site.

    Also Total War is a strategy game. So would this site be affected by this or no?

    One new site is enough - its a matter of how it can be organised best, what its domain name should be, what games should have forums and how it can be implemented
    Posted this before I saw that.

    If we are to do one site it should be something like fansite for a specific game, i think. There are already general strategy gaming sites out there that have huge followings. If we did something we need to fill a void, imo.

    Would a strategy center really be better than focus on one series of games?
    Last edited by Kanaric; May 25, 2007 at 03:07 PM.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanaric View Post
    Also

    What he said about a genre based site is true. Its jack of all trades and doesn't focus on one game so the fans of a specific game wont see it as a "Paradox" fan site but a generic site.

    Also Total War is a strategy game. So would this site be affected by this or no?
    Considering its main source of members for quite a while would be this site, I dont think it would be too difficult to tell people that it wasnt just about Paradox games.

    As for effecting the TW part of this site it would be wise to make sure that it didnt effect it at all - people would be told to disscuss anything about TW games at this site.
    Under the Patronage of Imb39
    Patron of julianus heraclius, TheFirstONeill, Boz and midnite





  14. #14

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    ok, i see what you mean.

    Make it mainly about paradox games but include others as well that are within that genre. That does seem reasonable.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanaric View Post
    ok, i see what you mean.

    Make it mainly about paradox games but include others as well that are within that genre. That does seem reasonable.
    Yes.

    I will start a poll in this forum to get members approval.
    Under the Patronage of Imb39
    Patron of julianus heraclius, TheFirstONeill, Boz and midnite





  16. #16

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Ok, please do.

    edit: This wont end the discussion on other possible sites if others are agreed upon, not everyone has contributed to the discussion yet. There are other members of the committee that havn't posted, also make sure the poll lasts longer than up to the 26th if possible.
    Last edited by Kanaric; May 25, 2007 at 03:21 PM.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kanaric View Post
    Ok, please do.

    edit: This wont end the discussion on other possible sites if others are agreed upon, not everyone has contributed to the discussion yet. There are other members of the committee that havn't posted, also make sure the poll lasts longer than up to the 26th if possible.
    I made it only last a day because even if the vast majority of us agree about the principals of it, the wording of the statement will almost certainly need to be changed therefore a new poll will have to be made anyway.
    Under the Patronage of Imb39
    Patron of julianus heraclius, TheFirstONeill, Boz and midnite





  18. #18

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    ok, that is fine
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

  19. #19
    Garbarsardar's Avatar Et Slot i et slot
    Patrician Tribune Citizen Magistrate Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    20,615

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    I think we should make a dedicated forum before start talking about a site. Let's make a Paradox forum let it run for a month, take it from there. That may also help us staffing the any new project.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Initial Objective: Which path should we take?

    That sounds like a good idea as well. The forum would be easy to set up and you would start building on a site from that.
    Swear filters are for sites run by immature children.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •