How we doing these days?  Do we need some user acquisition? 

I'm part of a number of other gaming sites and could plug it, we might all spread the word to our various social circles just to increase activity.  Wargear is a phenomenal site and wealth of unique rulesets and games, I love it! 

I admit that I more often join games rather than create them, maybe some people just find creating a game tricky or onerous?  What if "create game" defaults to a few common newb-friendly boards and you then click "view more boards" to access the rest if you have fewer than x games played? 

Or maybe defaults to a list of your top 10 played maps with a view-more button or allows you to add certain maps/scenarios as "favourites"?  

The "select a board" drop-down is quite onerous as-is due to the large number of maps.  It could be improved upon methinks. 

Suggestions?

I too have a tendency to join games rather than create them, even though I by now have no trouble with the game-creating process. I guess I've always been this way. In company of gaming friends I let them choose which games to play. 

Making it easier for beginners sounds like an excellent idea to me. If it has been this way since the start then it used to be easy and then became more complex as more boards were added. I've seen a couple of players who made their first game on 1776 (first in the alphabet and so on top) and then disappeared. A 1776 game requires five players and will take time to fill, if it fills at all, so it's not the best choice for a "default" start.

I can't remember, but at one time wasn't there a "welcoming committee?"  People that contacted new members and invited them to games?

Outside of the board revival group games, I usually create my own so I guess it balances out ;). I'm sure some user acquisition efforts would be appreciated. 

The site in general has a bit of a '90s feel to it. Doesn't bother me at all, but whenever I invite a friend to play a game with me on this site and have to walk them through it, it reminds me how it might make it difficult for some. Especially the younger generations being much less computer literate than mine.

If the create a game page were to be streamlined (which I suppose is reasonable), I would recommend including the "most popular" and "top rated" from the main board page, that user's favorite list, and maybe this months Board Revival Group selection.

M57 wrote:

I can't remember, but at one time wasn't there a "welcoming committee?"  People that contacted new members and invited them to games?

I occasionally do that. Would be nice if it were an automated process.

Also, maybe we should have a suggested order of boards to learn site features? When I start with a new person, I often start with WGWF, then move on to something that is basically risk like Australian Risk, Moon Base, or 9 blocks. Then on to something with just a couple more features like the Mario boards.

>Also, maybe we should have a suggested order of boards to learn site features? When I start with a new person, I often start with WGWF, then move on to something that is basically risk like Australian Risk, Moon Base, or 9 blocks. Then on to something with just a couple more features like the Mario boards.

Shameless self promotion, but when I invite someone to wargear, I usually play WGWF first, and then play through my boards in something like this order:

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Simple+World - A world map, so easy to follow - various scenarios can introduce return to attack, and return to fortify  (if player is grasping things quickly, you can try capitals scenario with capitals & view borders, or save that for a bit later).

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Pangaea+and+Panthalassa - Another "world" map, with a twist.  Introduces hordes concept

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Random+Mazes - Relatively simple, but shows that boards don't need to be on a map

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Pirates+of+the+Caribbean - One-way borders, view borders, and potentially simultaneous territory seletction (depending on scenario)

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Hoarding+LEGO - Hordes and view borders again, plus territory max unit counts.

Those are the best of my "easy" maps.  After that I'd go to 

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Crystal+Caves

* Qbert - http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/%40%21%23%3F%40%21%3F

Both of these have lots of different rules, including dice modifiers, but are relatively simple, and have strong themes to support their rules.

Finally the advanced boards. These all have a lot going, or something very different about them:

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Invention

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Diatoms

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/There+Will+Be+Blood

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Lego+Factory+Battle

* http://www.wargear.net/boards/view/Iwo+Jima

And also I think a necessary component of attracting new people is to have a ranking system that is accessible to them

Amidon37 wrote:

And also I think a necessary component of attracting new people is to have a ranking system that is accessible to them

+1 Of course, this has been debated to death.  CPs are all but unattainable for beginners.  I can barely remember its name - it's been so long - but "Option I" has a ring to it.  What I do remember is how simple it is.  Start winning - and pretty much immediately get in on the Championship point race.

I really don't get why the ranking thing is 'debated to death' in the context of newcomers. Simple solution:

Make the monthly ranking more mainstream.

Everyone starts at the same place.

That was what I was following a year ago when I was a new comer.

Pratik wrote:

I really don't get why the ranking thing is 'debated to death' in the context of newcomers. Simple solution:

Make the monthly ranking more mainstream.

Everyone starts at the same place.

That was what I was following a year ago when I was a new comer.

You're thinking of the GR (I think) which rewards (or can be 'gamed' by) specialization. - We're talking about the CPs, which reward overall superiority across all boards and are (in theory) the most coveted of points on the site.

Not that I care personally, but for the sake of the site - who wants to build up a score only to have it wiped away monthly?  And how then would you identify the best players on the site? A newcomer to this site, who starts by playing WGWF and pretty much plays only that board (which is a LARGE % of members) has a snowball's chance in hell of gaining 1 CP unless they are a monster player and play for maybe a year.

M57 wrote:

Pratik wrote:

I really don't get why the ranking thing is 'debated to death' in the context of newcomers. Simple solution:

Make the monthly ranking more mainstream.

Everyone starts at the same place.

That was what I was following a year ago when I was a new comer.

You're thinking of the GR (I think) which rewards (or can be 'gamed' by) specialization. - We're talking about the CPs, which reward overall superiority across all boards and are (in theory) the most coveted of points on the site.

Not that I care personally, but for the sake of the site - who wants to build up a score only to have it wiped away monthly?  And how then would you identify the best players on the site? A newcomer to this site, who starts by playing WGWF and pretty much plays only that board (which is a LARGE % of members) has a snowball's chance in hell of gaining 1 CP unless they are a monster player and play for maybe a year.

I object.

M57 wrote: "Not that I care personally, but for the sake of the site - who wants to build up a score only to have it wiped away monthly?"

It sounds like the instant gratification is exactly what the debate is about.  I concur with Pratik's sentiments. If we need to do a periodic chart to show who the top dog is for a month or quarter or bi-annual or annual period so that player x can show they outplayed the top players on the alltime chart, than so be it. But if some of you are thinking that a player that wins a dozen games should race up the alltime charts (even if they went 12-0), than I think that does a disservice to the players, like Mad Bomber and Blackdog and Cona, who spent the time to rack up all the wins.

Thingol wrote:

M57 wrote: "Not that I care personally, but for the sake of the site - who wants to build up a score only to have it wiped away monthly?"

It sounds like the instant gratification is exactly what the debate is about.  I concur with Pratik's sentiments. If we need to do a periodic chart to show who the top dog is for a month or quarter or bi-annual or annual period so that player x can show they outplayed the top players on the alltime chart, than so be it. But if some of you are thinking that a player that wins a dozen games should race up the alltime charts (even if they went 12-0), than I think that does a disservice to the players, like Mad Bomber and Blackdog and Cona, who spent the time to rack up all the wins.

Fair Enough - and I agree with the idea that short-term comparisons have value - but it's got to be frustrating not to be able to even create a CP number, much less make a dent in the All-time chart after you've been playing for a year.

Only 3 in the top 10 for CP are currently active.

As an aside, Xrayjay is back after a year or so off.

Blackdog hasn't played in 3 years, Luiliu in over 4.

In the Melbourne/Victoria squash pennant  if you don't play 4 matches in the past 6 months you no longer exist...

4 in top 20 for GR appear currently active

Xrayjay wrote:

Only 3 in the top 10 for CP are currently active.

As an aside, Xrayjay is back after a year or so off.

4 active, actually, Cona Chris' last login was today. 

Welcome back! :)

I think a global chat on the homepage might be a nice way to bolster a community feel as well as help new players navigate boards and find people to play games with.  I also think there should definitely be a monthly ranking system, though I'm not convinced it needs to replace the "Hall of Fame" or whatever currently exists.

Any of this probably would need Tom's involvement I imagine :p