Two incarnations of the same idea, to attract/keep newcomers, and plug them into the system.

Board reviews:

Same idea as WF- must play 3 games before review. If the review is greater than, say 100 characters, they get a free day membership. The reviews are sent to Mapmaker for OK'ing (not for censorship but to prevent "askdjfaldsvbiuebviudbviudsbvasbdvjasdhbvajdsbvaiusdhviuebvidsbvajdsbvjhasbdjbvkfjdbvajksdfbvjabdsvhjasdbvjasbavsjkdbv"

as a review.) Any denial of a review by a designer is sent to an admin for verification. Two accepted reviews is worth a free day of premium membership.

Map of the week:

Each month highlights a different board. Start with a fresh set of contest rankings at the beginning of the month (or week, depending). Let's assume the contest goes on for the first week of every month. At the end of the contest, the winner/s get the number of weeks equal to the contest points earned (perhaps 5 contest points total to dole out). Contestants have to play at least k number of games, where k is reasonable for that board (I guess 3 makes sense, enough to leave a review). Keep the contest games in a different list on the main page. Keep the contest rankings hidden form other players, so there can be no conspiring.

Let players finish their games. At the end of the month, terminate all nonfinished games.

Cheaters will be booted from the site (something like playing at most 4 games that has player X as an opponent). Mention that somewhere.

Both of these suggestions reward good behavior with a little bit of a premium membership. This way they get a taste of the premium membership and won't want to lose it. Also, they'll play a board enough to give it a chance (solving a common gripe for many designers).

Mongrel wrote:

This way they get a taste of the premium membership and won't want to lose it.

First month is a good taste of premium. 

I do think there may need to be more of incentive to leave Board Ratings (although there isn't a 3 game minimum on WF, it's not a bad idea though, but not one that I like either).  Going to the Mapmaker is interesting, although I wouldn't want Mapmakers to have the ability to decline good ratings that give bad scores.

Not really sure I understand map contest and the games (and really unsure of terminating unfinished games), but I like the Map of the Week (or Month) idea.  Something that highlights maps in another way other than the just the Boards list (I imagine something like this is on tom's todo list).

Yertle wrote:

Going to the Mapmaker is interesting, although I wouldn't want Mapmakers to have the ability to decline good ratings that give bad scores.

That's why he'd have any reviews declined by the map author going to admin (you, maybe, or Review Board) for vetting. This way anybody in the practice of trying to protect their map rating would be outed very quickly. I think it's mostly a mechanism to spread out the labor of confirming reviews.

It does all get a little intricate, though.

Not really sure I understand map contest and the games (and really unsure of terminating unfinished games), but I like the Map of the Week (or Month) idea.  Something that highlights maps in another way other than the just the Boards list (I imagine something like this is on tom's todo list).

I didn't get this thing either. But I also agree that a general Map of the Month would be neat.

Gotchya, I read over that part I guess. Still kind of a Hmmmm on that part of the Ratings IMO, I do see the need to validate Ratings, I just wish there wasn't the need :P

First month free? Huh- didn't know that.

Let me try to write down how the contest would work chronologically, Just to organize what's in my head, which in general, is very disorganized. I call it "swirly".

Feb 27 2010: Tom (or admins, or community) selects a board that has generated some interest to be board of the month. Fix all modifications (fog, # of players, etc.).

Mar 1: Contest begins. Contest board is placed on the home page. A new set of contest rankings are birthed into existence- everyone starts at 1000. A separate contest queue of tables is made accessible by a tab on the home page, to prevent clogging the original queue.

Mar 1-8: While the competition is on, both original rankings and the contest rankings are updated, though only the contest rankings factor when selecting winners. Players can start/join as many tables as they want (maybe 5 at a time would be a good cap for maps that one player can create.) Set a maximum of 25 tables that any one player can join during the contest.

Mar 9: No more tables can be created.

Mar 10: Play continues. contest ranking/contest points are calculated in the same manner as board ranking/championship points. Keep the contest rankings hidden, to prevent late-contest collusion! Unless we want folks gunning for the top guy.

Mar 30: Ideally, contests would end at the end of the month. Once all contest tables are finished, the top players will have contest points. They win as many weeks free membership as there are contest points by their name.

I don't want to terminate unfinished games, but I also don't want contests dragging on for months. I think the combination of capping total tables per contestant to an appropriate size, board creation kept to the first week, and board scenario should keep under control.

No 16 man-game contests, please.

Mar 31st: Tom (or admins, or community) select a board that has generated some interest to be board of the month. Fix all modifications (fog, # of players, etc.).

I agree COMPLETELY!  I really like these ideas.  I haven't had the chance to write in the forums recently but this is the very issue I wanted to bring up, the concept of INVOLVING people into the site.  Making them feel part of a community or a greater purpose rather than just a place to play risk (they can play risk in a bunch of different sites--what makes them stay here?).

Yertle wrote:

First month is a good taste of premium.

There is a huge flaw in this that I wont even get into until I get the chance to bring up another thread that I had created which never got an official response but tries to address the whole concept that Mongrel is trying to reinforce.

A month of premium is great but a way to reward people for contributing to the site is enormously better.  This rewards people for adding something to the site that everyone can benefit from.  (I always wondered why you have to be a premium member to create a board.  That's like saying 'can you pay me so that you can add variety to my site?'  As another example of community involvement and reward, board creation can be made open to standard members-- and for every 12 games that are started on a board you've created you get 1 week of premium free [the match must be created by someone other than yourself].  This rewards mapmakers who create something that the community enjoys.  If you create something that is immensely popular you could conceivably have your premium account without ever paying a penny.  That is: a single user would essentially get time for free as a premium member for something the ENTIRE community is enjoying.  Sorry, this whole thing started as a side thought and took up most of the paragraph.)  Board reviews help designer grow, give newer members a suggestion for what to play next, and weed out less than stellar boards.

In this way, members are either contributing to the community for their premium or if they don't want to participate they can pay outright for their membership.

The whole idea of the map contest is genius.  It encourages users to try something other than a standard risk map and it gives them a reason to do so.  On top of that, creating a contest with a reward of free premiumship creates competition and more matches.  These mini tournaments allow new users the chance to stand out on these mini ranking boards even if they are too new to try to make the global rankings tables.

Good stuff Mongrel
 

EnixNeo wrote:

(I always wondered why you have to be a premium member to create a board.  That's like saying 'can you pay me so that you can add variety to my site?'

On WF if you created a map (only available to Plus members), then you could also sell the map and actually make money on your designs.  I believe this will eventually occur on WG (at least tom has hinted at it), which makes sense to only allow Premiums the ability to create maps IMO.

Now another reason I'm glad that board design is only available for Premiums is that those people that are Premiums have something invested in the site, and therefore will strive to create better maps.  Mainly I think it kind of filters out a lot of junk maps rather than prevents a lot of good maps from being designed (similar to Circle Mode not allowed Live status).

I do agree though, contributing to the site should have some potential reward.

As a map maker I like the Map of the week or month idea and it's something I've always wanted to see. I can't speak for all map makers, but we take a bit of pride in our stuff and this would be reward enough. Perhaps once tournaments are set up there could be a Map of the Month Tournament.
I don't know what to say about reviews nor do I really care. You have something to say about one of my maps, say it, but I will let you know that I haven't read any since the first one I got.
I don't really understand the whole "Get Involved in the Site" stuff. This is a gaming site, to be involved is to join games. If you like it and have ideas, you decide if you want to invest a little money to be able to make maps. I've sold almost as many maps here as I did on That Other Site (from here on referred to as TOS) so I don't do it for money. My maps are rarely that popular ratings wise or play wise so I also don't do it for those reasons. I do like seeing my maps on the games list and I do have some people that enjoy the styles of play I put out there, but for the most part I do it because I like playing different concepts and different strategies (coming soon, a RiskyMap that requires strategy!). If you have ideas this site has plenty of places to express them. I don't think giving away free stuff is that important, I just think that we saw it on TOS and think it should be here too. Remember, some Online Risk sites have been in beta testing for 8 years!
Summing up, there are ratings here to express your opinion, there is the ability to make maps if you want, there is the forums to suggest things or get questions answered and there is asm's profile for random swearing at people.
Personally, I think all bases are covered that way for now.

While Enix illuminated many of the benefits, let me emphasize that the incentive program is NOT for the designers, but for the players. Sure, designers want their boards played, and great boards have an aspect of discovery, that only comes with a few tries. But, as the design elements increase in complexity (artillery borders, capitals, etc.), so does the disparity between advanced players, and the newbs. Additional care should be taken in getting new players adapted and comfortable with the system.

Similarly, the benefit of reviews is as much for players as it is the designer. As a designer, you test the board, have a decent idea of what to expect, and wouldn't release the board if you thought it was deficient. But Johnny-off-the-street may have no idea what he's getting into.

So, however skewed/unreliable/subjective the board reviews may be, they provide one important piece of information lacking in most about sections:

Board reviews give a new player an idea of how that board plays.

The more detailed they are, the better they become, so long as they don't contain spoilers. But honestly, if a map has gameplay so linear as to contain spoilers, it shouldn't be live.

Who's opinion can you trust? I think the reviews should be weighted towards better players, and number of times played. That way, the "cunfuzing and sux" review by pwnu6969 sinks to the bottom, while the "confusing at first, but with experience is a fun battle" by Norseman floats to the top. The higher your board ranking, the more your opinion should count.

All for now.

Mongrel wrote:

Who's opinion can you trust? I think the reviews should be weighted towards better players, and number of times played. That way, the "cunfuzing and sux" review by pwnu6969 sinks to the bottom, while the "confusing at first, but with experience is a fun battle" by Norseman floats to the top. The higher your board ranking, the more your opinion should count.

I like this idea, although I'm not sure it has to necessarily be board ranking, it could simply be number of games played.  Someone that likes the board and has played a lot of games on it could have a bad ranking, so their rating should still be higher than someone who played one game but has a higher score.

I'm getting a bit confused again by Review/Rating :P since Board Reviews are what it takes for a board to go Live, always throws me off for a while.

Sorry Yert, that's what they were called on TOS.

I'm all for the incentive program.

Incentive program...sounds like another argument for some sort of points system.