personally i don't see a down side to let standard members have access to the design tool.
As far as i can tell Tom will eventually implement a buying/selling boards system (with in the next few months?) so as far as a standerd member relicing a public board I'm gonna say its probably not a good idea.

hows this sound: standerd members can have up to 5 boards. private invites only.

I have to agree with Enix on this.

Good boards are are an asset to the site, requiring someone to become premium in order to produce an asset seems a little self defeating.

Allowing the use of the design tool but restricting the output of the maps to private only is a slap in the face.

Restricting non-premium members to a single map release is far less obnoxious but I still don't see the rationale.

If payment for boards ever goes into effect then only allowing premium members to receive payments for boards makes sense.

As to the quality protest, I can't see any possible correlation between someone's ability to pay for premium and their ability to design a good map. If anything I would imagine there is a slight inverse correlation if you think about the starving artist stereotype.

Edit: 

I read some of these posts again and I'm really confused at some of the opinions.  Good maps are an ASSET.  You don't get good maps without wading through some bad ones, and although allowing non-premiums to create maps would increase the overall quantity sent through review there is that explicit assumption that someone who wants/can pay for the site is going to produce a better map.

Notice I included 'can' as well as 'wants'.  I've been in the position before where paying for an online Risk game would literally be the last thing on the priority list.  Perhaps not coincidentally those same times are when I had the most time to be able to contribute to say, building a quality map.  Do you think I wrote that whole WF script when I was at work?  Hell no.  If two kind WF members hadn't purchased premium for me 1/2 that script wouldn't have been written.

Luckily I am no longer in that position, but last time I checked a good 10% of the US and a good portion of the EU is still in that position.  Just saying.

IRoll11s wrote:

As to the quality protest, I can't see any possible correlation between someone's ability to pay for premium and their ability to design a good map. If anything I would imagine there is a slight inverse correlation if you think about the starving artist stereotype.

It's not to do with 'ability'. It's to do with commitment or immersion. It's not that if someone is rich enough to buy premium they deserve to create maps. It's that if someone is committed or immersed enough in being a WarGear member to want to create a map, they're likely to be more invested in making a good one. Don't make this some kind of class warfare issue, it's nothing like that.

asm wrote:

IRoll11s wrote:

As to the quality protest, I can't see any possible correlation between someone's ability to pay for premium and their ability to design a good map. If anything I would imagine there is a slight inverse correlation if you think about the starving artist stereotype.

It's not to do with 'ability'. It's to do with commitment or immersion. It's not that if someone is rich enough to buy premium they deserve to create maps. It's that if someone is committed or immersed enough in being a WarGear member to want to create a map, they're likely to be more invested in making a good one. Don't make this some kind of class warfare issue, it's nothing like that.

I'm not attempting to make this 'class warfare'.

I'm not entirely sure what your position is though.  You mention commitment and immersion leads to better mapmaking.  That seems reasonable.  You also say "It's not that if someone is rich enough to buy premium they deserve to create maps."

So you don't think people need premium to create maps, just commitment and immersion?

Edit: Oh wait, I'm sorry, you said "committed or immersed enough in being a WarGear member".  I see, so someone can't be committed or immersed in the site without paying for it, so you are explicitly correlating the two.

I respectfully disagree with that position.

IRoll11s wrote:
Allowing the use of the design tool but restricting the output of the maps to private only is a slap in the face.

the vision i have is:

 "Joe" a normal SM (Standard Member) may want to make a map or two and show it off to his friends. (Chances are it will be a circle mode Risk map.) Joe, if he had the ability would probably just end up being a pain in the ass by launching a bunch of public beta games after his Risk board is denied by the review panel.

"John" on the other hand (and also a SM) has a real interest and talent in creating good boards but his wife wont let him spend the diaper money on a computer game (even if the game is better than his kid)

but John has options: (these are what i think would make a restriction on the Public / Private better then the number of unrestricted boards)

Option 1, winning a membership: WarGear could have a "Monthly Monster Tournament" where the winner wins 2 weeks of premium membership OR>>>

a one month Player membership (player membership would include Stats, work mode, private messages, etc.) OR one month Designer Membership (designer membership would include the ability to submit boards the review panel, starting public beta games, etc)

Option 2, Incentive programs:

 1) rating a board, every 10th rating you give you receive a one week player membership OR one week designer membership. 

 2) highest rankings, once a month WarGear calculates all the points you have earned in that month and the top ten receive a one week player membership OR one week designer membership.

I think this keeps in the spirit of "everyone can have the same thing but if you want the easy way you gotta pay"

"even if the game is better than his kid"

+1!

I changed my mind, I think the easiest thing to do is what Krock suggested and allow standard members access to the design tool but restrict them to Private games only. (There's no real need to restrict them to any specific number since that's only really disk space, right?)

You would run into the situation where a standard member has used the designer and hits up a map reviewer to 'please please look at my map'.

This would satisfy Yertle and Co. in denying automated submissions to the Review Process, but still allow someone who is poor but dedicated an avenue (pestering the crap out of us) to get a hearing for their map. This way any closet Riskelangelos could be discovered and their maps promoted on a case by case basis.

EnixNeo wrote:

Yertle wrote:...

IMO, this isn't a restriction due to Premium vs Standard, but it's a way to cut back on the number of JPegs with Fill Mode boards being seen by the public and review.

The 1 board idea wasn't restrictive enough?!  I think allowing standard members the ability to create a single board over an unlimited number of boards is a compromise in itself.  I really dislike this elitist vibe of being a premium member.  It is inhibiting creation, creativity, and variety.  How are we correlating financial status to one's ability to create a board!!!

Silly progressive. If you give away the milk for free, who's going to buy the cows? And if no one buys the cows, how does Tom keep the farm running? Servers, bandwidth, and time aren't free.

I'm not against giving out Premiums (that's tom's call), I do like the idea of contributing to the site (ie Ratings, Videos, etc.) as a way of potentially obtaining bursts of Premium (I'm not sure WF did it the right way...when it was done), but again, that's tom's call.

If payment for boards ever goes into effect then only allowing premium members to receive payments for boards makes sense.

As for this, I'm not sure I even agree with that, if a player has to be Premium to release a map, then falls to Standard and the map sells, then I think it still makes sense for that person to receive payment (IMO tom should probably take a small cut, just like how WF worked). Then it's possible the person will buy another Premium and make even more boards that could be sold.

11s wrote:...

This would satisfy Yertle and Co. in denying automated submissions to the Review Process, but still allow someone who is poor but dedicated an avenue (pestering the crap out of us) to get a hearing for their map. This way any closet Riskelangelos could be discovered and their maps promoted on a case by case basis.

This is along the lines I was thinking, If some standard member wanted to create a map with their free attempt or five, they would have ability to contact the DEV team to work thru the development. assuming they get thru that with some good comments then maybe they would be willing to pay for a membership to release the map.

I see the argument for those with funding challenges not being able to make maps if they want. i would be willing to say that they get the ability to make a few maps, without the option for public release/beta. this still leaves it open for the creative and willing to make some maps. If then the working DEV team thinks this is an awesome map they could convince the designer to pony up, or maybe someone would gift them membership.

I too am not against giving away a few premiums, but I'm not sure how to do that. Not a fan of the reviews/ratings/etc being a means for that tho. I could see giving away a single 3-month membership to someone that would be bringing 2 or 3 good boards with them. That would be incentive (i would think) for them to keep paying after that; especially if they have to be a member to get paid for their boards once that particular beast goes up (tho not a fan of having to pay for boards myself). If not a member, all bought boards go to WG.

Cramchakle wrote:

Silly progressive. If you give away the milk for free, who's going to buy the cows? And if no one buys the cows, how does Tom keep the farm running? Servers, bandwidth, and time aren't free.

Restricting a user to one map isn't giving away the cow!

KrocK wrote:

 "Joe" a normal SM (Standard Member) may want to make a map or two and show it off to his friends. (Chances are it will be a circle mode Risk map.)

And that right there is an assumption.  An assumption made solely for the purpose to make stand ard members seem in some way less capable of making a map.  The very assumption that I have a problem with.   

asm wrote:

It's not to do with 'ability'. It's to do with commitment or immersion. It's not that if someone is rich enough to buy premium they deserve to create maps. It's that if someone is committed or immersed enough in being a WarGear member to want to create a map, they're likely to be more invested in making a good one. Don't make this some kind of class warfare issue, it's nothing like that.

Exactly.  It has nothing to do with being able to afford a premium membership, it has to do with being involved in the WG community.  Someone who cannot afford the site can still be JUST as involved and immersed.

IRoll11s wrote:

I have to agree with E nix on this.

Good boards are are an asset to the site, requiring someone to become premium in order to produce an asset seems a little self defeating.

Allowing the use of the design tool but restricting the output of the maps to private only is a slap in the face.

Restricting non-premium members to a single map release is far less obnoxious but I still don't see the rationale.

If payment for boards ever goes into effect then only allowing premium members to receive payments for boards makes sense.

As to the quality protest, I can't see any possible correlation between someone's ability to pay for premium and their ability to design a good map. If anything I would imagine there is a slight inverse correlation if you think about the starving artist stereotype.

 

Edit: 

 

I read some of these posts again and I'm really confused at some of the opinions.  Good maps are an ASSET.  You don't get good maps without wading through some bad ones, and although allowing non-premiums to create maps would increase the overall quantity sent through review there is that explicit assumption that someone who wants/can pay for the site is going to produce a better map.

Notice I included 'can' as well as 'wants'.  I've been in the position before where paying for an online Risk game would literally be the last thing on the priority list.  Perhaps not coincidentally those same times are when I had the most time to be able to contribute to say, building a quality map.  Do you think I wrote that whole WF script when I was at work?  Hell no.  If two kind WF members hadn't purchased premium for me 1/2 that script wouldn't have been written.

Luckily I am no longer in that position, but last time I checked a good 10% of the US and a good portion of the EU is still in that position.  Just saying.

I couldn't make the point better myself.  Let's please remember that maps are an asset.  The more quality maps available the better it is for the players.  We're not saying that somehow standard members' maps will bypass review and automatically be made live allowing this sudden rush of "inferior maps".  Allowing standard members to create maps would create an influx of new maps and out of those maps we can find the gems exactly the way the site works now.  There will be a ratio of good to bad maps submitted for review and I believe it will be about the same as those submitted by premium members.  You cannot tell me that premium members shit nothing but gold every time.

I don't think that not allowing Standard Members access to the Board Designer has anything to do with a perceived lack of "innate ability". Rather it has to do with the fact that someone has to pay to keep this site running, and that someone is Tom. The sale of Premium memberships is the only form of reimbursement he has right now, and in order to encourage people to buy Premium memberships, there have to be some worthwhile perks that go along with it.

Frankly, I see the ability to design and publicly release a map as one of the most fun features of this and similar sites, and gladly will pay for the privilege. That it helps WarGear in general (and Tom) is a side-effect in many ways. It would be nice to have a system to buy or purchase boards to reward good map-makers, but I trust that will come in time.

I think it is good business to limit board design and public release to premium members. However, it could be very savvy of Tom to allow standard members to use the designer, but perhaps limit the number of map-making features available to them (e.g. dual-layer, some of the advanced gameplay settings like capitals and custom cards, etc.), and only allow them to start private games with their boards. Just enough to give them a taste of what's available, and make them hungry for more.

So basically, I support a system that makes the site financially sustainable for Tom, and which also draws people in to become more active on WarGear.

EnixNeo wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

Silly progressive. If you give away the milk for free, who's going to buy the cows? And if no one buys the cows, how does Tom keep the farm running? Servers, bandwidth, and time aren't free.

Restricting a user to one map isn't giving away the cow!

For what it's worth, this was mostly in regard to the comment about 'elitism' surrounding premium membership. I don't think anyone is really being elitist with regard to being premium. They're more being defensive of making people contribute fiscally to keeping the place going.

I'm more in the camp that you can let everyone make as many maps as they want and even submit them for review. As others have mentioned, good maps are good for the site. So is wider community involvement. The review board will be busier, but hopefully the board grows along with community involvement. All of those are good things.

On the other hand, if you take away board creation as a member perk, then there's not a whole helluva lot left to buy. So giving away the map-making milk is pretty hard on cow sales, I'm sure.

I want to see Tom at least break even on the cash outlays side and he can write off the time as a pursuit of his passions. It's pretty hard to monetize on the internet. Almost impossible, for that matter so whatever is required to keep the place going is cool by me.

EnixNeo wrote:

asm wrote:

It's not to do with 'ability'. It's to do with commitment or immersion. It's not that if someone is rich enough to buy premium they deserve to create maps. It's that if someone is committed or immersed enough in being a WarGear member to want to create a map, they're likely to be more invested in making a good one.

Exactly.  It has nothing to do with being able to afford a premium membership, it has to do with being involved in the WG community.  Someone who cannot afford the site can still be JUST as involved and immersed.

Sure, but it's a convenient shorthand. It's certainly plausible that there would be people that are very invested in the WG community and gifted at making maps but can't afford to pay for premium membership, and that by restricting unlimited board design to premium members, we'd be losing valuable contributions from that group of players. But it's virtually guaranteed that if someone has paid for a membership with the intention of designing boards, they're going to be invested and committed enough to try to make good ones.

Kjeld wrote:

I don't think that not allowing Standard Members access to the Board Designer has anything to do with a perceived lack of "innate ability". Rather it has to do with the fact that someone has to pay to keep this site running, and that someone is Tom. The sale of Premium memberships is the only form of reimbursement he has right now, and in order to encourage people to buy Premium memberships, there have to be some worthwhile perks that go along with it.

Frankly, I see the ability to design and publicly release a map as one of the most fun features of this and similar sites, and gladly will pay for the privilege. That it helps WarGear in general (and Tom) is a side-effect in many ways. It would be nice to have a system to buy or purchase boards to reward good map-makers, but I trust that will come in time.

I think it is good business to limit board design and public release to premium members. However, it could be very savvy of Tom to allow standard members to use the designer, but perhaps limit the number of map-making features available to them (e.g. dual-layer, some of the advanced gameplay settings like capitals and custom cards, etc.), and only allow them to start private games with their boards. Just enough to give them a taste of what's available, and make them hungry for more.

So basically, I support a system that makes the site financially sustainable for Tom, and which also draws people in to become more active on WarGear.

I'm not arguing tom making money.  I'm arguing for greater map variety.  We're arguing for the same thing-->I feel increased map variety HELPS the community.  Things that are good for the community are good for tom.  Although I'm not doing any of this for tom... I'm doing it for the community.

I'm all for tom making money.  And I've suggested several ideas that could be added to premium.  What I'm saying is that by completely cutting out a huge population (standard members), we are limiting creative maps on the site.  Unlimited map making should be for premium members I'm just trying to prevent too heavy of restrictions on standard member creativity.  I think limiting standard map making to five maps is a great idea.  I think limiting them to 1 map is a great compromise.  I think limiting them to something that the public community can't even enjoy is ludicrous!

To summarize: I'm not debating anything that has to do with making money.  I'm debating only how restricted standard members should be on the topic of map designing.  On the topic of money, I feel added maps help the site make money.

I must admit to approaching this topic from the standpoint of a non-mapmaker. To me the value in the designer is end product: the maps that are produced and promoted are definitely assets to the site.

In my head I discounted Yertle's statement (and other's) to the effect that the map-maker was a big reason for going premium because I wasn't thinking about it from that angle.

For someone who is interested, merely having access to the designer has value. I imagine some mapmakers spend more time playing with the designer than actually playing games. There is also the reward recognition that goes with having your name under the maps on the board page, this also has value.

So now I'm not sure where I stand on this. I don't have enough data to go on. How many more good maps would we get by allowing unrestricted access to the designer? How many people would pay who otherwise wouldn't for access to the designer if it was restricted?

If it were only restricted to Private games and someone designed an awesome map, would the value of having that map promoted outweigh the value that person would get from the name/reward recognition?

Maybe Ozy's suggestion of a single board is the best compromise. That could be single board overall, not 1-board-at-a-time. If that single board is great and gets promoted it still counts. This would give everyone the ability to at least use the designer to see if it's something they want to pay to play with. For those who fall in love with mapmaking the incentive to pay will still be there because 1 board will just not be enough. For those who just can't pay, they will have to be satisfied with 1 board, but the community will still have a chance to benefit from the value of a promoted board.

Agreed.

Agreed.

tom wrote:

30/03/2010 Non-Premium members now have access to the board design pages (for one board only)

I think I'm seeing access to create 2 boards, at least I don't get the Upgrade to Premium until I try and create a third.

To design more than one board you'll need to become a Premium member. Click here for more information on upgrading to Premium.

No restriction for the board created by Standard Members right? Meaning it can go to Public Beta and Review/etc.?

Hmm it works fine for me. I'll see if I can break it somehow.

Yes that's right, there's no restrictions on how the board is used (promoted to Live).

Add this to the Help pages on designing boards.

What happens if somebody makes and releases >1 boards during their first month of Premium and then doesn't renew? (Hate to say it, this could be exploited as a loophole)