KrocK wrote:

ok so Toaster already had a points idea soooo ill just agree with him i would like to say that having a option to play a game/ tourniment for points or $ i think that it would truly set this site apart... just imagin if you get into a argument with a player and want to settle who is the better player you could start a "put your points where your mouth is" best 3 out of 5 tourniment then you could not only have bragging rights but you can take there points.

yes there is a whole lot that will have to change (extra scurity etc, etc.)  if you look at all the poker sites for example thay are making a killing on all the cash games and the site owners are very well off.i can see this option no only being a way to set this site above the others(not that it isnt already) and turn this site from a small amount of income for tom into possably the main income and that inturn could free up some capitol to maby hire some of the people that are already helping tom with this site.

incase you missed it i think a points system is a good idea ;)

I believe there are certain hoops one would have to jump through in order to make a gambling site. Laws and whatnot.

I've never made much on Map sales and what I did make I usually used to pay for my premium membership and since we haven't come up with a better idea, I think that map makers should be rewarded with Premium for reaching Bench Marks:
Map going live adds 1 month of Premium
50 games played on the map another month
100 games played another month
or something along that line. Maybe a month for every 25 or 50 games played on the map. That way the site is not only rewarding map makers for their efforts, it is also encouraging good and playable maps and by giving premium it is becoming self-sustaining and one day, self-aware!!!!
Would be cool if we could give those months away also to tournament victors or to settle bets, but that's just pie in the sky stuff.
This should be games played per map and not total per map maker. I think that would get confusing and also benefit those of us who have a lot of unpopular maps rather than map makers with a few very popular maps. They should really get more credit than posers like me!
Just a thought.

This does sound like a pretty good idea.  My maps do little more than pay for my membership on ToS, but I wonder how much rev they produce for the owners of the site. Your idea would preclude that, but I think that revenue for the owners should come from all the wonderful features the site offers both now and in the future.  Take BAO for instance.. Once we get a version running that blows ToS BaO off the map, make the first 5 or 10 games free so they can try it out, but require a premium membership for regular play. ..or perhaps make it so that only premium members can initiate those games..

Personally, right now I'm happy not to make a dime, but I would like it to get to the point where my membership is free. The site is just getting legs and I'm happy to support it, and I think ongoing credits towards membership for things like popular maps is a great way to encourage a quality product.

M57 wrote:

Personally, right now I'm happy not to make a dime, but I would like it to get to the point where my membership is free.

I would think that the obvious priority would be to get it to the point where the site itself makes money before we start thinking about how we can get out of paying for it.

asm wrote:

M57 wrote:

Personally, right now I'm happy not to make a dime, but I would like it to get to the point where my membership is free.

I would think that the obvious priority would be to get it to the point where the site itself makes money before we start thinking about how we can get out of paying for it.

Considering this thread started in November I just thought that this was something that was being considered previously and since the thread was started by tom I thought also that it might be something he was looking to do.

Sorry, my bad!

I'm coming off the wrong way - I think this is absolutely a worthwhile discussion and one that should certainly be resurrected. I'm all for monetizing the site in as many ways as possible; I just think that before we start dreaming up ways to make membership fees self-generating for mapmakers we should be trying to maximize the membership fees themselves. I think it's important that Tom be able to draw off funds from payments before trying to help ourselves get in on it as well.

I'm certainly open to ideas on this and it is something I'd like to implement - I think straightforward board sales as per ToS would be my preferred option, I think the motivation to design boards for the more prolific designers is going to decrease once they accumulate 20 years of free Premium on WG :)

tom wrote: I'm certainly open to ideas on this and it is something I'd like to implement - I think straightforward board sales as per ToS would be my preferred option, I think the motivation to design boards for the more prolific designers is going to decrease once they accumulate 20 years of free Premium on WG :)

Consider that all of us are doing it for nothing right now. Personally, I pretty much refuse to pay for maps over on ToS (I think I did it once to see how it works), and in that spirit, I'll think twice about putting my boards up for sale here, unless I'm forced to.

How about a system where everyone can play any board, but put in enough restrictions that premium membership is tempting (like you can only play 1 or 2 games on any specific board at a time- with a 10 game running max)?  That way you honor the spirit of the claim that you can play any board on WG for free.  Then bring in a profit-sharing system based on whatever criteria you like where popular board-play goes towards membership fees and eventually a little payola.  You wouldn't have that 20-year credit problem because everything is monetized.  The nice thing about profit sharing is that it's scalable.  If tom decides that he wants x% of his profits to go back to designers, as the site gets more profitable, we all benefit.  It requires us all to trust tom more implicitly, but the savings in Paypal fees alone should make this idea tempting for all sides.

Also I would rather see payouts go to the popular, not the prolific.  If someone can make a board that's popular for 20 years (perish the thought that Antastic is gonna let someone go into early retirement), more power to them.

M57 wrote:

Also I would rather see payouts go to the popular, not the prolific.  If someone can make a board that's popular for 20 years (perish the thought that Antastic is gonna let someone go into early retirement), more power to them.

So... what is a better indicator of popularity than having people put their money where their mouth is? We've seen from the behavior of Doom, Smor, my multiple alter egos, and others on Warfish that people will game any kind of rating system using whatever tools possible.

Smor had his friends load up a map with enough perfect reviews to get it over the 'minimum of 10 reviews to be listed' threshold before opening it up to the public, so it always debuted at or near the top of the rating system.

Doom recruited everyone from close friends to distant classmates, co-workers, and strangers he'd pass in the hallway to leave positive reviews of his own maps, and negative reviews of others.

I, to make a point, made a terrible map and created dozens of alternate accounts to inflate it to a perfect rating, and then closed it off from free play with an untouchable price so that that map lived at the top of the best maps list until I decided to take it down.

If you ignored reviews and just went with the most games played, then you'll primarily reward quick, cheap games. I'm also sure someone will make a map like the old Good v Evil and then have a second account play thousands of games on it; because people love finding weaknesses in systems, and they love to make money doing stupid things. It would happen.

Foolproof: pay people some percentage of the money other people pay to play their maps.

Point(s) well taken. How does this fit in with the spirit of the idea that game-play on WG is free? ..or do you think it still would be?  ..or perhaps you think it shouldn't be?

Perhaps we could make a distinction between "review scores" and "games played", and by games played, I don't mean games started.   Sure, people can still have their friends load up on the reviews (I don't have any friends so I'll be screwed), but the proof is in the pudding.  Will their friends start and complete games? Will the reviews be so compelling that people will go to and play the board in droves? If so, the map maker deserves the money.  Remember, with my suggestion, you can't have more than one or two games going on a board unless you are a premium member.  If Doom wants to get his friends and family to sign up for premium membership so they can all play his games an inordinate amount of times, I'm sure tom wouldn't have a problem with that.

Cramchakle wrote:

I, to make a point, made a terrible map and created dozens of alternate accounts to inflate it to a perfect rating, and then closed it off from free play with an untouchable price so that that map lived at the top of the best maps list until I decided to take it down.

Not to derail this thread, but I think you should restore that gem to its former glory.

Way to derail this thread, asm! Now we will just have a bunch of posts for a week or so and then the thread will get forgotten about! (again)

Nice Job!!!!!

asm wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

I, to make a point, made a terrible map and created dozens of alternate accounts to inflate it to a perfect rating, and then closed it off from free play with an untouchable price so that that map lived at the top of the best maps list until I decided to take it down.

Not to derail this thread, but I think you should restore that gem to its former glory.

Are you saying you want me to update the graphics and port it over to Wargear?

No, he's saying you should put it back up on the top of ToS and keep it there permanently.

I do miss seeing that at the top of the list.

I like the idea of a simple system, something like:

Restricted Use:
  Standard Users:
    Open Tables: can only join open games on the board
    Tournaments: cannot start tournament on the board
    Scenarios: can only start games with the standard scenario

  Premium Users:
    Open Tables: can have 1 open/running game on the board at a time
    Tournaments: cannot start tournament on the board
    Scenarios: can only start games with the standard scenario

Unrestricted Use: 
  Standard Users:
    Open Tables: can have 1 open/running game on the board at a time.
    Tournaments: can start tournaments
    Scenarios: can start games with any scenario
  Premium Users:
    Open Tables: can have unlimited games on the board at a time.
    Tournaments: can start tournaments
    Scenarios: can start games with any scenario

You can purchase unrestricted rights on a board for x dollars.

So the designer or tom (if site-wide) would have four options
                                 Restricted   Unrestricted
  Open Boards
  Touraments
  Multiple Scenarios

Price to unrestrict / donation (if all are unrestricted).  This payment would remove all restriction on the board.

Alpha, I gotta say that is a pretty well thought out and well presented idea. I like the idea of "Rights" rather than purchasing (I don't know why).
Of course, this adds more options and more possible confusion but I think it's pretty solid and adaptable.

With the above there is still a reason to be a premium member and there is a reason to purchase boards. I don't think the idea is set in stone, but I would like a simple understandable system that does not require anyone to pay to still have fun on the site, but has a compelling reason for the addicted to pay.

*edit: thanks risky (was typing while you posted).

Vataro wrote: No, he's saying you should put it back up on the top of ToS and keep it there permanently.

You mean, you didn't really like it enough to want to play it here?

Interesting ideas.. A couple questions:

Alpha wrote: I like the idea of a simple system, something like:

Restricted Use:
  Standard Users:
    Open Tables: can only join open games on the board
    Tournaments: cannot start tournament on the board

Are these the same thing?

    Open Tables: cannot start open games
    Tournaments: can only join open tournaments?

..and possibly Tournaments in this category should be restricted to joining 1 on the board?

Do/should any of these these rules apply to Beta boards?

Do/should any of these rules apply to a standard user who creates a board?