M57 wrote:

Mongrel wrote:

M57 wrote:

Alpha wrote: Why not make it part of the review process? Must score
0 - like standard (easy to understand and play)
1 - not far from standard (playable, but need to read rules/understand map prior to playing)
2 - not risk, but uses risk engine (thank Nygma for many example in this category)

Take the average rounded to an integer of the B,I,A scale (sure most boards will probably come out Intermediate, but that seems alright).

Remember this thread?

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/862p3/100_Boards

 

I think 11's mentioned something similar here about a difficulty algorithm. I can already see ways to make simple-playing boards with with a high number of Nygmas.

I don't know if board-only analysis suffices to measure "true" difficulty.

There's a difference between "difficulty" and "complexity" that Nygmas might not be very good at distinguishing. I've used this argument before, but if we had a one or two more specific designer features, I could see using a lot of Nygmas to create a checkers game.  Not very difficult, but high in Nygmas and low "Riskiness". 

I think a number of differently derived ratings is called for.

Riskiness:  Is the Game Risk-Like?  This could use a straight Nygma Algorithm. (1 = Risky, 10 = UnRisky)

Difficulty:  While there's admittedly a bit of subjectivity to this, I wouldn't trust it to an algorithm.  I think this should be a Review Board/Designer rating.  I propose that that a quorum of reviewers along with the designer rate the board for difficulty, and the mean score is used as a difficulty rating. (scale 1-10).

Generally speaking, I think we would see that these two numbers will be close to each other and that's OK, but even basic things like board size and number of borders impact on difficulty.  Some designs are inherently easier to understand because of the nature of the board's graphics, or the inclusion of rules and arrows right there on the board etc..  So there will be variance.

My example, more or less, illuminates the same distinction.

Back to advertising... though I like that a unit of complexity is called a "Nygma."

I saw this today, and think we need to follow suit, due to the collapse of attack.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/78/adse.png

I've tried the Facebook advertising - it's not bad, seems to be slightly more cost effective than Google as you can target the ads betters - e.g. you can choose to show the ad only to someone who has the word 'Risk' or 'Axis & Allies' in their profile who is aged between 18-60.

It still works out quite expensive to get new members though, esp. given that the site is drawing 10-20 new members a day for free via Google / Bing / general web linkage.

Also a big help is existing members inviting friends / family from other sites - I think this type of advertising is much more important than paid links from Google, Facebook or others.

Understandable. I went ahead and sent an email to the guy who reviews risk websites at www.PlayRiskOnline.com Wargear had been reviewed a while back and got a 5.2/10. I requested a re-review, now we're 8.1, the top risk site on the site. That should help a bit.

Edward Nygma wrote:

Understandable. I went ahead and sent an email to the guy who reviews risk websites at www.PlayRiskOnline.com Wargear had been reviewed a while back and got a 5.2/10. I requested a re-review, now we're 8.1, the top risk site on the site. That should help a bit.

Hmmm, I assume you mean www.PlayRiskOnline.net, but that still has WarGear at 5.2, with MajorCommand.com (? some site in Beta) at 8.1.

I had requested a re-review back in July just on the About/Response section of the site but doesn't look like anything ever came of that.

http://www.playonlinerisk.com/

Yertle wrote: with MajorCommand.com (? some site in Beta) at 8.1.

Checked it out some, and "eh".  Has some good graphics on the site (although a lot of wasted space due to the layout), and nice use of icons, but overall I'd say it's behind WarGear (go figure ).

The site set a beta cap at 1k people, so can't actually join the beta currently.  Some pages are restricted, like games and profiles and such.  It appears it has both Turn Based and a BAO style along with a few other types of games (ie Assassin and Mercenary), but maps are limited to 7 basic maps (doesn't look like there is the ability to create maps) and Circle-like mode on them (from the tutorial anyway).  Also looks like the Ranking system is more indepth (didn't really read up on it) and there appears to be Clans as well.  There's more to the site too, and a couple of other different features.

Overall it does look like potential good competition though!

Wow, that's different then! But with the same format!

The site that went around in the past was the PlayRiskOnline with Dennis (which is the 5.2). It looks like PlayOnlineRisk is by John(?), dunno what it was in the past though.

i threw a quick feedback email to MajorCommand to see if they'd let me in backdoor style. maybe get a peek at how good they are. let you know what i find out.

looking at Dominating12 (a CC offshoot) it seems to be realtime games only. if you go idle and can't flick the 'yes i'm still here' button you get booted offline.

edit: scratch that there are 'regular' games there too. seems they have a 24 turn limit. the live games seem to be equivalent to our lightning games with a 5min turn timer.

interesting create game screen.

there are four game types: deathmatch (normal), capture (hold a given territory for a whole turn), capitals (conquer the other's capital to win), and kings (kill the other's movable 'king' to win).  options for card turnin (increasing, fixed and none); fortification (adjacent, chain, unlimited); a consecutive/same time turn order (BAO?).

only three maps available for me to choose tho.

If you look in the footer of every page on WarGear.net, to the left of the 'Copyright © 2009-2010' you will see an invisible link to PlayOnlineRisk.com

The link is the same color as the footer so you will have to highlight to see it. Pressing CTRL+A does the trick.

This is an SEO maneuver to get the PlayOnlineRisk.com site to rank well in search engine results.

Obviously WarGear.net has a close relationship with PlayOnlineRisk.net, especially given the #1 rating and reciprocal links.

I'm not making any value judgments, just letting you know what's up.

Hmmm that is pretty intriguing, kinda sneaky, which I'm not a huge fan of really.

Although, after doing some digging...looks like CC has some accusations against PlayRiskOnline (Play Risk Online Thread) and MC did fly up the charts, but perhaps they just caught DennisG on a good day.  I'm not knocking MC by any means, very well and smooth site and it does seem like they have a team of developers (I've definitely hit the site a few times and I watch to see if it's opened from the Private Beta yet), just surprised a bit by PlayRiskOnline's quick adaptation of it.

It is a bit interesting that it seems that the review for WarGear was slightly updated...which I think only included lowering(?) the Map score.  Doesn't look like anything else got updated (especially the screenshots) though, which makes it all kind of iffy again...

PlayRiskOnline.net still seems like the best advertisement for all Risk sites (and overall it's a quick/simple site to use, which is great), so I just hope it stays updated/does a good (better?) job of staying objective (something that I guess I would question with PlayOnlineRisk.com, which I hadn't even heard of until EN posted a few weeks ago).

Welcome to the forums JessB!

Makes me wonder if some MajorCommand (formerly CC) members and admins of PlayRiskOnline are bathing in the same tub.

EDIT: yep. Clicked Yertle's link, and they suspect the same.