I thought it would be a good idea to start giving updates on what's being worked on / planned for the site in the short / medium term - note this excludes things like bug fixes which generally take priority over development work and the occasional minor updates.

Here's what's on my desk at the moment:

1. Performance enhancements - I've identified a possible cause for the site slowdowns that have been reported, this is due to the way the game lists are generated for each player which is currently quite inefficient and results in the database getting thrashed. This will be released this weekend all being well.

2. Chat client - I'm looking to incorporate an AJAX chat client into the site, seems to be a natural progression given the way it is growing and this will improve areas like lightning gameplay / game joining especially.

3. Scenario enhancements - this is the next major enhancement planned and will allow multiple starting scenarios per game board, team scenarios, asymmetric teams etc.

That's all for now.

Awesome! Excellent work tom!

Thanks Tom! All of these are very exciting :).

How will the multiple scenarios work with rankings? I am sure there is a threat out there somewhere; Yertle?

(post 100)

Alpha wrote: How will the multiple scenarios work with rankings? I am sure there is a threat out there somewhere; Yertle?

(post 100)

Not sure if there has been a complete thread with everything laid out and agreed upon. 

(I'd be in favor of potentially allowing multiple ranked scenarios for a board.)

Yertle wrote:

(I'd be in favor of potentially allowing multiple ranked scenarios for a board.)

That is what I was hoping the verdict was.

Do you mean having each scenario separately ranked? Not sure I 100% agree with that.

I don't really like that idea either. I have a Simultaneous Play version of WG: TG all set when that becomes an option and it is going to be totally different gameplay than the turn based version. I was just gonna release it as whole other map but if there were versions I could do it that way but it would be unfair for players to get championship points on the SP version from the TB version.
I don't have a solution other than the designer deciding to make one version the ranked version and the rest just playable. I don't know if I really like not having other versions available for ranked play but I like that better than the other way.

So, what exactly is it that you would like to see Risky? Your post is rather circular.

I said I don't have one. I don't like all versions being ranked as the same map because different versions could be (and should be) almost completely different games. I also don't want 10 versions of the same map on the home page or all of them being available for ranked play. I also don't really like the designer choosing 1 version to be the ranked version, but I guess that is the best out of these 3 scenarios.
Again, I am just saying what I don't like and asking for additional options. Overall, I don't really care because I don't really play for rankings so I'm probably not a good voice here.

RiskyBack wrote: 
I don't have a solution other than the designer deciding to make one version the ranked version and the rest just playable.  

That sounds workable to me. 

I hated that part about ToS - it was really annoying that only one mod was ranked, it just meant that it was the only one that got played. I would prefer there to be multiple possible starting scenarios, all ranked but sharing the same ranking system. That would encourage players to play all the scenarios available instead of just the ranked one.

Might it be possible to have all versions count towards performance oriented scores like g-ratings and global ranking scores, but only play on the "ranked" version counting towards championship points?

I don't know that we really want to get into having the Review people vetting multiple different versions of the same board for gameplay/balance...

asm wrote: I don't know that we really want to get into having the Review people vetting multiple different versions of the same board for gameplay/balance...

I don't see why you can't mention in a single review that a particular version of a board is recommended etc.. BTW, why can't we edit reviews?

He meant the review board for making a map go live. asm doesn't want to have to play the same map but different versions and I agree with him. If a map is good to go it would have to be a pretty strange occurrence to have another version not be good enough unless the map maker did it on purpose (hint hint)

RiskyBack wrote: He meant the review board for making a map go live. asm doesn't want to have to play the same map but different versions and I agree with him. If a map is good to go it would have to be a pretty strange occurrence to have another version not be good enough unless the map maker did it on purpose (hint hint)

Well, I mean yeah. If two scenarios are different enough to merit creation, they're probably different enough that the balance would have to be checked before it were allowed to go live in any way that had an effect on people's rankings.

Well then, aside from calling it something different, like "Risky's Banana Toss For Two", it sounds like there should only be one rated version. My only concern is that if there is a version upgrade, like if you decide to change the colors or fix a modifier, all stats stay. That would be a huge improvement over Tos IMO.

I absolutely loathed, nay, in fact abhorred the multiple mods of the same map system used on ToS.

I lean towards a map is a map, and rankings on that map are rankings on that map, period. Even if multiple scenarios are created and some of them have markedly different gameplay than the original, I would still maintain the same set of rankings.

If you want to maximize your rankings on a board, then it's up to you to decide if one scenario type has an advantage and play accordingly.

It's not even about the rankings to me, I just don't want to see 15 different scenarios of Antastic cluttering up the drop downs and other selection lists on the site.

Ok, I think I get the issues more than when I made my post earlier.

To use myself as an example, what tom is doing (I think) would allow me to take the two player bowling game and to also have it available as a 4-player team game. Which is something I would like to do. Cool.

Another example: Suppose, just for arguments sake, that Riskyback released two versions of his crab game - one where you players start with the crabs and ships are neutral and one where the players start with the boats and the crabs are neutral.

Then the two debates are 1) How to rank the two versions and 2) if or how to vet the two versions through the review process.

We already have this "different version" issue to a point --> fog. We all know a total fog game is completely different from a fogless game. In this case the rankings are already mixed together on boards that let the fog be controlled.

I guess it depends on how much ability to alter the boards the designer will have between the versions. If the spirit of the board is the same between the versions of the board, but change the dynamics some then mix the rankings. Of course "spirit" and "dynamics" are very nebulous concepts. (The other choice is to rank them separately, correct? What other choices, besides ranking only one version are there?)

And then any version that involves rankings (whether mixed or separate) would need to be checked since it would be easy to create a lopsided version and prey on unsuspecting players. And undoing such damage would be a bigger pain. Correct?

I am not sure if I said anything above, or just thought out loud.