Forum Structure

  • Yes, I spared the archives for now since I wanted to check first if there are any cool onboard features in the WoltLab Suite for that. If not I will simply add them as you proposed (if a majority supports that idea).


    As for the general structure I would ask you (all of you) to consider the proposal I made. I feel that in the old structure (and in your own proposal) the categories are a bit fuzzy. That's why I propose to have these:

    - "Official" => Bytro announcements, Rules, Staff Roster. (= everything which is, well, official and should be placed very prominently)


    - "Game Discussion" => I think all feedback to the game which is not about bug reporting and other support-related issues should be removed from the "Community" section (since it has less to do with the community than with the game). This includes: General Discussion, Feature Feedback, Missing Features/Feature Suggestions. General Discussion could include subform like "strategy discussion" etc.


    - "Support" => This should not be game-related information but rather specifically support-related stuff: Bug Reports, general help, questions & answers and the FAQ


    - "Community" => I think the community section should be exclusively about "social stuff" which is relevant to the community (and not game design discussions). Hence: "Find Co-players", "Roleplaying section", "random" and stuff like community-organized events and tournaments. Also a "player introduction" thread and similar things are possible (if this is not the same as "find co-players".)


    - "Alliances" => should be self-evident. Actually, it also fits the "Community" section but since it should be placed a little bit more prominently it warrants its own section.


    - "Non-Public Forum" => the staff area. As we know it.


    What do you think? Does it make sense?

  • Bug Reports

    idk about bug report as that is usually us telling them to create a true bugreport. I have indeed inspired myself to the old structure, my main key is that we have enough 'dedicated' archives so no everything ends up on a pile like happens in the current forum and so that we can truly archive older (but still usefull) threads and keep active threads close and easy to find (no more necromacy)

  • The bug report ingame is the easiest way, players rather come to the forum instead of using it. I personally think removing the bug part makes people creative in finding another place to post those threads. They then will only be probably out of topic.


    I think it's better to make that section to a place where people can report bugs, and we keep upkeep an up to date buglist which in cooperation with the CM's can be kept up to date. This also provides additional information to the players. This is just an idea to make the place more as only a reference place to the support buttons

    Community Support

    Supremacy 1: The Great War | EN Main Administrator

    Supremacy 1914 | NL Moderator

  • The bug report ingame is the easiest way, players rather come to the forum instead of using it. I personally think removing the bug part makes people creative in finding another place to post those threads. They then will only be probably out of topic.


    I think it's better to make that section to a place where people can report bugs, and we keep upkeep an up to date buglist which in cooperation with the CM's can be kept up to date. This also provides additional information to the players. This is just an idea to make the place more as only a reference place to the support buttons

    A list of known (and solved) bugs basically? I can like that idea yes

  • I think there should be set an amount of time we keep fixed bugs on that list. As this may make the list very long overtime.

    Fully agree I tend to on EN gives stuff 2 weeks for the user to notice change (redirects etc etc) So simular could be done bugfix older then a month remove it from the list but that are forum procedures to be discussed offcourse

  • Yep, keeping to old information doesn't add any value I think.


    As for your suggestion for the archive forums, I agree it should be a good thing to finally have the forum organized properly. But since stuff in the archive is not of high priority anymore, having between 8 and 10 archives is a bit over killing the situation.


    I'd rather see a archive section with different archive sub forums for each forum section we require one in the end.

    Community Support

    Supremacy 1: The Great War | EN Main Administrator

    Supremacy 1914 | NL Moderator

    • Community
      • Find Co-Players
      • Roleplaying Section
      • Events
      • Random
    • Alliances
      • Alliance Discussion
      • Introductions & Recruitment Centre
      • Alliance: Game Exchange


    I think it would be nice to have an "Events" section. It would help orgarnize events, players would be able to visualise the info easier, they could get together and comment on the event...


    I also like Narmer's Alliance structure: Merge Introduction & Recruitment as they tend to post the same thing in both. And I think a space for alliance discussion would be great (chat about what we think about certain alliance, questions and answers about alliance games, share advice/strategies on alliance games, comment on historical or live alliance games, etc.).

  • Yeah I was talking about that in the EN supremacy SKype chat, you're more for a kind of mirror archive? Some "archives" I wish to use are actually e.g. in missing features stuff that survived a community poll or not. Implemented ideas would have to move somewhere else all together. It all kind of depends what the archive will contain Help and issues have more value (althought I want a new EN FAQ policy) then spam etc. The usefull archives i believe should in some way be easily accessible. I want to prevent the forum flooding as the current one is, with threads sof 2009 still being around especially stuff like Missing features are one big dump that is rarely ever checked due to this

  • Btw I do like what you did with the game Manual I would suggest to add a next and previous link on the end of each page but it does look very clean and smooth up there. I do however wonder if it expands to much when will that list be unusable of it gets to long?, would be nice to see a 'help" up there leading to Rules, staff rooster(named 'contact'), FAQ and Bugs and issues section it. Some sort of short cut to the basic help functions I think that could be valuable

  • I do like Narmer's formatting but I would suggest this


    - Game Play

    • subforum- Manual
      • - subforum for game mechanics
    • subforum- Missing Features/feedback (I seen both having similar content)
    • subforum- Stratagy (which would contain a more general strategies that would be across all maps)
      • - subforum per map

    We should keep General discussion and Strategies in their own forum not just strategies as a subforum . As I look into General discussion most of the topics would fall under feedback, bugs/issues, strategies and other topics. Its a mess and most new players don't know what the General discussion is for. I still not 100% sure what General discussion is suppose to be about.


    With the title having "Game Play" players would easily be able to find information on how to play the game. The feedback is mainly about how the game is played so it would fall under this grouping.

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. -Charles Darwin

  • subforum- Stratagy (which would contain a more general strategies that would be across all maps)


    - subforum per map

    I like this idea but then I want from Alkyonor the guarantee that new subforums can be made in the future with new maps if not I would put a huge index pages split

    map

    - nation1
    - nation2
    -nation3

    and links to their respective threads

  • Well it might be a bit much but it would help new players and those that suggest strategies on where to look/post. Just for the 500 map one could make 500 threads just for nations (which would be a great pain I would recommend we merge that type of strategy threads.)

    The main point is that new players have a hard time finding helpful strategies pertaining to their games. When they go into "search" for in the strategies and look up France or Great Britain they find many posts because those 2 nation are in 75% of the known maps.

    As with Narmar's idea would be to create a list similar to that of the missing features. then a mod has to take time to put threads into the great list. Also many players ignored the missing feature's great list. Where making subforums would eliminate extra steps and keep the strategy more clean. Also if the great list was to be abandoned/ignored players would still know where to look.


    But we could experiment and go with Narmar's great list and see how that works out before trying the subforum idea or see how the community thinks about it.

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. -Charles Darwin

  • As with Narmar's idea would be to create a list similar to that of the missing features. then a mod has to take time to put threads into the great list. If it gets abandoned like the missing features great list

    Still u^dating the missing features list btw.

    Also if the great list was to be abandoned/ignored players would still know where to look.

    But I do agree if we go ffor index page it needs to be moderated even when I'm gone

  • Should there be a hidden staff only area?

    We had the ban list there for forum bans/points and the chat ban thread to find the goggle document.

    There was a training section for new people both for GO and Moderators which was of some value for quick review on some tasks.

    We used to review new applications for new staff in that section/keep a record of the applications there for future use but out of the eyes of the public. Not sure how the election of new staff will be handled in the future but the forum had the records.

    There was an area for general discussions so all language teams could see common issues/exploits/work arounds and how to handle those


    FRONTLINE PIONEER section of the forum was also hidden from users. Will there be Frontline Pioneers still? There could be reports in there that may not go to production, a bug report that would develop into an exploit if read by a user before it could be fixed.


    My 2 cents for what it is worth.

  • Yes, the staff-only section will definitively come. I asked for feedback regarding the structure of that section in last Friday's feedback meeting. I will wait for more feedback and then propose a structure which we can decide on. I would like to have the same structure for every team (if possible).

  • I would like to have the same structure for every team (if possible).

    There needs to be a structure though for cross availability for all teams. I, for one, would not have an issue with the main area having sub-sections for native language discussions and sub-sections for all where we can all access all of the staff discussions- Google translate is useful at times :)

  • The last reply was more than 365 days ago, this thread is most likely obsolete. It is recommended to create a new thread instead.

    • :)
    • :(
    • ;)
    • :P
    • ^^
    • :D
    • ;(
    • X(
    • :*
    • :|
    • 8o
    • =O
    • <X
    • ||
    • :/
    • :S
    • X/
    • 8)
    • ?(
    • :huh:
    • :rolleyes:
    • :love:
    • 8|
    • :cursing:
    • :thumbdown:
    • :thumbup:
    • :sleeping:
    • :whistling:
    • :evil:
    • :saint:
    • <3
    • :!:
    • :?:
    • b78//+
    The maximum number of attachments: 10
    Maximum File Size: 1 MB
    Allowed extensions: bmp, gif, jpeg, jpg, pdf, png, txt, zip