Profile Labels

From WarfishWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

I've been thinking of ways to improve Warfish, specifically the rating and review system that is currently in place for maps.I've gone through a few ideas, but one of them has extraordinary potential: Profile Labels

I got the idea from various forums and movie review websites. Along with the review for the board and the reviewer's profile pic, a label for that player would also be present noting that player's experience and status on Warfish. In this manner, players who have been playing Warfish longer will carry more sway in writing reviews compared to a review written by an inexperienced "newbie."

For an example of what I am asking, please refer to this url: . Do you see how the reviews from the Top Critics (Richard Roeper) stand out from the rest? This is similar to what I am suggesting for Warfish.

Here is an early screenshot of what I think the new system would look like:


As for the labels themselves, I've already thought out some options which automatically change once a player has reached the next requirement. The labels are in descending order, with the more powerful on the bottom.

Normal Labels:

0000-0010 completed Games: Plankton

0011-0020 completed Games: Tadpole

0021-0050 completed Games: Guppy

0051-0100 completed Games: Salmon

0101-0300 completed Games: Piranha

0301-0500 completed Games: Shark

0501-0999 completed Games: Expert

1000+ completed Games: Master

Special Labels:

Published Ten or more board Designs: Architect

Any Player in the Top Ten: Legend

Number 1 Player on the site: Champion

Steven's Label: The Creator

  • As for the labels, they could also be implemented on the Comments section of a profile, just to add weight to a player's comment pending on who it is from.

Anyway, that's my idea and I am looking forward to feedback! - Doom


[edit] Discussion

  • Personally, I feel that the most valuable comments come not from those who have played the most total Warfish games, but from those who have played the board under review the most times. In particular, it's hard to judge if a board is "balanced" (can be won from many different starting places) without playing it several times. Yet most people review a board after their first play and never bother to update the review when they get more experience with it.
Fortunately, the number of times a player has played a board is already included in the review. An enhancement I might suggest is to allow sorting the reviews by number of games played, in addition to the current reverse chronological listing. This would allow people to easily read the reviews from the most experienced players on a board without clicking through a lot of pages.
You might even combine this with Doom's idea, where the reviewer's profile label is derived from a combination of their total experience and their board experience, and is sorted to put this combination experience at the top.
Just my 2 cents. --Red Baron 04:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I like it, but I'm not sure how much better it would be. But hey, anything that cuts down on bad reviews (or the impact thereof) is good in my book. I'm tired of poor reviews from people that complain about trivial things that indicate they don't know how to play in general, or didn't bother to read the "about" section of the board.
On top of RedBaron's comments it might also be nice if the number of times a reviewer played the map is weighted into the rating. So if someone plays 10 times, and then gives a 5 star, that review would count as if it were 10 x 5 star reviews (or some similar calculation). --FadeToOne 19:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I think a person who has played a board 10 times is definitely going to be better-qualified to review it than someone who has only played it once. However, this will skew the ratings toward the positive, as people who don't like a board (for a good reason or a bad one) aren't likely to play it more than once or twice. If that's what you want to do, that's fine - just realize the effect before implementing the cause.
Also, I am guessing that Steven is giving away free Plus memberships to people who submit a review in order to encourage more people to write them. Telling someone their opinion isn't worth as much as someone else's will probably disenfranchise them, and thus undermine the incentive of the free Plus membership. I'm just sayin'... --Maelstrom 21:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Maelstrom here and vote against the multiple review counting. Playing a board more times than others should not mean that your review "officially" counts more. This would probably cast a doubt on the whole general reviewing process because certain players might take advantage and have their friends start fifty games on a board, then vote to end, and then writing a review worth fifty times as much as any other. This could easily be abused as such and is probably wiser not to be implemented. --Doom
  • However, BACK to my idea of profile labels, this concept WOULD create the aspect of certain reviews being worth more without the consequence of skewed data. Players would see a review written by a "Master" and then see one written by a "Guppy" and probably consider the Master's review to be more influential even though they both are equal in terms of data weight. This brings a nice compromise to board reviews and what ratings are really the ones that count. --Doom 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I got some feedback sent into support [at] from 993j20070815134757 saying that he supported Doom's idea --Steven 19:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Having something to tell the reviewers WarFish experience is an interesting idea. It will definitely help those looking at the reviews in deciding for themselves whether or not the review has any merit to their search.
I would also agree with the others that there are to many reviews that complain about little things that can be changed in game setup, such as FOG and times allowed to fortify. Some reviewers complain about things that have nothing to do with the design of the map, such as how they are eliminated quickly. It's not my fault that they weren't able to defend themselves well. They become bitter and attack me for their loss. --Imperator 18:23, 20 May 2008 (PST)
  • I think its an interesting idea with a lot of potential. I would tend to think that boards are reviewed most often by newer players when the player themself has an unusually good or bad experience with the board. Sometimes these experiences are born out of not understanding rules or strategies, or not reading the about file before playing. Ideally, I would expect more experienced warfishers are more likely to examine a board in depth and more objectively when considering whether to give it a review. Therefore, those reviews tend to be more valuable to the mapmaker and other players. --Cumberdale 8:38, 21 May 2008, MDT
  • I'd be satisfied if I could mark people's reviews as ignorant or retarded. :) Or maybe people could vote on whether a review is "good" or not. --FadeToOne 16:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a thumbs up/thumbs down system like on Yahoo Answers. --Red Baron 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That last idea is a very interesting one. We've all seen websites with comment systems governed by "helpfulness" or some other term -- anybody reading answers the question "was this comment helpful to you" or what have you. I've seen places where those votes either weight the data contained in the comment/review and/or sort the comment in terms of visibility so the poorly written comments/reviews drop off the "first page" so to speak. Of course this system as with almost any other would be liable to abuse or favoritism. (Personally, I try to review every single board I play. Partly because I realized early that was the best way to get on Premium, but partly also because few things frustrate me more than seeing 50 games played on my map and 2 reviews. Of course, it's this impetus towards writing 100 reviews that gets a ton of garbage reviews being written by morons...) asm 10:47, 30 May 2008 (PST)
  • I tend to agree with Red Baron. There is little we can do about a noob who decides to trash your board because they didn't realize that (fill in the blank). This is especially a problem when you are trying different things that the standard style boards (e.g. hill battle, city raider, etc). However, the Red Baron's idea of letting you change your rating as you play more and get more experience would go a long way to dealing with changing experience. He made this suggestion in response to a suggestion I made [[1]].
  • Wow.. lots of ideas in this discussion. Sounds like we have a couple separate "features" rolled into here. I'll try to summarize. --Steven 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Profile labels. One use as this discussion points out is to display on the reviews to try to provide some sort of experience indicator. I'm kinda interested in whether or not these levels could be developed for use in other areas of the site. For example, right now there is just an arbitrary limit of 5 finished games.. that newbies must play before they are exposed to open/ranked game invitations (this was put into place partly to address some of the concerns on this board... newbies getting confused by new game rules.. this make sure they have at least a little experience before getting exposed to too much). Instead of putting an arbitrary 5 limit.. maybe it could be based on this Profile Labels idea. You don't get to see open/ranked game invites into you are a certain "level". As far as how to establish these levels... I think total # of games played is one way to track experience but I wonder if more variables can be put in there like ranking, games designed, game sold..etc. one could go "crazy" with this and have a whole experience points system. And award them for certain activities and then have people "level up" to different Profile labels (I'm just thinking out loud here). What do you think?
  2. Sort by reviews # games played button. That seems pretty straightforward and makes sense.
  3. Thumbs up/down on reviews, i.e. this review was helpful. I guess who voted on each review would also need to be stored to avoid duplicate votes as well as the totals. Then a sort by would be added. I wonder how many people (besides the game designer him/herself would use this? If it is mainly game designers who are using this maybe instead there could be a feature where game designers just feature the which reviews they want to be displayed on the first reviews page?
To be completely honest, all THREE ideas sound pretty good. They all have benefits which would add weight to the Warfish experience while providing easier interface options and viewing. Steven, feel free to go crazy and implement an entire leveling system for profile labels. I really hope my idea gets implemented, it could really change Warfish as a whole and give players entirely new goals to strive for which would increase productivity and membership. It's a good marketing move. And as for the other two ideas, viewing board reviews by number of games is very simple and effective, and the "Designer's Choice" review option sounds pretty cool too. I know I'd like to go through my boards and choose the best review for initial viewing on the first page. To conclude: Please implement ALL THREE ideas into Warfish. Thanks Steven! --Doom 18:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well I don't know if anyone else does it, but I do spend time browsing board reviews to see what other people think of boards I like/don't like/haven't played. I don't think we should let game designers choose which reviews are most visible though. --asm 12:56, 5 June 2008 (PST
Oh, i wasn't thinking game designers would have complete control over what we see, just the ability to choose their favorite reviews to feature on the first page.. something like a "featured reviews" section? and we still get access to browse the regular reviews as usual? Hmm... i'm trying to think whether or not there is a analogy on another site... anyhow.. just thinking out loud... not sure if makes sense either. --Steven 04:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this is what we're going for: Yahoo Answers See how the person who posted the question chose what he/she thought was the best answer to be seen first, with all other reviews following after? Implemented on Warfish, this could be called the "Designer's Choice" review that is always top on the list of reviews. --Doom 01:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Something else I'll mention if it hasn't already (I don't feel like reading it all again): If something is implemented that shows a reviewer's "level," that level will have to be maintained on a per review basis. ie. If some noob gives a review that shows how much of a noob he is, and within some amount of time gets to know the system much better and gains some level that indicates he is "pro," the review he made as a noob should still indicate that it was written by a noob and not a pro. Otherwise it would screw with the data.
  • I agree that inexperienced players tend to review boards on impulse and without having played enough games with a board, so I only trust reviews from players I know, but I would found it more useful if the review indicated the type of boards a player prefers. I like boards that modify the rules in some interesting ways (for example City Raider, Battlestar Assault, Warfishopoly), and the ratings for these boards are all over the place for players of all experience levels. The way I look for new boards is by browsing the board lists in the wiki, looking for games in the same categories, I would find really useful if boards could be tagged with similar categories to the ones in the wiki (Novelty, Terrain, Large, ...) and reviews would cross-reference what types of boards the reviewer has rated highly in the past. I would find a review more helpful if it came from someone who has rated highly boards that I like. --Cald 14:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I just had another braingasm. Another potentially helpful thing to do for helping weed out bad reviews would be to choose some percentage of reviews to remove out of the averaging calculation. So, say a board has 100 reviews and the percentage is set to 5% (as an example). The top 5 and the bottom 5 could be removed, which might give a better sampling. At the very least, it would more than likely get rid of that 1 rating some idiot gave you (where in my case, that idiot would be one of my best friends who wants to be a jerk). --FadeToOne 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Experience Levels

This is something I worked on a while back. I offer it up for discussion also. One of the key elements is to reduce the access for new players to advanced features that frequently make for messed up games (e.g. I just made a crappy board and didn't have anyone test it, let's start a 256 player double elimination tournament). The original plan didn't give a lot of points for winning since Steven had other ideas for that. This focuses on experience of game play and board design, NOT game-play skill.

[edit] Basic Idea

You can equate the beginning stuff to be 10 points per game. However, they heavy stuff requires you to either play an silly amount (over 500 games), or be making maps.

The idea is that tournaments (on normal or purchased boards) are limited to players, the more you play, the larger the tournament you can start. To start a tournmanet with a board you designed, you must have a lot of experience and/or ratings on your boards (not necessarily this one). It also scales up (16, then 64, then 128, then unlimited).

Also, you get Wiki access when you have played 25 games (or there about), level 3. It is quick to get to level 2, level 3 takes a bit longer and by then you are skilled in the game. Levels 4 and above are for game designers (mostly). It limits the size of the tournament you can start. This won't stop major players from making a board for the first time and making a mess; however, they have been in enough games to know how frustrating it is to play a crummy board. Thus, I'd expect them to be careful.

[edit] Levels

Level 0
0-50 pts: Butter-Bar: Just beginning
  • Wiki Change Access - no
  • Start Games - basic only, no ranked
  • Start Tournament - none
  • Join Games - only newbie games, no ranked
  • Invite New Players - none
Level 1
51-100 pts; 1st Lieutenant; Played a few
  • Wiki Change Access - no
  • Start Games - basic only and ranked
  • Start Tournament - none
  • Join Games - only newbie games and ranked
  • Invite New Players - yes
Level 2
101-250 pts; Captain; Knows the game well
  • Wiki Change Access - no
  • Start Games - All
  • Start Tournament - 16 players, normal or purchased board
  • Start Tournament - none, self designed board
  • Join Games - all
  • Invite new players - yes
Level 3
251-1000 pts; Major; Skilled and plays a lot
  • Wiki Change Access - yes
  • Start Games - All
  • Start Tournament - 64 players, normal or purchased board
  • Start Tournament - 16 players, self designed board
Level 4
1001-2500 pts; Colonel; Expert
  • Wiki Change Access - yes
  • Start Games - All
  • No Game Restrictions
  • Start Tournament - All, normal or purchased board
  • Start Tournament - 64 players, self designed board
Level 5
2501 - 5000 pts; Brigadier General
  • Wiki Change Access - yes
  • Start Games - All
  • No Game Restrictions
  • Start Tournament - All, normal or purchased board
  • Start Tournament - 128 players, self designed board
  • Moderate Forums - yes
Level 6
5001 - 10^100 pts; Lieutenant General
  • Wiki Change Access - yes
  • Start Games - All
  • No Game Restrictions
  • Start Tournament - All, normal or purchased board
  • Start Tournament - All, self designed board
  • Moderate Forums - yes
Level 7
Steven; General of Warfish
  • Uber power
  • Delete games, fix games, change code
  • Laugh at the little people

[edit] How to get points

The main way for most people to get points is to play games. The point value for each level go up a lot, thus, keeping people that only play a lot to Level 4 or 5. They get access to almost everything and can start full-sized tournaments with normal boards. However, making large tournaments with boards they made require more experience (but they can do small tournaments).

[edit] Operations

  • Finish Game, 10 pts
  • Win Game, none
  • Win tournament, none
  • Earn a medal, 100 pts
  • Boot -50 pts
  • Surrender, -1 pts

[edit] Recruitment

  • Plus member, 200 pts
  • Refer a friend, 5 pts
  • Refer a friend who gets to level 1, 10 pts
  • Refer a friend who gets to level 2, 20 pts
  • Refer a friend who gets to level 3, 50 pts
  • Refer a friend who gets to level 4, 100 pts
  • Refer a friend who gets to level 5, 500 pts
  • Refer a friend who becomes a plus member, 200 pts

[edit] Leadership

  • Run successful tournament, 2 x num_of_games
  • Buy a board, 100 pts
  • Stinky Fish (unique player), -10 pts
  • Each board reviewed, 25 pts

[edit] Strategic Planning

  • Designing Games
    • Get 4 ratings on board, 200 pts
    • Each rating on board, 50 pts
    • Each finished game with you board, 10 pts
    • Each sale of board, 50 pts
  • Writing Plug-ins, 50 x num_installed
  • Writing Bot, 50 for each finished game

--Theep 03:11, 09 June 2008 (UTC)

  • This is just a BUMP because this is a great idea and has received tremendous support from everyone. There are many ideas listed on here, so please read through them and show your support. --Doom 18:11, 04 October 2008 (UTC)

Back to Enhancement Suggestions

Personal tools