Experience Points, Post Counts, and Levels

[Al]

My only concern is how class leaders are chosen once the new site is up and running - the old rule was first person to lvl 20 becomes leader, and I for one think that while it was a good idea when TOTS Mk I came into being, now there is a suitable 'critical mass' of people in most of the classes that a more appropriate way of determining leader could be found, one that balances the interests of both the class and the membership.

I think we should not forget the importance that a good leader can have in driving a class - think of Tyrenis and the Sages, he was a key motivator behind that class, and while he was an active leader it was a very active class, when he moved on, the class withered.

As it stands now, while most of the class leaders are accounted for here, their are a few classes whose leadership is MIA, and in the interests of both the class and the site, if we sort this out before the new site is up, then when the new site is up and running, all classes can hit the ground running, as it were.

[Maerin]

Apr 25, 2008 14:45:29 GMT -5 Al said:

As it stands now, while most of the class leaders are accounted for here, their are a few classes whose leadership is MIA...

I agree with everything you said, Al, except what I included above. And, indeed, I think by pointing this out, I reinforce your point (which I agree with).

Most of the class leaders are not actually accounted for here. Indeed, only a very few actually are; and it is further worth noting that one of the main reasons I point that out was the lack of active class leadership even before the site went down. There were a fair number of classes on the old site that suffered from a lack of leadership or focus; either because there was no leader at all (I tried one of those classes when I first joined the site; MAJOR mistake), or because that leadership was "established" solely through the dubious "merit" that Al describes...and consequently did not rise (for whatever reason) to its responsibilities.

[zipp]

i want to add that levels actually did nothing to prevent people from dominating in the WW or making their character's UBER-Kai. I'm not saying it happened, but I am saying that levels had nothing to do with it.

As has been shown elsewhere, the WW specifically DIDNT incorporate the levels, for various reasons (such as imbalanced growth, a lack of synched time, etc.). So I don't think we can claim they did anything for it, either.

[Black Cat]

Sorry, I'm late in this discussion. I didn't have time to read all of what you guys have written, so maybe I'll repeat a few things that has already been said.

So, levels, class leadership, medals...

Levels

I don't see why this debate actually takes place (but maybe I didn't have time to read it somewhere). Every forum has some kind of level-ranking system. We have one right now here, on ProBoards! Myself, I have 6 pink rounds under my name, with the mention "sitestaff". FrostHawk, with 16 posts, has only one green round with the mention "New Member". Nighthunter, with 72 posts, has two green rounds with the mention "Junior Member". Agrarvyn, with 216 posts, has 3 green rounds and the mention "Full Member". It's the same thing on the Mongoose boards: there're "Stoats", "Weasels", "Cubs", "Banded Mongooses"... On the old TotS site, the levels where made differently with the rank badges, which added to the RPG flavor to it. Of course, the beautifully-made rank insignas were attracting attention, contrary to our dull green rounds here.

But what this level system brings to the site? Well, here on ProBoards, nothing, apart maybe for the mention "sitestaff" which helps new people to figure out who they should ask if they have a question. On TotS, apart from the RPG flavor (which I loved), the ranks/levels were used to give access to the Masters Hall and Grand Masters Hall, and people were referencing to their rank when entering the WW. IMO, after three years on the boards, I felt that the Masters and GM Halls weren't need anymore since almost everybody had access to them (how many under-121-posts active members did we had?) and the topics discussed in them were now either discussed in the public forums or in the staff one. If TotS comes back, I don't want to see these two Halls coming back too.

This leaves us with two uses for the ranks/levels: the WW and the RPG flavor. I like the later one. How many jokes we made about them? How many times did the Grand Master of the Kai Order had an argument with the General of the Borese Army over Bor Brew? Who never cracked a joke about the Sages in serious discussions? Come on, it wasn't serious and we had fun (and we still have, even if the old ranks are not displayed). As for the WW, if people take in consideration at what rank they are when they start, it stops people from posting as an uber-powerful character. How many of you had decided to switch classes and start with a new, low-ranked character in the WW?

I saw discussions about increasing the number of posts to reach each rank. That's an idea... However, I don't think it's the only way. I think the problem resides more about the fact that we have too many levels (how many ranks do the Kai Order has? 36?) and that the number of posts needed to reach the next level is always increasing (you need to make 20 posts to reach the level of Initiate Master when you reach the rank of Savant, and then it's 22 posts from Initiate Master to Master). Why not just say that, at 2500 posts (it's just an example. It could be any other number), you have reach the last level of your class (for the Kai Order, that would be level 36, Kai Supreme Master) and from there, simply divide 2500 by the number of ranks your class has. Each step will be somewhat equal, avoiding new members to jump and start posting like crazy right after they join the forum because the ranks were so easy to obtain at lower levels on the old TotS site. Anyways, as I said earlier, I think ranks should just be adding to the RPG flavor of the site and be useful to your WW character, nothing else. That's why I think they should still be based on post count. If you want to reward a member that did a lot of background work for the community, simply named him as a staff member, even if he doesn't moderate anything on the site.

Class Leadership

I think each class should pick who they want to see as a class leader, and that leaders should not be thrown to a higher rank when they are named. I don't think that setting a minimal level to be allowed to become a leader is useful. Some people become leaders in the real world even if they do not have a lot of experience, but because they work hard and have good ideas, they get the chance to become one. Same thing should apply to the class leaders.

In the Kai Order, we didn't really have a problem under the old system when picking a new leader: when Winterhawk left the Order, three of us were Supreme Kai Masters (HE, GB, and me) and were allowed to be elected by the other GM (or was it by other members of the Kai Council? My memory is fuzzy) to become the GMotO. Because yeah, it was an election between me and GB (HE didn't want to run for the job). And people picked me, but it could have also been GB (and HE, if he would had run). But I understand that for other classes, electing the leader when nobody qualifies is not good. So all that I can say is when you pick a new class leader, make an election between all members of the said class. Maybe some classes won't even want a single leader but be all working together for the class?

Medals

Keep them as they were. Don't give them with a bonus level for the forum. Based on my medal count, I would had been a level 58 Kai Lords simply because I had 58 medals (60 now with the 1st place and Class medals of the last Decathlon). To thank Beo for holding the Decathlon, maybe I should give him a level/medal, the Jade Star? Oh, but Beo gave me two medals for the competition, so I'll give another one to him because he is so kind. But Beo also got 10 Jade Stars from other people for the same reason! Just like that, Beowuuf made 12 levels simply with the medals. Nah, what I say is sarcastic, but it could be a situation we might face with medals giving also levels. I'm rewarded enough when I get a medal, so no need to also give me a level for that.


Pfft, that what I had to say. Sorry if I have just repeated what people have already said. You can reply, but it doesn't mean that I'll have time to read you...

[Aguila Saber]

Levels.

Separate forum (=player) level and RPG character level.

Player level.

Forum posters could gain gold by posting in forums and use this for things like guilds and items, but otherwise forum posting should not really affect the RPG character.

Character level.

Class Progression Medals. Awarded by the class leader based on contribution in RPG parts of the site. First medal given when joining the class.

Additional medals cannot be achieved more often than once every X months based on contributions. Active class leaders will automatically progress one level every X months. Maximum of Class Progression 10 medals to reach the pinnacle of the class.

An automated version may look like this:
- Require Y posts in story threads or Z posts in battle threads to qualify for a Class Progression Medal when they are awarded.

(This should be fairly easy to do through SQL if the posts that are counted are in separate forums.)

Other class Medals

The system would still have an Honorary Medal awarded by the class to people outside the class. This does not give "levels" in the class, only Class Progression Medals would do this.

Class Leadership

Let the class decide this.

[Al]

Apr 25, 2008 17:08:05 GMT -5 Maerin said:

Apr 25, 2008 14:45:29 GMT -5 Al said:

As it stands now, while most of the class leaders are accounted for here, their are a few classes whose leadership is MIA...

I agree with everything you said, Al, except what I included above. And, indeed, I think by pointing this out, I reinforce your point (which I agree with).

Most of the class leaders are not actually accounted for here.

You are correct, my mistake, I just made a list of the classes, and out of the 16 I could think of, only have class leaders.

I just thought of a 17th, and it is leaderless as well.

[Fallen Angel]

Heh, you guys get something solid and I'll implement it. Of course, we can't all have it the way we want it, but whatever people are happy with, I'm happy with. I'm just the guy lurking behind the curtains here.

[Simey]

*sneaks up and whips open the curtains*

'Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh!! The Horror!!!!'

*flees*

Seriously, I never felt very engaged in the RPG aspects of TotS (WW aside), but in actual fact they did make a real difference to the place, even if it was often simply in the way we messed about, as BC notes.

Personally, I'd say that I was simply grateful for TotS's existence, regardless of whether I thought aspects of it were a little flawed (that terrifying front page mostly!, and I'll be grateful for its existence again, whatever form it reappears in, just like I'm grateful for this place.

If anything was to be adjusted, I reckon I pretty much totally agree with BC, but unless someone is going to go to WH with a whole list of suggestions that he will have to be the one to implement, it's all maybe a little academic. I suppose if we had something solid that was agreed upon then we could let him know that we have ideas and ask whether he is interested in looking at them and has time to do so, but whether his development of the new site is still in the early enough stages for him to take stuff like that on board, does anyone know?

[Maerin]

I do not think I have anything new to say on this subject (as well as the Class Leader one), and I suspect it pretty obvious to most where I agree with certain people and where I disagree.

However, I do think one point needs to be made again and here reinforced.

Questioning how something was done before and suggesting how it might be changed is not the same thing absolute dissatisfaction with the previous site and I take issue with anyone who presumes to say otherwise, whatever their motives. If I, or anyone else who has expressed some contrary view on this forum recently, was not have any fun on the previous Tower, then I would have left. I have left other communities before; I did not pick my typical online sign-in name Frank the Wanderer/Frankwanderer at random. I value what free time I have, and therefore value where I choose to spend it. That I did not elect to leave when I experienced frustrations that I, for one, did not regard as "little flaws"; and instead are willing to take the time and effort it takes to post thoughts here, illustrates that I do value the site and the community and do want to make it better. The same likely applies to anyone else who has contributed to this discussion. I take issue with anyone casually dismissing contrary views on the basis that those people much be "ungracious".

A lot of what has been talked about here is not a "Winterhawk decision", but a community one. That is illustrated by the fact that, it seems, the Kai community had mechanisms in place that I think should have been in place and functioning for all the classes on the old site. Granted, some of what has been talked about on this forum may be the sort of thing he might want to weigh in on. I trust that part of any such discussion will be determining which of what is talked about is and is not appropriate in that regard.

[Simey]

Apologies if I seemed dismissive of the discussion. I'm just a little pessimistic really. A restart of TotS is, ideally, a good opportunity to fine tune things, but I guess I'm not sure what we can do to implement anything.

And if it's me that seems to be suggesting ungraciousness (ungraciousity?) then I don't mean to. No one would put so much effort into thinking of ways to improve something unless they didn't have great affection for it in the first place. It's just that personally - lacking ideas as I am - I suppose I'm more simply keeping my fingers crossed that TotS comes back sometime soon at all.

But my defeatist attitude is not good, I know, so I'm sorry about that.

[zipp]

Personally I think the crash will ultimately be good for the site, as it will give it a chance to fix its issues.

If nothing else, it shows us that more than one person needs to be in charge of the code for the site. WH did an admirable job setting things up, but he's too busy these days to be bearing the responsibility for the whole site. The gods know I couldn't take such a thing on by myself in case of a crash, like we've had.

That said, I do think it will be a while before we're back on our feet. I just hope that this site grows in the meantime.

[Ghost Bear]

Weird though it is, I think I agree with Zipp. Chances are, if TotS were still up, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'm still in favour of linking medals with class level. No one has explained in a way I empathise with why this might be a Bad Idea, although I am hearing grumblings in that direction. Could someone enlighten me?

Cheers

-GB

[Al]

Apr 29, 2008 1:46:30 GMT -5 Ghost Bear said:

I'm still in favour of linking medals with class level. No one has explained in a way I empathise with why this might be a Bad Idea, although I am hearing grumblings in that direction. Could someone enlighten me?

-GB

The reason I think it is a bad idea is that the idea of rank progession in RP settings that use rank is that they get progressively harder (doubling what you need to do), medals are one off events. So you do 20 actions, you get 20 medals, you have 20 ranks. In RP terms, you do one action to get to first, two actions to second, four to third and so on.

Also, by linking them, I would argue that it combines two seperate ways of rewarding people - rank rewards participation, full stop. Medals reward people for particular actions, be it artwork, creative writing, participating in the west watch, participating in a contest, etc etc. Keeping them distinct would allow for them to act as distinct, yet complimentary ways, of rewarding people.

Does that help?

[Ghost Bear]

Apr 29, 2008 7:37:31 GMT -5 Al said:

The reason I think it is a bad idea is that the idea of rank progession in RP settings that use rank is that they get progressively harder (doubling what you need to do), medals are one off events. So you do 20 actions, you get 20 medals, you have 20 ranks. In RP terms, you do one action to get to first, two actions to second, four to third and so on.

I see this bit. But would it be such a bad thing to diverge from this?

Also, by linking them, I would argue that it combines two seperate ways of rewarding people - rank rewards participation, full stop. Medals reward people for particular actions, be it artwork, creative writing, participating in the west watch, participating in a contest, etc etc. Keeping them distinct would allow for them to act as distinct, yet complimentary ways, of rewarding people.

Ah, I think I'm actually the one not being clear.

In the model suggested with medals, it becomes necessary to seperate Rank and Post Count. In my opinion, Post Count and Participation should not be the same thing. Participation should be a combination of Post Count and other things (which are rewarded with medals).

So in my opinion, Rank should equal Participation, which is denoted by a combination of Post Count and Medals (which represent doing other things around the site/community).

Does that help?

Yes it does. Am I making sense too?

-GB

[Al]

Yes, you are being clear.

I think the problem as I see it is that I am not sure you can reward participation (a not post based account of it) without getting into a very subjective area. As long as rank does not 'mean' anything substantive (and divorcing leadership in the classes from it would solve that problem), then medals become the way that people are recognized instead.

I liked the way the old system worked, except for the small aspect of leadership being tied to rank (ie post count)

I am not sure that linking rank with medals as opposed to post count would recognize participation, rather it would be replacing one arbitrary aspect of reward with another.

Indeed, I think the hardest part of what you are suggesting would be to identify what 'participation' is. As this is a LW site, would only LW related activities count? How does one identify what is or is not a LW activity? Would they all count equally? For example, while Zipp organizes excellent tournaments, I am not sure that I would classify them as LW related. Mearin is an active poster, but not the most active, but I do not think he ever posts without it being an extremely well thought out post - one of his posts are easily worth three of mine IMHO, but how does one go about recognizing that? In essence, it would seem to me that moving to a 'qualitative' system of recognition from a 'quantitative' would have just as many (although slightly different) shortfalls.

I think on the balance, we should stick to the system we have now, and try to improve it, rather than trying to start a whole new system.

To sum up, I think one more point should be made, and that is we could probably get some sort of general consensus on how to improve the current system, but I am not sure we could get consensus on what to replace it with - Accordingly, I would argue that our efforts would be better directed to improvement than replacement.