Is it time for a large scale campaign? Rating Options

[Flamekebab]

Forums are something I've dedicated significant thought and effort to, but I've got to ask - how does a forum avoid failure, ultimately?
All forums eventually die, in my experience, unless there is a significant influx of people constantly, and new developments to comment on. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

But at the end of the day, a forum needs to fill a function. Forums that exist for their own sake fail.

Forums can exist with no particular hook - I setup Wooden Dice back in early 2005, for example. In the last year or so it has died off as the main members have grown older and life has required more time from them, one by one, but the site existed and flourished for several years with no discernible central theme. How many years of activity are required to define whether a forum failed or not? Very metaphysical!

If you're wanting to break out tUGS into having its own forum, that's an entirely different matter, and imo something for you lot at tUGS to decide on yourselves, and get back to us on.

I could make one tomorrow, do all the work, and have it ready for use. If tUGS want something with a bit more lasting power, they need to plug in their brain squigs and decide what they're going to do.

I was using tUGS to try to explain some of my thought processes behind the pros and cons of setting up a separate forum, as it's something we thought long and hard about before deciding against, and what we came up with seems particularly relevant to this discussion. We currently have no plans to establish our own forum, and unless GoMo suddenly has thousands of people interested in discussing it, we don't really see that stance changing any time soon

Although Flamekebab raises a number of good points, imo, the biggest killer for a forum or forum section is a lack of purpose. If something doesn't fulfil a function (and in wargaming circles that means an active function) it isn't going to get used.

Expecting forums to just take off from supply and demand is only going to limit the scope. Although realistically you keep things smaller to begin with and expand out as the need arises, you still need a decent amount of sections for organisation.

At least 3 forum sections, with at least one category each, looking towards a minimum of 3-5 sections. That's the minimum.

The reason I talk about limiting the number of sub-forums, at least to start with, is because of the many, many forums I've seen started, I can't think of a single one that started out with a large number of sub-forums that actually survived. Hmm, the Loserz message board might be an exception, but I can't remember how many sub-forums it started out with. Those that start out small and are more than happy to slap an extra sub-forum in for things tend to do much better as they don't end up with empty sections that everyone is too shy to post in. I'm not trying to say that sub-forums are a bad thing, just that having too many can be very overwhelming for new members, which ends up being counter-productive.

And imo, a forum always needs at least one moderator, and I'm always willing to do the job.

Are we distinguishing between the admin and moderators, in this case? There definitely needs to be someone moderating discussion, but if the admin is willing to do it then there's less of an issue. It also depends on what the rules are like and how they're enforced.


What depresses me about what I've learnt about forums is that if I was to write a book, chances are forums would have died out completely by the time I'd finished, making the work entirely futile.

[Dim_Reapa]

Forums are something I've dedicated significant thought and effort to, but I've got to ask - how does a forum avoid failure, ultimately?
All forums eventually die, in my experience, unless there is a significant influx of people constantly, and new developments to comment on. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

But this is my point really. So long as you make sure a forum performs at least a part of its function it isn't going to be a waste of time. Far better imo to use it knowing the likely end result. If discussion is going to trail off, it is no less likely than it is to trail off in this forum just the same. The project itself will equate to the work put into it. So as long as people are setting a good precedent of usage, theoretically, more should follow. Imo I don't think we're going to lose out by trying to have a go with it anyway.

Forums can exist with no particular hook - I setup Wooden Dice back in early 2005, for example. In the last year or so it has died off as the main members have grown older and life has required more time from them, one by one, but the site existed and flourished for several years with no discernible central theme. How many years of activity are required to define whether a forum failed or not? Very metaphysical!

Well I wasn't really talking about amount of time there, so sorry if that's the impression you got from it. In my view, the only way a forum fails is if it doesn't provide the arena of discussion it was designed for. Part of that is a centric theme, but sure, forums can exist without it. I've been on a few generic wargaming forums from time to time, and they've lasted a decent amount of time. I suppose my point being though that most of the successful forums you see have a particular shtick that they've either hit on by accident or themed the whole forum around it. the-waaagh is an all Ork Forum, B&C do the same thing with anything with power armour, Warseer has become the journalistic and rumour control aspect of GW fandom, along with BOLS, and so on.

A forum needs a selling point or a function imo. It doesn't have to be a physical attribute, it's just a glue that attracts people. You're telling me your Wooden Dice forum had no appeal at all? I've been in forums simply because they looked and sounded like a nice place to chat with nice people, and that's one of the better hooks. Perhaps it's the attraction of a close-knit group of like-minded hobbyists. Believe it or not, the Waaagh was kind of like that when I joined. It isn't exactly as close-knit as it used to be!

But I can't count on the hands of the entire Osmond family how many times I've seen a generic forum die within a year of starting or before really taking off, simply because there was no unifying vision of what the forum was about. You don't necessarily need it; people can, as you say, make up for that. Of course, forums with a specific purpose can fail without the influence of people, but you really need both, not one or the other, working for you. Personally I find the hook more important, but I'm a writer, I'm always going to say that.

I was using tUGS to try to explain some of my thought processes behind the pros and cons of setting up a separate forum, as it's something we thought long and hard about before deciding against, and what we came up with seems particularly relevant to this discussion. We currently have no plans to establish our own forum, and unless GoMo suddenly has thousands of people interested in discussing it, we don't really see that stance changing any time soon

Neither do I, really.

If anything, the opposite is occurring with SG. That's why I think a specific forum is a better idea, at least initially, as it can fulfil its function, and with any luck, do the same job again next year. If by magic it turns into a thriving forum community, ride the wave a bit longer, tUGS could even adopt it, but likely it will fade into obscurity and the internet. But seeing as campaigns don't last that long, I really don't see the problem there.

The reason I talk about limiting the number of sub-forums, at least to start with, is because of the many, many forums I've seen started, I can't think of a single one that started out with a large number of sub-forums that actually survived. Hmm, the Loserz message board might be an exception, but I can't remember how many sub-forums it started out with. Those that start out small and are more than happy to slap an extra sub-forum in for things tend to do much better as they don't end up with empty sections that everyone is too shy to post in. I'm not trying to say that sub-forums are a bad thing, just that having too many can be very overwhelming for new members, which ends up being counter-productive.

Don't get me wrong, your advice is sound. Category/section overkill is a serious problem with forums, but in my view you do need to provide some amount to steer conversation. A forum is a representation of the discussion it produces. If you put a simple section just for discussion, I'd expect a few "Hi" topics with about a sentence and not much else.

You do want to produce just enough for people to work with and organise the data. Its not like you ever need to fill them, you just need to make sure there's a working system in place. I generally like to have at least 4 simply dedicated to forum management: a hidden boss forum, News/Rules/Intro section, a Suggestions/Questions section, and a General Discussion section, potentially, depending on if the nature of the forum itself is a subject of discussion. Then you want some specialist sections, but so long as you have the suggestions forum, people can tell you what they want including.

Are we distinguishing between the admin and moderators, in this case? There definitely needs to be someone moderating discussion, but if the admin is willing to do it then there's less of an issue. It also depends on what the rules are like and how they're enforced.

I don't mind doing both. I've done it a few times before, and generally I'd say I'm slightly better at admin, but I'm pretty familiar with the needs of both, and on a small functional forum where most of us know each other fairly well, it wont be too difficult for me to keep on top of both duties.

What depresses me about what I've learnt about forums is that if I was to write a book, chances are forums would have died out completely by the time I'd finished, making the work entirely futile.

I don't know, good forums can last a long time. The word "forum" merely means a place to discuss, so as long as discussion has taken place at some point it wasn't entirely fruitless. Besides, the original forum in Rome, is centuries old. It hasn't been used for its purpose in centuries, but we still use the word. Okay, now it's getting metaphysical!

[Easy E]

Yeah, Easy E, I'm not sure where I was going with that either anymore. How are you planning for it to work exactly? Like how would we 'capture' zones? If it is 'captured', what happens to the previous controllers...and can it be taken off us? I know you might not have answers to these questions at the moment, but a general rough idea would be useful....then I might remember why I wanted extra smaller zones....lousy brain, I often leave my mind to wander....and well, it gets lost...and a lost mind is an awful waste, if you see it, please let me know.

Okay, I'll try to answer some of these questions.

People play in the campaign, and earn campaign points that they can allocate to different warzones for their faction. They can: Purchase models, Paint Models, Scratchbuild models, do hobby stuff, and Play games.

Factions can take control of a zone if they have more campaign points allocated to a zone then any other faction. Technically, controlling a zone is only important at the end. If the warzone you control has the 'Ard Kore, you win. Theoretically, the more zones you control the more likely to win.

Anytime a different faction has more campaign points in a zone, the previous owner loses it.

In my experience, more zones leads to less conflict and boring campaigns.

As for the Forum, a small purpose built one, that we close at the end of the campaign maybe the way to go. However, I would also be interested in exploring a Facebook page. However, I'm not sure if that covers the functionality.

[Flamekebab]

However, I would also be interested in exploring a Facebook page. However, I'm not sure if that covers the functionality.

Is that a reference to "Facebook Connect" that I mentioned, or something entirely separate?

[Easy E]

Is that a reference to "Facebook Connect" that I mentioned, or something entirely separate?

I'm not savvy enough to know the difference between Facebook and Facebook Connect.

[Flamekebab]

Facebook Connect is a technology that you'll see on quite a few websites that lets someone either login with, or create an account using information from, their Facebook account. Twitter has a similar system that lets you login using your Twitter account. In terms of a forum it would mean that people wouldn't necessarily need to register, they could just click "Facebook Connect" and it would do the work for them (either letting them login, or automating the account creation process).

It's not related to Facebook pages, groups, etc. it's just an authentication thing that can be quite handy to make potential users' lives easier. I've used it to post on Lifehacker before, for example, rather than faff about creating an account.

Does that clear things up, or just confuse you more?

[Depiff]

Factions can take control of a zone if they have more campaign points allocated to a zone then any other faction. Technically, controlling a zone is only important at the end.
Anytime a different faction has more campaign points in a zone, the previous owner loses it.

In my experience, more zones leads to less conflict and boring campaigns.

Right, ok. So there are six zones with their own fluff and such (and I would assume some supposed special rules for each zone maybe), and Zone 1 (for example) is under Gorker control, so all the Gorker mobs collectively own that zone...and having games and winning games, they earn campaign points, which they allocate to a zone. And if they get more campaign points allocated to one zone than the controlling player, then they take it. I'm getting it now...still can't remember why I wanted smaller zones...possibly as a way to play outside the campaign to toughen up your mob?

Right, so I'm guessing that each faction will have a starting number of campaign points allocated to their control zone?

My only real question is that, would we have to say which zone we're playing for (well, allocating towards) BEFORE we start fighting? I would say yes, but I don't suppose its necessary.

Its certainly something I can see myself and others enjoying, as its simple and workable....and looks good fun.

PS - Did you find my mind?

[Depiff]

I remember why I was considering smaller zones now! So players can control their own area (although could easily be part of one of the six zones) and the more smaller sections they have, they might get a bonus to income or whatever. Yeah, not really that a great idea, but maybe it'll inspire somebody.

[Easy E]

Right, ok. So there are six zones with their own fluff and such (and I would assume some supposed special rules for each zone maybe), and Zone 1 (for example) is under Gorker control, so all the Gorker mobs collectively own that zone...and having games and winning games, they earn campaign points, which they allocate to a zone. And if they get more campaign points allocated to one zone than the controlling player, then they take it. I'm getting it now...still can't remember why I wanted smaller zones...possibly as a way to play outside the campaign to toughen up your mob?

You got it. Some of the Zones may have special optional rules that can be used, but overall I want it so people who are signed up for the campaign cna play opponents that aren't signed up with minimal issue.

Right, so I'm guessing that each faction will have a starting number of campaign points allocated to their control zone?

Here's the fun part. We can give starting faction home points for signing up, referring someone who signs up, and posting links to the campaign in their sig/on other sites before the campaign even starts officially! Therefore, a factions base is only as well protected as the faction has strength.

Since you can earn points for buying, doing hobby stuff (fluff/drawings), and scratchbuilding/converting these only earn points for your home territory to beef it up. Painting and battles can be allocated anywhere. So, no factions necessarily starts with any points in their base. They have to do stuff to bulk it up.

My only real question is that, would we have to say which zone we're playing for (well, allocating towards) BEFORE we start fighting? I would say yes, but I don't suppose its necessary.

Usually I say the winner can decide. If the winner is not playing inthe campaign, then the poster can decide.

Its certainly something I can see myself and others enjoying, as its simple and workable....and looks good fun.

PS - Did you find my mind?

Good and no.

As for the point about players able to "own" part of the zone, that is mostly a fluff issue. They can say they own as much or as little as they want, it doesn't really make a difference to the campaign itself. The Boss may think he rules all of Da Stompin' Groundz. That doesn't make it true.

[Easy E]

Does that clear things up, or just confuse you more?

That makes sense. So in essence, it would be a feature on the short term campaign forum then.

Does Facebook have the functionality to have multiple factions with secret "threads/Walls" to follow?

I don't have a Facebook account, and have refused to get one personally. That doesn't mean I won;t make one for the cause though.

[Da Bikers]

I remember why I was considering smaller zones now! So players can control their own area (although could easily be part of one of the six zones) and the more smaller sections they have, they might get a bonus to income or whatever. Yeah, not really that a great idea, but maybe it'll inspire somebody.

[/size]

[size="3"]The idea of each mob having their own area could be good as you would be able see who is playing around you on the map and players will feel more like they are a significant part of the campaign if they are as part of the map. Also if some players uploaded some information about their mob (e.g. what it is made of and some fluff for it) would it be possible to insert links to this into the map (I think it's called hotspots if I remember correctly...) so that players looking to see who else is playing can find out about other mobs.

In short it would make people feel like a more important part of the campaign rather than just worth a few extra points, and it would be nice to be able to see what other mobs are around you, helping create more of a team feeling, and the individual fluff would add some more depth to the campaign. Would that work/help at all?

P.S. thanks for the idea 'Depiff'.

EDIT: What's happened to my quote box?
EDIT: Wow, it's all gone weird

[Flamekebab]

That makes sense. So in essence, it would be a feature on the short term campaign forum then.

Does Facebook have the functionality to have multiple factions with secret "threads/Walls" to follow?

I don't have a Facebook account, and have refused to get one personally. That doesn't mean I won;t make one for the cause though.

I think we've got confused here. Facebook Connect is just a bit of techy wizardry, like using one ID card for multiple institutions.
Facebook itself is a social networking site, as you know. The Facebook site has support for creating your own discussion groups and forums, but it's quite primitive and I wouldn't recommend it for this.

A dedicated forum with FB Connect would mean that if you had a FB account, you could login with it. You'd still be able to register like on any other forum without being a Facebook member, it'd just be to make it more convenient for people that are tired of creating new accounts everywhere.

Edit: Here's a an example forum that uses Facebook Connect.

[Easy E]

Nope. I totally get it.

Then Facebook would not have the functionality we want.

However, if we went with a campaign forum, we would want to use Facebook Connect so people with a Facebook account could use that to access the campaign forum instead of the usual process.

In addition, I think Facebook Connect will also allow the "friends" of the individual "see" where that person is going and decide if they want to follow. Kind of like a virtual Four Square. That could help drive even more participants as people who go ot our site for GoMO, will most likely have other friends who wargame.

Edit: That Hotspots idea is made of WIN! I will have to defer to the technical experts about that though. I have no idea how that works.

Edit da Edit: I looked at the blow-up version of the Map and really think that is ace. Nice work Flamekebab. I bow before your skills.

[Da Bikers]

Edit: That Hotspots idea is made of WIN! I will have to defer to the technical experts about that though. I have no idea how that works.

Nor have I, it was meant to be part of my IT GCSE but the teacher told us to just fake it as he couldn’t be bothered to show us how to do it. (He never taught us much.) Great to see you liked the idea though. Also what about making a leader board for the mobs of every side so you can see which individual mob is winning overall so you could be on the losing side but everyone will see you are the best/luckiest player?

EDIT: ARGH it happened again! Is it just me or can everyone see my posts going weird?

[Flamekebab]

I don't see anything weird. What's going wrong for you, Da Bikers?

Anyway, I know how to do hotspots, it was something I played with quite a bit back in the day when I used Dreamweaver.
An example of their implementation is Afrotech Mods, have a look.

[Easy E]

Also what about making a leader board for the mobs of every side so you can see which individual mob is winning overall so you could be on the losing side but everyone will see you are the best/luckiest player?

This is a good idea, but realistically, we will be extremely fortunate if we have more than 10 people who actually actively contribute to this campaign.

Granted, we will all do our best to make it larger with a full-court marketing blitz, but the reality is 10 people participating is pretty awesome for a virtually dead Specialist game.

[Da Bikers]

Granted, we will all do our best to make it larger with a full-court marketing blitz, but the reality is 10 people participating is pretty awesome for a virtually dead Specialist game.

Well, I'm an optimist who has only limited connection to reality.

EDIT: My posts have gone back to normal for me now - I was starting to get bits of the coding randomly appearing when I went to edit them and the quotes went huge and black (among other stuff)

[Flamekebab]

Here's links to the rules for all the different kinds of mobs I can recall exist:

Gorkers/Morkers

Oddmobs from Digganob:
Diggas (Digganob, page 8)
Rebel Grots (Digganob, page 29)
Muties (Digganob, page 58)

Ork variants:
Freebooters
Snortas
Ork Klans

New factions:
Dark Eldar
Dust Rats

Esoteric stuff:
Bladerz (silliness warning...)
Gorkamunda (Necromunda mobs in Gorkamorka crossover rules)

Edit: it seems this forum has an auto-replace setup for the world Eldar, correcting it to panzee. I've used an old workaround for it and a URL shortener (yes, it autocorrects URLs with the word in them, argh).

[Easy E]

Awesome sauce!

[Da Bikers]

Thanks, that reminds me I need to get a copy of the gubbinz somehow...