• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
alvaro

Reputation++ for logging in? Really?

81 posts in this topic

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1337524703' post='4941643']
Or for every person he downvotes he'll need to upvote another person to keep his points the same. But since this is trial run, I guess it's worth seeing how well it works.

This may sound like a weird request, but is there anyway to show "certain" points? For instance, I don't want my participation points shown. Personally, everytime I see my points go up, I'm like "oh I wonder who rated up one of my post". Then I get the sad realization that I got +1 for logging in. Plus it's nice for me and probably the person looking at my score to see and immediately know that my points (however high) are from my posts in the Technical threads, ie. I know what I'm talking about [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/img]
[/quote]

Do you mean something along the lines of if you post in the technical forums your tech rep number shows and if you post in the creative forums your creative rep number shows etc? I kind of like that idea to a degree. I would think that social side should show your complete score though.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That would be a good idea as well. I like it.

However, I really just meant you get to choose what points show in your reputation. So, for example, participation (or is it social) points are (from what I understand) points I got from logging in and upvoting someone. Well I don't want those points to show. So I check a box that says, "don't show these points" or "don't show social points".
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1337526996' post='4941651']
However, I really just meant you get to choose what points show in your reputation. So, for example, participation (or is it social) points are (from what I understand) points I got from logging in and upvoting someone. Well I don't want those points to show. So I check a box that says, "don't show these points" or "don't show social points".[/quote]
Have to say, I'm not very happy with the new voting system thus far.

The fact that everyone's rating is constantly upticking makes the number completely useless - I can't tell at a glance whether someone is very helpful, or just gaming the system.

It's also odd to have the breakdown by technical/business/creative/social, but not be able to see that except by going to the person's ratings page. Means once again, I have a meaningless number that I have to research to see if it is in fact relevant.

Maybe the forum should display one's social rating in social forums, technical rating in technical forums, etc.?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it would be nice to have an official breakdown of what forums fall into what categories. Granted some of them are obvious. For instance, Lounge forum is in the Social category. But is there any other forums in the Social category?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As an addition to the breakdown for the various areas, why not show the reputation as such: "Reputation: 640 (1570)" where 640 is the areas reputation, and 1570 is the overall reputation. There's plenty of room in the username area for each post.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='swiftcoder' timestamp='1337527580' post='4941654']
It's also odd to have the breakdown by technical/business/creative/social, but not be able to see that except by going to the person's ratings page. Means once again, I have a meaningless number that I have to research to see if it is in fact relevant.

[/quote]

Well, there isn't a technical/business/creative/social breakdown of reputation though. Also there isn't a way to earn points in the "social" forums either.

I *do* want a quick way to show the reputation in the four categories (scholar, author, moderator, participation) when you mouse over a person's profile, but I haven't figured out how best to do that.

The breakdown between technical, creative, business, and social is based off of post counts in each of the forum categories. I threw that in to add more stats related to a user. I can try to come up with a way to calculate stats broken down into those areas but that will take a bit of effort. The forums is only one facet of how reputation is earned. Edited by Michael Tanczos
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1337668887' post='4942114']
+5 rep for reporting a post? Wow!
[/quote]

Remember though, -10 if a moderator rejects your report.. use it wisely.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the voting up rep boost depending on the upvoter's reputation feature implemented?
I always get the same +/-4 points for my upvoted posts, no matter where I post them. Since I mostly post in beginner topics, that would mean that either 100 rep voters (the original posters) mean 4 point boost to me, or always higher rep members with about the same rep vote me up/down?
Or up voting from the original poster means more points? Maybe it's the non-fully implemented "mark as answer" feature?

BTW should these questions go in a different topic, or in the journals? I don't want to flood this one with my questions.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='szecs' timestamp='1337759427' post='4942467']
I always get the same +/-4 points for my upvoted posts, no matter where I post them. Since I mostly post in beginner topics, that would mean that either 100 rep voters (the original posters) mean
[/quote]

Well.. right now there are a couple of things at play that I considered tweaking yesterday. The formula I'm using to calculate point contributions is going to be tweaked this week because even new users can hit the +3 mark. It was originally supposed to take into account MUCH higher reputation, but the lack of anyone with a high reputation (the most we have is a around 3.3K or so) makes the bulk of the calculation worthless.. especially if capped at +4. The new formula will probably be something like clamp(floor(log(max(reputation, 1))/0.8-1), 1, 4)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget everyone's reputation is now ticking upwards steadily (albeit) slowly. The formula should be chosen to match the kind of rep we're GOING to see rather than what people already have now. I'd say go ahead and target that MUCH higher rep: the few users who have it have really earned it, and it's now inevitable that others will also eventually reach those scores.

It should take time and effort to earn increased influence.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='jbadams' timestamp='1337809331' post='4942699']
Don't forget everyone's reputation is now ticking upwards steadily (albeit) slowly. The formula should be chosen to match the kind of rep we're GOING to see rather than what people already have now. I'd say go ahead and target that MUCH higher rep: the few users who have it have really earned it, and it's now inevitable that others will also eventually reach those scores.[/quote]
Because even users who aren't knowledgable in a subject will eventually have 2k+ and 3k+ ratings in the Scholar category, do you think there will be a problem of everyone having to keep adjusting our mental thresholds for "knowledgeable users", because they steadily tick upwards regardless of whether they are knowledgeable or not?

[quote]It should take time and effort to earn increased influence.[/quote]
Agreed. But don't forget the time-honored rule of game-development: No matter how long the developer will think it'll take, players will reach it much faster.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1337810841' post='4942708']<br /> Because even users who aren't knowledgable in a subject will eventually have 2k+ and 3k+ ratings in the Scholar category, do you think there will be a problem of everyone having to keep adjusting our mental thresholds for "knowledgeable users", because they steadily tick upwards regardless of whether they are knowledgeable or not?<br />[/quote]

Well, to be fair, the only wait to increase your scholar points directly will be to "follow" a particular topic. This is more to encourage the designation of worthwhile topics than anything.. and there will always be the potential for abuse. BUT, look at it from a different angle in that we should all be trying to produce a lot more open knowledge for each other. We all have a ton of skills that could help others and we have a huge potential as a community talent pool to create some really useful stuff (articles, blogs, topics, answers, etc)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a side comment, I think one of the things that bothers me still is when people really take a lot of time to help another user and they don't get a thanks/upvote/etc. How do you change that mentality and make courtesy more important? I know this is the Internet and all but the best I could come up with is by giving people a point just for giving out reputation points. Aside from that we need to really experience a culture shift here.. a new renessaince where people do more to contribute game development information.

One of the next stages of this reputation system is going to be how articles are handled.. we're really going to be looking for people to take pieces of code that they have written and share explanations of how it works with other people. When I originally developed gameprog.com back in 1997 one of the things I strived for is platform-agnostic, language-agnostic techniques for game programmers (ie. algorithms, patterns, etc)

It's also pretty simple to build an article around a piece of code.. and most of us all have some gem pieces of code that we have tucked away on our hard drives. As long as people aren't too afraid to share we have some great potential in this area.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I think the new system is a bit... horrible....
At a quick glance almost everyone in this thread has a higher reputation than Tom Sloper. Which is a bit wrong if you ask me. I don't want to have to look up graphs and charts for every member to figure out if they have sage advice or not.

If you want "points" for "participation" and crap; add another column in your table for "XP". Make a little forum RPG out of it. How you have it now you can't tell who is respected member of the community and who is just an average know nothing Joe.

Just my two bytes... Edited by BronzeBeard
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BronzeBeard' timestamp='1337828718' post='4942766']
At a quick glance almost everyone in this thread has a higher reputation than Tom Sloper. Which is a bit wrong if you ask me. I don't want to have to look up graphs and charts for every member to figure out if they have sage advice or not.
[/quote]

And for what reason do you consider their points not earned? Tom will certainly accumulate points faster than most people anyway. I'd doubt his sage advice doesn't cause his reputation to skyrocket quickly. Remember, this system is brand new.. Edited by Michael Tanczos
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1337829693' post='4942772']
[quote name='BronzeBeard' timestamp='1337828718' post='4942766']
At a quick glance almost everyone in this thread has a higher reputation than Tom Sloper. Which is a bit wrong if you ask me. I don't want to have to look up graphs and charts for every member to figure out if they have sage advice or not.
[/quote]

And for what reason do you consider their points not earned? Tom will certainly accumulate points faster than most people anyway. I'd doubt his sage advice doesn't cause his reputation to skyrocket quickly. Remember, this system is brand new..
[/quote]

Most of the arguments I would make have already been brought up in this thread so I won't bog you down with rehashing them. I understand the system is brand new, but if we're going to keep it there needs to be a quick way to see where all these superfluous points come from without having to go through a person's profile.

You've probably already have a ticket for this or something similar, but I think you should break it down rather than just displaying a total reputation. Because personally I don't care if the person "participates" or authors blogs, I only care about the "Scholar" category as you have it.

[img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.png[/img] Don't take my feedback personally [img]http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.png[/img] Edited by BronzeBeard
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BronzeBeard' timestamp='1337830760' post='4942775']

Most of the arguments I would make have already been brought up in this thread so I won't bog you down with rehashing them. I understand the system is brand new, but if we're going to keep it there needs to be a quick way to see where all these superfluous points come from without having to go through a person's profile.

[/quote]

I get that. I would just take a different stance that the other points are superfluous.. which is perfectly fine that you disagree. I do want to be able to come up with a simple rep tag that shows each of the four categories in a compact format though so hopefully that will address your concerns.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We just can't pick which category(s) we want to show?

For example: If I want Scholar and Author points shown, I'd just check those two categories. Then my points would show and there would be two color-coded thin bars under the score to show which categories they came from. Blue = scholar, Orange = Author.

[color=#008000]839[/color]
[color=#0000ff]--[/color] [color=#ff8c00]--[/color]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not give a small user setting with 5 checkboxes. 1-4 are for the categories you want to care about? The 5th is whether you want a total, or individual breakdown. Then instead of seeing "Reputation: 999" you see "Reputation: [color=#ff0000]111[/color] [color=#00ff00]222[/color] [color=#0000ff]333[/color] [color=#ffd700]444[/color]" or "Reputation: [color=#a9a9a9]555[/color]".
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about keeping the numerical representation an aggregate, but displaying the breakdown as a small, minimalist ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkline"]sparkline[/url]-like) bar chart alongside? (My tuppenceworth: I think the new system is far too complex to bother learning, so it's not going to nudge my behaviour in any direction.)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1337834089' post='4942790']
For example: If I want Scholar and Author points shown, I'd just check those two categories. Then my points would show and there would be two color-coded thin bars under the score to show which categories they came from. Blue = scholar, Orange = Author.
[/quote]
So I have to remember, "High orange numbers in a technical thread mean nothing. High blue numbers mean something."

Why not just show only the number that corresponds to the forum? In the lounge, you show participation points, in For Beginners, General Programming, and etc... you show those points.
Or better yet, show all four points colored, but have the points that "belong" to that sub-forum be a slightly larger font.

Example:
[img]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/9485/ratingb.png[/img]

And if you can also show only the points received from a specific sub-forum, show that as well. In my opinion, it'll provide much better "at a glance" knowledge, and be more accurate at who is knowledgeable.

[img]http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/128/rating2x.png[/img]

I may have 500 points in technical 'scholar'ly know-how, from helping out with C++ questions in For Beginners and General Programming, or SDL and SFML api questions, but that Scholar rating is just misleading if I'm talking about Artificial Intelligence or Direct X, which is why in the Direct X forum, you should also show Direct X subforum specific points (that contribute to Scholar points, but shown separated out when in that forum). Edited by Servant of the Lord
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remembering which color goes with what category is not hard. Especially since repetition will have you remember it anyway. Plus someone could always hover over the bar which would produce a tooltip that says what category that color belongs to.

With that said, I actually like your idea. Admittedly, it's alot more easy to see. However, I believe Michael (IIRC) said he wanted to show the info in a compact way. Hence, my suggestion.

Since you can already see what thread your points came from it shouldn't be too hard to aggregate and categorize the points, as you, me, or Dragonsoulj suggested.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, this is a game development site isnt it? Coming up next.. every person will get an avatar character that will represent them. You first choose the character and customize, then equip the character by buying upgrades in a character store using the points you have available in the different categories. Participation points would buy different things than scholar points.. ;)

Equip your barbarian avatar with the ban hammer (moderator) and a pet lounge lizard.. (kidding of course!!) Edited by Michael Tanczos
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Michael Tanczos' timestamp='1337893239' post='4943009']
Equip your[b] barbarian [/b]avatar with the ban hammer (moderator) and a pet lounge lizard.. (kidding of course!!)
[/quote]

Well one supposes given a barbarian's (supposed) difficulty with counting that we could utilise graphics to demonstrate expertise in the relevant forum. Examples:[list]
[*]Barbarian hitting own head with hammer = non-expert in relevant forum.
[*]Barbarian hitting Lounge lizard = moderating activity taking place.
[*]Barbarian standing on pile of skulls = I am good enough to help you.
[/list]
etc. etc.

--------------------------

It may not have been said but I for one am liking the rollout of the reputation system (ignoring the isolated bugs) so far and am interested in how it all pans out esp. what measures are/are not implemented with regard this thread's responses by so many parties.

One aspect I think some of us keep forgetting is that our ability to upvote/downvote posts is the most immediate and clearly identifiable way of showing a thread's response as valuable/helpful or not. If I see someone with a decent rep having a post that has been downchecked a number of times then should I respect the person for sage advice given their rep number (regardless of how broken down it is into category/forum etc) and ignore that the post was downchecked. Anyone can have a brain-fart and make an error or give bad advice and given the english skills of some of the thread's originators it is not surprising misinterpretation happens.


Barbarian draws cave painting = Author of this article. Edited by Stormynature
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0