| Autori |
Temë: A second team sharing the team forums |
106 përgjigje
|
|
|
I know this has been discussed before but I want to bring it up again because I think there is a lot of support for the issue, at least with the people I am talking to.
I am not asking for any special coding to setup a second team. Only that teams are able to open their forums to another team, by the leaders control. For instance, I have teams A & B. Team A if the more competitive team and B is the more laid back team (or just as competitive). Team A is then able to open individual threads, like the pre-race discussion, so team B can read and post on that thread. It would then be seen by both teams. Some things like applications for new members and other discussions would probably be locked out from the other team.
The key is to open communications between the teams and raise activity levels. People will then point to the offsite forums. Many of the people I talk to do not like having to open two different sites (GPRO and offsite) just to keep everything covered. Lazy? perhaps and there is some advantages to offsite locations. However from a GPRO perspective, it does keep people here and most likely as supporters, so they can access the forums. You could even raise the supporter bar from 6 to 7 if you wanted this option. If people can get everything in an offsite location they are not logging on to GPRO outside of their setups and a little more. This reduces the income for GPRO.
Trust me I don't like to pay any more than I have to , but GPRO is in the business of making money and should look closely at features which may help that income.
The real aim would be to increase communications between the teams to help with activity, research etc. I do not know how difficult it would be to allow for this modification. It makes the threads some form of public topic, but restricted to the teams the leader picks. This could allow for 1 team, 2 teams or any number of teams.
Activity, or lack of it, is often sited as reasons why teams die and people leave the game. Opening this feature would be in their best interests, because it helps with that activity. It still maintains the team structure and allows teams to move players between teams without losing the friends they had on that other team. An offsite forum works for team where there is high activity but does nothing to lower activity teams who may not have the time to build/maintain those sites and the people just float away.
My own team has had some casual discussion about setting up a second team for a few reasons. However the main reason we may not do it is the time involved in setting it up, managing communications between teams, perhaps having to setup an offsite forum etc. It is more work than we want to take on at this time. Providing this forum change would make that easy.
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you try an outside forum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Despite I like the idea, i always find the same problem, and I want someone please to give an answer just because I can´t find a "fair" answer or solution. Where is the limit? Why 2 teams and not 3 or more?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Fran Betancort @ May 2nd 2014,19:34:30 ) 3 or more
Because Hungarian Crown.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mehdi El Fathy @ May 2nd 2014,19:35:57 ) Because Hungarian Crown.
I know many examples of 3 or more teams that work togheter as one. Why shouldn´t they have the benefit of this suggestion? Where is the limit to be "fair" to everyone?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Fran Betancort @ May 2nd 2014,19:38:17 ) I know many examples of 3 or more teams that work togheter as one. Why shouldn´t they have the benefit of this suggestion? Where is the limit to be "fair" to everyone?
I don't see why this would be "unfair"
|
|
|
|
A limit of 1 team per forum is fairest.
Set up an external forum if you need to coordinate multiple teams.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Mehdi El Fathy @ May 2nd 2014,19:40:08 ) I don't see why this would be "unfair"
Well, just imagine you have 2 teams and I have 3, why should you have a team forum for 20 persons while I´m forced to leave 10 persons out or forced to use an external one?
Quote ( Jim Sikma @ May 2nd 2014,19:41:44 ) A limit of 1 team per forum is fairest.
Set up an external forum if you need to coordinate multiple teams.
Totally agree ;)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Jim Sikma @ May 2nd 2014,19:41:44 ) Set up an external forum if you need to coordinate multiple teams.
I agree with that. However it would be a nice edition
|
|
|
|
|
#41 Postuar 2 Maj 2014, 19:53:47 (Së fundi edituar 2 Maj 2014, 19:55:12 nga Luke Frost)
|
Citim
|
I agree with Alex :)
In the simplest way it can be built, seeing it added to the team landscape would not draw any negatives at all IF there is a limit to two (possibly three) teams who are able to share a forum.
|
|
|
|
|
why not just let people set a preference for the 'team forum' button to goto whatever link (be it internal or external) froum the team chooses, then nothing needs to be done to change the internal forum as those who want to share forums can do so and still have them linked thru GPRO (I am assuming that is the reason people prefer the in-game forum).
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ May 2nd 2014,20:11:37 ) (I am assuming that is the reason people prefer the in-game forum)
Not sure I get this...people use in-game forums only because there's a link to them on the site? Or are you suggesting something else :/
|
|
|
|
Why should there be a limit? If it is allowed for two teams, what basis should it not be allowed for 20 teams?
If we accept "family" teams and encourage them by allowing sharing of a forum, then why should we allow "small" family teams of two or three teams but not "large" family teams of many more.
I'm not saying that I'm for or against the idea just now (although I know my opinion, just not sharing it as playing devil's advocate), but I can't see anyway that you can allow it but only for a limited number of teams.
The limit is ten managers per team. In a way, by allowing sharing of an internal forum you are raising that and you are allowing teams to work together "officially" so what justification is there for limiting the number of teams that can do such a thing?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Harsh Sheth @ May 2nd 2014,20:16:21 ) people use in-game forums only because there's a link to them on the site?
internal forum needs 6 supporters and not all teams have that. Also, the inability to sub-categorize means you end up with far too many topics on the front page. There are plenty of externals that do the job far better than the internal one...the internal one is only worth using for convenience, imo, unless you had loads of stuff on their that you're sentimental about...easily moved though (the useful stuff)
E : Btw, I'm not bashing Alex's idea, as I support it. The only problem as Kevin mentioned is that doing something like this would/could be seen as accepting/encouraging "family" teams...which the game makers have discouraged to this point. Or at least not supported the notion, else it would have been done already. That said, if it was done, I see no problem for many of the reason's Alex said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only problem with this is where do you draw the line, such a great suggestion, but before long you have team members in a forum, and how do you justify if it's a sister team or not, it could be two teams sharing data, which is not allowed in the game rules, to keep everything simple, one team, one forum per team, no arguments, no problems, as harsh as it's sounds, and as somebody already pointed out, there are plenty of social media sites out there, that allow you to do the for mentioned, either way, I am for the idea, but against it simply because of the policing and time it would involve.
|
|
|
|
If the developers spend a second of their time making changes to support or encourage shamily teams, it will be a wasted second.
If you want to crook the game design, do it on your own time.
|
|
|
|
|
Everything should be done to stop family teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a hot potato though....if family teams are an accepted part of the game by allowing shared resources...where do you then draw the line? Double accounting for starters can become more highly prominent if a team has multiple layers in it's family, thus increasing the speed in which it can gain information. Yes, they already can by their own means, but by allowing shared forums, GPRO is more or less accepting their existence and giving it a thumbs up (and everything that goes with it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#51 Postuar 3 Maj 2014, 13:15:50 (Së fundi edituar 3 Maj 2014, 13:17:15 nga Luke Frost)
|
Citim
|
Quote ( Fran Betancort @ May 2nd 2014,19:42:16 ) Well, just imagine you have 2 teams and I have 3, why should you have a team forum for 20 persons while I´m forced to leave 10 persons out or forced to use an external one?
I am sure Hungarian Crown has a team forum now with 150+ participants. Whether or not that's fair on the rest is unimportant, because at the end of the day it's all down to choice.
Quote ( Daryl Gee @ May 2nd 2014,23:23:05 ) If the developers spend a second of their time making changes to support or encourage shamily teams, it will be a wasted second.
If you want to crook the game design, do it on your own time.
How on earth does this change the design of the game so drastically from what it is?
All this suggestion is about is giving an easier option to those who are already using an off site forum. It's not like we will see the whole game break by adding it. A lot of teams refuse t create second teams because the majority in those teams prefer the interface the GPRO team forum provides.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Luke Frost @ May 3rd 2014,13:15:50 ) Whether or not that's fair on the rest is unimportant,
Is it unimportant to server space too? :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Luke Frost @ May 3rd 2014,13:15:50 ) A lot of teams refuse t create second teams
And a lot of people would say that's a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Luke Frost @ May 3rd 2014,13:15:50 ) A lot of teams refuse t create second teams because the majority in those teams prefer the interface the GPRO team forum provides.
Actually it's because 20 managers is a ridiculous amount of managers to keep active and posting. Teams in this game have become a joke because they transfer managers between teams to gain more points.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ May 3rd 2014,13:06:26 ) Is it unimportant to server space too? :)
I am quite annoyed when people start to come with arguments they have no idea about.
What is an average length of the post? 200 characters? Do you know how many of those you can save in 1GB?
And I also don't know why do you think there would be a dramatic increase in posts count for 2 teams with 1 common forum compared to 2 teams with 2 separate forums.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Andrej Borsuk @ May 3rd 2014,13:32:33 ) And I also don't know why do you think there would be a dramatic increase in posts count for 2 teams with 1 common forum compared to 2 teams with 2 separate forums.
More people with which to interact means there would be more interactions between the people on the forum.
Quote ( Andrej Borsuk @ May 3rd 2014,13:32:33 ) What is an average length of the post? 200 characters? Do you know how many of those you can save in 1GB?
Enlighten me, please. Because I'd like to know. At least for my information so I leave out such arguments in the future, if they're that false.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Andrei Ciuchi @ May 3rd 2014,13:35:16 ) Enlighten me, please. Because I'd like to know. At least for my information so I don't come up with such arguments in the future.
1GB = 1 000 000 000 B
200 characters ~ 200 B
That makes it about 5 million posts
|
|
|
|
Back to what Alex has said; I think that the concept could work, but only with strict limitations.
So what could those limitations be?
Both teams have 7 (possibly 8) Supporters.
Be thread specific, as opposed to an entire team forum.
Limited number of threads shared at any one time. (Possibly as low as 3)
Be reciprocal (A gives thread access to B, but B also has to give thread access to A in return, with both requiring acceptance by team leaders prior to becoming active).
Be time limited (probably at 7 days).
Limited number of team links at any one time (probably limited to just 1).
Be capable of early termination by either team.
Limited number of threads linked per 28 days (probably 10).
|
|
|
|
|
The only part of the teams section I don't like is that it makes it almost impossible for people who aren't in teams to do well. There are some people who have managed it but it has taken them a long time. However there is nothing we can do to stop them from talking to each other off the site but I think we should try are best to stop people from creating 20 teams with 200 players that make it almost impossible for anyone else to have a chance. As I said before 1, 2 or even 3 teams is fine. Any more than that is too many in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Andrej Borsuk @ May 3rd 2014,13:39:28 ) 1GB = 1 000 000 000 B
200 characters ~ 200 B
That makes it about 5 million posts
Very good to know that.
Ok, so no server space issue then ... But still, this argument remains.
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ May 3rd 2014,13:06:26 ) if family teams are an accepted part of the game by allowing shared resources...where do you then draw the line?
Surely we cannot just go on and on with the family teams.
EDIT
Quote ( Michael Winkley @ May 3rd 2014,13:40:20 ) So what could those limitations be?
Both teams have 7 (possibly 8) Supporters.
Be thread specific, as opposed to an entire team forum.
Limited number of threads shared at any one time. (Possibly as low as 3)
Be reciprocal (A gives thread access to B, but B also has to give thread access to A in return, with both requiring acceptance by team leaders prior to becoming active).
Be time limited (probably at 7 days).
Limited number of team links at any one time (probably limited to just 1).
Be capable of early termination by either team.
Limited number of threads linked per 28 days (probably 10).
This would be a good list of those limits.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
