Forum:Brickipedia Games

Forums - Brickipedia Games

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Comment: superceded by a later forum So, it's been decided (sort of) that Brickipedia Games will take place on the forums over here. I've set up a forum for Games, but how exactly are we going to manage it? Who do we want to be able to make/manage games, how many games should we run at once (should we have a limit at all?). Feel free to discuss anything else about Games here too, but it'd be nice to have at least one game set up and ready to go on launch day. NovaHawk 09:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC) My vote's for having a "gamemaster" group- a group of people who are trusted to properly set up a game and actually follow through with managing it. I also don't think we need to limit the number of games- the more the better, if one game dies for whatever reason, it's not much of a big deal, unlike on BGW, where if one game got boring or wasn't maintained and we only had one game running, the whole wiki died. NovaHawk 09:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC) I think we shouldn't allow obvious duplicate games, and we should have a time that if a game is inactive for, it's closed. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC) We should definitely keep an eye out for duplicates and shut them down quickly, that's almost certainly bound to happen on here (unless we get gamemasters and they coordinate it) NovaHawk 14:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Gamemaster sounds good...I'm for a limit of 2 or 3, maybe 4. If there are too many at once, some will be ignored and hard work will be wasted, and there may be a downtime when they are all over, depending on how many hosts there are. But I do think that we should run it without a limit first, until it gets on its feet. Berrybrick (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC) True- I forgot to look at it from the point of view of the person running a game. Wasting all that time would be frustrating to say the least. Unlimited sounds like a good idea for now, we can get a feel for many games people would get involved with (and actually play) and work on a limit then if it's determined that we need one NovaHawk 14:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Brace yourself- incoming text wall. I've just been thinking, and I don't think a forum is going to work too well for Games. Most games take place in a single place, with actions being made in the form of comments. However, if we do forums, the gameboard (or whatever you want to call it) will be probably in the first post. As the first post doesn't show on every page for forums, that means that everyone would have to constantly be flicking between first and last pages all the time, which would be annoying. Therefore, I'd like to propose a Brickipedia Games namespace. It would allow better management of games than a forum could provide (with a Games main page, if a gamemaster group is established, the namespace can be locked to gamemasters only [but of course allow anyone to comment so they can still play]), be easier to use (gameboard as the article, with a comments section at the bottom for player actions), and to me it would look better and attract more members than a forum would. Additionally, I'm proposing that we set up some sort of system where users can have a gamer profile, sort of like Xbox Achievements. Starting off with a basic system: 10 gamer studs for participating in a game (participating to a decent degree, not just signing up, playing one day and disappearing) 15 gamer studs for participating and doing something special (that something special can be determined beforehand and listed on a game by the gamemaster running the game) 20 games studs for winning the game We could make it more complex over time if needed. I just thought it might encourage users to stick with the game once they join, and to get them to play several games, even if it's just compete with others to have the highest gamer score. Of course, Games may detract from our focus of mainspace editing even further, but, understandably, to get a Games wiki, we have to prove that it'd viable to have a Games wiki by getting users involved on here, so... NovaHawk 14:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I'd be okay with this on customs, until they get a separate wiki, but on en it won't work as a namespace for me. Reviews are relevant to an extent, but this would be too off-topic for a namespace on this wiki I think. Everything else sounds good. Berrybrick (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Customs does sound a better place for it to me as well NovaHawk 22:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Per Berry, but not on Customs. I'd be more-willing to make games.brickimedia.org, where we could possibly even make an extension for the game points. En is an encyclopedia for LEGO products, not for fan-participation in unofficial games. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC) (That was the original idea (with a 9/2 support vote on Meta), but it somehow ended up on en forums... I still don't know how it ended up here, and if we really want games to work, trying it on its own wiki still seems like the only viable option to me). Agreed now 100% about not doing it on en... Customs seems more viable, but like Meiko I'd prefer that not to happen either. NovaHawk 06:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC) So, after random conversations in chat, I had a few ideas for have to do this. One game (RP, RPG, Interactive Story) per person at a time. After a person starts a game, they can't start another game for a month (at minimum.) That way people can have a bit of fun. All announcements, game rules, etc. Will be in either a first post or a blog mainspace. (Pretty obvious.) Also, after making their first game, a user must participate in X number (or X percent) of active games before creating a new one. Maybe another requirement before making a new game is that the game maker must conclude the game to some degree of satisfaction. Jay 23:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Strong oppose for using the blog namespace- if it's in the blog namespace, there's no centralised runnning of Games, it's just people doing games blogs like they always do, and nothing really goes anywhere. Also I don't see why people have to play games if they don't want to- if they're happy running and properly maintaining them, I can't see anything wrong with that. I agree with what I think is the idea of some of the other rules though- it seems like the intent of some of the rules is to limit the number of games people are running so they don't dilute their focus too far and don't take on too much work. However if a group of people are running a game, I don't think that should count. NovaHawk 06:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)