If we take the time and resources to have this coded then it WILL be used. That's why I posted here first.
Sounds good. I think you will be able to more accurately assess the level of interest per title and more importantly allocate workload for trainer coding as a team. My only concerns are the cap of 50 you mentioned, im not privy to membership numbers but based on the large number of people i know thru the site maybe 50 is too low. It would only take 5 life mems to hit 50 with a monthly point allocation of 10. Lastly and maybe more dearly to me and a few other the fate of retired games. As a whole the idea is solid and just wanted to say thanks Pwiz for even asking for feedback. It shows you care what we think.
The problems i see here are if you have 5 too 10 people that play together then they can control what trainers they want we have 15 people that have been playing games together for over 10 years and they all have lifetime accounts at CH
i agree that retired games should be included a lot of old games are still played
OK I agree there is way to many games coming out everyone month and mainly due to indie developers in my books. These games should be lower down on the the pecking. But that is my opinion.
I have no issues with this idea. As even with the amount of people it should make it more streamlined. Plus the credit stack androllover idea is good to. Including the refund system if a game is untrainable. Which is very good to.
As to the priority. I agree on the first one reaching 50.
I do like the idea of being able to purchase extra Credits to if people wish to. Even tho some one said an evil word and should be hung shot gutted and run over a buggy. (Jagged Alliance 2 Original verson) Refrence. You know who you are. *waves finger at Agreed*.
I feel everything you have stated PWiz is good in my books.
I very much like this idea, especially since it will allow for game trainers to be "privately funded", rather than waiting for 5 people, assuming the "private fund" either has, or can buy, enough credits. Plus, it would give us paid members the opportunity to put some extra money back into the system and have something to show for it.
The only issues I see is that with all of the games out there and all of the people out there that want trainers for the games, this opens up a slippery slope for 2 reasons:
1) if people take advantage of this, even though you may have an influx of money, you may also end up going back to having people literally expecting/requesting every game out there to have a trainer, and they will be able to vote it up fairly easily
2) you may end up with people like with the FIFA14 trainer, where they expect the world and get upset when you don't bend over backwards for them...right now, they are not paying for that particular trainer, they are paying for a membership, but if you go this route, you open the doors for things to get really heated from people that now actually DID pay money specifically for a particular trainer. Even though I have wanted this type of option in the past, this is the main reason I never requested such, and I understood why you did not do it.
All of that being said, I don't really want to discourage you...I like this idea, but like many things, some individuals will probably end up abusing it and screwing things up for the rest of us.
I think you make a good point. We will definitely have to keep an eye out for people trying to abuse the system. Also, just because a game is requested and meets the requirements that doesn't mean that we can magically make a trainer for it. We will still consider the time needed, complexity of the game engine, etc. It might be that we have to set a higher credit value to certain games that have a much higher level of difficulty or are made by developers with a history of releasing hundreds of patches. For example, the Wargame series. Each game has had over 50 patches so we can expect the next game in the series to be no better. For this game we would likely assign a credit value of 100-200 instead of the default.
I will also make it very clear that this new system in no way will have an effect on the games that get retired. Just because you spend your credits to request a trainer, that doesn't give you the right to complain over and over and expect us to include every option you can dream up. This system will ONLY affect the games that are considered for a trainer. Nothing more. We *MIGHT* consider using the system to un-retire certain games, but I think that is a slippery slope as people will start accusing us of retiring games just to get people to buy credits and bring it out of retirement.
[Edited by PWizard, 11/12/2013 4:53:18 PM]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris O'Rorke (email@example.com) Co-Founder: Cheat Happens.com
I think you are on the right track with assigning different point values, depending on the complexity and patch history of the developer...makes total sense. I would add that Early Access games should either not be allowed at all, or have a high starting point value, that perhaps drops to a lower value upon release?
As far as allowing games to be Un-retired...perhaps once this new system goes live, if you decide to go with it, allow a ONE-TIME-ONLY "unretire" for something like 200 points, for previously retired games, but do not allow anything to be unretired if retired past that date. That way, it becomes more like a "bonus" for games retired before the new system?