Selection criteria for UMC Pack Project

[Caladbolg]

I think these campaigns will be the ones which need feedback the least - the unfinished and unpopular UMCs are the ones that really need feedback!

I agree.

I must say that I'm not very fond of this whole idea. As is, people who want good UMCs have to go to the Add-on server and download campaigns to try them out. Sure, sometimes it can be frustrating but this way they are also exposed to all sorts of campaigns. Now, I'm not saying that promoting good content is a bad idea- it will remove some of the frustration of downloading campaigns that aren't very polished which is good. But I fear that as a result already popular campaigns will end up getting even more feedback and become more polished while campaigns that aren't popular will be forgotten. Then there are also problems with downloading a preset the pack of campaings in that it would be better if you could pick and choose instead of taking the whole pack. As Paulomat4 said

My idea was, rather than distributing an entirely different version of wesnoth with only these campaigns, to add a button called "download the developpers collection of quality UMC content" somewhere visible (be it campaigns or main menu).
After clicking on this button you enter the Add-On browser. But instead of seeing all add-ons, it shows only the collection. You can then choose to download each campaign if you wanted.

Anyways, I think that it would be good to promote such campaigns but not in such a blatant way as putting a button on the main screen that will download a preselected pack (and I doubt the developers would think that it's a good idea). As such, I second Bob_The_Mighty's suggeston:

My suggestion is this. How about adding an extra tick box (or some other filtering method) to the options box on the add-ons server that would allow players to search for all 'recommended' content? This way they could use the 'recommended' filter alongside the existing tick boxes for the type of add-on they are looking for (or leave the others blank if they're just looking for good stuff and don't have anything particular in mind).

This way you achieve the same thing you're aiming for (making it easier for players to find good quality campaings) and it is more likely to get accepted (there are already plans to improve the add-on server and promoting campaigns this way is not as blatant). The developers have previously expressed their reservations about the idea of add-on ratings but I think that it would be acceptable if you could filter the add-ons list by 'recommended'. This way there would be no dissatisfaction if your UMC has extremely bad rating because there would be no actual numerical rating and if the number of recommended campaigns is small enough, players would likely search the add-on server for something else to play (and this approach would also be helpful in familiarizing players with the add-ons server so that's also a plus).

In short, I'm not opposed to the idea of choosing the best quality UMCs to recommend to new players but I think that doing it via add-on filtering would be much better and more likely to succeed than doing it via preselected campaign packs.

[Sire]

The more this idea progresses, the more I am inclined to wish for an actual implementation of an "Add-On" rating / review system. It doesn't need to be anything grandiose, just something simple for players to take a glance at the possible quality of any Add-On.

So, in theory, there should be...

1: Rating System - Simple 0-5 stars should be enough, with half-star increments.
2: Review System - A simple blob of text where players can leave their review (or general comments) of Add-On content.
3: Version Number - Attached to both the ratings and reviews just in case something changes over time.

Of course, there is always the possibility of abuse, but this may be one helpful step for indecisive / non-adventurous players who just want to be presented something and go with it.

[Aldarisvet]

2 Caladbolg

If there where ANY signs that anything would improve with idea of rating system in add-ons server, this all would not arise.
But as we find out, add-ons button in the main menu is a bad place for UMC campaigns, look at pervious disussions here - viewtopic.php?f=6&t=43990 . Campaigns must be with Campaigns button.

But I fear that as a result already popular campaigns will end up getting even more feedback and become more polished while campaigns that aren't popular will be forgotten.

Feedback problem is another one that was discussed here - viewtopic.php?f=6&t=43972
Mainline campaigns have really low feedback for now given what status of accessibility they have.

My idea was, rather than distributing an entirely different version of wesnoth with only these campaigns, to add a button called "download the developpers collection of quality UMC content" somewhere visible (be it campaigns or main menu).
After clicking on this button you enter the Add-On browser. But instead of seeing all add-ons, it shows only the collection. You can then choose to download each campaign if you wanted.

This is for sure an alternative idea to go. It have an advantage that there would be no need to reduce size of heavy campaigns with this solution. But I myself would prefer as minimum possibilities for choice for the player as possbile, as less clicks by mouse as posssible. Mainline campaigns included in the game and the game do not ask a player if he wants them all. Pack idea is good in that way that once you put a button "Download more campaigns", you will get all already passed quality control campaigns downloaded once and forever, so the player would have no need to download all chosen campaigns one by one. In fact in the modern world people very often want that a choice was made for them, and they just consume 'the best'.

[zookeeper]

I can't really see a pack like this as a good long-term solution. What should rather happen is that you get taken to the add-on browser which gets its filtering set to only show completed (>= 1.0) campaigns, and/or recommended ones, or something like that. But right now we can't do that, either (or at least not all of it). There was a new add-on browser interface in the works, but I don't know its status or how much it would help.

However, I still think it wouldn't be a bad idea to just have a "Get more campaigns" entry at the bottom of the campaigns list, even if it was just a dummy item with a description telling you to use the add-ons button.

[Caladbolg]

But as we find out, add-ons button in the main menu is a bad place for UMC campaigns...Campaigns must be with Campaigns button.

Hmm...why not have both? It also makes sense that they are under add-ons because they are add-ons. Currently you can already filter the add-ons list by the type of add-on (campaign/era/scenario/...). It would be a good idea to add "Get more campaigns" entry at the bottom of the campaigns list, "Get more maps" entry at the bottom of maps list, "Get more eras" entry at the bottom of the eras list etc. and have those link to the add-ons server already filtered by the add-on type.
Aditionally, if the add-ons button is not intuitive could it not be renamed into 'user-made content' or something? I also support the idea of adding a note about UMCs to the tip of the day window and possibly to the end of the tutorial where mainline campaigns are mentioned.

[Paulomat4]

Hmm...why not have both? It also makes sense that they are under add-ons because they are add-ons. Currently you can already filter the add-ons list by the type of add-on (campaign/era/scenario/...). It would be a good idea to add "Get more campaigns" entry at the bottom of the campaigns list, "Get more maps" entry at the bottom of maps list, "Get more eras" entry at the bottom of the eras list etc. and have those link to the add-ons server already filtered by the add-on type.
Aditionally, if the add-ons button is not intuitive could it not be renamed into 'user-made content' or something? I also support the idea of adding a note about UMCs to the tip of the day window and possibly to the end of the tutorial where mainline campaigns are mentioned.

+1 to that!

[doofus-01]

I appreciate the drive to stir things up and breath life into UMC, but I'm not a fan of where this is going.

In fact in the modern world people very often want that a choice was made for them, and they just consume 'the best'.

That sounds bad, in this case. This "Campaign Pack" would seem to aggravate the problem, because now LotI, IftU, and Rough Life[*] will be elevated and everything else will be shoved further down into obscurity.

[*]Why those are "best" is a complete mystery to me, and that mystification is part of my reason for posting this.

However, I still think it wouldn't be a bad idea to just have a "Get more campaigns" entry at the bottom of the campaigns list, even if it was just a dummy item with a description telling you to use the add-ons button.

That seems like the best plan, if "UMC awareness" among users is the real goal.

[skeptical_troll]

I agree with doofus that this pack should not be an alternative to the add-ons button, otherwise people will very likely ignore any other UMC work. In my opinion the problem to be solved are

1-draw people's attention to add-ons, as they often don't realize how much extra content there is around.
2-once they enter the add-ons list, give them some initial help in choosing the campaigns (or MP maps or whatever). The first time I looked at the list I said to myself 'OMG, this is overwhelming, I'm not in the mood of spending hours in trying campaigns until I find a good one, I'm just going to play another game now'

Of course, since I like the game after some time I did a search, tried some of the most popular campaigns, enjoyed some of them, then I started reading the forum, which is the only effective way of understanding what is going on. If I were less motivated, that would probably not have happened. If I were facilitated in the choice, it would have happened much earlier. I don't think you'd get people provide feedback on 'bad' campaigns just by force them to pick completely randomly, It is more likely that they'll think 'all this UMC business is a mess' and move away.

Since I think it is unrealistic to believe that a rating system will be implemented soon, I'd suggest to proceed in a gradual way, so that a list some minimum goals will be achieved in a reasonable time:

order 0 - No coding required at all: voted campaigns are included in a dummy add-on to which they are linked, named 'selected UMC campaigns' (but it should be read 'are you new and you don't know what to play? try these ones!'). Hopefully this add-on will become popular and new users will see it (this is the hard part), but at least there is a way they can get started. Then maybe they will come here in the forum, read more about the UMC world and get motivated in exploring it more, or to do their own work.

order 1- little coding required: In the campaign menu there is the 'get more campaigns' entry, as per zookeeper suggestion, and the 'selected UMC campaigns' may be highlighted somehow (e.g. it's at the top of the list when it is opened). Nuorc's suggestion of a related 'tip of the day' would also help.

order 2- more coding required: A rating system is implemented. If 0 to 5 stars is against the 'do not offend the author' policy, a 'like count' is probably a better solution. Filtering the 'recommended' or finished campaigns is also a possibility.

[Aldarisvet]

This "Campaign Pack" would seem to aggravate the problem, because now LotI, IftU, and Rough Life[*] will be elevated and everything else will be shoved further down into obscurity.

I just wonder, wasnt you against mainlaining Dead Water or what also was mainlined last for the same reason?
Wasnt that campaigns on the add-on servers before they become mainlined?
So Dead Water, Deflador Memories or whatever else became "elevated and everything else" was "shoved further down into obscurity"?
Going according your logic we should put all mainline campaings to add-ons server. This idea was voiced and rejected already.

My way, conversely, is about 'putting on packs' with time all at least a bit loved compaigns (for now it sounds too ambitious, yes, but that is just a destination to go). But community cannot concentrate on all campaigns at once, lets work firstly at some campaigns that people like most. May be sometime we would make a pack of campaigns that people hate most

I think that even for now the vote + Velensk's idea to provide some minimum info about all campaigns played is already very intresting thing itself.

[pyndragon]

That sounds bad, in this case. This "Campaign Pack" would seem to aggravate the problem, because now LotI, IftU, and Rough Life[*] will be elevated and everything else will be shoved further down into obscurity.

Oddly enough, A Rough Life has not done well in the linked poll. However, although it's a quite polished campaign and although I put it in my list, I don't think it's a good candidate for this pack, just because it doesn't link into mainline at all. The same problem exists for LotI although it's not nearly as polished.[citation needed] There's no good way to say "this is the best content" without bringing in massive subjective bias. We already sort the add-ons list by download count, although even that is misleading (some add-ons are in a constant state of flux while others are more stable and the download count can skew in the wrong direction based on this). If we added a "Developer Featured" badge and sorted them at the top by default I'm sure there'd be constant outrage over inclusion and omission; the only path of action that makes sense to me is to wait for ratings to be implemented somehow.

[nuorc]

I don't think it's a good candidate for this pack, just because it doesn't link into mainline at all. The same problem exists for LotI

If there was a clear disclaimer to it (as LotI has) I'd think it'd be good enough. That's part of BfW's appeal that it is so diverse and 'anybody' can do 'anything' with it. I consider it more of a strong-point that should be showcased instead of hiding it.

There's no good way to say "this is the best content" without bringing in massive subjective bias. the only path of action that makes sense to me is to wait for ratings to be implemented somehow.

One way of saying 'this is noteworthy UMC' is just going on in this forum and people are rating voting.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you that 'waiting is the only path of action making sense' atm. If the devs put a button below the campaigns and we here figure out a way to suggest five of them, I think that would be a good start!

[Aldarisvet]

I have awesome news!

Alessandro Pira (alep in this forum), the author of Wesnoth android port, agreed to include our UMC Pack to his Wesnoth 1.12 android port (that is available for free in Google Play ). His port have cool installation pack selection system, you may choose whether to install or not - mainline campaigns pack, sounds pack, language pack - so nothing hard in adding UMC campaigns pack there also. Actually that was a reason I was suggesting that Pack idea from the beginning. There would be no need to change anything in wesnoth code, only to android wesnoth installation application.

So our Pack will get GREAT channel of distribution regardless of developers position. I found last zookeeper's post kinda conservative and cautious, well that is probably because devs have their own goals/priorities where to put their efforts. But we can concentrate on our plan to promote UMC campaigns with full confidence that our work will get wide audience.

[Paulomat4]

That is great news indeed! How long do we intend to run the poll?

[loonycyborg]

There already is a way for developers to endorse a campaign: by mainlining it. Any "developer approved" pack would be wholly redundant considering that wesnoth already contains a builtin pack of campaigns. Most of current "official" campaigns started as UMC that got mainlined with author getting commit/push access to wesnoth repo. That said there for sure could be third party maintained packs as long as there are people willing to maintain them.

[Aldarisvet]

There already is a way for developers to endorse a campaign: by mainlining it. Any "developer approved" pack would be wholly redundant considering that wesnoth already contains a builtin pack of campaigns. Most of current "official" campaigns started as UMC that got mainlined with author getting commit/push access to wesnoth repo. That said there for sure could be third party maintained packs as long as there are people willing to maintain them.

Well, we know it. Since you last post dated December 23rd, 2015, you probably missed all background discussions.
To say short: status quo is insufficient. In the situation of poor interface of the add-ons server and very poor feedback flow authors can simply lose enthusiasm (and this game survives only because it provides a space for creation). There is a little hope that something would be mainlined in near future, and moreover, mainlining 1 campaign in 4 years would not change the situation at all.

My first reaction when I saw the content of the add-ons server was: and they really think I have to dig in that? Just compare interface of Google Play and our add-ons server.

That is great news indeed! How long do we intend to run the poll?

I hope we will get 100 votes in time so we can say it have some minimum representativeness.