Resort user campaigns by download numbers.

[ILikeProgramming]

I think that for 1.0 campaigns should be resorted by download numbers, so people, especially new players, end up with the good campaigns first on the list. That way, the campaigns will be near the "sort-by-popularity." I'm not proposing this last sort because if the develoopers decide to implement there would be a fight for the best campaign.

[Dave]

Do note that you can sort any way you want -- just click the top of the column.

[ILikeProgramming]

Yes that is rue. But there is no default sort. And why are the publish and delete campaign on the top after sorting?

[irrevenant]

The trouble is that downloads don't reflect what people are actually playing, or what they think of it. I dlded Flight to Freedom 'cos it looked cool and haven't played it yet.

I think it's definitely worth:

(a) denoting unfinished campaigns with an icon or something; and
(b) displaying campaign version numbers in the campaign window.

Then you could sort by version number if you want the most complete campaigns...

[Corwin]

The problem with version number is that they are arbitrary and only denote the progress towards completion of the campaign. A very involved campaign might only be halfway done at 0.9.5 where a more simple campaign could be done at 0.1.0. It is up to the campaign designer to choose the version number.

[scott]

The problem with version number is that they are arbitrary and only denote the progress towards completion of the campaign. A very involved campaign might only be halfway done at 0.9.5 where a more simple campaign could be done at 0.1.0. It is up to the campaign designer to choose the version number.

Well, we only need to know when the version has changed so the user can get a visual cue that his campaigns are not up to date.

Beyond that you only care about whether the v# is >= or < 1.0, for which we can set specific norms.

[telex4]

Beyond that you only care about whether the v# is >= or < 1.0, for which we can set specific norms.

Can you? I get the funny feeling that you'll never be able to force a particular version numbering system onto campaign developers

I like the idea of giving devs a checkbox: "complete / ready to play", which is then reflected in the dialogue. It could even hide incomplete campaigns by default, with a checkbox visible that will show show/hide incomplete campaigns (and remember its setting between sessions).

If 1.0 is supposed to be a professional release, then having a repository of third-party campaigns that give no obvious indication of their completeness is going to seem a bit odd.

[scott]

That's why you don't force a system on the community, you only force one rule.

If all scenarios are present, nominally bug free, and nominally balanced, then give it a version >= 1.0.

Beyond that we don't care. It would be the same rule they would have to follow in order to use a checkbox - both are binary. Version numbers aren't going away (the least of reasons being that it's coded into the server already). Developers find them useful to help them keep track internally and to help name their releases. Several have even asked for versioning guidance.

So, giving simple version guidance serves several purposes:
- Some guidance better than no guidance for those new to versioning
- Fixes an existing system rather than keeping an old broken system while having to code in a new one
- Either way you can't guarantee the developer will behave correctly. By educating writers you might actually improve the chances they'll comply