Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
ANOTHER BRIDE, ANOTHER JUNE, ANOTHER STATISTIC HONEYMOON
Posts
Marrend
View playlists
Closeauthor=kentona
I'm surprised no one has remarked upon that we've had our 1 millionth download this past month.
Speaking of that, what was the game that got RMN's millionth download? Can you tell, or is it just "oh, we've hit a million downloads now".
author=MarrendI cannot. We don't track download events - just download counts.author=kentonaSpeaking of that, what was the game that got RMN's millionth download? Can you tell, or is it just "oh, we've hit a million downloads now".
I'm surprised no one has remarked upon that we've had our 1 millionth download this past month.
...Ankylo *might* be able to dig up some sort of information on this elsewhere! I'll ask him.
Zeuzio
3787
author=Marrendauthor=kentonaSpeaking of that, what was the game that got RMN's millionth download? Can you tell, or is it just "oh, we've hit a million downloads now".
I'm surprised no one has remarked upon that we've had our 1 millionth download this past month.
It was Future Helper, obviously.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
This makerscore for community games thing is kinda bullshit! If a game has multiple authors, makerscore should be split evenly among all party members, instead of giving everyone the same amount as if they'd made the entire game themselves.
Really I am just pissy about being in makerscore spot #101, but that does seem like a good idea, doesn't it?
Really I am just pissy about being in makerscore spot #101, but that does seem like a good idea, doesn't it?
from LockeZ
This makerscore for community games thing is kinda bullshit! If a game has multiple authors, makerscore should be split evenly among all party members, instead of giving everyone the same amount as if they'd made the entire game themselves.
Considering the only benefit of makerscore is more locker space, I don't think this is really an issue.
author=halibabicafrom LockeZConsidering the only benefit of makerscore is more locker space, I don't think this is really an issue.
This makerscore for community games thing is kinda bullshit! If a game has multiple authors, makerscore should be split evenly among all party members, instead of giving everyone the same amount as if they'd made the entire game themselves.
says 6321 makerscore member:)
I just want to say I really agree with LockeZ, ms actually looses somewhat of its sense, otherwise imo.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=halibabica
Considering the only benefit of makerscore is more locker space, I don't think this is really an issue.
You are wrong MAKERSCORE IS LIFE
author=LockeZBut if that is in effect, it would discourage people from teaming up to make games. (especially because makerscore is life).
This makerscore for community games thing is kinda bullshit! If a game has multiple authors, makerscore should be split evenly among all party members, instead of giving everyone the same amount as if they'd made the entire game themselves.
Really I am just pissy about being in makerscore spot #101, but that does seem like a good idea, doesn't it?
That just seems more like a penalty for joining teams and community games than making things "fair".
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
I feel like the current method is a penalty for actually doing the work to make a game yourself for reals, and splitting it would remove that penalty. The way it is right now discourages people from making solo games.
You get the same makerscore for working on a game solo as you would as on a team. I don't see how that is a penalty for working solo.
You can work on a game in a team for reals, too. A lot of people do that.
You can work on a game in a team for reals, too. A lot of people do that.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Because it's several times as much work? It's just a matter of finding the right effort-to-makerscore ratio. You can call anything that gives less than you think it should give a "penalty" but that's not a meaningful statement, it's not a penalty, it's just less of a reward. If something takes less effort it should give less of a reward, right?
You design RPGs, so I know you understand how reward structures work, so I'll stop talking and just let you set the numbers at whatever you think is balanced. Or if it's intentionally unbalanced, I'll just assume it's that way to get people to do what you want them to do, which apparently is to make games in groups instead of by themselves. Which is fine if true, I guess, since even though community games are awful, they get people to care about this site.
tl;dr: oh well. was just an idea
You design RPGs, so I know you understand how reward structures work, so I'll stop talking and just let you set the numbers at whatever you think is balanced. Or if it's intentionally unbalanced, I'll just assume it's that way to get people to do what you want them to do, which apparently is to make games in groups instead of by themselves. Which is fine if true, I guess, since even though community games are awful, they get people to care about this site.
tl;dr: oh well. was just an idea
He's saying it's more advantageous to people with teams because they can get the same amount of makerscore with less effort. There's actually something of a moral in that, but that's not the point. I'd like to reiterate that makerscore is not a particularly valuable commodity!
EDIT: Boop.
EDIT: Boop.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=halibabica
I'd like to reiterate that makerscore is not a particularly valuable commodity!
You sir are the enemy
author=halababica
makerscore is not a particularly valuable commodity!
If it is, then just get rid of it?
If it's going to be kept then it's worth making it as constructive as possible.
from chana
If it is, then just get rid of it?
No? I'm not saying it's worthless; just that it's not a huge deal. Like, not so much of an issue that we need complex calculations to determine the exact amount of makerscore a dev should receive in regard to their contribution to a project.
If anything, I'd say it's fair simply because working with a team can be even more difficult than going solo. Unless you have a partner or group you really resonate with, working on a team can be remarkably difficult; community collaborations notwithstanding.
eplipswich
2728
Seriously, makerscore is no big deal. Makerscore is only an indicative factor that determines how much you have contributed to RMN. It's really your own personal achievement in contributing to RMN. Nonetheless, makerscore is still important because it's a part of RMN. The uniqueness :)
For those that say makerscore is LIFE, well, that's only to them.
For those that say makerscore is LIFE, well, that's only to them.
author=LockeZBut I put more effort into Mario vs the Moonbase than I did in Village Brave :\. I don't think team size is the telling quantifier for effort, or at least not to the degree that you think it is. Even in my solo games, I put more effort into HR than I did in Generica. The most telling indicator of effort imho is the quality of the game, and that is usually correlated with the review score for the game, and if you look, getting a good review is the primary driver for makerscores.
Because it's several times as much work? It's just a matter of finding the right effort-to-makerscore ratio. You can call anything that gives less than you think it should give a "penalty" but that's not a meaningful statement, it's not a penalty, it's just less of a reward. If something takes less effort it should give less of a reward, right?
You design RPGs, so I know you understand how reward structures work, so I'll stop talking and just let you set the numbers at whatever you think is balanced. Or if it's intentionally unbalanced, I'll just assume it's that way to get people to do what you want them to do, which apparently is to make games in groups instead of by themselves. Which is fine if true, I guess, since even though community games are awful, they get people to care about this site.
tl;dr: oh well. was just an idea
So yeah, I think it works pretty good.
We should also be able to rate the rating of reviews, which weights the score of the rating for the weighting of the rating.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Kentona you are being silly. It is enough to give the rating of the review a thumbs up or thumbs down!
Of course that's assuming thumb up and each thumb down gets its own comment page, otherwise there's no accountability
Of course that's assuming thumb up and each thumb down gets its own comment page, otherwise there's no accountability
