GOTM web page needs a revamp -- urgently

Thanks for all the work Alan! regarding your question about not working in IE ... that's fine with me, I usually use Firefox anyway.

Yeah I kinda wondered if the forum software would enable something like an updated countdown text easily. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me, just throwing out ideas. Another (very lowtech) approach might be to build a page for which the current forum page is in a frame, with the "control center" section in another. But maybe CFC doesn't want to destroy the consistency of look & feel even more ...

LOL, I never even realized that ads were already being displayed on the site! ABP extension is pretty effective :scan: I just turned it off momentarily to see what I was missing and ... More Models and Hot Girls as FOXYFANS -- Go! ... with a scantily-clad chick staring out at me?!? :eek: :blush:

ps. AlanH, re "MarkH" :confused: I think we should take collection for a new pair of reading glasses for you! I guess I should be honored, though, that I have been figuratively adopted into the "H clan" by you ;)
 
Yeah I kinda wondered if the forum software would enable something like an updated countdown text easily. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me, just throwing out ideas. Another (very lowtech) approach might be to build a page for which the current forum page is in a frame, with the "control center" section in another. But maybe CFC doesn't want to destroy the consistency of look & feel even more ...
Most forum software such as vBulletin includes "Frame-Busting" scripts that defeat any attempt to include the forum content within another page. That's another way that advertising revenue could be decimated.

ps. AlanH, re "MarkH" :confused: I think we should take collection for a new pair of reading glasses for you! I guess I should be honored, though, that I have been figuratively adopted into the "H clan" by you ;)
Sorry - fixed. I meant to recheck that before hitting Post, but I got distracted. Call it a "Senior Moment" :)
 
I'd also like to see a strong emphasis on guiding people new to the GOTM to how to join in for the first time (which I think is a real weakness of the current GOTM site - it doesn't obviously lead new users to the right links to join in a GOTM).
I still remember quite well when I visited the GOTM page for the first time, and I was almost repelled because it didn't point me towards the "entry" in an obvious way. It looked kind of "elitist" to me, as in "this is a site for the pros who've played this for years and they just know where to click to get into a game". It wasn't clear to me at all that basically you just have to download a savegame (and a mod) and can start playing and then submit it later.

I don't think that the page must open with a lenghty introduction to newbies, pushing the content that matters (current games, deadlines, etc.) out of sight. It should, however, make it clear where you have to click to enter the competition.

As it is, the most prominent link on the page is introduction page, leading to a page that reads:
A Brief Summary of the Procedures
Read the rules of the competition here. Please note the two over-riding rules:
  • Do Not Reload A Save To Change Any Move, Outcome Or Decision.
    1. This Includes Replaying From The Start.
    2. If you are uncertain about whether an action is an exploit, you should contact the staff before doing it.
  • Get the game information and download the start file using the links on these pages
  • and so on
This is highly irritating, because the first thing you are told is not to f*ck it up and a lengthy summary of procedures, and you still don't know what to do (download a save, submit your game, check results).

That's not necessarily a good idea. It would mean that multiple tabs of content have to be downloaded even if a user is only interested in one of them. There are not many pages that can be assumed to be grouped in that way.
Extra data will be downloaded, but this is not a problem unless the user is behind a really slow internet connection (read: modem). If you don't throw several megabytes worth of pictures into the tabs you won't even notice that a lot of hidden data has been loaded but is already there for display. As an example, load this page:

http://www.wowhead.com/?item=811

and click through the tabs.

As an aside, that entire site (Wowhead) is one of the best designed websites I've ever seen. These guys are doing almost everything right. The start page is a prime example of how to keep things simple and still have every relevant link only one mouseclick away. The most important thing (search) is immediately accessible, and for the rest you've got a menu that guides you right there. They also avoid drowning the front page in information.

For another example, compare this site to this one. Where would you rather go to quickly search something on the net?

There isn't room for big shiny buttons on the GOTM web pages, but there is a "1st visit to the land of GOTM" link at the top left and top right of every page. That takes you to a page of explanations of how to play in the competition.
At the danger of sounding sarcastic, but the page uses a lot of big shiny buttons already on the sidebars, linking to the current game (for example the picture of the Washinton Monument linking to the current BOTM).

But a newcomer wants to see that 1st Visit information once or twice. Thereafter s/he wants what the regular players want - see (2) above. So putting static instructions on the Home page would cater for very few visits to that page, and bring back the tumbleweed ...
I think the original suggestion was not to have all the instructions right on the main page. That would, again, drown the important stuff under lots of small print as it is right now, only a different kind of small print (noob intro instead of a forum RSS feed).

To give an actual example of what could be done: "Welcome to the GOTM, an online competition where you can rank your Civ games with other players. To participate, download a current game (possible link here) and submit it before the deadline. Read more here (link to introductory page with more detailed instructions.)"
That would be a reasonable short bit of tumbleweed that you could leave there for ages without annoying any of the veterans, I guess.

Re. MarkM's comment on links FROM the GOTM site TO the Forums, it's worth noting that the news item titles on the Home page are links to the relevant forums, and the news items themselves contain links to the source threads.
Fair enough, but since it's called "News" with no indication whatsoever that it's actually forum postings, one should not expect users to click on the colored headlines in the expectation to be led to these forums.
To be honest it didn't even occur to me that those "news" are just a replication of the forum announcements until you've mentioned that you parse an RSS feed in order to get them on the homepage. Actually I've never bothered trying to read that small print in green italics in the first place ;-).

Thanks a lot for adjusting the page already. Your changes, how small they might be, in fact do make a difference to the readability of the page (page looks great without "fit to width" now, and the side bars are indeed a lot more readable with the subsectioning).

Let me also say that I really appreciate you taking the time to respond in such detail here. It was a lot more than what I've expected when filing my initial complaint, to be honest.
 
I still remember quite well when I visited the GOTM page for the first time, and I was almost repelled because it didn't point me towards the "entry" in an obvious way. It looked kind of "elitist" to me, as in "this is a site for the pros who've played this for years and they just know where to click to get into a game". It wasn't clear to me at all that basically you just have to download a savegame (and a mod) and can start playing and then submit it later.

I don't think that the page must open with a lenghty introduction to newbies, pushing the content that matters (current games, deadlines, etc.) out of sight. It should, however, make it clear where you have to click to enter the competition.
Please suggest a way to make that clearer. The Introduction page says "Get the game information and download the start file using the links in these pages". The side bars contain links to the games. Any text that responds to a mouse-over is a link.
As it is, the most prominent link on the page is introduction page, leading to a page that reads:

...
So, the link to the info for newcomers is prominent! Now we just have to agree on what that page should contain.

I am sorry if asking you to read the rules of a competition as the first thing you do before playing offends you, but the alternative is that people just rush off and download a start file, play the game with multiple reloads, and then get upset when we exclude their entries.

Which competitions do you know of where you can enter without reading any rules?

This is highly irritating, because the first thing you are told is not to f*ck it up and a lengthy summary of procedures, and you still don't know what to do (download a save, submit your game, check results).
There are just seven more bullet points immediately after the one about the rules, covering exactly those steps. Suggest improved wording for those steps by all means, but please don't ignore what we *have* done!

Extra data will be downloaded, but this is not a problem unless the user is behind a really slow internet connection (read: modem). If you don't throw several megabytes worth of pictures into the tabs you won't even notice that a lot of hidden data has been loaded but is already there for display.
Let's wait for the chorus of complaints from people behind modems, shall we? Trust me, there are still a lot of them, and sending them lots of unnecessary data does them no favours. Even broadband users pay for bandwidth one way or another - some of them pay by the megabyte.

As an example, load this page:
http://www.wowhead.com/?item=811
and click through the tabs.

As an aside, that entire site (Wowhead) is one of the best designed websites I've ever seen. These guys are doing almost everything right. The start page is a prime example of how to keep things simple and still have every relevant link only one mouseclick away. The most important thing (search) is immediately accessible, and for the rest you've got a menu that guides you right there. They also avoid drowning the front page in information.
Interesting. I can't go anywhere on that site by just clicking something. As with all these things, it's a matter of personal preferences, but, as a newcomer, I find that site very complicated. You need to know which menu/tab contains what, and remember where you saw something in order to be able to get back to it. You have to click and drag on a menu to select anything.

And most of the tabbed menu items on that page load new pages.
For another example, compare this site to this one. Where would you rather go to quickly search something on the net?
We aren't trying to provide a search engine.
At the danger of sounding sarcastic, but the page uses a lot of big shiny buttons already on the sidebars, linking to the current game (for example the picture of the Washinton Monument linking to the current BOTM).
I think you said that the Intro page is a prominent link. Are you complaining about the side bar pictures?

To give an actual example of what could be done: "Welcome to the GOTM, an online competition where you can rank your Civ games with other players. To participate, download a current game (possible link here) and submit it before the deadline. Read more here (link to introductory page with more detailed instructions.)"
That would be a reasonable short bit of tumbleweed that you could leave there for ages without annoying any of the veterans, I guess.
Thanks. That's much more helpful. I'll see how the staff feel about using it. I don't see how we can include a single link to a current game when there are five current games most of the time, for five different versions of Civ software.

Fair enough, but since it's called "News" with no indication whatsoever that it's actually forum postings, one should not expect users to click on the colored headlines in the expectation to be led to these forums.
To be honest it didn't even occur to me that those "news" are just a replication of the forum announcements until you've mentioned that you parse an RSS feed in order to get them on the homepage. Actually I've never bothered trying to read that small print in green italics in the first place ;-).
Please suggest any clearer statement than:

"Below are digests of recent news threads published by GOTM staff in the CFC forums. Click a title to open the thread."
Thanks a lot for adjusting the page already. Your changes, how small they might be, in fact do make a difference to the readability of the page (page looks great without "fit to width" now, and the side bars are indeed a lot more readable with the subsectioning).

Let me also say that I really appreciate you taking the time to respond in such detail here. It was a lot more than what I've expected when filing my initial complaint, to be honest.
I'm very happy to respond to helpful criticism. I'm sure this discussion will improve the site no end.
 
My 2¢, a very minor complain:
Not sure if it is something related to my browser config, after I've already visited one of the links in the upper sidebars, these links become red, and rather unreadable in both the Civ4 dark blue and Civ3 reddish backgrounds. Can that be changed?
Other than that, I have no issues with the page.
 
I'll check that setting when I get home, but I've just tested it here on Firefox and IE7, and the visited links don't change colour. They stay light grey, and turn white if you mouse over them.

What browser are you using? In Firefox (and maybe in other browsers) there is an option under Content->Colors to tell the browser how to color visited links, with a checkbox to allow or stop the web pages overriding your setting. Maybe you have the visited link color set to red, and that checkbox set to NOT allow the pages to override it?
 
...
[PS] @MarkM: I have a first working version of a full graphical replay system ... as long as no one wants to see it in Internet Explorer. How would users feel about having to use another browser to see it?

I am perfectly happy with using any non-IE browser (Firefoz, Opera etc). It's trivial nowadays to install browsers on private PCs, although it may pose a problem to those who use computers at school/work :eek:.

I suggest that you launch the non-IE version right away :please:, and we can then discuss potential improvements (such as making it IE compatible or adding/correcting features).
 
I've actually got a version "sort of" working in IE7. It has three problems currently:

1. Speed. I am using Javascript canvases for animated replay display, and IE7 doesn't support it. I don't have the time or inclination to learn the whole new Microsoft-specific Silverlight/XAML framework, so the IE animation relies on server-side drawing. Each animation frame comes from the server, so it runs dramatically slower.

2. CSS incompatibilities. I'm wrestling with a list display problem.

3. Event handling. IE event handling is notoriously different from everything else out there, so the mouse handling has to be reworked for IE.

I'll break off fighting with IE temporarily, and add a bit of explanatory text to the page. I'll post a link in a day or so, and you can all tear my current prototype to pieces. As it's mostly Javascript, it's all "open source" except for the server-side file parsing. So I've no doubt some of you have far more JS expertise than me, and will have strong views about my amateurish efforts.
 
I'll check that setting when I get home, but I've just tested it here on Firefox and IE7, and the visited links don't change colour. They stay light grey, and turn white if you mouse over them.

What browser are you using? In Firefox (and maybe in other browsers) there is an option under Content->Colors to tell the browser how to color visited links, with a checkbox to allow or stop the web pages overriding your setting. Maybe you have the visited link color set to red, and that checkbox set to NOT allow the pages to override it?

I just checked, using IE6 at work PC I tried to config colors but it kept changing color to reddish. At home, with Firefox all is ok. No big deal, I can live with that - maybe it is a sign I shouldn't visit this site during workhours. :mischief:
 
Hmm. I can't even check it in IE6, as I don't have it here, but I'm not sure what else I can do. The stylesheet defines the 'visited' colour for those links to be the same as the normal colour.
 
Re: submission dates on GOTM page - please include GOTM-29
 
Hmm! How did that get lost? Late-night-logic! Fixed :)
 
I just checked, using IE6 at work PC I tried to config colors but it kept changing color to reddish. At home, with Firefox all is ok. No big deal, I can live with that - maybe it is a sign I shouldn't visit this site during workhours. :mischief:

I'd rather believe it is a sign you should upgrade to IE7 at work ;)
 
A lot of companies are stuck with IE6 because they created intranet sites that only work with IE6. So upgrading is not an option without also reworking the entire web infrastructure.

Running Firefox alongside IE6 is probably more viable in such cases. Then FF can be used for safe access to modern, external, standards compliant sites, with IE6 used as a legacy intranet browser. But often, this option is not in the hands of the end users.
 
Thanks for updating the page, it's much better now! :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob:

I've noticed something else, which is completely unrelated to the web page but also needs some attention:
The World Builder files that get published need to be edited in a few places (right at the beginning). "MaxTurns" needs to be set to "0" and "GameSpeed" to "NONE". If that's not done, then e.g. if you pick a WB file that was created on Normal speed and play it on Epic speed, you still get only 500 turns (not 750 which is the default for Epic). This means in this case the game ends at around 1900ish instead of 2050...
This happened to me with the BOTM02 WB file.

One can also set all civs except the player one to be invisible, so the player does not see which AIs are going to be encountered when opening the scenario.

Thread with some information
 
Thanks for updating the page, it's much better now! :goodjob: :goodjob: :goodjob:
Pleased you like it. :)

I've noticed something else, which is completely unrelated to the web page but also needs some attention:
The World Builder files that get published need to be edited in a few places (right at the beginning). "MaxTurns" needs to be set to "0" and "GameSpeed" to "NONE". If that's not done, then e.g. if you pick a WB file that was created on Normal speed and play it on Epic speed, you still get only 500 turns (not 750 which is the default for Epic). This means in this case the game ends at around 1900ish instead of 2050...
This happened to me with the BOTM02 WB file.

One can also set all civs except the player one to be invisible, so the player does not see which AIs are going to be encountered when opening the scenario.

Thread with some information
I'll ask the game designers to consider your points. BOTM 02 was an Epic speed game, so I don't know why the WB save would be set to normal speed. I don't see the need to set it to NONE, though, as we are trying to offer a way to replay the game as designed.
 
I'll ask the game designers to consider your points. BOTM 02 was an Epic speed game, so I don't know why the WB save would be set to normal speed.

I just opened the WBSave again from the scenario menu, and selected "Epic" game speed (the WBSave is indeed set to "GameSpeed=NORMAL"). This is what I get (BUG Mod is used to display the total number of turns here):



If you set "MaxTurns=0" in the WBSave, then the player always gets the appropriate number of turns according to the game speed he chooses before the game starts.

I don't see the need to set it to NONE, though, as we are trying to offer a way to replay the game as designed.
As far as I know, you have to set it to "NONE" because otherwise the AI will assume it is playing on the speed given in the WBSave (even if the player opted for a different speed).

Lastly, by setting all PlayableCiv=0 except for the player civ, you also hide the identity of the AIs from the player before they've actually been met in the game (but obviously the player can't play the map from an AI perspective then, so this might not be intended for a xOTM WBSave).
 
From a SGOTM player's point of view the changes that Alan has made result in the SGOTM graph text and key being difficult to read. :(

@Alan Is there any way in which you could override the columns on each side to give the graph more room?

NB. It looks equally bad in both IE 7 & Firefox.
 
I just opened the WBSave again from the scenario menu, and selected "Epic" game speed (the WBSave is indeed set to "GameSpeed=NORMAL"). This is what I get (BUG Mod is used to display the total number of turns here):
This appears to be an error in BOTM 02 WB save. But, as I said, I have referred this to the game designers.
If you set "MaxTurns=0" in the WBSave, then the player always gets the appropriate number of turns according to the game speed he chooses before the game starts.


As far as I know, you have to set it to "NONE" because otherwise the AI will assume it is playing on the speed given in the WBSave (even if the player opted for a different speed).
The WB saves should be set to Speed=<the released game speed>. That would ensure that the various start saves created from it are all correctly configured without manual intervention; and it would mean that when it downloads it plays the game as defined for the competition, which is our primary aim.

If you want to play the map on different settings from those it was designed for, then it seems to me to be your responsibility to ensure that you change all of the relevant settings.

Lastly, by setting all PlayableCiv=0 except for the player civ, you also hide the identity of the AIs from the player before they've actually been met in the game (but obviously the player can't play the map from an AI perspective then, so this might not be intended for a xOTM WBSave).
You are free to edit the downloaded WB save any way you choose. It's just a text file.

We *have* had questions from players who want to change the playable civ.

The WB save is a "bonus" service we have added. It isn't part of the core competition operation, and we simply publish the save as it came off the designer's computer. We haven't given any thought to changing it to try to cater for every possible user requirement (many of which may be mutually exclusive, eg your preference for hidden AI civs); and I don't see that we have any obligation to create one or more special versions, simply for publication *after* the competition is done and dusted.
 
Back
Top Bottom