|
RE: Rank Structure and New APL Games
^, ^^
My guess is that: (1) the rank structure (for the site) was specifically intended to encourage play coverage vs. playing several smaller scenarios repeatedly (however interesting) and (2) the bounty system "rewards" repeated plays (albeit at a rate of diminishing return). The bounty system, of course, doesn't have much of a visual component to it like the rank or campaign ribbon schema.
Making the rank system coupled to the bounty point total would make "rank" tied not only to play in isolation, but contribution to the PGHQ community by means of the AARs. But, then, how does one rank (award points to) an AAR lest someone just enter a string of one-liner AARs to collect points?
I had to consider similar issues when, some years ago, now, I created and "ran" a fan-fiction site for devotee's of historical naval fiction set during the Napoleonic Wars (e.g. fans of the series by O'Brian; Forester; Pope; Kent and such). Of course, it was much more subjective rather than data driven as in PGHQ.
|
