Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GWAS/SWWAS players? A site of our own?
#11
I currently have a version of the code of PG-HQ from about 2 years ago which would probably not include some of the significant updates.

First on the list would be to get permission from Shad to get the most up-to-date code. Also, we would probably need to have a separate database with the user's having separate profiles for the GWAS/SWWAS site.

Since I don't have any SWWAS games, would it warrant having a separate sub-site for these or are the games close enough where it could be combined?

Alan - would you be willing to have a conversation on this at some point?
Reply
#12
I have neither games, but I'd say one site for both series and then break it up into separate forums like PG-HQ does with PG-Modern and Inf Attacks.
Reply
#13
I don't have any boat games, but from a site development perspective there really isn't any code worth carrying over from PG-HQ to another series. It only makes sense to reuse the actual code if you're going to expand the existing site.

The site layout and data structures have a bit of value, since we've iterated a fair ways from the original design 4 years ago... but the code isn't worth anything.

My suggestion would be to look at how PG-HQ organizes data and think critically about what would and wouldn't work for the naval games. Your organizational methodology is far and away the most important component, and also extremely difficult to modify or redesign after you've started coding.

Example: PG-HQ rates scenarios with an integer from 1 to 5. Does this suit naval scenarios? Maybe rating multiple discreet factors is more appropriate? (enjoyment, historicity, replay value, etc.) Maybe 1-to-5 is itself a false accuracy and you should just go with a simple thumbs up/down? Maybe throw out ratings all together and make AARs the focus of your site with all sorts of AAR enhancements like inline photos and text searching and hotlinking and what not?

See what I mean by thinking critically? There's a lot you guys accept at PG-HQ just because it already exists... maybe we didn't do it right to begin with! Rolleyes

Hope that helps... no matter how large you assume the scale of work required to set up a WAS-HQ, I assure you that your estimate is too small! Big Grin
...came for the cardboard, stayed for the camaraderie...
Reply
#14
One difference with the At Sea games is that they are 2 games in 1, having tactical and operational scenarios. That might need 2 sets of scales. Otherwise things could be quite similar, changing promotion ranks to Navy ranks, that sort of thing. I have had no experience with code since I tinkered with Color Basic, and that following some work on punch card stuff. Back in the dark ages of computers by today's standards. Smile
Reply
#15
I'm in, been playing since GWAS in GWAS 0, Pacific Rim's Black Seas Fleet.

The different nature of the games would call for different a kind of presense there. A forum would work, and AAR's. Maybe a site for naval architecture through the ages.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)