in reply to Re: A Proposal for Additional Levels
in thread A Proposal for Additional Levels

I agree it will exacerbate the problem; there will be more posting on this subject from now until a final decision is made, and likely for a time beyond that.

But I don't see how it weakens the advantage you mention. Relative ranking will stay the same


Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: A Proposal for Additional Levels
by jZed (Prior) on Oct 26, 2004 at 21:24 UTC
    Re talking about XP: There is already a lot of CB (and even SOPW) chatter about what the levels mean, what powers they have, etc. If there are 20 levels, the docs on levels and powers will generate even more confusion and generate more discussion on it into the forseeable future, not just while this proposal is being discussed. (and I don't mean to say that the docs need improvement, people get confused about them even though they're fairly straight-forward now)

    Re relative ranking: Ten things are easier to compare to each other than 20 things are. Perhaps other monks are more familiar with the spiritual hierarchy, than I am, but I wouldn't have any immediate idea what the releative position of a beadle, a deacon, and a parson is without looking it up each time. I like being able to click on a person's name in the CB and being able to see an immediatly understandable word to describe their level.

    Re another reason I dislike this proposal but forgot to mention the first time: If this is meant to encourage participation, it will fail for lower orders of monks because currently the goal of reaching the highest level is actually obtainable within a reasonable period of time. If newcomers see that it will take them years to reach a high level, there's really not much incentive for them to try. The only group this actually adds incentive for is the 322 saints out of the about 10k users with writeups and about 30k registered users.

      Ten things are probably easier to remember than twenty. But thats ok, its only the level system, you dont need to know it. Also there is a dilutative aspect to having more levels. The importance of each level declines to a certain degree. This makes levels more fun and hopefully less distracting. Hell if we had 50 levels then nobody would care one whit which level you were, beyond that the levels may or may not have cool names. Part of the intent of this is to reduce focus in the XP/Rep/Level process. Having a zillion levels would clearly facilitate this, but we have to balance against other requirements. 20 odd seems about right, give or take a few levels.


        First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
        -- Gandhi


      Re Re talking about XP: Point well taken.

      Re Re relative ranking: But you wouldn't have just the names to go by. The XP will still be there.

      Re Re another reason I dislike this proposal but forgot to mention the first time: This is purely subjective, but it wouldn't discourage me. Saint looks pretty far away to me right now anyway. Besides, it's the journey, not the destination ;)