I have a suggestion on armor points, considering this website is a game site, shouldent armor points be gained by how many games a person plays, or his/her performance on that game? Because right now, people can just get armor points from ratings, comments, and forum posts, and merits, and also submitting games, which are all fine, but I stress this is a game site, shouldent armor points be gained by the performance of the player in games?
I have a suggestion on armor points, considering this website is a game site, shouldent armor points be gained by how many games a person plays, or his/her performance on that game? Because right now, people can just get armor points from ratings, comments, and forum posts, and merits, and also submitting games, which are all fine, but I stress this is a game site, shouldent armor points be gained by the performance of the player in games?
I agree, that, if AG can prevent hacking, then there should be achievement.
If Ag finds a way to play games without hacks then soon that will be hacked. Its always going to happen, you can't prevent 100% of hacking. I like the idea, but due to refreshing and other ways, someone who never gets on who has no skill can get online for one day and have more armor points than Firetailmadness. So I don't think its that good of an idea.
You guys are exaggerating this too far. Just how many points would AG really provide for your performance in a game? And would they provide rewards for all the games in storage, or just for the highscores or the popular games? You're acting as if scoring well in a game would earn you 100 AP. Submitting a highscore, provided it is an AG score board, requires playing the game until the submit score button is shown. Scoring well would provide 10 AP at the most. After all, there aren't many games with highscores compared to the rest, and it does take quite a length of time to submit a score. Longer than posting 10 posts or comments. Longer than rating 100 games.
I don't agree with getting points for playing a game. It's too invisible. Just like rating a game. There's nothing to show for the participation of it, and it's very easy and quick to get out of. Just like rating a game.
Yes, that's one of the key trades that makes Kong different from many other sites. And what keeps AG apart from it.
And would they provide rewards for all the games in storage, or just for the highscores or the popular games? You're acting as if scoring well in a game would earn you 100 AP. Submitting a highscore, provided it is an AG score board, requires playing the game until the submit score button is shown. Scoring well would provide 10 AP at the most. After all, there aren't many games with highscores compared to the rest, and it does take quite a length of time to submit a score.
Lengthy explanation... Looking, at the amount you suggested, I have something to say: 10 AP??? No way!!! That's almost as much as a merit. And a merit takes a long long time to write. Almost always longer than a highscore. And people will probably hack the highscore table to get free points the easy way(that's why people spam).
I don't agree with getting points for playing a game. It's too invisible. Just like rating a game. There's nothing to show for the participation of it, and it's very easy and quick to get out of. Just like rating a game.
I didn't like your other idea, but I agree on this one: If you got points for just loading a game, you could make 3 points easy (Suggesting if the AP amount of loading a game is only 1 AP) for every game on AG (And if there are 2000 games on AG, that would be a whopping 6000 AP, more than what most users have).
well how about you have to be on for a hour and you only get 3 ap ? that would work because no ones gonna wait an hour to get 3 ap they can just spam a comment which takes 2 seconds it wouldn't be something big but maybe just a little bonus?
Armor points are not really for anything, except for showing how much of your life you waste here. They also help you get other armatars, and some other things I can't think of right now.
Lengthy explanation... Looking, at the amount you suggested, I have something to say: 10 AP??? No way!!! That's almost as much as a merit. And a merit takes a long long time to write. Almost always longer than a highscore. And people will probably hack the highscore table to get free points the easy way(that's why people spam).
How many games do we have that have AG highscores? Besides, the first time the idea came up people were like "NO WAY you'll get more points than firetail if you hacked!" So with the handful of highscore games we have, you are going to all of a sudden surpass Firetail? No I don't think so.
The amount of AP given at one time is due to how much difficulty it is to perform that task. That being said, the current AP form we have now is a bunch of bull, so I won't go into that. You get 20 for submitting a game, and 25 for getting a merit. Sometimes that's either by winning a contest of by meriting a review. These are the ones with the longest time to get them. How should highscores be defined? Pretty hard. How much AP should they be rewarded with for performing a pretty hard task? Lower than merits, but higher than comments. Do you really think 10 AP at once is anything compared to clicking a button 5 times? It shouldn't or you're pretty conservative about this.
You guys are exaggerating this too far. Just how many points would AG really provide for your performance in a game? And would they provide rewards for all the games in storage, or just for the highscores or the popular games? You're acting as if scoring well in a game would earn you 100 AP. Submitting a highscore, provided it is an AG score board, requires playing the game until the submit score button is shown. Scoring well would provide 10 AP at the most. After all, there aren't many games with highscores compared to the rest, and it does take quite a length of time to submit a score. Longer than posting 10 posts or comments. Longer than rating 100 games.
This would also have loopholes to gain AP quickly! Say we take the example of the game 'SandCastle' that was recently added on AG... this game can be finished in 15 minutes tops, which would mean you could easily gain 1000 AP after playing it 10 times in a row... where's the sense in that?!? O_o And if the amount of AP's to be gained would be as low as 10 AP for one highscore entry, the games with long playing times will be disgarded completely by AP-hungry users... thus undermining the whole point of a gaming website: playing games!
I don't agree with getting points for playing a game. It's too invisible. Just like rating a game. There's nothing to show for the participation of it, and it's very easy and quick to get out of. Just like rating a game.
Exactly... the way things are is just fine. People get points for participating actively on Armor Games through rating, commenting, posting or via merits. Any addition to that system would possibly mean creating a loophole for people to try and take advantage of the point-system...
well how about you have to be on for a hour and you only get 3 ap ? that would work because no ones gonna wait an hour to get 3 ap they can just spam a comment which takes 2 seconds it wouldn't be something big but maybe just a little bonus?
Again a big problem would occur with this... people would open 10 windows with the same (or different) games, simply wait an hour while they do other stuff and end up with getting 30 extra AP's for doing nothing...
So I'm amazing at one game so I have ten armor points?
You would, but you would also disregard the games you expect not to be good at and end up playing only the games you are good at... that's a huge "ouch" to the game developers... This would mean they would have to make games everyone likes and would be good at, therefor dropping the difficulty levels of the games would be a needed option or no one will play them here on Armor Games... And with that fewer people will play games on AG, yaddayaddayadda, and in a few years we got to armorgames.com and find a short text message that says:
"Sorry, this website does not exist or can not be found. Possible actions: Please check if the web adress used is correct or contact your provider."
Now, we wouldn't want to see that happen... would we?
