Currently, the only way to gain place visits its to have a place made on your account, however some developers (like me) succeeded only in group places, and now it’s harder to be recognised as a creator or even just to earn those two badges (which is just an example).
Since the developer forum application counts the group’s games as the owner’s games aswell I thought that it could be a good idea to include all the group’s total visits to it’s owner total Place Visits.
It would help people such as me, since 90% of my games are in groups, and here’s how it would change my profile:
Before:
After:
I also belive that this feature would be easy to implement.
Feel free to comment, this is my first topic.
I’m sorry for my terrible english, I’m from Poland and I try my best.
EDIT #1:
Keeping it only for owner fixes those and reduces chaos in future surely about to zero:
Many people would have the same visits from 1 place.
People could get those visits unfairly.
Old dead groups with visits could just give everyone a right to edit, as you cant delete games or remove visits.
Someone would surely use point 3 to sell place visits.
groups with 10 developers shouldnt work like that, also if they want visits they can make game themselfes, you dont credit workers in real life like that - You can put them in credits and pay them.
if its you and your friend, even then it is not a 50% and 50% of the group as one of these two owns it and he can do everything with it.
People do care about place visits as it’s kinda giving them some prestige.
Im trying to keep it as simple as possible as it is not something important.
I belive that the group’s belong to its owners so do its games as well as their visits.
Giving the owner power to give anyone place visits would cause mess and it would surely be abused in the long run.
The visits would transfer to the current group owner, which would be the best solution as it would allow only 1 player to take the visits.
So no, making it a setting attached to roles wouldn’t work out, as for the reasons listed above.
In regards to your suggestion, would having edit access be what allows visits to be displayed or would it be a new setting attached to a role or just the current owner of the group? Many groups have developers that are equally as active or more active in the development process than the current owner of the group or have an account that is holding the group.
I personally think a new setting attached to a role would be the best solution.
The visits would transfer to the current group owner, which would be the best solution as it would allow only 1 player to take the visits, and if its the group owner it would disable such things as visits boosting for robux etc. I personally think that it should be only for the group owner as hes the one owning the group and getting the credits, and most “developing” groups got more than 1 guy in their team so the visits would have to be duplicated and this would cause some messy stuff.
While I do agree that the visits should be visible on the group owner’s place for sure, I’m not certain if this is the best solution.
How would displaying place visits that say, in an example of two developers (each 50%) developing a game be fair to the other half? This is often my situation for games I work on and I don’t feel it would become messy as it’s displaying a number that the developer has earned. The amount of people who would “visit boost” for R$ I can imagine would be small if this statistic displayed by default for those who have edit access to a game and any developer with a lot of visits generally wouldn’t want this because of the possibility that their game could get stolen. Nowadays I don’t believe people care about place visits nearly as much as they used to (correct me if i’m wrong of course) compared to having a consistent spot on the front page.
People do care about place visits as it’s kinda giving them some prestige. And while it is a problem, solving it by giving the owner power to give anyone place visits would cause mess in the long run. We could use that option but it would cause more trouble than just giving the owner right to it. I belive that the group’s belong to its owners so do its games as well as their visits.
Im trying to keep it as simple as possible as it is not something important.
Your suggestion also spawns these problems:
Many people would have the same visits from 1 place.
People could get those visits unfairly.
Old dead groups with visits could just give everyone a right to edit, as you cant delete games or remove visits.
Someone would surely use point 3 to sell place visits.
Keeping it only for owner fixes those and reduces chaos in future surely about to zero.
I understand what you mean but groups with 10 developers shouldnt work like that, also if they want visits they can make game themselfes, you dont credit workers (unless its you and your friend, but even then it is not a 50% and 50% of the group as one of these two owns it and he can do everything with it.) in real life like that - You can put them in credits and pay them. (also read the brackets before as they explain something too.)
So no, making it a setting attached to roles wouldn’t work out, as for the reasons listed above.
Still, I respect your idea, but the problems with it just make it risky while we can keep it a simple feature.
I feel like the best idea would be to divide the visits across the players with edit permissions. For example, if I make a game with a friend and it gets 150,000 visits, we get 75,000 each
I don’t think that would make for an accurate statistic at all. The place visits are just a statistic of how successful games you worked on have been. This would skew that measurement.
Off topic, group pages should display total place visits on the main page.
But I see what your saying, but only way I could figure this be done is that internally you are able to mark specific users or roles to share the collective success on their profile page.
But this could be abused, such as users wrongfully be marked for whatever reason
Dividing it would totally mess with the visits and they would loose their meaning - visits are NOT like robux and they just show how well your game went in terms of popularity.
Dividing them would lose their meaning thats why I think we should give them only to the group owner as hes thew one getting most credits for the games anyway.
It would be surely abused, such as stated in those ways.
Many people would have the same visits from 1 place.
People could get those visits unfairly.
Old dead groups with visits could just give everyone a right to edit, as you cant delete games or remove visits.
Someone would surely use point 3 to sell place visits.
groups with 10 developers shouldnt work like that, also if they want *visits they can make game themselfes, you dont credit workers in real life like that - You can put them in credits and pay them.
if its you and your friend, even then it is not a 50% and 50% of the group as one of these two owns it and he can do everything with it.
People do care about place visits as it’s kinda giving them some prestige.
Im trying to keep it as simple as possible as it is not something important.
I belive that the group’s belong to its owners so do its games as well as their visits.
Giving the owner power to give anyone place visits would cause mess and it would surely be abused in the long run.
The visits would transfer to the current group owner, which would be the best solution as it would allow only 1 player to take the visits
Keeping it only for owner fixes those and reduces chaos in future surely about to zero.
So no, making it a setting attached to roles wouldn’t work out, as for the reasons listed above.
I disagree. Even as the group owner, I wouldn’t want to be the only one getting any credit for what we’re making. Either all a development team should get the visits or nobody imo
You should consider the fact that it will be abused if we allow people to acces the visits without ownership of the group, and why ownership? Because it allows the one that made it, and only one to have it, and abusing it would be impossible as you would have to lose your group.
