|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Moderating activity, or the lack thereof, in a game has increasingly become more of a pain. Activity restrictions for modkills in a game are there to make sure people put in a very minimal effort (ten minutes to read a thread and post saying how you're jumping on a wagon, thirty seconds to make the vote) but honestly, that's not enough. On the other hand, some games spam out of control. While the former has been much more prevalent as of late, in both cases people are turned away from reading the thread and participating in the game. In essence, over/in-activity dulls the game.
How does one address this problem then? Increasing activity requirements doesn't do much. Say a host makes the rule "you have to post five times per cycle". If I were a player bored of the game and not wanting to dedicate time, I would simply spam five posts and come back 48 hours later to do so again. But then again, if I were a player that wasn't even interested (or hadn't shown interest) in playing the game, I wouldn't have signed up.
So perhaps a gatekeeper method would be better. Ace enacted it for PYP3 in a simple form, stating that he wouldn't accept people that have been known to be inactive. This is a good expansion upon the provision already in place (ban list), though the problem is it's at the host[s]' discretion. Of course, everything in a game is at the host's discretion, so that's just nothing, really.
For instance, I think I will not be accepting people who I perceive to be inactive or overly spammy (more the inactive than the triggerhappy though), amongst other things, until they have proven that they can rectify the problem.
Thoughts?
|
It seems like a decent idea. Definitely worth trying. I think it will make the games feel more like a privilege than a right which can only be beneficial to the state of the mafia forum. The only problem I see is that it would become harder to recruit new people because of the game requirements. Maybe we do need to build the prestige of our games by not allowing certain people to play. I know most veteran players around here don't even like playing anymore because of how low quality the games are which is a shame.
I don't see why inactivity is such a problem here though, our days go by quick while on something like mafiascum they do ridiculous stretches for a day cycle and people maintain activity. The only reason I can think of is because our games lack commitment from the players because the games feel as though they are a right, not a privilege. I think it couldn't hurt to implement this gatekeeper system at least as a trial.
I would still worry about how we would recruit new players. I suppose we could have proving ground games where we allow new active people to join in, although it would suck to host those. I would say a post count requirement but that doesn't mean anything about dedication to mafia, just that they have been part of the site for a while.
|
While acceptable idea, I suspect it could be only used with popular setups- for minor host like me, who struggles even to get his roster filled, can't even dare to afford the gatekeeper system. (one-game-per-person rule screwed me over enough :p)
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
I don't like the idea much of a host saying "not accepting people who I think to be inactive or very spammy". I feel like this could lead to the potential situation where a host doesn't let a player in simply because he doesn't like said player. Not that this would ever happen now, but the potential is there.
I feel like those players who are inactive generally do not play very many mafia games. Yeah maybe they play a few but then they disappear because of the pressure to post and they don't want to. As I am not a host I hope others can comment on this, but I never feel like when I read a player list the first thing to come to mind when I see a player's name is "oh this guy is always inactive no matter what". In that regard I'd say TL mafia has come quite a ways.
More so than ever before, people will pressure the inactives and force them to respond in game. This is already a big step forward from when I first joined here, where inactives were not pressured at all. Seems to me that the quality of games is evolving, although maybe not as fast as we would like.
Part of the problem is the nature of the mafia game. Let's not mince words, lots of players think being a green townie is boring, even though most of us know that it's just as fun as any other role (or if you're me, you'd rather be a green townie than any other role). There's nothing we can do about this though until people get experience and realize that greens are just as important as any other role. That is, unless we want every game to be like Insane Mafia.
Perhaps we should go back to the old days where we had invite only games. I remember when there used to be two games going on at once; one was invite only and the other was open to anyone.
|
|
|
On January 17 2011 10:08 Foolishness wrote:
Perhaps we should go back to the old days where we had invite only games. I remember when there used to be two games going on at once; one was invite only and the other was open to anyone.
This.
To many games running at once, the day hours are too long imo which draws out the game horribly.
|
I don't think too many games are the problem. If you only sign up for 1 game, maybe 2 maintaining decent activity isn't even that hard. Really, reading a thread becomes a chore when you keep putting it off.
|
Perhaps implement a tiered system? Something along the lines of what foolishness was saying, with an open tier, and a invite tier. The problem then is how people get to the invite tier, and how they can leave it.
Ideas on how to get to Invite Tier:
Receive recommendation from at least 2 hosts.
Receive recommendation from at least 6 players.
Play at least 3 games in a row without being cited for inactivity.
(Exception: The host of a game should be allowed to give a one time invite to players that are not in the invite tier)
Ideas on how to get booted back down to the open tier:
Get modkilled for inactivity.
Get cited for inactivity by at least two hosts.
This would also help with sorting through the newer hosts. New hosts would have to host a certain number of games for the open tier, before hosting for the invite tier. The idea is that it's hard to get into the invite tier, and easy to get bumped down. (Not overly so, but enough to weed out those who work their way to the invite tier, then go inactive...)
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On January 17 2011 10:41 Ace wrote:
I don't think too many games are the problem. If you only sign up for 1 game, maybe 2 maintaining decent activity isn't even that hard. Really, reading a thread becomes a chore when you keep putting it off.
This. Whenever I play a game I always make sure to catch up in the thread at least twice per day, because I know if I put it off I ain't going to get to it.
I like the system Kavdragon posted above. This definitely seems like something we could implement in the future, especially if the forum continues to grow. One big issue is that we need a volunteer to step up and keep track of these things @.@
|
you can very easily be active in a "big" game and 1 mini
|
On January 17 2011 11:48 Foolishness wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 10:41 Ace wrote:
I don't think too many games are the problem. If you only sign up for 1 game, maybe 2 maintaining decent activity isn't even that hard. Really, reading a thread becomes a chore when you keep putting it off. This. Whenever I play a game I always make sure to catch up in the thread at least twice per day, because I know if I put it off I ain't going to get to it. I like the system Kavdragon posted above. This definitely seems like something we could implement in the future, especially if the forum continues to grow. One big issue is that we need a volunteer to step up and keep track of these things @.@
I would feel bad throwing this onto anyone else. I agree that the system Kavdragon proposed seems very good and each game we could have an invite/open count. If it is decided on being a good system I will run/update it.
|
On January 17 2011 12:55 annul wrote:
you can very easily be active in a "big" game and 1 mini
and to elaborate on this. Anyone who can't stay active in 2 games must read like 3 words per minute. I don't think too many games are the problem or our day/night cycles being too long. In fact, I think we have perfect timing for day/night cycles. Its ridiculous to expect everyone to be able to read/write on every single day. A 48 hour day gives every player plenty of time to read and give their input and a 24 hour night gives players plenty of time to send in their actions. Day cycles being too long is almost a non topic. On mafiascum I think they had a 1 week/3week day/night cycle iirc. But I know they don't have inactivity problems for the most part. Although I will admit that information is just from stuff I have read/heard about mafiascum, I have never personally played there.
Anyway, if people think the tiered system is good then I will maintain the thread for it.
|
I think smaller game sizes would be better, half the time people are busy for the first day, come back, see like 10 pages of writing, half of which is spam and just decide, fuck it, what's the point.
|
On January 17 2011 13:32 chaoser wrote:
I think smaller game sizes would be better, half the time people are busy for the first day, come back, see like 10 pages of writing, half of which is spam and just decide, fuck it, what's the point.
you can always give it a quick read scan for keywords/ key player post's if it gets too long.
anyway i think the point here is to get rid of the "fuck it whats the point" people.
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
On January 16 2011 20:40 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
It seems like a decent idea. Definitely worth trying. I think it will make the games feel more like a privilege than a right which can only be beneficial to the state of the mafia forum. The only problem I see is that it would become harder to recruit new people because of the game requirements. Maybe we do need to build the prestige of our games by not allowing certain people to play. I know most veteran players around here don't even like playing anymore because of how low quality the games are which is a shame.
I don't see why inactivity is such a problem here though, our days go by quick while on something like mafiascum they do ridiculous stretches for a day cycle and people maintain activity. The only reason I can think of is because our games lack commitment from the players because the games feel as though they are a right, not a privilege. I think it couldn't hurt to implement this gatekeeper system at least as a trial.
I would still worry about how we would recruit new players. I suppose we could have proving ground games where we allow new active people to join in, although it would suck to host those. I would say a post count requirement but that doesn't mean anything about dedication to mafia, just that they have been part of the site for a while.
I wouldn't use this for new players, just on players I know to be inactive. Once people become acclimated then they'll be treated by the same standards.
On January 17 2011 10:08 Foolishness wrote:
I don't like the idea much of a host saying "not accepting people who I think to be inactive or very spammy". I feel like this could lead to the potential situation where a host doesn't let a player in simply because he doesn't like said player. Not that this would ever happen now, but the potential is there.
I feel like those players who are inactive generally do not play very many mafia games. Yeah maybe they play a few but then they disappear because of the pressure to post and they don't want to. As I am not a host I hope others can comment on this, but I never feel like when I read a player list the first thing to come to mind when I see a player's name is "oh this guy is always inactive no matter what". In that regard I'd say TL mafia has come quite a ways.
More so than ever before, people will pressure the inactives and force them to respond in game. This is already a big step forward from when I first joined here, where inactives were not pressured at all. Seems to me that the quality of games is evolving, although maybe not as fast as we would like.
Part of the problem is the nature of the mafia game. Let's not mince words, lots of players think being a green townie is boring, even though most of us know that it's just as fun as any other role (or if you're me, you'd rather be a green townie than any other role). There's nothing we can do about this though until people get experience and realize that greens are just as important as any other role. That is, unless we want every game to be like Insane Mafia.
Perhaps we should go back to the old days where we had invite only games. I remember when there used to be two games going on at once; one was invite only and the other was open to anyone.
Invite games are nice. I might do those, but then that does come down to a bit of favoritism? Perhaps what I'm proposing (host discretion on [in]activity) doesn't have to be a "rule", but it's something that it seems Ace has started doing, and I'm apt to follow suit. I can't really comment on the state of games now/then since I wasn't there for the "olden days", but at least we do have a system of pressure.
On January 17 2011 10:41 Ace wrote:
I don't think too many games are the problem. If you only sign up for 1 game, maybe 2 maintaining decent activity isn't even that hard. Really, reading a thread becomes a chore when you keep putting it off.
One game signup! Mini games are fine. Honestly it seems people can't even handle one game?
On January 17 2011 11:00 Kavdragon wrote:
Perhaps implement a tiered system? Something along the lines of what foolishness was saying, with an open tier, and a invite tier. The problem then is how people get to the invite tier, and how they can leave it.
Ideas on how to get to Invite Tier:
Receive recommendation from at least 2 hosts.
Receive recommendation from at least 6 players.
Play at least 3 games in a row without being cited for inactivity.
(Exception: The host of a game should be allowed to give a one time invite to players that are not in the invite tier)
Ideas on how to get booted back down to the open tier:
Get modkilled for inactivity.
Get cited for inactivity by at least two hosts.
This would also help with sorting through the newer hosts. New hosts would have to host a certain number of games for the open tier, before hosting for the invite tier. The idea is that it's hard to get into the invite tier, and easy to get bumped down. (Not overly so, but enough to weed out those who work their way to the invite tier, then go inactive...)
I actually like this idea. Logistics aside (since those can always be honed) it's a very good concept.
|
On January 17 2011 13:40 Coagulation wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2011 13:32 chaoser wrote:
I think smaller game sizes would be better, half the time people are busy for the first day, come back, see like 10 pages of writing, half of which is spam and just decide, fuck it, what's the point. you can always give it a quick read scan for keywords/ key player post's if it gets too long. anyway i think the point here is to get rid of the "fuck it whats the point" people.
lol it taught me a lesson. The first 2 games i played, i see the games already with 30+ pages (Haunted and Insane -_-) and im like WTF? To avoid that, im there at the start.
Day/Night Cycles are fine. we wouldnt want 36 hour cycles. that would be awkward. 24 hour cycles would cause more modkills really.
The problem why people are being inactive is because they dont do anything and theyre boring their self. Also if a player knows they will be busy, they should ask to be replaced.
|
what it comes down to really is if you dont want to play why even /in? i dont understand this
|
On January 17 2011 16:43 annul wrote:
what it comes down to really is if you dont want to play why even /in? i dont understand this
I can.
Everyone wants Mafia/Cool roles.
"Ah this role suck, forget about it."
Bam. Inactive player born.
|
Problem is some people mean well, but they just get bored with the game really fast. People need a purpose in the game, and if it is just decided by another player without giving them influence, they just give up on it. They need to get the feeling that their opinion and vote matters, or atleast that they through their role have an impact on the game. This is why blue roles are good, however I'm not sure it's our job to entertain people :/
Game wise I think I prefer setup with some more gimmicks for combating inactivity, it gives town something to talk about that doesn't feel forced or artificial, and is alot better for discussion than yesterdays mislynch, which got old really fast in mafia xxxv.
From a player perspective Im not sure what can get people more engaged, but i think town circles and confirmed townies works counter to this. Nothing is worse than arguing with people completely sure of themself, who just sees everyones different opinion as evidence against them. I'll try and change my own attitude on this in future games.
|
The problem is, not enough people realize that a lot of the fun of mafia is in the mindgames, not the shiny blue/red roles. Sure, it's fun to be able to do something besides shit your pants in fear at night, but really, the meat of Mafia is during the day, trying to get scum to slip up, accusations and analysis getting more and more frantic as the game slips closer and closer to LYLO...
But to get a game like that, everyone has to chip in, which doesn't happen.
|
Perhaps we could add the multi game rules into the system? For instance, allow multiple games within the upper(invite) tier, but not in the lower(open) tier.
Also, if this is implemented, it seems like there would be several different things that a host would have to check for each player: Ban thread, Tier thread, and all the other active games to check for double gaming. Is there a way we could consolidate this to make it easier for hosts?
|
My major problem with inactivity comes from a busy schedule. I used to post too much, but lately I've been dodging modkills. RoL hates me anyway, lmao.
Anyway, just saying simply, until I get some free time to spend playing, I'm probably going to sit out a few games. Been trying to force my availability and it doesn't work too well.
|
On January 20 2011 09:16 ~OpZ~ wrote:
My major problem with inactivity comes from a busy schedule. I used to post too much, but lately I've been dodging modkills.
I think that you can take this back a bit further, and say that the problem with inactivity comes from people signing up when they shouldn't. If you are busy, don't sign up. People either mis-judge the time commitment
I disagree with people who say that inactives are unlikely to change. You being a good example of this. People get busy, can't post in a game they shouldn't have signed up for, and go inactive. But later I think that people can, and do come back and post more in a later game.
My take on it, anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.thepropertymanager.com.au/template/images/inactive.gif)
![[image loading]](http://floridaufsd.org/463170524214543/lib/463170524214543/dancing_banana.gif)
