EPTA general guide to hosting etiquette - Page 4
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
| ||
|
justanothertownie
16320 Posts
On December 30 2013 07:25 kushm4sta wrote: I was mostly joking with my host bashing. But seriously wtf. Can't we have mostly normal mafia and only 1 fucked up game, instead of ALL fucked up games running at the same time? Let's look at the current games. Big Brother- illegitimate joke game Shadow mini mafia - what a travesty. I am not allowed to participate in this game at all. Ubervets and noobs only. Oh yeah and this is a DOUBLE game which uses 21 players simultaneously.. Resistance 3 - not mafia. Also do you know how long resistance games take?? TL LXIV - huge game (unavoidable spamfest) which is only half full and is going to take very very long to fill. newbie game - tried to participate in one of these once and i almost got permabanned. sorry for wanting to actually play mafia! So the next mafia game is extractor trick, (hosted by BH so you know it's going to be fucked up somehow). OH and it doesn't start until after resistance, which as I mentioned before lasts forever. that game is going to be very in demand just because it's normal. Then two more theme games before another normal... I share this sentiment. | ||
|
FirmTofu
United States1956 Posts
What we have on this site is unsatisfied demand and restricted supply, leaving us with many dissatisfied players. I believe the ideal solution is to allow the following types of games to be posted simultaneously and to compete for player attention: 4 Minis(Any amount can be normal or themed) 2 Themed(Big) ->Alternate with big normals once in while. Basically, increase the sheer amount of games that can be posted at any one time. Why? 1) Minis not only draw more player attention, they are also shorter and capture higher hosting demand. Thus, we can cycle through games faster and allow more hosts to host more games. 2) By incorporating multiple simultaneous playable games, players are given a greater variety of choice. Choice is the precursor to competition, which will incentivize better hosting in the long-run. Hosts will have to make games that are better than the other hosts in order to fill up their games. They can no longer rely on forcing players to play games they don't want to play to move the queue along. 3) By throwing a greater amount of games into the playing field, players will choose the games that play to their strengths. This is likely to lead to higher quality games. 4) Players can more easily avoid playing with people they dislike. This will avoid the drama and conflict that is hurting TL Mafia recently. Addressing the Downside: We will have quite a few hosts that will be unable to fill up their games because players would rather play other, more interesting games. Although I agree it would be a problem, it also provides a form of feedback for hosts to improve their setups. Finally, hosts will come to the realization that no one wants to play their setups and they are doing something fundamentally wrong when they create their games. They can then come up with solutions to make their setups either more balanced or more simple. | ||
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On December 30 2013 07:25 kushm4sta wrote: Big Brother- illegitimate joke game LOL | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On December 30 2013 09:45 FirmTofu wrote: Kush's concerns are valid and I agree with many of his points. What we have on this site is unsatisfied demand and restricted supply, leaving us with many dissatisfied players. I believe the ideal solution is to allow the following types of games to be posted simultaneously and to compete for player attention: 4 Minis(Any amount can be normal or themed) 2 Themed(Big) ->Alternate with big normals once in while. Basically, increase the sheer amount of games that can be posted at any one time. Why? 1) Minis not only draw more player attention, they are also shorter and capture higher hosting demand. Thus, we can cycle through games faster and allow more hosts to host more games. 2) By incorporating multiple simultaneous playable games, players are given a greater variety of choice. Choice is the precursor to competition, which will incentivize better hosting in the long-run. Hosts will have to make games that are better than the other hosts in order to fill up their games. They can no longer rely on forcing players to play games they don't want to play to move the queue along. 3) By throwing a greater amount of games into the playing field, players will choose the games that play to their strengths. This is likely to lead to higher quality games. 4) Players can more easily avoid playing with people they dislike. This will avoid the drama and conflict that is hurting TL Mafia recently. Addressing the Downside: We will have quite a few hosts that will be unable to fill up their games because players would rather play other, more interesting games. Although I agree would be a problem, it also provides a form of feedback for hosts to improve their setups. Finally, hosts will come to the realization that no one wants to play their setups and they are doing something fundamentally wrong when they create their games. They can then come up with solutions to make their setups either more balanced or more simple. Okay let's do it with the start of the new year. I'll start organizing a system so it's not complete chaos. It would be nice to set some sort of time limit so that if a game has been posted for X amount of time and hasn't started then the thread gets closed. There have been situations where someone posts a game, nobody signs up so the thread dies and gets moved to page two, then someone bumps it twenty days later with an /in post. | ||
|
Mr. Cheesecake
United States3756 Posts
| ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On December 30 2013 10:52 Mr. Cheesecake wrote: Foolishness making the big plays. It'll be TL Mafia XXVII all over again  + Show Spoiler + For the youngsters, I was a watcher and caught a mafia by watching myself at night. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 30 2013 07:34 kushm4sta wrote: tldr there need to be more mini normals even though they aren't sexy to host. +1 actually, like +1000000 I had a look at when the last plain, basic mini normal was a few days ago... IIRC it was September or something :/ On December 30 2013 07:45 Kurumi wrote: I can host one in like three weeks. I could host one right now  On December 30 2013 11:17 Foolishness wrote: It'll be TL Mafia XXVII all over again + Show Spoiler + For the youngsters, I was a watcher and caught a mafia by watching myself at night. rofl such plays many wow | ||
|
Rean
Netherlands808 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On December 30 2013 11:42 Rean wrote: Would people consider the mafiascum C9++ (http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=C9%2B%2B) setup as normal compared to the themed games? It's not as vanilla as some of the other games (BttB for example) so still interesting to host I'd say. But not sure if it crosses a line with too many power roles. C9++ has been run in the past here as a normal game, though typically with some modifications to accomodate the different playstyle of TL as opposed to MS.net. (For instance, c9++ mini mafia). Actually, the game I'm hosting is loosely based off C9++. As an aside, I came across this variant of c9++: notable differences are
I'd be interested to know whether these kind of modifications would still be considered a "normal game" by y'all - consider this a request for comments. (Maybe not the Serial Killer stuff since that's bizarre but the concept of backup roles and insane cops in a mini doesn't seem too farfetched.) | ||
|
FirmTofu
United States1956 Posts
On December 30 2013 10:32 Foolishness wrote: Okay let's do it with the start of the new year. I'll start organizing a system so it's not complete chaos. It would be nice to set some sort of time limit so that if a game has been posted for X amount of time and hasn't started then the thread gets closed. There have been situations where someone posts a game, nobody signs up so the thread dies and gets moved to page two, then someone bumps it twenty days later with an /in post. I love the time limit idea. A prime example was Crossfire's hydra game that never got filled (Sorry Crossfire). A few people would bump it thinking it was still open for signups and Crossfire himself bumped it a few times to see if it would attract attention. A time limit would do a good job of dealing with such problems. | ||
|
Crossfire99
United States1529 Posts
On December 30 2013 11:54 FirmTofu wrote: I love the time limit idea. A prime example was Crossfire's hydra game that never got filled (Sorry Crossfire). A few people would bump it thinking it was still open for signups and Crossfire himself bumped it a few times to see if it would attract attention. A time limit would do a good job of dealing with such problems. There's no need to apologize. No one wanted to play my game so I let it die. I'm fine with this idea as long as it takes into account ongoing games. I think there should be enough time for the "losers" of the signup process to still have a chance once the number of ongoing games wind down and more players become available again. Basically, if a game ends up like "Hydra" Mafia in this new format, it should still die, but a slow filling game should get a few "chances" to fill up when there are actually enough players to play in the game. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
Simple right? Games fill up by demand, and if people want to play a normal they can sign up for a normal. Lemme host more than one game at a time and I will host whatever you want EDIT: I just really want to host my short minis again without having to wait 2 months before I get another chance to host | ||
|
AxleGreaser
Australia1154 Posts
On December 30 2013 12:55 LSB wrote: Remove the Host Quene Simple right? Games fill up by demand, and if people want to play a normal they can sign up for a normal. Lemme host more than one game at a time and I will host whatever you want EDIT: I just really want to host my short minis again without having to wait 2 months before I get another chance to host I like normals. Kush is pretty close to on the money + Show Spoiler [Kushes Post] + On December 30 2013 07:25 kushm4sta wrote: I was mostly joking with my host bashing. But seriously wtf. Can't we have mostly normal mafia and only 1 fucked up game, instead of ALL fucked up games running at the same time? Let's look at the current games. Big Brother- illegitimate joke game Shadow mini mafia - what a travesty. I am not allowed to participate in this game at all. Ubervets and noobs only. Oh yeah and this is a DOUBLE game which uses 21 players simultaneously.. Resistance 3 - not mafia. Also do you know how long resistance games take?? TL LXIV - huge game (unavoidable spamfest) which is only half full and is going to take very very long to fill. newbie game - tried to participate in one of these once and i almost got permabanned. sorry for wanting to actually play mafia! So the next mafia game is extractor trick, (hosted by BH so you know it's going to be fucked up somehow). OH and it doesn't start until after resistance, which as I mentioned before lasts forever. that game is going to be very in demand just because it's normal. Then two more theme games before another normal... + Show Spoiler [irrelevant OT] + except i remember the newbie from the outside slightly differently to how he does but meh simply eliminating the queue is likely to create the problems it was introduced to solve. The actual ratio, of mini "normals" to others (esp themed has changed even though the ratio is seemingly fixed....) (partly due to a kerfuffle we had 3 themeds in the queue. So this has been an unusual spell) While resistance isn't mafia, its rather a lot related + Show Spoiler + (it is a little less than villagers and were wolves, but it isn't role madness and the the most powerful thing in the game is reads, and so for me it is normal(ish) mafia.) From Kush's point of view, however, the exclusionary (invite vet + newbs) shadow mafia coming on the back of a dearth of normal games has exacerbated the previous mentioned dry spell. From Kush's point of view there has been very large gap between _suitable_ mini normal mafias. (There is also a large gap from my point of view, that it coincided with me not feeling like playing makes it less of a pressing issue for me.) Overreacting to fix it, is 'bad plan'™. Note the above opinion is from person who simply wont play mafia again unless the next game I play is a normal mini. Even then don't know I am offering to sign up to play normal mafia tomorrow either. I am little burnt and jaded. I am not sure Id be fun to play with, or would have fun playing. I too can host normal minis, indeed will probably(90%) only host normal minis. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
The thing that is blocking people from doing that is because the quene makes it so that there are no normal minis that people can sign up for. A more immediate fix is to argue that Shadow is not a true normal mini and have signups open for another normal mini | ||
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
On December 30 2013 11:42 Rean wrote: Would people consider the mafiascum C9++ (http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=C9%2B%2B) setup as normal compared to the themed games? It's not as vanilla as some of the other games (BttB for example) so still interesting to host I'd say. But not sure if it crosses a line with too many power roles. Part of the problem with C9++ which has lead to our variations on it are how easy the set-up is to game and how difficult it makes fake claiming as scum. Running a straight C9++ set-up usually ends up being somewhat town favoured (WBG discussed this in the post game of ACME twoish years ago). Running a C9++ and informing the players of that fact makes it very town favoured. I too would love the resurgence of [N][M] games | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On December 30 2013 13:32 LSB wrote: If we remove the quene, the people who want to play normal minis can just sign up for those games, and there will always be hosts looking to host some sort of game. The thing that is blocking people from doing that is because the quene makes it so that there are no normal minis that people can sign up for. A more immediate fix is to argue that Shadow is not a true normal mini and have signups open for another normal mini The queue has generated more normal minis than there were before the queue. Before the queue and in the early days of the queue the queue was 75% themed games. | ||
|
Rean
Netherlands808 Posts
On December 30 2013 13:35 Promethelax wrote: Part of the problem with C9++ which has lead to our variations on it are how easy the set-up is to game and how difficult it makes fake claiming as scum. Running a straight C9++ set-up usually ends up being somewhat town favoured (WBG discussed this in the post game of ACME twoish years ago). Running a C9++ and informing the players of that fact makes it very town favoured. I too would love the resurgence of [N][M] games How is the setup easy to game? It's randomly generated so you can't straightup break it. I suppose a certain amount of power roles could indicate the rest of the players are VT but that'd be difficult to accomplish IMO. As for it being town or scum favoured, I'm not sure. I can see some setups being really strong for town if scum doesn't know about them but there are fixes to that (roll setup randomly but make it open setup?). I'm not sure, not very experienced with hosting so. The setup just seems to me like it hits a nice balance between fun roles/setups without being too crazy, kinda like the numeral games but smaller sized. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
I think it would be really cool to have a "mafia cup", a series of small normal games where a victory grants you one point twoards some sort of ranking or invite based game. | ||
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
On December 30 2013 12:55 LSB wrote: Remove the Host Quene Simple right? Games fill up by demand, and if people want to play a normal they can sign up for a normal. Lemme host more than one game at a time and I will host whatever you want When we tried this about a year ago, it didn't work out very well. There were too many games available to join and not enough players. What would happen is that people would join 2-3 games at a time, the first game to fill up would start, and then people would immediately /out the other games, causing them to eventually die off. I guess you could argue that the handful of games that did start had the highest demand, but it wasn't any more efficient at getting games started than the queue. | ||
| ||
