|
On February 19 2011 04:11 Foolishness wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2011 15:26 Meapak_Ziphh wrote:
Hey foolishness what happened to that thread you created with the hosting points? It looked something like your first reply in this thread. I remember reading it but I cant find it anymore. I was thinking it could help break the logjam of hosts right now. Show nested quote +On February 18 2011 06:32 BrownBear wrote:
Personally, I like hosting/cohosting normal waaay more than I like hosting themed, so at the very least I can host normal games kinda regularly (maybe like every other game or something).
I'm also curious as to what happened with the point system. Did it get removed for being too elitist or something? As I said in an earlier post, I took it out mainly because it isn't needed right now. Of course I have all the data saved in case we need it in the future, but right now our community isn't big enough where we need something like this. I was also thinking that it could help break up the logjam of hosts on the themed games. Right now I am thinking of doing the following: not accepting any more themed games until the queue is down to about 2 or 3. I want to prevent a scenario in which people are racing to post in here to get in the queue (which may happen if there's only one slot open). I think this is a good idea (at least for now) because it will be a while before the queue is down to 2 or 3, and people who may want to host now might not be able to once we get to that point. I also want to minimize the amount of cop-outs we have on hosting (kingjames already did this for example). By the time we're to Caller's game, he might be awol again =P
As Foolishness said, the points system was really intended for a scene with a LOT more active hosts than we have here. Also, the way it was formulated didn't accurately reflect the preferences we should be having. Like DapperDan was ranked WAY higher than Ver, which just isn't accurate.
As far as the themed game problem I think a partial solution is to let the players decide to a certain extent. I'm not entirely convinced that people actually WANT to play all of these theme games. I think people sign up for them because they are the only games running at the time. And I think this is contributing to some of the inactivity we are seeing.
|
Orgah mafia has finished.
Be well TL.
|
I've noticed that some people have been signing up for every single game that pops up. They go inactive in some of them. This is not acceptable. We need some way to fix this. The one way we've tried is to limit people to 1 mini game and 1 large game. However, this hasn't seemed to be the case recently, especially with people starting multiple mini games while other mini games are running AND people ignoring the hosting queue. We either need more discipline for the hosting rules or we need to switch hosting systems.
Somewhere, sometime, Qatol suggested that inactivity was occurring because people didn't actually want to play the setups offered. They just signed up for them anyway because they needed a mafia fix and there were no other games available. With the ever growing list of themed games, I think it might be the right time to open up the themed games list (and only the themed games list).
There is a long list of themed games. People want to play some of the games there, while they will probably be less enthusiastic about others. Forcing the games to go in a certain order may exacerbate the inactivity issue. However, in fairness, we should probably finish out what's left on the list. After that though, I think we might want to experiment with a sort of "free-market" system. Hosts create their game threads, and look for signups. The first game to fill gets to host, while the others are put on hold. The game order will be determined by popularity, so unpopular setups will never be started. This should fix the inactivity problem, and should eliminate games that people just don't want to play.
However, this format would likely clutter with signup threads. Which would be a nuisance. Perhaps to fix this problem we could ask for a subfolder for the mafia forum specifically for signup threads? This would allow us to keep the signup junk in one area, while also eliminating the problem Foolishness brought up in the XXXVII thread - that the signup phase takes up space and pages and pages of spam. Once signups are over, a new thread could be made in the main section of the forum to get the game started.
Thoughts?
|
Hu Jin Tao frowns on your Free Market shenanigans
|
Very good idea, Incognito. Multiple subfolders for multiple themes(not theme games), like normal/theme
open/closed
daystart/nightstart
mini/large
etc
categorization is definitely a way to adhere to subjectivity
I am all for it
|
On February 23 2011 14:02 Ace wrote:
Hu Jin Tao frowns on your Free Market shenanigans
What are you talking about? Hu Jin Tao is a capitalist pig in disguise.
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
On February 23 2011 14:29 Incognito wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2011 14:02 Ace wrote:
Hu Jin Tao frowns on your Free Market shenanigans What are you talking about? Hu Jin Tao is a capitalist pig in disguise.
Hey now.
|
lol sorry for all the pregame spam although as you pointed out it's not without a purpose. I've noticed that sometimes a game will fall off the front page of the forum index and then it becomes very hard to generate sign ups. This happen to Annuls HP mafia iirc an it's probably happens a bunch of other times.
I'm not sure however what can be done to fix this. The sign ups only subforum seems a little excessive, there's got to be a way to solve this with the resources we have. As a quick fix solution I'd just throttle way back on the theme games. I know you didn't want to make it a race for people to post their setups but for now you might have to do that just to limit the flow. Unfourtunatly I don't have long term solution 
As a player I personally want to see more normal games. Currently I'm cohosting a normal game and I'm lined up to cohost another right after that, and I'm planning on hosting my own normal game somewhere down the line. I don't know how many people have the same interests in game types that I do but I'm just throwing it out there 
|
[M] TL Mini Mafia XVIII: Restricted Access. LSB is host. Due to start after survivor.
Its a standard 'invite only' game with the prerequisite that players have at least one example of good scumhunting as town.
|
Survivor is over. Mr. Wiggles won as the SK.
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
I am in favor of the subfolder idea. I'm not sure I like the freemarket system though. What we need to do is try to figure out the demand for each kind of game and go from there (yeah easier said then done I know).
I propose that we limit the number of games for each type in the queue to something like 4 (I arbitrarily set it at 7 because there were 7 themed games at the time). We also limit a person to being in the queue only once (maybe twice). I think this will help reduce waiting times for some hosts (I do kinda feel bad for Caller), and to stop people from mucking up the queue by signing up for 3 games (yes LSB, I mean you =P). While it doesn't solve the problem, I think this is a step in the positive direction.
I also think we should do away with only having one normal, one themed, one mini at any given time. Perhaps we just start the queue with whatever the hosts want to host, without regard to the type of game (as long as there's at least some balance it should be fine). With this, I suggest we strictly limit a person to being in one game at one game (or maybe one mini and one other). I'm sure some might not be happy with this (Coagulation hehe) but it might help the activity problem.
Just some thoughts.
For now I think I will bleed the themed queue close to dry, as long as nobody has any qualms with that. LSB I'm going to limit you to only hosting one of your themed games (at least at the moment). For now choose if you want to host your mini or one of your themed games (I'll bump your themed games back a bit if you want to host the mini). As soon as Factory mafia starts make your thread!
|
On February 26 2011 13:40 LSB wrote:
[M] TL Mini Mafia XVIII: Restricted Access. LSB is host. Due to start after survivor.
Its a standard 'invite only' game with the prerequisite that players have at least one example of good scumhunting as town.
lolololol gl with that prereq. I can't really think of more then 5 players. Practically none of which would be willing to play.
Edit: that wasn't a stab at you hosting, its that Qatol/Ver never play anymore. Ace disappears randomly. Flamewheel is generally busy. BC is on a 4 game ban. I can only think of maybe 2-3 other players who could qualify for that standard.
|
On March 02 2011 14:17 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2011 13:40 LSB wrote:
[M] TL Mini Mafia XVIII: Restricted Access. LSB is host. Due to start after survivor.
Its a standard 'invite only' game with the prerequisite that players have at least one example of good scumhunting as town. lolololol gl with that prereq. I can't really think of more then 5 players. Practically none of which would be willing to play. Edit: that wasn't a stab at you hosting, its that Qatol/Ver never play anymore. Ace disappears randomly. Flamewheel is generally busy. BC is on a 4 game ban. I can only think of maybe 2-3 other players who could qualify for that standard.
Qatol doesn't actually have any games where he showed good scumhunting either. Only games where he abused the rules/roles. He was downright terrible as a scumhunter in his most recent 2 games (PYP1 and Mini Mafia 1). 
|
On March 02 2011 15:18 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 14:17 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On February 26 2011 13:40 LSB wrote:
[M] TL Mini Mafia XVIII: Restricted Access. LSB is host. Due to start after survivor.
Its a standard 'invite only' game with the prerequisite that players have at least one example of good scumhunting as town. lolololol gl with that prereq. I can't really think of more then 5 players. Practically none of which would be willing to play. Edit: that wasn't a stab at you hosting, its that Qatol/Ver never play anymore. Ace disappears randomly. Flamewheel is generally busy. BC is on a 4 game ban. I can only think of maybe 2-3 other players who could qualify for that standard. Qatol doesn't actually have any games where he showed good scumhunting either. Only games where he abused the rules/roles. He was downright terrible as a scumhunter in his most recent 2 games (PYP1 and Mini Mafia 1).
How refreshing. I applaud.
I thought the recent trend in Mafia forums was just patting each other on the back.
|
I think flamewheel is also known for his mafia play, not his town play . In any case, yeah, unless you are fuzzy on the standards theres no way you're going to get enough players that fit the criteria.
And to Foolishness - I don't think "figuring out the demand for each type of game" is practically feasible. Trying to find out demand between themed games doesn't mean anything, as there are some popular themed games, while there are some unpopular themed games. Second, its hard to match supply and demand without a market. You need some sort of feedback system. Polls would be an unwieldy way to do that, imo. Too much variety. A free market type of system would help weed out the unpopular setups. We'd probably need to make balance consulting mandatory for themed games though, as they seem to get out of hand at some points.
|
I think people enjoyed Survivor mafia and i got plenty of feedback and people seem interested to do it again with some changes. I would like to keep it a mini, but I would like to have exactly 15 people, can that still qualify as a mini? If so, I would like to start that up again whenever LSB finishes his.
[M]: TL Survivor II
|
Hmm.. I'll choose to host Insane Mafia then.
Btw, Foolishness, you can move merc mafia behind contract mafia. I'd rather have Incog host his 'normal mafia' before I do the insane version of a contract game.
|
Regarding XXXVIII... I haven't heard from Meapak in a while. I'll assume he comes back, but if he doesn't by the time I start accepting signups, I might need another cohost.
Also, should I wait to create the thread until after RoL's game is done?
|
On March 04 2011 14:02 BrownBear wrote:
Regarding XXXVIII... I haven't heard from Meapak in a while. I'll assume he comes back, but if he doesn't by the time I start accepting signups, I might need another cohost.
Also, should I wait to create the thread until after RoL's game is done?
woops sorry I'm here, I have your PM marked as unread still, do you mind if I answer it tomorrow?
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On March 04 2011 14:02 BrownBear wrote:
Regarding XXXVIII... I haven't heard from Meapak in a while. I'll assume he comes back, but if he doesn't by the time I start accepting signups, I might need another cohost.
Also, should I wait to create the thread until after RoL's game is done?
Yessir, go ahead and create as soon as RoL's is done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
