About the schedule

[Turboo]

What you seem to not be getting is that we've already said many times that there will probably not be a flood of mafias at once; people still seem to have trouble keeping up with mafias even with the four-game limit, and keeping the limit would basically be like keeping the schedule altogether, so...

Having to go through a system of contacting Smasher or someone to let them know that you're ready to start your mafia ASAP sounds like a pain compared to just letting go of it altogether. What if there's already four mafias that are completely ready? Isn't the whole thing just glorified line-cutting?

We're already having rough patches with the schedule system due to the way it works, so how would this make it worse (from what I'm seeing, the biggest problems could be avoided by common sense, and having a more open system would probably be beneficial)?

This is what I posted earlier about the schedule rework thing (this was before you went in-depth, but it seems to be what I thought you were describing), and I think it still applies. I'm not really thrilled with it, since I just don't see the point of it. You'll still have to wait for games to finish, and host update schedules can vary.

 

[Rocker64]

well excuse me for pointing out the fact that you only sticky topics

Actually, we do things like decide whether or not to get rid of the schedule.

wait no thats the same as stickying things :S

Dumb question: does the MHG really need 12+ members?

No, a majority of the members don't even do anything.

Which ends up being the problem with getting the MHG to actually be something, and do stuff.

 

[Baby Mario Bloops]

What you seem to not be getting is that we've already said many times that there will probably not be a flood of mafias at once; people still seem to have trouble keeping up with mafias even with the four-game limit, and keeping the limit would basically be like keeping the schedule altogether, so...

Having to go through a system of contacting Smasher or someone to let them know that you're ready to start your mafia ASAP sounds like a pain compared to just letting go of it altogether. What if there's already four mafias that are completely ready? Isn't the whole thing just glorified line-cutting?

We're already having rough patches with the schedule system due to the way it works, so how would this make it worse (from what I'm seeing, the biggest problems could be avoided by common sense, and having a more open system would probably be beneficial)?

This is what I posted earlier about the schedule rework thing (this was before you went in-depth, but it seems to be what I thought you were describing), and I think it still applies. I'm not really thrilled with it, since I just don't see the point of it. You'll still have to wait for games to finish, and host update schedules can vary.

But it brings us back to the point that having more than 4 games at a time is a bad thing! When Awards Mafia was active, the activity level on this place just started to drop and people had to sacrifice which ones they would pay attention to. It's not our fault as the hosts to expect that when there are 4-5 other mafia games going at a time that we expect all our players in our game to be 100% focused on our game!

Besides, my in-depth thing was limiting it so that there was no more than 4 games at a time. It is what works best here, and we all know that trying to push for more games at a time will only kill the activity and basically make it to where we have to go back to only have 4 games at a time. Just like with population charts, you can only repopulate stuff until the need for survival is low because of high population, thus the population peeks and then stays on a homostatis curve that is about at the peek. Why I said that is because mafia games are like that, and we try to do too many at once, the food supply - the players - will go down, and then in order to have a successful mafia game, we'll need to hold off on the game or wait on other stuff!

And so with the schedule or not, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT!!!!!!! It's either that or we suffer from the consequences. And don't give me the "oh 4 games at a time won't happen because of how long phases are differ from host and people take different amounts of time to prepare", because we have had 4 games running at a time for well over a year, and there have been games where people are just waiting to begin.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

But my point is that you mention that you hate the MHG and that its just a "cool kids club" at any chance you get. Complaints are fine, but it gets a bit dumb when you mention it so much.

eh, okay

i guess i can just focus on abolishing the schedule for now

 

[Yoshiwaker]

we all know that trying to push for more games at a time will only kill the activity and basically make it to where we have to go back to only have 4 games at a time.

yeah we all agree on this

except for the people who disagreed with it :|

 

[Dr. Javelin]

which would be at least two-thirds of this thread

 

[Baby Mario Bloops]

which would be at least two-thirds of this thread

So you're saying that if 6 mafia games were going at the same time, nothing would happen and everyone will be able to multi-task as though there were only 3 mafia games going at a time, and that no one will have any issues?

 

[Dr. Javelin]

no

i'm saying that people would be able to play the games they wanted to now, instead of being forced to wait for games that bore them to finish

as for the games that no one wants to play, then tough luck

 

[Baby Mario Bloops]

no

i'm saying that people would be able to play the games they wanted to now, instead of being forced to wait for games that bore them to finish

as for the games that no one wants to play, then tough luck

So just too bad to someone like let's say me who has spent months preparing for a game, but tough luck to me because Javelin has a much more interesting game, and so I should just cry in a corner and drop my game and any future games because people like Javelin's game better?

 

[Rocker64]

no

i'm saying that people would be able to play the games they wanted to now, instead of being forced to wait for games that bore them to finish

as for the games that no one wants to play, then tough luck

So just too bad to someone like let's say me who has spent months preparing for a game, but tough luck to me because Javelin has a much more interesting game, and so I should just cry in a corner and drop my game and any future games because people like Javelin's game better?

But having a schedule doesn't fix that.

It is obvious, Stoob's games, Awards Mafia, your games, they take a lot of attention, and they usually end up having a decrease in activity in the other games, people will play the game they are most interested in more than others regardless of a schedule or not.

Paraphrasing something MG1(I believe) said:

"Pick one game you really like to play, and then half-ass the others."

 

[Dr. Javelin]

no

i'm saying that people would be able to play the games they wanted to now, instead of being forced to wait for games that bore them to finish

as for the games that no one wants to play, then tough luck

So just too bad to someone like let's say me who has spent months preparing for a game, but tough luck to me because Javelin has a much more interesting game, and so I should just cry in a corner and drop my game and any future games because people like Javelin's game better?

pretty much

but i mean there's things you can do to make your game more appealing, right? which would make the players happy, and the players should be the main beneficiaries of any system.

I think you're looking at this from the angle of "what's fair to hosts" whereas I'm looking at the angle of "what's fair to players". Like, that Editor role from Homestuck 2. Totally unfair to players.

 

[Rocker64]

no

i'm saying that people would be able to play the games they wanted to now, instead of being forced to wait for games that bore them to finish

as for the games that no one wants to play, then tough luck

So just too bad to someone like let's say me who has spent months preparing for a game, but tough luck to me because Javelin has a much more interesting game, and so I should just cry in a corner and drop my game and any future games because people like Javelin's game better?

pretty much

but i mean there's things you can do to make your game more appealing, right? which would make the players happy, and the players should be the main beneficiaries of any system.

I think you're looking at this from the angle of "what's fair to hosts" whereas I'm looking at the angle of "what's fair to players". Like, that Editor role from Homestuck 2. Totally unfair to players.

Other than the obvious dig at bmb, essentially this.

A host can make things more appealing, and even with the schedule it works the same way, like i said a more appealing game gets more attention.

And he is right, as much as hosting a game can be a lot of fun, it is all about the players.

 

[Baby Mario Bloops]

But having a schedule doesn't fix that.

It is obvious, Stoob's games, Awards Mafia, your games, they take a lot of attention, and they usually end up having a decrease in activity in the other games, people will play the game they are most interested in more than others regardless of a schedule or not.

Paraphrasing something MG1(I believe) said:

"Pick one game you really like to play, and then half-ass the others."

No, the current schedule doesn't help with that (but at least it tries to make everyone happy while making the games not be so backed up), but it's also not going to help with the schedule removed either if we don't try to cap it, and capping it will basically make an unofficial schedule like what my compromise is, and then where do we end up? We end up not being satisfied by either side because we either do what I basically did whether official or unofficial and people still will probably wait till less games are active if there are a lot of games, or some games will be forced to have to drop out or be doomed to not be that great because of too many mafia games happening at the same time.

pretty much

but i mean there's things you can do to make your game more appealing, right? which would make the players happy, and the players should be the main beneficiaries of any system.

I think you're looking at this from the angle of "what's fair to hosts" whereas I'm looking at the angle of "what's fair to players". Like, that Editor role from Homestuck 2. Totally unfair to players.

Yeah, I've been looking at the host's perspective because it is what basically runs this board is the hosts and the players in the game. Yeah, people can make games appealing and everything, but there is a sad truth; this only becomes a popularity contest.

Yeah, you can gain a few more people if you decide to do like a "Star Trek Mafia" rather than a "Teletubbies Mafia" and try to really reach out to the players to get more, but in the end, you may not get as many people as some more famous users. Why do you think that some games take forever to get sign-ups and why some games only take one day? Because people like other people better, and it's a shame that even now there are some players here that will refuse to join another player's game but will join someone else's because they like that host better. You could be the best host, and yet the host that does okay games get better results because the host is well liked and everything.

Also, go on, start naming all my mistakes I've made in games, and try to take me a peg down. Made awful roles, made total terrible games, made things that I regret, and made all kinds of errors, but at least I have the decency to fix them and not just lay around and cry in the corner like I should be ashamed of it.

Other than the obvious dig at bmb, essentially this.

A host can make things more appealing, and even with the schedule it works the same way, like i said a more appealing game gets more attention.

And he is right, as much as hosting a game can be a lot of fun, it is all about the players.

Games should be focused at the players, and not on the host. But piling on so many games at a time definitely is not a way to be appealing to the players. Maybe some players just want to play in all mafia games because they enjoy it, but now they are struggling to pay attention to a vast majority and it upsets them because they can't do it all. What we can do today (well, for the most part) may be taken away, and now players will not be able to be in as many mafia games because of the fact that there are so many mafia games going on at the same time.

 

[Rocker64]

You are really focused on the whole "the moment the schedule goes down there will be 100 games going and it will be chaos" thing huh?

There was a point last week where we had a max of 4 games going, with only 2 games running.

We currently have 3 games running, I'm suppose to go next, but if we keep the schedule i'll most likely bass the baton down to the next person because i'm absolutely atrocious at sending out roles in a timely manner, nobody is ready, so if we remove the schedule, somebody down near the bottom might start, which will bring us back to four games, but i seriously doubt with all the cancelling and holding that a bunch of games are going to be running at once any time soon.

 

[Baby Mario Bloops]

Also - typing this while I am the latest post because I'll probably be post conflicted anyways - I remember that we are trying to get new hosts to feel like they don't have to wait that long.

How does having them to struggle and get to host a new game helpful to them at all? They are faced with basically a popularity contest between players, and so they have a miserable experience and never want to host again because they couldn't compete with some of the other hosts for the players, and basically make mafia hosting awful for them?

You are really focused on the whole "the moment the schedule goes down there will be 100 games going and it will be chaos" thing huh?

There was a point last week where we had a max of 4 games going, with only 2 games running.

We currently have 3 games running, I'm suppose to go next, but if we keep the schedule i'll most likely bass the baton down to the next person because i'm absolutely atrocious at sending out roles in a timely manner, nobody is ready, so if we remove the schedule, somebody down near the bottom might start, which will bring us back to four games, but i seriously doubt with all the cancelling and holding that a bunch of games are going to be running at once any time soon.

I'm not saying that it will happen right away, but I'm sure that at some point it will happen. People want to remove it so people don't have to wait so long, so that is basically them saying "we don't want to just have 4 games going at the same time", or else people would be fine with just waiting.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Yeah, I've been looking at the host's perspective because it is what basically runs this board is the hosts and the players in the game. Yeah, people can make games appealing and everything, but there is a sad truth; this only becomes a popularity contest.

Yeah, you can gain a few more people if you decide to do like a "Star Trek Mafia" rather than a "Teletubbies Mafia" and try to really reach out to the players to get more, but in the end, you may not get as many people as some more famous users. Why do you think that some games take forever to get sign-ups and why some games only take one day? Because people like other people better, and it's a shame that even now there are some players here that will refuse to join another player's game but will join someone else's because they like that host better. You could be the best host, and yet the host that does okay games get better results because the host is well liked and everything.

There's a reason people like those hosts better, and it's because they've had more fun playing their games. Therefore, they will continue to have fun playing their games. You state "popularity contest" like it's based on coolness, or likability. And sometimes, sure. Maybe.

But a lot of it comes from the players' desire to have a well-run game. That's how I for one pick games (unless I really like the theme). I'm always in for a Stooben mafia because those are always well-run, have creative roles, lots of players, and third parties. I always have enjoyed them. Except for that time where I died Day 1. But that's not the host's fault.

Also - typing this while I am the latest post because I'll probably be post conflicted anyways - I remember that we are trying to get new hosts to feel like they don't have to wait that long.

How does having them to struggle and get to host a new game helpful to them at all? They are faced with basically a popularity contest between players, and so they have a miserable experience and never want to host again because they couldn't compete with some of the other hosts for the players, and basically make mafia hosting awful for them?

You want them to have fun hosting? How about this: offer to co-host with them. That way, you can show them how it works, they can gain experience and recognition (if it's a good game), and then they can go on to host their own game when they'd like to. People will think back to a game partially run by them, and think "oh this might be good" and sign up for it.

 

[Baby Mario Bloops]

I would rather have a place that is equal on who can host a game and not be entitled to be as liked or to be on the same playing field as other hosts, and have equal opportunities to have a successful mafia game then trying to struggle or deal with not being as liked as another host or having to be as good as someone like Stooben.

 

[Turboo]

As for the idea of removing the schedule, I'm for it. Both keeping the schedule and removing definitely 100% have their pros and cons, but If it ends up being chaos, then we can always put the schedule back on. Its not like the decision here has to permanent, if the schedule being removed ends up being exactly what the people opposing it fear, then we can always have it reinstated or something, and if we don't remove the schedule there is always the chance of being removed later down the line.

Okay, I just want to come in with a low-content post and say that I'm for this (having a no-schedule trial period of sorts, so if everything manages to shit itself in a month, we put the schedule back).

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Me too. That's only reasonable.

 

[Rocker64]

I would rather have a place that is equal on who can host a game and not be entitled to be as liked or to be on the same playing field as other hosts, and have equal opportunities to have a successful mafia game then trying to struggle or deal with not being as liked as another host or having to be as good as someone like Stooben.

Okay so everyone can host a game, but...schedule or not, if they get enough sign-ups all depends on what people think of them, and their games.

Stoob's games get a lot of sign-ups because they are awesome, and a lot of people like them.

Your games can get a lot of sign-ups, games with appealing themes get a lot of sign-ups, games with appealing hosts get a lot of sign-ups.

If your sign-ups are slower, you take longer to fill up, and you are put lower on the schedule, even if say, you started sign-ups first, even if say, you are completely ready to start.

It has always been a popularity contest, and it always will be.

 

[Baby Mario Bloops]

I would rather have a place that is equal on who can host a game and not be entitled to be as liked or to be on the same playing field as other hosts, and have equal opportunities to have a successful mafia game then trying to struggle or deal with not being as liked as another host or having to be as good as someone like Stooben.

Okay so everyone can host a game, but...schedule or not, if they get enough sign-ups all depends on what people think of them, and their games.

Stoob's games get a lot of sign-ups because they are awesome, and a lot of people like them.

Your games can get a lot of sign-ups, games with appealing themes get a lot of sign-ups, games with appealing hosts get a lot of sign-ups.

If your sign-ups are slower, you take longer to fill up, and you are put lower on the schedule, even if say, you started sign-ups first, even if say, you are completely ready to start.

It has always been a popularity contest, and it always will be.

Well, yes and no. I mean that's a very specific example, and I don't want to compare Stooben and I because we had for the most part a lot of players that were in our games. (And if we are talking about HM2, it's because the theme was making people a bit unsure) I mean, there are plenty of games where sign-ups varied mostly based on how often people saw it, who was paying attention at that time, how many people they PM after a while, who they PM, and variable like that.

But yeah, there are many things that still make it partly a popularity contest that just can't be helped, but for the most part it doesn't affect the mafia games when it's on the schedule because the quality of the game is still based on the players and having the list keeps it fair for each game, while without the list and going whenever just basically makes the popularity aspect affect the gameplay and activity of the players.

 

[Uniju]

I would rather have a place that is equal on who can host a game and not be entitled to be as liked or to be on the same playing field as other hosts, and have equal opportunities to have a successful mafia game then trying to struggle or deal with not being as liked as another host or having to be as good as someone like Stooben.

The current system isn't equal. The current system is first-come-first-serve(and then wait six months anyway). In a truely equal system, games start when they're ready. Your main argument seems to amount to be that you don't have enough faith in people not to only play their best friends' games and ignore other games, but:

1. that's not a problem, everybody has atleast a small circle of friends who will happilly play mafia with them. When I've hosted mafias, I've never expected 30 people I don't really know to join. I just invite my friends and they join and we have a good time. Not every game needs the entire mafia board to play it.

2. it happens even with the schedule - and I'm sorry to use myself as an example so much but you did it too so I assume it's cool -, I don't join every single mafia game. I just join the ones I'm interested in, or games that my close friends have invited me to play. I'm sure there are a lot of other people like this, so there's no real reason to pander to the ones who feel left out if there's even a single game they aren't playing.

And honestly, I'm a bit upset that the schedule has made me wait six months to play the games I'm interested in. I realize that may be greedy of me, but so's keeping the schedule around because you're afraid you won't get as many players in your game if they have literally any other game to play.

 

[Baby Mario Bloops]

I would rather have a place that is equal on who can host a game and not be entitled to be as liked or to be on the same playing field as other hosts, and have equal opportunities to have a successful mafia game then trying to struggle or deal with not being as liked as another host or having to be as good as someone like Stooben.

The current system isn't equal. The current system is first-come-first-serve(and then wait six months anyway). In a truely equal system, games start when they're ready. Your main argument seems to amount to be that you don't have enough faith in people not to only play their best friends' games and ignore other games, but:

1. that's not a problem, everybody has atleast a small circle of friends who will happilly play mafia with them. When I've hosted mafias, I've never expected 30 people I don't really know to join. I just invite my friends and they join and we have a good time. Not every game needs the entire mafia board to play it.

2. it happens even with the schedule - and I'm sorry to use myself as an example so much but you did it too so I assume it's cool -, I don't join every single mafia game. I just join the ones I'm interested in, or games that my close friends have invited me to play. I'm sure there are a lot of other people like this, so there's no real reason to pander to the ones who feel left out if there's even a single game they aren't playing.

And honestly, I'm a bit upset that the schedule has made me wait six months to play the games I'm interested in. I realize that may be greedy of me, but so's keeping the schedule around because you're afraid you won't get as many players in your game if they have literally any other game to play.

I was talking in the quality of the game, not in when the game is started. It makes everyone have to start at the bottom of the list and move up, and then host while 2/3 other games are hosted as well, and it makes it feel like you don't have to deal with the stuff I said earlier (I feel like I'm becoming a broken record).

I know everyone has a small bunch of friends, and nor did I ever say that you needed the entire mafia board players to be in a mafia game, but I hope you do realize that it takes a lot of time and effort to get a lot of people to join a friggin mafia game, so even losing one or two people to another mafia game is hard on games.

Only like 10 people join most mafia games, and only about 5 of them are basically in every mafia game. IIRC, I have played in the most mafia games to date, and I haven't played all the mafia games that go on here, so obviously we both understand that. However, 10 players is not really enough to have a good mafia game to do, especially if you are trying to create something new and fresh and not like some boring 1 week game. With a lot of games going on at once, those 10 players become crossed at which games to do, and it only really tugs at the game because usually they are the most active of them all.

I do hate having people wait for a game, which is why I don't want to deal with the current schedule we have either. But I don't think that just completely revoking it and just doing the complete opposite of it is right either.

However, if it goes down, it's not like I'm going to go kamikaze on the board (For some reason I feel like people think I would go psycho or something like that; I love this board a lot, and I only want to help it, not destroy it because of a matter of opinion for what is best). I am only just voicing my opinion, and trying to state from the perspective I am looking at may be a good choice or not.

 

[Revin]

Well, the schedule also prevents joke games from happening

so tell me why exactly this is a good thing

 

[Nabber]

i'm still of the opinion that we should have a subboard for mini-games

as for the main issue i'm still thinking about it