While I happen to agree that they fit the mafia forum nicely, I've been a pretty big proponent of the optional nested quote option depending on how hard it would be to implement on the backend. Knowing what I do about forum design, I'd like to think it's not that hard to implement.
To be fair, the council does put great weight in the public's ideas. If I'm wrong about there not being a public consensus on that, that that is my mistake. I just didn't remember anyone speaking out against that idea.
I believe the verdict right now is implement the 1 month leeway to people on the hosting queues to get a game ready (not necessarily reviewed) or be removed and any further people that wish to join a queue must have a completed game. I'm not comfortable implementing anything else right now as we don't really seem to have any form of consensus.
I'm not sure if the "large game problem" can or needs to be fixed. The problem with large games is player preference. Players just prefer smaller games due to the fact large games are unwieldy and take a long time to finish. I'm not sure you can change that or want to change. I personally don't. To me this is just a natural progression of a userbase. I believe the correct response is to change large games rather than change the userbase.
In case it's not clear, I agree with you. I'm not trying to change what players want. I'm trying to change the supply to meet the demand. I'm looking for any and all suggestions about how we fix the supply-side of the equation.
I think we're starting to lose sight of what the real problems here are:
Large games (for the most part, unless exceptional mod/flavor) are not nearly as popular as they once were. Much to the detriment of both the players of those games and the mods that run them. This is bad for our sub as a whole.
To a much lesser extent are the games being ready on time. I feel we may have at least come to a solution for this one in giving all players on the hosting list a month to get a game together or tough cookies.
My primary concern at the moment is how to solve the larger problem of ... well, large games. I'm up for any suggestions on how to help curb the problem without starting to reign in on how large games have gotten/are getting.
I would like to point out that the tiered hosting system doesn't stop you from creating whatever games you want. With a move to needing a game created before you can be put on a hosting list, you'd have to create the game first anyway and if the game is good enough, I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed onto the sign-up list.
I don't think that it is that difficult for Mods to make setups to accmomodate more than 20 players, but make the same setup able to be run with 18. If you open a setup and 24 people apply and you know how to accommodate them all, you should be allowed to do so. As long as your game could also run with 18 people.
As far as I'm concerned, that would be perfectly acceptable. In fact, it's how I plan to design future games anyway. That way, you can pretty much always be guaranteed to start, but you have extra roles available if more people sign up.
I like the overall idea, but I don't see a reason to enforce the artificially low game cap for third games and beyond. I would rather encourage host creativity and allow games up to 24 players (but no more), with the added stipulation that hosts must be prepared to swap or abandon their large games if they do not fire.
We've already established that anything 20+ is having a hard time filling. I'd rather 18 be the max with people getting permission to create a game (or change their game) with more than that.
Is there really enough of a difference between running a 16 person game and an 18 person game that we want to restrict people to this progression? I don't think the gradient is high enough to restrict that. Unless all you are trying to do is force more mid-sized games to be run...
There is no really good position between 12 and 16. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your argument. As for between 16 and 18, I'm wanting us to try and limit most games to no more than 18 players. I could see an argument for changing the second stepping stone to being allowed to host a 12 person mini and the last step is 18 players. I still want someone to have a couple games under their belt before being able to host at the limit (barring council exceptions).
3) All further requests to host follow the following rules (with exceptions granted by council request):
- First game you host must be a basic
- Second game you host is limited to 16 players
- Third game and beyond, your game is limited to 18 players
Basically every game after your second is capped at 18 players unless you get council permission.
I'm looking for some other council input on this. My current proposal is:
1) Keep the list demarkations the same. That is, Basic, Mini, Normal, ...
2) Tell everyone signed-up to host a game that they have 1 month if they have not already completed a setup after which if they still don't have a completed setup, they will be removed from the hosting list. This doesn't have to be the setup they end up running, but everyone on the hosting list should have at least one setup available to pull out if they're needed at a moment's notice.
3) All further requests to host follow the following rules (with exceptions granted by council request):
- First game you host must be a basic
- Second game you host is limited to 16 players
- Third game and beyond, your game is limited to 18 players
@DRey: Are you calling me scum for flip-flopping my vote based on new evidence? Also, if you'll notice, I did mention that deadline exceptions could be made if game mechanics required it.
@atlseal: I think I might approve of game size limit based on past games run - though does that include FTQ submissions or just the hosting queue?
My idea was just for the hosting queues. The FQT/PCQ are theoretically judged on not only their style and game mechanics, but are also judged as what is appropriated to the forum at the time.
1) I like the idea of the setup needing to be done before you can sign up for a queue. Maybe we give everyone that doesn't currently fit that a month or so to get their games together or get removed
2) I think the size/popularity issue actually correlates to what Ecophagy was describing. Here's another possible proposal: The maximum number of players in your game is decided by how many games you have already run. For example:
1st Time Hosting: Max game size is 12 (Meaning first game hosted has to be a mini or basic)
2nd Hosting: Max game size is 16
3rd Hosting: Max game size is 18
Anyone wishing to increase game size beyond that limit needs to get special permission (maybe with the exception that the first one must be followed).
Thanks for bringing this discussion into the mafia council thread, Iso. I'd love to hear your proposal; feel free to post it here so everyone can discuss it.
I would like to submit to anyone still wanting to design a game with 20+ players some more evidence in the sign-ups of Arcadic's "King of the Hill" mafia. It has now been open for two weeks, and he is still 3 players short. As of right now, the game hasn't started, but I will eat crow if once the game has been going for a few weeks, he doesn't start having activity issues. Following that, needing to modkill at least a couple players due to lack of replacements by the end of the game.
It is truly my belief that, for most instents and purposes, we are past the time when 20+ player games are able to be run here. Now, there are exceptions to the rule, but they are just that, exceptions. Please, please, please think carefully about designing any games in the future with 20 or more players. The evidence has shown time and time again that these games are plagued by lack of a sufficient player base to support them.
1) There was never a council consensus
2) It's really hasty to be forcing that on people lined up to host in the next month or two
It seems more realistic to expect the 2-reviewer rule to apply to people 3-4 down in the hosting lists.
On a mod note: please people, cool it. This is hardly something to get worked up over
I believe the verdict right now is implement the 1 month leeway to people on the hosting queues to get a game ready (not necessarily reviewed) or be removed and any further people that wish to join a queue must have a completed game. I'm not comfortable implementing anything else right now as we don't really seem to have any form of consensus.
In case it's not clear, I agree with you. I'm not trying to change what players want. I'm trying to change the supply to meet the demand. I'm looking for any and all suggestions about how we fix the supply-side of the equation.
Large games (for the most part, unless exceptional mod/flavor) are not nearly as popular as they once were. Much to the detriment of both the players of those games and the mods that run them. This is bad for our sub as a whole.
To a much lesser extent are the games being ready on time. I feel we may have at least come to a solution for this one in giving all players on the hosting list a month to get a game together or tough cookies.
My primary concern at the moment is how to solve the larger problem of ... well, large games. I'm up for any suggestions on how to help curb the problem without starting to reign in on how large games have gotten/are getting.
I would like to point out that the tiered hosting system doesn't stop you from creating whatever games you want. With a move to needing a game created before you can be put on a hosting list, you'd have to create the game first anyway and if the game is good enough, I see no reason why it wouldn't be allowed onto the sign-up list.
Again, this enforcement would only be applied to people that aren't currently on a hosting list.
As far as I'm concerned, that would be perfectly acceptable. In fact, it's how I plan to design future games anyway. That way, you can pretty much always be guaranteed to start, but you have extra roles available if more people sign up.
We've already established that anything 20+ is having a hard time filling. I'd rather 18 be the max with people getting permission to create a game (or change their game) with more than that.
There is no really good position between 12 and 16. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your argument. As for between 16 and 18, I'm wanting us to try and limit most games to no more than 18 players. I could see an argument for changing the second stepping stone to being allowed to host a 12 person mini and the last step is 18 players. I still want someone to have a couple games under their belt before being able to host at the limit (barring council exceptions).
Assuming that you're asking about beyond the third game:
Basically every game after your second is capped at 18 players unless you get council permission.
1) Keep the list demarkations the same. That is, Basic, Mini, Normal, ...
2) Tell everyone signed-up to host a game that they have 1 month if they have not already completed a setup after which if they still don't have a completed setup, they will be removed from the hosting list. This doesn't have to be the setup they end up running, but everyone on the hosting list should have at least one setup available to pull out if they're needed at a moment's notice.
3) All further requests to host follow the following rules (with exceptions granted by council request):
- First game you host must be a basic
- Second game you host is limited to 16 players
- Third game and beyond, your game is limited to 18 players
My idea was just for the hosting queues. The FQT/PCQ are theoretically judged on not only their style and game mechanics, but are also judged as what is appropriated to the forum at the time.
2) I think the size/popularity issue actually correlates to what Ecophagy was describing. Here's another possible proposal: The maximum number of players in your game is decided by how many games you have already run. For example:
1st Time Hosting: Max game size is 12 (Meaning first game hosted has to be a mini or basic)
2nd Hosting: Max game size is 16
3rd Hosting: Max game size is 18
Anyone wishing to increase game size beyond that limit needs to get special permission (maybe with the exception that the first one must be followed).
It is truly my belief that, for most instents and purposes, we are past the time when 20+ player games are able to be run here. Now, there are exceptions to the rule, but they are just that, exceptions. Please, please, please think carefully about designing any games in the future with 20 or more players. The evidence has shown time and time again that these games are plagued by lack of a sufficient player base to support them.