Mafia game release schedule- Yea or Nay?

[Thawmus]

We're discussing a lot of solutions to the different problems our mafia games are facing these days.

One of the biggest is a lack of participation by players.

In order to try and curb this a bit, I'm proposing a schedule of sorts, that we could discuss on at length, to determine if a game can be released in a certain week or not. This release schedule could keep track of the games being released in a certain week, how many games will be active at that time, and how many are waiting in the wings (i.e. have not listed a start date).

The benefits of having such a schedule are as follows:

- Players will be able to sign up for more games that have themes they enjoy, without fear of being in too many games.

- New and existing Mods will know whether or not the time is right to start their game.

-Participation will be better, because less players/mods will be strung out among so many games.



Your poll options are:

1. Yes, let's make a schedule, and adhere to it.
2. No, a schedule restricts us too much
3. I don't really care one way or the other
4. I would like to see something else in place


Please comment below on your choice, and be sure and list more benefits, if I've missed any.

[m_a_caque]

i picked number 1. i'm sure it will cause whining and issues in the beginning. but overall i think it would help to keep things running a little more smoothly.

the only issue i see is do we just limit when games can start? some games are fairly quick, while other may take some time.

and if you get killed off early and no games start for a while you could be bored.

minor things i think. like i said, i like the schedule idea.

[anonym0use]

While I like the idea of a schedule, I think it may be difficult to implement.

[Thawmus]

i picked number 1. i'm sure it will cause whining and issues in the beginning. but overall i think it would help to keep things running a little more smoothly.

the only issue i see is do we just limit when games can start? some games are fairly quick, while other may take some time.

and if you get killed off early and no games start for a while you could be bored.

minor things i think. like i said, i like the schedule idea.

I think we need to also investigate how much time a game usually takes, relative to the amount of initial sign-ups in the game. We could use that as a slide rule.

[malakim2099]

Yeah, I don't know about dictating length of games... but I think a schedule for starts would be a good idea. :)

[Thawmus]

Yeah, I don't know about dictating length of games... but I think a schedule for starts would be a good idea. :)

To clarify, I don't think the schedule should dictate the length of a game. I mean to say that we should determine what the average length of a game is, relative to the number of initial players, to determine how many games should be running at one time.

[m_a_caque]

yea, sorry, i didnt mean games should finish in a set amount of time. i just meant if we started a few games in a row that could last a long time that participation may slack in newer games until the older ones finished. just a thought.

i honestly wouldn't know how to guage how long any game would usually last...

scientifically... we'd look at the number of players that were in the start of a game... see how many days it took to complete and get an average. but is that practical?

[Space Jawa]

Is this something you would plan on enforcing, and if so, how? And what do you plan on doing for people who decide to skip the schedule and simply start their game when they feel like it?

[sstralkowski]

I would rather explore another option. Here's why.

1) Gauging the number of games at a time is really tough since two games that have 30 players each could last totally different amounts of time. An extra SK could make a huge difference. Game balance between mods and player participation is too different to be able to estimate game length.

2) Some player are big targets and die a lot more quickly than others. That means that if 10 games are allowed open at a time, then a player could potentially be killed off in their games long before the next started.

3) And this is a selfish reason. I prefer modding over playing so if you make me wait three "cycles" between each of my games, then I'll likely get bored or annoyed or both. Yeah, I know. Wahhhhhh! Also, I am very conscious to state my relative start dates, and start sign-ups well in advance. Why should I suffer because other mods can't be as considerate?

4) You'd have to be very careful to stagger themes, game sizes, and mods in order to not have 10 similar games all running at the same time.

[Thawmus]

Is this something you would plan on enforcing, and if so, how? And what do you plan on doing for people who decide to skip the schedule and simply start their game when they feel like it?
I don't know that it's something you CAN enforce.

However, not adhering to the schedule, should we have one, would probably piss off a lot of people. In particular, the people who are waiting patiently to start their game when there's an open spot. Not to mention the players who have signed up for your game, thinking that it will start at a time which won't interfere with the other games they are in.

As such, it wouldn't be wise to do so, and may even get people to remove themselves from your game for doing so. I mean, if you have players that are joining your game because it's expected you will start it on X date, and you start it sooner....are they really going to respond to that well, if they're already in active games? And what if one or more of your players are mods of aforementioned games that you just ran over?

I think the negatives for not adhering to the schedule would be more than sufficient reason to do so.

[The Darkstone]

Putting mafia on a release schedule would be difficult to do. So while I am in support of a release schedule, I just wonder how it would be implemented.

[Thawmus]

I would rather explore another option. Here's why.

1) Gauging the number of games at a time is really tough since two games that have 30 players each could last totally different amounts of time. An extra SK could make a huge difference. Game balance between mods and player participation is too different to be able to estimate game length.

Agreed. Wish I had an answer to this.

2) Some player are big targets and die a lot more quickly than others. That means that if 10 games are allowed open at a time, then a player could potentially be killed off in their games long before the next started.

And I would argue that they're dying quickly because of a lack of participation by other players.

A lack of participation that is not only ignored, but accepted, here.

If players knew that sluffing off a whole game would mean that they're likely going to have a discussion over them, then they're a bit less likely to sluff off a whole game.

The problem is, you can't have one without the other. You can't have a blacklist, without a release schedule. That's a disaster waiting to happen. X player signs up for three or four games that don't have start dates. Those games all start up at the same time, because those mods just got killed on day one in their games, and don't give a damn what the players' situation is. Those players have to sluff off one or two of their games, because they don't have time to play in 3 or 4 at a time. X mod puts X player on the blacklist, for sluffing it off.

And it'll just repeat.

Frankly, if we don't get some sort of schedule, or some way of ensuring that mods have to keep their games running, finish them in a timely manner, and not have 15-20 running at once, I will firmly be AGAINST the blacklist, and retaining the cluster we currently have. :ermm:

3) And this is a selfish reason. I prefer modding over playing so if you make me wait three "cycles" between each of my games, then I'll likely get bored or annoyed or both. Yeah, I know. Wahhhhhh! Also, I am very conscious to state my relative start dates, and start sign-ups well in advance. Why should I suffer because other mods can't be as considerate?

Because they aren't being considerate. That's why we have to, at the very least, make them aware that this sucks, they're being inconsiderate poopy-heads, and we're at the breaking point. Continually creating sign-ups, and starting games within a week, when people have been waiting in the wings for months for a good opportunity to start a game, should not be acceptable behavior.

Are there good mods that aren't doing this? Of course there are. But the others aren't following the example.

As far as a solution for your problem is concerned, wouldn't it be easy to get start dates lined up for all your games ahead of time? I don't know that you'd necessarily need to even have sign-ups ready, before you'd have a start date in place. And it's not like you wouldn't be able to remove it, or push it back.

I don't think a release schedule will necessarily bring down the number of active games, either. Rather, it'll organize them so that people aren't strung out between 6 or 7 because the mods couldn't be kind enough to list a date.

4) You'd have to be very careful to stagger themes, game sizes, and mods in order to not have 10 similar games all running at the same time.

I disagree. I don't think there's any reason for such staggering. It's as easy as respecting your fellow man. I don't think it's that hard.

Then again, we ARE talking about something that we need to put in place, specifically because of a lack of respect, so maybe I'm completely off base. :ermm:

[PaxZRake]

Why not just have something along the lines of the "dibs" thread?

Game: Estimated Start Date

Posting in the thread would mean that you have at least half your sign ups, your first night write up, and your roles balanced for the most part.

This leaves plenty of leeway, and also gives people a good idea of when the game will be starting.

[DarqFeonix]

I think I see at least one hiccup that should be addressed, and that's when a sign-up goes up and when the game is expected to start. If a sign-up thread goes up, I'm expecting the Mod has all the roles already worked out (with a few extras in case of demand). So I would almost hope that the sign-up thread itself would be the countdown, say 2 weeks from initial sign-up creation.

If you create a sign-up thread, and the game doesn't start for another month and a half, there are tons of things that could come up during that time that will hinder participation in the game (be it life, or another Mafia game that started earlier than expected).

Maybe it's 'cause I haven't modded a game yet, but I know one of the reasons I haven't put a sign-up thread up yet for BNL is I know it won't start til mid-August at the earliest, so no need to just have it out there for a month with people waiting. I have my roles all ready, but I don't want people to forget they've even signed up and then get overwhelmed (I know that's happened to me before).

But I see some people choose to put the sign-up on way in advance in preparation, and almost to gauge how many roles they'll need.

[DarqFeonix]

BTW, I voted for the last option. I like the idea of a schedule, but the enforcement ould be next-to-impossible.

Maybe a highlighted calender. Start + total number of players for the estimated length of time. I'd have to do the math, but I think that could work as a good placeholder

[CarlosMucha]

I have mix feelings about this.

I like the idea of have a "Feature presentation" of Mafia Games. so everybody can give the atention to each game and people will be reading games even if they die on the game.

Maybe have only 4 games beggining for month or something like that.

[sstralkowski]

The problem is, you can't have one without the other. You can't have a blacklist, without a release schedule. That's a disaster waiting to happen. X player signs up for three or four games that don't have start dates. Those games all start up at the same time, because those mods just got killed on day one in their games, and don't give a damn what the players' situation is. Those players have to sluff off one or two of their games, because they don't have time to play in 3 or 4 at a time. X mod puts X player on the blacklist, for sluffing it off.

I'd say that's when you explain to the mod what situation they put you in and ask to be replaced. I would never fault someone for handling it like that unless it because a recurring issue. Honestly, having to replace a player at the very beginning of a game isn't always a bad thing. I find you tend to get a good player who just realized they died in most of their other games and they're eager to play.

Because they aren't being considerate. That's why we have to, at the very least, make them aware that this sucks, they're being inconsiderate poopy-heads, and we're at the breaking point. Continually creating sign-ups, and starting games within a week, when people have been waiting in the wings for months for a good opportunity to start a game, should not be acceptable behavior.

That's when it's up to the players to stop signing up for that mod's games.

As far as a solution for your problem is concerned, wouldn't it be easy to get start dates lined up for all your games ahead of time? I don't know that you'd necessarily need to even have sign-ups ready, before you'd have a start date in place. And it's not like you wouldn't be able to remove it, or push it back.

I find that my games go better when I focus on modding one at a time and not start looking down the road at future games until the current one is almost over. It's a practice that I think other mods should adopt as I've seen specific complaints about the very thing I try to avoid. So that said, it's tough for me to know the start dates of my next 4 games.

I don't think a release schedule will necessarily bring down the number of active games, either. Rather, it'll organize them so that people aren't strung out between 6 or 7 because the mods couldn't be kind enough to list a date.

I think you could avoid the problem altogether just by having mods put a tentative start date in the sign-up threads rather than limiting the number of games allowed to be active at any given time. Let the players gauge their availability. It should be on the players to only sign up for what they can handle.

I disagree. I don't think there's any reason for such staggering. It's as easy as respecting your fellow man. I don't think it's that hard.

Then again, we ARE talking about something that we need to put in place, specifically because of a lack of respect, so maybe I'm completely off base. :ermm:

Not sure it has much to do with respect. I think if you're going to start dictating how many games can be open at a time, then you are obligated to try and make sure it's not all rookie mods, or all JLA themed games, or all huge 50+ player games.

[sstralkowski]

...snip...
But I see some people choose to put the sign-up on way in advance in preparation, and almost to gauge how many roles they'll need.

I am one of those. Recently, though, I've concluded that 2-3 weeks lead time is ideal, but for larger games it takes longer to get a full roster so maybe a full 3 weeks.

[sstralkowski]

Maybe have only 4 games beggining for month or something like that.

As a person who's choosey about the games they sign up for, unless specifically requested, I'd say 4 games is too few options. That's like only having 4 flavors of ice cream. What if they're Haggus flavor, Tripe flavor, boogey flavor, and air flavored?

[CarlosMucha]

I am one of those. Recently, though, I've concluded that 2-3 weeks lead time is ideal, but for larger games it takes longer to get a full roster so maybe a full 3 weeks.

Yes, 2-3 weeks sign up before the game start sound right.

:)

[Space Jawa]

However, not adhering to the schedule, should we have one, would probably piss off a lot of people. In particular, the people who are waiting patiently to start their game when there's an open spot. Not to mention the players who have signed up for your game, thinking that it will start at a time which won't interfere with the other games they are in.

As such, it wouldn't be wise to do so, and may even get people to remove themselves from your game for doing so. I mean, if you have players that are joining your game because it's expected you will start it on X date, and you start it sooner....are they really going to respond to that well, if they're already in active games? And what if one or more of your players are mods of aforementioned games that you just ran over.

All of this assumes that the players signing up assume the game is going to adhere to The Schedule. But if a mod post in the sign up thread in the first post that the game will open at a time that wouldn't fit with the schedule, or that it'll open "when we have enough players", then the players have no reason to complain about when the game starts.

And all it really takes is one or two successful games that don't adhere to The Schedule and the whole thing falls apart. If a mod who's popular for his games opens up a game with a popular theme, and gets plenty of players and runs a great game, all while not waiting their turn and running the game when they feel like it, and soon you'll have plenty of other people thinking "hey, they didn't wait, why should I?", and The Schedule will have fallen apart and died.

[Thawmus]

It should be on the players to only sign up for what they can handle.

This is correct, but only to a certain point.

A player should not have to omit himself from games, because he doesn't know when games will start. And he shouldn't have to hold up his own game, because he doesn't know when games will start.

Furthermore, you still have the problem of abuse with a blacklist system. Far too much potential for tempers to flare, and misunderstandings to take place, simply because nobody knows what the hell is going on.

[Thawmus]

All of this assumes that the players signing up assume the game is going to adhere to The Schedule. But if a mod post in the sign up thread in the first post that the game will open at a time that wouldn't fit with the schedule, or that it'll open "when we have enough players", then the players have no reason to complain about when the game starts.

And all it really takes is one or two successful games that don't adhere to The Schedule and the whole thing falls apart. If a mod who's popular for his games opens up a game with a popular theme, and gets plenty of players and runs a great game, all while not waiting their turn and running the game when they feel like it, and soon you'll have plenty of other people thinking "hey, they didn't wait, why should I?", and The Schedule will have fallen apart and died.

I'm sorry, but if there's one thing I've learned about communication, it's that your message gets lost when you're making fun of people in the process.

It's not the ideal solution, I'll freely admit that. Hell, I don't even really know where to start with it. But bolding and capitalizing it like I'm lauding it as a cross for everyone to worship is not my idea of civil discussion over it.

You don't like the idea, fine. Don't mock me just because it doesn't work. I know damn well it doesn't work, that's why we're discussing it. :tired:

[malakim2099]

2) Some player are big targets and die a lot more quickly than others. That means that if 10 games are allowed open at a time, then a player could potentially be killed off in their games long before the next started.

Can't imagine who THAt would be... :cheeky:

[goodman]

Option 2 for me, if i want to run a game i'd like to do it in my own time rather than have to wait until i'm allowed to run it, i'm not entirely sure you can even say how long you're game is going to last unless you have set your game out that way.

Also i think you really are underestimating the 'lazy factor' where people are to lazy to keep up with it, they'll either run games when they're not supposed to or just put games down and scrap it because they came up with a better game instead or got bored of waiting to open it.

Too much restriction, it's logical i can't argue that, all i can say is that i'm confident it'd never work.

[CrusaderC]

I like the idea of it so I pick number 1

But also, I try not to sign up for too many, so #3 also works for me. I try to impose limits on myself. :cross-eye

[CrusaderC]

As a person who's choosey about the games they sign up for, unless specifically requested, I'd say 4 games is too few options. That's like only having 4 flavors of ice cream. What if they're Haggus flavor, Tripe flavor, boogey flavor, and air flavored?

What kinda boogeys we talking about here??? :noid:

[DocDoom187]

I'm afraid it would turn a lot of mods off, and I don't want that...

[Jackofhearts2005]

Man, right now there are too many mafia games going on.

A week ago, I was in 3 games (and probably temporarily dead in one of them).

Now I'm in 8 games and running one as well. I went from not having any threads open to being completely overwhelmed.

I'm not saying people will stick to a schedule, but I sign up for games in between games and every once in awhile find myself in way too many when they all start the same week. I think a schedule (or at the very least, game dates at the front of sign up pages) would keep this from happening.

Less 30 person games and more 15-20 person games would also do the trick.

[malakim2099]

I have to admit, I'm not TOO upset that I got nightkilled three times... I was starting to drown in mafia games.

It was more the principle of the thing. Didn't think they'd all open like that. ;)

[Thawmus]

Okay, how about something that's just a page on the sign-up sub-forum, that lists the start dates for various games?

I mean, I don't think that fixes all our problems, but it'd be the most harmless thing we could do, and it's better than what we got.

[Jackofhearts2005]

I'd look at it and post my dates on it if somebody else would keep it fresh.

[DarqFeonix]

A sticky schedule similar to the Dibs I think would work... We have about, what, 10 games going on right now? Maybe try and get a group consensus that... 3 games can sign up to start on a given week? Combined with sign up threads tryimg to get up 2-3 weeks beforehand, this would probably allow a good mount of planning and turnover

[CarlosMucha]

Okay, how about something that's just a page on the sign-up sub-forum, that lists the start dates for various games?

I mean, I don't think that fixes all our problems, but it'd be the most harmless thing we could do, and it's better than what we got.

I like it.

what is the idea? only 1 or 2 weeks begining for week or something like that?

[Amora's_best_friend]

I'm against it really, since I like starting games on a whim.

Like for FMM3, I had the game started 2 days after the sign-ups opened.

[CarlosMucha]

Guys, we need to do something.

there is 20 games playing right now and 15 sign ups.

if we don't do SOMETHING the Mafia Games will IMPLODE!!! :eek:

seriusly.

[CarlosMucha]

Okay, how about something that's just a page on the sign-up sub-forum, that lists the start dates for various games?

I mean, I don't think that fixes all our problems, but it'd be the most harmless thing we could do, and it's better than what we got.

A sticky schedule similar to the Dibs I think would work... We have about, what, 10 games going on right now? Maybe try and get a group consensus that... 3 games can sign up to start on a given week? Combined with sign up threads tryimg to get up 2-3 weeks beforehand, this would probably allow a good mount of planning and turnover


we can have a combination of this 2 ideas.

I like the idea of only 3 games begining each week.