-vote skip
Can't say for sure how many votes are needed for something to happen tho
Printable View
-vote skip
Can't say for sure how many votes are needed for something to happen tho
I agree with yayap
I'd say that polling would be a better alternative to doing an outright skip of a setup if there are multiple people looking to host at once. If a setup does not appeal to very many people, it will ultimately get pushed back in the queue in favor for setups that are more appealing to more players. As long as the players are enjoying the setups that are being hosted, that is what ultimately matters most.
If there aren't a lot of people looking to host at once, I think it's fine to let whoever host, provided that they get appropriate signups. If people are then unhappy with the setups getting hosted, they are more heavily incentivized to bring forward their own setups.
I am against this.
Why the current system wouldn't be significatively improved: The setup approval system is here to make sure setups are playable, that they won't fail (because of loopholes for example), and that they are interesting to play. This doesn't mean that some members won't dislike a setup; it means that it is enjoyable for enough people to get played, else people wouldn't sign for the games.
Everyone has a different definition of "shitty setup" because of different tastes, with a common ground on the matter. This common ground is the exact thing that is filtered by the approval system.
About hidden setups, some are reviewed and/or created by staff. Some others are experimental, which means that if you don't like it, you don't sign for that one and you play the non-experimental game. And if you don't like any, it's probably time to step in and make one yourself/get involved in someone's setup to make it something you consider fun, and that's the strenght of the Workshop.
Why skipping setups would be bad: It's telling someone "Your setup is bad", basically, and it is not useful. If a setup is deemed that bad by the entire community, it just won't fill and will get put down. Fortunately, we don't have to do this, since people play the setups and enjoy them. As I repeated over and over in this thread, if you think something in a setup should change and want to get involved in the community, you should get into the setup workshop and comment, it's always welcomed!
Auckmid, about your poll idea, I don't think it's bad, but I don't see how it is better than just not signing for setups that you don't find interesting, even after having talked about it in the setup thread. It feels like over-complicating things; plus, if people won't take time to help building setups, I don't know if they will take time to vote on polls.
Polling for games isn't necessarily something I feel that strongly about. However:
1) Just because people sign up for a game doesn't mean that they really enjoy the setup. It sometimes means that they see playing in the setup as preferable to not playing at all. Additionally, encouraging people not to sign up for setups that they don't love can start a bit of toxic mentality of wanting to see signups fail for people. Polling averts that.
2) I HEAVILY disagree with the statement that because most people don't help to build setups that most people will not vote in polls. Even if you don't particularly like the setup, coming up with how to articulate that criticism can be hard for a lot of people. Voting for which setup you like more is extremely easy for most people.
Voting for setups is pro town.
Discouraging this suggestion is scum motivated.
Give the public a voice
I agree with the sentiment that "Voting for setups" is "good" on the surface, but is it really that different than signs?
Assuming people can vote for more than one poll option at a time, how is that any different than signing for different setups? Signing and voting function as the same thing. The only difference in this poll for setups is that it's in one organized place.
I assume if setup A is posted before setup B, but setup B fills faster, setup B would be next to play, right?...
But then there's the concern that none of the setups fill up.
I dunno, this setup queue thing has been the standard on this site for a long time. Why change it? It's worked well thus far.
That's what I meant, but in better words.
No, people post signups even when there's one ongoing now, because the community grew and grows (and will grow). As Mag said, if too many people were to post signups at the same time, there would be an issue of no filling.
The current signups subforum literally proves you wrong, and this since some weeks now.
A big issue I see in all suggestions here is that people who want to change the system are wanting to change it too fast. If you want a change to a system that works very well but requires a large playerbase, you can't just say "put it in place and the playerbase will follow". The site would drop, or at least become less fun.
So, Damus, your accusations are baseless.-vote Damus_Graves
Funny enough, I see your accusations as baseless lol you are just assuming it wont work without a large player base, but I dont see what the difference would be. Games will still be signed for, the only difference is there will occasionally be a larger pool of games to sign for. And if there are no signups, then FM staff should step in an help the section by hosting a game or finding a host.
You haven't been around long enough to see how the queue is busted against both players and hosts. Nothing kills site activity more then 5 games in a row that no one wanted to play, while the hosts waiting for a month get bored of waiting and are no longer interested in hosting lol
Why would there be no filling if there were more signups?? I dont understand that logic. And past the first week, it's not like the signup subforum would have a large amount of threads. You say we are too small for a system like that, but the small community will also create less signups than a large community, making the system manageable for any size of community.
...
MM, you would be content with nothing changing it seems. But legit there is only 1 person posting in here other than you that thinks the system is a good system lol. Doesnt that tell you something?
Maybe you can tell us how we can improve the current system? You suggested we build on it, but dont really offer suggestions on that.
Crypt I had deleted my post with ... becuse well to be honest you make very Vaild points. Nothing I can disagree with. A helpful solution is once it is marked ready for review why not have a requirement to add a poll in there setup like I did in Timmy town. https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...849-Timmy-Town This would truly allow players to express interest levels with out fear of being called out for it. To advoid the play drop from boring saves. As you put it. If you are afraid of polls then don’t post a save.
I think the gripe here was against the FM queue, and not the current system, which is as you just described it.
Edit: Never mind. The queue is still in place.
I don't really see anything wrong with having a queue. Like I said we could always vote on the setup order, although that may not always work since some people might sign for one and some might not.
A setup ranking system wouldn't really work well either for anything other than the worst setups, for reasons already cited.
The only thing I can think of right now is that we could make the decision-to-sign process somewhat more organised and simpler, by putting setups into certain categories like, "Hidden", "Classic", "Powerfest", "Bastard", "Nightless", by adding some prefixes to the "Ongoing Forum Mafia Games" and "Signups" subforums
it is fundamentally up to the hosts whether people will sign or not though. if a game is particularly interesting, hosts can simply negotiate setup order amongst themselves. Obviously they would have take people's opinions into account as well.
So currently there are 5-6 people who want to host games. so that would be 6 games sitting there for signups. we have about 10-20 people who actively play, so approx 30% of the community would have a signup open. What happens if this community grows and we have 10-20+ signups sitting there? lol we would definitely need a cap on maximum amount of signups aloud, which would then reopen the queue system but just allowing more signups to be open at once.
The main problem I see with this system is that, lets say someones game doesn't fill until 2-3 games go before it. That would leave the host having to re-contact and verify the people who signed early when it was released to make sure they still want to play (or are even there); Thus delaying the game further waiting for all their responses. on the other side, if a game fills thats been left up for a few weeks there is a possibility the host will now be busy, so the game would have to be cancelled. With a community this small I do not see this type of system being beneficial at all. If anything, the site needs to be cleaned up and reworked/updated to even bring in more people before we start trying to change core systems that have been in place for awhile, and have been working.
A counter concern that this seems to be trying to address is not wanting multiple games hosted in a row that people do not want to play. That is where knowing the community (and being this small, it's not too hard) comes into play. The main reason people currently play is because of who we are playing with. We have developed a core group of players that will play pretty much any setup because we enjoy to play with each other. Mafia is a social game more than a mechanical game, so I think that needs to be the prime focus on how the systems work. If the site grows drastically, yes then maybe some systems should get tweaked, but usually that is addressed as it grows. Hell, we play nightless all citizen setups haha I don't think you can get much more dull than that, but yet they are incredibly fun :)
Yes. Focus on fixing/cleaning up the website so new people will want to come play here. Then addressing a system based off the communities needs is what the best course of action would be. Rather than trying to "plan" for that to happen and predict what would be best. Doin things backwards here! xD