Player queue for S-FMs.
Register

User Tag List

Results 1 to 36 of 36
  1. ISO #1

    Player queue for S-FMs.

    Someone suggested it on a Skype chat a while ago, after being selected as a reserve for five games in a row. Maybe SuperJack. Can't remember.

    Anyway, I thought it was a great concept.

    The idea is to have some sort of queue for S-FMs so we don't end up with scenarios where the same player isn't selected for playing a ton of times in a row.

    The implementation is pretty simple:
    Everyone starts with 0 points, then whenever the player meets the conditions listed below, they get one point.

    - The player must not be participating in any game when signing in.
    - The player should be selected as a reserve.

    When building the players list, hosts will first check the player queue and grant a spot to those who signed in and who have more than 0 points (the more points, the higher the priority), then get the rest at random, as usual.

    Then whenever a player is selected for a game, their points will go back to 0.

    I think this would benefit the players, giving everyone a chance of having something to play most of the time.
    The queue could also help to get some easy stats on the demand for games.

    Thoughts?

  2. ISO #2

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Me like.

    I hated getting gipped out of castle Varian by 1 spot. :C
    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    deathworld's and RLVG's suicides made me lul. I take a lot of pleasure in knowing that I gave you an night action, and that you used it to kill yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    At least Mesk has lewdy lefty and raunchy righty. You're not even Canadian.
    Quote Originally Posted by FM-Shocked Kirby Face View Post
    Deathworlds is simply better than us at this game. Don't kill them for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    fucketh me in the ass

  3. ISO #3

  4. ISO #4

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    What I notic many will do is random if it's not first come first serve and then those who were reserves from that game and did not play will have an auto-in for next game.

    It's really a host discretion thing. I know some host like to handpick the signups for reasons, some just random.org, some first come first serve.

    Overall I like the idea. I just think that not all hosts will follow it. I'm on my iPod posting this so I will give more imput latter when I have a computer to type

  5. ISO #5

  6. ISO #6

  7. ISO #7

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    /support
    Quote Originally Posted by MattZed View Post
    deathworld's and RLVG's suicides made me lul. I take a lot of pleasure in knowing that I gave you an night action, and that you used it to kill yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by yzb25 View Post
    At least Mesk has lewdy lefty and raunchy righty. You're not even Canadian.
    Quote Originally Posted by FM-Shocked Kirby Face View Post
    Deathworlds is simply better than us at this game. Don't kill them for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    fucketh me in the ass

  8. ISO #8

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna
    A Host also does not 'need' to accept you into a game - it takes a lot of work to create a game, and forum mafia relies solely on the people playing to make it as exciting and active as possible. If you feel you've been unfairly treated you can always contact a site moderator, but the easiest way to prevent this from happening is to follow Wheaton's Law - Don't be a Dick.
    This is basically how I feel. I don't think Hosts should have to spend hours making a setup, and then wait a few months to get it approved, solely to have to have a full game of known lurkers. Every game has a few lurkers in it, always, but you don't want to be the Host that pulls the short straw when it's your turn to host. A host should be able to have a say who is in their game.

    If you're getting denied from every single game that you sign for, and feel that the hosts are specifically excluding you, then let BorkBot and I know. This may be classified as a personal attack.

    Maybe a rule that a player can only be in one SFM at any time can be a fair compromise, leaving spots open in other games for people to play in.

    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Blue Masquerader View Post
    Hey moron. shut the fuck up or I will shut you up, k? I'm not the person your going to insult and live happily ever after. K? Understand that,

  9. ISO #9

  10. ISO #10

  11. ISO #11

  12. ISO #12

  13. ISO #13

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Hey Sen, thanks for making this thread. I was the one who came up with the idea and posted in Skype chat about it. I also talked with Crypt about this and he didn't seem to like this idea as much as I did but he told me that I could still post a thread about it but never did.

    So of course, I /support this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Efekannn02 View Post
    i scumreaded him because his posts were gay
    Quote Originally Posted by Magoroth View Post
    ah fuck.
    I HARDCLAIM MASON ASSASSIN.

  14. ISO #14

  15. ISO #15

  16. ISO #16

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dagaen View Post
    As a guy who managed to be in 4 S-FMs at once I approve this idea.

    Also limiting this to 1 FM/M-FM at once OR max 2 S-FM at once would be fine too, because playing 2 at once is perfectly manageable.
    I can manage multiple FM's, haven't had any issues and together with a FM I haven't made any COM-Slips or messups between others.

    Only issue is that I'm european which could lead to contraversial lurkiness mixed with my daylife stuff like gaming.



    On topic of what's said, I say limit players to 1 S-FM at a time during the break-time when there's no FM or M-FM then increase the number of games while a FM or M-FM is running when players are lacking or too focused on the larger FM.

    More S-FM's is hosted during "Break-Time" for higher demand and popularity.

  17. ISO #17

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dagaen View Post
    As a guy who managed to be in 4 S-FMs at once I approve this idea.

    Also limiting this to 1 FM/M-FM at once OR max 2 S-FM at once would be fine too, because playing 2 at once is perfectly manageable.
    Yea, 2 is easily manageable, but we're trying to leave room open for players who aren't currently in games.

    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Blue Masquerader View Post
    Hey moron. shut the fuck up or I will shut you up, k? I'm not the person your going to insult and live happily ever after. K? Understand that,

  18. ISO #18

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    I am against 1 SFM at a time. It just feel too few, as if 2 SFMs are going at the same times and you die by night 1 in both of them. Dying night 1 and waiting an entire week for the game to be over just to sign for another is a pain in the ass.

    I am fine with 2 SFM at a time though, I remember being in 4 SFMs and hosting a SFM at once and i was kinda overwhelmed a little xD

  19. ISO #19

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptonic View Post
    Yea, 2 is easily manageable, but we're trying to leave room open for players who aren't currently in games.
    In general I think hosts should prioritize players that are not in a game, but all in all it should not be a "Limit".
    Spoiler : FM Experience :
    Spoiler : L-FM :
    FMXVII FM Roronoa Zoro - Obvious Jester - Lost, FMXVII FM Ryan - Citizen -Lost
    Spoiler : S-FM :
    S-FM 81 Bus Drivers: Bus Driver - Lost, S-FM 86 Plane Crash: Jailor Won, S-FM 84 Heart of The Swarm: Citizen - Won, S-FM 82 Colonization: Host - 3 Town Survivors, S-FM 71 MLP FiM I: Doctor - Lost, S-FM 68 Democracy: Citizen - Lost

  20. ISO #20

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Well, if you die in the only game that you're playing, I guess that would be considered and not being currently in a game.

    The main purpose is to avoid having someone playing three games at the same time, while someone else has been wating to join a game for two months.

    Another thing would be to have more S-FMs running at the same time. I think I've never seen more than two games open for signups at once.
    That's entirely at Cryptonic and BorkBot's discretion, but I feel that it wouldn't be hard to fill 3 S-FMs at once. ie; the one I'm abou to start is for 8 players and got 17 signups (there will be more reserves than players). SuperJack's one got over 20 signups, iirc.

    I'm aware that some of you have a lot of free time and have no issues handling two or three games at the same time, and the point isn't to punish players, but to try that everyone can have something to play at any time.

  21. ISO #21

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by 42shadow42 View Post
    In general I think hosts should prioritize players that are not in a game, but all in all it should not be a "Limit".
    Then please provide a method that would allow hosts to choose who is in their game without preventing players from ever getting into games.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sen View Post
    Well, if you die in the only game that you're playing, I guess that would be considered and not being currently in a game.

    The main purpose is to avoid having someone playing three games at the same time, while someone else has been wating to join a game for two months.

    Another thing would be to have more S-FMs running at the same time. I think I've never seen more than two games open for signups at once.
    That's entirely at Cryptonic and BorkBot's discretion, but I feel that it wouldn't be hard to fill 3 S-FMs at once. ie; the one I'm abou to start is for 8 players and got 17 signups (there will be more reserves than players). SuperJack's one got over 20 signups, iirc.

    I'm aware that some of you have a lot of free time and have no issues handling two or three games at the same time, and the point isn't to punish players, but to try that everyone can have something to play at any time.
    Yes, you would be able to sign for another one if you died. We attempt to stagger games, such that one will be approved half way through an ongoing game. I don't know why PoD thinks that all on-going games must be 100% finished in order for the next one to be approved.

    Also, more games aren't being approved currently because I am waiting on hosts to respond to questions I have asked in their threads. I can't approve more than there are available, and it is hosts that slow down the Queue.

    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Blue Masquerader View Post
    Hey moron. shut the fuck up or I will shut you up, k? I'm not the person your going to insult and live happily ever after. K? Understand that,

  22. ISO #22

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptonic View Post
    Then please provide a method that would allow hosts to choose who is in their game without preventing players from ever getting into games.
    Host values. I'd hope we already have it. I'd think simply requesting to prioritize players who are not currently playing would be sufficient.
    Spoiler : FM Experience :
    Spoiler : L-FM :
    FMXVII FM Roronoa Zoro - Obvious Jester - Lost, FMXVII FM Ryan - Citizen -Lost
    Spoiler : S-FM :
    S-FM 81 Bus Drivers: Bus Driver - Lost, S-FM 86 Plane Crash: Jailor Won, S-FM 84 Heart of The Swarm: Citizen - Won, S-FM 82 Colonization: Host - 3 Town Survivors, S-FM 71 MLP FiM I: Doctor - Lost, S-FM 68 Democracy: Citizen - Lost

  23. ISO #23

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptonic View Post
    Then please provide a method that would allow hosts to choose who is in their game without preventing players from ever getting into games.
    Maybe making it so the hosts have to pick a % of their players from the list of people not currently in games, and then allow them to either random or hand pick the rest.

    25% of the players or something. That way you aren't forced to give a spot to a known lurker or someone who you consider unfitting for your game just because they aren't currently in a game, and give a chance to play to ~3 players (in a standard 13 players game) who are waiting for something to play.

    Also, more games aren't being approved currently because I am waiting on hosts to respond to questions I have asked in their threads. I can't approve more than there are available, and it is hosts that slow down the Queue.
    Get to work, hosts! We want games.

  24. ISO #24

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sen View Post
    Maybe making it so the hosts have to pick a % of their players from the list of people not currently in games, and then allow them to either random or hand pick the rest.

    25% of the players or something. That way you aren't forced to give a spot to a known lurker or someone who you consider unfitting for your game just because they aren't currently in a game, and give a chance to play to ~3 players (in a standard 13 players game) who are waiting for something to play.
    Yes, I think a compromise like this is in the best interest of both the players and the hosts.

    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Blue Masquerader View Post
    Hey moron. shut the fuck up or I will shut you up, k? I'm not the person your going to insult and live happily ever after. K? Understand that,

  25. ISO #25

  26. ISO #26

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    I disagree with this. I don't think forcing a host to do anything with his/her game is acceptable.

    Like Crypt was saying, if you feel targeted let a mod know. Otherwise, it's the Host's complete discretion on what happens to their respective game.

    We already have a queue system in place for games.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kusco View Post
    Dirty fucking swiss neutral

  27. ISO #27

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    OK i finnaly got time to post a wall of text here for once.

    I stated im not for it yet not against something along the lines of it. i think sen kinda said what i was going to say is that you can sign for them all you like but host should chose those not in games first and other default to resrves, this way players have chances to play and not be outed by random every time. i do think host should retain rights to make final says on who goes in and such but should respect players who are not in one possibly, another reason why i am kinda for this is for the s-fm ladder, if a player gets in every game they geta point. if one player does not but they both sign for it it becomes unfair for them on the ladder. yes the ladder is more of an amusement thing but it then becomes unfair comeptition, that being said come the end of this season we are planning on revamping it and chanign it up to make it more fun and interactive as well. a host should have the final say on who goes in and who does not but should respect the fact that if a player is not in a game they should get priority.

    tl;dr it should be up to host, but a host should chose players who are not in games first.

    but i do agree with crypt on the part that if you feel like you are being outed from playing by a host bias is tell them. i know some host do like to do handpicks, some do random.org, some do first-come first-serve.

  28. ISO #28

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by ika View Post
    OK i finnaly got time to post a wall of text here for once.

    I stated im not for it yet not against something along the lines of it. i think sen kinda said what i was going to say is that you can sign for them all you like but host should chose those not in games first and other default to resrves, this way players have chances to play and not be outed by random every time. i do think host should retain rights to make final says on who goes in and such but should respect players who are not in one possibly, another reason why i am kinda for this is for the s-fm ladder, if a player gets in every game they geta point. if one player does not but they both sign for it it becomes unfair for them on the ladder. yes the ladder is more of an amusement thing but it then becomes unfair comeptition, that being said come the end of this season we are planning on revamping it and chanign it up to make it more fun and interactive as well. a host should have the final say on who goes in and who does not but should respect the fact that if a player is not in a game they should get priority.

    tl;dr it should be up to host, but a host should chose players who are not in games first.

    but i do agree with crypt on the part that if you feel like you are being outed from playing by a host bias is tell them. i know some host do like to do handpicks, some do random.org, some do first-come first-serve.
    tl;dr you contradict yourself :P

    In direct response to your post: if a host allows players into his/her respective game that are already participating in another, that is at their own discretion. Certainly this can increase the chance of players lurking more, the game not being as fun as it could have been, or any other negative aspect you can come up with, but it can also be beneficial. The judgement is left up to the host. If the players don't like the game, the host is the one who would have failed on their part to deliver a fun game.

    With this in mind, some players can handle multiple games at once or a host might just want someone to be in their game. The host can announce if they will allow people in other games to join or not. I know that whenever I try something out I try to spell it out so people know what they are signing for. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to sign to play. If I find myself lacking players willing to participate or the audience that I wanted to attract didn't show up, that means I have something to work on from the hosting perspective.

    In conclusion, players can look towards which hosts they like. Just like how hosts can favor players, players can favor hosts. Of course players picking hosts is rather limited by the queue, but that's another matter.

    Edit: I feel like this might turn into some sort of "hosting awareness" thing. lol
    Quote Originally Posted by Kusco View Post
    Dirty fucking swiss neutral

  29. ISO #29

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blazer View Post
    Edit: I feel like this might turn into some sort of "hosting awareness" thing. lol
    i think that what this mostly is, what i am saying is that host do have decicioson power overall and trying to "controll" the host signups will be a negative impact (the only one sign), but rather be better with chosing players and allow players who are not in games to play over the ones who are currently in one, i can play sevral games at once but when it comes down to it, if i am already in a game i rather give up my spot in second game to a player not playing most of the time first before i play

  30. ISO #30

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by ika View Post
    i think that what this mostly is, what i am saying is that host do have decicioson power overall and trying to "controll" the host signups will be a negative impact (the only one sign), but rather be better with chosing players and allow players who are not in games to play over the ones who are currently in one, i can play sevral games at once but when it comes down to it, if i am already in a game i rather give up my spot in second game to a player not playing most of the time first before i play
    1. Define "rather be better with chosing players". (not the spelling error obv) How do you plan to enforce better choosing? What would you suggest the community do? It looks like you are alluding to restricting the hosts to put those who are not participating in a current game or are new above those who are already playing or experienced. That contradicts your viewpoint of supporting the host's decision.

    2. Then don't sign up when you are already in a game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kusco View Post
    Dirty fucking swiss neutral

  31. ISO #31

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blazer View Post
    1. Define "rather be better with chosing players". (not the spelling error obv) How do you plan to enforce better choosing? What would you suggest the community do? It looks like you are alluding to restricting the hosts to put those who are not participating in a current game or are new above those who are already playing or experienced. That contradicts your viewpoint of supporting the host's decision. ther is no surefire solution, my suggetion moreover is that hosts should chose players that are not in games and if they are handpickinng is to not be biassed, if they random.org it then thats anohter thing

    2. Then don't sign up when you are already in a game. again host discretion, i will sign up for them all becasue i can, that begin said its a host discression thing, if i end up in 5 games, thats 5 games, if i end up in none, i end up in none, if im in sevral and the game has nto begun and a player would like to swap with me i would consider it, however i dont want it to be marked as replacement or make it so that i cant sub in latter becasue i know person X role. I dont do much outside of work besides be on this site so i fill in that time by playing these, overall i have a right to sign up for many as i like, if i had things outside of work and here i probally would not sign up for each one.

    made it easier by answering like this

  32. ISO #32

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    ther is no surefire solution, my suggetion moreover is that hosts should chose players that are not in games and if they are handpickinng is to not be biassed, if they random.org it then thats anohter thing
    OK so you support the part about a % of players not being actively participating already. Since essentially you are saying that hosts should favor those not in games first, to not handpick (because handpicking in itself is a bias) and if random.org happens..? just pick the non-active players first then random.org it? I don't really see support for host discretion here.

    again host discretion, i will sign up for them all becasue i can, that begin said its a host discression thing, if i end up in 5 games, thats 5 games, if i end up in none, i end up in none, if im in sevral and the game has nto begun and a player would like to swap with me i would consider it, however i dont want it to be marked as replacement or make it so that i cant sub in latter becasue i know person X role. I dont do much outside of work besides be on this site so i fill in that time by playing these, overall i have a right to sign up for many as i like, if i had things outside of work and here i probally would not sign up for each one.
    I agree. Host discretion indeed. If somehow the queue allowed 5 games at once and all 5 hosts accepted you, that would be each hosts responsibility to make it work. I was just saying that if you prefer that someone newer or not already in a game have your spot (while you're already in a game), don't sign up in the first place. That solves the problem without having to "force" the host to do anything. I never said you didn't have a right to sign up for as many as you want. I was just providing advice to help your desire come true without the cost of dictating what a host can or cannot do with their own game. After all, I believe hosts have rights as well.


    Easier to answer my foot :P
    Quote Originally Posted by Kusco View Post
    Dirty fucking swiss neutral

  33. ISO #33

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blazer View Post
    OK so you support the part about a % of players not being actively participating already. Since essentially you are saying that hosts should favor those not in games first, to not handpick (because handpicking in itself is a bias) and if random.org happens..? just pick the non-active players first then random.org it? I don't really see support for host discretion here.

    favored i would say is a strong word to use, what im saying is if they random.org, they chose players that are not in games to have an "auto-in" or something, or how some host are doing now, "if you didnt make my first one, you get auto in on my next one" handpick is always biassed but some host do it becasue they have such an elaborate game or want to have a game where they know the players will be active

    I agree. Host discretion indeed. If somehow the queue allowed 5 games at once and all 5 hosts accepted you, that would be each hosts responsibility to make it work. I was just saying that if you prefer that someone newer or not already in a game have your spot (while you're already in a game), don't sign up in the first place. That solves the problem without having to "force" the host to do anything. I never said you didn't have a right to sign up for as many as you want. I was just providing advice to help your desire come true without the cost of dictating what a host can or cannot do with their own game. After all, I believe hosts have rights as well. again host discression, if i get random.orged into 5 games thats what happens, if i make none of them, thats what happens


    Easier to answer my foot :P
    overall like i intially said, there is no real solution, all we can do is monitor and if there is bias in chosing players or players are not getting in then we interveen, as of now i think the system is ok as is becasue as far as i have seen not many (if any) players have really complained about not getting into a game. theres usally enough games going on that enough of the players can get around. if a player is feeling like they never get to play any of the games for bias they tell crypt/bork. If a player is not getting in due to random.org a lot maybe they could pm cryp/bork to arrange it that they do get in the next one.

    as of now it seems like 90% of game players are chosen by the random.org

    if there are enough acitve players that are currently not in the active s-fms maybe we can churn out more but right now there are 3 activee ones, most of them have a diveristy of players as well. there are some overlaps of players but again as far as i know the players have been randomed. sen said for his that if you were in one he would default you to reserve to give other players a chance.

    also you telling me to not sign up is kinda plain dumb (not to be rude) becasuse like i said, if i sign up for 5 of them and get random.org all 5, thats what happens, if i get handpicked for all 5 thats a diffrent story entirly.

    its more right now that when hosts are doing "handpicking" players that this is the problem becasue restricting the host unfair if they chose by doinging it in an unbiassed format (random). if they do it by firstcome (can be semi-biased) you still cant do much. if a host handpicks (there will be biass most likely) then thats a thing, if theres a pattern going on (player A always makes it but player B does not) then thats a problem.

    if a host says "im random.org but players are already in game default to reserve" isnt so much biassed, its more allowing that players who are not in games to have a chance. but then comes the fact that it may be a very unique setup and you never know when it will be hosted again.

    Some host do "ban" players from teir games for some reason or another, one of my restrictions with players is if they have a high infraction count on them when they sign i will more likely then not put them onto reserve by default. is it biassed, yes, but i do it becasue i dont want to have to deal with the part of contacting the replacemnts becasue someone got banned.

  34. ISO #34

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    favored i would say is a strong word to use, what im saying is if they random.org, they chose players that are not in games to have an "auto-in" or something, or how some host are doing now, "if you didnt make my first one, you get auto in on my next one" handpick is always biassed but some host do it becasue they have such an elaborate game or want to have a game where they know the players will be active
    1. That's favored right there. It may be strong but it's what your suggesting....

    2. Yes. That's what I said. What you are suggesting alludes to banning handpicking altogether....

    again host discression, if i get random.orged into 5 games thats what happens, if i make none of them, thats what happens
    ok...yeah...

    overall like i intially said, there is no real solution, all we can do is monitor and if there is bias in chosing players or players are not getting in then we interveen, as of now i think the system is ok as is becasue as far as i have seen not many (if any) players have really complained about not getting into a game. theres usally enough games going on that enough of the players can get around. if a player is feeling like they never get to play any of the games for bias they tell crypt/bork. If a player is not getting in due to random.org a lot maybe they could pm cryp/bork to arrange it that they do get in the next one.
    So if a host picks who he/she wants in a game you step in and say "No. You can't do that. You have to let these people play."? Contradicting your host discretion here.

    I haven't seen any complaints really either...but I don't see everything :P and yeah, pming the mods if personal attacks occur was something I thought would be fair enough.

    also you telling me to not sign up is kinda plain dumb (not to be rude) becasuse like i said, if i sign up for 5 of them and get random.org all 5, thats what happens, if i get handpicked for all 5 thats a diffrent story entirly.
    I'm not telling you to do/not do anything. Like I said 2 times: If you want someone new or not (or currently in a game or not) to take your spot, a way to achieve that goal effectively without infringing upon the host is to simply not sign up. That solves how you proclaimed "If someone was not in a game I would rather them have my spot" POST 29

    if i am already in a game i rather give up my spot in second game to a player not playing most of the time first before i play
    its more right now that when hosts are doing "handpicking" players that this is the problem becasue restricting the host unfair if they chose by doinging it in an unbiassed format (random). if they do it by firstcome (can be semi-biased) you still cant do much. if a host handpicks (there will be biass most likely) then thats a thing, if theres a pattern going on (player A always makes it but player B does not) then thats a problem.
    You are restricting the host if you tell them they HAVE to random.org it completely. Even changing how they select 1 person is restricting them. Besides, your statistic says that 90% of the games are being random.org'd anyways and that no one has really complained. Why make a rule restricting the hosts when it's not really a big problem? And you even said if someone is constantly not getting in a game to PM a mod. Seems like that settles that problem...

    if a host says "im random.org but players are already in game default to reserve" isnt so much biassed, its more allowing that players who are not in games to have a chance. but then comes the fact that it may be a very unique setup and you never know when it will be hosted again.
    Ummm...that's definitely a bias when you exclude people like that. Excluding someone because of something like 'they are already in a game' is a bias...whether its good or bad is subjective, but a bias nonetheless. I'm not sure how your last sentence in this quote relates..

    Some host do "ban" players from teir games for some reason or another, one of my restrictions with players is if they have a high infraction count on them when they sign i will more likely then not put them onto reserve by default. is it biassed, yes, but i do it becasue i dont want to have to deal with the part of contacting the replacemnts becasue someone got banned.
    This is a perfect example of bias and host discretion. Imagine the site telling you "No they aren't in any games and they haven't played in a while. You HAVE to let them play." Seems rather vexing doesn't it? Who you let in your game is your business. It's your setup, your rules, your idea, and your player list.

    Edit: This totally got derailed...my bad...
    Last edited by Blazer; October 1st, 2013 at 10:41 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kusco View Post
    Dirty fucking swiss neutral

  35. ISO #35

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blazer View Post
    Edit: This totally got derailed...my bad...
    it kinda did so im just about done with this becasue we are going back and forth now just the 2 of us, overall i think there are no problems with how hosts do it right now, i have yet to see/hear any complaints.

    long story short: that there is really no surefire way to do it, we are only humans and when this truly becomes a problem the mods/players/host will find a solution (much like how we fixed the thing with pre-signing)

  36. ISO #36

    Re: Player queue for S-FMs.

    Lack of S-FM signups were due to there being a FM going on.

    I don't think there is a problem, and if there really is, couldn't we just make a thread where you sign up for the next available game, and its first come, first serve? (Don't do this)
    Quote Originally Posted by Elixir View Post
    You should be priviledged to experience bestmas.

    "waah the screen is shaking, waah my delicate eyes".

    Fuck sake.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. S-FM Setup Review & Approval Queue
    By BorkBot in forum Setup Workshop
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 26th, 2014, 11:05 AM
  2. Queue Archive
    By ika in forum Setup Workshop
    Replies: 117
    Last Post: May 6th, 2014, 08:08 AM
  3. S-FM Queue
    By clementine in forum Forum Mafia Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 9th, 2013, 05:14 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 14th, 2011, 02:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •