Necessary Changes to FM
Register

User Tag List

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 101
  1. ISO #1

    Necessary Changes to FM

    So in light of my ban (which will of course be addressed by someone as some fallacy to disregard my points here), I thought about what is wrong with SFM and FMs in general.

    My thoughts are basically summing it up this way:

    There is no accountability for mod fuck ups.


    What do I mean by this?
    I mean, if a game is poorly made, poorly hosted, or just bad handled in anyway. We go, "Welp that sucks, onto the next game".

    Nothing becomes of it.
    Yes, people say "ohhh well we know for next time"

    Yet these mistakes often happen time and time again, and certainly with the same people.

    A carrot and stick approach should be made for hosts who mishandle games or handle them very well.

    I will try to form a very thought out list here of solutions and problems without turning this into a diatribe

    So these are the thoughts I am thinking in which to IMPROVE the system:
    1) We need every setup not only approved on a surface level of balance, but an actual role list of balance.
    This is a major cause for concern, players will sign up for game often without looking at setup, they are often looked at as to blame for the game they signed up for being bad "You should have known", "you could have questioned it", Like, what game developer blames its players for the issues?

    We should have the host select a role list and another FM staff member tells them whether it is acceptable or not and this goes on until staff member gives go ahead. If players voice concern, it is on the staff member not the host for role list in game.
    2) If FM staff approve bad setup after bad setup, they should be removed from approving setups. This can either be from just the setup itself or the role list in the game. Which I think should be separate duties, but obviously this might be hard since lots of FM staff play in the games as well.

    3) We need fucking competition in the queue.
    You know what competition does? It makes it so the consumer ultimately decides what has the most value and gives them power. The power right now is centered in hosts making bad games and theres no incentive for them to improve. While on a surface level you care about your customer, if you can fuck over your customer and they have no alternatives, guess what? They either quit or keep playing.

    Allow multiple games to sign up at same time.
    Games are in sign ups for a selected period of time. Perhaps 10-12 days.
    If they don't fill, they are removed.

    Players decide the games.
    Hosts have to make games appealing to players.

    4) Some carrot rewards for good hosts.
    Best host of SFM gets to host the MFM or FM or something. Some sort of way for us to have more competition in order for the Hosts to actually really really want to perform well.
    Maybe preferred queue status.
    Maybe giving them simple awards.

    I would put in official surveys post game to rate the job the host did on metrics like timing, accuracy and setup design.

    5) Host need a stick to stop making bad games.
    A bad game either poorly modded with mod errors, or setups or w/e should have SOME, it doesn't have to be severe but should have some weight.
    Continuous problem hosts should carry heavier weights. This isn't to say ban from site, this is to say penalties in games.

    For instance, you can make it so the host needs a back up host for their games to ensure everything goes smoothly.
    Or post game sign up rules needing a specific number of presigns before their game can really go into sign ups.
    Or suspension from hosting a game for specific length of time.


    I am running out of steam here.
    If anyone has questions/comments/whatever through them here.

    I think all of these should be implemented in some way.
    Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.

  2. ISO #2

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Thanks for posting this.

    There has been some ongoing discussion regarding parts of this post, and the FM Staff will discuss this post in private.

    I encourage other members of the community to post in this thread with their thoughts and opinions regarding the OP.

    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,

  3. ISO #3

  4. ISO #4

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptonic View Post
    Thanks for posting this.

    There has been some ongoing discussion regarding parts of this post, and the FM Staff will discuss this post in private.

    I encourage other members of the community to post in this thread with their thoughts and opinions regarding the OP.
    @Cryptonic @Unknown1234 @deathworlds @MattZed

    Why must it be privatized? I would like to see more transparency from the FM staff about this stuff, i would understand if there are players in question thats going to be discussed in private but i would like to see a more open discussion instead of this "well talk here but you cant see what we think"

    it would be better for the discussion if the fm had a response to what they agree/disagree with and why so we can give more input on why a player agrees/disagrees with the said idea

    on that topic though, i would like it to be an FM rule to bar trust tells. from last game it has been a pattern for mesk to do that onyl as town to claim cit. so it basicly confirms herself as town when she does so and scum when she does not.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverWolf View Post
    I think there should be that you have to have an experienced co-host for your next game, if there are serious issues with mod errors or the game turns out to be poorly balanced.
    this^ both me and silverwolf will be happy to co-host any games that are needed. I do think that when there are concerns that any player brings up (ie masquerade) that it should be thoroughly addressed instead of shrugged off by the FM staff or host themselves. We all saw how in that game i was basically town read for what was my own playstyle and apparently just posting. It also broke the core mechanic in the sense that im impossible to emulate.

    my issue has been that when people bring up issues i feel like some people go "no it works its fine" without really addressing the issue

  5. ISO #5

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    It is privatized so that we can have a discussion about it without influencing this thread and allowing community members to comment without FM Staff bias being implemented or knocking down ideas.

    We will present what we come up with at the end of the discussion.

    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,

  6. ISO #6

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    I would like your thoughts on these points Cryptonic even if its not "official FM opinion" personal thoughts are welcome here.

    Like I said I think punishment and reward system are needed for hosts because it is a job or service.
    -Someone should have their name signed to the final role list of a game
    -Hosts should be punished for making mistakes to create incentive for them not to
    -Hosts should be rewarded for doing a good job to again create incentive for them to make good games
    -We should allow more games into sign ups at a time so that open competition in setups/hosts creates a better quality standard of games.

    If anyone disagrees with any of these, please explain why in details you think its not necessary or harmful or w/e.
    Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.

  7. ISO #7

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptonic View Post
    It is privatized so that we can have a discussion about it without influencing this thread and allowing community members to comment without FM Staff bias being implemented or knocking down ideas.

    We will present what we come up with at the end of the discussion.
    will there be more discussion about he ideas after or would it just be set in stone cus my issue i foresee is that the playerbase might come out on one of the ideas and be "WHY IS THIS A THING"

    I understand the reasons but i am worried about the backlash of "well heres the new stuff deal with it" cus thats how im interpreting it right now. feel free to correct me if im wrong on this

  8. ISO #8

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    I'll give my thoughts later, after other people post. I will say that I wouldn't bother discussing this in private if I didn't agree with some of the things you've brought up.

    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

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    I don't really play non FM games, but I would think that there would be enough 'stick' with 'so called shitty hosts' getting a rep for bad games.

    If a host keeps making poor games, me, as a player, would probably start to remember that and stop signing up for said host.

    -----------------------
    I'm mainly chiming in here to see which assumptions I've made are wrong.

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  11. ISO #11

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    I don't really play non FM games, but I would think that there would be enough 'stick' with 'so called shitty hosts' getting a rep for bad games.

    If a host keeps making poor games, me, as a player, would probably start to remember that and stop signing up for said host.

    -----------------------
    I'm mainly chiming in here to see which assumptions I've made are wrong.
    Your point makes sense in theory, but just not sure that's how it works out in practice. Typically, only one game at a time is allowed to solicit signs and it's fairly rare for a game to be taken down due to lack of signs. So, what often happens is an unpopular game is posted, people groan / don't want to sign, but eventually do just because they don't want to wait 3 weeks - a month before another game is going to be allowed to take signs.

    This goes to FB's point about allowing multiple games to solicit signs at the same time so that people can vote for which of the two they want to play (both, one or the other, or neither). I know it's not as great for hosts (who have a lesser chance of their games being played), but at the end of the day, I'd rather discourage a host slightly (who can tweak / revise their game and represent it later) vs. discourage the entire playerbase with poor setups.

  12. ISO #12

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    I don't really play non FM games, but I would think that there would be enough 'stick' with 'so called shitty hosts' getting a rep for bad games.

    If a host keeps making poor games, me, as a player, would probably start to remember that and stop signing up for said host.

    -----------------------
    I'm mainly chiming in here to see which assumptions I've made are wrong.
    I mean you would think so but a few things tied to other things I said.
    We only have maybe 2 games in sign ups at a time, most of time is one.
    So if a bad host is in there you think okay won't sing up?
    Well now that bad host is backlogging the queue for weeks while it waits to fill.
    I don't think any game has been pulled because it took too long to fill.

    So the game will be played, just a matter if you are unlucky to be in it.

    If for instance you aren't busy at certain time of year and have free time you can't really wait for a good host to enter in sign ups.
    Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.

  13. ISO #13

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by DarknessB View Post
    Your point makes sense in theory, but just not sure that's how it works out in practice. Typically, only one game at a time is allowed to solicit signs and it's fairly rare for a game to be taken down due to lack of signs. So, what often happens is an unpopular game is posted, people groan / don't want to sign, but eventually do just because they don't want to wait 3 weeks - a month before another game is going to be allowed to take signs.

    This goes to FB's point about allowing multiple games to solicit signs at the same time so that people can vote for which of the two they want to play (both, one or the other, or neither). I know it's not as great for hosts (who have a lesser chance of their games being played), but at the end of the day, I'd rather discourage a host slightly (who can tweak / revise their game and represent it later) vs. discourage the entire playerbase with poor setups.
    Probably better said by darkness here
    Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.

  14. ISO #14

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    oh yeah, what I said doesn't really work with a 1 host at a time deal, and probably not even with 2. +1 for the 'timeout' idea.

    ---

    though I figure my opinion shouldn't matter as much as other people who play and host s-fms

    FM XVII: Bonney Jewelry (Journalist)
    FM XVIII: Kalou (Savage Godfather)
    FM XX: Joseph Bertrand (Marshall)
    FM XXI: USA (Escort)
    FM XV: Whiskey (Whore)

  15. ISO #15

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    It's always the same problem : for two or more games to be in the signups at the same time, i do think this site needs more players, if a game can take quite some time to fill up when it's the only one open to signups, try to imagine how long it would take to get a game going with three of them at the same time.
    [23:19:33] DarknessB: Sino is Mass Murderer -- I don't care if there isn't one in the setup!
    [23:19:39] DarknessB:
    -vote Sino

  16. ISO #16

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    I would like your thoughts on these points Cryptonic even if its not "official FM opinion" personal thoughts are welcome here.

    Like I said I think punishment and reward system are needed for hosts because it is a job or service.
    -Someone should have their name signed to the final role list of a game
    -Hosts should be punished for making mistakes to create incentive for them not to
    -Hosts should be rewarded for doing a good job to again create incentive for them to make good games
    -We should allow more games into sign ups at a time so that open competition in setups/hosts creates a better quality standard of games.

    If anyone disagrees with any of these, please explain why in details you think its not necessary or harmful or w/e.
    I'd be in favor of a "strike" system for host errors. And when I say host errors, I mean big time things like night feedback, game mechanics, etc. -- the types of things which might materially impact a game:

    Strike 1 (Warning): FM Staff strongly encourages you to be more careful when you host in the future.
    Strike 2 (Co-Host Required): FM Staff requires you to have a co-host for your next 1-2 games (depending on severity).
    Strike 3 (Indefinite Co-Host & Queue De-Prioritization): FM Staff requires you to have a co-host for the foreseeable future (until there's confidence you won't make hosting errors). Your games are also put below other players' in the queue.

    The hope would be that Strike 3 never needs to be used (or really, that players that keep making hosting errors would want the co-hosting help anyway), but this at least adds some teeth to prevent the same thing from happening each time, as it has been in some cases. Obviously, this would reset over time as well -- someone who makes a mistake in 2014 shouldn't be on Strike 2 if an error happens in a 2017 hosted game.
    Last edited by DarknessB; December 23rd, 2016 at 11:34 AM.

  17. ISO #17

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Sino View Post
    It's always the same problem : for two or more games to be in the signups at the same time, i do think this site needs more players, if a game can take quite some time to fill up when it's the only one open to signups, try to imagine how long it would take to get a game going with three of them at the same time.
    You seem to be missing the point though -- the idea is to allow players to have their pick of setups vs. just having to play whatever is out there even if they don't like the game idea. Merely because it's your turn to host a game doesn't mean the game is actually going to take off. There's also some host responsibility in drumming up interest in your setup. While there's some importance in encouraging hosts, many of us think the balance has tipped in the other direction with hosts being able to trot out bad setups repeatedly, and the playerbase having little choice but to sign or not play anything here for a while.
    Last edited by DarknessB; December 23rd, 2016 at 11:40 AM.

  18. ISO #18

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Economics talk right now since I am mood to school more people in that.
    What you have here is limiting supply in order to make demand more attractive.

    It's obvious why it's done, you want all games to fill, there's not much better way to do that than make sure no competition exists so you are the only one offering something to supply the demand.

    You introduce more games and people have choices and suddenly the demand might not exceed supply.
    This is bad for hosts because some of the games won't be played.
    Great for players because they get something they want.

    Hosts work harder to attract players and players become more picky about what they sign up for.
    Wonder why nobody reads setup?
    Well if you don't have an option do you care what you get?
    Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.

  19. ISO #19

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by DarknessB View Post
    You seem to be missing the point though -- the idea is to allow players to have their pick of setups vs. just having to play whatever is out there even if they don't like the game idea. Merely because it's your turn to host a game doesn't mean the game is actually going to take off. There's also some host responsibility in drumming up interest in your setup. While there's some importance in encouraging hosts, many of us think the balance has tipped in the other direction with hosts being able to trot out bad setups repeatedly, and the playerbase having little choice but to sign or not play anything here for a while.
    Don't worry, i got the point, i'm just sharing my worries of potential side effects to these ideas.

    Just to put that into perspective : how many players do regularly play S-FMs ?
    [23:19:33] DarknessB: Sino is Mass Murderer -- I don't care if there isn't one in the setup!
    [23:19:39] DarknessB:
    -vote Sino

  20. ISO #20

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Sino View Post
    Don't worry, i got the point, i'm just sharing my worries of potential side effects to these ideas.

    Just to put that into perspective : how many players do regularly play S-FMs ?
    Yes, some games will not get played in the proposed system
    Depending on how competitive it is, it could be many games.

    But if they don't get played that means they saw a better alternative and that you should make improvements to your game.
    Don't pet growlithe, he will bite you.

  21. ISO #21

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Sino View Post
    Don't worry, i got the point, i'm just sharing my worries of potential side effects to these ideas.

    Just to put that into perspective : how many players do regularly play S-FMs ?
    The S-FM player base has fluctuated with time -- I agree we don't have a particularly strong playerbase right now in terms of numbers.

    Perhaps another idea might be slightly smaller setups and running more frequent games vs. lots of 13 player games which are run less frequently. The Instant Mafia games were a good idea that could be replicated as well (where the game ends after one lynch, but the game can be re-run quickly). They also allow players to be involved as a one-off over a couple of days (e.g. a single 48-72 hour game day) vs. needing to devote a week or more to a game. Also good from the standpoint of allowing players to practice in what's essentially a LYLO situation where they need to lynch correctly or lose. We have many players who could use that practice and it would cut down on the shitposting issue as well (since there's not as much time to mess around).

  22. ISO #22

  23. ISO #23

  24. ISO #24

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Cryptonic View Post
    We are currently around 25 S-FM players.
    Quote Originally Posted by DarknessB View Post
    The S-FM player base has fluctuated with time -- I agree we don't have a particularly strong playerbase right now in terms of numbers.

    Perhaps another idea might be slightly smaller setups and running more frequent games vs. lots of 13 player games which are run less frequently. The Instant Mafia games were a good idea that could be replicated as well (where the game ends after one lynch, but the game can be re-run quickly). They also allow players to be involved as a one-off over a couple of days (e.g. a single 48-72 hour game day) vs. needing to devote a week or more to a game. Also good from the standpoint of allowing players to practice in what's essentially a LYLO situation where they need to lynch correctly or lose. We have many players who could use that practice and it would cut down on the shitposting issue as well (since there's not as much time to mess around).
    Yeah, smaller games might be a good idea, we should be able to get 2 running at a same time, maybe even 3.
    [23:19:33] DarknessB: Sino is Mass Murderer -- I don't care if there isn't one in the setup!
    [23:19:39] DarknessB:
    -vote Sino

  25. ISO #25

  26. ISO #26

  27. ISO #27

  28. ISO #28

  29. ISO #29

  30. ISO #30

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Gyrlander View Post
    Oh well, I was responding to the "25-SM Players that regularly play S-FM"
    There are between 25-30 different users that signed up for the last few games

    Edit: I also never said regularly. Reading comp, man
    Last edited by Cryptonic; December 23rd, 2016 at 12:16 PM.

    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,

  31. ISO #31

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    Dino I think your missing the point.
    It's not about "how many games can we get going at a time"
    It's "how can we get GOOD games going
    I know, just warning you, you might end up with no games going on at all if you take this too far.
    [23:19:33] DarknessB: Sino is Mass Murderer -- I don't care if there isn't one in the setup!
    [23:19:39] DarknessB:
    -vote Sino

  32. ISO #32

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by ika View Post
    Where did you get this number? I mean yes it's holidays but the big fm doesn't have that many.

    Perot: again where are these 15-25 players cus most times we have a struggle getting 13
    I never said we have 25 users signing for every game.
    People have lives and aren't always free, nor do they want to play every setup.

    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,

  33. ISO #33

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by ika View Post
    Where did you get this number? I mean yes it's holidays but the big fm doesn't have that many.

    Perot: again where are these 15-25 players cus most times we have a struggle getting 13
    Off the top of my head:

    Regulars

    1. MattZed
    2. Gyrlander
    3. Sino (as of late)
    4. Mesk
    5. Unknown
    6. ika
    7. SW
    8. RLVG (as of late)
    9. Secondpassing
    10. Yzb
    11. Frozen Angel
    12. DW (as of late)
    13. SJ (as of late)
    14. Banana


    Occasional


    1. Crypt
    2. Orpz
    3. Darkness (very infrequently now)
    4. Calix (seems to have site quit again)
    5. Firebringer
    6. Arrow
    7. PTB (seems to have site quit)
    8. Quick
    9. Stereo
    10. Iced
    11. Yuki
    12. ThePaladin

  34. ISO #34

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Friendly reminder to all to keep any comments on this thread relevant to the thread discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mesk514 View Post
    1-I really and truly believe @Unknown1234 is town. He stuck by me when I needed him
    Quote Originally Posted by Gyrlander View Post
    Wow, this game was really easy. I just had to talk dumb shit to survive some days more. :P
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    If sheriff cleared you honestly I would take him out of my town core and put him as scum.

  35. ISO #35

  36. ISO #36

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by DarknessB View Post
    Off the top of my head:

    Regulars

    1. MattZed
    2. Gyrlander
    3. Sino (as of late)
    4. Mesk
    5. Unknown
    6. ika
    7. SW
    8. RLVG (as of late)
    9. Secondpassing
    10. Yzb
    11. Frozen Angel
    12. DW (as of late)
    13. SJ (as of late)
    14. Banana


    Occasional


    1. Crypt
    2. Orpz
    3. Darkness (very infrequently now)
    4. Calix (seems to have site quit again)
    5. Firebringer
    6. Arrow
    7. PTB (seems to have site quit)
    8. Quick
    9. Stereo
    10. Iced
    11. Yuki
    12. ThePaladin
    I feel like the players you have named have kinda justified my concerns for the lack of players.

    I don't count infreaquent as "players who come around" I am referring to people who are around on a regular basis to play.

    And you also note that 4 of the regulars are "as of late" and me and silver ***** more then not. Now add in that one of them are usually hosting and we have about 8 "active" players

    My concern is this: we need more player but we need to figure out how.

    Yes I am at work so I can't make a big post yet but when I get home I can

  37. ISO #37

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by ika View Post
    I feel like the players you have named have kinda justified my concerns for the lack of players.

    I don't count infreaquent as "players who come around" I am referring to people who are around on a regular basis to play.

    And you also note that 4 of the regulars are "as of late" and me and silver ***** more then not. Now add in that one of them are usually hosting and we have about 8 "active" players

    My concern is this: we need more player but we need to figure out how.

    Yes I am at work so I can't make a big post yet but when I get home I can
    Oh, I don't disagree at all -- there's not a good critical mass of players, which explains the difficulty in getting reserves for games as well. I.e. if more than one person needs to replace out, the host is usually in a bind these days, whereas in the past, there were usually 2-3 reserves for every game.

  38. ISO #38

  39. ISO #39

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Back-up mods should be mandatory, two back-ups for the larger games.

    All it takes is a serious health issue, or a power outage due to natural disaster, or a computer crash, and a fast-paced game this site favors stops cold.

    I agree with the points Firebringer made.




    As for getting new members, remodeling the site and enticing a new demographic is your best bet.

    Lose the Pepe frogs. Right now. They are racially offensive and not cute or funny.

    Go with different color schemes. Not everyone enjoys a black/dark grey background, try medium grey/light grey, light blue/light grey, medium pink/light grey.

    Drag your parents and grandparents in here. I'm old and I love this shit. Working the brain wards off senility.


    If more people come in here, more games - and more variation - are possible. Nightless, Vanilla, Micro, C and J9 ++, Matrix 13 and 16, Bastard, Theme... all of which need good, reliable mods.
    "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Hitler. Satan. That's power. It only helps us when people are blind to who we are and what we're doing."
    - Steve Bannon

  40. ISO #40

  41. ISO #41

  42. ISO #42

  43. ISO #43

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebringer View Post
    Yet these mistakes often happen time and time again, and certainly with the same people.

    1) We need every setup not only approved on a surface level of balance, but an actual role list of balance.
    This is a major cause for concern, players will sign up for game often without looking at setup, they are often looked at as to blame for the game they signed up for being bad "You should have known", "you could have questioned it", Like, what game developer blames its players for the issues?

    We should have the host select a role list and another FM staff member tells them whether it is acceptable or not and this goes on until staff member gives go ahead. If players voice concern, it is on the staff member not the host for role list in game.
    2) If FM staff approve bad setup after bad setup, they should be removed from approving setups. This can either be from just the setup itself or the role list in the game. Which I think should be separate duties, but obviously this might be hard since lots of FM staff play in the games as well.

    3) We need fucking competition in the queue.
    You know what competition does? It makes it so the consumer ultimately decides what has the most value and gives them power. The power right now is centered in hosts making bad games and theres no incentive for them to improve. While on a surface level you care about your customer, if you can fuck over your customer and they have no alternatives, guess what? They either quit or keep playing.

    Allow multiple games to sign up at same time.
    Games are in sign ups for a selected period of time. Perhaps 10-12 days.
    If they don't fill, they are removed.

    Players decide the games.
    Hosts have to make games appealing to players.

    4) Some carrot rewards for good hosts.
    Best host of SFM gets to host the MFM or FM or something. Some sort of way for us to have more competition in order for the Hosts to actually really really want to perform well.
    Maybe preferred queue status.
    Maybe giving them simple awards.

    I would put in official surveys post game to rate the job the host did on metrics like timing, accuracy and setup design.

    5) Host need a stick to stop making bad games.
    A bad game either poorly modded with mod errors, or setups or w/e should have SOME, it doesn't have to be severe but should have some weight.
    Continuous problem hosts should carry heavier weights. This isn't to say ban from site, this is to say penalties in games.

    For instance, you can make it so the host needs a back up host for their games to ensure everything goes smoothly.
    Or post game sign up rules needing a specific number of presigns before their game can really go into sign ups.
    Or suspension from hosting a game for specific length of time.
    In the Defense of Hosts

    "Yet these mistakes often happen time and time again, and certainly with the same people."
    Incorrect statement. Mistakes happen a few times, but I highly doubt hosts intentionally do this. I appreciate your effort in addressing this, but I feel this is insulting to the hosts who have made mod errors and handled them to the best of their ability. No one wants to make mod errors. Who goes through the trouble of waiting in queue for months just to have their own game mess up?

    1) Some players, including myself see balance as one ideal, not a reality. I think that setups should be designed with some semblance of balance, but it does not need to be hard calculated. If players have problems with balance, just reccomend the host ask FM Ladder to take their game off being point scored. Players playing a game outside of vanilla queue should expect that the game might not be counted towards points.

    2) FM staff DON'T approve bad setup after bad setup. The setups that come out are fabulous. Crypt is wonderful at balance, and so are all the other members of FM staff. (with the exception of Unknown1234, he's okay :] ) If players think that the setups being approved are poor in quality, they should voice their concerns using a thread with a poll or within the setup workshop after/before approval.

    3) I would like to keep queues with one or two games in the signups. This makes it simple for the consumer to pick which one they want to play. I agree that there should be a time limit on games, but at FM staff's discretion. They can take into account the number of players visiting the site, as well as other factors that would be better than a hard and fast rule.

    4) I can back with giving hosts simple rewards (maybe a medal?). For hosts, hosting good games is its own reward. If I played a FM I enjoyed, read a FM that was entertaining, or even simply liked a setup I didn't even play, I always show my appreciation towards the host (or I contribute to the positive atmosphere post-game). If/when I get to host my own game, I hope that my player will enjoy their time. Mafia is a game. Let's have fun.

    5) The "stick" presented by DarknessB and Firebringer is too harsh. Requiring a small number of pre-signs is sufficient. I see no good reason to punish hosts. Hosts are not trolls, they do not break site laws. If they do, it is usually not with the intent to create disfavor with their players.


    Counter point: Building setups is a service to our sc2mafia community, done on a volunteer basis. The relationship between hosts + players is not developer + user, they are us. We are them.

    Spoiler : Wisdom for the humble. :
    "Practice giving, and people will give to you."

  44. ISO #44

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by Klingoncelt View Post
    Back-up mods should be mandatory, two back-ups for the larger games.

    All it takes is a serious health issue, or a power outage due to natural disaster, or a computer crash, and a fast-paced game this site favors stops cold.

    I agree with the points Firebringer made.




    As for getting new members, remodeling the site and enticing a new demographic is your best bet.

    Lose the Pepe frogs. Right now. They are racially offensive and not cute or funny.

    Go with different color schemes. Not everyone enjoys a black/dark grey background, try medium grey/light grey, light blue/light grey, medium pink/light grey.

    Drag your parents and grandparents in here. I'm old and I love this shit. Working the brain wards off senility.


    If more people come in here, more games - and more variation - are possible. Nightless, Vanilla, Micro, C and J9 ++, Matrix 13 and 16, Bastard, Theme... all of which need good, reliable mods.
    who are you?

  45. ISO #45

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by secondpassing View Post
    In the Defense of Hosts

    "Yet these mistakes often happen time and time again, and certainly with the same people."
    Incorrect statement. Mistakes happen a few times, but I highly doubt hosts intentionally do this. I appreciate your effort in addressing this, but I feel this is insulting to the hosts who have made mod errors and handled them to the best of their ability. No one wants to make mod errors. Who goes through the trouble of waiting in queue for months just to have their own game mess up?

    1) Some players, including myself see balance as one ideal, not a reality. I think that setups should be designed with some semblance of balance, but it does not need to be hard calculated. If players have problems with balance, just reccomend the host ask FM Ladder to take their game off being point scored. Players playing a game outside of vanilla queue should expect that the game might not be counted towards points.

    2) FM staff DON'T approve bad setup after bad setup. The setups that come out are fabulous. Crypt is wonderful at balance, and so are all the other members of FM staff. (with the exception of Unknown1234, he's okay :] ) If players think that the setups being approved are poor in quality, they should voice their concerns using a thread with a poll or within the setup workshop after/before approval.

    3) I would like to keep queues with one or two games in the signups. This makes it simple for the consumer to pick which one they want to play. I agree that there should be a time limit on games, but at FM staff's discretion. They can take into account the number of players visiting the site, as well as other factors that would be better than a hard and fast rule.

    4) I can back with giving hosts simple rewards (maybe a medal?). For hosts, hosting good games is its own reward. If I played a FM I enjoyed, read a FM that was entertaining, or even simply liked a setup I didn't even play, I always show my appreciation towards the host (or I contribute to the positive atmosphere post-game). If/when I get to host my own game, I hope that my player will enjoy their time. Mafia is a game. Let's have fun.

    5) The "stick" presented by DarknessB and Firebringer is too harsh. Requiring a small number of pre-signs is sufficient. I see no good reason to punish hosts. Hosts are not trolls, they do not break site laws. If they do, it is usually not with the intent to create disfavor with their players.


    Counter point: Building setups is a service to our sc2mafia community, done on a volunteer basis. The relationship between hosts + players is not developer + user, they are us. We are them.

    Spoiler : Wisdom for the humble. :
    "Practice giving, and people will give to you."
    ok so i read this and i do have one big thing that i feel like you missed on this, you have not hosted a game yorusefl (i just had silverwolf check for me, you can coorect me if we are wrong ont his)

    now i say this because hosting in of itself is something that you argubly should do to have a better understanding about the points about hosting in general. now onto your overall points:

    1) ballance can never truly be acheved due to the fact that roles are th ballance itself, you can make what is arugably a "perfect ballce" to a game but be completely imballacned by the fact you get good players on one team or the other.

    HOWEVER, ballance should be strived to be obtained due to the fact that if you give town 3 sheriffs 7 townies and 3 mafias with no powers, no mafia team is going ot have fun with that.

    Using MW3 as an example, everyone hated it due to not only double roles, but due to the fact that an unlikely scanrio happpened that made it overly townsided. That kind of stuff should be accounted for in general. I also would hold it to the mafia FM staff to look into it more.

    this also has nothing to do with ladder itself but a more gernal practice

    2) they have though, explain to me how MW3 (and 2 even) was a good setup. And for the later, it has been vopiced but many host will jsut go "nah its fine (masqurade for example as i have shown and how it played out that my playstle (which is what i brough up as an issue) made the game more townsided and forced scum to make an agrubly suboptimal move). So the FM staff should have that be accounted for and make sure the voices do get hear or that the hosts can have an explimation on why something should be ok when it is a concern

    3) so that does not adress the point of players who do not want to play a said setup or such. i think one signup of each que would be better.

    4) hosting is not always a reward, sometimes you have to deal with toxtivity and thats not fun, i do like the idea of having some reward overall

    5) this one i would have to agrue greatly that you should host at least 3 games first befroe you give an opinion becasue i greatly agree with the idea of having a co-mod if someon fucks up.

  46. ISO #46

  47. ISO #47

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    The question of balance in FMs is a tricky one. You can theorycraft for days on end (I know, because I have) and some horrible sequence of shitty events will happen on night 1 and literally break apart your setup (see my assassins creed FM).

    Errors are also increase based on a number of factors including complexity, player count, length of order of operations and number of hosts. Its quite easy to say LOL HOSTS SHOULDNT MAKE ERRORS but its almost inevitable in huge games no matter your level of experience (pretty sure I've fucked up at least once in every single game I've hosted, visibly or not).

    The entire debate is difficult and there is merit to having the discussion... I suppose my counter question would be who has enough meta experience to confidently balance set ups? I can't imagine there are many hosts with that much experience on the site.
    Photobucket in 2017
    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    if you have elixir to contend with gl hf

  48. ISO #48

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by ika View Post
    ok so i read this and i do have one big thing that i feel like you missed on this, you have not hosted a game yorusefl (i just had silverwolf check for me, you can coorect me if we are wrong ont his)

    SilverWolf is right, I have never hosted a game. How does this invalidate my points? (off-topic, I hope to host one soon!)

    now i say this because hosting in of itself is something that you argubly should do to have a better understanding about the points about hosting in general. now onto your overall points:

    1) ballance can never truly be acheved due to the fact that roles are th ballance itself, you can make what is arugably a "perfect ballce" to a game but be completely imballacned by the fact you get good players on one team or the other.

    HOWEVER, ballance should be strived to be obtained due to the fact that if you give town 3 sheriffs 7 townies and 3 mafias with no powers, no mafia team is going ot have fun with that.

    Using MW3 as an example, everyone hated it due to not only double roles, but due to the fact that an unlikely scanrio happpened that made it overly townsided. That kind of stuff should be accounted for in general. I also would hold it to the mafia FM staff to look into it more.

    this also has nothing to do with ladder itself but a more gernal practice

    Exactly. You said the same thing I did, in different words.
    Will look to FM staff for their reply to Mafia Wars.


    2) they have though, explain to me how MW3 (and 2 even) was a good setup. And for the later, it has been vopiced but many host will jsut go "nah its fine (masqurade for example as i have shown and how it played out that my playstle (which is what i brough up as an issue) made the game more townsided and forced scum to make an agrubly suboptimal move). So the FM staff should have that be accounted for and make sure the voices do get hear or that the hosts can have an explimation on why something should be ok when it is a concern

    This is a value point. Frozen Angel?/Klingoncelt?/Quick? has said that the setups here on average are better than others. I agree, Masquerade was imbalanced, but that's okay. I think FM staff made a fine choice in approving it. I like a majority of the setups hosted on this site. Since I believe most of the setups are good, the FM Staff have been doing a good job.

    3) so that does not adress the point of players who do not want to play a said setup or such. i think one signup of each que would be better.

    We don't have the playerbase to run 3 games at once; however, that reminds me to add in an additional point. I think setup queue speed should also vary upon community approval. If a setup is highly liked, it should be hosted earlier.

    4) hosting is not always a reward, sometimes you have to deal with toxtivity and thats not fun, i do like the idea of having some reward overall

    Exactly. You said the same thing I did, in different words.

    5) this one i would have to agrue greatly that you should host at least 3 games first befroe you give an opinion becasue i greatly agree with the idea of having a co-mod if someon fucks up.
    I suggest you attack my points instead of my credentials.
    Response in cyan. Guess why it's in cyan ?

  49. ISO #49

    Re: Necessary Changes to FM

    Quote Originally Posted by secondpassing View Post
    In the Defense of Hosts

    "Yet these mistakes often happen time and time again, and certainly with the same people."
    Incorrect statement. Mistakes happen a few times, but I highly doubt hosts intentionally do this. I appreciate your effort in addressing this, but I feel this is insulting to the hosts who have made mod errors and handled them to the best of their ability. No one wants to make mod errors. Who goes through the trouble of waiting in queue for months just to have their own game mess up?

    1) Some players, including myself see balance as one ideal, not a reality. I think that setups should be designed with some semblance of balance, but it does not need to be hard calculated. If players have problems with balance, just reccomend the host ask FM Ladder to take their game off being point scored. Players playing a game outside of vanilla queue should expect that the game might not be counted towards points.

    2) FM staff DON'T approve bad setup after bad setup. The setups that come out are fabulous. Crypt is wonderful at balance, and so are all the other members of FM staff. (with the exception of Unknown1234, he's okay :] ) If players think that the setups being approved are poor in quality, they should voice their concerns using a thread with a poll or within the setup workshop after/before approval.

    3) I would like to keep queues with one or two games in the signups. This makes it simple for the consumer to pick which one they want to play. I agree that there should be a time limit on games, but at FM staff's discretion. They can take into account the number of players visiting the site, as well as other factors that would be better than a hard and fast rule.

    4) I can back with giving hosts simple rewards (maybe a medal?). For hosts, hosting good games is its own reward. If I played a FM I enjoyed, read a FM that was entertaining, or even simply liked a setup I didn't even play, I always show my appreciation towards the host (or I contribute to the positive atmosphere post-game). If/when I get to host my own game, I hope that my player will enjoy their time. Mafia is a game. Let's have fun.

    5) The "stick" presented by DarknessB and Firebringer is too harsh. Requiring a small number of pre-signs is sufficient. I see no good reason to punish hosts. Hosts are not trolls, they do not break site laws. If they do, it is usually not with the intent to create disfavor with their players.


    Counter point: Building setups is a service to our sc2mafia community, done on a volunteer basis. The relationship between hosts + players is not developer + user, they are us. We are them.

    Spoiler : Wisdom for the humble. :
    "Practice giving, and people will give to you."
    @secondpassing , I appreciate your perspective, but it honestly reads like a bunch of apologetic talking points for hosts in these types of bad situations instead of trying to address the issues that the FM is having right now. In other words, you seem perfectly content with the status quo as a means of self-esteem building rather than having a frank / candid discussion about how we could improve things.

    No one is suggesting that hosts make these errors intentionally, but when the same hosts are making multiple errors across multiple games or are hosting unbalanced setups over and over again, it's a big problem to many of us. I'm also not sure how it's insulting to say that it's problematic for a host to be making multiple mistakes in a game. Yes, hosts put a lot of effort into games, but so do the players who are in them. Just as it's disrespectful for players to AFK, lurk, gamethrow, or otherwise inhibit a game, it's similarly disrespectful for hosts to give players unbalanced games or to be making numerous mistakes in games they are hosting.

    1. First of all, you can't really hard calculate balance anyway -- it's going to based on a number of host assumptions. Secondly, most of us don't really care about the S-FM Ladder at all. We're more concerned about having a good experience playing S-FMs. I'm really not sure why you consider the Ladder to be the end-goal of S-FM play. For those of us who want a good experience regardless of the Ladder, it's very little to no consolation if an unbalanced mess of a game is pulled from the ladder. Our issue is that we had to play it in the first place (to the extent we could not know due to random roles) or that we devoted all this time and were screwed over by hosting errors.

    2. I'm not sure why you are flagrantly kissing up to FM staff with this point, but I'll bite. Often times, FM Staff are approving games themselves but are not seeing the host's choices with respect to balancing the Random slots in said games. Firebringer's point is that FM Staff should be taking a look at that because a setup that might appear balanced based on the description might not be balanced in terms of the specific roles the host has selected. Your point about players voicing their concerns pre-game is also inapplicable, because they are never going to know the exact mix the host is putting together with randoms. That's why we need FM Staff who aren't playing in the game to take a look at that in advance.

    3. Having one game in the queue at a time gives the consumer ZERO choice. They either have to play the game being offered or they can't play at all. Your argument here seems to come down to -- choices will confuse me so I don't want to have them. I really don't get it to be honest -- no one is stopping you from signing for multiple games, but why not have the choice? Of course, FM Staff wil have to use discretion to decide how many games to allow signs for at any given time, but I think many of us are proposing that hosts put more legwork to get signs and not simply be guaranteed a game because it's their turn in the queue and the players have no choice but to sign or wait a month until the game is pulled.

    4. I don't have particularly strong feelings on this point. Hosting awards are nice -- we might also consider seasonal awards like best new host, best hosted game of Season X, etc.

    5. The stick is only proposed to be implemented for hosts with MULTIPLE games with material hosting errors in them. You also seem to be confusing intent with the underlined problem. No one is saying that these hosts who make repeated mistakes in their hosting are bad people or that they're doing it on purpose. That doesn't make the problems any better though. It's not an issue of being a good person or not, but it's an issue of these types of hosts / games needing closer oversight in the form of a co-host to make sure the mistakes aren't made any more. It can be very frustrating to play a game and have that game influenced by host errors which shoudn't have occurred. If you're a host constantly messing up very important things in your games, you need the oversight and should appreciate having it.

  50. ISO #50

 

 

Posting Permissions

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