FM Moving Forward

[Marshmallow Marshall]

A lot has happened while I was sleeping on here... First of all, I'll do the clean-up of established and proven facts that are being debated.

First of all:

It proves me right. Go read Auckmids first post in his sign up page. "game won't start till later to avoid conflict with other sfm"

Because then people would unsign, since the signs are the same for the other S-FMs. And if they were to stay in both, starting it would kill activity of AT LEAST one game, if not both.
Of course, it is possible to start it, on paper. It works, signs are there! But if it happens, games won't have activity because the SAME people will be on two games (and three threads, in this specific case). So what will happen is that games won't be enjoyable for most players, and it is literally the system's job to make games: 1) played and 2) fun (that's the short version).


Second point:

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.

I have been here long enough, and have played enough games, on enough different sites, spectated these, to know what a system's goal is, and to know which consequences it has. I was one of the few people who kept the site and the signups going, when there was no moderation... so your discredit is denied. This is supposed to be an honest debate, I would like it to remain one.

This is answered by the answer to this. It's pretty simple: a large majority of players don't multigame. Therefore, we can see each player as a value of one, that goes on only one signup. So, if we have 1 setup for 14 players, for example, and we have a playerbase of 20, in general. There is always at least one person who is busy because real life, so let's say 19. The 14P setup will be full in a short time, and people will play and enjoy it. Then, we put a 10P setup (example again), and the dead, and the people who didn't sign for the 14P can sign for the 10P, and everyone is happy, plays a game, etc. If there is a stronger demand in hosting, people can still post their signups, so people can STILL sign and plan their stuff, but there's one game that starts first, and there's no issue. However, if there are 5 games free at the same time, it's chaos, people don't know where to sign, and setups take years to fill. It's not an assumption, it's simple math: unless one setup is really GREAAAT and everyone wants to play it over others, which doesn't happen often (therefore you can't base a system on that), the signs will be spread over the 5 signups that are open, therefore none of them will fill before a while. Of course, it wouldn't always be like this; but it would OFTEN be. Would it be the end of the site? I don't know. It could be, if the scenario I put there happens too much. And the advantage of this system, which is more choice in setups, is minimal, since there is ALREADY choice by just signing for what you want to sign for, since there are more than 1 signups, now. There's a reason we aren't rushing it: it would harm the game flow and/or the game quality, and that is an absolute.

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.

There is more than one person, we have Ganelon, and we have Gyrlander who earlier said this:

I believe capitalism is a great idea. There have been instances in which I didn't like the current setup and just had to wait for it to be over. With capitalism, I could choose from a variety of setups and wouldn't have to wait. UNLESS we don't have a enough big playerbase. That would be one of the issues.

We need more people if we choose capitalism.

Capitalism is uncertain, risky; in fact, it's like the stock market, to take your capitalism image back. If we want a site that will last, we don't want to just gamble it.

Now, I don't say I want no change at all. I want to improve what we have... which brings to the next point.

That's scummy... I already did that several days ago lol, and I keep doing it.

Spoiler : My suggestions, aka The Utopia :

This is my take on things, and I cannot claim to know the goals of every person who has created an hosting system, of course. However, this is a good place to start.


What are the aims of every single hosting system, and more specifically, what did they want to be?

- A system that only brings quality games, and encourages improvement of the site's meta, with minimal encroachment on both host's and player's freedom.
- A system that organizes setups, which means that the setups need to be put in correct time (not two 20 players games at once if the playerbase is 25, this kind of stuff). It also means that setups need to be approved, and a contact must be made with moderation in order to have signups going.
- As a continuation of the first aim, a system that rewards good hosts, good plays, and involvement in the community.

In other words: a system that keeps games going (quantity), and that improves the game experience over time.

Welcome to the Kingdom of Utopia.

This is how setups are managed, in this great kingdom. From the creation of the setups to the completion of games.


- Someone posts a setup in the Setup Workshop. The thread is open, and since the description of the Workshop encourages people to give their input, saying how it is useful for the both hosts and players to have more input for fun games, people comment on the thread and give ideas.

- The setup is ready for review by FM Staff! On a sticky thread in the Workshop, the author of the setup posts a message, optionally with a mention to staff members, saying that the setup is ready for review, since the author feels it is fun and balanced: finished.

- An FM staff member reviews the setup, discussing the adjustments that need to be done, just like the current system. The thread is still open to discussion, and everyone can still contribute to the setup.

- The setup is approved, and the author of the setup contacts the staff to know when they may post signups.

- Signups are posted, fill, and the game starts.

- Once the game ends, if it has been successful (no major balance issue discovered while playing the game, or similar things), the setup will go in a subsection of the Workshop: the Approved S-FMs. They will they be free to be rehosted, and the only requirement is to contact staff to know when signups can be posted.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


There is a Ladder, that lasts for a determined amount of games (10-12). The point attribution system is strongly inspired by the recent talks about this matter, I just reworded ideas because I found them really good.

- Hosts will gain 2 points, without restriction on the number of times this can be applied.
- Losers will gain 1 point.
- Winners of each game will receive points equal to the amount of players divided by the amount of winners.
- At the end of the season (when the game slot of the season is filled, and that the game is played and over), each player will earn a bonus based on their win percentage. A 100% win rate will result in a 100% point bonus, a 50% win rate will result in a 50% point bonus, etc.


The Ladder is a way to encourage serious, competitive, and sports-like play. Hosts may opt out of the Ladder if they wish to have a more casual game; FM Staff may also choose to approve a game for non-ladder only if it is deemed playable for fun, but not suitable for ladder.
This goes in the mindset of the first aim.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


In the same mindset, awards are given to people who have accomplished something special. For example, very liked hosts, people who continously give good setup suggestions (not sure how that would work, those are just suggestions), or people who write approved game theory (outside of games, in the FM discussion). The award system already has a Recommend Award thing, and it already exists! It's a great way to motivate people to do things, whatever those things are.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*



I hope that you appreciated your travel to the Kingdom of Utopia! Feel free to leave feedback on this.

There you go. It's based on what a system needs to have, it's explained and all.
As you can see, it's inspired by the current system, without being the current state of the site. It's what I mean by "not throwing the current system in the garbage pin".