FM Moving Forward - Page 4
Register

User Tag List

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 71 of 71
  1. #61

  2. #62

  3. #63

    Re: FM Moving Forward

    I'd say that polling would be a better alternative to doing an outright skip of a setup if there are multiple people looking to host at once. If a setup does not appeal to very many people, it will ultimately get pushed back in the queue in favor for setups that are more appealing to more players. As long as the players are enjoying the setups that are being hosted, that is what ultimately matters most.

    If there aren't a lot of people looking to host at once, I think it's fine to let whoever host, provided that they get appropriate signups. If people are then unhappy with the setups getting hosted, they are more heavily incentivized to bring forward their own setups.

  4. #64

    Re: FM Moving Forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Yayap View Post
    any way to vote to skip a setup in the queue?


    because the players just seem to sign up for whatever these days, even shitty setups, gotta wait an eternity for a decent setup - have yet to see a setup not get full signs. and setup workshop is a joke with all these hidden setups getting approved.
    I am against this.

    Why the current system wouldn't be significatively improved: The setup approval system is here to make sure setups are playable, that they won't fail (because of loopholes for example), and that they are interesting to play. This doesn't mean that some members won't dislike a setup; it means that it is enjoyable for enough people to get played, else people wouldn't sign for the games.

    Everyone has a different definition of "shitty setup" because of different tastes, with a common ground on the matter. This common ground is the exact thing that is filtered by the approval system.

    About hidden setups, some are reviewed and/or created by staff. Some others are experimental, which means that if you don't like it, you don't sign for that one and you play the non-experimental game. And if you don't like any, it's probably time to step in and make one yourself/get involved in someone's setup to make it something you consider fun, and that's the strenght of the Workshop.


    Why skipping setups would be bad: It's telling someone "Your setup is bad", basically, and it is not useful. If a setup is deemed that bad by the entire community, it just won't fill and will get put down. Fortunately, we don't have to do this, since people play the setups and enjoy them. As I repeated over and over in this thread, if you think something in a setup should change and want to get involved in the community, you should get into the setup workshop and comment, it's always welcomed!



    Auckmid, about your poll idea, I don't think it's bad, but I don't see how it is better than just not signing for setups that you don't find interesting, even after having talked about it in the setup thread. It feels like over-complicating things; plus, if people won't take time to help building setups, I don't know if they will take time to vote on polls.
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    I wanted to buy a kinder egg in usa. But apparently they arn't sold because they are too dangerous.
    So I bought two assault rifles instead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    Imagine this convo going down in real life
    “Alright Enzo come shoot my house up tonight, someone else will be there. I think. Most likely.”

  5. #65

    Re: FM Moving Forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall View Post
    Auckmid, about your poll idea, I don't think it's bad, but I don't see how it is better than just not signing for setups that you don't find interesting, even after having talked about it in the setup thread. It feels like over-complicating things; plus, if people won't take time to help building setups, I don't know if they will take time to vote on polls.
    Polling for games isn't necessarily something I feel that strongly about. However:

    1) Just because people sign up for a game doesn't mean that they really enjoy the setup. It sometimes means that they see playing in the setup as preferable to not playing at all. Additionally, encouraging people not to sign up for setups that they don't love can start a bit of toxic mentality of wanting to see signups fail for people. Polling averts that.
    2) I HEAVILY disagree with the statement that because most people don't help to build setups that most people will not vote in polls. Even if you don't particularly like the setup, coming up with how to articulate that criticism can be hard for a lot of people. Voting for which setup you like more is extremely easy for most people.

  6. #66

  7. #67

    Re: FM Moving Forward

    I agree with the sentiment that "Voting for setups" is "good" on the surface, but is it really that different than signs?

    Assuming people can vote for more than one poll option at a time, how is that any different than signing for different setups? Signing and voting function as the same thing. The only difference in this poll for setups is that it's in one organized place.

    I assume if setup A is posted before setup B, but setup B fills faster, setup B would be next to play, right?...

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

  8. #68

    Re: FM Moving Forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    I agree with the sentiment that "Voting for setups" is "good" on the surface, but is it really that different than signs?

    Assuming people can vote for more than one poll option at a time, how is that any different than signing for different setups? Signing and voting function as the same thing. The only difference in this poll for setups is that it's in one organized place.

    I assume if setup A is posted before setup B, but setup B fills faster, setup B would be next to play, right?...
    I wouldn't mind this except that people hosting don't post their setups in the signups page if there is already one there. They wait for it to end or be near ending. Thus only 1 game to chose from and it becomes sign for whatever or don't play mentality.

    Spoiler : :

  9. #69

    Re: FM Moving Forward

    But then there's the concern that none of the setups fill up.
    I dunno, this setup queue thing has been the standard on this site for a long time. Why change it? It's worked well thus far.
    Quote Originally Posted by blinkskater View Post
    Polish my nuts and serve me a milkshake. Anyone who uses scum syntax will be lynched.

  10. #70

    Re: FM Moving Forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Voss View Post
    I agree with the sentiment that "Voting for setups" is "good" on the surface, but is it really that different than signs?

    Assuming people can vote for more than one poll option at a time, how is that any different than signing for different setups? Signing and voting function as the same thing. The only difference in this poll for setups is that it's in one organized place.

    I assume if setup A is posted before setup B, but setup B fills faster, setup B would be next to play, right?...
    That's what I meant, but in better words.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yayap View Post
    I wouldn't mind this except that people hosting don't post their setups in the signups page if there is already one there. They wait for it to end or be near ending. Thus only 1 game to chose from and it becomes sign for whatever or don't play mentality.
    No, people post signups even when there's one ongoing now, because the community grew and grows (and will grow). As Mag said, if too many people were to post signups at the same time, there would be an issue of no filling.

    The current signups subforum literally proves you wrong, and this since some weeks now.


    A big issue I see in all suggestions here is that people who want to change the system are wanting to change it too fast. If you want a change to a system that works very well but requires a large playerbase, you can't just say "put it in place and the playerbase will follow". The site would drop, or at least become less fun.

    So, Damus, your accusations are baseless.
    -vote Damus_Graves
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    I wanted to buy a kinder egg in usa. But apparently they arn't sold because they are too dangerous.
    So I bought two assault rifles instead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    Imagine this convo going down in real life
    “Alright Enzo come shoot my house up tonight, someone else will be there. I think. Most likely.”

  11. #71

    Re: FM Moving Forward

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganelon View Post
    But then there's the concern that none of the setups fill up.
    I dunno, this setup queue thing has been the standard on this site for a long time. Why change it? It's worked well thus far.
    Exactly. There are ways to improve the current system, without throwing it into the garbage pin, and that's what I'd like to see more here.
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperJack View Post
    I wanted to buy a kinder egg in usa. But apparently they arn't sold because they are too dangerous.
    So I bought two assault rifles instead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stealthbomber16 View Post
    Imagine this convo going down in real life
    “Alright Enzo come shoot my house up tonight, someone else will be there. I think. Most likely.”

 

 

Posting Permissions

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