Necessary Changes to FM

[Firebringer]

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.

[Cryptonic]

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.

[SilverWolf]

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.

[ika]

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.


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

[Cryptonic]

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.

[Firebringer]

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.

[ika]

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

[Cryptonic]

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.

[Firebringer]

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.

Fair enough.

[Voss]

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.

[DarknessB]

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.

[Firebringer]

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.

[Firebringer]

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

[Voss]

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

[Sino]

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.

[DarknessB]

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.

[DarknessB]

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.

[Firebringer]

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?

[Sino]

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 ?

[Firebringer]

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.

[DarknessB]

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).

[Cryptonic]

how many players do regularly play S-FMs ?

We are currently around 25 S-FM players.

[Gyrlander]

I think we have a different meaning of "frequently".

[Sino]

We are currently around 25 S-FM players.


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.

[DarknessB]

I think we have a different meaning of "frequently".

Without a quote, I'm not sure anyone can tell what post you're responding to, lol.

[Firebringer]

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

[Gyrlander]

Without a quote, I'm not sure anyone can tell what post you're responding to, lol.

Oh well, I was responding to the "25-SM Players that regularly play S-FM"

[DarknessB]

Oh well, I was responding to the "25-SM Players that regularly play S-FM"

Ah, that makes sense. Agreed the number of regular actives seems much lower than 25 -- maybe more like 15 or so with another 10 who play at a less frequent clip.

[ika]

We are currently around 25 S-FM players.

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

[Cryptonic]

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

[Sino]

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.

[Cryptonic]

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.

[DarknessB]

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


MattZed
Gyrlander
Sino (as of late)
Mesk
Unknown
ika
SW
RLVG (as of late)
Secondpassing
Yzb
Frozen Angel
DW (as of late)
SJ (as of late)
Banana


Occasional


Crypt
Orpz
Darkness (very infrequently now)
Calix (seems to have site quit again)
Firebringer
Arrow
PTB (seems to have site quit)
Quick
Stereo
Iced
Yuki
ThePaladin

[Unknown1234]

Friendly reminder to all to keep any comments on this thread relevant to the thread discussion.

[ika]

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.

I understand that I guess that's my issue is that I feel like that's not accurate. I would use darkb post but I'm at work so it's harder.

[ika]

Off the top of my head:

Regulars


MattZed
Gyrlander
Sino (as of late)
Mesk
Unknown
ika
SW
RLVG (as of late)
Secondpassing
Yzb
Frozen Angel
DW (as of late)
SJ (as of late)
Banana


Occasional


Crypt
Orpz
Darkness (very infrequently now)
Calix (seems to have site quit again)
Firebringer
Arrow
PTB (seems to have site quit)
Quick
Stereo
Iced
Yuki
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

[DarknessB]

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.

[BananaCucho]

We're in the business of post censorship now?

[Klingoncelt]

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.

[Gyrlander]

What is a Pepe frog?

[BananaCucho]

FeelsBadMan

[SilverWolf]

LOL

[secondpassing]

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.

"Practice giving, and people will give to you."

[ika]

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?

[ika]

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.

"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.

[ika]

im tired but tomorrow or Sunday i will have a post about the issues i think that need to be adressed and yes some of it may be repeats

i think our biigest issue at hand right now that i would liekt o see dicussed is how we are going to get new players and retain them

[Elixir]

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.

[secondpassing]

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 :laugh:?

[DarknessB]

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.

"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.

[BananaCucho]

DarknessB logic:

"I am really versed in what makes a good host even though I've never hosted a game before"

[DarknessB]

DarknessB logic:

"I am really versed in what makes a good host even though I've never hosted a game before"

I'm speaking from the consumer side of it. To be honest, I don't care nearly as much about how the hosts themselves feel -- my concern is the experience of the players.

Also, your point is flawed in terms of real world examples. Most top movie critics have never directed a film themselves. Same with art critics (painting), food critics (being chefs), etc. To the same end, I wasn't aware that I needed to have flown a plane before to provide comments on my in-flight experience flying commercial. In fact, this is literally an Appeal to Accomplishment (http://simplicable.com/new/appeal-to-accomplishment) in terms of a logical fallacy yourself.

[BananaCucho]

I'm speaking from the consumer side of it. To be honest, I don't care nearly as much about how the hosts themselves feel -- my concern is the experience of the players.

Also, your point is flawed in terms of real world examples. Most top movie critics have never directed a film themselves. Same with art critics (painting), food critics (being chefs), etc. To the same end, I wasn't aware that I needed to have flown a plane before to provide comments on my in-flight experience flying commercial. In fact, this is literally an Appeal to Accomplishment (http://simplicable.com/new/appeal-to-accomplishment) in terms of a logical fallacy yourself.

This is certainly an apples and oranges comparison. Hosting is not a profession that only skilled professionals or talented individuals can do. Most players eventually host games.

Secondly mafia is not a product. There are no consumers - we're a community playing a game and the game happens to need a host for it to work.

With the exception of one individual, most hosts that make mistakes learn from them and try to better themselves. All hosts eventually mess up, even the best ones, whether it comes to messing up feedback, balance, you name it. I just think you're in a bad spot cause you're quick to be critical of almost every single game and the way its hosted but you don't even get what it feels like to mess up.

Seriously everyone like Crypt said in the other thread this is a game. Every one spends so much time trying to fix everything that its a turn off when it comes to wanting to host - if you make one mistake you'll get shit on. I'd rather not discourage people from trying new or fun ideas.

[SuperJack]

I have to say, I completely agree with BananaCucho on this topic, their opinion and suggestions are right on point.

[RLVG]

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?

Extreme logical fallacy. The 100% faulth is on the player. This is the equivilent of a parent buying their kid GTA5 even though the game either says 18+ or AO in rating, the parents blame the game for the violence and sexual theme rather than blame themselves.

When players sign up for a game, they are knowledging themselves to have at least looked at the setup first. If they sign up for a game without having looked at the game, them blaming the host should instead be countered by an infraction on the player because they're the one being toxic.

You play GTA5, you get what you expect - a "fun" game of driving, gangsters, mafia plotline, shooting.
Then you play WoW, you get what you expect - a MMO experience with thousands of players and boring daily quests.
You play Nier, you play an Action RPG as expected, but with Bullet Hell mixed into it, which is not what you expected at all.

See what I did there? Just because you buy something and have expectations, doesn't mean it has to meet your expectations.
Some developers like to change the formula, add their unique gimicks or try new stuff out.


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.

Approved roles ruin innovation. Several roles has a synergy to a game rather than being a role of its own. Look at how MattZed does his Illuminati, how Espozito did his Terrorist Bomber, etc.

Don't forget that there's a literal thousand variants of blackmailers. A can silence, B can fuck up speech patterns, C can not allow others to interact, etc.
Are we just going to approve 1, or are we going to approve a list of 100 of the same role?

As for approving bad setup after bad setup, it's also a mixed bad of the hosts. Currently, we're bottlenecked with amount of hosts willing to host the game and a queue with it, and the hosts make a game which won't get checked on until when it's near their turn to host.
This is one thing I am kind of critical on and would prefer if they proof-readed and fixed the setup when it was made, so the host still has the "idea" in their mind and not half-forget it like 2-3 months later.

Anyway, I'm going back to what I said : Having a forced list ruins innovation.


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.

While the argument is correct, it's also wrong in the context.
Players will indeed do one of two : Sign up, or not sign up.

The interest is based on the host and the setup, but from what I've seen - it's heavily implicated on the host itself. If the host can host a good game (regardless of setup) a bias will have them sign for whatever setup they offer, while the opposite is true - a bad host with a good setup might not get as much signups.

As for the competition, why?
To give the consumer power?
That's just bullshit.

Competition forces a situation in which a player will ultimately sign regardless of the game and will often lead to them being reckless in the games.
They just sign up to play a game and that's it, they might not even read the game.

Worst of all? Remember when there was 4-5 games at a time? Competitive players signed for all of them, and end up slipping all over the fucking place by mixing Game A with Game D, and C with B?


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.

What makes a good setup and what makes a bad minset of a player?

If Player sees setup as shitty, they will ultimately ruin the game (like you did) spite it not being as shitty as they previously thought and the other players certainly did not have this view at all. (Alright, some might have seen as shitty - but not freaking gamethrowing in protest).

I agree on backup hosts though, it should certainly be a thing.

You shouldn't punish a host by suspending them for a specific length of time, we already have a queue system in it to systematically decide hosts in a cycle, with newer hosts being a preference. Hosts get literal experience and will improve themselves.
If there's several issues with a host though as stated, such as Hypersniper (lol unfinished games), they should just not host at all and their Reputation is damaged to the point players will just not sign for their games.

[RLVG]

But if they don't get played that means they saw a better alternative and that you should make improvements to your game.

Let's ignore holidays, busy work weekends, moving, real life stuff and et cetera, that massively influences players into not signing a game.
AND THE MAIN FM!

I attempted to host a game and it got 1 signup.

I attempted to host that same game 3 weeks later and I got a full game.


Regulars


MattZed
Gyrlander
Sino (as of late)
Mesk
Unknown
ika
SW
RLVG (as of late)
Secondpassing
Yzb
Frozen Angel
DW (as of late)
SJ (as of late)
Banana


Occasional


Crypt
Orpz
Darkness (very infrequently now)
Calix (seems to have site quit again)
Firebringer
Arrow
PTB (seems to have site quit)
Quick
Stereo
Iced
Yuki
ThePaladin



"As of late"? I've been busy, so obviously I haven't signed for every possible game. Heck, one of the games I was lurkish based on me being legitimately busy. I'm known to be quite regular.

Calix "Seems to have site quit again", just lol? Is that even confirmed?
PTB themselves quit for real life reasons, and you just say "seems to have site quit" rather than making it confirmed because of a farewell thread.
This just proves something.

YZB is more Occasional than Yuki who's more Regular, so how do you make up these lists really?

Also, Archons are quite ignored.


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.

Seriously? That's a concern?
There's even options to change the color layout in the settings. LUL

[SilverWolf]

Regarding co-hosting, I will co-host with ika for a few games before doing my own. ika has a ton of experience hosting and balancing setups. So he will help me with several. Then I'll do my own. A possible thing that could happen for new hosts is we could have a queue similar to the reserve queue where people can say they would be willing to co-host. If you want one, go there and try to get one. It can be used if the host gets sick or has an emergency and needs someone to fill in also.

If you make mistakes any mod can make, that's one thing. If you make mistakes that affect the outcome of the game in a serious way, then just get a co-host for the next one or however many you need until you feel confident you won't make major errors again. Minor ones are understandable.

Regarding attracting new players, MafiaUniverse has a place on their site you can advertise games on other sites. Whoever wants to run a game, can advertise it there and see if anyone comes over. It also can help people check out the site and see what it's all about.

This site is better than ms in the fact that there are more unique roles and setups and the reviewers are less strict in what they will allow and the fact that the days/nights are shorter makes for less lurking which was a major problem with the two week deadlines. One of the things I've seen on other sites is minimum posting requirements. People can decide when they sign up if they can meet that or not before the game starts. Another thing that is interesting I wouldn't mind trying is having night chat open even if you can't vote and to counter that, having daychat for scum open 24/7. I'd like to see how that would work and if people would like it or not.

[Firebringer]

RLVG
I am going to take on your points since nobody has, I was going to also argue secondpassings points, but others have already done so and I don't feel need to do.

Lets go!

Extreme logical fallacy. The 100% faulth is on the player. This is the equivilent of a parent buying their kid GTA5 even though the game either says 18+ or AO in rating, the parents blame the game for the violence and sexual theme rather than blame themselves.

When players sign up for a game, they are knowledging themselves to have at least looked at the setup first. If they sign up for a game without having looked at the game, them blaming the host should instead be countered by an infraction on the player because they're the one being toxic.

You play GTA5, you get what you expect - a "fun" game of driving, gangsters, mafia plotline, shooting.
Then you play WoW, you get what you expect - a MMO experience with thousands of players and boring daily quests.
You play Nier, you play an Action RPG as expected, but with Bullet Hell mixed into it, which is not what you expected at all.

See what I did there? Just because you buy something and have expectations, doesn't mean it has to meet your expectations.
Some developers like to change the formula, add their unique gimicks or try new stuff out.

Can you point out the logical fallacy I made?
I think maybe I phrased that wrong in saying that the player isn't to blame at all, but my point along with that was theres no incentive for players to look at setup because they don't have any options. Like your example for GTA5, if GTA5 is the only game on the market, and people want to play a game, do you think they would examine the details of the game in very explicit details.

And yes, if a product is misleading enough from what was explicitly advertised than it is called fraud. Now, that will be taken out of context here, I am not saying anyone is committing a fraud, but people buy products that they want to meet their expectations and when they don't that looks bad on the developer regardless if it was too the extreme or if it was just not up to hype or w/e.

If there is only 1 game in sign ups.
Players don't care what the setup says, they don't have choices in games. Its either play or not play, and if they play they have to hope the game is reasonably balanced. Which, yes they should look at setup, but to blame them for the game they signed up is still silly.


Approved roles ruin innovation. Several roles has a synergy to a game rather than being a role of its own. Look at how MattZed does his Illuminati, how Espozito did his Terrorist Bomber, etc.

Don't forget that there's a literal thousand variants of blackmailers. A can silence, B can fuck up speech patterns, C can not allow others to interact, etc.
Are we just going to approve 1, or are we going to approve a list of 100 of the same role?

As for approving bad setup after bad setup, it's also a mixed bad of the hosts. Currently, we're bottlenecked with amount of hosts willing to host the game and a queue with it, and the hosts make a game which won't get checked on until when it's near their turn to host.
This is one thing I am kind of critical on and would prefer if they proof-readed and fixed the setup when it was made, so the host still has the "idea" in their mind and not half-forget it like 2-3 months later.

Anyway, I'm going back to what I said : Having a forced list ruins innovation.
If the setup in itself is approved, then the host/fm staff needs to examine actual role list and say "is this okay?" or "is this not?"
Many people pointed out MW3 as an example of a setup that could probably be balanced with its role list but the mod explicitly hates setup spec so much that he makes a setup imbalanced to the nth degree so you can't guess the setup and people get pissed because its not a fair game.

But if innovation is what you want I have suggestion for that as Ika said somewhere else:
Have a different kind of game in setups that are explicitly not expected to be balanced.
"Bastard" or as I would say add a "Disclaimer that this game doesn't follow expectations of balance and you play this game at your own risk"

Any game approved by role list and setup can have a simple "Reasonably assurance of balance by our (FM reviewer), this doesn't entail perfect balance, but all factions have a decent chance of accomplishing their win condition"


While the argument is correct, it's also wrong in the context.
Players will indeed do one of two : Sign up, or not sign up.

The interest is based on the host and the setup, but from what I've seen - it's heavily implicated on the host itself. If the host can host a good game (regardless of setup) a bias will have them sign for whatever setup they offer, while the opposite is true - a bad host with a good setup might not get as much signups.
So you agree but say setup has little to matter. Okay?


As for the competition, why?
To give the consumer power?
That's just bullshit.

Competition forces a situation in which a player will ultimately sign regardless of the game and will often lead to them being reckless in the games.
They just sign up to play a game and that's it, they might not even read the game.

Worst of all? Remember when there was 4-5 games at a time? Competitive players signed for all of them, and end up slipping all over the fucking place by mixing Game A with Game D, and C with B?

I think we had at most 3 games at a time?
Not sure I remember this time at all your referring to.

You didn't really argue why consumer power is a bad thing or bullshit.
Just saying the consumer is more likely to play in more games, which is somehow bad because some didn't know their limits? I get that, but I think many of the casuals will be able to pick the game they really want to play, over EVERYTHING OFFERED.


What makes a good setup and what makes a bad minset of a player?

If Player sees setup as shitty, they will ultimately ruin the game (like you did) spite it not being as shitty as they previously thought and the other players certainly did not have this view at all. (Alright, some might have seen as shitty - but not freaking gamethrowing in protest).

I don't get what you mean by line one.

If your argument here is that players seeing a bad setup and ruin the game as a counter balance for hosts to not make balance setups, that seems a weird after thought. Like when you have consumer complain to manufacturer that the product they purchased doesn't work.

And yes, that game was shitty. The whole game could have ended Day 2.
That is a poorly made game by anyone standard.

Night 1 both Luciano are killed by Kidnapper
Day 2 the FBI is lynched.

Like I am not innocent of making poorly made setups here, I have made about 3 setups that I don't think ever should have run.


I agree on backup hosts though, it should certainly be a thing.

You shouldn't punish a host by suspending them for a specific length of time, we already have a queue system in it to systematically decide hosts in a cycle, with newer hosts being a preference. Hosts get literal experience and will improve themselves.
If there's several issues with a host though as stated, such as Hypersniper (lol unfinished games), they should just not host at all and their Reputation is damaged to the point players will just not sign for their games.
Yeah, only a hypersniper case would cause a suspension and I think people (not many but still people) wouldn't care and still sign for his games if they were only ones offered, but regardless why not suspend them if they have made THAT MANY mistakes.

[DarknessB]

This is certainly an apples and oranges comparison. Hosting is not a profession that only skilled professionals or talented individuals can do. Most players eventually host games.

Secondly mafia is not a product. There are no consumers - we're a community playing a game and the game happens to need a host for it to work.

With the exception of one individual, most hosts that make mistakes learn from them and try to better themselves. All hosts eventually mess up, even the best ones, whether it comes to messing up feedback, balance, you name it. I just think you're in a bad spot cause you're quick to be critical of almost every single game and the way its hosted but you don't even get what it feels like to mess up.

Seriously everyone like Crypt said in the other thread this is a game. Every one spends so much time trying to fix everything that its a turn off when it comes to wanting to host - if you make one mistake you'll get shit on. I'd rather not discourage people from trying new or fun ideas.

It seems like the crux of your argument comes down to empathy and that's perfectly fine and laudable as a goal. The flip side of that is accountability, both for hosts and for players. Players get criticized when they mega lurk, don't contribute, dick around and end up throwing the game, etc. That's in large part because hosts and the other players put a lot of effort and energy into the game and it's inconsiderate to do those things.

Same is true of hosts and providing players with a good game environment -- if that's continually not the case because of errors or balance, we shouldn't just ignore that problem because it might hurt the host's feelings. The ultimate idea is to do a better job next time anyway and you can't do that without understanding what went wrong.

Obviously, making host errors isn't intentional (as pointed out by SP), but at what point do we think "maybe this person needs someone to check their work"? Three big errors in a game? Big errors in three straight games? No one wants to shame or discourage hosts, but there's a lot of frustration which occurs when the same mistakes keep getting made and people don't seem to take any further precautions re: balance or accuracy.

Yes, this is a game, but we should be emphasizing improvement or at least baseline standards. No one likes a game riddled with errors or a game that ends by Day 3 because of setup imbalance. People need to understand that it's not a moral failing to have made mistakes. The point isn't to shame these people, but encourage them to clean up these problems next time. In contrast, I just don't think sweeping them under the rug will change anything and clearly a lot of the playerbase is frustrated with them.

Yes, hosting is time consuming, hard, and some errors / unbalanced games are bound to happen despite anyone's best efforts. Doesn't mean we should praise people in those situations and not encourage them to do much better the next time, especially if it's a pattern.

[Stealthbomber16]

Okay.
I know that I am a completely shitty host and so I've stopped hosting games (and playing them)
But as an ex-host and an ex-regular I'd like to chime in my old fashioned opinion.

I've been responsible for some pretty damn terrible setups. For instance, wraith night, fableblood tavern... everything else I put in the setup workshop... I feel like my only setup that was moderately successful was Glitch_44, and even that one ended in a completely townsided victory. I do want to say a few things that hosts should be doing based off of experience and mistakes, not sure if anyone else can relate to this or not.

1. Hosts should be submitting their predetermined role list to an S-FM admin for balance and appr.oval, especially new hosts. This is something I did not do for Glitch_44 that could've made the game much better. And its really simple, too. Just send your proposed role list to an admin with a paragraph about what each role could or should serve in the game.

2. More players should be leaving feedback in the setup workshop. In S-FM Empire, Gyrlander had conflicting statements about the Emporer, and this resulted in an issue in the game. Yet nobody saw this, even though it was there, on the setup page. (http://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/37405-S-FM-Empire) Or even worse, it was seen and ignored in hopes it would break the game, which brings me to

3. If you find a way to break the game it is your duty to let the host know so that the host can fix it. It is not fun as the host or as another player to watch someone completely destroy the way the game was meant to be played. It fills me with sorrow to watch a perfectly fine setup get destroyed because someone failed to follow an instruction. As a player, if you are signing up for a game, it should be mandatory that you post a comment on the setup workshop page saying that you have read the setup, and that you see no probable issues with the setup.

If the game breaks, it is the hosts fault, but the game should be reviewed to see if any fault could or should be placed on the players who broke it.

[Stealthbomber16]

Yeah, only a hypersniper case would cause a suspension and I think people (not many but still people) wouldn't care and still sign for his games if they were only ones offered

Except, they didn't. (http://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/32932-S-FM-Confederacy)

[BananaCucho]

It seems like the crux of your argument comes down to empathy and that's perfectly fine and laudable as a goal. The flip side of that is accountability, both for hosts and for players. Players get criticized when they mega lurk, don't contribute, dick around and end up throwing the game, etc. That's in large part because hosts and the other players put a lot of effort and energy into the game and it's inconsiderate to do those things.

Same is true of hosts and providing players with a good game environment -- if that's continually not the case because of errors or balance, we shouldn't just ignore that problem because it might hurt the host's feelings. The ultimate idea is to do a better job next time anyway and you can't do that without undestandinwhat went wrong.

Obviously, making host errors isn't intentional (as pointed out by SP), but at what point do we think "maybe this person needs someone to check their work"? Three big errors in a game? Big errors in three straight games? No one wants to shame or discourage hosts, but there's a lot of frustration which occurs when the same mistakes keep getting made and people don't seem to take any further precautions re: balance or accuracy.

Yes, this is a game, but we should be emphasizing improvement or at least baseline standards. No one likes a game riddled with errors or a game that ends by Day 3 because of setup imbalance. People need to understand that it's not a moral failing to have made mistakes. The point isn't to shame these people, but encourage them to clean up these problems next time. In contrast, I just don't think sweeping them under the rug will change anything and clearly a lot of the playerbase is frustrated with them.

Yes, hosting is time consuming, hard, and some errors / unbalanced games are bound to happen despite anyone's best efforts. Doesn't mean we should praise people in those situations and not encourage them to do much better the next time, especially if it's a pattern.

Do you even enjoy playing mafia?

[DarknessB]

Do you even enjoy playing mafia?

This thread isn't about me so I'd appreciate if you stick to the arguments instead of the person. And, yes, I do.

[BananaCucho]

This thread isn't about me so I'd appreciate if you stick to the arguments instead of the person. And, yes, I do.

This wasn't an argument it was legit curiosity.

I have no desire to continue to debate what is debated after every game to death over and over again. I've said my piece and I'm sticking to it.

[Stealthbomber16]

Doesn't mean we should praise people in those situations and not encourage them to do much better the next time, especially if it's a pattern.

:wm:?

[Cryptonic]

Tentatively, this is where FM Staff is standing:
Note that none of this is set in stone, and is being presented for discussion. Not all FM Staff agree with the below, this are mostly my thoughts.






Point One:

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.

I think this is actually an acceptable idea, now that we have 4 members. Previously, it was hard with so few Moderators. Especially if a Mod wanted to play in the setup, or if the Mod was hosting. But, now that we have the numbers, I think this is a fair thing. Before approving roles with hidden setups, I think that it would be appropriate for us to inquire about the setup (hidden roles).

A draw back to this would be that the Staff member can no longer sign up for the game, or reserve. However, we can decide who will review based on who wants to play in the game.

However, I do agree that everyone playing in a game should be reviewing the setup first and clarifying things. It's extremely hard to participate in any game without knowing the setup, so I don't understand why people would do that to begin with. I understand if something is ambiguous and can be taken multiple ways; someone might think they understand it, so it's not questioned; those types of scenarios are on us to be asking for clarification on.





Point Two:

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.

I think that this is a fair request, and it helps hold us accountable for things. We need to understand that we do have the power to decline setups from the queue if we do not find them balanced. Obviously, this is only possible if we are actually reviewing the role list; as it currently is, it's near impossible for us to know if a setup is going to be near balanced or not. Some setups have over a trillion possibilities, and yes some are always going to be unbalanced.

I'd be OK with something like this; maybe not removing a staff member from approving setups, but at least having a discussion about why the setup wasn't balanced for us to learn for the future. Especially if a setup is more complex, multiple FM Staff should be participating in approvals.






Point Three:

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.

I've always agreed with this, and I've actually always been against the queue. Although it definitely does give Hosts a fair chance to Host, I have always felt it forced players to play games they might not want to play. This is why I was thinking of introducing a method for players to "vote" on a group of setups which would be the next 3 games that play on the site + a fourth game where the FM Staff chooses based on whatever reason (New Host, good theme, ect). When that group is almost done, another small poll would be done to decide the games and which order.

I don't agree with allowing multiple signups at once. Because they will fill up, and players will be playing in 2-4 games at once and the quality of individual games will suffer because of it. It definitely does happen, and rules were made to stop it from happening (ie players posting 100+ times in one game, and then posting 2-3 times in a day in another game at the same time).

However, there is already a rule about removing games that don't fill up fast enough. However, sometimes it's unfair like around now when people are busy with holidays or finals, a Host shouldn't have to remove their signups because everyone is busy. These types of things are look at on a case-by-case basis.





Point Four:

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.

I don't know if rewarding a host is something that needs to be done. If we DO proceed with the Scummies, then we can reward good hosts at that point. I don't agree with allowing that person to host the next MFM or FM, but I think if they were proven to be a good host that I would consider allowing them to host something bigger on the site.

I also like the idea that we have an "official survey". I think we should 100% develop something in regards to this and PM it to all the players in a game and they can reply or not. With this information, we can keep track of stuff regarding hosts, issues with players, information for Scummies, and even supply this information anonymously to the Host to allow them to better themselves in the future; or, give them a pat on the back.






Point Five:

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'm not sure if I can agree with punishing Hosts for making mistakes, shit happens. It's not like Hosts are purposefully and maliciously making mistakes in a game. I can understand us saying they require a co-host for games (this has been done before, as conditions of hosting) via information gathered from Surveys. But I don't think someone should be specifically punished for not living up to certain standards. That would only discourage them, and we are not a large enough community to think we are entitled to act like elitists.

[Never Unlucky]

Concretely, Cryptonic, what will be implemented?

[Cryptonic]

Depends on the responses & questions I get regarding the post I made.

[SuperJack]

Aka review the setup better.

Look Ma, No wall post.

[Cryptonic]

Aka review the setup better.

Look Ma, No wall post.

What lol a lot more than that was said

[SuperJack]

What lol a lot more than that was said

That's just icing on the cake. Cake is the important stuff.

[Klingoncelt]

LOL

SW, Pepe Frog is the AltRight mascot. Not something you want on a board that isn't all white.

[Klingoncelt]

who are you?

Klingoncelt at MS, Grandma at USMB (Wake's old forum.)

[Klingoncelt]

im tired but tomorrow or Sunday i will have a post about the issues i think that need to be adressed and yes some of it may be repeats

i think our biigest issue at hand right now that i would liekt o see dicussed is how we are going to get new players and retain them

What about picking up those that have been banned from their usual haunts?

[BananaCucho]

SW, Pepe Frog is the AltRight mascot. Not something you want on a board that isn't all white.

Pepe is not an alt right figure. They are using him lately but Pepe has been around for a long time before they started using him.

[Stealthbomber16]

What about picking up those that have been banned from their usual haunts?

I'd think that the majority of those people were banned for a reason. That comes with being banned.

[Klingoncelt]

Seriously? That's a concern?
There's even options to change the color layout in the settings. LUL


Hey, I worked retail, you wouldn't believe some of the stuff that grabs/keeps consumers.

And the color is still black with dark grey, no matter what "color" is chosen. The choice only affects the little fedoras in forum categories.


You don't want to go nuts with colors, just some minor stuff.

[Gyrlander]

Hey, I worked retail, you wouldn't believe some of the stuff that grabs/keeps consumers.

And the color is still black with dark grey, no matter what "color" is chosen. The choice only affects the little fedoras in forum categories.


You don't want to go nuts with colors, just some minor stuff.

There is an option with is "Bulletin Bla bla" which is white & blue. (Although it is fucking horrible and I prefer this one)

[Klingoncelt]

Pepe is not an alt right figure. They are using him lately but Pepe has been around for a long time before they started using him.

And they've done for Pepe what Hitler did for the swastika.

[Klingoncelt]

I'd think that the majority of those people were banned for a reason. That comes with being banned.

A lot of sites require a level of interaction that can best be described as walking on eggshells.

Players have to be very nice to each other, which is impossible, everyone has rough days.

Normal behavior here could get one banned elsewhere.

[Klingoncelt]

There is an option with is "Bulletin Bla bla" which is white & blue. (Although it is fucking horrible and I prefer this one)

Oh yes, the default glare that comes with every message board. Meh. I suppose they could go with that, it's definitely familiar.

[Klingoncelt]

Voting on games adds a layer of wasted time.

Why not just stagger the start of games to every 7-10 days?

By then, more than half the players in a 13p game will be dead and ready for a new game.

[BananaCucho]

And they've done for Pepe what Hitler did for the swastika.

You're joking right? I can't tell if you're joking or not FeelsBadMan

[Cryptonic]

You're joking right? I can't tell if you're joking or not FeelsBadMan

Pepe being labeled by ADL is literally a reason to use the meme. The irony is amazing.

[Cryptonic]

Voting on games adds a layer of wasted time.

Why not just stagger the start of games to every 7-10 days?

By then, more than half the players in a 13p game will be dead and ready for a new game.

It wouldnt, because voting would only last a few days while the last batch of games is ongoing. If no one votes, then we would just go in the order of the queue, as usual.

[Klingoncelt]

Pepe being labeled by ADL is literally a reason to use the meme. The irony is amazing.

Unless you're nonwhite and someone posts it in a reply to one of your posts.

[BananaCucho]

Unless you're nonwhite and someone posts it in a reply to one of your posts.

No, that's just silly.

FeelsGoodMan and FeelsBadMan are not offensive. They're ways to say you Feel Good Man or you Feel Bad Man.

[Cryptonic]

Unless you're nonwhite and someone posts it in a reply to one of your posts.

No, that's not why it was labeled as anti-semetic by the ADL. It was labelled as anti-semetic because people were jokingly making Pepe have a Hitler mustache, just like basically every single other thing on the internet.

You should really do some research before spewing out CNN and Hillary Clinton talking points.


No, that's just silly.

FeelsGoodMan and FeelsBadMan are not offensive. They're ways to say you Feel Goof Man or you Feel Bad Man.

Exactly. If you throw Hitler 'stache on them, then yes... they're offensive... but everything is offensive if you put a Hitler 'stache on it.

[BananaCucho]

Even Charlie Chaplin FeelsBadMan

[Gerik]

Most of this post seems geared toward S-FMs, which I don't play very often, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

I think most of the ideas are good, but I disagree with the carrot/stick approach for hosts. Having played/hosted several games myself of every size (SFM, MFM, FM) I don't think there is any reason to further incentivize good hosting. When someone hosts a game on this site, they are volunteering their free time to something that can be very time consuming and stressful for no pay or compensation of any kind- they're not doing it for external incentives. They're doing it for the intrinsic value it has to them- they love the game and want to give a good game to their fellow FM players. When a host makes a mistake during a game (which, as Elixir said, happens to the best of us) they don't have an ulterior motive- they just fucked up. Because they're human and that's what humans do every now and then.

I wouldn't mind if we had some kind of host-appreciation mechanism because as I just said, hosting can be very demanding work and while people obviously do it for the love of the game, everyone likes it when they get praise for a job well done, so it's a nice way to thank the people who took time out of their busy schedules to give the rest of us a fun excuse to yell at people on the internet. But I don't think it's needed to encourage good hosting. I just think it's nice.

I also understand that FM hosts, just like players, are not created equal. I find that playing and hosting ability tend to go hand in hand. But just because someone is not the best player doesn't necessarily mean they should be prevented from hosting, so I think giving them an experienced co-host would be a good solution to this problem, as it allows them to host while providing a safety net to ensure the game will run smoothly. I can also see some edge cases where this could become a problem- if for example someone went through all the steps to host a game, found a co-host, etc. and then bailed and left the co-host to do everything (assuming no extenuating circumstances). In that case, I would say some kind of punishment (perhaps a timeout/ban from hosting) is warranted because that is a pretty crappy thing to do. But for simple hosting mistakes I don't think any punishment is needed, and I think adding co-hosts helps mitigate mistakes by providing a second set of eyes to look over things and correct errors before everything is finalized.

On an unrelated note, it was bugging me that there was a whole discussion about the Pepe meme being offensive/labeled Anti-Semetic by the ADL. This article (http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/hate-on-display/c/pepe-the-frog.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/) should clear things up. It's from the ADL's site itself. TL;DR- They know the Pepe meme isn't inherently bigoted, but slap a Hitler 'stache on it and a "kill the jews" text bubble and now it's hate speech. And as to KlingonCelt's argument that the Trump supporters use it, therefore it's white supremacist- no. Trump and his supporters are fucking morons, and many of them are also bigots, but that's no reflection on Pepe- it's just a stupid meme which they happen to like. Now if Trump creates his own secret police force, starts a world war (a legit possibility tbh), puts minorities/political enemies in torture/death camps, and uses fucking Pepe as his insignia while he does it, THEN you can compare Pepe to the Swastika.

[Firebringer]

I don't have any major disagreements with anything Cryptonic has said.
The biggest thing seems to be a rolling vote might be tedious to see what game is next.

But can easily be done.
Also gets rid of problem of people over gamming themselves.

[Cryptonic]

I don't have any major disagreements with anything Cryptonic has said.
The biggest thing seems to be a rolling vote might be tedious to see what game is next.

But can easily be done.
Also gets rid of problem of people over gamming themselves.

The vote/poll will be easy.

This is my idea so far:

- People submit complete setup to the queue.
- Around the start of the 3rd game of the 4-game series, a poll will be created with all the setups on the Queue.
- The poll will be a multi-vote poll where you get to choose your game 1 choice, your game 2 choice, and your game 3 choice.*
- After a few days (not too long), the poll will close and those 3 games will run.
- A fourth game will be selected from the queue by the FM Staff to run after those 3 games. The reasons for selection can be anything: It received a lot of votes, New Host, Interesting Theme, Interest Mechanics, Someone who hasn't hosted in long time, literally anything. We might even random it, but we won't reveal how we chose it.
- Around the start of the 3rd game, a new poll will open. Anyone who hosted a game in the previous 4 games will not be allowed to put a setup on the poll unless there are less than 4 setups.

*Depending on the site status, we might break the poll into a category of 2 small/1 large, or 2 large/1 small.


This encourages hosts who lose a poll to refine their setup for next time, or completely change it to try to win people over. The poll should be short and scarce enough that there should be no need to campaign.

This can change if there is more discussion on it, but so far no one really has anything to add/critique.

[Cryptonic]

Also, I feel like no one really read my post. I included some stuff in there that I really thought people would question lmao

[Cryptonic]

I'm speaking from the consumer side of it. To be honest, I don't care nearly as much about how the hosts themselves feel -- my concern is the experience of the players.

FYI this is retarded. You stop caring about the hosts, and there will be no games for players to play.

[Firebringer]

The vote/poll will be easy.

This is my idea so far:

- People submit complete setup to the queue.
- Around the start of the 3rd game of the 4-game series, a poll will be created with all the setups on the Queue.
- The poll will be a multi-vote poll where you get to choose your game 1 choice, your game 2 choice, and your game 3 choice.*
- After a few days (not too long), the poll will close and those 3 games will run.
- A fourth game will be selected from the queue by the FM Staff to run after those 3 games. The reasons for selection can be anything: It received a lot of votes, New Host, Interesting Theme, Interest Mechanics, Someone who hasn't hosted in long time, literally anything. We might even random it, but we won't reveal how we chose it.
- Around the start of the 3rd game, a new poll will open. Anyone who hosted a game in the previous 4 games will not be allowed to put a setup on the poll unless there are less than 4 setups.

*Depending on the site status, we might break the poll into a category of 2 small/1 large, or 2 large/1 small.


This encourages hosts who lose a poll to refine their setup for next time, or completely change it to try to win people over. The poll should be short and scarce enough that there should be no need to campaign.

This can change if there is more discussion on it, but so far no one really has anything to add/critique.

Slightly confused on how many games are submitted to this before poll starts.
It sounds like this is just deciding order, not if a game is actually worthy to play.

[Cryptonic]

Slightly confused on how many games are submitted to this before poll starts.
It sounds like this is just deciding order, not if a game is actually worthy to play.

If a game isn't worthy to play, then don't vote for it.

If there aren't enough setups in the queue, then you play what you get lol



To expand on this, we have 8 unique hosts currently.
Half of those would be ran this poll. During that time, someone else has the ability to make a setup and put it in the queue. There may only be 5-6 in the next one, but people have that chance. Then a few people might make more, and the 4 who hosted from the original queue might put setups back in.

This is all open to discussion, though. Maybe a host can put setups in back to back?

I mean, I still want to give people fair chance and ability to host, but I do want people to put their best setups forward.

[BananaCucho]

Dat censorship tho

[Thdow]

experienced host and a co host is a must.

[Fury]

THE BUMP THO

[Noz_Bugz]

DAT BUMP DOE

[Scvmurderer]

Bumppity Bump lets all do the hump.

[OzyWho]

Bumpity Bump lets all do the Bump.