Jump to content

Mafia: Limits for Speed? (Read Post Before Voting)


mjdgoldeneye

Mafia: Limits for Speed? (Read Post Before Voting)  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. Mafia: Limits for Speed? (Read Post Before Voting)

    • Yes, I want this resolution passed!
    • Yes, but I don't mind either way.
      0
    • Sort Of... I believe the terms should be adjusted (explain).
    • No opinion.
    • No, but I don't mind either way.
    • Never! (Defy Resolution)


Recommended Posts

I was just wondering what people thought as a group about imposing limits to the size or scale of mafia games in order to appease the exponentially growing waiting list and slowly weaning interest in the game itself. I suggest the following: [B]Max Players:[/B] 32-35 The # of players in a game increase the length exponentially. More players mean more players to kill/to send in PM's/to deal with when writing-up. Also, most games are near this range already, so it shouldn't cause much trouble. 32 is the "official" maximum, but up to 35 will be permitted if it is necessary. Obviously, it's not up to me or this poll to decide, but I just want to see what the overall opinion is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted Never. I'm not saying that smaller games wouldn't be beneficial. I think mafia burnout is becoming a bit of an issue around here, so I'd LOVE to see some smaller scale games. However, I don't think any future mods should have their creativity limited. If they can come up with 40 awesome roles and have everything balanced, then I say let them! But, I would highly implore any and all future mods to try and restrain themselves. If you can flesh out your game while keeping the number of roles down (25 is ideal, I believe), then go for it. Barring that, enable more night/day kills! I think Outlaw nailed this with DOTT, as he had several temp SKs pop up after certain people died. Things like that are wonderful in speeding games up!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You limit games, I leave. Period. There's no reason for the games to be limited. Those who have run games got to run whatever games they want and nobody says anything until they want on that list. Then when they realize the wait, they want things toned down so their game hurries up. Heroes is 36. It will be 36. Period. Maybe if everyone and their mother didn't want to mod, we wouldn't have a 30 person waiting list. Of course, everyone wants their turn..so. Wait. E-ville lasted 5 weeks because had it NOT been set the way it was, it coulda only lasted one or two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like this is more a modders issue than a players issue. Everyone wants people to play their game, but in my opinion the most important thing is that the players have fun, not that the modders can mod their game so everyone can see how cool they are... :P Arrows pretty much nailed it on the head. (if that's even an expression in english...?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with Arrows. Mods should be able to create a game size of whatever they want. Obviously no one is obligated to play the game, but it's the mod's choice whether or not they want a certain amount of people. It's THEIR game after all and they should be allowed to run it however they see fit. Obviously, I voted never on this. Hell I'm even someone who will likely keep all his games to 30 people, but that's because that's how I want it. It's personal choice, and should be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Arrows;395617]You limit games, I leave. Period. There's no reason for the games to be limited. Those who have run games got to run whatever games they want and nobody says anything until they want on that list. Then when they realize the wait, they want things toned down so their game hurries up. Heroes is 36. It will be 36. Period. Maybe if everyone and their mother didn't want to mod, we wouldn't have a 30 person waiting list. Of course, everyone wants their turn..so. Wait. E-ville lasted 5 weeks because had it NOT been set the way it was, it coulda only lasted one or two.[/QUOTE] I meant to add that any games that have already set their limits over 35 have no need to change. I understand disliking the idea, but suggesting that you'd leave if the rule was used is kind of lame... Making decisions after you gather information isn't unfair, it's called thinking. I doubt anyone else is thinking "Oh no! my 45 player game won't be allowed! What do I do!"... 35 is high end... I doubt after the next few games we'll have 35 players to participate due to burn-out or waiting. The rule will come into affect de facto, and it will be too late! Clearly, with a few people actually willing to defy the rule, we can't do anything about it. No limits, but think about the situation before you go the "my way or the highway" route...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=i effin rule;395623]I kind of agree with Arrows. Mods should be able to create a game size of whatever they want. Obviously no one is obligated to play the game, but it's the mod's choice whether or not they want a certain amount of people. It's THEIR game after all and they should be allowed to run it however they see fit. Obviously, I voted never on this. Hell I'm even someone who will likely keep all his games to 30 people, but that's because that's how I want it. It's personal choice, and should be.[/QUOTE] Just to clarify from this: Sure, I can see giving mods a laissez-faire policy, but just think of the long term implications. I don't want to limit mods so much as I want to make it clear that gigantic games can't be the norm. People are dropping out of the mafia loop due to them, and they need to be spaced out. I personally am creating a game now of around 30 players, and as IER and various others have stated, they have their games under the proposed "limit" anyway. Just keep in mind though that it creative control that's the issue, it's whether we're killing mafia on GDS! Just my stance, and it's a moot point, but I strongly recommend those who have not started envisioning their game yet to go with a less-than-huge set up if they can have it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=mjdgoldeneye;395625]I meant to add that any games that have already set their limits over 35 have no need to change. I understand disliking the idea, but suggesting that you'd leave if the rule was used is kind of lame... Making decisions after you gather information isn't unfair, it's called thinking. I doubt anyone else is thinking "Oh no! my 45 player game won't be allowed! What do I do!"... 35 is high end... I doubt after the next few games we'll have 35 players to participate due to burn-out or waiting. The rule will come into affect de facto, and it will be too late! Clearly, with a few people actually willing to defy the rule, we can't do anything about it. No limits, but think about the situation before you go the "my way or the highway" route...[/QUOTE] Fine, since my point didn't seem to get through the first time. You've hosted 2. This would've been SB's third. FW is Outlaw's second now. Astil's got his second coming. Who do you think you are? Ooooo. I control Da List! No. No, you're not the boss of mafia, so please, stop acting like it. If you honestly think passing some stupid rule's gonna make me change my game, Ha. You've got another thing coming. You, don't control us. You, can't make ****ing rules we have to live by. I haven't even got to host here yet, and you're trying to make rules to get games going by faster? Where was this rule during YOUR games? Oh....yea. You weren't concerned with it then. Go back to being not concerned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=DreamGoddessLindsey;395627]I have a better idea. Let's keep having the huge games, but also be running smaller second games if there is interest.[/QUOTE] I was thinking along the lines of "graveyard games", kind of what you started up in the last game. Once a good number of people have died (10-15), the mod who's game is next on the list, or the person closest to the top who is dead and wants to set this up, sets up a mini-game in the graveyard of the bigger game or on the Dog Pund main board. I think this will give players/mods practice, keep players interested, and allow potential mods to decide if modding is their "thing". Thoughts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to add that each mod should be allowed to dictate the maximum size of his or her own games. If you want 20, fine. If you want 60, good luck finding that many, but cool if you do. No reason to limit creativity. Which of course brings us back to my previous idea of having smaller games going on while longer games are still going. The long games [I]do[/I] suck for people who die really early (like I did my first game, which had it not been for NLW, would have meat well over a month of just watching), so having alternatives running at the same time would be great. As for my graveyard game, no one showed any interest in it, so that obviously doesn't work. I'm running Necropolis over at NLW now if anyone's interested in signing up. Still plenty of room for sure. [url]http://nlw.redmoonmidnight.com/boards/index.php?topic=196.0[/url]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=trypio;395622]Seems like this is more a modders issue than a players issue. Everyone wants people to play their game, but in my opinion the most important thing is that the players have fun, not that the modders can mod their game so everyone can see how cool they are... :P Arrows pretty much nailed it on the head. (if that's even an expression in english...?)[/QUOTE]I kinda think its both a players issue [B]AND[/B] a modders issue.. From a modders view.. Theres getting close to a 3 year wait. From a players view.. I bumped off Derek_b night 1 of Star Wars (an example). He then had to wait a month until he could play again. DGL died pretty much straight away.. I do think a second game could help *edit* instead of taking the next off the list, we could start a graveyard list.. It could be [U]these[/U] games that have a limit upon them.. The normal games could then remain the same as they are right now
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=mjdgoldeneye;395606] Obviously, it's not up to me or this poll to decide, but I just want to see what the overall opinion is.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=mjdgoldeneye;395625]Clearly, with a few people actually willing to defy the rule, we can't do anything about it. No limits, but think about the situation before you go the "my way or the highway" route...[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=mjdgoldeneye;395628] Just my stance, and it's a moot point, but I strongly recommend those who have not started envisioning their game yet to go with a less-than-huge set up if they can have it.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Arrows;395632]Fine, since my point didn't seem to get through the first time. You've hosted 2. This would've been SB's third. FW is Outlaw's second now. Astil's got his second coming. Who do you think you are? Ooooo. I control Da List! No. No, you're not the boss of mafia, so please, stop acting like it. If you honestly think passing some stupid rule's gonna make me change my game, Ha. You've got another thing coming. You, don't control us. You, can't make ****ing rules we have to live by. I haven't even got to host here yet, and you're trying to make rules to get games going by faster? Where was this rule during YOUR games? Oh....yea. You weren't concerned with it then. Go back to being not concerned.[/QUOTE] Dude, have you lost it? I was just collecting thoughts and trying to start a discussion. I've stated it in every post in this thread. I ALSO stated that I had meant to add that games that had already been in the works were fair game. Heroes, I believe, has been done for a while, correct? During my first game, there wasn't a massive waiting list, and mafia on this board was in its infancy. I first suggested limits prior to my second game and prior to writing it. I'd have no problem with keeping my numbers down, as it's my way anyway. EDIT: And yes, due to me holding this discussion (the point of the poll), I see there is more than a couple people who want to see, play in, and run big games forevermore. I was just looking to see what the overall opinion was... Read my posts... Read what I said in the sign-up thread... Where you got the idea that I was trying to be Stalin-Mod, IDK...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=mjdgoldeneye;395639]Dude, have you lost it? I was just collecting thoughts and trying to start a discussion. I've stated it in every post in this thread. I ALSO stated that I had meant to add that games that had already been in the works were fair game. Heroes, I believe, has been done for a while, correct? During my first game, there wasn't a massive waiting list, and mafia on this board was in its infancy. I first suggested limits prior to my second game and prior to writing it. I'd have no problem with keeping my numbers down, as it's my way anyway. EDIT: And yes, due to me holding this discussion (the point of the poll), I see there is more than a couple people who want to see, play in, and run big games forevermore. I was just looking to see what the overall opinion was... Read my posts... Read what I said in the sign-up thread... Where you got the idea that I was trying to be Stalin-Mod, IDK...[/QUOTE] You really don't get it, eh? I've stated my opinion on this matter SEVERAL times, both publicly every time you brought it up, and privately. No matter how many times, that opinion has seemed to mean absolutely.....**** all. It keeps coming up, and keeps coming up, and I'm sick of it. Hell, my game was DONE before you even started on RWC, and I've still got six months to wait. You don't see me wanting to make rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for NEVER!! simply because I think every Mod is responsible for being sensible and making sure their game runs for a reasonable amount of time. E-Ville lasted a loooooong time because of a culimination of early events that really hampered the kill ratio. The SK taking over the cult after the first night got rid of one kill, Astil's forensics role putting the fear of god in everyone preventing at least 2 more kills, Warrior's killing spree rather than protecting people meaning he wouldn't cause kills, Mr T beating the odds with his bombs... even the killing partnership of Effin/Aussie was broken early and TDS kept missing out on finding scum to kill.... but I wouldn't have it any other way. :) As long as Mods can make it so that games last a reasonable amount of time, I have no problem with any game. I'd never impose a hard limit on players but more than 40 would probably be pushing it in terms of running the game and players keeping track of it too. Mini-mafia games could help players who get bored between games... but they'd have to be only for players who aren't in the main game AND would need a number limit in them, probably no more than 12 and certainly no more than 15.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=mjdgoldeneye;395639]Dude, have you lost it? I was just collecting thoughts and trying to start a discussion. I've stated it in every post in this thread. I ALSO stated that I had meant to add that games that had already been in the works were fair game. Heroes, I believe, has been done for a while, correct? During my first game, there wasn't a massive waiting list, and mafia on this board was in its infancy. I first suggested limits prior to my second game and prior to writing it. I'd have no problem with keeping my numbers down, as it's my way anyway. EDIT: And yes, due to me holding this discussion (the point of the poll), I see there is more than a couple people who want to see, play in, and run big games forevermore. I was just looking to see what the overall opinion was... Read my posts... Read what I said in the sign-up thread... Where you got the idea that I was trying to be Stalin-Mod, IDK...[/QUOTE] In Arrows' defense. It does seem like you are always the one who is bringing up the subject. I honestly don't recall anyone else ever even mentioning it, but I think you've addressed it in several threads already. I don't understand how it would be killing mafia on GDS. It's not like people HAVE to play. If they are feeling burned out then they are freely capable of sitting one out. This just doesn't make sense to me. If you want to ensure people don't get burned out and mods mod faster and people get to play the games they want then why not have everyone vote on which (on the list) the next game should be. Note: I am not for this. Players already dictate how many spots are in a game. If there are 40 spots and only 37 sign up, it'll be a game of 37. I don't see why it would be necessary to put a cap on something like this when people will simply play if they want to play. What would you say to someone who really wanted to play but your cap was already full? Sorry? Better luck next time? Get here faster?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=i effin rule;395649]In Arrows' defense. It does seem like you are always the one who is bringing up the subject. I honestly don't recall anyone else ever even mentioning it, but I think you've addressed it in several threads already. I don't understand how it would be killing mafia on GDS. It's not like people HAVE to play. If they are feeling burned out then they are freely capable of sitting one out. This just doesn't make sense to me. If you want to ensure people don't get burned out and mods mod faster and people get to play the games they want then why not have everyone vote on which (on the list) the next game should be. Note: I am not for this. Players already dictate how many spots are in a game. If there are 40 spots and only 37 sign up, it'll be a game of 37. I don't see why it would be necessary to put a cap on something like this when people will simply play if they want to play. What would you say to someone who really wanted to play but your cap was already full? Sorry? Better luck next time? Get here faster?[/QUOTE] I'll respond to this post because it's less angry... :) I see the point, and sorry for bringing the point up again. It just had been on my mind, and never truly discussed (aside from between me, Arrows, and a couple others). However, to say that I have less of a right to suggest something based on what I saw as a problem at the time (Not now... See, this thread wasn't pointless! One guy repeating that he thought it was stupid idea just doesn't sway me as much as several people doing it at the same time...! :D ) because I had already run a few games is wrong. I didn't get to run them because of some crazy, secret, exclusive hierarchy! I asked to run my first game, and waited for my second. Had you wanted to run your game earlier (especially if had it finished/nearly finished) why weren't you on the list higher up, Arrows? Honestly, I don't know, I'm asking. If it was my error and you should have been higher up and I didn't notice or something, you should have told me. If you just waited too long, tough luck. If you, or anyone else, thinks anything about the list is unfair, speak up! I'm just trying to keep it in order, not influence it. This isn't Dictatorlistostan! (I'll even push my name down lower if need be, as I probably should!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...