|
Post by The Real FCOD on Dec 15, 2009 16:12:59 GMT -5
The question of how many games to run at once has been once again brought up. We have had this debate before, but I think we may have a larger member base now, so I think a poll/debate is in order.
We had trouble with the poll feature last time, so I'll do it the old fashioned way. Do you want us to allow two games to be run simultaneously?
Vote: NO [/color] - only one game or Vote: YES [/color] - two games
If you have something to add to the debate please do so, but make your vote official by putting it in bold blue.
If at least 25 people vote, maybe we'll consider changing the policy. Of course, Idle can decide to do whatever the hell he wants; it's his board.
CHOOSE NOW
Results: Two at once (2) - Sister Coyote, Pleonast*, One at once (4) - Pedescribe, texcat, Meeko, Hawk Every 7-10 weeks or something else (3) - NAF, redskeezix, Idle Total votes - 9
--FCOD
|
|
|
Post by Sister Coyote on Dec 15, 2009 16:47:01 GMT -5
Vote: vote: YES only because of the different situation with the potential length of the Days in story's game.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Dec 15, 2009 18:23:32 GMT -5
Yes, with caveats: 1. Any moderator with admin access should not play in the other game. I don't think any of us would intentionally cheat, but accidents happen, and there's something to be said for appearances. 2. Players should be discouraged from playing in multiple games at once. Some of us can handle it (and some like me cannot ), so I don't want to outright prohibit it (like point 1), but in general, I think it better for players to have one game to focus on. Low participation is a recurrent problem I'd like to avoid as much as possible. And cross-game confusion is not good either. 3. Starts should be staggered. Ideally, the new game would start when the other is half done. That can be hard to judge. I don't know what the best solution is--maybe start the next one when half the players have been eliminated from the earlier one.
|
|
Trepa Mayfield
FGM
Does Not Follow Directions
The only kind of panda worth preserving.
Posts: 989
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Trepa Mayfield on Dec 15, 2009 18:27:25 GMT -5
Vote: No
Doing this would essentially kill off the Minis, something I do not want to see happen.
|
|
|
Post by Pleonast on Dec 15, 2009 18:31:32 GMT -5
Personally, I think minis are perfect for running on other sites, especially the SDMB, in order to encourage play in full games here. (After running a full game here, there's no way I'm going to run a full game anywhere else. Having admin access and dedicated sub-forums is simply too useful.) So I don't have a problem with the minis dying out here, as long as there are other venues for them.
|
|
|
Post by NAF1138 on Dec 15, 2009 18:53:23 GMT -5
Vote: It Depends
I don't think it's as black and white as yes or no. Sometimes its a better idea than others. I think my proposal for a new game every 7-10 weeks depending on circumstances is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Red Skeezix on Dec 15, 2009 19:35:19 GMT -5
Vote: It Depends
I think it depends on what game is currently being run. Since the current game has indefinite days, maybe a second game could be run. I think it should be decided on a case by case basis. If it seems like people are clamouring for another game then maybe but I would hate to see participation drop.
Games where half the players don't even show up to vote are boring no matter how much effort the mods put into crafting good games.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 15, 2009 20:37:03 GMT -5
I don't think we can manage 2 games here AND 2 games on Giraffe.
I believe this group started with people from the Dope, and games on the Dope conitnued which provided a small source of new blood.
Then Idle started a Facebook group by inviting a select thousand or so of his FB friends to play, and that too has provided a small, steady source of new blood.
Giraffe was different, though. While there have been a few new players from there, most of the players there, I think, have come from here. And Giraffe easily maintained 2 games at once because of the new players as well as the players from here. And Giraffe is a really fun place to play. (Even though this board is better).
I think, however, as long as Giraffe has 2 games going, there just aren't enough players to maintain 2 games here as well. At least not with the participation levels that make the games fun.
But, it's not like anyone can impose a restriction on the Giraffe games.
|
|
|
Post by texcat on Dec 15, 2009 20:37:12 GMT -5
Vote: No Doing this would essentially kill off the Minis, something I do not want to see happen. Vote: No I've got to agree with ped here. I really like the minis!
|
|
Meeko
FGM
I raccoon it's time to play Mafia
Posts: 2,474
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Meeko on Dec 15, 2009 21:06:11 GMT -5
[/color] Doing this would essentially kill off the Minis, something I do not want to see happen.[/quote] This. I was about to vote, and explain that I wouldn't mind one main mafia game, and one other, "other" game. Then again, I still have a few ideas both Mafia and Non Mafia related, that I would love to see happen, at current, I believe that pede is dead on. Then again, if you want more than one game, you can always luck up and get asked to sub in for a game elsewhere. Vote: Vote No**No to Two mafia games at once. A Mix is fine.
|
|
|
Post by The Real FCOD on Dec 16, 2009 9:57:18 GMT -5
[/color] I don't think it's as black and white as yes or no. Sometimes its a better idea than others. I think my proposal for a new game every 7-10 weeks depending on circumstances is the way to go.[/quote]Now, this I think is a good idea. Having a new game start, say, every 8 weeks makes a lot of sense to me. --FCOD
|
|
|
Post by sachertorte on Dec 16, 2009 10:16:38 GMT -5
I think there are two independent questions that need to be addressed -- whether or not to have 2 games running simultaneously should be considered independently of storyteller's game as well as with storyteller's game in mind. Clearly, if storyteller's game is going to drag with 2 week days and a three month time horizon for conclusion, then that's a bit monopolizing. However, if a second game starts, I fear that with storyteller's no-deadline rule, participation in the second game would degrade participation in Civil War. I look at it like weekly homework sets versus a term project. The weekly homework set always gets looked at first, because it has a deadline that is soon. The term project gets kicked down the road because the deadline is farther away (or never as the case may be).
So I see the need to prevent a single game from blocking others from starting, but I also see the impact a second game would have on the first (particularly this one).
I view storyteller's game as an experiment. I have no idea if the no-deadline rule is useful or not. In the end, we should all take a look and consider the costs versus benefits of the no-deadline rule. If we come to the conclusion that no-deadline is good, then a shift in game management is probably warranted. If we conclude that no-deadline has too many negatives to support its use, then operations can probably continue as they have.
On Giraffe Boards we start games 5 weeks apart +/- 1 week. It works out pretty well. By the time the next game starts, the previous game is getting towards endgame and there are a lot of dead players anyway. So independent of the storyteller game, I can see the adoption of staggered starts. I was pretty much pushing for that on Giraffe so I don't see why I wouldn't push for it here too. 5 weeks is pretty good. I also kicked around the idea of 1 month staggers so that all games could start on the same day each month (15 Jan, 15 Feb, 15 Mar, etc.). But that might be too tight and not worth the niceness of always knowing when the next game starts.
|
|
|
Post by Idle Thoughts on Dec 17, 2009 0:49:59 GMT -5
I Vote: It Depends. As a few others have said in here (most recently, Sachertorte), I think, by and large, that one at a time is fine for now (and really, all we'd be able to do without a second game ever having zero players).... ...however in the case of a very, very long game, I think starting another one after a select period of time would be fine and having a few days or even a possible week or two of overlap.
Ed-I agree with all you said...I'm just wondering, though, do you know that this site came way before Giraffeforums were made? Not sure if you knew that. Not sure it matters either, but just the way your post comes across, a little, makes it seem like you might be under the assumption both my forum and Giraffe forums started around the same time. Mine actually started about 2 years before Giraffes...but both places had people come over from the dope.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Dec 17, 2009 9:45:36 GMT -5
Vote: No
For the reasons I have discussed before. It dilutes the quality of participation in games in terms of players and non-players.
That said, I would support a plan that put games on a time schedule. I think it is more important that a Mod know exactly when their game is going to start than us to have one and only one game going on at all times.
|
|
|
Post by special on Dec 17, 2009 10:58:03 GMT -5
Ed-I agree with all you said...I'm just wondering, though, do you know that this site came way before Giraffeforums were made? Not sure if you knew that. Not sure it matters either, but just the way your post comes across, a little, makes it seem like you might be under the assumption both my forum and Giraffe forums started around the same time. Mine actually started about 2 years before Giraffes...but both places had people come over from the dope. Yeah, I was aware of that. I was just pointing out that the way GB is different is that there are more people there. Many for whom Mafia isn't the main focus of the board, so they're already on GB and then they play mafia too. I think there are fewer people like me, for whom the main focus is Mafia, and the different boards are just different places to play. Since people we already on SDMB before being here, I think there have been fewer people migrating over there (like I did). But when GB started, I think quite a few people who already played here migrated over there. Each of the sites seem to have a slightly different play style. And I really like playing here and on GB and on SDMB. (no comment on FB). And we've been able to run 3-4 games at the same time on the 3 sites. I agree with Hawkmod. Maybe we can have a set schedule for starting games here. Maybe a new game starts every 6 weeks.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Death By Irony on Dec 21, 2009 14:55:52 GMT -5
Vote: Yes, but only if the games are staggered. Two concurrent games sounds like a recipe for disaster. (We're not SDMB, we don't have the userbase for 2 concurrent full games.)
Also, I have a very dirty mind, because I read "Two Games At Once" and my mind dropped right into Gutterville. ;D
|
|