Re: Private Games (Opinions please!)

[Raziek]

Alright, so, Stew handles all the privates. Sounds like a plan.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

So are we going to leave it with 2 regular list mods, or are we going to make someone else a mod?

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

I'm mostly a fan of this type of approach to private games:

Allow any private to run as long as it can get a playerlist by a certain point in time. If it can't do that, it can't run. Simple, effective, keeps the integrity of privates while still providing a sense of order.

Basically, I think the bare minimum requirement that a private should have to run is that it has a pre-made, completely filled, and completely operable playerlist before the thread is ever even published. Basically, private games should not allow ANY form of public advertisement. You have to approach your players individually and in private asking if they want to join your game. If people commit and you can fill your game UNASSISTED by any form of public advertisement, you should be able to run it. And when I say NO public advertisement, I mean it. Like, no asking for people to sign up to be replacements once the game is up. Once you set and fill your playerlist, it's done and locked. No new people can sign up, and if people go inactive/bail on you, you can only modkill.

This makes privates a much more challenging thing to put together. Also, knowing this, players will only (or atleast should only) sign up to play in such games if they know they can commit and trust the playerlist to do the same. This should naturally curb the amount of private games that successfully fill and can be run.

As for the whole "private games should be unique/experimental" idea, I'm partially for that. I think people who want to host their game privately should probably be able to justify WHY they are doing so in some way, but I don't think the game must necessarily be experimental. The line for what is/isn't experimental is a pretty blurry one and what's experimental to one person might not seem that way to another. Basically, I think having an experimental game is a sufficient condition for running your game as a private, but not a necessary one.

Basically, we should keep the private game "system" as is, but just be very strict about people building their games entirely in private, so it doesn't just become "hey I'll just post this game up, send out a bunch of PMs, and see who signs up to skip the queue" phenomenon.

 

[DtJ S2n]

Alright, so, Stew handles all the privates. Sounds like a plan.

 

[#HBC | marshy]

this is why s2 modded raz

wait what

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Sans no replacement requests, I agree with FF. The horror!

 

[#HBC | ZoZo]

imo it's mainly stew that does everything wrong imo imo


bg imo

jugemu

 

[JTB]

Alright, so, Stew handles all the privates. Sounds like a plan.

why would we do that when you are obviously a better mod than stew?

 

[Raziek]

Because unlike Stew, I actually play this game.

(sometimes)

/shotsfired

 

[DtJ S2n]

[collapse=for xonar and jtb only]

I ain't stoppin and the tables only get bigger from here on out[/collapse]
Anyways about actual content, I skimmed a bit. FF hit a lot of big points that I wanted to get at. Give me a later and then I'll really tell y'all what's going down.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Well, if you consider that playing, I would question your judge of balance.

 

[#HBC | marshy]

oh ****

 

[Raziek]

Well, if you consider that playing, I would question your judge of balance.

[yt]wjRvkPazwAI[/yt]

 

[John2k4]

jugemu

Gorfdamnit.

 

[#HBC | Laundry]

Because unlike Stew, I actually play this game.

(sometimes)

/shotsfired

lol no you don't

 

[#HBC | Laundry]

Basically, I think the bare minimum requirement that a private should have to run is that it has a pre-made, completely filled, and completely operable playerlist before the thread is ever even published. Basically, private games should not allow ANY form of public advertisement. You have to approach your players individually and in private asking if they want to join your game. If people commit and you can fill your game UNASSISTED by any form of public advertisement, you should be able to run it. And when I say NO public advertisement, I mean it. Like, no asking for people to sign up to be replacements once the game is up. Once you set and fill your playerlist, it's done and locked. No new people can sign up, and if people go inactive/bail on you, you can only modkill.

This makes privates a much more challenging thing to put together. Also, knowing this, players will only (or atleast should only) sign up to play in such games if they know they can commit and trust the playerlist to do the same. This should naturally curb the amount of private games that successfully fill and can be run.

As for the whole "private games should be unique/experimental" idea, I'm partially for that. I think people who want to host their game privately should probably be able to justify WHY they are doing so in some way, but I don't think the game must necessarily be experimental. The line for what is/isn't experimental is a pretty blurry one and what's experimental to one person might not seem that way to another. Basically, I think having an experimental game is a sufficient condition for running your game as a private, but not a necessary one.

Basically, we should keep the private game "system" as is, but just be very strict about people building their games entirely in private, so it doesn't just become "hey I'll just post this game up, send out a bunch of PMs, and see who signs up to skip the queue" phenomenon.

I agree with you for the most part but you're forgetting how much of a beast word of mouth is. I think LASPM's the last time I'd ever post the thread without having a complete roster, but I don't see the harm of posting that I'm hosting a private in the skype group. that's a small section of dgames, most of them would miss it, and it allows me to kill some birds with a single stone.

Outside of that, I agree with you, except the modkill all inactives thing would just kill the game itself and I'm not prioritizing some label of my game over the game itself.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Skype's not public advertising.

 

[#HBC | marshy]

As for the whole "private games should be unique/experimental" idea, I'm partially for that. I think people who want to host their game privately should probably be able to justify WHY they are doing so in some way, but I don't think the game must necessarily be experimental. The line for what is/isn't experimental is a pretty blurry one and what's experimental to one person might not seem that way to another. Basically, I think having an experimental game is a sufficient condition for running your game as a private, but not a necessary one.

i agree with this. if someone can round up 7 players for a c9 game cuz no one ever hosts them in the queue then theres no reason to stop em

rest of the post was pretty good too

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Problem is, I stall the queue if I want to play a game without Inferno, Bardull, Ruy, John, Joey, any new player, any inactive player.

 

[BarDulL]

There's nothing wrong with any of those players unless they are being blatantly anti-personal alignment, trolling, or deliberately trying to make a game less fun for others. If any of those players are doing that, then you should talk to a mod about it.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Bardull, if I make a set-up, I want to see it played well. I don't want a ****load of people who will get played by a small group of about three players. As such, I reserve my right to be picky with sign-ups.

 

[BarDulL]

In other words, "I don't want stupid people in my games."

I'm not sure what gives you the impression that the specific players you named would attribute to a town loss by being blatant sheep/ruining Town's chances. There are a couple on-going games that come to mind, but I won't cite them as examples. Anyway, I've seen improvement in all of those players. People are rapidly evolving organisms, Ryker. They change with experience and develop new habits over time. Give them another look. If you want to avoid them until they've sharpened up, fine, but if you mean to say that you would deprive them of the experience of playing in one of your games because you feel they are "inadequate," I think that's obnoxiously elitist and close-minded of you (which will not garner you points...ever), but I suppose it's within your power since you are technically the mod.

As for newer players, I can slightly sympathize with you because I've seen newer players placing their trust in others too easily. However, it's up to a strong Townie to convince the new player why they're in the wrong, so there is some balance to an extent.

 

[#HBC | Laundry]

Bardull, if I make a set-up, I want to see it played well. I don't want a ****load of people who will get played by a small group of about three players. As such, I reserve my right to be picky with sign-ups.

This was one of the issues with GigaBots, to be honest.

 

[#HBC | Laundry]

In other words, "I don't want stupid people in my games."

I'm not sure what gives you the impression that the specific players you named would attribute to a town loss by being blatant sheep/ruining Town's chances. There are a couple on-going games that come to mind, but I won't cite them as examples. Anyway, I've seen improvement in all of those players. People are rapidly evolving organisms, Ryker. They change with experience and develop new habits over time. Give them another look. If you want to avoid them until they've sharpened up, fine, but if you mean to say that you would deprive them of the experience of playing in one of your games because you feel they are "inadequate," I think that's obnoxiously elitist and close-minded of you (which will not garner you points...ever), but I suppose it's within your power since you are technically the mod.

As for newer players, I can slightly sympathize with you because I've seen newer players placing their trust in others too easily. However, it's up to a strong Townie to convince the new player why they're in the wrong, so there is some balance to an extent.

If I'm running a private, especially one with something new, radical, and special, I'd rather have a dedicated roster filled with top-tier players simply for the sake of having a decent base level in terms of results. I don't run privates just for fun, usually (though some are). Whenever I'm trying something new, I'm trying to see if that idea is viable for other mafia games, either ones I host or to give to other hosts so they have an alternative to the stock roles that you usually see. Having a better roster gives better results--it allows you to see what roles are intelligent, which ones aren't, which ones have potential, etc., because a newer/worse player might just fumble around with it without ever really maximizing it to its full potential. A good player will. Hence why I'd prioritize better players.

I don't think I'd flat-out deny them unless it was some really tricky mechanic or really tricky set of roles.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

So what are people thinking? I haven't heard a good argument yet on just having one game mod dedicate himself to private games.