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

[mjdgoldeneye]

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:

Max Players: 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.

[mjdgoldeneye]

Poll is public, BTW, to avoid non-players from voting randomly!

EDIT: Well, it was supposed to be public... Does being invisible stop your name from coming up? Did I miss the check box?

[trypio]

Long games are always great. Only sucks if you die very early. But part of the game is to make sure that doesn't happens. So, it's your own fault basically. Short games are boring imo. Why put a limit on games?

[nZane]

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!

[Clarity]

I vote yes.. I'd rather 30 be the limit.

Welcome to E-Ville went on for 5 weeks, and i get the feeling that as we get better the games will get longer

[Ghetto Anthony]

I vote yes. I don't want to have to wait a year for Heroes Mafia.

Plus I wasn't able to play for nearly a month because I was killed off early. Which was lame.

[Arrows]

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.

[trypio]

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...?)

[i effin rule]

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.

[mjdgoldeneye]

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.

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...

[DreamGoddessLindsey]

I have a better idea. Let's keep having the huge games, but also be running smaller second games if there is interest.

[mjdgoldeneye]

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.

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.

[Clarity]

I have a better idea. Let's keep having the huge games, but also be running smaller second games if there is interest.Thats another good idea

[Arrows]

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...

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.

[mjdgoldeneye]

I have a better idea. Let's keep having the huge games, but also be running smaller second games if there is interest.

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?

[DreamGoddessLindsey]

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 do 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.

http://nlw.redmoonmidnight.com/boards/index.php?topic=196.0

[Clarity]

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...?)I kinda think its both a players issue AND 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 these games that have a limit upon them..

The normal games could then remain the same as they are right now

[mjdgoldeneye]

Obviously, it's not up to me or this poll to decide, but I just want to see what the overall opinion is.

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...


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.

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.

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...

[Crychon]

Where you got the idea that I was trying to be Stalin-Mod, IDK...

My BFF Jill?

[mjdgoldeneye]

My BFF Jill?

ROFL... ;)

[Arrows]

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...

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.

[Derek B]

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.

[i effin rule]

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...

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?

[Crychon]

I also voted for never, I think it should be up to the mods...

For instance, my game currently has 39 roles, and if I can get that many people, I'd like to keep them all.

[mjdgoldeneye]

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?

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!)

[mjdgoldeneye]

It's sort of redundant now, but I think we're leaving everything as it were.

If no one thinks big games will make things slow down more quickly, they won't, as we're the players/mods. I don't mind playing in big games myself, but obviously there was an issue with the length of the waiting list (you can't tell me there weren't grumbles and comments...), and we seem to have reached a consensus.

If you are really far down on the waiting list, don't worry. If we hold Graveyard Games or you get lucky enough to co-mod, you should be tied over for the remainder! :D

[Clarity]

Arrows.. You mind if i ask your opinion on this..

How about we dont limit the games we have, that way we can have the 30-50 player mayhem that we all know and love..

...then a week or 2 into that game, a small 'Graveyard' game starts.. This can be for anyone already dead or for new players to try out Mafia.. Its this game that has a limit cap. 10-15 players being its limit.

This sorts both types of players out.. and could help reduce the waiting time between games. We set up a list of 'Graveyard' games and pick the game we want to tide us over.

Its fair.. Its diplomatic, and should cater everybody

[Arrows]

Arrows.. You mind if i ask your opinion on this..

How about we dont limit the games we have, that way we can have the 30-50 player mayhem that we all know and love..

...then a week or 2 into that game, a small 'Graveyard' game starts.. This can be for anyone already dead or for new players to try out Mafia.. Its this game that has a limit cap. 10-15 players being its limit.

This sorts both types of players out.. and could help reduce the waiting time between games. We set up a list of 'Graveyard' games and pick the game we want to tide us over.

Its fair.. Its diplomatic, and should cater everybody

Don't have a problem with that at all.

[Arrows]

Oh..and btw. The reason my game's so low?

The list got started right about the time my break did.

[mjdgoldeneye]

Oh..and btw. The reason my game's so low?

The list got started right about the time my break did.

Ah, I see...

Luckily your game isn't too far off compared to some of the others. BTW, did you ask if you could move ahead of anyone? I doubt they'd accept, but Heroes seems to be a popular premise (and I may step out of it because I know nothing about the show!). I've been told it would be awesome though, so IDK.

[djthefunkchris]

I think the resolution has to come by having mini games about two weeks into the bigger games (my opinion).

Create a seperate thread for mini-moded mafia games, and set the limit to 15 or 20. Make it a rule that you cannot be "IN" the main game, so the mini's will probably be able to be played about two weeks into the main games.

Example:

Big Game A starts Saturday... Goes on for six weeks.

Two weeks after Game A starts, Small game Z starts with 15. This game goes for three weeks, ending a week before the big game.

As Game Z comes to an end Small game Y starts (getting people to sign up). Immediately after Game Z is over, small game Y kicks off, and goes for three weeks (two weeks after the big game is over).

The sign ups start for Big Game B towards the end of Big GAme A. People join it no matter if playing or not. The game does not end till everyone that has signed up is out of the smaller game.

/rinse and repeat.

That's the only way I can see this thing moving faster. Also, I wouldn't doubt some of the one's on the list wanting to change over to the smaller game sign up, or even signing up to do a smaller game while waiting to do their big game.

Just seems that it would go at least three times faster (which still isn't enough, but maybe we will think of something else after this gets going).

[Arrows]

Ah, I see...

Luckily your game isn't too far off compared to some of the others. BTW, did you ask if you could move ahead of anyone? I doubt they'd accept, but Heroes seems to be a popular premise (and I may step out of it because I know nothing about the show!). I've been told it would be awesome though, so IDK.

Nobody wanted to change. Fine where I am.

[theoutlaw321]

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:

Max Players: 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.

I got about this far in reading this. LOL

[Astil]

Nobody wanted to change. Fine where I am.

Id bump down so I can do mine in the summer. I have a huge research paper coming up, and then finals, so I wouldn't mind being bumped down one or two.

[Arrows]

Promised someone a spot in mine, and I intend to keep it, so...yea. Rather happy where I am.

On second thought..check your PM.

[BlueStar]

Long games are always great. Only sucks if you die very early. But part of the game is to make sure that doesn't happens. So, it's your own fault basically. Short games are boring imo. Why put a limit on games?

Fellow Belgian says it short and sweet. Agree 100%...is that a "NEVER!"?

[BlueStar]

And I'm rallying 200% against setting up graveyard boards. If you die during a game, well...you'll have to wait. If you want to talk, PM another dead person.

To be honest, the enjoyment of the games has gone down SIGNIFICANTLY for me once Graveyard boards were set up. Luckily I lasted 2 games without seeing one, the ones I did see...well, I wish I hadn't.

The fun of the games here is the creativity and the patience put in by all the mods and most of the players. Change that...quality will go down. My 0.02 Euro's.

[mjdgoldeneye]

And I'm rallying 200% against setting up graveyard boards. If you die during a game, well...you'll have to wait. If you want to talk, PM another dead person.

To be honest, the enjoyment of the games has gone down SIGNIFICANTLY for me once Graveyard boards were set up. Luckily I lasted 2 games without seeing one, the ones I did see...well, I wish I hadn't.

The fun of the games here is the creativity and the patience put in by all the mods and most of the players. Change that...quality will go down. My 0.02 Euro's.

I understand being against graveyard boards. I don't really care much either way for them. If I plan on following a game, I'll stay out of them. If not, I'll just pop in to see what's what if I'm curious.

I don't care if people set up graveyards, as I can avoid the temptation of spoilers!

Keep in mind that we can easily have "graveyard" games without having a "graveyard", if that makes sense...

[Mr T Jobs To Me]

Thanks for making me feel like I was back in the United Nations, Civ 4 style. :D

Although there's been a gentlemen's agreement of sorts as to the order of games and adherance to the informal 1 at a time policy/ waiting list, it's still up to the person running the game to when they want to start and how many signups they accept.

Of course, I'd rather see people who realize their concepts have limited appeal make their games into shortened versions, then add-on signups as was necessary. But an even better way (IMO) would be to have two games available to sign up for at once.

If we started 2 games at once, the power of choice would dictate which would be the bigger game and which would be smaller. Then, once the smaller game finished (and as long as the big one was not also nearing completion, in which case it would make more sense to wait and launch 2 more at once), the next person in line could begin their signups and the people who finished / were dead could jump back in if they so chose.

Instead of trying to restrict choice and further retard the process, I think things should go the other way and allow the people's choice to dictate the decision.

[djthefunkchris]

I do like the way "T" thinks.

[theoutlaw321]

I do like the way "T" thinks.

The question is "Is he already drunk?" and if so then maybe he should just stay in that state. LOL

[Mr T Jobs To Me]

The question is "Is he already drunk?" and if so then maybe he should just stay in that state. LOL

I hope it's one of my role in GDS Mafia's win conditions to target the person with your role at night for an ability-stealing drunken tirade. That would learn ya! :D

And since GDS Mafia is one of the more anticipated games, if people elected to run 2 games, I would think that shouldn't start until either at least half the people in GDS were dead or even not until after the game's over.

[trypio]

And I'm rallying 200% against setting up graveyard boards. If you die during a game, well...you'll have to wait. If you want to talk, PM another dead person.

To be honest, the enjoyment of the games has gone down SIGNIFICANTLY for me once Graveyard boards were set up. Luckily I lasted 2 games without seeing one, the ones I did see...well, I wish I hadn't.

The fun of the games here is the creativity and the patience put in by all the mods and most of the players. Change that...quality will go down. My 0.02 Euro's.

The graveyard thing doesn't work as it should in my opinion. People in the graveyard should know what's going on, who's bad and who's not and stuff like that. Watching a game from a mod's perspective seems fun. Watching a game from an unknown dead guy's perspective just sounds dumb to me. I don't like it. I'd prefer knowing all the stuff the mod knows and watch the stuff unfold.

[theoutlaw321]

The graveyard thing doesn't work as it should in my opinion. People in the graveyard should know what's going on, who's bad and who's not and stuff like that. Watching a game from a mod's perspective seems fun. Watching a game from an unknown dead guy's perspective just sounds dumb to me. I don't like it. I'd prefer knowing all the stuff the mod knows and watch the stuff unfold.

I think the problem that exists is that there is a feeling that some of the stuff that is revealed in the graveyard somehow someway makes it's way into active players hands, or ears. ;) :eek: :cool: