The Mafia Discussion Thread

[FireDoughnut]

I'm not exactly waiting. I'm still writing roles and balancing out things.

[TEOL]

There's no point even making this an issue of Law because there isn't a full-time mod here.

And why is that, exactly?

[-A-]

I like C-MIL's solution. Rather than trusting game mods to know when there are too many games to run, trust players to know how many games they can play in at a time.

No, because that incentivises people to open their sign-ups as soon as possible and leads to this problem. If someone starts their game first then they'll get more sign-ups than someone who opens theirs a couple of days later, because players decide that they can't commit to two games so quickly. Mods who run larger games, or games that they care about activity more in, will be constantly delayed by people who don't really give a shit whether their game is active or whether there are too many games running.

[TEOL]

I like C-MIL's solution. Rather than trusting game mods to know when there are too many games to run, trust players to know how many games they can play in at a time.

No, because that incentivises people to open their sign-ups as soon as possible and leads to this problem. If someone starts their game first then they'll get more sign-ups than someone who opens theirs a couple of days later, because players decide that they can't commit to two games so quickly. Mods who run larger games, or games that they care about activity more in, will be constantly delayed by people who don't really give a shit whether their game is active or whether there are too many games running.

Again, you're coming off as incredibly elitist. How do you plan to decide who is and is not allowed to run games?

[Josh]

But then what happens is that people get fewer sign-ups for good games because they're in all the crappy ones.

And they call me elitist.

Elitist!

[C-MIL]

MPH promoted his dual games for a while in this thread and had no trouble swinging 32 sign-ups, even in the middle of a "mafia boom". If you're going to drag your feet, hype the project so people don't forget about it. If people want to play, they'll make it a priority to be there come sign-up time. In the interim, let the good people play the bad games. It'll only make them cherish the good ones more.

[TEOL]

I knew I wasn't going to want to play Stable Mafia cause it was going to suck. So I did the sensible thing and ignored it. Is that so hard to do?

If anything I should be arguing the other side of this cause people are still complaining at me for 'letting Psychonauts Mafia die' when it didn't get enough signups.

[FireDoughnut]

MPH promoted his dual games for a while in this thread and had no trouble swinging 32 sign-ups, even in the middle of a "mafia boom". If you're going to drag your feet, hype the project so people don't forget about it. If people want to play, they'll make it a priority to be there come sign-up time. In the interim, let the good people play the bad games. It'll only make them cherish the good ones more.

*hype*

TV Mafia

*hype*

45 people needed!

also... the person that helps me out with "balancing" the game will get a super role!

although all 45 people will have something to do! you know, make it really messy!

[Sousa]

Do we even have 45 people who play Mafia?

Much less 45 people who would willingly join a 45-person game?

Because I have really no desire to join a game that's going to require twenty-something votes just to kick off the first lynch.

[-A-]

I like C-MIL's solution. Rather than trusting game mods to know when there are too many games to run, trust players to know how many games they can play in at a time.

No, because that incentivises people to open their sign-ups as soon as possible and leads to this problem. If someone starts their game first then they'll get more sign-ups than someone who opens theirs a couple of days later, because players decide that they can't commit to two games so quickly. Mods who run larger games, or games that they care about activity more in, will be constantly delayed by people who don't really give a shit whether their game is active or whether there are too many games running.

Again, you're coming off as incredibly elitist. How do you plan to decide who is and is not allowed to run games?

With a list, you want to run a game and you go on the bottom of the list. I'm not saying that only certain people should be allowed to run game; I'm saying that the system you're suggesting leads to a free-for-all where people are incentivised to open their game ASAP and therefore penalises people who put work into their games and want them to be guaranteed activity. I think it'll lead to almost any given game from any given mod being worse than if we kept mafia games to some kind of sensible limit.

We discussed this all when the Cube was open and voted on it, the results were in favour of the 'roughly 5 at a time' system. It doesn't need to be dogmatic, it needs to be a rule of thumb.

C-MIL - MPH didn't open his game during a mafia boom, he opened it when there were 4/5 games running at a time.

[TEOL]

Then maybe it's time for a revote. That was back when Zan was in charge. Now no one's in charge. That's not exactly an incentive to stick to those rules.

[C-MIL]

We discussed this all when the Cube was open and voted on it, the results were in favour of the 'roughly 5 at a time' system. It doesn't need to be dogmatic, it needs to be a rule of thumb.

And the fact that we're still discussing it proved that it didn't work.

[Josh]

No one's in charge?!

Oh my god, the Cube has disbanded!

*jumps out of a window*

[-A-]

No, the fact that we're still discussing it proves that:

1) 100% of people will never agree on anything.

2) People will do what they want when there's no mod.

[C-MIL]

Do you really think Neil knows there's no mod? Come on. People are going to do what they want no matter what.

[Josh]

Also . . .

Do we even have 45 people who play Mafia?

Much less 45 people who would willingly join a 45-person game?

Because I have really no desire to join a game that's going to require twenty-something votes just to kick off the first lynch.

This.

[Sousa]

Sousa for Game Cube Mod.

[-A-]

I still don't see why this has to be a rule of law anyway, it's by-and-large common sense. If we all, as a group of players, agree that there should be some kind of approximate limit to the number of simultaneous games, then it's a fair rule. If we DO agree to this, then it would be sensible that people who've written out their roles and promoted their games don't have to wait even longer to start up because people open sign-ups when they want.

If you disagree with the idea that we should have a sensible limit on the games running at once, then that's fine, but it's something that we voted on, it's something that Zan agreed with and it's something that people have gotten used to. This isn't some elitist anti-Neil point, it's just that he's the guy that opened up sign-ups when there were 7 games running and multiple people who're waiting to open up their games. The majority of people seem to care about making sure that games are run properly and with the idea that we should limit the number of games. If there's a minority of people that disagree with that idea then that doesn't give them license to ignore the rules do that they can get their game open as soon as they want and force others, who do agree, to wait.

[C-MIL]

Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. That's the point.

[-A-]

Nobody's forcing anyone to do anything. That's the point.

Yeah, we're trusting people to have common sense and some people don't.