What would you rather see in the hosting topic: 9 sloppy games or 3 extremely well-thought out games?
The latter is the obvious choice, but recently our hosting polls have been a lot closer to the former. We see games get thrown together pretty hastily, formatted poorly, or entered into the poll like 6 times in a row without winning. I get that people want to host, and that a lot of people would like to host even more than they would like to play. But the sheer volume of games being created and entered into the poll is a becoming a tad ridiculous.
So I'm proposing the following change:
If you attempt to have a game hosted by entering that game into the hosting ballot, you are not allowed to attempt to host either of the next two games. So if you try and host a game, but lose in the poll, you have to sit out two games. The same applies if you try and host a game and
win in the poll; you can't submit a game for the next two hosting polls.
I think this change is a good idea for a couple of reasons.
- It will drastically decrease the amount of competition in each poll, allowing the players and the TWC+Bird (yeah, we're sticking with that for now I guess), to give more attention to each of the games in the running.
- It prevents spamming the hosting poll with your games. If you lose, instead of trying to host the exact same game again, you'll have time to modify the game or come up with a new one to host.
- And in a lot of cases, this may even make some games more likely to be chosen. FSM, verm and Maestro make very popular games, and it could be difficult to beat them in a poll. However, if they all participate in the poll for game XLVI, then the competition for XLVII will be reduced quite a bit, and newer hosts and players may have a chance to finally shine.
Obviously the system isn't perfect, but I think it would be a large improvement on our current one. And it's open for debate as well. So discuss away.
Not being able to host for two games if your game loses seems like a bit too much; eventually, if enough people enter per-time (even 6 people at a time), there may be no host candidates, or at least those experienced enough to host?
Another neat thing about this system is that it's self-regulating. If five people enter a hosting poll, the sixth person should (theoretically) think to himself "Huh, that means that the next poll won't have a lot of competition. I think I'll hold off on this one and enter that one instead." The system should work out to where there's never more than 3-5 games each poll, with that number staying much closer to 3 than 5.
As for not being able to host two games after a loss... well, to be honest, a game that's lost once is already much less likely to win than a fresh game. The best thing to do if your game loses twice is probably to scrap the game and make a new one. The "sit out two games" rule encourages that.
It sounds harsh, but I would prefer to see host polls won through innovation as opposed to perseverance.
I like this idea, and I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I like to take breaks between hosting games so sitting two polls is good for the winners. If your games loses, it loses for a reason. This allows you to tweak it if the demand to play it was there (it came in second) and give it another go later. Plus people get whiny when their game loses six times in a row, and it forces newer, frankly, better games to lose out to a lackluster game that didn't win for a reason.
The problem is, most people really don't know why their game lost, since the polls tend to be really close and nobody offers any reasons as to wy they voted for one game over another (anonimity means you don't hurt people's feelings). As a result, they keep submitting games to hope for a better result, only to lose out again to "LOL Pokemon Joke Game 16!!!1!!". Even when people ask for criticism, nobody tends to give it.
Also, alot of joke games tend to win, beating out some really well thought out games for reason other than, "ha, that's funny." There's not much quality control around here, so whenever somebody craps out yet another Pokemon-joke game, the trend shows that it'll beat out most of the detailed and nuanced games. This is really more of a personal gripe than an actual problem, but the quality control issue needs to be addressed.
An idea: Before the poll goes up, each game must be approved by two members of TWC before being added to the poll. This will cut down on poorly thought out games and keep spots open for the better designed ones.
Quote from: MaestroUGC on December 17, 2012, 05:12:45 PMAlso, alot of joke games tend to win, beating out some really well thought out games for reason other than, "ha, that's funny." There's not much quality control around here, so whenever somebody craps out yet another Pokemon-joke game, the trend shows that it'll beat out most of the detailed and nuanced games. This is really more of a personal gripe than an actual problem, but the quality control issue needs to be addressed.
I agree that quality control is another issue that needs addressing. I think a rule like this (or something similar), although not perfect, is at least a step in the right direction. If you can't try to host as frequently, the idea is you'll spend more time on the games you do submit.
QuoteAn idea: Before the poll goes up, each game must be approved by two members of TWC before being added to the poll. This will cut down on poorly thought out games and keep spots open for the better designed ones.
We had a rule like this when I was TWC on another website. It became pretty exhausting after a certain point to meticulously balance each game submitted, but I was the only TWC at the time. It's definitely something we should consider implementing here though.
I definitely express support for this. I think it both incentivizes players to work hard on improving their games before submitting them and gives people the criticism they need to do so. I think that recently, because of how many potential games we have, not all of them are looked at very closely, and potentially good games don't have their chance to be refined. With fewer games on the ballot, people are more likely to explain why they didn't pick certain games, something which isn't practical when there are 10 games on the ballot.
However, I think there should be an exception if there are fewer than three games submitted after two days. At that point, I think the choices are too limiting, and there's a good chance that a bad game might get picked. At that point, I think it'd be fair to have the games that got the second-most votes in previous elections to be put on the ballot.
Woah, its verm!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but TWC are just moderators for TWG, it's not their responsibility to make sure everybody's game is perfect, just to say "X is an issue, fix it" with maybe a suggestion, but it's the host's duty to actually build and fix their game.
I don't think it'd be too hard to skim over a game posted and say "yes" or "no". Then again, most games are really wordy, especially mine.
While I can't speak from personal experience on this site due to the lack of games I've played recently, this honestly seems like a great idea. It gives hosts a chance to review their game and make sure it's the best it can be before submitting it, and it makes host a privilege and something to be worked at while not being "just keep submitting a game until it's voted!"
That said, I'll likely play a game on here sometime soonish.
It can be hard for prospective hosts to balance their games if they don't know precisely why it's imbalanced. If somebody sends you a game with 8 special human roles, 3 wolves and 3 humans, me telling them it's human-sided won't mean that much to them. They might add a miller and send it back, hoping desperately for a "yes". I would have to tell them how a game with 8 special roles is fundamentally flawed due to the number of claimable roles. But then they don't know what to do since the 8 special roles were based on Santa's reindeer!!! So I'd feel guilty since I didn't want to ruin their game idea, so I'd end up reworking it somehow.
I'm just too nice I guess!!!!!
that game could work if you made all 8 of santa's reindeer masons and gave the wolves 2 wolfings
ty verm
Yeah I get that, but even if the answer is no, them knowing why or why not deosn't make their game good or balanced. Most flawed games are for fundamental reasons, too many variables to take into account, one-sided, some gimmick was poorly implemented, etc.
I've had to twak games before, mostly because: "If X does this, then what's the point of Y?"
Quote from: Bubbles7689 on December 17, 2012, 05:24:58 PMWoah, its verm!
xD Yay! I know :)
...So what I'm imagining here is that you're thinking that the people who will sign up their game will be the ones 100% that they can win, otherwise it'd be pretty pointless if you knew your game wasn't it's best, yet still entered it anyway, automatically losing your chance to host for the next three games. Smhart.
I really like this idea. The crapload of potential games really discourages me from trying to host (which is my favorite part of TWG).
Quote from: Kman96 on December 17, 2012, 05:49:23 PMxD Yay! I know :)
...So what I'm imagining here is that you're thinking that the people who will sign up their game will be the ones 100% that they can win, otherwise it'd be pretty pointless if you knew your game wasn't it's best, yet still entered it anyway, automatically losing your chance to host for the next three games. Smhart.
It's
always pointless to try and host if you know your game isn't going to win. The only difference is that with this proposed system, you'll have approximately a 1/3 chance of winning every 3 polls, versus a 1/9 chance of winning every poll.
...which essentially amounts to no difference at all in terms of likelihood of winning.
If TWC's job isn't to balance the games, then where can noobs like myself go to have game ideas tweaked?
People are generally willing to comment on your game informally, blueflower! The "TWG Suggestions, comments, questions" thread is where game to-be-balanced normally end up.
As for the actual idea, I think it's great. It forces people to put real thought into their game under the risk of losing out on the next two, and it stops bad games from being submitted vermillion times in a row (lol).
The idea is that we're supposed to be lazy and you're supposed to keep badgering us until we do our jobs, actually!!!
Feel free to send me a PM if not the other TWC Members, at least, if you need your game balanced. And make sure to badger me if I'm not prompt, really!
Quote from: Bird on December 17, 2012, 04:50:23 PMAnother neat thing about this system is that it's self-regulating. If five people enter a hosting poll, the sixth person should (theoretically) think to himself "Huh, that means that the next poll won't have a lot of competition. I think I'll hold off on this one and enter that one instead." The system should work out to where there's never more than 3-5 games each poll, with that number staying much closer to 3 than 5.
Wait, so, using that logic, almost everybody will want to wait. :P
Sometimes, perseverance is necessary, because, in some cases, people may want to play the game you submitted, but currently, may be more interested in another game.
Quote from: Mashi on December 17, 2012, 06:35:10 PMFeel free to send me a PM if not the other TWC Members, at least, if you need your game balanced. And make sure to badger me if I'm not prompt, really!
Badger badger badger.
Back to the main point:
How about just limiting the number of games-per-poll, like, for example, only 6 games per poll??
The problem with that is that it doesn't ensure that the six chosen are quality, and it means that if you're online right when the signups open you have a greater chance of getting your name on the ballot.
QuoteWait, so, using that logic, almost everybody will want to wait.
Sometimes, perseverance is necessary, because, in some cases, people may want to play the game you submitted, but currently, may be more interested in another game
Under the proposed system, you'd still want to submit your game if you thought it had a good chance of beating the ones nominated. When there are already five or six games nominated, your chances of winning are drastically decreased, but when there are only two or three, it might be smart to put your game up. Bird's proposal highlights a few games at a time, giving them each more attention.
What if a game is very popular, but loses the vote by not much, then people would be annoyed that that person cannot host for 2-3 games. What if we make it so that if a game gets more than 1-2 votes, that person can host again, while if a person gets no votes, or only got a vote from themself, they must stick to the hosting ban.
Mild off-topic question, but on other forums that play TWG/Mafia/Any other name for TWG, how often do Mystery games get through Host Sign/Sing/1 ups? Because as you can see in the current Host 1 ups, I have a mystery game in the ballot, and another approved by a TWC.
Quote from: SocialFox on December 17, 2012, 08:27:42 PMWhat if a game is very popular, but loses the vote by not much, then people would be annoyed that that person cannot host for 2-3 games. What if we make it so that if a game gets more than 1-2 votes, that person can host again, while if a person gets no votes, or only got a vote from themself, they must stick to the hosting ban.
Mild off-topic question, but on other forums that play TWG/Mafia/Any other name for TWG, how often do Mystery games get through Host Sign/Sing/1 ups? Because as you can see in the current Host 1 ups, I have a mystery game in the ballot, and another approved by a TWC.
If a game is super popular but doesn't win, it will probably win the next round its hosted. And we're still talking about a "second place in the poll = automatic entry into the next poll" type of rule.
As for mystery games, it depends almost entirely on who the host is. The only things you know about the game are the number of players (unimportant), the theme (unimportant) and the host (super important). So if a person with tons of experience hosting great games comes up with a mystery game, it has a great chance of being chosen. But if a less experienced host tries to get his game voted for, it doesn't stand as good of a chance.
Ok, who is currently TWC?
From what I can tell it's Mashi and Verm as the active members, with Bird acting as a sort of Proxy.
Nakah, Mashi, verm, jake, Mastergamer and Concerto I believe.
I'm supposed to be TWC. I'm just waiting on the paperwork to go through I guess.
Ok, can the non-active members be removed since they aren't here anymore/aren't active in TWG? Not really important to the task at hand, but just something I noticed that TWC is loaded with empty seats/absent members.
I guess it doesn't make a difference, but I feel it is important to keep these things as up-to-date as possible.
TWC Members can't be added nor removed by me or vermilionvermin, unfortunately. Only JaMaHa has that power, as far as I'm aware. And he and Cirno haven't responded to my requests, so TWC Member Amendments are at a standstill for now.
I personally would hate the fact my game would be on hold for 2 other games, while I could have my breakthrough the next time. I don't like this idea, sorry!
It's a good suggestion but I personally don't like it and won't be too happy if it becomes a new rule unless...
-this only applies to people who have hosted before
-people who haven't hosted before start with +1 votes for their game
Quote from: The Boy Who Cried Wolf on December 18, 2012, 10:54:46 AMIt's a good suggestion but I personally don't like it and won't be too happy if it becomes a new rule unless...
-this only applies to people who have hosted before
-people who haven't hosted before start with +1 votes for their game
I completely agree.
^That's a terrible rule.
The problem with how the rule would work out without the changes TBWCW posted is that is that players that hadn't had the chance to host will only have an even lower chance of hosting instead of a higher. I can imagine that there would be a cycle of verm-fsm-maestro that constantly repetes. Also, even if that cycle doesn't repeat, there still is a chance that players that have already hosted keep winning the games that those three can't join. Futhermore it won't stop players that had created unballanced games submit those games in exactly the same form three sign-ups later. The only real thing this rule will create is causing less games enter the host sign-ups.
If we really want to help players who hadn't hosted yet getting to host, I'd suggest creating a topic were players that haven't hosted yet to post there games in and let other players reply if they would want to play it or what would have to be changed about the game before they should want. Once a number of players equal to the number of players in said game have said they would want to play it, that player could post it in the host sign-ups.
Even then, I'd suggest that players that hadn't hosted yet will get an advantage during host sign-ups, because otherwise, if those players still don't get the chance to host, it will only discourage them from trying to get to host and eventually, it might even discourage them from playing the game at all.
People who haven't hosted before shouldn't get any extra benefits. If they make a game popular enough to get hosted, then it will get hosted. If not, they, more than anyone else, need the criticism and time to improve it. At the rate these games are coming out, only one or two games ever gets any criticism, and most of them never get touched. If there are only a few games on the ballot, each is going to get more attention since the players have to pick one of them.
I don't know where people are getting the idea that there are hosts that always win.
TWG 44: Sheikah/Waddle Bro (designed by FSM)
TWG 43: Maestro
TWG 42: Verm
TWG 41: Bird
TWG 40: Spitllama
TWG 39: FSM
TWG 38: Sheikah (designed by Bird)
TWG 37: Maestro
TWG 36: Jub3r7
TWG 35: Kman
TWG 34: Sheikah
TWG 33: Spitllama
TWG 32: Mashi
TWG 31: Jub3r7
TWG 30: Mashi
TWG 29: SFK
TWG 28: Slow
TWG 27: Mashi
TWG 26: Shadowkirby
TWG 25: Jub3r7
Going back the past 20 games, only three people have hosted three of those 20. One of those three was Mashi, who hosted his three when there was a host drought rather than a surplus. Most of Jub3r7's were hosted under similar conditions. And Sheikah, the only other person who's hosted more than twice in 20 games, had two of the three games he hosted designed by other people.
I don't think that Bird's proposed rotation would affect this trend. People only produce games so quickly. I think that if there is an issue, it's in the fact that we can see who's voted for what and change our votes accordingly. I think I proposed some modifications to the way we pick games earlier to discourage that, but people decided against it.
With the new system, everybody is still going to have the same aggregate chance of having their game hosted. As I said before, it's just approximately a 1/3 chance every three polls compared to a 1/9 chance every poll. All this does is make the poll topics less of a clusterfuck, and encourages people to put more thought into their game rather than spamming it on each hosting ballot.
@Waddle Bro: Although losing would put your game on hold, losing will become less common since the polls are much smaller.
@The Boy who Cried Wolf: We want to encourage new players to try hosting, but I don't think it would be fair to give them an advantage over previous hosts. The most popular game should win every time, otherwise it's unfair to the players.
@Davy: The current system doesn't feature Maestro/Verm/FSM coming in 1st/2nd/3rd each time, so I don't see why they would always win their sections anyway. If those players are frequently beaten by other players in a 9 game poll, they will be beaten by other players in 3x 3-game polls just as often. Math, yo. And I don't know where everyone is getting this idea that we should be helping new players host games. I don't have anything against new players hosting games, but if they want to host, they need to have the most popular game, not assistance from the rules or the TWC.
If the change ends up being as shitty as the dissenters think it probably will be, we'll definintely change it back. But as things are now, with a majority in favor and nightmarish hosting poll topics, I think we should probably give it a shot starting with the next host sign-ups.
Quote from: Bird on December 18, 2012, 06:31:35 PMWith the new system, everybody is still going to have the same aggregate chance of having their game hosted. As I said before, it's just approximately a 1/3 chance every three polls compared to a 1/9 chance every poll.
Wait a minute... unless I'm mistaken, isn't 1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 1/27 ???
Quote from: Bird on December 18, 2012, 06:31:35 PM@Davy: The current system doesn't feature Maestro/Verm/FSM coming in 1st/2nd/3rd each time, so I don't see why they would always win their sections anyway. If those players are frequently beaten by other players in a 9 game poll, they will be beaten by other players in 3x 3-game polls just as often. Math, yo.
Not always, especially depending on the circumstance. Although they wouldn't be able to enter every poll (whether they win or lose), in every poll they enter in, the only match-up could be between those three!!
Quote from: BlackDragonSlayer on December 18, 2012, 09:04:20 PMWait a minute... unless I'm mistaken, isn't 1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 1/27 ???
Nope. Math Derp.
1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 1/3^2 = 1/9
You're thinking 3 X 3 X 3 = 27
Quote from: Kman96 on December 18, 2012, 09:06:12 PMNope. Math Derp.
1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 1/3^2 = 1/9
You're thinking 3 X 3 X 3 = 27
Wait a minute... wouldn't it be 1/3^3, since you're multiplying 1/3 by itself three times? If it were 1/3^2, it would only be 1/3 X 1/3 ???
(1/3)*(1/3)*(1/3) would be the probability of winning three 3-man polls in a row, which comes out to a 1/27 chance, and isn't really relevant to the discussion.
With the current system, let's look at the next three polls and we'll say that each poll has 9 entrants. For each poll, the chance of a person losing is 8/9. So the chance of a person losing three polls in a row is (8/9)*(8/9)*(8/9)=70.23%. Meaning that the probability of winning at least one of those three polls is 100%-70.23%=29.77%.
With the new system, there are three 3-man polls. For one poll, the chance of a person losing is 2/3 in one poll and 1/1 in the other two (since the player can't compete in those polls, he will definitely not win them). So the chance of a person losing those three polls in a row is (2/3)*(1)*(1)=66.67%. Meaning that the probability of winning one of those polls (the one you actually participate in, obviously) is 100%-66.67%=33.33%.
So with the new system, you actually have an increased chance of having your game hosted. Why is this possible? Well, the increased chance comes at the cost of not being able to host more than one game per three games. A small price to pay for the benefits the change offers, if you ask me!
I don't see why people think that the cycle will pit the same people against each other each rotation. Most hosts will be aware of their competition, they can see how strong a game is and how well people like it when they are posted before the poll goes up. A smart host can look at this and say, "Hmm, my game probably won't win," and withdraw their entry, and try again next time, instead of leaving it there, have it lose, and be forced to wait until three games later.
With only three games (maybe 4?) to choose from in the actual poll, most people can comment on games as they are posted indicating their interest and whatever issues they have with it.
Though this could be mediated if people post their games in the TWG comments thread, getting feedback from their peers before trying to host it in the polls. Plus TWC can actually have a chance to overlook these games and point out problems and actually approve them.
Quite some time ago, there was an idea of adding a host sign-ups, only for players that hadn't hosted yet, and that they would host a game that had already been played on NSM before. I'd suggest we would use the idea Bird came up with, and that every forth game there will be a host sign-ups for every player that hadn't hosted yet that will host earlier games. Those players should be allowed to practicipate in those host sign-ups regardless of wheter they entered a host sign-ups in the previous cycle and, unless they win, they are allowed to practicipate in the following cycle (this is to prevend discouraging those players from making there own games if they are only practicipating in the host sign-ups for older games).
That way, those players will be happy, because it's almost certain that they will have hosted at some point and it's fair to the players, because the game chosen was at least popular enough to win an earlier host sign-ups.
I disagree. Only the most popular game should be chosen, hosted by an experienced host or not. Experienced hosts have an equal chance of hosting than the players who have not hosted before.
My friend jokingly came up with another solution:
Systematically let every player who hasn't hosted to host a game. Once they see how overrated the experience is, competition in hosting polls will drop.
...but yeah, Waddle Bro explained my stance pretty well. If this new system somehow makes it more difficult for new hosts to be chosen, we can talk about changing it back.
Topic being unstickied as the rule is going into place starting with the next sign-ups. Thanks for all the input and discussion everyone! If it ends up being shitty we'll go back to normal.