Mafia Improvements and Ideas

[Omega Centauri]

There was a brief discussion on ways we might improve mafia, and some of the common problems we run across.

Someone suggested blacklisting players who never post or leave without reasons, and I suggested limiting the number of games ran at once.

What do you think? Do changes even need to be made? If so, what?

[Poker]

The blacklisting of players who sign up and then disappear is a good idea, in my opinion. I find it annoying, and I haven't even been here that long.
_________________
I'm with me.

[Mgm]

I did suggest it, but I think asking for alternative contact info for such people first is a good idea.

[Ctorj]

I agree with Mgm.

I'm not sure about limiting the number of games, though if wide support is shown, then maybe a signup list for mods is a good idea. That way, the amount of games being played is kept to a low roar. We can ask for a start date from mods and keep track of those mods who don't begin in a timely manner which screws things up for everyone else. Just an idea to throw out there.

[Dragon Phoenix]

Been there done that.

We started with a mod list and a limited number of games simultaneously. People complain then as well.

I think the solution is simpler: if your sign-up is not filled within say a week, forget it. Try again later. Keeping sign-ups open for a long time to reach your target numer will only increase the chance that the first ones that have signed up left out of boredom.

[Mgm]

But that's not enough reason to ignore the mod when he asks for a response when the game does start.

[Omega Centauri]

My biggest gripe is when they leave, and because of it we get days that last over a month, and nights that last weeks.

[Dragon Phoenix]

[Ctorj]

[Quailman]

[Courk]

I actually had one person leave a game because they don't come to this site anymore. I think that's one of the worst excuses I've ever seen, but at least that player did PM me to let me know.

[!Chucklez!]

It is note without a note of irony that I vote yes.
We have kept a running Blacklist on MTGSalvation for some time, and it seems to work well.

[Dead Rikimaru]

[AZu]

From the little experience i have, i don't think long drawn out days help much. Just cause i signed up for a game in December doesn't mean i want to or can contnue playing it in March. I think there should be strict deadlines on the duration of each day.

Just a thought

[Courk]

Deep South mafia worked really well, I thought. Even a slight variation of having 1 week for every day, and 2 or 3 days for nights would work well, I think.

[MatthewV]

1) for some unknown reason people have starting taking this game more seriously. I do not understand this trend.

2) DP is right that good mods can still make good games.

3) People have been making their games larger. These games are more fun to create and mod but in my opinion not as good for the players.

No to the blacklist. PM the players you think might drop out you.

And for any game that I am not already in, I am willing to replace.

[Talzor]

I agree with Matt, especially on 3). While bigger games can have a more diverse setup, small ones seem to feel more.. personal and by it's very nature requires more activity from the individual player. I'm secretly trilled that mgm's literary mafia only got 14 attendants (Sorry mgm, don't modkill me )
Also I like know deadlines on the days to keep a little pressure on the players to discuss matters instead of just hanging back. The deadline can always be extended if there are enough activity at the end of a day.

[Dead Rikimaru]

It's no use to put the name of someone in the blacklist if he/she won't come back.
The problem is not people registering, disappearing and coming back. The problem is people registering and then disappearing forever.
_________________
Learn how to flip out like a ninja!
My (few) Mafia results!

[Mgm]

[Omega Centauri]

[Omega Centauri]

8 for a blacklist and 4 against.

Why, I think thats a filibuster proof majority;)

[Neo]

People take the game WAY too seriously. Chill out, it's a game, it's supposed to be fun.

Metagaming sucks. "I don't think the mod would do this, etc." "In a game three months ago, you acted this way and had that role," "In concurrent game, you pissed me off, therefore...."

In Mafscum chat: Don't invite me to play a game if all you've got is a list of players and no mod. I don't have time for that.

That's just off the top of my head. I might have more later.
_________________
_{Ad Astra}

[Courk]

I don't see what's so wrong with using past games to see how a player acts.

[MatthewV]

Players also have the power to not sign up for games they think will flop.

I don't think mods should try to push their games too hard. If players don't sign up in a resonable amount of time, don't take offense, announce the game cancled, and wait until the time is better. Maybe consider a redesign if enough but less than the desired number sign up.

sigh

[Samadhi]

Mainly I think DP has said it pretty well. The key thing is that it is the mod’s responsibility for a smooth flowing game. I personally don’t care about the particulars of how they do it, there’s a million ways for a mod to keep a game flowing and enjoyable. I am not going to attempt to set down rules that another mod should follow.

There's probably some among the posters in this thread who either haven't noticed the description for this forum or if they have, don't know why it's described that way.

“A Free Market Experiment. Play GL Mafia here.”

As has been said, we’ve tried lists and such. In the end we decided on the Free Market. Anyone can start a game with whatever rules they want and accept whomever they want as players. And the way it’s set up now, mods can do what they want in any of the million ways that modding can be done, and whether a mod succeeds or fails, their play adds to the universe of knowledge. And the Game becomes all the better for it.

As an experiment I’d say it’s worked *extremely* well. There is NO reason for any restriction upon the mods’ freedoms. A blacklist implies that mods would not be able to sign up people on that list. I for one find the notion anathema to the intentions of this forum and the GL in general.

However.

If someone wants to start a thread to track the dependency of players, I think that’s fine. I also think it’s fine for anyone to be as critical as they want to be of anything said in the hypothetical thread.

[Antrax]

Pretty much what Samadhi said. We used to run mafia games in VG and limited the number of games. Then we've decided to let the market forces do theirs (and create this forum, to not clutter VG), and it's been working very well for the past couple of years or so.
One other thing, about the email address of members - the "activate account by email" option is deliberately disabled, because it doesn't stop any malicious users/scripts, and it does annoy the regular users. I don't see this being changed anytime soon.
However, as a mod you can ask players to PM or post an email address where they can be reached. The assumption is that players who vanish do so out of negligence and not malice, which seems reasonable IMO.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Mgm]

You know what, Antrax? You make a lot of sense.
I'll just ask people I fear will disappear to give me alternative contact info. I'll see what I do next if that doesn't help.

[Samadhi]

And there I was thinking you were making useful commentary. What was I thinking?

[Jecht Murray]

Voted yes. It doesn't have to be a straight up 'blacklist' but they should most definitely be put on a list that says 'Hey, this guy is liable to leave, use at your own risk'. I think it ruins games when you have to replace a dozen players a game.

[Neo]

Another thing.

Day 3: Page 17. It's one thing if it's substantive arguments and such, but it's usually "Don't vote me! Vote this lurker" "Scum!" "Vote lurker" "Lurker here, sorry." "Next lurker!"
_________________
_{Ad Astra}