Personality Cafe banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 106 Posts

·
Moderator
Wielding the mafia banhammer
Joined
·
1,352 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Yes, @Siggy and I have been thinking again. :tongue:


-We have a problem with filling large games.
-We have a lot of meta reads anymore, which can become very frustrating for players.
-Time is an issue for a number of people.

So we're looking at what we can change, what y'all can change, what's most important in a game to you.

Do you like big closed setups? How important is balance in that case, is 60-40 odds fair enough? Are you willing to recruit new players to help fill these kinds of games?

Do you prefer small open setups? Is that because you don't have time to follow a large game? Or is it you just prefer the atmosphere where there are fewer people to keep track of?

Do you prefer a high volume game or a low volume? And what do you think of as high volume?

Do you like the standard 48/24 phases? Should we run some 12/12s or 36/12s? (I know, time zones are A Thing for us, but suggestions are good.) How about long phase post restricted games, like a five day day and and a two day night, but you can only post like fifty times a phase or so?

What is it that makes a game enjoyable, apart from winning? Setup, players, modding?

Do we need a crackdown on certain behaviors?


---

Not all of these are things Siggy and I can do much about. I mean, if everyone says they prefer 25 player closed role madness multiball games, but we only have 14-15 people consistently signing up for games, then.... y'all gonna have to start recruiting if you want those games to run. And hype the game in advance. ( http://personalitycafe.com/mafia/174175-mafia-game-trailers.html ) We would hope that you all would notice that kind of disconnect yourselves and toss around some ideas on how to fix it.

But there are things we can do and are open to suggestion.

And as always, if you have some ideas or thoughts you want kept private, you can PM us.
 

·
Moderator
Wielding the mafia banhammer
Joined
·
1,352 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I mentioned the trouble with meta reads... new blood can help fix this.

One of the reasons Cue gave for doing quirk games was to help people get past that... good to stretch your own meta, good to break up reliance on meta and reading for in game reasons instead. Thinking I might throw some quirks in the next game I run for that reason, dunno yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,787 Posts
Controversial idea: We should reach out to MU or Thingyman and ask for some tips to get more people playing here. They have a big player base and I think they might have knowledge in this area. Would NOT ask the admins on MS.

I don't really have a preference for any size setup, but I generally prefer some kind of open setup as opposed to a Role Madness closed setup. I would be all for Large setups with post restrictions, might even be open to trying some closed setups doing this.

I think Balance is pretty damn important, but ultimately, everyone has different ideas on what is considered "balanced." IDK how much braided pain and siggy look into what other sites do regarding setups, but again, I would say looking at what MU does would be a good place to start. I like MU because they put Scum Hunting as high priority, and I keep this in mind more or less in every game I design.

As far as volume goes, I think getting too many players much above 100 posts per phase is a bit much. Look at me talk, I suppose, but I have attempted to not post nearly as much. IDK if it has actually translated to me posting less, however.

What makes a game most enjoyable to me is when people take the game seriously and explain their thought process for why they think what they think. This isn't too much of a problem on PerC, but all it takes is like one person to not explain anything of what conclusions they are making to make the game pretty "not fun" for me. I also really REALLY hate it when people play Town for their Scum game, but I don't think I have really seen anyone do that on PerC in the games I have played.
 

·
Mafia God
Joined
·
170 Posts
Controversial idea: We should reach out to MU or Thingyman and ask for some tips to get more people playing here. They have a big player base and I think they might have knowledge in this area. Would NOT ask the admins on MS.
1) Stealing elite players from other sites by inviting them to the champs series.
2) Make the site for mafia friendly.
 

·
With Extra Stretch Power
Joined
·
8,115 Posts
No no no no nope no nein all of NOOOOOOO to 12/12 phases.
 

·
With Extra Stretch Power
Joined
·
8,115 Posts
I have to agree with you here.

My preference would be 72/24.
72 can drag a bit imo. I do prefer 48.

I wouldn't oppose it at the same time though.
 

·
Registered
ISFP | 1w9 6w7 4w3 sp/sx (phobic 6)
Joined
·
4,245 Posts
I don't want to bring too much of MU community here. Even with 5 or 6 off site players coming here, I feel like the game starts to change to match their words. I want PerC to be PerC. I still like day 1 72 hours and rest of the game being 48/24 or the game just being entirely 48/24 works too. Having shorter phases can be harder on players, especially those who can't commit as much time or at certain hours. I know this from playing Cue games that turned into Nightless setups, for example. But I also know or feel like I want to have a life while still playing mafia.

Cue and I did recruit players in the past, but it's also needs to be said that sometimes new players didn't feel welcome. Or sometimes the players that are use to each other wouldn't spend enough time getting to know or understanding the new players, in which case the overall player experience wasn't that great for newer players. Other times, we have had our rough patches of too much aggressiveness or players struggling too much with each other or clashing.

I would like to get back to the space of having two games being played at the same time. I miss being able to change the Queue line whenever I wanted to. I do understand submitting to the moderators, but it seemed like back then we didn't always run into the problem of people not being ready to mod their games. When we could change the line and push back our games on our own, I think mods were better able keeping up to times with their games. But I don't know. But back then we probably did have a stronger or larger group of regular players and mods than we do right now.

I think it's better if we stay moreso away from the bastard setups. If you advertise it that way and all the players fully understand what that means, then that's fine; they can do it that way.

I would be up for polling a time when roughly 9-14 players could be around to play like a micro game. If we could set up a weekly or every 2 weeks time for players to come and play a micro game for 2-3 hours, I think we would maybe get some of our older generation players back for micro games. Or we would potentially have a bigger community presense. Plus, by having it be sort of a regular thing, it would allow for players to plan ahead more for if they want to be around or not.

For any games above 20 players, you need to hype them up or market it them months ahead of time. You need players asking you to reserve spots or wanting to know when sign ups go out. Lately, I've not done this sort of thing as much as I use to do, but it definitely helps. I guess I would make an addendum and say that PerC House games can have more than 20 players, or basically the theme itself has be able to carry hype before the sign ups go out.

I like designing for the 13 player space. I think I have a better win rate in smaller games too, but I still will play larger games if I can get excited for them or what not.

I am fine with PerC high volume; MU high volume takes too much of a toll on me. I don't like post restrictions unless it's more of quirk than a limited number of posts thing.

I tend to play more for the people or a theme I really enjoy or know stuff about it. I might talk more about setup types later. I might be more interested in trying to mod medium sized games of 14-16 players. But I would like to try to maybe offer more 3p in games and not just the SK variety, but not really the survivor variety either. I would consider myself a noob when it comes to play 3p roles, so that's something I would like to potentially experience more of.

I guess it would also maybe be cool to have meetings or sessions where mods talk with new mods or where 4 people get talking together to collaborate on a game. By having more people involved the game will probably turn out better, and it is less likely to be moved back in some sense, because so many people are working on it or could potentially mod it if the others are busy.

I'll probably still more on this topic to post sometime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,290 Posts
well i have a controversial ideas as well take them with a grain of salt.

1) maybe make sign ups have a 24 hours wait period so people currently in or just finishing a game have to finish. -

This allows more different to play instead of the same group. if it fills up before then it allows people to back seat or relax and reflect on a game or fill in a sub spot. If it doesn't then it gives those who haven't played recently a 24 hour window for priority in playing (new players and those that haven't played recent.

2) slow down time between games

ok so i wont win any populatiry points but hear me out. We had decided as a group to have more games at a faster pace, by no means have the games been bad. But they aren't as memorable to me, and going more often all the time makes people burn out faster and entourages the same people to play more often. Maybe slow it down and find some balance so we have memorable games, make sure they are ready on time and give everyone who just play a cooling off period between games.

3) (this more a observation then comment) larger games tend to discourage some people until the numbers thin out.

I don't speak for everyone but for myself while im fine with larger games its a lot more to keep track of and a lot posting activity to do. It's also really easy for 1-3 people to dominate the chat with unlimited posting and take over. I know we have minimum requirements but what about something to make larger games feel more appealing?

example: unlimited voting but you can only post 30 times D1 until twilight. (or alternatively allow wills to be presented if we go with post maximums). or allow some form of non thread communication (lovers, messengers, neighbors) so it feels more welcoming to the thread. It is by no means perfect but something to think about. In a 20 player game its not uncommon to see 1k+ posts on D1 and can feel very daunting for everyone playing. say maybe find a way this possible? (IDK maybe say a cap of 30 posts on D1 and no more than 20 in the first 1/2 to 2/3 of D1?)

idk my 2 main points being 1) larger games (16+) feel less personal and 2) can very challenging to keep up with and get easily overwhelmed with.

new blood of course always helps that said personally i'm not much of a recruiter. I don't think recruiting new players has necessarily been a problem so much as retention of new players. (of those recruited how many played 3 games in one year and would like to keep playing type of measurement). If recruitment has high retention all is well, if retention is low though we need look at that to bring up then or no amount of recruitment will help. (what attracts others to play what keeps them playing etc data helps a lot for this to see whats being done right and where we can improve which your doing with this)

maybe run some regular entry level fun games soley for the purpose of helping retain newer people and let others have some fun time as well.

as for me. I tend to enjoy a varity of set ups and playing with people i don't usually play with keeps things fresh and interesting.

anyways that's my 2 cents for now
 

·
With Extra Stretch Power
Joined
·
8,115 Posts

·
With Extra Stretch Power
Joined
·
8,115 Posts
well i have a controversial ideas as well take them with a grain of salt.

1) maybe make sign ups have a 24 hours wait period so people currently in or just finishing a game have to finish. -

This allows more different to play instead of the same group. if it fills up before then it allows people to back seat or relax and reflect on a game or fill in a sub spot. If it doesn't then it gives those who haven't played recently a 24 hour window for priority in playing (new players and those that haven't played recent.

2) slow down time between games

ok so i wont win any populatiry points but hear me out. We had decided as a group to have more games at a faster pace, by no means have the games been bad. But they aren't as memorable to me, and going more often all the time makes people burn out faster and entourages the same people to play more often. Maybe slow it down and find some balance so we have memorable games, make sure they are ready on time and give everyone who just play a cooling off period between games.

3) (this more a observation then comment) larger games tend to discourage some people until the numbers thin out.

I don't speak for everyone but for myself while im fine with larger games its a lot more to keep track of and a lot posting activity to do. It's also really easy for 1-3 people to dominate the chat with unlimited posting and take over. I know we have minimum requirements but what about something to make larger games feel more appealing?

example: unlimited voting but you can only post 30 times D1 until twilight. (or alternatively allow wills to be presented if we go with post maximums). or allow some form of non thread communication (lovers, messengers, neighbors) so it feels more welcoming to the thread. It is by no means perfect but something to think about. In a 20 player game its not uncommon to see 1k+ posts on D1 and can feel very daunting for everyone playing. say maybe find a way this possible? (IDK maybe say a cap of 30 posts on D1 and no more than 20 in the first 1/2 to 2/3 of D1?)

idk my 2 main points being 1) larger games (16+) feel less personal and 2) can very challenging to keep up with and get easily overwhelmed with.

new blood of course always helps that said personally i'm not much of a recruiter. I don't think recruiting new players has necessarily been a problem so much as retention of new players. (of those recruited how many played 3 games in one year and would like to keep playing type of measurement). If recruitment has high retention all is well, if retention is low though we need look at that to bring up then or no amount of recruitment will help. (what attracts others to play what keeps them playing etc data helps a lot for this to see whats being done right and where we can improve which your doing with this)

maybe run some regular entry level fun games soley for the purpose of helping retain newer people and let others have some fun time as well.

as for me. I tend to enjoy a varity of set ups and playing with people i don't usually play with keeps things fresh and interesting.

anyways that's my 2 cents for now
Well burn out isn't a result of having the games appear too fast because people have responsibility to play the game they sign up for. Yes things happen, but if you don't want to play, then don't jump on the next game as soon as it opens. That's just an individual thing and even I can say when you need to sit a game out, you will sit a game out.
 

·
With Extra Stretch Power
Joined
·
8,115 Posts
I also don't understand Pains second point... :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,290 Posts
I also don't understand Pains second point... :unsure:
Quirks are more of a fun way to experiment with playing and increase what you can do as a player.

because your also purposefully having a quirk to act different apply meta to it tougher.

it also a very fun aspect at times when its done right.

acting is fun :kitteh:

quirks are fun :happy:

*supported by the foundation to bring back quirks* XD @glenda garden gnome
 

·
With Extra Stretch Power
Joined
·
8,115 Posts
Quirks are more of a fun way to experiment with playing and increase what you can do as a player.

because your also purposefully having a quirk to act different apply meta to it tougher.

it also a very fun aspect at times when its done right.

acting is fun :kitteh:

quirks are fun :happy:

*supported by the foundation to bring back quirks* XD @glenda garden gnome
That doesn't quite... answer anything... :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,290 Posts
That doesn't quite... answer anything... :unsure:
err think of it as your boss making you do a new new different assignment completely outside what you normally do to increase your skill set.

so if your forced to do something different outside what you would normally do it 1) means people have to learn a new way to read you (meta is tougher) and 2) you gain a new skill set to use for future games (better or worse) making you a better player with more depth in playstyle ranges

(i hope this helps)
 

·
With Extra Stretch Power
Joined
·
8,115 Posts
err think of it as your boss making you do a new new different assignment completely outside what you normally do to increase your skill set.

so if your forced to do something different outside what you would normally do it 1) means people have to learn a new way to read you (meta is tougher) and 2) you gain a new skill set to use for future games (better or worse) making you a better player with more depth in playstyle ranges

(i hope this helps)
So you're saying Pain's point is that set-ups are too similar?
 

·
With Extra Stretch Power
Joined
·
8,115 Posts
/facepalm no its a way to give players more range on how they play while also avoiding pigeon holing them into a narrow expected way to play all the time. (which i think several people can attest to as being annoying).
You realise when someone isn't getting what you say, you're maybe not explaining it well enough, so do without the "facepalm" that can read as unnecessarily condescending.

I'd like Pain or someone else to explain to me therefore.
 
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top