Player Slot and Game Census

[mastin2]

I think the cause of that is that you're focused on whether your (for lack of a better word) rights are being violated, while others are concerned about whether the system as a whole can operate better.

I didn't get that impression at all. I got the impression that Zach was making points about what in the system could be better, and what

not

to do because there are some things which if implemented will make the site worse.

Arbitrary game limits among them.

I for one don't

personally

care about the limit. I self-restrict myself like Zach does (albeit at a higher number of games), so it doesn't influence me.

But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on it, and this is what I have been raising with my points. My perspective may not be entirely objective, but it's not entirely subjective, either.

[Zachrulez]

I certainly didn't mean to imply anything about disability. If you are disabled, I was not aware of it. I don't even think I meant to be dismissive. But I do see us talking past each other, and I think the cause of that is that you're focused on whether your (for lack of a better word) rights are being violated, while others are concerned about whether the system as a whole can operate better.

Just because I'm using myself as an example (Which is the easiest way to give my perspective on what I'm seeing.) doesn't mean I don't have wanting the system to operate better in mind.

[quadz08]

People who say "I'm in too many games, so I'm not going to join another" are already policing themselves. Good for them! We don't care about them from a policy-creating standpoint, as long as their personal limit is lower than the administrative limit we'd set.

These rules would have literally no effect on them.

Adding a sitewide game limit would be policing a fringe case, while simultaneously causing no harm to the majority of users.

[Zachrulez]

People who say "I'm in too many games, so I'm not going to join another" are already policing themselves. Good for them! We don't care about them from a policy-creating standpoint, as long as their personal limit is lower than the administrative limit we'd set.

These rules would have literally no effect on them.

Adding a sitewide game limit would be policing a fringe case, while simultaneously causing no harm to the majority of users.

See where I'm coming from has to do with eliminating the limits we have now. I'd certainly favor having sitewide limits over what we have now, because I think what we have right now is ridiculous and arbitrary. (3 game micro limit, 4 game mini limit, no limit for anything else.)

[mastin2]

We don't care about them from a policy-creating standpoint, as long as their personal limit is lower than the administrative limit we'd set. These rules would have literally no effect on them.

Adding a sitewide game limit would be policing a fringe case, while simultaneously causing no harm to the majority of users.

But where do you draw the limit?
5 games?
7?
10?

What magical number is better than the rest?

My point exactly. Any strict game limit number is going to be incredibly arbitrary, and in the current site meta? That's a classic case of making a solution and looking for a problem after-words to justify it, of "fixing" something not broken. It's not needed because as a whole, MS.net has people knowing their limits more.

Again. If you can show me that I'm wrong, sure, go ahead, but I don't think I am. Yes, on occasion, this has been a problem. In the past, it was a huge problem.
Key word, past.
Not present.

The problem you're trying to fix is a problem the site meta itself fixed. Not only do players police themselves, but other players police players (they look

very

harshly on those who show neglect; also, WotC) and moderators with good rulesets (or even in pregame bluntly saying, "I think you're in too many games, so I'm not letting you in until you're in less") also further police it.

As I said. This may crop up from time to time in isolated incidents, but those incidents are increasingly just that: isolated.

You'll be creating a problem for a bunch of players while only stopping a problem for a very small minority of players.

Again, I'm not against using a limit at all, but an arbitrary set-in-stone limit is just ludicrous.

[quadz08]

I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of a site-wide limit; I think that targeted limits on known trouble-users is probably a better solution anyway. I was more trying to further explain Zor's perspective, I think.

[chamber]

People who say "I'm in too many games, so I'm not going to join another" are already policing themselves. Good for them! We don't care about them from a policy-creating standpoint, as long as their personal limit is lower than the administrative limit we'd set.

These rules would have literally no effect on them.

Adding a sitewide game limit would be policing a fringe case, while simultaneously causing no harm to the majority of users.

See where I'm coming from has to do with eliminating the limits we have now. I'd certainly favor having sitewide limits over what we have now, because I think what we have right now is ridiculous and arbitrary. (3 game micro limit, 4 game mini limit, no limit for anything else.)

The current game limits are aimed less at limiting the total number of games someone is in, and more at stopping someone from playing in the vast majority of any given subset. The logic behind this is that playing with someone you dislike is much less tolerable in a micro or mini game, and that you should still be afforded the opportunity to play in games of any size.

[Mr. Flay]

I don't have stats showing this, that people who play in a large number of games (say, 5+) are doing as I say. But from my subjective view, I've DEFINITELY noticed this trend. That people who play in more games, as a whole, are typically

*shrug* What I notice, also anecdotally, is that people are STILL flaking on one game and signing up for another, or another two, almost immediately. I still see people have RL crisis up on them and have to drop several games, no matter how many they're playing. I don't play/have the stats to say what their average gameload is... but I doubt you do either. Overall I think our problem isn't so much with limits as the Total Lack of Consequences for Flaking.

Also, Zach, I likewise have no idea what you're talking about regarding disability.

[Zachrulez]

People who say "I'm in too many games, so I'm not going to join another" are already policing themselves. Good for them! We don't care about them from a policy-creating standpoint, as long as their personal limit is lower than the administrative limit we'd set.

These rules would have literally no effect on them.

Adding a sitewide game limit would be policing a fringe case, while simultaneously causing no harm to the majority of users.

See where I'm coming from has to do with eliminating the limits we have now. I'd certainly favor having sitewide limits over what we have now, because I think what we have right now is ridiculous and arbitrary. (3 game micro limit, 4 game mini limit, no limit for anything else.)

The current game limits are aimed less at limiting the total number of games someone is in, and more at stopping someone from playing in the vast majority of any given subset. The logic behind this is that playing with someone you dislike is much less tolerable in a micro or mini game, and that you should still be afforded the opportunity to play in games of any size.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11192

Also, Zach, I likewise have no idea what you're talking about regarding disability.

I took this to PM. Don't want to discuss it here.

[zoraster]

4/10/13

Newbie Games:

128 slots out of 17 games (7.53 p/g) 18.82%

Open Games:

93 slots out of 10 games (9.3 p/g) 13.68%

Mini-Normal Games:

70 slots out of 7 games (10.0 p/g) 10.29%

Mini-Theme Games:

131 slots out of 17 games (7.7 p/g) 19.26%

Large Normal Games:

35 slots out of 3 games (11.67 p/g) 5.15%

Large Theme Games:

114 slots out of 9 games (12.67 p/g) 16.76%

Micros:

109 slots out of 16 games (6.81 p/g) 19.09%

Overall:

680 slots out of 79 games (8.61 p/g)

[zoraster]

The HUGE change there is in the number of mini-themes. I kinda caught it at the perfect storm as the Mini-Theme queue has been completely wiped out of mods.

[Mr. Flay]

Wow. Interesting that they've caught back up to Micros now.

[JacobSavage]

It actually looks like everything is going up except Micro's and Large Themes...

[zoraster]

yeah. And for Large Themes, that decline is more cyclical than anything. We've got about as many Large Theme games as a month ago but they're in later stages so fewer players are alive in those games.

[JacobSavage]

Is it possible that Micro's have just become less popular?

What happened to the numbers of LT's anyway? There appears to be about half the number than there was a 2 yeras ago.

[quadz08]

Mods aren't running them anymore, because larges started having trouble filling. (I believe this stems from the whole EVERY LARGE IS 30 PLAYERS business that was happening a few months ago.)

[zoraster]

Some larges have had trouble filling, but for the most part they've filled fairly quickly. I only had to issue one warning on dramonic's games (that was both poorly advertised and had pretty rigid experience requirements) at the 2 week mark that the game had one week to fill. All other games have filled within 2 weeks since I've started. Some have only take a few days.

[JacobSavage]

Actually there appears to be more mods running smaller larges, just taking a quick look:

Aventure Time - 17
Amnesiac - 19
Reckoning II - 16
The Wire - 17
/in-vitational 15 - 15

[zoraster]

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=26332

[JacobSavage]

Hmm, something that might actually be interesting is looking at number of replacements.
It might give us an indication of general flake out rate, especially in games with no experience limit.

[zoraster]

sounds like you have a new job!

[JacobSavage]

sounds like you have a new job!

I do have a lot of time at the moment...

Hmm, Im wondering what the best way of doing it is though.

[Faraday]

Also the wire has 19 players.

Anyway even with a "large large" people can still fill them if they advertise properly and have an attractive theme/mechanic/mod reputation.

[zoraster]

9/6/13

Newbie Games:

164 slots out of 22 games (7.45 p/g) 20%

Open Games:

128 slots out of 14 games (9.14 p/g) 16%

Mini-Normal Games:

76 slots out of 7 games (10.86 p/g) 9%

Mini-Theme Games:

131 slots out of 15 games (8.7 p/g) 16%

Large Normal Games:

29 slots out of 3 games (9.67 p/g) 4%

Large Theme Games:

156 slots out of 13 games (12 p/g) 24%

Micros:

83 slots out of 13 games (6.38 p/g) 10%

Overall:

807 slots out of 87 games (9.28 p/g)

As you can see here, and in the charts below, this has been a good census for us.

Newbies are up 40 slots
Open games 38 slots
Mini Normals 23 slots
Large Themes 16 slots


Only Micros and Large Normals are down from April (26 and 6 respectively). To no small degree this is seasonal, and I fully expect to see us come off of this high (almost to pre-crash levels). For what it's worth, from the Google Analytics side, we are seeing on average 5,000 more visits per week vs. the same time period last year, but this counts Discussion based stats too.

I'm the Large Theme Listmod, so that's my baby, and it's very gratifying to see far more games being played in my queue. For a while in the summer, we had a glut that meant I instituted high supply rules. We're back to having little or no queue to mod a large theme game, so I hope we can get more mods to supply those games.

[Oversoul]

That is a really good recovery it seems.