In post 425, saulres wrote: In post 423, zoraster wrote:One of the benefits of the longer games is that players who do newbie games are checking the site for longer. In that time, new players are more likely to venture outside of the newbie game, whereas providing a close and quick end goal may limit the newbie experience to just that game.
I haven't checked, but isn't there a large need for replacements in newbie games, and mightn't that need be due to the longer games?
In other words, your assumption that players in newbie games check out the rest of the forum while they're playing the game. I'm questioning whether they're just checking out.
Probably, though I think you'll find that the vast majority of replacements are up-front replacements that occur either before the game actually starts (never pick up their role pm, etc.) or within a few days.
In post 426, fferyllt wrote: In post 424, zoraster wrote: In post 422, fferyllt wrote: In post 417, zoraster wrote:Sure, I'm always happy to chat, though I'm not the best true reviewer for games at the moment. But any general listmod stuff i'm almost always up to talk about.
I'd need to start with some thoughts and discussion about how short-deadline games would fit into a queue that's designed for slower-paced games.
Sure, but I don't really see any hang ups. The biggest is if you think quick games are supposed to be more shoddily made (or to be more generous: swiftly assembled) and all the requirements are a bit onerous.
It's things like the level of WOTM that would be needed to prevent a game from cratering under the common level of replace-outs/flakes in the first week of a typical large theme game. Gameflaking at MS is something really phenomenal compared to other places I've played.
Yeah. Generally I'm receptive to almost any system of enforcing a "good" player list except for those designed to get certain players slots over the pre-in limit.
In post 427, HorseDetective wrote: In post 423, zoraster wrote:It's always been slower, and we've always dealt with new players complaining -- many of whom go on to appreciate the slower pace. I think you have to understand that while newbie games are important for getting players to stick around, they're even more important to introducing new players to the way Mafiascum plays mafia (there is some question as to whether the semi-open nature does this, but little question that 2 weeks is more indicative of the experience than 1 week).
I also question whether really short newbie games really achieves what you think. One of the benefits of the longer games is that players who do newbie games are checking the site for longer. In that time, new players are more likely to venture outside of the newbie game, whereas providing a close and quick end goal may limit the newbie experience to just that game. The goal is integration, not just attraction.
As just an aside that has nothing to do with the quality of your ideas: could i interest you in a couple of paragraph breaks, Horse?
Genuine question, and I guess this is aimed at maybe fferyllt who has the experience from both, but is playing 1-week days significantly different to playing 2-week days? Intuitively, they don't seem worlds apart to me. I don't feel like if I played a 1 week game then a 2 week one I'd be unable to participate or have no idea what was going on. Surely the way Mafiascum plays is more dependent on site meta than deadline structure? and if so, can't site meta be learnt in 1 week days?
I guess I just don't agree with your second paragraph; although it's an empirical claim that could be easily tested and I could probably be proven wrong fairly easily: my guess is that (most) newbies will not feel comfortable moving outside into other games queues until they've at least finished or got relatively far into their first newbie game. It's certainly how I felt, and I don't feel like this is a particularly facet of my personality/attributes alone. If you want to integrate people, getting them through one finished game with less chance of drop-outs and at a reasonably good pace so they can move on to the rest of the site sooner seems like a draw.
Apologies, I have terrible tendency to drop paragraph breaks when I'm sort of thinking aloud - I type my thought process as it occurs, leading to rather rambling posts. I'll attempt to clear up afterwards more thoroughly.
Also, just to stress, I'm not being super insistent on this or anything; I just thought you might appreciate my view as a, uh, 'failed' newbie. If it's out of the question, then I'm pretty happy just to discuss other things which probably also had marginal impacts, like site design.
You'd be amazed at how hard it is to actually collect data. Regardless, plenty of newbies start signing up for games before their newbie game is even over. Fewer get really into general discussion, but that's to be expected.
I'm not sure 1-week deadlines are necessarily that much worse than 2, but it doesn't allow the game to breath as much. Personally, I'm generally in favor of players feeling constantly time pressured without feeling like there's no time.
The other thing to realize is that as a site dedicated to mafia we have a LOT of games going on at any one time, and players play in quite a few. A not unusually active player may play 15 games in a year. They have to do so at a sustainable pace, and so one reason that the deadlines have historically been even slower is to allow games to function where people only post once a day, every other day, etc.
---
P-edit: Yeah. I'd love for newbies to start playing in other games as long as they don't do "sign up for all the things." Newbies will get a lot of what they need from a newbie game within the first week or so of playing.
.