Regarding the Hosting Queue & Game Cap

[Master Mew]

Greetings, denizens of the War Room!

Over the past few days the Staff have been discussing possible adjustments to the Hosting procedures in the War Room. We would like to hear your input on this topic.

Here are the options we're looking into:

Option A.) Reinstate the Hosting Queue and Retain the Game Cap (Currently No More than Six Games at Once, Though it May Increase Somewhat)

Option B.) Eliminate the Game Cap​

This thread exists for the purpose of discussion and/or friendly debate on this issue. So... discuss!

After three days of discussion, a poll will be added.

After the poll has been open for one week, this thread will be closed.

As not to influence your opinions, the War Room Staff will not be weighing in on this thread.

Note: We value your input and will be using the opinions and insights gathered in this thread to help us make a decision, however the decision will ultimately be made by the War Room Staff and is not bound to the results of this thread/poll.

Note 2: The poll shows what you voted for, so don't vote in the poll unless you want your opinion publicly known.

 

[Neon Borealis]

mmm... both have their pros and cons. But I fear that if the game cap is eliminated there will be too much games to handle.
On the other hand, the games are advancing slowly and there are games that are waiting for their turn. I'd think that it be better to increase the current cap. Not a lot, as to keep some control. But enough to make games go faster.

And pardon my ignorance, but what is the hosting queque?

 

[Mijzelffan]

There are 10 games on the hosting at the moment. Since that's more than the cap I say keep the cap and queue in place. If you were to remove it, in worst case scenario, we'd have 10 games running immediatly. Not only would that cause all games to die out from inactivity, it might also mean that in the next months there'd be no more games. Of course that probably won't happen, but there's always that person who thinks that if there are 6 games running there could just as well be 7. Or 8. Or a new guy who doesn't care and posts his game regardless of how many others there are. Which would lead to decreased player amount and increased inactivity in games.

iirc removing the cap entirely was done in the past to encourage people to start to host when there was a lack of mafia games. That's not the case right now. So I don't really see the point in doing that. I'd say wait with removing the cap once the amount of games currently in progress drops below the cap with no games on the waiting list, to encourage people to host games. Removing the cap doesn't really improve anything right now, while it does have potential to do harm.

 

[Phoenicks]

Nah, why should we need controls?

Even right now the section is so slow that not all the slots are filled. Restoring the queue creates delays without the other benefits.

Remember when the average wait to host was 68 days?

 

[Almonds]

Keep the game cap as it is. Maybe increase one or two more during when The War Room is popular. At times like this when things are going slowly, keep it at six or so.

And bring back the queue please. It saves us time going around asking other hosts if they're going to host. Besides, if there is no queue, the person on the forums more frequently than others will keep getting their turn, and others won't be able to get theirs. It's unfair for keep losing chances to host because of relatively less time spent on the forums

 

[Zima]

I like the idea of the cap expanding and contracting with the popularity of the War Room. It's certainly more logical than keeping the cap the same number at all times. However, if the cap is removed, and hosts can post their games whenever, the War Room would offer more options for game mechanics and flavor to players. With that, though, less players would join games, and hosts would have to get used to that huge change and make very flexible mafias for the unpredictable player numbers. They would also have to make their games overall smaller. Hopefully, if the cap disappears, more people would join more games because they would be predictably smaller.

 

[Feenie]

Well I'd definitely keep the Game Cap as it is. It's working out well, in my opinion. Hmm... overall, I would go with Option A.

 

[CrackFox]

Getting rid of the game queue was a great idea. Having to wait unecessarily is annoying. Also it gives people the opportunity not to have to commit to anything. As Pheonix said, the war room is not exactly over run with people wanting to start new games. I recently took the sixth spot for my mafia game and that was after at least three days of it being available. Having a six game cap seems to be working fine. I wouldn't change anything. I think it will encourage people to host more games, knowing that they don't necessarily have to wait weeks and weeks and be stuck hosting it at an inconvenient time in their school/work lives.

 

[HumanDawn]

Here are the options we're looking into:

Option A.) Reinstate the Hosting Queue and Retain the Game Cap (Currently No More than Six Games at Once, Though it May Increase Somewhat)

Option B.) Eliminate the Game Cap​

I take it that we could suggest options ourselves that may be taken into consideration instead of the already limited 2?

As not to influence your opinions, the War Room Staff will not be weighing in on this thread.

This makes no sense. Even though The War Room Staff will be making the final decision and could influence others' opinions, that does not mean that they shouldn't weigh in on the thread. They're part of the community too, and I'd love to hear their opinion on why some ideas won't work and some feedback on some of the already given ideas. They don't have to, they're not obliged of course, but it would be lovely to hear what they have to say so we could get a better idea here.

 

[Master Mew]

I take it that we could suggest options ourselves that may be taken into consideration instead of the already limited 2?

You are welcome and encouraged to share any and all suggestions you have regarding this issue in this thread.

 

[jokool]

I'd like to just suggest one thing: Whichever option is chosen, a lot of games could be open at the same time (more so for option B than A, but still). When that happens, a lot of games do not get enough sign ups in time before they're archived. What I'd like to suggest is that the sign up time be extended when this is all said and done.

 

[FinalArcadia]

I definitely think the cap needs to stay in place at least. While I thought things felt more orderly with the hosting queue, overall, I understand why it isn't really necessary as much as the game cap.

In regards to what jokool said, I think that extending the time for sign-ups might be a good idea. Perhaps having different times for sign-ups for different size games, like large games get more time, since it is frequently more difficult for a 25+ player game to fill than a 10 or so player one, even if it has a theme that appeals to many people. Additionally, it would help insure that hosts aren't discouraged from making large games, so there would be variety in the size of games available.

 

[Phoenicks]

And bring back the queue please. It saves us time going around asking other hosts if they're going to host. Besides, if there is no queue, the person on the forums more frequently than others will keep getting their turn, and others won't be able to get theirs. It's unfair for keep losing chances to host because of relatively less time spent on the forums

I think that it cuts both ways -- if you're online more often with a queue system, you can get your name in earlier and wait less than people who aren't online as much. If there's no cap, you can host whenever you want -- no waiting needed. Isn't that more fair than an average wait of 68 days?

I definitely think the cap needs to stay in place at least. While I thought things felt more orderly with the hosting queue, overall, I understand why it isn't really necessary as much as the game cap.

I wanted to share this old post of Master Mew's:

The current Large Game queue contains 15 games. Given the above model, the queue will, on average, become one game longer every 54.75 days. In almost exactly two years and three months, the hosting qeue will be at 30 games.

In other words, given the admittedly limited pool of data, it would appear that the current hosting qeue system is almost at equillibrium. On the downside, the average waiting period on the Hosting Queue is currently sitting at 68 days and will grow as the Hosting Queue grows.

 

[Almonds]

@Phoenicks; So let's say I'm on bmgf far more frequently than others. I create games very quickly and host them any time possible. The thing is, there will be other users missing their chance to post their games just because they hadn't been online when I was. There will always be a game hosted by Dark Blueberry at least once a few weeks, and won't that seem selfish? (Again, I doubt anyone's that selfish enough to ignore other users but hypothetically speaking). If people are cool with a certain user always hosting their game multiple times in a row, then I guess my point might not stand valid. I'm wondering that.

 

[Phoenicks]

The thing is, there will be other users missing their chance to post their games just because they hadn't been online when I was.

Without a queue and a cap, there is no missed chance. Anyone who is capable of running a game may so long as there isn't a queue.

There will always be a game hosted by Dark Blueberry at least once a few weeks, and won't that seem selfish? (Again, I doubt anyone's that selfish enough to ignore other users but hypothetically speaking). If people are cool with a certain user always hosting their game multiple times in a row, then I guess my point might not stand valid. I'm wondering that.

Users only have to join the games they want to join -- especially when there's no cap and anyone can host. In a system with no caps, someone can only host many games if people are willing to play in them.

In a system with caps, because this frequent host has a non-expiring golden ticket, people might sign up because this is one of the only options.

I agree with your worries a lot -- it would be unfair if people couldn't participate in The War Room. I think that this is more likely to happen in a system with a cap -- when there's a limited supply and the most eager hosts will generally get it.

 

[Almonds]

The thing is, there will be other users missing their chance to post their games just because they hadn't been online when I was.

Without a queue and a cap, there is no missed chance. Anyone who is capable of running a game may so long as there isn't a queue.

No wait wait... am I missing something??

no queue & no cap = no game registration required = anyone can host their game without telling a mod = anyone on the site more frequently has a higher chance of spotting ended games earlier, and without the mods giving them the permit, they will post their games whenever they want, preventing less-frequent users from ever posting their games and therefore, making them wait until another game has ended. If luck is never on their side, they'll keep missing chances to host. There needs to be some restriction to prevent hostings monopolized by certain users who can be on the site more often than others.

HOSTING MONOPOLY. That's what I'm most concerned with if we get rid of the queue and cap - THERE MUST be some sort of alternative to prevent that.

 

[Phoenicks]

@Spectrum Achromatic; If there's no cap, then nothing will stop less-frequent users from posting their games. Anyone can post a game at any time.

@Neon Borealis; The queue was the mod-managed line we used to have, where a host can only post a game when specifically allowed. The average wait became 68 days, and if you missed your turn you generally had to wait longer.

_____

We had a no-cap, no-queue system from about August 2011 (when the old queue stopped being used) until about August 2012 (when the new queue was posted).

Most of us played in that year (many people joined during it), and I don't think that any of our current fears were a problem then. If anything, because it was easier to host and join games, the War Room enjoyed a Golden Age of sorts.

I'll freely admit that I'm still learning about the situation.

 

[Mijzelffan]

So what if we keep the queue, but just raise the cap to like 8? It would make waiting times less and prevent most of the issues that arise with a removal of the cap.


And as this was mentioned, I don't think extending sign-up time for people is a good idea. After a week or so not much more people will really sign up anyway, so unless the host actively goes asking people to play generally nothing will really change and it will only cause the queue to move slower.

 

[CrackFox]

I don't think reinstating the queue is a good idea. First come, first serve basis seems to be working fine. Maybe you could have something like 4 spots that are in accordance with a waiting list and two spots that are free for the taking whenever. I just think the queue is unfair. You could have someone in front of you who has no intention of posting their game in any kind of a hurry, but you're stuck waiting for them to get it going so you can get yours going. People who post upcoming games often get sidetracked and distracted by their personal lives, and those that are ready to go with free time on their hands are stuck twiddling their thumbs.

I don't know the ins and outs of the war room etiquette or politics, but from a host/players point of view, I say keep at least some spaces as first come, first serve.
Whether the cap is extended or not, people aren't tripping over themselves to fill up the six spots so there's no real need, yet anyway.

 

[KidBeano]

Option A.) Reinstate the Hosting Queue and Retain the Game Cap (Currently No More than Six Games at Once, Though it May Increase Somewhat)​

:thumbup:

I think one major problem here is the rate at which games are being created (not posted, created). Some people it seems will literally be working on their next game before their previous one is even halfway-through. This seems to happen usually for "series" games where it's easy to create a sequel. These games usually seem to be quite basic in their setup, maybe even sub-standard at times. People shouldn't be encouraged to churn games out like there's no tomorrow, but rather to actually try and bring something new and creative to the War Room. Mechanics like the Horcruxes/Hallows in the HP7 Mafia, or the voting in Super Effective Mafia. Not just "Bog-Standard Mafia 1" followed swiftly by "Bog-Standard Mafia 2".

Also, don't remove the cap. Removing the cap basically means you're trusting people to keep the game amount balanced, so soon an "unwritten cap" will start to emerge and so it will just be pointless anyway.

I object to the "68 days" statistic, that's kinda making a mountain out of a molehill really. 68 days is just over two months. I don't believe for a minute that there is any one person in the War Room who can't find other ways to entertain themselves for two months, than sitting in front of their computer begging the hours away.

I'm also not sure where this "You can get stuck in the queue" nonsense came from. As far as I was aware, if the person at the front of the queue didn't want to post their game, then the second person got to post it, and so on. Pretty sure I didn't just make that up, but if I did, then that's how it should be run anyway methinks :3

And least but not least, increasing the sign-up time wouldn't really help. As someone already said, if you don't get the required amount of people in 2 weeks, you're unlikely to get it in 3 or 4.​