Games being killed by inactivity

[csarmi]

Hello,

 

I think it's time to discuss this and do something about it. I aim to discuss what should be done here.

 

Máté

[WWWwombat]

Smaller games probably.

[WWWwombat]

Also, there are some efforts being made by the mafia and social group mods.

[Verbal32]

And people should stop signing up for 353638842 games at once.

[lolguy26]

Lol verb has it right, 3 games at once + RL not really possible

[Nolder]

Smaller games probably.

I've mentioned this before. Fairly recently actually.

 

And people should stop signing up for 353638842 games at once.

This I don't think we can force people to do but we can suggest it.

I've cut back on the number of games I join a LOT. I recently went overboard and joined 3 games at once and 2/3 of those games suffered because of it. I think I may restrict myself to 1 game at a time from now on even though I think I can probably handle 2. The thing is when I join I usually can handle 2, maybe more. But then maybe next week I get a little busy and I can't keep up. It happens. It's best to keep the mafia load light I think. And if everyone did that they'd be more invested in the game they're playing and activity actually probably would increase somewhat.

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

food pellets.

 

Srsly, rewards small ones.

 

cash prizes gift certs charity donations anything shiny

 

a nominal fee, even if reimbursed (I'm thinking like $1 or 2 per player, or some similar token), instead of being turned into some kind of prize (kinda liking the charitable donation angle but whatever), that small clinking of coins will keep interest in a game better than anything ephemeral.

 

quit playing without valid reason, or post under minimum you forfeit the money.

 

could maybe think of something besides money but points aren't doing it and... nothing stands in for food pellets with humans better than money.

 

or the consequences of bailing could be made more socially severe, like costing someone levels in a social group or even membership.

 

I think the carrot will work better than the stick and there might also be a kind of mafia counselor who could be aware of some individuals... there aren't that many... and their tendency to volunteer for more than they can handle.. and who could simply say, sorry, buddy, you're in school and finals are coming up, better sit this one out.

 

not everyone needs to be babysat but after a couple bails.... I think some players should be under.... a little closer supervision.

 

maybe.

[John McClane]

Let's clarify something...

 

Low-volume posting is a strategy. Nothing should be done about this, in general. If the collection of people in a given game have an issue with someone being low-volume, they should lynch that person.

 

Inactivity is when someone signs up for a game, and then doesn't make an effort to participate in it. DM suffers from this, greatly. People here love to sign up for games, often multiple games at once, and then they neglect the games. My suggestion is that people be asked not to play in multiple games at once, first off. Second off, mods should maybe come up with a participation minimum in order to get some of the shyer, less confident people used to sticking their necks out. Everyone here plays not to die. That's not the goal. The goal is to help your alignment win. 

[WWWwombat]

Asking people not to do something doesn't work.  You either need to prohibit it (logistically annoying and could be seen as tyrannical) or you need to change some other correlated aspect of the system (such as game size or built-in activity incentives in setups).

[peacesells]

Let's clarify something...

 

Low-volume posting is a strategy. Nothing should be done about this, in general. If the collection of people in a given game have an issue with someone being low-volume, they should lynch that person.

 

Inactivity is when someone signs up for a game, and then doesn't make an effort to participate in it. DM suffers from this, greatly. People here love to sign up for games, often multiple games at once, and then they neglect the games. My suggestion is that people be asked not to play in multiple games at once, first off. Second off, mods should maybe come up with a participation minimum in order to get some of the shyer, less confident people used to sticking their necks out. Everyone here plays not to die. That's not the goal. The goal is to help your alignment win. 

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

there are participation minimums in place, very low ones. usually something between 1 and 3 posts per game day.

 

ppl not making that minimum may be strategizing or may have too much on their plates or make just be flaking.

 

the ppl that flat out disappear tend to be repeat offenders.

 

we're not getting new players here ... we're not getting much new forum traffic with the book series done so its difficult to fill a big game.

 

I agree there shouldn't be as many going on at once, but the structure of the social groups is geared toward some autonomy and... most are more concerned with their own groups and interests than with mafia in general, except the mafia forum.

 

so... might not get a consensus there.

 

I definitely agree ppl shouldn't be playing more than one or two games at a time unless they have nothing else interfering and have demonstrated the ability to handle it.

 

the flaking off problem is a serious one and in light of the lack of players signing up... it's a problem that needs to be solved in a way that doesn't discourage too many ppl from playing at all.

 

the problem of playing ability and learning curves is a different issue. but if ppl will start playing and keep playing they will learn and maybe even be taught.

 

it's sticking their tails to the seats that's the first barrier to overcome.

[csarmi]

Very true, that might just be the main problem actually [Ninja'd, referring to Peace's bolded part]

[Tiinker]

Why can't we just prohibit people from playing in more than 2 games at once?

[lolguy26]

Only way that would work would be if dm didnt have more than 2 games playing at once tink.

 

i actually think maybe like 3 game-related posts per phase is a good way to stop the inactivity 

[csarmi]

I do believe it might be too hard to play even two games at once. But I don't think that's the only issue.

No cases, no thinking, last minute lynches all the time, actually deadlines being missed. And around the middle game a lot of games just have the players left who wouldn't even do anything :(

[WWWwombat]

It would be hard to enforce imo. Also, a couple of years ago, I used to regularly play 3 or 4 games concurrently without much difficulty. I usually limit it to 2 these days though as I don't like to spend too much time on a computer.

[Niniel]

Smaller games probably.

 

Yes. And we need to remember that the mods are there for the players. The players aren´t there for the mods. Often people sign up just to help a friend who needs more players. 

[John McClane]

It would be hard to enforce imo. Also, a couple of years ago, I used to regularly play 3 or 4 games concurrently without much difficulty. I usually limit it to 2 these days though as I don't like to spend too much time on a computer.

 

I don't know when you made the switch, but I have noticed you are MUCH better in the past year or so. So, I think it's definitely had an impact. 

[peacesells]

 

Smaller games probably.

 

Yes. And we need to remember that the mods are there for the players. The players aren´t there for the mods. Often people sign up just to help a friend who needs more players. 

 

 

This is a problem as well.  The only time I over extend is when I'm trying to help someone out by filling out the roster.  Still, I'm active...just not as effective. 

[Mrs. Cindy Gill]

I never would have started playing again if I hadn't wanted to help a game get moving. I'm glad I did. it was fun. I might again.

 

and yeah I'm gonna want to play in games being modded by ppl I like and trust.

 

there's a pretty major social component to mafia.

 

when it's not fun, and sociable, despite the tension or even hostility of the moment, people don't play anymore.

[WWWwombat]

 

It would be hard to enforce imo. Also, a couple of years ago, I used to regularly play 3 or 4 games concurrently without much difficulty. I usually limit it to 2 these days though as I don't like to spend too much time on a computer.

 

I don't know when you made the switch, but I have noticed you are MUCH better in the past year or so. So, I think it's definitely had an impact. 

 

 

You could be right.  I don't remember exactly when I made the switch.

[dapianoplay3r]

Lol verb has it right, 3 games at once + RL not really possible

 

For some people it is

Normally I'm fine with it, but this last week and a bit I miscalculated my term schedule so I ended up getting slammed by assignments

 

So I disagree. Just make sure you have the time (like I said I miscalculated. I normally make sure I have the time)

 

 

Why can't we just prohibit people from playing in more than 2 games at once?

See I don't like this. More than one game at once can be a strategy too

Mainly to do with meta but I often use other games to keep my meta consistent across all of them or break meta in one for a specific reason

[bgrishinko]

I fully agree in the play to win not play to not die.  Nothing is wrong with low-posting and multiple games assuming you know you can hack it. I actually feel I do better when I'm playing in a couple games at once for some reason and I tend to post more often when I'm more involved all around. That's just me.

 

But people are too afraid to test the waters, make bold statements, call someone out, pull gambits for better or worse, etc. because those people tend to die first. 

[lolguy26]

 

Lol verb has it right, 3 games at once + RL not really possible

 

For some people it is

Normally I'm fine with it, but this last week and a bit I miscalculated my term schedule so I ended up getting slammed by assignments

 

So I disagree. Just make sure you have the time (like I said I miscalculated. I normally make sure I have the time)

 

 

very rarely dap, for example, i have nothing to do and i can handle 3 even 4 games with no problem, but someone who has work and a family, cant just spend all day in front a computer for weeks at a time 

[Andrej]

I have only played a few games on DM but I have seen what inactivity can do to a game. Given that some consider low post counts a strategy, I think it's up to the other players of the game collectively to rid themselves of people they feel aren't contributing to the overall good of the game. I'm not trying to spark the debate of lurking vs. inactivity or whatever angle you want to look at it from, it's just a simple matter. If you aren't contributing, purposefully or not, then it is the other player's option to eliminate you. And they should.

 

Going along with this, I won't say a limit should be set for players to only be allowed to play a certain amount at once. That person who is signing up to multiple games needs to go in with an understanding that are expected to play and should be held accountable by the MOD and other players.