Harsher Penalties for Replacing Out Of Large Games

[MonkeyMan576]

In my opinion the number of people replacing out of large games is getting out of hand.

You should not sign up for a large game unless you know you have a flexible posting schedule, a work/school schedule that is condusive to a long term game, and the demenor to deal with a large variety of playing styles over a longer period game.

I think anyone who replaces out of a large game more than once in a 12 month period should be banned from large games for a year.

[MonkeyMan576]

This should be in Mafia discussion if someone could move it.

[Glork]

Mod powers (ab)used.

[notscience]

ABUSE

[Antihero]

as a guy who's modded a lot of games, i'll say that i hear you that finding replacements is one of the ... less than fun parts of the job.

ON THE OTHER HAND

i would MUCH rather have to go find a replacement than have someone there that doesn't want to be there / suddenly (for whatever reason) can't put in the time. i feel like putting in draconian rules punishing people who replace out is just going to make people who SHOULD replace out not do so.

[MonkeyMan576]

There are a large portion of people that are signing up for games without really giving a second though to the commitment or nature of large games though, and there are people that are doing this repeadedly over and over. These are the people that are a problem.

[Antihero]

i think woto/wotm/wotc is the way to go for those ppl

i think what you're suggesting is going to cause more problems than it solves

[T-Bone]

I think we should have a name and shame thread run by the Large Theme List Mod so it has proper authority.

[BBmolla]

thats a great way to have a game filled with prod dodges because people don't want to be punished but cant play

[Zachrulez]

I could get behind a ban but 1 year is way too harsh/long.

[Ankamius]

The way we currently have it is the best way. I'm not convinced it's even possible to have a set system that will be harsh enough to do what you want it to do without having too many false positives.

[Aeronaut]

Honestly, as someone who's modded a large and various other kinds of games, I think it's just a part of the game. If you can't keep playing, I'd rather replace in someone who can.

[Davsto]

This will also result in a much, much smaller number of people willing to play Large Games, because they're gonna be like "this could last months and I have something happening in two months so I'm not gonna join because I don't want to be banned from playing them".

[mastin2]

i would MUCH rather have to go find a replacement than have someone there that doesn't want to be there / suddenly (for whatever reason) can't put in the time. i feel like putting in draconian rules punishing people who replace out is just going to make people who SHOULD replace out not do so.

This.

SO much this.

[talah]

There are a large portion of people that are signing up for games without really giving a second though to the commitment or nature of large games though, and there are people that are doing this repeadedly over and over. These are the people that are a problem.

The question could also be - how much consideration can you actually give something like a several month minimum commitment if you don't have a huge amount of experience with how much you engage, how it will affect you, how you might get on with or clash with others, what effect it might have on you if you've joined because you like another player and they're not the same alignment (or worse if you completely misread them), etc etc.

One of the first things I wanted to do as soon as I had enough experience was join a large theme, because they look so fun and are so entertaining to read along with, with their huge variations on setups and flavour.
So you get in there, start playing.. and then it takes two (sometimes three) weeks just to get some solid evidence from flips. And I mean I have enough experience with larges now that I should know what it means but it's taken a while to get comfortable with the idea that it really is a huge commitment.

I think if I was ever to try modding I might try shortening deadlines to about a week. I think you could probably leave prods the same at 48 hours and see what happened with the lurker dynamics.

But yeah name and shame is never a great idea although it seems to be embedded in MS culture. The problem is people *want* to replace out, not that they're not staying in a game they can't or don't want to be in any more.

My thruppence.

[Plotinus]

I haven't modded a large yet, but generally speaking I would rather my players replace out if they don't want to play anymore / are being negatively affected offline by the game / are going to be busy for next few day phases / are overgamed / decided they don't like playing mafia after all than stay in a game that they aren't enjoying and don't have time for.

As a player who did not replace out of several completed games that I was no longer enjoying, I think I overestimated the value of my continued presence in the game and that my lack of enjoyment had a greater affect on the game as a whole than my replaceout would have had.

[Untrod Tripod]

capital punishment

they'll never replace out of a large theme again

[Zachrulez]

I could get behind a ban but 1 year is way too harsh/long.

On this note preventing a replacing player from signing up for a new large for the duration of the game they replaced out of seems appropriate.

[Plotinus]

The duration of the game might be harsh if it's something that lasts 5 months and you replaced out in the first month because you were busy but have time again a month later.

But no signing up/replacing in for 2 weeks after replacing out of something would be fair I think.

[Zachrulez]

The duration of the game might be harsh if it's something that lasts 5 months and you replaced out in the first month because you were busy but have time again a month later.

But no signing up/replacing in for 2 weeks after replacing out of something would be fair I think.

Does anything last that long these days with the average deadline for day phases?

[Plotinus]

SMITE was 5-6 months long. We Didn't Playtest This was almost 4 months. I haven't signed up for or replaced into any new games since July and I'm still alive in 2 games.

[Plotinus]

Look at the date of first post and last post here should give you an idea of how long larges last: http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewforum.php?f=56

(that includes endgame chatter but it shouldn't throw the numbers off by that much)

[Ankamius]

I could get behind a ban but 1 year is way too harsh/long.

On this note preventing a replacing player from signing up for a new large for the duration of the game they replaced out of seems appropriate.

Smite mafia singlehandedly proves that this doesn't work. Day two of that game was one of the worst things I've ever experienced on the site, and yet I would've been unable to play for months if I had replaced out of that game which I was having no fun playing (and the only reason I didn't replace out at all was because dramonic already had to find close to half a dozen replacements from people for the same reason). That's incredibly unfair.

[IceGuy]

I think replacing out or getting force-replaced for activity reasons should come with a (short) sign-up ban. If you really don't have any time to play, the sign-up ban is irrelevant anyway.

I'm thinking something along the lines of one week per Micro/Mini and two weeks per Large game you dropped.

[Antihero]

i'd rather assume everyone is mature enough to know themselves and their limits than police them.

again, i think we're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.