The future of the Mish Mash "Survivor queue"


User avatar
StrangerCoug
StrangerCoug
He/Him
Does not Compute
User avatar
User avatar
StrangerCoug
He/Him
Does not Compute
Does not Compute
Posts: 12457
Joined: May 6, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Contact:

The future of the Mish Mash "Survivor queue"

Post Post #0 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:49 am

Post by StrangerCoug »

At present, Survivor/Big Brother/large social games are dealt with using an informal system of agreement. There is now a desire to formalize this process, and this thread is for discussion thereof.

Things I want to make clear:
  • No other games will be required to go through a queue of any kind at this time. This idea has been discussed for a long time, and I want to move forward with the idea of a more formalized queue to solve organizational problems regarding when they are supposed to be run.
  • Although I will have somebody other than me managing this queue, I am not stepping down from my current position; I plan to create a new one so a person with more familiarity with this type of game than I have can manage it. I am accepting applications for such a position at this time, but I am likely to wait to announce a mod until the rules for this new queue are set out.


I will edit the OP periodically to cover things that get agreed on; check this space. Things I'm for sure about:
  • The social queue mod will not have a colored name.
  • One game at a time.
  • Must have two or more mods, one of which has modded a large social game before.
  • No review board for now, but a possibility for one in the future if felt necessary.
STRANGERCOUG: Stranger Than You!

Current avatar by PurryFurry of FurAffinity.
User avatar
Crazy
Crazy
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
Crazy
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 4435
Joined: May 6, 2008
Location: Somewhere

Post Post #1 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:04 am

Post by Crazy »

I approve of this!

The only rule I would feel strongly about is that each game have more than one moderator. Other than that, I don't feel strongly about anything. Game quality is at an overall all-time high so I don't feel like a review process if particularly necessary.

I do feel that only one game should be allowed to run at a time, unless if it could be somehow controlled that players don't play in 2 games simultaneously. Gameplay thrives when all players give their maximum attention, not to mention the possibility of one game affecting another in real time. (Even if it's anonymous.)
User avatar
PrivateI
PrivateI
The Real Friend
User avatar
User avatar
PrivateI
The Real Friend
The Real Friend
Posts: 826
Joined: October 29, 2013

Post Post #2 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:06 am

Post by PrivateI »

First of all, I think it is easy to agree, after the events surrounding the last game, that a queue is necessary. The primary concern is how much "control" is taken away from the mods.

Here are some elements it would be fun to discuss:

- Should there be a minimum number of mods for a game?
- How much experience should the mods have? (Should they have had to play a total of three games between them? Should they have had to mod one game before? If they have never modded, should the game be reviewed?)
- How many games can be in a queue for the same relative time slot at one time?
- Should games have to go through a review process?
- What qualifies as a large social game? If I decide to run a 10P Mole, do I need to run it through the queue?
- Are there some standards for a game (specifically Survivor) that we could agree to? For example, if we had a set of requirements (a Survivor game should not cross-tribe communication, a game should have at least one way of swapping players prior to the merge, a game should not have a Legendary Box, etc.) that a game must adhere to, or else describe itself as somewhat bastard?
- How far in advance must games be announced?
User avatar
CuddlyCaucasian
CuddlyCaucasian
Professor of Being a Dog
User avatar
User avatar
CuddlyCaucasian
Professor of Being a Dog
Professor of Being a Dog
Posts: 225
Joined: May 20, 2013
Location: Richmond, VA
Contact:

Post Post #3 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:27 am

Post by CuddlyCaucasian »

I completely support this idea. Hyrule going into signups while we were planning on starting NAH signups within a few days - even though it was resolved - was a huge ordeal. I also feel like the queue should hold all anonymous games that have around 12 or more players, since they all require around the same level of commitment from players.
"CC is very [whatever the equivalent of photogenic as it applies to videos]" - racefan12

"CC is an objectively attractive person." - Crazy

"You look like a happy version of Trent Reznor." - LicketyQuickety

"Do you practice sounding like you're high all the time?" - xofelf
User avatar
Save The Dragons
Save The Dragons
He/Him
Protection unnecessary
User avatar
User avatar
Save The Dragons
He/Him
Protection unnecessary
Protection unnecessary
Posts: 21463
Joined: April 26, 2004
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: WA, USA

Post Post #4 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:30 am

Post by Save The Dragons »

I don't know if one person can handle all that goes with managing X amount of players, keeping up with confessionals, posting challenges on time, answering complaints, being available for challenges that require a mod to start, etc. etc. Since it takes similar amount of forethought and effort, if not more, of modding a large theme mafia game, there's certainly a good argument for at least some sort of co-mod, or at least having someone on the team that's modded before.

A review board might be too much, mish mash is kind of an offshoot of the whole mafia thing and it's okay that it's less regulated, that you can jump in and try things. Maybe Survivor is a little more formal than someone posting intention to play a gameshow or a board game, and maybe the consequences of what happens are a little more extreme then losing Clue, for instance. Unless there was a glaring reason for a review board, it would probably be added bureaucracy. If there's a mechanic that is quite outside the norm, however, like Dr. Who's time travel mechanic, it should be playtested or at least run through with on paper or in someone's head to see what kind of possible outcomes can occur and really think about how satisfied people are going to be with that outcome.

I like 1 game at a time, however with Hyrule for instance ~40 people applied for only 24 slots. I think some games barely fill their quota but others might go over, I don't really have statistics on that except the one. That's a month, maybe 2 or 3 people have to wait if they were interested but didn't make it. If they were new, how many of those people are going to try for the next one? Certainly limiting play to 1 game at a time per player is almost mandatory, though, I think that might be better than limiting games to one at a time. If there is also more than 18-24 people at one time who are interested in playing Survivor, one game cannot accommodate and it can't grow very well, meaning we're going to be playing with the same 18-24 players; splitting in two would help separate people and keep things more interesting, I think.

As far as the term bastard would apply, I think something like Dr. Who's game mechanic would be considered more bastard or more theme game style than normal. Again having that be the only one in the queue, if someone were turned off by the mechanic, they would have to wait.

(I don't mean to pick on Dr. Who, it was an entertaining read).

If there were multiple games running, since as of current if you're modding, you aren't playing, the mods shouldn't be playing in each other's games; modding takes enough time and playing takes enough time. In that case, the mods could probably work together in such a situation, knowing each others' playerlist for instance.
User avatar
KingdomAces
KingdomAces
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
KingdomAces
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1775
Joined: July 5, 2012
Location: Somewhere

Post Post #5 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:37 am

Post by KingdomAces »

Just putting my name forward as someone who would be willing to review/backup mod anything. Since doing either would force the person to not play, I think it would be best for everyone for me to do stuff like that. Yeah, I might want to play every once in a while, but that would be a vast minority of the time.
Never be sorry for your little time.

It's not when you get there, it's always the climb.
User avatar
PrivateI
PrivateI
The Real Friend
User avatar
User avatar
PrivateI
The Real Friend
The Real Friend
Posts: 826
Joined: October 29, 2013

Post Post #6 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:39 am

Post by PrivateI »

If the mod(s) have never modded, I would be fully in favor of their having to get the full game, including and especially challenges, reviewed by someone who has modded at least...two games successfully? That person wouldn't have to be involved in any other way, but in the opening sign-up post or whatever, the reviewer's name would be included.
User avatar
Cephrir
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25238
Joined: October 11, 2006
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Seattle-ish

Post Post #7 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:47 am

Post by Cephrir »

In post 1, Crazy wrote:I do feel that only one game should be allowed to run at a time, unless if it could be somehow controlled that players don't play in 2 games simultaneously. Gameplay thrives when all players give their maximum attention, not to mention the possibility of one game affecting another in real time. (Even if it's anonymous.)

I think we've learned from experience that you are correct. The only way I can imagine running two games simultaneously being a good idea would be if games started to routinely get 40+ player applications somehow, so that we could accomodate more people if we were ever in danger of casting becoming seriously prohibitive. I don't think that is likely to happen. Waiting until the previous game is done has been working well for us lately and doesn't penalize anyone for doing well in one game, forcing them to be distracted in two games for a while or sit one out.

It would be nice if we could also possibly use this to formalize a system that could formally keep track of any problem players who should be at least given a time out for behavior not becoming of, well, anyone. I would of course only advocate this in the most extreme cases, such as players obviously cheating, which I don't think happens very much but has happened in the past and could stand to be recorded somewhere we won't forget about it.

In post 2, PrivateI wrote:First of all, I think it is easy to agree, after the events surrounding the last game, that a queue is necessary. The primary concern is how much "control" is taken away from the mods.


Mods should, in my opinion, still be given mostly free reign, but it wouldn't be terrible if this also became a review system. I don't want to start the review board conversation all over again, but I believe we mostly agreed it was a good idea and then never acted on it. A formal queue would be a great way to have someone in charge of making sure reviews actually happen if we decide that is something we'd like to have. At the very least, it could provide a place to say, "hey, does anyone want to review my game?" for those mods who would like another look. In theory that's part of the role of co-mods, but it can be hard to see flaws in a setup one had a hand in designing.

Anyway, to return to the point, I think the primary point here is to provide organization and coordinate mods with one another so as to prevent things like the NAH/Hyrule fuss from happening at the last minute.

In post 2, PrivateI wrote:Should there be a minimum number of mods for a game?

I agree with Crazy. Two minimum. Imagine Summertime without Shiidaji... it's not a pretty picture.

In post 2, PrivateI wrote:How much experience should the mods have? (Should they have had to play a total of three games between them? Should they have had to mod one game before? If they have never modded, should the game be reviewed?)

This is an interesting thing to consider. I think at least one mod should have modded before, and co-mod positions could be used to provide that experience, which is basically what already happens, only it's not a formal requirement yet. This could, I believe, have prevented Mario Bros. I think playing requirements is a bit tougher, because one can technically "play" four games without actually staying in them long enough to learn anything. That is probably worth discussing.

In post 2, PrivateI wrote:How many games can be in a queue for the same relative time slot at one time?

What do you mean by a relative time slot?

In post 2, PrivateI wrote:What qualifies as a large social game? If I decide to run a 10P Mole, do I need to run it through the queue?

I like CC's idea -- around 12. It probably depends on the specific details, though; I'd say if it's not anonymous, it might not need the queue as much and would also probably attract a different group, which is a lot of the reason we'll have one.

In post 2, PrivateI wrote:Are there some standards for a game (specifically Survivor) that we could agree to? For example, if we had a set of requirements (a Survivor game should not cross-tribe communication, a game should have at least one way of swapping players prior to the merge, a game should not have a Legendary Box, etc.) that a game must adhere to, or else describe itself as somewhat bastard?

Review could solve this if it's implemented.

I think we all know Legendary Boxes are stupid. I could imagine a no-swaps game existing with a different mechanic, but it would warrant heavy review and possibly need to be advertised as bastard. I don't see anything wrong with intertribal communication, though.

In post 2, PrivateI wrote:How far in advance must games be announced?

Hmmm. Well, it's a queue, so... long enough to reach the top of the queue?

In post 3, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:I completely support this idea. Hyrule going into signups while we were planning on starting NAH signups within a few days - even though it was resolved - was a huge ordeal. I also feel like the queue should hold all anonymous games that have around 12 or more players, since they all require around the same level of commitment from players.

Well, unless they're Kingdom Clash. That didn't require much commitment, I think.

pedit: oh hello more posts!
"I would prefer not to." --Herman Melville,
Bartleby the Scrivener
User avatar
Cephrir
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25238
Joined: October 11, 2006
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Seattle-ish

Post Post #8 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:52 am

Post by Cephrir »

In post 4, Save The Dragons wrote:I like 1 game at a time, however with Hyrule for instance ~40 people applied for only 24 slots. I think some games barely fill their quota but others might go over, I don't really have statistics on that except the one. That's a month, maybe 2 or 3 people have to wait if they were interested but didn't make it. If they were new, how many of those people are going to try for the next one? Certainly limiting play to 1 game at a time per player is almost mandatory, though, I think that might be better than limiting games to one at a time. If there is also more than 18-24 people at one time who are interested in playing Survivor, one game cannot accommodate and it can't grow very well, meaning we're going to be playing with the same 18-24 players; splitting in two would help separate people and keep things more interesting, I think.

My understanding is that the 40 players figure included spec applications.

I'm certainly all for adjusting to 2 at a time if demand merits it, but that's something we'll probably have to wait and see on.
"I would prefer not to." --Herman Melville,
Bartleby the Scrivener
User avatar
Cephrir
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25238
Joined: October 11, 2006
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Seattle-ish

Post Post #9 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:54 am

Post by Cephrir »

In post 4, Save The Dragons wrote:As far as the term bastard would apply, I think something like Dr. Who's game mechanic would be considered more bastard or more theme game style than normal. Again having that be the only one in the queue, if someone were turned off by the mechanic, they would have to wait.

I think there's a difference between an advertised mechanic that changes the game wildly but is public information before the game starts and bastardly twists a la Arkham.
"I would prefer not to." --Herman Melville,
Bartleby the Scrivener
User avatar
Cephrir
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25238
Joined: October 11, 2006
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Seattle-ish

Post Post #10 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:57 am

Post by Cephrir »

In post 6, PrivateI wrote:If the mod(s) have never modded, I would be fully in favor of their having to get the full game, including and especially challenges, reviewed by someone who has modded at least...two games successfully? That person wouldn't have to be involved in any other way, but in the opening sign-up post or whatever, the reviewer's name would be included.

I could imagine letting totally new mods run something as long as they had an intense review. Perhaps that person could also agree to be on call for modding questions. There are also some case by case concerns there. If someone was already a respected part of the community and had done well in a lot of games, say if Snakes hadn't run games already, I think that would be fair. Then there's, for instance, your case -- you have plenty of Survivor modding experience, but none of it is on record, and I think it should be considered.
"I would prefer not to." --Herman Melville,
Bartleby the Scrivener
User avatar
StrangerCoug
StrangerCoug
He/Him
Does not Compute
User avatar
User avatar
StrangerCoug
He/Him
Does not Compute
Does not Compute
Posts: 12457
Joined: May 6, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Contact:

Post Post #11 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:58 am

Post by StrangerCoug »

OP has been updated.
STRANGERCOUG: Stranger Than You!

Current avatar by PurryFurry of FurAffinity.
User avatar
KingdomAces
KingdomAces
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
KingdomAces
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1775
Joined: July 5, 2012
Location: Somewhere

Post Post #12 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:59 am

Post by KingdomAces »

I fully endorse needing at least two mods in order to run a non-marathon Survivor, and only having one offsite Survivor at a time, just because of how huge of productions they are, and how many people are involved despite the fact that this site was mostly founded for a completely different reason altogether. The main question here is other games. Maybe it's just because I'm less familiar with them, but onsite Survivors seem to have a completely different vibe around them than offsite ones. I think they, along with pretty much everything else, could go in a different queue. Right now, the only games going on that I think would be considered for this are The Arena, and possibly Liar Game Tournament. I don't think either of them are worth worrying about, but I don't think another one should be started until at least two weeks into Arena.
Never be sorry for your little time.

It's not when you get there, it's always the climb.
User avatar
Cephrir
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25238
Joined: October 11, 2006
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Seattle-ish

Post Post #13 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:04 am

Post by Cephrir »

You don't mean a separate, third queue, do you? Because that seems excessive!

I think onsite survivors draw basically the same crowd and suffer equally from it being a bad idea to run another Survivor at the same time as them.

I think BB should definitely be in this queue. It's smaller, but if anything an even bigger commitment.
"I would prefer not to." --Herman Melville,
Bartleby the Scrivener
User avatar
D3f3nd3r
D3f3nd3r
he/him
Best Social Game
User avatar
User avatar
D3f3nd3r
he/him
Best Social Game
Best Social Game
Posts: 1367
Joined: March 25, 2012
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post Post #14 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:06 am

Post by D3f3nd3r »

My opinion on experience: Reviewing is needed if all mods combined have less than three games of modding experience.

This should only be for anonymous Survivors or other social games (BB, The Mole, etc.). What I think is a fair rule for how many games run at once and/or how:
-Two games run at once, preferably one that is more mechanic-heavy (Arkham, Doctor Who, etc.) and one that is less mechanic-heavy (Bahamas). Obviously okay if there is an overlap.
-Mods work together - no mod plays in a game while modding unless one game is about to finish (signing up for a game when your game is close to FTC, for example). Mods coordinate who gets into each game.
-No player plays two games at once, barring above condition, unless there are slots in the second game after X days (y'all decide - a week?).
User avatar
Cephrir
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25238
Joined: October 11, 2006
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Seattle-ish

Post Post #15 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:10 am

Post by Cephrir »

In post 14, D3f3nd3r wrote:My opinion on experience: Reviewing is needed if all mods combined have less than three games of modding experience.

I think this could be a little dangerous. Three mods all with one game of experience is not something I would sign up for.

When you say two games could run at once, are you proposing staggering them? If so, by how much? Has anyone felt that the current two week gaps were really problematic? Plus, if the mods of Game B are in Game A, having two weeks to put the last touches on without having the burden of another game is really helpful.
"I would prefer not to." --Herman Melville,
Bartleby the Scrivener
User avatar
KingdomAces
KingdomAces
Mafia Scum
User avatar
User avatar
KingdomAces
Mafia Scum
Mafia Scum
Posts: 1775
Joined: July 5, 2012
Location: Somewhere

Post Post #16 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:15 am

Post by KingdomAces »

I only suggested a second, not a third. I also don't really expect there to ever really be anything in the queue, but it should still be there just so people don't go overboard with other large social games just because they don't have Survivor in the title.
Never be sorry for your little time.

It's not when you get there, it's always the climb.
User avatar
Cephrir
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25238
Joined: October 11, 2006
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Seattle-ish

Post Post #17 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:16 am

Post by Cephrir »

Well, there's nothing preventing this from being the Large Social Game queue, is there?
"I would prefer not to." --Herman Melville,
Bartleby the Scrivener
User avatar
PrivateI
PrivateI
The Real Friend
User avatar
User avatar
PrivateI
The Real Friend
The Real Friend
Posts: 826
Joined: October 29, 2013

Post Post #18 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:16 am

Post by PrivateI »

Wait, why are non-anons not being held to the same scrutiny? There's no reason that a non-anon wouldn't go through a queue as well, is there?
User avatar
D3f3nd3r
D3f3nd3r
he/him
Best Social Game
User avatar
User avatar
D3f3nd3r
he/him
Best Social Game
Best Social Game
Posts: 1367
Joined: March 25, 2012
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post Post #19 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:20 am

Post by D3f3nd3r »

Three modded plus three played? First-timers can be dangerous, true.

Possibly. Have the next game start taking signups around when the FTC starts, so that that downtime is only a few days. The gaps aren't a problem, but I'd like to avoid them.

Non-anons seems generally more casual. Maybe separate out the anon survivors and have a separate line for other stuff?
User avatar
Cephrir
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
Cephrir
he/him
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 25238
Joined: October 11, 2006
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Seattle-ish

Post Post #20 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:22 am

Post by Cephrir »

In post 19, D3f3nd3r wrote:Possibly. Have the next game start taking signups around when the FTC starts, so that that downtime is only a few days. The gaps aren't a problem, but I'd like to avoid them.

I suppose this would be fine. Mod discretion could also be a thing here.

In post 19, D3f3nd3r wrote:Non-anons seems generally more casual. Maybe separate out the anon survivors and have a separate line for other stuff?

I disagree vehemently.
"I would prefer not to." --Herman Melville,
Bartleby the Scrivener
User avatar
D3f3nd3r
D3f3nd3r
he/him
Best Social Game
User avatar
User avatar
D3f3nd3r
he/him
Best Social Game
Best Social Game
Posts: 1367
Joined: March 25, 2012
Pronoun: he/him
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post Post #21 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:26 am

Post by D3f3nd3r »

Well we haven't had a well-modded one in at least three years so at least they're not too common...
User avatar
PrivateI
PrivateI
The Real Friend
User avatar
User avatar
PrivateI
The Real Friend
The Real Friend
Posts: 826
Joined: October 29, 2013

Post Post #22 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:35 am

Post by PrivateI »

In post 19, D3f3nd3r wrote:Three modded plus three played? First-timers can be dangerous, true.

Possibly. Have the next game start taking signups around when the FTC starts, so that that downtime is only a few days. The gaps aren't a problem, but I'd like to avoid them.

Non-anons seems generally more casual. Maybe separate out the anon survivors and have a separate line for other stuff?


With the first point, I would largely disagree. Requiring three modded games between the two mods is a lot. Plus, Game of Thrones wouldn't have happened, and that would be awkward. I would recommend, like I said, just ensuring that it's reviewed before it goes out, and requiring maybe a total of ~45 points or something between the mods, where you get a point for each person you have surpassed. (For example, placing 4th in a 16P game would grant you 12 points. (That's a super simple system, obviously.)

With the second, the only reason gaps are an issue is because they hold up the queue. I would rather give people the chance to finalize any preparations than to rush a game into production. UNLESS we were going to require players to have the forum/challenges thoroughly designed and fleshed out prior to entering the queue.

And with the third, I thoroughly disagree for many reasons. Long story short, non-anons take from the same player base that anons do, they require the same effort from their players, and similar contributions from their mods.
User avatar
xofelf
xofelf
they/them(also ze/zem or xe/xem)
Miss Mash
User avatar
User avatar
xofelf
they/them(also ze/zem or xe/xem)
Miss Mash
Miss Mash
Posts: 1766
Joined: May 6, 2008
Pronoun: they/them(also ze/zem or xe/xem)
Location: Herkimer, New York
Contact:

Post Post #23 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:56 am

Post by xofelf »

I am personally entirely behind this whole thing. I've been thinking we need to have something like this for a while now. While the queue has normally just been used for Survivor, I think that's not really a good idea. There's quite a few games that need the same level of commitment as a Survivor does that shouldn't be running at the same time. As someone who's played multiple games at a time, I can tell you that unless one of them was nearing the end it's almost impossible to give a full effort to either game. That isn't to say that overlap is a bad thing. For example TBO's Arena overlapping with the end of Hyrule right now is something that's perfectly fine imo. There is a point where it's excessive. While I agree that offsite Survivor needs to be in the queue, I also think that on-site games should be here too. Non-anon games need the same level of dedication and, again, I've done at both at the same time and I can tell you, it's hard to do both.

Comods are entirely necessary. Life has this funny way of exploding in the middle of games. Having someone there to make sure the game runs smoothly is entirely important. I'm not sure that having modded a game is entirely necessary. But I do believe you DO have to have played quite a few games before you mod. One of the best run survivors here were run by newbie mods.

I definitely think that having someone(s) on call to answer modding questions is a great idea. I think that includes forum setup questions. I know there are sometimes I'm not entirely sure on how to do something, and having people who are good with forums to ask is really really helpful.

The ideas that have been said so far are really great, I like them. I do want to say one thing though, I personally would prefer that whomever takes the mod position has modded one of these games successfully before. I don't think that just playing or spectating gives enough idea of what sort of commitment modding really is.


P-edit: Monty, I think that you can be in the queue without your game being finished first, however you should have to be two or three slots from the current one.
Xalxe: this is xofelf sometimes we call each other names and other times we share emotions
MattyP: Ur an enigma tho when it comes to circadian rhythm and the traditions we hold dear when it comes to the sun and the moon
Get to reknow a xofelf here
Discord is faster than PMs or sitechat: xofelf#1697
User avatar
TheBadOne
TheBadOne
Townie
User avatar
User avatar
TheBadOne
Townie
Townie
Posts: 56
Joined: August 21, 2010

Post Post #24 (ISO) » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:57 am

Post by TheBadOne »

If people have issues with my game going into signups now while Hyrule is going on and NAH is going to happen soon, I would have no problem with postponing my game until a later date when it's less busy with Survivor games. I remember having a discussion with Xalxe when I ran the first game of the Arena about whether it could run alongside a Survivor or not, and we came to the conclusion it was different enough. There are constantly Survivor games going on, and I feared claiming a spot in the queue would make the queue endlessly long, and after all my game is different from a Survivor game. As I said, if people want me to postpone my game and jump into the queue (or a new queue), then I would have no problem with that, since I don't want the quality of the games to go down.
Locked

Return to “Social Game Archive”