Host Flooding

[davy]

It's a good suggestion but I personally don't like it and won't be too happy if it becomes a new rule unless...

-this only applies to people who have hosted before
-people who haven't hosted before start with +1 votes for their game

I completely agree.

[SlowPokemon]

^That's a terrible rule.

[Waddle Bro]

^That's a terrible rule.

I completely agree.

[davy]

The problem with how the rule would work out without the changes TBWCW posted is that is that players that hadn't had the chance to host will only have an even lower chance of hosting instead of a higher. I can imagine that there would be a cycle of verm-fsm-maestro that constantly repetes. Also, even if that cycle doesn't repeat, there still is a chance that players that have already hosted keep winning the games that those three can't join. Futhermore it won't stop players that had created unballanced games submit those games in exactly the same form three sign-ups later. The only real thing this rule will create is causing less games enter the host sign-ups.

If we really want to help players who hadn't hosted yet getting to host, I'd suggest creating a topic were players that haven't hosted yet to post there games in and let other players reply if they would want to play it or what would have to be changed about the game before they should want. Once a number of players equal to the number of players in said game have said they would want to play it, that player could post it in the host sign-ups.

Even then, I'd suggest that players that hadn't hosted yet will get an advantage during host sign-ups, because otherwise, if those players still don't get the chance to host, it will only discourage them from trying to get to host and eventually, it might even discourage them from playing the game at all.

[vermilionvermin]

People who haven't hosted before shouldn't get any extra benefits.  If they make a game popular enough to get hosted, then it will get hosted.  If not, they, more than anyone else, need the criticism and time to improve it.  At the rate these games are coming out, only one or two games ever gets any criticism, and most of them never get touched.  If there are only a few games on the ballot, each is going to get more attention since the players have to pick one of them. 

I don't know where people are getting the idea that there are hosts that always win.

TWG 44:  Sheikah/Waddle Bro (designed by FSM)
TWG 43:  Maestro
TWG 42:  Verm
TWG 41:  Bird
TWG 40:  Spitllama
TWG 39:  FSM
TWG 38:  Sheikah (designed by Bird)
TWG 37:  Maestro
TWG 36:  Jub3r7
TWG 35:  Kman
TWG 34:  Sheikah
TWG 33:  Spitllama
TWG 32:  Mashi
TWG 31:  Jub3r7
TWG 30:  Mashi
TWG 29:  SFK
TWG 28:  Slow
TWG 27:  Mashi
TWG 26:  Shadowkirby
TWG 25:  Jub3r7

Going back the past 20 games, only three people have hosted three of those 20.  One of those three was Mashi, who hosted his three when there was a host drought rather than a surplus.  Most of Jub3r7's were hosted under similar conditions.  And Sheikah, the only other person who's hosted more than twice in 20 games, had two of the three games he hosted designed by other people.

I don't think that Bird's proposed rotation would affect this trend.  People only produce games so quickly.  I think that if there is an issue, it's in the fact that we can see who's voted for what and change our votes accordingly.  I think I proposed some modifications to the way we pick games earlier to discourage that, but people decided against it.

[Bird]

With the new system, everybody is still going to have the same aggregate chance of having their game hosted. As I said before, it's just approximately a 1/3 chance every three polls compared to a 1/9 chance every poll. All this does is make the poll topics less of a clusterfuck, and encourages people to put more thought into their game rather than spamming it on each hosting ballot.

@Waddle Bro: Although losing would put your game on hold, losing will become less common since the polls are much smaller.

@The Boy who Cried Wolf: We want to encourage new players to try hosting, but I don't think it would be fair to give them an advantage over previous hosts. The most popular game should win every time, otherwise it's unfair to the players.

@Davy: The current system doesn't feature Maestro/Verm/FSM coming in 1st/2nd/3rd each time, so I don't see why they would always win their sections anyway. If those players are frequently beaten by other players in a 9 game poll, they will be beaten by other players in 3x 3-game polls just as often. Math, yo. And I don't know where everyone is getting this idea that we should be helping new players host games. I don't have anything against new players hosting games, but if they want to host, they need to have the most popular game, not assistance from the rules or the TWC.

If the change ends up being as shitty as the dissenters think it probably will be, we'll definintely change it back. But as things are now, with a majority in favor and nightmarish hosting poll topics, I think we should probably give it a shot starting with the next host sign-ups.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

With the new system, everybody is still going to have the same aggregate chance of having their game hosted. As I said before, it's just approximately a 1/3 chance every three polls compared to a 1/9 chance every poll.

Wait a minute... unless I'm mistaken, isn't 1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 1/27

@Davy: The current system doesn't feature Maestro/Verm/FSM coming in 1st/2nd/3rd each time, so I don't see why they would always win their sections anyway. If those players are frequently beaten by other players in a 9 game poll, they will be beaten by other players in 3x 3-game polls just as often. Math, yo.

Not always, especially depending on the circumstance. Although they wouldn't be able to enter every poll (whether they win or lose), in every poll they enter in, the only match-up could be between those three!!

[Kman96]

Wait a minute... unless I'm mistaken, isn't 1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 1/27

Nope. Math Derp.

1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 1/3^2 = 1/9

You're thinking 3 X 3 X 3 = 27

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Nope. Math Derp.

1/3 X 1/3 X 1/3 = 1/3^2 = 1/9

You're thinking 3 X 3 X 3 = 27

Wait a minute... wouldn't it be 1/3^3, since you're multiplying 1/3 by itself three times? If it were 1/3^2, it would only be 1/3 X 1/3

[Bird]

(1/3)*(1/3)*(1/3) would be the probability of winning three 3-man polls in a row, which comes out to a 1/27 chance, and isn't really relevant to the discussion.

With the current system, let's look at the next three polls and we'll say that each poll has 9 entrants. For each poll, the chance of a person losing is 8/9. So the chance of a person losing three polls in a row is (8/9)*(8/9)*(8/9)=70.23%. Meaning that the probability of winning at least one of those three polls is 100%-70.23%=29.77%.

With the new system, there are three 3-man polls. For one poll, the chance of a person losing is 2/3 in one poll and 1/1 in the other two (since the player can't compete in those polls, he will definitely not win them). So the chance of a person losing those three polls in a row is (2/3)*(1)*(1)=66.67%. Meaning that the probability of winning one of those polls (the one you actually participate in, obviously) is 100%-66.67%=33.33%.

So with the new system, you actually have an increased chance of having your game hosted. Why is this possible? Well, the increased chance comes at the cost of not being able to host more than one game per three games. A small price to pay for the benefits the change offers, if you ask me!

[MaestroUGC]

I don't see why people think that the cycle will pit the same people against each other each rotation. Most hosts will be aware of their competition, they can see how strong a game is and how well people like it when they are posted before the poll goes up. A smart host can look at this and say, "Hmm, my game probably won't win," and withdraw their entry, and try again next time, instead of leaving it there, have it lose, and be forced to wait until three games later.

With only three games (maybe 4?) to choose from in the actual poll, most people can comment on games as they are posted indicating their interest and whatever issues they have with it.

Though this could be mediated if people post their games in the TWG comments thread, getting feedback from their peers before trying to host it in the polls. Plus TWC can actually have a chance to overlook these games and point out problems and actually approve them.

[davy]

Quite some time ago, there was an idea of adding a host sign-ups, only for players that hadn't hosted yet, and that they would host a game that had already been played on NSM before. I'd suggest we would use the idea Bird came up with, and that every forth game there will be a host sign-ups for every player that hadn't hosted yet that will host earlier games. Those players should be allowed to practicipate in those host sign-ups regardless of wheter they entered a host sign-ups in the previous cycle and, unless they win, they are allowed to practicipate in the following cycle (this is to prevend discouraging those players from making there own games if they are only practicipating in the host sign-ups for older games).

That way, those players will be happy, because it's almost certain that they will have hosted at some point and it's fair to the players, because the game chosen was at least popular enough to win an earlier host sign-ups.

[Waddle Bro]

I disagree. Only the most popular game should be chosen, hosted by an experienced host or not. Experienced hosts have an equal chance of hosting than the players who have not hosted before.

[Bird]

My friend jokingly came up with another solution:

Systematically let every player who hasn't hosted to host a game. Once they see how overrated the experience is, competition in hosting polls will drop.



...but yeah, Waddle Bro explained my stance pretty well. If this new system somehow makes it more difficult for new hosts to be chosen, we can talk about changing it back.

[Bird]

Topic being unstickied as the rule is going into place starting with the next sign-ups. Thanks for all the input and discussion everyone! If it ends up being shitty we'll go back to normal.