Host Flooding

[Bird]

What would you rather see in the hosting topic: 9 sloppy games or 3 extremely well-thought out games?

The latter is the obvious choice, but recently our hosting polls have been a lot closer to the former. We see games get thrown together pretty hastily, formatted poorly, or entered into the poll like 6 times in a row without winning. I get that people want to host, and that a lot of people would like to host even more than they would like to play. But the sheer volume of games being created and entered into the poll is a becoming a tad ridiculous.

So I'm proposing the following change: If you attempt to have a game hosted by entering that game into the hosting ballot, you are not allowed to attempt to host either of the next two games. So if you try and host a game, but lose in the poll, you have to sit out two games. The same applies if you try and host a game and win in the poll; you can't submit a game for the next two hosting polls.

I think this change is a good idea for a couple of reasons.

• It will drastically decrease the amount of competition in each poll, allowing the players and the TWC+Bird (yeah, we're sticking with that for now I guess), to give more attention to each of the games in the running.
• It prevents spamming the hosting poll with your games. If you lose, instead of trying to host the exact same game again, you'll have time to modify the game or come up with a new one to host.
• And in a lot of cases, this may even make some games more likely to be chosen. FSM, verm and Maestro make very popular games, and it could be difficult to beat them in a poll. However, if they all participate in the poll for game XLVI, then the competition for XLVII will be reduced quite a bit, and newer hosts and players may have a chance to finally shine.

Obviously the system isn't perfect, but I think it would be a large improvement on our current one. And it's open for debate as well. So discuss away.

[BlackDragonSlayer]

Not being able to host for two games if your game loses seems like a bit too much; eventually, if enough people enter per-time (even 6 people at a time), there may be no host candidates, or at least those experienced enough to host?

[Bird]

Another neat thing about this system is that it's self-regulating. If five people enter a hosting poll, the sixth person should (theoretically) think to himself "Huh, that means that the next poll won't have a lot of competition. I think I'll hold off on this one and enter that one instead." The system should work out to where there's never more than 3-5 games each poll, with that number staying much closer to 3 than 5.

As for not being able to host two games after a loss... well, to be honest, a game that's lost once is already much less likely to win than a fresh game. The best thing to do if your game loses twice is probably to scrap the game and make a new one. The "sit out two games" rule encourages that.

It sounds harsh, but I would prefer to see host polls won through innovation as opposed to perseverance.

[MaestroUGC]

I like this idea, and I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I like to take breaks between hosting games so sitting two polls is good for the winners. If your games loses, it loses for a reason. This allows you to tweak it if the demand to play it was there (it came in second) and give it another go later. Plus people get whiny when their game loses six times in a row, and it forces newer, frankly, better games to lose out to a lackluster game that didn't win for a reason.

The problem is, most people really don't know why their game lost, since the polls tend to be really close and nobody offers any reasons as to wy they voted for one game over another (anonimity means you don't hurt people's feelings). As a result, they keep submitting games to hope for a better result, only to lose out again to "LOL Pokemon Joke Game 16!!!1!!". Even when people ask for criticism, nobody tends to give it.

Also, alot of joke games tend to win, beating out some really well thought out games for reason other than, "ha, that's funny." There's not much quality control around here, so whenever somebody craps out yet another Pokemon-joke game, the trend shows that it'll beat out most of the detailed and nuanced games. This is really more of a personal gripe than an actual problem, but the quality control issue needs to be addressed.

An idea: Before the poll goes up, each game must be approved by two members of TWC before being added to the poll. This will cut down on poorly thought out games and keep spots open for the better designed ones.

[Bird]

Also, alot of joke games tend to win, beating out some really well thought out games for reason other than, "ha, that's funny." There's not much quality control around here, so whenever somebody craps out yet another Pokemon-joke game, the trend shows that it'll beat out most of the detailed and nuanced games. This is really more of a personal gripe than an actual problem, but the quality control issue needs to be addressed.

I agree that quality control is another issue that needs addressing. I think a rule like this (or something similar), although not perfect, is at least a step in the right direction. If you can't try to host as frequently, the idea is you'll spend more time on the games you do submit.

An idea: Before the poll goes up, each game must be approved by two members of TWC before being added to the poll. This will cut down on poorly thought out games and keep spots open for the better designed ones.

We had a rule like this when I was TWC on another website. It became pretty exhausting after a certain point to meticulously balance each game submitted, but I was the only TWC at the time. It's definitely something we should consider implementing here though.

[vermilionvermin]

I definitely express support for this.  I think it both incentivizes players to work hard on improving their games before submitting them and gives people the criticism they need to do so.  I think that recently, because of how many potential games we have, not all of them are looked at very closely, and potentially good games don't have their chance to be refined.   With fewer games on the ballot, people are more likely to explain why they didn't pick certain games, something which isn't practical when there are 10 games on the ballot.

However, I think there should be an exception if there are fewer than three games submitted after two days.  At that point, I think the choices are too limiting, and there's a good chance that a bad game might get picked.  At that point, I think it'd be fair to have the games that got the second-most votes in previous elections to be put on the ballot.   

[Bubbles]

Woah, its verm!

[MaestroUGC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but TWC are just moderators for TWG, it's not their responsibility to make sure everybody's game is perfect, just to say "X is an issue, fix it" with maybe a suggestion, but it's the host's duty to actually build and fix their game.

I don't think it'd be too hard to skim over a game posted and say "yes" or "no". Then again, most games are really wordy, especially mine.

[Liggy]

While I can't speak from personal experience on this site due to the lack of games I've played recently, this honestly seems like a great idea.  It gives hosts a chance to review their game and make sure it's the best it can be before submitting it, and it makes host a privilege and something to be worked at while not being "just keep submitting a game until it's voted!"

That said, I'll likely play a game on here sometime soonish.

[Bird]

It can be hard for prospective hosts to balance their games if they don't know precisely why it's imbalanced. If somebody sends you a game with 8 special human roles, 3 wolves and 3 humans, me telling them it's human-sided won't mean that much to them. They might add a miller and send it back, hoping desperately for a "yes". I would have to tell them how a game with 8 special roles is fundamentally flawed due to the number of claimable roles. But then they don't know what to do since the 8 special roles were based on Santa's reindeer!!! So I'd feel guilty since I didn't want to ruin their game idea, so I'd end up reworking it somehow.

I'm just too nice I guess!!!!!

[vermilionvermin]

that game could work if you made all 8 of santa's reindeer masons and gave the wolves 2 wolfings

[Bird]

ty verm

[MaestroUGC]

Yeah I get that, but even if the answer is no, them knowing why or why not deosn't make their game good or balanced. Most flawed games are for fundamental reasons, too many variables to take into account, one-sided, some gimmick was poorly implemented, etc.

I've had to twak games before, mostly because: "If X does this, then what's the point of Y?"

[Kman96]

Woah, its verm!

xD Yay! I know

...So what I'm imagining here is that you're thinking that the people who will sign up their game will be the ones 100% that they can win, otherwise it'd be pretty pointless if you knew your game wasn't it's best, yet still entered it anyway, automatically losing your chance to host for the next three games. Smhart.

[SlowPokemon]

I really like this idea. The crapload of potential games really discourages me from trying to host (which is my favorite part of TWG).