Host Flooding

[Bird]

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.

It's always pointless to try and host if you know your game isn't going to win. The only difference is that with this proposed system, you'll have approximately a 1/3 chance of winning every 3 polls, versus a 1/9 chance of winning every poll.

...which essentially amounts to no difference at all in terms of likelihood of winning.

[blueflower999]

If TWC's job isn't to balance the games, then where can noobs like myself go to have game ideas tweaked?

[Greg]

People are generally willing to comment on your game informally, blueflower! The "TWG Suggestions, comments, questions" thread is where game to-be-balanced normally end up.

As for the actual idea, I think it's great. It forces people to put real thought into their game under the risk of losing out on the next two, and it stops bad games from being submitted vermillion times in a row (lol).

[Mashi]

The idea is that we're supposed to be lazy and you're supposed to keep badgering us until we do our jobs, actually!!!
Feel free to send me a PM if not the other TWC Members, at least, if you need your game balanced.  And make sure to badger me if I'm not prompt, really!

[BlackDragonSlayer]

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.

Wait, so, using that logic, almost everybody will want to wait.

Sometimes, perseverance is necessary, because, in some cases, people may want to play the game you submitted, but currently, may be more interested in another game.

Feel free to send me a PM if not the other TWC Members, at least, if you need your game balanced.  And make sure to badger me if I'm not prompt, really!

Badger badger badger.

Back to the main point:
How about just limiting the number of games-per-poll, like, for example, only 6 games per poll??

[vermilionvermin]

The problem with that is that it doesn't ensure that the six chosen are quality, and it means that if you're online right when the signups open you have a greater chance of getting your name on the ballot.

Wait, so, using that logic, almost everybody will want to wait.

Sometimes, perseverance is necessary, because, in some cases, people may want to play the game you submitted, but currently, may be more interested in another game

Under the proposed system, you'd still want to submit your game if you thought it had a good chance of beating the ones nominated.    When there are already five or six games nominated, your chances of winning are drastically decreased, but when there are only two or three, it might be smart to put your game up.  Bird's proposal highlights a few games at a time, giving them each more attention.

[Yugi]

What if a game is very popular, but loses the vote by not much, then people would be annoyed that that person cannot host for 2-3 games. What if we make it so that if a game gets more than 1-2 votes, that person can host again, while if a person gets no votes, or only got a vote from themself, they must stick to the hosting ban.

Mild off-topic question, but on other forums that play TWG/Mafia/Any other name for TWG,  how often do Mystery games get through Host Sign/Sing/1 ups? Because as you can see in the current Host 1 ups, I have a mystery game in the ballot, and another approved by a TWC.

[Bird]

What if a game is very popular, but loses the vote by not much, then people would be annoyed that that person cannot host for 2-3 games. What if we make it so that if a game gets more than 1-2 votes, that person can host again, while if a person gets no votes, or only got a vote from themself, they must stick to the hosting ban.

Mild off-topic question, but on other forums that play TWG/Mafia/Any other name for TWG,  how often do Mystery games get through Host Sign/Sing/1 ups? Because as you can see in the current Host 1 ups, I have a mystery game in the ballot, and another approved by a TWC.

If a game is super popular but doesn't win, it will probably win the next round its hosted. And we're still talking about a "second place in the poll = automatic entry into the next poll" type of rule.

As for mystery games, it depends almost entirely on who the host is. The only things you know about the game are the number of players (unimportant), the theme (unimportant) and the host (super important). So if a person with tons of experience hosting great games comes up with a mystery game, it has a great chance of being chosen. But if a less experienced host tries to get his game voted for, it doesn't stand as good of a chance.

[MaestroUGC]

Ok, who is currently TWC?

From what I can tell it's Mashi and Verm as the active members, with Bird acting as a sort of Proxy.

[Yugi]

Nakah, Mashi, verm, jake, Mastergamer and Concerto I believe.

[Bird]

I'm supposed to be TWC. I'm just waiting on the paperwork to go through I guess.

[MaestroUGC]

Ok, can the non-active members be removed since they aren't here anymore/aren't active in TWG? Not really important to the task at hand, but just something I noticed that TWC is loaded with empty seats/absent members.

I guess it doesn't make a difference, but I feel it is important to keep these things as up-to-date as possible.

[Mashi]

TWC Members can't be added nor removed by me or vermilionvermin, unfortunately.  Only JaMaHa has that power, as far as I'm aware.  And he and Cirno haven't responded to my requests, so TWC Member Amendments are at a standstill for now.

[Waddle Bro]

I personally would hate the fact my game would be on hold for 2 other games, while I could have my breakthrough the next time. I don't like this idea, sorry!

[Toby]

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