simultaneous games/game size thought

saldana · 10-07-2006, 01:00 AM

barkeep and i were talking about this a bit in the GM order thread and thought maybe other people may like to weigh in on the idea

i had suggested running two GM lists, one for more complex games and one for more basic games...that way people would have a choice of the level of difficulty when they signed up for a game.

barkeep countered that we may not have enough regular players for two full games at once, as it was a bit hard to fill the newbie game.

my thought (and the point of this thread) was to have size caps on the games...if each game was limited to 16 or 18 players, instead of just filling up as may slots as there are willing players, it would provide several benefits, IMO.

1. the aforementioned complexity choice for people when they sign up
2. games would run faster....several times in the recent past, people have remarked that as games get to the double digits in terms of days, they tend to stagnate, and participation drops down. if there were only 16 players in each game, they would be over rather quickly, possibly even fast enough to avoid what IMO, is the cause of the drop in activity....trying to get interest back up after a weekend off.
3. two simultaneous games of 16 should easily be supported by our regular player base, plus the occasional players that jump in and out for a few games at a time, especially if one of the two games is a basic game and hence, newbie friendly.
4. the two games would provide a better mix of the regular players...i think it gets a little boring playing against blade and hoops all the time...we all know each other very well from playing together so much...if the two games were running concurrently, and were capped at 16, it would mix up the rivalries instead of putting the same people head to head all the time.

thoughts?

st.cronin · 10-07-2006, 01:06 AM

I think instead of two simultaneous games, simply start one game a week. If we start a game this monday, by next monday at least 5 of the players in that game will probably have been eliminated.

saldana · 10-07-2006, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think instead of two simultaneous games, simply start one game a week. If we start a game this monday, by next monday at least 5 of the players in that game will probably have been eliminated.

a good thought....my only problem with that idea is that if say, 4 games in a row are of the complex variety, it drives off new players that see the ruleset and go running and screaming from the forum.

hoopsguy · 10-07-2006, 01:20 AM

I'm not wild about a cap on 16, but I do like the idea that the moderator can feel free to put some restrictions on their games. In the past when I was running a game I wanted to be able to accomodate anyone who was interested in playing because it was good for the growth of the game. But if we are running concurrent or overlapping games (with less start times in between) then I think a moderator can feel more comfortable running a game for 12 player, 16 players, or 25 players - whatever the cap number should be.

I also agree that having games extend too long does suck some of the energy out of them.

As far as playing against the same people, there is enough turnover in the games where that usually isn't too much of a problem for me. It wasn't THAT long ago where uys like Alan T, Path, Anxiety, and Cronin were considered "rookies". I'm sure Lathum looked at me as a rookie when I first started playing the games. As long as we continue to attract new players on a regular basis we will avoid having to play against the same guys every time out. So while I'm all for having more games, and increasing the diversity of players in those games, I don't think this has been a huge problem up until now.

Thomkal · 10-07-2006, 05:26 AM

The reason the newbie game didn't fill quickly was because it was a game for mostly newbies. There isn't as many of them around as there are regular players. I mean look how quickly people signed up for Alan's games.

It will not hurt us to experiment with having two games being run at once for a while and see how things go. And I don't like the cap of 16 either. I personally find the large crowd games to be more fun. The starting one game a week is an interesting idea-one basic, one complex so there's a variety going. And if some games drag on, Barkeep can step in and put a hold on a new game starting until one finishes.

It won't kill the werewolf forum if we try running more than one game at a time. If it begins to become too much people will complain and then you can scale back. Let's just try it and see what happens.

Barkeep49 · 10-07-2006, 10:42 AM

I'm glad to hear that I wasn't the only one unconfomfortable, though I didn't say so, with the 16 person cap.

I think the idea of starting new games on Mondays, limiting ourselves to two simultainous games for the moment, seems like a really strong idea.

This would also mean that for those people who want to run a smaller game, that they could cap the number of players without guilt. Smaller games are easier to balance and I think doing so could also help to cut down on the "deadwood" factor of large games where people sign up and then fail to participate. An alternates list could be generated before the game enabling for the GM to give a quick hook to nonparticipants.

Barkeep49 · 10-07-2006, 10:45 AM

Another thougth would be for people to desiginate their game either a Large game or Small game, large meaning 16+?, small under that amount?, when they signup to host. We would then always run a large and a small game. I know that, for the most part, I enjoy running larger games and would be willing to wait longer to do so. Others might really be chomping at the bit to run a game and would be willing to run a smaller game in the hopes that their turn would come up faster.

SnDvls · 10-07-2006, 11:25 AM

quick bullet points on what has been mentioned

* - Don't like caps on players, leave it up to each GM to determine their size game.
* - Like the staggered starts to games, would go with a complex/simple flow and if the simple game ends before the complex start another simple.
* - Like the large/small desigination too, but it really depends on roles ect for length so it might not matter too much.
* - Less "rules" that "must" be followed the better, it keeps everyone fresh and original. We all know some rules are understood for all games like no PMs ect.

saldana · 10-08-2006, 12:04 PM

as not one person has liked anything i have to say, i will now be leaving and posting only in JBMagic's raiders thread

st.cronin · 10-08-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saldana

as not one person has liked anything i have to say, i will now be leaving and posting only in JBMagic's raiders thread

Look on the bright side: Those posts will count.

SnDvls · 10-08-2006, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saldana

as not one person has liked anything i have to say, i will now be leaving and posting only in JBMagic's raiders thread

I guess I'm on saldana's ignore list as I agreed w/ some of his thoughts.

saldana · 10-08-2006, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnDvls

I guess I'm on saldana's ignore list as I agreed w/ some of his thoughts.

you dont have over a 1000 posts....that means you dont count...didnt you know that.

Alan T · 10-08-2006, 09:33 PM

Im not sure if running 2 games at once is going to be helpful or harmful. I'm up for trying though. Main concerns I have is what happens to a game thats getting near the end when attention usually slows down and a new game starts up is only going to make that worse possibly.

I think though that I like the idea of staggering in simple games , perhaps 1 week into a complex game each time. I think we need more simple/basic games since they definitly do better at drawing in newer or more casual players. The biggest issue is most people waiting to run a game don't want to run one since they waited so long for a game they had dreamt of.

Having a group of people willing to run alternate simple games would be good I think. Not sure if you want to limit them just to new players as many vets like a simple game from time to time.. perhaps just limit it to people who aren't playing in the current complex game at the time. (either didnt play it, or have already been killed night 1)..

SnDvls · 10-08-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saldana

you dont have over a 1000 posts....that means you dont count...didnt you know that.

I did...someone got their panties in a bunch and took 500 or so away from me.

Izulde · 10-08-2006, 10:58 PM

I'd like to have simultaneous games run personally.

Chubby · 10-09-2006, 11:56 AM

Just a note:

My game is up next and is pretty straightforward (i.e. not too complicated) and will work best with a large group

10-07-2006, 01:06 AM	#2
st.cronin General Manager Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: New Mexico	I think instead of two simultaneous games, simply start one game a week. If we start a game this monday, by next monday at least 5 of the players in that game will probably have been eliminated. __________________ co-commish: bb-bbcf.net knives out

10-08-2006, 10:58 PM	#15
Izulde Head Coach Join Date: Sep 2004	I'd like to have simultaneous games run personally. __________________ 2006 Golden Scribe Nominee 2006 Golden Scribe Winner Best Non-Sport Dynasty: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty) Rookie Writer of the Year Dynasty of the Year: May Our Reign Be Green and Golden (CK Dynasty)

10-07-2006, 01:20 AM	#4
hoopsguy General Manager Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Chicago	I'm not wild about a cap on 16, but I do like the idea that the moderator can feel free to put some restrictions on their games. In the past when I was running a game I wanted to be able to accomodate anyone who was interested in playing because it was good for the growth of the game. But if we are running concurrent or overlapping games (with less start times in between) then I think a moderator can feel more comfortable running a game for 12 player, 16 players, or 25 players - whatever the cap number should be. I also agree that having games extend too long does suck some of the energy out of them. As far as playing against the same people, there is enough turnover in the games where that usually isn't too much of a problem for me. It wasn't THAT long ago where uys like Alan T, Path, Anxiety, and Cronin were considered "rookies". I'm sure Lathum looked at me as a rookie when I first started playing the games. As long as we continue to attract new players on a regular basis we will avoid having to play against the same guys every time out. So while I'm all for having more games, and increasing the diversity of players in those games, I don't think this has been a huge problem up until now.

10-07-2006, 05:26 AM	#5
Thomkal Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Surfside Beach,SC USA	The reason the newbie game didn't fill quickly was because it was a game for mostly newbies. There isn't as many of them around as there are regular players. I mean look how quickly people signed up for Alan's games. It will not hurt us to experiment with having two games being run at once for a while and see how things go. And I don't like the cap of 16 either. I personally find the large crowd games to be more fun. The starting one game a week is an interesting idea-one basic, one complex so there's a variety going. And if some games drag on, Barkeep can step in and put a hold on a new game starting until one finishes. It won't kill the werewolf forum if we try running more than one game at a time. If it begins to become too much people will complain and then you can scale back. Let's just try it and see what happens.

10-07-2006, 10:42 AM	#6
Barkeep49 Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Not too far away	I'm glad to hear that I wasn't the only one unconfomfortable, though I didn't say so, with the 16 person cap. I think the idea of starting new games on Mondays, limiting ourselves to two simultainous games for the moment, seems like a really strong idea. This would also mean that for those people who want to run a smaller game, that they could cap the number of players without guilt. Smaller games are easier to balance and I think doing so could also help to cut down on the "deadwood" factor of large games where people sign up and then fail to participate. An alternates list could be generated before the game enabling for the GM to give a quick hook to nonparticipants.

10-07-2006, 10:45 AM	#7
Barkeep49 Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Not too far away	Another thougth would be for people to desiginate their game either a Large game or Small game, large meaning 16+?, small under that amount?, when they signup to host. We would then always run a large and a small game. I know that, for the most part, I enjoy running larger games and would be willing to wait longer to do so. Others might really be chomping at the bit to run a game and would be willing to run a smaller game in the hopes that their turn would come up faster.

10-07-2006, 11:25 AM	#8
SnDvls Pro Starter Join Date: Jul 2001	quick bullet points on what has been mentioned * - Don't like caps on players, leave it up to each GM to determine their size game. * - Like the staggered starts to games, would go with a complex/simple flow and if the simple game ends before the complex start another simple. * - Like the large/small desigination too, but it really depends on roles ect for length so it might not matter too much. * - Less "rules" that "must" be followed the better, it keeps everyone fresh and original. We all know some rules are understood for all games like no PMs ect.

10-08-2006, 12:04 PM	#9
saldana Pro Starter Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Bethlehem, Pa	as not one person has liked anything i have to say, i will now be leaving and posting only in JBMagic's raiders thread

10-08-2006, 09:33 PM	#13
Alan T Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mass.	Im not sure if running 2 games at once is going to be helpful or harmful. I'm up for trying though. Main concerns I have is what happens to a game thats getting near the end when attention usually slows down and a new game starts up is only going to make that worse possibly. I think though that I like the idea of staggering in simple games , perhaps 1 week into a complex game each time. I think we need more simple/basic games since they definitly do better at drawing in newer or more casual players. The biggest issue is most people waiting to run a game don't want to run one since they waited so long for a game they had dreamt of. Having a group of people willing to run alternate simple games would be good I think. Not sure if you want to limit them just to new players as many vets like a simple game from time to time.. perhaps just limit it to people who aren't playing in the current complex game at the time. (either didnt play it, or have already been killed night 1)..

10-09-2006, 11:56 AM	#16
Chubby Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Syracuse, NY	Just a note: My game is up next and is pretty straightforward (i.e. not too complicated) and will work best with a large group

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)