-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I agree with this
Plus this
And I am curious about this
I want to say no limit with us policing ourselves, but that will never happen. As such, I voted 1/2/2. More than one big is just overkill, two staggard Lites are a good idea, and why not add something else to go alongside BSG?
think bigger than lite with a bit more special roles. Something along 24-26 players. always 2 packs plus a doc? and one other special roles besides the obvious ones.
So basically a Lite Big Game?
No limit on number of players, but no fancy roles, just the regulars in big?
If we were going to do a medium, then the setup should be something like a very basic big game similar to what you described:
21-25 players
Goodie roles: Seer, priest, witness
Baddie: Wolves, sorc, culty
No traits. No weird roles.
Yes. It is highly doubtful they'll just let us have free reign over the entire sub-forum.
Ok but the question was "What is best for the fourm." I am curious about those who want a limit, is ti because that is what you think the admins want, or do you all really want a limit? Even if there was no limit at all I can't imagine that 12 people would all start a new game at the same time, and even if they did not all of them would get enough players to ever get off the ground.
1 Big game, 2 simultanous Lite Games... with the rule that the same people cannot play in 2 Lite Games; often I sign up slightly too late for a Lite game because the GM is on a different continent for example.
Yes, I voted for a limited option because I do not think they will give us an unlimited sub-forum. Thus, I voted for the limited option that I liked the most.
I am pretty much with sbr. It depends on supply and demand, having too many will reduce the quality of all, but what the demand is at any particular time will vary.
At a forum level it is pretty much down to what the admins will tolerate.
I think there is room for staggered LITEs at the moment since I have not been able to play a LITE game for a long time due to them being full before I was aware they were open. So it appears to me that there is excess demand for the LITE games. I think the rule should be that no one could play in multiple LITE games simultaneously though. Open for sign up at least 3 days after the first deadline in the previous game, and first deadline at least 4 days after the first deadline in the previous game is the way I would do it.
I dont think we have enough for multiple big games now, but if the signups were going past 50 maybe, 60 definitely, I think staggered Big games would be good too. The longer a big game runs, the more likely a player is to be overtaken by RL during it and this puts a limit on how large they should be allowed to get.
Edit: I put my vote on unlimited, by which I mean self policed to the above limits.
At a forum level it is pretty much down to what the admins will tolerate.
I think there is room for staggered LITEs at the moment since I have not been able to play a LITE game for a long time due to them being full before I was aware they were open. So it appears to me that there is excess demand for the LITE games. I think the rule should be that no one could play in multiple LITE games simultaneously though. Open for sign up at least 3 days after the first deadline in the previous game, and first deadline at least 4 days after the first deadline in the previous game is the way I would do it.
I dont think we have enough for multiple big games now, but if the signups were going past 50 maybe, 60 definitely, I think staggered Big games would be good too. The longer a big game runs, the more likely a player is to be overtaken by RL during it and this puts a limit on how large they should be allowed to get.
Edit: I put my vote on unlimited, by which I mean self policed to the above limits.
But why? IF the bosses were willing to give us an unlimited number of games why not let supply and demand set the number, instead of some random arbitrary number?
What if the influx of people for Victoria2 triples the number of regular players we have? It would suck if we couldn't adjust to that ourselves.
we could always call again in a year
edit: btw that doesn't work for the same principle communism didn't people don't take as much as they need but as much as they can
we need rules and limits.
Last edited:
No more than one big WW at a time is the important thing for me. This rules out the last two options for me. It would be nice with an extra slot to try new things like a DC game or a possible a second Lite if there is demand for that. So I voted 1,1,2.
These 2 posts are exactly what I wanted to propose as well. vLN's post is also important, because
1) it be fair to give people who missed the one game, a chance on the other game
2) preventing game mix-up situations (where one confuses the two lite games)
3) preventing that the other game sucks the live out of the first.
4) preventing players from getting in over their head and subbing out.
For limit: see what I wrote above. Also, we are still on the paradox forums. I know most of us bought one or many more games from Paradox, and we paid them, yet, this forum-server is a free service provided by them. I think they've discussed the WW-games many times when we were still on OT, and despite that the fact that currently we are mostly "out of sight" does not mean we can use as many bandwidth as we please.
I don't know why people are against 2 lite games. 2 lite games are good, as they are LITE, quick recreational games. I think it would be good to have 2 at the same time, because there are quite a lot of players, and the limit of 17 players is filled up quickly.
- Status