• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Dawn, Gloria, Juliana, or Summer - which Pokémon protagonist is your favorite? Let us know by voting in our poll!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Chit-Chat: The Underground Hangout: Chkill with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Status
Not open for further replies.
Something needs to change. No one should have to miss a game because they can't get on PC for one day. That's ridiculous.
 
Well, I am assuming that there are no rules on how to do this, so any GM can do it as they like. I think that's fine.
If I'm ever going to host a game, I'd like to do it the lottery way.
 
Yeah it's up to GMs really :c.

I was actually worried I wouldn't get 20 so I was pleasently surprised when it only took three hours lmao. OuaT had 26(?) members as a large game, so I wasn't expecting such a turn out.

Sorry to those who didn't get in :c wanna reserve for my next big game? ;)
 
Lottery maybe could be something to try, but the small games are concise and quick versions of games purposefully for this reason. They're so small that missing out on one isn't as detrimental as missing the SUs for large games.
 
At least the UG has mods from all over the world these days, which makes the timezone/game-approval-time matter mostly dependent on plain luck. I don't think it can get fairer than that.
 
For large games, be cool like me and make way too many roles or have weird twisted vanilla roles and accept as many people as you possibly can so that you can beat the initial sign-ups of Gods Among Us and then watch as half the players go inactive

but for small games, the actual cap is twenty (unless you're Nintendo maf pfft) so good luck have fun try not to kill each other before night zero even begins
 
Is there a way to limit how many games people are in? I know people may not like this, but there's people who are probably in every single active game and here I am not even in one, which honestly, really sucks. Why don't we give everyone a chance to play at least one game?
 
That's only an issue with small games, though, and many people simply elect to not join some.

There's flaws to be worked out, but limiting a player's options isn't a proper solution.
 
There's a fine balance between supply and demand that we're trying to meet. We risk opening the floodgates and find people aren't signing up as quickly (holidays, school's back, etc.), but if there's a serious need for more content or games, we're filling those gaps with events (one currently stickied) and beginner games for newbies (Mafia 102 coming soon).
 
Code geass was a big game. Nintendo is a small game. Nit the best comparison :x

Best we can do is allow more small games to run which I'd totally be okay with. And if they slow down we limit the number again. On our parts trying to approve games at different time of day might help too, I suppose?? Idk when the last few games were approved because I hadn't been online :(

But before that let the events pan out. Mafia events can't be constructed overnight.
 
JohnnyMustang said:
These would be a bit unfair. That is why I'm saying that the limit should be expanded rather than to limit not only the games running at the same time but the number of games you can join.
Click to expand...

Why is it unfair? Someone gets to to take up spots four games, but I have trouble getting in one?

Something needs to change. There's no reason that someone should miss a game because of one day of inactivity.
 
Personally, I think that limiting people's games is a bad idea, because they are just having fun as much as you do.

In the case of small games, it isn't the early bird's fault if they got a spot first and they have to be punished by it or something.

As for the queue, I agree with probably opening up 1 more large game, just because how the large to small queue ratio is really unbalanced. The small queue is designed to move faster, but then there are just so few of them queued up unlike the large queue, which would actually take you 6 months just to start.

Or, maybe we change how the queue works and instead of arranging it by game size, we should probably do it by something else... :/

2 cents on this :x
 
I honestly don't think the queue is the problem. Nor the big games as everyone as time to sign up for those. But small games, having limited spots, make it difficult for those who have a schedule.

I wouldn't oppose opening up a large game. But it won't solve the small game problem. And if people are consistently missing games then it's a problem. It's not just a case of "early bird" as its likely because they have a schedule. They don't have time to check pc constantly. But if we have an announcement of sorts that gives a little heads up and if they can at least catch that they can work something out to be on when the game goes up.

And while it will still be first come first serve I believe it might just be a little more fair.
 
Eros said:
No. People should not be limited to the games they join. Some people can handle that many games at once, others can't. I'm someone who can't, but I don't see the fairness or logic in stopping someone like Nakuzami who can literally juggle like 5 or something games at once because some people might miss out on a small game. Small games are always gonna be hard to get in, especially with the demand, but I don't see the point in stopping these games either as some people make their games small for a reason and players often enjoy the dynamics of a smaller game.

I've missed out on so many small games because I work. I'm cool with that. It's a system that works. The only way the system is made unfair is if players can pre-reserve spots in small games, like what happened with Nintendo.

Point is; people should be free to make their own restrictions for themselves for how many games they're in, otherwise that's when things get unfair.
Click to expand...

The juggling has nothing to do with why I want a limit, I want a limit so that people who aren't in any games aren't getting their toes stepped on by those who are in 4+ games.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top