Balance of Power: Should There Be Another BoP hosted?

[Dodes]

Title is self-explanatory. Poll will be hosted in order to judge popular opinion. Present civil arguments below. If a poll option you want is not available, please ask for it. I strongly encourage voices from those wanting to host BoPs and those who are hosting BoPs. BoP players' views on this topic is greatly appreciated.

My argument is this:
1) Another BoP will not interfere with current BoP games.
2) Players are mature and informed enough to decide for themselves if they have enough time to play an additional game.
3) BoP order does not make enough sense to be justifiable.
4) BoPs should be started based on if players want to play enough, not based on order of first-come first-serve.
5) A BoP's success to start should be based on if an adequate number of players and/or replacements apply.
6) BoPs shouldn't have mandatory sticky thread status in order to not clog up the fun stuff sub-channel.

EDIT: Please cast your vote not in poll form, rather in post form.

 

[The Cow Dude]

Well, there's no real reason to restrict people from hosting more than 2 games. If people really didn't have time to do orders for it, then they wouldn't sign up. The only reason I could think of opposing for this would be for fear of missing out on cool scenarios.

Obviously I'm in favor

 

[gaham1]

I have plenty of time to play another.

 

[Leto]

Yes and No:

As things stand, we have two active BoP's, and one on hiatus. In both of the active BoP's, a minority of the players is holding up turn processing (10/24 (players who haven't turned in orders/total players) (which isn't all that bad) in one, and 7 out of 27 (which is rather disappointing)  in the other). This quite clearly shows that a minority of players is clogging up the works of the BoP's. Parts of this clogging minority, without naming any names, are the same in both games, thus clearly showing that "Players are mature and informed enough to decide for themselves if they have enough time to play an additional game" is a false assumption. In my opinion, if some players are already unable to "decide for themselves if they have enough time to play an additional game," then adding a third game will just make it worse.

However, not adding a third game is attempting to cure the symptoms, not the underlying problem-- individual players holding up games. This problem be remedied if GMs were willing to put hard or semi-hard deadlines on orders. If the new game you are planning, as well as one or both of the current games were willing to do this, my worries over people being dumb and clogging all three games up would be fixed, as the dumb cloggers would simply get their credits banked, and would eventually be replaced.

 

[Dodes]

I would, as a BoP host, make stricter-than-average deadlines and be willing to bank and/or replace players.

I also have added another poll option to represent Puppy's position.

 

[Leto]

If you're going to edit the poll, don't forget to allow pollers to edit their votes

 

[Dodes]

I enabled that option when making the thread, so it should be there. The option to allowing editing no longer shows when editing the thread. If this is a serious problem, I will or others can ask a moderator to maybe make it work.

 

[Dodes]

From now on, all counted votes shall be in post-form rather than in topic poll-form. Please add explanations of your decision.



Somewhat obviously, I am for having another BoP hosted for reasons I have already supplied.

 

[Pixel]

I say yes, for much the same reasons as Dodes, though I myself have no BoP to host at least for a very long time.

 

[Leto]

Yes.

While I personally won't be taking part (unless it looks really, really, really cool), and I sincerely hope others taking part in both (or even one) of the current games will truly assess whether they're up to another game, I see no reason not to have another for those that really want it, for whatever reason. I'd like to remind everyone that by taking part in a BoP, you're essentially taking responsibility for not just getting your orders in, but also contributing to discussion in the thread, taking part in diplomacy, etc. Doing anything less is just letting down your fellow forumites who are trying to play with you, and I hope you bear that in mind when considering whether or not to take part in another BoP.

 

[Catholic]

No.

More BoP games dillutes the BoP games. I've already seen the effects of another BoP game starting up on my game, and have had to wait three weeks for orders that generally came in a week and a half. It's not something exclusive to my BoP or BoP in general - as soon as two Werewolf games went up, instantly both games had a serious drop in quality posts and participation. It's seriously problematic. In Aust's game, I've heard on multiple occasions, "Oh, I don't care about Aust's game, I'm currently plotting for yours." This exactly came from some of the people who are now vouching for having more BoP games running at the same time.

You are going to see a horrendous drop in BoP quality if you start to have more than two games at a time. The excitement that happens when a new BoP game goes up, when each turn report comes out is a huge part of the experience. If you suddenly play in four games and you have a global turn report out every four days, you're going to care about the game a hell of a lot less.

And it's a tad disappointing that most of the Yes's came from people that have a sad record of not exactly being consistent with running things. It is very, very easy to say, "Oh, I'm sure I'm mature enough to be active in both." It is much harder to actually be active in both, to participate in both games fully, to make sure the BoP game is not a "spend credits here" but a game with plotting, organization, creativity and serious thought.

I'm very concerned that is what it is going to turn into. Balance of Power has a very unique depth to it, and part of that depth comes from there not being very much BoP to go around.

 

[Dodes]

I can see sense in Eternal's position, perhaps we can compromise and have it that players can only play in 1 BoP at a time? A rule that will be implemented in exclusion to the two(three) BoPs already in action.

 

[Catholic]

I can see sense in Eternal's position, perhaps we can compromise and have it that players can only play in 1 BoP at a time? A rule that will be implemented in exclusion to the two BoPs already in action.

I'd set the limit at two. Puppy, for example, can manage a good game in both my game and Lascivo's. Would rather not stop people like him who would die for more BoP and have the time to do it.

 

[BlackTide]

No

My reasoning is very similar to Catholic's, especially about diluting the BoP. I feel that a cap would be a terrible idea, especially for the core BoP players (Puppy, Burgess, MaHuD, Shatari, Catholic and so on), the players that dictate most of the game's politics. I am currently taking part in 5 BoPs ( 2 are on hiatus) and co-hosting another. If a player is really interested in playing a BoP game then they'll find time to get Ghent orders in on time and put effort towards the game ( my 1750 turn orders are being delayed due to me waiting on some pretty crucial replies).

With that being said, I would probably join your game if it interested me enough.

 

[Pixel]

I personally think that it'd be highly impractical to limit a player to 2 BoPs, but if such a compromise is helpful than I don't see why not.

 

[Dodes]

No

My reasoning is very similar to Catholic's, especially about diluting the BoP. I feel that a cap would be a terrible idea, especially for the core BoP players (Puppy, Burgess, MaHuD, Shatari, Catholic and so on), the players that dictate most of the game's politics. I am currently taking part in 5 BoPs ( 2 are on hiatus) and co-hosting another. If a player is really interested in playing a BoP game then they'll find time to get Ghent orders in on time and put effort towards the game ( my 1750 turn orders are being delayed due to me waiting on some pretty crucial replies).

With that being said, I would probably join your game if it interested me enough.

How about caps determined by the veterancy of players? For each BoP game you have been a part of, you get that many BoP games you can join. (i.e. I've been in two, so I can play in two, in this case the 1750 one and the 270 B.C. one)

There could be a designated cap (5?) and new players obviously could get 1 so they could join. This would only count taleworlds so that they can be linked for credibility and so forth and so on.

 

[Catholic]

I realized there was more than one point in Dodes' post. I'd like to go through it one by one.

1) Another BoP will not interfere with current BoP games.

It will. I have already explained, see my previous posts in this thread.

2) Players are mature and informed enough to decide for themselves if they have enough time to play an additional game.

They're not. They're really, really not. It's also why open polls are a horrible idea. People aren't mature and informed enough. People should mature and informed enough whether or not they have the time to host a BoP game. You're mature and informed, so why did yours die?

That's right, you had something in your life come up. That happens to everyone. And that's just looking at the best of the best - other people, frankly, just aren't mature period. Look at the most recent Werewolf game (Nipplemelter's). People just didn't play. The same happened in my Werewolf game. Everyone liked to make the commitment but then dropped.

And Werewolf runs for three months. BoP can go on for a year or so.

3) BoP order does not make enough sense to be justifiable.

And why not? I feel this is just you wanting to host your game, getting your buddies to 'Yes' this vote up and then pushing for your own game to be hosted. There is an order. The next person in line is Kronic. He will probably want to host, and then what? Do we have a shouting match between you and Kronic as to who will host the next one? Do you brawl? Do you show up lines of experience in hosting and whoever has played more wins?

Host orders also make sense because the first in line person has the most time to prepare. And in case they aren't exactly ready when it's their turn, they can always hop down a spot. It works ideally.

4) BoPs should be started based on if players want to play enough, not based on order of first-come first-serve.

You're comparing two different things. The first has to do with when it gets started, the second has to do with who hosts it. You are throwing up a strawman regarding "Should we host another one?" when the real solution you want is you hosting the next one. This is dishonest. Please stop.

5) A BoP's success to start should be based on if an adequate number of players and/or replacements apply.

Well, no. You had a nice sum of people and then dropped it midgame. So did Rifleman. So did Austupaio. Hell, so did every game thus far that isn't mine. It doesn't matter if there's enough people, there has to be a host that is adequate and prepared to host a BoP game. There also has to be sustained interest, not immediate interest. Just because 24 people are in my game doesn't rule out the fact that 10 of them haven't turned their orders in three weeks in.

And I can give a lot of that loss of sustained interest the credit of Lascivo's game. And that's only two. Three's going to be a nightmare.

6) BoPs shouldn't have mandatory sticky thread status in order to not clog up the fun stuff sub-channel.

They should, I feel. It's easy to hop in to Fun Stuff, see the stickied BoP thread, and go, "Oh, I'll post in it." Once it drops down to Page 2 hell, it's going to disappear for awhile.

I feel that a cap would be a terrible idea, especially for the core BoP players (Puppy, Burgess, MaHuD, Shatari, Catholic and so on), the players that dictate most of the game's politics. I am currently taking part in 5 BoPs ( 2 are on hiatus) and co-hosting another. If a player is really interested in playing a BoP game then they'll find time to get Ghent orders in on time and put effort towards the game ( my 1750 turn orders are being delayed due to me waiting on some pretty crucial replies).

With that being said, I would probably join your game if it interested me enough.

I actually agree.

 

[Dodes]

I will concede my initial points, but I feel there can be compromise. You may not have seen my plea in the "order thread" in which I confess that I'm selfishly wanting to host my own game. If Kronic wants to host his game, then I am all for him hosting. I think that with this compromise we can make with the "cap limit" we should see less negative effects on already-made BoPs. You may also notice that my buddies are BoP players as well and even in line before me to host, the only reason they voted first is because I am currently communicating with them first about my ideas and asking them for approval and support, I see nothing wrong with that. Do not call me dishonest as I am not at all being dishonest or trying to mislead.

 

[Leoven]

Yes,

I think it should matter on who is willing to join. be strict, have deadlines, have fixed rules that are well thought out and near unchangable.
It depends onthe depth and time needed to be invested on the player side. Too many BoP's is a bad thing but if you can find players its a go imo.

Breaking away from the standard die hard core of BoP players may not even be a bad thing if thats even the case.
Variation is the spice of life. At least in some cases.

It seems to me Dodes that you have the time to host it, put in alot of effort so if you can find the desired amount of players why not go for it?
Its your show after all.

 

[Shatari]

Personally, I'm not going to play in more than two games at a time. Diplomacy is something I take very seriously, and it gets very confusing if I try to manage too many affairs at once. I'm also not eager to run my own game while too many people are running theirs, as mine is going to be a touch more complex than any of the ones I've seen so far.

I can certainly see the appeal for having a game for people who aren't in any of the active games, as it does kind of suck to be left out, but if you try to recruit people from the ones that are running then I think you're going to stretch them too thin.