asgarddawning | IMPORTANT POLL: APP CYCLES

Entry tags:

!mod post

IMPORTANT POLL: APP CYCLES

Hey guys! Tosshi here in Kida's account because of his shiny paid poll privileges.

We're here this time for a very important poll. We're sure you've noticed, but with an event-heavy, much-work-to-be-done game like ours, the monthly app round is leaving everything in a constant state of rushed. The current mod situation is often "Oh no, it's reserves already? We just finished the last round's stuff!", and we know this busyness has been causing some of our processes to lag. While some things have improved especially this month, others haven't, and a lot of that is the sheer volume of per-cycle things to do.

So, as one possible solution, some players brought up the idea of having less frequent app cycles. With a big game like this, it'd help a lot for our sanity and for you guys having information updated faster and other such things. Our proposal is thus: bi-monthly app rounds. Basically, apps would only open every other month. No other changes. It'd make things a lot easier on us as a team to do it this way, which should reflect well in our other work.

Of course, there's always a downside. People enabled right after a round closes may get bored of waiting so long, for one. Other options we haven't considered as heavily include capping the number of characters allowed in the game at once, capping the number of apps we process per round, and having continuously-open apps. Obviously each of these have their upsides and downsides but they aren't really what we want to do right now. If you guys want to discuss them or other ideas in this post though, feel free! Maybe we won't need to change anything at all once we've chosen our helpers (apps are still open here and we'll probably choose this week), but we're throwing this one idea out to you for now.

Poll #9990

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 113

View Respondents

Should app cycles be slowed to bi-monthly?

View Answers

Yes, and I feel strongly about this
19 (16.8%)

Yes, but it isn't a big deal
37 (32.7%)

I don't care either way
24 (21.2%)

No, but it isn't a big deal
22 (19.5%)

No, and I feel strongly about this
11 (9.7%)

Please be fair and only vote once if possible! It's ok if a couple of people accidentally vote twice, but it'd be fairest if that didn't happen. Also, remember that the final decision is always in the hands of the mods.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I would much rather have slowed app cycles rather than having a cap on how many characters can be in the game at once. But that's just my two cents!

I'd much prefer if events were bi-monthly rather than apps, or even if reserves were eliminated -- 7 weeks between app rounds seems very very long to me!

We probably won't be decreasing events quite that much. Since the overarcing plot is running on a timer, we'd have to throw out every other event to accommodate it in order to only have one event every two months. The larger number of events is part of the premise for how the game works, so while we have trimmed a little for March as opposed to February, we won't really be able to trim further much if at all. :(

I actually like the idea of capping the number of apps per round, but that leaves the crucial sticking point of how many apps you allow.

bi-monthly is cool with me, though, probably because I'm used to it in my other game.

not that i necessarily think that's what we should do but just sayin' for the people bringing these points up

1) apps will initially double and then settle down, they will definitely not stay at a raised rate, believe me

2) it seems like it would deter people from apping but generally most people don't seem to notice. if they really want in they'll app anyway. if they didn't, they might have just flaked right back out anyway.

are there other points of contention??? idk just saying mostly. my primary position is still just an app cap, or capping one-character-per-mun. (not both, mind you.)

Having a bi-monthly application cycle would certainly slow things down in terms of modwork, but I think what would be much more effective is if you only allowed one application/reserve per round. Having people app in two characters at a time provides a lot more work -- and, from what I've noticed, a much higher turnover rate. Instead of having applications be every two months, just have people only app one character per cycle. That and imagine the avalanche of apps you would get after two months? It'd be just as much work but crammed into one week. I don't think it'd help you guys out at all.

Slowing the game down in terms of major game events would also help cut down on your work, like Watson-mun said.

Waiting seven weeks between app rounds is a little extreme, imo. Especially since that might deter a lot of new people that are interested. Waiting two months for applications to open isn't really practical to having the game grow and prosper as it has been.

Edited (edited because of moar thoughts sob.) 2012-03-27 05:09 (UTC)

I think capping to one character an app round, whether once a month or bi-monthly, would help a great deal. It would cut down on load at once for you guys, and it would also help people keep from burning out so fast and apping then dropping all their characters at the same time.

this this this this

Thirding this!

Fourthing this!

Agreed

I'm in sirenspull, and the bi-monthly app cycle makes it kind of... odd sometimes. It's a long-ass wait between rounds, and I think sometimes people app against their better judgment because "oh god I won't get the chance for two more months !!!", and it slows down how long it takes to get new castmates, etc.

That said, I've also seen the app cap be quite successful. I think that having an app cap AND bi-monthly apps would be too restrictive, but capping the number of apps per round is quite fair, and might encourage a culture of "only app if you really mean it, bro."

Are apps only processed by the mods? An expanded app team might help lighten the load, as well. I know little to nothing about the practical internal workings of games that do this, despite being in one, but it seems to work nicely.

We do have an expanded app team!

I think what isn't getting through right now is that it isn't the number of apps that's causing a problem so much as how often they happen. The reason we brought up bi-monthly apps is that as it is right now, there's a lot of tasks that are monthly, at app time, and having to do them all leaves us less time to do other things. If we were equally busy with those app-round tasks only every other month, we'd have more time when we're free to, for example, play NPCs and run the overarcing plots more smoothly.

Like the others have mentioned above I feel a bi-monthly app cycle would be a loooooooooooong wait, potentially deterring new blood into this game. Personally I'm a fan of leaving it monthly, capping it to one character an app round and imposing a hardcap of a static 100 or 50 or whatever number of apps per round, period, as to not overburden yourselves!

My thoughts exactly ^

Keep it monthly, but capped. :) ♥

this is nice and yes i agree

I'll just pick you arbitrarily to reply to HECK YEAH.

Anyway, the idea of one character per round is a pretty good one, so we'll definitely consider that, but I'm 100% against a per-round cap. Making it a race would just build up a ton of resentment for people who didn't get their apps in fast enough. If you're in a timezone far from us, you might never get to app because you don't submit fast enough. There's just too many issues of unfairness in that particular idea.

seconding this, as an australian, haha. a per-round cap also doesn't really take into account the potential turnover rate: a lot of the first 50 (or whatever) who actually get in might drop within the month, while others arriving too late might have stuck it out long-term.

I'm going to slide in a +1 here. Hope you don't mind.

I have to agree with this too, not just because I'm on Spain and timezones are a pain, but because RL keeps people busy and maybe they won't notice the apps oven until it's too late.

Even though I'm in a good timezone for the game I gotta agree to this. A total app cap would suck for people who work odd hours or are in non-American timezones.

I'm good with slowing it down to bi-monthly, and admittedly don't really mind if the cap is in place as long as it helps the mods!

I don't know which option you're gonna go with, but I think slowing things down, whether it be through capping or bi-monthly apps, would be especially good for the newcomers. When they come in waves, sometimes introduction posts get overlooked by accident and I'm afraid it's not a happy first impression of what really is an awesome game.

I'm in another game that does bimonthly apps and it's worked out fine for us so far. One thing I've noticed is that it really cuts down on the impulse apps (which are then followed by drops) when people have time to think it over before actually apping, which is definitely a plus!

This. I agree with the people who have said "actually, the wait tends to mean that the people who app are really interested in being in the game." I know there are arguments in both directions (and the one someone else made elsewhere to the effect that people rush to get in apps because they won't have another chance for a while may be a valid one), but this is my experience: app rounds with some space between them deter impulse apps, and deterring impulse apps is uuuuuuuuuuuusually a good thing. :)

Yeah, that's been my experience as well. If someone is really interested in the game, they won't mind the wait, and I know personally that having to wait to app made me make very sure that I really did want to play the character.

Whatever game could you be talking about, Roona? I agree, though, having experienced bimonthly apps before...it's pretty much great for so many things.

IT'S A SECRET. But yeah, I really like that system and think it works well.

We do something like this at SC, and honestly? I think it works out better. Yeah, it's a long wait, but it also lets people do more on their app, think things through, etc. It's also much more fair than capping how many apps you accept a round, and allows people time to adjust.

I understand why slowing things down might seem like a good option to make apps less stressful, but I feel that ifcycles were bimonthly it would mostly just result in either a long wait that could deter newcomers or twice as many apps per cycle as we get now. Limiting apps and reserves to one character per mun each cycle and putting a cap in place for the total number of apps that can be processed each month both seem like much better options to me.

I think the app waiting would be too long, and the impact left for rejected apps or revisions would be harder since the potential players had a total of two months to review their essays. It doesn't seem worth it, especially if more and more people will decide to joinin that span of time. It'll be a load again.

I agree with

the_good_doctor and

ofthursday's suggestions. Easen up on events and restrict the amount of characters to one per round.

I'll be honest and say that because of Asgard's large size, as mods you need to consider what would work best overall. As the headmod when Promenade was open, I can relate that it takes a lot of work, and there's a lot of decisions to think over. I'm really not that big on the limitations, thought I do understand them- but there's a bunch of things to be considered that revolve around each other and I think you guys need to look into them.

Most importantly, I think you guys should really try and get helper mods and things before changing your whole app schedule. I'm glad you put up applications for it, that tells a lot of people you're trying to pick up the pace. Still, a two month wait is really not a good idea, in my opinion. It's not fair to have potential castmates and muns look at the game, only to find that everything won't open for seven to eight weeks, once apps close. In general, it can be really frustrating to both players in and out of the game to have to wait that long- because let's be honest, not many people will be willing to wait 49-54 days to play a muse in a game, if they're accepted. And even if they do wait, by the time they app, there's still no promise that their app will be accepted right away. They have to wait along with everyone else and that can range anywhere from one day to ten. That really doesn't sound fun, or favorable.

It's like seeing the latest movie/video game/whatever coming out in a few weeks, pre-ordering, getting a number to be one of the first few, and waiting that long- only when you do come back to get it, you find out it's been pushed back by another month and you're no longer the first one waiting for it anymore. It sucks.

Like Watson-mun also said, events are important, but if you give us too much at once, we won't be able to keep up and do our own little things at the same time. Not everyone has a lot of internet time, and for those who have real life to attend to, it can be very discouraging if we have to hiatus and come back not only to the middle of an event we had no idea was happening, but have to try and think of what our characters have been doing in that time. We feel jipped, to put it simply. Slowing events down (possibly to a bi-monthly process?) will help a lot in both doing NPC posts (because they always get flooded), as well as people who want to get their bearings. A lot of people end up dropping because if a game has an event every month (I've dropped several games that were so much fun, but too fast because of this), they can't get their feet in the water before being whisked away to do something else.

However if you do decide something, placing a cap on how many people can app muses per round will probably be your best option. I have a warning with that: The thing is, if you limit the number in one way, it's going to come back in another. So you may have people only apping one muse per round, but there's a lot more people apping this round then last, because they realize that "omg I can only app one fffffffff must get app in before anyone else ahhhh challenges ahhhh." It's a cause and effect cycle, and it happens everywhere.

I know you guys work hard, and I'm so glad you put so much effort into this game. I can see it in everything you do, so I don't want this to sound discouraging! ♥ I just really think you should consider all options before just limiting yourselves to one specific thing.

if the game is on a timer for events/plot and stuff, maybe slowing down the time ratio could help a little? i know right now it's two days ooc = one day ic, which is easy to work with, but something like a week ooc = two days ic might help spread things out a bit and help events last longer oocly, which means more people could get involved without backtagging.

That'd have the opposite effect on the plot.

Asgard's set up to have a plot that runs for 1 OOC year, with an optional ending, an if the game continues a new arc in the story starts. That's why we can't slow things down much more, because we have to reasonably fit the rest of this story arc into the time from now through November. Asgard is meant to be a plot/event-heavy game and was set up that way from the beginning, and that's one thing we're not willing to change at this time.

okay, that makes sense! add an extra vote for a one character per app round limit, then, because bimonthly apps might be a bit rough with the initial plot rounding off so soon.

This is a good idea. I'd even stretch it to three days; a survivor horror game that was TINY ran on three days, and it did pretty well, for a while.

I'm strongly for bi-monthly apps. They work really well. Characters stick longer, it allows more time for plotting since there's so many weeks of downtime, and people do get used to the idea pretty quickly. Putting caps on the game's population/cycle? Bad idea, but I'm all for one character per round.

A lot of people have already laid out the arguments, so I'll just pop in basic opinions on each major idea without getting into huge discussions, except on this one point. It's not a major point, but it might be a minor consideration.

I actually don't think that people having to wait is the best argument against bi-monthly app cycles; instead, I feel that monthly app cycles encourage impulse apps and drops and that waiting is not a bad thing. (A lot of people are happy to wait several weeks for a game to open, after all!) I do think that intro posts give players a lot of opportunity for activity, though. They aren't always interesting to every player, but they help with things like forming new CR and having enough activity to pass AC. It's a tradeoff between having a surefire conversation topic from a bunch of similar posts, and having maybe more compelling and individualistic posts coming up that can sometimes be slightly more difficult for players to generate. However, the flip side is that a lot of players get bored with the flood of intro posts that come with monthly apps, so that's not an absolute benefit.

YES:
- Bimonthly app cycles.
- Only allowing one app per player per cycle.
- I'm in favor of both of those things, but choosing to continue to allow two apps per bimonthly cycle would be OK, too.

NO:
- Capping the number of characters who can app per round or the number who can be in the game.
- Changing the schedule. I would love to have more OOC days to each IC day, but I understand why it wouldn't work from a mod standpoint.

ETA: How many people are really apping two characters per round? I know some are, but is it the major reason behind the volume of apps each month? If not, I don't think I would lower the limit after all.

Edited 2012-03-27 11:49 (UTC)

Perhaps in order to cut down on the amount of apps, you could instead limit the number of characters per player to just one per round? It seems like a good way to cut down on "flakey" apps but still have more frequent rounds for those that are really serious about getting a character in.

I really like the idea of slowing things down, because as someone mentioned before) it hard for the newcomers to get replies in their introductory posts and for the actual players to develop the ongoing plots.

I've been in games with bi-monthly apps and while it might look like it's going to turn off people from aping that doesn't always happen. I agree that is a turn off for some, but if they really want to play in the game they will app no matter that. It also helps to cut down the number of impulsive apps.

Capping the number of apps we process per round is more of a turn of imo, because it might feel people that weren't fast enough while submitting feel rejected.

I support the idea of restricting applications to one per player per round.

Another restriction that could be imposed would be not accepting applications for any characters that were not reserved and requiring the reserve link in the application. The benefit to doing that is that it prepares the mod/app team for how many applications can be expected to come in.

Something that Siren's Pull does that I think is a good idea is processing five applications a day and no more. This staggers the intro posts, and it alleviates some of the burden on the mods. They also require activity check proofs for anyone applying for anything after the 2nd character - which helps prevent people who are already characters squatting take on even more characters.

Seconding this, the five apps a day thing is absolutely wonderful for keeping intros from being overwhelming.

:( We get over 100 apps every round so 5 apps a day would leave people waiting quite awhile, especially in the rounds that we get more like 200. That's not one we can really use with our volume of apps.

jesus christ

...is it too late to change my vote

hahah nah. :> We also probably will consider a lot more than straight poll numbers before we make any decisions.

I think having to provide AC for apps after a 2nd character might be a good idea! At the very least it might make inactive people apping more characters to give their activity a deeper look.

Gonna put my two cents in and say that I'd either go with one or the other in terms of apps. Whether it be either wait two months OR limit it to one per person. Personally, I think both would have a negative effect on the game, plus I feel very strongly against the idea.

I DO agree that something needs to be done. I definitely am more inclined to side with limiting it to one character per round. That way a person can app. a character and not get overwhelmed with it.

I will say that in the past I know the two month issue can be a negative effect, so I'm more inclined to side with capping it to one character per round. As was mentioned earlier, castmates can be enabled right after apps close and wait seven to eight weeks before they can do anything in the game. I know personally when that has happened to me, by the time apps have opened again I'm no longer interested in the game. And while they can get into the game just fine, some of their castmates may have moved on and/or dropped already. While the mun may still want to play I think it restricts the time fram in which they can app. and get in the game with their drive.

jhiroepwh Hopefully this makes sense, I know I'm rambling

Edited 2012-03-28 16:38 (UTC)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

IMPORTANT POLL: APP CYCLES

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

IN DEFENSE OF BI-MONTHLY APP CYCLES

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject