This is probably not something I will earn a lot friends with but I dont care
It's been now only 2 years for me here in the game but in this time I could already see that the thing that I wrote above isnt really a thing.
I mean rules and deadlines are basically worthless if there is not a need for everyone to follow them. Also we ask new members to tell us how to contribute to the game and to be active but this doesnt seem to be necessary for everyone.
Deadlines & Rules, especially during offseason that exist also dont apply to everyone. In addition to this for some stuff where we should have some deadline there isnt one (i assume again so that there can be easily made special cases). And from all what I have seen so far there wasnt a single deadline which was too soon, it was always PLENTY of time to do even tasks that require a few minutes or only seconds.
And if we look at the Offseason, it's the SAME TIME EVERY YEAR. So if you forget or cant make it in this like 2 months long period you simply don't give a fuck about the game and the people who run it.
The game doesnt a big number of people if they are not active at all. This is a community game and for this everyone of this community should have at least a minimum amount of participation. Also, If someone is not active it doesnt matter if they are new or a part for years. Personally I feel that someone who is here for years and isnt active is even worse than a new one who maybe just doesnt know it better.
Again, Rules and Deadlines need to be more consistent and handled more strictly. I mean if you say beforehand that you cant because of reasons thats an entire different thing. But just forgetting or ignoring everything and then come back and feel like you have the right for everything is WRONG. In such cases it needs to be punished.
I dont think we need any punishments for missed deadlines but it would be a good idea to give an indication when a task is supposed to be done. Post sth like "please do this within the next two weeks" and a lot of the managers who often take ages to reconsider stuff a thousand times will submit by then.
Ezee sitting straight facts. Respectfully, deadlines won’t do jack shit. Clearly people are not even here, don’t do anything. Putting a magic little date on stuff isn’t going to change it if they’re not here to read it. When you apply, it’s talked about how your activity will decide your prolonged membership etc etc. But every time we are waiting for weeks on a certain set of individuals who clearly don’t care enough. Why should the 90% who are ready and excited for the new season wait for literal weeks because a few people don’t care enough to even give a heads up. We are already a lot behind schedule and it’s only going to get worse. I know alot of people might have sentiment for some managers and hope they continue, but if it was a new manager it would be a different case apparently. ManGame is a year long commitment, I get that life happens as it has done for me. But honestly, if it's a struggle each year to even just open the forum and type 1 message, let it go. Respectfully
I dont think we need any punishments for missed deadlines but it would be a good idea to give an indication when a task is supposed to be done. Post sth like "please do this within the next two weeks" and a lot of the managers who often take ages to reconsider stuff a thousand times will submit by then.
Terrible take as this approach has been used for years now. These people (if one can call them that) need to be given harsh penalties. I dont care if DB etc isnt ready. Thats not the point. Get your shit done, or if you somehow book month long holidays every single time just in time for renewals and you do not have 5 minutes it takes to do renewals then fuck off and disband
tl;dr:
Agree with Ezee, same rules should apply for everyone. And deadlines would be good, too, if communicated early enough - and leaving enough time for the "background workers" to get the next season ready.
---------------------------
long version:
Well, it's no secret that I've always been in favor of deadlines, communicated in advance so everyone who is active at least once or twice per month can realistically make them. Ideally, the post-season schedule would be decided on when we start the last month of racing. Submitting stat gain choices could even have a deadline before the start of October, so renewals could start once "official" racing is done, and should end when NCs/WCs are done (to give managers a chance of including RP-related criteria based on NC/WC results). Band choices could then follow almost instantly, and so could transfers.
However, it has to be kept in mind that the weight of the game isn't on many shoulders, and the schedule should by no means put them under pressure. If we could get some more stage makers (also helping with calendar), reporters etc., we could surely speed up certain things. But these people - although they're working hard even during the season - need the off-season break to prepare stuff, and this part cannot be shortened too much.
Speaking of activity, yes, of course, I'd love to see every manager being active. But I know from my own experience that this isn't always possible, and even a break of one or more months can just happen. Complete inactivity during the entire season however isn't something that's good for a community game. And yes, telling new managers that they should rather be active or they could be removed from the game is pretty hypocritical nowadays, and this phrase should be removed from the "applicant information" if it doesn't apply to existing managers as well.
And yes, I also do understand that long-term managers who have some merit (e.g. by contributing a lot to the game in earlier years) do have some "bonus" when it comes down to deadlines etc., but if it happens every year, and every year it slows down the process, I also think that this "bonus" might be used up at some point. But yeah, I'm in the game for only 5 years and haven't been in the same division as most long-term managers yet, so I'm clearly not in the same position as roturn who takes the final decisions. But from an "outside" point of view, it's rather annoying if you already know for whom we'll probably have to wait until the last possible deadline when the continuation thread pops up...
Agree with what has been said here - longevity and contributions to the game can only be used as a bandaid for so long. Most new managers don’t even know who these people are so have no reason to care (especially when these managers aren’t active). I really like the managers/teams in question but really it does get old at a certain point when there’s little to no interaction from them throughout the entire season and then things are held up as a result.
Maybe something to consider going forward is relegating a team with an inactive manager (and not straight disbanding them), they’re free to still be a part of the game but their spot in PT/PCT will go to the next team in line from the respective division, giving that spot to someone who is actually active. Of course there could still be problems, that next team in line could also have a relatively inactive manager etc. but I don’t think something like this would be the worst idea.
Don't know if this will get support, but why not start the continuation process during the final month or two of the season (rather than at the start of the post-season, NC/WC)? I think by starting the registration process for existing teams much earlier will be significantly better as I've seen a pattern among existing managers who bombard threads months old with their thoughts on the performance of their riders. But that's just my thoughts on the continuation process.
Given the 'Hosaur case' which divided the community and both sides had valid arguments, but the decision is final and it is what it is, I have the following proposal - activity points. Each time a manager makes a post to ManGame related threads like Team HQ or race discussion threads will gain an activity point(s) for the racing month. The major downside for this idea is that managers that usually drop posts at multiple threads at once may try to improve their activity score by this manner.
But that's all my ramblings - feel free to (dis)agree
I wanna state this again so it doesnt get forgotten.
If you want more variety in the Database and in general a better Database the most important is clearly to REWORK the Stat gains.
In the Following Table I have listed the Total Stat Points you gain choosing a a Levelling Path from 1.00 to 4.Max. I made this for each potential. I know this isnt necessary a realistc scenario but this is only to show the HUGE difference between the different paths. The last column is always the Stat points difference to the "best" path for each potential. (I left out the Sprinter Bonus because it basicaly doesnt matter because its the same for each path and potential)
Spoiler
Pot. 1
FL
MO
HI
TT
STA
RES
REC
CO
SP
AC
FI
DO
PR
Total
Fighter
5
0
0
0
3
3
3
0
1
3
5
1
0
24
-6
Hills
1
1
5
0
4
3
1
0
0
3
3
0
0
21
-9
Stage Race
0
5
3
5
3
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
29
-1
Sprinter
5
0
0
0
3
0
3
3
5
5
0
0
0
24
-6
Time Trial
5
0
1
5
3
5
3
0
0
0
3
0
5
30
0
Cobbles
3
0
0
0
4
3
1
5
1
0
0
0
0
17
-13
Classics
4
0
3
0
3
1
1
4
0
0
1
0
0
17
-13
Climberv2
0
7
1
0
2
5
3
0
0
4
3
4
0
29
-1
Climberv1
0
5
4
0
0
4
3
0
0
5
4
0
0
25
-5
Track-Sprint
5
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
5
5
0
0
4
25
-5
Track-TT
5
0
0
5
3
1
3
0
3
1
0
0
5
26
-4
Fabian
3
0
0
1
4
3
1
5
0
0
0
0
1
18
-12
Pot. 2
FL
MO
HI
TT
STA
RES
REC
CO
SP
AC
FI
DO
PR
Total
Fighter
5
0
3
0
4
3
3
0
3
4
5
1
0
31
-5
Hills
1
1
5
0
5
3
3
0
1
4
3
0
0
26
-10
Stage Race
1
7
3
5
5
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
5
34
-2
Sprinter
5
0
0
0
5
1
3
3
7
5
0
0
0
29
-7
Time Trial
5
0
1
7
3
5
5
0
0
0
3
0
7
36
0
Cobbles
4
0
0
0
5
3
1
5
4
0
0
0
0
22
-14
Classics
5
0
3
0
3
1
1
5
0
0
4
0
0
22
-14
Climberv2
0
7
1
0
4
5
4
0
0
4
3
5
0
33
-3
Climberv1
0
7
4
0
1
4
5
0
0
5
4
0
0
30
-6
Track-Sprint
5
0
0
0
1
5
3
0
7
5
0
0
5
31
-5
Track-TT
5
0
0
7
3
3
4
0
3
1
0
0
7
33
-3
Fabian
4
0
0
4
5
3
1
5
0
0
0
0
4
26
-10
Pot. 3
FL
MO
HI
TT
STA
RES
REC
CO
SP
AC
FI
DO
PR
Total
Fighter
6
0
2
2
5
2
3
1
2
3
5
1
2
34
-1
Hills
1
2
6
0
5
2
2
0
1
4
3
1
0
27
-8
Stage Race
1
6
2
5
5
4
6
0
0
1
0
0
5
35
0
Sprinter
5
0
1
0
5
1
4
2
6
6
0
0
0
30
-5
Time Trial
5
0
1
6
4
6
5
0
0
0
2
0
6
35
0
Cobbles
4
0
1
0
5
3
1
6
3
0
0
0
0
23
-12
Classics
5
0
2
0
4
2
1
5
0
0
3
1
0
23
-12
Climberv2
1
6
1
0
3
6
4
0
0
4
3
7
0
35
0
Climberv1
0
6
3
0
1
4
5
0
0
5
5
1
0
30
-5
Track-Sprint
5
0
1
0
1
5
2
0
6
6
0
0
5
31
-4
Track-TT
5
0
0
6
4
2
4
0
2
2
0
0
6
31
-4
Fabian
4
0
1
3
5
3
1
6
0
0
0
0
3
26
-9
Pot. 4
FL
MO
HI
TT
STA
RES
REC
CO
SP
AC
FI
DO
PR
Total
Fighter
8
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
4
7
4
3
56
0
Hills
3
3
8
1
7
4
3
0
1
5
5
1
1
42
-14
Stage Race
1
7
5
7
5
5
7
0
0
1
1
0
7
46
-10
Sprinter
7
0
1
0
5
1
5
5
7
7
0
1
0
39
-17
Time Trial
7
1
3
7
5
7
5
0
0
0
5
0
7
47
-9
Cobbles
5
0
1
0
7
5
3
7
5
1
1
0
0
35
-21
Classics
5
0
5
0
5
3
3
7
0
0
5
1
0
34
-22
Climberv2
1
8
3
0
6
7
4
0
0
4
5
8
0
46
-10
Climberv1
1
7
7
0
1
4
5
0
0
7
7
1
0
40
-16
Track-Sprint
7
0
1
1
1
5
4
0
7
7
0
1
7
41
-15
Track-TT
7
0
1
7
5
5
5
0
5
3
0
0
7
45
-11
Fabian
5
0
1
5
7
5
3
7
0
1
1
0
5
40
-16
Pot. 5
FL
MO
HI
TT
STA
RES
REC
CO
SP
AC
FI
DO
PR
Total
Fighter
8
3
3
4
5
5
5
3
3
7
8
4
4
62
0
Hills
3
3
8
1
8
4
4
0
3
7
5
1
1
48
-14
Stage Race
3
9
5
7
7
5
7
0
0
1
1
1
7
53
-9
Sprinter
7
1
1
0
7
3
5
5
9
7
0
1
0
46
-16
Time Trial
7
1
3
9
5
7
7
0
0
0
5
1
9
54
-8
Cobbles
7
0
1
0
7
5
3
8
7
1
1
1
0
41
-21
Classics
7
0
5
0
5
4
3
7
0
1
8
1
0
41
-21
Climberv2
1
9
3
0
8
7
4
0
0
4
5
8
0
49
-13
Climberv1
1
9
8
1
3
4
7
0
0
7
8
1
1
50
-12
Track-Sprint
7
0
1
1
3
7
4
0
9
7
0
1
7
47
-15
Track-TT
7
0
1
9
5
6
7
0
5
3
0
1
9
53
-9
Fabian
7
0
1
7
7
5
3
8
0
1
1
1
7
48
-14
Pot. 6
FL
MO
HI
TT
STA
RES
REC
CO
SP
AC
FI
DO
PR
Total
Fighter
9
3
4
4
7
5
5
4
4
7
9
4
4
69
0
Hills
3
4
9
1
8
4
4
0
3
8
7
3
1
55
-14
Stage Race
3
9
5
7
7
7
9
0
0
3
1
1
7
59
-10
Sprinter
7
1
3
0
7
3
8
5
9
8
0
1
0
52
-17
Time Trial
7
1
3
9
7
9
7
0
0
0
5
1
9
58
-11
Cobbles
7
0
3
0
8
7
3
9
7
1
1
1
0
47
-22
Classics
7
0
5
0
7
5
3
8
0
1
8
3
0
47
-22
Climberv2
3
9
3
0
8
9
4
0
0
4
5
11
0
56
-13
Climberv1
1
9
8
1
3
5
7
0
0
7
9
3
1
54
-15
Track-Sprint
7
0
3
1
3
7
5
0
9
8
0
1
8
52
-17
Track-TT
7
0
1
9
7
8
7
0
5
3
0
1
9
57
-12
Fabian
7
0
3
7
8
7
3
9
0
1
1
1
7
54
-15
Pot. 7
FL
MO
HI
TT
STA
RES
REC
CO
SP
AC
FI
DO
PR
Total
Fighter
12
4
4
4
7
7
5
4
4
7
9
4
4
75
0
Hills
4
4
12
3
9
4
4
0
3
8
7
3
3
64
-11
Stage Race
3
10
7
8
7
7
9
0
0
3
3
1
8
66
-9
Sprinter
8
1
3
0
7
3
8
7
10
8
0
3
0
58
-17
Time Trial
8
3
4
10
7
9
7
0
0
0
7
1
10
66
-9
Cobbles
7
0
3
0
9
7
4
10
8
3
3
1
0
55
-20
Classics
7
0
8
0
7
5
4
9
0
1
10
4
0
55
-20
Climberv2
3
10
4
0
9
9
4
0
0
4
7
11
0
61
-14
Climberv1
3
10
9
1
3
5
7
0
0
8
9
3
1
59
-16
Track-Sprint
8
0
3
3
3
7
7
0
10
8
0
3
8
60
-15
Track-TT
8
0
3
10
7
8
7
0
7
4
0
1
10
65
-10
Fabian
7
0
3
8
9
7
4
10
0
3
3
1
8
63
-12
If you looked at it you can already see huge differences. And if i spot there something like -20 or even more thats not even funny anymore. It makes thse paths just USELESS and leads to a lot of similar riders in the end. Also If you dig deep into the numbers you could even increase this difference.
I understand this is the results of many smaller adjustements over the season, so no offense. But also this shows we need a rework and not further adjustements.
Yes, I know, this means a lot of work and I am more than willing to do some of this work and help with it, so just hit me up you know where to find me.
Also this isnt something we can implement right away but like many have stated we should do this early so everyone can prepare for it then before the next season starts.
I cant state enough how much I think this is needed. I am sure thsi will also help the game and having fun with it a lot. So people who decide, dont be lazy and start to change this finally. Again, just ask me for help
Various folks put forward some good ideas for a more comprehensive change to the stat matrices but I think those should be held and done when we move to a version with Medium MT since that will require a bigger rethink.
So either we decide that we won't ever move to a version with medium mountain, and do the full overhaul for 2025 (as imho stat gains should be known by the start of transfers). Or we move on and create stat gains for the new skills system.
But I agree that something should be made, in particular with the SR path being OP and leading to a plethora of similar riders, as you say.
One last thing: I don't think it's a great idea to call the deciders "lazy". People just have other things to do (planned or unplanned) than managing an online game for 70 people - of course, to keep the game alive changes have to be done, but I personally won't complete a task faster if someone thinks I'm just "lazy" - rather the contrary
Fabianski wrote:
One last thing: I don't think it's a great idea to call the deciders "lazy". People just have other things to do (planned or unplanned) than managing an online game for 70 people - of course, to keep the game alive changes have to be done, but I personally won't complete a task faster if someone thinks I'm just "lazy" - rather the contrary
Don't be so sensitive
I don't mean lazy like in "you dont do work or you're slow". Not at all, I am thankful for all the work that is be done especially the stuff that people dont even see.
Lazy like in: Everyone knows this should be done, but then postpone it because it would be too much work now. This will just increase the frustration of all. Also this will lead to much more work in the future, and then maybe will be postponed again?
So what can be done if it is too much work? Ask for help or just accept help when offered.
Or maybe I am the only one who thinks this is a problem. Then just ignore me like usually
I'd like to propose implementing a new voting system to decide on rule changes for upcoming Man-Game seasons. Here’s how it would work:
1. Collection of Suggestions: We will continue to gather rule change suggestions as we have been, allowing managers to propose ideas. This process ensures that we capture a wide range of innovative and diverse thoughts from everyone involved.
2. Selection by Rules Committee: At the end of the suggestion collection period, a dedicated rules committee will review all submissions and select the top 3-5 proposals based on their merit, feasibility, and potential impact on the MG. This step ensures that only the most impactful and practical suggestions are put forward for consideration.
The Rules Committee: Should include a handful of people that are already working behind the scenes along with some representation (and maybe a rotation) of PT, PCT, and CT managers. I'm thinking maybe seven or nine members (an odd number to break any ties) or they could use a ranked-choice voting system to decide which submissions move on to the voting phase. Either way, this group should be the ones who do all the debating and discussion on which suggestions they deem would be best for the future of the game.
3. Voting Process: Each selected rule change proposal will then be put up for a vote. Every manager will be given one vote per proposal. Additionally, if a manager feels they have no strong preference on a particular rule change, they can choose to abstain from voting on that proposal, and they will be granted a second vote to cast on a different rule change they find more compelling (max two votes for one proposal).
4. Approval Threshold: To pass a rule change, we could establish a threshold of 51%, 60%, or 70% of the total votes, depending on how stringent we want the approval process to be. This ensures that only those changes with substantial support will be enacted.
If a proposal is rejected, it should be placed on hold for a minimum of two seasons before it can be resubmitted for consideration. Similarly, any rules that are approved will remain in effect for at least two seasons before any new proposals to alter or remove them can be introduced. This approach ensures stability and continuity, allowing sufficient time for the impact of changes to be assessed and for the game and community to adapt before further modifications are considered.
5. Timing: Suggestions should be gathered at the start of the season, with voting taking place in the middle to end of the season. This timeline allows ample time for discussion, reflection, and consideration of the proposed changes.
Rationale behind the idea: The primary aim of this voting system is to grant managers greater control over the evolution of the MG. By involving everyone in the decision-making process, we foster a more inclusive environment where each manager has a voice in shaping the future of the game. This democratic approach not only empowers managers but also ensures that rule changes reflect the collective interest of the game.
Furthermore, this system creates a more dynamic and responsive game environment. As managers actively participate in voting on rule changes, they are more invested in the outcomes and more engaged in the game's progression. This increased involvement can lead to a more vibrant and competitive atmosphere, as well as foster a stronger sense of community and ownership among managers.
By adopting this proposal, we will enhance the transparency, fairness, and adaptability of the MG, ensuring that rule changes are well-considered and broadly supported before getting enacted.
That rarely ends well. I am vehemently against such committees for the most part. We run a tiny community that can get things done with a vote by, you know, literally everyone. I understand the idea behind it, but we can just do all that but without giving power to random people.
