Site Discussion

Do you have questions, suggestions, feedback, bug reports or other concerns? Post them here!


Scrapping Private Game Status

 
I don't mind the change at all. I don't use the Private game button, so it matters not to me.

I vote yea, so that the admins' lives are that much easier.

If we're really taking a tally, though, you might want to add a poll.

This is not at all about a tally, it's about discussing reasons for keeping private games we might not've considered when we were toying with this idea.

I support this change. I don't really see a need for private games when you can just make the threads private.

One thing no one seems to have pointed out is that private games aren't actually that private right now anyway. All you need to do is go to a user's profile, choose the "Statistics" tab then click "Find all posts by [username]". It will show you their posts and what game they are from - including ones from private games. True you can't go to the game forum or even to view the post in full - but you can get the jist of where they are spending their time.

Fair enough. The point about hiding your actions from 'stalky' players is a strong reason to use private games, but even that boils down to a reluctance to be firm against those same players.

Wasn't there something about only permitting private games to be in foreign languages?

If so, wouldn't that hinder our non-english speaking browsers?

Also, I utilize private games at the moment as a GM to set up threads and make sure they're working before advertising for the game. I then advertise the game after I am certain all the details are correct. Will I still be able to do that?

I agree with the idea that once a game puts out an advertisement, it is no longer able to become private. However, as a GM I've found private games to be useful.

Only good reason I could think of for private games not already mentioned is to satisfy things like the old living forgotten realms games being private or for beta testing. However for the little use they have been to me versus being extra work to code I'd go with saying goodbye to the feature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryfte View Post
I believe having the private game available has its merits, as previously pointed out. There's another circumstance in which I would consider wanting to make a game private which was related to an earlier point but not made explicitly. If an individual creates a large amount of custom content across multiple threads needing to individually set up rights for each of them can become burdensome. Privatizing the entire game is not simply a "quick fix" for that scenario so much as a "try - catch" situation that alleviates the GM from a possible mistake in the access rights to individual threads. *shrug*

Edit: Also, if I can make a game private I'm inherently more comfortable posting material I publish personally under OGL parameters. If anyone can grab it automatically then it limits what I'll use of the material I would create and use on the site. I've used private games on another site back in the early days of 3.5 where I tested materials before publishing them and am looking at doing so currently. If there isn't an ability to privatize an entire game I will likely just not playtest said materials here at MW. As I respect the feedback of many individuals here at MW that I've played with over the years that in itself is a resource that is nice to have access to. Broadcasting fresh creative material to masses of individuals and watching that content spiral out of my control on the other hand isn't something that I would be all interested in.

Would there be a viable alternative perhaps in requesting private games instead of making the option freely selectable? Perhaps a combination of that or based on post count to allow more experienced users to still make them?
I think this is the most persuasive argument for keeping the private game feature around. I've only been on MW for little over a month, but I've noticed many people playtesting new material- whether its homemade or official content that's yet to have been released. There are just some things that you would like to keep away from the general masses if you can, and adding more work to the GM is just going to frustrate them. I understand wanting to eliminate this, considering its difficult to deal with, but is it possible to come to a happy medium? You could give people a certain amount of private games per account (though that's easy to abuse), or you could have people request private threads for specific reasons. I just think completely scrapping it is unfair to a lot of people.
Well, that was my two cents.

Private DM chiming in

My experience with myth-weavers has been to simply host games only for people I know in real life. I use the private game feature because it allows me to be more private about myself and my players, without subjecting us to public scrutiny. This will actually be my first post outside of my games. That being said, it wouldn't change my experience with Myth-weavers if the option to make a private game were removed. As long as I can host games, invite my friends, etc., that's all I'm here for.

I support this change. The worst that happens is that there are users who don't understand the way PbP works and they start trying to post in games to which they haven't been accepted. Even then, it should be a simple enough matter for the GM to explain the situation.

Sounds good to me!

In reviewing the posts here and thinking about this I think I'll vote in favor of keeping the private game function.

I believe the most compelling reason that has been articulated is for folks who want to participate in games without those games appear on various lists (in the user profile, etc..). One example scenario is for a group of RL friends who want to have a game here on M-W without using the advertising functionality. Other scenarios seem to include folks who simply want to make sure that everything in the game is "players only" without having to worry that perhaps they might forget to check the "private" box when creating a thread.

I personally think both of those are valid reasons to want to have private feature.

It doesn't appear (I've not read every word on this thread, so I might have missed it) that private threads accomplish the same goal, since game membership is still public in a public game with private threads. It also doesn't provide the simplification of not having to remember "private" on a thread-by-thread basis.

If I am reading this right the concern that the admins raised was one that had to do with advertising and private threads. Would it be possible or advisable to simply make the advertising feature and private threads mutually exclusive. I.e. you can have a private game but you can't advertise it when it is private and you can advertise a game but if you do it can't be private? I'm not sure if that would be any easier -- but it seems like it might allow the admins to not have to do a major redesign while preserving the private game functionality.

I've played in a lot of games on the weave, GM'd a few. Most of them are public and some of them include both private and public threads. I did create a private game here and liked that it was private. Ultimately, I did choose to make it public (when I wanted to go recruiting new users). However, I liked the idea that I could create it as a private game.

Would the removal of the feature be a "deal breaker" for me. No. I'm good either way, but for the record I think private games are a nifty feature that does have some real utility.

Finally, I really do appreciate the hard work that the admins put in. You all do a fantastic job and we don't tell you that we appreciate it nearly enough!





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status