Confusion, mostly. It looked like your name hadn't been taken off when your turn came up, when actually it had been added back on but there was basically no one in the queue. I think it's fair, though, that the others who recently signed up get a turn first, so I put you back on at the end of the list. If arim or Suth want to change the order they are, of course, welcome to.
Speaking of FTQ games, my Camp Tachronic game is ready to be reviewed for Fast Track status.
I hope that it would be in time to compete for the next FTQ after doomsday, but if its not, I still would like it to be reviewed for the future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Also, the OP says 3 mini games are run simultaenously.
I can only count 2 (smalltown & fairytale), is a third forthcoming?
The OP is actually out of date iirc. A second specialty, via the Fast Track Queue, replaced the 3rd mini.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
With Cubus taking the specialty slot though, and my own slot coming up on the Specialty shortly, I don't believe we have any setups lined up in advance.
Current contenders are DYH, ILord, Zchinque, and Cyan. Deliberations commencing.
Current contenders are DYH, ILord, Zchinque, and Cyan. Deliberations commencing.
Good luck Cyan. Anyhow, I'm still asking for review for the next FTQ anyhow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
Arminaes reviewed it and said it had FTQ potential. Bateleur also reviewed it and said he liked it but wasn't sure if he'd pick it for FTQ since he has very high standards.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Arminaes reviewed it and said it had FTQ potential. Bateleur also reviewed it and said he liked it but wasn't sure if he'd pick it for FTQ since he has very high standards.
*nods* It was probably missed for not being submitted to Suth?
At any rate, I've contacted Arim, and we'll add it to the list of candidates. Anyone else with a late submission (Loran?) that is prepped and ready to go immediately should contact me ASAP.
How do i submit it? By pming you the setup? I've been a bit unsure about this, since I know that at least a few of the council might want to be in FTQs and thus couldn't review any.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
How do i submit it? By pming you the setup? I've been a bit unsure about this, since I know that at least a few of the council might want to be in FTQs and thus couldn't review any.
The procedure is to find an authorized reviewer willing to take a look at the setup, then the reviewer gives us the low-down on the setup and takes part in the committee's decision.
Typically, you'd submit the name of your setup and your reviewer to Sutherlands so we can keep track of potential candidates, but we'll ignore that if you want to make a stab at the current round.
Heh. It appears that I am now on top of both lists at the same time (as has been predicted since, like, last January), just when I am about to be out of contact for a few weeks (as has been predicted since last September).
Luckily, bluesoul's game has just started so I should be OK on the specialty queue. Annorax's game is on day 4, so there's an outside chance it could be finished inside the next month. If so, please just bump me one down in the queue and don't wait for me, between jetlag and catching up on work I probably won't be in any condition to start a game for a week or two after I'm officially back in contact (I leave on 22 January and arrive back in the country on 10 February). I think I've said this before, but it never hurts to say it again.
With luck, Annorax's game will go long and I'll be able to do both games on schedule.
So with all the discussion of basic games a thread or so over, I'd like to sign up to host a basic game. I assume this means just hopping on the newb queue, but is there any way to reserve my slot as basic instead of just newb?
So with all the discussion of basic games a thread or so over, I'd like to sign up to host a basic game. I assume this means just hopping on the newb queue, but is there any way to reserve my slot as basic instead of just newb?
Same here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
That was before we implemented the fast track queue, which took over the aspects of quality and exclusivity that had previously been tied to the specialty queue. There's no practical difference between the normal, mini, and specialty queues, now, except for the specifics of the game type, so there's no reason for people to be able to double dip on the specialty list when they can't do so for normals and minis.
1: /in for another Normal game (since I can't do a Specialty without having the setup ready to go)
2: I'd like to move that Wrath of Dog be removed from probation, as his conduct in Star Trek left me wondering how he could have been on probation in the first place. I'm not sure if I need to do anything other than post this to get Council consideration on it, please LMK if I'm missing something.
3: I'd also like to move that roles such as the one Wuffles II had in Star Trek that involve having mod confirmation of the identities of the scum be required to be approved by an authorized reviewer before the game starts. Any town role that has confirmation of the identities of any number of scum on Night 0 is inherently unfair and needs to be carefully balanced. If I couldn't balance it, then I'd imagine most mods couldn't balance it either. Thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey all... I'm retired, not dead. Check out what I'm doing these days (and beg me to come back if you want):
That was before we implemented the fast track queue, which took over the aspects of quality and exclusivity that had previously been tied to the specialty queue. There's no practical difference between the normal, mini, and specialty queues, now, except for the specifics of the game type, so there's no reason for people to be able to double dip on the specialty list when they can't do so for normals and minis.
1. If there is no practical difference between the specialty and normal queues, then clearly there needs to be a revamping. Just changing the rules so that now you can only sign up in one queue period is not a sensible response.
2. The fast track rules state you have to be signed up in the queue for the type of game you want to get fast-tracked, and that if and when you do get fast-tracked your slot in that queue is used up.
Not to be a douche here but... are we ever going to have a clear idea of how the fast-track queue works? We were told the process would be more visible once the kinks were worked out; it's been a year and we still have no clear or consistent rules for it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Originally it was planned that we would create some kind of rubric. Each proposed rubric failed, however, because they were applied too subjectively.
Instead, each game reviewer provides a pitch for the game they looked over. They discuss its strengths, and its weaknesses. So far, those descriptions have helped identify clear front-runners, and also helped identify which setups are at the highest degree of readiness. As a result, there has been very little discord in the decision-making process so far.
I'm not sure that answers your question, however. Are you more interested in learning what qualities the committee tends to give the greatest weight to?
You could put yourself on the mini list and make a game without complex roles without any hassle, you know?
Errr, Is this really necessary? If you're against the idea of basics fine, but this is just obnoxious.
@Az- I would like to know which qualities the council gives most weight to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
@Az- I would like to know which qualities the council gives most weight to.
Did you ever receive my PM back about this?
Some excerpts:
---
Each reviewer tends to look for different things, but the keys to winning out in this round were depth of flavor, balancing creativity and stability, and most importantly the "wow" factor. Does the setup get you excited about participating in it, or bring something new to the table, or advance the state of game design with something new? Does it feel like something significantly different from what you've played before, but still stays true to the core of the game?
---
The following comments applied to Loran's submission, but I think they'd also be helpful for others to understand how we approach the process:
---
I think the song mechanic is a great, original element that advances the state of the game. One of the reviewers didn't care for it on the grounds that non-lynch voting mechanics have been run before, but I don't think we've ever seen one that sparks this much tension and has such wide applications and consequences. And it's a mechanic that's based on the fundamental question of "who do you trust" that gives the game so much of its tension and suspense.
If you want to revise the setup to compete in the next round of the FTQ (which you may not want to, since the setup works fine as is), what I would do is set about adding detail and strategic depth to the individual roles.
Some of the other setups tried to skate by with unique roles, but without a unifying package to tie everything together. This setup was on the opposite spectrum. It had a unifying package to tie everything together, but most of the roles being tied in were pretty basic stand-bys.
I can imagine a number of creative ways to tweak the ultimate song abilities, and perhaps the regular roles, to build off the unifying mechanic's originality and use it to its full advantage.
We've got the music theme, for instance. That theme gives you so much potential territory to explore. What about an ability based off of transitioning from verse to verse? The player gets a different ability to use each night according to what verse they're on, and then repeats.
*snip*
Another way to add to the setup's value might be to create fictional people as player-characters, and then give each of them their favorite songs. That could lend to a number of interesting abilities and flavorful descriptions as well. Perhaps a washed-up broadway showstealer, who can select a player and use their ultimate song during the night if they weren't selected, or if they came in second place. Stuff like that.
The outdoors and camp theme, too, are probably great places to look for inspiration on flavor and new mechanics.
But boil it down to its essence, and what we're really looking for are setups that have appeal, whether it's because they're finely crafted examples of storytelling, or they bring something new and fresh to the table that piques people's interest.
Oftentimes, what does the trick is an interesting new unifiying mechanic, a la "Hats", or "Burnout", that's applied throughout the game to bring a new dynamic or strategic twist into play. Or, the promise of a highly entertaining game structure, with the roles closely related to the game's flavor, such as in Arim's MTGS Mafia Redux.
One sticking point for a number of the submissions this round was that they contained a good number of new or entertaining individual roles, but there wasn't a strong unifying theme or flavor to tie everything together and distinguish them from past games that have been known for creative individual role mechanics (Fiasco Corp, for example).
A different sticking point, in the case of Loran, was that he had a great central mechanic for his game, but the individual roles were bread-and-butter stand-bys that wouldn't generate a surge of interest. However, if he decides to tie his central mechanic together with the individual roles, his setup has a massive amount of creative potential just waiting to be tapped into.
So to summarize, the qualities we're looking for in FTQ submissions are:
1. One or more interesting central mechanics that will unify the setup, distinguish it from past games, and make it unique.
2. Individual roles that relate to the theme of the game and will get each player excited about participating.
3. Balance. If an otherwise creative game could crap out because it wasn't fine-tuned, that's definitely an argument for giving it more time to develop and be thoroughly tested. (see Points mafia.)
4. Flavor- Ideally, the game's flavor should be unusually deep, with interesting characters and scenery that showcases the moderator's story-telling skill. If your game reads like literature, like something you might pick up off a library shelf and curl up with on a snowy winter's night, that's definitely going to increase player interest and enjoyment.
The FTQ is committed to selling an interesting concept to the forum, creating something that people will want to compete to be in, and then delivering on that promise of a good time. So if your setup has the curb appeal to get the reviewers excited and intrigued, and outsells and distinguishes itself from the competition, there's a very good chance that it will take the next spot.
Each reviewer tends to look for different things, but the keys to winning out in this round were depth of flavor, balancing creativity and stability, and most importantly the "wow" factor. Does the setup get you excited about participating in it, or bring something new to the table, or advance the state of game design with something new? Does it feel like something significantly different from what you've played before, but still stays true to the core of the game?
---
The following comments applied to Loran's submission, but I think they'd also be helpful for others to understand how we approach the process:
---
I think the song mechanic is a great, original element that advances the state of the game. One of the reviewers didn't care for it on the grounds that non-lynch voting mechanics have been run before, but I don't think we've ever seen one that sparks this much tension and has such wide applications and consequences. And it's a mechanic that's based on the fundamental question of "who do you trust" that gives the game so much of its tension and suspense.
If you want to revise the setup to compete in the next round of the FTQ (which you may not want to, since the setup works fine as is), what I would do is set about adding detail and strategic depth to the individual roles.
Some of the other setups tried to skate by with unique roles, but without a unifying package to tie everything together. This setup was on the opposite spectrum. It had a unifying package to tie everything together, but most of the roles being tied in were pretty basic stand-bys.
I can imagine a number of creative ways to tweak the ultimate song abilities, and perhaps the regular roles, to build off the unifying mechanic's originality and use it to its full advantage.
We've got the music theme, for instance. That theme gives you so much potential territory to explore. What about an ability based off of transitioning from verse to verse? The player gets a different ability to use each night according to what verse they're on, and then repeats.
*snip*
Another way to add to the setup's value might be to create fictional people as player-characters, and then give each of them their favorite songs. That could lend to a number of interesting abilities and flavorful descriptions as well. Perhaps a washed-up broadway showstealer, who can select a player and use their ultimate song during the night if they weren't selected, or if they came in second place. Stuff like that.
The outdoors and camp theme, too, are probably great places to look for inspiration on flavor and new mechanics.
But boil it down to its essence, and what we're really looking for are setups that have appeal, whether it's because they're finely crafted examples of storytelling, or they bring something new and fresh to the table that piques people's interest.
Oftentimes, what does the trick is an interesting new unifiying mechanic, a la "Hats", or "Burnout", that's applied throughout the game to bring a new dynamic or strategic twist into play. Or, the promise of a highly entertaining game structure, with the roles closely related to the game's flavor, such as in Arim's MTGS Mafia Redux.
One sticking point for a number of the submissions this round was that they contained a good number of new or entertaining individual roles, but there wasn't a strong unifying theme or flavor to tie everything together and distinguish them from past games that have been known for creative individual role mechanics (Fiasco Corp, for example).
A different sticking point, in the case of Loran, was that he had a great central mechanic for his game, but the individual roles were bread-and-butter stand-bys that wouldn't generate a surge of interest. However, if he decides to tie his central mechanic together with the individual roles, there is a massive amount of creative potential just waiting to be tapped into.
So to summarize, the qualities we're looking for in FTQ submissions are:
1. One or more interesting central mechanics that will unify the setup, distinguish it from past games, and make it unique.
2. Individual roles that relate to the theme of the game and will get each player excited about participating.
3. Balance. If an otherwise creative game could crap out because it wasn't fine-tuned, that's definitely an argument for giving it more time to develop and be thoroughly tested. (see Points mafia.)
4. Flavor- Ideally, the game's flavor should be unusually deep, with interesting characters and scenery that showcases the moderator's story-telling skill. If your game reads like literature, like something you might pick up off a library shelf and curl up with on a cold winter's night, that's definitely going to increase player interest and enjoyment.
The FTQ is committed to selling an interesting concept to the forum, creating something that people will want to compete to be in, and then delivering on that promise of a good time. So if your setup has the curb appeal to get the reviewers excited and intrigued, and outsells and distinguishes itself from the competition, there's a very good chance that it will take the next spot.
I did receive your pm back, though i didn't remember the parts of the email that weren't about my particular game (such as your examples). Apologies, I'm kind of tired this week from tenting.
Still, it's good for others to see as well, so I don't really mind you answering.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mafia MVP Harry Potter Mafia!
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Quote from Seppel »
I love Joboman, Poggy, Niv, and Vezok, because, while they may not be the best players, they still try to win. Having fun is the most important thing to a game, but I've learned that if you don't try to win, then you're ruining everyone else's fun.
1. If there is no practical difference between the specialty and normal queues, then clearly there needs to be a revamping. Just changing the rules so that now you can only sign up in one queue period is not a sensible response.
Sorry, I wasn't sufficiently clear. I don't mean there's no practical difference between the game types. What I mean is that the specialty queue used to have its games picked out the way the fast track queue does now, and was limited to seven games at a time. That is no longer the case, as the specialty queue now takes all signups the way the normal and mini queues do. Thus, there's no reason to allow people to double up on the specialty queue but not the other ones.
Right, the Specialty list used to be a list you weren't supposed to be able to get on until you had a complete game set-up, it had something that made it appropriate for the "specialty" list, and it was approved. That approval was pretty much just Vecna in the beginning. We were also running fewer games then.
When we expanded stuff we sort of loosened the rules. So now anyone can get on the Specialty list, and it just denotes the type of game. The Fast Track games are the only ones with a mandatory review process first. It still seems by far the fairest not to let people be on multiple lists, however, when the waiting times are so long. The only people who were allowed to have been on multiple lists before were the people who were on the Specialty list, and then the rule got changed. The people who were already on it were grandfathered then and so ended up temporarily on multiple lists, but there really shouldn't still be people getting on multiple lists.
I agree it's all a bit fuzzy and confusing, however.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Each reviewer tends to look for different things, but the keys to winning out in this round were depth of flavor, balancing creativity and stability, and most importantly the "wow" factor. Does the setup get you excited about participating in it, or bring something new to the table, or advance the state of game design with something new? Does it feel like something significantly different from what you've played before, but still stays true to the core of the game?
---
The following comments applied to Loran's submission, but I think they'd also be helpful for others to understand how we approach the process:
---
I think the song mechanic is a great, original element that advances the state of the game. One of the reviewers didn't care for it on the grounds that non-lynch voting mechanics have been run before, but I don't think we've ever seen one that sparks this much tension and has such wide applications and consequences. And it's a mechanic that's based on the fundamental question of "who do you trust" that gives the game so much of its tension and suspense.
If you want to revise the setup to compete in the next round of the FTQ (which you may not want to, since the setup works fine as is), what I would do is set about adding detail and strategic depth to the individual roles.
Some of the other setups tried to skate by with unique roles, but without a unifying package to tie everything together. This setup was on the opposite spectrum. It had a unifying package to tie everything together, but most of the roles being tied in were pretty basic stand-bys.
I can imagine a number of creative ways to tweak the ultimate song abilities, and perhaps the regular roles, to build off the unifying mechanic's originality and use it to its full advantage.
We've got the music theme, for instance. That theme gives you so much potential territory to explore. What about an ability based off of transitioning from verse to verse? The player gets a different ability to use each night according to what verse they're on, and then repeats.
*snip*
Another way to add to the setup's value might be to create fictional people as player-characters, and then give each of them their favorite songs. That could lend to a number of interesting abilities and flavorful descriptions as well. Perhaps a washed-up broadway showstealer, who can select a player and use their ultimate song during the night if they weren't selected, or if they came in second place. Stuff like that.
The outdoors and camp theme, too, are probably great places to look for inspiration on flavor and new mechanics.
But boil it down to its essence, and what we're really looking for are setups that have appeal, whether it's because they're finely crafted examples of storytelling, or they bring something new and fresh to the table that piques people's interest.
Oftentimes, what does the trick is an interesting new unifiying mechanic, a la "Hats", or "Burnout", that's applied throughout the game to bring a new dynamic or strategic twist into play. Or, the promise of a highly entertaining game structure, with the roles closely related to the game's flavor, such as in Arim's MTGS Mafia Redux.
One sticking point for a number of the submissions this round was that they contained a good number of new or entertaining individual roles, but there wasn't a strong unifying theme or flavor to tie everything together and distinguish them from past games that have been known for creative individual role mechanics (Fiasco Corp, for example).
A different sticking point, in the case of Loran, was that he had a great central mechanic for his game, but the individual roles were bread-and-butter stand-bys that wouldn't generate a surge of interest. However, if he decides to tie his central mechanic together with the individual roles, his setup has a massive amount of creative potential just waiting to be tapped into.
So to summarize, the qualities we're looking for in FTQ submissions are:
1. One or more interesting central mechanics that will unify the setup, distinguish it from past games, and make it unique.
2. Individual roles that relate to the theme of the game and will get each player excited about participating.
3. Balance. If an otherwise creative game could crap out because it wasn't fine-tuned, that's definitely an argument for giving it more time to develop and be thoroughly tested. (see Points mafia.)
4. Flavor- Ideally, the game's flavor should be unusually deep, with interesting characters and scenery that showcases the moderator's story-telling skill. If your game reads like literature, like something you might pick up off a library shelf and curl up with on a snowy winter's night, that's definitely going to increase player interest and enjoyment.
The FTQ is committed to selling an interesting concept to the forum, creating something that people will want to compete to be in, and then delivering on that promise of a good time. So if your setup has the curb appeal to get the reviewers excited and intrigued, and outsells and distinguishes itself from the competition, there's a very good chance that it will take the next spot.
This is extremely helpful information. Thank you.
I'm curious to know how my game fared in this evaluation as feedback for future improvement (either with that game or any other I design).
Sorry, I wasn't sufficiently clear. I don't mean there's no practical difference between the game types. What I mean is that the specialty queue used to have its games picked out the way the fast track queue does now, and was limited to seven games at a time. That is no longer the case, as the specialty queue now takes all signups the way the normal and mini queues do. Thus, there's no reason to allow people to double up on the specialty queue but not the other ones.
I see. That makes more sense.
But I will say that it makes the problem of queue wait times even worse. Basically now you're going to be waiting 2-3 years to host a game and the only thing you can possibly do to affect that is to consistently get games fast-tracked. Even if you managed to get fast-tracked once, you lose the place that you've been holding already (which might be for a year or more even), and you can only ever have one kind of setup submitted at a time (i.e., no more patiently waiting for your turn on the normal or mini list but doing your best to get a specialty fast-tracked). It's all very discouraging.
I agree it's all a bit fuzzy and confusing, however.
Indeed, this was my main point. Things changed, but no one really bothered to think through the new rules and update them so we know what's going on; it was just done very haphazardly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I contacted Suth about updating the post a few days ago, so hopefully that should be fixed shortly.
@Kraj- There was a mild sentiment that the game didn't have quite as much sizzle in the individual roles as one reviewer preferred, I believe, and there was some discussion about how the central mechanic was similar to Zchinque's submission, which has been queued longer (though since Zchinque is absent, that wound up not affecting the decision). Still, it was a very interesting concept, something we've never seen in action on this site. So after the dust had cleared, you were identified as one of the top two contenders for next round from what's currently submitted. The other front-runner was Ilord, who has a setup in the works that's very avant garde, very intriguing, but has some serious questions about balance that need to be cleared up first.
@Kraj- There was a mild sentiment that the game didn't have quite as much sizzle in the individual roles as one reviewer preferred, I believe, and there was some discussion about how the central mechanic was similar to Zchinque's submission, which has been queued longer (though since Zchinque is absent, that wound up not affecting the decision). Still, it was a very interesting concept, something we've never seen in action on this site. So after the dust had cleared, you were identified as one of the top two contenders for next round from what's currently submitted. The other front-runner was Ilord, who has a setup in the works that's very avant garde, very intriguing, but has some serious questions about balance that need to be cleared up first.
That's really cool to know, and right off the bat I ought to thank Arimnaes and Bateleur for their invaluable feedback, which improved the setup immensely. Adding a little spice to some of the roles is definitely something I can work on without having to completely overhaul and/or rebalance the game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Since Annorax's game has ended, Suth is out of commission, it's before Feb. 10th, and I've been alerted that players are going through severe withdrawal of their mafia fix, I'm going to bump Raf's normal as per the note and contact the next few slots on the normal list.
I will say that it makes the problem of queue wait times even worse. Basically now you're going to be waiting 2-3 years to host a game and the only thing you can possibly do to affect that is to consistently get games fast-tracked. Even if you managed to get fast-tracked once, you lose the place that you've been holding already (which might be for a year or more even), and you can only ever have one kind of setup submitted at a time (i.e., no more patiently waiting for your turn on the normal or mini list but doing your best to get a specialty fast-tracked). It's all very discouraging.
I don't think there's really anything we can do about the long waiting times between getting to host games. The list is what it is. If we let people get on multiple lists, then that's what everyone would do, all the lists would be that much longer, and the wait times would still be essentially the same. Unless you are a person who only really wants to run one type of game (like a mini), then you are even more screwed by all the people who are on both lists.
That said, I'm open to the idea of letting a person keep his current spot on a given list when/if his/her game gets fast-tracked. It would mean the person has to have two games in mind, however (or, at least, he'd have to come up with another game to run in the spot that the game getting fast-tracked was in). That might be okay, some people have tons of ideas and making another game is no problem. Some people might not and can just give up the spot.
I guess what we want to avoid is people who keep a place in line with basically nothing in mind, and then, when their turn comes around, quickly throw something together half-thought out and it's not a particularly successful game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
Has any thought been given to changing the Requirements per game? To cut down on the amount of potential host a bit? I.e. make newb games not count towards the game count requirement? I see ALOT of players play in 2 noobs and a single regular game then signup to host.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[19:59] greymon90210: Hey StormBlind how tall are you? "I'm six money *****, don't forget it"
"The Critics always said that we'd only have a black president when pigs flu"...
On the flip side, I think you should be able to submit any setup to the fast-track queue you want, not just the queue you're signed up for. If you've got a mini good enough to be fast-tracked, it shouldn't matter that you're waiting for your non-Fast-Track turn in the normal queue. 2 years is a long time to develop a good game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
** Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
*Cries*
I WANT YOUR DEATH BARONS! Message me if you want to get rid of them!
I hope that it would be in time to compete for the next FTQ after doomsday, but if its not, I still would like it to be reviewed for the future.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
I can only count 2 (smalltown & fairytale), is a third forthcoming?
The OP is actually out of date iirc. A second specialty, via the Fast Track Queue, replaced the 3rd mini.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Current contenders are DYH, ILord, Zchinque, and Cyan. Deliberations commencing.
Good luck Cyan. Anyhow, I'm still asking for review for the next FTQ anyhow.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Poopers. Well at least now I know.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Did you submit?? If so, who is your reviewer?
Arminaes reviewed it and said it had FTQ potential. Bateleur also reviewed it and said he liked it but wasn't sure if he'd pick it for FTQ since he has very high standards.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
*nods* It was probably missed for not being submitted to Suth?
At any rate, I've contacted Arim, and we'll add it to the list of candidates. Anyone else with a late submission (Loran?) that is prepped and ready to go immediately should contact me ASAP.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
The procedure is to find an authorized reviewer willing to take a look at the setup, then the reviewer gives us the low-down on the setup and takes part in the committee's decision.
Typically, you'd submit the name of your setup and your reviewer to Sutherlands so we can keep track of potential candidates, but we'll ignore that if you want to make a stab at the current round.
Luckily, bluesoul's game has just started so I should be OK on the specialty queue. Annorax's game is on day 4, so there's an outside chance it could be finished inside the next month. If so, please just bump me one down in the queue and don't wait for me, between jetlag and catching up on work I probably won't be in any condition to start a game for a week or two after I'm officially back in contact (I leave on 22 January and arrive back in the country on 10 February). I think I've said this before, but it never hurts to say it again.
With luck, Annorax's game will go long and I'll be able to do both games on schedule.
And about playing in a RafK game. I have high expectations there.
If they redundant someone else and make me work like two people, then set expectations to stun rather than kill
I WANT YOUR DEATH BARONS! Message me if you want to get rid of them!
Maybe next time.
Silent Auction Mafia will be ready by the time the next specialty ends.
Uhmm. If i may get a FTQ authorized Reviewer as well. I'd appreciate it. thanks
Same here.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
[The Family]
You'll have to pick one, I'm afraid.
[The Family]
?
I thought you just couldn't be on the Normal and Mini at the same time.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
1: /in for another Normal game (since I can't do a Specialty without having the setup ready to go)
2: I'd like to move that Wrath of Dog be removed from probation, as his conduct in Star Trek left me wondering how he could have been on probation in the first place. I'm not sure if I need to do anything other than post this to get Council consideration on it, please LMK if I'm missing something.
3: I'd also like to move that roles such as the one Wuffles II had in Star Trek that involve having mod confirmation of the identities of the scum be required to be approved by an authorized reviewer before the game starts. Any town role that has confirmation of the identities of any number of scum on Night 0 is inherently unfair and needs to be carefully balanced. If I couldn't balance it, then I'd imagine most mods couldn't balance it either. Thoughts?
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
1. If there is no practical difference between the specialty and normal queues, then clearly there needs to be a revamping. Just changing the rules so that now you can only sign up in one queue period is not a sensible response.
2. The fast track rules state you have to be signed up in the queue for the type of game you want to get fast-tracked, and that if and when you do get fast-tracked your slot in that queue is used up.
Not to be a douche here but... are we ever going to have a clear idea of how the fast-track queue works? We were told the process would be more visible once the kinks were worked out; it's been a year and we still have no clear or consistent rules for it.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Instead, each game reviewer provides a pitch for the game they looked over. They discuss its strengths, and its weaknesses. So far, those descriptions have helped identify clear front-runners, and also helped identify which setups are at the highest degree of readiness. As a result, there has been very little discord in the decision-making process so far.
I'm not sure that answers your question, however. Are you more interested in learning what qualities the committee tends to give the greatest weight to?
Errr, Is this really necessary? If you're against the idea of basics fine, but this is just obnoxious.
@Az- I would like to know which qualities the council gives most weight to.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
Not if I'm also on the normal list.
Did you ever receive my PM back about this?
Some excerpts:
---
Each reviewer tends to look for different things, but the keys to winning out in this round were depth of flavor, balancing creativity and stability, and most importantly the "wow" factor. Does the setup get you excited about participating in it, or bring something new to the table, or advance the state of game design with something new? Does it feel like something significantly different from what you've played before, but still stays true to the core of the game?
---
The following comments applied to Loran's submission, but I think they'd also be helpful for others to understand how we approach the process:
---
I think the song mechanic is a great, original element that advances the state of the game. One of the reviewers didn't care for it on the grounds that non-lynch voting mechanics have been run before, but I don't think we've ever seen one that sparks this much tension and has such wide applications and consequences. And it's a mechanic that's based on the fundamental question of "who do you trust" that gives the game so much of its tension and suspense.
If you want to revise the setup to compete in the next round of the FTQ (which you may not want to, since the setup works fine as is), what I would do is set about adding detail and strategic depth to the individual roles.
Some of the other setups tried to skate by with unique roles, but without a unifying package to tie everything together. This setup was on the opposite spectrum. It had a unifying package to tie everything together, but most of the roles being tied in were pretty basic stand-bys.
I can imagine a number of creative ways to tweak the ultimate song abilities, and perhaps the regular roles, to build off the unifying mechanic's originality and use it to its full advantage.
We've got the music theme, for instance. That theme gives you so much potential territory to explore. What about an ability based off of transitioning from verse to verse? The player gets a different ability to use each night according to what verse they're on, and then repeats.
*snip*
Another way to add to the setup's value might be to create fictional people as player-characters, and then give each of them their favorite songs. That could lend to a number of interesting abilities and flavorful descriptions as well. Perhaps a washed-up broadway showstealer, who can select a player and use their ultimate song during the night if they weren't selected, or if they came in second place. Stuff like that.
The outdoors and camp theme, too, are probably great places to look for inspiration on flavor and new mechanics.
But boil it down to its essence, and what we're really looking for are setups that have appeal, whether it's because they're finely crafted examples of storytelling, or they bring something new and fresh to the table that piques people's interest.
Oftentimes, what does the trick is an interesting new unifiying mechanic, a la "Hats", or "Burnout", that's applied throughout the game to bring a new dynamic or strategic twist into play. Or, the promise of a highly entertaining game structure, with the roles closely related to the game's flavor, such as in Arim's MTGS Mafia Redux.
One sticking point for a number of the submissions this round was that they contained a good number of new or entertaining individual roles, but there wasn't a strong unifying theme or flavor to tie everything together and distinguish them from past games that have been known for creative individual role mechanics (Fiasco Corp, for example).
A different sticking point, in the case of Loran, was that he had a great central mechanic for his game, but the individual roles were bread-and-butter stand-bys that wouldn't generate a surge of interest. However, if he decides to tie his central mechanic together with the individual roles, his setup has a massive amount of creative potential just waiting to be tapped into.
So to summarize, the qualities we're looking for in FTQ submissions are:
1. One or more interesting central mechanics that will unify the setup, distinguish it from past games, and make it unique.
2. Individual roles that relate to the theme of the game and will get each player excited about participating.
3. Balance. If an otherwise creative game could crap out because it wasn't fine-tuned, that's definitely an argument for giving it more time to develop and be thoroughly tested. (see Points mafia.)
4. Flavor- Ideally, the game's flavor should be unusually deep, with interesting characters and scenery that showcases the moderator's story-telling skill. If your game reads like literature, like something you might pick up off a library shelf and curl up with on a snowy winter's night, that's definitely going to increase player interest and enjoyment.
The FTQ is committed to selling an interesting concept to the forum, creating something that people will want to compete to be in, and then delivering on that promise of a good time. So if your setup has the curb appeal to get the reviewers excited and intrigued, and outsells and distinguishes itself from the competition, there's a very good chance that it will take the next spot.
I did receive your pm back, though i didn't remember the parts of the email that weren't about my particular game (such as your examples). Apologies, I'm kind of tired this week from tenting.
Still, it's good for others to see as well, so I don't really mind you answering.
Logical Reasoning is dead; Long Live Stupidity
When we expanded stuff we sort of loosened the rules. So now anyone can get on the Specialty list, and it just denotes the type of game. The Fast Track games are the only ones with a mandatory review process first. It still seems by far the fairest not to let people be on multiple lists, however, when the waiting times are so long. The only people who were allowed to have been on multiple lists before were the people who were on the Specialty list, and then the rule got changed. The people who were already on it were grandfathered then and so ended up temporarily on multiple lists, but there really shouldn't still be people getting on multiple lists.
I agree it's all a bit fuzzy and confusing, however.
This is extremely helpful information. Thank you.
I'm curious to know how my game fared in this evaluation as feedback for future improvement (either with that game or any other I design).
I see. That makes more sense.
But I will say that it makes the problem of queue wait times even worse. Basically now you're going to be waiting 2-3 years to host a game and the only thing you can possibly do to affect that is to consistently get games fast-tracked. Even if you managed to get fast-tracked once, you lose the place that you've been holding already (which might be for a year or more even), and you can only ever have one kind of setup submitted at a time (i.e., no more patiently waiting for your turn on the normal or mini list but doing your best to get a specialty fast-tracked). It's all very discouraging.
Indeed, this was my main point. Things changed, but no one really bothered to think through the new rules and update them so we know what's going on; it was just done very haphazardly.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
@Kraj- There was a mild sentiment that the game didn't have quite as much sizzle in the individual roles as one reviewer preferred, I believe, and there was some discussion about how the central mechanic was similar to Zchinque's submission, which has been queued longer (though since Zchinque is absent, that wound up not affecting the decision). Still, it was a very interesting concept, something we've never seen in action on this site. So after the dust had cleared, you were identified as one of the top two contenders for next round from what's currently submitted. The other front-runner was Ilord, who has a setup in the works that's very avant garde, very intriguing, but has some serious questions about balance that need to be cleared up first.
That's really cool to know, and right off the bat I ought to thank Arimnaes and Bateleur for their invaluable feedback, which improved the setup immensely. Adding a little spice to some of the roles is definitely something I can work on without having to completely overhaul and/or rebalance the game.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
I don't think there's really anything we can do about the long waiting times between getting to host games. The list is what it is. If we let people get on multiple lists, then that's what everyone would do, all the lists would be that much longer, and the wait times would still be essentially the same. Unless you are a person who only really wants to run one type of game (like a mini), then you are even more screwed by all the people who are on both lists.
That said, I'm open to the idea of letting a person keep his current spot on a given list when/if his/her game gets fast-tracked. It would mean the person has to have two games in mind, however (or, at least, he'd have to come up with another game to run in the spot that the game getting fast-tracked was in). That might be okay, some people have tons of ideas and making another game is no problem. Some people might not and can just give up the spot.
I guess what we want to avoid is people who keep a place in line with basically nothing in mind, and then, when their turn comes around, quickly throw something together half-thought out and it's not a particularly successful game.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I agree. Getting fast-tracked is enough of an advantage already.
Totally agree. Once you get the FTQ nod, you should be removed from the list to which your game belonged.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.