MTG Salvation

Quote from MandersHex

If it's the one for Mafia Mods, no, you don't get access to that.

If there's one for the Council, we don't have access to that.

III saw both. And another one, too.

Yeah, the Mafia Archives. I can see that one.

Quote from Axelrod

And with that, I believe it is time for me to gracefully exit.

I have not been pulling my weight on the Council for some time, due to being generally busy, which has also affected my ability to play. I'm not "retiring" and I'm not leaving the forum or anything, but I am stepping down from any kind of official responsibility. I am certain the new people will do an excellent job of maintaining the forum.

Still availiable for reviewing games and such, just know that I'm not always prompt when getting back to people

It's been an honor.

Standing ovation, sir. Thanks for everything.

Quote from Azrael

I'd like to welcome Atlseal, Asianinvasion, and Ecophagy to the Mafia Council.

A spot may be waiting for Cyan if his activity picks up again, but I think the new team is going to do a wonderful job keeping up our momentum and bringing solid changes down the pipes. Congrats!

Big applause for the new guys! Great additions!

Quote from Iso

Your mom was a secretary.

That's true, but if you're from my generation and your mom had a job, she was a secretary.

Quote from Azrael

I'd like to welcome Atlseal, Asianinvasion, and Ecophagy to the Mafia Council.

A spot may be waiting for Cyan if his activity picks up again, but I think the new team is going to do a wonderful job keeping up our momentum and bringing solid changes down the pipes. Congrats!

Congrats to all! Sorry I couldn't accept right now (:(), but all are great additions.

Quote from Iso

Can I have a pretty blue title, too? (Manders says yes.)

Your mom is a pretty blue title (my way of saying congrats seemed fitting)

Quote from Azrael

I was scratching my head over how Annorax engineered that, haven't found it yet. It's different from how he did the Mafia Council title.

EDIT: Figured it out.

Can you at least affix the word "Bird" to the end? Just long enough for me scrn cap it and repost for posterity?

Quote from Cyan

That's true, but if you're from my generation and your mom had a job, she was a secretary.

Frequently true story! My mom still is, but they call them executive assistants or other such titles. Words is words

Quote from Cyan

That's true, but if you're from my generation and your mom had a job, she was a secretary.

I know.

Gratz to AI, Atlseal and Eco.
Also gratz to Iso, for taking the first step in his long campaign for total world domination

Congrats everyone for being upgraded!

A question about rules & etiquette. Ongoing games cannot be used as references for obvious reasons. Finished games, on the other hand, are regularly referenced, especially for meta analysis. What about ongoing discussions in non-game threads such as the Council or Theory & Discussion? E.g. Player A accuses B of playing against meta, and therefore being scum. Player B wants to point to posts he made recently in Theory & Discussion that match or support his current play. Or, conversely, player A makes a statement about how he plays that contradicts something he said in Theory & Discussion; player B wants to call him out on the discrepancy. Is this allowed?

Last time someone tried that against me was in Cyan's Impossible Mafia (you were there, you should know), where Tilde tried some crap case against me regarding something I said in the Theory thread. As long as it's not an on-going game, I think it should be fair game, though, if it's present in the Theory/Council thread.

Quote from Archonoid

A question about rules & etiquette. Ongoing games cannot be used as references for obvious reasons. Finished games, on the other hand, are regularly referenced, especially for meta analysis. What about ongoing discussions in non-game threads such as the Council or Theory & Discussion? E.g. Player A accuses B of playing against meta, and therefore being scum. Player B wants to point to posts he made recently in Theory & Discussion that match or support his current play. Or, conversely, player A makes a statement about how he plays that contradicts something he said in Theory & Discussion; player B wants to call him out on the discrepancy. Is this allowed?

Yeah, there's nothing against the rules about this. The only topics that are against the rules are ongoing games.

A question about subforum etiquette. Where is the proper place to announce my desire to acquire a mentor?

Quote from Yanni

You ask for a mentor in the basic sign up thread.
If the moderator of that game allows mentors, you can get one.

Actually, this is a common misconception. It is preferred that you wait until that game's signups are posted and inquire within.

@ The Council: There is an ongoing situation that should be addressed that affects the community. I've brought it up once before and was told he should suck it up, for lack of a better phrase, and I'm sorry, but that's just not acceptable.

r_0's Normal has been in signups for about a month now. It is obvious that something is causing this game to not run, and I believe it is a combination of low activity, the mini rolling sign-up thread, and players' dislike of large games. The most recent advice he's gotten is to either close signups for awhile or to lower the number of players that are in the game. Why should he have to modify his game?

My personal opinion is that we should probably drop Normals down to one at a time. They've been having problems filling up for awhile (as well as FTQs/Specialties with +20 players) and we shouldn't ignore that they're just not that popular.

Regardless, this discussion, imo, needs to be addressed within the Community.

I have an issue I'd like to bring up, as well.

I was recently informed that my Specialty Setup was not of Specialty Complexity, despite my initial reviewer advising me this was not an issue. However, I've been on the list for many months and have a setup I'd like to run as a Normal. Should I make a setup that's actually Specialty complexity if I can come up with one so as to not have wasted my time? Or should the months I've been on the list count for nothing when I switch over to the Normal list?

Quote from Iso

I have an issue I'd like to bring up, as well.

I was recently informed that my Specialty Setup was not of Specialty Complexity, despite my initial reviewer advising me this was not an issue. However, I've been on the list for many months and have a setup I'd like to run as a Normal. Should I make a setup that's actually Specialty complexity if I can come up with one so as to not have wasted my time? Or should the months I've been on the list count for nothing when I switch over to the Normal list?

Unfortunately, if you switch over to the Normal list, you'll be at the bottom.

Are you talking about GoldenEye? Cause while it wasn't appropriate for an FTQ (apparently), I see no reason it won't be acceptable as a Specialty. Much more lenient on complexity in the Specialty queue than the FTQ for obvious reasons.

Quote from Yanni

If we're only going to be aloud to have one normal at a time, then he would have to close signups anyway.

I understand that, and I'm almost positive he would have no problem doing that if it was as a result of something being done to prevent this from happening in the future.

No, I was referring to Detectives Mafia; I was informed that it is not of Specialty complexity.

@Yanni: I have a point of contention with that - that being that if people get too impatient for the rolling signup to fill up, they'll likely find another roller to sign up for (like the mini) and the signups will never be completed due to impatience (which is what I think a big problem here is in the case of r_0's Normal). I'm also seeing this issue with the Basic signups, they have completely STAGNATED since we've implemented the rolling Mini signups.

I, too, would be in r_0's game were I able to be.

Maybe we just need a larger playerbase.

The game limit per person is also affecting r_0's game from being able to run, but I do not think that should be eliminated.

Quote from Iso

I have an issue I'd like to bring up, as well.

I was recently informed that my Specialty Setup was not of Specialty Complexity, despite my initial reviewer advising me this was not an issue. However, I've been on the list for many months and have a setup I'd like to run as a Normal. Should I make a setup that's actually Specialty complexity if I can come up with one so as to not have wasted my time? Or should the months I've been on the list count for nothing when I switch over to the Normal list?

Who is reviewing the game?

Quote from Emo_Pinata

Who is reviewing the game?

Since he's not around, I'll tell you.

Kraj.

Quote from MandersHex

Actually, this is a common misconception. It is preferred that you wait until that game's signups are posted and inquire within.

@ The Council: There is an ongoing situation that should be addressed that affects the community. I've brought it up once before and was told he should suck it up, for lack of a better phrase, and I'm sorry, but that's just not acceptable.

r_0's Normal has been in signups for about a month now. It is obvious that something is causing this game to not run, and I believe it is a combination of low activity, the mini rolling sign-up thread, and players' dislike of large games. The most recent advice he's gotten is to either close signups for awhile or to lower the number of players that are in the game. Why should he have to modify his game?

My personal opinion is that we should probably drop Normals down to one at a time. They've been having problems filling up for awhile (as well as FTQs/Specialties with +20 players) and we shouldn't ignore that they're just not that popular.

Regardless, this discussion, imo, needs to be addressed within the Community.

I've got a possible solution. If both normals that would be run are 24-player, run only the first until it is near completion, but if the total number of players between the two games would be less than 40 (e.g. 24 and 16, or 20 and 20), then run two.

@EP: Initial reviewer was Axelrod, current is Kraj.

Concidering Axelrod was on the council, I would think that if he had said the game was of specialty quality, then it is. back in the day, specialties didn't have to be insanely complex. a small, yet significant twist (I think back to manipulator, as it was my last complete game on the site prior to leaving) is more than enough. heck, just overloading the game with flavor (1001 nights, or anythign writen by Xyre) this desire for crazy levels of complexity in Specialtys I think started around matrix, but it's never really been necessary.

I'm pretty sure Kraj is the one that said it doesn't qualify.

I'm with you guys, though. Why does it have to be complex? o.O

I would be fine with keeping Detectives Mafia a Specialty if no objections are found with this.

Quote from MandersHex

@ The Council: There is an ongoing situation that should be addressed that affects the community. I've brought it up once before and was told he should suck it up, for lack of a better phrase, and I'm sorry, but that's just not acceptable.

r_0's Normal has been in signups for about a month now. It is obvious that something is causing this game to not run, and I believe it is a combination of low activity, the mini rolling sign-up thread, and players' dislike of large games. The most recent advice he's gotten is to either close signups for awhile or to lower the number of players that are in the game. Why should he have to modify his game?

My personal opinion is that we should probably drop Normals down to one at a time. They've been having problems filling up for awhile (as well as FTQs/Specialties with +20 players) and we shouldn't ignore that they're just not that popular.

Regardless, this discussion, imo, needs to be addressed within the Community.

This situation is, actually, currently being discussed. As I told R0 in PM, our apparent inaction is not because we don't care, but because we're not sure of the best course of action.

While the rolling mini queue seems like the main culprit, we cannot be certain, and are also unenthusiastic about killing the experiment so early.

Beyond what we have already suggested, there's not much right now that we feel will fix the problem - we can't make people sign up for games they don't want to play.

The solution you propose - running only 1 normal at a time - is functionally the same as R0 closing his signups for a while. Since you agree that this might help, I don't really see why it has not yet been tried.

@Manders - I concur on dropping the number of normals down to one.

As I mentioned in the Council thread today, I think not opening another normal until r0's fills (even if another large game should finish in the interim) is the best solution.

The demand does not seem to currently exist to support multiple large games - and that's okay - if people prefer minis, then give them minis. Just throttle the larger games back to meet the demand for those who like them.

In fairness to Iso, the initial set-up he sent me was a bit was more complex than the last one I saw, due in part to his making some adjustments because of comments I gave to him.

I was also not of the opinion that a set up had to be of some undefined level of complexity before it "qualified" as a Specialty game. While the game might tilt towards the "Normal" end of the Specialty -> Normal Spectrum, I had no real issues with this, and I've also seem plenty of games going the other way.

Quote from MandersHex

@ The Council: There is an ongoing situation that should be addressed that affects the community. I've brought it up once before and was told he should suck it up, for lack of a better phrase, and I'm sorry, but that's just not acceptable.

I probably should have brought this to the community's attention sooner, but frankly I am disappointed by the flippant attitude that the Council members I have discussed this with have shown regarding the issue.

r_0's Normal has been in signups for about a month now. It is obvious that something is causing this game to not run, and I believe it is a combination of low activity, the mini rolling sign-up thread, and players' dislike of large games.

I agree, and this is what I had to say on the matter:

Quote from red_0mega

I understand the reasons for the slow sign-ups for my Normal.
What I am saying is:
If the rolling mini sign-ups are interfering with regularly scheduled games, then perhaps that should be addressed.
If the player base is less interested in larger games than smaller ones, then perhaps that should be addressed.
If a regularly scheduled game is failing miserably at filling it's sign-ups, then perhaps it is not the best time to be starting an extra game.

I am not complaining that my sign-ups are going nowhere, I am complaining because, instead of attempting to remedy the underlying cause of the problem, the response that I get (from Mafia Council members) more or less amounts to "It sucks, but it is your problem. Deal with it.".
Which is certainly something that I am capable of doing. I just do not think that it is my problem, but rather a community problem. Regardless of the outcome of Gotham Underground Mafia, I would rather not have anyone else have to deal with such a frustrating situation if anything can be done about it.

Quote from MandersHex

The most recent advice he's gotten is to either close signups for awhile or to lower the number of players that are in the game. Why should he have to modify his game?

My reply to that:

Quote from red_0mega by PM »

Sorry if I seem stubborn, but as far as I am concerned, changing the game is out of question. It is a well-crafted set-up (n my humble opinion) in which even the smallest change (not to mention completely removing several roles) would require further changes.
I do not think that indefinitely postponing the game is a much better option, but it appears that is what it has come to.

Quote from MandersHex

My personal opinion is that we should probably drop Normals down to one at a time. They've been having problems filling up for awhile (as well as FTQs/Specialties with +20 players) and we shouldn't ignore that they're just not that popular.

Regardless, this discussion, imo, needs to be addressed within the Community.

I agree.

Quote from Yanni

If we're only going to be aloud to have one normal at a time, then he would have to close signups anyway. R_O shouldn't have to modify his setup, but if he can't get enough players, he should probably wait until activity picks up. If I wasn't in three games, I would in to R_O's game.

I have no problem doing so (and in any case will have to regardless of my personal feelings on the matter), but I am not trying to make this about me or my game.
There is an issue there, that will (most likely) be decided temporarily by postponing the sign-ups, and permanently in what ever manner the Council feels is appropriate. Which is, in the scheme of things, not a big deal.
I feel that the real issue here is to find the root of the problem and see if something can be done about it for the good of the community.

Quote from Yanni

It seems like the solution, at least in my opinion, would be to put Normals on Rolling Signups so we can properly gauge the need for the games.
:shrugs: It seems like that would solve the problem permanently, as it would allow a more active era of MTGS Mafia to play more high complexity games and it would prevent situations like R_O's.
IE: If 50 people want to play in normals, we can run 2 24 man normal games. If 18-24 people want to play a normal, we only run one. If 74 people want to play normals, we can run 3 normals.
The rolling signup is the most flexible solution to this problem IMO.

I disagree. In my opinion, rolling sign-ups have caused the problem in the first place. I think that either:
The rolling mini sign-ups should be changed back to the traditional queue
or
Normals should be scaled back to one at a time.

Quote from Yanni

EDIT: We currently have 3 basics, 2 minis, 1 Normal, 1 FTQ and 1 Specialty running. It's obviously showing the demand of the players.

Including my Normal, that would be the regular number of games. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

Quote from MandersHex

The game limit per person is also affecting r_0's game from being able to run, but I do not think that should be eliminated.

I agree.

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

I've got a possible solution. If both normals that would be run are 24-player, run only the first until it is near completion, but if the total number of players between the two games would be less than 40 (e.g. 24 and 16, or 20 and 20), then run two.

That seems needlessly complex. Does it provide any advantages that reducing the number of Normals run concurrently does not?

I was probably unnecessarily harsh on the Council members/fellow clan-mates that I spoke to about this, and I would like to apologize for that. I am just extremely upset with the whole situation.

EDIT: I typed this up last night, started having connection issues, and was unable to post it at the time.

I vote that we change the Mini rollers back to the traditional setup so that we still have a place for larger games here.

Edit: However, in the future, perhaps we should tone down the amount of players we're looking at for larger games. I'm in favor of seeing more 18-20 person Normals/Specialties, as I've stated before. It would also probably stop slowdowns in larger games, which are preventing towns from winning these larger games, as Zindabad has kindly pointed out for us.

So, I wanted to do a bit of research:

Starcraft 11/18 - 12/02: 14 days
Seasons 12/15 - 12/21: 6 days
Flame Warriors 09/01 - 09/14: 13 days
CCMV 07/01 - 07/12: 12 days
Star Trek MU II 08/06 - 08/16: 10 days
Hetalia 05/20 - 05/31: 11 days
Ged's Normal 05/20 - 05/24: 4 days
Neon Evangelion 05/17 - 05/19: 2 days


I was remembering that the last few large games had taken awhile to fill, and for the most part, I was right. Ofc, none of them have taken anywhere near as long as r_0's Normal which, incidentally, is the first Normal to post sign-ups since the Rolling Mini Sign-up launched. (It launched 12/17)

Does this mean the Rolling Sign-ups are the ONLY cause for this game taking so long to launch? No, not at all. There are many factors at work here, some of which are out of our control. But it does lend credence to the theory that the RMS thread is affecting it.

Quote from Iso

I vote that we change the Mini rollers back to the traditional setup so that we still have a place for larger games here.

I disagree. -If people are choosing smaller games, why should we limit options to force them into larger games instead of just running less large games?

Quote from MandersHex

So, I wanted to do a bit of research:

Starcraft 11/18 - 12/02: 14 days
Seasons 12/15 - 12/21: 6 days
Flame Warriors 09/01 - 09/14: 13 days
CCMV 07/01 - 07/12: 12 days
Star Trek MU II 08/06 - 08/16: 10 days
Hetalia 05/20 - 05/31: 11 days
Ged's Normal 05/20 - 05/24: 4 days
Neon Evangelion 05/17 - 05/19: 2 days


I was remembering that the last few large games had taken awhile to fill, and for the most part, I was right. Ofc, none of them have taken anywhere near as long as r_0's Normal which, incidentally, is the first Normal to post sign-ups since the Rolling Mini Sign-up launched. (It launched 12/17)

Does this mean the Rolling Sign-ups are the ONLY cause for this game taking so long to launch? No, not at all. There are many factors at work here, some of which are out of our control. But it does lend credence to the theory that the RMS thread is affecting it.

We are currently discussing the situation, but I would like to bring up the additional data point that zindabad's specialty also started sign-ups after the start of the mini queue and got 25 people signed up in a week. So, the mini queue obviously does not represent this dire blackhole of interest for larger games. Again, we are currently discussing how best to deal with game-demand issues.

Go go Foofy Logic.

Quote from atlseal

We are currently discussing the situation, but I would like to bring up the additional data point that zindabad's specialty also started sign-ups after the start of the mini queue and got 25 people signed up in a week. So, the mini queue obviously does not represent this dire blackhole of interest for larger games. Again, we are currently discussing how best to deal with game-demand issues.

What Specialty? Seasons?

Sign-ups launched 2 days before the RMS thread did. Also, people were enthralled with the mechanics he had to offer in that game. I'm not surprised that it didn't have problems filling up.

Again, I'm not saying that the RMS is the ONLY cause. But I do believe it is one.

However, as Foofy just said, I don't think it should go anywhere. It's common knowledge that a lot of people prefer the smaller games if, for no other reason, than because it's flipping HARD to keep 23 other people straight in your head.

Quote from MandersHex

It's common knowledge that a lot of people prefer the smaller games if, for no other reason, than because it's flipping HARD to keep 23 other people straight in your head.

That's exactly how I feel. More than 20 is just too many, and I try to avoid those games unless they have flavor that I love (and even then I usually end up regretting it).

Quote from atlseal

We are currently discussing the situation, but I would like to bring up the additional data point that zindabad's specialty also started sign-ups after the start of the mini queue and got 25 people signed up in a week. So, the mini queue obviously does not represent this dire blackhole of interest for larger games. Again, we are currently discussing how best to deal with game-demand issues.

Specialty games usually generate much more interest than Normals. I am not sure that the two are really all that comparable in this instance.

Quote from TheFooFish

I disagree. -If people are choosing smaller games, why should we limit options to force them into larger games instead of just running less large games?

Because what about the people who want to play in larger games?

Quote from atlseal

We are currently discussing the situation, but I would like to bring up the additional data point that zindabad's specialty also started sign-ups after the start of the mini queue and got 25 people signed up in a week. So, the mini queue obviously does not represent this dire blackhole of interest for larger games. Again, we are currently discussing how best to deal with game-demand issues.

Was that not only shortly after the Mini Roller started?

Quote from Iso

Was that not only shortly after the Mini Roller started?

I stand corrected about the start date, but the bulk of the time the sign-ups were open coincide with the rolling sign-ups. I still stand by the conclusion that it's not an issue of the rolling minis taking away interest from the larger games.

Quote from atlseal

I stand corrected about the start date, but the bulk of the time the sign-ups were open coincide with the rolling sign-ups. I still stand by the conclusion that it's not an issue of the rolling minis taking away interest from the larger games.

What do you think is the issue then?

Quote from red_0mega

What do you think is the issue then?

I personally believe its an issue of how many players are interested in large games to begin with combined with our aging population (speaking from personal experience, I've learned I'm not very interested in large games, and I have a lot less free time than I did in college so I tend to only play in one game at a time while also preferring smaller games). The rolling mini queue is more or less a red herring.

Quote from atlseal

I personally believe its an issue of how many players are interested in large games to begin with combined with our aging population (speaking from personal experience, I've learned I'm not very interested in large games, and I have a lot less free time than I did in college so I tend to only play in one game at a time while also preferring smaller games). The rolling mini queue is more or less a red herring.

The player base obviously prefers smaller games.
There is now a place in which to sign-up for those games at any time.
I do not understand how you can see those two things as unrelated, and attribute the problem to one of them but not the other.

Quote from Yanni

It may have something to do with the lack of newer players.

EDIT: We currently have 3 basics, 2 minis, 1 Normal, 1 FTQ and 1 Specialty running. It's obviously showing the demand of the players.

Yanni has a point; I believe the player base is smaller and/or busier than in times past.

We used to run 4-5 Basics, 2 Minis, 2 Normals, an FTQ and/or PCQ, and Specialty simultaneously without any particular signup thread stagnating. Not only is the current FTQ a Mini, but we aren't even firing as many Basics as we used to. The rolling Mini queue's existence may make players less likely to sign up for large games (especially games well over 20 players) because they have the opportunity to sign up for a Mini instead, but the data indicates that it is largely a scapegoat.

At any rate, I support the proposal to go down to one Normal for the time being. Additionally, we are discussing reorganizing overall queue structure too. Hopefully everyone is on the same page in the realization that we are all in a rather difficult spot, and that we appreciate your patience as we address these issues.

Quote from Iso

Edit: However, in the future, perhaps we should tone down the amount of players we're looking at for larger games. I'm in favor of seeing more 18-20 person Normals/Specialties, as I've stated before. It would also probably stop slowdowns in larger games, which are preventing towns from winning these larger games, as Zindabad has kindly pointed out for us.

Normals are not unattractive solely because they are larger. The problem currently with normals is that they are turning into unreadable spam fests. I used to play in 2-3 normals at a time and not feel overwhealmed, now just 1 is too much due to the quantitiy of post that are produced each day. Slowdowns in larger games isn't because they are large, its because the playerbase is making them needlessly large.

Quote from AsianInvasion

Yanni has a point; I believe the player base is smaller and/or busier than in times past.

We used to run 4-5 Basics, 2 Minis, 2 Normals, an FTQ and/or PCQ, and Specialty simultaneously without any particular signup thread stagnating. Not only is the current FTQ a Mini, but we aren't even firing as many Basics as we used to. The rolling Mini queue's existence may make players less likely to sign up for large games (especially games well over 20 players) because they have the opportunity to sign up for a Mini instead, but the data indicates that it is largely a scapegoat.

At any rate, I support the proposal to go down to one Normal for the time being. Additionally, we are discussing reorganizing overall queue structure too. Hopefully everyone is on the same page in the realization that we are all in a rather difficult spot, and that we appreciate your patience as we address these issues.

I'll agree our playerbase has shrunk in the past year. I still think the on-demand notion of the rolling que's is the fault here. I mean, read the signup thread for RO's game. /in /out /in /out. Our playerbase has shown that they don't have the patience or want to wait for a game to run.