MTG Salvation

You guys want to know what the real problem is? Requiring setups to be complete before signing up, this makes hard for the designers to actually work on the setups because they don't see their name going up the queue therefore have no pressure or timeframe to actually finish their games so they keep slacking off. I know this happens to me.

I think being able to be on at least two lists at once would be great. I've got a Normal and a Mini, but only the Mini is on the list because of this rule. Given how long it takes to move up the list, I wouldn't be hosting both at the same time, so I don't see the problem with being on both. And if it does come to that somehow and the host isn't comfortable running two games at once, just move him down the list one spot, no big deal.

It would be good to show us how many games we actually have that are ready.

Quote from Azrael

Well, technically, a host CAN already have up to three games hosted at a single time. A mini/normal/specialty, a FTQ, and a basic.

Your proposal is to change the number of normal/mini/specialty slots a player can host to two, resulting in a potential four games on the hosting list at a time?

Beyond that, will changing the hosting limit even really address that problem? Evidently, there's not a surplus of people signed up there; I don't think duplicate entries is really the issue?

FTQ doesn't really count. It's on a totally different basis.

And I, for one, would always have 3 games - a Basic, and two others - in the queue if I could.

Quote from DRey

You guys want to know what the real problem is? Requiring setups to be complete before signing up, this makes hard for the designers to actually work on the setups because they don't see their name going up the queue therefore have no pressure or timeframe to actually finish their games so they keep slacking off. I know this happens to me.

This might be true for you but having their name on the list without forcing hosts to have at least an unreviewed complete setup only resulted in many people saying "oh just bump me down a spot I haven't finished yet" and me playing PM tag for days while people gave me angry faces about the next game's sign-ups.

What if we allow hosts to put multiple games up, but require that they designate priority levels for the games they host.

For example, I'm on the Normal list for RTR. I want to sign up for a Mini (say, Killer7). When I do so, I need to say that RTR is my "priority" game. We'll mark Killer7 with an * to designate it as lower priority (rather than the reverse, since the default is 1 nonbasic game per player).

When the time comes for a new Mini to run, you ask the top 3 (I think that's the procedure as of now; correct me if I am wrong). If Killer7—my low-priority setup—is ready to run, but Sir Karn's Drury Lane—which is his high priority setup—is also ready to run, you run his game. If you have multiple setups of the same priority level ready to run, you pick which one goes the same way as it happens now. Of course, if the low-priority setup is the only game ready, you can run that one.

After RTR runs, Killer7 will be my only setup in the queue and then it becomes the priority setup.

I'm actually not sure what problem this solves, so this may not be useful, but it arrived in my brain and so I deliver it to you.

I haven't had to ask the top 3 since the new hosting rules got implemented.

Well in that case, you just drop past the * setups until you find a priority setup ready to go, and if you can't, you run the first * setup ready.

Which is somehow more work.

I suspect we would have too many games if we allow multiple games per host.

Too many games will never be a problem (unless they are run simultaneously but no one is advocating that). I think the real problem is that we will end up in a world where all games are from just one mod.

"Ok, we have finished Iso's Basic 4, so we will start signups for Iso's basic 5, right after Iso's mini 14 signup phase finish. Ah don't forget signups for Iso's speciality 3 are online".

Where are the games from the contest? There where so many good one's there... I know I worked in a few that looked amazing.

If we are worried about lack of mods, I have been kicking around a Basic and Mini idea that I could submit, since by the time they get to the queue I should be a seasoned vet

@DRey: I'm pretty sure about 90% of them are Specialties and that most of the hosts for them are already on the list.

Quote from LnGrrrR

If we are worried about lack of mods, I have been kicking around a Basic and Mini idea that I could submit, since by the time they get to the queue I should be a seasoned vet

Yeah - I actually have a Basic idea/roles mapped out but was holding onto it til I got enough experience under my belt... but will want to host at some point and if the queue is long, I can toss it in there.


Taking some paternity time Dec-March so I'll have quite a bit of time to kill around the house.

@Guys that seem to have ideas for nifty basic You probably don't, basics are not experimentation room, it's for the bread and butter mafia games. I think most basics should just copy the old basics of the past and tweak them, they do not really require development, except for flavor.

@Iso Ahhh, I see. So we need to create a contest for mini/normals then. Maybe another contest focused on flavor!

I would be interested in seeing people come up with gimmicky Minis, like my idea for Arsonist Mafia.

Open setup:

1 Arsonist
X Vanilla Town

Arsonist targets a player at Night, douses them in gasoline.
Once, during the game, Arsonist can strike their match and everyone gassed up will die in the fire.
Town wins when the Arsonist is dead. Arsonist wins when they're one of the last two players alive.

Things like that. A game within Mafia.

@Drey, my idea for a basic is just that: Basic. Based off Fallout flavor.

@Iso, my idea for a Mini is gimmicky. Based off the idea that there are no "power roles" per se, but players have various "death" triggers that enact when they are either lynched or night killed.

It's sort of funny that this discussion has sparked up when it did as I've been debating whether or not I want to give hosting another go. My last two games really drained me mentally (part of the problem was they were running concurrently for a bit) and I tend to make games that are a little more involved in keeping track then most... which is part of the reason I've been holding off on hosting. Plus I really don't have the time at my job now for anything so involved in modding. But at the same time I am out of benadryl.

Bah... I hate you all for having this discussion.

Alright angry old man rant over (though I am pretty sure I am not an old man).

I don't have the time to mod the game I was working on. But maybe I should make an easier to mod game, which will be a mini out of my love for minis... and maybe I should do that GHS Mafia followup I always wanted to do using what I learned from GHS mafia to fix it (plus to exercise some MH and Cyan demons that still haunt me).

Gah... I am still ranting aren't I?

As for what to do to change this queue problem, I actually encourage the working on queue in addition to the done queue. It will at least let us know what's in the pipeline and if we have a true problem or it only looks like a problem.

There are lots of ideas I want to try, but I frankly didn't find hosting to be much fun when I tried it. I like designing set-up mechanics. Everything after that is just work.

>create setup mechanics
>find partner to do work

Quote from Asenion

There are lots of ideas I want to try, but I frankly didn't find hosting to be much fun when I tried it. I like designing set-up mechanics. Everything after that is just work.

I enjoy hosting. The design is the hardest part for me. Wonder Twins?

Yeah but who would be willing to do just the boring side? I assume most people agree with me that designing the game is the fun part.

Ok then... PM me.

Quote from Iso

I would be interested in seeing people come up with gimmicky Minis, like my idea for Arsonist Mafia.

Open setup:

1 Arsonist
X Vanilla Town

Arsonist targets a player at Night, douses them in gasoline.
Once, during the game, Arsonist can strike their match and everyone gassed up will die in the fire.
Town wins when the Arsonist is dead. Arsonist wins when they're one of the last two players alive.

Things like that. A game within Mafia.

I wonder if you could do that game with two competing Arsonists and 10 townies, and if one arsonist decides to strike his match, all doused players by either Arsonist go up (except that an Arsonist can't commit suicide in this way - an Arsonist can only be lit up by the other Arsonist's match).

Is...that a thing?

@ DRey - same as what LnGrrrR said. Basic rules/roles for the basic... just have an idea for what I want to do with flavor and I'd probably make it into a series of games (possibly getting more complex with later games as I got the hang of things and if it felt relevant).

That sounds a lot more like a Normal than a Basic, wtf.

Edit: Where can I find the actual rules of what constitutes a basic? IMO we should have a set pool of roles that can be used, and minor variations of those rules. There should also be guidelines for # of players. I don't see either.

Quote from Asenion

Edit: Where can I find the actual rules of what constitutes a basic? IMO we should have a set pool of roles that can be used, and minor variations of those rules. There should also be guidelines for # of players. I don't see either.

We like to give hosts the freedom to use new roles provided they are simple to understand and appropriate in power level/swinginess for a Basic. This is also why we encourage all game hosts, even those hosting Basics, to get their games reviewed.
Basics are generally 12-player games, though I have seen at least one that had as few as 9 players. 12 is the upper limit.

See, I think that kind of sucks. I have an idea for a 13 player Basic and another idea for a 14 player Basic.

13-15 players gives almost double the design potential of 12. Why do we make all of the limits 12?

Why not a soft limit of 12 and a hard limit of say, 15? Encourage players to stay towards 12, but allow them to ask for permission to increase it by a small amount.

I was kicking around an idea today in class; wouldn't mind hearing first impressions.

For those of you familiar with Shadowrun, it would be about groups of runners performing a run each Day. Each person would have a specialization (the hacker a role cop, the bruiser bulletproof etc etc), BUT no one would start with any powers.

The players would be divided into two opposing groups (red vs blue for simplicity). At the end of the Day, whichever team had the most members on it would gain powers for that Night.

The idea behind it came about after hearing Iso's ideas about "sub games". The flavor is that two opposing teams are being hired for the same objective, but only one can get "paid".

Thoughts? If anyone is interested in kicking around ideas, shoot me a PM. (And yes, I know I have been kicking around a few game ideas, but as I find flaws I put ideas on the back burner to pull them out when I figure the game out more.)

Quote from Asenion

Why not a soft limit of 12 and a hard limit of say, 15? Encourage players to stay towards 12, but allow them to ask for permission to increase it by a small amount.

I think a majority of players would try to design larger games rather than stay within the 12-player guideline. We want Basics and Minis small so they wrap up fairly quickly. This allows the queues to progress at a decent rate and players to move on to different games.

Quote from LnGrrrR

Thoughts?

Sounds interesting. I recommend continuing the conversation here.

Do you really think something like 13 players would make the game length go up significantly? 13 player games drastically increase design space by allowing for 3-scum without jumping through hoops, 3 scum + anti-town neutral in some cases, or even 4-scum in special set-ups. At 12 you can't really do that.

Additionally, 12 players always creates the "Even-player-number" problem for game design. You don't want the Town to have to fight a 4-man end-game, so every game needs a Vig or something similar to create/stop kills outside the scum and lynch.

Basically, 13 player games are much easier to balance than 12 player games.

Pretty much everything you just described falls outside of the scope of a basic game.

My argument was bleeding over into Minis. But I do have a Basic set-up that I think would be good, except that it is much more balanced with 13 players and 3 scum than it would be with 12 players and 3 scum. 12 players is right on the edge where it's hard to fit 3 scum in, at 13 players you can do it without having to try and assign extra power roles somewhere to make it work. THAT matters for a Basic.

I'll stop if there is a consensus that I'm wrong or if no one wants to discuss this. I just really feel that 13 players is better design space than 12 for both Minis and Basics.

I once ran a 13 player mini here.



The one with the eye patch standing next to me is Az.

Question related to current stuff:

Minis are described as being "of any complexity", while multiple scum teams are specifically described as being Specialty complexity. So can a Mini (specifically an 8-2-2 setup with players informed pregame) have multiple scum factions or not?

(Relevant because the more-complete of my Mini ideas wants to be a multiscum setup.)

Quote from Asenion

That sounds a lot more like a Normal than a Basic, wtf.

Edit: Where can I find the actual rules of what constitutes a basic? IMO we should have a set pool of roles that can be used, and minor variations of those rules. There should also be guidelines for # of players. I don't see either.

I compiled a post with them in the Theory thread a while ago.

Quote from Taredas

Question related to current stuff:

Minis are described as being "of any complexity", while multiple scum teams are specifically described as being Specialty complexity. So can a Mini (specifically an 8-2-2 setup with players informed pregame) have multiple scum factions or not?

(Relevant because the more-complete of my Mini ideas wants to be a multiscum setup.)

Minis are "of any complexity", meaning they can be Specialty-complexity.

@13 player minis: I like 13 player minis. Are they actually allowed yet, besides for Guardman?

Quote from Taredas

Question related to current stuff:

Minis are described as being "of any complexity", while multiple scum teams are specifically described as being Specialty complexity. So can a Mini (specifically an 8-2-2 setup with players informed pregame) have multiple scum factions or not?

(Relevant because the more-complete of my Mini ideas wants to be a multiscum setup.)

They can, but I seem to recall multiple scum factions being more fun to write into a mafia game than to play as, from general consensus.

I'm fine with Minis being 12 players. Unless we're switching to a small/large game system, and then I want the smaller game limits to be 14 players.

I much prefer 12-man minis, as they're faster and much better balanced than giving the town a free lynch with the extra body, but I'm not violently opposed to 13 if I'm the only person who feels that way.

Quote from Iso

Is...that a thing?

It is if someone does it!

HAY GUISE

SO UH

I have a Specialty in review but my reviewers say it's not anywhere complicated enough to be a Specialty - but it has 2 scum teams.

Wat do???

Run it as a Normal. It has happened in the past. Remember Cyberpunk Mafia?

Is there an ETA on the next basic sign ups or is it a one sign up going on per time thing?

Quote from Asenion

Run it as a Normal. It has happened in the past. Remember Cyberpunk Mafia?

Cyberpunk Mafia happened before the Normal changes also League rubric etc.

Proposition: Run a League Mini/Micro at the time of my "Normal" when it happens?

Could we make that exception?

Quote from DCIII

Is there an ETA on the next basic sign ups or is it a one sign up going on per time thing?

One sign-up at a time open.

We should really consider opening a basic signup given how this one is going.

I thought about it but that's pretty much a guarantee that this one won't fill.

I second opening a Basic sign-up immediately. I don't think the Basic and Specialty player pool crossover too much anyway.

Quote from Iso

I thought about it but that's pretty much a guarantee that this one won't fill.

Just 14 more players needed!