MTG Salvation

Hey, guys.

Recently, the Council was approached by Ghosting (aka Nakamura) in request to lift his blacklist from the Mafia forum.

We feel that because he has shown that he has the ability to constructively contribute to Mafia games, now (see: his history as Burstinatrix and Ghosting in games over the past few years) as well as the fact that his last evasion attempt was well over 2 years ago, that we are willing to extend the olive branch with a tight leash and eagle eye attached, to bring a potentially productive member back into our community. As he will remain on the probation list for the time being, hosts will, of course, have the option to not allow him to play in their games should they feel uncomfortable with such a prospect.

However, we felt that before we took such a radical course of action that it would be best to first confer with the players.

What say you, MTGS Mafia?

Do it.

He might not be the brightest start, but I approved of him in my game a while back.

I'd clarify that I don't view any of his actions taken in defiance of the blacklist, good behavior or no, as something that should be considered in his favor, but it has been an awful long time since his original ban, he's had an opportunity to mature, and this time he approached us directly instead of making another gimmick.

At this point, my feelings on the subject are less "burn it with fire", and more parts "watch it closely".

How long has it been since he last committed mail fraud? (That was the original reason for his ban.)

I think it goes without saying that we're neither condoning nor rewarding his numerous blacklist evasions. But yes, his direct approach as well as the fact that he seems to have matured as an individual in the years that have gone by is why we're willing to exercise lenience, here.

Quote from Seppel »

How long has it been since he last committed mail fraud? (That was the original reason for his ban.)

He was originally banned for gimmicking up and evading his Mafia blacklist, as well as the administration taking precautions against him potentially ripping off MTGS traders due to his history on other websites. He was unbanned from MTGS a year ago with the stipulation that he wouldn't be allowed to trade (IIRC), and I think it's been at least 4 years since the last incident of that occurring, if not 5.

We need the bodies. If he can behave then I see no reason not to allow him back.

Quote from Tordeck »

We need the bodies. If he can behave then I see no reason not to allow him back.

Basically this.

Quote from Iso »

He was originally banned for gimmicking up and evading his Mafia blacklist, as well as the administration taking precautions against him potentially ripping off MTGS traders due to his history on other websites. He was unbanned from MTGS a year ago with the stipulation that he wouldn't be allowed to trade (IIRC), and I think it's been at least 4 years since the last incident of that occurring, if not 5.

To incur the initial blacklist, he lied directly to the council regarding his actions within a game in an attempt to conceal a rules infraction, and prior to that he had committed several rules violations. I can't recall precisely what his actions were off-hand - I remember one occasion in which he contacted a player by private message, which initially thought was an innocent mistake, but took on more sinister overtones after the next two in-game violations, plus his lies to the council regarding those actions.

Following that, he attempted to violate in mafia blacklist umpteen thousand times, and was caught repeatedly, perhaps half a dozen different times. That resulted in an upgrade from a trade ban and a mafia blacklist to a site-wide ban.

The details on the initial blacklist are all here in the council thread, if you go far enough back.

I believe part of the issue was that he faked a language barrier when called out on scummy behavior.

If he steps out of line even once, burst him into flames in a trix

make sure that that his corporeal form is dead too, wouldn't want him ghosting around

splatter him across the wall and call it a naka-mural

but I'm down with giving him a chance

The fact that 7 total people have commented on this in a 4 day period speaks volumes to Tordeck's point about bodies. Most people don't know who naka is, and a few more people might be familiar with Burst, but let him back, and take WG's last post to heart.

I'm fine with making it so. I'll talk to the senior staff to see if he's masked out, and I'll give him the green light.

I think this is the third or fourth time I'm bringing this up, but this is long overdue - we need to restructure our game queue based on size.

We can keep League games running in a separate queue. But what say we merge the queues and have one queue for games with 15 > players and one queue for 14 < players?

Tare's game is taking a ridiculously long time to fill up, and a handful of people want to play in a Mini, and a handful of people want to play in an FTQ.

So...since at this point, I'd say the players who want to play in small games consist only of 50ish% of the players that also want to play in large games, would it not make more sense to just have two types of game sign-ups going on at a time, with 2 large games, 2 small games, and a League game? I think there's enough divergence in the playerbase that would allow us to bring back allowing multiple hosts to have sign-ups open at a time - one small, one League, one large.

We simply don't have enough players invested in Normals to let the League games clog up the queue, and, again, I think there are enough players that like either type of game that we wouldn't necessarily risk a player signed up for a large game ducking out of the sign-ups just to join a smaller one as it's about to fire off for the sake of getting a game in.

Input?

As an alternative to my previous post, let me bring up this proposition, instead:

What if we abolish the League?

We're hurting for Judges, and a large contributing factor to the League's existence was the Council posing the question, "How can we keep the players invested in Normals?" Once Ecophagy's suggested changes to the way Normals should be structured, we've had a lot of watered-down, cookie-cutter setups that the playerbase, to put it bluntly, hates. We're burned out on Normals, and mostly want to see Minis of varying complexity, and Specialty/FTQ-type setups. We need an injection of freshness into the Mafia forum, and I think this is the way to do it. If people want to keep track of "League"-type scoring for a rotation of 6 games for fun, I don't see a problem with that, but I think that once Taredas's game is over, we seriously need to reconsider keeping the League alive if it's going to be hurting our playerbase this badly. The League was my baby and I hate to see it go for that reason, but I think it's best for the health of Mafia on MTGS.

Let's change the hosting rules to allow 3 small games and 2 large games at a time, and allow players to sign up to host 2 small games and 1 large game at a time. We can take the already existing Basic queue and merge it with the small games queue (asking hosts if they still want to host, of course) and have sign-ups open for a small game and a large game simultaneously.

Let's do this.

Instead of getting rid of the league entirely how about just switching up its format. Personally i like the idea of the league and would join if it has another season. Right now from my understanding it is only "normal" allowed. How about making it say 3 minis, 2 normal, and a specialty. This would still allow the full player base to get their three games in for scoring but also allow a bit more diversity into the format. It would also allow those that have a preference for either larger or smaller games to get at least one of their preference in during the season while at the same time making the players be able to perform in various situations. right now the league doesnt show who is the best mafia player at the end it shows who can play in normals with a large amount of players the best. That is only one of the many possible mafia formats though. Might require some work on the scoring system.

I think you're underestimating the problems that Normals present as a whole, Tordeck. I've heard nothing but hate for them for the past 1-2+ years.

Additionally, people are complaining when other games aren't firing off while we're waiting for a bigger one to fill.

This addresses both issues simultaneously.

Maybe I am just silly but I find it fun to be judged in League games <.<.

Which is why I suggested we keep the rubric around "for fun" and someone can do bookkeeping for scores, if they'd like.

I swear I posted this already but it must have got eaten.

The key thing I am looking for is why you (anyone) enjoys or does not enjoy Normals. Identifying any recurring concerns is important (to me at least).

We can only abolish the League if I win. and am the champion of the only League season ever.

Seriously though, I don't know what the League has to do with anything.

Normals are boring.

And more specifically, they have become too easy for scum to manipulate. Voting patterns can't be correctly analyzed anymore. Wagon's can't be analyzed anymore. You can't lynch someone for claiming VT anymore, because in a Normal, half of the people are VT these days. Scum have figured out that they can just sit around and literally do **** all nothing(like Seppel does in literally every game ever), because eventually the townies are going to lynch SOMEONE, and if the scum don't put themselves out there at risk, statistically, townies are more likely to lynch each other. And then when they go to analyze info later, they're more likely to..continue to lynch each other. It just seems like Normals have been 'solved', so to speak, by good scum players.

But the League isn't Normal Only, is it? I thought there was a mini or something in the normal schedule this year that I deliberately didn't play in because I typically don't like minis.

I don't think Normals have to be fully abolished. Presumably SOME people like them. But we should be able to at least have a rotating schedule or something.

I like big games.

We used to have a basic queue going. Just replace it with a mini queue if people want to play minis

Normals are the only game type I enjoy.

And I think you're vastly mistaken in terms of how easy it is for scum in a normal.

I'm just trying to think of the last few normals I was in:

Predator - Town won.
Apocalypse - Town won.
Chimes - Town won.
Checks and Balances - Town won.
Gotham Underground - Town won.

I don't think there's been a normal I've played in (and didn't get replaced due to life happening) that scum has actually won.

I know there was a couple that happened more recently but I couldn't name them/wasn't in them, but off top of my head, town dominates normals.

Town only won Predator because Chis was mafia god that game.

@Iso, obviously my suggestion doesnt fix every problem but I dont see why it couldnt be a basis for a better suggestion.

@Eco, Normals suck for me because I prefer games with a smaller amount of players and/or more complexity. Thats why to Minis are the best format in my opinion, followed by specialties.

The problem with Normals these days is that they're too bland, too blase, too cookie-cutter. When we gave a strict outline to what types of roles could be in Normals, we restricted options in a very hard way. It gives little to no room for design twists (compared to the Normals of old), and it feels to players like they're in the same games, over and over - which is, of course, exacerbated by the League's existence. What I mean by this is that because League players need to play to be scored, they are more inclined to play in a Normal, which adds to the "haven't we been here, before?" feeling of the Normals.

I think it's a falsity to assume that players will ONLY create complex Minis or over-the-top Specialties with a size queue implementation. I, for one, have been leaning more towards simple and elegant setups, lately (though there will indubitably be future Iso shenanigans, fear not, dear readers) and I think that some people enjoy creating Normals or low-complexity Minis. I know Gentleman Johnny (the artist formerly known as The Cold Monarch) is one such person, and he can't be the only one.

Either way, this will at least feel like something new, if not completely alter MTGS Mafia for the better. And if players are feeling dissatisfied with the change, we can always go back to the way it is, now.

Alright, here's my proposal.

#1. We fire a PCQ, right now. Within 24 hours. Give people a couple of weeks to come up with submissions, then votes fire.

#2. We abolish complexity restrictions on League games. The judges decide what to run as the next league game - whatever they feel is appropriately balanced.

#3. We keep the mini and specialty queues as is, but the normal queue is renamed the standard queue, and can contain whatever size or complexity the host in question feels like running. This would allow our hosts more flexibility in designing games to fit the tastes of the playerbase, whether towards larger or smaller games, or towards greater or lesser complexity. Effectively, we'd be introducing variance into the list. We won't always have small games, we won't always have large games, and you never quite know exactly how feisty or creative the moderator might be feeling.

1. Sure. I always have something ready to fire. I'll submit.

2. How does this address the fact that we have 1 judge that randomly disappears, and 1 judge that is technically retired from judging? I don't like the idea of swinginess potentially affecting scores by whatever games the judges decide is suited for scoring. I think that it should be all or none. Moreover, what is the criteria they will have for selecting a game for scoring?

3. What is the motivation for choosing the Mini or Specialty queue over the Standard queue, and vice-versa? Seems like the lines there are a bit too blurred and unclear. What will the hosting list limitations be, i.e. how many games of what kind can a player sign up to host?

I'd be down to submit my game for a PCQ. Might even be willing to reskin it to some original flavor.

Quote from Iso »

1. Sure. I always have something ready to fire. I'll submit.

2. How does this address the fact that we have 1 judge that randomly disappears, and 1 judge that is technically retired from judging? I don't like the idea of swinginess potentially affecting scores by whatever games the judges decide is suited for scoring. I think that it should be all or none. Moreover, what is the criteria they will have for selecting a game for scoring?

3. What is the motivation for choosing the Mini or Specialty queue over the Standard queue, and vice-versa? Seems like the lines there are a bit too blurred and unclear. What will the hosting list limitations be, i.e. how many games of what kind can a player sign up to host?

2. I'd be inclined to leave that to the judge's discretion, and the judge's discretion will be informed from feedback from the players. I'd imagine that a well-balanced game is a high priority. But well-balanced need not be generic. If we're running low on judges, perhaps we can tap the game host and/or spectators as temporary judges? Perhaps committing to judging each and every game is a bit daunting, but people would be willing to sub in and due brief stints? I know that'd be far more appealing to me than doing Every. Single. Game. And, then we simply have a head judge/head judge committee, which is responsible for judge oversight and selecting the next league game.

3. We don't really actually want the players to have any reason to prefer the mini or specialty queue over the standard queue. That, I think, may have been where we went wrong in the past. We came up with brands that appealed only to insular groups, and even those insular groups would get tired of certain types after a time. We became too predictable, too static.

We need a broader category of queue, that appeals across all divisional lines, changes over time, and won't go out of style. A catch-all.

Apparently I'm wrong about who wins Normals; still hate them. Sorry to hear that they're the only games you like, Voxx.

Still can't believe that chimes Mafia is a game that actually happened, holy crap was that game a bad idea. And I'm pretty sure it was based off of a game that I originally ran..so I should know.

Let's not mention chimes.

Quote from Iso »

The problem with Normals these days is that they're too bland, too blase, too cookie-cutter.

That's extremely subjective. It's why normals are so good - it puts the focus on the players, on behavior, and on interactions, and less on weird roles and egotistical game designers who try to make the setup about themselves over the people playing in it.

Quote from Azrael »

Alright, here's my proposal.

#1. We fire a PCQ, right now. Within 24 hours. Give people a couple of weeks to come up with submissions, then votes fire.

#2. We abolish complexity restrictions on League games. The judges decide what to run as the next league game - whatever they feel is appropriately balanced.

#3. We keep the mini and specialty queues as is, but the normal queue is renamed the standard queue, and can contain whatever size or complexity the host in question feels like running. This would allow our hosts more flexibility in designing games to fit the tastes of the playerbase, whether towards larger or smaller games, or towards greater or lesser complexity. Effectively, we'd be introducing variance into the list. We won't always have small games, we won't always have large games, and you never quite know exactly how feisty or creative the moderator might be feeling.

Sign me up yo.

Quote from Voxxicus »

Quote from Iso »

The problem with Normals these days is that they're too bland, too blase, too cookie-cutter.

That's extremely subjective. It's why normals are so good - it puts the focus on the players, on behavior, and on interactions, and less on weird roles and egotistical game designers who try to make the setup about themselves over the people playing in it.

I can only assume that nobody good is ever assigned to be scum in these games. Because like, in a low power game where everyone is equivalent skill level, the scum should win far more(70/30 approx) than the town should. Being the informed minority is highly valuable here.

#chimes

Here's how you fix judging shortages for leagues: require all league players to play in 5/6 games and judge the 6th. Rotate who judges. 6 also feels like a lot of league games. If you dropped it to 4 there'd be more players for other games. If I was running a league from scratch I'd also gradually ramp up complexity ala the New York Times crossword: first game is normal, second is a little wonky, third is a bonkers, fourth has experimental rules (or whatever floats your goat).

PCQ is great. I would chop off a finger for a 14 player cap on mini games - so much more design space when there's room for 3 mafia and a neut.

When you first start learning a new game, you want to master the basics first. That's why we have a natural progression of difficulty in problem solving skills with different sized/complexity games. The league is the pinnacle of mastery of the basics. Nothing random should happen, so your basic skills in analysis and scum hunting can be perfected in the best environment. I think of it like Goku from Dragon Ball Z on the way to Namek, training in a high-gravity environment away from real threats to hone his skills. This is very valuable to the growth of the community; it's only waning because our attrition is falling.

Eventually what happens to all of us as mafia players: once we've mastered the basics, we want something with a little more spice that makes us think harder and throw out everything we knew. As hosts and set-up designers, we want to challenge ourselves to balance ever more complex roles, and make our players reconsider traditional ideas (or be bastard mods). This is just the evolution of the game, but should be isolated as to not put off new players. The awesome spin a host will put on the Vigilante role is lost on the player who just now learned what a Vigilante is, and will now associate Vig with this unique role. You don't set up a new Minecraft player with a ton of Gregtech mods, or a noob Starcraft player in a specialized MOBA mod. Specialties, along with roles and abilities that could qualify as non-basic (like an unreliable cop or cult or whatever wouldn't be in a new player game), are essentially Mafia Mods, not intended for the uninitiated.

We have a small community advancing quickly in skill and players desire more complexity. That's entirely expected and a good thing. But you have to have a separation of the two game categories to ensure that new players will find a spot they feel comfortable testing themselves. That we want to "fix" the league to fit more complexity is only a result of the league players maturing from the format.

If the demand for League games decrease, run less League games. Let the sign up die, and run a different format. Design a smaller league game to fire next month. League games might be retrofitted to be more of a starting point for new comers looking to get into the unique specialty game settings we offer at MTGS.

Quote from Azrael »

Alright, here's my proposal.

#1. We fire a PCQ, right now. Within 24 hours. Give people a couple of weeks to come up with submissions, then votes fire.

Not a bad plan. We should get it going.

Quote from Azrael »

#2. We abolish complexity restrictions on League games. The judges decide what to run as the next league game - whatever they feel is appropriately balanced.

I don't think we want to divorce the league from complexity restrictions at all. That is part of what makes it important to progression in knowledge, vocabulary, and skill. If we ever run out of volunteers for scoring new players and coaching, we can scrap the project altogether and just run basics: new hosts - new players.

Quote from Azrael »

#3. We keep the mini and specialty queues as is, but the normal queue is renamed the standard queue, and can contain whatever size or complexity the host in question feels like running. This would allow our hosts more flexibility in designing games to fit the tastes of the playerbase, whether towards larger or smaller games, or towards greater or lesser complexity. Effectively, we'd be introducing variance into the list. We won't always have small games, we won't always have large games, and you never quite know exactly how feisty or creative the moderator might be feeling.

Adding a bit of fuzziness to the Normal queue line is another good remedy to the symptom. I believe this is due to a maturation of a small playerbase who just wants more complex games. We don't necessarily need to change the lower-level structure of progression as much as we need to increase the output of more complex specialties.


You have to realize at a certain point of complexity, your League score becomes so abstract that it isn't even an accurate representation of your progress as a player, which is the entire point of the League. You either climb to the top in basics or venture out into the wonderful world of MTGS Mafia Specialties, but don't confuse the two.

I think the difference is that there isn't enough tweaking of the base setup to make it feel even a little unusual. Add more french vanillas; add more weird variants on the usual cops and docs and vigs and etc. Do like arimnaes did, and fill your game with fun weird stuff, instead of just a bunch of vanillas. You can have normal and not vanilla. You can have chocolate!

That sounds really dumb, but hopefully you get my point.

I miss Arimnaes. I miss all of the old guard really. Where are they. I was probably supposed to outgrow this game too but I forgot to.

Quote from Cyan »

I miss Arimnaes. I miss all of the old guard really. Where are they. I was probably supposed to outgrow this game too but I forgot to.

*pours one out*

*gets it on his shoes*

Quote from Azrael »

Quote from Iso »

1. Sure. I always have something ready to fire. I'll submit.

2. How does this address the fact that we have 1 judge that randomly disappears, and 1 judge that is technically retired from judging? I don't like the idea of swinginess potentially affecting scores by whatever games the judges decide is suited for scoring. I think that it should be all or none. Moreover, what is the criteria they will have for selecting a game for scoring?

3. What is the motivation for choosing the Mini or Specialty queue over the Standard queue, and vice-versa? Seems like the lines there are a bit too blurred and unclear. What will the hosting list limitations be, i.e. how many games of what kind can a player sign up to host?

2. I'd be inclined to leave that to the judge's discretion, and the judge's discretion will be informed from feedback from the players. I'd imagine that a well-balanced game is a high priority. But well-balanced need not be generic. If we're running low on judges, perhaps we can tap the game host and/or spectators as temporary judges? Perhaps committing to judging each and every game is a bit daunting, but people would be willing to sub in and due brief stints? I know that'd be far more appealing to me than doing Every. Single. Game. And, then we simply have a head judge/head judge committee, which is responsible for judge oversight and selecting the next league game.

3. We don't really actually want the players to have any reason to prefer the mini or specialty queue over the standard queue. That, I think, may have been where we went wrong in the past. We came up with brands that appealed only to insular groups, and even those insular groups would get tired of certain types after a time. We became too predictable, too static.

We need a broader category of queue, that appeals across all divisional lines, changes over time, and won't go out of style. A catch-all.

2. But my point is, do you expect the judges to look at every single setup that could possibly be run just to see if it's suitable for League scoring? That's entirely too much to do for one person, or even for two people. Plus it cuts them out of a lot of play chances and what about unaccounted absences? I don't think this is maintainable. Plus, the other problem is that we still don't have judges.

3. That doesn't answer my questions, though. Why should I put my game on the "Standard" (or whatever) queue if I can just get it to fire faster on the Mini queue? Will we be alternating queues? And again, what will the hosting restrictions be as divided among the queues?

Quote from Voxxicus »

Quote from Iso »

The problem with Normals these days is that they're too bland, too blase, too cookie-cutter.

That's extremely subjective. It's why normals are so good - it puts the focus on the players, on behavior, and on interactions, and less on weird roles and egotistical game designers who try to make the setup about themselves over the people playing in it.

I understand that's what Normals are for - but it's not subjective. We literally have a section under "Normals" on the hosting list that tell you what you can and can't put in a Normal game. And given that the rubric has its limitations, there's a lot that the judges (who are required to review every Normal, by the way) can't allow in Normals as a result, restricting them even further.

Quote from Cyan »

Quote from Voxxicus »

Quote from Iso »

The problem with Normals these days is that they're too bland, too blase, too cookie-cutter.

That's extremely subjective. It's why normals are so good - it puts the focus on the players, on behavior, and on interactions, and less on weird roles and egotistical game designers who try to make the setup about themselves over the people playing in it.

I can only assume that nobody good is ever assigned to be scum in these games. Because like, in a low power game where everyone is equivalent skill level, the scum should win far more(70/30 approx) than the town should. Being the informed minority is highly valuable here.

Cyan, you were scum in XKCD.

Quote from Zionite »

When you first start learning a new game, you want to master the basics first. That's why we have a natural progression of difficulty in problem solving skills with different sized/complexity games. The league is the pinnacle of mastery of the basics. Nothing random should happen, so your basic skills in analysis and scum hunting can be perfected in the best environment. I think of it like Goku from Dragon Ball Z on the way to Namek, training in a high-gravity environment away from real threats to hone his skills. This is very valuable to the growth of the community; it's only waning because our attrition is falling.

Eventually what happens to all of us as mafia players: once we've mastered the basics, we want something with a little more spice that makes us think harder and throw out everything we knew. As hosts and set-up designers, we want to challenge ourselves to balance ever more complex roles, and make our players reconsider traditional ideas (or be bastard mods). This is just the evolution of the game, but should be isolated as to not put off new players. The awesome spin a host will put on the Vigilante role is lost on the player who just now learned what a Vigilante is, and will now associate Vig with this unique role. You don't set up a new Minecraft player with a ton of Gregtech mods, or a noob Starcraft player in a specialized MOBA mod. Specialties, along with roles and abilities that could qualify as non-basic (like an unreliable cop or cult or whatever wouldn't be in a new player game), are essentially Mafia Mods, not intended for the uninitiated.

We have a small community advancing quickly in skill and players desire more complexity. That's entirely expected and a good thing. But you have to have a separation of the two game categories to ensure that new players will find a spot they feel comfortable testing themselves. That we want to "fix" the league to fit more complexity is only a result of the league players maturing from the format.

If the demand for League games decrease, run less League games. Let the sign up die, and run a different format. Design a smaller league game to fire next month. League games might be retrofitted to be more of a starting point for new comers looking to get into the unique specialty game settings we offer at MTGS.

What are your thoughts on dropping Normals entirely and revving up the Basic queue to run for League games, with the stipulation that Basics can be less than 12 players if it's judged to be balanced enough? This way, we don't have huge games sopping up the playerbase, and we can reasonably expect to run more games in a League season.

Quote from Zionite »

Quote from Azrael »

#2. We abolish complexity restrictions on League games. The judges decide what to run as the next league game - whatever they feel is appropriately balanced.

I don't think we want to divorce the league from complexity restrictions at all. That is part of what makes it important to progression in knowledge, vocabulary, and skill. If we ever run out of volunteers for scoring new players and coaching, we can scrap the project altogether and just run basics: new hosts - new players.

I mean, that's one of the primary issues with League sustainability, here - lack of judges.

Quote from Zionite »

Quote from Azrael »

#3. We keep the mini and specialty queues as is, but the normal queue is renamed the standard queue, and can contain whatever size or complexity the host in question feels like running. This would allow our hosts more flexibility in designing games to fit the tastes of the playerbase, whether towards larger or smaller games, or towards greater or lesser complexity. Effectively, we'd be introducing variance into the list. We won't always have small games, we won't always have large games, and you never quite know exactly how feisty or creative the moderator might be feeling.

Adding a bit of fuzziness to the Normal queue line is another good remedy to the symptom. I believe this is due to a maturation of a small playerbase who just wants more complex games. We don't necessarily need to change the lower-level structure of progression as much as we need to increase the output of more complex specialties.

So you're proposing we go back to the old Normal format?

Quote from Xyre »

I think the difference is that there isn't enough tweaking of the base setup to make it feel even a little unusual. Add more french vanillas; add more weird variants on the usual cops and docs and vigs and etc. Do like arimnaes did, and fill your game with fun weird stuff, instead of just a bunch of vanillas. You can have normal and not vanilla. You can have chocolate!

That sounds really dumb, but hopefully you get my point.

I understand what you're saying, and I think I did a reasonable job of this in Predator (especially that Survivor, 'eyyy) but again, there's only so much design space one can explore within the constraints we have laid out in Normals.

-

Anyway, I know it probably got a little lost in my quotewall, here, but who's okay with the (tl;dr version:) idea of replacing the Normal queue with the Basic queue for League purposes?

I still like the idea of a "small game" queue and a "large game" queue, with Iso's proposed cutoff of 14 being a good point.

league failed, imo. this is not because of the players, who seem invested, but because of judging. you (I can't say we because I've been entirely divorced from the league since day one) have readjusted how judging works and still it's just two judges barely scraping by on scores. I don't know how often the individual reviews happen if at all, but I have to imagine it's not super frequent.

I also think we don't have enough players for tons of games right now.

this is what I'd suggest:

two queues. small and large. complexity up to hosts. rolling sign ups, so as soon as a game fires from a queue, the next signup for that queue goes up.

change the ftq/pcq structure. instead of a separate third queue, have the ftq selection bump a setup to the top of the appropriate queue. hosts could still submit their games as they want.

pcq could be completely redefined and used as a queue override if a setup is languishing in a queue (like now). we've had players reject a game before just this year, and having that power is useful. limiting it would be wise, though, as this does mean that new hosts could be squeezed out in favor of established hosts. I'm interested to hear suggestions on that.

if you still want to run the league, fine, but I'd run it in these queues rather than separately. i would also fix the judge issue first. (ged's suggestion of having players rotation judging responsibility is great imo as it gives players some responsibility and accountability to keeping the league moving.)

if player participation picks up, we can look to expand and add more queues, but really you only need two, I think.

I would personally not participate in the League if I had to judge other players, as that gives room for all sorts of scoring bias and adds unwanted responsibility to the League players. I burned out hard on judging in the creation/Beta season of the League, and some people barely have time for the game (but want to squeeze one in, anyway), let alone to be a Judge if even for a single round. Besides, how would we choose who judges which games? There are too many IRL factors in play here to make that a sustainable model, IMO.

the current model isn't sustainable either.

so what do you want to do?

I want to get rid of the League, like I said.

oh, we're on the same page then.

I'm going to comment on something completely different here because Zionite's post made me realize something.

We need to bring basics back.

Put aside complexity a moment, what are the two issues we are really facing right now?

1. Not enough bodies.

2. Toxicity is increasing.

Basics are a great stepping stone for folks to jump into this community. Right now, they look at all these games and in many cases get intimidated. This leads to less bodies. But if we have basics, then they put their foot in the door, we set a hook to keep them coming back, and we have more bodies.

Plus, basics tend to be less serious, which might help vent some toxicity out of the community.

League games? Screw 'em. It was a nice idea that ended up being more trouble than it's worth. I think it fulfills a need that just isn't there. Making them any complexity would help a bit but why have the league in the first place? What is gained?

Complex games in general? Sure. But only with the proper stepping stones.

We have met the enemy killing mafia on this site, and it is us.

and also Curse, but hey

Edit: To make this post relevant, I still must point out that the people who are championing Normals are:

A. People who don't play any more
B. Voxxicus

So aside from some deep-set view from eons long-forgotten in our current Mafia area, do we really only have one player that's active that is in support of Normals? If so, I think that proves my point.

To further my point that complexity creep will NOT happen as a result of size-based queues, here are the last 5 Minis/Specialties run, as well as their role distribution:

The past 5 completed Minis:

Battle for Vanillaville: 2 anti-town teams of 2 each, 1 Vanilla, most roles not overly complex; no central game mechanic
Battle of the Amyrlin Seat: 4 weak town PRs, 5 VT, 3 scum abilities (2 simple, 1 game-mechanic involved); minimal focus on game mechanic past Day 1
True Name: 3 mafia, 1 Neutral that focused on game mechanic, (could win with either team), 5 VT; middling focus on game mechanic
Bravely Default: 9 town PRS, 3 mafia; heavy focus on game mechanic
Full Deck: 9 town PRS, 1 mafia, 1 SK, 1 Hitman; heavy focus on game mechanic
The Wall Mafia: 3 mafia, 4 VT, 5 town PRs; middling focus on game mechanic


The past 5 completed Specialties:

Final Fantasy II: 6 mafia, 1 SK, 17 town PRs; heavy focus on game mechanic
Animal Mafia: 5 mafia, 1 Survivor, 12 town PRs; no central game mechanic
Iji 2: 4 mafia, 2 Neutrals (one of which could win with the mafia, one which could not), 8 town PRs (of 12); medium-high focus on game mechanic
Celestial: 4 mafia, 1 SK, 16 town PRs; heavy focus on game mechanic
Mostly Mute Monk: 3 mafia, 12 town PRs (though not a lot were high-powered); heavy focus on game mechanic

-

As you can see, our hosts have design focus all over the map, from simple and elegant to "what else could they have possibly jammed into this setup?"

There are games that center heavily on a central game mechanic. There are others that have no central game mechanic. There are games that have a lot of power roles. There are games that have had as few as 3 PRs on the town's side. There are games with mixed factions, insane Neutrals, and standard 9-3/12-4 distributions. The people primarily complaining about Normals are the ones that regularly play in larger games. Our Minis are doing fine, and have the most diversity of all of our game types. My upcoming Mini, for example, is very low-powered, low-swing. Specialties have a higher chance of getting crazier, sure, but then there are those like Animal Mafia who simply have one or two odd roles with a high power distribution. Just because players CAN make dumb stuff does not mean that they will - and there is always the review system.

Where is your data showing that we will only make absurd games if we create a size-based queue? My observations show the opposite, and I would dare say I'm the most active Council member in the playerbase, meaning I feel I'm most qualified to make an assessment about what the playerbase actually wants. Predator Mafia wouldn't have been any crazier had it been given a Specialty label than it turned out to be, and I think that setup was fairly well-received. It would have been a "Large" game.

14-players for smaller games is absolutely a great cut-off number, because you can have 3 mafia and a Neutral without horribly imbalancing the game and giving the town a little more design space. 15+ players for larger games is totally fine, as that's around the point you start seeing teams with 4+ mafia members.

This would allow small games AND large games to fire off at the same time. What, exactly, is the problem?

The reason we got away from basics was that we were having trouble filling them up, and people were bored with them. The league was our attempt to make basics more interesting again. Going backwards to basics again doesn't seem like a viable option.

I think we simply ditch the notion of a dedicated normal and basic queue at this point, and the league with it, if we can't maintain it.

When I and many of the other veteran players from bygone eras played and joined, we jump right into medium/full complexity games. And we liked them quite a bit, and stayed around because they were complex, and interesting. I think so long as there is a mix of low and high complexity games, we should be alright.

From there, we can choose between either a Standard/Mini/Specialty queue model, with no restrictions on either size OR complexity, or a size-restricted model that erases the Specialty distinction.

However, I think what I've been hearing from a number of players lately is that they're intersting in seeing more unique and intersting concepts, which is just what the specialty queue is designed to deliver in a steady stream, whenever we aren't in need of an FTQ or PCQ to fire.

Sure, but if we have 3 Small games and 2 Large games running at any time, as well as keep the FTQ around for when there's demand, we will almost guarantee a high-complexity game consistently running.