MTG Salvation

Council
I think this might have gotten over looked since I edited in.

Game is now over. pinkfloyd just finished.

Quote from Void

Council
I think this might have gotten over looked since I edited in.

Game is now over. pinkfloyd just finished.

lol someone could have just PMed me if they thought it was abandoned.

Thanks for looking out for me void anyway!

Can I formally suggest a reviewer "mentoring" system, on the heels of OFWGKTA? I can't imagine any experienced reviewer letting that pass, but (likely the result of inexperience) Pinkys_Brain approving that setup was quite incorrect.

Something as simple as having one of X more seasoned people, whom could self-nominate or be nominated by the council/userbase, either oversee or come behind a newer reviewer and ensure nothing falls through the cracks on a given setup.

Seems low-risk, moderate-reward, and low-effort. Wins all around.

pb is a very experienced player/mod. I'm not sure what the hell happened with that. But it makes it harder to fill games, so I disagree. That said, most larger games also have multiple reviewers as it is.

I was considering a similar thing after OFWGKTA? and a handful of complaints I have received. In particular, I've seen a number of basics which don't fit my vision of a balanced game.

I think a formalisation of the review process might be in order. Perhaps a sub-group of reviewers, one of which has to check a completed setup before it goes live. We should also tidy up the "licensed reviewer" list, since many people on it are inactive. Personally, I'd be happy to help mentor anyone interested in reviewing games, and am happy to use any of the many Basics that I review for that purpose: all I need to volunteers.

I'm honestly sorry about all this, I didn't mean to create an un-fun game or anything like that. I'm happy that out of this there are discussions of a better system with reviewing.

Quote from Iso

pb is a very experienced player/mod. I'm not sure what the hell happened with that. But it makes it harder to fill games, so I disagree. That said, most larger games also have multiple reviewers as it is.

In defense of PB, she is indeed very experienced. Saying that, she did come from mafiascum, which has a very DIFFERENT culture than we do. For a setup like PF's, there would indeed be very little review of the setup In fact I think they don't require a setup review until you hit their Large theme, which is the same as a specialty here. Maybe she was just not familiar with what we consider balanced here vs what mafiascum considers balanced, as there are some difference, some of them pretty major.

Aren't minis even more important to balance since less players = players are worth more individually? Like, I know masons in a mini is basically like giving the game away to the town without some counterweight or drawback.

Yeah, I figured MafiaScum culture is different from ours, but still, giving 1 town no vote and another the ability to only hammer vote while giving a scum an invisible double vote is awful.

I would be okay with mentoring reviewers, as I'll be [officially] qualified to review Specialties once my Specialty and/or FTQ run. I had a good idea of what made a balanced setup before I became a reviewer, and AsianInvasion gave me the green light after I passed with flying colors, so.

Quote from Zionite

Aren't minis even more important to balance since less players = players are worth more individually? Like, I know masons in a mini is basically like giving the game away to the town without some counterweight or drawback.

I reviewed Smalltown Animaniacs for pinkys_brain (which was pretty well-balanced by the time we were done with it), and got the impression that the mafiascum culture puts more emphasis on preventing broken role interactions in their games than it does with overall game balance. In other words, I think our review process is much more thorough and leads to more conservative setups, overall.

I don't see a need to change the overall policy in response to a single incident. Most likely, the appropriate move is to remove Pinky from the reviewer list until we're satisfied she can vet MTGS games appropriately.

Quote from Iso

pb is a very experienced player/mod. I'm not sure what the hell happened with that. But it makes it harder to fill games, so I disagree. That said, most larger games also have multiple reviewers as it is.

I don't think having a second reviewer for all games will make it hard to fill games for a simple reason: most reviewers don't play anymore. It's sad but a lot of the veteran players don't play as often as before. The funniest part is that even with multiple reviewers a game can be broken (see Magical Girls that had like 3 reviewers and was broken). That is not a point against multiple by the way, because the more eyes we have the lower the chance of anything falling through the cracks.

Quote from Ecophagy

I think a formalization of the review process might be in order. Perhaps a sub-group of reviewers, one of which has to check a completed setup before it goes live. We should also tidy up the "licensed reviewer" list, since many people on it are inactive. Personally, I'd be happy to help mentor anyone interested in reviewing games, and am happy to use any of the many Basics that I review for that purpose: all I need to volunteers.

I do like the idea of a sub-group of experienced reviewers to give the final check of all games. Maybe "upgrade" the status of a few experienced mods/reviewers and require all games pass through them before going live.

Step 1: creator goes through normal procedures with a non-uber reviewer.
Step 2: after the reviewer gives the green light, the creator goes to an uber reviewer for him to give a final look. It's important the uber reviewers are only contacted to check mature games or we will create a bottleneck in this stage.
Step 3: profit.

Also I want to be trained to be a reviewer, after two years I think I reached a point where I can at least understand a bit of mafia game design so I'm ready to be trained.

Quote from pinkfloyd

I'm honestly sorry about all this, I didn't mean to create an un-fun game or anything like that. I'm happy that out of this there are discussions of a better system with reviewing.

We know man, no one has accused you of creating an un-fun game on purpose, your game was just coincidentally the final straw. Plus you are right, thanks to you we are improving the procedure so it's all good.

Quote from Tanarin

]In defense of PB, she is indeed very experienced. Saying that, she did come from mafiascum, which has a very DIFFERENT culture than we do. For a setup like PF's, there would indeed be very little review of the setup In fact I think they don't require a setup review until you hit their Large theme, which is the same as a specialty here. Maybe she was just not familiar with what we consider balanced here vs what mafiascum considers balanced, as there are some difference, some of them pretty major.

This got me interested, what if MS is right and we are wrong? Because they are much bigger than us and thus have a bigger experience I expect them to be more "evolved" in this regard.

I don't see a need to change the overall policy in response to a single incident. Most likely, the appropriate move is to remove Pinky from the reviewer list until we're satisfied she can vet MTGS games appropriately.

It's not a single incident, this has happened far too often in the last year. I can nominate dozen of games where things have gone south but I don't think it's appropriate.

I agree with Az. But I also think there should be an official article or something that explains how to create, balance, and review a game. We have like 50% of what we need already, but it is spread out and you sort of have to hodgepodge it together. I think creating this and having everyone who wants to create a game and review a game read it before hand could improve the overall quality of games run.

Edit @DRey: Bigger is not always correct. It took one man to create the assembly line, while all the big guys at the time where doing it where one guy built the product from start to finish.

Quote from Guardman

I agree with Az. But I also think there should be an official article or something that explains how to create, balance, and review a game. We have like 50% of what we need already, but it is spread out and you sort of have to hodgepodge it together. I think creating this and having everyone who wants to create a game and review a game read it before hand could improve the overall quality of games run.

This is a good idea, maybe some "required reading" for first-time mods would be good. Also I think Axelrod's "limited mafia pointing" should be updated and be part of this required reading.

EDIT@Gman I know, if you carefully read my sentence you will notice it's not a statement, but a question. Investigation is in order, just saying "bigger is not better therefore we are right and they wrong" without at least checking is naive.

Quote from DRey

EDIT@Gman I know, if you carefully read my sentence you will notice it's not a statement, but a question. Investigation is in order, just saying "bigger is not better therefore we are right and they wrong" without at least checking is naive.

I didn't mean it like that, but more of bigger sites are more entrenched in there ways and are less likely to change. Because of that they are many times farther down on the progress pole then smaller sites. What I meant to imply is that Sally is farther along in progress since we are looking at total game balance instead of worrying about just broken interactions, and that just looking at broken interactions would be a step back in design.

Quote from Guardman

I didn't mean it like that, but more of bigger sites are more entrenched in there ways and are less likely to change. Because of that they are many times farther down on the progress pole then smaller sites. What I meant to imply is that Sally is farther along in progress since we are looking at total game balance instead of worrying about just broken interactions, and that just looking at broken interactions would be a step back in design.

You realize you are taking as fact a speculation from a player that probably has never played on MS nor has never participated in any game creation there and has no idea of their culture?
The only players I know have knowledge of MS are PB, Tanarin and Zajnet. If they tell me MS only care about broken interaction and not balancing games maybe I can believe in this (no matter how unlikely because it's certainly unlikely). Because I've played there and from what I remember this statement is absurdity.

Quote from DRey

You realize you are taking as fact a speculation from a player that probably has never played on MS nor has never participated in any game creation there and has no idea of their culture?
The only players I know have knowledge of MS are PB, Tanarin and Zajnet. If they tell me MS only care about broken interaction and not balancing games maybe I can believe in this (no matter how unlikely because it's certainly unlikely). Because I've played there and from what I remember this statement is absurdity.

Yes, but it is the only form of knowledge I have on their process. To wit that is the only info I can judge your statement on. Given I thought you were implying what AI said that we should be more concerned with getting rid of broken interactions then overall balance, I felt that it was important to note that I feel that is going down the wrong path.

Quote from Ecophagy

I was considering a similar thing after OFWGKTA? and a handful of complaints I have received. In particular, I've seen a number of basics which don't fit my vision of a balanced game.

I think a formalisation of the review process might be in order. Perhaps a sub-group of reviewers, one of which has to check a completed setup before it goes live. We should also tidy up the "licensed reviewer" list, since many people on it are inactive. Personally, I'd be happy to help mentor anyone interested in reviewing games, and am happy to use any of the many Basics that I review for that purpose: all I need to volunteers.

I'd much rather that some of our Veteran Mods and Reviewers make a guide for checking a game over, than force more eyes into games that they will then be unable to play.

I have only reviewed Dagger's Mini, and have 3 approved setups (2 basic 1 normal, signups still open!!!) but there were 5 major things i checked before even sending it to review.

Day 1 massclaim - What happens? Do the scum get trapped?
If the scum have perfect knoweldge of the setup (Dodging unkillables, docs, roleblocks) what day is LYOL ?
If the town is perfect, what day do they win, and with how many alive townies?
In addition to the above, how many days can be gained or lost with perfect and terrible vig shots from outside the scum?
Is there anything that lies to a player or breaks conventional mafia setup?

If a Mini is in LYOL before Day 3, something is wrong. If a Normal is in LYOL before day 4, something is wrong.

Once a better guideline is in place for the acceptance of games, reviewers simply need to justify their review if it is widely accepted as unbalanced. It is very hard to have a game be unwinnable for ether side with the above. It can still be unbalanced, but it should at least give ether side the time it needs to figure it out. Using the points system in addition to the above might even be better.

---
In the cleaning of the list, i am always open to reviewing Basics and Mini's. I tend not to play a lot in Mini's, so i have no problem reviewing them and running them through the wringer.
---

Personally, voting mechanics always seem to leave a bad taste in people's mouth when its the removal of a vote. Atlseal's Normal was a good example of how to use the lack of a vote mechanic, except that it still made the game frustrating and unfun because the same player kept losing their vote. As Eco noted, the game was essentially 7/4. Yes, it could be up to the non-voting players to play better and crumb an insane PR to draw a nightkill, but that's unrealistic in 90 of 100 games.

Quote from Guardman

Yes, but it is the only form of knowledge I have on their process. To wit that is the only info I can judge your statement on. Given I thought you were implying what AI said that we should be more concerned with getting rid of broken interactions then overall balance, I felt that it was important to note that I feel that is going down the wrong path.

Of course not, when I suggested we analyzed MS procedures AI haven't even said his line. Certainly no sane person will agree we shuld be reducing the focus on balance, in fact this discussion is happening atm exactly because we want to increase balance.

@Arcadic I like to spread the word in this article that is seriously the best thing I've ever read about mafia game design. It has everything you mentioned and more. Please take a look as it's a very good read. Required reading really.

Quote from Azrael

I don't see a need to change the overall policy in response to a single incident. Most likely, the appropriate move is to remove Pinky from the reviewer list until we're satisfied she can vet MTGS games appropriately.

I believe Eco has pointed out that this is not necessarily a single incident, and it doesn't seem like that large of a change to be afraid of.

Quote from Ecophagy

I was considering a similar thing after OFWGKTA? and a handful of complaints I have received. In particular, I've seen a number of basics which don't fit my vision of a balanced game.

I think a formalisation of the review process might be in order. Perhaps a sub-group of reviewers, one of which has to check a completed setup before it goes live. We should also tidy up the "licensed reviewer" list, since many people on it are inactive. Personally, I'd be happy to help mentor anyone interested in reviewing games, and am happy to use any of the many Basics that I review for that purpose: all I need to volunteers.

I'm interested in learning to review and would love observe.

Quote from ganderin_dan

I believe Eco has pointed out that this is not necessarily a single incident, and it doesn't seem like that large of a change to be afraid of.

It isn't a single incident, but you brought the issue up before I had time to sit down and research the matter. <_<

I think this is a tricky issue because potential solutions cause new problems, and I'm a firm believer that more rules you pile on and the more you formalize things, the more people take things too seriously and the less fun things get.

That said,

Quote from Azrael

I don't see a need to change the overall policy in response to a single incident.

A big reason I quit playing is because I was tired of poor setups having a bigger impact than how people played on the game result.

Quote from DRey

This got me interested, what if MS is right and we are wrong? Because they are much bigger than us and thus have a bigger experience I expect them to be more "evolved" in this regard.

But MS's meta is dumb.

MS aside, probably the best and easiest way to prevent imbalanced setups is to have two reviewers.

The first reviewer should focus on getting it balanced. The second reviewer should look at the finalized setup to ensure that it truly is balanced, having no prior knowledge of the changes that were made.

I don't think rules need to be changed.

@Kraj: I think reviewing setups is something worth taking seriously and making rules for. Players do spend a significant amount of time with a game and that investment and commitment should be honored. We should be taking all the necessary steps to ensure players don't feel cheated or like they wasted time.

Easiest solution is to pass 2 reviewers for anything more complicated than a basic. I'd even go so far as to get 3 reviewers when introducing new mechanics.

EDIT: I'm not suggesting a mandate or law that requires this solution, but it should be part of the recommended hosting process. Hosts and game designers should be encouraged to seek multiple reviewers for setups. It can only help your game and it takes less time to fix your game beforehand than it does to let it run and fix issues. The designer has a responsibility to the several players to foresee Problems with their setup in various situations.

Quote from Ecophagy

It isn't a single incident, but you brought the issue up before I had time to sit down and research the matter. <_<

To be fair, I brought up the whole mentoring thing a while back, when I wanted to start reviewing setups but didn't really know a way to get experience beyond Basics.

That, and I'm psychic through the internet.

Council,

I have been Mafia Secretary for about half a year, now - has it really been that long?

When I became Secretary, I cleaned up the hosting list in hopes that it would prevent hang-ups in game hosting and encourage newer players to want to host. I also came to this position because I love this community and see it as a great service to all of us to keep this place running smoothly.

Recently, I have also come into quasi-modship of our wonderful group and used my powers to clean up the old sign-ups and irrelevant threads that choked up at least as many pages as the games, themselves, did. I also labeled all of the old games according to type.

However, to my dismay, despite my stricter upkeep of the hosting list, game hosts continue not to have their games ready when it is their time to host. In addition, we have seen a recent loss of interest in larger games - this is holding up the hosting queue, as I only permit one sign-up thread open at a time so we don't see game-hoppers. This gives every mod a fair chance to run their games.

Because of this, I am formally requesting a restructuring of the hosting list with parameters I will provide if interest is held in this proposal - I know several other players share my grievances and concerns with the way things have been.

Thanks for bringing this discussion into the mafia council thread, Iso. I'd love to hear your proposal; feel free to post it here so everyone can discuss it.

I am always happy to hear new ideas.

Man, I just spent 30 minutes typing up my proposal on my phone and it just ate the damn post.

I'll retype it when I'm home after work. Stay tuned!

Quite the development. Are you guys now receptive to the Gman's previous idea (was it 1 year ago?) of changing the queues to be based on size and not "difficulty"? Because if Iso's idea is similar to Wessel from the other thread you are just tweaking Gman's idea from back there, there's not even need to retype everything Iso, just copy and paste Gman's previous idea (that I quite agreed but you guys said "why changing what works awfully?").

Alrighty, here's my proposal.

We should restructure the hosting list so that it is based on size, not complexity.

The queue will look like such:

The Basic queue will remain largely unchanged for obvious reasons; we will run X Basics as per what the playerbase demands at the time.

The Mini, Normal, and Specialty queues will be abolished to make way for two separate queues:

The Small queue, which will contain games that consist of 5-14 players that we will run 2-3 of, depending on how the restructuring goes

and

The Large queue, which will contain games that consist of 15-18 players (because let's face it, we don't have the playerbase to run multiple games that contain so many players) that we will run 1 of.

The League queue is fine as-is.

The FTQ will remain largely unchanged, though if there is ever a shortage of FTQ submissions, this brings up my next point:

Setups should be completed BEFORE requesting being added to the hosting list.

The reason is rather simple - As anyone on the hosting list knows, I'm VERY lenient when it comes to having your game done on time. But it's getting taken advantage of in a very bad and unacceptable way, and given that this is all volunteer work and a huge service to the playerbase, it's also a slap in the face to your fellow players when you need to have your game ready and it's not.

Hosts should include, upon signing up:

Host name & any co-hosts
Flavor
Complexity
# of players
Any special mechanics worth mentioning

So, back to FTQ shortage: If we ever lack submissions, I can bring this up in the Council thread, and players can nominate setups (they will have a week to do so) that they wish to be run that are anywhere in any queue and be voted on for another week (similar to the way we have the League queue structured). This will give mods incentive to keep their setups relevant and appealing to the playerbase at large, as well as give the players a say in what kind of games see the light more. With mods requiring more mindfulness in their setups, as well as a limit on the number of players permitted per game, sign-ups will not take nearly as long (as I only permit one sign-up thread open at a time to prevent game-hoppers so that each mod has a fair chance) and players will not be so wary to join larger games. In addition, if we implement a strict deadline system for all games (see the League system for reference) aside from games that for some reason need more time based on mechanics, this will reduce burnout, prevent games from stagnating, and hopefully also lower the number of necessary replacements in games overall.

I am willing to dedicate a few of my days off of work to this restructuring to ensure that every player signed up to host a game will remain in their rightful spot chronologically based on when they asked to join the hosting list if this restructuring does take place.

We need to tighten this place up. The fact that Arcadic's game isn't full already is totally unacceptable in my eyes because A. that's not fair to Arcadic, and B. it's preventing further sign-ups from going up, which also isn't fair to other game hosts. We currently have:

1 Specialty
1 Mini

waiting to post sign-ups, and by the looks of things,

1 Mini
1 Basic

are in LyoL. So as far as queue quota goes, we are way behind.

So, in summary, here's what I propose:

Keep Basic queue
Keep FTQ with PCQ (basically) as back-up
Keep League queue
Remove Mini/Normal/Specialty
Add Small (5-14)/Large (15-18)
Limit game sizes
Require hosts to complete setups before signing up as well as including more information about their setup when they sign up
Impose and enforce strict deadlines in every game

I had all of this much more organized and eloquent before my phone went and ate my post.

But, that's the gist of my proposal.

So, MTGS Mafia community and Council, what say you?

Just to quickly raise some issues: if we merge the Normal and Specialty list together, that list becomes insanely long, and running only one game at a time will make progression through the list almost intolerable. That'll be mitigated by the reduced numbers on the list from people who don't have setups finished, but it'd still be overpopulated. The Specality list is already like molasses, and to effectively halve the number of games that run while doubling the list size sounds like a congestion nightmare.

Also, totally relegating games larger than 18 players to FTQ seems short sighted. The number of players who want to sign up to a game is almost entirely based on the reputation of the host and the intrigue the game generates. Arcadic's game is almost certainly not full because he has had no opportunity yet to establish himself as a high-quality mod: I don't think I've ever seen a Zindabad/Xyre/Azrael/etc. game take longer to fill than it's allotted time period. Thus, as long as hosts take expected numbers into account, there's no reason to restrict games to 18 players.

This ties into rejuvenating the reviewing procedure, and getting games optimally designed. The "average number of players in a large game" has certainly fallen in recent time below the old standard of 20-ish, which is something reviewers and game hosts should be taking into account.

Of course, that's becomes more difficult as the queues get longer and the rules about having setups completed get stricter.

I am also worried that games in the "Large" queue will spiral greatly in complexity. Having only one list disinctivises players from making "normal" complexity games, resulting in a glut of complication.

***

Basically, while I agree that something needs to be done with regards to large games not filling, I feel that they don't fill because of a lack of hype which usually stems from the mod. The way to fix this is (by using experienced reviewers) to ensure that a game is pitched at the correct level: if Normals (and, indeed, Specialties) were usually 16-18 players rather than the 20-24 that we see, they'd fill up faster, run quicker and be beset by fewer activity issues. The reason they run at the higher, older player counts is partially due to the length of the hosting list: a problem which exacerbates the slower it runs.

Therefore, instead of merging the Normal and Specialty list, slowing it down immensely, I suggest that game hosts simply revise their expectations downwards, and design 16-18 player games. They can ask reviewers or the council roughly what number of players they can pull in, and can adjust the game appropriately. No complex restructuring necessary, just some micromanagement for each host.

I agree that queue restructuring is probably needed at this point. -So, basically, Iso's proposal is to make minis slightly larger, while merging the normal and specialty lists? -That sounds good to me. I never even understood the point of the normal list, and honestly, a lot of the "normal" games I've seen have been specialty level anyway.

on this from me.

EDIT:

Quote from Ecophagy

Just to quickly raise some issues: if we merge the Normal and Specialty list together, that list becomes insanely long, and running only one game at a time will make progression through the list almost intolerable.

What if we allowed players currently signed up on those larger queues to jump over to the Small game list during this proposed restructuring? That's somewhat similar to your suggestion of having those hosts design smaller games to keep the lists moving anyway.

Quote from Ecophagy

Just to quickly raise some issues: if we merge the Normal and Specialty list together, that list becomes insanely long, and running only one game at a time will make progression through the list almost intolerable. That'll be mitigated by the reduced numbers on the list from people who don't have setups finished, but it'd still be overpopulated. The Specality list is already like molasses, and to effectively halve the number of games that run while doubling the list size sounds like a congestion nightmare.

You underestimate just how few people actually have a setup ready to run - that, and imposing a deadline system like suggested will ensure that these games take no longer than necessary.

Quote from Ecophagy »

Also, totally relegating games larger than 18 players to FTQ seems short sighted. The number of players who want to sign up to a game is almost entirely based on the reputation of the host and the intrigue the game generates. Arcadic's game is almost certainly not full because he has had no opportunity yet to establish himself as a high-quality mod: I don't think I've ever seen a Zindabad/Xyre/Azrael/etc. game take longer to fill than it's allotted time period. Thus, as long as hosts take expected numbers into account, there's no reason to restrict games to 18 players.

I disagree. Games with more than 18 players have difficulty filling, almost always require large numbers of replacements, and are VERY intimidating to newer players - plus they take much longer than necessary. Again, if we reduce number of allowed players in games (until we see a flux in playerbase activity, of course) then the queue will speed up greatly.

Quote from Ecophagy »

This ties into rejuvenating the reviewing procedure, and getting games optimally designed. The "average number of players in a large game" has certainly fallen in recent time below the old standard of 20-ish, which is something reviewers and game hosts should be taking into account.

This I agree with - perhaps we should implement some sort of reviewer training regime or something that we could get more players involved in etc. I feel like I come to the same 8 people for my setups every time I need something looked at.

Quote from Ecophagy »

Of course, that's becomes more difficult as the queues get longer and the rules about having setups completed get stricter.

Not hardly - it will encourage players to actually make their setups and get them reviewed on time.

Quote from Ecophagy »

I am also worried that games in the "Large" queue will spiral greatly in complexity. Having only one list disinctivises players from making "normal" complexity games, resulting in a glut of complication.

You don't think the Small queue will have the same occurrence?

-

Eco, I think you have fully underestimated just how few people are ready to host. 36% of the 60-odd games that are queued on the list are not ready to be run. When you have to constantly struggle just to find someone able to host their game, that's a LOT.

My main issue with that is the combination of Normal and Specialty. Already being the longest-running games, having them merged and only running one at a time, even with setups being unprepared (an issue I imagine will resolve quickly as a result of these changes, or will bump off people that never really intended to host anyways, resulting in a net gain of a few days), the list will still probably run at a glacial pace.

Changing the signup, review, and deadline policies seem fine (and overdue) to me. Hosts should really just be adjusting their setups accordingly with the playerbase until they have reached the status of an Azrael, Xyre, Zinda to fill a game on demand, or the playerbase changes their desires/size.

Again, with strict deadlines and the potential for the FTQ to yoink games from the queue into play, I don't see that problem arising. Especially if people started making smaller Normals and Specialties.

Quote from DRey

Quite the development. Are you guys now receptive to the Gman's previous idea (was it 1 year ago?) of changing the queues to be based on size and not "difficulty"? Because if Iso's idea is similar to Wessel from the other thread you are just tweaking Gman's idea from back there, there's not even need to retype everything Iso, just copy and paste Gman's previous idea (that I quite agreed but you guys said "why changing what works awfully?").

I don't have time to respond to everything discussed so far, but I wanted to point out how this logic is flawed.

When Guardman's recommendation was proposed, we didn't understand the full extent of the problem. Now that we have established a prolonged lowering of overall interest in large Mafia games, we can take drastic proposals to restructure the Mafia queues more seriously. Additionally, your views are more likely to be acknowledged and appreciated if you aren't so abrasive. Just FYI.

Also, not to rush the decision, but I have 3 days off after tomorrow, so it would be ideal to do it then so my upcoming weekend doesn't have to be spent on this project instead of celebrating my birthday.

Quote from AsianInvasion

I don't have time to respond to everything discussed so far, but I wanted to point out how this logic is flawed.

When Guardman's recommendation was proposed, we didn't understand the full extent of the problem. Now that we have established a prolonged lowering of overall interest in large Mafia games, we can take drastic proposals to restructure the Mafia queues more seriously. Additionally, your views are more likely to be acknowledged and appreciated if you aren't so abrasive. Just FYI.

I'm not trying to be abrasive, I'm just baffled from the change of reception of the very same message. Besides you are wrong, lots of people understood the problem back there, just because you didn't understand doesn't mean it didn't exist. The problem existed back there, the problem exists today and the problem will exist forever until addressed.
Anyway I don't care about credit, I just want things to improve, if you want to disregard my voice just because I'm "abrasive" and not because you really disagree with my message... well that's not very mature of you but it's your choice.

@everyone I agree with changing the queues exclusively on the size, I greatly disagree with forced deadlines on all games (I like the freedom each mod has to deal with this, Dagger particularly had a nifty idea in his last game, I want to try a new one on my game, one I think it will solve things once and for all).

@AI to you consider I'm disagreeing with changing the queues, hopefully this way you can still say you are opposed to me while doing the right thing (changing the queues).

Also I quote from the same topic from the past.

Quote from Iso

I see nothing wrong with the system the way that it is.

1) I like the idea of the setup needing to be done before you can sign up for a queue. Maybe we give everyone that doesn't currently fit that a month or so to get their games together or get removed

2) I think the size/popularity issue actually correlates to what Ecophagy was describing. Here's another possible proposal: The maximum number of players in your game is decided by how many games you have already run. For example:
1st Time Hosting: Max game size is 12 (Meaning first game hosted has to be a mini or basic)
2nd Hosting: Max game size is 16
3rd Hosting: Max game size is 18

Anyone wishing to increase game size beyond that limit needs to get special permission (maybe with the exception that the first one must be followed).

I like this idea atlseal, I also think no one should be allowed to host a non-basic game as their first game (in fact I believed it was already like that :p). Mods hosting minis as his first game is not good.

@DRey: Are you calling me scum for flip-flopping my vote based on new evidence? Also, if you'll notice, I did mention that deadline exceptions could be made if game mechanics required it.

@atlseal: I think I might approve of game size limit based on past games run - though does that include FTQ submissions or just the hosting queue?

Quote from Iso

@DRey: Are you calling me scum for flip-flopping my vote based on new evidence? Also, if you'll notice, I did mention that deadline exceptions could be made if game mechanics required it.

@atlseal: I think I might approve of game size limit based on past games run - though does that include FTQ submissions or just the hosting queue?

My idea was just for the hosting queues. The FQT/PCQ are theoretically judged on not only their style and game mechanics, but are also judged as what is appropriated to the forum at the time.

I can get behind that - what do you think about the deadline system?

If this is officially passed, I can start PMing hosts on Monday night/Tuesday.

Calm down Iso, let everyone else check in before doing anything.
The discussion about "mods can only be put in the queue after completing the setups" also has happened before and I think it's a very bad idea, the way things are now are quite fine. If you are being lenient and not putting people with incomplete setups down the queue, it's your fault and not of the process. Just follow the protocol = IF reached top5(or top10?) AND setup is incomplete THEN bump two places.

You can't say the system is flawed if you don't actually follow the system.

I do follow the system very meticulously. I use a strike system. I'm calm, just eager to help.

Quote from Guardman

Mini: Any game with 13 or less players.
Normal: Any game with 14 to 17 players.
Grande: Any game with 18 or more players.

I think I like Guardman's original suggestion best. Thanks for the link, DRey.

Maybe running 2-2-1? And then letting the people who are currently signed up for Normals and Specialties decide if they want to be on the Normal or Grande list?

atlseal's player-cap based on previous games run is also a good idea.

By the way, guys, we were finally able to do something I know you guys have wanted a long time:

From this day forwards, nested quotes are automatically on for Mafia.

Quote from KittyCupCake

Quote from Guardman

Mini: Any game with 13 or less players.
Normal: Any game with 14 to 17 players.
Grande: Any game with 18 or more players.

I think I like Guardman's original suggestion best. Thanks for the link, DRey.

Maybe running 2-2-1? And then letting the people who are currently signed up for Normals and Specialties decide if they want to be on the Normal or Grande list?

atlseal's player-cap based on previous games run is also a good idea.

Rejoice.