MTG Salvation

For me personally, I like normals as basically normal game mechanics, that may happen to have role/mechanics closer to a specialty. Like, Animal mafia could have probably been ran as a normal that happened to be on the more abnormal side of normals. For me, a specialty is a style that has a mechnic that changes one of the standard functions of a normal game of mafia (such as for Final Fantasy, the voting system was different). Minis tend to be the wildcards that can be more normal, or closer to a specialty with a lower player list.

Perhaps combining normals and minis into one could introduce a single que that can be run at either end of the spectrum, but if a player is looking to have a larger game size, it would instead be submitted as an FTQ?

So you're suggesting just a mish-mash queue?

Yeah, kind of. I would want maybe something inserted that stated a mini was going to be closer to the special side rather than the normal (For instance, Vanilla I strongly feel should have listed that there were two mafias, or Amyrlin Seat mentioned the mechanic in the intro), but it might solve some issues.

I don't think Vanillaville should have listed 2 factions. Granted, I don't think it should have passed review at all, but that's an entirely separate issue. I only listed it in my own game as a courtesy to the players, because I didn't want any sour grapes after the players approached the game with an incorrect assumption about the structure of the game in the event that one faction got demolished and the other steamrolled. I'm gonna cut off any further commentary about Mafia Classic until it's completed, though.

What I meant with vanilla was that two mafias are clearly an "above normal" game level, because you have to approach scum hunting completely different. I still think it could fit in a mini situation, but should have been mentioned, to have players understand what they are standing for.

Balance issues are another discussion. It was just an example fresh in my mind.

My overall thoughts:

1) I agree the League should be chopped. I don't believe we currently possess the playerbase to support it, and it places stress on players (to mostly play League games), mods (to be able to throw together League games), and most of all Judges (of which there have never been enough). The scoring rubric should be preserved (and even tinkered with), but the League retired until player growth allows it to return.

2) Normals should stay. They provide:

• Traditional games of Mafia for people who want to play without gimmicks or the Specialty "WARNING: may actually be revolting unbalanced" disclaimer
• A frame of reference for what a Mafia game should look like so Specialties/more complex games have at least one foot in sanity
• An obvious and sorely needed opportunity for both new players AND new mods to cut their teeth without their brains exploding.

I think it is naive to think a "large" queue will not experience complexity creep: the major reason behind the redefinition of Normals was the outrageous complexity creep they were experiencing. Xyre has it absolutely right that Normal games have acres of design space without needing to stray into additional mechanics and excessive complexity that is the realm of Specialties.

One possible change I could see would be to combine Basics into the Normal Queue: i.e. "Normal" games can be any size at all, and their defining feature is their traditional, elegant style, and not their size. This would allow smaller games to fire as desired, and ensure that new players can be assured of a place to play, while also avoiding the issue of complexity creep associated with splitting queues purely by size.

So then what if we combine Basics and Normals into a "Standard" queue in juxtaposition to "Specialty"? Mini can still be its own, or merged with "Specialty".

Quote from Iso »

So then what if we combine Basics and Normals into a "Standard" queue in juxtaposition to "Specialty"? Mini can still be its own, or merged with "Specialty".

And would there be any criteria for the Standard queue in this model, or would it be the catch-all queue?

I would keep Mini and Specialty separate because a "non-standard" queue would probably trend towards larger games, and Mini games don't have to (and usually shouldn't) be at Specality-like complexity.

@Az: The "Standard" queue would follow the same principles of Basics/Normals.

@Eco: Again, where are you getting this data from? We've run FAR more Minis than any other game type over the past 2-3 years, IIRC. I would say that is a testament to not only their popularity within the playerbase, but also the hosts. We've even run two or three Minis as FTQs since I started playing here.

I think making a Standard queue would fix my objections.

As Iso says, the "Standard" Queue would follow the same rules Normals have, with additional (or rather, pre-existing) constraints on a 12 person game to class it as a Basic.

Iso: Because if you have a "complex games" queue, people will want to stuff as much into it as they can, and will naturally make games larger than 12 players. Obviously we run lots of Minis because they are the fastest games to fill and complete, and can have more run at once, as well as being easier to create for hosts. Your FTQ comment supports my argument as it shows that if you give a host free reign, they will tend to create larger games, rather than smaller ones.

Not quite; seeing as FTQ submissions are generally expected to "wow", I think it speaks to the power of the Mini that we've even passed some into the FTQ sub.

How about just two queues. Standard and Non-standard. Both can be of any size while Standard is only what was previously known as Basics and Normals while Non-standard would be any level of complexity such as Minis and Specialties were.

How many of each would we run?

If there's no judges left to volunteer for the League job, scrap the project. Maybe we can revisit it in a decade or so when MTGS Mafia AI v2.0 PRESENTED BY CURSE reads games for us, does scoring, and provides feedback for players. Until then, it's clear it's too much responsibility to ask of someone supposedly here to have fun.

On Normal/Special queue structure: Eco does make a good point about games gradually being of larger design if minis aren't isolated. I think newer game designers in particular are guilty of player count creep, but you learn eventually that bigger doesn't mean better. If minis are so popular, the fear may be unwarranted that minis need protecting from overzealous game designers. Their popularity means they will get to host a mini sooner, which is a built-in incentive to make a mini over a larger specialty. We might want to try it out before assuming minis will just disappear if there's not a specific queue for them. If games available are simply too large to be filled up, they won't run. We're smart; we will know it's because we need another mini.

I don't know what the best solution is; but I do see a lot of players wanting more complexity in more variety. I also know we do need some Normal or Basic style games to make room for newcomers and skill-jockeys. Maybe Small and Large game queues will work better, in that the complexity is simply left up to the host and player demand. As long as we keep basic/normal gameplay available and accessible, I don't see a problem with Small and Large queue structures.

I don't think complicated games put people off. I mean, if a new person shows up here, they have gone out of their way to go to the forum games section of a Magic enthusiast site. They probably have some experience playing games.

I still don't feel comfortable putting a new player in a game as an unreliable cop and calling that a fair game, and that's entirely possible in high-complexity games.

Unreliable Cops are bastard roles that shouldn't exist unless it's pretty obvious that they could be unreliable.

There is just no need to include roles like that. They aren't fun for players, they're just for trolly Mods that want to see players fall on their faces. You can include challenging roles that don't actively penalize people for doing what they are supposed to do.

2-2 would be how I would split it Iso to start and see how things work. Adjust accordingly from there.

Quote from Iso »

How many of each would we run?

This is the key issue with a "Complex" queue. There is separate demand for Minis and Specialties, and we happily run multiple Minis at once but wouldn't run more than 1 Specialty game. I could easily see a situation where - when a Specialty is running - small games skip up the Complex queue. It would just function like the two separate queues, just smashed together making it (much!) longer, and with more admin around game size to keep track of.

Quote from Zionite »

I don't know what the best solution is; but I do see a lot of players wanting more complexity in more variety. I also know we do need some Normal or Basic style games to make room for newcomers and skill-jockeys. Maybe Small and Large game queues will work better, in that the complexity is simply left up to the host and player demand. As long as we keep basic/normal gameplay available and accessible, I don't see a problem with Small and Large queue structures.

I maintain that splitting queues into Small and Large games will almost certainly remove Basic/Normal games form circulation entirely.

Quote from Ged »

I don't think complicated games put people off. I mean, if a new person shows up here, they have gone out of their way to go to the forum games section of a Magic enthusiast site. They probably have some experience playing games.

I'm not so sure. I for one had no idea at all what Mafia was before I entered this subforum, and I would wager I am not alone in that regard. There's a world of difference between a complicated game (which Mafia is inherently) and a complex game (i.e. a Specialty). We all got started because we got curious and enjoyed the complicated challenge that Mafia represents, but expected new players to get started on games with radical additional mechanics (or even incredibly far out games like FF or Pokemon or Cyberspace) is just not realistic.

Quote from Cyan »

Unreliable Cops are bastard roles that shouldn't exist unless it's pretty obvious that they could be unreliable.

There is just no need to include roles like that. They aren't fun for players, they're just for trolly Mods that want to see players fall on their faces. You can include challenging roles that don't actively penalize people for doing what they are supposed to do.

It was more of an example than anything. The roles you find in specialties assume you already know and mastered their normal counterparts.

Quote from Ecophagy »

Quote from Iso »

[quote from="Ged »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/forum-games/mafia/446905-the-mafia-council-thread?comment=8653"]I don't think complicated games put people off. I mean, if a new person shows up here, they have gone out of their way to go to the forum games section of a Magic enthusiast site. They probably have some experience playing games.

I'm not so sure. I for one had no idea at all what Mafia was before I entered this subforum, and I would wager I am not alone in that regard. There's a world of difference between a complicated game (which Mafia is inherently) and a complex game (i.e. a Specialty). We all got started because we got curious and enjoyed the complicated challenge that Mafia represents, but expected new players to get started on games with radical additional mechanics (or even incredibly far out games like FF or Pokemon or Cyberspace) is just not realistic.

I think new mechanics are not a good starting place for mafia, and I agree that unreliable cops are just dumb as butts all over and should never be used. But complicated individual roles, I see no problem with handing out to new players. Like, I started with a newbie game, and if there's enough newbies to fill up a newbie game, that is obviously the correct place to start. But my 2nd and 3rd games were Star Trek and Three Kingdoms which featured all kinds of crazy crap, and I never felt out of sorts.

So a specialty that's fundamentally changing how the game works, okay - new players stay away. But a "specialty" that's still following the same rules as mafia and is just busting out complicated game pieces is something I have no problem putting an experienced game player in the midst of (assuming they don't either).

Yeah, I think we're underestimating new players' capacity and enjoyment of complexity.

I agree, and Normals ARE those games. Normals only prohibit really weird ***** and extra mechanics. We can discuss the specific constraints if anyone considers them too oppressive, but Normals still possess a huge design space and capacity for complexity.

Roles I expect are allowed in a Normal:

Vig
Double Voter
Innocent Child
Tracker
Watcher
Cop
Reporter
Bodyguard
Doc
Jailer
Bulletproof
Census Taker?
Masons
Duelist/Lightning Rod
Inventor?
Saint
Bomb
Vengeful
Serial Killer
Survivor
Hitman?
Roleblocker
Rolecop
Godfather
Redirector
Bus Driver
Ninja
Strongman
Toughguy
Vanillafier

-

That's only 30. Did I miss anything major? Based on what kind of setup you decide to go with, you're really shoehorned into certain choices. And given that you can only choose certain roles of these without making the game wildly imbalanced in the favor of one team or the other, your options are kinda limited.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur »

To expand further, I would classify the three essential complexity levels as such:
- Basic (or "Simple" or "Classic"): a game with a majority of vanilla roles, no game mechanics not included in the basic definition of Mafia, a single scum-team, and simple roles everyone should know (as is).
- Advanced: a game with no game mechanics not included in the basic definition of Mafia, but no restriction with regards to roles, number of vanillas or number of scum-teams.
- Specialty: a game in which everything is possible (especially if the reviewers were in a coma for the entire reviewing process).

Nailed it.

The conversation should be about whether there's a player base to support all 3 of these levels of complexity at varying sizes, and if not, how to compromise around that.

Hello. Outsider's voice here.

1. I've noticed that games tend to be slightly underpowered for scum.

While undergoing the review for the one game that I did have the pleasure of modding, one of the reviewers also mentioned this. Could it be that perhaps the community is a bit insular? What I mean is that could it be that the playerbase of MTGS doesn't have experience outside of a bubble.

2. I'm sorry to hear that so many people find normals boring. I find the list of roles available in in that style of game to be exhilarating. One-shots, even/odd nights, Jack of all trade, backups...Yeah. That people don't approach them creatively is something that is unfortunate.

3. It's too bad to see that your league is probably coming to an end. It is one of the most creative aspects of mafia and looks very interesting to me. Granted it looks like the playerbase
here, and everywhere, is dwindling. I don't know what can be done about that. It's something that appears to be taking place across all forums.

edit:
4. Is it normal for multiball games to be announced here? That seems very unusual.

1. I think certain scum roles (doublevoter, lynchproof, etc) that detrimentally affect the town's only consistent weapon - that being the lynch - have left a bad taste in our playerbase's mouth. Players feel scammed out of a win when something like that beyond their control - "how should we have known to lynch this guy first?" - causes them to lose.

2. The point of Normals is that they're supposed to be...normal. When we dumbed down Normals, it removed a lot of design space for role variety.

3. I had noticed that.

4. No, I simply announced it for the sake of flavor/understanding my setup from a design standpoint, and to avoid the aforementioned negative feelings in point #1 above. Generally, it's thrust on the players by surprise.

I think scum doublevoter(but no more than double) is okay, as long as the town has enough power to compensate. Scum lynchproof is never, ever, ever okay. The lynch is literally the town's #1 weapon. The scum should never be immune to that.

I am okay with a limited scum double voter. The problem with scum double voter is it messes with the numbers at end game and that's a nasty, nasty trick. Actually I'm more okay with the role just never being around, or if around a roll GIVEN to other players so there is skill involved.

If I am ever in a game with a lynchproof on scum's side I will say this now do not inform me of the game's setup after my death because I am going to rage. You have not seen me angry until you've seen me angry about horrific setup decisions.

Okay, I need to weigh in here, because a) I'm a League Judge and b) I probably have more experience with this kind of issue with anyone else on site.

I mean, the site I started playing on was MafiaScum, and I used to play in MafiaScum Normals and participated in some of the debates that led to the formation of the modern MafiaScum Normal rules (partially because of personal preference and partially because I played in MafiaScum Large Normal 92, which was the game that directly precipitated the creation of modern MafiaScum Normals).

In my experience, Mafia player preferences usually group into one of roughly 4 types:
1) Very basic games with minimal mechanics/flavor. In my experience, this tends to attract two types of players - new players who are still learning the game and intimdated by the complexity of larger game types and a small but vocal brand of very experienced player who prefers to remove most of the uncertainty about the setup (via low mechanics or open setups) in order to emphasize behavior (and sometimes setupbreaking). Interestingly, this includes quite a very of the very best players I've seen (notably Yosarian2 and petroleumjelly on 'Scum and Caphriel/Sotek/Acionyx on FantasyStrike).
2) High-power, moderate complexity games with a (often strong) flavor component but few/no special mechanics. Think Apocalypse, or The Hobbit, or Animal Mafia; Cyberpunk is on the extreme end of complexity for this type. I tend to like this type personally, and two of my favorite games of all time (OGML's Medieval Mafia and channeldelibird's Stargate SG-1 Mafia, both on MafiaScum) were this type.
3) Specialties, i.e, games with a strong central mechanic or mechanics with varying levels of complexity layered on top. Generally benefits from having at least some flavor/complexity on top, though I've seen a few games that focused narrowly on the central mechanic and were able to appeal to players who like simple games. MTGS does these right, IMO; MafiaScum traditionally throws these together with group 2 games in the Theme queues, which drains playerbase away from Normals.
4) Bastard games (Cult/Jester games go here, even without other bastard mod elements). This group overlaps with groups 2 and 3, but not group 1, since bastard mod elements are usually anathema to players who want to minimize setup uncertainty. I can personally attest that there's an audience here, since I built a modding career on MafiaScum by a game series with bastard elements.

I suspect our big issues are:
A) The move to Curse (and possibly other issues) has removed a sizable percentage of the supply of new players that tended to feed demand for Group 1 games (roughly, Basics), and while veterans who prefer simpler games is a vocal market it's also a niche one. MafiaScum probably has at least an order of magnitude more players than we do right now, and there's only enough interest in Large Normals to support one or two of those games at a time; there's a larger support base for MafiaScum Mini Normals, but I'm pretty sure that's mostly due to MafiaScum's mod queue system (MafiaScum requires new mods to run a Mini Normal or Open game as their first game, so you get players who want to mod jumping into Mini Normals to speed up the queue) and our attempt at a similar interest boost (the League) clearly isn't sufficient.
B) Recent League games haven't been complex enough to attract the interest of players who prefer Group 2 games. (I'm hoping SG-1 will scratch that itch for some people!)

How large is our playerbase in general right now, anyways? Let me run the same analysis I ran through a couple of years ago - who's played recently? I'm using Avant-Garde as the cutoff:
Cyan (semi-retired after SG-1)
Antny223
Jobie (time-strapped)
Wheat
Sir Chris
7hawk77
ZDS
Huntzilla
KamikazeArchon (still here?)
imab
Killjoy (still here?)
hansanator
Seppel
Rhand (time-strapped)
Plowshares (semi-retired)
Cantripmancer (still here?/time-strapped)
Sepiriel (still here?)
Vaimes
Cythare (time-strapped)
Generic (still here?)
Atogaholic
Bur (time-strapped)
Necarg (still here?)
Prophylaxis
Charm_Master (still here?)
Gentleman Johnny
Iso
DCIII (semi-retired)
AskthePizzaGuy (temporary visitor)
KoolKoal
RelmArrowny
Megiddo
Burning_earth2 (still here?)
Hunger (still here?)
vezokpiraka (still here?)
DanteRossetti (still here?)
Void (still here?/time-strapped)
Chemtrails (still here?)
HookerPunch
Mistersins (still here?)
Sepiriel (still here?)
Mojito_fun (temporary visitor)
Blindfaeth (still here?)
jskura (still here?)
CitricBase
tomsloger
Tordeck
Voxxicus
TappingStones
Wildfire393
Annorax (time-strapped to point of perma-flaking)
Nachomamma8
Stormblind (still here?)
aquaumisa (still here?)
kpaca (time-strapped to point of perma-flaking)
chilly_von_willy (still here?)
Id_Ego (still here?)
NotVoxxicus
Tammy
prowlingpengolin
MzztrTetris
Azrael (time-strapped)
Taredas
EtR

That's theoretically 60-odd players, which is actually a *boost* since the last time I ran this kind of analysis, but fully half of those are either definitely not still playing, possibly not still playing, or so time-strapped that they tend to get replaced out of games.

So I guess the real question is, how much of the recent playerbase decline is due to players losing time/interest in Mafia and how much is because we're not offering games people are interested in? I'd guess we can support somewhere between 50 and 120 active playerslots at a time, depending on how many players are just waiting for the right game and how many can be in multiple games at once. On the low end, that's roughly a Large and two Minis; on the high end, 3

We definitely can't support large League games right now; we *might* be able to support *smaller* League games (either Basic size or even smaller - MafiaScum has run 9-man newbies for ages to make it easier for new players to handle) for newbies and the players interested in the League (League points are the sort of thing that appeals to the players who like Group 1 games). Even if we do away with the League, I'd recommend that hosts wanting to run a Normal design these days make it a Mini-sized game unless you've got very popular flavor (see: Stargate!) or good reputation as a mod.

I'll be interested to see how many people show back up when a high-profile Specialty or Mini fires.

---

Quote from Zionite »

If there's no judges left to volunteer for the League job, scrap the project. Maybe we can revisit it in a decade or so when MTGS Mafia AI v2.0 PRESENTED BY CURSE reads games for us, does scoring, and provides feedback for players. Until then, it's clear it's too much responsibility to ask of someone supposedly here to have fun.

This is probably the bigger issue with the League right now - the only available judges seem to be Proph and myself, and Proph's been busy and I am, uh, known to disappear for a few months at a time without warning.

Well, that and the scoring rubric, which isn't working very well. I'd suggest swapping to a gymnastics/skating style X/10 rating, but AFAICT I'm the only Judge with time to score and I barely have enough time/energy to pump out scores with the current rubric (where I just have to check the OP and key vote counts) so...

---

Quote from Iso »

Roles I expect are allowed in a Normal:

Vig
Double Voter
Innocent Child
Tracker
Watcher
Cop
Reporter
Bodyguard
Doc
Jailer
Bulletproof
Census Taker?
Masons
Duelist/Lightning Rod
Inventor?
Saint
Bomb
Vengeful
Serial Killer
Survivor
Hitman?
Roleblocker
Rolecop
Godfather
Redirector
Bus Driver
Ninja
Strongman
Toughguy
Vanillafier

-

That's only 30. Did I miss anything major? Based on what kind of setup you decide to go with, you're really shoehorned into certain choices. And given that you can only choose certain roles of these without making the game wildly imbalanced in the favor of one team or the other, your options are kinda limited.

The MafiaScum Normal role list wouldn't be a bad place to start. That's 31 base roles plus nine modifiers. You could add a few more for MTGS - MafiaScum decided years ago to keep redirection out of Normals (I would know, I was on the losing end of that argument) and MTGS is somewhat more tolerant of non-SK neutrals (I think Survivors have basically gone the way of the dodo over there).

That's still not a *huge* variety of roles, but it's a start, and MTGS is also more tolerant of flavor in Normals than MafiaScum (which still doesn't allow flavor in Normal role PMs, IIRC). I *do* think, if we keep Normal games at all, that we need a way to get new roles onto the Normal list over time. MafiaScum's actually started doing that since I left (while I was still there they kept *narrowing* the normal role pool; I suspect that it's not a coincidence that this was while some of the highest-profile Group 1 players on 'Scum were still active and they left soon after I did). Part of the problem there is that I think we don't reuse good ideas enough; roles like Roleblocker/Jailkeeper/Gunsmith became standard roles because people reused them after they were initially designed.

Of course, part of the problem is that there's a finite amount of Mafia design space and most of it has been covered, so Mafia designs have diminishing returns. Fundamentally, Mafia abilities either remove players from the game (kills), give information about the gamestate (every investigative role), affect the rules (mostly roles that affect votes or how lynches resolve), or modify how other actions resolve (basically everything else; "preventing other actions from resolving" is an important subset of this, because that covers all roleblocks and most protective roles), and while I've thought about whether there's more types of roles at this point I'm pretty sure the answer is "no". There's some untapped design space left (mostly in investigations and modifying other roles), but I doubt we'll see a revolution as fundamental as Cop/Doctor/Roleblocker again.

---

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur »

In addition to Eco's post above, I'd say a key difference between Normals and Specialties is that Specialties are meant to always be a brand new experience (new game mechanics, never seen before roles), whereas Normals are something you get used to (and then either get bored of and move on to Specialties, or keep playing for the freedom that comes with not having to worry about anything weird being included in the set-up). Novelty VS Stability.

*Edit* Also, we should go back to having three complexity levels. Back when I was regularly active, before the League took off, Normals were essentially Specialties-Lite. Players who wanted to play in high-vanilla games (yes there are players who like those) had to play in Basics or join a Mini/Normal and hope for the best. When the League started, it took over the Normal queue, and as a result there is no large-size Specialty-Lite game anymore (that I can currently see). Minis still exist, but they can't replaced (or be replaced with) large games.

To expand further, I would classify the three essential complexity levels as such:
- Basic (or "Simple" or "Classic"): a game with a majority of vanilla roles, no game mechanics not included in the basic definition of Mafia, a single scum-team, and simple roles everyone should know (as is).
- Advanced: a game with no game mechanics not included in the basic definition of Mafia, but no restriction with regards to roles, number of vanillas or number of scum-teams.
- Specialty: a game in which everything is possible (especially if the reviewers were in a coma for the entire reviewing process).

I generally agree with this, but I think there might be merit in a specific tag for Specialties that revolve around a central mechanic and are relatively simple outside of that as opposed to the "let's mix absolutely everything together and see what happens!" school of design?

I'm also strongly in favor of increasing the Mini size by one or two - 13 players opens several basic setup splits that don't work at 12 (notably 9-3-1 and 9-2-2, though the latter has issues on MTGS given traditional resistance to multiball), 14 players opens a couple of corner cases (notably 10-4 and possibly 9-2-2-1 kill madness). Note that balancing standards will need to change - one of the big reasons I pushed for 13 players on MafiaScum is because MafiaScum has weaker average townplay and 9-3 was slightly scum-sided there, it's roughly balanced or even townsided here. (Actually, would 9-4 work on MTGS? Not sure, would be willing to try. It does on FantasyStrike, but they play open mechanics-heavy games that tend to be townfavored.) I weakly favor 13 over 14, I think, just because some players might find 14 players too hard to get into and/or too much of a time commitment.

(Amusingly, these are both familiar issues - I proposed a very similar game type breakdown on 'Scum back in the day, and I was an early proponent for the change to 13-player Minis there.)

I'll put my foot down and say that 9-4 does not give the town enough wiggle room. I might have more to say later.

Thank you taredas, it's extremely helpful to have your perspective as both a league judge, and as someone familiar with others' attempts to grapple with these same issues.

Do you think there would be some value to encouraging individual hosts to take over the workload of the league? If a host wants to choose to give his or her game the league label, and score it, he or she can do so, subject to the head judges' approval? Not that the rubric is perfect yet, but it sounds like the two primary problems we are facing are manpower, and frustration with the similarity of each game.

And if games being too similar to one another is what is killing our league queue games, and mafiascum has not had great success even with their massive playerbase in maintaining interest in those games, I think it may be better for us to avoid the use of rubrics and guidelines for our normals.

At the moment, I see the need for both some number of basic setups, medium complexity setups, and higher complexity setups. But we have not had success in maintaining queues that cater solely to lower complexity games. I do not think that should be something we should be pursuing, when not even mafiascum can keep more than a couple going at a time.

The best solution, I suspect, is to return to a time when you never knew precisely how complicated your normal was going to be - never knew exactly what you could expect - never could know exactly how much to trust your role analysis. That lack of knowledge and variety is an integral part of what makes mafia interesting.

At its heart, it's a mystery. And if you take away the mystery by enforcing rubrics across the board, you're losing not only variety, but chipping away at one of the cornerstones of the game's appeal.

I do agree its important to have games which are accessible to new players, but we should find other ways to manage that than rubrics or entire queues which we can scarcely sustain, and grow increasingly stagnant over time.

As to games with 14 players, I think that is a very nice, manageable size, but it does add significantly more time and commitment to a game, at a time when our playerbase has a large number of players experiencing difficulty managing to scrape up the time to play.

I would certainly encourage more hosts to fire 14 player games, but I am skittish about tampering with the successful template for a queue that has become one of our most popular options precisely because it IS small, brief in duration, and requires less effort to keep up with.

*thinks* If anything, I think perhaps we should think about offering more games on an even smaller scale, which may solve a few problems at once. Something in the two-scum range, 7-8 players, might be a good way to provide a setup that will naturally cater to behavior over night actions (fewer nights, fewer role actions), fill up rapidly, and be quite minimal in terms of time commitment and workload. It may also provide a nice gateway level of introduction to newer players.

I have a 7-man Mini in the queue presently.

Quote from Iso »

I have a 7-man Mini in the queue presently.

It's a really manageable size that should be compatible with even the busiest schedules. Resolves itself one way or another very quickly, and you get some end-game tension going on, right from the start.

I feel that to a certain extent the scope of Normals has been misinterpreted. While they do encompass large Basic games, and the associated limit that places on the complexity of roles (e.g. roles Iso listed in #TODO), they are not intended to be exclusively large Basic games. I suspect that Normals have moved in this direction as a result of the League: the simpler a game is, the more of a raw test of Mafia ability it is, and the easier it is to fit the scoring rubric. In addition, games designed for the League have generally been done so fairly quickly, and designers have been creating for the League rather than themselves, reducing the motivation to think creatively.

However, Normals are not bound to limited interaction and roles pulled off a list. There is absolutely huge scope for imagination, creativity, and originality without crossing into Specialty territory. For example, Apocalypse Mafia was intended as the first "new Normal", and featured swathes of original roles, interactions, and set pieces. What I don't think we should do is return to "old" Normals seeking their "Specialty light" status: the main reason Normals were redefined was to move them away from just being "Specialty light" games. These old Normals often had fundamentally game-altering mechanics, but lacked coherent values.

The changes made to Normals placed the following criteria:
1)No outside players (including replacements)
2)No mod roles
3)No players with impossible win conditions
4)No voting after death, and other post-death abilities discouraged
5)No weird neutrals
6)No additional mechanics
7)No Alignment changes
8)No multiple Mafias


Hopefully we can be satisfied with 1-4, since these restrictions have applied to Normals since time immemorial. Rule 5 prohibits funky neutrals, like Cults and Jesters. There's no problem with SKs, Hit-list SKs, Survivors, Arsonists, whatever.

I also think rule 6 prohibiting additional game mechanics is entirely reasonable, as it provides the clearest divide between Specialties and Normals.

I think the only actually possibly contentious rules are 7 & 8. 7 prevents traitors (as well as Neutrals that can pick a side). 8 Ensures that basic scumhunting techniques will be valid, as multiple Mafias makes things much more difficult. These rules essentially help Normal games to be new-player friendly, as well as emphasising a focus on reading behaviour without additional complications.

More importantly, although these two rules could be up for discussion around relaxing them, they clearly represent a relatively small amount of design space. Normals are not boring because you can't have two Mafia teams or traitors (or both!).

I believe that with the conclusion of the League, Normal creators will no longer feel compelled to produce large Basics, and can instead look at exploring the design space that certainly exists. Large Basics certainly still have a place (for example, Ged's Normal was incredibly well received way back when), but the League unintentionally created a saturation of such games, as well as pushing the same players to play them over other games. We do not need to separate the queues any further; if players want complex Normals, all it takes is for mods to put them together. The restrictions on Normals exist to keep them distinct from Sepcialties, and to ensure they are palatable to new players: not to stifle creativity and force games to act as large Basics. It's also worth noting that Normals have a recommended size of 14-18. They are the perfect place to run small games that are bigger than minis, all we need to hosts to step up and run them if the players want them.

So, you're recommending that we simply abolish the League and see if that fixes our problem?

Quote from Iso »

So, you're recommending that we simply abolish the League and see if that fixes our problem?

Correct.

How long should we wait to see if the problem is fixed? And if it is not fixed, what then?

Quote from Iso »

How long should we wait to see if the problem is fixed? And if it is not fixed, what then?

It would need a number of Normals to be played that were more complex than League games, then we can gauge the reaction and their popularity. With the Normal hosting list so short, this is a great opportunity for anyone who has a non-Specialty game lying around to get it played. If we can't find any kind of Normal that the playerbase likes, we'll have to look at cutting them. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

I was planning on only running Minis for a while, but I guess I can put GoldenEye back on the list once I'm done with Mafia Classic.

Uh oh, did my post not post last night? I'll see if I left it open in my browser when I get home. Stay tuned!

Okay, so, we need some finality, here. Even though Killjoy's missing, we need two games to have open sign-ups at present.

Obviously, I'm in favor of the size-based queue, and Zionite gives a "maybe so" to that. Eco just thinks we should drop the League. Az thinks we need a little more complexity creep in Normals, to drop the League, and to make some more accessible smaller-than-standard-Minis games.

Here's my proposition:

Restructure the queues as follows -

Small Games: 14 or fewer players. Any complexity. Hosts may sign up for one of these games and one Large game. 2-3 of these running at any time.
Large Games: 15 or more players (though with a recommended maximum of 18, for the sake of enabling your game the ability to fill up). Any complexity. Hosts may sign up for one of these games and one Small game. 1 of these running at any time.
Wildcard Games: Any number of players. Any complexity. Only one Wildcard game may run at a time, and when one ends, voting will commence for a week to decide the next game from the Wildcard queue that will be run. I recommend a 5-game rotational period where if a host wins a vote, they are not allowed to submit to the Wildcard queue until 5 Wildcard games have been completed following their own. This can functionally replace the FTQ/PCQ and players can be constantly aware of what's on tap for new and exciting design space so as to keep players invested in the game-choosing process, which I think will put a small spark back in the community.

I also believe that this will enable us to have two separate types of sign-ups open at a time, again. I don't think complexity or size creep will be a huge issue - we have enough seasoned players/hosts that prefer things simple enough to keep the games flowing.

Are there any objections to the above?

(tl;dr: No more League, implement sized-based queues & interactive PCQ/FTQ format queue to keep the players invested in the outcome of the community, to ensure a freshness of ideas into the queue, and to keep MTGS Mafia burning along.)

If, for some reason, our need for smaller and/or simpler games isn't being met, we can open some sort of rolling sign-up for smaller games (like 7 or fewer) for new hosts who want to get their feet wet on something less complicated and to increase participation in the community. We would, of course, make sure one person doesn't have to/get to do all of them unless no one else wanted to, but it's a thought.

So what you're saying is the council has no consensus so let's just go with what Iso wants?

Yes, I have objections, for the same reasons as before. A "Large Game" queue WILL fall victim to complexity creep (as evidenced by Normals before the change), effectively replacing Normals with Specialties. We already HAVE a wildcard queue called the FTQ, it just hasn't run recently because of a lack of submissions and player demand. Wildcard games will also almost always be large Specialties, and maybe occasionally Minis.

Your plan will essentially replace the current queue structure with larger Minis and two Sepcialty queues. I don't believe this is at all sustainable, and is an overly complicated attempt to solve the problem. The problem at hand is that Normals are unpopular and fill slowly. This is caused by them being perceived/designed as large Basics, which seems to be mostly a result of the League. By discontinuing the League and having this discussion around Normal design space, we should see Normals bounce back to more interesting games that still fill their niche of being less complex than Specialties. No new queues needed, no major revamp necessary.

Quote from Ecophagy »

Your plan will essentially replace the current queue structure with larger Minis and two Sepcialty queues. I don't believe this is at all sustainable, and is an overly complicated attempt to solve the problem. The problem at hand is that Normals are unpopular and fill slowly. This is caused by them being perceived/designed as large Basics, which seems to be mostly a result of the League. By discontinuing the League and having this discussion around Normal design space, we should see Normals bounce back to more interesting games that still fill their niche of being less complex than Specialties. No new queues needed, no major revamp necessary.

I agree with this, except I love the idea of raising the playercap on minis to 14.

Although for this to work, you should really make sure the upcoming normals are indeed a bit more complex than "large basics".

Quote from Ecophagy »

So what you're saying is the council has no consensus so let's just go with what Iso wants?

Yes, I have objections, for the same reasons as before. A "Large Game" queue WILL fall victim to complexity creep (as evidenced by Normals before the change), effectively replacing Normals with Specialties. We already HAVE a wildcard queue called the FTQ, it just hasn't run recently because of a lack of submissions and player demand. Wildcard games will also almost always be large Specialties, and maybe occasionally Minis.

Your plan will essentially replace the current queue structure with larger Minis and two Sepcialty queues. I don't believe this is at all sustainable, and is an overly complicated attempt to solve the problem. The problem at hand is that Normals are unpopular and fill slowly. This is caused by them being perceived/designed as large Basics, which seems to be mostly a result of the League. By discontinuing the League and having this discussion around Normal design space, we should see Normals bounce back to more interesting games that still fill their niche of being less complex than Specialties. No new queues needed, no major revamp necessary.

Let me preface this by saying that upon re-reading some of the post I have typed below that my tone could understandably be misconstrued as being assholish, but please bear in mind that that's not at all the way I'm trying to make this sound; anything I say below is meant with sincerity.

I'm not saying "the Council hasn't reached a consensus yet, so let's do what Iso says," I'm saying, "the Council hasn't reached a consensus yet, but here's my plan summarized and I would like everyone with their own ideas to step forward again and do the same so that we can come to some kind of agreement on what needs to be changed".

If the problem is that Normals are dying, and we're going back to the old "Normal+" trend by dropping the League, then what is different from before? You're trying to put a wine cork in a bucket-sized hole at the bottom of a sinking ship. If people want to run Normal-complexity games, they will. hansanator's Animal Mafia was Normal complexity, but everyone was a power role, so I told him to submit it to the Specialty queue. Predator Mafia was a game I had fun making into a Normal. Sure, maybe if we make something size-based, people won't make Normals AS OFTEN, but I strongly doubt they'll COMPLETELY die out. And I also strongly doubt that people are going to only make 14-man Small games. The fact that people in the past tried to make Normals more interesting before we dumbed them down is a pretty strong indicator that they're not sustainable in their own queue, and that most of what the playerbase wants is "Specialty-lite" or more. And if we have a Large queue, the people who like to make Normals (such as Ged) will still make Normals, and people will still play in them. But to have them take up an entire queue space on their own is just silly, at this point.

I realize that we have the FTQ/PCQ. I also recognize that when a community doesn't feel involved with the decision-making process of changes in said community, they're also less inclined to participate in things they feel won't matter in the long run. Just look at American voters, for example. I think that if we motivate players to regularly participate in something like a Wildcard queue, that more people will want to host games and pump out neat ideas, as a result.

I just think that a lot of what you're saying will happen is a result of the change to a size-based queue is a result of your disconnect from what the playerbase wants. I've cited multiple examples of why I believe your theories will not see fruition. Other than this burning desire to see Normals stay alive, why are you fighting so hard for this?

ZDS is my hero and is completely correct, although with one caveat: the League and Normals did originally exist separately, but there was not the demand to support both, since it involved running one more large game on top of all the others. That's partially why we made League games and Normals the same: we couldn't support both, so we fused them to avoid dropping either. I don't think that splitting the queues again and having a specialised League queue will succeed due to the size of the playerbase, as it didn't before when the playerbase was larger.

@Iso: I respect your point, but basically my position is that your solution is overly complex, and I fully believe that simply discontinuing the League and ensuring that reviewers and game designers are aware of what Normals can be will solve the problem. If that doesn't work, then we think about further steps like size-based queues, but that is a big step when a smaller one should suffice. You say things will not change, but new-brand Normals have never been run without also being League games. Let's give them a chance to flourish instead of dooming them alongside the League.

Also whether we increase the size of Minis or not, anyone who wants to run a 14-person Mini (or has a 12-man Mini they'd like to run sooner rather than later) should absolutely sign up to the Normal hosting list, which is currently pitifully short. The 14-18 recommended size isn't just there for show, and you'll get your game run incredibly fast.

Bout to sound like an ******** here. Oh well, I'm used to it.

I see one major problem at the heart of this debate. We have 6 members on the Mafia Council. In my time back I have only seen 4 of them even post in this sub, of which only 3 have been in recent games and that gets narrowed down to only 2 members that actually play consistently.

If you don't have your finger on the pulse of the sub, you can't actually weigh in on whats best for the sub in my opinion.