MTG Salvation

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

Quote from Iso

Also: Did we ever officially implement a player cap for games?

Isn't it set at 3, with exceptions allowed for replacing in?

We had a discussion about the number of players that a host could design a game for - not quite what you're thinking.

Quote from Iso

Also: Did we ever officially implement a player cap for games?

Not officially, but reviewers and prospective hosts are very strongly advised to keep their games as small as possible unless they have a good reason.

I am posting to just again, let you know I am still alive, just busy with a combination of student teaching/college bureaucratic garbage, and will start being more active come winter break.

To ZDS, are you calling for an entire ban, or just in the Clan Contest?

Quote from Iso

The hosting list thread has been cleaned up and everything is up-to-date. I'm ready to start PMing mods to make sure that their games are ready per new ordinance. Just to clarify: the queue restructuring was never to be implemented, correct? Just the need to have a complete setup?

This is like the second time you are asking this question, and for the second time, while some players agree with it the "complete setup requirement" was critized by a large numbers of players and it's certainly not unanimity, plus the council never gave us a decision. It would be awesome if they could discuss in private and come up with a decision about all suggestions (there were quite a lot of good suggestions btw).

About ZDS suggestion, I quite agree, hidden win/loss conditions are bad design imho, they don't let anyone happy about anything. It feels like a coin flip were all options are a loss. I would also like a ban of Cult in games, I do remember we had this exact same suggestion before (maybe two years ago?) but since them there were 3 or 4 games with cults and as far as I know ALL of them ended poorly.

Well, that's why I was asking, DRey. I don't remember any definitive conclusion, so I wanted to make sure.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

In the recently finished Clan Contest Mafia VI, the town won because one of the scum unknowingly had the ability to win with them, under specific conditions. However, the town's play was poor this game, and you can see from the post game discussion that they themselves feel the win was not (entirely) deserved..

On the basis that winning a game of Mafia should be a matter of skill, not one of pure luck, I would like to suggest a site-wide ban on hidden win conditions, as well as on hidden loss conditions (eg: the player doesn't know it, but s/he loses if s/he dies).

I wouldn't ban them, but I think they probably should be considered specialty-level mechanics. Certainly they need to be treated with great caution in design.

I say that hidden AWC's should be banned all around. CCMVI is not taking the ending very well. Iso would have cleaned house if wasn't for his hidden AWC.

Seconding what Void said.

I would like to re-touch on the idea of restructuring the queues now that we've got more players lurking abouts right now.

@AI: IIRC, you said 14 seemed like a fairly arbitrary cut-off number for smaller games, though Xyre did say that above that's around when you could start adding a 4th scum. Well, I also present to you the argument that my electric razor's instruction manual advises that, to sterilize it, I should run it under hot water for 14 seconds and maintain that as such, 14 is totally non-arbitrary.

Barring extreme setups, it's not really fair to have a win condition that isn't specifically enumerated to you.

Should we ban it? No, for the same reason we haven't banned mafia cultists like in Legend of Aang. Should we realize that the role isn't very fun and should be used with extreme levels of care or not at all? Of course.

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

Barring extreme setups, it's not really fair to have a win condition that isn't specifically enumerated to you.

Should we ban it? No, for the same reason we haven't banned mafia cultists like in Legend of Aang. Should we realize that the role isn't very fun and should be used with extreme levels of care or not at all? Of course.

When would you want to use a hidden a AWC? And what would you do if the game you hosted went sour because of the hidden AWC?

I'm not here to change your opinion. I'm just trying to figure out where your stance is coming from.

I think we should do to hidden AWCs what we did to Jesters. If there is one, there should be a disclaimer in the OP.

"One or more players in this game may have a hidden win condition"
Or something similar.

Quote from kill-joy

I think we should do to hidden AWCs what we did to Jesters. If there is one, there should be a disclaimer in the OP.

"One or more players in this game may have a hidden win condition"
Or something similar.

I just had an amazing game idea: Everyone is told they are town, but they all have a secret jester AWC.

-But seriously, I agree with this idea. Ban them for non-specialities, and even then, require a disclaimer when used.

Quote from KittyCupCake

I just had an amazing game idea: Everyone is told they are town, but they all have a secret jester Iso AWC.

fixed.
It would need to be like blind mans bluff though. Everyone knows your role but you. That sounds Isotastic to me.

I propose a new system.

We'll call it The Buddy System for lack of a better working title.

Newer players, instead of requesting a mentor, can request to shadow a more experienced player through a QT. This more experienced player will 'buddy' the newer player and explain their play to said shadow. This will not only help more experienced players be more concise in their play through having to explain their reads and actions thoroughly and properly, but it will also set an example for the newer player and give them insight on how to think when you play Mafia.

This can also be incentivized by adding a Most Improved Player award to the yearly awards.

Quote from Dork Knight

Even RagingLevine, who posted the complaint, doesn't feel that I broke the rule at this point. If you're saying that I did, then neither the wording nor the spirit of the rule is correct as written and it needs to be changed to prevent this from happening again.

However, I urge you to look at the situation again. There is no WIFOM caused by my comment.

Player A: I am 100% sure Player B is scum based on my years of experience.
Player B: Are you sure enough about that statement to publicly post that you were wrong if you should prove to be wrong?
Player A: ...

Where is the WIFOM? Especially considering I publicly stated that the "bet" would have been offered no matter what my alignment was. My alignment didn't trigger the bet, making an un-substantiated claim based on something I cannot defend against did.

I agree with the current iteration of the rule both the word and the spirit. So does RagingLevine I'll wager. I feel that you might be getting stuck on the word "bet." The issue at hand here is that what transpired between me and Void isn't and shouldn't be covered under that rule.

If the council wants to create a new rule and use that going forward, I'll be happy to follow that rule as I do all the others on site. But I would fight to make sure that rule applies to both sides of this case. If a player can use their raw experience to claim knowledge of another player's alignment, then the accused should have the right to force that player to back that claim up with something.

Please note, had Void said "I believe DK is scum because... point A, point B, etc." This would be a non-argument. I would have refuted those specific points against me and moved on.

In my opinion, the problem is in the highlighted red section. You've moved beyond the scope of the game itself. Furthermore, you say the "bet" would've been offered regardless of your alignment, but that's the very definition of WIFOM, itself.

As for forcing the player to back up their accusations with "something" - that's rather the point of making a case. If they can't provide anything better than "because I said so", that's for the players to decide with votes - not an OOG sig/post bet.

Now, do I think it's a horrible transgression? Absolutely not. Should we clear up the rule going forward? I think so.

@Iso- that is an excellent idea.

@DYH- Agreed.

Quote from Void

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

Barring extreme setups, it's not really fair to have a win condition that isn't specifically enumerated to you.

Should we ban it? No, for the same reason we haven't banned mafia cultists like in Legend of Aang. Should we realize that the role isn't very fun and should be used with extreme levels of care or not at all? Of course.

When would you want to use a hidden a AWC? And what would you do if the game you hosted went sour because of the hidden AWC?

I'm not here to change your opinion. I'm just trying to figure out where your stance is coming from.

AWC Mafia of course.

Quote from Iso

I propose a new system.

We'll call it The Buddy System for lack of a better working title.

Newer players, instead of requesting a mentor, can request to shadow a more experienced player through a QT. This more experienced player will 'buddy' the newer player and explain their play to said shadow. This will not only help more experienced players be more concise in their play through having to explain their reads and actions thoroughly and properly, but it will also set an example for the newer player and give them insight on how to think when you play Mafia.

This can also be incentivized by adding a Most Improved Player award to the yearly awards.

This is a good idea and you have my full support.

Quote from Iso

I propose a new system.

We'll call it The Buddy System for lack of a better working title.

Newer players, instead of requesting a mentor, can request to shadow a more experienced player through a QT. This more experienced player will 'buddy' the newer player and explain their play to said shadow. This will not only help more experienced players be more concise in their play through having to explain their reads and actions thoroughly and properly, but it will also set an example for the newer player and give them insight on how to think when you play Mafia.

This can also be incentivized by adding a Most Improved Player award to the yearly awards.

I can get behind this inverse-mentoring system. It would be especially nice to put it alongside the league games, as it might make handing out "gameplay" points a lot easier if people lay out their thought processes.

If we implement this, there should be criteria one has to meet to become a Buddy.

Let's hear suggestions for minimum requirements.

I recommend X amount of games for a person (open to suggestion for how many) to have completed before they can become a Buddy, and at least 2 references from other players who advocate their becoming a Buddy.

Is "The Buddy System" the name we want to use for it? I think "The Shadow System" sounds cooler.

I second "The Shadow System."

I would say a player must have 5 games in which they were on the winning side.

In those 5 games they must have been pivotal in getting one player lynched (either through PBPA, or some other form of attack).

In those 5 games they must have successfully defended against 1 attack from another player.

How many shadows can an experienced player cast at one time?

Would it be limited to 1 newby per mentor as it is atm or would you allow 1 experienced player to buddy a couple of different people in the same game?

I almost think it would make sense to have only 1 mentor with multiple shadows per game. That would allow a "spectator" forum to be set up for the shadows and the mentor could log in and explain what they're doing and their thoughts for the whole "class." This way the class can also learn from each other as well as the mentor as the game progresses, and if they want to, the shadows can switch to another mentor next game for a different view point.

I think that could work, but it makes sense to me that most would only have one Shadow. This would allow players to choose from a player whose style they wish more to emulate and some players also learn better in different ways. But whatever's most efficient!

You just want to make sure that shadows don't jump from one mentor to another and accidentally give out of game info to the players.

Quote from Raging Levine

[QUOTE=Raging Levine;/comments/10764867][QUOTE=MafiaScribe;/comments/10771613]
-Out-of-game Promises-

Players may not use out-of-game promises (example: I swear on my grandmother's life, I bet you my entire collection of magic cards, etc.) in an effort to influence other players.

Concur with DYH on this - even the mild and somewhat harmless form of this that DK used is probably not a good element to introduce, and it does fall under what we're trying to prevent.

1. It's a confusing and distracting element.
2. It can be unfair to the mafia - if a player puts serious real-life consequences on the table, or invokes something solemn, they're arguably guaranteeing their alignment within a certain degree of probability - or they're crossing lines that don't sit well with people.

Number two doesn't particularly apply here, but number 3 is the one that'd tend to concern me:

3. What if someone doesn't want to take the bet? What if someone doesn't want to have out-of-game consequences inflicted on them as a result of playing the game? It's a move that could feasibly wind up arm-twisting someone into a pretty precarious position, if they turn down the bet. Which means this could become a means for people to essentially force others to change their avatars, change their sigs, and so on, when they may not wish to do so - or else lead to grumbling about broken promises.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

On the basis that winning a game of Mafia should be a matter of skill, not one of pure luck, I would like to suggest a site-wide ban on hidden win conditions, as well as on hidden loss conditions (eg: the player doesn't know it, but s/he loses if s/he dies).

Hmm, they're a very dangerous mechanic, that reviewers and hosts should be very cautious towards. They do have a tendency to implode games. But eliminating them entirely closes off an awful lot of design space.

Quote from Iso

I propose a new system.

We'll call it The Buddy System for lack of a better working title.

That sounds fine. Maybe add a blurb about it in one of the sticky threads? I don't think we need to codify it too much and make it into a huge production, but just make sure people are aware that's an option.

---

Regarding the "have a completed setup" proposed rule - where do we each stand on that, council?

It seems like a pretty decent rule if we want to trim down the length of the hosting lists. If we REALLY want to make sure that games are ready to run, the draconian version of that, a "finished" version, would be more meaningful. I'm not sure as-is how much of a difference having a rough draft will make, as an awful lot of people may still decide they need more time to tinker before moving forward with their turn.

Having a finished version wouldn't prevent people from continuing to tinker, but it might be helpful to push it closer to the stage of completion that it ought to be at.

On the other hand, people may find it annoying. It *could* discourage an awful lot of people from submitting in the first place. That might be a good thing - or it might be bad thing.

I'm kind of on the fence about it, but I wouldn't be opposed to giving it a shot. If we can cull out some of the people who are lukewarm about the idea of designing a game, and simply wanted to *host* a game, just because, that may help unclog the queues.
---
2nd question. Do we have any volunteers who want to create the new screening test for our reviewers, based on roles from old setups/old setups? Something that hits all the high points -traitors, alignment switching generally, cults, third-party win conditions, etc.

Quote from Azrael

That sounds fine. Maybe add a blurb about it in one of the sticky threads? I don't think we need to codify it too much and make it into a huge production, but just make sure people are aware that's an option.

I'll find wherever we mention mentors and add it below that.

Quote from Azrael »

On the other hand, people may find it annoying. It *could* discourage an awful lot of people from submitting in the first place. That might be a good thing - or it might be bad thing.

Honestly, I think it would be a good thing because it gives our reviewers more chances to play due to fewer games overall, there will be less rush jobs with reviewing, and it will clean up a lot of unprepared hosts/compel them to actually get their setup going.

Quote from Azrael »

2nd question. Do we have any volunteers who want to create the new screening test for our reviewers, based on roles from old setups/old setups? Something that hits all the high points -traitors, alignment switching generally, cults, third-party win conditions, etc.

Since I'm qualified to review everything except Specialties, I would be willing to run through this with whoever takes up the task to see how effective it is if I get some free time - I wouldn't be able to create the screening test, myself, though.

My 2 cents:

Disclaimer: I would be one of those mods who would find it annoying. I much prefer to have the moving target in front of me, not build and wait.

I suspect that if we move to "must have completed setup in order to sign-up", you're going to deter a lot of people from even signing up. Furthermore, I think you'll see moderator domination by those who already have multiple setups ready to go / in the works.

The current system, while flawed, does allow for a plethora of hosts to get their opportunity at some point in the future. I fear the proposed system will lead to some heartburn over Mods X, Y, Z and running multiple games in a short period of time while others just throw in the towel without the list as a deadline to guide them.

Analogy time: It's like those special deals at theme parks that let early 'season pass' buyers go to the front of the line. Annoying for everyone but them.


Ultimately, This strikes me as a situation where the wheel isn't quite broken, but we're going to slap tank treads on the Hum-V anyway.

It's a privilege to host a game, not a right - how is it fair to the players who want to manage their time better if mods can't get their setups together in time, and how is it fair for the other hosts who might have planned their spot per them being V/LA or to that effect?

Mods who "manage their [free] time better" and have a completed setup will still go when their turn comes up on the list.

The end result for those mods is always going to be the same - they'll go when their name is called. I'm not sure how that's unfair to anyone.

As for V/LA cases - see AI's recent request to push his timeline back. Seems easy enough to accommodate.

Today's worst-case scenario is people on the list don't have a game ready when their name comes up. We bump them back down (or off after 2 misses, IIRC), and move to the next person. Minor inconvenience.

Worst-case scenario in the proposed environment is people don't ever get the opportunity to mod because they never sign up.


TL;DR: We disagree completely on the privilege/right stance. You play here and meet the requirements (2 completed games or whatever it is now), you've earned the right to host - at least to queue for it - IMO.

Quote from Iso

If we implement this, there should be criteria one has to meet to become a Buddy.

Let's hear suggestions for minimum requirements.

I recommend X amount of games for a person (open to suggestion for how many) to have completed before they can become a Buddy, and at least 2 references from other players who advocate their becoming a Buddy.

Is "The Buddy System" the name we want to use for it? I think "The Shadow System" sounds cooler.

Shadow System is by far a cooler name.

I think maybe 5 or 10 completed games, and then 2-3 references should be fine.

Quote from Iso

It's a privilege to host a game, not a right - how is it fair to the players who want to manage their time better if mods can't get their setups together in time, and how is it fair for the other hosts who might have planned their spot per them being V/LA or to that effect?

The scenario you are advocating will never happen if the actual rules are enforced, remember we have the rules to prevent this, mods that aren't ready will never reach top5 in the Speciality queue or top10 in the others queues if they aren't ready anyway.

Meh, at this point I'm just repeating myself, it's not like you are convincing me neither the reciprocal as we already have talked at lengths about this, we just need to council to reunite themselves and decide once and give us the final rulling.

Quote from DRey

Quote from Iso

It's a privilege to host a game, not a right - how is it fair to the players who want to manage their time better if mods can't get their setups together in time, and how is it fair for the other hosts who might have planned their spot per them being V/LA or to that effect?

The scenario you are advocating will never happen if the actual rules are enforced, remember we have the rules to prevent this, mods that aren't ready will never reach top5 in the Speciality queue or top10 in the others queues if they aren't ready anyway.

Meh, at this point I'm just repeating myself, it's not like you are convincing me neither the reciprocal as we already have talked at lengths about this, we just need to council to reunite themselves and decide once and give us the final rulling.

What if there aren't 5 completed setups ready to run? This seems to be a problem as of late.

I'm going to have to agree with Iso on requiring completed setups. We have a problem currently with the queues and this is the best proposed solution. If it doesn't work then we can revert back. No point in simply refusing to give it a try. I'd rather be proactive than stick to the status quo that obviously needs work.

Quote from Azrael

2nd question. Do we have any volunteers who want to create the new screening test for our reviewers, based on roles from old setups/old setups? Something that hits all the high points -traitors, alignment switching generally, cults, third-party win conditions, etc.

Might I suggest Xyre? When I think setup balance/theory, that's who comes to mind first.

Quote from Azrael

2nd question. Do we have any volunteers who want to create the new screening test for our reviewers, based on roles from old setups/old setups? Something that hits all the high points -traitors, alignment switching generally, cults, third-party win conditions, etc.

I could take a crack at it after the holiday. Maybe toss in a brief 'how to be a good reviewer' guide as well.

Sounds great. : )

My opinion on the hosting list is the same as it was (that we should move to requiring those signed up to host have a setup ready, not necessarily reviewed or what they end up running, just something). We haven't discussed the issue behind closed doors largely because there is no reason for us in the council to. Anywho, that's my two cents.

In regards to a shadow system, :thumbs up:

Quote from Iso

I propose a new system.

We'll call it The Buddy System for lack of a better working title.

Newer players, instead of requesting a mentor, can request to shadow a more experienced player through a QT. This more experienced player will 'buddy' the newer player and explain their play to said shadow. This will not only help more experienced players be more concise in their play through having to explain their reads and actions thoroughly and properly, but it will also set an example for the newer player and give them insight on how to think when you play Mafia.

This can also be incentivized by adding a Most Improved Player award to the yearly awards.

I brought this up a while ago and some newer players showed interest at that time.

I wanted to implement in my Basic Game, but decided against it.

I am for the Shadowing System.

Quote from atlseal

My opinion on the hosting list is the same as it was (that we should move to requiring those signed up to host have a setup ready, not necessarily reviewed or what they end up running, just something). We haven't discussed the issue behind closed doors largely because there is no reason for us in the council to. Anywho, that's my two cents.

In regards to a shadow system, :thumbs up:

Eco, Asian?

Quote from Iso

@AI: IIRC, you said 14 seemed like a fairly arbitrary cut-off number for smaller games, though Xyre did say that above that's around when you could start adding a 4th scum. Well, I also present to you the argument that my electric razor's instruction manual advises that, to sterilize it, I should run it under hot water for 14 seconds and maintain that as such, 14 is totally non-arbitrary.

I'm not sure how your electric razor analogy is relevant given the wildly different contexts, but Occam's Razor suggests that you didn't have a more convincing argument in mind.

I like that Minis have 12 players. I think we should continue doing that because it's worked for us so far.

Quote from Azrael

Quote from atlseal

My opinion on the hosting list is the same as it was (that we should move to requiring those signed up to host have a setup ready, not necessarily reviewed or what they end up running, just something). We haven't discussed the issue behind closed doors largely because there is no reason for us in the council to. Anywho, that's my two cents.

In regards to a shadow system, :thumbs up:

Eco, Asian?

I agree with DYH's stance because I support game hosts having the time to tweak their setups as much as they want prior to running their games. I'd rather have a large number of hosts sign up and a few drop out than a small number sign up because others found the hosting requirements too steep. If the problem is that the workload is too much for Iso, I'm sure we can appoint a second Mafia Secretary to help him keep the hosting list organized.

The shadow system sounds like a good idea, though I think that each shadow should only interact with one experienced player per game, to encourage ongoing discussion and facilitate the learning process without fear of information cross-contamination. Inevitably, this will result in an alteration of the experienced player's gameplay, but I don't expect to see a greater change compared to the effect of a greenhorn having a mentor in a Basic game.

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

What if there aren't 5 completed setups ready to run? This seems to be a problem as of late.

Really? If this is true, this is a new and completely different problem.

Quote from Zionite

I'm going to have to agree with Iso on requiring completed setups. We have a problem currently with the queues and this is the best proposed solution. If it doesn't work then we can revert back. No point in simply refusing to give it a try. I'd rather be proactive than stick to the status quo that obviously needs work.

I'm always for a change when the old ways aren't working, the thing is, the old ways were never even tried before... Also I don't think we really have a problem here as you think we have.

So it sounds as if both you and Atl want people to have a setup of some kind ready to go when they sign up, but it doesn't need to be reviewed or finished, per the current rule?

Quote from AsianInvasion

I'm not sure how your electric razor analogy is relevant given the wildly different contexts, but Occam's Razor suggests that you didn't have a more convincing argument in mind.

Oh, I just thought it was funny.

Quote from AsianInvasion »

If the problem is that the workload is too much for Iso, I'm sure we can appoint a second Mafia Secretary to help him keep the hosting list organized.

That's not the issue at all. The issue is that I have to run around PMing half the people on the list when in actuality I should only have to PM three at the most. It's patently ridiculous.

Quote from AsianInvasion »

The shadow system sounds like a good idea, though I think that each shadow should only interact with one experienced player per game, to encourage ongoing discussion and facilitate the learning process without fear of information cross-contamination. Inevitably, this will result in an alteration of the experienced player's gameplay, but I don't expect to see a greater change compared to the effect of a greenhorn having a mentor in a Basic game.

Quote from Azrael

So it sounds as if both you and Atl want people to have a setup of some kind ready to go when they sign up, but it doesn't need to be reviewed or finished, per the current rule?

I would be fine with this.

Then I'll make it three, for a majority.

Okay, thanks Az.

I'll start notifying players on the list once I get a free moment to send mass PMs out - right now, finishing up my round 1 League scoring is #1 on my plate but I can probably get around to making sure what needs to get done is done sometime this weekend.

I'll also be including a little Easter Egg in the hosting list once everything is settled down. I'll create a new Hosting thread once I PM everyone on the old one.

How long should I wait for hosts to respond before knocking them off of the list, if they don't reply?

Quote from Iso

Okay, thanks Az.

I'll start notifying players on the list once I get a free moment to send mass PMs out - right now, finishing up my round 1 League scoring is #1 on my plate but I can probably get around to making sure what needs to get done is done sometime this weekend.

I'll also be including a little Easter Egg in the hosting list once everything is settled down. I'll create a new Hosting thread once I PM everyone on the old one.

How long should I wait for hosts to respond before knocking them off of the list, if they don't reply?

Couple weeks?

Sounds good.

Me and Proph really enjoyed this shadow idea and we plan to use it in our game if it's possible. Do we need any special permission or can we just do it?

Quote from DRey

Me and Proph really enjoyed this shadow idea and we plan to use it in our game if it's possible. Do we need any special permission or can we just do it?

You're hosting a Basic, correct? Do you have players who have expressed interest in shadowing experienced players in your game? I was under the impression that the shadow system would be a better fit for games of higher complexity, as those games are a bigger draw for experienced players.