It's so more people can get into a game, as the other way to let everyone into a game would be to run more and more games, after a while they would take over the boards and 20 people would be in 300 games each plus some random noobs who get lynched day one because the old players are really eleitist
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please abide by all rules and regulations of MTGS its parent and its affiliates. Malicious activity will result in termination of your account. Do not smoke fake weed. Refrain from trolling the staff and/or its sponsored trolls. This may result in your suspension or account termination. Do not reveal the location of Senior Staff members. Do not purchase Big Gulps outside of Manhattan to bring them there. Do not purchase Kinder Surprise eggs. Offer expires after 40 days. Cursing Annorax optional.
Please use specific examples and points, thats how a debate works.
I do not know why it is you want the rule to change, except that you have decided to be greedy and want to take up a spot in every single mafia game on the site. (Yes, you may call this incorrect, but without any valid reasoning against the current system, your statements are similarly invalid)
Now, for the first worthwhile point in this discussion:
The rule was created to better allow equal opportunity for larger amounts of players to play in the set limit of mafia games on this site. We cannot support many mafia games at once, as we do not have the player base of scums, and this site is not for mafia, it runs mafia in addition to everything else, which is a bonus for you. So, sit back, remember a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (as it applies to already being in one game, and desiring a spot in another), and be glad you are already in one game, and should go make the best of it.
EDIT: my point essentially sarnath'd by musashi.
EDIT: Jesus could you stop spamming. That post was entirely unnecessary. (Below)
Please use specific examples and points, thats how a debate works.
I do not know why it is you want the rule to change, except that you have decided to be greedy and want to take up a spot in every single mafia game on the site. (Yes, you may call this incorrect, but without any valid reasoning against the current system, your statements are similarly invalid)
Now, for the first worthwhile point in this discussion:
The rule was created to better allow equal opportunity for larger amounts of players to play in the set limit of mafia games on this site. We cannot support many mafia games at once, as we do not have the player base of scums, and this site is not for mafia, it runs mafia in addition to everything else, which is a bonus for you. So, sit back, remember a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (as it applies to already being in one game, and desiring a spot in another), and be glad you are already in one game, and should go make the best of it.
EDIT: my point essentially sarnath'd by musashi.
Musashi's point is invalid. I still think a two game limit is valid. I just don't understand why it is limited to 1 normal and 1 specialty.
Please post in normal size, and please explain why it is invalid, not just saying it. In a debate, you have to tell your sources, or the world would be overrun by large flying hippos with machine guns. I read it on the internet.
Also, Musashi's point was right on the money, imho.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MAENTWROG (n. Welsh)
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake. SR
Please post in normal size, and please explain why it is invalid, not just saying it. In a debate, you have to tell your sources, or the world would be overrun by large flying hippos with machine guns. I read it on the internet.
Also, Musashi's point was right on the money, imho.
The number of games each person is allowed in would not change. Each person could not be in 20 games because there would still be a maximum of 2. I'm just suggesting the removal of the restriction stating it must be one special and one normal.
Musashi's point is invalid. I still think a two game limit is valid. I just don't understand why it is limited to 1 normal and 1 specialty.
The reason there is one special and one normal and not two normals is so people don't have to wait too long to get in a game. They can at least jump into a game because one starts right after the last one ended.
If you could jump into any game as long as you didn't have two games yet, then people who wanted to start couldn't because a group of people that think like you would be hogging all the spaces in the normal games.
Noob games aren't good for continued play, so don't play that card on me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please abide by all rules and regulations of MTGS its parent and its affiliates. Malicious activity will result in termination of your account. Do not smoke fake weed. Refrain from trolling the staff and/or its sponsored trolls. This may result in your suspension or account termination. Do not reveal the location of Senior Staff members. Do not purchase Big Gulps outside of Manhattan to bring them there. Do not purchase Kinder Surprise eggs. Offer expires after 40 days. Cursing Annorax optional.
I think changes to the rule have been discussed before. It might seem odd that the two game limit is restricted to 1 specialty and 1 normal, but if we made it open to any two games, then most players would be in both normals, which really would tend to push out newer players. At least, it would under the "specialty games are meant for more experienced players" philosophy.
Originally, the specialty game slot was created with the clause that mods could refuse a player if the mod felt the player wouldn't be able to handle it (whereas normal game mods aren't allowed to refuse players unless they're on the blacklist). Now, if specialty games were actually run under this philosophy, letting players play in 2 normals could really affect other players' opportunities to play.
Of course, there's still discussion open about whether we should even bother differentiating between normal and specialty, but that's a different issue altogether.
The primary reasoning behind allowing multiple games is because we really only have a maximum of 30-40 people who participate in mafias consistently. Running extra games, at least for a while, my let some people who are consistently aggravated by getting killed on the first night to get into another game.
Sure, this isn't mafiascum. But the advantage of a constant stream of games is to allow people to never feel like they're wasting time. A plus to that is that we would be able to burn down the waiting list somewhat (especially because perhaps half of those people don't frequent the site anymore. A major problem with mafias is inconsistent hosts).
If we allowed a greater number of games, then the list would decrease (especially because it's at, what, thirty people waiting?), and that would increase interest in hosting. A major deterrent in hosting seems to be the massive waiting period, and when a hole opens only once a month, I may have to wait a year to even host my first mafia, even if I may have my third done by the beginning of 2006. I'm impatient to begin, sure, but the random people who float into Mafias (like people who can't remember that the big button on the CPU turns the computer on) take spaces away from people who wait for a month and find that the space was taken by another person who gets lynched simply for not showing up.
People, Mafias are commitments. When anybody who walks in is offered a seat, with no experience requirement and no commitment enforcement, it leaves people like myself, who want to participate in as many mafias as possible out in the cold. Sure, I'm not the greatest player (as Fayul would attest to in a heartbeat), but I'm getting better at that. When we simply let anybody into a limited game space, the people who wait for this lose the opportunity.
That's why we need to better enforce non-posting and consistent lurking. Sure, the game mods are supposed to watch that, but when you get to fifty pages in the game (like Random 2) and some people haven't posted twenty times, that's a space that should have been freed earlier to someone with more commitment. Sure, it eventually takes the mod to enforce the rules, but if we get that little consistency, we need to make that punishable with more than a minor reprimand. If we get people like, say, Leilani, who need to be lynched just to get them out of the way, then the game isn't working.
So here's the proposition: enforce the lag/lurk rules more, and add greater punishment. People who can't participate consistently shouldn't participate. And we should either a) add more games to cut back on the list and increase availability-with or without the game restriction, although this may require softening it to two games, regardless of type-or b) push mods to get rid of people who just won't show up. Either way, people who are committed to this site-like my friend Rhinocero-can participate as much as they like.
I think changes to the rule have been discussed before. It might seem odd that the two game limit is restricted to 1 specialty and 1 normal, but if we made it open to any two games, then most players would be in both normals, which really would tend to push out newer players. At least, it would under the "specialty games are meant for more experienced players" philosophy.
Originally, the specialty game slot was created with the clause that mods could refuse a player if the mod felt the player wouldn't be able to handle it (whereas normal game mods aren't allowed to refuse players unless they're on the blacklist). Now, if specialty games were actually run under this philosophy, letting players play in 2 normals could really affect other players' opportunities to play.
Of course, there's still discussion open about whether we should even bother differentiating between normal and specialty, but that's a different issue altogether.
So it comes down to the need to leave spots open for new players? I guess I'll give up, as I don’t feel like continuing this argument. I will finish by saying my first game was in a specialty, and I feel I did fine.
@Xyre
Lag and lurk rules are enforced by the game mods in their own games, at their own whims, which are not enforced by the council. The only thing I can do is black/temp list people that the host reccommends for punishment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MAENTWROG (n. Welsh)
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake. SR
@Xyre
Lag and lurk rules are enforced by the game mods in their own games, at their own whims, which are not enforced by the council. The only thing I can do is black/temp list people that the host reccommends for punishment.
I agree that anti-lurking rules would be easier to enforce if it was objectified, but it would also lead to good (used in the moral sense of the word) players who lose internet or just end up not posting for a while would be punished even though they are teying. It's better left up to the mods.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please abide by all rules and regulations of MTGS its parent and its affiliates. Malicious activity will result in termination of your account. Do not smoke fake weed. Refrain from trolling the staff and/or its sponsored trolls. This may result in your suspension or account termination. Do not reveal the location of Senior Staff members. Do not purchase Big Gulps outside of Manhattan to bring them there. Do not purchase Kinder Surprise eggs. Offer expires after 40 days. Cursing Annorax optional.
Perhaps, but I'd see more lenience for an experienced player (like you, Sash) than a first-timer (like Leilani). At least encourage mods to do more.
But then you end up with a complex system of un-needed rules that turn new players away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please abide by all rules and regulations of MTGS its parent and its affiliates. Malicious activity will result in termination of your account. Do not smoke fake weed. Refrain from trolling the staff and/or its sponsored trolls. This may result in your suspension or account termination. Do not reveal the location of Senior Staff members. Do not purchase Big Gulps outside of Manhattan to bring them there. Do not purchase Kinder Surprise eggs. Offer expires after 40 days. Cursing Annorax optional.
So it comes down to the need to leave spots open for new players? I guess I'll give up, as I don’t feel like continuing this argument. I will finish by saying my first game was in a specialty, and I feel I did fine.
Don't get me wrong, chamber. It's not just for new players; it's simply for all players to have a reasonable chance at playing in a normal game (some don't want to deal with a "specialty" game). And the argument that you were fine is also invalid, since you're not representative of most new players - how many others do you think thoroughly read as many games as you did before you started playing?
I'm not here to defeat your argument; I just wanted to tell you what the original reasoning was. One could argue that the introduction of the Newbie games eliminates the need for such a rule, but again, that requires some restructuring to be done in terms of how the games are run.
There are lots of changes I'd like to see, but I haven't personally had the time to sort things out. I've also been considering requesting a subforum for Mafia, but I'm still not sure if that's the best move right now. I do think that we've grown enough that we could expand a bit, but it might require putting some size limits on games.
About enforcing against lurking: It's the game mod's responsibility to notify us about lurkers so that action can be taken. We (or at least I) don't have the time to keep track of who's playing in every game and who's not posting enough. A good mod should take on that responsibility.
Of course, player history should be taken into account. If a normally active player is unable to participate once for some outside reason, it doesn't warrant probation. Once such behavior is continual, that player should certainly be placed on probation (or on ban if necessary).
Of course, player history should be taken into account. If a normally active player is unable to participate once for some outside reason, it doesn't warrant probation. Once such behavior is continual, that player should certainly be placed on probation (or on ban if necessary).
That's why I support a common sense approach instead an objectification of the rules
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please abide by all rules and regulations of MTGS its parent and its affiliates. Malicious activity will result in termination of your account. Do not smoke fake weed. Refrain from trolling the staff and/or its sponsored trolls. This may result in your suspension or account termination. Do not reveal the location of Senior Staff members. Do not purchase Big Gulps outside of Manhattan to bring them there. Do not purchase Kinder Surprise eggs. Offer expires after 40 days. Cursing Annorax optional.
I'm very interested in reassessing the current game structure here, which is at the moment: 2 Normal Games, 1 Specialty, and 1 Newbie. I would like to put forth the following topics for discussion:
1) Is there truly a need for distinguishing between specialty and normal games?
On one hand, it allows for the more complex games to be run in a separate queue. On the other hand, the more complex games aren't necessarily the more interesting ones, and running all the games in the same queue means that those signing up to host normal games don't have to wait as long.
2) Should we create a separate slot for 1 Mini (12 players or less)?
This would provide an alternative for both players and mods, and theoretically shouldn't strain the player pool much. Also, it could be set for something even lower, like 10 or 7 players.
Re Q1) Agree there isn't much need to distinguish. Still, if you're going to reform this the queue maybe wants reviewing anyway. Mafia signups get filled incredibly fast and the queue moves incredibly slow. Doesn't that seem like a case for changing the mechanism by which games start ? The "cannot play in more than 2 games" restriction seems like the almost only thing we need to regulate play. Why do we also need to limit the number of games running at once ? We'd still want the council OKing game starts, but that's not the same thing.
Re Q2) Why a separate slot ? Why can't mods just size their games however they like, including mini-games ? Is it that you perceive this is the only way to persuade people to run smaller games ?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
--
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I'm very interested in reassessing the current game structure here, which is at the moment: 2 Normal Games, 1 Specialty, and 1 Newbie. I would like to put forth the following topics for discussion:
1) Is there truly a need for distinguishing between specialty and normal games?
On one hand, it allows for the more complex games to be run in a separate queue. On the other hand, the more complex games aren't necessarily the more interesting ones, and running all the games in the same queue means that those signing up to host normal games don't have to wait as long.
2) Should we create a separate slot for 1 Mini (12 players or less)?
This would provide an alternative for both players and mods, and theoretically shouldn't strain the player pool much. Also, it could be set for something even lower, like 10 or 7 players.
I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on these.
I thoroughly approve of both these measures.
EDIT: As long as Sin City Mafia still gets to go next.
I like the idea of running a mini-game queue, as well. It will allow for some people who can't commit to full-length games to play, and not worry about becoming lurkers in big ones. I enjoy and prefer the bigger games, and don't have any commitment issues since I can post readily throughout the week from work. I understand that's not the case for everyone, though, and I think this is a nice alternative.
Keeping normal and specialty queues separate seems moot if we have a mini game running all the time. Plenty of opportunity to get in on a game, I'd think.
I thought the point of havinvg a seperate queue for specialties was so that everyone would have an opportunity to play in them, because they do tend to be more interesting. If that was made the defining characteristic of what makes a game a specialty, it seems like the queues should still be kept seperate. Otherwise, I don't really care.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Carrion Pigeons does make a good point. It'd be great if we could tweak the system so that the more innovative/creative games were rewarded by having a separate and shorter queue.
So what we would need to accomplish that is make sure the difference between specialty and regular games is more clearly defined.
The problem we ran into last time is that we tried to set up specific criteria for what is or isn't a specialty game. However, it's very difficult to set concrete guidelines for a creative work like that.
Instead, why don't we make it a relative, more flexible scale?
1. The specialty queue can be limited to 5-7 games at a time. (number subject to change, or debate)
2. Whenever a host submits a setup to Vecna, they can nominate it to be added to the specialty queue.
3. Whenever a design up for consideration on the specialty list is received, it automatically gains a place holder slot on the regular list, in case it is not selected.
4. When a vacancy on the specialty queue opens up, Vecna can examine those games up for consideration on the specialty queue, compare them to each other, and select the game that is the strongest creatively and also the best-balanced, and add it to the specialty queue.
5. If the regular queue ends up being shorter than the specialty queue, the host can stay on the regular queue instead. Or, they can withdraw their design from consideration on the specialty list at any time.
6. Once a game is added to the specialty list, it cannot be removed, even if something more creative comes along.
7. If a host has a game on the regular list, that they feel could qualify as a specialty game, they can PM Vecna to change its status, so that it can be considered the next time a slot opens up.
8. Pending this system's approval, future regular game hosts who have already signed up would also be free to peittion to change their game's status.
How's that sound?
Also, I'm repeating myself here, but a separate mini games queue would be a great addition. They increase participation, they allow games and players to cycle more quickly, and they're easier to mod and play in.
Re Q2) Why a separate slot ? Why can't mods just size their games however they like, including mini-games ? Is it that you perceive this is the only way to persuade people to run smaller games ?
There has long been talk about expanding the number of games being run here, but there is a big question of whether we have the playerbase to support adding a 4th large game without sacrificing the quality of games. In my opinion, we haven't yet reached the point where we can comfortably expand to 4 games, given the fact that we often have problems with lurkers/replacements, and we shouldn't need to be having the same 20 players playing in every game just to keep participation up.
Opening a Mini as a 4th slot means that there are more games, theoretically without straining the playerbase. We typically have several active players waiting between games when they're dead, but it's not enough to be running a large game. This gives them more opportunities to play. It also helps reduce the current queue, as some mods only run small games, and it also guarantees some players the chance to play who can't invest the time for a large game.
It looks like there's a fairly large consensus for a Mini slot, but I'd like to allow more time for discussion before hammering out details.
Re: Specialty games
Based on past experience, the more interesting games aren't necessarily the ones with unusual game mechanics. Rather, they're the ones with thoughtful design, strong flavor, and good modding, with game mechanics and player quality as additional factors.
The question is, if we still want a separate slot to "reward" certain types of games, what types of games are we looking to reward? Are we looking to reward experimental designs? Or maybe mods who put in a lot of effort? Or perhaps to give advanced players unique game experiences? We have to answer this question before we can decide on whether there should be a specialty slot at all, and then to decide what criteria we should use.
A possibility is to simply judge games based on popularity. Potential mods would give a brief description of the game, and whenever one receives enough "votes," it becomes the next in the specialty queue. Of course, this may run into problems with favoritism or the same mod getting "elected" too many times.
Azrael has also suggested a system to deal with the specialty queue; discussion would be appreciated.
Re: Cleaning up the queue
Although I hesitate to introduce a new issue when we already have several up for discussion, I felt I should bring it up since the issue of cleaning up the queue was mentioned.
Personally, I don't think people should be signing up to mod unless they're serious about it. As a method of encouraging this (with an added benefit for all players), I believe that anyone signing up to mod should also be required to submit the expected name/theme for their game, along with the expected number of players. Those in the queue would be allowed to change their idea up to a certain point. For example, once a mod is in the first 5 positions of the queue, the theme/size can no longer be changed without leaving the queue.
I'm hoping this will help clean up the queue and move it along more smoothly, while also preventing people from just signing up because they can. It hasn't been fully thought out, though (I just had the idea), and I'd definitely love to hear other suggestions.
It seems like some of the people on the host list are no longer consistent viewers. Perhaps a pm should be sent to each person on the list to see if they are still able to host.
As for the point of "specialty" slots, occasionally you get a role which would not work if you didn't have an advanced player running it. I think I have two of those in my work-in-progress game, and both would be ruined if they weren't run by a strong player.
Carrion Pigeons does make a good point. It'd be great if we could tweak the system so that the more innovative/creative games were rewarded by having a separate and shorter queue.
Yeah, the innovative and creative games, imho, are more complex (because there is a limit to new ideas when you only use the basic roles over and over in different combinations.) This complexity is what makes it a specialty.
(Please disregard all the above if this is not a perfect world. That is where my (the current) system would work ;-))
I like Azrael's idea about having a limited space list, but it seems complicated and appears to have unnecessary steps involved (I will look over it again later.) Also, if everyone decides to nominate their game, I will never be able to play on here again (I know some of you would love that :)) Part of the specialty list (as I envision it) is to reward the experienced hosts, who know how to make, balance, and host games. It gives them more freedom as to who they may accept into their game, and allows the level of inventiveness (in the game mechanics and whatnot) to increase. (Also, if you consider that 90% of the specialty games are experienced hosts, it means that we are nearly guarenteed to have one game with high quality running... If you equate experience with increased quality anyway.)
I am anti-mini on the basis that if a host wants to run a smaller game, they have every right to (well, above seven-ish people anyway...) but the slots for the minis would, more often than not, be taken by people who always play on here, and it would just increase their play amount. (See comments about going to mafiascum below) Additionally, I do not feel that we should reward hosts who voluntarily cut the general game size, just so they could host sooner.
I am also anti-more games at a time. Yes, we play mafia. No, we are not a mafia site. If you want more mafia, scums is the place to go. We simply do not have a consistent playerbase that would warrant an increase of simultaneous games.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MAENTWROG (n. Welsh)
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake. SR
Additionally, I think that there should be some kind of requirement for demonstrating activity while in the queue. The are a lot of people in the queue who haven't even posted in this forum for months, and there's no guarantee that they even remember what they're planning on doing, or in some cases, whether they even still visit the site. See Billking for a prime example of this.
I think that once a player gets to be fifth down on the list, he should be prodded to send Vecna an overview of the game setup. If s/he doesn't by the time they're name come up to third place (which would typically be a window of 2-4 months more), then they'd be dropped from the list. That way, people can reliably see both who's modding next without having to worry about inactivity issues, and they'll be able to know what themes are coming up, so they can plan what games they want to join.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
To reinforce the current rules and make all of you understand this:
Quote from the other thread »
It is a hosts responsibility to know that their name is within the next three hosts, and every host should be prepared to host at least one game before they are allowed to do so. A host will recieve a PM from me as soon as the preceeding game ends, and will have a few days to put up signups, or be pushed back 5 places on the list. Being pushed back twice means a drop from the list.
I think I will go amend the end to have an additional "If a host would be pushed back, first or second time, and has not played in a recent game, they are automatically dropped from the list."
Recent being the current definition of recent when the push-back would occur (I think it is having played in one of the three most recently completed games.)
EDIT: If no councilman objects within 24 hours, that will be put in there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MAENTWROG (n. Welsh)
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake. SR
Yeah, the innovative and creative games, imho, are more complex (because there is a limit to new ideas when you only use the basic roles over and over in different combinations.) This complexity is what makes it a specialty.
I have to disagree. Blind games aren't necessarily innovative or creative, and they're no more complex than the mod having to keep track of an extra set of names. Yet blind games have been given specialty status. We've also seen experimental ideas that are almost destined to fail due to faulty construction, such as D&D Alignment Mafia. And yet, a lot of the most interesting games I've ever seen have been "normal" games, due to creative flavor, balanced design, and/or minor role tweaks that create difficult situations for both the town and mafia. Novel =/= better.
I am anti-mini on the basis that if a host wants to run a smaller game, they have every right to (well, above seven-ish people anyway...) but the slots for the minis would, more often than not, be taken by people who always play on here, and it would just increase their play amount.
Why is this necessarily bad? It's not taking away slots from anyone else (compared to the current structure), and Minis are not as likely to impact participation in other games. In addition, we could even give priority to those who are currently not in a game.
Additionally, I do not feel that we should reward hosts who voluntarily cut the general game size, just so they could host sooner.
At some point, you'll find a balance between the large games and the Minis. Most mods here appear to prefer modding large games anyway. In addition, Minis are also a good way for inexperienced mods to get their feet wet. ('scum recommends mods to run a Mini before trying out a large one.)
I am also anti-more games at a time. Yes, we play mafia. No, we are not a mafia site. If you want more mafia, scums is the place to go. We simply do not have a consistent playerbase that would warrant an increase of simultaneous games.
The only part of that argument that makes sense is the last sentence. It doesn't matter if we're not a mafia site; if there's enough demand and support for it, there's no reason not to run more games. Indeed, the only issue is whether the playerbase can sustain it. Hence, Minis were suggested partially as a means of determining that. If we find that the playerbase can't support it, we can stop running them.
Re: Pushbacks on the queue
I'm going to object. I don't see why a mod should be required to have played in a recent game here. A better criteria would be checking their activity on these forums in general.
A game should be sent and approved before the mod gets into the top two on the list, IMO. And it should be saved so that another mod can rescue a game if the current mod disappears before it starts. I don't think playing in recent games should be a requirement for keeping your name on the list, but if you can't get in a finalized setup in time, you should be dropped from the list (or at least backed up) before your name comes up. I see no reason to give people a chance to put up signups - all it does is force the players to wait because the mod's delay/inattention was given way too much leeway. Inactivity issues should be dealt with before the game starts.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
4 games is actually a feasable thing. I actually have a way it could run.
1. Game signups remain open for 48 hours after the last player registers (maybe more time).
2. Players may play in any number of games, however if a player in 2+ games is in a signup they may be booted from the signup by any player 1 or 0 games.
As for game quality: I am currently in 6 mafia games (seven with WD2, the rest are on M-Scum) and modding 2 and I have only made 1 game related slip up due to confusion that I wouldn't have if I wasn't in that many games.
Agree with Fadeblue on the game thing. I missed everything from LotR mafia to High School Mafia/ My Mafia Game. I was still active on the boards though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
Okay, I've been asked to give an opinion about some of this stuff so here it is:
(1) Normal/Specialty Distinction:
I think it's a distinction that doesn't serve much of a useful purpose. The original idea, I believe (ported over here from News) was that Specialty games were for experienced players only, because of the rules variations/complexity, etc. It wasn't so that more people could play in the "Normal" games. My feeling is that if someone wants to designate his game a "Specialty" game (mainly by way of warning to potential players) he can do so, but there's not much reason to have it in a separate que.
I like letting individual Mods. have as much say over their own games as possible--including saying things like "experienced players only." It's only if too many people start doing that that we could begin to have problems. Right now, the specialty game que seem like it's main function is letting some Mods jump over others and get to run their games sooner.
So I'd fold the "specialty" games into the regular que and have three going at once (which it looks like we can do reasonably well). Keep the rule that says no more than 2 at a time though, so most people will be able to get in a game without waiting too long.
(2) Mini-Games:
I like the mini-games on Scum. I like them a lot. So I wouldn't mind at all having a separate que for those. Obviously there's nothing stopping a Mod. in the regular cue from making his game a Mini, but that seems unlikely given how long they generally have to wait.
So I'd favor a separate que for those games (games capped at 12 players), but keeping the "No more than 2 games of any kind" rule in effect, so those games won't just be flooded with the people playing the Normal games. Start with one, and if it co-exists peacefully with all the large games, we could talk about even having another go at the same time.
We're all here to have fun. That should be the goal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Bateleur »
Ambush Krotiq makes me laugh so much. I keep rereading the card and it keeps not having Flash. In what sense is this an ambush again? I just have visions of this huge Krotiq poorly concealed in some bushes, feeling slightly sad that his carefully planned ambushes never seem to work.
As I mentioned, the specialty queue, IMO, ought to be for games that the reviewers think will be more interesting to play in. The system of queues we have in place now is a pretty good system for allowing that, as long as some criteria (admittedly subjective) are set.
I think that it's better for both players and mods for the more creative and interesting games to be run more frequently, which often means letting those designers jump over others'. Everyone still has the same opportunity to have their game be designated 'special,' so it's pretty fair, as far as I can tell, and it won't take much work that isn't already being done, because the queue system is already running the way it would need to be.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
Well, my own opinion on Mini games is favorable, which is why I raised the issue in the first place. My proposal for the change is thus:
1) A new Mini-Games queue will exist, in addition to the current Normal and Specialty queues. Mini Games will be run one at a time.
2) Mini Games are limited to a maximum of 12 players - no exceptions. Mini games do not need to be "standard" games.
3) Anyone who wants to mod a non-specialty game (and meets the requirements for being a mod) can sign up for either the Normal queue or the Mini queue. Individuals may only be in one queue at a time.
4) When the change goes into effect, all players on the current Normal queue will be given priority to sign up for the Mini queue (thus removing themselves from the Normal queue). Priority will be given according to the order of the current Normal queue.
5) Once the Normal and Mini queues are established, anyone in either queue may request to be signed up for the other queue instead, but will still be added to the end of the new queue, regardless of the length of time that person was in the original queue.
Comments, changes, etc. are welcome.
Revision to the Specialty queue
My opinion is that there should be no specialty queue, unless we can establish the following:
1) the purpose of the specialty queue, and what types of games/mods we seek to reward with such a queue
2) specific and transparent criteria for determining whether a game qualifies for specialty status
"Specialty" status need not be similar to what is currently in place. There simply needs to be a clear justification for a specialty queue as well as transparent criteria for it.
@minis: Whatever, I honestly dont care as long as the specialty stays as it is currently or changes to become more like the system Az mentioned.
Only question: How would this work?
Would the constant 2 Normal 1 Specialty 1 Noob rotation continue with a new 1 Mini thing, or would mini replace a normal, or what?
Someone said they were working on a specialty definition IIRC. I like Az's system for this: Submit your game idea when on the normal list, and you may be accepted to the specialty criteria. This system can go into place without any strict definitions put in place (yet) so we can begin transition and then release the criteria, allowing the hosts who desire specialty slots to automatically know if they would be rejected or not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MAENTWROG (n. Welsh)
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake. SR
Only question: How would this work?
Would the constant 2 Normal 1 Specialty 1 Noob rotation continue with a new 1 Mini thing, or would mini replace a normal, or what?
No one has mentioned the Mini slot replacing a Normal slot. The Mini game is run in addition to the current games.
Someone said they were working on a specialty definition IIRC. I like Az's system for this: Submit your game idea when on the normal list, and you may be accepted to the specialty criteria. This system can go into place without any strict definitions put in place (yet) so we can begin transition and then release the criteria, allowing the hosts who desire specialty slots to automatically know if they would be rejected or not.
So far, there's no difference between Az's proposed system and the current system.
The original intent of the specialty queue, as I see it, was to allow for variations on the normal format of Mafia. If the criterion for specialty is removed, then there really seems to be no point in having both specialty and normal, unless specialty games are strictly differentiated.
No one has mentioned the Mini slot replacing a Normal slot. The Mini game is run in addition to the current games.
Which is why I was unsure.
So far, there's no difference between Az's proposed system and the current system.
Yes, there is. Hosts submit to me (or you guys. but mostly me) specialty ideas. I accept or reject them. Under Az's system, they sign up for regular, and submit the regular idea to me, and, if accepted, are moved over from the normal to the specialty list. This system would probably be more fair for regular hosts and wait time than the current one is (or isnt, really).
Quote from Xyre »
The original intent of the specialty queue, as I see it, was to allow for variations on the normal format of Mafia. If the criterion for specialty is removed, then there really seems to be no point in having both specialty and normal, unless specialty games are strictly differentiated.
I do not understand where you get the idea that specialty criteria is being removed. We are talking about more rigidly defining it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MAENTWROG (n. Welsh)
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake. SR
Ok, so the mini-game queue idea seems to have been confirmed, and simply needs final review of FB's criteria. I'm in favor of implementing them without further changes, beginning as soon as the first mini-game setup is submitted.
Quote from fadeblue »
So far, there's no difference between Az's proposed system and the current system.
The difference is that the host decided whether their game was speciality or not, but every single host had a different standard of what qualified as a specialty.
Under this system, we'd be unifying it under a single person's (Vecna's) specific standard. For the moment, I think we can go ahead and begin the transition process, and as Vecna continues to run the nominations to the queue, he can eventually begin to identify similar traits between the games he selects and form a more specific criteria.
In the interim, it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a rough criterion of what we're looking for.
Something along the lines of:
1. Contains comprehensive changes to the rules or objectives of the game (See Shaman Mafia, or Dollar Mafia).
(+0, +1, +2, +3)
2. Contains a large number of rare, original, or tweaked roles.
(25% or less: 0 Points. 25-50%: +1. 50-75% +2. 75% or Higher +3)
3. Contains roles or situations that demand advanced playing skill.
(+0, +1, +2, +3)
4. Makes excellent use of flavor or storyline.
(+0, +1, +2, +3)
5. Game-play mechanics are well-balanced.
(+0, +1, +2, +3)
Each game receives a grade on each of its specific attributes, with a maximum of 15 points possible.
Those games with the highest point ratings will be selected to join the specialty queue. If some games are tied with one another, they will be added to the queue in the order in which they were received.
Yes, there is. Hosts submit to me (or you guys. but mostly me) specialty ideas. I accept or reject them. Under Az's system, they sign up for regular, and submit the regular idea to me, and, if accepted, are moved over from the normal to the specialty list. This system would probably be more fair for regular hosts and wait time than the current one is (or isnt, really).
Under the current system, there's nothing to stop a host from placing his/her name in the normal list at the same time as submitting a specialty. Therefore, the only real difference is that no one can be on both lists.
Quote from Azrael »
The difference is that the host decided whether their game was speciality or not, but every single host had a different standard of what qualified as a specialty.
Under this system, we'd be unifying it under a single person's (Vecna's) specific standard.
Untrue. Vecna already has the power to deny a game specialty status.
Does that sound good, as a rough model?
It's a start, as far as criteria go. If we use this, there should be some kind of rubric that potential mods can compare their ideas against (i.e. what kinds of things are +1, +2, or +3).
Though we still haven't answered the question of what exactly the purpose of the specialty queue is, and what qualities we're seeking to reward.
After playing my first game of Mafia - and having been lynched for what has been dubbed stupid play - I was wondering if a Mafia 'Tactics, Tips and Pointers' thread had been considered?
I think experienced players would enjoy discussing tactics, outside of games, and such discussion would get newer players that much closer tobeing OK.
Untrue. Vecna already has the power to deny a game specialty status.
Sorta. But he didn't have any criteria or point of comparison, and since there weren't too many submissions originally, there wasn't any need to try to cull games from the list.
Quote from Fadeblue »
It's a start, as far as criteria go. If we use this, there should be some kind of rubric that potential mods can compare their ideas against (i.e. what kinds of things are +1, +2, or +3).
That's something that we should be able to develop once we get a healthy supply of specialties going.
Quote from Fadeblue »
Though we still haven't answered the question of what exactly the purpose of the specialty queue is, and what qualities we're seeking to reward.
To encourage games that "contain comprehensive changes to the rules", with "large numbers of rare, orginal, or tweaked roles", have " roles or situations that demand advanced playing skill", with "excellent flavor and storyline", and "balanced gameplay mechanics".
EDIT:
Quote from Passdog »
After playing my first game of Mafia - and having been lynched for what has been dubbed stupid play - I was wondering if a Mafia 'Tactics, Tips and Pointers' thread had been considered?
I think experienced players would enjoy discussing tactics, outside of games, and such discussion would get newer players that much closer tobeing OK.
Mafiascum.net/forum should have exactly what you're looking for, or you can sometimes PM experienced players for general hints and pieces of advice.
Or if we wanted, we could make that an additional purpose of the council thread, rather than creating another sticky.
Sorta. But he didn't have any criteria or point of comparison, and since there weren't too many submissions originally, there wasn't any need to try to cull games from the list.
He had the specialty games from 'News as a point of reference. He also expressed strong confidence in his ability to differentiate between the two. But whatever, that's beside the point now.
That's something that we should be able to develop once we get a healthy supply of specialties going.
It should also be possible to come up with a rubric based on past games. We've got a lot to work with - games here, games on 'News, games on 'Scum, games on GL, etc.
To encourage games that "contain comprehensive changes to the rules", with "large numbers of rare, orginal, or tweaked roles", have " roles or situations that demand advanced playing skill", with "excellent flavor and storyline", and "balanced gameplay mechanics".
I meant that we haven't answered the question through consensus. If this is your proposal, that's fine; everyone can discuss whether this is what we seek to reward. Personally, I think that we should settle the purpose first, and then the criteria would follow from that.
He had the specialty games from 'News as a point of reference. He also expressed strong confidence in his ability to differentiate between the two. But whatever, that's beside the point now.
I wasn't aware anyone was proposing we use those as criteria.
Then again, I've never paid much attention to 'news.
Quote from Fadeblue »
It should also be possible to come up with a rubric based on past games. We've got a lot to work with - games here, games on 'News, games on 'Scum, games on GL, etc.
Yeah. For purposes of this forum though, it'll probably be most convenient to use games we've run here, since they'll be easier for people to track down. And I have a strange feeling that the next specialty game in line might just be helpful in setting some of said rubrics, one way or another...
[/shameless promotion]
Quote from Fadeblue »
I meant that we haven't answered the question through consensus. If this is your proposal, that's fine; everyone can discuss whether this is what we seek to reward. Personally, I think that we should settle the purpose first, and then the criteria would follow from that.
The goal, according to Az's system, is for the best games to always be close to the top of the list. A game that's imaginative in it's theme still won't get priority on the specialty list unless it's also well-balanced, has interesting roles, and clever innovations. So what should be rewarded are well-designed games. I think that Az's criteria defines that pretty well.
The opportunity to compete for slots gives mods the chance to discuss their design with someone with experience and improve it over the course of a few weeks or months, which is something I think can only work in favor of the designers. I received a lot of help from Vecna before I ever seriously considered having my game ready, but I know that a lot of people design their games on their own, and the games suffer as a result of lack of feedback.
What?! Look at the initial post; he is dead. Deceased. Kaputt. Indefinitely horizontal. In mafia games, you see, people are occasionally "killed off," and when that sad event occurs, he or she is no longer allowed to post, on account of rigor mortis and what-have-you.
'Welcome to Mafia Salvation', it said, 'Population: 3,660.' And someone, they never figured out who, had painted on the sign in red letters: '1,831 to lynch.'
I would like to point people to games that I would call specialty:
Town Mafia - Dusk_ - (Used a map)
Enders Game Mafia - (Point system.)
Orb Mafia - (The Orb mechanic)
Dollar Mafia - (This was the one with money, right?)
Edit more in later.
EDIT: Blind games (The lack of previous knowledge of a person. I may make a permanent blind account so
D&D Mafia (alignments. Was not well hosted, unfortunately)
Dominaria (all had Color (excluding blind) and Color related abilities and whatnot.)
If you will look at those, you will see useful new mechanics and general good balancing throughout. (Or at least in most cases)
IIRC, Orb Mafia was eventually abandoned due to a "broken" role. This is just a reminder that an innovative and creative game is not necessarily a good game.
D&D Mafia (alignments. Was not well hosted, unfortunately)
Same thing here. The lack of an actual Mafia produced a game that only superficially resembled Mafia.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do not know why it is you want the rule to change, except that you have decided to be greedy and want to take up a spot in every single mafia game on the site. (Yes, you may call this incorrect, but without any valid reasoning against the current system, your statements are similarly invalid)
Now, for the first worthwhile point in this discussion:
The rule was created to better allow equal opportunity for larger amounts of players to play in the set limit of mafia games on this site. We cannot support many mafia games at once, as we do not have the player base of scums, and this site is not for mafia, it runs mafia in addition to everything else, which is a bonus for you. So, sit back, remember a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (as it applies to already being in one game, and desiring a spot in another), and be glad you are already in one game, and should go make the best of it.
EDIT: my point essentially sarnath'd by musashi.
EDIT: Jesus could you stop spamming. That post was entirely unnecessary. (Below)
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake.
SR
Still annoyed, but mollified.
Musashi's point is invalid. I still think a two game limit is valid. I just don't understand why it is limited to 1 normal and 1 specialty.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
Also, Musashi's point was right on the money, imho.
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake.
SR
The number of games each person is allowed in would not change. Each person could not be in 20 games because there would still be a maximum of 2. I'm just suggesting the removal of the restriction stating it must be one special and one normal.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
If you could jump into any game as long as you didn't have two games yet, then people who wanted to start couldn't because a group of people that think like you would be hogging all the spaces in the normal games.
Noob games aren't good for continued play, so don't play that card on me.
Originally, the specialty game slot was created with the clause that mods could refuse a player if the mod felt the player wouldn't be able to handle it (whereas normal game mods aren't allowed to refuse players unless they're on the blacklist). Now, if specialty games were actually run under this philosophy, letting players play in 2 normals could really affect other players' opportunities to play.
Of course, there's still discussion open about whether we should even bother differentiating between normal and specialty, but that's a different issue altogether.
Sure, this isn't mafiascum. But the advantage of a constant stream of games is to allow people to never feel like they're wasting time. A plus to that is that we would be able to burn down the waiting list somewhat (especially because perhaps half of those people don't frequent the site anymore. A major problem with mafias is inconsistent hosts).
If we allowed a greater number of games, then the list would decrease (especially because it's at, what, thirty people waiting?), and that would increase interest in hosting. A major deterrent in hosting seems to be the massive waiting period, and when a hole opens only once a month, I may have to wait a year to even host my first mafia, even if I may have my third done by the beginning of 2006. I'm impatient to begin, sure, but the random people who float into Mafias (like people who can't remember that the big button on the CPU turns the computer on) take spaces away from people who wait for a month and find that the space was taken by another person who gets lynched simply for not showing up.
People, Mafias are commitments. When anybody who walks in is offered a seat, with no experience requirement and no commitment enforcement, it leaves people like myself, who want to participate in as many mafias as possible out in the cold. Sure, I'm not the greatest player (as Fayul would attest to in a heartbeat), but I'm getting better at that. When we simply let anybody into a limited game space, the people who wait for this lose the opportunity.
That's why we need to better enforce non-posting and consistent lurking. Sure, the game mods are supposed to watch that, but when you get to fifty pages in the game (like Random 2) and some people haven't posted twenty times, that's a space that should have been freed earlier to someone with more commitment. Sure, it eventually takes the mod to enforce the rules, but if we get that little consistency, we need to make that punishable with more than a minor reprimand. If we get people like, say, Leilani, who need to be lynched just to get them out of the way, then the game isn't working.
So here's the proposition: enforce the lag/lurk rules more, and add greater punishment. People who can't participate consistently shouldn't participate. And we should either a) add more games to cut back on the list and increase availability-with or without the game restriction, although this may require softening it to two games, regardless of type-or b) push mods to get rid of people who just won't show up. Either way, people who are committed to this site-like my friend Rhinocero-can participate as much as they like.
Just my $0.02
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
So it comes down to the need to leave spots open for new players? I guess I'll give up, as I don’t feel like continuing this argument. I will finish by saying my first game was in a specialty, and I feel I did fine.
Town/Mafia/Other - 14/6/3
Win/Lose/Tie - 11/12/0
Nk/lynched/Survived - 16/4/3
Lag and lurk rules are enforced by the game mods in their own games, at their own whims, which are not enforced by the council. The only thing I can do is black/temp list people that the host reccommends for punishment.
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake.
SR
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Don't get me wrong, chamber. It's not just for new players; it's simply for all players to have a reasonable chance at playing in a normal game (some don't want to deal with a "specialty" game). And the argument that you were fine is also invalid, since you're not representative of most new players - how many others do you think thoroughly read as many games as you did before you started playing?
I'm not here to defeat your argument; I just wanted to tell you what the original reasoning was. One could argue that the introduction of the Newbie games eliminates the need for such a rule, but again, that requires some restructuring to be done in terms of how the games are run.
There are lots of changes I'd like to see, but I haven't personally had the time to sort things out. I've also been considering requesting a subforum for Mafia, but I'm still not sure if that's the best move right now. I do think that we've grown enough that we could expand a bit, but it might require putting some size limits on games.
About enforcing against lurking: It's the game mod's responsibility to notify us about lurkers so that action can be taken. We (or at least I) don't have the time to keep track of who's playing in every game and who's not posting enough. A good mod should take on that responsibility.
Of course, player history should be taken into account. If a normally active player is unable to participate once for some outside reason, it doesn't warrant probation. Once such behavior is continual, that player should certainly be placed on probation (or on ban if necessary).
1) Is there truly a need for distinguishing between specialty and normal games?
On one hand, it allows for the more complex games to be run in a separate queue. On the other hand, the more complex games aren't necessarily the more interesting ones, and running all the games in the same queue means that those signing up to host normal games don't have to wait as long.
2) Should we create a separate slot for 1 Mini (12 players or less)?
This would provide an alternative for both players and mods, and theoretically shouldn't strain the player pool much. Also, it could be set for something even lower, like 10 or 7 players.
I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on these.
Re Q2) Why a separate slot ? Why can't mods just size their games however they like, including mini-games ? Is it that you perceive this is the only way to persuade people to run smaller games ?
(I'm on on this site much anymore. If you want to get in touch it's probably best to email me: dom@heffalumps.org)
Forum Awards: Best Writer 2005, Best Limited Strategist 2005-2012
5CB PotM - June 2005, November 2005, February 2006, April 2008, May 2008, Feb 2009
MTGSalvation Articles: 1-20, plus guest appearance on MTGCast #86!
<Limited Clan>
I thoroughly approve of both these measures.
EDIT: As long as Sin City Mafia still gets to go next.
Keeping normal and specialty queues separate seems moot if we have a mini game running all the time. Plenty of opportunity to get in on a game, I'd think.
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
[The Family]
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Carrion Pigeons does make a good point. It'd be great if we could tweak the system so that the more innovative/creative games were rewarded by having a separate and shorter queue.
So what we would need to accomplish that is make sure the difference between specialty and regular games is more clearly defined.
The problem we ran into last time is that we tried to set up specific criteria for what is or isn't a specialty game. However, it's very difficult to set concrete guidelines for a creative work like that.
Instead, why don't we make it a relative, more flexible scale?
1. The specialty queue can be limited to 5-7 games at a time. (number subject to change, or debate)
2. Whenever a host submits a setup to Vecna, they can nominate it to be added to the specialty queue.
3. Whenever a design up for consideration on the specialty list is received, it automatically gains a place holder slot on the regular list, in case it is not selected.
4. When a vacancy on the specialty queue opens up, Vecna can examine those games up for consideration on the specialty queue, compare them to each other, and select the game that is the strongest creatively and also the best-balanced, and add it to the specialty queue.
5. If the regular queue ends up being shorter than the specialty queue, the host can stay on the regular queue instead. Or, they can withdraw their design from consideration on the specialty list at any time.
6. Once a game is added to the specialty list, it cannot be removed, even if something more creative comes along.
7. If a host has a game on the regular list, that they feel could qualify as a specialty game, they can PM Vecna to change its status, so that it can be considered the next time a slot opens up.
8. Pending this system's approval, future regular game hosts who have already signed up would also be free to peittion to change their game's status.
How's that sound?
Also, I'm repeating myself here, but a separate mini games queue would be a great addition. They increase participation, they allow games and players to cycle more quickly, and they're easier to mod and play in.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
There has long been talk about expanding the number of games being run here, but there is a big question of whether we have the playerbase to support adding a 4th large game without sacrificing the quality of games. In my opinion, we haven't yet reached the point where we can comfortably expand to 4 games, given the fact that we often have problems with lurkers/replacements, and we shouldn't need to be having the same 20 players playing in every game just to keep participation up.
Opening a Mini as a 4th slot means that there are more games, theoretically without straining the playerbase. We typically have several active players waiting between games when they're dead, but it's not enough to be running a large game. This gives them more opportunities to play. It also helps reduce the current queue, as some mods only run small games, and it also guarantees some players the chance to play who can't invest the time for a large game.
It looks like there's a fairly large consensus for a Mini slot, but I'd like to allow more time for discussion before hammering out details.
Re: Specialty games
Based on past experience, the more interesting games aren't necessarily the ones with unusual game mechanics. Rather, they're the ones with thoughtful design, strong flavor, and good modding, with game mechanics and player quality as additional factors.
The question is, if we still want a separate slot to "reward" certain types of games, what types of games are we looking to reward? Are we looking to reward experimental designs? Or maybe mods who put in a lot of effort? Or perhaps to give advanced players unique game experiences? We have to answer this question before we can decide on whether there should be a specialty slot at all, and then to decide what criteria we should use.
A possibility is to simply judge games based on popularity. Potential mods would give a brief description of the game, and whenever one receives enough "votes," it becomes the next in the specialty queue. Of course, this may run into problems with favoritism or the same mod getting "elected" too many times.
Azrael has also suggested a system to deal with the specialty queue; discussion would be appreciated.
Re: Cleaning up the queue
Although I hesitate to introduce a new issue when we already have several up for discussion, I felt I should bring it up since the issue of cleaning up the queue was mentioned.
Personally, I don't think people should be signing up to mod unless they're serious about it. As a method of encouraging this (with an added benefit for all players), I believe that anyone signing up to mod should also be required to submit the expected name/theme for their game, along with the expected number of players. Those in the queue would be allowed to change their idea up to a certain point. For example, once a mod is in the first 5 positions of the queue, the theme/size can no longer be changed without leaving the queue.
I'm hoping this will help clean up the queue and move it along more smoothly, while also preventing people from just signing up because they can. It hasn't been fully thought out, though (I just had the idea), and I'd definitely love to hear other suggestions.
As for the point of "specialty" slots, occasionally you get a role which would not work if you didn't have an advanced player running it. I think I have two of those in my work-in-progress game, and both would be ruined if they weren't run by a strong player.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Yeah, the innovative and creative games, imho, are more complex (because there is a limit to new ideas when you only use the basic roles over and over in different combinations.) This complexity is what makes it a specialty.
(Please disregard all the above if this is not a perfect world. That is where my (the current) system would work ;-))
I like Azrael's idea about having a limited space list, but it seems complicated and appears to have unnecessary steps involved (I will look over it again later.) Also, if everyone decides to nominate their game, I will never be able to play on here again (I know some of you would love that :)) Part of the specialty list (as I envision it) is to reward the experienced hosts, who know how to make, balance, and host games. It gives them more freedom as to who they may accept into their game, and allows the level of inventiveness (in the game mechanics and whatnot) to increase. (Also, if you consider that 90% of the specialty games are experienced hosts, it means that we are nearly guarenteed to have one game with high quality running... If you equate experience with increased quality anyway.)
I am anti-mini on the basis that if a host wants to run a smaller game, they have every right to (well, above seven-ish people anyway...) but the slots for the minis would, more often than not, be taken by people who always play on here, and it would just increase their play amount. (See comments about going to mafiascum below) Additionally, I do not feel that we should reward hosts who voluntarily cut the general game size, just so they could host sooner.
I am also anti-more games at a time. Yes, we play mafia. No, we are not a mafia site. If you want more mafia, scums is the place to go. We simply do not have a consistent playerbase that would warrant an increase of simultaneous games.
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake.
SR
I think that once a player gets to be fifth down on the list, he should be prodded to send Vecna an overview of the game setup. If s/he doesn't by the time they're name come up to third place (which would typically be a window of 2-4 months more), then they'd be dropped from the list. That way, people can reliably see both who's modding next without having to worry about inactivity issues, and they'll be able to know what themes are coming up, so they can plan what games they want to join.
Thoughts?
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
I think I will go amend the end to have an additional "If a host would be pushed back, first or second time, and has not played in a recent game, they are automatically dropped from the list."
Recent being the current definition of recent when the push-back would occur (I think it is having played in one of the three most recently completed games.)
EDIT: If no councilman objects within 24 hours, that will be put in there.
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake.
SR
I have to disagree. Blind games aren't necessarily innovative or creative, and they're no more complex than the mod having to keep track of an extra set of names. Yet blind games have been given specialty status. We've also seen experimental ideas that are almost destined to fail due to faulty construction, such as D&D Alignment Mafia. And yet, a lot of the most interesting games I've ever seen have been "normal" games, due to creative flavor, balanced design, and/or minor role tweaks that create difficult situations for both the town and mafia. Novel =/= better.
Why is this necessarily bad? It's not taking away slots from anyone else (compared to the current structure), and Minis are not as likely to impact participation in other games. In addition, we could even give priority to those who are currently not in a game.
At some point, you'll find a balance between the large games and the Minis. Most mods here appear to prefer modding large games anyway. In addition, Minis are also a good way for inexperienced mods to get their feet wet. ('scum recommends mods to run a Mini before trying out a large one.)
The only part of that argument that makes sense is the last sentence. It doesn't matter if we're not a mafia site; if there's enough demand and support for it, there's no reason not to run more games. Indeed, the only issue is whether the playerbase can sustain it. Hence, Minis were suggested partially as a means of determining that. If we find that the playerbase can't support it, we can stop running them.
Re: Pushbacks on the queue
I'm going to object. I don't see why a mod should be required to have played in a recent game here. A better criteria would be checking their activity on these forums in general.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
1. Game signups remain open for 48 hours after the last player registers (maybe more time).
2. Players may play in any number of games, however if a player in 2+ games is in a signup they may be booted from the signup by any player 1 or 0 games.
As for game quality: I am currently in 6 mafia games (seven with WD2, the rest are on M-Scum) and modding 2 and I have only made 1 game related slip up due to confusion that I wouldn't have if I wasn't in that many games.
Agree with Fadeblue on the game thing. I missed everything from LotR mafia to High School Mafia/ My Mafia Game. I was still active on the boards though.
(1) Normal/Specialty Distinction:
I think it's a distinction that doesn't serve much of a useful purpose. The original idea, I believe (ported over here from News) was that Specialty games were for experienced players only, because of the rules variations/complexity, etc. It wasn't so that more people could play in the "Normal" games. My feeling is that if someone wants to designate his game a "Specialty" game (mainly by way of warning to potential players) he can do so, but there's not much reason to have it in a separate que.
I like letting individual Mods. have as much say over their own games as possible--including saying things like "experienced players only." It's only if too many people start doing that that we could begin to have problems. Right now, the specialty game que seem like it's main function is letting some Mods jump over others and get to run their games sooner.
So I'd fold the "specialty" games into the regular que and have three going at once (which it looks like we can do reasonably well). Keep the rule that says no more than 2 at a time though, so most people will be able to get in a game without waiting too long.
(2) Mini-Games:
I like the mini-games on Scum. I like them a lot. So I wouldn't mind at all having a separate que for those. Obviously there's nothing stopping a Mod. in the regular cue from making his game a Mini, but that seems unlikely given how long they generally have to wait.
So I'd favor a separate que for those games (games capped at 12 players), but keeping the "No more than 2 games of any kind" rule in effect, so those games won't just be flooded with the people playing the Normal games. Start with one, and if it co-exists peacefully with all the large games, we could talk about even having another go at the same time.
We're all here to have fun. That should be the goal.
I think that it's better for both players and mods for the more creative and interesting games to be run more frequently, which often means letting those designers jump over others'. Everyone still has the same opportunity to have their game be designated 'special,' so it's pretty fair, as far as I can tell, and it won't take much work that isn't already being done, because the queue system is already running the way it would need to be.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
The ball is in Fadeblue and Vecna's court there.
On Azrael's revisions to the specialty queue, we have 1 yes-(Azrael), 1 I'm going to look at this later- (Vecna), and 2 maybe-Fadeblue and Axelrod.
And the participation issue is currently in limbo.
1) A new Mini-Games queue will exist, in addition to the current Normal and Specialty queues. Mini Games will be run one at a time.
2) Mini Games are limited to a maximum of 12 players - no exceptions. Mini games do not need to be "standard" games.
3) Anyone who wants to mod a non-specialty game (and meets the requirements for being a mod) can sign up for either the Normal queue or the Mini queue. Individuals may only be in one queue at a time.
4) When the change goes into effect, all players on the current Normal queue will be given priority to sign up for the Mini queue (thus removing themselves from the Normal queue). Priority will be given according to the order of the current Normal queue.
5) Once the Normal and Mini queues are established, anyone in either queue may request to be signed up for the other queue instead, but will still be added to the end of the new queue, regardless of the length of time that person was in the original queue.
Comments, changes, etc. are welcome.
Revision to the Specialty queue
My opinion is that there should be no specialty queue, unless we can establish the following:
1) the purpose of the specialty queue, and what types of games/mods we seek to reward with such a queue
2) specific and transparent criteria for determining whether a game qualifies for specialty status
"Specialty" status need not be similar to what is currently in place. There simply needs to be a clear justification for a specialty queue as well as transparent criteria for it.
Only question: How would this work?
Would the constant 2 Normal 1 Specialty 1 Noob rotation continue with a new 1 Mini thing, or would mini replace a normal, or what?
Someone said they were working on a specialty definition IIRC. I like Az's system for this: Submit your game idea when on the normal list, and you may be accepted to the specialty criteria. This system can go into place without any strict definitions put in place (yet) so we can begin transition and then release the criteria, allowing the hosts who desire specialty slots to automatically know if they would be rejected or not.
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake.
SR
No one has mentioned the Mini slot replacing a Normal slot. The Mini game is run in addition to the current games.
So far, there's no difference between Az's proposed system and the current system.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Yes, there is. Hosts submit to me (or you guys. but mostly me) specialty ideas. I accept or reject them. Under Az's system, they sign up for regular, and submit the regular idea to me, and, if accepted, are moved over from the normal to the specialty list. This system would probably be more fair for regular hosts and wait time than the current one is (or isnt, really).
I do not understand where you get the idea that specialty criteria is being removed. We are talking about more rigidly defining it.
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake.
SR
The difference is that the host decided whether their game was speciality or not, but every single host had a different standard of what qualified as a specialty.
Under this system, we'd be unifying it under a single person's (Vecna's) specific standard. For the moment, I think we can go ahead and begin the transition process, and as Vecna continues to run the nominations to the queue, he can eventually begin to identify similar traits between the games he selects and form a more specific criteria.
In the interim, it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a rough criterion of what we're looking for.
Something along the lines of:
1. Contains comprehensive changes to the rules or objectives of the game (See Shaman Mafia, or Dollar Mafia).
(+0, +1, +2, +3)
2. Contains a large number of rare, original, or tweaked roles.
(25% or less: 0 Points. 25-50%: +1. 50-75% +2. 75% or Higher +3)
3. Contains roles or situations that demand advanced playing skill.
(+0, +1, +2, +3)
4. Makes excellent use of flavor or storyline.
(+0, +1, +2, +3)
5. Game-play mechanics are well-balanced.
(+0, +1, +2, +3)
Each game receives a grade on each of its specific attributes, with a maximum of 15 points possible.
Those games with the highest point ratings will be selected to join the specialty queue. If some games are tied with one another, they will be added to the queue in the order in which they were received.
Does that sound good, as a rough model?
Under the current system, there's nothing to stop a host from placing his/her name in the normal list at the same time as submitting a specialty. Therefore, the only real difference is that no one can be on both lists.
Untrue. Vecna already has the power to deny a game specialty status.
It's a start, as far as criteria go. If we use this, there should be some kind of rubric that potential mods can compare their ideas against (i.e. what kinds of things are +1, +2, or +3).
Though we still haven't answered the question of what exactly the purpose of the specialty queue is, and what qualities we're seeking to reward.
I think experienced players would enjoy discussing tactics, outside of games, and such discussion would get newer players that much closer tobeing OK.
Sorta. But he didn't have any criteria or point of comparison, and since there weren't too many submissions originally, there wasn't any need to try to cull games from the list.
That's something that we should be able to develop once we get a healthy supply of specialties going.
To encourage games that "contain comprehensive changes to the rules", with "large numbers of rare, orginal, or tweaked roles", have " roles or situations that demand advanced playing skill", with "excellent flavor and storyline", and "balanced gameplay mechanics".
EDIT:
Mafiascum.net/forum should have exactly what you're looking for, or you can sometimes PM experienced players for general hints and pieces of advice.
Or if we wanted, we could make that an additional purpose of the council thread, rather than creating another sticky.
He had the specialty games from 'News as a point of reference. He also expressed strong confidence in his ability to differentiate between the two. But whatever, that's beside the point now.
It should also be possible to come up with a rubric based on past games. We've got a lot to work with - games here, games on 'News, games on 'Scum, games on GL, etc.
I meant that we haven't answered the question through consensus. If this is your proposal, that's fine; everyone can discuss whether this is what we seek to reward. Personally, I think that we should settle the purpose first, and then the criteria would follow from that.
I wasn't aware anyone was proposing we use those as criteria.
Then again, I've never paid much attention to 'news.
Yeah. For purposes of this forum though, it'll probably be most convenient to use games we've run here, since they'll be easier for people to track down. And I have a strange feeling that the next specialty game in line might just be helpful in setting some of said rubrics, one way or another...
[/shameless promotion]
Sure. What else should we/shouldn't we encourage?
The opportunity to compete for slots gives mods the chance to discuss their design with someone with experience and improve it over the course of a few weeks or months, which is something I think can only work in favor of the designers. I received a lot of help from Vecna before I ever seriously considered having my game ready, but I know that a lot of people design their games on their own, and the games suffer as a result of lack of feedback.
Mafia MVP BM Mafia
Mafia MVP Matrix Mafia
Town Mafia - Dusk_ - (Used a map)
Enders Game Mafia - (Point system.)
Orb Mafia - (The Orb mechanic)
Dollar Mafia - (This was the one with money, right?)
Edit more in later.
EDIT: Blind games (The lack of previous knowledge of a person. I may make a permanent blind account so
D&D Mafia (alignments. Was not well hosted, unfortunately)
Dominaria (all had Color (excluding blind) and Color related abilities and whatnot.)
If you will look at those, you will see useful new mechanics and general good balancing throughout. (Or at least in most cases)
Celtic word for a computer spelling mistake.
SR
IIRC, Orb Mafia was eventually abandoned due to a "broken" role. This is just a reminder that an innovative and creative game is not necessarily a good game.
Same thing here. The lack of an actual Mafia produced a game that only superficially resembled Mafia.