I agree with Drey that Open setups kick ass, but Semi-Open formats should be encouraged too for the same reasons and some others. Open format forces counter claim situations and put a lot of pressure on scum, and also encourage massclaiming which may not be desirable. Semi-open gives the mafia teams a little more breathing room while still allowing for all the possible roles to be out in the open. It can also lead to really interesting dynamics in terms of roles that can be of either alignment and listed as possible for either team, so that an un-counterclaimed role can still be town or scum and it's not just a free alignment confirmation.
We can also consider novelty games like dethy with the new formats. It's really a choice of balance; a host should pick a format that will best balance the proposed setup. I would really like to see our game designers for Normals/League to start working with these formats more, because they are balancing tools and add variety to Normals without having Specialty elements.
I'm fairly certain that the dethy setup is player-size locked, just due to the inherent logic puzzle it presents. But micro-games seem to be a good solution to the occasional lack of activity we have here, so theoretically it would work.
We should keep the queues as they are: a slow but reliable queue for people to test their skills at designing complex and interesting games, and a fast-track queue for some of the best designs available on MTGS.
While I don't really have the right to significantly influence this argument (nor do I entirely believe that I fully understand some of what's being proposed), I will barn Zinda on this one.
If some kind soul would like to offer a 2-3 line summary on what exactly the league is or is intended to do, I'd be appreciative, as I don't have the time right now to slog through the last 1.5 year's worth of threads...
The goal of the League is to improve players' skills with thoughtful feedback and scoring by tracking progress over multiple games. It was designed as a separate entity, but it seems that a possible solution to activity issues is the Normal queue becoming a League queue, and players to be scored automatically.
Pros are setups being heavily scrutinized, more streamlined mafia gaming, a clear distinction of what Normal is, and having frank discussions on strategy with something solid to work with.
Cons are less outlets for setups to run, actually defining Normal and creating guidelines, current setups on the normal list might need tweaks to run for League play, and putting Normal players who may not want their play judged in an awkward position.
I don't think the League is a good place for cults and double mafias, let alone chimes.
Keep it simple, especially if you're trying to arrive at a standard scoring rubric.
I like fun wrinkles, but we're trying to arrive at something that is consistently fair, well-balanced, and doesn't contain any nasty surprises or discrepancies in difficulty. If you're fundamentally changing the nature of the scum team or their win conditions in certain games, it's not possible to have a consistent standard of difficulty for the town and scum.
Cosign
Heh, this guy.
On the topic, the rubric needs stressing in the beta season. We know already that it can handle a regular game fairly. What we're not sure of is whether it can handle non-standard games. That's why we're running the micro; the rubric should work for whatever we throw at it. So at least in beta, I'm all for whatever crazy setups we can use (within reason) to make sure we have wiggle room for a variety of setups (like Chimes).
So I guess we need to decide how Normal is Normal before Season 1 of the League.
I haven't read the Chimes game; I'm only going off of what the other judges are telling me about it. I think not having a mafia kill isn't that big of a departure from standard play; it's just shifting the focus to survival rather than action targets, which is fine. If all players know this when signing up then I don't really see why it can't work. If anything, the focus on behavior rather than setup is more viable, not less. But you might be right that it's not ready for League play as far as the numbers go.
@Ecophagy: Aren't we still debating on what roles count as "Basic"? How are we going to agree one what counts as "Normal"?
It's not so much that League games should be plain, but they should be fair. Each team or player should have equal chances of winning and the key to winning should be standard Mafia strategy (like wise action targets, behavioral analysis, etc.). If one team starts with an advantage, or winning is not solely based on classic mafia tactics, then it's probably not a good game to score.
I don't think a rename is really necessary; players will understand what it means eventually.
I wouldn't worry about setting regulations on what a League/Normal setup is. That's what the Judges are for; reviewing setups so that they are as balanced as possible. Most games get one or two reviewers, but League games get five or six. There's already an understanding of what a League game should be, and we haven't really had any luck setting guidelines for design in the past because everyone has a different opinion.
New or unique mechanics in League games is something I am not sure of yet; it really just depends on the mechanic. I think as a general rule, it should be a tested mechanic that we've already seen work in a previous game (or mostly work, then issues addressed through tweaking). Testing totally new mechanics in a scored game might lead to rustled jimmies.
I have been saying we need more player-submitted games in the league, and this change certainly shows promise toward fixing a lot of issues. Let's give it a shot.
@Iso: That's my point: 3 large games is too many. One way or another, there needs to be no more than 2 large games.
This. Either we grant a regular game the title of "League Game", or we replace one of the queues with the League queue, but we can't handle another queue for (possibly) large games on top of all the other large game queues.
The League has been accepting game setups for awhile now but we've only received a small amount of responses. I'm not quite sure why, since it's probably easier to get a League game run (due to the voting process like with game 1).
We're going to be testing a Micro League game to stress the rubric, but after that we might need more setup submissions. Judges have been making their own setups but they shouldn't need to after a certain point of testing.
@Azrael: I'm not sure where "normal" games would go after killing the queue for it, but I do think killing it would probably increase the quality of setup designs.
Hosts should accommodate players, not the other way around. If I design a 40 player game, I can't get mad at the player base for not being interested. If a host doesn't get his game run because the player size is wrong, s/he should make changes to fix it.
I think Iso's probably right; we do have a problem with activity dropping and simply doing nothing isn't a solution. I'm in favor of tinkering with the queues to see if anything helps. Size-based discrimination seems to be a logical solution.
I am actually running my next basic as a Semi Open. I am actually shocked Basics here are not forced to take at least a Semi Open status like they are on mafiascum.
Yeah, especially since it's kind of a semi-open game already. Everyone knows what should or shouldn't be in a basic, but I don't think it's been explicitly listed.
There's always Open and Semi-Open formats that can be run multiple times regardless of players knowing the setup already.
Basically an Open setup is one where everyone knows all the roles in the game, but not who has what. So along with your Rules, you'll have your Setup posted with every role in the game listed.
In Semi-Open, you have a list of roles that 'may or may not' be in the game, but no roles outside of that list. So you will end up with a few more roles listed than there are players in the game; some roles listed are not used. This format is easier for scum teams.
This solves the problem of having to keep games invisible, unless you just REALLY want a closed setup for some reason. Cyan's Impossible Mafia is a good example, because every role is uniquely crafted and you would give away the fun of the game by posting an Open setup.
We can also consider novelty games like dethy with the new formats. It's really a choice of balance; a host should pick a format that will best balance the proposed setup. I would really like to see our game designers for Normals/League to start working with these formats more, because they are balancing tools and add variety to Normals without having Specialty elements.
I guess my inquiry is concerning established setups that work within the standard ruleset, but don't necessarily play like a normal game.
The goal of the League is to improve players' skills with thoughtful feedback and scoring by tracking progress over multiple games. It was designed as a separate entity, but it seems that a possible solution to activity issues is the Normal queue becoming a League queue, and players to be scored automatically.
Pros are setups being heavily scrutinized, more streamlined mafia gaming, a clear distinction of what Normal is, and having frank discussions on strategy with something solid to work with.
Cons are less outlets for setups to run, actually defining Normal and creating guidelines, current setups on the normal list might need tweaks to run for League play, and putting Normal players who may not want their play judged in an awkward position.
Heh, this guy.
On the topic, the rubric needs stressing in the beta season. We know already that it can handle a regular game fairly. What we're not sure of is whether it can handle non-standard games. That's why we're running the micro; the rubric should work for whatever we throw at it. So at least in beta, I'm all for whatever crazy setups we can use (within reason) to make sure we have wiggle room for a variety of setups (like Chimes).
So I guess we need to decide how Normal is Normal before Season 1 of the League.
It's not so much that League games should be plain, but they should be fair. Each team or player should have equal chances of winning and the key to winning should be standard Mafia strategy (like wise action targets, behavioral analysis, etc.). If one team starts with an advantage, or winning is not solely based on classic mafia tactics, then it's probably not a good game to score.
I wouldn't worry about setting regulations on what a League/Normal setup is. That's what the Judges are for; reviewing setups so that they are as balanced as possible. Most games get one or two reviewers, but League games get five or six. There's already an understanding of what a League game should be, and we haven't really had any luck setting guidelines for design in the past because everyone has a different opinion.
New or unique mechanics in League games is something I am not sure of yet; it really just depends on the mechanic. I think as a general rule, it should be a tested mechanic that we've already seen work in a previous game (or mostly work, then issues addressed through tweaking). Testing totally new mechanics in a scored game might lead to rustled jimmies.
The League has been accepting game setups for awhile now but we've only received a small amount of responses. I'm not quite sure why, since it's probably easier to get a League game run (due to the voting process like with game 1).
We're going to be testing a Micro League game to stress the rubric, but after that we might need more setup submissions. Judges have been making their own setups but they shouldn't need to after a certain point of testing.
@Azrael: I'm not sure where "normal" games would go after killing the queue for it, but I do think killing it would probably increase the quality of setup designs.
I think Iso's probably right; we do have a problem with activity dropping and simply doing nothing isn't a solution. I'm in favor of tinkering with the queues to see if anything helps. Size-based discrimination seems to be a logical solution.
Yeah, especially since it's kind of a semi-open game already. Everyone knows what should or shouldn't be in a basic, but I don't think it's been explicitly listed.
Could we start doing that?
Basically an Open setup is one where everyone knows all the roles in the game, but not who has what. So along with your Rules, you'll have your Setup posted with every role in the game listed.
In Semi-Open, you have a list of roles that 'may or may not' be in the game, but no roles outside of that list. So you will end up with a few more roles listed than there are players in the game; some roles listed are not used. This format is easier for scum teams.
This solves the problem of having to keep games invisible, unless you just REALLY want a closed setup for some reason. Cyan's Impossible Mafia is a good example, because every role is uniquely crafted and you would give away the fun of the game by posting an Open setup.