Welcome back! I'm sure I'm not the only one that misses playing with you.
Same! Eventually realized mafia was just too much of a time sink for me, even considering how much I liked playing and the people. Might have some time off soon though; considering dipping back in for a game.
I don't play mafia anymore because I don't have the energy, but I miss doing so, and it brings be great pleasure to see that MTGS is still at it. Insane to recognize as many names in this thread as I do.
Kpaca, I was not available for a team game in July as I was busy unionizing and moving across the country, but the offer is very much appreciated.
Bur, I don't think we've met, but sorry for not responding more promptly to inquiries about whether I'm still up for being an active reviewer. I'm evidently not.
Y'all are great. Consider not using the word lynch in games anymore. If anyone super wants to get in touch, I'll probably pop back in here within the next few days.
Your plan will essentially replace the current queue structure with larger Minis and two Sepcialty queues. I don't believe this is at all sustainable, and is an overly complicated attempt to solve the problem. The problem at hand is that Normals are unpopular and fill slowly. This is caused by them being perceived/designed as large Basics, which seems to be mostly a result of the League. By discontinuing the League and having this discussion around Normal design space, we should see Normals bounce back to more interesting games that still fill their niche of being less complex than Specialties. No new queues needed, no major revamp necessary.
I agree with this, except I love the idea of raising the playercap on minis to 14.
Although for this to work, you should really make sure the upcoming normals are indeed a bit more complex than "large basics".
To expand further, I would classify the three essential complexity levels as such:
- Basic (or "Simple" or "Classic"): a game with a majority of vanilla roles, no game mechanics not included in the basic definition of Mafia, a single scum-team, and simple roles everyone should know (as is).
- Advanced: a game with no game mechanics not included in the basic definition of Mafia, but no restriction with regards to roles, number of vanillas or number of scum-teams.
- Specialty: a game in which everything is possible (especially if the reviewers were in a coma for the entire reviewing process).
Nailed it.
The conversation should be about whether there's a player base to support all 3 of these levels of complexity at varying sizes, and if not, how to compromise around that.
[quote from="Ged »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/forum-games/mafia/446905-the-mafia-council-thread?comment=8653"]I don't think complicated games put people off. I mean, if a new person shows up here, they have gone out of their way to go to the forum games section of a Magic enthusiast site. They probably have some experience playing games.
I'm not so sure. I for one had no idea at all what Mafia was before I entered this subforum, and I would wager I am not alone in that regard. There's a world of difference between a complicated game (which Mafia is inherently) and a complex game (i.e. a Specialty). We all got started because we got curious and enjoyed the complicated challenge that Mafia represents, but expected new players to get started on games with radical additional mechanics (or even incredibly far out games like FF or Pokemon or Cyberspace) is just not realistic.
I think new mechanics are not a good starting place for mafia, and I agree that unreliable cops are just dumb as butts all over and should never be used. But complicated individual roles, I see no problem with handing out to new players. Like, I started with a newbie game, and if there's enough newbies to fill up a newbie game, that is obviously the correct place to start. But my 2nd and 3rd games were Star Trek and Three Kingdoms which featured all kinds of crazy crap, and I never felt out of sorts.
So a specialty that's fundamentally changing how the game works, okay - new players stay away. But a "specialty" that's still following the same rules as mafia and is just busting out complicated game pieces is something I have no problem putting an experienced game player in the midst of (assuming they don't either).
I don't think complicated games put people off. I mean, if a new person shows up here, they have gone out of their way to go to the forum games section of a Magic enthusiast site. They probably have some experience playing games.
Here's how you fix judging shortages for leagues: require all league players to play in 5/6 games and judge the 6th. Rotate who judges. 6 also feels like a lot of league games. If you dropped it to 4 there'd be more players for other games. If I was running a league from scratch I'd also gradually ramp up complexity ala the New York Times crossword: first game is normal, second is a little wonky, third is a bonkers, fourth has experimental rules (or whatever floats your goat).
PCQ is great. I would chop off a finger for a 14 player cap on mini games - so much more design space when there's room for 3 mafia and a neut.
I know, but it is apparently a problem with getting enough qualified people.
The idea was brought up that some people didn't need reviews, and my suggestion is that everyone still needs reviews, but you could loosen the requirements from two people on a list of qualified people to two people including one from a list of qualified people.
I actually thought that was the rule. I'm in favor of this.
Same! Eventually realized mafia was just too much of a time sink for me, even considering how much I liked playing and the people. Might have some time off soon though; considering dipping back in for a game.
I don't play mafia anymore because I don't have the energy, but I miss doing so, and it brings be great pleasure to see that MTGS is still at it. Insane to recognize as many names in this thread as I do.
Kpaca, I was not available for a team game in July as I was busy unionizing and moving across the country, but the offer is very much appreciated.
Bur, I don't think we've met, but sorry for not responding more promptly to inquiries about whether I'm still up for being an active reviewer. I'm evidently not.
Y'all are great. Consider not using the word lynch in games anymore. If anyone super wants to get in touch, I'll probably pop back in here within the next few days.
Goodbye.
Oh. That the heck. Kinda.
Azrael changed his avatar?
I agree with this, except I love the idea of raising the playercap on minis to 14.
Although for this to work, you should really make sure the upcoming normals are indeed a bit more complex than "large basics".
Nailed it.
The conversation should be about whether there's a player base to support all 3 of these levels of complexity at varying sizes, and if not, how to compromise around that.
I think new mechanics are not a good starting place for mafia, and I agree that unreliable cops are just dumb as butts all over and should never be used. But complicated individual roles, I see no problem with handing out to new players. Like, I started with a newbie game, and if there's enough newbies to fill up a newbie game, that is obviously the correct place to start. But my 2nd and 3rd games were Star Trek and Three Kingdoms which featured all kinds of crazy crap, and I never felt out of sorts.
So a specialty that's fundamentally changing how the game works, okay - new players stay away. But a "specialty" that's still following the same rules as mafia and is just busting out complicated game pieces is something I have no problem putting an experienced game player in the midst of (assuming they don't either).
Here's how you fix judging shortages for leagues: require all league players to play in 5/6 games and judge the 6th. Rotate who judges. 6 also feels like a lot of league games. If you dropped it to 4 there'd be more players for other games. If I was running a league from scratch I'd also gradually ramp up complexity ala the New York Times crossword: first game is normal, second is a little wonky, third is a bonkers, fourth has experimental rules (or whatever floats your goat).
PCQ is great. I would chop off a finger for a 14 player cap on mini games - so much more design space when there's room for 3 mafia and a neut.
I actually thought that was the rule. I'm in favor of this.
Over in Mostly Mute, we're having a lot of trouble with malfunctioning smilies, where sometimes they'll work and sometimes not. See this post for an example: http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/mafia/548994-mostly-mute-monk-mafia-day-1?comment=55
Is there something we're doing wrong? While survivable, it's a little problematic for a game that relies on smilies pretty heavily.
Thanks!