[Discussion] Mod Queue & Game Categories

[Nolder]

Reviving this discussion since I think it's kind of important.

We've now seen an example of someone looking at the game queue and deciding the wait is far too long and taking their game to another site.

I think this highlights the issue and shows that inefficiency in the way things are ran can and will drive people away.

 

Here's the thread where previous discussion took place.

 

Here's an old discussion I found from 2012 about some of the same things.

 

The questions that need answering are these:

 

1. How can we make the modding queue more efficient and reduce the waiting time for people to run their games?

 

2. Should a [standard] category be added and how would it differ from [basic] and [Advanced]?

[Andrej]

I don't think there's much we can currently do to lessen the wait because everyone and their brother wants to run games here. One thing that I think would help (as a somewhat temporary solution) would be to limit the number of games played/in sign ups simultaneously. This way games are forced to be filled/completed before the next round may begin. Unfortunately this will likely lead to a recycled player base playing over and over again repetitively but not much one can do about that with a small community of players available.

 

I think having a Standard and Advanced break down would be okay with different sub-sets for each.

 

Standard could include: Beginner and Basic games

 

Advanced could include: Experimental, Role Madness, Bastard, etc games

[Sili Quirrels]

I'm a total novice, but for my two cents, I say lessen the strict balance requirements as though mafia is innately competitive (it isn't), and increase the number of games out there on the forum at once. Every 2 weeks, those games that aren't able to start go to the bottom of the queue.

[Kivam]

That would actually make the wait longer, AJ, since games would run less often, meaning the time-to-mod for anyone waiting would be longer

[Kivam]

I'm a total novice, but for my two cents, I say lessen the strict balance requirements as though mafia is innately competitive (it isn't), and increase the number of games out there on the forum at once. Every 2 weeks, those games that aren't able to start go to the bottom of the queue.

??

[Sili Quirrels]

Something like 6 games on forum

 

 

I'm a total novice, but for my two cents, I say lessen the strict balance requirements as though mafia is innately competitive (it isn't), and increase the number of games out there on the forum at once. Every 2 weeks, those games that aren't able to start go to the bottom of the queue.

??

 

Games are balanced here by a committee, I think.

[Kivam]

Something like 6 games on forum

 

 

I'm a total novice, but for my two cents, I say lessen the strict balance requirements as though mafia is innately competitive (it isn't), and increase the number of games out there on the forum at once. Every 2 weeks, those games that aren't able to start go to the bottom of the queue.

??

 

Games are balanced here by a committee, I think.

Ah.  You're suggesting leave off oversight for new mods, not saying "balance, who needs it, just slap together a game".  That makes more sense, but I think new mods need mentors, especially in game design, as much or more than new players do

[WWWwombat]

I think Kivam was objecting to your classification of mafia as not competitive.  Mafia is a competition.

[Verbal32]

Bottom line:  the only way to make the queue move faster is to open up more games at once.

 

Nothing else will have the desired effect.

[Sili Quirrels]

Bottom line:  the only way to make the queue move faster is to open up more games at once.

 

Nothing else will have the desired effect.

Okay, what do you think: Increase the number by 2 or 4, and every 2 (or however many) weeks those games that aren't able to start go to the bottom of the queue.

[Kivam]

Bottom line:  the only way to make the queue move faster is to open up more games at once.

 

Nothing else will have the desired effect.

 

Exactly.  Which means you need more players.  With a core of 20, you can only have so many games running before they all suffer.

[Verbal32]

The reason we restricted the # at one time was because too many people signed up for 3-4 games and activity suffered.  People spread themselves too thin.  We've been through this cycle dozens of times over the years.

[Verbal32]

nice xpost, lol

[Kivam]

The reason we restricted the # at one time was because too many people signed up for 3-4 games and activity suffered.  People spread themselves too thin.  We've been through this cycle dozens of times over the years.

 

You could open more for signups but limit the number played by any 1 person - that way people could sign up for the setup that interested them most and more players could sign up than there are spots for now. 

 

Some games would languish in signups though, despite the mod queue

[Sili Quirrels]

The reason we restricted the # at one time was because too many people signed up for 3-4 games and activity suffered.  People spread themselves too thin.  We've been through this cycle dozens of times over the years.

Dozens huh. Don't know what I can say then.

 

I was thinking the games wouldn't fill up, not that there wasn't enough activity in the ones that started.

[Sili Quirrels]

Should also be noted that the larger the player base the longer the sign up queu since more people will be here who want to start their own game.

[Verbal32]

 

The reason we restricted the # at one time was because too many people signed up for 3-4 games and activity suffered.  People spread themselves too thin.  We've been through this cycle dozens of times over the years.

 

You could open more for signups but limit the number played by any 1 person - that way people could sign up for the setup that interested them most and more players could sign up than there are spots for now. 

 

Some games would languish in signups though, despite the mod queue

 

 

True, but then you'll have to have somebody monitor that and turn into the tattletale that makes a game not start....and then languish because everybody signed up for X game and can't play Y.....which then makes the mod of Y upset that everybody wanted to be near Verbal and carry him around on a cushion and feed him little olives.

 

 

 

Umm.....what was your question?

[Andrej]

That's kind of what I'm saying though. With only 20 players it's going to take forever for 2-3 games to fill.

 

Allow only 1, which more or less forces those who want to play to join, and then when that game runs another sign up can be posted. Create less slots than the player pool and the demand will rise.

[Verbal32]

That's kind of what I'm saying though. With only 20 players it's going to take forever for 2-3 games to fill.

 

Allow only 1, which more or less forces those who want to play to join, and then when that game runs another sign up can be posted. Create less slots than the player pool and the demand will rise.

 

How does that make the queue go faster, though?

[Sili Quirrels]

 

Ah.  You're suggesting leave off oversight for new mods, not saying "balance, who needs it, just slap together a game".  That makes more sense, but I think new mods need mentors, especially in game design, as much or more than new players do

 

I haven't been through the process, so it isn't my place to comment.

 

For me, someone to oversee my ideas and refine the set up was swell.

[keyholder21]

Hm....what about limiting signing up to mod to those who already have a game set and ready? That way there wouldn't be so much waiting in between?

[Andrej]

 

That's kind of what I'm saying though. With only 20 players it's going to take forever for 2-3 games to fill.

Allow only 1, which more or less forces those who want to play to join, and then when that game runs another sign up can be posted. Create less slots than the player pool and the demand will rise.

 

 

How does that make the queue go faster, though?

Less time spent in sign ups means more games can run over a period of time. Which increases the speed in which the queue cycles.

[Andrej]

By allowing more simultaneous games to run/be in sign ups "takes" names off the queue list but if those games aren't starting quickly and sitting with a half-full roster for weeks on end the queue still isn't technically moving. Simply put I just don't think we have enough players to support multiple large games without people spreading themselves too thin.

[Verbal32]

By allowing more simultaneous games to run/be in sign ups "takes" names off the queue list but if those games aren't starting quickly and sitting with a half-full roster for weeks on end the queue still isn't technically moving. Simply put I just don't think we have enough players to support multiple large games without people spreading themselves too thin.

 

Counterpoint:  by only having 1 game at a time, you'll have a large # of players wanting to play.  That results in a large game that will take longer to finish.  I don't think this will have much of an effect on the elapsed time.

[Andrej]

That's true also. Tom's game would be a good example of that since it went from 13 to 20.

 

I don't really think we could "enforce" game sizes and people would go along with that, so I'll concede that point as "mod discretion"