[Discussion] Mod Queue & Game Categories

[Clovdyx]

You could also impose phase limits (e.g., site rule mandates day phases only last 48 hours and nights 16) and that would reduce the length of games.

 

For the record, I don't support this, but it WOULD get through games faster.

 

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?

 

Serious question - does this not happen already?  I assumed everybody on the queue was ready to go at that moment.

[Kivam]

Third suggestion: just let me run games whenever I want.

[WWWwombat]

Third suggestion: just let me run games whenever I want.

 

Seconded.

[Kivam]

You could also impose phase limits (e.g., site rule mandates day phases only last 48 hours and nights 16) and that would reduce the length of games.

 

For the record, I don't support this, but it WOULD get through games faster.

 

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?

 

Serious question - does this not happen already?  I assumed everybody on the queue was ready to go at that moment.

 

Same here.  Frankly, if your name comes up and you don't have a game ready to run, you should be dropped to the back of the Queue

[Leelou]

I have a bad habit of not having set ups finalized until I send role PMs, but I think that is partly to do with running a ton of games last year.

[WWWwombat]

 

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?

 

Serious question - does this not happen already?  I assumed everybody on the queue was ready to go at that moment.

 

Mods often provide a setup for review when they sign up for the queue.  At this point, they usually think they are ready.  Whether or not they actually are tends to vary.

[Nolder]

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

I disagree. There are a lot of things that can be done. How effective they would be and whether the playerbase would be willing to accept them is another matter.

 

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.

This is close to an idea I suggested and after thinking about it I'm not in favor of it anymore.

Although I do think there should be some limit to how long a game can stay in sign ups.

 

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.

It's been a long time since the "committee" did anything official I believe.

Most of the time it's individuals giving balance advice if asked.

 

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.

That's not true. I am pretty sure there are ways to clear up the clutter that AREN'T adding more games.

I don't think you (or most people) would be in favor of a lot of the ideas I could come up with though.

 

As an example; imagine if we only allowed a few select people to mod games instead of letting anyone.

This would turn 75% of the "mods" into full time players and reduce clutter in the queue by a significant amount.

Obviously this isn't preferable because a lot of people would like a turn at modding but that's a simple example of how the queue could be "fixed".

 

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.

This still happens. Just because only 4 games can be ran at a time on the main mafia board doesn't mean there aren't sometimes 6 or 7 games running on DM alone most with overlapping players.

 

 

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

 

You could, but most here don't want an authoritarian approach.

If you try it they'll just play somewhere else because **** you.

Actually that happens anyway and there's no rule against joining as many games here as one wants so...I don't think that is a viable solution.

 

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?

That's an option but it has issues and I don't think it would be that effective.

For example who's going to verify that the game is ready aside from the mod?

If we have a "checker" that person obviously wont be able to participate in the game which shrinks our already small userbase by at least 1.

 

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.

THIS.

 

This is a big issue and only game mods can really fix it.

What people need to do is start making smaller games or games with less rigid setups.

Instead of making a game and NEEDING 18 people because you've already made every role people need to put sign ups, see how many they get, and make the game around that number of people OR just make smaller games. Instead of 18 try 12. Little voluntary changes like that will go a long way.

 

You could also impose phase limits (e.g., site rule mandates day phases only last 48 hours and nights 16) and that would reduce the length of games.

 

For the record, I don't support this, but it WOULD get through games faster.

 

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?

 

Serious question - does this not happen already?  I assumed everybody on the queue was ready to go at that moment.

Some make the game after they see how many people are signed up to play.

 

Third suggestion: just let me run games whenever I want.

I do think there should be a small list of approved moderators that can run games any time they want.

People like you, DPR, and maybe a couple others who don't normally have a lot of time to wait in a queue and whose games a lot of people want to play in anyway.

It's not exactly "fair" but if enough people are in favor of it it shouldn't be a problem anytime soon.

[Kivam]

Re making the game after seeing how many sign up - that only works if it's a fairly standard game (25/75 town scum distribution, common roles that can be balanced easily, no odd mechanics).  I can run those, but I don't particularly want to, since others can do it just as well.  The games I run aren't typically that easily tweakable; Injustice, for example, needs exactly 21.

 

In other words, I think that's fine for the Basic Queue, but Advanced? 

[Nolder]

Re making the game after seeing how many sign up - that only works if it's a fairly standard game (25/75 town scum distribution, common roles that can be balanced easily, no odd mechanics).  I can run those, but I don't particularly want to, since others can do it just as well.  The games I run aren't typically that easily tweakable; Injustice, for example, needs exactly 21.

 

In other words, I think that's fine for the Basic Queue, but Advanced? 

That's true. The point is though there just aren't enough players to sustain high number set in stone games anymore here.

I mean people are pulling them off through popular themes, cult of personality, and asking friends to sign up but I think that can only continue for so long.

I think people need to stop making the big epic games here and size them down a bit.

 

IMHO the biggest game someone should be making that's set in stone is maybe 17 or 18.

[Clovdyx]

 

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?

That's an option but it has issues and I don't think it would be that effective.

For example who's going to verify that the game is ready aside from the mod?

If we have a "checker" that person obviously wont be able to participate in the game which shrinks our already small userbase by at least 1.

 

 

The community.  Let's say the queue is empty, so I sign up today.  AJ, Wombat, Verbal, and Kivam follow immediately after.  With current games drawing down, I can either - 

 

A) Pass to the next person on the list (AJ)

B) Put up a sign up within...48 hours?  72?

or C) Get bumped down to the bottom of the list.

 

Once the sign up goes up, I have...24 hours?...from the last slot being filled to send role PM's out.  In the case of a flexible game (ie, a game without a pre-set amount of roles) my signup is good for 72 hours.  Once those 72 hours pass, the game is full and I have 24 hours to send out role PMs.  If I fail to get it done, I'm back to the bottom of the queue.

 

Obviously the limits can be adjusted to what forum leadership wants, but basically, it puts the responsibility on the mod to have a game ready.  If you don't let the next person skip ahead of you and you're not immediately ready, you're last.

[Nolder]

So you're just talking about having a deadline set from the time when you're up to start the game.

That's not solely up to the game moderator though. It depends on the rate at which people sign up.

[Tommyrod]

I honestly think mods should add more killing power to games to make the average game end on D5 or thereabouts. Longer than that and games often feel like obligations instead of fun.

[Andrej]

Mando D3 Lylo situations, in my opinion.

 

Any objections?

[Nolder]

I honestly think mods should add more killing power to games to make the average game end on D5 or thereabouts. Longer than that and games often feel like obligations instead of fun.

A lot of people, myself included, think too many killing roles makes a game random.

[WWWwombat]

I'd just prefer faster deadlines.  Some of the best games I've played in have been 7 or 8 game days long.

[Sili Quirrels]

i agree. faster deadlines.

 

if not faster deadlines, make the queue a popularity contest /shrug.

[Sili Quirrels]

there's nothing wrong with a lot of killing power if it's a casual game.  it becomes more of a run and gun, but it's not that random.

[Niniel]

I like the idea with only two sign ups at a time (one basic and one advanced or whatever you like to call them). As soon as a game starts you can start with next sign up. Too many sign ups make it hard to get enough players. I think some here are like me. Nowdays I only sign up for one game at a time since I can't be active enough if I play more. But if that game doesn't start for a month I won't play until then even though I wanted to.

 

Still think there should be mafia in BT and Thak. I'm not sure about Thak but BT has players that doesn't usually play mafia here.

[hazelkrs1]

That's true. The point is though there just aren't enough players to sustain high number set in stone games anymore here.

I mean people are pulling them off through popular themes, cult of personality, and asking friends to sign up but I think that can only continue for so long.

I think people need to stop making the big epic games here and size them down a bit.

 

IMHO the biggest game someone should be making that's set in stone is maybe 17 or 18.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0

 

Also my thoughts on this discussion:

 

Wah?

 

So the queue takes a while now. It's common knowledge site activity has gone down since the series ended, and this is having an obvious effect on the mafia enviroment here on DM. Thing is- there's NO perfect fix. Player base is not big enough to accommodate a ton of games at once, especially not since most mods like making setups that require more than a tiny amount of players. HOWEVER- restricting mods from making the setups they WANT to make is stupid imo. If the player base can't support a fast moving game queue anymore, so be it. If you REALLY want to mod a setup here, you'll wait.

 

And I will also drop a wet stinky deuce on any argument that supports nixing games just because the signups don't fill up fast enough btw. That is total dog turds. I got a signup that's taking a while right now, but my last game was similar and that game ended up being pretty friggin enjoyable for all those who waited till it was full imo. Another signup went through with the quickness recently- Mynd's Avengers game- and the vast majority of players I know that played in that game overall enjoyed it, but had MAJOR gripes with how mechanics and setup and decisions were made that game.

[Kivam]

I'd just prefer faster deadlines.  Some of the best games I've played in have been 7 or 8 game days long.

 

You'll like Injustice then.  There are no deadlines ... it's just that waiting around isn't advisable

 

/muahahaha

[Clovdyx]

So you're just talking about having a deadline set from the time when you're up to start the game.

That's not solely up to the game moderator though. It depends on the rate at which people sign up.

 

If you have a set number of roles, you get the game filled and then have to start.  If you don't have a set number of roles, it's on a deadline - and that should be fine.  Saying "I can run my game with anywhere from 7 to 483 people" means that once #7 joins, you're ready to go.

[Nolder]

 

So you're just talking about having a deadline set from the time when you're up to start the game.

That's not solely up to the game moderator though. It depends on the rate at which people sign up.

 

If you have a set number of roles, you get the game filled and then have to start.  If you don't have a set number of roles, it's on a deadline - and that should be fine.  Saying "I can run my game with anywhere from 7 to 483 people" means that once #7 joins, you're ready to go.

 

This is what I think mods need to start doing.

I don't think it's right to force them to do that but if they don't want their games to sit in purgatory forever they're gonna have to cut back on their expectations a bit.

[BFG]

Smaller games might help change the pool a bit as well. It will still be the same 20 or so people playing, although if games get smaller more people may play, but out of that 20 only 12 or so are playing, so there will be bigger differences between each game.

[Pralaya]

I would say reduce the day and night requirements. The current game being run by Tommy is perfect. Extending D1 to more than 3-4 days would just increase the post count making it that much harder to catch up, especially for those like me who are not in the real-time timezone. Keep the days 3 days and night less than 24 hours.

[Kivam]

I would say reduce the day and night requirements. The current game being run by Tommy is perfect. Extending D1 to more than 3-4 days would just increase the post count making it that much harder to catch up, especially for those like me who are not in the real-time timezone. Keep the days 3 days and night less than 24 hours.

If you're running deadline games, I agree - except that you need to adjust the deadlines as your player pool shrinks.  Tommy's game should have gone to 2Day day phases before this game day, IMO. 

 

On the other hand, if you are running hammer games, there needs to be some incentive for play to move.