Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sudgy]

I think that having separate categories might be fine, but I wouldn't be in favor of separate queues. I am worried that splitting the normal queue into two categories would cause one queue to stall much like the BM queue is currently, and that having an entire set of games stalled out isn't good, especially for people who want to make/play games specifically in that category.

Like, if we split into "normal" and "role games", people who want to play one game only may tend to go for a "normal" game, and this repeatedly happens, and the "role games" queue gets stalled out. I'd be in favor of two categories in one queue, but not two separate queues, if that makes sense.

I don't quite understand why we need two categories now.  I thought the system we had was doing just fine.  right?

Some people (including me) think MC is too crazy for normal and not crazy enough for RMM.

[shraeye]

oh, i see that you said we don't want seperate queues.  then I agree with you.

[shraeye]

I think the big thing that made MXXXI feel not normal to me was that most of the discussion was about roles.  I think that should only be in RMM.

Well, what the players discuss is up to the players.  As a mod, I definitely thought there was way too much claiming/role talk too.  Hurt town, for sure.

definitely agree.  if y'all had talked about roles less, people would have been more focused on regular scumhunting.  the "quick, everyone claim but with no plan!" idea was not good from town perspective.

[mail-mi]

I'm waiting for Voltgloss' analysis on past games. Interested to see what he does!

[yuma]

Yuma, let me clarify what I said.

I do care about stats. From a players perspective though, and not a mods. I think it's great you keep them and hope that you continue to do so. I love knowing how right or how wrong I've been.

But that's the crux of my issue here regarding stats. I want to know that I was wrong 89% of the time because I had bad reads, not because I didn't buy that the mod would put role 'X' in the setup.

I didn't say it after MC, but I honestly don't think Robz played the best game there. I think that TA did. I do believe that Robz was, perhaps, the most valuable player, and he certainly didn't play a bad game... but the best? No. His ability to mislead me was, I felt, not entirely (or even mostly) his own doing. The reason I defended him so hard D2 was because I didn't believe the mods would put in a Godfathered Mentor, nor a Godfather granting role. So his willingness to be investigated - his insisting on it D1 - made me think he was town. At the end, I felt beat by Yuma and Ashersky, not Robz.

Now, maybe Robz does the same in any situation. He certainly played a very good game. But the reason I was so adamant he not get lynched had nothing to do with how scummy I found HIS play. How is it fair to count that, or any setup that promotes that sort of play, in with games that are designed to support actual scum hunting? Because the truth is, I thought he was scum D1!

I just don't see how the two can be equally compared or counted together. I don't think it's fair to count my correct or incorrect lynch percentage using games where I lynch or don't lynch based on my read of the mods. And "Well you shouldn't have ruled Godfatherer out" really isn't a good enough answer when we're talking about what the stats say about me as a player. I want them to indicate my relative skill at Mafia, which I don't feel games like MC, or Bankers, or Robz' first game, or what you're suggesting actually do.

And I'll use Robz first game as another example. Yes, we used reads to get f.ds's first ever scum D1 lynch. But we continued to do so well because we were able to accurately guess setup information, and what fit vs what didn't. It had very little to do with scum hunting. ftl almost won out because we didn't believe Robz would put a scum lightning rod into the game. He survived like 4 days of straight mislynches riding his claim. Not his play, which was nonexistent, but his claim.

There's still room on f.ds for these games, sure. And if you want to keep their stats, that's fine too. But I ask that they NOT be called Normal, nor added to normal game stats. Because to me they play as very different games.

Galz you certainly have a valid point. And I think if it is one that the majority of the community ends up agreeing with we will go with it. But I personally disagree.

I think I disagree because people do place too much emphasis on claims and less on play. You give the example of ftl. What happens if people don't try and figure out the setup or try and out guess the mod (which in a closed setup... it just isn't possible to outguess the mod I think) and actually scum hunt? ftl would have been lynched. You can't blame the mod for bad play by town, and by bad play I mean focusing more on claims and trying to figure out the setup than actually scum hunting. Sure, part of that is that people didn't know what was possible in the given setup. But if you explicitly state at a beginning of a game that anything, barring obvious and specific RMM or BM features, hopefully people stop trying to figure out the setup and figuring out mod WIFOM and just lynch based off reads, because I think that is the optimal play in that scenario.

That is my take at least, but like others have said, I want the stats to be what the community wants.

One thing I will say though, is that I will not be doing more than one spreadsheet, if we do decide to separate the games out. That doesn't interest me. Someone else can feel free to do so, but it isn't something that I want to do with my time.

[ashersky]

Just as an experiment, if we used my idea of two separate but connected Normal Queues, it might look like this (games slotted with guesses, obviously not set or anything):

Normal Queue (Next Number: 35):

Standard/Open Games (* denotes Tweaked)
Stack the Deck, by yuma.
Base Dominion, First Game*, by Voltgloss
Community's choice, by Sudgy
Unknown, by raerae
Adventure Time Mafia*, by ashersky
Donald's Greater Idea Mafia*, by mail-mi
Justice League Mafia, by yuma
Unknown, by mcmcsalot
Survivor Mafia (16 players, open setup), by Galzria
Unknown, by liopoil
Unknown C9++*, by Twistedarcher/nkirbit

Invented/Closed Games
Avalon Mafia, by Tables
Monsters University Mafia, by ashersky
Arrested Development Mafia by yuma
A fresh start (9 players, closed setup), by Galzria
Unknown, by Archetype



I would propose that at any given time, the top game from each of those separate designations is open for sign-up.  The one that fills, takes the next number (or takes a number at sign-up stage, whatever).  As one starts, the next on from that queue opens.  We continually have one of each style open, and they all count for stats.  If you don't like closed version, just don't play, because an open game will always be available.

We could probably move some RMM to Invented/Closed (like LOTR1 might have) or people might tweak invented RMM games to not be so crazy that they would fit in the normal Invented queue.

I think something like this could keep both mods and players happy.

[yuma]

So after thinking things through I think I am actually starting to lean toward the side of Galz on the question of what should/shouldn't be stat based... And as a result I don't really see a need for a separate category for RMM games and games like MC.

I won't go into exactly what changed my mind, but a lot of it had to do with me tinkering around with my Arrested Development game and I caught myself starting to worry about how this game would work with stats... that is... I began to try and manipulate it so that it would be on the stat side of the imaginary line I had created in the sand. As a result the game that I had envisioned originally was starting to move toward something different because I wanted it to be "stat worthy"

This was exactly my concern originally, that not allowing these sort of games would stymie creativity, but it was more that my attempts to change my original creativity to adapt was what was stymieing my efforts. I think AD mafia is better left to just be a RMM game and I wonder if all such games are better off left as just RMM games...

I do think that perhaps the list that Galz gives for Closed Normal roles could be expanded

Normal Games with a Closed Setup may contain:
Cop
Doctor
Roleblocker
JK
Vigilante
Godfather
Rolecop
SK
IC
Mason
Neighbors
Neighborizer
Tracker
Watcher
JoAT (with listed roles above)

Modifiers:
1-shot
x-shot
Bulletproof
Godfather (in the case of, say, a SK)

Galz himself says that there are a few he may have forgotten himself, especially as RMM roles are explored by the community and hopefully become accepted as standard... For example in O's game there was the letter writer. I don't remember how people felt about that role, but if it was positive and felt to be balanced, it could be added to the list. That is just an example, I am sure there are others. Perhaps this is where our discussion should turn to as we come closer to coming to a consensus?

[ashersky]

Any thoughts on the split queue idea?

[mail-mi]

Normal Games with a Closed Setup may contain:
Cop
Doctor
Roleblocker
JK
Vigilante
Godfather
Rolecop
SK
IC
Mason
Neighbors
Neighborizer
Tracker
Watcher
Follower
Voyeur
JoAT (with listed roles above)

Modifiers:
1-shot
x-shot
Bulletproof
Godfather (in the case of, say, a SK)
Strongman and Ninja Kill Modifiers

Galz himself says that there are a few he may have forgotten himself, especially as RMM roles are explored by the community and hopefully become accepted as standard... For example in O's game there was the letter writer. I don't remember how people felt about that role, but if it was positive and felt to be balanced, it could be added to the list. That is just an example, I am sure there are others. Perhaps this is where our discussion should turn to as we come closer to coming to a consensus?

My opinions added in bold.

[Twistedarcher]

The problem with a standard list like that is that it ruins adding new roles that are certainly "normal", yet aren't established/accepted/discovered yet. For example, look at the enabler role from M31. I think that enabler is a great role, and I was very happy to see it included, even though I'd never been exposed to it before. But the role isn't "normal" by mafiascum standards.

If a mod wanted to introduce a role such as enabler into a standard game, what's the appropriate way to do it? If it's a closed setup, people might be caught off guard because they didn't expect it. But it's a role that I think it good to have, and there's nothing wrong with including a role such as enabler in a closed game.

Now, the same argument can be applied to godfatherer, a role which had less of a positive reaction. No one had any complaints about enabler, though, and for most of the players, they were both roles that were unknown previously.

What makes enabler OK, but godfatherer not OK? How would people personally like to see these roles introduced?

Personally, I'm fine if mods running more vanilla setups want to include a list of potential roles. If a mod doesn't want to include that list, though, I'm ok with them including roles such as enabler and godfatherer or whatever else our creative mods can come up with.

I think the solution isn't to shackle mods, but instead for mods to just be a little bit more communicative about the type of game they're running in their game threads, and for players to be a little more honest with themselves on whether or not they want to join closed setup games. I think even including a line saying "This game is a closed setup, and may or may not include roles regularly played in past F.DS games" would be helpful both in helping players identifying the games they want to play and for helping mods effectively communicate the type of games they are trying to create.

[ashersky]

I think the standard list of roles could work for "Standard" games, instead of all "normal" games.

If the split-queue system were to roll out, for example, games in the first queue would abide by the roles list while the second queue wouldn't.

[sudgy]

I think that all games from normal through RMM can have the same roles, it's the interaction between them and scumhunting that changes the setup.

[Jimmmmm]

I think that all games from normal through RMM can have the same roles, it's the interaction between them and scumhunting that changes the setup.

I think that defeats the purpose of having a normal category. In RMM invented games, you can have literally any role you can dream up, so long as it doesn't cross into the bastard category.

[yuma]

The problem with a standard list like that is that it ruins adding new roles that are certainly "normal", yet aren't established/accepted/discovered yet. For example, look at the enabler role from M31. I think that enabler is a great role, and I was very happy to see it included, even though I'd never been exposed to it before. But the role isn't "normal" by mafiascum standards.

If a mod wanted to introduce a role such as enabler into a standard game, what's the appropriate way to do it? If it's a closed setup, people might be caught off guard because they didn't expect it. But it's a role that I think it good to have, and there's nothing wrong with including a role such as enabler in a closed game.

Now, the same argument can be applied to godfatherer, a role which had less of a positive reaction. No one had any complaints about enabler, though, and for most of the players, they were both roles that were unknown previously.

What makes enabler OK, but godfatherer not OK? How would people personally like to see these roles introduced?

Personally, I'm fine if mods running more vanilla setups want to include a list of potential roles. If a mod doesn't want to include that list, though, I'm ok with them including roles such as enabler and godfatherer or whatever else our creative mods can come up with.

I think the solution isn't to shackle mods, but instead for mods to just be a little bit more communicative about the type of game they're running in their game threads, and for players to be a little more honest with themselves on whether or not they want to join closed setup games. I think even including a line saying "This game is a closed setup, and may or may not include roles regularly played in past F.DS games" would be helpful both in helping players identifying the games they want to play and for helping mods effectively communicate the type of games they are trying to create.

Maybe someone answered this below, but I'll take a whack at it. I think the answer is to experiment with those roles in either RMM setups or in open setups or semi-open setups. For example, the enabler role. Lets say you create it and put it in an open setup, it runs smoothly. It gets community approval and is approved to be in a closed setup and added to the list. Or you create "godfatherer" and put it in a RMM game. It gets approved and is added to the list.

I agree that such a line as you include below is appropriate. But I am starting to think that such a setup automatically constitutes as RMM...

[yuma]

Any thoughts on the split queue idea?

I think it works personally. Remember that a lot of where I am coming from is how to look at things stat wise and I am not sure how to use the split queue around that... mostly because we are working from two different vantage points on two different goals and haven't quite met in the middle, but I expect we will at some point as things get fleshed out.

[sudgy]

I think that all games from normal through RMM can have the same roles, it's the interaction between them and scumhunting that changes the setup.

I think that defeats the purpose of having a normal category. In RMM invented games, you can have literally any role you can dream up, so long as it doesn't cross into the bastard category.

And, I think that in normal games you can have anything.  It's just if the focus is more on the roles in general or scumhunting is what I would say.

[sudgy]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

[ashersky]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

[mail-mi]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

Would greater idea be standard? Would review mafia be standard?

[Twistedarcher]

I don't think the system is like in dire need of an overhaul or anything, though. I think one queue is fine, and less confusing, and easier for everyone involved.

[ashersky]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

Would greater idea be standard? Would review mafia be standard?

Review is the old roles one, right?  That's a no.

I think the biggest question we need to agree on is whether "tweaked" set-ups count as standard or invented.  That's the hardest one.

I mean, if you you took a standard set-up and added one role, is it completely invented?  Probably not.  But we need a standard.

asher9++, which I'll be rolling out soon, is a heavily-tweaked C9++.  It's changed enough that it needs to be run as an invented game.  But it's completely open in the way that C9++ is, so it's good for normal.

[sudgy]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

The problem with this is that there is no distinction from closed scumhunting-heavy games and closed role-heavy games.  That is probably the only distinction I care about at all that we don't have now.

[ashersky]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

The problem with this is that there is no distinction from closed scumhunting-heavy games and closed role-heavy games.  That is probably the only distinction I care about at all that we don't have now.

The difference in those to (to me) is closed scumhunting-heavy games are Invented Normal and closed role-heavy games are RMM.

[sudgy]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

The problem with this is that there is no distinction from closed scumhunting-heavy games and closed role-heavy games.  That is probably the only distinction I care about at all that we don't have now.

The difference in those to (to me) is closed scumhunting-heavy games are Invented Normal and closed role-heavy games are RMM.

Then MC should have been RMM, since it was closed role-heavy.

[ashersky]

Here's what I would say:

Normal: Not many PRs
Role Normal: Most/Everybody PR
RMM: New Mechanics, usually Everybody PR

Doesn't work, though.  Monster Mafia by Jimmmmm was definitely RMM, with very few (it turned out) PRs.  Monster University Mafia, which I'm designing, is VT heavy, but I feel very "fresh" and is going to be RMM (at first).

Here's my new and latest idea:

I want to split the "normal" games queue into two queues running concurrently.  We would, as a community, decide on guidance for how to split your game into "standard" and "invented."  I want to leave the final definition to the mod, though.  We would always have one game from each sub-queue running, and one from each sub-queue open for sign-ups.  As one ends and opens, another opens, etc.  The numbers get assigned as we go.  Games from both sub-queues end up in the "normal" category for results.

I think the open, semi-open, and closed labels should be added by the mods, but that the deciding factor for the sub-queue be "standard" versus "invented."

I would also suggest we maintain a list of approved set-ups (C9++, matrix6, etc.) that are clearly standard.

If there aren't issues with this right off the bat, I'm going to attempt to create the sub-queue system in my queue thread while maintaining the original.  That way we can tweak the new system without losing anything from the old.

The problem with this is that there is no distinction from closed scumhunting-heavy games and closed role-heavy games.  That is probably the only distinction I care about at all that we don't have now.

The difference in those to (to me) is closed scumhunting-heavy games are Invented Normal and closed role-heavy games are RMM.

Then MC should have been RMM, since it was closed role-heavy.

That's why we're having this discussion now.