Newbie Setup (Matrix6 implemented)

[zoraster]

I kind of feel a bit insulted by Mr. Flay's implication that mods cannot be expected to actually randomize what roles are in a semi-open. By modding a semi-open, you agree to run whatever random.org gives you. If we're

THAT

concerned about whether or not assignments are random, have singersigner set up a reasonably foolproof system that proves the setup is randomly generated. Something like this:

1. First-time newbie mods set up a system of how they are going to determine what roles in the game—say, if we keep 2of4, the terms "cop", "doc", "JK", and "VT" go in the list randomizer and we pick the top two that come up.
   
2. singersigner approves the method.
   
3. We give her a screenshot of the result with a timestamp from
   AFTER
   her approval.
   
4. Once that's taken care of, we agree on how player assignments will work. I write my role PMs so that the names are replaced with the placeholders PLAYER_01, PLAYER_02, PLAYER_03, and so on as necessary.
   
5. Again, give her a screenshot of the random.org assignments from after she approved the system.

It's not perfect—someone who doesn't like the role/player assignments can just rerun the generator, for example—but I am against newbie games going to fully open setups just because some mods aren't playing by the rules.

As for ideas for a new newbie setup, I would be the wrong person to ask for a hard setup, but in my opinion newbie games suffer if they're needlessly complex. No setups that take longer than two or three sentences to explain should be allowed, and any permitted deviations from the basic investigative/protective/blocking roles should be allowed. (My main beef against a vigilante being allowed in a newbie stems more from the small game size than the likelihood that it'll be given to an inexperienced player.)

why? Why not just have singer assign them? This only increases the work. Here's how easy it is for her:

Have singer go to random.org. Generate 100 integers for the next 100 games. She has this list. When she PMs a mod to tell them its their turn to sign up, she tells them which setup to do. She doesn't even have to go to random.org again to do this.

[zoraster]

It isn't that they're doing it to you in particular. They're doing it for us as a whole because we as a whole benefit from it.

We don't let people who have been here two weeks moderate large themes not because each individual one is incapable of doing so but because as a whole it's a bad idea.

And in this case you literally gain nothing doing it yourself if you're doing it honestly.

[zoraster]

Well, we don't have the luxury of knowing who's doing it non-randomly, just that it's probably happening. As such, there's no way to tell those people they can't mod. As a result, our best solution is simply to have the listmod do it.

Here's the thing: mods DO NOT have the discretion at the moment. The only way they have any sort of discretion is if they're cheating. Period. So nothing is being taken away from them other than the ability to click on random.org.

I think mods should welcome it. It'll reassure players that there's nothing funky going on with the setups.

[zoraster]

why should they? If semi-open as we do now is the best solution, there is no reason to use an open game when there is such a simple solution of having the listmod do it. If an open setup is BETTER, that's fine, but not using one just because you don't want a listmod telling you which randomly generated setup to use would be a terrible decision.

EDIT: To clarify: I'm not opposed to using an open setup at all. That'd at least be more similar to some games we run now outside of newbies (the percent of games that are semi-open in the style we use for newbies is negligible). I just don't think we should decide to do so because of an irrational desire not to have any listmod control.

If we can find a balanced open setup that is balanced time after time after time even without doubt about claims, etc. then sure, I'd be good with that.

[zoraster]

No. That's not what we're saying at all. We're saying a number of newbie mods are not randomizing. To prevent that from happening, we'll randomize for everyone. Why? Because it solves the problem at ZERO cost to anyone but the listmod, and there the cost is very low. Just because you have your setup given to you doesn't mean that you are not trusted individually. The obsession with being "trusted" is not appropriate for a mod.

View it as a cost/benefit equation. On the benefit side to the listmod doing it is that we assure random setups and slightly less work for mods. On the cost side we have a very slight increase in work for the listmod. To me it is clear which prevails.

P-edit: as for the role to player thing, yeah. That's a problem too, but I think it's one that involves a lot more work for the listmod, so it increases the cost there. At least this way we get SETUPS that are randomized appropriately so that the legitimacy of the entire overall semi-open setup is not called into question.

[zoraster]

The numbers from F11 indicate if anything an insignificant amount of setup rigging.

Is singersigner assigning setups to mods? Because ugh those Doc/Townie percentages are off.

To the point that it's statistically significant.

[zoraster]

Well I mean theoretically assigning setups eliminates setup rigging, but in practice, what's to stop the mod from running the setup they want anyway? If the games are all going to be the same size, it's likely the list mod won't find out until it's too late.

Edit: I'm not really up to speed on the two of four distribution numbers, but wasn't that setup supposed to be assigned to mods?

Yeah, the listmod may not find out, but the penalty is there. If you're caught, you'll be in some form of trouble. That should be enough to stop it.

The thing about list mods assigning setups... if you believe mods are rigging the setup chosen for play, is there not reason to think that the mod might also be rigging the role assignment? If you think one is suspect then surely the other likely is too and the list mod should be doing both?

Just my thought on the matter.

This is a good point. If we're having problems with rigged games, why should the list mod randomize

ONLY

the setup? The list mod might as well do both, and then the newbie mods would serve to make singersigner's life easier and not have to watch over tons of games herself.

For those who don't get the joke: I'm against this, too, being more overkill than what has been suggested. This is only to prove a point.

Well, if it were really easy for the listmod, I'd have no problem with it. It is not a particularly extreme thing to do. But I think the increase in work for the listmod would make it not worth the effort.

[zoraster]

The difference between Cop+Doc vs. RB and mountainous vs. RB is really bad.

[zoraster]

Yeah... but that doesn't exactly speak volumes for the current setup.

[zoraster]

I actually agree with timeater, though obviously they should use MS terminology and focus on some of the less weird roles

[zoraster]

the problem is that balance isn't the only thing going on. You want to expose people to day play with a newbie game.

I have nothing against EM. Although few remember it, it's where I played most of my mafia in the early days of EM (back when there were only a handful of roles, no mods, disconnecting was a huge problem, etc.)

[zoraster]

Bird 7p would be a good solution. Not much room for error lynching and a little swingy though

[zoraster]

Mehdi brings up a good point. if the choke point is ICs or mods, having fewer players per game makes things tougher.

[zoraster]

5/1/1 should be okay too? Really depends on where the choke point is.

[zoraster]

Why

ARE

newbie games started in batches? the most important thing for newbie games is to get them going ASAP. A normal player will wait around, but newbies are momentum driven.

[zoraster]

well, if it's balanced at 7p, it'll be town-sided at 9.

[zoraster]

the difference is largely in the fact that it's an open game versus a semi-open game where cop+doc vs. RB is merely one option of 4.

[zoraster]

well i think the thought was that with a stable of opens that the listmod would choose one, but it'd still be public knowledge which open was being chosen.

[zoraster]

hmm yeah. i guess i read that differently, but you may be right. I don't really support that, though. Seems like a hodge-podge attempt at semi-open in the end. I'd rather just have a rotating number of open games or something.

[zoraster]

it just seems sloppy to me. If you're going to design a semi-open setup, do it, whether that's C9++++++++, F11, 2of4, or whatever. If you're going to use open games, do that instead. I don't see the advantage in shrouding an open game. And it makes it harder as of now to figure out win rates because an open game that is balanced as an open is no longer balanced as a semi-closed setup.

[zoraster]

I actually agree with that. Mafia Godfather is not a good role for 9p games.

[zoraster]

The only true statistic I care about with newbie games is the conversation statistic. In other words, how many players who play in a newbie game are here 6 months later actively playing the game?

Fun, balance, etc. all indirectly affect that, I think. So that's why those are important.

[zoraster]

If this is the prime mover than I think the biggest issue is the delay between sign-ups and games starting due to games being batch started as momentum seems to be particularly important for new players and not anything related to the games themselves.

I could not agree more:

Why

ARE

newbie games started in batches? the most important thing for newbie games is to get them going ASAP. A normal player will wait around, but newbies are momentum driven.

[zoraster]

It's fine if there's a buffer of two newbies or so, but ideally we'd never see two+ full games launching at the same time unless they all signed up that day.

[zoraster]

nm

[zoraster]

kinda like hito's setup. What's the EV, hito, assuming vig shoots N1?

[zoraster]

How much does our IC situation rely on our primary ICs (e.g. nacho and thor)? If one were to take a break from the site or even just newbies, would we have a problem again?

[zoraster]

that seems okay. the biggest part of newbie games is to get newbies playing and give them an environment where it's OKAY to be a newbie sometimes compared to the fairly ruthless world outside. Ratios, ICs, etc. just are gravy. More frequent games with active players is just more important, full stop.

[zoraster]

i don't believe that.

[zoraster]

disregard IC and SE players, count replacements and replaced as long as they were newbies.

but ideally you'd have more than a single month's data, and you'd compare it to other variables (e.g. how fast the game went up for sign ups, what setup was being used, how long the game lasted, who was the IC)

[zoraster]

uh all that does is link me to the thread?

[zoraster]

oh, one word of warning since you're somewhat new here, Rob: your data for newbies in December 2011ish will be kind of skewed because of the crash in late winter, early spring. That will almost assuredly lower the number of members who were posting 6 months later.

[zoraster]

As it stands, the ICs aren't currently a problem (so I understand). I think the real problem is that we want to reduce the wait time for newbies, though obviously that sometimes falls to the wayside. And if you up it to 11, the first person to sign up will have to wait somewhat longer. The other reason for 9p is that it's shorter, and a short introduction is honestly what's needed in terms of instruction.

As an aside, upping it to 11 doesn't necessarily help the IC problem to the extent you might suspect it would. Upping it to 11 would mean games would last longer meaning ICs would be locked up, on average, for longer.

[zoraster]

edit: i was speaking of the ideal circumstance.

[zoraster]

The mountainous setup.

[zoraster]

yeah. F11 had four setups:

one cop vs. 2 goons
one doctor vs. 2 goons
one cop, one doctor vs. 1 goon, one RB
no power roles vs. 1 goon, one RB

[zoraster]

I don't really see it as problematic for the mafia to know that they're up against both the doc and cop.

F11 without the mountainous setup (F11-1 -> F10?) actually would work, I think.

[zoraster]

No. In F11, the roleblocker isn't present in either the Doc only or Cop only setups, only in the Doc AND Cop setups and mountainous.

[zoraster]

effectively quadz.

[zoraster]

the goal isn't to exhaust our supplies of SEs and ICs. A long queue there is great.

[zoraster]

The reason to have newbies is also in large part so that pure new players don't become the large contingent in our other queues. it's not a bad though, but I don't think it really does us much good. The way newbies work now is pretty good, I think?

[zoraster]

the goal isn't to exhaust our supplies of SEs and ICs. A long queue there is great.

Not so great for the players, though. It's difficult to know when you're going to reach the top of the queue, so it's difficult to know how much time you'll have on your plate when you reach there. It's kind of annoying. I never both with the SE queue because it's just too long and it always prevents me from adding on an extra game due to the uncertainty of when I'll be needed.

On a side note, the ability to /in twice or even more often into either the SE or IC queue is annoying to people who want to reach the top of the queue. It's silly that Nacho, for instance, is going to reach the top of the IC queue four times before I reach it once. It's not difficult to /in again as soon as you make it into a game and it will keep the wait time much lower than it is now (at least for the IC queue).

Sure, but again, our purpose isn't to give good games to these players. We have literally 6 other queues designed to do that.

[zoraster]

It wasn't hostile to a newbie. It was "hostile" to a newbie who came in and advocated deleting long time and well loved threads.

[zoraster]

yeah, that may well be. I'm not sure there's any good way to solve that though barring an easier and better implemented alt game system.

[zoraster]

And given the pace that games are played, I'm not sure it's realistic to keep people in the "newbie basket" for a long time. To an extent, there is a trial by fire. The thing that makes it harder for people, though, is acting like everyone is out to get them. I don't mean to single you out on this at all as you aren't the only or worst example. You'll notice that there are quite a few newbies that acclimatize well, though, and they're the ones that are better at approximating whatever the je ne sais quoi is of the site.

edit: Also, what Faraday said. Some people fit and others do not. Many others don't fit until they do.

[zoraster]

oh yeah. i have no problem with zoidberg, other than he thinks my pointing out that he's been here for only a limited time and that comes with certain issues constitutes newbie harassment.

[zoraster]

also for what it's worth, i think opens, mini-normals and micros are easier to break into at first. large themes tend to be where a lot of the "cliques" go.

[zoraster]

I don't know that competency is really all that big a goal for the players in the game other than the IC. Frankly, we could do away with SEs altogether as long as we're filling our games with newbies aplenty.

[zoraster]

Do you know of any ICs that only have RTR experience?

[zoraster]

also, if you required SEs to have 3 games of experience, it would become impossible for ICs to not have experience outside RTR.

[zoraster]

no you don't. but how do you get 5 games of

only

Road to Rome experience if you don't play games as an SE?

[zoraster]

meh.

[zoraster]

it is not. People trying to solve the SE queue length are trying to solve a thing that is working well.

[zoraster]

yeah, I agree with you. I don't think having ICs who were SEs is helpful, really

[zoraster]

All Newbie games are the same, so there's no need for differentiation. Also, it's pretty much impossible to know what newbies are like before they play, so knowing the player list is unhelpful. Last, this way there's a steady flow of SEs and ICs.

[zoraster]

nope. that is excellent distillation.

[zoraster]

i agreed ,but i can't help but i've secretly been twisted into agreeing to some horrible conclusion...

[zoraster]

Vengefuls intrigue me as an option, but I'll need to think about it. Not that my opinion is the be-all or anything

[zoraster]

I think it's easier to keep the Newbie rules fairly standard, for what it's worth. 2 weeks seems more in keeping with the current site stuff.

[zoraster]

well, actually I think what zach is saying is give mods leeway to make that choice.

[zoraster]

Because the games aren't for ICs and SEs? Having a backlog of willing participants in those categories is a great thing, not something to be "fixed"

[zoraster]

Well, not really. I'm saying that the numbers we have are sufficient, and increasing them just to get through that backlog is a mistake. I'd much rather have a long SE/IC backlog that not have one at all.

[zoraster]

It probably hasn't. But if it hasn't, then there's no reason to increase the number of ICs in the game, is there? The amount of "good" that comes from increasing IC supply in a game is fairly limited. The goal of a newbie game is to (1) expose new players to new concepts (2) provide an area where newbies feel more at home being newbies and (3) create a newbie quarantine, so to speak. Those aren't really furthered by increasing the number of experienced players in the game.

[zoraster]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind if singer wants to do that from time to time, but I think it'd be a bad idea to reduce the queue too much.

[zoraster]

will people who launch into the game know which of the setups they're getting?

Also, F11 doesn't have a roleblocker in the solo cop and solo doctor situations.

[zoraster]

Yeah I think one problem you're going to face is that adding uncertainty largely aids scum in this situation, so doc vs. 2 goons might be at least somewhat plausibly balanced when there are a limited number of roles available, thus limiting fake claiming and the like, add in uncertainty and suddenly you're in trouble.

Personally, I'd just rotate the variable setups (can we use this term instead of "semi-open" since that term means two different things?) rather than hide which variable setup you're using.

[zoraster]

Mountainous should not be used as a setup. Sure, there's value to it. But it's pretty minimal and it's totally unbalanced.

[zoraster]

how so? Mafia have a roleblocker.

[zoraster]

how so? Mafia have a roleblocker.

Who has a game breaking effect in favor of town if he is lynched first. (And the game break is with 100% of roleblocker games now instead of 50% and will be possible more often than it was in the original F11) Not even the mountainous setup is similarly game breaking for scum if town is lynched.

yeah, but that's part of the game at least. Roleblocker is killed game is much harder for town. Not a surprise. It's not really different than in a cop vs. 2 goons setup where the cop is lynched or killed d1/n1.

[zoraster]

it's not broken if it's only Day 2 when that happens. Whether it's ideal or not may be another question, but it's not "broken" any more than having a couple of guilty cop reports is "broken"

The reason it's not is that scum had a chance to: (1) protect their RB by not having him be suspected and (2) protect their RB by trying to make sure that even the goon was lynched first (3) kill either the doc or the cop N1 (30% chance randomly, supposedly higher if scum get a power role read on someone).

[zoraster]

outguess the mod talk is an advantage in a newbie? and "good mods will make good setups" seems weird when you're only giving the mods a select few to choose from: why would they even have a bad option to choose from in the first place.

[zoraster]

They aren't the same thing, if that's what you mean. I don't see, for example, a Tracker, Doc vs. Goon, Rolecop

edit: I see your qualifiers. I don't think that's going to be easier for newbies, no. But the way I'd organize it for them is to list each town power role and put all the setups that could occur if that town role is present, and then list each scum power role and list all the possibilities for it... cross referenced style.

[zoraster]

dammit. no 30 minute deadlines? also, i haven't thought about the implications taht much, but the design element of quilford's matrix is genius for its simplicity and understand...ability. which is frankly very important for newbies.

[zoraster]

i think it's elegant, easy to understand, and pretty brilliant.

goon, goon cop is just fine.

the only one that's concerning to me is roleblocker, cop vs. rolecop. that's a lot of town power.

[zoraster]

that's a weird solution. it seems like the RB should get priority over a JK if anyone does, but i guess so long as there's a policy.

[zoraster]

maybe the solution is just to get rid of the diagonals? I don't think you lose anything by getting rid of goon, rb, doctor vs. goon and you avoid RB, Cop vs. rolecop

What should the setup be called? Matrix6?

[zoraster]

Strongman is a great newbie role. It is easy to understand, it works well in a 9 player game, and it helps make some setups available without a roleblocker.

though if we do make this change, we should also change the normal rules to add strongman (should already be a greenlit role anyway, honestly). I don't like the idea of newbie games having non-normal roles, but that's easy to fix.

[zoraster]

i don't think a newbie setup where the correct play is to do something IMMEDIATELY in the game is really a great idea.

[zoraster]

i have to say, i still prefer Quil's, albeit with no diagonals. I think either works though. Townsided is probably a good thing.

[zoraster]

also much harder to strategically lurk