A Queue for Games with Short Deadlines?

[zoraster]

My problem is the more obstacles you put between wanting to mod and getting to mod the fewer people will mod. That's usually an acceptable price because it improves the quality of our games. I agree we shouldn't run a new queue like marathons, but at the same time I think requiring stuff of people running a game that will last a week will make it difficult to maintain a mod supply after the novelty wears off.

I also think we would need to replace a queue to make this one work. We've spread ourselves pretty thin across different games. The micro queue would be the natural queue to be replaced (for two main reasons: (1) it's already closest to running short games with small numbers and (2) it's a queue that overlaps heavily with other queues.), but a larger reshuffling might work.

[pirate mollie]

My problem is the more obstacles you put between wanting to mod and getting to mod the fewer people will mod. That's usually an acceptable price because it improves the quality of our games. I agree we shouldn't run a new queue like marathons, but at the same time I think requiring stuff of people running a game that will last a week will make it difficult to maintain a mod supply after the novelty wears off.

I also think we would need to replace a queue to make this one work. We've spread ourselves pretty thin across different games. The micro queue would be the natural queue to be replaced (for two main reasons: (1) it's already closest to running short games with small numbers and (2) it's a queue that overlaps heavily with other queues.), but a larger reshuffling might work.

I am really not understanding as to why short games is not a good idea to have its own queue with its own list mods that are not list mods anywhere else. I nominate faraday.

i think merging it with micros is a terrible idea - sorry zoraster! - they are 2 completely different animals. micros still adheres to majority lynches (mostly) but the shorter dl queue wld have to mostly do plurality lynches which totally changes the dynamics of the game. <------ I feel like this is pretty important to take in consideration! I have played short games where they tried to do majority lynches and it just didn't work out in the long term.

yeah, I think mod experience shld be required and games shld probs get reviewed. I REALLY do not support a cap on the numbers of players that can play a set up. I once played the 24/12 day/night round set up with 34 players; it can be done. I ran a game with 28 players 1 time as well so I KNOW that it can be done.

[hiplop]

^ It can be done, and it can be awesome. I definitely don't think their should be a cap

if you only had one game running at a time, or even 2 it could work pretty well.

[pirate mollie]

^ It can be done, and it can be awesome. I definitely don't think their should be a cap

if you only had one game running at a time, or even 2 it could work pretty well.

yeah I think 1 or 2 games wld probs be best just given the burnout rate with fast-paced games and how intense they get.

[zoraster]

My problem is the more obstacles you put between wanting to mod and getting to mod the fewer people will mod. That's usually an acceptable price because it improves the quality of our games. I agree we shouldn't run a new queue like marathons, but at the same time I think requiring stuff of people running a game that will last a week will make it difficult to maintain a mod supply after the novelty wears off.

I also think we would need to replace a queue to make this one work. We've spread ourselves pretty thin across different games. The micro queue would be the natural queue to be replaced (for two main reasons: (1) it's already closest to running short games with small numbers and (2) it's a queue that overlaps heavily with other queues.), but a larger reshuffling might work.

I am really not understanding as to why short games is not a good idea to have its own queue with its own list mods that are not list mods anywhere else. I nominate faraday.

i think merging it with micros is a terrible idea - sorry zoraster! - they are 2 completely different animals. micros still adheres to majority lynches (mostly) but the shorter dl queue wld have to mostly do plurality lynches which totally changes the dynamics of the game. <------ I feel like this is pretty important to take in consideration! I have played short games where they tried to do majority lynches and it just didn't work out in the long term.

yeah, I think mod experience shld be required and games shld probs get reviewed. I REALLY do not support a cap on the numbers of players that can play a set up. I once played the 24/12 day/night round set up with 34 players; it can be done. I ran a game with 28 players 1 time as well so I KNOW that it can be done.

I'm not saying to merge the two. I'm saying to replace it.

The more queues we add the more we fracture the playing community. To an extent that's fine as we want to provide variety that helps retention of players. But past a certain point we start to see too much fracturing and a bunch of underutilized queues.

More simply put, we cannot offer queues for every single preference.

[wgeurts]

Are we having any under utilised queues at the moment?
If that starts happening because of a fast paced queue then's the time to think how that can be solved.

[pirate mollie]

I'm not saying to merge the two. I'm saying to replace it.

The more queues we add the more we fracture the playing community. To an extent that's fine as we want to provide variety that helps retention of players. But past a certain point we start to see too much fracturing and a bunch of underutilized queues.

More simply put, we cannot offer queues for every single preference.

but it makes no sense to replace micros with this type of queue I don't think. the primary draw for micros is that players have a much smaller playerlist to manage, not the shortened deadlines. If you want to replace a queue why not marathons cos there is always a fallback to that 1 on skype or scumchat or the other mediums we have. I have seen a lot of great game designs in marathons fall to the wayside cos pple cld not commit to a game that lasted nearly 4 hours due to mechanics.

[zoraster]

I'm not saying to merge the two. I'm saying to replace it.

The more queues we add the more we fracture the playing community. To an extent that's fine as we want to provide variety that helps retention of players. But past a certain point we start to see too much fracturing and a bunch of underutilized queues.

More simply put, we cannot offer queues for every single preference.

but it makes no sense to replace micros with this type of queue I don't think. the primary draw for micros is that players have a much smaller playerlist to manage, not the shortened deadlines. If you want to replace a queue why not marathons cos there is always a fallback to that 1 on skype or scumchat or the other mediums we have. I have seen a lot of great game designs in marathons fall to the wayside cos pple cld not commit to a game that lasted nearly 4 hours due to mechanics.

Marathons aren't really a queue, they're just a special event we run every now and then. And it's not an acceptable substitute for a consolidation or replacement of a real queue.

[pirate mollie]

I'm not saying to merge the two. I'm saying to replace it.

The more queues we add the more we fracture the playing community. To an extent that's fine as we want to provide variety that helps retention of players. But past a certain point we start to see too much fracturing and a bunch of underutilized queues.

More simply put, we cannot offer queues for every single preference.

but it makes no sense to replace micros with this type of queue I don't think. the primary draw for micros is that players have a much smaller playerlist to manage, not the shortened deadlines. If you want to replace a queue why not marathons cos there is always a fallback to that 1 on skype or scumchat or the other mediums we have. I have seen a lot of great game designs in marathons fall to the wayside cos pple cld not commit to a game that lasted nearly 4 hours due to mechanics.

Marathons aren't really a queue, they're just a special event we run every now and then. And it's not an acceptable substitute for a consolidation or replacement of a real queue.

okay so why does there need to be a substitution queue at all? I think the whole idea of a quickie queue is that it wld attract new players who find the sisyphustic efforts that is required in rome to be daunting. several pple have pointed this out.

I think micros shld have its own special space cos of the smaller playerlist required and sometimes pple only want to sort out 8 other players. I guess what i am struggling with is that micros appeal to peeps who want smaller playerlists and a quickie queue wld appeal to pple who want shorter dls. <--- those are 2 different things so why wld you want to replace 1 with the other? this is what I am not understanding.

[TierShift]

I don't think we should replace a queue. We're trying to offer a greater variety of games with this plan, not change the type of games that we offer.

If you think we need to replace a queue due to thinning out the other queues, fine, think so, but there is absolutely no way to say for sure without trying it out first. If, in the end, we find out we need to replace a queue, we can think about it then, not NOW. Don't try to solve hypothetical problems that lie ahead, but have a backup plan for if they come.

[Ether]

Yeah, micros and speed games aren't really the same niche at all. I'm not convinced underutilized queues are a huge problem, outside of cases like the Open queue where the mods only joined to get experience and probably don't want to be there in the first place.

I do think a speed queue would be very likely to draw a large audience who only plays speed games and nothing else. Which...strikes me as a bad thing, but Mina does kind of have a point. This is the mode most sites play in, so you'd think it'd be the sort of thing the biggest dedicated mafia forum would have?

[chamber]

I don't think we should replace a queue. We're trying to offer a greater variety of games with this plan, not change the type of games that we offer.

If you think we need to replace a queue due to thinning out the other queues, fine, think so, but there is absolutely no way to say for sure without trying it out first. If, in the end, we find out we need to replace a queue, we can think about it then, not NOW. Don't try to solve hypothetical problems that lie ahead, but have a backup plan for if they come.

Actually, if you look at the effects opening the open and micro queues had, I think its easy to draw that conclusion without opening a third new queue.

Yeah, micros and speed games aren't really the same niche at all. I'm not convinced underutilized queues are a huge problem, outside of cases like the Open queue where the mods only joined to get experience and probably don't want to be there in the first place.

I do think a speed queue would be very likely to draw a large audience who only plays speed games and nothing else. Which...strikes me as a bad thing, but Mina does kind of have a point. This is the mode most sites play in, so you'd think it'd be the sort of thing the biggest dedicated mafia forum would have?

It's not that they are the same, it's that they would both be demanding on mod supply.


If you guys are insistent on keeping queues, you could consider doing a poll for top game preferences and giving queues to the top 5 + newbies or something, refreshing every 6 months or a year.

[Gammagooey]

I don't know how many people would be similar to me but if this is implemented I'll mod a few games and I don't normally due to the several months-long time commitment that modding anything else except a micro generally takes.

[TierShift]

Actually, if you look at the effects opening the open and micro queues had, I think its easy to draw that conclusion without opening a third new queue.

Except there is a big chance that these games will be pulling out of a different pool of (potential) players/mods.

It's not completely comparable to the opening of those queues. There can be no certainty in your statement at all.

And what's the problem with waiting and seeing what's going to happen?

P-edit: case in point

[Faraday]

My problem is the more obstacles you put between wanting to mod and getting to mod the fewer people will mod. That's usually an acceptable price because it improves the quality of our games. I agree we shouldn't run a new queue like marathons, but at the same time I think requiring stuff of people running a game that will last a week will make it difficult to maintain a mod supply after the novelty wears off.

1 game modded + a required backup doesn't seem too draconian for this, though. A lot of people coming off their first normal may want to jump into the queue to get a nice quick game modded and you have those who just find that modding takes too long.

I also think we would need to replace a queue to make this one work. We've spread ourselves pretty thin across different games. The micro queue would be the natural queue to be replaced (for two main reasons: (1) it's already closest to running short games with small numbers and (2) it's a queue that overlaps heavily with other queues.), but a larger reshuffling might work.

The micro queue is active enough and doing well though, right? I'm not sure why we need to replace one? Isn't it like, okay if some of the queues aren't as active? Does it really matter? (I guess that's what you mean by spread ourselves pretty thin)

[Faraday]

If you guys are insistent on keeping queues, you could consider doing a poll for top game preferences and giving queues to the top 5 + newbies or something, refreshing every 6 months or a year.

So if say the large theme queue wasn't voted you'd just have no large theme games? (I can't imagine that happening, it'd probably just mean "no open games", or something)

[Faraday]

Except there is a big chance that these games will be pulling out of a different pool of (potential) players/mods.

I think this is why I'm more for it, I remember a lot of questions about our deadline speed and such being answered as "that's not how games are here", and like that's cool but there's no reason games can't be like that here

as well

, especially if it turns out there'd be some sort of demand.

More simply put, we cannot offer queues for every single preference.

Right, but trying to cater to as wide a variety of people as possible within those preferences is surely a good thing. It'd definitely appeal to a wider range of players, than say having an open and normal queue would (where there's probably a lot of overlap)

[Cheetory6]

I feel like the only thing that scares me about this is VLA-related stuff.
You'd have to adjust the rules for dealing with someone who's awol for IRL reasons because it's no longer fair to the rest of the players if someone is missing for two day phases in a row even if the reasons are legitimate.

[hiplop]

^ of course. people likely arent going to sign up for games if theyre busy that week. Each game takes about a week. I think you'll get a lot of people who are inactive in mafia games but active on site participating

much easier to replace into, too

[saulres]

I feel like the only thing that scares me about this is VLA-related stuff.
You'd have to adjust the rules for dealing with someone who's awol for IRL reasons because it's no longer fair to the rest of the players if someone is missing for two day phases in a row even if the reasons are legitimate.

Those should be few and far between, except for emergencies, right? The reason we have them in the longer games is because people have no idea today what their schedule is going to look like in 3 months. But they should know what it looks like next week.

[zoraster]

My problem is the more obstacles you put between wanting to mod and getting to mod the fewer people will mod. That's usually an acceptable price because it improves the quality of our games. I agree we shouldn't run a new queue like marathons, but at the same time I think requiring stuff of people running a game that will last a week will make it difficult to maintain a mod supply after the novelty wears off.

1 game modded + a required backup doesn't seem too draconian for this, though. A lot of people coming off their first normal may want to jump into the queue to get a nice quick game modded and you have those who just find that modding takes too long.

I also think we would need to replace a queue to make this one work. We've spread ourselves pretty thin across different games. The micro queue would be the natural queue to be replaced (for two main reasons: (1) it's already closest to running short games with small numbers and (2) it's a queue that overlaps heavily with other queues.), but a larger reshuffling might work.

The micro queue is active enough and doing well though, right? I'm not sure why we need to replace one? Isn't it like, okay if some of the queues aren't as active? Does it really matter? (I guess that's what you mean by spread ourselves pretty thin)

I don't think it's draconian at all. It's a good idea, and it's one I'd probably want (though not sure a backup is necessary). My point is that unlike a Marathon game that's pretty much a game you can make up on the fly and thus really easy to run. But when you add a barrier, even a very reasonable barrier, it's something that will keep a certain number of people from running a game (or running as many). That's probably a

good

thing as poorly constructed games aren't something we want to be associated with, but particularly given the shortness of the games you're trying to replace (for example) a 6 week game with a week long game and suddenly you need to find 6 mods (or the same mod doing it 6 times) to go through that process to replace a single regular game.

The Micro Queue is doing fine. It doesn't have to be the Micro Queue that's replaced, though it seems the most natural one because every single Micro can be played in a different queue even now. Opens are the least active right now in part because Micros cannibalized smaller open games. But I'm not going to advocate adding to the number of Queues.

Right, but trying to cater to as wide a variety of people as possible within those preferences is surely a good thing. It'd definitely appeal to a wider range of players, than say having an open and normal queue would (where there's probably a lot of overlap)

Sure.

[zoraster]

There are myriad issues that quick games pose but that will be solved through the due course of time by moderators. VLA is one of those.

[zoraster]

By the way: this is me being receptive to the idea.

[Alchemist21]

You would probably just replace a player if they'll be gone that long. People who play on other sites also have things come up. If they're gone a significant amount of time they replace out or the mod force-replaces them.

[popsofctown]

I don't think it'd be horrible to nuke the micro queue. I don't think there are many players that play on mafiascum only for micros, but there very well could be those that come to play only for blitz games. And micros can be run as mini themes or mini normals if there is demand (although admittedly the way the queues are setup it is a little bit hard for player desire and preference to translate into what type of game actually fires..)