A Queue for Games with Short Deadlines?

[zoraster]

My worry is about the supply of these games from mods. I don't want us to create a dead queue. We already have low supply for Micros, and I think this would be like that only much, much worse.

[zoraster]

My worry is about the supply of these games from mods. I don't want us to create a dead queue. We already have low supply for Micros, and I think this would be like that only much, much worse.

It'd probably still attract more people than large normals do, for sure.

I mean if thsts your only worry, the only.real way to answer it is by trying it. I think you could attract new players or people who've played here before but found our deadline system too slow.

In regards to Large Normals, I was talking about mod supply, not player demand. Regardless, there's a reason we consolidated large normal into the mini normal queue (or merged them if you will).

[zoraster]

It'd have to be a very long trial. My worry isn't about the first month but rather about going on. The first bit of any sufficiently new queue will have people who are doing things because it's interesting. If a queue is brought in to appeal to a broader segment of the potential population, it'd need to provide consistent games.

I have concerns about the overall effect of the game ecosystem too, but these are harder to evaluate in any meaningful way.

I have other concerns too, but they're second order concerns that are more issues to resolve to make a queue work than they are about whether it's a good idea to do at all. Some of these:

1. To what level of quality should we hold these games? Are they more like Marathons where any mod can do it with no supervision or do we require some sort of experience and game review?
2. How will our listmod work? I would imagine the turnaround between end of sign ups and game beginning needs to be as quick as possible. That's probably not a problem for any listmod to begin with, but running that queue for months on end will be much more onerous.

[zoraster]

You just don't have list mods approve the final player list, like large themes are run. Then list mods would only need to approve signups starting which is less time sensitive, it moves the more strenuous task onto the game mod.

I think this is a good suggestion.

[zoraster]

By the way, by player slots right now Mini Normals are the second most (after the perennial leader, Large Themes).



Mini Themes and Opens have basically totally crashed and I haven't really looked into why, though I should now. Some of it is bound to be substitution (i.e. Mini Normals instead of Opens and Mini Themes).

[zoraster]

Don't bring your LoL memes in here, plz.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[zoraster]

Blitz Queue is a good name.

[zoraster]

I'm fine listening to arguments Opens should go instead of Micros to fit this in. I'm not sure "they're awful" is a good reason though as some people like them, though obviously not many recently (keeping in mind that some Micros may be opens).

To be clear: I'm not saying Micros need to go. I'm saying that if we're going to implement a new queue, the overall number of queues needs to not expand past what we have now. How we get to that point is definitely not settled. It's just if I had to pick the easiest, simplest way to achieve that based on my instinct it'd be to scratch the Micro Queue, work to fold more small games into Minis, and move from there.

[zoraster]

What do you mean?

Assuming you mean "why can't we just trial a queue?": Trials are good for some things. If we needed to figure out the best way for our mods to run games, the best method for sign ups, etc. trials serve a purpose. But what they aren't very good at is determining the long term overall effect on the queue ecosystem because any trial sufficiently long enough to get over the novelty appeal would be indistinguishable from implementing it outright in its effect on the site.

[zoraster]

What do you mean?

Assuming you mean "why can't we just trial a queue?": Trials are good for some things. If we needed to figure out the best way for our mods to run games, the best method for sign ups, etc. trials serve a purpose. But what they aren't very good at is determining the long term overall effect on the queue ecosystem because any trial sufficiently long enough to get over the novelty appeal would be indistinguishable from implementing it outright in its effect on the site.

Please correct me if I 'm wrong, but I seem to remember the Micro queue starting as a trial.

A short deadline queue is easy to trial. Restrict it to one, maybe two games a week for a month or two. Analyze who's signing up for those games, if it's impacting their signups for other games, what that impact is, etc. Just make it clear up front that it's purely a trial which could be pulled or strengthened as results dictate.

And if my reservations were about whether a short game could be run well this type of trial would make sense. But since it has little to do with this, it's woefully insufficient. Having just a few games a week doesn't tell us much of anything as to the effect it'll have on other queues nor does it address the potential issue of a lack of mods over the long term.

[zoraster]

Does it really matter if it slows down the other queues a bit if people are enjoying the games?

I see my goal as an admin as making sure that the site is as healthy as can be without becoming something we don't want. Enjoyability plays a huge role in that, but it's not the only concern. We don't want enjoyability at the cost of everything else. We want long-term, repeatable, and sustainable enjoyment. I think it's a good idea to approach candy-like games with some caution, similarly how we do with Marathons.

As for trials, any time we add a queue it'll be on a trial basis in the sense that we might change our minds or drastically alter the queue if we feel its necessary. But these are things that tend to solve problems regarding the mechanics of the queue. For example, the Micro queue began using a 7 day fill period after a month's trial.

But a "trial" will rarely if ever just be put out there just to see what happens with little thought to how it fits in with mafiascum as a whole.

Anyway, if a trial were done, what do you think would be the metric of success we'd define it by? What would mean we'd keep the trial around? What would mean we'd get rid of it?

[zoraster]

large normal is no longer really its own queue. Its forum could probably be combined with mini normals.

[zoraster]

Nothing is certain, but until I left it was at least being actively considered.