In post 21, Vampirate wrote:I do think games need to have day phases be at least 5 days long still, 48, 72 hour day phases are way too short. There needs to be room for discussion, especially considering time zones. Hitting the 5-8 day period for day phases is probably right.
There are a lot of micros already with 7 day deadlines. This is not what most people that think our deadlines are too long are looking for, honestly. If other sites can do 72 hours, we can do 72 hours.
In post 21, Vampirate wrote:I do think games need to have day phases be at least 5 days long still, 48, 72 hour day phases are way too short. There needs to be room for discussion, especially considering time zones. Hitting the 5-8 day period for day phases is probably right.
Why are they too short if there's a demand for them?
are you thinking of me when you're with somebody else?
In post 18, zoraster wrote: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.
are you thinking of me when you're with somebody else?
In post 22, quadz08 wrote:micros have been holding comfortably at 2 in signups, 0-2 in queue for quite a while now
it's not like it used to be with constant 6-8 person queues
it only maintains that because you have to bottleneck the queue. I don't think you can really make a game that's going going to last a week sit in signups for two extra days.
In post 18, zoraster wrote: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).
In post 22, quadz08 wrote:micros have been holding comfortably at 2 in signups, 0-2 in queue for quite a while now
it's not like it used to be with constant 6-8 person queues
it only maintains that because you have to bottleneck the queue. I don't think you can really make a game that's going going to last a week sit in signups for two extra days.
To go back to my bandaid point; I think the queue system has shown a bunch of flaws. Mods in a given queue more or less have a monopoly on signups for a given period, this means they aren't encouraged to respond to player demand more or less at all. If there were no queue we'd see more games not fire, but we wouldn't need to make specialized queues for everything either because the games players want to play would fill.
In post 32, quadz08 wrote:your alternative is basically a "let mods put their games in signups when they're finished and people can sign up for what they want"?
In it's most basic form. I'm not sure moving the whole site to that system at once would be a good idea, but I think thinking about it more, perhaps refining it a bit, and then trying it out on a smaller scale has merit.
In post 29, zoraster wrote: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).
Right but still, if that is still your biggest worry surely a trial would be a way to test that out? There's no real way to know how interested people would be, other than that - and it feels like it doesn't really cost a lot (some effort?) to try.
are you thinking of me when you're with somebody else?
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.
double listmod is clearly the best solution to point 2.
You're not going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. S*Gaiden will not make long cases, write stunning insights, or sugar coat his words. He is not the man for multi-paragraph eloquence. He is, however, being honest to a fault, and it comes across in his writing.
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.
In post 35, zoraster wrote: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.
1) Experience required. I still think anyone who has 6 months of experience could review the game and should.
2) meh I think having a backup list mod could work..
Sarcasm is just a way of saying how stupid you think someone is but in a more polite way.
In post 37, chamber wrote: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.
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).
In post 40, zoraster wrote: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).
probably just due to the themes that show up? Idk
ANYWAYS, I completely support this idea. The site I came from is like this and even after 4 years I STILL have trouble adjusting. I know as a player I would almost exclusively hangout in that queue, with the occasional large theme monster on the side.
I really, really think it would work.
so many people I know don't want to join this site because of the huge phases. I often get (a little bit) bored when phases get long.
In post 35, zoraster wrote: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?
Running them like Marathons would be a mistake and result in quite a few poor/bad games. Game review should probably be strongly encouraged or probably enforced (ala Large Theme queue).
In fact running it like the large theme queue seems like a fairly reasonable idea?
are you thinking of me when you're with somebody else?
In post 35, zoraster wrote: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?
Running them like Marathons would be a mistake and result in quite a few poor/bad games. Game review should probably be strongly encouraged or probably enforced (ala Large Theme queue).
In fact running it like the large theme queue seems like a fairly reasonable idea?
In post 40, zoraster wrote: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).
Most opens are fialry forgettable and I think a lot of players tend to dislike them, really.
As for themes, it could be that a lot of the more popular themes have been done, or just...I guess people are playing mini normals more? I think N has done a good job of injecting life into that queue personally, and with the updates to the normal roles it might have piqued interest.
are you thinking of me when you're with somebody else?
And speaking anecdotally I think you could probably get some new blood for fast games, there are players who play elsewhere who might play here if there were shorter deadlined games. Not sure how long they'd stay etc, but still.
are you thinking of me when you're with somebody else?
Yeah, to me I have no interest in open games unless theres some other mechanic at play (smalltown). Just less room for crazy gambits and whatnot that make mafia memorable.
Re:mini theme, some games shoot up signups incredibly fast and some take a long time. Think it has more to do with a game-to-game basis than any other queue
