A Queue for Games with Short Deadlines?

[saulres]

If I every play again I'll only play Micro. I have enough of a hard time keeping track of 8 other player slots, let alone the higher numbers seen elsewhere.

Your point on the minis does take, but unless things have changed, the micro queue moves at a faster speed than the mini queues, even with the throttle.

[zoraster]

Blitz Queue is a good name.

[popsofctown]

But what if you never play again? You're kind of a sample size of 0. I don't mean to be harsh, but sometimes the reason for having a preference regarding something you aren't taking part in is directly linked to the reason you aren't taking part in it and as such is not a great reason to optimize it for the people that actually play.

[saulres]

Yeah, I realize I'm a sample size of 0, and I'm anecdotal. I don't even know why I posted that.

[Aronis]

Is it really necessary to get rid of micros to add a new queue? Obviously you don't want to have so many queues and too many games that nothing is filling up. But why not just open this new queue for a couple months as a trial of sorts, then if games in a specific queue aren't filling, get rid of that queue or just merge it with a different queue much like how all the normals are together in the one queue? Is there really a need to decide all of this right now?

[ika]

if we made this kind of que i would probally be modding a lot more personally, i do a lot and i enjoy the short deadlines

[pirate mollie]

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

yaye!

[N]

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).

I'M THE GREATEST

[Shadoweh]

Shouldn't you get rid of Opens instead of Micros, since they are awful and can be run in other queues? At least I've heard you can run balanced opens in the Normal Queue..
Saying the games would last a week is a lower estimate, where I first played games had 72 hours day and 24 hours nights, it's still 2-3 weeks for a 13ish player game. That might not seem like a lot to you folks but a lot of care and game design still goes into these games.

[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.

[ika]

Im with the idea of removing open and putting in speed

i mena normal could arubly be a mix of open/normal cus they are known to be ballanced (unless they are new)

[Shadoweh]

Opens could go in Theme queue as well as Micro queue. There's no reason they couldn't is there? It's just a setup that's already known.
Micros are also liked, I believe that chart says they ate the Open playerbase even, likely because with so little players there's a decent amount of Open Micro setups? Opens just seem the most logical to merge. The difference to me is that you can run Open games in every other queue. You can have a Large Open Theme but not a Large Micro Theme.

[Ether]

Ditching the open queue without any further changes would double the NRG's workload, so that's something that would need to be accounted for.

In theory, I like conservative games that still allow hydras, but I'm kind of in saulres's boat. (Also, there are other ways to get around that issue anyway. Some of them involve the much faster-moving Micro queue!)

[saulres]

I have a boat?

Row, row, row...

[SleepyKrew]

*sigh*
I've heard the cries of the people. Yes, fine, whatever, I'll mod the queue.

[Psyche]

Wonder what we'll call it. Fast and italian, hm...

oh it should be suggestive of the mafia

how about
Vegas
or Atlantic City?

[TierShift]

Zor, why do we need to fix the hypothetical queue issue beforehand?

[wgeurts]

Zor, why do we need to fix the hypothetical queue issue beforehand?

[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.

[saulres]

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.

[ika]

Shouldnt a trail be runned "as-is" and then adjust accordingly?

I mean to em jsut making the que and working on flaws that come up later should be how it goes.

but thats my 2 cents

[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.

[Faraday]

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

[Faraday]

Well it "matters", but don't the positives outweigh the negatives?

[Faraday]

I'm not sure "they're awful" is a good reason though as some people like them

We can't offer a queue for every single preference

But, more seriously, if like we're not going to trial it I don't see how you're going to find out if it'll work, as I don't think there's a way to allay your fears without actually finding out? So we're just going to have to wait for the queue system to be revamped or something? Alright, 2017 speed queue here we come.