A Queue for Games with Short Deadlines?

[Faraday]

work to fold more small games into Minis,

I do think this would be a mistake though, mostly because people could technically run them before -- but didn't. If you're queining for a while you're probably going to want to run as big a game as possible, I think? (Or at least that's what it seems like?). I dunno, I suppose in theory it's the easiest one to fold into the others but in practise it's actually doing pretty well and so removing it and making micros less visible doesn't seem like a good thing.

[Runner]

Why Micros instead of Opens to be ditched? Doesn't it just make sense to send Opens to the Micro and Normal queues?

[Porochaz]

I read this a while back and was completely against it. I've had some time to think and I am still a bit against it but I guess for different reasons.

I would for one, be more interested in seeing A. unique player slots per game and B. Games run per time period to give us more info.

Also Im against replacing any queue and I am not sure why it has been brought up.

Every single queue caters for something different and each of these are wide ranging. Micros were created for people who don't have time for a larger game, and whilst I can see the point in moving them back to minis, they start to become diluted. I would bet that the people playing in micros are different to those playing in minis and larges.

I also think that replacing the open queue is potentially a bad idea, now my knowledge of open games is very little, mainly because I hate having the mystery of the game being ripped out of it, but again I'm betting the players who play opens are different from those who play closed games. Also for me, the main point in it, is for new mods and leaves them with just mini normals to get their one games experience (which might not be a bad thing, especially because there is more demand for them at the moment and it also means they are forced to make a setup) which will jam up the queue. I am also against changing the modding conditions to compensate.

The other 3/4 main queues (including large normals), are probably more mixed with players, but really replacing one of these would be a bad idea (and not being considered as far as I can see) especially for something that other sites already offer.

What's more for something that your already established player base decided they didn't want. Now I can see why you would want to attract more people to the site and certainly time frame would be one of the bigger issues facing getting new players in. I mean let's look at expanding the site, if that's your want but lets not lose a portion of your userbase because of this notion that we have to replace something.

My biggest issue when I saw this thread a few days ago was that it would take players and mods from other parts of the site, and whilst I think that could happen, I don't think it's going to be a big migration. Quick games are going to attract either players who are new and want that quick game or older players who don't want to make that 3 month commitment anymore. It's once again a different player base, and whilst I think that may compete with micros a bit, I don't see it as an issue.

---

TL;DR that graph is unhelpful in that different types of games attract different types of people (imo), replacing a queue is a silly idea for that reason. This new type of game, would mostly attract people who aren't playing otherwise. So my preference would be to add, not replace.

Oh and because I didn't bring up why I'm still against it, its mainly because I've never seen a game in that timeframe work well, I think it allows people who are game whores to get even worse (so a strict limit would be good) and attracts a meta that isn't necessarily good for the site. (although from what I've seen of our current meta anyway, its not much of a point) I also worry that it becomes a diversion for the new players coming in. My worries aren't so much with players on the site, more with players coming in and ignoring the longer games when they can get a shorter fix.

[Porochaz]

Also can we not turn this into a "that shouldn't be replaced - this should" thread. Each queue has it's own pro's and con's and the whole idea of replacing one is a dumb one.

[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?

[Porochaz]

I think thats quite easy, if you are able to create a queue that is sustainable and has a few games running out of it each week after a few months, and it does not negatively impact the rest of the queues then I'd say that it's a success, if you are only able to fill one a week and it's the same users constantly then I'd consider that a failure.

I mean I look at it like the marathon thread, I can see people getting bored of it pretty quickly once the novelty has worn off, except for a small handful of players. I predict thats what would happen here and if that does happen then you say it was a failed experiment, if it kicks off like the micros did, then yay!

[Faraday]

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?

Well I was kind of hoping you'd just keep it if you went to the effort of making the queue! Presumably popularity is the only real way of measuring it, if that;'s by number of player slots, or by number of games ran I'm not sure.

[popsofctown]

I find a lot of Prozac's concerns resonant. At the same time, I see cost in adding a queue without removing one. And I also see cost in the removal of each particular queue, since it's sort of the way the site is "forced" to have a micro available for micro people, an open available for open people, a normal available for normal people, a theme available for theme people, and a large theme open for large theme people.

I don't think it's an easy or obvious decision, but I think overall that axing Micros and adding quickies is the best move. I think there's a real, nonzero number of people disenfranchised by that, but they are outweighed by the number of people that would benefit from the existence of the Blitz Queue and outweighed by the cost of having too many queues. Many of the blitz games will themselves have a playerlist that is small, newbie games are available with a playerlist that is small. I would add that someone could put a small playerlist in a Mini normal, but really that's not going to actually going to happen. Similarly, opens are just not going to happen if that queue gets axed, and I think opens have a more important uniqueness since open vs. closed is more of an absolute thing and micro vs. mini is a matter of degree.

In particular, I'd like to note, sample size of 1 here, after I finished my first newbie game on the site I really still hated the idea of a closed setup, after having played open setups IRL, and having played an open setup in that first newbie. I can't remember if I actually signed up in an open for my first non-newbie game or not, I may have chilled out about it after playing a couple more newbie games, but I do remember being in a place where I would have practically refused to join a closed setup for my second game of mafia. I'm not sure how many other people are like that, but it makes a lot of sense to feel that way if you have extensive face to face mafia experience (I learned mafia playing dozens of 14 player open setup games at a Christian summer family camp near where RedCoyote lives).
It seems like without an open queue, there is some risk that a player like me would have fallen off interest in mafia. Whether or not I actually started out with an open, I DO remember checking the queues and seeing that Opens were available and being happy about that option being there going forward.

I definitely would not want to remove a queue that is serving as a stepping stone from newbies to prolific, longtime player or normal-deadline-length mafia games; a large part of the appeal of the Blitz Queue to me is it could grab a few more such players. If someone has a position that Micros form a stepping stone in developing such players too, then we should keep the Micro queue, too. I think most people kinda agree on that goal and philosophy ITT we're all just politely swapping opinions on what reaches that goal best and I don't think any one person has 100% all the info 100% all the right answers on it for sure.

Sorry, I'm sure none of that made sense

[chamber]

I feel like the micro queue would be one of the worst queues to remove. Large normal is at the top of my list.

People make the argument that micro sized games could be run in other queues miss the fast that the same is true of blitz speed games.

[zoraster]

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

[chamber]

I understand it's not setup like one in some ways atm, but I think they still count in everyway that matters for this? (other than maybe needing a new listmod I guess?)

[SleepyKrew]

So I haven't been paying attention
Why does a queue need to be removed at all

[ika]

Could we jsut merge it with large themes for gif? I mean all it is there from what i have been seeing is "fill out format and get approved"

[N]

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

If epicmafia does it, it must be a good idea!

[Porochaz]

Also can we not turn this into a "that shouldn't be replaced - this should" thread. Each queue has it's own pro's and con's and the whole idea of replacing one is a dumb one.

[ika]

Also can we not turn this into a "that shouldn't be replaced - this should" thread. Each queue has it's own pro's and con's and the whole idea of replacing one is a dumb one.

Well based on what zors sayig its a "one must be replaced/merged" so i was thinking of doing the idea of mergin the large/blitz que there

[Psyche]

let's go back to quoting each other resoundingly saying that the idea of replacing any queue for this doesn't seem good

[wgeurts]

Also can we not turn this into a "that shouldn't be replaced - this should" thread. Each queue has it's own pro's and con's and the whole idea of replacing one is a dumb one.

[Zachrulez]

Why does the creation of a new queue require the removal of another? I don't think any queue that's been added has ever had that condition attached to it.

The biggest barrier to any queue being sustained is mod interest. (There's nothing stopping anyone from moderating shorter deadline games en masse and making it an accepted part of the site culture aside from the lack of mod interest in it. The newbie queue is the only queue with a required deadline is it not?)

If there is interest in doing it and mods willing to mod short deadline games, there's really no reason the site shouldn't be trialling it. (There's nothing stopping people from modding micros in mini queues either, but they sure as heck are much easier to find with their own queue.)

[Tere]

What Mollie said, basically.

[TierShift]

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.

No, I don't mean 'trial'. I mean implement. You are stating/assuming:
1. Other queues will become more vacant
2. This is an issue that needs to be solved
3. This issue is best solved by removing another queue

Out of these, I think particularly assumption 1 is dangerous and ungrounded. Time will show if it's true or not. I also think statement 2 is a matter of site policy and something that should be discussed, but only after assumption 1 is proven true or untrue.

Finally, the removal of a queue is a very drastic measure and I'm sure the community can come up with other ideas when we see that some queues are running badly.

Most of all, I think that the size of the hypothesised problem can be much better measured when the problem is actually there, leading to accurate solving of the issue.

[farside22]

The idea of this is to get some new people who like shorter games and seeing if as they progress they may want to play games with longer deadlines.
I read someone saying that mods could just shorten there deadlines and this is true but how many people will find that mod or look for that mod or even know where that game is?
That is why I like the idea of a trial period with quick deadlines. I still think deadlines that are 2-4 RL days is ideal.
See if it brings in new people, keep the games small and if things work well go from there.
That is why it's called a trial period.

[Pegasus30]

This is a great idea. I don't agree that another queue should be removed to accomodate a certain number of games in each queue. The arguments for "dilution" are entirely arbitrary.

I think currently we have 3 opens, 10 micros, 10 mini normals, 3 mini themes, 3 large normals, and 10 large themes (approximately). It won't cause any damage if we add the new queue and seven games run at a time and instead we wind up having 2 opens, 9 micros, 9 mini normals, 2 mini themes, 2 large normals, and 9 large themes. The "dilution" is really a non-issue.

But if we have to delete a queue, it should probably be the open queue as there's the least demand for it. Micros are unique in that people may specifically want to play with fewer player slots in the game and no other queue offers that experience.

[chamber]

This is a great idea. I don't agree that another queue should be removed to accomodate a certain number of games in each queue. The arguments for "dilution" are entirely arbitrary.

I think currently we have 3 opens, 10 micros, 10 mini normals, 3 mini themes, 3 large normals, and 10 large themes (approximately). It won't cause any damage if we add the new queue and seven games run at a time and instead we wind up having 2 opens, 9 micros, 9 mini normals, 2 mini themes, 2 large normals, and 9 large themes. The "dilution" is really a non-issue.

But if we have to delete a queue, it should probably be the open queue as there's the least demand for it. Micros are unique in that people may specifically want to play with fewer player slots in the game and no other queue offers that experience.

I don't think the issue is how many games are running concurrently. It's how long games take to fill, and the toll on the users willing to moderate.

[saulres]

I don't think the issue is how many games are running concurrently. It's how long games take to fill, and the toll on the users willing to moderate.

I would think "how long games take to fill" is a different issue that should have its own thread.

But, maybe the reason is there just aren't enough players interested in the long-deadline games anymore.