Is it time to dissolve the newbie queue?

[Alisae]

Honestly
If we're talking about the open queue I feel like it lacks in attracting player scum and that's the main problem :/

[zoraster]

Good thread. I haven't looked at the history in depth, but I'm not sure once per 5 days is that different from the past other than a period from about 2009-2012. But the point about the time from sign up to game is an all-important one as the larger that time period the more likely a newbie is to not get converted to even a newbie game player (i.e. flake, never show up, etc.)

I think Newbie games are in a weird spot as they don't really represent what we do on site. The deadlines are long, we typically play either open games or closed games but rarely the type of semi-open games that newbies have represented in the past.

That said, I think it's important to give new players direction of where to play simply because it makes them more likely to sign up. Whether that's a newbie queue or we direct them to normals, etc. doesn't matter that much on this front though the term "newbie" serves as a very obvious way to do that.

One issue that the site faces is actually a dearth of moderators at all levels. One reason the newbie queue works on that front is that people moderate games in part because (a) they don't have to devise a setup and (b) there is a sense of duty that compels people and makes people feel good about doing so. I worry that pushing new players into other queues will make those games "fire" faster until those queues are exhausted of mods. Right now we actually have a moderator queue in most queues, but that's not unusual for the end of summer.

[Thestatusquo]

Do you think the stringency of the normal review process makes people less likely to sign up to run normals/make "normal" setups?

[zoraster]

Absolutely. I think it's an open question whether that's "worth" it because it's remarkable how bad (not to mention non-normal) some setups by first time moderators can be, but there's little doubt in my mind that in a world where normal games didn't have a system to review and approve that there would be more moderators. I don't know to what

extent

that's the case, but it's hard to argue with a straight face that it doesn't have an effect.

And that's just the most obvious place where a balance between ensuring a certain level of quality and consistency on one side and the desire to meet people's demands for games on the other are in conflict. It's a balancing act site-wide. For example, one of the places where we most need mods are Large Theme games, where despite their player count they fill as quickly as any other game. But we require a backup mod and a reviewer plus a certain level of experience to run a game. There are good reasons for those things, but the more steps you put between Moderator Maude and getting to the playing of the game in Maude's head, the less likely she is to do it.

[fferyllt]

Do you think the stringency of the normal review process makes people less likely to sign up to run normals/make "normal" setups?

There was a time when the mod queue for normal games was prohibitively long, and the queue for modding open games wasn't any better. At that point, the process of getting vetted as a mod able to run any size or type of game they desire probably took well over a year if the prospective mod was in a hurry and pushing through the process as fast as they could.

I don't think it takes nearly that long right now.

[zoraster]

To be fair, during that time there were very few requirements of normal mods. There were guidelines that were substantially more vague than they are now, there was no review process, etc.

As a new mod, I ran a game with a poorly conceived "Fisherman" role that could "go fishing" and had a certain percentage chance of pulling out a one shot power. Almost 10 years later, I think Reckoner may be approaching forgiveness on that.

[xRECKONERx]

As a new mod, I ran a game with a poorly conceived "Fisherman" role that could "go fishing" and had a certain percentage chance of pulling out a one shot power. Almost 10 years later, I think Reckoner may be approaching forgiveness on that.

Don't get your hopes up.

[fferyllt]

To be fair, during that time there were very few requirements of normal mods. There were guidelines that were substantially more vague than they are now, there was no review process, etc.

As a new mod, I ran a game with a poorly conceived "Fisherman" role that could "go fishing" and had a certain percentage chance of pulling out a one shot power. Almost 10 years later, I think Reckoner may be approaching forgiveness on that.

The time I'm thinking of (2013-2014), there was a review process. Tierce was the listmod. From your reply, I guess the wait list was even longer prior to 2013.

The thing I like best about the newbie queue is that it's a little easier for new players to form friendships and become a cohort of sorts in this queue, and they meet some moderators they may follow to future games in other queues as well as finding some experienced players they want to play with again.

All of these factors impacted the games I signed up to play for several months after my first 2 or 3 newbie games finished. And all my early newbie games were plagued with a lot of replacements, including near-instant replacements for not picking up their role PMs.

It would be cool if there were a way to engage new members who are waiting to start their first games. Site chat probably helps. I sometimes see new members pop up in site chat shortly after /inning to the newbie queue. The newbie sign-up thread doesn't (and shouldn't) encourage newbies to hang out and shoot the shit there. I wonder how easily newbies find the newbie welcome thread in GD. Maybe if it were a sticky redirect in the game queue forum? And maybe if there were an obvious discussion thread somewhere for waiting around for your first game on the site to start, as opposed to posting once or twice to introduce yourself?

[Thestatusquo]

I really don't want to start directing random newbies to site chat.

[fferyllt]

I'm not suggesting we do that. Just noting that some drop in and that it is a mechanism for some getting engaged.

My suggestions/questions are about other means of engaging Newbies and keeping them interested in the site while they wait for their first game to start.

[Plotinus]

In the past 86 days, the open queue has fired 5 times, at a rate of once every 17 days.
In the past 56 days, 5 large theme games have entered sign ups, at a rate of once every 11 days
In the past 41 days, the micro queue has fired 5 times, at a rate of once every 8 days.
In the past 33 days, the mini theme queue has fired 5 times, at a rate of once every 7 days.
In the past 31 days, the normal queue has fired 5 times, at a rate of once every 6 days.
In the past 29 days, the newbie queue has fired 5 times, at a rate of once every 6 days.

The newbie queue is the most active queue.

Is it time to dissolve mafia scum dot net?

Although, you clearly changed the time you used to further point. If you extend those queues out to the same time frame I used for the newbie queue three of the queues are more frequent than newbies.

Instead of "how many updates were there in 36 days" i looked at "how long does it take to launch 5 games".

But as you wish:

In the past 37 days (you looked at 36, but that was yesterday so I'm going to count today too):

newbie queue fired 7 times
normal queue fired 7 times
mini theme queue fired 6 times
micro queue fired 4 times
large theme fired 3 times
open queue fired 1 time

newbie and normal queues are tied for most active by this metric.

[implosion]

It could be interesting to compare a similar time period for each queue or at least the newbie queue over the course of multiple years, at the same time each year to at least partially account for seasonal fluctuation. I don't personally see "fires once every five days" as necessarily very infrequent - it means new players probably wait on average 2.5 days for a game to start, which to me seems reasonable, but is hard to really quantify since I'm not a newbie.

It'd be nice as well to get some opinions from recent newbies. There is an issue here of survivorship bias, though that issue comes from both desired sources (weeding out players for whom ms is the wrong site culturally) and undesired (weeding out people who sign up for a game on Thursday, check the site Friday or Saturday night and don't see a role pm, and then forget that the site even existed because they never had the investment of actually being in a game with a role).

[Sunlit Diamond]

Plz don't dissolve newbie queue. They're my favorite games.

/returning temporary lurker's irrelevant opinion

[Lycanfire]

Maybe word has spread around the Internet that site meta has gone down the drain? I know a lot of newbies aren't a fan of 2 week deadlines so when you couple that with potentially being introduced to current site meta through SEs and even ICs in your first game, it's very very hard to want to continue playing on this site.

Do you think SEs and ICs don't perform their roles properly?

[Lil Uzi Vert]

Maybe word has spread around the Internet that site meta has gone down the drain? I know a lot of newbies aren't a fan of 2 week deadlines so when you couple that with potentially being introduced to current site meta through SEs and even ICs in your first game, it's very very hard to want to continue playing on this site.

Do you think SEs and ICs don't perform their roles properly?

Not necessarily but I do think they a play a part in retaining new users.

[Lycanfire]

Can you explain what you mean by 'introduced to current site meta'. Do you mean there is a fundamental problem in the current site meta that is being passed on or are the senior players only teaching the worst of it?

[PenguinPower]

following

[Alisae]

Luv do you even play newbies

[mhsmith0]

Maybe word has spread around the Internet that site meta has gone down the drain? I know a lot of newbies aren't a fan of 2 week deadlines so when you couple that with potentially being introduced to current site meta through SEs and even ICs in your first game, it's very very hard to want to continue playing on this site.

Do you think SEs and ICs don't perform their roles properly?

On replacement rates alone I'd say it's probably true that they don't. I think the quality of ICing tends to be pretty meh, but the simple fact that SE replacements happen with alarming frequency (including when SE-eligible players replace into and then out of original newbie slots) is I think a really big problem in terms of community standards.

[Lil Uzi Vert]

Can you explain what you mean by 'introduced to current site meta'. Do you mean there is a fundamental problem in the current site meta that is being passed on or are the senior players only teaching the worst of it?

Correct. I don't think it's intentional though.

[Lil Uzi Vert]

Luv do you even play newbies

I don't.

This isn't an attack on you or anyone who frequently SEs or ICs.

[Mulch]

I approve of dissolving it

[fferyllt]

I approve of dissolving it

Can I just point out as someone who was a newbie 3 months ago that it was hella intimidating to see the other queues, I had zero idea what the fuck was going on lol

?

[Mulch]

I approve of dissolving it

Can I just point out as someone who was a newbie 3 months ago that it was hella intimidating to see the other queues, I had zero idea what the fuck was going on lol

?

I'm assuming if it was dissolved the queues would be explained lol

[SleepyKrew]

the queues are pretty easy to understand