The future of the Mish Mash "Survivor queue"

[Cephrir]

I do feel that only one game should be allowed to run at a time, unless if it could be somehow controlled that players don't play in 2 games simultaneously. Gameplay thrives when all players give their maximum attention, not to mention the possibility of one game affecting another in real time. (Even if it's anonymous.)

I think we've learned from experience that you are correct. The only way I can imagine running two games simultaneously being a good idea would be if games started to routinely get 40+ player applications somehow, so that we could accomodate more people if we were ever in danger of casting becoming seriously prohibitive. I don't think that is likely to happen. Waiting until the previous game is done has been working well for us lately and doesn't penalize anyone for doing well in one game, forcing them to be distracted in two games for a while or sit one out.

It would be nice if we could also possibly use this to formalize a system that could formally keep track of any problem players who should be at least given a time out for behavior not becoming of, well, anyone. I would of course only advocate this in the most extreme cases, such as players obviously cheating, which I don't think happens very much but has happened in the past and could stand to be recorded somewhere we won't forget about it.

First of all, I think it is easy to agree, after the events surrounding the last game, that a queue is necessary. The primary concern is how much "control" is taken away from the mods.

Mods should, in my opinion, still be given mostly free reign, but it wouldn't be terrible if this also became a review system. I don't want to start the review board conversation all over again, but I believe we mostly agreed it was a good idea and then never acted on it. A formal queue would be a great way to have someone in charge of making sure reviews actually happen if we decide that is something we'd like to have. At the very least, it could provide a place to say, "hey, does anyone want to review my game?" for those mods who would like another look. In theory that's part of the role of co-mods, but it can be hard to see flaws in a setup one had a hand in designing.

Anyway, to return to the point, I think the primary point here is to provide organization and coordinate mods with one another so as to prevent things like the NAH/Hyrule fuss from happening at the last minute.

Should there be a minimum number of mods for a game?

I agree with Crazy. Two minimum. Imagine Summertime without Shiidaji... it's not a pretty picture.

How much experience should the mods have? (Should they have had to play a total of three games between them? Should they have had to mod one game before? If they have never modded, should the game be reviewed?)

This is an interesting thing to consider. I think at least one mod should have modded before, and co-mod positions could be used to provide that experience, which is basically what already happens, only it's not a formal requirement yet. This could, I believe, have prevented Mario Bros. I think playing requirements is a bit tougher, because one can technically "play" four games without actually staying in them long enough to learn anything. That is probably worth discussing.

How many games can be in a queue for the same relative time slot at one time?

What do you mean by a relative time slot?

What qualifies as a large social game? If I decide to run a 10P Mole, do I need to run it through the queue?

I like CC's idea -- around 12. It probably depends on the specific details, though; I'd say if it's not anonymous, it might not need the queue as much and would also probably attract a different group, which is a lot of the reason we'll have one.

Are there some standards for a game (specifically Survivor) that we could agree to? For example, if we had a set of requirements (a Survivor game should not cross-tribe communication, a game should have at least one way of swapping players prior to the merge, a game should not have a Legendary Box, etc.) that a game must adhere to, or else describe itself as somewhat bastard?

Review could solve this if it's implemented.

I think we all know Legendary Boxes are stupid. I could imagine a no-swaps game existing with a different mechanic, but it would warrant heavy review and possibly need to be advertised as bastard. I don't see anything wrong with intertribal communication, though.

How far in advance must games be announced?

Hmmm. Well, it's a queue, so... long enough to reach the top of the queue?

I completely support this idea. Hyrule going into signups while we were planning on starting NAH signups within a few days - even though it was resolved - was a huge ordeal. I also feel like the queue should hold all anonymous games that have around 12 or more players, since they all require around the same level of commitment from players.

Well, unless they're Kingdom Clash. That didn't require much commitment, I think.

pedit: oh hello more posts!

[Cephrir]

I like 1 game at a time, however with Hyrule for instance ~40 people applied for only 24 slots. I think some games barely fill their quota but others might go over, I don't really have statistics on that except the one. That's a month, maybe 2 or 3 people have to wait if they were interested but didn't make it. If they were new, how many of those people are going to try for the next one? Certainly limiting play to 1 game at a time per player is almost mandatory, though, I think that might be better than limiting games to one at a time. If there is also more than 18-24 people at one time who are interested in playing Survivor, one game cannot accommodate and it can't grow very well, meaning we're going to be playing with the same 18-24 players; splitting in two would help separate people and keep things more interesting, I think.

My understanding is that the 40 players figure included spec applications.

I'm certainly all for adjusting to 2 at a time if demand merits it, but that's something we'll probably have to wait and see on.

[Cephrir]

As far as the term bastard would apply, I think something like Dr. Who's game mechanic would be considered more bastard or more theme game style than normal. Again having that be the only one in the queue, if someone were turned off by the mechanic, they would have to wait.

I think there's a difference between an advertised mechanic that changes the game wildly but is public information before the game starts and bastardly twists a la Arkham.

[Cephrir]

If the mod(s) have never modded, I would be fully in favor of their having to get the full game, including and especially challenges, reviewed by someone who has modded at least...two games successfully? That person wouldn't have to be involved in any other way, but in the opening sign-up post or whatever, the reviewer's name would be included.

I could imagine letting totally new mods run something as long as they had an intense review. Perhaps that person could also agree to be on call for modding questions. There are also some case by case concerns there. If someone was already a respected part of the community and had done well in a lot of games, say if Snakes hadn't run games already, I think that would be fair. Then there's, for instance, your case -- you have plenty of Survivor modding experience, but none of it is on record, and I think it should be considered.

[Cephrir]

You don't mean a separate, third queue, do you? Because that seems excessive!

I think onsite survivors draw basically the same crowd and suffer equally from it being a bad idea to run another Survivor at the same time as them.

I think BB should definitely be in this queue. It's smaller, but if anything an even bigger commitment.

[Cephrir]

My opinion on experience: Reviewing is needed if all mods combined have less than three games of modding experience.

I think this could be a little dangerous. Three mods all with one game of experience is not something I would sign up for.

When you say two games could run at once, are you proposing staggering them? If so, by how much? Has anyone felt that the current two week gaps were really problematic? Plus, if the mods of Game B are in Game A, having two weeks to put the last touches on without having the burden of another game is really helpful.

[Cephrir]

Well, there's nothing preventing this from being the Large Social Game queue, is there?

[Cephrir]

Possibly. Have the next game start taking signups around when the FTC starts, so that that downtime is only a few days. The gaps aren't a problem, but I'd like to avoid them.

I suppose this would be fine. Mod discretion could also be a thing here.

Non-anons seems generally more casual. Maybe separate out the anon survivors and have a separate line for other stuff?

I disagree vehemently.

[Cephrir]

Three modded plus three played? First-timers can be dangerous, true.

Possibly. Have the next game start taking signups around when the FTC starts, so that that downtime is only a few days. The gaps aren't a problem, but I'd like to avoid them.

Non-anons seems generally more casual. Maybe separate out the anon survivors and have a separate line for other stuff?

With the first point, I would largely disagree. Requiring three modded games between the two mods is a lot. Plus, Game of Thrones wouldn't have happened, and that would be awkward. I would recommend, like I said, just ensuring that it's reviewed before it goes out, and requiring maybe a total of ~45 points or something between the mods, where you get a point for each person you have surpassed. (For example, placing 4th in a 16P game would grant you 12 points. (That's a super simple system, obviously.)

Game of Thrones is a really good counterpoint. We want Game of Thrones to continue to happen. Perhaps something like this would be good, or mandatory reviews for all-new-mod teams.

With the second, the only reason gaps are an issue is because they hold up the queue. I would rather give people the chance to finalize any preparations than to rush a game into production. UNLESS we were going to require players to have the forum/challenges thoroughly designed and fleshed out prior to entering the queue.

I don't think we need to mandate this. Ideally everything should be at least fully designed by the time a game is one game from running, in my opinion. A forum can be whipped up in a couple days if it has to be.

I would definitely be up for coordinating things with you TBO, to make sure that our games don't clash for people involved in both of them. For example, the merge during your game where there's a bunch of new people for everyone to meet coinciding with a slower point during NAH.

Do we want The Arena to obey whatever we set up here? It might be easier to just grandfather it in and be more organized going forward, but I could see either way. It also depends on how much longer we expect Hyrule to take.

[Cephrir]

Season Finale was problematic!

I think that mandating the mods' schedules that severely is kind of unfun. Things have always ended up getting done in time, have they not? I think some parts of your suggestions are reasonable -- like having something of a design layout ready before entering the queue, which seems like an improvement over people claiming spots on a whim and making something real later -- but I don't think they necessarily need super strict monitoring every step of the way. Perhaps a general "how's it going?" every so often would be reasonable and it's probably a good idea to let games jump ahead if they're more prepared and the mods want to. I doubt the less ready mods would really object to that.

[Cephrir]

I wish we had a way to measure being a respected member of the community. That honestly might be the most important thing.

[Cephrir]

Well, I think we're all agreed on the need for one! You're right though, we've gone off on a tangent.

[Cephrir]

I think a lot of the offsite ones that aren't linked there are just a matter of no one having bothered yet. I could probably do the wiki editing if we decide that's a good thing for us to do, but as to whether it's really necessary I don't know. We could just continue linking appropriately.

[Cephrir]

So basically you're me????

Also Conclave is open now thanks Shii

[Cephrir]

Yeah maybe. It's not likely to ever happen but it's probably a good idea to have systems in place in the name of optimism.

[Cephrir]

[Cephrir]

We used to do that. I missed a lot of that phase I think, but it was still happening I believe when I showed up. It kinda worked, but it was also stressful as heck to be in two games at once. And people will try to do that to themselves. I don't expect Hyrule-level demand to continue, but I think signups for the next game will be telling. If we get something like a BB game in the queue, I'd be open to trying to start that partway through a Survivor game and see if it gets enough interest; as CC has ninja'd me to point out, KHBB ran through a Survivor without causing tons of problems.

So basically, staggering signups is what I'd want to do if/when we feel we have the demand for it. I don't think we do at present but it's likely to be a good model for side games that aren't as large.

[Cephrir]

Getting an experienced co-mod to help you out would probably be the best route. Co-mods in Survivor don't really work the way they do in mafia -- no one has to be the "primary mod," you can just collaborate. So it's not like control is being taken from anyone's hands.