Large Social Game Queue OLD THREAD

[Crazy]

We also might be scaring away newbies that might actually want to play one of these games.

[Klick]

^That so much.

[xRECKONERx]

Let's also talk about something else... most games take at minimum 2 months (most are actually up towards the 3 month limit). That means, in a full YEAR, only 4-6 games can be run in the queue. That seems awfully limiting, don't you think? There are currently 9 games in the queue -- that means that anybody else who wants to sign up will be looking at a

2 year wait

until they can run their game. That is really excessive.

I'm not sure how to fix the problem, really... I think that perhaps allowing two games at once would alleviate some of the problem, but then again, that still means the current queue would be a full year of time booked up already.

Obviously, this can't run like the mafia queues because games require a much bigger time commitment. It's a discussion I'd like to have, though, because I see that being extremely limiting to new players and mods. It also means that if there's a series of games in a row where you don't like the theme, you're looking at half a year or so until you can play another one. I just think it's something that should be alleviated.

[xRECKONERx]

I think we could fill ~30 players each game cycle, maybe a bit more, but that's not enough really to fill two giant games.

I think if we delineated between game sizes and gave priority to smaller games that would therefore complete much faster, the queue would feel more lively, and it would still allow those larger, massive games to feel "epic".

[JDodge]

I wish there was a simple method to track what players are in what games without breaking anonymity, even with a third-party. If so we could just do like a 2 games per

player

limit and run it like the actual mafia queue system.

I also feel that limiting moderators to only be in the moderator group of one game in the queue at a time would trim the size and help fix things.

[D3f3nd3r]

I like requiring some semblance of a structure of the game to get into the queue (for example, how many players, certain twists you want to implement, a general format for how the game will go). Hard to enforce unless the queue coordinator doesn't play any games, but it would be ideal.

[xofelf]

Just gonna preface this with: This is mostly stream of consciousness, so i apologize for rambling.
Games have overlapped before when there was the playerbase for it. It wasn't until recently I think we've even had enough regular players again for there to even BE a possibility of multiple games again. Most people tend not to play multiple games at the same time. There were quite a few games who had issues even filling for a while, so games started not overlapping. The current queue setup doesn't show it, but a good portion of the games actually in the queue aren't anywhere near close to being operational. Whether it's because setup and the like haven't had a chance to finish, or it's just the people set up to mod them have real life obligations that will make them currently unable to give their games the proper attention they need while running them. There's also quite a few people with multiple slots atm. So to be quite frank, the queue isn't nearly as long as it appears. For a while there a lot of games were just sort of in a "Well after Arkham ends, we'll *blank*". since Arkham had had this summer slot for over a year. I do also think there's also the problem of there aren't that many people who mod these days, or people have ideas for things maybe, and just haven't said they wanted a slot or even really gotten past initial idea phases. And I think the fact that it looks like the queue is so long there's no point is a bit of a problem. It's not really as long as it looks, and I think with a little more organization, that will also be clearer. And then running multiple games at the same time so it can go even faster so people have more opportunities to play things will also be a lot easier I think as well.

[DeathNote]

having multiple people run the que could help so that not one person would have to alienate himself from the games.

[SleepyKrew]

tl;dr no one actually cares whether or not what you did was right, wrong, or indifferent. People care about how they were potentially affected by it and are upset because of how they feel they were treated in their legitimate annoyance at it. In response, what was gotten was a bunch of lip service about how it wasn't wrong instead of daring to be a big enough and mature enough person to admit any potential fault on their own end and actually try to come to a rational and intelligent solution. Quite frankly, it's pathetic.

lmao

[xRECKONERx]

I wish there was a simple method to track what players are in what games without breaking anonymity, even with a third-party. If so we could just do like a 2 games per

player

limit and run it like the actual mafia queue system.

I also feel that limiting moderators to only be in the moderator group of one game in the queue at a time would trim the size and help fix things.

The time commitment for Survivor games is insane. We already have a few medevacs each game that runs, I'd hate to compound that problem.

@xof: That makes sense. I do think, though, that just claiming a spot and going "I'm running XXXX" with no timeframe or completion date is bad. I had all Summer free of side activities for the most part and could've been working on Star Wars Survivor that entire time, but I didn't do it because I saw how far down in the queue my game was, so what was the point? I think maybe limiting /ins to the queue to people who have a certain amount of their games completed would be ideal, but then people may just start lying to get preferential queue priority.

I know how I am with these things and I know that I could spend a full weekend and hammer out my entire game and forum and have it ready to run. I basically put Hyrule together in a single night (minus graphics, which I did in another single night). I work really fast with these things. I guess I'm not getting why some projects are in development hell for months/years or whatever.

Basically... if someone /ins to run something like half a year or more in advance, I think it's frankly kinda ridiculous that they wouldn't be able to run it at the time they claimed. I personally think that we should not have the "queue" necessarily for people to go "Oh I have a game I want to run eventually". Being placed in the queue should be reserved for people who have some actual completion done on their game, and it should be run similar to how the moderator queues are done for mafia -- the queuemaster should look at when the game will be coming up and PM the mod(s) to make sure it's ready to run. If it's not ready to run, it gets skipped and goes to the next person in the queue.

I understand this is rambling as well and I really am not upset or anything, I'm just trying to figure out the best process going forward. Perhaps if we ran multiple games at once or staggered the signups, we could institute the same rule that zoraster uses for the Large Theme queue: if your game doesn't fill in X time, it has to go back through the signup process again at a later date. That way, the queue is sorta self-correcting if there's not enough demand for a game. It's also worth noting that certain themes/mods may be more popular than others.

[xRECKONERx]

For example: I didn't even bother trying to keep up with ETU because I had absolutely no interest in the theme. I probably won't bother trying to follow or play DBZA either because I don't care about that theme.

[Shadoweh]

I probably won't bother trying to follow or play DBZA either because I don't care about that theme.

Some people just have no taste.

It is discouraging that I pestered xof all of Arkham about what's next and she wasn't sure because nothing was actually ready to run. I just want to like, know which game I'm avoiding for the rest of my life guys.

[elusive]

I guess what I was thinking was there any way to make games less time intensive or more like a 1-2x a week commitment for non summer times then the two game a time might work otherwise keeping up with one game and RL can be intensely difficult.

Harley's an awesome choice for stuff and having a co-person would be cool so no one felt like they were responsible for everything all the time and strained.

[Crazy]

Basically... if someone /ins to run something like half a year or more in advance, I think it's frankly kinda ridiculous that they wouldn't be able to run it at the time they claimed. I personally think that we should not have the "queue" necessarily for people to go "Oh I have a game I want to run eventually". Being placed in the queue should be reserved for people who have some actual completion done on their game, and it should be run similar to how the moderator queues are done for mafia -- the queuemaster should look at when the game will be coming up and PM the mod(s) to make sure it's ready to run. If it's not ready to run, it gets skipped and goes to the next person in the queue.

I think this makes sense. Would it be reasonable to separate the queue, where the actual queue includes only games that are ready or nearly ready, and beyond that have a list of games that are currently in progress, or may or may not actually run. Then mods can have multiple "ideas" out there but can only have one game on the "queue" at a time.

[Crazy]

I guess what I was thinking was there any way to make games less time intensive or more like a 1-2x a week commitment for non summer times then the two game a time might work otherwise keeping up with one game and RL can be intensely difficult.

I think it would be great to have a "lighter" game, but I sadly can't imagine how it could actually happen unless if the players are given restrictions on when or how often they can talk to each other. Otherwise, there are ways to design games that are easier to manage, smaller tribes and less time-consuming challenges, etc., but as I see it, the most social players are always going to get ahead, and talking to people every day is going to be a necessity unless if the players are physically restricted from being able to do that.

The only idea I have is a game that was set to run only 2 days a week, say a challenge on Friday evening, and Tribal Council lasting from Saturday evening until Sunday evening. Then, during the rest of the week, the forum goes completely dark. Such a game would take a long time to complete, though, and would have to run alongside other games.

[Cephrir]

Being placed in the queue should be reserved for people who have some actual completion done on their game

I didn't feel like I could implement it without making a mess of everything, but I very much agree with this

[DeathNote]

For example: I didn't even bother trying to keep up with ETU because I had absolutely no interest in the theme. I probably won't bother trying to follow or play DBZA either because I don't care about that theme.

Yeah but you know who is modding it and so that alone is a good reason to join

Nappadabes

[DeathNote]

Being placed in the queue should be reserved for people who have some actual completion done on their game

I didn't feel like I could implement it without making a mess of everything, but I very much agree with this

I am fine with this too however the progress I make in designing my games depends on what my timeframe looks like. There was no way to have my game ready because Xof is with me and she was in the middle of modding hers. I had two or so games in front of mine so I assumed that I had plenty of time to let Xof do her thing and complete mine later.

Now all of a sudden, I am next in que. So I do think the que is a little difficult to plan around and wouldn't mind setting some sort of restriction on it. Perhaps you don't enter que until your game is near completion so you can go as soon as there is demand? Idk.

[xRECKONERx]

I think if you enter the queue, the guideline should be that you are ready within one week of notification to enter signups.

[Radja]

It would make sense for a game to "enter" the queue once it is ready to run.

There can be a separate section in which games that are in development are mentioned.

I also like the idea of a Small and Large game running at the same time.

[Cheery Dog]

We can probably manage to have non-anon ones going at the same time. (last time we had multiple at once it was around Mario Bros wasn't it?).

Two anon games I don't think we'd manage, but when we already know each other's stuff, we would be able to do more non-anon. I may even make my game one of them.

Now looking for people willing to review mine, as I think I have everything I need as the general everything done. (also co-mods still I guess?) I need to be told how stupid my ideas are.

[D3f3nd3r]

Now all of a sudden, I am next in que.

The problem is that xof had this game slot for a while yet does not want to run your game yet. And she even knew that it would be two Survivors back-to-back for a while, which she doesn't want to do.

What I propose is that any moderator going into the queue while they have another game running or in the queue must be at least three games apart, and I also feel like anybody unable or unwilling to run their game when it comes up should at the least lose their spot.

[xofelf]

Listen, DBZA WASNT the next in queue originally when Arkham was getting closer. ALSO, DBZA has had quite a few comod changes. AND we were 3 games apart first. ALSO I don't think people should be running games back to back as it is. Our game isn't anywhere close to being ready as it is, so some of that is letting other mods go first so we CAN finish everything we need to do. If we were at a point that I truly felt we could finish everything in like 2 weeks or less, AND comods had the free time to do it, then as much as I actually want a chance to breathe and focus on other things, I WOULD RUN THE GAME ANYWAYS.

[StrangerCoug]

*grumbles, joining in his naysayers than this place is less organized than it should be*

I am taking applications for a new Large Social Game Queue mod. PM me if interested. (The two that I'm already aware are interested do not need to do so.)

[animorpherv1]

Being placed in the queue should be reserved for people who have some actual completion done on their game

I didn't feel like I could implement it without making a mess of everything, but I very much agree with this

Yes. Yesyesyesyesyesyesyes.

Seriously. I'm going to propose that this be

MANDATORY.

and that the game be at least finished ideating and is actively working on the game.