Game Classifications

[PrivateI]

Expect the Unexpected

:

Idols and Items--

1

Communication--

2

Swaps and Shake-ups--

4

Mechanics--

4

Eliminations--

2

Total:

13

I'm counting Big Brother as relatively incomplex, as Shadow suggested, but the format changes from round to round, and the people switching tribes every round as more complex.

[PrivateI]

Re: MK, I'm hesitant to include the communication component on non-anons at all. I think the immunity necklaces would affect the mechanics element rather than the items element, especially since Big Brother was an option. But that would just move the mechanics element to a "2".

I think the scale could still generally apply to a Big Brother game, if we ever have one again, with a few changes.

[PrivateI]

Swaps and Shakeups: 2. There were multiple swaps at unpredictable times.

We should maybe define the swaps one a bit more because I hard-disagree with this and think anything 2-swaps and below should be a 0 and that 3 or 4 swaps should be a 1.

Also this depends on the size of the game though.

Something like <=16, 1 swap; 16-20, 2 swaps; 20+, 3 swaps?

[PrivateI]

But also, the show tends to have 18-20 players whereas our games are getting bigger and bigger.

Bigger and bigger seems inaccurate. One of the last few games, as well as the game currently in signups, has had 16 players.

[PrivateI]

Forgive me if this is completely off-topic, but I want to offer some pushback to the idea of doing this in the first place. Are any players, besides seasoned players, complaining about the complexity of new games? I realize that there have been some missteps in the last year, but I feel like this could be a step back rather than a step forward, for a few reasons.

First of all, I feel like mods, in general, are relatively open about entirely new game mechanics. Civvivor notwithstanding, games that had fundamental differences such as One World and MLS were fairly transparent about what was going to be happening in their games. Even Civvivor didn't fundamentally change the game--it just introduced a lot of elements at once that, in retrospect, may have been ill-advised. So I guess the question is, what is this trying to prevent?

My larger concern is that the LSG Queue would become similar to the American education system. That is, just like American schools have been criticized for "teaching to the test" when standardized tests have been implemented, having a standardized rating system could lead us to a queue where mods try to compose a game with either as high or as low a score as possible, and that seems suboptimal. I think we could readily see people making more barebones games, or games with increasing complexity, in an attempt to attract a specific kind of player.

With that said, I don't think having a rating system is the worst thing we could possibly do, but I think we should have a bit more dialogue about the reason for doing it before implementing something that could completely shake up how games work on MS.

[PrivateI]

I'd still want to know if that's warranted. It seems like this is an overreaction to a problem that, by and large, hasn't existed in games to this point. Like I said, your own game, MLS, was pretty straightforward with what was going to be happening, people (including myself) just didn't read rules, and some people chose to bitch about it. I just don't really know where the idea that we need a model that conforms to every game is coming from, and would like to spend some time talking about the "why" rather than the "how".

[PrivateI]

"Portions of this game are heavily non-standard. Because of the upfront nature in which these will be presented, we refrain from calling the game bastard. Nevertheless, be aware that the conventions that you are used to will be largely broken."

I don't know what we would want to communicate with a number that wasn't communicated here.

[PrivateI]

MLS was a big departure from "normal" Survivor. I'm not discounting that. I'm saying the following:

1. MLS was a one-off. Do we need another enhancement to a system where, now, games have to go through a "Queue and Review" process to get played?

2. Is there a scenario where a single number is going to communicate more than "Portions of this game are heavily non-standard...the conventions you are used to will be largely broken?" If not, then this classification system is useless to even limit the one (1) unique aberration we've had in MS history.

3. The only game besides MLS that would likely be referred to is Civvivor. And, yes, Civvivor had a lot of unique elements. But the fact is, we've had "twistier" games, with the same levels of disclosure. No one complained, for example, about Hogwarts. So what is the difference?