On February 23 2012 13:22 Foolishness wrote: If we're going to be running more Mini's, I would think we should only do normal Mini's. As I said above we need more normal games. I would like a system where there's always a Roman Numeral game up and a normal Mini up, and then we put up themed games more slowly. I'm not quite sure if our player base is big enough for this. And I'd rather have Roman Numeral games constantly running than Mini's.
I did a quick tally of Meapak's census regarding which types of setups players would like to see more of it it was pretty much split equally:
More Normal: 21 More Themed: 19 More Minis: 17
I'm not sure cutting the number of themed games in favor of always hosting a normal game would be better than keeping an equal distribution like we have now
Weighting the 2nd and 3rd picks into it gives basically the same numbers, more or less even between normal, themed and minis, with Large games WAY behind. Foolishness has a point that Normal games should be Normal, not stealth-Themed, but the census is quite clear that there is no preference of normal over themed ones.
I think we should have it that Normal games can have a theme in role names, but have to use standard roles and have a roman numeral.
On February 23 2012 13:22 Foolishness wrote: If we're going to be running more Mini's, I would think we should only do normal Mini's. As I said above we need more normal games. I would like a system where there's always a Roman Numeral game up and a normal Mini up, and then we put up themed games more slowly. I'm not quite sure if our player base is big enough for this. And I'd rather have Roman Numeral games constantly running than Mini's.
I did a quick tally of Meapak's census regarding which types of setups players would like to see more of it it was pretty much split equally:
More Normal: 21 More Themed: 19 More Minis: 17
I'm not sure cutting the number of themed games in favor of always hosting a normal game would be better than keeping an equal distribution like we have now
Weighting the 2nd and 3rd picks into it gives basically the same numbers, more or less even between normal, themed and minis, with Large games WAY behind. Foolishness has a point that Normal games should be Normal, not stealth-Themed, but the census is quite clear that there is no preference of normal over themed ones.
I think we should have it that Normal games can have a theme in role names, but have to use standard roles and have a roman numeral.
Well, yeah, normal roles and setup, but names and flavor up to the host.
Also if a third person wants to jump on Space Station mafia and help write posts/pms, hit me up. You can look at "experimental haunted mafia" for an example of the level of flavor I'm going for.
On February 23 2012 13:22 Foolishness wrote: If we're going to be running more Mini's, I would think we should only do normal Mini's. As I said above we need more normal games. I would like a system where there's always a Roman Numeral game up and a normal Mini up, and then we put up themed games more slowly. I'm not quite sure if our player base is big enough for this. And I'd rather have Roman Numeral games constantly running than Mini's.
I did a quick tally of Meapak's census regarding which types of setups players would like to see more of it it was pretty much split equally:
More Normal: 21 More Themed: 19 More Minis: 17
I'm not sure cutting the number of themed games in favor of always hosting a normal game would be better than keeping an equal distribution like we have now
Weighting the 2nd and 3rd picks into it gives basically the same numbers, more or less even between normal, themed and minis, with Large games WAY behind. Foolishness has a point that Normal games should be Normal, not stealth-Themed, but the census is quite clear that there is no preference of normal over themed ones.
I think we should have it that Normal games can have a theme in role names, but have to use standard roles and have a roman numeral.
Yes, which is why I have the disclaimer in the OP. I know that some people (DrH, GM) love writing flavor for roles and such. As long as the role acts the same as the usual, there's no reason why hosts shouldn't have fun writing flavor.
hey foolish you said somewhere the last page that you want normal games to be called TL MAFIA + Number. What about calling them "GAMENAME (TL MAFIA + Number)". That way hosts can call their game whatever they want to, everyone knows what the flavor, if any, is about and what to expect of the game while still having the TL mafia + number in brackets behind that. That should make everyone happy shouldn't it?
Hosts get to name their games however they want to and people can easily see if TOTALLY-FANCY-GAME-NAME is something normal or not after all.
I disagree with Toad. The problem is that when people start adding flavor, the setup turns into a themed game way too easily. These are supposed to be normal games. I think they should have normal names to remind the hosts about that. I don't mind the game having a little flavor but still being a normal game, but I think keeping the titles standardized is a good reminder to the hosts about how far they should be taking things with their flavor.
I also disagree that people can see if a totally fancy name is actually normal for a few reasons: 1. The setups are quite frequently closed. You can't see anything if you don't even know which roles are in the game. 2. (Hopefully increasingly) we will have newbies joining these games who have a certain expectation about our games. I don't think it will be easy for them to tell what is normal and what is not.
I'll need a little help balancing the numbers out for my game if someone will volunteer to help with that. I'm considering some alternative role choices as well, I'll consult with Kitaman27 depending on your feedback.
On February 23 2012 13:22 Foolishness wrote: If we're going to be running more Mini's, I would think we should only do normal Mini's. As I said above we need more normal games. I would like a system where there's always a Roman Numeral game up and a normal Mini up, and then we put up themed games more slowly. I'm not quite sure if our player base is big enough for this. And I'd rather have Roman Numeral games constantly running than Mini's.
I did a quick tally of Meapak's census regarding which types of setups players would like to see more of it it was pretty much split equally:
More Normal: 21 More Themed: 19 More Minis: 17
I'm not sure cutting the number of themed games in favor of always hosting a normal game would be better than keeping an equal distribution like we have now
The problem is that "theme games" is very broad. A normal 20-30 person game has a very narrow window of what you expect.
A theme setup on the other hand has so many different types that saying you want a theme is very ambiguous. I prioritized theme setups in my form i think but it's 100% due to pick your power. That would be my favorite setup of all while I would have zero interest in most other theme games. I imagine others have similar feelings towards certain theme games while not caring about other theme games.
Any suggestions to improving the queue would be good though cause it really needs an overhaul.
On February 24 2012 06:25 Qatol wrote: I disagree with Toad. The problem is that when people start adding flavor, the setup turns into a themed game way too easily. These are supposed to be normal games. I think they should have normal names to remind the hosts about that. I don't mind the game having a little flavor but still being a normal game, but I think keeping the titles standardized is a good reminder to the hosts about how far they should be taking things with their flavor.
I also disagree that people can see if a totally fancy name is actually normal for a few reasons: 1. The setups are quite frequently closed. You can't see anything if you don't even know which roles are in the game. 2. (Hopefully increasingly) we will have newbies joining these games who have a certain expectation about our games. I don't think it will be easy for them to tell what is normal and what is not.
It's entirely possible for flavour to just stay flavour. For my Game of Thrones I've made it into a semi-open setup where all possible roles are guaranteed to come from a set list (and they are all standard, vanilla roles). The only constraint is uniquely named characters, but you can just supply Mafia with fakeclaims that are guaranteed to not be in the game to circumvent that.
I think there should be a requirement that the thread's for new games should be up and ready a couple of days before the previous game ends. They obviously don't start before the previous game ends but they must be ready to go. There is a lot of focus on players being active in their games but hosts should be held to a similar standard. If you say your game will be ready after a certain game finishes, it should be. Easy way to ensure this is that if an OP is not ready in time then that game should be skipped. Otherwise the whole queue gets held up.
On February 24 2012 12:30 Probulous wrote: I think there should be a requirement that the thread's for new games should be up and ready a couple of days before the previous game ends. They obviously don't start before the previous game ends but they must be ready to go. There is a lot of focus on players being active in their games but hosts should be held to a similar standard. If you say your game will be ready after a certain game finishes, it should be. Easy way to ensure this is that if an OP is not ready in time then that game should be skipped. Otherwise the whole queue gets held up.
Is this reasonable?
I think the fact things like LYLO can be unpredictable makes it slightly harder than it sounds. Town could at any point lynch all the scum in a row and maximize game length, or it could be over nearly immediately. That said, I find it reasonable enough.
We might want to set a standard amount of time into the game, eg. 3 days. This would avoid players accidentally finding out the game is nearly over. (ex. responsibility mafia had all vigs if memory serves, game could practically end at any point in time)
On February 24 2012 12:30 Probulous wrote: I think there should be a requirement that the thread's for new games should be up and ready a couple of days before the previous game ends. They obviously don't start before the previous game ends but they must be ready to go. There is a lot of focus on players being active in their games but hosts should be held to a similar standard. If you say your game will be ready after a certain game finishes, it should be. Easy way to ensure this is that if an OP is not ready in time then that game should be skipped. Otherwise the whole queue gets held up.
Is this reasonable?
I think the fact things like LYLO can be unpredictable makes it slightly harder than it sounds. Town could at any point lynch all the scum in a row and maximize game length, or it could be over nearly immediately. That said, I find it reasonable enough.
We might want to set a standard amount of time into the game, eg. 3 days. This would avoid players accidentally finding out the game is nearly over. (ex. responsibility mafia had all vigs if memory serves, game could practically end at any point in time)
Why? You can easily say there are x number of Mafia, in fact most themed games do this already as well.
EDIT: Oh nevermind I see what you mean. Well Responsibility was a full Themed game; Normal is not just vanilla roles but standard game mechanics as well (proportion of VTs/blues/Mafia, etc).
On February 24 2012 12:30 Probulous wrote: I think there should be a requirement that the thread's for new games should be up and ready a couple of days before the previous game ends. They obviously don't start before the previous game ends but they must be ready to go. There is a lot of focus on players being active in their games but hosts should be held to a similar standard. If you say your game will be ready after a certain game finishes, it should be. Easy way to ensure this is that if an OP is not ready in time then that game should be skipped. Otherwise the whole queue gets held up.
Is this reasonable?
I think the fact things like LYLO can be unpredictable makes it slightly harder than it sounds. Town could at any point lynch all the scum in a row and maximize game length, or it could be over nearly immediately. That said, I find it reasonable enough.
We might want to set a standard amount of time into the game, eg. 3 days. This would avoid players accidentally finding out the game is nearly over. (ex. responsibility mafia had all vigs if memory serves, game could practically end at any point in time)
Clearly there are circumstances where it isn't feasible but I don't see the harm in having one game taking sign ups whilst the other is running. The biggest issue is when a game gets placed in the queue and then the host is AFK when the previous game finishes. I would suggest that since it takes a while for your game to reach the front of the queue, there really is no excuse for not being ready when it arrives. Sure it could be full and you aren't available at that point to actually start but having no signups or anything?
SOMEONE said all setups should be ready before they are added to queue. Perhaps a compromise would be have the setup ready 1 week after the game ahead of you starts?
On February 24 2012 13:52 iGrok wrote: SOMEONE said all setups should be ready before they are added to queue. Perhaps a compromise would be have the setup ready 1 week after the game ahead of you starts?
iGrok claiming psychic here. Lynch him.
To me the easiest solution would be to have the OP and setup posted when the previous game starts. That means for the entire length of the previous game the next game can gather signups. It also means the hosts have minimal amount of work to do when the game actually starts. Plus it is a gentle reminder that their game is coming up soon. That would be my solution.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3743/cubone.png)
