Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Regular Mafia Games

FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 6:36:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
This is what I think the problem is.

(1) Signups are allowed to linger for months at a time. So games aren't starting. And more popular mods are prevented from even putting their games into the signup phase. One solution would be to have limits on how long anyone can run signups. If you want 16 players for your game, but you only get 9, too bad. Start your game, or let someone else run their game in the interim. If anyone else has other ideas on solving this problem, please tell us.

(2) Somehow, we have ended up with untrustworthy mods exclusively in the signup phase. All three of them: Lannan, Wylted, and Forever. I can't speak for others but in my case I have no interest signing up for a game where I don't trust the mod to run a balanced game devoid of modding errors. So, my proposed solution is more stringent limits on modding. Maybe separate regular modding into two lists, one for balanced games, and another for inexperienced mods (who until proven are presumed to run imbalanced games), or bastard mods. We need some mechanism in place to have the more balanced games available for the players who are interested in playing balanced games (and from the look of things -- specifically the lack of interest in current games -- that's most people).
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 8:02:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I agree that we should set a hard time limit for signups (a week seems fair); otherwise, the system is clogged.

My alternative to the current system would be a separate sign-up list for open/semi-open signups vs. the main hopper. The former are almost guaranteed to be balanced, and we can ensure that noobs and vets alike will get a chance (the former need to be given a chance to gain experience). Put the limit at one active game in each category at a time (for now).

In terms of interest, speaking strictly for myself, I've not been playing because I've not enjoyed the time commitment during school time.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:02:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 6:36:04 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
This is what I think the problem is.

(1) Signups are allowed to linger for months at a time. So games aren't starting. And more popular mods are prevented from even putting their games into the signup phase. One solution would be to have limits on how long anyone can run signups. If you want 16 players for your game, but you only get 9, too bad. Start your game, or let someone else run their game in the interim. If anyone else has other ideas on solving this problem, please tell us.

I support (1), but not (2).
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
breakingamber
Posts: 1,422
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:22:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I support (1), but not (2)

Yeah, Solon is a b@stard mod, but his games are fun (and entertaining to watch.)
MAY THE WRATH OF THE MODS BE UPON YOU!
- Master Elodin

"When will [Obliteration] learn that Funtimes' plan of saving/destroying the world with pancakes is the only way? "
"She wouldn't even have to make real pancakes! Just the batter, and Obliteration could cook it with his powers! OBLITERATION, YOU'RE WASTING YOUR TALENTS"
- Voidus and TwiLyghtSansSparkles

"An Epic stage magician and a zombie dinosaur? She sure as Braize won"t pull the line there!"
- Edgedancer
breakingamber
Posts: 1,422
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:23:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I like b@stard games, but I know other people don't.

As a compromise between FT and bsh, I think that people, if they are going to mod b@stard/unfair games, they should at least mark them as such.
MAY THE WRATH OF THE MODS BE UPON YOU!
- Master Elodin

"When will [Obliteration] learn that Funtimes' plan of saving/destroying the world with pancakes is the only way? "
"She wouldn't even have to make real pancakes! Just the batter, and Obliteration could cook it with his powers! OBLITERATION, YOU'RE WASTING YOUR TALENTS"
- Voidus and TwiLyghtSansSparkles

"An Epic stage magician and a zombie dinosaur? She sure as Braize won"t pull the line there!"
- Edgedancer
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:28:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:23:37 PM, breakingamber wrote:
I like b@stard games, but I know other people don't.

As a compromise between FT and bsh, I think that people, if they are going to mod b@stard/unfair games, they should at least mark them as such.

FT doesn't mean so much bastard games, as he does "games moderated by people he feels are inept."
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
breakingamber
Posts: 1,422
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:30:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:28:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:23:37 PM, breakingamber wrote:
I like b@stard games, but I know other people don't.

As a compromise between FT and bsh, I think that people, if they are going to mod b@stard/unfair games, they should at least mark them as such.

FT doesn't mean so much bastard games, as he does "games moderated by people he feels are inept."

Doesn't that include b@stards?
MAY THE WRATH OF THE MODS BE UPON YOU!
- Master Elodin

"When will [Obliteration] learn that Funtimes' plan of saving/destroying the world with pancakes is the only way? "
"She wouldn't even have to make real pancakes! Just the batter, and Obliteration could cook it with his powers! OBLITERATION, YOU'RE WASTING YOUR TALENTS"
- Voidus and TwiLyghtSansSparkles

"An Epic stage magician and a zombie dinosaur? She sure as Braize won"t pull the line there!"
- Edgedancer
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:39:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:30:51 PM, breakingamber wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:28:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:23:37 PM, breakingamber wrote:
I like b@stard games, but I know other people don't.

As a compromise between FT and bsh, I think that people, if they are going to mod b@stard/unfair games, they should at least mark them as such.

FT doesn't mean so much bastard games, as he does "games moderated by people he feels are inept."

Doesn't that include b@stards?

Bastard mods are not necessarily inept. They may be very skilled mods, but they simply choose to create a bastard game.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
breakingamber
Posts: 1,422
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:40:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:39:19 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:30:51 PM, breakingamber wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:28:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:23:37 PM, breakingamber wrote:
I like b@stard games, but I know other people don't.

As a compromise between FT and bsh, I think that people, if they are going to mod b@stard/unfair games, they should at least mark them as such.

FT doesn't mean so much bastard games, as he does "games moderated by people he feels are inept."

Doesn't that include b@stards?

Bastard mods are not necessarily inept. They may be very skilled mods, but they simply choose to create a bastard game.

Ohhh.

I think I create some kind of balanced games - it's just that no one plays Mafia anymore :(
MAY THE WRATH OF THE MODS BE UPON YOU!
- Master Elodin

"When will [Obliteration] learn that Funtimes' plan of saving/destroying the world with pancakes is the only way? "
"She wouldn't even have to make real pancakes! Just the batter, and Obliteration could cook it with his powers! OBLITERATION, YOU'RE WASTING YOUR TALENTS"
- Voidus and TwiLyghtSansSparkles

"An Epic stage magician and a zombie dinosaur? She sure as Braize won"t pull the line there!"
- Edgedancer
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:03:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:02:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I support (1), but not (2).

What do you propose as an alternative?

The problem is that when all three games in signups are bastard games, or intentionally imbalanced games, there is going to be a number of players who don't want to sign up for the game, because they don't enjoy bastard/imbalanced games. These players will feel excluded from the community until a mod comes around who wants to mod a more balanced game.

Ensuring that there's always a signup for a balanced and imbalanced game gives people more options, which I think will help move signups and games along.

The other option I could think of is to have a requirement that inexperienced mods have a co-mod/reviewer to ensure they don't make too many modding errors, and if they want, to ensure balance. But even then, you can't force mods to mod balanced games if they want to do crazy sh!t. The general consensus, however, is that vanilla games are more fun than insane games (Mikal's game is the best example, where literally everyone hated the game).
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:07:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:28:08 PM, bsh1 wrote:
What about my proposal? Note that when I say "open/semi-open", it doesn't have to be something from a site; there just has to be info provided to the players about what's going on.

It ensures everyone has a chance to mod, while having a nice compromise between the crazy and normal camps. I think there's a fair amount of players who like crazy games (I enjoy playing in them as well as modding; 7th's games are pretty fun, as are yours [I remember HP&DH], and I would totally be playing in Smithereens games if I wasn't frequently co-modding them), but to be fair, there's probably more mods that like them than players.

It also removes the "bad mod" point from the equation entirely, because if a "bad mod" posts an open/semi-open game, they'll be more able to get sign-ups and improve provided their set-up seems reasonable than they would in a closed-hopper game. Not to mention that the less popular mods already have a lot of time spent in the hopper, so it's really wasting time cycling through a list of mods whose games won't fill (no offense to their skills as mods; just stating what's happened).

I'm also a bit biased because I would absolutely love to be in both hoppers at once; one for a balanced game, and the other for a bastard game. Part of the reason I don't do balanced games is because I wait so long sitting in the one hopper that I'd rather post a game that's more memorable to me, and so I post crazy ones. Two lists would change my value calculations.

In any case, I value doing whatever makes mafia more fun to play for myself and for others, and I think giving less popular mods a chance to hone their skills in an environment where the veterans will not have as many reservations about playing will improve the community in the long run (as well as helping more games to run). I also wouldn't mind having more of an idea about what I'm getting myself into when I sign up for a game.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:18:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 10:03:51 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
Ensuring that there's always a signup for a balanced and imbalanced game gives people more options, which I think will help move signups and games along.

I don't like the implications that reviewing individual members for balance (which we'd have to do for these lists to have any weight) would have for the community. I think going open/semi-open vs. closed accomplishes the same goal of balance while still considering the noobs (who we need in order to keep playing).

The other option I could think of is to have a requirement that inexperienced mods have a co-mod/reviewer to ensure they don't make too many modding errors, and if they want, to ensure balance. But even then, you can't force mods to mod balanced games if they want to do crazy sh!t. The general consensus, however, is that vanilla games are more fun than insane games (Mikal's game is the best example, where literally everyone hated the game).

Using Mikal's game is a little bit mis-representative. Do you remember Smithereens' Code Geass? That's an example of a great insane game. As well, there's the witch hunt game from however long ago where there was no mafia. But, I digress. I wouldn't mind volunteers as co-mods to help people upon request and reaching out to newbs (they generally improve ALL games, but if someone isn't going to make use of one, they're wasting the volunteer's time), but I put myself out there a while ago and nobody responded (and the games I co-mod have generally turned out well. I helped with a Beginner's series, as well as Smithereens' Code Geass and Witch Hunter, so my modding skill shouldn't be a problem).
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 10:39:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 10:18:24 PM, SolonKR wrote:
I don't like the implications that reviewing individual members for balance (which we'd have to do for these lists to have any weight) would have for the community.

What do you mean? Some members design games with balance in mind, others don't. For example, you are a mod who generally cares little about balance. That's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. But some players (e.g. me) would prefer to have options. Sometimes, I like bastard games. Others, I don't.

I think going open/semi-open vs. closed accomplishes the same goal of balance while still considering the noobs (who we need in order to keep playing).

This isn't a solution. There are open/semi-open games that are bastard, and closed games that aren't. What we need is two signups, one for "balanced games," and another for "potentially imbalanced games." In the "balanced games" list, you would need a reviewer, to check your game for balance. This is how we're doing the beginner series, and from what I can tell, it is by far the most popular set of games right now. It's blowing regular games out the water ten times over. Experienced players would prefer to play in the beginner series than the regular games. That's when you know there is a problem with the regular games. It also indicates what players are looking for in games -- balanced setups and reliable modding.

Emulating what we have going in the beginner games -- balanced setups and reliable modding -- is what we need to do in the regular games, while having the option for more bastard setups and unreliable modding, too. Expanding the options is what I see as the solution.

Using Mikal's game is a little bit mis-representative. Do you remember Smithereens' Code Geass? That's an example of a great insane game.

Yes, of course. Don't get me wrong, I like crazy games. But only when they're fun and at least make an attempt toward balance. F-16, BlackVoid, Logic, Yraelz, bluesteel, all these folks used to design insane games that were tons of fun.

These folks were generally reliable mods (with the exception of Logic, who made more modding errors than probably anyone in DDO history), and they attempted to make the insanity balanced (and by balance, that means giving each side equal chances of winning). We had games with crazy cults, three SKs, and all sorts of insanity, yet at the end, complaints about balance were less common than today.

I wouldn't mind volunteers as co-mods to help people upon request and reaching out to newbs (they generally improve ALL games, but if someone isn't going to make use of one, they're wasting the volunteer's time), but I put myself out there a while ago and nobody responded (and the games I co-mod have generally turned out well. I helped with a Beginner's series, as well as Smithereens' Code Geass and Witch Hunter, so my modding skill shouldn't be a problem).

You were a find co-mod in Code Geass and the beginner series game. It helps keep vote counts up. The more important point about co-modding, though, is preventing inadvertent mod confirmations, preventing errors, ensuring players understand how their roles work, how game mechanics work, and so on. I cannot tell you how annoying it is to play a game with a mod who repeatedly makes errors. Add to that a lack of balance, and you have a recipe for a game that simply isn't fun. But these folks want to mod, and they don't want a co-mod. Fine. Separate the signups into two lists. That's the solution.
Vaarka
Posts: 7,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 11:13:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 6:36:04 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
This is what I think the problem is.

(1) Signups are allowed to linger for months at a time. So games aren't starting. And more popular mods are prevented from even putting their games into the signup phase. One solution would be to have limits on how long anyone can run signups. If you want 16 players for your game, but you only get 9, too bad. Start your game, or let someone else run their game in the interim. If anyone else has other ideas on solving this problem, please tell us.

(2) Somehow, we have ended up with untrustworthy mods exclusively in the signup phase. All three of them: Lannan, Wylted, and Forever. I can't speak for others but in my case I have no interest signing up for a game where I don't trust the mod to run a balanced game devoid of modding errors. So, my proposed solution is more stringent limits on modding. Maybe separate regular modding into two lists, one for balanced games, and another for inexperienced mods (who until proven are presumed to run imbalanced games), or bastard mods. We need some mechanism in place to have the more balanced games available for the players who are interested in playing balanced games (and from the look of things -- specifically the lack of interest in current games -- that's most people).

I like the idea for 1, as it puts a time limit for sign-ups. I'd say if you run out of time and don't want to start with a small amount of players, maybe we could have a second "on hold" list for those games.

As for 2, I don't like that. Sure, it's not the worst of ideas, but this leaves new mods trying to get practice and mod their own games often unable to do so, as people wouldn't want to play in these games on the second list. They'd only look at the first list with experienced mods, and the newer mods who are trying to become experienced will often be left behind.
Though, for bastard games, almost no one wants to play those. They're just hard to avoid sometimes, I guess.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 11:17:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 10:39:20 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 4/25/2016 10:18:24 PM, SolonKR wrote:
I don't like the implications that reviewing individual members for balance (which we'd have to do for these lists to have any weight) would have for the community.

What do you mean? Some members design games with balance in mind, others don't. For example, you are a mod who generally cares little about balance. That's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. But some players (e.g. me) would prefer to have options. Sometimes, I like bastard games. Others, I don't.

I get that, and I'm not worried about its implications for me. I had meant implications for the people that genuinely tried and failed to make balanced games. I didn't realize you meant reviewing individual games rather than members, and that makes a lot more sense, but I still have some issues. See below.

I think going open/semi-open vs. closed accomplishes the same goal of balance while still considering the noobs (who we need in order to keep playing).

This isn't a solution.

When has there been a bastard or even imbalanced open/semi-open game on this site? Being open completely defeats the purpose of a bastard game. Having a reviewer for individual games is a lot fairer than what I originally thought the idea was; I will cede that.

How do we resolve controversies when there's disagreement about whether or not a game is balanced? In the Beginner's series, due to the nature of not having 20 people who mod, the concept of what is balanced is agreed upon, but there will be people who disagree with a reviewer's assessment in the normal games. How do we arbitrate that? I'm sure the reviewer(s) is/are fair, but that doesn't mean I want to give them total power, either. On the other hand, public settlement will likely end up in fighting, as it generally does when people have personal stakes in public matters.

I agree that balanced games vs. unbalanced ones is the best metric, but I feel that putting it into practice without modifications leaves too much up to administrative fights. Making it open vs. closed doesn't completely solve it, but generally speaking, games that are closed are imba, and the ones that aren't can usually easily be closed, and games that are open are balanced.

Emulating what we have going in the beginner games -- balanced setups and reliable modding -- is what we need to do in the regular games, while having the option for more bastard setups and unreliable modding, too. Expanding the options is what I see as the solution.

I don't disagree.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 11:22:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I agree that balanced games vs. unbalanced ones is the best metric, but I feel that putting it into practice without modifications leaves too much up to administrative fights. Making it open vs. closed doesn't completely solve it, but generally speaking, games that are closed are imba, and the ones that aren't can usually easily be opened, and games that are open are balanced.

Fixed.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 11:38:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 11:17:32 PM, SolonKR wrote:
When has there been a bastard or even imbalanced open/semi-open game on this site?

Virtually every game that bsh1 modded in the second beginner game of his series. He might take issue with that but it's simply the truth.

Being open completely defeats the purpose of a bastard game.

Actually, no. There are a number of well-known bastard open setups. Look at mafiascum for examples.

Having a reviewer for individual games is a lot fairer than what I originally thought the idea was; I will cede that.

It's how the beginner series is running, and it's producing wonderful results thus far.

How do we resolve controversies when there's disagreement about whether or not a game is balanced?

There's too much uncertainty in balancing games for their to be disagreements. Anyway, you're missing the point. This isn't about enforcing strict substantive requirements on balance. It's about establishing procedures -- keyword, procedures -- that help improve the balance of games. The idea is to have second-eye or third-eye look at the setup, because it's tough to predict how a game will play out, especially when you designed it. Having someone else review it will help point out things you may have missed. That is the key.

In the Beginner's series, due to the nature of not having 20 people who mod, the concept of what is balanced is agreed upon, but there will be people who disagree with a reviewer's assessment in the normal games.

First, there isn't a disagreement about what is "balanced." Either both sides have equal chances of winning, or they don't.

Second, in the context of a particular setup, even in the beginner series, there might be minor disagreements about how a setup is likely to play out. Evaluating these sorts of probabilities is tricky. These disagreements don't stop the game from moving forward. If anything, they simply help mods fine-tune their setup.

How do we arbitrate that? I'm sure the reviewer(s) is/are fair, but that doesn't mean I want to give them total power, either. On the other hand, public settlement will likely end up in fighting, as it generally does when people have personal stakes in public matters.

I don't know what you mean about "total power." I never said anything about that.

I agree that balanced games vs. unbalanced ones is the best metric, but I feel that putting it into practice without modifications leaves too much up to administrative fights. Making it open vs. closed doesn't completely solve it, but generally speaking, games that are closed are imba, and the ones that aren't can usually easily be closed, and games that are open are balanced.

Administrative fights? What sort of administrative fights are you imagining here?
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 11:47:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 11:13:00 PM, Vaarka wrote:
I like the idea for 1, as it puts a time limit for sign-ups. I'd say if you run out of time and don't want to start with a small amount of players, maybe we could have a second "on hold" list for those games.

Cool. Looks like everyone agrees. Let's make this happen.

As for 2, I don't like that. Sure, it's not the worst of ideas, but this leaves new mods trying to get practice and mod their own games often unable to do so, as people wouldn't want to play in these games on the second list. They'd only look at the first list with experienced mods, and the newer mods who are trying to become experienced will often be left behind.

I don't think your concerns are realistic.

First, there are a number of newer mods whose games I'm interested in joining. The issue is more a matter of trustworthiness/reliability than an issue of experience. There are certain mods who I don't trust, some inexperienced, others experienced. The reason I don't trust these mods is because I have seen them make modding errors or mod extremely imbalanced games, or because when playing with them, I have had fundamental disagreements with them about the sorts of mafia games that are fun.

Second, the issue of balance is solved by the proposal I'm discussing with Solon. If you have two lists, one for balanced games and one for imbalanced games, the key distinction between the two lists is the procedural requirement to have reviewers check your game for balance in the first list. There is no reason that inexperienced mods wouldn't be able to have their games run through the balanced list, but it will, if anything, help them with their first modding experience.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 12:10:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 11:38:19 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
How do we resolve controversies when there's disagreement about whether or not a game is balanced?
There's too much uncertainty in balancing games for their to be disagreements.
First, there isn't a disagreement about what is "balanced." Either both sides have equal chances of winning, or they don't.

Which is it? Are games that are balanced evidently so, or is there uncertainty?

Second, in the context of a particular setup, even in the beginner series, there might be minor disagreements about how a setup is likely to play out. Evaluating these sorts of probabilities is tricky. These disagreements don't stop the game from moving forward. If anything, they simply help mods fine-tune their setup.

How do we arbitrate that? I'm sure the reviewer(s) is/are fair, but that doesn't mean I want to give them total power, either. On the other hand, public settlement will likely end up in fighting, as it generally does when people have personal stakes in public matters.

I don't know what you mean about "total power." I never said anything about that.

We're talking about making two lists for balanced vs. unbalanced ones. There has to be some sort of authority in making the final determination for the former; otherwise, it's just reviewed. As you said, there's a lot of uncertainty, so while reviewing on its own helps (which I earlier stated), it's not a guarantee of balance, which then brings us back to square one.

I agree that balanced games vs. unbalanced ones is the best metric, but I feel that putting it into practice without modifications leaves too much up to administrative fights. Making it open vs. closed doesn't completely solve it, but generally speaking, games that are closed are imba, and the ones that aren't can usually easily be closed, and games that are open are balanced.

Administrative fights? What sort of administrative fights are you imagining here?

Bickering over whether or not a game is balanced and whether or not it belongs on one list or the other.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 12:16:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I wouldn't mind two lists: one for peer-reviewed games, the other for ones that aren't. I'm just worried about exclusionary factors when things get subjective.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 12:21:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 12:10:51 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Which is it? Are games that are balanced evidently so, or is there uncertainty?

Games are "balanced" when both sides have equal chances of winning. Some games are evidently so, others aren't. If the game is evidently balanced, it falls under the balanced list. If the mod and reviewer both agree that the game is balanced, it falls under the balanced list. If the mod and reviewer disagree, its "potentially" imbalanced. Thus, it falls under the "potentially imbalanced" list. This is relatively simple, so don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.

We're talking about making two lists for balanced vs. unbalanced ones. There has to be some sort of authority in making the final determination for the former; otherwise, it's just reviewed. As you said, there's a lot of uncertainty, so while reviewing on its own helps (which I earlier stated), it's not a guarantee of balance, which then brings us back to square one.

No authority is necessary to make final determinations. The mod/reviewer agree the game is balanced, or they don't. The mod can still run their game but it falls under the "potentially imbalanced" list.

Bickering over whether or not a game is balanced and whether or not it belongs on one list or the other.

If there is substantial disagreement about whether the game is balanced, it falls under the "potentially imbalanced" list.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 12:25:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 12:16:21 AM, SolonKR wrote:
I wouldn't mind two lists: one for peer-reviewed games, the other for ones that aren't. I'm just worried about exclusionary factors when things get subjective.

Solon, your worry is literally incoherent... nobody is going to be excluded from running their game.

The issue isn't exclusion. It's about ensuring that players have options at any given time. That means there might be a slight delay in running your game, depending on which list it falls under, but your game will run, under one list or the other.

If you disagree about the placement of your game in a particular list, feel free to say so in your signup thread.

There are no "authoritarian" rules here because there are no "substantive" rules here. The requirement is entirely "procedural." Either the mod/reviewer agree the game is balanced, or they don't. That is a "procedural" issue. It is not substantive. Nobody is excluded from running their game.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 12:32:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 12:25:07 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 4/26/2016 12:16:21 AM, SolonKR wrote:
I wouldn't mind two lists: one for peer-reviewed games, the other for ones that aren't. I'm just worried about exclusionary factors when things get subjective.

Solon, your worry is literally incoherent... nobody is going to be excluded from running their game.

Realistically, who's going to play in the other queue? Given the state of those games, maybe 8 people tops (given a week for sign-ups). In other words, being moved to the other queue undermines a mod's credibility and makes it significantly harder to gain sign-ups. That's a tremendous amount of power.

The issue isn't exclusion. It's about ensuring that players have options at any given time. That means there might be a slight delay in running your game, depending on which list it falls under, but your game will run, under one list or the other.

There's inherently exclusion in this methodology, though. Your answer implicitly states that reviewers have the final determination of where games go. Procedural rules must have authoritarian enforcement where subjective factors are involved. My definition of "potentially imbalanced" likely differs from yours, which probably differs from Bsh's, which probably differs from Vaarka's.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 12:33:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Also, I didn't see the "potentially" in front of "imbalanced" in the previous posts. My bad.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 12:46:50 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 12:32:52 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Realistically, who's going to play in the other queue? Given the state of those games, maybe 8 people tops (given a week for sign-ups). In other words, being moved to the other queue undermines a mod's credibility and makes it significantly harder to gain sign-ups. That's a tremendous amount of power.

No, dude. It undermines nothing. It simply means the game's balance is unclear. I don't think there will be much difference between the amount of signups in each list.

There's inherently exclusion in this methodology, though. Your answer implicitly states that reviewers have the final determination of where games go. Procedural rules must have authoritarian enforcement where subjective factors are involved. My definition of "potentially imbalanced" likely differs from yours, which probably differs from Bsh's, which probably differs from Vaarka's.

Again, you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

The game is "potentially" imbalanced if two people disagree about whether the game is balanced. There is no other coherent definition of "potentially imbalanced."

There is no exclusion because everyone is allowed to run their game. Everyone. The only issue is "when." The lists will move at different paces. This is a matter of timing. It ensures that the community -- the players -- have more options to choose from. That is all this will do.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 1:00:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 12:46:50 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 4/26/2016 12:32:52 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Realistically, who's going to play in the other queue? Given the state of those games, maybe 8 people tops (given a week for sign-ups). In other words, being moved to the other queue undermines a mod's credibility and makes it significantly harder to gain sign-ups. That's a tremendous amount of power.

No, dude. It undermines nothing. It simply means the game's balance is unclear. I don't think there will be much difference between the amount of signups in each list.

Balance is subjective. There's no such thing as "clear" balance, unless we're running tested open setups.

There's inherently exclusion in this methodology, though. Your answer implicitly states that reviewers have the final determination of where games go. Procedural rules must have authoritarian enforcement where subjective factors are involved. My definition of "potentially imbalanced" likely differs from yours, which probably differs from Bsh's, which probably differs from Vaarka's.

Again, you're making this more complicated than it needs to be.

The game is "potentially" imbalanced if two people disagree about whether the game is balanced. There is no other coherent definition of "potentially imbalanced."

That's not a good measurement, though, because by that metric, most games wouldn't be balanced.

There is no exclusion because everyone is allowed to run their game. Everyone. The only issue is "when." The lists will move at different paces. This is a matter of timing. It ensures that the community -- the players -- have more options to choose from. That is all this will do.

You're missing the point. The timing is the issue, because there may be games that are perfectly well balanced but are excluded based upon subjective opinion. The probability of those games filling is low, because, as you noted, people generally prefer balanced games, and any game in the "potential" hopper requires them taking a risk, undermining the game's ability to fill. Games that spend more than a week in sign-ups generally don't do well because even if they fill later, they're plagued by inactivity seemingly regardless of the merits of the games themselves. My last game was one of the most bastard to ever hit the site, filled in about a week, and activity didn't dwindle until the last two DPs. Less bastard games than mine that took longer (including Bullish's) died.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 1:23:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Why even have 16 player games anymore? Upcoming games should be 10 players max. Let's get some quick turn-around and increased interest in mafia until the population rebounds. These big games just lead to stalled sign-ups and mass replacements.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 1:29:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 1:00:58 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Balance is subjective.

No, balance is objective. The problem is identifying whether a game is balanced.

There's no such thing as "clear" balance, unless we're running tested open setups.

Solon, are you fvcking stupid? Neither list is a guarantee that the game will be balanced or imbalanced. There is no way to guarantee that. The point of having two lists is simply to provide prospective players with a greater degree of certainty about the balance of a particular game.

If a game has been reviewed for balance, and the reviewer disagrees that the game is balanced, it means that some players won't find the game to be balanced. When not everyone agrees about the balance of a game, it should go into the list of potentially imbalanced games.

That's not a good measurement, though, because by that metric, most games wouldn't be balanced.

Solon, most games on DDO are imbalanced... that is the fvcking point. By having a system in place to encourage review, more games will end up balanced.

The criticism that the "metric" is bad because under it "most games wouldn't be balanced" isn't a criticism. It's an observation about the pathetic state of modding on DDO.

You're missing the point. The timing is the issue, because there may be games that are perfectly well balanced but are excluded based upon subjective opinion.

First, if there is a disagreement about the balance of the game, that disagreement should be known to the community.

Second, these games aren't excluded. They simply run in a different list, a list that shows the community there is a disagreement about the balance of the game. The game may, in fact, be balanced. But that can't be known with absolutely certainty, so the best we have is the subjective opinion of reviewers.

The probability of those games filling is low, because, as you noted, people generally prefer balanced games, and any game in the "potential" hopper requires them taking a risk, undermining the game's ability to fill.

This concern is irrelevant. If nobody wants to play someone's game, too bad. The mafia community is not around to give mods the opportunity to mod. The community exists for the players, not for the mods. The mods serve the players. If the players don't like a particular mod, and don't want to play in that mod's games, too bad for the mod.

Now, any mod is free to say there was a disagreement about the game's balance, and to declare the game balanced despite that disagreement. If you want to join that game, you are free to do so, as is anyone else in the community. Forcing players to join that game before we can play someone else's better game, however, is to privilege the interests of mods over the interests of players. That is not something this community should be in the business of doing.

Games that spend more than a week in sign-ups generally don't do well because even if they fill later, they're plagued by inactivity seemingly regardless of the merits of the games themselves.

This is one reason that signups should end within a few days. Even a week is too long.

My last game was one of the most bastard to ever hit the site, filled in about a week, and activity didn't dwindle until the last two DPs. Less bastard games than mine that took longer (including Bullish's) died.

I can't speak to your game because I intentionally chose not to join, for reasons you are surely aware of.

Bullish's game died in large part because Bullish was inactive as a mod. This had little to do with the community.
SolonKR
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 1:50:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 1:29:23 AM, FourTrouble wrote:
At 4/26/2016 1:00:58 AM, SolonKR wrote:
Balance is subjective.

No, balance is objective. The problem is identifying whether a game is balanced.

Which means implementation of any standard is subjective.

There's no such thing as "clear" balance, unless we're running tested open setups.

Solon, are you fvcking stupid? Neither list is a guarantee that the game will be balanced or imbalanced. There is no way to guarantee that. The point of having two lists is simply to provide prospective players with a greater degree of certainty about the balance of a particular game.

I never said anything against that. I agree that it's the point. I disagree that it's the right action to take, for the reasons I elucidated.

If a game has been reviewed for balance, and the reviewer disagrees that the game is balanced, it means that some players won't find the game to be balanced. When not everyone agrees about the balance of a game, it should go into the list of potentially imbalanced games.

That's not a good measurement, though, because by that metric, most games wouldn't be balanced.

Solon, most games on DDO are imbalanced... that is the fvcking point. By having a system in place to encourage review, more games will end up balanced.

That's not what I mean. I mean, by that metric, we're only ever going to be playing open setups because anything else can't objectively be shown to be balanced.

You're missing the point. The timing is the issue, because there may be games that are perfectly well balanced but are excluded based upon subjective opinion.

First, if there is a disagreement about the balance of the game, that disagreement should be known to the community.

Then we end up back in the situation I was worried about initially--viva la flame war.

Second, these games aren't excluded. They simply run in a different list, a list that shows the community there is a disagreement about the balance of the game. The game may, in fact, be balanced. But that can't be known with absolutely certainty, so the best we have is the subjective opinion of reviewers.

Just because the community isn't for the mods doesn't mean the community should be against the mods, either. I can't stand for potentially balanced games being sent to the chopping block based on subjective factors. This will make a dichotomy between open/plain games and everything else (from balanced role-frequent to bastard), which doesn't help me play the games I like to play (games that are mostly balanced, but have unique factors); it hurts them by putting them into the same group as bastard games and plain terrible ones. From my standpoint as a player, in fact, the optimal view would be to have games be reviewed to match THAT criterion and lump normal games in with all the others in terms of waiting forever in the queue. But, I'm not advocating for that, because I recognize that many people like normal games. All I want is for the mostly-balanced crazier games (such as Code Geass) to not have to sit behind tons of bastard and broken games while plain games that I don't much care for (at least in the forums) get expedited. That's why I proposed reviewed vs. non-reviewed as a better metric--there's still a reasonably high degree of balance, and the problems of broken games clogging the sign-ups is still fixed.

The probability of those games filling is low, because, as you noted, people generally prefer balanced games, and any game in the "potential" hopper requires them taking a risk, undermining the game's ability to fill.

This concern is irrelevant. If nobody wants to play someone's game, too bad. The mafia community is not around to give mods the opportunity to mod. The community exists for the players, not for the mods. The mods serve the players. If the players don't like a particular mod, and don't want to play in that mod's games, too bad for the mod.

The point is that the executive power of any reviewers has the power to kill a game.

Now, any mod is free to say there was a disagreement about the game's balance, and to declare the game balanced despite that disagreement. If you want to join that game, you are free to do so, as is anyone else in the community. Forcing players to join that game before we can play someone else's better game, however, is to privilege the interests of mods over the interests of players. That is not something this community should be in the business of doing.

The structural nature of your plan inherently works to discourage those games from running. Having the unbalanced games shrivel and die because the player base doesn't want them is totally fine. I'm concerned about the subjective application of reviews potentially wrongfully killing off people's games.

My last game was one of the most bastard to ever hit the site, filled in about a week, and activity didn't dwindle until the last two DPs. Less bastard games than mine that took longer (including Bullish's) died.
Bullish's game died in large part because Bullish was inactive as a mod. This had little to do with the community.

Okay. Take Breaking's game. Not balanced, but it never made it past DP1 (in other words, the balance problems would be unknown) in terms of having any substantial activity.
SO to Bailey, the love of my life <3