Player Slot and Game Census

[zoraster]

Just a quick thread to post this. I went through and attempted to find all of the living player slots in ongoing games. I counted them up by game type. I did include games in pregame.





9/6/13

Newbie Games:

164 slots out of 22 games (7.45 p/g) 20%

Open Games:

128 slots out of 14 games (9.14 p/g) 16%

Mini-Normal Games:

76 slots out of 7 games (10.86 p/g) 9%

Mini-Theme Games:

131 slots out of 15 games (8.7 p/g) 16%

Large Normal Games:

29 slots out of 3 games (9.67 p/g) 4%

Large Theme Games:

156 slots out of 13 games (12 p/g) 24%

Micros:

83 slots out of 13 games (6.38 p/g) 10%

4/10/13

Newbie Games:

128 slots out of 17 games (7.53 p/g) 18.82%

Open Games:

93 slots out of 10 games (9.3 p/g) 13.68%

Mini-Normal Games:

70 slots out of 7 games (10.0 p/g) 10.29%

Mini-Theme Games:

131 slots out of 17 games (7.7 p/g) 19.26%

Large Normal Games:

35 slots out of 3 games (11.67 p/g) 5.15%

Large Theme Games:

114 slots out of 9 games (12.67 p/g) 16.76%

Micros:

109 slots out of 16 games (6.81 p/g) 19.09%

Overall:

680 slots out of 79 games (8.61 p/g)

3/12/13

Newbie Games:

124 slots out of 16 games (7.75 p/g) 19.56%

Open Games:

90 slots out of 9 games (10 p/g) 14.20%

Mini-Normal Games:

53 slots out of 6 games (8.8 p/g) 8.36%

Mini-Theme Games:

79 slots out of 13 games (6.1 p/g) 12.46%

Large Normal Games:

27 slots out of 2 games (13.5 p/g) 4.26%

Large Theme Games:

140 slots out of 9 games (15.6 p/g) 22.08%

Micros:

121 slots out of 17 games (7.1 p/g) 19.09%

Overall:

634 slots out of 72 games (8.81 p/g)

12/8/12

Newbie Games:

91 slots out of 12 games (7.6 p/g) 16.82%

Open Games:

82 slots out of 10 games (8.2 p/g) 15.16%

Mini-Normal Games:

64 slots out of 6 games (10.7 p/g) 11.83%

Mini-Theme Games:

87 slots out of 9 games (10.9 p/g) 16.08%

Large Normal Games:

10 slots out of 1 game (10.0 p/g) 1.85%

Large Theme Games:

117 slots out of 10 games (11.7 p/g) 21.63%

Micros:

90 slots out of 13 games (6.9 p/g) 16.64%

Overall:

541 slots out of 61 games (8.87 p/g)

6/26/12

Newbie Games:

98 slots out of 13 games ( 7.5 p/g) 15.4%

Open Games:

135 slots out of 15 games ( 9.0 p/g) 21.2%

Mini-Normal Games:

68 slots out of 7 games ( 9.7 p/g) 10.7%

Mini-Theme Games:

95 slots out of 10 games ( 9.5 p/g) 14.9%

Large Normal Games:

13 slots out of 1 games ( 13.0 p/g) 2.0%

Large Theme Games:

229 slots out of 15 games ( 15.3 p/g) 35.9%

Overall:

638 slots out of 61 games (10.5 p/g)

10/1/11

Newbie Games:

155 slots out of 23 games ( 6.7 p/g) 17.92%

Open Games:

106 slots out of 11 games ( 9.6 p/g) 12.25%

Mini-Normal Games:

97 slots out of 11 games ( 8.8 p/g) 11.21%

Mini-Theme Games:

195 slots out of 20 games ( 9.8 p/g) 22.54%

Large Normal Games:

47 slots out of 4 games ( 11.8 p/g) 5.43%

Large Theme Games:

265 slots out of 19 games ( 13.9 p/g) 30.64%

Overall:

865 slots out of 88 games (9.83 p/g)

8/20/11:

Newbie Games:

184 slots out of 26 games (7.1 p/g) 22.5%

Open Games:

104 slots out of 10 games (10.4 p/g) 12.7%

Mini-Normal Games:

80 slots out of 8 games (10.0 p/g) 9.8%

Mini-Theme Games:

153 slots out of 16 games (9.6 p/g) 18.7%

Large Normal Games:

68 slots out of 5 games (13.6 p/g) 8.3%

Large Theme Games:

230 slots out of 18 games (12.8 p/g) 28.1%

Overall:

819 slots out of 83 games (9.9 p/g)

This is interesting as I assumed there would be FAR more mini-theme player slots than any other games, but that turns out not to be even remotely true. I think mini-themes are usually designed to go a lot quicker than other games. Also, it can't help that there was a recent clog in the mini-theme circuit. Newbie games are notoriously slow, so it's not too much of a surprise that a lot play there. Large Themes are, well, large so it's not too surprising that it outnumbers other games.

--

By the way, I have a certain level of hate for moderators who don't post a "Living" list on the front page. I feel a smaller annoyance at moderators who don't number their alive lists or do that thing where each player is a number and then they just remove the number and the player from the alive list. A special part of my heart goes out to those who put at the top of their alive list "Alive (10/13)"

[zoraster]

While I agree entirely with your hate for people who do not post accurate lists of people who are alive in the first post, I'm not sure what you're researching here.

You're not sure what or why?

The what is pretty easy: how many people are currently alive in any game across the site. Obviously many people are alive in more than one game, so it's "slots" rather than "players."

The why is a little more difficult to answer as it kind of has a lot of answers and just one: I was curious. I did the work for myself, but I figured it might be mildly interesting to other people. I provide it without much comment as I'm not trying to prove a point or anything with it.

The other answers are that I think it helps provide a more complete snapshot of the game system itself along with the queue data, etc. It might be interesting to do this again in 3 months and see how it changes with time.

[zoraster]

I actually have some criticism of Thok's first law that I've been meaning to write. I think it has some problems, but it's still useful.

EDIT: Just to preview that criticism it's basically based on Thok's logic. He used a poll that reported 85% of people were interested in moderating a game. His assumption when he came to 10 games a person in order to reach equilibrium relies on the assumption that all poll respondents will want to moderate a game at all times and immediately. An assumption that is obviously incorrect as I'd imagine there are only a few people who would like to moderate a game at all times.

[zoraster]

Absolutely. And I guess the truth is that it's usually just used to show that there are always going to be more mods than players, which is fair and true. I just think it may overemphasize how fast it'll grow.

[zoraster]

Mini-Normal Games:

80 slots out of 8 games (10.0 p/g)

Mini-Theme Games:

153 slots out of 16 games (9.6 p/g)

Large Normal Games:

68 slots out of 5 games (13.6 p/g)

Large Theme Games:

230 slots out of 18 games (12.8 p/g)

why would themed games have relatively longer later days?

I don't think they do? What do you mean?

[zoraster]

the averages of the themed games are lower. I was assuming (and I could very well be wrong here) that themes and normals started out with similar amounts of players. If so, themed games apparently spend more time in the later days, since that would make their averages lower.

(I know, small samples, poor assumptions, etc)

an interesting observation, but I'm not sure a .4 difference in players per game can be entirely attributed to more players in later game. I'm not sure killing roles really would account for the difference though.

I'll do it again in 3 months or so and see if it's the same then

[zoraster]

Updated this list with the current numbers. They are:

Newbie Games:

155 slots out of 23 games ( 6.7 p/g) 17.92%

Open Games:

106 slots out of 11 games ( 9.6 p/g) 12.25%

Mini-Normal Games:

97 slots out of 11 games ( 8.8 p/g) 11.21%

Mini-Theme Games:

195 slots out of 20 games ( 9.8 p/g) 22.54%

Large Normal Games:

47 slots out of 4 games ( 11.8 p/g) 5.43%

Large Theme Games:

265 slots out of 19 games ( 13.9 p/g) 30.64%

865 slots (gain of 46 slots from 8/20) in 88 games (gain of 5 games)

Comparison to the previous:
Game Type, October 1st total

Slot adjustment

|

Percent of total slots adjustment

Newbie Games:

155

-29 -4.58%

Open Games:

106

+2

|

-0.45%

Mini-Normal Games:

97

+17

|

+1.1%

Mini-Theme Games:

195

+42

|

+3.84%

Large Normal Games:

47

-21

|

-2.87%

Large Theme Games:

265

+35

|

+2.54%

Please keep in mind that these are slots currently alive. This does not mean unique players alive.

[zoraster]

6/26/12

Newbie Games:

98 slots out of 13 games ( 7.5 p/g) 15.4%

Open Games:

135 slots out of 15 games ( 9.0 p/g) 21.2%

Mini-Normal Games:

68 slots out of 7 games ( 9.7 p/g) 10.7%

Mini-Theme Games:

95 slots out of 10 games ( 9.5 p/g) 14.9%

Large Normal Games:

13 slots out of 1 games ( 13.0 p/g) 2.0%

Large Theme Games:

229 slots out of 15 games ( 15.3 p/g) 35.9%

Overall:

638 slots out of 61 games (10.5 p/g)

Comparison to the previous:
Game Type, June 26th total

Slot adjustment

|

Percent of total slots adjustment

Newbie Games:

98

-57 | -2.5%

Open Games:

135

+29

|

+9.0%

Mini-Normal Games:

68

-29

|

-0.5%

Mini-Theme Games:

95

-100

|

-7.6%

Large Normal Games:

13

-34

|

-3.4%

Large Theme Games:

229

-36

|

+5.3%

Please keep in mind that these are slots currently alive. This does not mean unique players alive.

[zoraster]

Obviously we're still recovering from the crash, especially in the case of large normals (although % of slots playing large themes is actually up).

But a couple of things that REALLY stand out: Opens are way, way up (in fact the only category that has more slots now than in October). I attribute this to the far better game selection and Hoopla's influence there. The other is that Mini-Themes are way, way down. I don't know how to account for this. It's been enough months that nearly all mini-themes should be post-crash.

So I'm not sure what's causing this except maybe a shift in tastes, possibly brought on by well known mods running fewer mini-themes and more large themes, and a better selection of interesting open games as an alternative to minis.

[zoraster]

maybe, although that didn't seem to be the case very often just as a first impression going through them.

And yes, Team Mafia may have drained the Mini Themes queue disproportionately. I'll probably want to run this again in a few months to see if that's brough it back to previous levels, but I suspect it'll still show something similar.

[zoraster]

Spoiler: Silly rant

By the way, let me reiterate how annoying it is when people don't number their alive/deads. Doing the following is NOT a good alternative (I'm not entirely sure why they bother):

Alive:
1. Zoraster
2. quadz08
4. Vi
7. Faraday

Dead:
3. Percy
5. Tina
6. Archibald

The

1. function is a great tool for those that don't know. Just use
2. where you'd normally put a number. Tada! Insant changing numbers.
   ---
   
   Or even MORE annoying: not updating your game after it ends. And just downright puzzling is <CENSORED MOD WHO SHOULD KNOW BETTER> not updating their alive/dead on the front page even once even though it's about to be Day 3.
   
   --

A special shoutout to mods who put the number alive at the top of their counts. e.g "Alive (9/13)

[zoraster]

"supposed" to vi? Why? Who refers to slots by their numbers? I've literally never heard someone say "oh well the 7 slot is really scummy."

Far more useful to all involved is knowing how many players are alive because that's relevant for figuring out where you stand in terms of lylo, mylo, etc.

[zoraster]

There's this too from last year (and a link to the year before): http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18784

[zoraster]

no problemo.

[zoraster]

Games aren't quite as concerning to me as slots. It's perfectly possible that tastes shift toward larger games,* and that's not a terrible thing. But player slots indicates that we have fewer players playing fewer games, and that is -- if it's sustained -- a bit of a problem.

That said, the game side is still relatively healthy. The lack of interest or quality (or perceived quality) in Mini-Themes is concerning to me, but the increase in interest in Open Games is quite heartening as that can probably be directly traced back to Hoopla and the way that queue is being run now.

The decrease in sheer number of Newbies is also very concerning since theoretically the crash should have little impact on newbie players.

* The increased players alive per game indicates this

may

be the case, though with a small sample size, especially for larges, this may just be a quirk. And truthfully it may reflect that moderators are favoring bigger games in the large context, or it could possible indicate that mods are running longer, slower games now than a year ago.

[zoraster]

It'd probably have some use, but it wouldn't be more useful.

[zoraster]

can you isolate numbers for just mafia games, chamber?

[zoraster]

thanks!

[zoraster]

12/8/12

Newbie Games:

91 slots out of 12 games (7.6 p/g) 16.82%

Open Games:

82 slots out of 10 games (8.2 p/g) 15.16%

Mini-Normal Games:

64 slots out of 6 games (10.7 p/g) 11.83%

Mini-Theme Games:

87 slots out of 9 games (10.9 p/g) 16.08%

Large Normal Games:

10 slots out of 1 game (10.0 p/g) 1.85%

Large Theme Games:

117 slots out of 10 games (11.7 p/g) 21.63%

Micros:

90 slots out of 13 games (6.9 p/g) 16.64%

Overall:

541 slots out of 61 games (8.87 p/g)

Comparison to the previous:
Game Type, June 26th total

Slot adjustment

|

Percent of total slots adjustment

Newbie Games:

91

-7

|

+1.42%[/b]

Open Games:

82

-53

|

-6.0%

Mini-Normal Games:

64

-4

|

+1.1%

Mini-Theme Games:

87

-8

|

+1.2%

Large Normal Games:

10

-3

|

-0.2%

Large Theme Games:

117

-112

|

-14.3%

Micro Games:

90

+90

|

+16.64%

[zoraster]

Obviously throwing micros in puts in a new wrinkle, but nothing can hide the fact that fewer player slots are filled these days. Micros are devoured, but they only fill 90 player slots at the moment. Despite the supposed unpopularity of Mini Themes these days , Mini Themes actually have about as many people playing in them as Micros at the given moment.

Really, all that's happened is pretty much everything is less popular. We are down 278 player spots from when I first started recording this. That's a 34% drop in the span of a year and a half.

Yes, time of year has something to do with this. But the numbers were not rosy this past summer. Maybe that was residual from the Tiger attack, but we can keep making excuses or we can recognize that the game has become less popular.

Open games are understandably down as the Micro queue runs a lot of open games. But the most remarkable number is the Large Themes. In all my previous versions, the Large Theme games were the most resilient to fall off. 230, 265, 229. So the reduction to 117 is notable. It may just be that Larges are in particular susceptible to the time of year (larges may be better suited for summer time for whatever reason).

[zoraster]

[zoraster]

I think one thing that may be going on is that there are a number of mods who have been playing with the micro stuff recently as we know we can immediately do it, it doesn't tend to need as much thinking, etc. As a result, fewer quality Large Themes have been offered, and although we're seeing declines across the board, Large Themes decline has the largest effect.

[zoraster]

I actually doubt this. I don't have data to support me, but in the past we've gotten a lot more people who discovered our site after playing mafia on another forum rather than people from our site leaving for others.

[zoraster]

The large theme queue has also dropped a lot in bringing new games into play. (does that happen often?) and there hadn't been many actually be in sign-ups which could be restricting the flow of players into these games.

There's only been one game start in the last month. (though there are two in signups now (soon)), so I guess it will increase in player numbers soon.

Yeah, I think this has something to do with the insatiable appetite of micros for mods.

[zoraster]

The bottlenecks in all the queues required to get experience for L.Themes could be part of it too.

this is actually a legitimate point now. With micros taking a great number of players out of the mini normal and open queues, that slows both down. that leads to fewer games getting through, which decreases the number of moderators we're getting in to the system. In the past, this was actually a positive. Now, that may (may) be leading to a dearth in mods. If we're going to continue with micros, I think we need to think about getting more mods into the system.

[zoraster]

mind screw 6 anyone?

[zoraster]

Event Plan

Day 1: Votes are swapped to the person whose name is two below theirs alphabetically each time someone says the word "lynch"
Day 2: Everyone gains the power of their role from their last game to finish
Day 3: Mod flakes

[zoraster]

I think we need to think about getting more mods into the system.

Interesting, since the old problem was too many mods for the playerslots. Or do you think it's that mods are running fewer games/year?

I could see that, actually.

Yeah. This is a new problem, I think. But since micros are the hottest queue by number of games (though not by number of players active at any time), but don't give experience to move up and don't allow new mods to mod, you're basically left in a situation where we're running into too few mods.

[zoraster]

no. i think there's demand for certain Large Themes.

[zoraster]

Well, both. I think it sometimes seems like the same mods get the majority of attention in part because they tend to be the ones that come up with the most interesting themes. That said, when it comes to theme games, it's often an issue of a lot of time and effort, so you want to trust that the mod put the time and thought in.

I think that's fine, CFJ, but I don't think the best theme games tend to be player sourced. Rather, they are moderator sourced. But that may in part be due to my focus not on material from fiction or whatever but rather differences in mechanics.

[zoraster]

well, that seems to lend credence to the idea that we don't have enough qualified mods.

[zoraster]

well does the absolute number matter? if we're not getting enough games, we don't have enough mods.

[zoraster]

but your response is essentially that there are a lot of qualified mods out there but they aren't modding, correct?

[zoraster]

yes. it's the experience requirement combined with the fact that micros don't provide experience.

[zoraster]

How does the benefit of the experience requirement weigh against the harm?

It's a good question, but I think we can help it by readjusting how we give experience a little. Alternatively, relax requirements somewhat to allow co-modding or something.

[zoraster]

yes. it's the experience requirement combined with the fact that micros don't provide experience.

If we have a lot of mods who are eligible to run games that just aren't for some reason, that doesn't mean the experience requirement is a problem.

Actually, it does. If we had more people with experience, we'd have more large themes. If the % of qualified mods who run a large theme has reduced from 5% to 2%, you still get more mods by increasing the raw number qualified even if the % stays low (which it would not necessarily, since it's possible that newer mods will be more excited and fresh).

Also @zoraster: I'm modding a L.Theme right now. Where's yours?

Forthcoming! But I have things to talk to you about first.

[zoraster]

True. But does that mean that our system is broken? is that something we should do? I don't see this as a crisis.

It may be premature, but yes. It's something we should probably consider if it keeps up.

[zoraster]

Okay, but we have a fairly easy source for mods: they're our players. Less so for players. Just because there will be a choke point at some point in the system doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce that choke point even if it means another one occurs. And I'd rather see the choke point be that we don't have enough players than we don't have enough mods.

Let's say we're making widgets. And they require 2 steel and 1 plastic. Right now we have 20 steel and 30 plastic every month coming in, so we're able to produce 10 widgets. Let's say we could open up a steel factory that would give us 80 more steel per month, for 100 total. If we did that, the choke point would be the plastic suddenly. But we're able to produce 30 widgets instead of 10, so despite the fact there was a choke point, we're still doing better.

[zoraster]

i was going off of what LF said, which is that there is no Large Theme queue to speak of and those games are filling fast when they do go up.

Generally speaking, clearing a glut of MN/Open mods won't directly make more Large Theme mods as they need at least another game experience.

[zoraster]

hmmm. I think I need to sleep on that one (mostly because I'm exhausted), but I don't immediately hate it. How would you handle micros in that both from the experience giving (in terms of large themes) and modding?

[zoraster]

For what it's worth, I'd definitely alter the two games at once thing to include requirements for having modded games. There's no reason you should be able to mod two games without having proven you can mod at least one, even if you've established yourself as a respectable, responsible player.

Also, I don't know if it's worth the extra effort, but I'd start tolling the time from the start of a player's first game rather than when they joined the site.

[zoraster]

it happens occasionally.

Thinking about it, here's what I'd say:

the system in general is fine, but I'd make each more onerous (more time and more games played) BUT I'd put it as a parallel way to qualify to moderate a game.

In other words, you can EITHER qualify to moderate a game by the current standard OR you can qualify by the proposed one.

[zoraster]

And zor how often does someone join the site and not sign up for a game the same or next day?

Surprisingly often but it would be a real hassle to track.

yeah, i think you're probably right.

[zoraster]

*does otter imitation* It's not too uncommon.

prescient.

[zoraster]

i think it probably will if they've been here for a long time and played in a sufficient number of games. That said, we have more tools in place for first time mods right now that we wouldn't have in that scenario.

[zoraster]

normals constrain you. it's pretty hard to make an overly complicated setup in a normal.

[zoraster]

it doesn't.

[zoraster]

I wouldn't add length alive as a way to get experience. Making every player a part survivor if they want to mod quicker isn't a good idea (that and I'd say being night killed early is better then being lynched in lylo).

I think you've misunderstood what they're saying. It's not time alive in the games. It's time since they joined the site (or from the time they first started a game).

[zoraster]

also, any chance we can get this discussion split off from the thread? It's not that I dont' think it's a good one. Just probably deserves its own thread.

[zoraster]

also, any chance we can get this discussion split off from the thread? It's not that I dont' think it's a good one. Just probably deserves its own thread.

Yeah sorry I really just sort of hijacked it.

no no, the thread was designed to spark discussion, so it's not a hijack at all. Just at certain point, it grows into something that probably deserves its own thread on the discussion and keeps this one a little cleaner.

[zoraster]

Well, I mean ideally I'd have the info from the past 5 years on a daily, weekly or monthly basis and could chart it. But I don't. Yes, we could continue to do this and try to keep it regularly updated. That's fine. But that'll take how long to convince some people? How long would it take to establish what a true seasonal affect is? three years? Is that something we really want to wait on?

I think it would be foolish, however, to think that the data shows nothing significant. It's clear we have fewer player slots active this year than we did the year before, seasonal affects be damned. The question of what's the cause of that is one that may be harder to answer. Maybe more data is needed, but I think there's a question between which is more likely to cause harm: action or inaction.

I don't think we're at a crisis point or anything right now. It may just be that we peaked in 2010/2011 for a variety of reasons, and no matter what we do we're never going back. We have far more games going on now than we did in 2005, for example, and the site was just fine then. But I think we probably should address problems as we see them rather than wring our hands and find reasons nothing should change ever because we don't have definitive data.

[zoraster]

that would be more convincing if there were a backlog of moderators waiting to run a large game. Still, you don't have to convince me that moderators have generally gone their own way regardless of what they think players want (resulting in 30+ player games for little reason other than a desire for the epic).

But that doesn't mean there isn't an appetite not being satisfied given that even with those types of games, we have zero games currently in sign ups for large themes at the moment. If mods were really being terrible and there WASN'T a problem of a lack of mods, then we'd have a backlog.

[zoraster]

And what I'm saying is that I think the evidence more clearly points toward not enough mods at the moment because there are ZERO games in sign ups right now. Yes, maybe some mods are scared off by the slow filling games, but right now a player doesn't really have the ability to choose a large theme. I'd rather have players given the choice rather than mods.

In other words, I think that having a short to medium queue for mods (say in the 2 week to 2 month range) is probably a good thing for the site as it means at the very least we're providing a steady diet of games for players. But having an inconsistent supply side is less good.

As the supply goes up, our ability to establish quality control on mods goes up too. As supply goes down, we should want to increase supply even at the expense of "quality," though there is a limit to this (you don't want games that actively drive players away after they finish).

Note that this is completely in keeping with what I have said all along while being the OPPOSITE of what I was arguing in the past. When queues were long, I argued for a more meritocratic approach such as requiring a certain % of pre-ins, shortening the time that a large theme could fill, etc.

I think there's an argument that you don't want to fiddle with things too hastily. But if the large themes keep this way, I see no reason we shouldn't attempt to get a steadier diet of games going in the large theme queue.

[zoraster]

And what I'm saying is that I think the evidence more clearly points toward not enough mods at the moment because there are ZERO games in sign ups right now.

False.

That's a Large Normal. we were talking about Large Themes.

[zoraster]

One thing I will say for the current situation: it solves the problem of people signing up without having everything set. Now, you know that when you sign up you'd better be 100% ready to go.

[zoraster]

so it is. My bad. that's kinda confusing and i can't imagine helps his sign ups...

[zoraster]

increasing the number of mods coming through will increase the number of mods with good reputations in the end. sure, some will be bad or forgettable, but some will be great examples of mods. It's not that being somewhat more generous about requirements means that we're really scraping the barrel or anything. Just that they won't have had two games experience.

I'm really open to suggestions for different policies to achieve this; I have no set way I think is superior at the moment.

[zoraster]

My concern about the large theme queue is an ecumenical one so to speak. It's about the overall effect this has on the site where we're low on active players (or at least player slots).

I suspect you're right about the sign ups, LF. Either things are popular and fill or are unpopular and don't easily. That can be a large problem when we have a full queue. Less of problem when we don't.

My issue is that we put pretty artificial caps on Large Themes. Yes, moderating a game before taking on the responsibility for the design and moderation of a 20+ player game is a very good idea.

But I think there's a real question at what additional utility having a second game makes.

If we were forcing mods who wanted to do large themes to do large normals first, this helps. But letting them do a second Mini-Normal or Open? or even a Mini-Theme? Not huge differences.

I'm okay with that fairly artificial barrier when times are booming and we really have a Thok's law scenario across the board. But when they're not, I think we should try and reduce barriers to the point where the barriers only exist to make sure we have as quality a game as the barrier can provide.

My suggestion would be to have some sort of waiver system after a game experience where the arbiter (LT List Mod or some other person) can look at things like number and quality of micros run, the suggested theme and whether it's likely to pull in lots of players, who the proposed backup mod is and whether that backup mod can vouch for the quality of the game, etc.

[zoraster]

Eh. Ideally a completed Large [X] and a completed [X] Theme (2 if Micro) would qualify you for a Large Theme, but I'm not sure that would fly with the userbase. We have enough trouble with the chokepoint of Mini Normal. And then there's the possibility of just making a Large Normal with 14p. *shrug*

I'm not sure how the current scenario ISN'T subject to Thok's Law, though. If anything playerslots being down is making it worse sitewide, yes?

First, yeah. That's what I meant. We can't really put in that policy because there isn't much demand for Large Normals.

Second, that's why I qualified it as "Thok's law across the board." We still have Thok's law* in other queues. But that doesn't apply to Large Themes where we have no queue. That's been true in the past too. So in a way, Thok's law in the upstream queues make it so that we don't have them in the downstream ones.

*Though the extent to which this is true as stated has always been somewhat suspect.

[zoraster]

but why? If we have too many mods, sure. But the harm is fairly low otherwise. Yeah, we might get a few more "bad" games than normal, but we'll probably also get more good games than we do now (since we have more games offered and not all games will be bad).

The mod we're talking about has:
(a) been here for at leats 3 months (and likely 5-6 with normal/open queue waits)
(b) already shown they can mod a 13p game
(c) has shown they have a workable theme concept
(d) has modded more in the micro queue
(e) has a backup that vouches for the quality of the game

I don't think this is exactly opening pandora's box.

And I'm having a pretty hard time figuring out where you're coming from wanting the requirements to be even more onerous. What is the real gain in that rather than the artificial feeling that we're "doing something" to improve quality not unlike the TSA making a six-year-old remove his sweatshirt.

[zoraster]

but those are people who qualify. Would relaxing those standards really let more of that through? It's possible, but I don't know that it's really much more likely.

[zoraster]

anyway, what i'm saying is the waivers should be available on a MORE demanding basis than normal, not less. These mods that receive a waiver should have proven themselves more than those that go through the ordinarily two minis situation. It shouldn't just be "run a mini, run a couple of micros, you're in" but rather it should be done on a case-by-case basis where things such as time on the site, number of games run, quality of those games, quality of concept, experienced mod backup, etc. can be taken into account. If anything, I'd feel more confident in a mod that meets those requirements than I do with someone who simply put in their time to do two minis/opens.

This expands our mod pool without diluting it. Because there is nothing particularly special about running a second 11 player open game that would weed out bad mods.

[zoraster]

I think that running a large game is in some ways harder: keeping up to date with vote counts, managing any complicated interactions, more chances for interpersonal conflict, often a much longer timeline (I don't think any of my four micros have lasted more than a month). But in some ways large games are more forgiving. If you get balance wrong in a 9 or 13p game, it causes the game to go bad without much chance for recovery. In a large game, there's a little more cushion.

Regardless, I don't think we should remove requirements completely. I think requiring at least one mini-normal should be required for a waiver. Beyond that, I think the criteria that a listmod could use for their discretion would work pretty well. It should be much harder to get in this way than the normal two minis and you're good to go, but it allows mods that aren't just trying to ride the train to large themeville to mod a large theme if they've shown promise.

[zoraster]

yeah, but a pain for all involved to keep track of. You could try a deadline based on number of posts in the game rather than real life days.

[zoraster]

I don't think it's that easy to manipulate if you take some sensible steps such as allow each player to post one last time when the post-count deadline hits. If someone obviously is trying to run posts up to the deadline, they should be lynched.

[zoraster]

I've been toying with Amnesia mafia for a while. In the past I've been worried that it'd annoy the listmod too much though, so I had put it on the backburner.

[zoraster]

I don't think there will be revolutionary changes, but I have started discussing changing the experience requirements some. I'm also tossing around two different sets of sign up deadlines/requirements -- one for low supply times like right now (where there is no queue) and another for high supply times. But that's yet to really be fleshed out.

[zoraster]

3/12/13

Newbie Games:

124 slots out of 16 games (7.75 p/g) 19.56%

Open Games:

90 slots out of 9 games (10 p/g) 14.20%

Mini-Normal Games:

53 slots out of 6 games (8.8 p/g) 8.36%

Mini-Theme Games:

79 slots out of 13 games (6.1 p/g) 12.46%

Large Normal Games:

27 slots out of 2 games (13.5 p/g) 4.26%

Large Theme Games:

140 slots out of 9 games (15.6 p/g) 22.08%

Micros:

121 slots out of 17 games (7.1 p/g) 19.09%

Overall:

634 slots out of 72 games (8.81 p/g)

Comparison to the previous:
Game Type, December 8th, 2012 total

Slot adjustment

|

Percent of total slots adjustment

Newbie Games:

124

+33

|

+2.7%[/b]

Open Games:

90

+8

|

-1.0%

Mini-Normal Games:

53

-11

|

-3.5%

Mini-Theme Games:

79

-8

|

-3.6%

Large Normal Games:

27

+17

|

+2.4%

Large Theme Games:

140

+23

|

+0.5%

Micro Games:

121

+31

|

+2.5%

[zoraster]

So it looks like a bit of a bounce back here, although we should be somewhat cautious due to the /in-vitational being counted in the relevant categories. Still, what really heartens me is the increase, both in absolute terms and in percent of total players, signed up in newbie games. The more we put in, the better able we are to continue to grow at a steady rate, hopefully above the attrition rate.

In my own queue (Large Themes) I think we're still missing more mods than we are missing players, but compared to a couple of months ago, this demand has been met far better. Quadz I think should be especially commended for getting more mods into his queue as I think the change there is less about the player demand and more about mods.

Mini games in general are continuing on a slow downward slope despite the overall increase in player numbers. Where at their peak Mini Normals and Mini Themes made up 1 in 3 player slots, now it's about 1 in 5. Open games have held steady.

[zoraster]

I agree with that. Initially I think micros "stole" more evenly across the board as people and mods put more time into micros as it was somewhat novel. But now I think it's almost all directed at minis, perhaps also opens to an extent.

This is just something to keep in the back of our minds because

I do not at all advocate changing anything right now

, but if it continues on this way, we might need to think about whether 11-13 player games are simply an awkward number in between micros and larges. I don't know what if anything we'd do about it, but especially in the case of theme games, it's something to consider.

[zoraster]

You can see all my updates. So no one could call it regular. More of a sampling.

Again, I'm not in favor of changing the minis right now. I just wanted to put it out there. Regardless, I think Normals should be touched only very carefully if at all. Micros may be "stealing" people from mini-normals, but the vast majority offer very little that truly replaces Normals.

I don't think we're going back to 1 in 3. Almost all the queues are down percentage wise from before simply because 19% is taken out for micros. I don't have any particular love of minis over other types of games (indeed, I think Minis have consistently been the hardest for me to make a great game out of as a moderator). It's just that I look at things and think "if this trend were to continue, is there some better way of doing things?" And I don't have an immediate answer to that.

[zoraster]

I think they're kept separate because of (a) history and (b) trying to keep a bright line between normals and themes. I think one listmod could easily do the job of both -- Lord knows the day-to-day operation of my queue isn't onerous, though I try very hard to continually think about how to make the experience better for players. But I'm not sure what gains we'd get from combining the two.

I think Normals are somewhat different from other categories. Their purpose even in small numbers is a net good for the site because it provides the "base game" for people to continue to play. It may never be the most popular version of the game, but it's always there. I don't have a problem with that.

[zoraster]

Well, when i first did this there were 5 large normals with 68 slots.

One thing that's decreased large normals is an understanding by more mods that year long games aren't fun.

[zoraster]

yeah. if i were to take over large normals, i'd keep it completely distinct.

I think getting rid of mini normals for credit would eliminate the interest in MODS for normal games, not players. We're not in the business of satisfying mod urges. From a practical standpoint, it makes no sense to allow mods to get experience from open games and not normals anyway. Also, I don't want to create more of a bottleneck than there already is to modding.

[zoraster]

Well, I did relax the requirements some on large themes, but i got a little blowback, so it stands at 3 micros count for a game of experience.

[zoraster]

How many people do you think fall into that category? Anyway, the Mini limitation has been here for quite some time. If Person X would like to play in 10 games, he might in the past have chosen to play in newbies or larges, but now plays in Micros. Fine. But that hurts Larges numbers, not minis.

[zoraster]

maybe, but it's actually a fairly large task to try and monitor.

[zoraster]

all of which will add additional burdens on the listmods who have to deal with it

[zoraster]

this has been a topic that's been discussed repeatedly, not that doing so again isn't worthwhile.

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=18600

[zoraster]

I'll be glad when they come, but I basically act as if they're completely mythical because I think we spend too much time talking about what we'd do if things were automated and we have for years.

That said, I think UNLESS things are automated, a site-wide limit is very difficult to do.

[zoraster]

Personally, I think at this point we could probably get rid of limits altogether unless and until it's automated. Mini games aren't what's allowing people to overload anymore. But that's not in any sort of official capacity as it's completely not my field

[zoraster]

i'm not sure how many games Nacho is playing, but he'd be my first guess.

[zoraster]

The number who play 10+ at once has always been vanishingly small (as a percentage).

as a percentage of players or a percentage of player slots? because if you have a guy who is alive in 10, that's 1.5ish% of the total player slots, which isn't insignificant. Still, limits and what have you are crude at best measures for preventing site flaking having an outsized effect on the site.

[zoraster]

We can talk about what we'd do if we had automated sign ups, but it's a little like talking about what we'd do if we were billionaires.

[zoraster]

(As an example, there's no point limiting me to any amount of games because I have never played more than 2 at once for something like the last 2 years.)

That doesn't really seem true. If you only play 2 games, then the limit is no limit to you. If you change your mind and want to play a bunch, then maybe the limit stops you from doing something dumb. I don't think it's highly likely, but it doesn't say much about whether limits are good or bad.

[zoraster]

No. You made it about you when you used yourself as an example. So I responded in kind. Your premise was that because you don't play lots of games, you shouldn't have a limit on you. Which doesn't logically follow.

I think the basic problem, Zach, is you have a fundamentally different outlook on life than some others. This isn't the first time we've seen it. And it's that you view any regulation in order to protect the whole as unfair because it's a regulation on you, and you wouldn't abuse whatever it was.

[zoraster]

I don't think it's that personal as it's evident in public comments quite frequently. But I didn't really mean to get into a protracted discussion about it. Just to point out that we come from very different starting points in the discussion. Recognizing that can help.

Anyway, I do agree that the 4-game limit is almost laughable in terms of effectiveness (7 games if you count micros). But it's not something that hurts anyone, really... except the listmods that have to deal with it.

I do think there's kind of an issue here where people say, "we should do things differently" and the response is "we will once we have automation!" Because automation is not just over the horizon to my knowledge, and, well, I'll let this guy sum it up:

we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

P-edit: did you just "this" yourself, mastin?

[zoraster]

I certainly didn't mean to imply anything about disability. If you are disabled, I was not aware of it. I don't even think I meant to be dismissive. But I do see us talking past each other, and I think the cause of that is that you're focused on whether your (for lack of a better word) rights are being violated, while others are concerned about whether the system as a whole can operate better.

[zoraster]

4/10/13

Newbie Games:

128 slots out of 17 games (7.53 p/g) 18.82%

Open Games:

93 slots out of 10 games (9.3 p/g) 13.68%

Mini-Normal Games:

70 slots out of 7 games (10.0 p/g) 10.29%

Mini-Theme Games:

131 slots out of 17 games (7.7 p/g) 19.26%

Large Normal Games:

35 slots out of 3 games (11.67 p/g) 5.15%

Large Theme Games:

114 slots out of 9 games (12.67 p/g) 16.76%

Micros:

109 slots out of 16 games (6.81 p/g) 19.09%

Overall:

680 slots out of 79 games (8.61 p/g)

[zoraster]

The HUGE change there is in the number of mini-themes. I kinda caught it at the perfect storm as the Mini-Theme queue has been completely wiped out of mods.

[zoraster]

yeah. And for Large Themes, that decline is more cyclical than anything. We've got about as many Large Theme games as a month ago but they're in later stages so fewer players are alive in those games.

[zoraster]

Some larges have had trouble filling, but for the most part they've filled fairly quickly. I only had to issue one warning on dramonic's games (that was both poorly advertised and had pretty rigid experience requirements) at the 2 week mark that the game had one week to fill. All other games have filled within 2 weeks since I've started. Some have only take a few days.

[zoraster]

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=26332

[zoraster]

sounds like you have a new job!

[zoraster]

9/6/13

Newbie Games:

164 slots out of 22 games (7.45 p/g) 20%

Open Games:

128 slots out of 14 games (9.14 p/g) 16%

Mini-Normal Games:

76 slots out of 7 games (10.86 p/g) 9%

Mini-Theme Games:

131 slots out of 15 games (8.7 p/g) 16%

Large Normal Games:

29 slots out of 3 games (9.67 p/g) 4%

Large Theme Games:

156 slots out of 13 games (12 p/g) 24%

Micros:

83 slots out of 13 games (6.38 p/g) 10%

Overall:

807 slots out of 87 games (9.28 p/g)

As you can see here, and in the charts below, this has been a good census for us.

Newbies are up 40 slots
Open games 38 slots
Mini Normals 23 slots
Large Themes 16 slots


Only Micros and Large Normals are down from April (26 and 6 respectively). To no small degree this is seasonal, and I fully expect to see us come off of this high (almost to pre-crash levels). For what it's worth, from the Google Analytics side, we are seeing on average 5,000 more visits per week vs. the same time period last year, but this counts Discussion based stats too.

I'm the Large Theme Listmod, so that's my baby, and it's very gratifying to see far more games being played in my queue. For a while in the summer, we had a glut that meant I instituted high supply rules. We're back to having little or no queue to mod a large theme game, so I hope we can get more mods to supply those games.

[zoraster]

is the intentional bottlenecking because we don't have enough micro mods?