In post 152, zoraster wrote:The only true statistic I care about with newbie games is the conversation statistic. In other words, how many players who play in a newbie game are here 6 months later actively playing the game?
This man speaks the truth.
@thesupertriomusical on Instagram, come see it if you’re in LA area, I wrote it!
In post 253, callforjudgement wrote:Fastest way: go to an old newbie signup thread, look at the announced playerlists, look at those users' posts to see if they still exist.
(tangent)
Spoiler:
Should List Mods (be required to) use the user tag to link profiles in the queues?
Can the user tag be coded to work on a list of names, eg:
enumerate the list of all the setups that are "proven" (2of4, F11, C9++ or whatever), have the ListMod randomly select one of them and give it to the game mod.
When one specific instance of game is too lopsided (say 8 wins to one side after 10 runs) replace it with something else.
Make Newbies a Normal-Lite format with a shortlist of possible roles.
Someone convince me this won't work to:
-solve the reason for the thread (apparent lack of randomization of setups)
-IC boredom (by having the potential for more setup variation)
-long term balance (by removing only specific iterations that are wildly unbalanced).
Would the players know which setup's been selected?
If yes, you probably have the same issues as you do at the moment.
If no, you have the issue of having to be an expert on all of the possible setups to get the theory right.
I would imagine the list would be available, maybe on a protected wiki page, so it would be possible to see that with role X, there is no setup with role Y.
And for setup knowledge- do you mean knowing what can and cannot be in the game to analyze claims and counters?
Yep, basically. You end up with crazy setup breaking like "well, there's a doc in the setup, so there can't be both tracker and JK…", meaning that in general it's very hard for scum to figure out what they can safely fakeclaim.
In a "real" game, an early claim can be busted by later claims and flips.
Arguably, if you have to claim with no knowledge of what else is out there, you're already in a bad position. It's either early in the game and you're forced to claim due to a mistake or no other power has been killed or lynched (unlucky for you!). You either go vanilla hoping town lays off and starts another wagon (frequently happens early) or fish a counter from someone so your partner's odds go up.
If you hit a 3v2 LYLO and are having to claim and want to roll power, then you have to be ready to ride someone's legit claim as impossible, which is another teachable skill.
The problem's basically that it gives you a reward for obscure setup information newbies couldn't really be possibly expected to know. So it's basically putting them at a disadvantage based on things that shouldn't be relevant.
The claim-busting thing you suggest is fine, but if it's happening
only
to newbies, we have a sort of discrimination problem there.
If you want to grab the old setup, I could grab the current one. The best way to do things that I can think of is to pull the players who placed into a game from seven months ago until six months ago and check whether they were still posting on site after both 3 months and 6 months to give the best picture of retention rate in the shorter and longer terms.
How about replacements? Count them or not? And the IC and SE players? I'd say disregard the IC and SE players, as they've stuck around for long enough to play some more games. Not sure what to do with the replacers and the replacees.
EDIT: Or just make an extra column with 'didn't finish the game' for the replacees and count the replacers as normal players.
disregard IC and SE players, count replacements and replaced as long as they were newbies.
but ideally you'd have more than a single month's data, and you'd compare it to other variables (e.g. how fast the game went up for sign ups, what setup was being used, how long the game lasted, who was the IC)
In post 265, zoraster wrote:disregard IC and SE players, count replacements and replaced as long as they were newbies.
but ideally you'd have more than a single month's data, and you'd compare it to other variables (e.g. how fast the game went up for sign ups, what setup was being used, how long the game lasted, who was the IC)
I've been thinking about pulling data from Newbie 1000 to Newbie 1096 for the F11 setup. I was thinking about organizing it by player, but if you want to know all this, I may want to organize it by game. One thing though, if you want to know how long it took for the game to go in sign-ups, I'm going to need the old sign-up thread, as the current queue starts at Newbie 1221 (due to the crash and all). Does anyone know where I can find that?
In post 265, zoraster wrote:disregard IC and SE players, count replacements and replaced as long as they were newbies.
but ideally you'd have more than a single month's data, and you'd compare it to other variables (e.g. how fast the game went up for sign ups, what setup was being used, how long the game lasted, who was the IC)
In post 259, callforjudgement wrote:The problem's basically that it gives you a reward for obscure setup information newbies couldn't really be possibly expected to know. So it's basically putting them at a disadvantage based on things that shouldn't be relevant.
The claim-busting thing you suggest is fine, but if it's happening
only
to newbies, we have a sort of discrimination problem there.
All the possible setups should be listed for easy reference imo, whether it's by OP or linking to a wiki article.
oh, one word of warning since you're somewhat new here, Rob: your data for newbies in December 2011ish will be kind of skewed because of the crash in late winter, early spring. That will almost assuredly lower the number of members who were posting 6 months later.
