Newbie Setup (Matrix6 implemented)

[Zachrulez]

The thing about list mods assigning setups... if you believe mods are rigging the setup chosen for play, is there not reason to think that the mod might also be rigging the role assignment? If you think one is suspect then surely the other likely is too and the list mod should be doing both?

Just my thought on the matter.

Personally I don't think it's necessary for the list mod to do either. The numbers from F11 indicate if anything an insignificant amount of setup rigging. Regardless I wouldn't lose any sleep whichever way the site ultimately decided to go on it.

[Zachrulez]

Well I mean theoretically assigning setups eliminates setup rigging, but in practice, what's to stop the mod from running the setup they want anyway? If the games are all going to be the same size, it's likely the list mod won't find out until it's too late.

Edit: I'm not really up to speed on the two of four distribution numbers, but wasn't that setup supposed to be assigned to mods?

[Zachrulez]

The thing about list mods assigning setups... if you believe mods are rigging the setup chosen for play, is there not reason to think that the mod might also be rigging the role assignment?

Yes, there is reason to think that, but that's a different issue. We can very easily enforce the one we're talking about (and do so without coming off as fascist). It's like I said, I agree with StrangerCoug in principle, but disagree with him in practice.

If we are really that divided, why can't we just do a trial run and see what happens?

I tend to find one more important than the other. (Hint: Not the one we're actually talking about doing something about.)

Edit: On list mod role assignment. It actually takes very little time to randomize roles for a playerlist. All the list mod would have to do is to do this and then it would be the mod's responsibility to assign the role pms and all that. The practical problem with this one is enforcement, but if records of what the assignments are supposed to be are kept, it's very easy to audit and punish mods who deviate from it.

[Zachrulez]

Bird 7p would be a good solution. Not much room for error lynching and a little swingy though

If Bird was made into a 9 player game, would that significantly affect the balance of the setup?

(Retains macho cop/doc/two mafia goon layout, gains 2 vanilla townies.)

[Zachrulez]

well, if it's balanced at 7p, it'll be town-sided at 9.

Well I'm using the balance of the cop+doc setup in f11 as a baseline, I'm not sure how much of a difference the roleblocker makes vs not having one and having macho cop.

Are we going to run different size newbie games though, or do they all need to be 9p?

[Zachrulez]

the difference is largely in the fact that it's an open game versus a semi-open game where cop+doc vs. RB is merely one option of 4.

With the way we're implementing, wouldn't it be one of the options in what is effectively a semi open?

[Zachrulez]

I think it would be wise to stay away from fully open setups, as I feel it makes massclaiming too powerful, and those games are supposed to be about learning to scumhunt, not finding a breaking strategy.

Semi-open with an element of uncertainty is best IMO.

Again,

we're not discussing making the newbie games Open Setup

. We're discussing having either a single Semi-Open Setup, or a stable of Open Setups that are chosen from at random by the List Mod, and given to the Game Moderator.

That makes it functionally a Semi-Open, albeit with different branches than we're used to seeing.

Based on that reading, I don't think that the open chosen is intended to be public knowledge.

[Zachrulez]

Yeah, the SE's only exist as a slot for non newbies to play anyway, but the games are by and large for newbies and the 2 SE 1 IC structure is fine as it is and doesn't need to change. (I think it only exists to guarantee a townie of some experience yeah?)

If the line is too long, consider another queue or replace into a newbie game.

[Zachrulez]

Granted, not all mods are supergood at that unwritten rule (coughbuttonscough) but that's the general idea.

Aha; that used to be the written rule, but VRK changed it in 2009 to make it easier to find replacements. At any point in the game, you should replace Newbies with Newbies unless no one is available for an unreasonable period of time.

If that is an 'unwritten rule' and it's

expressly

stated that players with any level of experience can replace into Newbie slots, don't expect newer mods to know.

I'm failing my Advanced MafiaScum History class.

I understand the interest of wanting to keep a similar level of play in a slot (in Newbie games and in any other game, really), but I prefer to go for the first person who contacts me and fits the experience requirements. Altogether, filling slots "first come, first serve" seems less disruptive for the game from a mod perspective than waiting a longer period for a potential newbie replacement.

What I'm trying to politely say is that I have NO IDEA why VRK changed it in 2009. It's a bad change and it leads to the inevitable migration of slot-ratio away from what the game is designed/aimed at.

My thought would be that keeping the game moving is more important than retaining the ratio, especially if the game stalling drives away the newbies who have stuck the game out to that point. Mind you if you have multiple pms to replace into a newbie slot, you should probably give it to the first newbie who pms you as opposed to the SE/IC who pmed you before the newbies.

[Zachrulez]

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.

[Zachrulez]

On a side note, the ability to /in twice or even more often into either the SE or IC queue is annoying to people who want to reach the top of the queue. It's silly that Nacho, for instance, is going to reach the top of the IC queue four times before I reach it once. It's not difficult to /in again as soon as you make it into a game and it will keep the wait time much lower than it is now (at least for the IC queue).

I wouldn't mind seeing this addressed in some form actually.

[Zachrulez]

I do think it could be beneficial to stagger the IC and SE slots in a way that keeps one individual player from being placed in multiple games back to back. I would do it in a way that moves the 2nd game and beyond down the queue until they get their first game, and then lock the 2nd slot where it is left and ect.

[Zachrulez]

I'm thinking if we do something like that we make the SE requirements on par with that to qualify as an IC. It forces them out of the queue for a while and gives us more competent SEs to compliment the ICs.

[Zachrulez]

I don't know that competency is really all that big a goal for the players in the game other than the IC. Frankly, we could do away with SEs altogether as long as we're filling our games with newbies aplenty.

Well I believe it has something to do with the possibility of the IC drawing scum. The SEs were kinda devised as a counterbalance to that... at least that was my impression of why they came about.

Edit: The wiki description bears that out. "Semi-Experienced or "SE" is a label given to players who have completed two games on mafiascum.net. This description is only used in Newbie games, where SE players are included in games to ensure that the site's standard of play is represented in new players' first games."

I'd be more confident in the site's standard of play being represented if they were required to play more games to even be an SE to be honest.

[Zachrulez]

Was the bar higher at one point? Maybe it was already mentioned in thread, but I though there was a 5-game requirement for SE or something similar at one point. Is that the IC minimum?

5 games for IC, 2 games for SE.

[Zachrulez]

also, if you required SEs to have 3 games of experience, it would become impossible for ICs to not have experience outside RTR.

You don't actually HAVE to become an SE before becoming an IC.

[Zachrulez]

no you don't. but how do you get 5 games of

only

Road to Rome experience if you don't play games as an SE?

As a replacement? Unless we're precluding that too, which seems like it's something we shouldn't necessarily do.

Anyway, are there any ICs that have only played newbie games? I'm curious.

[Zachrulez]

it is not. People trying to solve the SE queue length are trying to solve a thing that is working well.

Yeah, but the SE queue length would be a significant reason why I would not want to require play under SE status before becoming an IC.

[Zachrulez]

I actually did apply to IC as soon as I hit 5 games with virtually no experience as scum. Guess what role I drew for my first IC game ever?

[Zachrulez]

I was kinda making a point in response to Tierce more than anything else.

My scum game leaves a bit to be desired, but I've never had anyone accuse me of being a bad IC.

[Zachrulez]

I envision multiple games where some newbie claims scum as Town or whichever, gets run up at lightning speed, and makes a stupid kill to end the game in two pages. Thanks for playing!

back of the queue

I'm currently modding three vengefuls, I've modded multiple more in the past. I've run multiple vengefuls in the past with newbies and I've read and played in several other vengeful games in the open queue, micro queue and marathon sub-forum.

Not once have I had anything like this happen.

You guys keep saying it will plague us but I'd really love to know what you're basing that off of?

Small sample size. You start running games like this in bulk and you'll start seeing those kinds of strategy.

Mind you that's not really the reason I oppose vengefuls as a newbie setup. I just personally find them very uninteresting.

I might prefer the 7p version of vengeful if we want to use that type of game for a newbie game. That version seems less likely to be prone to ending within 2-4 pages.

[Zachrulez]

I'd rather keep 3 week deadlines for newbies and have the pace of the games outside of the newbie queue be faster.

But umm... the 3 week deadline is a maximum, there's nothing actually stopping newbie mods from running a shorter deadline.

[Zachrulez]

But umm... the 3 week deadline is a maximum, there's nothing actually stopping newbie mods from running a shorter deadline.

Actually there is--supposedly? It's a weird thing. I asked singer whether I could cut them down to two weeks, and she said no.

I talked to VRK about it way back when and it was made clear to me that 3 weeks was the maximum a deadline could be barring extenuating circumstances.

A lot of people have kinda come to think of it as a standard deadline, but it was never intended to stop mods from having shorter deadlines. (The deadline actually came about in an era where days that were a month or longer were common.)

[Zachrulez]

The only thing I can tell you is that I asked the current listmod and was told to keep it at three weeks, Zach. What VRK did or did not do is not relevant to the present deadline rule.

As far as I can tell from reading the current wiki, she's never actually changed the rule. It looks like the rule is still a bit tight because it mentions that you should check with the list mod before using a shorter deadline. I'd propose loosening the rule to allow for shorter deadlines to be more easily implemented anyway.

I don't think we need to outright change the rule to 2 weeks from 3 though.

[Zachrulez]

I think it's easier to keep the Newbie rules fairly standard, for what it's worth. 2 weeks seems more in keeping with the current site stuff.

I'd rather not be forced into shorter deadlines as a mod. My current deadline philosophy is something like 3 weeks for more than 7p and 2 for 7 or less.

[Zachrulez]

@Quadz

But umm... the 3 week deadline is a maximum, there's nothing actually stopping newbie mods from running a shorter deadline.

Actually there is--supposedly? It's a weird thing. I asked singer whether I could cut them down to two weeks, and she said no.

It looks like 3 weeks is being currently enforced as a mandatory deadline, not a maximum.

[Zachrulez]

Well, not really. I'm saying that the numbers we have are sufficient, and increasing them just to get through that backlog is a mistake. I'd much rather have a long SE/IC backlog that not have one at all.

I think back when Vel ran the queue, he actually did unload extra SEs and ICs into games when they had a decent backlog. So there actually is precedent for that.

[Zachrulez]

Also at a quick glance I can easily foresee an IC shortage if we were to permanently go back to a 2 IC system just on looking at the backlog of the newbie que as it stands now.

[Zachrulez]

I can /in to IC if we make the switch, but I was hit or miss when I stopped playing (and also throughout my whole career), and I'm kind of scared to get as invested in mafia as I once did.

Still, as someone with more than enough games down discussing how we could use more ICs, I figure I had to offer.

I don't disagree with your argument, I just don't think that the queue will sustain 2 ICs per newbie game on a permanent basis.

[Zachrulez]

Is having a handful of "Newbie Career" players a problem? If people enjoy playing newbie games, that's not exactly something I see as a problem. Even upping the SE requirement isn't going to keep them from becoming Newbie Career players.

[Zachrulez]

Wait, shit. That means there's only one setup with a roleblocker. >_>

I don't think using the entire setup will be a horribly bad thing personally. I do think there is some value in teaching mountainous play even if the odds aren't in town's favor. (Plus a roleblocker flip guarantees the power roles and puts the remaining scum in a really bad spot.)

[Zachrulez]

Mountainous should not be used as a setup. Sure, there's value to it. But it's pretty minimal and it's totally unbalanced.

At a glance the cop+doc variant of the setup becomes similarly townsided without the possibility of the mountainous setup to the point where I don't think there's any value to the setup unless mountainous is a possibility.

[Zachrulez]

how so? Mafia have a roleblocker.

Who has a game breaking effect in favor of town if he is lynched first. (And the game break is with 100% of roleblocker games now instead of 50% and will be possible more often than it was in the original F11) Not even the mountainous setup is similarly game breaking for scum if town is lynched.

[Zachrulez]

On that note, I don't really understand the issue with the mountainous setup. They're not impossible to win as town. Heck, I've done it before.

[Zachrulez]

I don't think doc and jailer should ever be combined. (Doc/Jail is ridiculously town sided vs rolecop at least.)

[Zachrulez]

how so? Mafia have a roleblocker.

Who has a game breaking effect in favor of town if he is lynched first. (And the game break is with 100% of roleblocker games now instead of 50% and will be possible more often than it was in the original F11) Not even the mountainous setup is similarly game breaking for scum if town is lynched.

yeah, but that's part of the game at least. Roleblocker is killed game is much harder for town. Not a surprise. It's not really different than in a cop vs. 2 goons setup where the cop is lynched or killed d1/n1.

No, roleblocker lynch in cop+doc of F11 is gamebreaking. (Unless the scum does a great job with the kill.) Losing a cop in the cop vs 2 goons setup is not. Town's chance of salvaging that kind of game is higher than the goon's chance of salvaging the game after a roleblocker lynch. (Goon's chance is slim and play doesn't factor in unlike on the town side.)

[Zachrulez]

Eh, have a roleblocker exist in all 2 power role setups, and have no scum power when only 1 exists? Results in weaker scum teams when town power is weaker but gives scum room to fakeclaim in those setups. (I think it's important not to encourage a meta where uncountered claims are considered town so having setups where scum can make uncountered claims is somewhat important to me.)

That should eliminate the concept of a cop being guaranteed to exist when a roleblocker does because that throws a few roleblocker setups in where one doesn't.

What I'm proposing would look like this.

1 Cop, 1 Tracker, 5 VT vs 1 Goon, 1 Roleblocker
1 Cop, 1 Doc, 5 VT vs 1 Goon, 1 Roleblocker
1 Tracker, 1 Doc, 5 VT vs 1 Goon, 1 Roleblocker
1 Cop, 6 VT vs 2 Goons
1 Tracker, 6 VT vs 2 Goons
1 Doc, 6 VT vs 2 Goons

[Zachrulez]

Just those 6 setups, Zach? And no other scum PRs?

I think simpler is better in this case yes. That would be a bit more complex version of f11 without the vanilla setup. Rolecop leaves the scumteam a bit too weak against 2 town power roles for my liking, and the strongman role isn't hugely different from the roleblocker in the way it punishes premature town roleclaiming anyway. (They go about it in a different way, but their power in punishing it is about the same.)

[Zachrulez]

D1 roleblocker lynch pins scum into a corner

Game's going pretty badly for scum anyway if they can't stop their roleblocker from getting lynched on D1.

(Basically massclaim is going to be of some benefit to town after any scum power role is lynched, even in Quad's layout.)

[Zachrulez]

How often did the roleblocker actually get lynched on d1 in the f11 setup? I'm just curious. (It will appear my proposed version of the setup as frequently as it did there.)

I do know the win rate of the cop+doc setup in f11 never quite hit 50% for town though, so I don't think balance is a problem. (The breaking strategy for that setup after a roleblocker lynch was known not too long after the setup was put in play and that paticular issue never got the setup removed, the balance ultimately favoring scum did after something like 3 years in play, which the mountainous version of f11 played more of a part in than anything.)

[Zachrulez]

Data up to newbie 867 had the F11 setup appearing 321 times. Out of that, 22 of those games featured day 1 roleblocker lynches. (Just under 7%)

http://forum.mafiascum.net/viewtopic.ph ... +game+data

Actually a lot of interesting data there. Did it ever get updated?

[Zachrulez]

Not sure upping the SE volume in newbie games to 3 in combination with upping the requirements it going to be a great thing. Why not temporarily put more in and then go back to 2 when the queue empties out? Changing the layout to a 5:3:1 seems like it's going to invite an SE shortage in the near future.

Upping the SE requirements alone seems fine to me. (At the very least it's probably worth seeing what the effect of upping the SE requirement to 3 games does to the backlog.)

[Zachrulez]

that's a weird solution. it seems like the RB should get priority over a JK if anyone does, but i guess so long as there's a policy.

Yeah, I'd favor the roleblocker.

[Zachrulez]

I agree that the standards for being an IC could be a little bit more strict, but at the current moment, there's no real standard other than "don't be mean" and "even if you aren't good, know what you should be doing...sort of." What kind of concrete standards can we implement, that don't rely as heavily on my subjective judgement?

The purpose of the newbie queue is to instruct and acclimate new players to the site; as such, I think that ICs should have a certain number of finished games outside the newbie queue before applying (preferably not in the Micro queue, due to the small game dimensions there). This already happens in the great majority of the cases, but it's a good requirement to have set in place--if nothing else, it shows that the purpose of the newbie queue is not to have players ever-languishing in newbie games, but to prepare them for larger and more complex games if they so desire, and that they have a person in the game they can trust to have the knowledge necessary to acclimate them.

I'd be more inclined to a minimum of two games outside RtR than a single non-RtR game; most players who sign in to IC will have been outside the newbie queue for a while, anyway.

I think we're starting to care too much where experience comes from and not in what the most important quality in being an IC actually is, which is the ability to play the game, and the ability to teach people new to the game how to play. In the grand scheme of things, how people learn those qualities doesn't really matter.

[Zachrulez]

What happened to the setup I proposed in 602? It seemed to be considered a good idea, and despite my emphasizing the need for simplicity, discussion seemed to move onto more complex setups anyway.

[Zachrulez]

I thought bork's points against it were pretty solid.

And of course, the newbie scum PR in a newbie game is always going to be a little overexcited, so my guess is that they'll be lynched a greater than average number of times.

The scenario where the roleblocker is lynched on day 1? Again, in F11 it happened about 7% of the time in over 300 appearences. The roleblocker would appear pretty much exactly as often as it did there. (50% of the time.) The only difference is that scum is definitely in more of a hole in that 7% of cases vs it being only a 50% chance in F11. I don't think that's enough to get the setup even close to townsided, nor do I think we should be balancing games in terms of what happens if x role gets lynched on d1 in a game. A scum lynch in general significantly increases the chances of a town win. That doesn't mean we shouldn't consider the setup because such an event puts the scum in a bad position.

[Zachrulez]

I'm kind of concerned that both changing the SE requirements and upping the amount of SE slots is going to bottleneck the queue. Plus it seems like we're sending a mixed message in discouraging people from frequenting the queues by upping the requirements, and then encouraging it by upping the slots...

[Zachrulez]

Well what we'd really like is to get back to two ICs per game, but there's a shortage, and has been for a long time. So upping the requirements slightly for SEs seems like a decent compromise.

Also I don't know if you've looked at the SE list lately, but it's a million miles long. Not much risk of running out soon, and if we do, going back to 6:2:1 is easy.

I'm aware of how long it is, my consideration is to the possibility of a future shortage and I'm not really a fan of switching the number of SEs based on what the queue is like over and over again. I would just load more SEs in to get rid of the backlog. (This used to be done, I don't know why it doesn't still happen.)

How many people in the SE line have looked into replacing into games? That was what I tended to do when I wanted a game right away.

Also, have you thought about forcing players with IC status to actually play as an IC? How many people are currently SEing that have IC status?

[Zachrulez]

Forcing people to IC is a terrible idea. If you don't want to IC, you're practically guaranteed to not do the job properly.

Also, if the SE queue gets shorter, then I imagine the number of SEs per game will drop to match.

Arguably you have no business in the newbie queue if you have IC status and aren't willing to IC?

[Zachrulez]

Arguably you have no business in the newbie queue if you have IC status and aren't willing to IC?

No? That's why we have the SE roles, people who are demonstrating what 'typical' play is in MS. Very few people bother to explain things to newbies in games outside RtR, so why should we make sure that

everyone will explain everything in RtR

? I understand it would be kind, and goodness knows there are ICs who don't really explain a lot by default (and SEs who are fine with explaining a lot by default), but it could end up with newbies being overly coddled and unable to take the plunge if you ensure that every experienced player in RtR will be willing to explain every little bit of mafia theory.

EDIT: Adding to this that many SEs really have little clue about site meta outside the Newbie queue to begin with; the current SE queue is majorly composed by mid-2012-onward players, iirc. There is nothing wrong with that, obviously, but I remember that the SEs (and the IC!) in my first newbie game were little more than newbies themselves. Letting a few experienced SEs play without forcing a teaching position on them seems like a much wiser choice than imposing an IC position on them should they dare to sign up to SE (in which case several people would probably not sign up to SE-IC at all).

We don't really ever run out of ICs. When the queue runs low, people sign up. It's just that they don't do it all that often on a regular basis, but since November 2011 I have yet to see a game pending to start because a starting IC has not been found.

From my understanding SEs were never meant to have any teaching function whatsoever. They were for newbies who played more than a set number of games so they wouldn't keep taking up newbie slots and for players with IC status who didn't want to IC.

Which gets to another point I want to make about the perception of what it takes to be an IC. I think the role is overly glorified on the site. I've ICed several games, and I never really played any of the newbie games I ICed any differently than I would have a regular game. All you really need to do is answer questions for players when they have them or if they're not sure what to do, but aside from that the best thing you can do as an IC is teach by example by simply playing the game. You will teach newbies far more than you think by just playing. There's so much for them to learn just in breaking down your play after it's over and you explaining your play as necessary when it's over.

As far as I know I've never received any complaints for the way I've ICed and I've never had to go out of my way to put an IC hat on all the time, so basically I'm saying it's not a big deal to make people IC.

[Zachrulez]

There's so much for them to learn just in breaking down your play after it's over and you explaining your play as necessary when it's over.

Crux of the issue, IMO. Some ICs bail after a game is over without providing feedback.

That's going to be a problem regardless of whether we make this kind of change or not.

[Zachrulez]

It's the politics problem. Many people who are perfectly well-qualified to IC are not signing up, so much of the pool is mediocre. Much of it is good too, of course, but many people don't do it for silly "not good enough" reasons when they would do just fine playing as they normally do, and doing a more extensive past-mortem. (me, I don't do it right now for time restrictions, I can't keep up with even one game at a time some weeks)

Yeah, if it takes me saying there's really not that much to it in order to get more people to be willing to do it, then I'll say it.

[Zachrulez]

I utterly fail to understand why people feel a need to force people to move OUT of the newbie queue if they enjoy playing mafia just fine there. There probably does exist a segment of people who do like to play nothing but newbie games. We created the SE slot to address these people staying in the queue as "newbies" but beyond that I don't see the problem.

If what you really want is for people to move on, get rid of the SE slot and don't allow people who don't IC to play newbie games at all.

[Zachrulez]

I mean I think we'd be better off just automatically signing people up as ICs who meet the experience requirements and disqualifying them from play if they do something horrible as one. (Like Self-Vote, Self Hammer, Berate a newbie in an abusive manner, ect.) There's too many people who are avoiding becoming an IC because they just don't want to or because they think they can't do it. (And more than likely they can.)

[Zachrulez]

I mean I think we'd be better off just automatically signing people up as ICs who meet the experience requirements and disqualifying them from play if they do something horrible as one. (Like Self-Vote, Self Hammer, Berate a newbie in an abusive manner, ect.) There's too many people who are avoiding becoming an IC because they just don't want to or because they think they can't do it. (And more than likely they can.)

Hell no. The IC position is voluntary; it should stay that way.

No one's forcing you to be an IC. It's just saying you can't in to a newbie game without being one.

If you're not a newbie and you've played 5 or more games, why should you be allowed to in to a newbie game without being an IC? I'd like to see a single legitimate argument made for this actually.

[Zachrulez]

I mean I think we'd be better off just automatically signing people up as ICs who meet the experience requirements and disqualifying them from play if they do something horrible as one. (Like Self-Vote, Self Hammer, Berate a newbie in an abusive manner, ect.) There's too many people who are avoiding becoming an IC because they just don't want to or because they think they can't do it. (And more than likely they can.)

Hell no. The IC position is voluntary; it should stay that way.

No one's forcing you to be an IC. It's just saying you can't in to a newbie game without being one.

If you're not a newbie and you've played 5 or more games, why should you be allowed to in to a newbie game without being an IC? I'd like to see a single legitimate argument made for this actually.

I can give you 2:

-Some people lack confidence in their play even at 5 or more games (JasonWazza for example) and don't want to leave the newbie queue (or apply to IC) before they're satisfied with their play.
-Some people want to just play with newbies without the pressure of having to keep up an image of a model player.

Well part of what I'd like to see with automatically putting IC experienced players into newbie games is having it be less of a huge deal to IC. Some people have really really HIGH expectations of what an IC needs to do, when all that really matters is giving the newbies a good experience and teaching them well. That's nowhere near as hard as people make it out to be.

Also your arguments are towards why players shouldn't IC, but none of them justify allowing those players to continue playing in the newbie queue.

I thought the 3 games and the 3 SEs weren't both going to happen at the same time anyway.

Certainly took me by surprise. I don't really care for either change, but I've made that pretty obvious at this point.