The Future of the Queues and Large Games

[Deleted member 14134]

Seeing how activity seems to fluctuate here and we can hardly get large games going anymore I'd like to consider how we approach running large games and maybe consider restructuring the queues. I have two somewhat similar ideas for how we can do this.

1. We get rid of the large queue all together. How this would work is that we would only have one queue which would be small by default. Hosts signing up for this would be required to have a small game available but could also have a large game ready if enough people sign up. The hosts would state their lower and upper limit for the games and once the lower limit is reached the sign up could stay open for a few more days in case more people wanted to join. If the upper limit was reached the host would start his large game instead. If not then he would just carry on with his small one and the excess people could just become replacements.

2. Pretty much the same as one except we don't completely get rid of the large queue. Same idea except we keep the large queue in tact and still run games from it if we knew activity was going to be high at a certain period. If a host managed to reach their upper limit from a game that was originally going to be a small one then they would host the large one and get bumped off the large queue list and have to get back in line.

3. Funniers Idea. Same as idea one but the host of the small game would pass the game off to the next person in line in the large queue if enough people signed up.

I know this could be potentially unfair for some people who have been waiting to host large games for a long time since someone further back on the queue could technically host a large game before them which is why I want to discuss it and see what you guys suggest with this.

Let me know if you guys like this ideas, have any better ones or think I should just request a section ban from mafia for myself.

 

[DekuNut]

Honestly, it's not like I was expecting to run my large game anyways. I'm down for the first idea - it seems to be the most logical imo.

 

[YIGAhim]

Solid idea.

I mean, nothing moves in the large queue. I vite we halt all small games for a bit and only do lsrge ones foe a while. People hsve been waiting years

 

[funnier6]

Why not the same thing,

Only if it hits the upper register it goes to whoever was next in line for a large game instead.

 

[Rubik]

I'd vote for replacing the large queue with doing an occasional "Player's Choice" game. Every set period of time or so (annually, semi-annually, bi-annually, etc), have a thread where people can pitch their concepts for a large game and have people vote in a poll on which games they're most interested in playing, then let the winner host a signup thread for that large game. Maybe try to draw some bigger name people in who haven't played in a while or people from other mafia communities to fill out the ranks of the game and try to make an event out of it.

There's no point in having a queue for games beyond a certain size, probably, unless your community is huge enough to sustain it. It's better to only host huge games if there's a way of ensuring that the game is going to be something a lot of people are interested in playing rather than letting people host them on a first-come-first-serve basis, in my opinion.

If it's not already the case, 14-ish player games should be part of the same queue as 12 player games, in my opinion.

 

[Mellow Ezlo]

Ya, the large queue hasn't moved in ages, yet some people on the small queue have had to tweak their setups to incorporate more players due to high demand. I'm good with there just being one queue and everybody on it preparing both a small and large setup to ensure that everybody who wants to play can, but also that the game can still go on if only a few people join. Games that are specifically designed to be large seem to have a hard time getting off the ground lately, so I'm down with doing away with that queue completely. I tend to enjoy playing smaller games more anyway.

 

[Pen]

Yeah. I think that one queue only would work. And let's not have any restrictions as to how many players the GM is restricted to. Let that choice be up to the GM. Of course they'll have to be realistic and not ask for 30 players, but I don't think we necessarily need to have any strict numbers for player counts as a rule.

 

[YIGAhim]

At least we should spend a little while only running large games so we get the gears moving s little bit

 

[LittleGumball]

At least we should spend a little while only running large games so we get the gears moving s little bit

that's assuming that we have the player base for a large game, which we didn't for a long time

 

[YIGAhim]

Well everyone all thr sudden is in a huge hurry to be a replacement but not actually play

 

[Deleted member 14134]

Funniers idea could work but passing a game off to someone could get complicated and might not work as well as the same host just switching it to a large game that's still hosted by him. We could try to set a rule that asks mods to hold off on starting games right away if sign ups fill really quick so that they can possibly pass it off for a large game. I'm going to add a poll between my first idea and funniers idea and let it sit for a bit and see what more people want.

And let's not have any restrictions as to how many players the GM is restricted to.

If this is in regards to my "lower and upper limits" i think you may be misunderstanding as those would basically be the amount of players the host would need to host a large game. iFor example f you had a small game that needed 12 players you would set the lower limit to 12. If you had a large game with 18 people you would set that as the "upper limit" and if that was reached then the large game would be hosted instead. Those numbers wouldn't have to be static obviously, if the host could make it work with a few more (or less) players than that'd be fine. Either way, there wouldn't be any restrictions on the amount of people we get.

I mean, nothing moves in the large queue. I vite we halt all small games for a bit and only do lsrge ones foe a while. People hsve been waiting years

If we had the activity to host large games we probably would. Problem is activity fluctuates from time to time and we never can really anticipate when we'll have enough people for a large game. This idea is to try to remedy that problem.

 

[Mido]

Upon reflection, I think the first idea appeals to me the most, especially if we are going to have a single, cohesive queue for games that is not limited by size (this being said, I have been very much back-and-forth on both 1 and 2). The lower/upper limit feature will seem to serve as an evaluation tool for player interest and the respective game mod can adjust his/her setup accordingly. This would require new games to harbor some flexibility in their individual plannings by game hosts to some degree. Players on the cusp of hosting their smaller games with a large game in the other queue can benefit from this depending on player interest. Option 2 provides similar perks, yet keeps the state of the large queue intact, and I think funnier's idea can work well with this in just having the small queue host pass their game slot to the other. I ultimately can roll with any option, but the first one I think would best serve as the template moving forward, perhaps come the time we get through some of the games on the larger queue depending on the respective game's size. Before this, I see a mix of options 2 and 3 as effective.

Apologies for being somewhat ramble-y, I'm finding myself somewhat indecisive on the matter.

 

[Deleted member 14134]

If we do go with option one I would like to have a courtesy "rule" where if one person has the opportunity to host a large game and then gets another opportunity to relatively soon they consider passing it off to someone who hasn't had a chance to host a large game yet (that person would then get to host their small game after the large one ended). I'd also like to consider having a "priority list" that has people who haven't hosted a game for a while or were closer to the top of the large queue at the top of the list.

 

[DekuNut]

I'd also like to consider having a "priority list" that has people who haven't hosted a game for a while or were closer to the top of the large queue at the top of the list.

>Koki
>Sooshi
>HeroOfTime

 

[DekuNut]

Joking aside, priority queue is a good idea.
I say we offer anyone who's active, has a game in the top 10 of the large queue, and has not hosted a game in the last six months should have a chance in the priority queue. Or something like that. I don't deserve priority status since I literally just had Inception, but Gum hasn't hosted a game in years and is still months from the chance to host another on the small queue. Thoughts?