My game will have 24 spots, so it'd stay on the large list. A medium category sounds intriguing, though.
Printable View
My game will have 24 spots, so it'd stay on the large list. A medium category sounds intriguing, though.
I'd rather see more small games. (Inb4 "encouraging small games")
The old system had no limit on small games; this didn't create problems by itself. That system kept the size limit low, so few hosts made small games. Hosts kept making large games because that was the standard. There was no supply of small games, and an oversupply of large games. The rules at that point in time only accommodated large games.
Incentivizing large games creates problems. Large games require more players and take longer to play. They consume more of The War Room's resources. Because they're the standard that is encouraged, players and hosts become accustomed to them. We get games that are bigger than they should be, games that slow because of how long they take, and a hosting queue that can only grow.
Smaller and Medium games should be encouraged because they address many of those problems. If every game consumes the attention of players and prevents them from playing other games, then small games consume fewer resources. They move faster and encourage take less time for everyone involved. Even if there is no change made to the number of large games allowed, small games should have a limit greater than the current limit (one).
I would suggest a mix of caps: a limit on the total number of games in the section, and individual limits on the number of games in each list. The total cap would be 6-7 games. The cap on large games would be 2-4. The cap on medium games would be 3-5. The cap on small games would be 4-6. In this system, there could still be several large games running at once. The smaller the game size, the more of those games the section could accommodate. If there are too many large games, then there's still room for other hosts to host smaller games. The total cap prevents too many games from running at once.
Game sizes should reflect the concern of managing activity. A small game would be about 12-14 and below; medium, between 12-14 and 18-20; large, 18-20 and up.
Hosts shrinking game sizes to dodge waits should not be a problem: each game category would have a separate queue. Hosts shrinking game sizes otherwise might be positive. If a host shrinks the game size, it didn't need to be a large game to begin with. If anything, hosts who wait are less likely to host good games. Their ideas are held up in line and the chance of them being available to host when their turn is called is lower than it was when they joined the list. If a host wants to shrink their game -- well, it's their game.
We shouldn't tie up so many resources in large games and waiting lists. We can (should) encourage small games without cannibalizing large games. There are plenty of varieties of mafia and we shouldn't limit ourselves to one.
I prefer smaller games, personally - games with 9-15 players. I just think they're generally more fun to play - I could write a whole tl;dr on why, but it would be too long, and you wouldn't read it. :XD:
For this reason, it's kind of discouraging that we only allow one Small Game at a time - it's a very different experience from a Large Game, but because Small Games are, *ahem* small... there is a very tiny window in which to get into one when the sign-ups open - and there is only one at a time. They fill up quickly and then you're out of luck. If the cap goes up, I think you'll see a marginal shift among hosts toward smaller games - which will ease the Large Game hosting queue without doing a real harm to the Small Queue - since Small Games have much shorter run-times, anyway, and we could certainly handle more than one at a time.
For a review of the way the current Large Game Hosting Queue is panning out, read my earlier analysis on the topic.
@Master Mew; How do you feel about the idea of a new section for medium sized games?
@Midorikawa Not sure, but if we introduce a Medium Game Queue, the Large Game cap will need to decrease. Possibly a cap of three Large, three Medium, and three Small Games?
We run the risk of overcomplicating things, however, so five Large Games and three Small Games looks preferable to me, with Medium games falling on one side of the line or the other.
The whole subject came up about medium games. We were thinking 3 large 2 medium and 2 small at one time. Look at KidBeano's post on the previous page for more details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Mew
Why are we so intent on keeping the Large Game cap higher than the Small Game cap? Small Games are shorter and require fewer players, if anything their cap should be higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by MidorikawaThe whole subject came up about medium games. We were thinking 3 large 2 medium and 2 small at one time. Look at KidBeano's post on the previous page for more details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Mew
Because, as Nick pointed out, there simply are more large games since that's the format hosts have become accustomed to making? It's all well and good to say that small games have shorter run times and aren't as intense and that hosts can just shrink their games, but making a small or medium game that's well-balanced would presumably be rather difficult, especially if it's being shrunk down from a game that was originally made for more people and allowed for more roles. That should be evidence enough by the fact that the cap for small games hasn't NEEDED to be any bigger than it is now; not many hosts are making small games. There's still a big demand for games of 20+ players, so it's not like adding another category means that larger games are suddenly going to go out of fashion like white pants after labor day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Mew
I'm not suggesting that the games currently in the waiting list are going to shrink, I'm saying that hosts are pragmatic and that if they know from the beginning that they're going to have to wait three months to post a Large Game, but significantly less time for a Small Game, hosts are going to be more inclined to create Small Games.
Currently, if both waiting lists were the same length, your game would be posted sooner as a Large Game than a Small One. Fortunately, the lists are not currently the same length, but this is still rather ironic.
I'm just saying I think you're putting the cart before the horse - people aren't making Small Games because only one can run at a time, whereas five Large Games can run simultaneously. The Large Game queue has gotten rather long, so people may start trending toward Smaller Games based on that alone, but the fact remains that a new Large Game is going to be posted far more often than a new Small Game - i.e. the Small Game queue moves far more slowly.
But there again, isn't it a lot easier to create a good, well-balanced large game than a small one? Forgive me, but all the small games I've seen are rather...well, gimmicky, for lack of a better word.
No. At least, that hasn't been my experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliciano
Small Games are only hard to balance if they're needlessly complicated. Take one Godfather, one Roleblocker, one Cop, one Doctor, one other PR of your choice, and five Vanilla Townies and you're good to go.
EDIT: Just an example, not a be-all-end-all.
Seems to me that more hosts than ever are interested in small games. If we made a change and no one took advantage of smaller games, then we could talk about changing back. I'd point to my two-tiered cap idea, which would allow for more small games while still leaving room for larger games if that's what hosts wanted to host.Quote:
Originally Posted by FelicianoBecause, as Nick pointed out, there simply are more large games since that's the format hosts have become accustomed to making? It's all well and good to say that small games have shorter run times and aren't as intense and that hosts can just shrink their games, but making a small or medium game that's well-balanced would presumably be rather difficult, especially if it's being shrunk down from a game that was originally made for more people and allowed for more roles. That should be evidence enough by the fact that the cap for small games hasn't NEEDED to be any bigger than it is now; not many hosts are making small games. There's still a big demand for games of 20+ players, so it's not like adding another category means that larger games are suddenly going to go out of fashion like white pants after labor day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Mew
Not necessarily. There are lots of ways to handle small games. Bulbagarden only plays a small slice of the mafia spectrum. Quite a lot has been done with small games that would let hosts experiment. If the cap is lifted I'd like to host some small games to show some examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Feliciano
Ah...okay. Sorry for misunderstanding.
Having a list for Medium games would mean the games would be spread out (almost) evenly among the 3 lists. Like, currently a game with only 14 players would be considered as a large game since it's over the 13 player limit and be put on that long queue. With this system, there would be separate categories for each type of game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Mew
I'm not radically opposed to the idea of a Medium Game queue.
On another topic: I'm trying to decide on a good theme for Role Madness II. The first game consisted of an improbable combination of Superheroes/Supervillains, Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel protagonists/antagonists, and classic Disney heroes/villains.
As you can see, the main problem here is that the first game covered pretty much everything... :-/