Small and Large Games

[DtJ S2n]

Currently, the definition of a Small game is 1-12 players, and Large is anything more than. I've been working on set-ups and have noticed that a lot of small games don't have as many players as they need just because they don't want to go above the 12 man limit. Is a 13/14 man game really a large game?

Say that you have a 14 man game with 2 killing roles and no protection roles, and a 12 man game with 1 killing role and 1 protection role. In this case, the "small" game will take more time and commitment than the "large" game.

There's also the fact that the large queue takes longer to move than the small queue, so it's kinda unfair for a mod to have 13 players and have to wait much longer to run it.

On the other side, if we leave it up to mod/list mod discretion by leaving some wiggle-room for where it could fit in, players may be able to meta the set-up. "Oh, this is a small game with more than 12 players? There's probably more kill than protect roles."

So, opinions?

 

[Nicholas1024]

Let's make some wiggle room IMO. Small games can have 14 and under players, large games can have 13 or more. I wouldn't object to the large game min being raised to 15 though. I mean, 13 or 14 players isn't exactly a huge amount...

 

[adumbrodeus]

13 players is max for small game, Hoopla did a nice overview on mafiascum, but in general a 12 man game is much more inherently anti-town then a 13 man game.


A basic summery is that the size is simply too ackward because it's an even numbered game. This requires either a night start (which by it's nature substantially improves mafia) or giving town increased power to compensate. Balancing a game of this size is therefore extremely difficult, which results in scum getting a disproportionate victory ratio.


So yea, move the cap to 13, no more, no less.

 

[Swiss]

If you leave 'wiggle room' depending on the setup then surely you give information to the players indicating that there will be more power roles? This in itself affects the game etc etc

 

[DtJ S2n]

Swiss, yeah the problem with the wiggle room is it gives the players meta to go off of.

But the problem with having a set number decide game size is that how long a game is going to last, or how the numbers are going to end up is dependent on the roles, not the starting number. Especially when the number of nkills is unsure, like when there are protection roles, or nkills that don't happen every night/need a special condition.

I guess so far I'm in favor of the move the cap to 13, though. 13 really is a good number.

Edit: I just read Hoopla's write-up over there, and I definitely agree. Still would like more input, I'm interested.

 

[vanderzant]

Large games are annoying because people get so slack.

I'd love to see more 10 players or less games. Or xiivi do another marathon day. Or people invite me to play aim mafia again :D. Whichever is easier.

But to answer your question, why does it matter? Iirc the line for 12 players or less is larger anyway, so why try and inflate that line even more?

 

[DtJ S2n]

First, the small games line is actually the same size as the large game line. And the small games are going to run a lot faster, because you know, they're small games.

Second, it won't inflate the line. Nobody runs a Large game that only has 13 players, they just take 1 player out and call it a 12 player game. We shouldn't have mods sacrificing game balance and quality of set-up just so they don't have to wait in the large game line.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

13 player cap for small games is perfect.

Allowing for wiggle room allows the setup to be meta'd.

Game size isn't a measure of how long the game will take. Long games can go just as fast if not faster than small games and small games can take forever to. All game size is a measure of is the number of active starting players, and that's all we should base the distinction on, not a measure that we feel their is an implicit connection with.

So yeah, keep the size distinction but bump small up to 13 players. That seems to be the most prudent move.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Large games are annoying because people get so slack.

I'd love to see more 10 players or less games. Or xiivi do another marathon day. Or people invite me to play aim mafia again :D. Whichever is easier.

But to answer your question, why does it matter? Iirc the line for 12 players or less is larger anyway, so why try and inflate that line even more?

It matters because it encourages players to use 12 players if that is the default max.

Which results in 3 unbalanced setups in different ways, 3-9, 2-1-9, and 2-10.

3-9 is extremely anti-town, 2-1-9 is extremely pro-town, and 2-10 is again extremely pro-town.

This can be balanced by PRs, but frankly it's a difficult and delicate task that we shouldn't be expecting of mods, especially when it's just to maintain the traditional number (which is a mafiascum tradition, not ours anyway).


Move it up to 13 to make the cap easier to balance and then we should be dealing with considerably more balanced games in general.

 

[vanderzant]

I'm fine with moving the cap up to 13. I just seriously thought that as a consensus, players generally preferred 12 person games. And last time I looked I could of sworn there were ALOT more small games on the sign up thread then large. It might be because large games haven taken longer to fill and start recently... but actually that might just be small games being more popular XD.

That mafia scum thread was a good read though. I'm pretty surprised by their results. A lot of games I've played here buff their townies with PR's though, which can make quite a bit of difference. A vanilla game is pretty unheard of.

Also Sold I'm fairly sure I've seen couple 13-14 player games quite recently. Couldn't remember them for the life of me, but I'm sure they're their.

 

[#HBC | Mac]

I like the idea of moving the cap to 13

im gonna read what vand linked to and will prolly like it even more after

 

[#HBC | marshy]

Also Sold I'm fairly sure I've seen couple 13-14 player games quite recently. Couldn't remember them for the life of me, but I'm sure they're their.

sure a modll do a thirteen man game over a twelve like...one time out of ten. way to cavil about hyperbole

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I think the "size" of a game should be measured by the minimum / maximum time a game can take.

Or add a "medium" queue for 12-14.

 

[DtJ S2n]

I think the "size" of a game should be measured by the minimum / maximum time a game can take.

This is actually what I was thinking with the Wiggle Room. But then Wiggle Room doesn't work, meta, etc.

I'm all for 13 max. Is it fair to go ahead and change it?

 

[#HBC | marshy]

I'm all for 13 max. Is it fair to go ahead and change it?

(another awesome casualty of xiivis tinkering with our smileys...)

 

[vanderzant]

sure a modll do a thirteen man game over a twelve like...one time out of ten. way to cavil about hyperbole

Doesn't invalidate my point though. There was nothing stopping mods from hosting 13 player games if they really wanted to beforehand... now they'll just be more inclined to

 

[Xiivi]

Personally I'd prefer 9 & under, 10-16 & 17+, but heh

could do 9 & under, 10-14, and 15+ too; but games with 17 or more people (which are getting way too common for my tastes) are happening at a rate that really slows things down in the large queue

 

[Fans for Sell]

I agree with Gheb_01 in that we should have three queue, one for small, one for medium, and one for large.

Small: 3-9
Medium: 10-14
Large: 15+

 

[Deleted member]

^Post was made by me.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Obviously it was. You're the only person to call me "Gheb_01"

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Only problem I have with 9 and under is that there are so few legitimate setups you can do with 9 and under. Like seriously what kind of diversity can we expect from those games?

Doesn't really matter much since I can just not join those games but I'm really just more curious what the motive is for giving 9 and under its own division.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Only problem I have with 9 and under is that there are so few legitimate setups you can do with 9 and under. Like seriously what kind of diversity can we expect from those games?

Most EM games are actually around that size. I'm sure some of them can be used here as well.

 

[#HBC | FrozeηFlame]

Most EM games are actually around that size. I'm sure some of them can be used here as well.

> cites the use of a certain setup size elsewhere as a justification for adopting its use

> cites EpicMafia of all places

> mfw

D=

C'mon Gheb you're better than that. =/

 

[~ Gheb ~]

A good setup is a good setup. I don't care where it's from and who made it.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I tend to agree, a 2/7 setup can be quite balanced.


That said I have one caveat with Gheb's setup.

3-9
Medium: 10-13
Large: 14+


The reason I suggest this is to discourage players from using another awkward to balance number, 14. Unfortunately too many players just take the max in a given category and run with it.

13 should end medium if we do this.


9 is another easy number to balance (2-7 is a great game) so it's perfect for the end of small and 5 is vengeful and other small setups.

 

[Xiivi]

14 is actually an incredibly solid number.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Really? My understanding was that it was too protown for 3-1, and too anti-town for 4-0, though maybe 4-1 might work but that's only 2 mislynches.

 

[Xiivi]

Mario Kart Mafia & Barhouse both were 14 and turned out fine imo.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

5 - 9 = small
10 - 14 = medium
15+ = big

imo

 

[Rockin]

I'm for it being just two catagories. Small and Large.

There's hardly much you can do with a 5-9 setup to make it remotely interesting. If players want a really quick mafia game, they could play AIM Mafia.

I like there being 13 for small if going to this direction (as well as 14+). Adum, 14 isn't really a bad number as long as people are nicely active. I remember Tournament sleepover, I had like 18 and that was a struggle XD

 

[ranmaru]

BUMP

First of all, I don't think a small being 3-9 wouldn't be there for the purpose of finishing quickly. It would be there for simplicity and basic mafia play. What's wrong with some simple roles and open setups?

I'm for three queus. That means the 3-9's could just be basic games. I LOVE basic. How about the people who don't care about pr's, and want to simply argue and strategize? Of course then the newbs would be in this category, and I'm sure they should take priority over other 3-9's. Then, they could be suggested to play the 3 - 9's. It would be much easier for them. I really liked the jailer/tracker thing instead of even day cop and odd day doc. That would also make the flow of games in queus go faster. More games for people to play. 3 games coming in instead of just two. Plus it would be good practice for upcoming mods to mod smalls. It would also help people who don't have much time due to school be able to pick from small medium or large. the smalls wouldn't be too harsh either. Maybe a lil rougher but still, the newbies who would love mafia wouldn't mind.
Honestly I went from Newb 10 to Soul Calibur. I didn't expect all that pressure on me. Not that I was discouraged, I was fine with dying because I was free to play other games haha.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Still in favor of adding a mini-game queue for games below 10.

Also I'm really starting to see the benefits of having limits to the amount of games played at the same time ... one game of each queue plus one private / adventure game. That could promote replacements more and really minimize the possibility of players stretching themselves too thin.

 

[ranmaru]

I agree with Gheb. I can't do more than 3 games anyways. I just get lazy. If I see a small <10 game que, I'll always go for it!

Plus, if people like both simplicity and duking out with pr's, they could just opt into smalls and mediums then. Problem solved.

 

[#HBC | Ryker]

Other people can. Don't spoil it for them.

 

[Overswarm]

I can easily play in 4 games at the same time if I have time. I currently don't and limit myself to two.

Really, there isn't a problem in being in more games than you have time for. The issue is people signing up knowing they'll have to replace later. You can stop that with a coutn of how many times player X has been killed for inactivity and/or replaced, but we've been over that before and meh.

 

[#HBC | Gorf]

Or player X can just not sign up for every game in the queue.

 

[KevinM]

Unless player X want's to get ****in stomped.

 

[Overswarm]

Or just post pictures for no reason, that doesn't take much effort.

 

[Tom]

Or just post pictures for no reason, that doesn't take much effort.

your mom doesnt take much effort

 

[ranmaru]

still think 3-9's r gud idea