The Fall of Standard (and Propositions on how to fix it)

UncleSam · Aug 16th, 2010, 4:06:27 PM

In recent months, and particularly since the new rules changes went into effect and the Expert tier was created, it seems to me that the overall level of player quality and play quality in Standard Mafia has deteriorated at an astonishing pace. If you take, say, the Player's List from Bad Character Mafia (my first mafia game, only 6 months ago):

Bad Character Mafia Player's List

...and you compare it to the Player's List from the recent Lord of the Flies Mafia...

Lord of the Flies Mafia Player's List

...I think you will see what I mean (no offense intended to any of the players on that second list/the hosts of that game).

Now, this was a foreseeable result of adding in the Expert tier of games, but I believe the extent of the change was not intended. True, Expert games are supposed to be far more interesting for Expert players to play in, but it seems as if Standard games are now being designed for beginners, just with a slightly more experienced Player Pool than the Beginner games. Remember, one intent of the adding the Beginner's tier, if I understand it correctly, was to make it so that, while Standard would lose some of the top players, it would also no longer be as error filled--new players could learn to play mafia with each other, and when they felt they were ready, could "move up" to Standard games! Doesn't that sound perfectly reasonable?

The truth is, the idea itself was reasonable, but it has not been put in practice. Standard is drifting more and more towards the Beginner's end of the spectrum, both in terms of game design and who plays it.

Now, I have several slight rules revisions I would like to propose, and although I am well aware I am not the most experienced player out there, I would still request that everyone keep an open mind to these ideas and evaluates them objectively. I also understand the rules changed in recent memory, but it also seems to me that, given the nature of such a radical rules change, it should have been inevitable and expected from the start that a few of the rules changes would have to be altered slightly, as theorymoning what will work for the entire community of mafia players is hardly an exact science, and indeed, it seems as if most of the changes have worked out very well, for which I commend the Moderators who worked on them.

Now then, to what I would like to propose:
1. Make some kind of experimental idea a requirement when designing a Standard mafia game.

-Many Standard games could just as easily be hosted for Beginners, and because of this, they attract Beginners. If Standard is supposed to be midway between Beginner and Expert, wouldn't it make sense to require some form of experimental theory behind a game? This doesn't need to be an integral new game design, but it would be nice if every game included new Roles, Alliance breakdowns, or something along those lines, if hosts do not want to go for more radical changes. It just seems like 2v1 with a Wolf has a formulaic feel, and whoever manipulates the formula best wins.

2. Make Beginners play one Beginner level game before joining a Standard game.

-This goes hand in hand with the experimental ideas proposition-if players don't know the basics of mafia, how can they effectively strategize when the basics are altered? This is as much to help new players as anything, because the trial-by-fire method, while somewhat effective, is not fun for most, and I have to believe that Beginners would rather learn in a less competitive setting, where they can make mistakes and not earn permanent reputations because of it. I picked the number one because, while some users are not ready for Standard after one game, I realize we can hardly go on a judging basis, and most users know the basics after one go-around.

3. Allow more reserves per game, or have a variable number of reserves based on the game type.

-This proposition is to help differentiate the wide array of Standard games. First of all, reserves only really matter if the reserved users are not currently playing in any games (otherwise they get in after all of the P1s), so it is not like more reserves are taking away spots from people who are not playing for people who are already playing in other games. What I am proposing is that, when the Moderators approve a game, they also set a limit on how many reserves the game is allowed, based on how much the Moderator believes the game needs experienced players in order for the concept to work. There would have to be a cap and a minimum that would have to be worked out, such as 15 as a cap (for a game like Metal Gear Solid mafia, where experienced players are needed for the concept to work), to 5 (for a game that hardly qualifies as a Standard game). Of course, these are arbitrary numbers I picked, I am sure this would have to be tweaked. Note that this would allow users to see approximately how experimental a game is at a moment's notice, based on an objective observation from a Moderator and not a subjective method based on new rules or talking to the Host, which are the only current methods of figuring out how experimental a game is that I am aware of. This proposition needs tweaking, but I believe it is also the best way to attract better players back: giving them an experienced rating from a Forum Moderator on how experimental a game is. Also, this would encourage Expert hosts to host Standard games, as they could still attract a good player base, without having to wait in line for Expert or worry about having a Player pool of Beginners to try out their newest game ideas. As it stands currently, I believe most Expert hosts want to host Expert games because, though the wait is long, it is now the only reliable way to ensure their game is played strategically.

I will reiterate here again, I mean no offense to anyone involved with recent Standard games-I am only trying to improve Standard to the point where it is actually a reliable middle ground again, although I accept the inevitability of the wide range of games in the Standard category, and believe I have proposed certain changes to take this into account. I am also aware I have made a variety of assumptions throughout this post, and I urge anyone who feels I have assumed wrongly to correct me.

Many thanks for reading, and I look forward to any and all responses.

Flounder · Aug 16th, 2010, 4:55:46 PM

the intent of the "standard" tier was to be experimental, as I understood it.
I think a contributing factor is that older players chose to host and play expert games because they regard themselves as such, and see standard games as games for "lesser" players.
If you look at the game listing all of the expert game hosts (for both past and future games), you see:

(Expert Mafia) One Nation Under a Mafia - daquiri / Exarius
(Expert Mafia) Forza

- shade / Outlaw
(Expert Mafia) Free-For-All Mafia - CyzirVisheen / gmax
(Expert Mafia) Allstars Mafia - blue_light
(Expert Mafia) We Don't Need No Mafia - Amelia / Gmax

all of these hosts are fairly noteworthy players, I'd say. If you look at the hosts of the Standard games, the only players that really stand out (to me, anyway) are UncleSam and Exarius.
People like to play in games they're more assured they'll enjoy. Which host do you have more faith in - gmax, or Aura_Guardian? (no offense!!)
This is something that was expected when an "expert game" system was discussed - there is some level of elitism. It's not nearly as bad as it could have been, but it's present.
Personally, I haven't joined any Standard games for pretty much this reason. Nobody really interesting was hosting a Standard game, and I didn't want to get stuck on a team of people I didn't know at all.

UncleSam · Aug 16th, 2010, 5:02:24 PM

Of course that's the problem...what I am saying is, how do we fix it so that Standard isn't simply a "lesser" tier but rather a "mixed" tier, with a combination of Experts and mid-level players, with a few newer players (but not completely new players) mixed in? I completely agree on your analysis of why these problems cropped up, but what do you think of the small changes I propose to fix them?

jigglypuffers42 · Aug 16th, 2010, 5:28:01 PM

1. I agree. I love experimental concepts would love to see a rule go up about this.

2. I speak from recent experience, having just died in my second game of mafia, that I agree all players should begin on the beginner's tier. I do see a couple flaws in that though. I started getting interested in smogon mafia halfway through anything goes in this mafia. That beginner game was 6 days and 6 nights--A long game. A beginner game hasn't gone up after that though, so if this rule were to be in place then, right now, i would've played 0 games. So maybe there should be 2 beginner games going on at a time? No that doesn't work, because not many people want to host beginner games. So maybe we can require, if beginner mafia isn't available, to gain practice on #fluodome.

3. I agree.

Overall: I very much agree. I've been realizing how simple standard games are, and am trying to play as many games as possible so that i can qualify as an expert player as soon as possible. Why? Because, as you said, standard is getting less and less experimental. I would love to see the standard tier become more exciting

***Mekkah***** · Aug 16th, 2010, 5:34:00 PM

I think the problem is much more simple than presented here: generally, you don't want to play more than one game at a time, and the top25 players will pick that Expert game over Standard. I don't think any of the solutions presented will solve that, though they may improve the game in other ways...but not by much.

Flounder · Aug 16th, 2010, 5:36:25 PM

right, I meant to discuss a solution but started losing my train of thought
Solution 2 is a good one for certain, but requires more beginner games to actually be hosted. (see as there's only been, what, 2?)
the problem seems to be less with the system and more with the players and hosts themselves.
If a player goes to a moderator with their game planned out to be an expert game, the moderator (depending on the backlog of games, and current games) could have the player run it as a standard game.

UncleSam · Aug 16th, 2010, 5:51:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fat Mekkah

I think the problem is much more simple than presented here: generally, you don't want to play more than one game at a time, and the top25 players will pick that Expert game over Standard. I don't think any of the solutions presented will solve that, though they may improve the game in other ways...but not by much.

While this may be a part of the problem, many people are killed in Expert games well before their conclusions. Also, some people are willing to play in multiple games. I am sure this is another part of the problem that isn't fixable, but why not try to fix a problem to some extent if we can?

jigglypuffers42 · Aug 16th, 2010, 5:56:21 PM

The simple solution to this is to have more experimental RTMs. Like tomorow, im doing a lynchpin RTM

wickdaggler · Aug 16th, 2010, 6:09:06 PM

Alright, I have a few rule propositions that will balance the levels of games slightly (at least, I think it will)

1. Have a few preset extremely expereinced mafia players to judge which games go into which tier. Based on the wise judgment of these few players, we'll have games that are appropriate for each tier.

2. Each player should have a ranking from A, B, C, and finally D.

* Rank D bans you to the Beginner level of play
* Rank C allows you to play Standard games.
* Rank B allows you to host games, as well as the benefits of Rank C.
* Rank A gets you a pass into Expert games.

Based on judgment calls from the aforementioned group of elite mafia players, as well as hosts, players would be assigned ranks, starting as the default C.

3. The amount of reserves a host has at each level of play would be as follows

* Beginner - None
* Standard - 5
* Expert - 10

4. Being reserved into a game allows you to play it regardless of rank (hosts, pick wisely).

Of course this induces a lot of stress onto this group of elite mafia players, and a list would have to be kept and maintained of each player and their associated rank.

I'll happily elaborate on any of this if you'd like. It's a little bit more complex in my head than what I've written down, but it should have the basic idea of what would happen.

UncleSam · Aug 16th, 2010, 6:14:02 PM

I don't like this solution much wickdaggler, as I believe one of the decisions during the last rule-changing process was that it is difficult to simply classify each player based on what anyone thinks of him. Also, it is necessary for Expert games to be totally handpicked, and I believe 5 reserves for a Standard game is also too few. The only thing I like about your system is that it restricts hosts to being competent mafia players, but the Moderators already do this to some extent, although I would like to see somewhat more stringent guidelines on who can host or not, as there have been a lot of...questionable games lately.

Again, this hosting problem stems from the Expert system as well, and I think would be solved if we incorporated the changes I suggest. If we fix the hosting problem, it will fix the player pool problem and the quality of play problem. Everyone wins, it seems to me.

Objection · Aug 16th, 2010, 6:20:01 PM

Quote: