In post 30, AnonymousGhost wrote:Quick question, has the MS wiki being updated to accommodate these new changes?
With the changes now official, the green light to start working on this has been given. Haven't had a chance to check how far it is yet, can give an update later.
In post 38, jjh927 wrote:It's worth considering that limiting setups also limits setup spec and fakeclaiming within games. More rigidity makes setup spec easier. It will also make for a less diverse meta, which is a bad thing imo.
And yeah, on that more personal note, Iambic Tetramafia would no longer be possible for two reasons-
1. PT cop is not a whitelist role.
2. Mandatory standardisation of role PMs would mean that the enabler would probably not be possible in the way it was done.
As an expansion of 1, I feel this is a really good example of an uncommon variant role the like of which will definitely suffer due to there no longer being a greylist. It's difficult to go through them all. That said, in light of me bringing this up I would hope PT cop will be considered for whitelist.
And to expand on 2, I think there are certain roles which can definitely benefit from a little fudge-factor on the standardisation. Modifiers like enabler and informed can probably benefit from customisation.
In post 39, northsidegal wrote:While I agree that within the context of the new rules PT Cop should be whitelisted, I don't think the solution to people bringing up successful and/or popular graylist roles is to keep adding them to the whitelist. The graylist had a purpose to it. It allowed mods to experiment and test out new roles, and the 1-graylist role limit always made sure that it was an experiment done in relation to pre-existing roles. Without allowing experimentation, how will new roles be introduced, tested to make sure they're good, and added to the whitelist in the first place?
I also asked this question and I maintain the answer isn't that satisfying.
I don't think I should be the one to state the reasoning because I would have an obvious bias; you probably want to hear the argument from an advocate of the change.
In terms of wanting the wiki page to be updated: if a listmod (most likely implosion or Nexus) gives me new text for the Normal Game page, I can update it. (I was given fairly wide-ranging powers on the wiki a while back in order to help deal with a spambot infestation, but am only supposed to use them to enforce the site rules. Changing pages on the suggestion of a listmod seems close enough.)
Last edited by callforjudgement on Wed May 09, 2018 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
In post 9, northsidegal wrote:Did non-standard role PMs and rulesets really add a significant amount of time to the review process? If so, I guess I'll stop talking on that point, but it doesn't seem likely to me.
it was fairly common to approve a setup with a modified role, ask the moderator to give us the role PM for approval, and then the moderator to just disappear for weeks or even months. Apparently many mods really don't like writing role PMs. Having standardised role PMs should help skip that part of the process entirely. (From my point of view it'd be sufficient to have non-binding standardised role PMs, but it looks like the binding version is what was settled on. Not having standardised role PMs available at all is an issue, though.)
, as it were. But it makes the Normal queue stall, and the Normal listmods don't like that (and the players who want to play Normals sometimes don't have a game to join).
The standardized role PMs across the whole wiki is an hour's work away from being done, and has been for a while. The wiki group has written a template that "codes" role PMs.
All it's been waiting on is for the NRG to relay the standards for the roles, wincons, ability wordings, etc. Been waiting for the green light on that for the past month now.
Trying to solve that obstacle by forcing role PMs (and waiting for the NRG to write up all the role PMs) is just not necessary. It's already ready.
"I just want to play mafia, not Economics Wonderland." - cytheflyguy
I've been trying to join the wiki standardisation committee for a while but nobody's been letting me in.
As it is, I have basically no idea how much progress you've made because none of it's public and it's not widely talked about. (For example, there are some mistakes you might or might not have made, mostly related to Opens, but I have no way to check if you have or haven't.)
Decisions were put on hold about a month ago until the NRG announces its changes and standardizations. That way, we wouldn't end up doing a bunch of work all over the site that the NRG later reverses. The group hasn't actually done anything on the wiki as a team yet -- almost all changes have been the personal projects of a couple members. As such, it hasn't been active.
In the meantime I've been trying to template as much as I can so that when the standards ARE announced, they can be changed across the entire wiki (by just editing the template).
"I just want to play mafia, not Economics Wonderland." - cytheflyguy
In post 61, northsidegal wrote:If people are taking too long for making their own changes to move forward, isn't that their problem and not the NRG's?
in my experiences with game review, all of my delays came because of the reviewers taking too long to come back and check the thread. they also are very nitpicky about things. All of my role PMs have been copied from previously approved role pms yet I get asked to make changes for some reason. My last game took around 5 weeks to be approved and it was nearly identical to a game I had previously ran on another account except I made minor changes. That time frame is completely unacceptable especially since there was a lack of approved games.
we need to replace the current reviewers and bring in new blood. Especially one reviewer who I won't name by name, she approves way to many unbalanced games imo
Would you consider the idea of taking "students" - people who want to become a normal reviewer or just get the experience of how to mod a balanced game without having to mod many game - who'd "job shadow" normal reviewers?
Maybe after a certain period of time has passed, the "students" could graduate into the position of a normal reviewer? Or maybe "graduate" into a "back up" reviewer and then graduate to "normal reviewer"?
^ I think this is a good idea considering I know nothing about setup balance despite playing Mafia for like a year or two but would love to help around the site. Having a way to teach and ease people into the process would at least get you one more person interested
Start by reviewing Theme games (you need to have modded a Large Theme to be able to be counted as a reviewer for one, but there's no restriction for Minis, and you can also "unofficially" review a Large). There's seemingly always a demand for Theme game reviewers. Then when you have a good review record, ask the Normal listmod to join the group. (If you build up a good enough review record, they might even ask you!)
It also helps to mod a Normal or two to become familiar with the review process (and the Normality rules).
![:]](./images/smilies/icon_smiling.png "Cheerful Smile"){kind=icon}