Changes to Normal Games (update September 2022)

[Mathdino]

I suppose my word may not mean as much given that I don't publicly play Normals (mostly due to playerlists). That said, this doesn't make playing/modding Normals any more attractive at all to me.

I think this was in large part a mistake that was packaged with only a couple very necessary improvements (namely, the extra whitelisteds).

Changes to Review Process

: Reducing the number of reviewers for games is likely to exacerbate balance issues. I review best when I can bounce ideas off other people. While I understand the issue of not enough reviewers, the idea of joining the NRG is barely advertised onsite (as is how to join the NRG).
And I applied over 3 weeks ago and got no response. If my and other applicants' qualifications/abilities are in question, then there should be more publicised guides on how to balance games. Otherwise, where does one get the experience necessary to join the NRG without being in the NRG?

Simplifications/Standardization

:
1. Removal of the greylist rule is incredibly unfortunate from a design point of view. A huge portion of what made some of the most popular normal setups interesting was those few non-standard additions that create interesting role interactions.

2. Complete standardization of role PMs disallows a lot of potential tweaking, for balance purposes or for role interaction purposes. I can understand

having a standard

as a baseline for mods, but

enforcing a mandatory standard

is just restrictive. I've often found that slight deviations from the standard are necessary.

3. I don't think the solution to "it's hard to come up with an answer for SK/multiball setups" is "never ask the question". I've seen or played a bunch of multiball normals that were fine in the realm of balance/swing. This was, of course, when there were more reviewers to go around.
My understanding is the consensus needs to be on a town:scum1:scum2 EV ratio of 33:33:33 or 50:25:25. It's possible to balance toward either.

4. A Multitasking modifier is questionable and there isn't really precedence for that. Almost every theme game or open game has a definite answer to "can mafia kill and act in the same night?" Open setups require that this be answered. I'm not particularly interested in going back through all the open setup pages to add a Multitasking modifier to mafia PRs. I don't see why it's an obstacle to force mods to specify this beforehand. It takes less than a dozen words.

5. As with the above,

having a standard ruleset

is fantastic, and has been something I've repeatedly suggested for the Open Queue (which seems to be where more new mods go). But

enforcing a mandatory standard ruleset

is harsh as hell.

TL;DR

As far as I can see, almost all of these changes (made by the NRG) are made for the benefit of the NRG, to the detriment of the mods and the players.

Changes that are fueled by the comfort of the administration rather than by the needs/wants of the community set an incredibly dangerous precedent.

I don't expect that this will help in expanding/retaining the current playerbase and modbase.

[Mathdino]

Has anyone been added to the NRG within the past year? Have any of those reviewers stuck around? And is there a process/guide in place for training new NRG members?

The problems stated are so much simpler than "we need to simplify/standardize everything to give reviewers less work".

If the issue is not enough reviewers, then the solution is getting more reviewers

.

Sure, that's easier said than done. But had there been a stickied thread in the MD for joining the NRG, or active recruitment of players with a mind for balance/setup, or

a response to applications at all

, I'd have more faith that you guys are trying to solve the root of the issue.

[Mathdino]

I understand that. I still find that too restrictive.

[Mathdino]

I played a well-designed multiball normal years ago when there were lots of reviewers to go around. We've had this spat in the open setups threads before. You not liking multiball/SKs doesn't mean we should stop others from playing/modding them.

And yeah I know the obvious response is a sarcastic
">well designed
>multiball"
it's whatever. I personally don't play multiball games, but it's entirely possible to balance them if you just decide on the EV ratios.

[Mathdino]

everything's subjective

a lot of people would argue that opens are bad game design

but when you design an open, you design/balance it within the confines of the medium. you don't judge opens the way you judge closeds, just like you don't critique anime the same way you critique short stories.

when you design an alisae game, you design/balance it within the confines of lolbalance alisae games.
when you design a crazy 30+ player theme game, you design/balance it within the confines of a crazy-ass meme game.

and when you design multiball games, you design/balance it within the confines of multiball.

by nature it's gonna have swing. and it's kind of a different game from mafia. you can argue that it's not reallllly mafia, sure. but there are still good multiball games and bad multiball games. it's possible to do it well. within the confines of "we're playing a multiball game".

[Mathdino]

Thanks Nexus.

The rest of the post stands, but I won't treat this one mistake as evidence of a larger pattern then.

[Mathdino]

It has not. The Normal Game page is protected and the wiki group doesn't have the permissions to change it.

I think the only people who do have those permissions are the admins and the normal listmods.

[Mathdino]

If the issue is not enough reviewers, then the solution is getting more reviewers.

This is a misunderstanding. The number of available reviewers is an issue, but not the main issue that reducing the number of reviewers solves. The main issue that this solves is the issue of having reviews be four people (a mod and 3 reviewers) each trying to pull a setup in a different direction; *incredibly* often, one person would make a suggestion and the other three would simply disappear for days, even as long as a week, occasionally even longer than that at a time. This is because none of those people knew whose turn to talk it was. By reducing the number of reviewers, we reduce the number of competing voices all of whose demands must be met at once. By clarifying expectations and making one reviewer the primary reviewer, we make it clear that if the review is lagging, someone has responsibility behind that.

Reviewers disappearing for a week shouldn't be something happening in the first place.

It sounds then that the problem has shifted from "number of available reviewers" to "number of available active and engaged reviewers".

Did anything come of the call-to-arms almost a year ago for adding NRG members? The last new NRG member was added in June 2016 (PenguinPower), almost

2 years ago

.

Is there some form of real-time communication for NRG members? I've seen plenty of setup discussion/review happening over Discord.

Is there any oversight prodding reviewers to respond to threads within 48 hours?

I guess what I don't understand is this apparent attempt to decimate the amount of work that needs to be done (which will harm the queue in balance, creativity, etc) rather than find people who want to do the work to pass that off to.

Edit: Correcting this post to note that implosion joined the NRG last year, and doesn't show up in the group because he's listmod now.

[Mathdino]

The greylist role has existed for well over a decade, and it's tragic to me that it's now being removed to make work easier on the shrinking active sect of the NRG. That we're just throwing out what was a major source of the appeal behind the more interesting setups.

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?

Exactly this.

The Vanilla Cop (and Neapolitan by extension) wasn't Normal until 2015.

The Vanilla Cop was first used in a Normal in or before 2008.

The greylist rule is

how new roles become popular in the first place

.

As another example, the Hider has been in Normal games since 2003. The greylist rule was the only way of including a Hider for the past 15 years.

So yes, it's great that these are now added to the whitelist. And whenever there's a good role left out people will want that added to the whitelist. But the whitelist isn't the point. It's that without the greylist, over half of the current normal roles would never have been tested in normal games prior to being added.

[Mathdino]

I don't play Normals under Mathdino, no.

Edit: To be clear, the only reasons I don't play Normals is
1. I prefer the playerbases in other queues, and I find most Normals toxic or too hyperactive to keep up with.

2. I like having a tiny bit of flavour. Sometimes rolling "Compsognathus (Vanilla Townie)" is more fun than rolling "Vanilla Townie". Crucify me.

My favourite theme games have essentially been Normals with flavour wrapped on.

And I did play normals prior to hiatus.

[Mathdino]

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.

[Mathdino]

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).

[Mathdino]

ffery doesn't appear to be in the NRG though

[Mathdino]

and i'm saying that calling out fferyllt isn't even applicable because she's not in the NRG lol

[Mathdino]

I use Activated Innocent Child for the kind that you activate, and just Innocent Child or D1 Innocent Child for the automatic ones.