Headmins should document dynamic changes in the auditorium.

[TheRex9001]

I believe that any changes head admins make to dynamic should be logged to viewtopic.php?f=41&t=14828&start=50 or to a new separate log, this is mainly because it makes it way easier to determine if any changes have been made to dynamic rather the log based guessing game we have to do now in order to figure out if something has been changed, this is mainly in response to viewtopic.php?f=33&t=35076 and similar dynamic related suggestions, simply put: If headmins logged this stuff we wouldnt need to logdive to figure out what or when a change was done to dynamic.

[Misdoubtful]

Dynamic changes are not quite the same as config changes.

It might be nice to have this all put into it's own unique thread if it were to happen.

[TheRex9001]

Dynamic changes are not config changes.

It might be nice to have this all put into it's own unique thread if it were to happen.

In that case:

or to a new separate log

Maybe I should clarify, I meant logged as in the auditorium

[Misdoubtful]

Yeah just figured I'd try to nudge at it. It'd be a good way of historically ensuring quality with it if it included things like graphs from run simulations and then could continue to.

[Vekter]

Agreed. It should be treated like any config change.

[Pandarsenic]

I am in favor and I don't see any real reason that anyone could reasonably object.

[Higgin]

Bubberstation keeps their configs on a separate public Github people can look at and make PRs to - I think something like that would be a massive improvement in general and not just around Dynamic, but certainly with Dynamic too.

[Mothblocks]

Hi all,

While head admins are the ones who hold the final say over Dynamic, historically they entrust the keys with subject matter experts. Last term it was Spookuni, the several terms before that it was me, this term it's more or less me again. They are kept in touch about changes and especially for anything dramatic (such as disabling antagonists for observational purposes) will be asked for a sign off. Sometimes head admins like to have some theories or general vibes they want to try out, but how that is gone about is left to people like me, and so it's best to forward me any feedback on stuff like this.

As for Dynamic changelogs, there definitely is a place for it and I would probably use a thread if one was given to me in Town Hall or wherever it's supposed to be. However you should not expect all changes to be documented immediately. Some changes are intentionally kept secret until enough time has passed to be able to sample rounds to see the impacts of their changes. Announcing these types of changes influences people's feedback and muddies our ability to tell if the change was actually good for the game.

As an aside, it's not as trivial as posting number changes. I can tell you the threat curve width was lowered from 4 to 3, but you don't really know what that means without seeing the bell curve.

That's not to say no changes should be documented, just a glimpse into why it doesn't always happen and why we especially wouldn't have any live public showing of it like a GitHub page. I think the best solution is theoretically a forum page that documents the changes being made whenever we feel it is appropriate to share, but in reality I don't look at the forums at all and so I would honestly never use it and so you should probably give me a Discord channel or something instead if you want this

That entire answer will be relevant for as long as Dynamic is, so let's talk about stuff that affects the players of October 12th, 2023.

This term has had some more aggressive tweaking than usual--the last term ended on the median threat being shifted to the right to avoid so many greenshifts. This term has generally reported disliking the constant high chaos rounds, especially on Manuel, and so I shifted it back over more to the middle. We are primarily interested in seeing how much of Dynamic's intended designs hold up with traitor being changed into the progression antag it is today. I tested disabling midround traitor in specific on MRP a week or two ago. For LRP, I have recently (as in, literally a few minutes ago) made two very important changes: the average threat of a round has been increased, but midround traitors have also been disabled. Please keep me in the loop (the best way to contact me is certainly Discord, I do not read the forums and will likely not read the replies to this message for very long) how well that's going, regardless of what server you play on.

[sinfulbliss]

Even if dynamic is controlled by someone else more technically-minded, if I understand right the incentives to tweak dynamic and config are still pushed by the headmins, so it would still make sense to just list them in the “Changes to the Config” thread (i.e. we are lowering threat globally).

For LRP, I have recently (as in, literally a few minutes ago) made two very important changes: the average threat of a round has been increased, but midround traitors have also been disabled. Please keep me in the loop (the best way to contact me is certainly Discord, I do not read the forums and will likely not read the replies to this message for very long) how well that's going, regardless of what server you play on.

This probably isn’t the best place but I’m not a fan of midround traitor being disabled on LRP. Especially on lower pop where team antags can’t exist and rounds can stretch on for hours, it’s necessary to have threat injected periodically, and midround tots were the main way that happened.

It makes sense to keep some changes to dynamic private, like small tweaks here and there, but blankety disabling antag types without mention of it kind of sucks. If this thread didn’t exist people probably never would’ve known.

[Pandarsenic]

However you should not expect all changes to be documented immediately. Some changes are intentionally kept secret until enough time has passed to be able to sample rounds to see the impacts of their changes. Announcing these types of changes influences people's feedback and muddies our ability to tell if the change was actually good for the game.

I think it might be good to say that a change to a certain thing, nonspecifically, was made, and give a specific period at which the nature of it will be revealed - something like "Changes to average round threat for testing, specifics in 7 days" then "[threat curve changed width changed from 4 to 3]" either explaining what that means or simply saying that if people care that much they can check out what that means/ask in a feedback thread"

Also we should occasionally gaslight the players by saying a secret change has been made for testing and then revealing that was a control/placebo trial, there was no change

[mazur907]

Hi all,

While head admins are the ones who hold the final say over Dynamic, historically they entrust the keys with subject matter experts. Last term it was Spookuni, the several terms before that it was me, this term it's more or less me again. They are kept in touch about changes and especially for anything dramatic (such as disabling antagonists for observational purposes) will be asked for a sign off. Sometimes head admins like to have some theories or general vibes they want to try out, but how that is gone about is left to people like me, and so it's best to forward me any feedback on stuff like this.

As for Dynamic changelogs, there definitely is a place for it and I would probably use a thread if one was given to me in Town Hall or wherever it's supposed to be. However you should not expect all changes to be documented immediately. Some changes are intentionally kept secret until enough time has passed to be able to sample rounds to see the impacts of their changes. Announcing these types of changes influences people's feedback and muddies our ability to tell if the change was actually good for the game.

As an aside, it's not as trivial as posting number changes. I can tell you the threat curve width was lowered from 4 to 3, but you don't really know what that means without seeing the bell curve.

That's not to say no changes should be documented, just a glimpse into why it doesn't always happen and why we especially wouldn't have any live public showing of it like a GitHub page. I think the best solution is theoretically a forum page that documents the changes being made whenever we feel it is appropriate to share, but in reality I don't look at the forums at all and so I would honestly never use it and so you should probably give me a Discord channel or something instead if you want this

That entire answer will be relevant for as long as Dynamic is, so let's talk about stuff that affects the players of October 12th, 2023.

This term has had some more aggressive tweaking than usual--the last term ended on the median threat being shifted to the right to avoid so many greenshifts. This term has generally reported disliking the constant high chaos rounds, especially on Manuel, and so I shifted it back over more to the middle. We are primarily interested in seeing how much of Dynamic's intended designs hold up with traitor being changed into the progression antag it is today. I tested disabling midround traitor in specific on MRP a week or two ago. For LRP, I have recently (as in, literally a few minutes ago) made two very important changes: the average threat of a round has been increased, but midround traitors have also been disabled. Please keep me in the loop (the best way to contact me is certainly Discord, I do not read the forums and will likely not read the replies to this message for very long) how well that's going, regardless of what server you play on.

ok let's see if I understand correctly,you did polls recently about is high treat levels better or low? and as far as I know high threat level won poll,and then you decided to reducing threat level would be good idea? i mean what is point of asking our opinions if you wont really care and reduce it fr

[Jacquerel]

ok let's see if I understand correctly,you did polls recently about is high treat levels better or low? and as far as I know high threat level won poll,and then you decided to reducing threat level would be good idea? i mean what is point of asking our opinions if you wont really care and reduce it fr

im not sure how you read that post and came away with this as your understanding to be quite honest

[Mothblocks]

Even if dynamic is controlled by someone else more technically-minded, if I understand right the incentives to tweak dynamic and config are still pushed by the headmins

Not really, especially in the past I was basically calling all the shots and just letting head admins know what's up.

ok let's see if I understand correctly,you did polls recently about is high treat levels better or low?

No I didn't

[sinfulbliss]

Even if dynamic is controlled by someone else more technically-minded, if I understand right the incentives to tweak dynamic and config are still pushed by the headmins

Not really, especially in the past I was basically calling all the shots and just letting head admins know what's up.

This thread is about dynamic/config changes as it pertains to headmins, it's not about Mothblocks having to tell the players technical information about how exactly she changes dynamic. What's being asked I think is that when headmins ask for dynamic to be tuned in a certain way, it would be nice for them to mention it in the Config thread so players know how the game's being changed. In the same way headmins have authority surrounding policy and config they have authority around how they want dynamic to be changed, and those calls should be recorded as any other IMO.

[Higgin]

I think a changelog with interpretation would be good.

I'd like to know in advance of any change what the change is going for because I find that important to deciding whether or not I want to spend my time here. I think being honest about that up front outweighs reactivity concerns about people behaving differently in favor of the game being how they want.

The rules, policy, and even staff of the server (to the extent of the player vote) are subject to discussion about how they should be for players to enjoy playing here. Dynamic should be no less so, and changes to it should be as much as those things purposive and clear.

A lot is controlled by policy and admin ruling, but a lot of how people behave and what the game feels like exists downstream of Dynamic (assuming you don't always have an admin on taking a proactive role in curating the round.)

As far as making the configs publicly visible, I think the only way you're going to get people more literate over time is by opening them up.

I get that it's probably an invitation to deal with more frustrating chelp from people who don't or can't be bothered to understand the system, at first, but those people also have feelings about the game and how it should be run. Part of the reason they can't articulate it or explain how Dynamic factors into that might very well be because it's been kept obscure - which as much as the whole codebase, it shouldn't.

[Fikou]

Since Mothblocks is fine with it, we can go ahead with it, you can view the thread here: viewtopic.php?t=35296