MTG Salvation

Seriously, is there any major argument against my solution with size-based games aside from ZDS's concern?

Quote from Azrael

From what I can see, not only do most players not enjoy the current brand of "normals", most hosts don't enjoy designing those games - so they bend the definitions. But we don't have enough players to support the hybrid normal option anymore. That seems to be a given.

I you are wrong and projecting your own sentiment into the others, because today the Normal queue is bigger than the Speciality one, how this indicates mods don't enjoy designing normals? Particularly for me is the other way around, I don't enjoy overly complex and bizarre games, I don't see myself designing a gimmicky Speciality game if it's change into what ZDS suggests. (hightly innovative, different game). I like games of mafia to be games of mafia.

Also I think you are wrong about other thing too, I disagree the downfall of Normals is a just "brand" thing. The Magical Girls had a ROUGH time to fill and was plagued with replacements just like the normals of the time. Ged's normal on the other hand run pretty well and filled fast, the difference? The fame of the mod. You can go and check this info, I'm pretty sure all large that that suffered no problems were exactly the games were the mod was a premium one (Eco, Zinda, Seppel,...) this had nothing to do with Normal and Speciality brands. The real problem is the size not the brand.

Quote from Azrael

That being the case, I don't think a pure "large-size" brand is going to be very successful either. The only large-size brands that have been successful lately are the FTQ, PCQ, and specialty queues. People don't enjoy joining games just because they're large - so naming them the "large-size queue" and lumping them together into a grab-bag is a good way to discourage people from signing up for any large games whatsoever, and decrease the visibility of the innovative games which draw in the largest crowds. The reason people join large games, is because often people are able to do cool things with the increased design space. Its better branding and consistency to give those different types of games queues of their own.

I agree that a "large size" brand is not going to make waves, however I disagree players are joining large games because of the innovation or anything like that. People are only joining large games when the mod rules period. I know I avoid all large games unless it's moderated by a mod that kick ass. Large games are plagued by lurkers, infinite replacements, infinite Day ones, unbalanced setups more often than not.

Quote from Azrael

Its *possible* a "strictly normal" game might gather some interest if it's particularly well-built. But if so, I think it will need to fight it out with other competitors in the FTQ/PCQ circuits, because I'm skeptical that there is enough support for an entire queue dedicated to that at the moment.

Checks was a strictly "normal" that gathered quite a bit of interest and was run by a newish mod. I think it's quite unanimous the game was very well received by the player base.

Quote from Azrael

But unless I hear a groundswell of interest for the true normal idea, my vote is to hack out the normal queue, prevent the specialty queue from diluting into a normal-style queue, and see what kind of shape we're in after that. Normal normals would fight it out in the discretionary queues from now on, until the point where sufficient interest in them revives.

I support normals.

Quote from Azrael

How many different names are currently on the list?

I'm not entirely certain there's an ideal solution to this problem. We can't fill those games as-is, there's probably a year or so of backlog, and featuring games that the playerbase enjoys playing in is the primary priority.

I would be REALLY unhappy if the normal queue is to be thrashed. Let me give my own situation as an example.

I wanted to host a game, considering I had no previous experience with designing nor hosting I decided I should start with basics, so I joined that queue. As I liked the idea of hosting and become enamored with tinkering setups I wanted to join another queue (because they move really slow) so I discovered the only one I could join was the normal or speciality because of some bizarre rule. Then I obviously joined the normal queue as there's no way for a noob mod to design a good speciality. Fast forward more than a year later, I'm still the #6 normal. I Do not feel good because I'm being harmed by being sensible and trying to follow a logical order (basic>normal>speciality) while other people that started moderating Specialities or minis are unnafected (and some specialities and minis created by inexperienced mods sucked).

That being said I do have an idea to fix the problem we will generate by merging normals/specialities or if we split the queus by size too.

My first idea is to order games by the timestamps of each request into the queue. If this is unfeasible (it probably is) the other viable option is to create a new queue by alternating hosts between both previous queues, for example for the new "Grande" queue we put first Normal host > first Speciality host > Second Speciality host, second normal host > .... and so on.

DRey, what rule prevented you from signing up to host a Mini?

A player may not sign up for more than one normal, mini, or specialty game at a time. Players may sign up to host one additional FTQ or one additional newb/basic basic game.

.

And where does that say you can't host a Mini and a Basic? It seems pretty clear to me that you can, based on that.

This is pretty clear to me too, what gives? Have I ever said the contrary?

Post #7149, where you state that due to some bizarre rule, you could only host a Normal or a Specialty.

Indeed, actually I only considered minis after joining both the basic and normal queues and was denied, I mixed things up. Sorry.

Given how long I was away, I can't say I'm particularly well-informed about the situation, but let me just say that I, for one, would be rather sad if anything at all happened to the Specialty queue. I personally pretty much play only Specialties, with the occasional Normal or really interesting Mini. I enjoy the innovation in them. Sometimes it turns out less than ideal - I can't really say my first game was the best idea for all involved, and I would have probably hated playing in Magical Girl Mafia - but without that process of trial and error you go absolutely nowhere. And I enjoy the dash of spice that brings.

I do agree that somewhere along the line Normals became Specialties-lite.... but I'd raise that point that that 'somewhere' was quite a while ago. Wasn't RafK's Persona Mafia a Normal? That was quite a few years ago, and we had no trouble filling up queues then. I'm not convinced it's the games that are causing the lack of players. To me, the argument of too many large games between a Normal, a Specialty, an FTQ, and a League rings truer.

And finally, about what Azrael said about brands... FTQ and Specialty, yes, but PCQ? Looking back, I don't see many PCQ games at all archived, and reaction to it in this very thread seems rather mixed. I'd debate the 'success' of that brand myself.

No worries.

I am very much in the minority, but 'normal' normals are by far my favorite type of game.

The first league game, medium-large in size, with standard roles and no extra mechanics was perfect. I was invested in the game, and enjoyed myself immensely.

Some of the specialty games no longer feel quite like mafia to me - the focus is more on mechanics, and less on player interaction. Some people enjoy it, sure, but just consider this an opposing viewpoint that does not want the lines blurred between normal and specialty any further.

I will play in the occasional smaller game, especially if it is for league - but the 18-24 man game with reasonable (i.e. 2 weeks tops) deadlines is something I'd like to at least see one of going at most times.

I think we're losing focus of the main issue. We've been having activity problems even before the League began.

@Drey - Perhaps, then, we simply need to be ok with "survival of the fittest" when it comes to the normal queue?

Give them a deadline to fill up, if they can't make it, next host fires off. From the sound of what people like Drey are saying, there is a strong market for certain normal games to fire - it's just not consistent throughout the queue.

Quote from Azrael

@Drey - Perhaps, then, we simply need to be ok with "survival of the fittest" when it comes to the normal queue?

Give them a deadline to fill up, if they can't make it, next host fires off. From the sound of what people like Drey are saying, there is a strong market for certain normal games to fire - it's just not consistent throughout the queue.

While I really like it from an idea standpoint. I just see something like solving a problem only to create another one. I do think you'll get a lot of people with hurt feelings if their game is passed on because people don't want to join it.

My best suggestion is to treat normal queue like a band-aid, tear it off quickly, take the pain now, and prevent the infection later.

I will say that lately, more often than not, I've been joining Normals out of a sense of duty to the community to keep the queue moving. However, there are a handful of Normals I am anticipating - Toastboy's, Zionite's, Wessel's, and DYH's, for example. If we implement a Darwinistic approach to the hosting list for Normals, I see no reason why we shouldn't just take them as FTQ/PCQ submissions. For example, I have an item-based Normal I plan to submit after the next FTQ selection and I am confident it will sweep that round.

Quote from Iso

No worries, I thought that might be the answer.

So, Council, what's the verdict? Would also like Eco's input.

Eco would like to give his input, but does not yet possess an internet router at his house, and therefore does not have the time to take out of work to properly evaluate the situation. I should be able to track down some time this weekend.

As the new Hosting Queue thread is going up on Monday (hopefully no later than), I would appreciate a decision by then. Thanks!

I am apparently unlikely to have time this weekend, but I can hash something out now.

Firstly, I agree that it looks like we have a problem. Although some normals have little trouble filling and playing (eg Zionite's Cyberpunk), I suspect these are rapidly becoming the minority. Specialty games still look in high demand (as demonstrated by some 30-odd signups for Cyberspace Mafia), so it looks like an issue of the "Normal" type, rather than just game size. What I would really like is some hard data on game size, type, host and how long they take to fill and how many replacements were required and compare it all. This would allow us to tell roughly when the problem started, and the exact parameters of the problem (too many players? Unknown hosts? Complexity?) but I don't have time to do that myself, and it's not an insignificant task.

There are basically two options I can see: keep queues basically as they are, but enact changes to Normal games to make them more appealing. The other option is either moving to a "game size" hosting queue, and effectivley merging Normals with Specialties.

Most people seem to be in support of the latter, but I don't like it as a solution. Firstly, merging the two lists will be absolute nightmare in terms of ordering, as well as doubling the length of a queue while halving it's process speed. It already takes a year+ from sign up to hosting, and we don't really want to increase that. In addition, I feel confident that a single queue will result in the death of any "Normal" style game and will render all "Large" games at Specialty-level complexity. While "Normal" complexity games are apparently unpopoular as we watch KOTH fail and FHF fill slowly, Ged/Cubus' Normals were incredibly popular. I therefore propose that there is demand for "Normal" games which are relatively uncomplicated. However I would be incredibly surprised to see them ever get through the FTQ/PCQ, since they won't be flashy: it is much easier to sell a game with a central gimmick mechanic than something that is just plain old Mafia.

So, I don't really like the idea if fusing the two queues, and I especially dislike the idea of killing queues to have most games go through FTQ/PCQ voting: that's a gravy train that will be incredibly hard for newer mods to get on, while established (and good quality) mods can rattle off game after game.

So, if we don't fuse the queues, what do we do? In order to keep the Normal queue, things need to change. Firstly, the average number of player slots needs to come down for 20-22 to 16-18. This is something I raised in the previous discussion when KOTH died, and there's not really been enough time for that to actually have happened, but FHF sitting at 19 is a good start. What else? Well, I think ZDS is totally correct in #7315: most "Normal" games blur the lines and consist of stuff which probably whouldn't belong in them. As a result, I agree with him that the difference between "Normal" and "Specialty" needs to be better defined, starting with "Normals may NOT have extra mechanics", as well perhaps more stringent rules relating to things like multple mafia team, weird neutrals, coming back from the dead and so forth moving firmly into the remit of Specialties. As ZDS says, small gimmicks would be stuck without a home, but I suspect almost all games with them would benefit from developing the gimmick into a bigger gimmick (Specialty) or it's removal (Normal).

Now, I also agree with DYH that the league is sucking out possible participants for other games, and is adding load to the playerbase. However there's one very nice extra benefit of modifying the Normal queue in the above way: every game in the Normal queue suddenly becomes ideal for usage in the league! No gimmicky mechanics and limited "weird stuff" allow good old fashioned games of Mafia to be scored, which is basically the entire point of the league. League games will no longer be bound to PCQ-syle pick and choose, which might be a shame, but if every Normal is guaranteed to be fit-for-use, it's not a huge problem. Minis can still be used in the league if they fit requirements, and if the league needs more games to pad out numbers, it can probably run on-demand micro games (if they prove a good idea), extra setups can be passed to the FTQ, or the players could even lobby for an actual PCQ!

In addition, I suspect that the league will see an increase in numbers and interest if all Normal games suddenly make them eligable for scoring: a player is much more likely to be interested in playing in a league if entry into it takes literally zero extra effort.

So, to summarize what I am getting at:

• Normals as they stand are apparently unteneble.
• I very much dislike the idea of combining the Normal and Specialty queues into a "large game" queue.
• Therefore, Normals need to change. I like ZDS' proposals, and feel that Normals should be toned down and reigned in.
• This would effectively allow the League and Normal queue to merge, reducing load on the playerbase.

If hosts in the Normal queue don't object to changing their games completely and having a strict deadline of one more month to get this done, I could favor this. Basically, I'm already doing a huge amount of work to get the queue system perfected and relatively self-sufficient until the next game comes up and also to kill inactivity issues from players and hosts in one fell swoop. As long as the judges could view any Normal setup proposed for the season and the judges for the season don't mind not playing in Normals (I mind but I can make the sacrifice for Season 1 after the Beta season to see how it plays out) and non-League players don't mind getting shafted of Normals then that's okay with the League. If this is what's decided, then all judges next season need to be qualified to review Normals.

I think Judges are a necessity, for a few reasons.

First, some players who have joined the League joined so that they can improve their play. Judges don't only score players, we comment on their play throughout the game, giving them helpful tips at the end of the game.

Secondly, there may be issues within the League - questions needing answering, things of that nature. Judges need to be on-hand (and the more, the merrier) in order to ensure that responses are prompt and correct. Plus we're still working on the rubric, and changes may need to be made through time.

Finally, if something happens to the mod of a game, then the Judges are there to ensure that the game continues. We are important to the League process.

If players have to wait until part of the way through the next round to receive their critique, they might keep making the same mistakes until they get the feedback.

Questions asked and rubric alteration are pretty much on-demand (rather, when needed) instead of systematically.

And yeah, obviously we don't plan for mods to vanish. But it's always best to be prepared so as to not leave a bad taste in League players' mouths.

As for judges remaining, that's why every season, judges have the option to opt out of the next one - burnout.

I like it. Nice thinking, Eco.

Alright, then. I think there's enough support to go forward with this idea.

Starting with Season 1 of the League, the Normal hosting list will become the League Hosting List.

Can someone in the Council PM the players on the Normal list (once I put the new Hosting Thread up) and tell them about the changes? Because they already get enough PMs from me and I don't want to have to be the guy who tells them, "Hay, gotta change your setup (again) in a month."

How will this change affect the people who have already submitted league games?

Given that we're still in the Beta season of the League, it won't.

Quote from Iso

Given that we're still in the Beta season of the League, it won't.

Ah good point, damn Season numbers.

Quote from Iso

Can someone in the Council PM the players on the Normal list (once I put the new Hosting Thread up) and tell them about the changes? Because they already get enough PMs from me and I don't want to have to be the guy who tells them, "Hay, gotta change your setup (again) in a month."

It should probably be Ecophagy or you because he was the one who came up with the idea and would thus be best able to defend it if necessary, and you're the one in charge of maintaining the queues. We could also start a thread if you expect there to be a significant amount of feedback and discussion from affected hosts.

As for the idea itself, I support it. Two birds, one stone.

I have been saying we need more player-submitted games in the league, and this change certainly shows promise toward fixing a lot of issues. Let's give it a shot.

ECOOO. Take the fall for me here, please?

Quote from Iso

If hosts in the Normal queue don't object to changing their games completely and having a strict deadline of one more month to get this done, I could favor this. Basically, I'm already doing a huge amount of work to get the queue system perfected and relatively self-sufficient until the next game comes up and also to kill inactivity issues from players and hosts in one fell swoop. As long as the judges could view any Normal setup proposed for the season and the judges for the season don't mind not playing in Normals (I mind but I can make the sacrifice for Season 1 after the Beta season to see how it plays out) and non-League players don't mind getting shafted of Normals then that's okay with the League. If this is what's decided, then all judges next season need to be qualified to review Normals.

The problem of excluding Judges from Normals could be easily fixed by either having more judges in a rotation system, or by trusting only a subset of judges actually checking a setup: ideally this check should be nothing more than a cursory glance (or a "second reviewer" stage) as hosts move into line with the design rules.

I also feel like non-league players shouldn't get shafted. In fact, instead of the league being something you have to sign up for, part of the point of my idea is to make it more inclusive.

Basically, my ideal is to see all players in Normal games get scored, the scores kept tallied somewhere with a leaderboard and with the winner at the end of a season (which can just be a calendar year +/- an ongoing game finishing) gets a trophy or something. Thus, the league no longer is "sign up for this, you get scored and so on" but instead becomes open to literally everyone that plays a Normal game, they just need to have played a certain number of scored games to have their scores in the leaderboard (as is the case now): if a player is keen to play more in the league, they can join league-designated minis etc.

This is why I'd rather not rename the queue: I'd rather it be "The Normal hosting list wherein all games count for the league" than "the League hosting list wherein all games are relatively simple", if that makes sense.

Regardless, this might be more of a discussion for the league thread, since it is something of a reconstruction of the League system.

Quote from Iso

ECOOO. Take the fall for me here, please?

I would love to, but I won't have decent internet access until next weekend. I can do it then if you don't mind the wait.

Also, if we're going ahead on this, we need a discussion on exactly how a Normal should be defined. The stricter it is, the better (mostly) to avoid complexity creep - as has happened with the current definition.

Normals:

No game-altering mechanics, including rules that alter the way you vote
No roles that are of original design - stick to mostly roles you'd see in a Basic with a few inclusive things (Super Saint, Toughguy, things that are more acceptable in a larger game).

I can't really think of anything else.

Edit: Yeah, I can wait for you to get interbutt.

@ZDS: It can be a trophy or just bragging rights. Maybe a blue "winner of season X mafia league" title. It's a minor concern.

Normals:

I don't think we need to outlaw original design: original ideas are by no means inherently complex, and the effort required to put together and maintain a master list of allowed roles doesn't seem worth it.

I would certainly go for no game-altering mechanics, bar non-standard deadline systems, like Seppel's Activity Point system, and other things that don't fundamentally alter the game. Some such mechanics could be used in moderation, such as using a "Burnout" clause on an ability (Amistaria I), or a female roleblocker not working on other female characters, or roles that use points (like some in Fiasco Corp) but basically nothing that requires you to put extra rules in the opening post.

In addition, no "weird" neutrals (Jesters and cults for sure, everything else on a case-by-case basis). That's not totally helpful, but I'd allow hit-list Serial Killers, or the pair of SKs from Symbiote Mafia, but not "get a certain number of items"-type things. I suppose in short I would be happy to see Survivor and Serial Killer variants, but not really anything else.

One thing that I am dithering over is multiple Mafia teams. While a generic 2-team game should be fine for a Normal, they work best when the Mafia are working to different goals - like in Doomsday Mafia. However, non-standard win conditions are rather against the idea of a "Normal" game. I suppose the easiest thing to do is relegate multiple Mafia teams to Specialties, especially since they tend to be rare corner cases.

I see no reason to ban multi-voters, but yes to lynch mechanic and voting restrictions.

Well, if normals are being league-run, we could have the judges vet each setup before they fire, right?

But if we need to establish uniform guidelines and expectations, I'd rather lean towards no original roles or game-altering mechanics, subject to judge approval.

I'd also be hesitant to approve unusual neutral and scum configurations, including double mafia, cults, traitors, jesters, etc. None of the above really lend well to behavioral analysis, and none of them are novel enough to really add much of a thrill to compensate for the added complexity in scoring and judging.

Cults are definitely non-Normal material, anyway.

Quote from ZeDorkSlipeur

Finally, I would add a third rule: no posting restrictions. These generally turn into big distractions, the same way game-altering mechanics do.

I can get behind this.

Quote from ZDS »

*edit*

Quote from Ecophagy

Some such mechanics could be used in moderation, such as using a "Burnout" clause on an ability (Amistaria I), or a female roleblocker not working on other female characters, or roles that use points (like some in Fiasco Corp) but basically nothing that requires you to put extra rules in the opening post.

I see a slippery slope here. Using minor mechanics "in moderation" in Normals is exactly what got us in this situation.
The question should not only be "are these roles fine?" (they are), but also "what will happen if these roles become common place?" (the answer is: massive complexity creep, again).
[/FONT]

My point is that I don't really see a problem with a role with two abilities, where using one (which is one shot) means that you can't use any more abilities for the rest of the game. This is functionally the Burnout mechanic from Amistaria, but by itself it isn't too complex or even out of the ordinary. The problem arises when many (more than 2 or 3 really) possess such a mechanic, and it becomes a fundamental rather than incidental part of the game.

I'd be interested in hearing more voices about this really: this discussion will be making or breaking Normal games in the near future.

Seeing as it will likely cause a tremendous swing in the game if a townie screws it up, I vote nay.

Quote from Iso

Seeing as it will likely cause a tremendous swing in the game if a townie screws it up, I vote nay.

I don't see how that's necessarily the case?

Seppel's proposed changes that will work perfectly:

* League Judges review Normal games. (I love Normal games; Flame Warriors was one of my favorite, but I'm okay with going without them for a few years until someone else wants and is capable of taking my place as a Judge).

* Players are automatically added to the league just by joining a league game.

* The Normal queue gets a rename, maybe? But "League" sounds so exclusive. I like "Competitive" or "Scored."

* The maximum number of players in a Normal "Competitive" game is reduced to 18. (Specialties stay at 24 max, and Normals already in the queue can stay above 18 but should try to go down to 18 if possible.)

* League Judges launch games faster.

This is pretty much everything salient that other people have posted that I agree with. If it isn't listed here, I don't agree with it.

Most excellent post from Seppel, I have no objections with anything and I think this solves everything.

Quote from Iso

Cults are definitely non-Normal material, anyway.

Cults are definitely non-Mafia material... seriously people should forget they ever existed.

Quote from Ecophagy

Quote from Iso

Seeing as it will likely cause a tremendous swing in the game if a townie screws it up, I vote nay.

I don't see how that's necessarily the case?

I don't remember my rationale.

-

I'm down with Seppel's plan.

I don't think a rename is really necessary; players will understand what it means eventually.

I wouldn't worry about setting regulations on what a League/Normal setup is. That's what the Judges are for; reviewing setups so that they are as balanced as possible. Most games get one or two reviewers, but League games get five or six. There's already an understanding of what a League game should be, and we haven't really had any luck setting guidelines for design in the past because everyone has a different opinion.

New or unique mechanics in League games is something I am not sure of yet; it really just depends on the mechanic. I think as a general rule, it should be a tested mechanic that we've already seen work in a previous game (or mostly work, then issues addressed through tweaking). Testing totally new mechanics in a scored game might lead to rustled jimmies.

Seps' suggestions sound mostly good to me

How about a rename to "Standard"?

One of the discussions for the League is on non-standard game types, such as Chimes (Scumteam has no nightkill; they have to survive until a certain day instead). Will these still be acceptable under the new definition of Normal?

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

One of the discussions for the League is on non-standard game types, such as Chimes (Scumteam has no nightkill; they have to survive until a certain day instead). Will these still be acceptable under the new definition of Normal?

This is also something I'm currently discussing with Eco behind closed doors, which of course, you guys will hear about once we come to a conclusion.

Chimes counts as one of those previously tested mechanics for me, but I'm looking forward to hearing both sides of the argument.

@Seppel: I'm not sure Normals need a hard cap at 18, so long as hosts recognise that 18 is the recommended upper limit. Unless there's some league-related reason why 18 is a perfect number?

Quote from Zionite »

I wouldn't worry about setting regulations on what a League/Normal setup is. That's what the Judges are for; reviewing setups so that they are as balanced as possible.

The problem with this is 1) this is basically the current system, which is generally agreed to not work and 2) people need to have some idea what they are designing towards. Ideally, we wouldn't need all judges to review a setup (since it should be a formality with strict deign guidelines) which would allow some judges to actually play games.

Quote from Wheat_Grinder

One of the discussions for the League is on non-standard game types, such as Chimes (Scumteam has no nightkill; they have to survive until a certain day instead). Will these still be acceptable under the new definition of Normal?

Under current proposals, they would probably not. While they are kind of a variation on "Survivor", I think they are sufficiently different to fall foul of "no weird neutrals" policy. That would, of course, make scoring easier by ignoring such corner cases, but if you think league games should permit such roles do say.


If League players/judges want high complexity games thrown into the mix, then I don't see why Specialty level games can't be reviewed by the judges and then possibly allowed. However, I was under the impression that the bulk of leagu games would be fairly plain: hence why making the Normal queue more standardised would allow them to be suitable for the league.

I think Chimes should be allowed.

Also, I mentioned to Eco that (I guess we might as well come out with it now) the 6th game of the season is gonna be something special, possibly something more complex than a standard Normal.

A thought: What if the "not-quite-Normal" setups we have now go into a sort of "grab bag" for setups that we can use as the last game of any season? The wait would probably be just as long as sitting on the [old] Normal or Specialty queue.

@Ecophagy: Aren't we still debating on what roles count as "Basic"? How are we going to agree one what counts as "Normal"?

It's not so much that League games should be plain, but they should be fair. Each team or player should have equal chances of winning and the key to winning should be standard Mafia strategy (like wise action targets, behavioral analysis, etc.). If one team starts with an advantage, or winning is not solely based on classic mafia tactics, then it's probably not a good game to score.

I'm gonna go ahead and double post since I'm pretty sure Eco's gonna finish his post before mine, but I'd also like to add (as I said to Eco) that I'd like to see this season finish out before we adapt the new Normal queue to the League needs. We want to ensure that the rubric is tweaked as well as possible, and to account for all possible scenarios we may see in a League game.