The Gojoe Memorial Mafia Discussion Thread

For your simulated organized crime needs.

Moderators: jestingrabbit, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
tastelikecoke
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:58 am UTC
Location: Antipode of Brazil
Contact:

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby tastelikecoke » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:18 am UTC

Homestar Scummer:
Spoiler:
I am fucked, and scum.

I hope Mav won't push me to death in the next day or anything. JC has probably nailed me, and worse, tells that isn't even related to my scum role.


Hey, people looking for Maff Effect replacements?

I LOVE Mass Effect.

User avatar
Gopher of Pern
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Gopher of Pern » Wed Jun 01, 2011 7:54 am UTC

I am looking for a co-mod for Aliens versus Predator Mafia. Need someone to help with balancing, ideas and flavour. The game is third in the medium queue, so there is no time rush on this.
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy

User avatar
cjdrum
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:51 am UTC
Location: BACK

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby cjdrum » Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:24 am UTC

Omigosh omigosh roband's first game back is one of mine omigosh!
:shock:

User avatar
VectorZero
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Kensington

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby VectorZero » Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:22 am UTC

BoomFrog wrote:One more idea would be to start the game with a set number of backups. So if 12 people sign up then run a 10 person game with 2 replacements waiting, since it seems every game needs at least one or two replacements.
We do have a replacement list in signups; people who can't commit immediately to a game, or are currently alive in as many games as they feel comfortable playing, will sign up as a replacement. I don't think we should restrict people to signing up then being forced to wait.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.

User avatar
jayhsu
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:38 am UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby jayhsu » Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:51 pm UTC

General mod question/advice (anyone NOT in Resistance can read):

Spoiler:
A player is making an assumption that is not clear in the rules, but should have been clear by now - that plot powers are only distributed ONCE per new mission (for a total of 10 powers if all 5 missions are undertaken - 5x2). However, he has not asked if this is the case in PM or in thread.

cjdrum wrote:BUT! My plan: I propose a mission, everyone rejects. I use Strong Leader, give out more Plot Powers, get people to reject the mission. I use Strong Leader again, and give out a total of six Plot Powers.


The question: Should I clarify this for them now or not? I am leaning towards not, as it could potentially affect the game (though, not really). A broader question is, should one clarify upon mistaken assumptions by players if they are not directly asked of the mod? Certainly, if the question is in fact raised to mod's attention, it should be addressed.

EBWOP: Lataro clarified, correctly. Still, the broader question stands.
-Jay

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby DaBigCheez » Wed Jun 01, 2011 11:04 pm UTC

jayhsu wrote:General mod question/advice (anyone NOT in Resistance can read):

Spoiler:
A player is making an assumption that is not clear in the rules, but should have been clear by now - that plot powers are only distributed ONCE per new mission (for a total of 10 powers if all 5 missions are undertaken - 5x2). However, he has not asked if this is the case in PM or in thread.

cjdrum wrote:BUT! My plan: I propose a mission, everyone rejects. I use Strong Leader, give out more Plot Powers, get people to reject the mission. I use Strong Leader again, and give out a total of six Plot Powers.


The question: Should I clarify this for them now or not? I am leaning towards not, as it could potentially affect the game (though, not really). A broader question is, should one clarify upon mistaken assumptions by players if they are not directly asked of the mod? Certainly, if the question is in fact raised to mod's attention, it should be addressed.

EBWOP: Lataro clarified, correctly. Still, the broader question stands.

Spoiler:
Seems to me like it's clarified pretty unambiguously in the description of the power:
If this is used on a mission that has not yet had a team proposed, that player also receives the normal two plot powers to distribute.

I believe this is clear, as "mission" parses pretty clearly to "Mission 1/2/3/4/5", and if a team is rejected the next leader "proposes another team for the mission" (making it clear that the new team being formed is for the same mission).

If it had been left ambiguous in the initial description, I would say a clarification (even without mod question) may be appropriate. However, as I feel it is listed clearly in the rules which are publicly available to all players, no clarification should be given unless specifically asked. (Also, the fact it's not really going to affect much of anything anyway unless we somehow run into a 5-consecutive-rejects failure, and if that happens I will discover the taste of my hat. Which I don't have. I will go out and purchase a hat so that I can eat my hat.)

/my2cents
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
VectorZero
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Kensington

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby VectorZero » Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:44 am UTC

jayhsu wrote:General mod question/advice (anyone NOT in Resistance can read):

Spoiler:
A player is making an assumption that is not clear in the rules, but should have been clear by now - that plot powers are only distributed ONCE per new mission (for a total of 10 powers if all 5 missions are undertaken - 5x2). However, he has not asked if this is the case in PM or in thread.

cjdrum wrote:BUT! My plan: I propose a mission, everyone rejects. I use Strong Leader, give out more Plot Powers, get people to reject the mission. I use Strong Leader again, and give out a total of six Plot Powers.


The question: Should I clarify this for them now or not? I am leaning towards not, as it could potentially affect the game (though, not really). A broader question is, should one clarify upon mistaken assumptions by players if they are not directly asked of the mod? Certainly, if the question is in fact raised to mod's attention, it should be addressed.

EBWOP: Lataro clarified, correctly. Still, the broader question stands.
Spoiler:
In general, no, you shouldn't answer questions that are not asked. Scum spread fear, uncertainty and doubt in game by (intentionally) misinterpreting rules. Correcting misunderstandings can be unfair, especially here where (I think) the rules were quite clear enough.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.

User avatar
ForAllOfThis
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:06 pm UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby ForAllOfThis » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:29 am UTC

I think clearer deadlines should be included in more games. Deadlines are always better than none and any game that I intend to mod will definitely have them. The best way to tackle this might just be to create some deadline guidelines, suggesting how long each day should be for different games (Large, medium, small etc.). That way it's not taking too much power away from the mod on how to run their game but the information is there if they need it.

Also, I think if games are delayed for any reason they should be taken off the mod sign-up queue immediately (and once ready they should have to be resigned up for at the bottom). At the moment, having delayed games in front makes it harder to judge when your game is going to start running. This means player sign-ups generally take longer and the game can end up being less prepared which is unfair on everyone involved. Basically, I think it would be good to have something in place which means games that are signed up are likely to run on time; and games that aren't are immediately removed from the lists.

User avatar
VectorZero
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Kensington

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby VectorZero » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:37 am UTC

ForAllOfThis wrote:Deadlines are always better than none
I strongly disagree with this statement. I think deadlines add a layer of gaming the system that by default is not an element of 'mafia'. Town have the majority, they should focus on a lynch. I do think we have shifted to a style of play where we wait until a deadline is announced rather than be proactive; I don't think that should be encouraged.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Adacore » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:43 am UTC

VectorZero wrote:
ForAllOfThis wrote:Deadlines are always better than none
I strongly disagree with this statement. I think deadlines add a layer of gaming the system that by default is not an element of 'mafia'. Town have the majority, they should focus on a lynch. I do think we have shifted to a style of play where we wait until a deadline is announced rather than be proactive; I don't think that should be encouraged.

As Lataro and I have said, though, that style of play, while undesirable, is heavily pro-town so is unlikely to vanish unless there is some kind of specific countermeasure. I do agree, in principle, that deadlines should not be part of the core mafia rules, but in reality I think it is difficult to run games without them.

Hausdog
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 2:16 am UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Hausdog » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:44 am UTC

Scummer:
Spoiler:
Reading flips that are divided into bizarre divisions like that is really frustrating. I have no idea who the good guys are or who the bad guys are. Also night is gonna take WAY too long. Le sigh

User avatar
ForAllOfThis
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:06 pm UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby ForAllOfThis » Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:31 am UTC

VectorZero wrote:I strongly disagree with this statement. I think deadlines add a layer of gaming the system that by default is not an element of 'mafia'. Town have the majority, they should focus on a lynch. I do think we have shifted to a style of play where we wait until a deadline is announced rather than be proactive; I don't think that should be encouraged.


That is why my idea for countering it is to introduce guidelines for deadlines. They don't have to be followed. If however, games that choose not to follow them stagnate or have high drop-outs compared to games that do have them, then we might have discovered the reason.

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby roband » Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:32 am UTC

Or rather than 'announcing' a deadline, have one set at the start of the game/day.

User avatar
Mavketl
ELEPHANT MYSTICISM!
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:34 pm UTC
Location: Groningen City

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Mavketl » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:45 am UTC

Resistance:
Spoiler:
BigNose's logic is so full of fail...
Not A Raptor: Mav can be a very wily and dangerous player.
roband: Mav has a way of making everything seem right.
ELEPHANT SCIENCE - MORE ELEPHANT SCIENCE
- NEW: Elephant Math!

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Elvish Pillager » Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:19 pm UTC

ForAllOfThis wrote:Also, I think if games are delayed for any reason they should be taken off the mod sign-up queue immediately (and once ready they should have to be resigned up for at the bottom). At the moment, having delayed games in front makes it harder to judge when your game is going to start running. This means player sign-ups generally take longer and the game can end up being less prepared which is unfair on everyone involved. Basically, I think it would be good to have something in place which means games that are signed up are likely to run on time; and games that aren't are immediately removed from the lists.

I'm surprised you're saying that, considering that it would mean Scott Pilgrim would be dropped. I like the idea, but the problem is that it creates cascading queue dropping if people don't have their games ready a long time in advance.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
Van
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:15 pm UTC
Location: 39.74, -105.12ish

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Van » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:22 pm UTC

Wizardry
Spoiler:
How the hell did you people let me pull off a D1 kill on dotproduct?

I must just be awesome.
Oregonaut wrote:You are a fucking idiot. (Insult.)
You say that you disapprove of sex before marriage, but you are fucking that idiot. (Ad hominem.)
You say that you disapprove of sex outside of marriage, but you are fucking your mom. (Ad mominem.)

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby roband » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:24 pm UTC

Van wrote:Wizardry
Spoiler:
How the hell did you people let me pull off a D1 kill on dotproduct?

I must just be awesome.


Wizardry: (Van cannot read, nor can any other players)
Spoiler:
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... This is to achieve nothing other than to potentially make Van worry about things.

Ahahaha.

User avatar
ForAllOfThis
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:06 pm UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby ForAllOfThis » Thu Jun 02, 2011 1:30 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote: I'm surprised you're saying that, considering that it would mean Scott Pilgrim would be] dropped. I like the idea, but the problem is that it creates cascading queue dropping if people don't have their games ready a long time in advance.


Scott pilgrim wouldn't be dropped. It's not delayed and will be ready to go after warhammer/wizardry (which is when it is intended to start). Plus when we signed up the dates were still being used and it had an august start date. Actually, the only reason me and misnomer haven't got it finished is because a game in front never ran and was left in the queue so we thought we had more time.

Obviously if a game drops the next game will need some sort of period (dependent on the size of the game) to get ready and start. One way to to stop a 'cascading' of sorts would to be have a slightly longer queue so hopefully at least one ready game would be there. Or a better idea would be a seperate 'jump in' queue, where ready games can be put to replace any games that forsee delay. Actually I'd really like the latter idea. It doesn't mess up timings/preparations for other mods in the queue but will keep games running smoothly. Mods wouldn't feel so bad for cancelling or postponing games either.

If a game isn't ready by the time it's next up then it should be cancelled and taken out of the queue.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Elvish Pillager » Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:42 pm UTC

Uh, FAOT, Warhammer's not running. more_people is AWOL.

If this rule had been in place without precautions, then as soon as DF Mafia went up, DF, Warhammer, and Scott Pilgrim would have all been dropped in quick succession. And probably the rest of the queue too.

I have a refinement of your refinement: Instead of having a separate queue, mods should simply mark their queued games "ready" or "not ready". Whenever a game comes up and isn't ready, it is dropped and replaced by the first "ready" game in the queue. Either that, or we could just require everyone to be ready to go before they enter the queue, and save the trouble of keeping track.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby roband » Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:47 pm UTC

But a game might be 'ready' but the mod not 'ready'.

Where does that leave it? The mod being punished because of others dropping out?

User avatar
ElectricHaze
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 2:54 am UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby ElectricHaze » Thu Jun 02, 2011 3:09 pm UTC

roband wrote:
Van wrote:Wizardry
Spoiler:
How the hell did you people let me pull off a D1 kill on dotproduct?

I must just be awesome.


Wizardry: (Van cannot read, nor can any other players)
Spoiler:
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... This is to achieve nothing other than to potentially make Van worry about things.

Ahahaha.

Wizardry:
Spoiler:
You are a mean person. Also starting pointless spoiler trees to make players worry is my job!
Who has never killed an hour? Not casually or without thought, but carefully: a premeditated murder of minutes.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Elvish Pillager » Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:30 pm UTC

roband wrote:But a game might be 'ready' but the mod not 'ready'.

Where does that leave it? The mod being punished because of others dropping out?

Ideally, there would be at least one "ready"-marked game in each queue, so if a game was dropped, there would always be someone ready to replace it. The idea of the "ready" marker is so that when a game is unexpectedly dropped, the next mod isn't punished if they weren't ready, because it just skips over to the first mod who knows they're ready.

If a mod marks their game "ready" and is not ready to go when they are needed, I'm totally cool with punishing them for that.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby roband » Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:31 pm UTC

What I'm saying is that the dating system allowed you to say, "I have my setup ready, my flavour ready and everything, and I know that I will be ready in August to run it".

What you're proposing would make people have to be ready to mod, at the drop of a hat. Not always that easy.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Elvish Pillager » Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:34 pm UTC

No, what I'm proposing would allow people to mark themselves as being ready to mod at the drop of a hat if they wish to, and specifically avoid punishing other people who aren't able to make the same commitment.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
Lataro
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 6:56 am UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Lataro » Thu Jun 02, 2011 7:25 pm UTC

I think this is turning to a discussion of mods availability to run a game earlier than expected, in the form of other commitments, rather than a more real concern, IMO, of mods putting games in queue without having a setup mostly done, if even in a rough stage.

Personally, I like to have most of an idea completely ready to go before tossing it in signups. If my game runs sooner than expected, I can go to signups, and fix specific things or finalize ideas during that signup time. I think mods having a lot of the prep work done before signing up helps a lot with avoiding games dropping. As to mod availability... I am more forgiving for those currently in the system when the set date was being used and failing horribly, however, I mentioned this specifically in the thread about modifying the queue system. I don't believe people should sign up a game, and be able to say, "I can't run this til X time" as, IMO, that is a very selfish thing to do, as if it comes up earlier than expected, you'll of robbed someone else from having a game run while you bog the system down either sticking to your caveat or getting dropped from the queue. I'm not applying this against people who were in the queue when the start date system was in place, as that's how it was there. This is primarily focusing on people who are offenders after that horrid system was abolished.

As for the idea of the marked ready or not ready status... I think I like it. If we put in place a rigid policy that was enforced like this, it could work. I say if, because I doubt the rigidness of the enforcement more than anything. If this system was used as EP outlined, I'd suggest a 50% increase in all queue sizes, and the following...

If you are modding a currently active game, and you foresee your game ending very shortly, you notify the next mod whose up that they should start signups. This gives them a chance to start signups early so that they can get running sooner. If a mod fails to start signups within 72 hours of the end of a game, they are kicked back. If they were marked not ready, they go to the end of the queue. If they were marked ready, their game is dropped. If you were marked not ready and sent to the back of the queue, you are marked ready when placed at the back. You may withdraw your game before it gets to the front again if you won't be ready to avoid having it dropped, however, the next time it comes up, you must be ready if you leave it in. To avoid abuse, if you pull a game that was not ready after it's kicked back and marked ready, you can't sign up for that specific queue type til two games have started and ended since you did that, but you may sign up for other queue types. If you are dropped when marked ready, perhaps a penalty, like, you can't put a game in any queue type for at least a month after that happens, and if you had any other games in queue currently, perhaps pull them to make room for those who may be ready to sign a game up. First, to discourage people from doing it, and second, to give other people a chance to run a game who may actually be ready.

The problem then comes down to, why should anyone mark themselves as ready, vs not ready, as there is a clear punishment for failing to go when ready, and no clear reward to being marked ready when you are. I'd say that perhaps mods should be limited to a single game in any queue type, UNLESS all their games in queue are marked ready. This would apply only to mods who put their game in the queue as ready, not to those who were marked ready by force. Perhaps when a game that wasn't ready is marked ready, it's marked as FORCED READY instead, so that it's clear that this privilege isn't intended for them. This might slow the speed at which queues fill up, but I don't see that as a negative really, since we've never had the problem really of having a game end with no other game on deck. This system, plus increasing the queue sizes from 2 to 3 and 4 to 6 respectively, I think may help with that issue we are facing.

I already know this whole idea will seem way too draconian for most of the people here, and won't likely see the light of day as put forward, however, I was bored.
DS9, after being told the story and moral of the boy who cried wolf by Julian.

Garak: "Are you sure that's the moral?"
Julian: "Of course. What else could it be?"
Garak: "Never tell the same lie twice."

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Adacore » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:29 pm UTC

I'm mostly of the opinion that you shouldn't queue a game until it's in a state where it would take less than an evening or two to be completely ready to go. Every game I've modded (of which I think there have been 3, so far) was either fully or mostly designed before I even queued it. I think this helps with other things, too - it weeds out mediocre concepts that don't feel 'right', and it means there's a lot of time to reflect on the design and twerk things while the game's in the queue, which should make things more robust. The only gametype this doesn't work with is pick your poision variants, where you'll obviously have to design something quickly once signups are done.

User avatar
Gopher of Pern
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Gopher of Pern » Thu Jun 02, 2011 11:38 pm UTC

I agree with Adacore and Lataro. I've currently got two games in the queue, a newbie and a medium. The newbie game is essentially complete, all I need to do is write some flavour for it, which wont take long. The medium I have a solid idea for, and could probably run it in a couple of days, but I would like a co-mod to bounce the ideas off, to check that it is balanced. I think a more rigid structure would be beneficial to the playerbase as a whole.

Also: Still looking for a co-mod! :)
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy

User avatar
ForAllOfThis
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:06 pm UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby ForAllOfThis » Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:39 am UTC

I'm partially ok with the ready / non-ready idea. As you may have said whats the benefit of putting ready over non-ready?

I didn't know MP had gone completely awol, I know GoP said just at weekends (and had I known we would have had such little time we wouldn't have signed up until SP was ready). As I had said, SP was due to start in august as it was signed-up on the old system but we will be doing our best to work around current time constraints to get it done ASAP, which is really the best we can do.

Whatever new system we adopt has to be flexible for the people using it I think. I appreciate the amount of time & work that goes into modding a game and I understand it is a lot more than playing one. I think the only type of system the would ideally work is a reward/punishment system, where mods who stick to deadlines are able to host straight away etc are rewarded, where those who completely drop when there game goes live or leave the forum have some form of modding ban, followed by points loss (maybe an XP system?). People stuck inbetween wouldnt lose stuff for not being completely ready on time, but if not ready after a week will suffer an XP loss and removal. XP could also be gained by participating in games. It would be slightly complicated and would require people to 'run it' but could encourage more participation & less modding errors. I think members who have been round for a certain amount of time wouldn't be subject to the system and would have sort of veteran immunity status, which could be lost if they jerk around.

Just an idea anyway, I know it is fairly complicated.

Edit: Lurkers could also be punished under the system, causing a ban on games for a certain amount of time etc. It really depends how serious we want to be taking a mafia game as well.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Elvish Pillager » Fri Jun 03, 2011 4:19 am UTC

The incentive to mark a game "ready" is that if games drop, you get to go earlier. As a mod who tends to design games very quickly and then lose some of my excitement as they languish in the queue, I would always mark my games "ready" in the hopes of getting them going as soon as possible.

The main trouble with Lataro's rules is the fact that they're about an order of magnitude too complicated to be enforced properly even if we all wanted to enforce them. My ideal system would be something like "If the next mod doesn't start right after the game ends, then anyone from the queue can jump in their place." The whole "ready" system is just to have a convenient way for the people closer to the head of the queue to get priority on jumping ahead. "ready" just means "I'd be cool with jumping ahead."

I don't see any particular reason we need to punish people for dropping or delaying games, if the system is designed in a way that it will get *a* game started without a significant delay.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
BoomFrog
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby BoomFrog » Fri Jun 03, 2011 5:09 am UTC

The ready system sounds good. I don't think you need a formal system of punishments, a bad reputation in the community should be sufficient, no?

VectorZero wrote:
BoomFrog wrote:One more idea would be to start the game with a set number of backups. So if 12 people sign up then run a 10 person game with 2 replacements waiting, since it seems every game needs at least one or two replacements.
We do have a replacement list in signups; people who can't commit immediately to a game, or are currently alive in as many games as they feel comfortable playing, will sign up as a replacement. I don't think we should restrict people to signing up then being forced to wait.
If you have 12 willing players and run a game with 12 then two drop out and are modkilled then random chances plays a much stronger role in who wins then most people would like. If there are 10 players and two are forced to be replacements instead then the sub in and balance is preserved.

It's been my observations (at least in recent games) that almost every game needs at least on replacement. If you can't fill your signup sheet then your going to have trouble finding replacements later too. Better to keep one person waiting in the wings then to mess up the whole game because the cop gets modkilled. A modkill hurts the town, as often the surprise death puts town at MyLo and so they no lynch which turns their normal democratic lynch into a random kill.
"Everything I need to know about parenting I learned from cooking. Don't be afraid to experiment, and eat your mistakes." - Cronos

User avatar
VectorZero
Posts: 471
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:22 am UTC
Location: Kensington

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby VectorZero » Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:07 am UTC

I understand your point; case in point, Maff Effect. However, I would hate to sign up for a game to be told I had to be a replacement.
Van wrote:Fireballs don't lie.

User avatar
RoadieRich
The Black Hand
Posts: 1037
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:40 am UTC
Location: Behind you

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby RoadieRich » Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:43 am UTC

If someone else wants to help run WHMk, it's ready to go. Like I've said elsewhere, I have neither the time (nor the motivation) to actually to run it on my own, but I'll happily help, and will write the flavour. You may already have met one of the main characters.

I've already had one co-mod disappear on me after helping plan the original version of this game, I'd like to run it (in one form or another) eventually.

If all else fails, I may just take the Inquisitor and the Daemon from the original, and stick them into some sort of mini.

Never mind, just saw More_people's post in the queue thread.
73, de KE8BSL loc EN26.

User avatar
webby
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby webby » Fri Jun 03, 2011 6:53 am UTC

RoadieRich wrote:Sheriff Of Nottingham (Players can not read):
Spoiler:
Our (veteran) scum are having their asses handed to them by a bunch of newbies. The vig's killing the goon, the doc's protecting one of the two NK targets, and the tracker has found another town power role. If (as they're considering), they use the AP kill tonight on the protected target (who, incidentally, is vanilla town doing an extremely good job of smokescreening - the RB targetted him N1), a massclaim pretty much guarantees a town win: one scum and five unique town roles: lynch one double claim, vig the other. The safest falseclaim is therefore vig, but our real vig has a huge amount of town-cred.

If I didn't trust google's security and my players, I'd be worried someone was secretly distributing my modnotes.


Sheriff of Nottingham:
Spoiler:
That was easily the best town I've been a part of (in my four games so far). We got lucky with the kill of Lataro night 1 (although the vig might beg to differ :P) and then Aaeriele and Boomfrog played it perfectly. No idea how I got basically confirmed town, but having the three of us like that leading the town made it hard for us to lose. Add Aaeriele's analysis watered down a bit (there was an unlucky town in there!) and it was all over. I protected Boomfrog because I thought he was acting like the vig, whether he was or wasn't. Turns out he was just vanilla town. :P

So Aaeriele was the vig? That's perfect! She knew llamanaru was falseclaiming over the tracker thing, so could kill without worrying it could lose twenty dollars and my self respect for us. I think we played well, but those things definitely went our way as well...

Massclaim wins now. Three town power roles, two vanilla town, one scum and, having just read the spoilers, the one scum is easily the most suspicious.

User avatar
Gopher of Pern
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Gopher of Pern » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:15 am UTC

Sheriff:
Spoiler:
Just signed my death warrant there! No way out, my only hope is that I get another townie lynched tonight, so I can at least kill Aaeriele before I die!

Well played town, well played!
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy

User avatar
Entropy
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:40 pm UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Entropy » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:26 am UTC

...should define the theme of my next game.

24

Events will occur in real time.

November 5th.

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby roband » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:27 am UTC

Ok, I wasn't expecting that. And I LOVE the sound of it...

User avatar
roband
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
Location: UK

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby roband » Fri Jun 03, 2011 1:15 pm UTC

It's so quiet around here :(

I have successfully planned for my large to run with less signups that initially thought... It hurt, but I've managed it.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 836
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby DaBigCheez » Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:27 pm UTC

Nottingham:
Spoiler:
Tinman..."Llataru"? "Aerielle"? You've got to work on your spelling of player names; I mean, they're *right there* in the thread, it's not hard to check :lol:
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
Gopher of Pern
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 1:28 am UTC
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby Gopher of Pern » Sat Jun 04, 2011 2:46 am UTC

Lataro wrote:
DaBigCheez wrote:
greenlover wrote:
Weeks wrote:
Aaeriele wrote:Nottingham:

Spoiler:
I really wish people could at least commit a reasonable amount of time to a game that's actively running; taking 10 minutes to write a post when you haven't posted for the past 1-2 days seems like it shouldn't be a problem - and if it is, then really maybe it's time to ask for a replacement. :/
Nottingham, Aaeriele may read:
Spoiler:
Only ten minutes? xD

(<--- can take over two hours for a post)

Nottingham, Aaeriele can read:
Spoiler:
Wow, you guys are faaaast :O. My posts normally take about an hour to make. 2-3 hours is not uncommon.

Nottingham, Aaeriele can read and then we should probably abort the quote-pyramid:
Spoiler:
I think she was more saying "you can take ten minutes to throw something together with some semblance of content", not necessarily "do an in-depth, insightful post with hours of detailed analysis" - it's more "at least briefly comment on what's happened recently" in contrast to the "Hey guys, I'm here, just checkin' in to avoid modkill" *silence for another week*

Obviously, if I'm mistaken, she should correct me :P


Nottingham, no one playing may read, including Aariele (though they should read it after the game is over):

Spoiler:
It's a bit trickier as scum really. If you post too much, that gives you more time to make a slip up, or to seem over-interested in a resolution to something. As scum, its incredibly difficult to remain consistent and avoid getting caught in something when you have to keep posting. This is the primary reason I argue that extremely long, or open-ended deadlines are VERY pro-town, as it puts the scum in a greater position to reveal themselves. It's easy to keep posting crap as town, you can work with the truth and facts and an honest angle when you analysis people. When you are scum, you have to use "fuzzy math" and bent facts, and try and find ways to make people look scummy without revealing yourself. It is not a simple matter of a quick 10 minute post when you are trying to avoid looking scummy. It takes a lot of thought, time, and consideration of the words you choose, to make a post and avoid having any tells in it.


I'd just like to put this here so it doesn't get forgotten by all the players. I had a really hard time trying to stay townie, what with a few games going on, plus work piling up, so as not to give me much time. Most of it is my fault, but it does take longer to post as scum than it does as town, which is really in towns advantage. I think if I had more time I would have a bit more town cred at the end there, what with the time to post more often. Still, town, especially Aaeriele, played really well. Well done!
Look In My Face
Stare In My Soul
I Begin To Stupefy

User avatar
mpolo
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:24 pm UTC
Location: Germany

Re: DISCUSSION THREAD/Gojoe canNEVER be trusted

Postby mpolo » Sat Jun 04, 2011 5:58 am UTC

I agree with Gopher's point here. I made a herculean effort to get a reasonable analysis out in only a couple of hours (since I subbed in right before lynch deadline), but then was stuck with "nothing to say" for several RL days and then totally missed how obvious my distancing was afterwards. Town did an incredible job of picking up on things in that game though.
Image <-- Evil experiment


Return to “Mafia”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests