Meta discussion
Moderators: jestingrabbit, Moderators General, Prelates
Re: Meta discussion
by b.i.o » Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:05 am UTC
Do you have the actual data anywhere in a convenient format I could play with, or did you only collect what you're showing? I am curious about my own stats and rather lazy.
-
b.i.o - Green is the loneliest number
- Posts: 2512
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:38 pm UTC
- Location: Hong Kong
Re: Meta discussion
by Deva » Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:49 am UTC
Only collected the number of game days, the number of total real life days, the number of players, the game's main faction winner, the first lynched person, and the first lynched person's alignment (and their respective games). Avoided recording more due to replacements, unclear factions, and a larger time investment. Mostly the second reason.
Attached the spreadsheet of data.
Attached the spreadsheet of data.
- Attachments
-
Mafia Stats.xls- (30 KiB) Downloaded 53 times
Changes its form depending on the observer.
-
Deva - Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
- Posts: 874
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by Deva » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:07 pm UTC
Collected the win/loss records and respective alignments. Decided to start from the most recent and work backwards in time. Noted generally better records in more recent games. Figured them all out, though.
Data Legend and Notes:
Sorted lists by Wins, then Games Played, and then Losses. Removed instances with no appearances from their respective lists.
Town:
Mafia:
Independent:
Recorded everyone’s highest win and loss streaks. Normalized bonus/partial wins to a single win for those. Considered a game where the player played, but neither won nor lost, as breaking both streaks. Calculated the win percentage by simply dividing the overall wins and the games played. Could theoretically obtain a percentage higher than one hundred percent due to double wins.
Overall: (Scroll down the code for Losing Streak)
Conclusion: Side with weiyaoli.
Compiled the games per person also. Forgive the missing x-axis label. Ignored the usual measure for some reason. Should read "Games Played ".
Provided the spreadsheets below.
Edit: And the R code. Inserted comments.
Data Legend and Notes:
Spoiler:
Sorted lists by Wins, then Games Played, and then Losses. Removed instances with no appearances from their respective lists.
Town:
Spoiler:
Mafia:
Spoiler:
Independent:
Spoiler:
Recorded everyone’s highest win and loss streaks. Normalized bonus/partial wins to a single win for those. Considered a game where the player played, but neither won nor lost, as breaking both streaks. Calculated the win percentage by simply dividing the overall wins and the games played. Could theoretically obtain a percentage higher than one hundred percent due to double wins.
Overall: (Scroll down the code for Losing Streak)
Spoiler:
Conclusion: Side with weiyaoli.
Compiled the games per person also. Forgive the missing x-axis label. Ignored the usual measure for some reason. Should read "Games Played ".
Spoiler:
Provided the spreadsheets below.
- Mafia Alignments.xls
- (111 KiB) Downloaded 51 times
- Mafia Wins.xls
- (100 KiB) Downloaded 42 times
Edit: And the R code. Inserted comments.
Spoiler:
Last edited by Deva on Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Changes its form depending on the observer.
-
Deva - Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
- Posts: 874
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by webby » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:39 pm UTC
Thanks Deva!
Wow, I always thought I was better at scum than town, although assigning credit is difficult - I think I got lucky in quite a few of the town wins and unlucky in the scum losses - my four losses have been Roald Dahl, where I got copped night 1, Death to the Conspiracy, where scum was effectively in the role of town, Lataro's Fun game, where I got culted night 1, and Amy's Surprise, where I made it to endgame but got nightkilled by the other scum faction. On the other hand, I was very lucky as town to get away with a draw in Mulan and a win in Zoo, so I guess overall it balances out.
Also surprised that I'm one of the more active players here - I joined a year ago and I've already in my 28th game?
Weiyaoli's numbers are pretty impressive - I remember him winning the 7 player independent game, but haven't noticed him much apart from that. Surprised by how successful BigNose was, I thought he was the type of player who often got lynched early.
Wow, I always thought I was better at scum than town, although assigning credit is difficult - I think I got lucky in quite a few of the town wins and unlucky in the scum losses - my four losses have been Roald Dahl, where I got copped night 1, Death to the Conspiracy, where scum was effectively in the role of town, Lataro's Fun game, where I got culted night 1, and Amy's Surprise, where I made it to endgame but got nightkilled by the other scum faction. On the other hand, I was very lucky as town to get away with a draw in Mulan and a win in Zoo, so I guess overall it balances out.
Also surprised that I'm one of the more active players here - I joined a year ago and I've already in my 28th game?
Weiyaoli's numbers are pretty impressive - I remember him winning the 7 player independent game, but haven't noticed him much apart from that. Surprised by how successful BigNose was, I thought he was the type of player who often got lynched early.
-
webby - Posts: 139
- Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:02 am UTC
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Meta discussion
by roband » Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:51 pm UTC
Wow. You are awesome. Can we get someone to copy your code so we have a permanent mafia-bot?
The death of Lady Diana was also predicted by Moby Dick.
__________________________________________________
It's hard being cool.
__________________________________________________
You, will never ever ever, get this annoying song out of your head.
__________________________________________________
It's hard being cool.
__________________________________________________
You, will never ever ever, get this annoying song out of your head.
-
roband - In Your Eyes
- Posts: 1705
- Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:52 pm UTC
- Location: UK
Re: Meta discussion
by Misnomer » Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:24 am UTC
*clasps his hands 'Mr Burns'-style*
Excellent... now the data is readily available to dismiss the claims that I'm dangerous as scum and thus lull my opponents into a false sense of security! Mwuahahahaha!
But yeah, awesome stat collection deva - and bloody hell weiyaoli
Excellent... now the data is readily available to dismiss the claims that I'm dangerous as scum and thus lull my opponents into a false sense of security! Mwuahahahaha!
But yeah, awesome stat collection deva - and bloody hell weiyaoli
-
Misnomer - Posts: 13
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by BoomFrog » Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:45 am UTC
Yeah, a round of applause for wei.
Also of note, if we get a player to stay for their fourth game then we've got em hooked.
Also of note, if we get a player to stay for their fourth game then we've got em hooked.
If your afraid of the terrorists winning then the terrorists win.
Silas wrote:Nobody who gets paid by the hour invents a cotton gin.
-
BoomFrog - Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
- Location: Shanghai
Re: Meta discussion
by Vieto » Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:18 am UTC
Heh, I don't even make the list. 
You found my weakness! It's small knives!
a.k.a. Cazador
a.k.a. Cazador
-
Vieto - Posts: 1546
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
- Location: Canada
Re: Meta discussion
by mpolo » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:55 am UTC
W00t! I have the second-longest losing streak. I will beat you yet, GopherofPern! [Now somebody will point out that I read the table wrong -- I have dotted 0's in the font there, so may have overlooked an 8 or two…]
<-- Evil experiment-
mpolo - Posts: 17
- Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 3:24 pm UTC
- Location: Germany
Re: Meta discussion
by Weeks » Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:25 pm UTC
Mavketl and weiyaoli are OP, ban them
I'll sit back and wait for xkcdmafia v2.1, tyvm.
I'll sit back and wait for xkcdmafia v2.1, tyvm.
Ugh, I think I broke a nail. Good thing it wasn't mine!
-
Weeks - Months, days, years, what does it matter?
- Posts: 1051
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
- Location: Panamá, Rep. de Panamá
Re: Meta discussion
by Misnomer » Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:59 pm UTC
Heya guys,
Has anyone else noticed an upsurge recently of rolespec and mod-denials about the existence of spoiler-reading roles in non-bastard games?
Without prejudice to any current games where such speculation has taken place, could we just confirm for the record that all forms of spoiler-reading roles still constitute extreme bastardry, and are therefore not for inclusion in non-bastard games? I'm kind of nervous that they might slowly be gaining acceptance by stealth.
Has anyone else noticed an upsurge recently of rolespec and mod-denials about the existence of spoiler-reading roles in non-bastard games?
Without prejudice to any current games where such speculation has taken place, could we just confirm for the record that all forms of spoiler-reading roles still constitute extreme bastardry, and are therefore not for inclusion in non-bastard games? I'm kind of nervous that they might slowly be gaining acceptance by stealth.
-
Misnomer - Posts: 13
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by Adam H » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:25 pm UTC
What's a spoiler reading role? A role that reads spoilers?
OK, I guess it's kind of obvious that's what it is, my real question is: who the eff has made that a role?!?! IMO spoilers should always be off-limits even in bastard games.
OK, I guess it's kind of obvious that's what it is, my real question is: who the eff has made that a role?!?! IMO spoilers should always be off-limits even in bastard games.
Goodbye
-
Adam H - Posts: 644
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by matt96 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:33 pm UTC
Adam H wrote:What's a spoiler reading role? A role that reads spoilers?
OK, I guess it's kind of obvious that's what it is, my real question is: who the eff has made that a role?!?! IMO spoilers should always be off-limits even in bastard games.
Look at the first post in firefly mafia, click on the spoiler button where it say rules, look at number 2, become surprised.
-
matt96 - Posts: 28
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:55 pm UTC
- Location: A suburb of Boston
Re: Meta discussion
by Misnomer » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:35 pm UTC
matt96 wrote:Adam H wrote:What's a spoiler reading role? A role that reads spoilers?
OK, I guess it's kind of obvious that's what it is, my real question is: who the eff has made that a role?!?! IMO spoilers should always be off-limits even in bastard games.
Look at the first post in firefly mafia, click on the spoiler button where it say rules, look at number 2, become surprised.
Don't forget, we shouldn't be discussing aspects of current games here - consider this to be an entirely theoretical discussion.
-
Misnomer - Posts: 13
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by matt96 » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:37 pm UTC
Misnomer wrote:matt96 wrote:Adam H wrote:What's a spoiler reading role? A role that reads spoilers?
OK, I guess it's kind of obvious that's what it is, my real question is: who the eff has made that a role?!?! IMO spoilers should always be off-limits even in bastard games.
Look at the first post in firefly mafia, click on the spoiler button where it say rules, look at number 2, become surprised.
Don't forget, we shouldn't be discussing aspects of current games here - consider this to be an entirely theoretical discussion.
I meant surprised that the rules imply that one may exist, that it is possible, that a mod would at least consider doing so, clarified enough?
-
matt96 - Posts: 28
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:55 pm UTC
- Location: A suburb of Boston
Re: Meta discussion
by Misnomer » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:42 pm UTC
matt96 wrote:Misnomer wrote:matt96 wrote:Adam H wrote:What's a spoiler reading role? A role that reads spoilers?
OK, I guess it's kind of obvious that's what it is, my real question is: who the eff has made that a role?!?! IMO spoilers should always be off-limits even in bastard games.
Look at the first post in firefly mafia, click on the spoiler button where it say rules, look at number 2, become surprised.
Don't forget, we shouldn't be discussing aspects of current games here - consider this to be an entirely theoretical discussion.
I meant surprised that the rules imply that one may exist, that it is possible, that a mod would at least consider doing so, clarified enough?
Yes I understand, but it's probably best to avoid all reference to actual current games full stop, lest a spectator/dead player let slip information that should not be known to the living, and stick to what the limits should be on that kind of rule in principle.
-
Misnomer - Posts: 13
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by Adam H » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:53 pm UTC
Here's the thing, smart-ass mods: If you DON'T say that spoilers might be read by some active players, then DON'T put that mechanic in the game! It absolutely ruins it for every other game in this forum, because then no one will post spoilers for any game JUST IN CASE. And some of us like to read spoilers for games we aren't in.
And if you DO say that spoilers might be read by some active players (infina), then that mechanic is worse than pointless because no one's going to make spoilers. I was wondering why the firefly spoilers were so boring...
And mods should ALWAYS say when a spy/listener is in the game. That's a decent mechanic because scum will be silent or winey until the spy is dead, at which point they can talk normally again. But if scum doesn't know there's a listener, then it imbalances not only that game, but all the games.
And if you DO say that spoilers might be read by some active players (infina), then that mechanic is worse than pointless because no one's going to make spoilers. I was wondering why the firefly spoilers were so boring...
And mods should ALWAYS say when a spy/listener is in the game. That's a decent mechanic because scum will be silent or winey until the spy is dead, at which point they can talk normally again. But if scum doesn't know there's a listener, then it imbalances not only that game, but all the games.
Goodbye
-
Adam H - Posts: 644
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:36 pm UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by DaBigCheez » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:11 pm UTC
It's kind of a troublesome issue for me; on the one hand, if I'm making a "fully closed" setup, I want it to be fully closed, giving away no hints as to what roles may or may not be present.
The issue I run into (and the reason I specified no listeners in Mulanfia) is because it inevitably turns into a big stressout circular problem where everyone spends all of N1 and half of the next two days/nights just trying to devise a code to try and foil listeners, then wondering whether their code had been compromised, then devising a still *more* elaborate code, and nightchat is filled with more discussions of theoretical cryptography than playing Mafia.
Don't get me wrong, though - theoretical cryptography can have its place in a game designed for it (looking at you, Inception/Wizardry), but it's frustrating to see discussion/spoilers stifled (esp. when people say "this code is too much effort, screw it") or de-railed when it has no relevance whatsoever.
However, I feel like I might have made the wrong choice by explicitly denying listener roles (I think I was the one who kicked off the trend, but I might have been copycatting someone else and helping to get the trend rolling) in that if it's *not* explicitly denied that seems to be interpreted as a tacit admission that they probably do exist - when really, it should just be interpreted the same way as any other information about roles in a closed setup, i.e. "I will not be giving out any information as to the presence or absence of any role in this game".
I really don't know of a good way to let listener/spoiler-reader roles exist without inherently causing paranoia in other games without making the spy/listener pointless in the game in which they do exist (as Adam H said, it would probably boil down to "nightchat/posting spoilers is disabled for this game until this role is killed" if they're explicitly stated to exist, and if they're not explicitly stated to exist it'll bleed over into other games).
The issue I run into (and the reason I specified no listeners in Mulanfia) is because it inevitably turns into a big stressout circular problem where everyone spends all of N1 and half of the next two days/nights just trying to devise a code to try and foil listeners, then wondering whether their code had been compromised, then devising a still *more* elaborate code, and nightchat is filled with more discussions of theoretical cryptography than playing Mafia.
Don't get me wrong, though - theoretical cryptography can have its place in a game designed for it (looking at you, Inception/Wizardry), but it's frustrating to see discussion/spoilers stifled (esp. when people say "this code is too much effort, screw it") or de-railed when it has no relevance whatsoever.
However, I feel like I might have made the wrong choice by explicitly denying listener roles (I think I was the one who kicked off the trend, but I might have been copycatting someone else and helping to get the trend rolling) in that if it's *not* explicitly denied that seems to be interpreted as a tacit admission that they probably do exist - when really, it should just be interpreted the same way as any other information about roles in a closed setup, i.e. "I will not be giving out any information as to the presence or absence of any role in this game".
I really don't know of a good way to let listener/spoiler-reader roles exist without inherently causing paranoia in other games without making the spy/listener pointless in the game in which they do exist (as Adam H said, it would probably boil down to "nightchat/posting spoilers is disabled for this game until this role is killed" if they're explicitly stated to exist, and if they're not explicitly stated to exist it'll bleed over into other games).
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.
-
DaBigCheez - Posts: 498
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by Weeks » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:01 pm UTC
DBC is a nice person and also a scholar.
I've noticed you put "some bastardry" when noting the bastardry of your games. You could include a simple scale, say 1-5, where 3 (or the agreed upon level) and beyond may include listeners/spies, and any further clarification is up to the mod.
It may threaten the "closeness" of games in the scale, but if these roles are such a game-changing issue then the measure is justified.
I've noticed you put "some bastardry" when noting the bastardry of your games. You could include a simple scale, say 1-5, where 3 (or the agreed upon level) and beyond may include listeners/spies, and any further clarification is up to the mod.
It may threaten the "closeness" of games in the scale, but if these roles are such a game-changing issue then the measure is justified.
Ugh, I think I broke a nail. Good thing it wasn't mine!
-
Weeks - Months, days, years, what does it matter?
- Posts: 1051
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
- Location: Panamá, Rep. de Panamá
Re: Meta discussion
by DaBigCheez » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:45 pm UTC
Weeks wrote:You could include a simple scale, say 1-5, where 3 (or the agreed upon level) and beyond may include listeners/spies, and any further clarification is up to the mod.
I feel like that'd either have the same issues as just saying "listeners/spies may be included", but with the disadvantage of also opening up cans of worms re: "Gee Willikers you had {X} in this game and only called it a 3? Come on, dude, that stuff only belongs in 4+!" - which could be avoided by making the ranking system overly strict and formulaic, but that would somewhat defeat the point of a rating system designed to introduce ambiguity in the first place.
I do agree with the general idea of "non-bastard games need never worry about listeners etc.", but it just shunts the issue onto another subset of games. That said, players being overly cautious in bastard games may or may not be a desirable thing, so that objection might be a pro rather than a con
Weeks wrote:DBC is a nice person and also a scholar.
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.
-
DaBigCheez - Posts: 498
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by Weeks » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:57 pm UTC
You could just come up with a point up in the scale where everyone is comfortable with the inclusion of listeners and be strict about that. The ranking needn't be strict at all except for that one point ("Your game cannot be a 3 if you have listeners"). Then when some other issue comes up, add it to some level in the scale and be strict about that too. (I may be making less sense than I think I am.)
My opinion is of course biased against listeners because it's absolute hell to play scum with that involved, but w/e.
My opinion is of course biased against listeners because it's absolute hell to play scum with that involved, but w/e.
Ugh, I think I broke a nail. Good thing it wasn't mine!
-
Weeks - Months, days, years, what does it matter?
- Posts: 1051
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
- Location: Panamá, Rep. de Panamá
Re: Meta discussion
by Lataro » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:16 am UTC
I feel like the alternative was already discussed earlier in this thread. Silknor's take on listeners, notably in his Zoo games, has been a well done way of doing it IMO. I'm pretty sure this has been discussed here, if not, it may be in the discussion thread if you want clarification on what I'm talking about. The basic idea though is that listeners need not break the game if done "right".
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."
Garak: "Are you sure that's the moral?"
Julian: "Of course. What else could it be?"
Garak: "Never tell the same lie twice."
-
Lataro - Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 6:56 am UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by Misnomer » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:26 am UTC
My view is that listeners are already an established role-type, whether we like it or not. As such I'd hesitate to class them as bastard, on the grounds that they're largely accepted.
Readers I believe have yet to gain this acceptance however, so hopefully we can nip them in the bud.
Readers I believe have yet to gain this acceptance however, so hopefully we can nip them in the bud.
-
Misnomer - Posts: 13
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:42 pm UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by Weeks » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:39 am UTC
My objection is more against roles that provoke cryptography in private messages (Readers? or whatever happened in Wizardry), which imo just adds a layer of complexity that is beside the point of the game and further burdens a faction that largely depends on private comms. So yeah, used sparingly and "done right" it can be pretty fun I guess, but I've yet to see that.
Ugh, I think I broke a nail. Good thing it wasn't mine!
-
Weeks - Months, days, years, what does it matter?
- Posts: 1051
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
- Location: Panamá, Rep. de Panamá
Re: Meta discussion
by greenlover » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:57 am UTC
Misnomer wrote:Readers I believe have yet to gain this acceptance however, so hopefully we can nip them in the bud.
When you say readers, I assume you are referring to spoiler readers? If so, I agree. It's been said before that spoilers are designed to clue spectators and dead players in on what's happening in the game. By creating allowing a reader role to exist, we're basically punishing those who are being nice to those who want to know what's going on behind the scenes.
-
greenlover - Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:56 am UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by Adacore » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:12 pm UTC
Literally the only incentive to write spoilers is to for fun (both for yourself and for others). If writing spoilers becomes a risk, then you're creating a disincentive to fun, and decreasing the fun level in the game, which is pretty much a bad thing by definition.
I generally had a standing policy that I won't play in a game that could potentially allow spoiler reading (back when I was actually playing in games at all frequently, anyway), but I broke that for Firefly. I should probably have stuck to my guns, because I really don't want the idea gaining traction.
I generally had a standing policy that I won't play in a game that could potentially allow spoiler reading (back when I was actually playing in games at all frequently, anyway), but I broke that for Firefly. I should probably have stuck to my guns, because I really don't want the idea gaining traction.
-
Adacore - Posts: 1938
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
- Location: 한국 창원
Re: Meta discussion
by Krong » Mon Mar 19, 2012 3:31 am UTC
Should I be a bastard and quote myself from earlier in the thread? Yeah, I'll be a bastard. 
On spoiler-reading roles:
Regarding weiyaoli being an awesome mafia teammate:
On spoiler-reading roles:
Krong wrote:This isn't really an answer to the question anymore, but just general meta discussion on spoilers:
The spoiler thread is there for fun: it keeps spectators entertained and is a fun parting gift when you die in a game / the game ends. It is not a part of the game thread, and no one's required to post there.
Therefore, I don't think mods should EVER include spoiler-reading abilities, even in a bastard game. People who don't post spoilers at all are rewarded by such things, plain and simple. We don't want to discourage people from using that thread, which is really one of the main things making this subforum a community and not just a random collection of games.
The other obvious issue is that spoilers can be for several games; for instance (not a real spoiler, obviously):John Doe wrote:Mafia City / Mafia Ocean:Spoiler:
Someone who's modding Mafia City won't be allowed to read that if they're a player (or potential player) for Mafia Ocean.
Regarding weiyaoli being an awesome mafia teammate:
Krong wrote:And honestly, I think the best scum teams have a mixture of styles among the different players. The guy who's bold is going to do damage but not last the game; having someone who's stayed out of sight due to the behavior of the bold guy is how you win in the endgame. In both Inception and AC, weiyaoli was really good at the passive bit, while the rest of us generally screwed around and got into trouble. (I'm especially thinking of AC Animus here).
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)
-
Krong - Posts: 288
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
- Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky
Re: Meta discussion
by Elvish Pillager » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:25 pm UTC
I agree that "spoiler reader" is a terrible power and shouldn't exist even in bastard games.
However, let's complicate this issue a bit!
In the extremely bastardly HOLY SHIT WTF MAFIA, I had audience participation. The audience were free to talk to one of the players, and they were, of course, free to read spoilers. If one of them had just blatantly written down all the spoiler contents, I probably wouldn't have relayed that message, but anyway...
I suppose I could have only allowed audience members who didn't read spoilers to participate in that. But then I'd have had less participation, which would be less fun.
I suppose I could have banned the players from posting spoilers in the discussion thread, and done something like MoA's thing in Holiday Revenge ("Send your spoilers to me, I'll post them after the game").
I suppose I could have done a misleading "exact words" thing, like saying "No player has the power to read spoilers". I don't really want to get a reputation for doing that kind of thing, though, and in the long run it might make things even worse ("well, mod X didn't say every possible ability didn't exist, so maybe we should be careful with our spoilers!")
But would any of these have really been a better solution?
However, let's complicate this issue a bit!
In the extremely bastardly HOLY SHIT WTF MAFIA, I had audience participation. The audience were free to talk to one of the players, and they were, of course, free to read spoilers. If one of them had just blatantly written down all the spoiler contents, I probably wouldn't have relayed that message, but anyway...
I suppose I could have only allowed audience members who didn't read spoilers to participate in that. But then I'd have had less participation, which would be less fun.
I suppose I could have banned the players from posting spoilers in the discussion thread, and done something like MoA's thing in Holiday Revenge ("Send your spoilers to me, I'll post them after the game").
I suppose I could have done a misleading "exact words" thing, like saying "No player has the power to read spoilers". I don't really want to get a reputation for doing that kind of thing, though, and in the long run it might make things even worse ("well, mod X didn't say every possible ability didn't exist, so maybe we should be careful with our spoilers!")
But would any of these have really been a better solution?
1.708*10-51 / static_cast<char>(0x46 + 7*(rand()&1)) / no / the Divided States of America
GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.
GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.
-
Elvish Pillager - Posts: 943
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Re: Meta discussion
by ConMan » Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:24 pm UTC
I think that "spoiler reader" powers are taboo unless in a significantly bastard game (and even then I'd be wary of including it unless there was a hint *somewhere* that it might be possible). More difficult is the standard listener role. I can think of lots of different flavours where such a role might happen, and many of them aren't particularly bastardy. But it doesn't seem worth putting in specific rules about listeners in, say, the standard game rules, because most games *won't* have such a role. I guess it's up to the mod to decide what level of spoiler they'll include if their game *might* have a listener role.
pollywog wrote:I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
-
ConMan - Posts: 1189
- Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
- Location: Where beer does flow, and men chunder.
Re: Meta discussion
by Krong » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:38 am UTC
Yeah, it probably doesn't apply much for a game like HOLY SHIT WTF MAFIA. That's the kind of game where anyone caring about winning to the extent that they'd be upset at spoiler-reading clearly isn't in on the joke. I mean... just look at the fonts!
Parania probably also fell into that category, had anyone realized spoiler-reading was technically legal, as the game ended up being more of an improv routine than a competition.
Parania probably also fell into that category, had anyone realized spoiler-reading was technically legal, as the game ended up being more of an improv routine than a competition.
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)
-
Krong - Posts: 288
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
- Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky
Re: Meta discussion
by ForAllOfThis » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:16 am UTC
One way to do do spoiler reading would be to merge it with an 'investigative' type role and for all spoiler reading to be mod-controlled. What I mean by this is Player X targets Player Y, and at the end of that day/night cycle Player X is messaged the contents of Player Y's spoilers posted during that cycle. It allows the mod to omit any potentially game-breaking information as they see fit (and this would probably be stated to Player X in their Role PM). You could call it the 'Mind-Reader' role. The only other way to do it would be to have Player X choose a specific spoiler that he wishes to read and the mod forwards the contents of that spoiler. To stop it being pontentially gamebreaking there could be other restrictions in place like there's a 50% chance that the spoiler you will be PMed is fake etc etc. It requires the spoiler reader to do abit of work on their side and makes the game more interesting for them as well.
Basically, it all depends on the role and win condition you are trying to create. Giving a town player spoiler reading abilities is a massive no-no, as scum could be outted D1 and that would be terrible. Same with independents (generally they have nothing to lose so there's no consequence to them for ruining your game). Which really only leaves it as a potential scum ability, which if used in the manner above, will be at best similar to an investigative ability (if not abit more risky and arguably less powerful, as the player could be lieing or you could pick a bad spoiler to read).
I like the listener role, but as soon as scum knows about it, it becomes useless due to wine-spilling. Therefore, all listener roles should be one-shot IMO. That way scum won't turn to needless encrypting and it allows the mod to have an interesting power like listener in the game (and as long as scum does not know about it, will work as the mod intended for it's one use). Although I think all crucial information that gives away player identities (names, roles) should be modded out otherwise it would be akin to having a spoiler reading townie player, which I've already explained is a terrible idea.
Basically, it all depends on the role and win condition you are trying to create. Giving a town player spoiler reading abilities is a massive no-no, as scum could be outted D1 and that would be terrible. Same with independents (generally they have nothing to lose so there's no consequence to them for ruining your game). Which really only leaves it as a potential scum ability, which if used in the manner above, will be at best similar to an investigative ability (if not abit more risky and arguably less powerful, as the player could be lieing or you could pick a bad spoiler to read).
I like the listener role, but as soon as scum knows about it, it becomes useless due to wine-spilling. Therefore, all listener roles should be one-shot IMO. That way scum won't turn to needless encrypting and it allows the mod to have an interesting power like listener in the game (and as long as scum does not know about it, will work as the mod intended for it's one use). Although I think all crucial information that gives away player identities (names, roles) should be modded out otherwise it would be akin to having a spoiler reading townie player, which I've already explained is a terrible idea.
-
ForAllOfThis - Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:06 pm UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by Krong » Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:50 am UTC
But that still doesn't address the main issue. If players could be disadvantaged by posting juicy details in spoilers, they just won't do it. And that makes the spoiler thread less fun.
Now here's an idea that kind of goes half way...
Let's say you've got a game where it makes thematic sense for people to keep notes, logs, journals, or similar. (Easy examples: Star Trek, Myst, Clue, etc.) Whenever someone posts a spoiler, they mark it (within the spoiler itself) to separate Journal material from other spoiler material. For instance:
Exampleafia:
Then the mod can send out Journal material for a player can be made public according to your game mechanics. One straightforward option would be for all journal material to be revealed when a player is killed. If you did that, there would be an obvious reason for townies to write stuff down (to help the town see their thought processes, and put those in context with their death.) Scum could write journal entries in hopes of throwing off a journal-reading role, though the setup would have to make that worth all the extra time spent in fabricating untruths.
And of course, since you can still keep true spoilers separate, there's room for players to say the truly juicy stuff that would be gamebreaking if anyone else heard it.
... but I'm still not sure of how useful a mechanic this is, since most things that are game-related should be in the game thread. It at least gets spoiler-reading away from a "Haha, you lost twenty dollars and my self respect by trying to entertain non-players" kind of thing.
Now here's an idea that kind of goes half way...
Let's say you've got a game where it makes thematic sense for people to keep notes, logs, journals, or similar. (Easy examples: Star Trek, Myst, Clue, etc.) Whenever someone posts a spoiler, they mark it (within the spoiler itself) to separate Journal material from other spoiler material. For instance:
Exampleafia:
Spoiler:
Then the mod can send out Journal material for a player can be made public according to your game mechanics. One straightforward option would be for all journal material to be revealed when a player is killed. If you did that, there would be an obvious reason for townies to write stuff down (to help the town see their thought processes, and put those in context with their death.) Scum could write journal entries in hopes of throwing off a journal-reading role, though the setup would have to make that worth all the extra time spent in fabricating untruths.
And of course, since you can still keep true spoilers separate, there's room for players to say the truly juicy stuff that would be gamebreaking if anyone else heard it.
... but I'm still not sure of how useful a mechanic this is, since most things that are game-related should be in the game thread. It at least gets spoiler-reading away from a "Haha, you lost twenty dollars and my self respect by trying to entertain non-players" kind of thing.
The answer to the question "What’s wrong with the world?" is just two words: "I am." -- G. K. Chesterton (attributed)
-
Krong - Posts: 288
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:49 am UTC
- Location: Charleston, South Cackalacky
Re: Meta discussion
by ForAllOfThis » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:21 am UTC
Krong wrote:But that still doesn't address the main issue. If players could be disadvantaged by posting juicy details in spoilers, they just won't do it. And that makes the spoiler thread less fun.
Only if Player Y knows their spoilers are being read/passed on to Player X. If that happens, then player Y has all the advantage because spoiler reading is a double edged sword. It can also become a disadvantage to Player X if Player Y discovers the spoilers are being read, as from then on, Player X will be reading fake spoilers.
Spoiler activity might drop from certain players post game if they get stung by it, but generally spoiler reading roles are so rare, it would be silly to worry about it.
-
ForAllOfThis - Posts: 5
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 2:06 pm UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by BoomFrog » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:52 pm UTC
I for one will play all future games assuming spoiler readers and listeners don't exist (unless specifically revealed in an open setup like Wizardry). A well designed listener role won't be affected by any coded communication as the listening info should be filtered by the mod anyway. If the reader or listener ruins the game then it's the mods fault.
I agree that a player should never EVER be punished in any way for posting a spoiler, and the possiblity of fake spoilers really doesn't make anything better. That just makes spoilers whiney and part of the game thread and that's not what spectators/dead people are looking for. Keep the discusion thread out of games. If you want to make a mind reader role have a player who can ask a yes/no question via mod PM that must be answered truthfully (honor system) or something like that.
I agree that a player should never EVER be punished in any way for posting a spoiler, and the possiblity of fake spoilers really doesn't make anything better. That just makes spoilers whiney and part of the game thread and that's not what spectators/dead people are looking for. Keep the discusion thread out of games. If you want to make a mind reader role have a player who can ask a yes/no question via mod PM that must be answered truthfully (honor system) or something like that.
If your afraid of the terrorists winning then the terrorists win.
Silas wrote:Nobody who gets paid by the hour invents a cotton gin.
-
BoomFrog - Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
- Location: Shanghai
Re: Meta discussion
by Vieto » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:03 pm UTC
At one point, I had debated about whether to give deadpool in the first Marvel Mafia game the ability to read spoilers. I discarded the idea fairly quickly, given that the whole point of spoilers is that they are not supposed to be read by the people playing the game, period, and to give insight to the game to curious onlookers. It would be the same equivalent as if you had a role which enabled players to spam in the Serious Business sub forum, for example. The roles, pms, the player's identities, etc. are fine, but as soon as you start having roles that affect things outside of the game (a multi-thread game still counts as 1 game), then you have crossed a line.
You found my weakness! It's small knives!
a.k.a. Cazador
a.k.a. Cazador
-
Vieto - Posts: 1546
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
- Location: Canada
Re: Meta discussion
by Lataro » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:07 pm UTC
I've talked to Krong, and am officially "calling" his idea for a journal system in a themed star trek game. I have the perfect idea for this. I'll be putting it in the queue when auction starts to wrap up as it is a complicated enough beast without dividing my attention right now.
Just sort of, ya know, calling it.
Just sort of, ya know, calling it.
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."
Garak: "Are you sure that's the moral?"
Julian: "Of course. What else could it be?"
Garak: "Never tell the same lie twice."
-
Lataro - Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 6:56 am UTC
Re: Meta discussion
by Vieto » Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:18 pm UTC
Lataro wrote:I've talked to Krong, and am officially "calling" his idea for a journal system in a themed star trek game. I have the perfect idea for this. I'll be putting it in the queue when auction starts to wrap up as it is a complicated enough beast without dividing my attention right now.
Just sort of, ya know, calling it.
If it's TNG, I'm in. Maybe.
You found my weakness! It's small knives!
a.k.a. Cazador
a.k.a. Cazador
-
Vieto - Posts: 1546
- Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:44 pm UTC
- Location: Canada
Re: Meta discussion
by _infina_ » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:02 pm UTC
Spoilered for discussing mechanics in firefly, an ongoing game. Stay out if you are playing in it, or want to be a replacement.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
-
_infina_ - Posts: 299
- Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:55 pm UTC
- Location: First Class, Ozzy's Train
Re: Meta discussion
by tastelikecoke » Sun Apr 01, 2012 3:50 am UTC
I'm sure the spoilers are there after all because they're not part of the game, not because they are part of the game. Someone with spoiler reading powers would be some kind of meta-player that can see through player's minds, kind of like a person reading a book about the game.
If the players know this meta-player exists I bet they would start encrypting their thoughts or stop thinking, making the meta-god uselss, so the meta-player mechanic would only work if it is unknown to players. In that case it would only be fair if the meta-player can't affect the game, since it wouldn't be a game otherwise. But that makes the meta-player a mere spectator. Either way the game would be less fun for a person or two. At very least it could be a kind of meta-game so the meta-player mechanics become fun. If you know Umineko you probably know what I'm leading to.
If I would make a game with spoiler-readers I'll warn everyone that players could turn into a co-mod
EDIT: coherensum.
If the players know this meta-player exists I bet they would start encrypting their thoughts or stop thinking, making the meta-god uselss, so the meta-player mechanic would only work if it is unknown to players. In that case it would only be fair if the meta-player can't affect the game, since it wouldn't be a game otherwise. But that makes the meta-player a mere spectator. Either way the game would be less fun for a person or two. At very least it could be a kind of meta-game so the meta-player mechanics become fun. If you know Umineko you probably know what I'm leading to.
If I would make a game with spoiler-readers I'll warn everyone that players could turn into a co-mod
EDIT: coherensum.
-
tastelikecoke - Posts: 1116
- Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:58 am UTC
- Location: Antipode of Brazil
Re: Meta discussion
by BoomFrog » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:44 pm UTC
So I was talking to my brother about mafia (he plays live with his friends sometimes) and they play with open set-ups but roles are not revealed upon death. Have people played this style, what are your thoughts?
If your afraid of the terrorists winning then the terrorists win.
Silas wrote:Nobody who gets paid by the hour invents a cotton gin.
-
BoomFrog - Posts: 1046
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 5:59 am UTC
- Location: Shanghai
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest