Pfft. I'd play a game SiB hosts. I think everyone takes it to seriously. Again I'm forced to raise the question, why not have two games running at once? I realize it sets a bad precedent, but it can always be a fun difference. You take SiB's games so seriously, sometimes I wonder how you have any fun in them. I agree it would be very boring, defeatist and a potential loss of skill for the hardcore players to play all games like that, but I think it's like cheating in a game. Sometimes I just cheat and use my infinitely powerful armies to kill everything. Do I play all games like that? No. Would I want to? Hell no. It's bad for your skill, bad for your enjoyment of the game and bad for your patience. Is it enjoyable once in a while? Yep.

This post has been edited by Templar98921 : 02 October 2008 - 09:14 AM

GTW isn't a singleplayer game though. If some people are "cheating" and others aren't, how much fun do you really think it is for everyone?

@mrxak, on Oct 6 2008, 05:13 AM, said in GTW Game 32:

This is not a terrible idea, although I have to say I'm not interested in replacing anyone this game.

Hmm, you know, thinking about this, maybe it's not such a good idea. People coming back from the dead, even if they have different roles, can break the game. People may have grudges, and use their resurrection to go after the people that voted them out. Bad guys who specifically targeted a particularly good player to get them out of the game may face that same player coming back again and again. Intelligence agents who died without revealing what they knew may come back and get a chance to spill the beans. Bad guys who died may come back and know exactly who the remaining bad guys are. Somebody who was voted out for using a terrible strategy may come back and end up ruining the game further. There's probably more situations I haven't thought of too. I think I have to vote against this idea.

The best solution to the no vote issue, is for people to vote so this doesn't become an issue to begin with. Failing that, eliminate them from the game after two missed votes, not necessarily consecutive. Let that be motivation to show up. I wouldn't terribly be opposed to not letting people play in the next game either if they got eliminated in such a fashion.

@adam_0, on Oct 7 2008, 12:33 AM, said in GTW Game 32:

The viruses managed to take this game by virtue of a lack of voting, and I believe that if Eugene's system were set in place, this type of lurking, intentional or not, would not happen. I also think that a good break will do the game some good.

Certainly a break will hopefully get some people more interested in the future, but I have to believe the rules in this game contributed to lack of enthusiasm as well.

I'm locking this topic for now because of the hiatus to let GTW cool down. If we're still up for xander's game right now, he's free to reopen this (or mrxak, or myself, or whoever).

This is the first of the split posts - Mack

There was a lot of moaning and groaning about the introduction of the corrupter, and the fact that large, obnoxiously hard to read text was used frequently by the host probably contributed to the lack of attendance on all the players' parts. I certainly wasn't paying close attention to the game. I'd be surprised to see anybody else, besides the host, who was.

@jacabyte, on Oct 7 2008, 08:26 PM, said in GTW Host Order:

There was a lot of moaning and groaning about the introduction of the corrupter, and the fact that large, obnoxiously hard to read text was used frequently by the host probably contributed to the lack of attendance on all the players' parts. I certainly wasn't paying close attention to the game. I'd be surprised to see anybody else, besides the host, who was.

If you're going to blame me, why not come right out and say it?

I don't see how large text is hard to read, nor italics. I thought the large text would be beneficial, allowing the players to quickly see what was going on in the game.

If anything was confusing about the game, it was your constant nagging and general negativism. And you weren't even playing. You even had lemonyscapegoat confused into voting for you at one point (although lemony was out of it, he still has not read the PM with his role on it). Isn't there some rule where spectators should generally stay out of the topic? Yet I see that you have made 4 posts in the topic. I know that dead players are allowed one post, why should spectators be allowed any more, except to help out in some way.

Point is, you didn't help.

The corrupter was an experiment, and clearly we cannot put it down or praise it for its performance in this game - it was only used once, and then by the evil team. Hardly an ability if you only use it once in the whole game, and there's two people with the ability.

With regards to the corrupter, it is a role that has been used in the past, and directly lead to a GTW commandment against it because it did make people upset.

@mrxak, on Oct 8 2008, 12:31 AM, said in GTW Host Order:

With regards to the corrupter, it is a role that has been used in the past, and directly lead to a GTW commandment against it because it did make people upset.

Further, when alerted to both the fact that vote-changers had been used in the past, and to the commandment they violated, Reb's defended the first by saying he wasn't here to see them go wrong, and to the second by misinterpreting the relevant commandment, and asking people to stop complaining.

Well, now the game is over, and we're free to complain.

"Don't take away your players votes" also means "Don't let players take away other players votes."
Anything forbidden to the Host, is forbidden for the Host to give to the Players. The way Rebelious flatly ignored that was grating.

Also: giving badguys extra powers (re: Rebelious's Corruptor, SoItBegins's Hacker and Consigliere).

Both vote-changers, and extra powers for evil, have been experimented with before in the past.

The result was: "Don't do this again."

This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 08 October 2008 - 12:10 AM

I actually did see SoItBegin's hosting round - particularly because he was concerned that others were peeved about it.

I saw his corrupter as a different role, which I can explain in better depth sometime later - his corrupter was an automatic algorithm, whereas mine was a conscious effort required by the players, and also could only be used every other turn.

I would like to perhaps create "experimental" GTW games, perhaps with these controversial issues and more, so that we could continue traditional games while testing out new methods, thus making experimenters such as myself and SoItBegins able to test and revise our experiments, while keeping traditional games going for "hardcore"s like Eugene and mrxak.

I'll explain the above more in depth if you would like, but as of right now I'm about 2 hours behind schedule, losing sleep by the minute.

If you're going to play 'experimental' games, they wouldn't really be GTW, as neither of them involved countries or leaders. Plus, they were very sci-fi based. If you want to do that, I vote you host your games somewhere else, such as ATT.

(though fracturing a player base is not a good idea...)

Addendum: since we're still discussing the game, I've unlocked this topic again.

@adam_0, on Oct 8 2008, 01:34 AM, said in GTW Host Order:

I would like to perhaps create "experimental" GTW games, perhaps with these controversial issues and more, so that we could continue traditional games while testing out new methods, thus making experimenters such as myself and SoItBegins able to test and revise our experiments, while keeping traditional games going for "hardcore"s like Eugene and mrxak.

I would say good luck finding people to sign up for them. I would also say play such games on another board if they have nothing to do with Defcon.

Look, there's nothing wrong with hosts coming up with new roles and stuff, but they have to learn from the mistakes of the past. If you had made brand new mistakes, people probably wouldn't be complaining as much as they are now. But you made old mistakes, ignored the people who pointed them out right at the start, and that's why people are a bit miffed.

And SoItBegins wasn't the first to experiment with vote changing abilities. That would be my dubious honor. For a game whose number I do not remember, I created two separate roles that involved vote changing. One of the roles wanted to quit after just a couple turns, and nobody was very happy with either role being in the game. I realized it was a bad idea to mess with player's votes, and forbidding the practice became a high priority for the GTW Commandments.

Just to throw my two cents in, I generally enjoy all the games I'm a part of, but I have to say that I felt overpowered. I was able to use my power to take out my two most powerful opponents right at the start of the game. Even with the one round cool-down, I don't think I ever should have been able to kill two people in one round. After three rounds (if I had gotten my pms in for the third one, at least), I would have been responsible for five deaths. Unless the innocents had gotten lucky, they never stood a chance.

Another way to look at it is that the two evil guys had three roles between them. Effectively, it violates commandment six.

Rebelious, I enjoyed the game, balance issues aside. Then again, my view is skewed by victory and a feeling of invincibility.

@adam_0, on Oct 7 2008, 10:20 PM, said in GTW Host Order:

If you're going to blame me, why not come right out and say it?

Alright, it is the responsibility of the host to pick roles, game concepts and story ideas that are appropriate for the number of players in a game and keep the game interesting at the same time.

In so many words, it's your fault.

@adam_0, on Oct 7 2008, 10:20 PM, said in GTW Host Order:

I don't see how large text is hard to read, nor italics. I thought the large text would be beneficial, allowing the players to quickly see what was going on in the game.

For categorization, bold and italic text is fine. The human eye can pick those out easily. But when you insert large font that say "look at me! look at me!" well, it's like a billboard with psychedelic colors; you've got to look at it. But reading it is another matter. Let's face it; we don't let people who've just signed up and are new to the world of forum posting use large font, so why should we let GTW hosts?

And if somebody has trouble reading small print, they should increase the font size within their browser or use an on-screen magnifier.

@adam_0, on Oct 7 2008, 10:20 PM, said in GTW Host Order:

If anything was confusing about the game, it was your constant nagging and general negativism. And you weren't even playing. You even had lemonyscapegoat confused into voting for you at one point (although lemony was out of it, he still has not read the PM with his role on it). Isn't there some rule where spectators should generally stay out of the topic? Yet I see that you have made 4 posts in the topic. I know that dead players are allowed one post, why should spectators be allowed any more, except to help out in some way.

Point is, you didn't help.

No, I didn't help, but after Lemony voted for me, I promised not to post again. And I didn't, expect after the game ended. It's appropriate for people to hold their peace until the game ends, but I admit, they shouldn't post while it's in progress. My bad.

@adam_0, on Oct 7 2008, 10:20 PM, said in GTW Host Order:

The corrupter was an experiment, and clearly we cannot put it down or praise it for its performance in this game - it was only used once, and then by the evil team. Hardly an ability if you only use it once in the whole game, and there's two people with the ability.

As mrxak said, the corrupter had been tried before, and didn't hold true. But he's covered this ground pretty well, I'd say. I don't have anything to add to what he said.

That's my 6 cents.

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 09 October 2008 - 05:12 PM

Nobody probably reads stickies, but I would like to propose that I host the next game. My intention is to do something somewhat different than what people are used to, but it is carefully playtested to the point of being a commercial card game. I've played it a few times before and it seems balanced. We will need 5-10 players. It fits nicely with Defcon's themes of stealth and betrayal and I believe it will be rather fun as an alternative to the traditional mafia game. It's like a version of mafia where everyone is in the game from start to finish, and there are a set number of rounds rather than people eliminated until there's only one side left. If people still want to play mafia, we can play this game in parallel, but I really want to try this out with you folks.

I'd crosspost this to the GTW 36 topic, but I'm all for you hosting the next game.

Nice, i think :rolleyes:

Oh look, you read the sticky.