You would have died in the second round, SIB.

Nice game anyway.

The suspicion of egroeg struck me as odd, simply because revealing his compatriots would have served him no purpose, if he was the terrorist.

Remember, there were only seven players left, three of them evil, when egroeg dropped lemony's mis-aimed PM on us. If egroeg had been evil, what purpose could that have served?

And remember, darth_vader said it was Innocent special roles (SDI, IA) that he had been waiting on, not Terrorist Night-Kills.

Ah well. Well played, 1Eevee1.

This post has been edited by Eugene Chin : 12 April 2008 - 09:48 AM

So, who's up for GTW 22?

This post has been edited by JacaByte : 12 April 2008 - 10:30 AM

As for the mechanics; were the delays because you were making the IAs and SDIs agree who their targets were before it would have an effect? That would probably be a bad idea, as one of the two could just hold out until the other caved and agreed to to get the game moving.

@fluffywithteeth, on Apr 12 2008, 11:52 AM, said in Global Thermonuclear War XXI:

As for the mechanics; were the delays because you were making the IAs and SDIs agree who their targets were before it would have an effect? That would probably be a bad idea, as one of the two could just hold out until the other caved and agreed to to get the game moving.

The exact same thoughts could apply to the terrorists.

Forcing jointly operated powers to agree on a course of action is, mechanically, no different from forcing the terrorists to agree on a Night-Kill target. If one of the evil players decided to hold out in this way, it'd slow the game down in the exact same way.

@eugene-chin, on Apr 12 2008, 05:09 PM, said in Global Thermonuclear War XXI:

The exact same thoughts could apply to the terrorists.

Forcing jointly operated powers to agree on a course of action is, mechanically, no different from forcing the terrorists to agree on a Night-Kill target. If one of the evil players decided to hold out in this way, it'd slow the game down in the exact same way.

Last game I played a coin was flipped if we couldn't agree.

Delays were cause by a combination of people being lax about PM times and me not making things quick and clear enough, which I should have done. To be honest I don't feel I was a great host. My biggest mistake may have been putting in 3 terrorists. I thought 15 players would enough to balance that, but it seems that a few more are probably necessary (17-20 for 3 terrorists.) The teams of players was meant to balance the PMing that had been going on the past few rounds (that is, to prevent a few IAs from finding each other and gaining 2 or 3 investigations per round.) However, it didn't seem to me that a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff was going on. I was disappointed by that, I like that stuff and I think it makes the games more interesting. I know there are some who think that it's bad, but I didn't expect everyone to agree with them.

Another disappointment was that people just seemed kind of out of it this game. I don't just means in terms of getting PMs in on time. Gutless investigated lemonyscapegoat several rounds before he was killed, but never moved against him. I don't know why not. The IAs getting eliminated fairly quickly seemed to be a lucky break by the terrorists, without that happening I can see the innocents maybe winning. Then again, two terrorists were revealed near the end and the innocents still lost. I wish that Eugene Chin hadn't been eliminated so quickly. He's very shrewed and very active and I feel that he can sometimes vitalize players. With him gone, I was not all that surprised to find the game descending into bandwagoning.

That's my last complaint: too much bandwagoning. For a game about scheming and mistrust, simply voting the same way as everyone else seems a colossally bad idea to me, but it happened a lot here. I set up the game around "blocs" which were naturally formed by the role teams. I was expecting that a powerful bloc would be formed if the IAs discovered the SDI team, which would have put some reason behind a group of votes. I think some of the lack of balance was caused by too much bandwaggoning. It made it easy for the terrorists to keep their heads down while also keeping suspicion off of them when they all jumped on the bandwagon, eager for a kill. I was also expecting the terrorists to have to split their votes to prevent people from realizing that they were all three working together. I guess they did this, but it wouldn't really have mattered if they hadn't.

In conclusion, my gripe is that I was expecting a higher level of play than I saw. Maybe I was expecting too much of a rise over previous games, but I only saw a leveling or decrease in general skill being displayed here and I don't know why that is.

Edit: and I'm of course up for Game 22, but I'm not interested in hosting for a while. I need to think more about how the game works, I don't think I understand the dynamic well enough.

This post has been edited by darth_vader : 12 April 2008 - 04:48 PM

I didn't go after lemony for a couple reasons. The first was that I couldn't find a clear opening without exposing my own neck, which relates to the second reason: with one IA dead, and people thinking that there wasn't one anymore, I didn't want to make myself a clear target by saying "hey, I'm an IA too" (though in other words).