Actually I told Proph the same thing you both said.
I don't think Shadows are really a good fit for basics because it both removes newbies from the pool of replacements and maybe there aren't any experienced enough players who actually want to play in basics...
That being said I'm still willing to try (not that I think it will turn true) it if:
a)A experienced player wants to play and shadow other players.
b)A newbie is afraid of actually playing but is interested in seeing how the game works from an "inside" perspective.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Me and Proph really enjoyed this shadow idea and we plan to use it in our game if it's possible. Do we need any special permission or can we just do it?
Actually I told Proph the same thing you both said.
I don't think Shadows are really a good fit for basics because it both removes newbies from the pool of replacements and maybe there aren't any experienced enough players who actually want to play in basics...
That being said I'm still willing to try (not that I think it will turn true) it if:
a)A experienced player wants to play and shadow other players.
b)A newbie is afraid of actually playing but is interested in seeing how the game works from an "inside" perspective.
Yes, "B" seems like a very common scenario. I don't think that there should be any problem with regards to permission.
The one thing that I suppose one could arguably be concerned about in any mentoring or shadowing during an ongoing game is advice on play begin given to the person who's playing by the non-participant. But I *think* common sense should alert people that that's a problem, and not encouraged.
That being said I'm still willing to try (not that I think it will turn true) it if:
a)A experienced player wants to play and shadow other players.
b)A newbie is afraid of actually playing but is interested in seeing how the game works from an "inside" perspective.
I believe the best way for a greenhorn to learn the game is to just play it. This is why the mentor system has lost popularity since its inception.
In my mind, the shadow system is intended to help new players break into more complex games, as I don't feel that they need help for Basics.
Here's a bit of a novel idea: what if we tried keeping each of our games under wraps for as long as a host decides, so that they could potentially be reused if there's sufficient interest?
This would require admin tinkering powers on a semi-regular basis, but the idea would be to restrict viewing access to the thread solely to hosts, current and past players of that setup, and reviewers. Maybe spectators on request.
For games like CIM and Cyberspace, that would give hosts the chance to fill multiple games over a longer period. Potentially, a host could even tweak and revise problematic roles or balance problems in subsequent runs of the game.
I bet there would have been a lot of people who'd have liked to play a 2nd run of Sin City at the time it was run, and I definitely would have liked a chance to fix some of the mistakes I made in my other games, and there's been a few games from this year that I would have liked a chance to play in, but missed the signup period.
It seems like one of the big hurdles to getting our truckloads of veterans back into play, as well as inspiring new generations of players, is fielding enough new and groundbreaking design material. If we can recycle or even improve upon good ideas, so that they have a wider impact and greater dissemination, we can really enhance the impact of our best material and hosts and let their work continue to pay off over the long haul. Keeps our numbers up, increases fun.
EDIT: Agreed, Asian. Overflowing signups are a good indicator. Then again, if a host thinks their game is going to be worth it, and maybe the game doesn't receive the recognition it might deserve until it's already fired once, I think allowing for that scenario wouldn't hurt either.
I actually thought about something similar but different. Basically where the roles and flavor are in place and are open, but the number of said role and who has said role is hidden. Basically this allows for a good set-up to be run multiple times, but it stays fresh and different.
This would also be an interesting way to compare how the same game plays out with different players. Basically, let a group of newer players play a set up. Then let a slightly more expereienced group of players play the set up, then let the all stars loose on the set up and see how they fare.
I actually thought about something similar but different. Basically where the roles and flavor are in place and are open, but the number of said role and who has said role is hidden. Basically this allows for a good set-up to be run multiple times, but it stays fresh and different.
Basically modular games.
Yes, randomized role setups and open setups could both be potentially reused and/or tinkered with, without the need for any elaborate privacy system. I wouldn't be opposed to encouraging people to develop setups designed for multiple runs - if they're interesting and unique.
In fact, after my next game, I was thinking over going back to Inheritance Mafia, prepping a new version of the game based on the feedback with a variety of changes and revisions, and refiring a v2 of the game. Still - so much of the value of a setup can come from the surprises they contain - the twists and turns. Unless you run a game privately, you can't ever reclaim the shock value of something like the "big red button" in any subsequent run. You'd basically have to rebuild around new ideas...new nasty surprises.
But even if you don't have any big reveals to protect, games without role randomization or that aren't intended to have open setups would also want to use the privatization method to be able to multi-fire.
This would also be an interesting way to compare how the same game plays out with different players. Basically, let a group of newer players play a set up. Then let a slightly more expereienced group of players play the set up, then let the all stars loose on the set up and see how they fare.
Here's a bit of a novel idea: what if we tried keeping each of our games under wraps for as long as a host decides, so that they could potentially be reused if there's sufficient interest?
This would require admin tinkering powers on a semi-regular basis, but the idea would be to restrict viewing access to the thread solely to hosts, current and past players of that setup, and reviewers. Maybe spectators on request.
For games like CIM and Cyberspace, that would give hosts the chance to fill multiple games over a longer period. Potentially, a host could even tweak and revise problematic roles or balance problems in subsequent runs of the game.
I bet there would have been a lot of people who'd have liked to play a 2nd run of Sin City at the time it was run, and I definitely would have liked a chance to fix some of the mistakes I made in my other games, and there's been a few games from this year that I would have liked a chance to play in, but missed the signup period.
Thoughts?
While this is a cool idea, one big problem is that it means that the general populous can't see games running in progress. One of the cool things about games is seeing the whole puzzle and talking about it at the end, which would be restricted only to the players, leaving out everyone else.
I'm also not convinced how many more times you could run a game. Maybe twice in total? You'd run out of legal players pretty quickly.
I guess in the case of heavily oversubscribed games, we could do it, allowing a staggered approach (and bug fixes), rather than simultaneous games but I think we should limit it to as short a time as possible. It doesn't seem like an effective long term solution.
It would also result in a bloat of subforums, permission masks and user groups, which is not ideal.
In fact, after my next game, I was thinking over going back to Inheritance Mafia, prepping a new version of the game based on the feedback with a variety of changes and revisions, and refiring a v2 of the game. Still - so much of the value of a setup can come from the surprises they contain - the twists and turns. Unless you run a game privately, you can't ever reclaim the shock value of something like the "big red button" in any subsequent run. You'd basically have to rebuild around new ideas...new nasty surprises.
The mechanics in Inheritance were so deep that you could easily take the basic idea and make a whole new game around it. You'd lose the old surprises, but an "inheritance mechanic" game would be cool. I daresay we could reuse Cyberspace's basic mechanics and make a new game too.
You never did tell us what the Juggernaut did.....
This would also be an interesting way to compare how the same game plays out with different players. Basically, let a group of newer players play a set up. Then let a slightly more expereienced group of players play the set up, then let the all stars loose on the set up and see how they fare.
A little while ago, I wanted to try running simultaneous games (basics/minis/whatever) to see how different the playthroughs are, and the effect different players have. I didn't get all that much support for it, since it would effectively halve queue speeds
@Eco- I'd like to try and create a setup for something like this-- Experimental Mafia. I've got some ideas rolling around in my head for it already. The idea is to figure out if the all-stars focus more on the "grandma's game of mafia" rather than the bells and whistles that I would expect newer players to use.
@Eco- I'd like to try and create a setup for something like this-- Experimental Mafia. I've got some ideas rolling around in my head for it already. The idea is to figure out if the all-stars focus more on the "grandma's game of mafia" rather than the bells and whistles that I would expect newer players to use.
Well, I'd say a comparison of the two CIMs might be useful to you.
Still, I think there's actually a lot of differences in the focus of the "all-stars" play, between one another. Everyone has their own methodologies, and areas of specialization.
If I had to take a guess though, I'd say that it's more likely that it's a matter of more experienced players doing things better and maybe with a few tricks and wrinkles, than it is of the groups focusing on different areas.
Here's a bit of a novel idea: what if we tried keeping each of our games under wraps for as long as a host decides, so that they could potentially be reused if there's sufficient interest?
This would require admin tinkering powers on a semi-regular basis, but the idea would be to restrict viewing access to the thread solely to hosts, current and past players of that setup, and reviewers. Maybe spectators on request.
For games like CIM and Cyberspace, that would give hosts the chance to fill multiple games over a longer period. Potentially, a host could even tweak and revise problematic roles or balance problems in subsequent runs of the game.
I bet there would have been a lot of people who'd have liked to play a 2nd run of Sin City at the time it was run, and I definitely would have liked a chance to fix some of the mistakes I made in my other games, and there's been a few games from this year that I would have liked a chance to play in, but missed the signup period.
Thoughts?
Sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare. I can see us doing this for things like Cyan's Impafia (where OVER FIFTY PEOPLE SIGNED UP!), but I can only see it working for simultaneous runs. It would also put a dent in meta arguments, which I'm not completely okay with. And anyway, how would we know that enough people would be interested in playing in said game to do it without them seeing the setup? Plus, do we even have the playerbase to support that? Aside from CIM, what game has received enough universal interest to indicate this could work? Large games already have a hard enough time filling up.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Here's a bit of a novel idea: what if we tried keeping each of our games under wraps for as long as a host decides, so that they could potentially be reused if there's sufficient interest?
I don't like this as a general rule. -That is mostly because the "no discussion about on-going games" rule is hard enough to follow on it's own without adding a "no discussion about completed, but still hidden games" rule on top of it.
Agreed, Asian. Overflowing signups are a good indicator. Then again, if a host thinks their game is going to be worth it, and maybe the game doesn't receive the recognition it might deserve until it's already fired once, I think allowing for that scenario wouldn't hurt either.
Restricting it to special circumstances would be better, but it would have to be very rare. -Maybe requiring the host and a reviewer or two to propose this treatment would be better?
Yes, randomized role setups and open setups could both be potentially reused and/or tinkered with, without the need for any elaborate privacy system. I wouldn't be opposed to encouraging people to develop setups designed for multiple runs - if they're interesting and unique.
Speaking of this, since Deitriptychos mafia both has received a far more overwhelming response than I anticipated and is a randomized set-up, I think I could probably rerun it at some point, with minimal alterations, if that was ever desired. However, even if there was sufficient demand for that, I'd prefer to run a new set-up based on those mechanics -and even more so, I would just want to use a new idea altogether.
-And that isn't just because most of the set-up has been seen. -Even if my game had been hidden from non-players, I'd still rather run a new game than rerun a completed one.
EDIT: And I feel the same way about playing. I'd rather read through a completed game and play in a new game than to play in a rerun.
There's always Open and Semi-Open formats that can be run multiple times regardless of players knowing the setup already.
Basically an Open setup is one where everyone knows all the roles in the game, but not who has what. So along with your Rules, you'll have your Setup posted with every role in the game listed.
In Semi-Open, you have a list of roles that 'may or may not' be in the game, but no roles outside of that list. So you will end up with a few more roles listed than there are players in the game; some roles listed are not used. This format is easier for scum teams.
This solves the problem of having to keep games invisible, unless you just REALLY want a closed setup for some reason. Cyan's Impossible Mafia is a good example, because every role is uniquely crafted and you would give away the fun of the game by posting an Open setup.
There's always Open and Semi-Open formats that can be run multiple times regardless of players knowing the setup already.
Basically an Open setup is one where everyone knows all the roles in the game, but not who has what. So along with your Rules, you'll have your Setup posted with every role in the game listed.
In Semi-Open, you have a list of roles that 'may or may not' be in the game, but no roles outside of that list. So you will end up with a few more roles listed than there are players in the game; some roles listed are not used. This format is easier for scum teams.
This solves the problem of having to keep games invisible, unless you just REALLY want a closed setup for some reason. Cyan's Impossible Mafia is a good example, because every role is uniquely crafted and you would give away the fun of the game by posting an Open setup.
I am actually running my next basic as a Semi Open. I am actually shocked Basics here are not forced to take at least a Semi Open status like they are on mafiascum.
I think it's a cool idea - I for one would love another chance at The Fiasco Corporation - but part of me feels there's more to be had from finding new interesting ideas from the past rather than just rehashing it. Take DYH's series of Amistaria games - he's finding new ways to make the core concept dynamic while still maintaining that which makes players love the games.
That, and part of what made games like TFC and Sin City work was the unique way everything played out in those games - which you could hardly expect to happen again.
Though damn if I wish I could do even half as well as Eco's doing at enticing the vets.
I am actually running my next basic as a Semi Open. I am actually shocked Basics here are not forced to take at least a Semi Open status like they are on mafiascum.
Yeah, especially since it's kind of a semi-open game already. Everyone knows what should or shouldn't be in a basic, but I don't think it's been explicitly listed.
From what I remember from reading stuff over there, they've gone through a lot of effort trying to find formats that are open enough to talk about without having broken claiming strategies. I think I prefer the diversity here - with appropriate reviews, obviously.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
To let everyone know, I now have AsianInvasion and ganderin_dan reviewing the setup. It's now going to be awesome!
Fixed that for ya.
Since I'll have been the process of two minis that have someone more experienced reviewing it behind me (Ecophagy and AI, which I think makes me having done the most in this manner), I'll report/have them report our findings after the fact. Anything in particular you councilfolk would like to know about?
Why don't you start with a basic instead? Recently we have talked about this and to me it feels like a natural progression.
basic => mini/normal => speciality
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The game is not being dumbed down. Control is doing fine; Draw-Go is not the only kind of control. Aggro is doing fine; Red Deck Wins is not the only kind of aggro. Creature combat is an important core concept and belongs in every color. Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Hello folks. I am interested in playing a game. I have played many mafia games in a different forum where phases are 24 hours. Anything specific I need to do to sign up? You guys keep the sign ups and game threads on the same sub forum right?
I read the basic rules and think I got them down. But, what is crytoclaiming?
Also is host just another name for a mod?
Thanks,
SL
EDIT: and apologies if this is in the wrong thread.
Hello folks. I am interested in playing a game. I have played many mafia games in a different forum where phases are 24 hours. Anything specific I need to do to sign up? You guys keep the sign ups and game threads on the same sub forum right?
I read the basic rules and think I got them down. But, what is crytoclaiming?
Also is host just another name for a mod?
Thanks,
SL
EDIT: and apologies if this is in the wrong thread.
Nothing specific; while the sign-ups are active, they're in the same subforum as this thread. I think there's a list you can add your name to if you want a PM when sign-ups start, too.
Cryptoclaiming is the act of using a code to claim. The specific example that comes to mind was using a combination of the first letter in each word plus the number of letters in the claim to make it virtually impossible for scum to false-claim without having it ready out of the gate. (ex. IATSPD [26]) - translating out to "I Am The Self Protecting Doctor".
I feel like that would create a lot of work for an Admin - especially since they would have to figure out which setups were and were not already completed.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I don't think there's any way for us to just make a thread itself visible.
Now, what we -could- do is have two subforums in there, and the mafia mod can go in and move the thread from 'invisible' to 'visible' once the thing is complete.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Now, what we -could- do is have two subforums in there, and the mafia mod can go in and move the thread from 'invisible' to 'visible' once the thing is complete.
Would it really require a mod's intervention? -When a game ended, couldn't the game's host just create a new thread in the visible subforum and copy-paste their set-up into it?
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
The Boondocks is a very vulgar show. I'd like permission to have it (my upcoming Normal) run in the Red Zone/NSFW subs. I don't know if a redirect from here to there is possible, or if this has ever even been considered, but I'd be using a lot of slurs and curses to do the flavor justice.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
So, real fast, the MEAN GAMES sub has been deleted.
gan_dan, before we (the admins) allow the game to be run, I need to talk with you about some of this first. Send me a PM with exactly what the "vulgarness" of the game is going to be.
Sorry to be a buzzkill or whatever, but there's a limit to what we will allow on MTGS.
—meg
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can we have Megiddo removed from the forum forever please?
i'm pretty sure i can find your ***** online within 3 minutes
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I don't think Shadows are really a good fit for basics because it both removes newbies from the pool of replacements and maybe there aren't any experienced enough players who actually want to play in basics...
That being said I'm still willing to try (not that I think it will turn true) it if:
a)A experienced player wants to play and shadow other players.
b)A newbie is afraid of actually playing but is interested in seeing how the game works from an "inside" perspective.
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
Yes, "B" seems like a very common scenario. I don't think that there should be any problem with regards to permission.
The one thing that I suppose one could arguably be concerned about in any mentoring or shadowing during an ongoing game is advice on play begin given to the person who's playing by the non-participant. But I *think* common sense should alert people that that's a problem, and not encouraged.
If not, we can add some legalese.
I believe the best way for a greenhorn to learn the game is to just play it. This is why the mentor system has lost popularity since its inception.
In my mind, the shadow system is intended to help new players break into more complex games, as I don't feel that they need help for Basics.
This would require admin tinkering powers on a semi-regular basis, but the idea would be to restrict viewing access to the thread solely to hosts, current and past players of that setup, and reviewers. Maybe spectators on request.
For games like CIM and Cyberspace, that would give hosts the chance to fill multiple games over a longer period. Potentially, a host could even tweak and revise problematic roles or balance problems in subsequent runs of the game.
I bet there would have been a lot of people who'd have liked to play a 2nd run of Sin City at the time it was run, and I definitely would have liked a chance to fix some of the mistakes I made in my other games, and there's been a few games from this year that I would have liked a chance to play in, but missed the signup period.
Thoughts?
It seems like one of the big hurdles to getting our truckloads of veterans back into play, as well as inspiring new generations of players, is fielding enough new and groundbreaking design material. If we can recycle or even improve upon good ideas, so that they have a wider impact and greater dissemination, we can really enhance the impact of our best material and hosts and let their work continue to pay off over the long haul. Keeps our numbers up, increases fun.
EDIT: Agreed, Asian. Overflowing signups are a good indicator. Then again, if a host thinks their game is going to be worth it, and maybe the game doesn't receive the recognition it might deserve until it's already fired once, I think allowing for that scenario wouldn't hurt either.
Basically this. I know I felt bad that so many people wanted to play CIM, but didn't get the chance to (then scumbags like myself got replaced).
Basically modular games.
Yes, randomized role setups and open setups could both be potentially reused and/or tinkered with, without the need for any elaborate privacy system. I wouldn't be opposed to encouraging people to develop setups designed for multiple runs - if they're interesting and unique.
In fact, after my next game, I was thinking over going back to Inheritance Mafia, prepping a new version of the game based on the feedback with a variety of changes and revisions, and refiring a v2 of the game. Still - so much of the value of a setup can come from the surprises they contain - the twists and turns. Unless you run a game privately, you can't ever reclaim the shock value of something like the "big red button" in any subsequent run. You'd basically have to rebuild around new ideas...new nasty surprises.
But even if you don't have any big reveals to protect, games without role randomization or that aren't intended to have open setups would also want to use the privatization method to be able to multi-fire.
EDIT:
League games?
While this is a cool idea, one big problem is that it means that the general populous can't see games running in progress. One of the cool things about games is seeing the whole puzzle and talking about it at the end, which would be restricted only to the players, leaving out everyone else.
I'm also not convinced how many more times you could run a game. Maybe twice in total? You'd run out of legal players pretty quickly.
I guess in the case of heavily oversubscribed games, we could do it, allowing a staggered approach (and bug fixes), rather than simultaneous games but I think we should limit it to as short a time as possible. It doesn't seem like an effective long term solution.
It would also result in a bloat of subforums, permission masks and user groups, which is not ideal.
But then most people can't read the game in question and from their own opinion, making it a "he said/she said" argument.
The mechanics in Inheritance were so deep that you could easily take the basic idea and make a whole new game around it. You'd lose the old surprises, but an "inheritance mechanic" game would be cool. I daresay we could reuse Cyberspace's basic mechanics and make a new game too.
You never did tell us what the Juggernaut did.....
A little while ago, I wanted to try running simultaneous games (basics/minis/whatever) to see how different the playthroughs are, and the effect different players have. I didn't get all that much support for it, since it would effectively halve queue speeds
Well, I'd say a comparison of the two CIMs might be useful to you.
Still, I think there's actually a lot of differences in the focus of the "all-stars" play, between one another. Everyone has their own methodologies, and areas of specialization.
If I had to take a guess though, I'd say that it's more likely that it's a matter of more experienced players doing things better and maybe with a few tricks and wrinkles, than it is of the groups focusing on different areas.
Sounds like a bookkeeping nightmare. I can see us doing this for things like Cyan's Impafia (where OVER FIFTY PEOPLE SIGNED UP!), but I can only see it working for simultaneous runs. It would also put a dent in meta arguments, which I'm not completely okay with. And anyway, how would we know that enough people would be interested in playing in said game to do it without them seeing the setup? Plus, do we even have the playerbase to support that? Aside from CIM, what game has received enough universal interest to indicate this could work? Large games already have a hard enough time filling up.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
They could be run through the normal queue system, or through FTQ/PCQs.
I don't like this as a general rule. -That is mostly because the "no discussion about on-going games" rule is hard enough to follow on it's own without adding a "no discussion about completed, but still hidden games" rule on top of it.
Restricting it to special circumstances would be better, but it would have to be very rare. -Maybe requiring the host and a reviewer or two to propose this treatment would be better?
Speaking of this, since Deitriptychos mafia both has received a far more overwhelming response than I anticipated and is a randomized set-up, I think I could probably rerun it at some point, with minimal alterations, if that was ever desired. However, even if there was sufficient demand for that, I'd prefer to run a new set-up based on those mechanics -and even more so, I would just want to use a new idea altogether.
-And that isn't just because most of the set-up has been seen. -Even if my game had been hidden from non-players, I'd still rather run a new game than rerun a completed one.
EDIT: And I feel the same way about playing. I'd rather read through a completed game and play in a new game than to play in a rerun.
Basically an Open setup is one where everyone knows all the roles in the game, but not who has what. So along with your Rules, you'll have your Setup posted with every role in the game listed.
In Semi-Open, you have a list of roles that 'may or may not' be in the game, but no roles outside of that list. So you will end up with a few more roles listed than there are players in the game; some roles listed are not used. This format is easier for scum teams.
This solves the problem of having to keep games invisible, unless you just REALLY want a closed setup for some reason. Cyan's Impossible Mafia is a good example, because every role is uniquely crafted and you would give away the fun of the game by posting an Open setup.
I am actually running my next basic as a Semi Open. I am actually shocked Basics here are not forced to take at least a Semi Open status like they are on mafiascum.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
That, and part of what made games like TFC and Sin City work was the unique way everything played out in those games - which you could hardly expect to happen again.
Though damn if I wish I could do even half as well as Eco's doing at enticing the vets.
Experiments Series: #5 (Courtly Intrigue Mafia) | #4 (Drunken Tracker) | #3 (Big Red Button) - coming soon | #2 (Pope Mafia) | #1 (Iso's Inflammable Mafia)
Mini Games: MTGS Mafia Redux II (Invitational, Evil Mirror Universe) | Unreal City
Old Games (bad): The Greenwood Affair | Blood Moon Mafia
Yeah, especially since it's kind of a semi-open game already. Everyone knows what should or shouldn't be in a basic, but I don't think it's been explicitly listed.
Could we start doing that?
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Fixed that for ya.
Since I'll have been the process of two minis that have someone more experienced reviewing it behind me (Ecophagy and AI, which I think makes me having done the most in this manner), I'll report/have them report our findings after the fact. Anything in particular you councilfolk would like to know about?
basic => mini/normal => speciality
Mythic rarity is not destroying the game. People whine too much for no good reason. Magic is more popular than ever, so keep calm, brew some decks and play some damn cards.
I suppose I should've been more clear, as he's only "behind" me in the sense that I got to it first.
I read the basic rules and think I got them down. But, what is crytoclaiming?
Also is host just another name for a mod?
Thanks,
SL
EDIT: and apologies if this is in the wrong thread.
Nothing specific; while the sign-ups are active, they're in the same subforum as this thread. I think there's a list you can add your name to if you want a PM when sign-ups start, too.
Cryptoclaiming is the act of using a code to claim. The specific example that comes to mind was using a combination of the first letter in each word plus the number of letters in the claim to make it virtually impossible for scum to false-claim without having it ready out of the gate. (ex. IATSPD [26]) - translating out to "I Am The Self Protecting Doctor".
And yep, host=mod.
Hope that helps.
~DYH
V/LA: 3/21-3/24 & 3/27-3/29
Is there a compilation somewhere of the power/roles that are popular on this site and what they do? And of Acronyms you all use?
This has renewed my determination to finish my setup.
Eh, sorry, I guess this is off topic for the council thread.
BUT STILL ERMAHGERD
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Now, what we -could- do is have two subforums in there, and the mafia mod can go in and move the thread from 'invisible' to 'visible' once the thing is complete.
My helpdesk should you need me.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Kraj has requested replacement as a Mafia League Judge. Anyone who wants to take up his position, please shoot Arnnaria and myself a joint PM.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Would it really require a mod's intervention? -When a game ended, couldn't the game's host just create a new thread in the visible subforum and copy-paste their set-up into it?
Hunt them down and kill themUhh, I mean, it's unofficially over. I told Raging Levine he could post his sign-ups.{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
The Boondocks is a very vulgar show. I'd like permission to have it (my upcoming Normal) run in the Red Zone/NSFW subs. I don't know if a redirect from here to there is possible, or if this has ever even been considered, but I'd be using a lot of slurs and curses to do the flavor justice.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
gan_dan, before we (the admins) allow the game to be run, I need to talk with you about some of this first. Send me a PM with exactly what the "vulgarness" of the game is going to be.
Sorry to be a buzzkill or whatever, but there's a limit to what we will allow on MTGS.
—meg
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
That was your first mistake.
Congrats to you, KittyCupCake, Voxxicus, and zindabad!