Tell me about System Shock 2, atlseal? (Also, why not the prequel?)
System Shock 2 is a hybrid FPS/RPG game that does scares the way that Dead Space should have. The horror is a lot more centered around suspense than 'boo' monsters like in Doom. Really good story. It is the spiritual predecessor to Bioshock and these guys 'get' atmosphere. I would happen to rate it pretty highly in my list of games.
As far as why not the prequel, it's just the advancements in design over the first. You have to keep in mind that this series is over a decade old.
As someone who uses Spoiler'd Sigs I can not accept Thanking as a Replacement for Barning or even ^.
That's fine. I'm not demanding people use it as a replacement. It is merely one use for it. We're not going to suddenly start warning/infracting for going "^ This ^" instead of using it.
I mean, if it's an easy 1-click solution, I don't see anyone arguing in favor of the thank system. Shut it down if it's easy - make mod rules if it's not.
I'm in favor of keeping it around because they don't break games in any way that isn't already able to be broken through the use of off-site content (and we haven't had an issue with that) or expanding the 'don't post into games you are not a player in' rule. In exchange, it expands the game space.
I feel like you didn't read my statement fully - I only requested that I be able to run a game in the event that absolutely nobody on the list could run a game. I also didn't immediately send you a message after tordeck and atlseal's games ended because I was waiting for a response from the people higher up on the list than yourself.
See, my suggested change to this is that instead of waiting to hear back from each person in turn, you just mass e-mail everyone that has their game ready along with the top 3 people on the list at the same time. Highest on the hosting list to get back that they're ready after 3-4 days is the next to host.
Checking once every 4 days is "sitting by your computer"? If multiple people respond, it goes in order of who was 1st on the list, not who responded first.
This is what I was saying. This is not "whoever responds first gets it". It's "at the end of 4 days, the highest person on the list to have responded gets it".
Here is a copy of what I had to say about this issue:
"For a game that takes months to play, there really should be an issue if a new game takes a week to get out... It really should be 'go down the sign-up list and the first person with a completed and reviewed set-up gets to run it'.
Here's how I view the cycle should be run:
- As soon as a player has their game done and reviewed, bold it on the sign-up list
- Once a game finishes, top (let's say 3) spots on the hosting list and all those bolded are notified by PM that a new game needs to be put up
- Say, 4 days later, the highest name on the list with a finished/reviewed game that responded to the PM that they're ready to host gets to put it up
- If you were one of the top 3 spots and have been notified through this process 3 times that a new game needs to start and you are still not done and reviewed, you are knocked off the list"
Well, that's the quickest LYLO that I've ever seen.
The game has ended with a Mafia Victory. Audinho and NeedMoreAssumptions are the winners. Feel free to also discuss how you think this game did. I know how I interpreted things, but I'm curious what the people playing in the game liked/disliked.
I've replaced out a couple times. Some for medical, some for stress.
I noticed there is a list for keeping track of chronic people who replaced out.
My question is, does replacing in offset the "karma" of having replaced out?
More or less, no. They are two tangential items. Just because someone is willing to help with a game in need does not mean that the player can be relied upon for any given length of time.
In other words, I could theoretically volunteer to replace into every game that was in need of replacements and then just not post. The two really aren't related. One is a measure of your helpfulness, the other a measure of your reliability.
Getting on the "good side" of the replacing out list involves a player demonstrating that they have become more reliable (whether due to maturity or additional time opening up).
I recommend Artifice be placed on probation for deliberate posting of his role PM and for unsporting behaviour. Since Artifice expressed understanding of why what he did was unacceptable and displayed some remorse, further punishment can be waived. He should, however, bear in mind that he must tread carefully, and any further transgressions can and should result in more hefty punishments.
We also need to instate a forum-wide rule banning out of game wagers, to ensure such a situation does not occur again.
On the subject of Trust Tells, I agree with DRey. The entire issue is summed up by Iso in #5780:
Players absolutely should not have access to "Get out of fail free" cards that are not part of the game's design. If the game has a mechanic where you can clear yourself, that's fine: the mod allows for that. Clearing yourself because of deliberate manipulation of extra-game affects is tantamount to cheating. Whether this is enforced with policy lynches or actual sub-forum rules is pretty much the only thing to discuss, IMO.
Eco covers my positions on both these topics just fine.
System Shock 2 is a hybrid FPS/RPG game that does scares the way that Dead Space should have. The horror is a lot more centered around suspense than 'boo' monsters like in Doom. Really good story. It is the spiritual predecessor to Bioshock and these guys 'get' atmosphere. I would happen to rate it pretty highly in my list of games.
As far as why not the prequel, it's just the advancements in design over the first. You have to keep in mind that this series is over a decade old.
That's fine. I'm not demanding people use it as a replacement. It is merely one use for it. We're not going to suddenly start warning/infracting for going "^ This ^" instead of using it.
Oldie, but a goodie: System Shock 2
I'm in favor of keeping it around because they don't break games in any way that isn't already able to be broken through the use of off-site content (and we haven't had an issue with that) or expanding the 'don't post into games you are not a player in' rule. In exchange, it expands the game space.
Instead of saying "^ This ^" or "I agree", you can now just click the link.
See, my suggested change to this is that instead of waiting to hear back from each person in turn, you just mass e-mail everyone that has their game ready along with the top 3 people on the list at the same time. Highest on the hosting list to get back that they're ready after 3-4 days is the next to host.
This is what I was saying. This is not "whoever responds first gets it". It's "at the end of 4 days, the highest person on the list to have responded gets it".
"For a game that takes months to play, there really should be an issue if a new game takes a week to get out... It really should be 'go down the sign-up list and the first person with a completed and reviewed set-up gets to run it'.
Here's how I view the cycle should be run:
- As soon as a player has their game done and reviewed, bold it on the sign-up list
- Once a game finishes, top (let's say 3) spots on the hosting list and all those bolded are notified by PM that a new game needs to be put up
- Say, 4 days later, the highest name on the list with a finished/reviewed game that responded to the PM that they're ready to host gets to put it up
- If you were one of the top 3 spots and have been notified through this process 3 times that a new game needs to start and you are still not done and reviewed, you are knocked off the list"
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Asu1iA2Be8t1dHJKdER6bkNfTE5EMnQ2YVlVSklHOXc
The game has ended with a Mafia Victory. Audinho and NeedMoreAssumptions are the winners. Feel free to also discuss how you think this game did. I know how I interpreted things, but I'm curious what the people playing in the game liked/disliked.
It is now Day 5
With 3 alive, it's 2 to lynch.
More or less, no. They are two tangential items. Just because someone is willing to help with a game in need does not mean that the player can be relied upon for any given length of time.
In other words, I could theoretically volunteer to replace into every game that was in need of replacements and then just not post. The two really aren't related. One is a measure of your helpfulness, the other a measure of your reliability.
Getting on the "good side" of the replacing out list involves a player demonstrating that they have become more reliable (whether due to maturity or additional time opening up).
Almost done with Normal with my Wizard, Harry. Next up, Barb or Monk.
Eco covers my positions on both these topics just fine.