Scummies Ideas, Suggestions and Comments Thread

[wgeurts]

Then what happens if a group of people work together?
Should they get disregarded? Or who'll get the credit?
I'd support a group nomination for this one or a possible seperate wiki scummie. Why would it be hard to look at a groups work?

[wgeurts]

I understand your reasoning and after further thought a seperate scummie would be dumb. What could possibly be done is group nominations are allowed however as you said you'll only get reviewed for that. In this case redoing the wiki.

[wgeurts]

You can't nom yourself anyway, so why does it matter? I don't care about getting a Scummy, I'm doing it because I want to do it.

You can actually though it's frowned upon. Also, although you're not doing it for a scummie (and that's the right attitude) I'm nominating you for your work. I had already been nominated for wiki changes however you and molla are also both putting a lot of work into it. Hence I nominated you two for the same thing as me.

[wgeurts]

It's more me wanting to give you some credit for your work, I'm not trying to gain some award either.

[wgeurts]

i agree w/ plexar

Have you been hacked, that's like the 5th post with this in a row?

[wgeurts]

That sounds like it's going to cause division.

[wgeurts]

I think we should add an award for "best bastard game", currently these games have a pretty darn hard time of winning any awards although they can be some of the most fun and memorable games out there.

To start off the current awards they could possibly get from most likely to least.

• Best mutation - This is a possibility but honestly this award is for a part of a game and not a game as a whole like the other two awards:
  
• Best setup - Though bastard games have a larger chance of winning this than game of the year it's still more likely to go to a well-formed themed game of some sort. For those that say a bastard game is just a bad theme game those that enjoy them would disagree, there's a difference between a bad and good bastard game and certain people enjoy them a lot. There just another type of game.
  
• Game of the year - Bastard games will never win this, due to their nature their unbalancedness, wackyness and just general abnormality it's really unlikely they could ever win this award. Town and scum may play well but the insane roles/mechanics also play a large role so that and the balance factor are usually tremendously low.

I'd suggest some extra award specifically for them, some games I'd nominate that come to mind are some of varsoon's games.

This post probably sucks as I made it on the metro using my phone but my intentions are clear.

[wgeurts]

but wouldn't an award like that lead to the production of a higher volume of bastard games

Which would be bad because?
People will play what they like so it shouldn't be too bad as supply/demand, as well as there being more bastard games lowers your chance of winning the award due to there being more options and a higher chance of better ones than yours.

[wgeurts]

Nominate this thread for "Silent Hill"

[wgeurts]

Let's face it, no matter how many protest nothing will ever change

[wgeurts]

Isn't the argument for the removal that it only awards one aspect of play which can't be objectively judged properly which is better?
If so then I disagree with that.

To be a good team as either alignment (including scum) you need a lot more than just "teamwork". If the players in a faction all work together well and everything is all rainbows and bunnies that doesn't mean they will be successful at anything. Just like a football team can work well together, that isn't all that's needed; other qualities are also needed.
For instance with a scum team manipulative skills, seeming convincing , etc. are all things a good scum team need. If they have none of these but only "good teamwork" they will fail miserably at a a game.

Now scum teams can already be nominated as a whole but splitting that reward up again really doesn't harm anyone. Sometimes you have a group of people who shine, other scenarios involve one member carrying a whole team. These seperate situations work best with seperate rewards.

Now for town. Town if they don't know how to push reads, form them in the first place and all that stuff will fail miserably just like scum will if they only have "teamwork". Town cohesion isn't the only thing a good town displays; they need all the other aspects a good individual town player needs to have.

Those rewards weren't just awarding one aspect of play. Instead they were awarding all of them, except the focus is on the whole faction instead of the individual.

And in those scenarios one or two carry the whole faction? Well, just rank them below other games where there were significantly less useless players.

Typed this up on my phone so if formatting is awful and what not I apologize.

[wgeurts]

The reward isn't only about teamwork though.

[wgeurts]

If they worked together wonderfully but failed at finding scum they also won't win. It's just one of the many aspects that needs to be taken into consideration. Teamwork shouldn't be the main aspect.

[wgeurts]

I'm saying it isn't only an award about teamwork. Effectively its the same as the regular best town award except instead of focusing on an individual it's focused on a whole group. Teamwork doesn't win games, it's a mixture of things that makes a good town team.

If it's being judged as "which team worked best together" the award isn't being judged correctly.

[wgeurts]

Judging teams doesn't mean you should tunnel vision onto teamwork as that isn't the main thing. You look at their achievements, how they got there, how much the mafia put up a fight and how well the town saw through their lies. Basically everything that's judged for the individual town award.

[wgeurts]

Let's then say you have a game where 7 did this, then that team wins instead of the 5 one. The former then wins. It's the best town team so ones filled with lurkers shouldn't win. I'm saying that that the current reason given for removing it doesn't add up.

[wgeurts]

Not really, if there are three teams which are nominated and one is plagued with lurkers and a few good players that one shouldn't win is what I'm saying. Counting how many played well and deciding a winner like that is a silly idea. However games that have more players playing well should have a higher chance of winning, that seems logical.

Edit: this was aimed at the post before your next one

[wgeurts]

If the team of 5 played better I would say have them win. However only if there aren't any other games where more players played at the same or higher level as that game.

And let's say we have a micro and a large. Then I guess it becomes difficult to judge.