In post 849, hiplop wrote:thered be like 3 people qualified to judge paragon and I doubt they would want to do it
Wait, how do you know how busy I am?
In post 849, hiplop wrote:thered be like 3 people qualified to judge paragon and I doubt they would want to do it
In post 839, Davsto wrote:But I feel that, when rewarding a single player, if say all of their scum teammates die within the first few days and then they make it through a load of days singlehandedly, there should be some bonus points for that, because that can be really tough, and I don't see it being fully fair to reward a single player in part on the strength of their teammates.
In post 843, Davsto wrote:I'm not sure how fair it is to judge someone's play as scum based on the town they faced up against, because that's just dumb luck. If someone plays amazingly but they happen to only be against okay players, is it really fair to dock points?
While I agree that "not getting any suspicion" is good for scum, "having lots of suspicion but still avoiding being lynched" is something I'd consider to be something worth rewarding as it requires a different, strong amount of skill.
This almost feels like punishing someone for using their power role greatly. Sure, day play is skilful, but the way it's worded like this does not sound good. Skilled use of power roles is a very important part of the game, and a rule like this sounds like it will basically instantly reduce the chances of you winning an award if the game you played in was role madness. If you mean "they would have been lynched but someone got an incorrect innocent result on them because godfather", fine. If you mean "the use of power roles was very good and played a big part in their victory as well as their very good day play", I strongly disagree with that being considered worse in any way.
Mostly no objections here, although I feel this gives a slight disadvantage of winning if the game only had nighttalk and not daytalk, a factor which vastly affects teamwork.
... okay this is just ridiculous. Again, I don't feel a single nominee should be judged based on their teammates, but in terms of replacing out? Are you kidding me? Like, wow. You may end up punishing a player because one of their teammates is a lurked or a player who bends a rule too far and gets forced replaced - a whole number of factors contribute to replacements, and I guarantee they are out of a team member's control!
Daytalk pretty objectively positively affects teamwork when used well. Communicating during the day, organising bussing timing or quickhammers, the list goes on. The newbie scum winrate skyrocketed when daytalk was introduced, and while it does affect newbies more than experienced players, I think denying that daytalk massively improves scum teamwork is being fairly ignorant of site meta.In post 852, xRECKONERx wrote:no it doesn't
In post 836, xRECKONERx wrote:#1) Best scum team isn't being removed. It's just that Don Corleone is no longer just an individual award.
#2) The idea behind Don Corleone not being Body of Work is sort of a "fool me once" conundrum. If someone gets away with a flawless scum game once, then by all accounts, they shouldn't get away with it again. If someone is consistently killed as town Night 1 due to their prowess as a town player, that's something that can at least partially be quantified. If someone is consistently lynched Day 1 because they're good at playing scum and nobody can trust them... well, that really shouldn't reflect poorly, should it? Great scum play should include some moonshots and "one-in-a-million" gambits. We feel that, unlike town play, scum play necessitates some very unique manuevering which cannot be judged well over the course of a body of work.
#3) The easiest way to delineate between why scum and town have to be treated separately is this: townplay allows for a sort of consistent algorithm or method to discerning scum play. If you get 100 people together and go, "pick scum out in this game", no matter how many people are wrong, at least one is going to be right (statistically). Town play has a lot of guessing involved, and though it's educated guessing, it's still guessing, in the end. EVERY GAME that is played, someone called scum correctly, at some point. It's a very rare outlier for there to be no scum called correctly. Now, with scum play, there's no "algorithm" or "method" -- because the SECOND a scum technique is used for a win, it becomes more dangerous to pull off again. So we felt that scum should be rewarded for pulling off hail mary, shot-in-the-dark plays -- and those can really only reliably occur once in a while, certainly not more than a couple times per year. People felt hamstringed by the "body of work" qualifier to nominate for scum games.
I will say this: we are working, backstage, on actual criteria/rubric sheets for each award in order to make our exact qualifications feel more...robust. I totally understand that right now, it can feel very one-sided. We don't want that. We want to provide the least subjective criteria possible so people fully understand what goes into each award. I feel like, once those rubricks are made available, the conversations here will mostly center around "How can we improve this rubric?" rather than "Why don't we have an award for XXXXXX?". Because I feel like, in the end, we have most of our bases covered.
Nominee's faction achieved their win condition despite facing highly competent opponents
Nominee received little to no sustained suspicion throughout the game
Nominee's success was impressively independent of the use of power roles
The nominee's entire faction survived until late in the game
The nominee's entire faction demonstrated an impressive level of teamwork and no replacements had to be made
In post 864, Davsto wrote:I disagree with the Don Corleone being a body of work
Because it is considerably harder to be consistently good as scum
And you may say "that's the point" but I mean "there will literally only be around four nominees to choose from each year and there's a decent chance it'll be the same ones each year".
In post 866, Davsto wrote:But that seems incredibly restrictive and elitist. If someone has an incredibly good scumgame, even an uncharacteristically good one, they should be awarded for it, not told "well you did great but you haven't done that well in other scum games so the award is going to go to the same person it did last year."
In post 868, hiplop wrote:the big issue is it naturally favours people who play a ton of games. Different than town where youre statistically likely to roll town, you aren't likely to flip scum. Can play a ton of games and be town in every one
if you play one standout game, and htats it, are you less deserving than someone who wins multiple "okay" wins?