In post 74, callforjudgement wrote:Many games offsite allow unlimited PMs between players (either as a strategy thing or because they feel it's impossible to enforce no PMs between players).
The games normally end up revolving around it; things like "as soon as a player becomes confirmed town, everyone fullclaims to that player, who can dictate lynches without having to state their evidence from then on and it's assumed that it was based on role information received from someone else". It'd make breadcrumbling pretty much obsolete.
In other words, Get a Room has a really major impact on a setup's balance unless the setup is particularly role-light.
Players are limited to one new room per player per day phase. (two new rooms in a micro). In one game I modded two town players were able to create a mini masonry and work together but in another game I modded the same thing happened between a town player and a scum player and they just continued being pretend masons until the that scum player won in 3p lylo. In the third game I modded, the post restriction part meant that a town player who had gotten a room with another town player was unable to derail their lynch because they got the room too close to the deadline.
It benefits whichever faction is more skilled at looking town and working together in private.
There are limitations on room size as well.
It can make breadcrumbing obsolete, that's true, but it can also mean you're breadcrumbing your role to the towniest member of the scumteam.
Interestingly, 2 person rooms are almost universally treated like masonries even when they aren't, but 3 person rooms are usually eaten alive by paranoia, even when all members of the room are town.
but they can only have one room, so only one or two people will be able to crumb to them in the room, and they'll probably be dying that night anyway because they're conftown.
In post 76, Plotinus wrote:Interestingly, 2 person rooms are almost universally treated like masonries even when they aren't, but 3 person rooms are usually eaten alive by paranoia, even when all members of the room are town.
This isn't a fair assertion D:
Let's reword it as
'Postie rooms are almost universally treated like masonries even when they aren't, while 3-person non-Postie rooms are usually eaten alive by paranoia, even when all members of the room are town.'
2019 stats: Town WR 76.7%, overall WR 81.667%, 1 scum defeat involving a major mod error in lylo vs 8 scum wins.
It wasn't just your room with Postie in that game, it's also been true of for example my neighbourhood with Broseidon in Clowntardis, and Davsto experienced a similar thing in ETL's upick with a neighbourhood he was in.
Also I think there was a similar effect in the blitz I modded, not to the same extent because rooms were underutilised there, but if there are 3 people in the room people are a little better at remembering "hey this room could contain scum".
Also in slavic music mafia I when there were only 2 person rooms, a lot of notscience's rooms were treated like masonries early on and I think they would've continued to be treated that way if he hadn't got sick and been unable to keep up his activity levels while sick.
Treat your players like they're stupid. Explain everything in detail.
I VERY strongly disagree with this.
The longer your ruleset, the more likely it is that I'm just going to ignore it entirely and not even bother reading it.
Dead serious, if your rules are longer than a screenwidth and contain basic, redundant, and even obsolete information that's frankly unnecessary to include? I'm not reading that shit. I'm just assuming you don't have anything remotely surprising in your rules.
In contrast, if I see a short, neat, ruleset that is directly to the point and contains just the essentials? Damn right I'll read it. It's short. I have no reason not to read it.
Routine day with a dirt cheap brush
Then a week goes by and it goes untouched
Then two, then three, then a month
Then the rest of your life, you beat yourself up
Treat your players like they're stupid. Explain everything in detail.
I VERY strongly disagree with this.
The longer your ruleset, the more likely it is that I'm just going to ignore it entirely and not even bother reading it.
Dead serious, if your rules are longer than a screenwidth and contain basic, redundant, and even obsolete information that's frankly unnecessary to include? I'm not reading that shit. I'm just assuming you don't have anything remotely surprising in your rules.
In contrast, if I see a short, neat, ruleset that is directly to the point and contains just the essentials? Damn right I'll read it. It's short. I have no reason not to read it.
if you're allowing hydras (or even if you're not bc people might slip a hydra from outside into your game), make it absolutely clear whether votes from an incorrect account, actions from an incorrect account, or anything along those lines count or not instead of just saying "if it looks like a vote i count it". regardless of what your policy is, it eliminates any potential for "i thought X vote counted and it didn't count" situations which could severely affect the gamestate.
i'm also pretty strongly in favor of giving players basic setup-related information, i.e. specifying whether a game is multiball or not, and in another instance i specifically pointed out that the assignment of flavor to alignment was random so that players wouldn't bother to speculate over it. i don't really get arguments for not doing this because in most cases it just prevents players from wasting their time speculating over irrelevant shit and allows them to focus more on pure scum hunting. it's a practice i prefer when i'm actually playing, anyway
i don't necessarily agree with always getting multiple reviewers, but that might be because all of the games i've ran have been based on obscure shit no one knows about so it's almost impossible for me to find more than 1 or maybe 2 reviewers most of the time. both mini theme games i've ran or co-ran have been fine despite only having 1 reviewer each whereas every large (normal/theme) game i've ran has been critiqued for its balance one way or another regardless of how many people reviewed it.
In post 84, pieguyn wrote:if you're allowing hydras (or even if you're not bc people might slip a hydra from outside into your game), make it absolutely clear whether votes from an incorrect account, actions from an incorrect account, or anything along those lines count or not instead of just saying "if it looks like a vote i count it". regardless of what your policy is, it eliminates any potential for "i thought X vote counted and it didn't count" situations which could severely affect the gamestate.
i'm also pretty strongly in favor of giving players basic setup-related information, i.e. specifying whether a game is multiball or not, and in another instance i specifically pointed out that the assignment of flavor to alignment was random so that players wouldn't bother to speculate over it. i don't really get arguments for not doing this because in most cases it just prevents players from wasting their time speculating over irrelevant shit and allows them to focus more on pure scum hunting. it's a practice i prefer when i'm actually playing, anyway
I will count anything that looks like an attempt to vote if it can be reasonably determined where that vote is coming from. (Having votes not count because of incorrect account can be a dangerous loophole, especially when alts have similar avatars to the main account and are known.)
As to multi ball, do those kind of setups still commonly appear? I don't understand the need for disclosure of multi ball in a large game as it's something that should reasonably be expected in a large game, but I might agree with disclosure in a mini game because it isn't reasonably expected there.
In post 85, pieguyn wrote:i don't necessarily agree with always getting multiple reviewers, but that might be because all of the games i've ran have been based on obscure shit no one knows about so it's almost impossible for me to find more than 1 or maybe 2 reviewers most of the time. both mini theme games i've ran or co-ran have been fine despite only having 1 reviewer each whereas every large (normal/theme) game i've ran has been critiqued for its balance one way or another regardless of how many people reviewed it.
i might just be lazy? /shrug
Well given reviewers should not care one bit whatever the obscure flavor is and just looking at the set-up itself for balance / sanity / normalcy I don't see why getting multiple reviewers should be hard personally.
"I am a leaf on the wind ... watch how I soar!"
Pretty much Geriatric game restricted at this point ... unless there are players I REALLY want to play with.
In post 85, pieguyn wrote:i don't necessarily agree with always getting multiple reviewers, but that might be because all of the games i've ran have been based on obscure shit no one knows about so it's almost impossible for me to find more than 1 or maybe 2 reviewers most of the time. both mini theme games i've ran or co-ran have been fine despite only having 1 reviewer each whereas every large (normal/theme) game i've ran has been critiqued for its balance one way or another regardless of how many people reviewed it.
i might just be lazy? /shrug
Well given reviewers should not care one bit whatever the obscure flavor is and just looking at the set-up itself for balance / sanity / normalcy I don't see why getting multiple reviewers should be hard personally.
Quality > Quantity
Also more reviewers isn't necessarily better. It might keep setups from getting approved, but that can be more because of ideas clashing than any reason that actually has any merit.
In post 86, Zachrulez wrote:As to multi ball, do those kind of setups still commonly appear? I don't understand the need for disclosure of multi ball in a large game as it's something that should reasonably be expected in a large game, but I might agree with disclosure in a mini game because it isn't reasonably expected there.
about multiball in particular, i don't really announce it based around whether it should be reasonably expected or not. i do it because i imagine players don't enjoy having to spend a bunch of time going "is this multiball" or "is that a multiball kill or an SK kill or a vig kill" or "are there flavor reasons for spec'ing multiball here" or having to reset all of their reads because they think the game is multiball when they didn't before or any other similar behavior which results from not knowing whether the game is multiball or not. that is, regardless of whether it's a part of the game that should in theory be expected, guessing about multiball is not a part of the game i find enjoyable at all
i don't know how many other people agree with me on this, but i do get the general impression most people prefer not having to think about it
there are other ways to enforce speculation about a setup that aren't as much of a total crapshoot as "durr is the game multiball or not".
i've actually done it indirectly in my last two theme games. in the first, i had a full vigilante, with no restrictions, which is a really awful-looking role which leaves open the possibility for an SK. the second was role madness, and me/my co-mod included several awful-looking town roles and town-looking scum roles. i could be wrong but i am pretty sure both had the intended effects, especially in the second game (in general people kept trying to outguess the setup and losing, as opposed to reading play).
playing around with setup spec can be a good thing to do sometimes. but i don't think that having to blindly wonder if a game is multiball or not is the kind of setup spec people enjoy actually doing when they're in a game. (+ some aspects of the setup, i.e. flavor, shouldn't be speculated on at all.)
In post 85, pieguyn wrote:i don't necessarily agree with always getting multiple reviewers, but that might be because all of the games i've ran have been based on obscure shit no one knows about so it's almost impossible for me to find more than 1 or maybe 2 reviewers most of the time. both mini theme games i've ran or co-ran have been fine despite only having 1 reviewer each whereas every large (normal/theme) game i've ran has been critiqued for its balance one way or another regardless of how many people reviewed it.
i might just be lazy? /shrug
Well given reviewers should not care one bit whatever the obscure flavor is and just looking at the set-up itself for balance / sanity / normalcy I don't see why getting multiple reviewers should be hard personally.
Quality > Quantity
Also more reviewers isn't necessarily better. It might keep setups from getting approved, but that can be more because of ideas clashing than any reason that actually has any merit.
If your reviewers are any good, yes having more reviewers is better.
In post 85, pieguyn wrote:i don't necessarily agree with always getting multiple reviewers, but that might be because all of the games i've ran have been based on obscure shit no one knows about so it's almost impossible for me to find more than 1 or maybe 2 reviewers most of the time. both mini theme games i've ran or co-ran have been fine despite only having 1 reviewer each whereas every large (normal/theme) game i've ran has been critiqued for its balance one way or another regardless of how many people reviewed it.
i might just be lazy? /shrug
Well given reviewers should not care one bit whatever the obscure flavor is and just looking at the set-up itself for balance / sanity / normalcy I don't see why getting multiple reviewers should be hard personally.
Quality > Quantity
Also more reviewers isn't necessarily better. It might keep setups from getting approved, but that can be more because of ideas clashing than any reason that actually has any merit.
If your reviewers are any good, yes having more reviewers is better.
The only real benefit of multiple reviewers is that the 2nd, 3rd, ect finds something either the mod or the reviewer didn't. I don't find that benefit large enough to merit requiring more than one reviewer. With one good reviewer your game is not likely to find a major issue. (Whereas having multiple reviewers can be an impediment to even getting a game off the ground.)
In post 91, pieguyn wrote:there are other ways to enforce speculation about a setup that aren't as much of a total crapshoot as "durr is the game multiball or not".
i've actually done it indirectly in my last two theme games. in the first, i had a full vigilante, with no restrictions, which is a really awful-looking role which leaves open the possibility for an SK. the second was role madness, and me/my co-mod included several awful-looking town roles and town-looking scum roles. i could be wrong but i am pretty sure both had the intended effects, especially in the second game (in general people kept trying to outguess the setup and losing, as opposed to reading play).
playing around with setup spec can be a good thing to do sometimes. but i don't think that having to blindly wonder if a game is multiball or not is the kind of setup spec people enjoy actually doing when they're in a game. (+ some aspects of the setup, i.e. flavor, shouldn't be speculated on at all.)
Well you shouldn't really spend time worrying about whether there is more than one scum team in a game, you should more or less figure out it naturally in the course of lynching scummy players.
I've found in practice, the issue with that is that by the time you figure it out "naturally" you've basically lost all control over whether you can win the game or not, for a lot of reasons (1. in multiball it's very easy for scum to legitimately scum hunt, and town has no way of distinguishing this from town scum hunting unless they know the game is multiball; 2. if you get unlucky with crosskills, and the setup isn't balanced well, which happens almost all the time with multiball setups, it sometimes only takes 2 or 3 mislynches before you're completely suffocated; etc.). but, I don't wanna turn this into a debate about the merits of multiball setup-wise.
In post 86, Zachrulez wrote:I don't understand the need for disclosure of multi ball in a large game as it's something that should reasonably be expected in a large game,
i wouldn't sign up for a large game if i knew it was a multiball
i personally believe multiball isn't even mafia, but i'm not here to debate that. multiball and single ball are VERY VERY different games and players should know which one they're getting themselves into before they sign up.
The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success.
