Mafiascum.net

The point I was trying to make is that there's also a difference between a returning player who will play rationally to their own interests vs players returning with no skin in the game so they are 100% going to fuck with people

Yeah Lincoln was the best returnee ever, the rest of them sucked

Agreed with Bro. As Clock King all I cared about was helping Star Sapphire so I had no motivation to not leak everything Abe told me. As Rend I channeled all my frustration into taking down Abathur basically because I could. If instead of being a ghost I had been a full-fledged returning player neither of those events would have occurred.

remind me i have something more to say when i get home and can be more eloquent

In post 77, Haschel Cedricson wrote:Agreed with Bro. As Clock King all I cared about was helping Star Sapphire so I had no motivation to not leak everything Abe told me. As Rend I channeled all my frustration into taking down Abathur basically because I could. If instead of being a ghost I had been a full-fledged returning player neither of those events would have occurred.

I think real returnees are way better than ghosts that have no stake in the game, granted most of them have still been disappointing

Abraham Lincoln was awesomely vengeful

In post 78, Chevre wrote:remind me i have something more to say when i get home and can be more eloquent

HEY CHEV YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE TO SAY

In both cases I think ghosts were mechanically meant to be there just to fuck people

In post 69, zoraster wrote: Unannounced returning players is a big one that's awesome to watch because it throws a wrench into everyone's plans, but it's not much fun to play (correct me if i'm wrong, players!) because it feels like chaos thrown in for chaos' sake without any real purpose.

I feel like I'm alone here, but if we're all hellbent on games being notified as "twist heavy" or what have you, it takes some of the fun out of it. Part of Survivor is reacting to events thrown at you by Jeff/Mods/Players/etc. I'd basically say the line sit at Arkham in terms of "games I've played that are sufficiently out there enough to warrant twists". Lots of the rest of this feels like pandering to make things easier.

I think the real issue is that players have different availabilities, and we don't want people to sign away 2-3 months of their life just to be upset or not have fun in the end.

The Arkham games were both advertised as being twist-heavy so that people knew to expect extremely out there things. Doctor Who was also advertised for what it was in advance. It is not fun to think you're going to have a normal game and suddenly be playing something that has a twist every round or two. That only leads to players not having fun and being frustrated enough they want to quit playing the games. A lot of time goes into playing games as well as designing them and if games are advertised in advance for what level to expect, it keeps things much more positive for both counterparts. And that's the important part here. Having players shit all over your game when they're frustrated sucks a lot and makes the modding experience awful; having a game be more intense than you were willing to participate in is also terrible. And both of these situations lead to not enjoying games and just a general negative feel and we don't want that. These are supposed to be fun still and the experience should be something enjoyable. So we're trying to improve that and a way to do so is by having a system where people know what to expect before playing a game.

if your super twisty game doesnt surprise its players its probably not a great supertwisty game

I think part of the issue with extreme twists like the nature of returning players is that veteran players have some level of expectation that these things can happen (even if they're not explicitly stated), but new players do not. And if you're a newer player, that's frustrating. It seems that part of the reasoning behind not revealing twists is so that no one knows what to expect, but veteran players can make guesses about stuff that newer players cannot.

In terms of non-Survivor games, it'd be cool to have some POLLS to see what type of games people want. If there's a lot of demand for something that isn't happening or a certain Survivor theme people want, we could have some reliable mods do those things if no one else is. We call them Ron Howards

OK I am home

In this recent throng of threads that have sprung up in the LSG forum, a lot of experienced players talk about games, their play, their moves with a lot of . Like when xRECKONERx was describing how he couldn't align with Boudica, or just any case where people are playing a game and their moves have more intention than just "staying alive another round."

This is by no means a bad thing -- it's obviously something that gets people to the end and gets them wins. But I know when I play I tend to lack that intentionality of my gameplay. Whether the motivations are different or it's a sense of passivity, I just don't think about the game "steps ahead", if you will. Maybe I'm completely alone in this, but I don't think so; I think that if I'm feeling this way after approximately 100 games played, there are surely newer players who come into this with a less complex way of looking at the game.

I think an important consideration, when it comes to talking about game complexity or ways to improve the modding/playing experience for new players, to consider those who aren't at a high-level of play yet. I mean, this is why it's important to get input from newer players, or like from people on the outside looking in (a.k.a. all those Kingsmeet attendees for whom Civivor was their first).

So many qualifications (?) here: maybe I'm totally alone here, maybe I'm underestimating the rest of the playerbase, maybe it's not a problem, I hope I'm not being condescending here toward either newer or high-level players. But from my sole perspective, I know I see people talk about games afterward or whenever and I feel like there is so much intentionality to it that I'm often just like "I'm not thinking that hard and probably should be."

In post 89, Chevre wrote:So many qualifications (?) here: maybe I'm totally alone here, maybe I'm underestimating the rest of the playerbase, maybe it's not a problem, I hope I'm not being condescending here toward either newer or high-level players. But from my sole perspective, I know I see people talk about games afterward or whenever and I feel like there is so much intentionality to it that I'm often just like "I'm not thinking that hard and probably should be."

if it helps at all, most of what i do tends to be based on what sounds funny to me

same tbh

The expression "Git Gud" comes to mind for some reason...

In post 86, hiplop wrote:if your super twisty game doesnt surprise its players its probably not a great supertwisty game

But what if the twist is that there aren’t many twists?

that would surprise them right?

I believe I line up with what Cherve wrote, except I've ignored the idea that people can actually have ideas of what is going on

If we do the twist score thing maybe we should allow mods to artificially advertise their game as being twister than it is so that the twist can be a lack of twists.

I mostly play Survivor like an AI plays Go.

who knew AI were so bad at Go

AlphaGo is actually the best Go player in the world so...