Survivor Review Board: Discussion

animorpherv1 · Post Post #10 (isolation #0) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:15 am

Posting to say that kloud is indeed alive also, and has also volunteered to help review.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #14 (isolation #1) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:33 am

Alright, since this has been all removed and what not, we should maybe get a skype call or something going at some point about this (bonus points to whomever's idea this was) - people who are both for and against are willing to join and say their piece.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #21 (isolation #2) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:16 pm

In post 20, Klick wrote:I'm not likely to play many more games in the near future. However, if I were to jump back in and play, I'd be more likely to play a game if I was confident it would be well set-up. Having a "stamp," per say, from this system would make me confident that the game I'd be joining would be a quality game.

So yeah, if I felt like playing, I'd more likely join a game that was approved by the Survivor Review Board. It'd make me feel more confident about it.

QFT.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #23 (isolation #3) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:17 pm

In post 22, StrangerCoug wrote:I'm in agreement on part of this. No Skype.

What are the opinions on a formal Survivor queue?

We already have an "informal" one anyways.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #25 (isolation #4) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:50 pm

I'm also here and willing to review, since KAces didn't read the full OP.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #32 (isolation #5) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:34 pm

In post 31, Nicholas1024 wrote:
In post 26, Jal wrote:
The other set of issues which was highlighted in Arkham, is whether the integrity of Survivor games themselves are being upheld.
Arkham had a mod account which had a pre-determined time to be executed and at least one challenge where the outcome was decided beforehand. That stuff should not be allowed to exist in a Survivor game.
Just saying, but Arkham was advertised as the kind of crazy game where the normal rules are broken. The twists present in Arkham should not be considered standard in any way.

It still shouldn't have happened.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #40 (isolation #6) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:41 pm

In post 39, chesskid3 wrote:wait why not just vote him out at TC

We weren't aware of it.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #42 (isolation #7) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:46 pm

In post 38, Nyalite wrote:The thing we are specifically talking about is one player who was a "mod character" who was played by one of the mods and a spectator.

ANYWAYS, back on point. I disagree with the looking at the challenges and whatnot. There are multiple challenges which are used time and time again and practically no one enjoys them anymore. Things like that and apparently any challenge that requires creativity (because that results in no one submitting) should be looked at and removed.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #44 (isolation #8) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:54 pm

In post 43, Cephrir wrote:This is the players' faults. I think they should continue to happen, and if you don't submit you really have nothing to complain about.

I agree, but it doesn't help the mood of the game when no one submits.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #46 (isolation #9) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 3:59 pm

In post 45, D3f3nd3r wrote:Then again Arkham did warn its players to expect insanity and bastard-mod stuff...

"Twists will be about as numerous and game-changing as all those Bat-gadgets on a certain utility belt. Think fast, or suffer a mild case of death."

"The moderating team is not responsible for any rage, violence, insanity, heart attacks, or jaywalking induced by this game. In the event that you start experiencing some of these symptoms, please begin praying to the God of your choice."

If you warn your players that the game is bastard/twist-heavy/rage-inducing, you have the freedom to go wild.

This is where clarity is a good thing - I

knew

it would be silly and twist-heavy, I just never expected bastard.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #49 (isolation #10) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:13 pm

In post 48, Jal wrote:What are the challenges that are being used time and time again that you find annoying? I don't care about creativity challenges, but more so because it requires judges of some sort and is very subjective. You can put a whole lot of effort into them and pretty much go no where. Like, seriously who would give green ship in Mass Effect 5/5 in functionality for their printer?!?!

RAF and mastermind - I'm OK with the island hopping one for now, because someone always tends to reinvent new strategies for it.

Jal wrote:Outside of the essay in Bahamas, can you note what other creativity challenges had people not submitting? I think that challenge mainly suffered from the mood falling in previous challenges then that challenge itself being the culprit for bringing the mood down in the game.

Summertime's fashion thingy

at least

- Arkham's story challenge also had 2 non-submitters, but idk if that was related to AFKness or something else.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #54 (isolation #11) » Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:10 pm

Admittedly, it's the legendary box that makes me

want

to check twists for annoyingness and/or brokenness. That's all I'd want to check it for. If the players perceive it as annoying, or it's broken, then we've got a bad twist that should've been looked at. Similar deal for challenges - check to see if it's annoying or broken. That's it.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #73 (isolation #12) » Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:33 am

Pretty much what kdowns said, but I'd change 5 to a no and just require a co-mod or a backup in all games, because then it alleviates all those concerns, and co/backup mods are good ideas.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #76 (isolation #13) » Sat Jan 18, 2014 8:33 pm

Large game:

Any game that will take multiple months to complete that requires at least 16 players.

animorpherv1 · Post Post #90 (isolation #14) » Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:49 pm

Large games are typically advertised anyways - so long as Xalxe checks the main thread, he should be OK.