In post 97, Klick wrote:@everyone: How do you decide on who you want your early allies to be? What is your criteria? I haven't thought much about how that happens for me. I tend to go for certain-looking players each game, depending on how I want to play. Sometimes I'll seek out strong social players I can share a powerful alliance with, and other times I'll look for followers I can lead. Being able to at least hold a conversation, even if it's a small one, is a necessity though.
Literally just whoever is the most interesting for me to talk to >_>
Which tends to mean the strong social players, obviously, but I think that's something that makes sense for my strategy anyway. If you're going to be a threat, you might as well try to stay off the radars of the other threats. Would I do it even if it was bad play? Probably. I enjoy it.
Though I have had pet projects, and they are fun.
In post 121, Blackberry wrote:I'm kinda surprised people would want to align with a newbie. I don't think I would want to align with a "total newbie" right off the get go without getting to know them first. A: If they're new, they might realize they aren't dedicated enough or cut out for the game and might end up bailing. B: I wouldn't know how to gauge if they were plotting to betray and/or be afraid they'd be too open about any "alliance", etc. C: I'd be afraid they'd be too easily manipulated by other players and if lied to by an opponent, I wouldn't know if they'd be experienced enough to talk with me first. I have absolutely nothing against new players, I just wouldn't trust them to the full extent that I would trust players I can tell know what they're doing.
Players who don't know what they're doing are relatively unlikely to betray you, and I think some people do it as a matter of principle. Also, you trust people???
In post 137, Snakes wrote:In post 132, Flameaxe wrote:In post 129, KingdomAces wrote:That reminds me, I was actually kind of serious about this:Like, I wouldn't be able to design it, because I'm bad at being creative, and it would also be even less newbie friendly, so it's probably not actually a good idea, but as long as people don't use it as an excuse to be openly hostile (which is a very extreme statement in itself), it could be fairly interesting.Food wrote:BPC [The spectator played by N, not the mod.] gave me an idea: Survivor: Mish Mash Survivor. Anon Survivor where the player options are usernames of anyone who's ever played a Survivor before. Playing in character is recommended. Picking yourself is allowed, but not as your first option, and other people taking it has preference.
Either that or character options are characters from Anon games. If a newbie asks for the mods to pick, give them Chancey and watch what happens when they say it's their first game.
Just can't have anyone be Snakes, they'll lose round 1 out of principal, or win out of principal
Hey, it didn't work out this time
I remember discussing a newbie only game with jelly. I feel that could be a good idea. It would let people who want to play but don't have the experience have an equal shot instead of trying to figure out what's happening while the experienced players set their alliances up. I didn't feel like there was an anti-newbie bias this game, but it did feel like preswap, people wanted to vote for the "easy" votes who hadn't made as many social connections, and those players ended up being newbies who didnt know how important getting into the pm game immediately was.
It might work. Just... don't do a half newbie game, that works about as well here as it does on the show, hehe.