Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:04 am
In post 73, xRECKONERx wrote:In post 70, Shadoweh wrote:3) tell people they're not actually signing up to play Survivor
Mafiascum.net
Survivor: MLS GAME OVER!!! (Congrats Montreal!)
Page 4 of 7
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:15 am
In post 75, MattP wrote:In post 73, xRECKONERx wrote:In post 70, Shadoweh wrote:3) tell people they're not actually signing up to play Survivor
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:33 am
In post 76, hiplop wrote:In post 75, MattP wrote:In post 73, xRECKONERx wrote:In post 70, Shadoweh wrote:3) tell people they're not actually signing up to play Survivor
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:49 am
vijrada rocks, thank you lolPremergers: Literally who
San Jose: You have this way of making people love you and it's really good for you as a player. There is not one postmerger who does not miss you.
NYCFC: Literally who
Toronto: wgeurts! the wiki dude! apparently you were a bit strange but it's a good performance I thought.
DCU: people found you a bit boring apparently but you're no stranger to that lol. well done, i guess
Vancouver: Much more UTR game than previously, good game. You're one of my favourite people because you play hard but you always have a positive attitude. Just, when you're making your one big move, don't make it too big lmao.
KC: Edit your PMs jesus christ
Houston: I think I've played with you three times but never been on a tribe w/ you? but you filled a social huge threat role that you never have before. and you did great pre-merge. fantastic game.
Portland: I don't remember that much about you tbh, but you seemed to play great and be a big threat and all that jazz. gj i guess
who the NAUGHTY WORD was fifth dear god um... oh NYRB: You're crazy man! Spec favourite, always will be, great player in some ways, terrible in other ways. You would have beaten anyone else in this game at the end.
Columbus: Man I remember you as like Nova and Colin wheras this game you were really funny and a challenge beast and everyone liked you, spec and player. You came so so damn close man.
RSL: haha not the equal best win rate anymore, scrub. honestly your confesssionals could be described as "incredibly boring, emotionless and gamebotty" but you're in the top 1 or 2 players here and you just keep proving it. If it was a final 3 as people thought, you would have won for sure. You were the most liked, biggest threat at merge and you made it to third somehow...honestly your game here was such a masterclass and if there's anyone in this game to emulate, it's you (although as a spectator, I'd probably prefer Columbus or NYRB).
Seattle: Man off of pure results you're the newbie of the year so far so that's something to be proud of. Most people can't make second in their second game. In fact, in my four games I've never made merge (and probably never will tbh). So, you should be proud of the fact that you've proven last game was no fluke. If there's any advice I could give you it's probably the same as KC's. Edit! I feel like you say a lot of things you might not mean because your posts come off to me as stream of consciousness sometimes. If you can manage fit in just a little bit more, your strategic approach to the game is not bad. Also don't cheat but you already knew that
Montreal: I feel like you put yourself at a huge disadvantage with your incredibly grating social game and persona, but you managed to claw back every single bit of that disadvantage, make FTC with the only opponent you could beat, and win the game. You've had the highest Crazy score for a long time, because you've voted correctly and didn't receive many votes back. If it wasn't for the awful start, I'd say that your UTR game is one of the best examples around.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:52 am
It was survivor. But the rules should have been made clear from the get-go.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:58 am
Yeah I should have provided more clarity up-front.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:05 am
Post-merge was Survivor, pre-merge wasn't. And that's fine; Xof and I have both mentioned to people that this is the Large Social Game forum, not just the Survivor forum. But I agree that games that deviate from the norm like this need to be strongly advertised up front so that players understand what it is they are signing up for.
A lot of the problems in this game weren't inherent to either the mechanical setup or the playerbase; in a sequel where everybody goes into the game knowing how the premerge will work the lower replacement rate and more enthusiasm for the premerge will lead to a much more exciting game.
A lot of the problems in this game weren't inherent to either the mechanical setup or the playerbase; in a sequel where everybody goes into the game knowing how the premerge will work the lower replacement rate and more enthusiasm for the premerge will lead to a much more exciting game.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:08 am
Yeah the only problem was false advertising
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:09 am
Well and the jigsaw puzzles but hay lol who could have thought people wouldn't love to replace their daily nyt crossword with an mls jigsaw
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:16 am
disagree. Part of Survivor is the ability to eliminate people and your relationships from early in the game reflecting that.In post 81, Haschel Cedricson wrote:Post-merge was Survivor, pre-merge wasn't. And that's fine; Xof and I have both mentioned to people that this is the Large Social Game forum, not just the Survivor forum. But I agree that games that deviate from the norm like this need to be strongly advertised up front so that players understand what it is they are signing up for.
This didn't have that in the premerge so the relationships were meaningless. This meant that the merge was more akin to big brother than survivor?
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:24 am
Look you can argue that post-merge worked like a Survivor Merge, but Survivor has two really simple phases:
1) You will be on different tribes, compete against each other, and losers
2) you do the merge thing
If you take out 1, it's a completely different social game that isn't called Survivor. A Survivor merge would -NEVER- have looked like that. Even the tribe competitions were a joke because people that weren't Houston/Seattle/Salt benefitted from throwing them to live.
Branding matters. If I signed up for Survivor: RSX I would have been CONFUSED when the first round was "play Robot Unicorn Attack to live." Just call it "MLS Social Simulator" or something catchy next time. I would play this setup again! There's a lot you could do with it, like incorporate all those poor leftover abandoned guys in the Allocation graveyard and don't stop the team stuff once pre-merge ends. Considering how much groundwork went into something different it would be a shame if it wasn't used again. I'm glad someone like Aronis got to shine because holy shit he deserved it.
1) You will be on different tribes, compete against each other, and losers
vote out someone
2) you do the merge thing
If you take out 1, it's a completely different social game that isn't called Survivor. A Survivor merge would -NEVER- have looked like that. Even the tribe competitions were a joke because people that weren't Houston/Seattle/Salt benefitted from throwing them to live.
Branding matters. If I signed up for Survivor: RSX I would have been CONFUSED when the first round was "play Robot Unicorn Attack to live." Just call it "MLS Social Simulator" or something catchy next time. I would play this setup again! There's a lot you could do with it, like incorporate all those poor leftover abandoned guys in the Allocation graveyard and don't stop the team stuff once pre-merge ends. Considering how much groundwork went into something different it would be a shame if it wasn't used again. I'm glad someone like Aronis got to shine because holy shit he deserved it.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:26 am
What Shadoweh said.
This community should have a clear definition of what is Survivor, really. The inherent social dynamics were totally warped here.
This community should have a clear definition of what is Survivor, really. The inherent social dynamics were totally warped here.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:30 am
True. If you want to claim that something "isn't survivor" then there needs to be an explicit definition of what "is survivor".
It's like when we have the teens at the library play capture the flag. You assume everyone knows the rules, so you start, but then a million little discrepancies pop up and essentially, we have a "what are the rules of capture the flag" session before we actually play, just so everyone's at least working on the same terms, even if they don't agree on those terms.
It's like when we have the teens at the library play capture the flag. You assume everyone knows the rules, so you start, but then a million little discrepancies pop up and essentially, we have a "what are the rules of capture the flag" session before we actually play, just so everyone's at least working on the same terms, even if they don't agree on those terms.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:41 am
how do you play capture the flag in a library
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:41 am
Very quietly.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:42 am
I appreciate u chevre
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:54 am
Our teen program is after hours, so they have the run of the place. It's actually very fun; I imagine it feels very hot-sclusey to them.In post 88, hiplop wrote:how do you play capture the flag in a library
With the weather warming up though, we're able to play it outside on the grounds.
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:56 am
can you host LibraryMeet I want to play that
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:20 am
Did anyone feel like they were at a disadvantage this game for it not being a standard survivor game?
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:51 am
It was way more problematic than it just causing a disadvantage
But yes, not having regular elims and having to deal with a mechanic people didnt sign up for that, for me, sucked the fun out of the game and made it insanely tedious with no perceived reward for greater than 2 weeks was incredibly disadvantageous
one, because the mechanic itself made me really dread having to go through the mechanics necessary each day and that absolutely has an effect of the other aspects of the game like the social play aspect
and two, because having actual eliminations is part of the bonding aspect of the game of survivor that i love and that you expect and its what i wanted
I dont think the mechanic was bad, I just personally dont play games like it, theyre not for me. Basically the only games I play in mish mash are survivor, so I was disappointed and so of course it affected how I engaged with the game. Obviously there was an objective HUGE increase in replace-outs (and I almost replaced out too but I didnt because I was asked not to when I brought it up), so there was an issue with the game, and the issue was the false advertising.
I think the mechanic itself though would put some people at a disadvantage regardless of it not being survivor. But, if you actually signed up for that mechanic, then thats your fault for not rolling with those punches and having a dynamic playstyle
So my point is that yes I feel it put me at a disadvantage but thats not the problem, if it had put me at a disadvantage but I signed up for it then it wouldnt matter, mechanics can put people at disadvantages and still be good
But yes, not having regular elims and having to deal with a mechanic people didnt sign up for that, for me, sucked the fun out of the game and made it insanely tedious with no perceived reward for greater than 2 weeks was incredibly disadvantageous
one, because the mechanic itself made me really dread having to go through the mechanics necessary each day and that absolutely has an effect of the other aspects of the game like the social play aspect
and two, because having actual eliminations is part of the bonding aspect of the game of survivor that i love and that you expect and its what i wanted
I dont think the mechanic was bad, I just personally dont play games like it, theyre not for me. Basically the only games I play in mish mash are survivor, so I was disappointed and so of course it affected how I engaged with the game. Obviously there was an objective HUGE increase in replace-outs (and I almost replaced out too but I didnt because I was asked not to when I brought it up), so there was an issue with the game, and the issue was the false advertising.
I think the mechanic itself though would put some people at a disadvantage regardless of it not being survivor. But, if you actually signed up for that mechanic, then thats your fault for not rolling with those punches and having a dynamic playstyle
So my point is that yes I feel it put me at a disadvantage but thats not the problem, if it had put me at a disadvantage but I signed up for it then it wouldnt matter, mechanics can put people at disadvantages and still be good
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:53 am
But also I replaced in so it was my fault for not reading the quirky rules before agreeing to replace because I had access to them. I just ASSUMED something called survivor would be somewhere close to survivor, jokes on me! But 20 people were in the game before they got a chance to know the rules, and a lot of them replaced or tried to, so obvi it wasnt just a Me Problem
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:54 am
In post 74, xRECKONERx wrote:also sorry guys but um
spoilered votes have never been a funny thing and never will be
ban them
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:55 am
I'm very happy that the twist was known to the replacements waiting in the wings as replacing any slots twice wouldn't have been fun 
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:56 am
I wanted to quote the last one to see but then I got curious about how small a space there would be for the text in the last spoiler. The vote explanation was like 20 words but was ten lines in the tiny space.In post 96, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:In post 74, xRECKONERx wrote:also sorry guys but um
spoilered votes have never been a funny thing and never will be
ban them
Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:57 am
In post 85, Shadoweh wrote:Look you can argue that post-merge worked like a Survivor Merge, but Survivor has two really simple phases:
1) You will be on different tribes, compete against each other, and losersvote out someone
2) you do the merge thing
If you take out 1, it's a completely different social game that isn't called Survivor. A Survivor merge would -NEVER- have looked like that. Even the tribe competitions were a joke because people that weren't Houston/Seattle/Salt benefitted from throwing them to live.
Branding matters. If I signed up for Survivor: RSX I would have been CONFUSED when the first round was "play Robot Unicorn Attack to live." Just call it "MLS Social Simulator" or something catchy next time. I would play this setup again! There's a lot you could do with it, like incorporate all those poor leftover abandoned guys in the Allocation graveyard and don't stop the team stuff once pre-merge ends. Considering how much groundwork went into something different it would be a shame if it wasn't used again. I'm glad someone like Aronis got to shine because holy shit he deserved it.
