Quintessential Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Young Bard said: Ha. Yeah, that was amazing, and slightly terrifying. When I woke up and saw that Illwei had died, I was convinced that we'd lost the game, because surely the rest of us would follow. Still, Doubt and Paranoia are wonderful things sometimes... Amazing? Hah, that was literally not credible. When Illwei flipped, my thought was that I was lucky I'd guessed any elims. I'm not used to being good at things apparently Doubt and paranoia can also be terrible things, depending on where you're standing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasimir Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Young Bard said: Ha. Yeah, that was amazing, and slightly terrifying. When I woke up and saw that Illwei had died, I was convinced that we'd lost the game, because surely the rest of us would follow. Still, Doubt and Paranoia are wonderful things sometimes... I basically agree with this. It's come and gone as a problem before, and usually it's been solved just by having a more conscious awareness and calling it out when it happens - in other words, making the targeting of active players more frowned upon in the SE meta. There's an old post by Meta a previous time when this was a major issue which I want to post, but I can't find it, which is annoying me. You sure about this? Because I remember Meta mentioning many times he would go ham on inactives as a Coinshot because either they're hiding or they're not helping the Village. He's also expressly said many a time in a dead doc when we complain about dying early for rallying the Village that the point isn't dying, it's helping your team. It's why he started the SE Spartans thing after... AG2 I think? When Hael and I were complaining about how it'd be good to not die early once. What he has tried to do is probably consistent with most — if a player dies a lot, let them live a bit longer. If a returning player just got back, don't kill them C1. It's why he held back on scanning me C1 when he thought I was Evil that game. Edited February 17, 2021 by Kasimir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Bard Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Kasimir said: You sure about this? Because I remember Meta both mentioning many times he would go ham on inactives as a Coinshot because either they're hiding or they're not helping the Village. He's also expressly said many a time in a dead doc when we complain about dying early for rallying the Village that the point isn't dying, it's helping your team. It's why he started the SE Spartans thing after... AG2 I think? When Hael and I were complaining about how it'd be good to not die early once. Hmmm... I'm vaguely half-remembering things from 4 years ago, so I'm much less sure now you said that. Maybe I'm mixing Meta up with someone else. I'm looking through old docs and posts now. I'd definitely stand by Coinshots killing inactives as a very valid strategy, though. 6 minutes ago, Kasimir said: What he has tried to do is probably consistent with most — if a player dies a lot, let them live a bit longer. If a returning player just got back, don't kill them C1. It's why he held back on scanning me C1 when he thought I was Evil that game. Yeah, I think I am thinking of someone else, but again, this is just good policy, and is definitely a step in the right direction (though from what I've seen, there's usually some consideration for this already in the current meta). Edited February 17, 2021 by Young Bard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasimir Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 Just now, Young Bard said: Hmmm... I'm vaguely half-remembering things from 4 years ago, so I'm much less sure now you said that. Maybe I'm mixing Meta up with someone else. I'm looking through old docs and posts now. I'd definitely stand by Coinshots killing inactives as a very valid strategy, though. Yeah, I thought about it and I remember the most is targeting but that's shared with most players in Gen 1 to... I think Gen 5, at least, in early!Wilson's parlance? If a player dies a lot, maybe don't grinch/NK that early. If they just got back into SE, give them a couple cycles' grace. That sort of thing. But I'm not really sure that's the same as discussion here about killing the actives. And IMO, this takes us to the other side of the coin—where the Contribution Crusade failed, and also, just the fact that this would not be a problem if inactivity hasn't always been a problem. For perspective — yeah, it used to be way worse during the blight, but apart from my starting run of games, I can't remember not screaming at the Village to talk more from the confines of the dead doc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintessential Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, Kasimir said: Yeah, I thought about it and I remember the most is targeting but that's shared with most players in Gen 1 to... I think Gen 5, at least, in early!Wilson's parlance? If a player dies a lot, maybe don't grinch/NK that early. If they just got back into SE, give them a couple cycles' grace. That sort of thing. But I'm not really sure that's the same as discussion here about killing the actives. And IMO, this takes us to the other side of the coin—where the Contribution Crusade failed, and also, just the fact that this would not be a problem if inactivity hasn't always been a problem. For perspective — yeah, it used to be way worse during the blight, but apart from my starting run of games, I can't remember not screaming at the Village to talk more from the confines of the dead doc. Yeah, I can't imagine it ever hasn't been a problem tbh. Because, like, it's sort of hard to fight. The more you say, whether you're vil or elim, the more likely you're gonna say something that someone else will think is sus (or the more likely you as a villager will say something that will draw the elims' attention). It's not like you can just prevent people from voting off those who seem suspicious because they happen to be active and so may not be suspicious because they're elim so much as because they're there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danex Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 GGs to the elims, and extra ggs to Quinn for somehow getting the entire Elim team first try XD. This game was pretty fun. Mostly. It did remind me how tired MRs make me. They actually have longer cycles than LGs, so even though the game as a whole is shorter, it makes me feel more tired. As for the actual ruleset, I think the Sabotage mechanic might need a bit more tweaking. And maybe it needs some vote manip. But I just like vote manip in every game. Now I’ll respond to things people said in docs. Quote “I also guess we have a 4 person Elim team. So my guesses for the Elim team roles are: Aviar Holder, Doctor, Bookkeeper, Vanilla.” - Dannex ¾ is pretty darn good. Eyy I forgot about that. Pog. If me and Quinn had gotten together Elims wouldn’t’ve stood a chance =P. Quote I think Danex is not happy at all that connie is claiming elim, but really with those claims you just ignore them. Sorta. It wasn’t entirely a protest vote, but sorta. Connie just didn’t seem like the person who would do a joke-claim. And then when someone reminded me that she doesn’t lie, that just put the nail in the coffin. (And really, how is that not a lie?? You’re saying that “I claim Elim” is a lie, but “I’m claiming Elim” isn’t? That’s literally just a difference in verb tense. But I digress.) Quote I hate it when people are like “do this or we will kill you,” especially when it concerns things like this. Ah ah ah, chill your Strawman-ing my guy. I didn’t say that at all. My argument was “If you want me personally, to remove my personal, singular vote, I will be convinced to do so if you do this”. You’ll notice that after Connie said she wouldn’t, I didn’t bring it up again. I wasn’t making her an ultimatum, I was offering her an option. She declined, and that was that. Quote “ I think games should have ways of hard-clearing.” - Danex If you don’t like that a game doesn’t have a way of hard clearing someone, don’t play that game :P. That’s poor phrasing on my part, I didn’t mean all games should absolutely have hard-clear mechanics, I just meant that I don’t think we need to be actively avoiding them. “Some games could have ways of hard-clearing, and still be completely viable and fun.” is what I meant. Quote I hope Dannex isn’t actually gamethrowing. Quote The thing is- who’s to tell if something is gamethrowing or just...AtE? As a player, I mean. I have definitely been like “kill me, I want the game over” or something along those lines, when it’s just been me trying to get people to get off of me. If I was a player rn though I’d get off of Danex :P. But voting on yourself at E/lo is eek Hopefully Dannex doesn’t actually want to die. I wasn’t game throwing. At that point in the game, the only thing I knew for certain was that “if they exe me, game is over, and we loose”. I had 0 reads I was confident about. So I just tried a play to get them to not vote me. And it worked, sorta. We still lost, but eh, at least my plan worked. I won’t lie, I was fairly ready for the game to be over, and that’s the only reason I decided to do this. Worst-case scenario, it doesn’t work, and I help exe myself, and the game ends. Which I kinda wanted anyway. So sorta a win-win for me. It wasn’t the sole reason I decided to do it though, just a convincing factor. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condensation Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 4 minutes ago, Dannex said: Sorta. It wasn’t entirely a protest vote, but sorta. Connie just didn’t seem like the person who would do a joke-claim. And then when someone reminded me that she doesn’t lie, that just put the nail in the coffin. (And really, how is that not a lie?? You’re saying that “I claim Elim” is a lie, but “I’m claiming Elim” isn’t? That’s literally just a difference in verb tense. But I digress.) I'm changing my play style a lot. Saying "I'm an elim" is a lie if I'm a villager, but saying "I'm claiming elim" leaves the guesswork to the other people. I'm not actually saying that I am an elim, I'm saying that I'm claiming elim... without actually claiming as an elim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintessential Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 Just now, Condensation said: Saying "I'm an elim" is a lie if I'm a villager, but saying "I'm claiming elim" leaves the guesswork to the other people. I'm not actually saying that I am an elim, I'm saying that I'm claiming elim... without actually claiming as an elim. Which technically means that "I'm claiming elim" is also a lie... but I got the idea during the game lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condensation Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 Just now, Quintessential said: Which technically means that "I'm claiming elim" is also a lie... but I got the idea during the game lol "I'm claiming elim" is a claim. Right? This is what I'm doing, I am claiming that I am an elim with this sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintessential Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Condensation said: "I'm claiming elim" is a claim. Right? This is what I'm doing, I am claiming that I am an elim with this sentence. I... I mean, but then you would have to have said you were claiming to claim elim instead... it's too late at night for this XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
--- Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 :P. Quinn I think I mentioned it in the Dead doc, but I definitely tied myself to my teammates this game, definitely thought I had doomed them by dying :P. This game I was honestly just like "so, how far can I get while actively defending my teammates?" :P. turns out, C3. :P. Not having a lot of communication in the Elim doc except for the one person who lives in a complete opposite timezone as you can be rough :P. About inactivity, yeah. I mean, as an Elim I definitely don't like killing off Inactives for not just "they're someone who won't vote against me" and more like "They haven't participated in the game really, I feel bad killing them off." - Same as grinching them :P. The other part of my brain wants to kill off all the inactives D1 and whatnot :P. The not nice part of my brain :P. I think I said my thoughts on things I would change if I could go back in the Elim/Dead doc but yeah :P. I didn't want to have to go inactive to survive (in general) being a lowposter- as well as the fact that someone might go "why illwei no post huh" lmao. Was thinking of going completely inactive on C3 but idek if anything would have changed there :P. but haha hyperaware so fun hehe. I had less than 0 motivation this game to try and...try? after C1 really. so that was poggers. I guess team still won so I don't have to feel too bad about that :P. Illwei still hasn't learned her limits in how many games she can take at once though no no see previously it was 5 and she had to drop one this time it was 4 and everything worked out perrrrfectly fine hehe. Definitely means that now I can try signing up for 5 games at once ag- no. Okay. maybe not. but uh. yeah. so yeah hehe RNG both favored me and not in this game smh :P. I got to be an Elim Messenger, at a time when I both wanted nothing to do with PMs and not be an Elim :P. I have other thoughts maybe? but they're not solid enough but that's irrelevant 10 minutes ago, Dannex said: So I just tried a play to get them to not vote me Which is why I brought up the AtE :P. because yeah, that was an option :P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasimir Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 21 minutes ago, Condensation said: "I'm claiming elim" is a claim. Right? This is what I'm doing, I am claiming that I am an elim with this sentence. 17 minutes ago, Quintessential said: I... I mean, but then you would have to have said you were claiming to claim elim instead... it's too late at night for this XD Basically, yeah. "I'm claiming Elim" is only true if it is read as a claim about the claim itself - the problem with that is that it's not clear the content of the claim is in fact an Elim claim. A clear case of a statement that's self-referential and true: "I'm writing this sentence." The truth-maker of this statement is the sentence itself. It's not clear what the truth-maker of "I'm claiming Elim" is - yes, you've certainly made a claim, but is the content of the claim also an Elim claim? That's the crux on which the truth of that sentence rests. If the truth-maker is an Elim claim, then you have made an Elim claim. If the truth-maker isn't one, then you're claiming, but unclear what propositional content the claim takes on. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Condensation Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Quintessential said: I... I mean, but then you would have to have said you were claiming to claim elim instead... it's too late at night for this XD Really? Whatever. Yeah, what Kas said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araris Valerian Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 3 hours ago, Quintessential said: I'd say something about inactivity and how frustrating it is but... okay, actually I will. I'm not going to talk about how we should fix inactivity, or how specifically it affected this game, or whatever the discussion in the dead doc was because I really only skimmed it tbh. This is kind of... basically, this is a modified version of the speech/rant I had prepared in my head to put in the dead doc if I lost that tie C2. Because when all the votes shifted to me that cycle, I didn't care, but at some point after rollover and before I learned the result it occurred to me that this would have been my second village game in a row where I died C2, and that I usually die early, and I realized I was frustrated by that. Like, really frustrated. I know why I die early a lot. Why me and Illwei and Mat, and to a lesser extent Ash and Gears and Connie, die early a lot. It's easy for the village to find something sus about people who talk a lot, and it's easy for the elims to find something threatening about people who talk a lot. Most of us, myself included, feel bad killing off inactives because it's possible they're inactive due to something irl, and it doesn't feel fair if they're not there to defend themselves or if they haven't really gotten to participate much--or at least, haven't really participated much, having had the opportunity or otherwise. But the problem with that is it then kind of... punishes the players who are actually playing? And obviously it's not black and white, active and inactive. There's a scale. But the further up you are on the scale, the more often you die early (at least in my experience, as someone who's very far up on the scale). That's especially true for games where active players role village, because they basically have two options: they can appear so obviously village that everyone realizes they're village, in which case they're NKd in the first couple of cycles, or they can avoid appearing blatantly village, at which point the general population will begin to ask themselves why such an active player doesn't look super village yet. They've said plenty, right? There must be something there to indicate their alignment, right? So then they look, and usually they find something, and usually it's negative. So that kind of... it sometimes ruins the enjoyment of the game, for me? And I would guess for others as well. The people who are willing and able to dedicate the time to the game are also the ones that get kicked out of it earliest. And we all have in common that we really enjoy playing the game, and would like to play for longer and get to endgame more often, but it seems like the most reliable way to do that is to transition to, and then keep, a much less active playstyle. Which I'm not planning to do because that would also ruin my enjoyment of the game, all the time instead of just some of the time. I'm not sure exactly what the solution to this is, or whether there is one, but I figure this is my contribution to the debate about inactivity in this game. We as a community like to complain about how inactive things get late in every game, and so far I have yet to see anyone explicitly point out that there's a reason for that: the game as it's now structured not only permits, but actively incentivizes inactivity. Yeah, this isn't really a new issue. And I think as a villager, this (in the bold) is something we should always keep in mind, from a strategic perspective. Just because a vocal player has said some suspicious things, it could just be an accumulation of clueless villager nonsense. I think it's fair to say that there are usually just as many lower activity elims as their are ones with higher activity levels, so by aggressively choosing to grinch players who are contributing less to them game, you don't hurt your team's odds of winning. You also leave the vocal elims for later when there is a higher chance to catch a slip-up, and the vocal villagers are still able to contribute their verbose thoughts. On a similar note, kind of related to something I said about playstyles, I think players should try to commit to a consistent level of activity during game signups. Something like: "I plan to make an analysis post each cycle covering every post in the game" or "I plan to list my top 2 suspicions once every second cycle and maybe vote once during the game but write 2 pages of RP every 6 hours" or thereabouts. This would primarily be a commitment to yourself, to not let things slip too far ahead of you, but it could also be a way for other players to bug you about doing what you agreed to for the game. And of course life happens, but I think we are generally pretty understanding about that. The above could be facilitated by GMs who are more concerned that their game will be subject to inactivity, and explicitly asked for in signups. I definitely enjoy more active players, and as an elim try to murder them with slightly lower priority. There's a tricky balance between keeping the game fun and playing optimally here, but it's something each elim team can talk out and find their own best way to go about doing. I also think that there is some room in game mechanics to keep players more engaged. Regular/cosmetic roles, RP, PMs, and group docs are all non-analysis/vote things that can help keep players invested in a game, but they generally need to be built into a game by the GM, and not all of them are a great fit for every game. Some games use an economy system that incentivizes certain types of activity, and perhaps we should look to have more systems (perhaps not directly impacting the game itself) built into our game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrikerEZ Posted February 17, 2021 Report Share Posted February 17, 2021 1 hour ago, Araris Valerian said: On a similar note, kind of related to something I said about playstyles, I think players should try to commit to a consistent level of activity during game signups. Something like: "I plan to make an analysis post each cycle covering every post in the game" or "I plan to list my top 2 suspicions once every second cycle and maybe vote once during the game but write 2 pages of RP every 6 hours" or thereabouts. This would primarily be a commitment to yourself, to not let things slip too far ahead of you, but it could also be a way for other players to bug you about doing what you agreed to for the game. And of course life happens, but I think we are generally pretty understanding about that. So, I like this idea, but this is something that could go south fast if we’re not careful. Could very easily turn into “why didn’t you keep to your plan? Are you an elim?” Or just general feelings of guilt about not being able to keep up with the game. These are things that would be a good way to help players try and stay engaged throughout a game, but I’d just caution that we don’t hold people to make them or if they can’t keep doing it. 1 hour ago, Araris Valerian said: The above could be facilitated by GMs who are more concerned that their game will be subject to inactivity, and explicitly asked for in signups. I like the recent trend I’ve noticed in some games where they’ve had specific lists in the signups for pinch hitters and spectators. Going into a signup thread and seeing that it’s okay if you decide you can’t play or might just be willing to play if someone else can’t I think will be a great way to help people out. I also think GMs in general should make plans for any player counts they may end up getting. They should plan games that can’t function with less than 15 players in my opinion. And they should let people know what player counts they’d like to have and what is the absolute minimum number of players they need to keep things balanced. I think things like this would help a lot. 1 hour ago, Araris Valerian said: I also think that there is some room in game mechanics to keep players more engaged. Regular/cosmetic roles, RP, PMs, and group docs are all non-analysis/vote things that can help keep players invested in a game, but they generally need to be built into a game by the GM, and not all of them are a great fit for every game. Some games use an economy system that incentivizes certain types of activity, and perhaps we should look to have more systems (perhaps not directly impacting the game itself) built into our game. I really really like incentives in games over having punishments for inactivity. Whether that’s through an economy like in LG65 and LG66 or some other method, I think having incentives is more likely to get people to want to engage with the game than threatening them with being kicked out of the game. Also, these aren’t things meant specifically just for Araris, he’s just the one who last said something and I felt I should add my thoughts. Overall, I don’t think we should demonize inactivity, because we never know completely what’s going on in someone’s life behind the screen. The best we can do is help people try and be as active as they can, and help players feel like they don’t need to play the game if they don’t have the time for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elandera Posted July 26, 2021 Report Share Posted July 26, 2021 We're continuing to lock old threads, so it's time to congratulate the Saboteurs for their decisive win over the village crewmembers. Another thanks goes to Straw for running the game, and the original creators of the ruleset, DeTess and Young Bard. We look forward to possibly another rerun of the airship. As always, if anyone would like to try their hand at running a game, please get ahold of Wilson, Devotary of Spontaneity, Elbereth, Araris Valerian, or myself, or post in the GM Signups & Discussion Thread. Not only will we get you added to the list, but we'd also be more than willing to help out in any way we can. You can also ask questions and get some hints and feedback from everyone in our Art of Game Creation thread. With all the games that we've run so far, we have plenty of experienced GMs that can help you refine any game you're thinking about. If you would rather keep some detail secret, or are self-conscious about posting in thread (there's really no need to be; while we do slaughter each other, we are very polite about it), then I'm sure one of our fantastic committee members (Amanuensis, STINK, Sart, Fifth Scholar, Straw, Haelbarde, and Young Bard) would be more than willing to help you out in private. Thanks again to everyone that played, and we look forward to killing seeing you in future games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts