Sanderson Elimination: Questions & Answers and Game Meta Discussion

[Araris Valerian]

31 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

I'm curious if this means that there is now a de facto presumption that a prospective GM will be doing a co-GM apprenticeship first, unless they are running a vanilla game or a Tyrian variant (that's how I interpret 'more than one non-standard role or mechanic' anyway.) I don't at all think this is a problem - in fact, while I wouldn't change the hard GMing lessons that MR7 bashed into me, I do wish that I'd had my co-GMing stints before MR7 made me realise I was woefully inadequate to the task, so I guess this is probably just a clarificatory question  My players could have used a more experienced GM for sure.

While I would say that this would allow a new GM to have a few more options than vanilla/Tyrian+, that is the idea. It’s best to draw the line somewhere, and we can consider special cases if they come up.

 

36 minutes ago, Kasimir said:

Want to ask if this means that we are officially frowning on Lurker Elim / Lurker Power Role strategies. I can see grounds for it - filter dodgers are frustrating to deal with, especially on a Village front, and I was just talking to another player the other day about a filter dodger in QF7 who returned just in time to vig kill another, active player (rather than taking the filter) and then went back into inactivity, which was absurdly painful for the Village.

I will grant there's a line there this rule wants to preserve: you can still lurk and engage minimally, rather than really just blatantly filter dodge, but I feel LG5 Khas and LG7 Fain could easily have skewed a bit towards filter dodging, and maybe I'd just like some clarity there. (To put it another way: some teams do encourage players to lurk in order not to have a power role or an Elim taken out. I think up to this point there has been some amount of community dislike for this strategy but also acceptance it is a valid strategy. How does this engage with the current consensus?)

My personal take on this is that it’s better to err on the side of lowering the feasibility of such lurker strategies than to have to consistently have to deal with inactive players. Like you say, it is possible to lurk without filter dodging, and as the man known for flying under the radar, I can say for sure that it’s possible to maintain a low profile without doing either. 

With regards to the IM thing, and specifically you/Archer, my number one priority was to defuse the conflict, and number two was to keep everyone in the game. Something worth adding would be emphasis on the IM’s part that those sorts of emotions can come about from players on either team. The wording above is a little vague because to some extent we use the emotions others are expressing to read them. I think a bit of a tell for (past?)elim!me is ranting about people voting on me for the wrong reasons; me expressing frustration in a certain manner. It’s valid for someone else to use that as a reason to vote for me, but there is more substance behind it than just the emotion. I think the big problem is deliberately weaponizing other people’s perception of your emotions to guilt them into acting differently. That’s the sort of thing that leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. And this is probably rambly and doesn’t address your concerns exactly, but maybe it’s a start on the discussion you wanted at least.

[Devotary of Spontaneity]

3 hours ago, Kasimir said:

Want to ask if this means that we are officially frowning on Lurker Elim / Lurker Power Role strategies. I can see grounds for it - filter dodgers are frustrating to deal with, especially on a Village front, and I was just talking to another player the other day about a filter dodger in QF7 who returned just in time to vig kill another, active player (rather than taking the filter) and then went back into inactivity, which was absurdly painful for the Village.

I would pick a standard somewhere along the lines of one game-relevant (mechanics discussion, suspicions, vote, or addressing the above from other people) post per filter period. That still leaves plenty of room to lurk while requiring a contribution to the game.

3 hours ago, Kasimir said:

I absolutely agree with talking to the IM, but in a way, I feel this just kicks the can up the road one step because the very conversation is supposed to be about the acceptability of such things, and I don't know that the IM has a better solution if there is no community consensus or conversation about this.

It is a good idea to have a discussion about this because I believe the idea behind this ruling is for players to PM the IM before judgements start being made based on another player's emotional state. Someone who worries that a post or PM they're writing veers into emotionally manipulative territory can send the draft to the IM to look at. A player who feels that another player is unfairly using emotion to drive an argument should also talk to the IM about it, which may lead to a conversation between the IM and that other player. Approximately how much leeway should be allowed for emotional arguments before the possibility of intervention should be discussed here, but the IM will listen to any concerns that pop up in game.

4 hours ago, Kasimir said:

I'm curious if this means that there is now a de facto presumption that a prospective GM will be doing a co-GM apprenticeship first, unless they are running a vanilla game or a Tyrian variant (that's how I interpret 'more than one non-standard role or mechanic' anyway.)

Any rerun of games that weren't broken/complex/unusual should also be acceptable for a first game, but would almost certainly require a coGM.

4 hours ago, Kasimir said:

On top of this requirement, I'm curious if there's going to be a definite policy on whether pinch-hitters have access to PMs from the person they're replacing. I recall the eventual decision after talking to Wilson and you and STINK was to not do that on privacy grounds. Has this changed?

There has been no recent discussion about this, so that ruling probably stands, although this is an opportunity to discuss every rule in case other people have different opinions.

[Kasimir]

4 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

My personal take on this is that it’s better to err on the side of lowering the feasibility of such lurker strategies than to have to consistently have to deal with inactive players. Like you say, it is possible to lurk without filter dodging, and as the man known for flying under the radar, I can say for sure that it’s possible to maintain a low profile without doing either. 

Generally agreed, I also think this is a fairly clear line:

1 hour ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

I would pick a standard somewhere along the lines of one game-relevant (mechanics discussion, suspicions, vote, or addressing the above from other people) post per filter period. That still leaves plenty of room to lurk while requiring a contribution to the game.

In a way, I think it's in fact fairly heartening because there was a lack of collective will during the inactivity blight era precisely because of lurker concerns, so I'm actually happy to see the needle being shifted. Think Bev'ika would approve too.

4 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

With regards to the IM thing, and specifically you/Archer, my number one priority was to defuse the conflict, and number two was to keep everyone in the game. Something worth adding would be emphasis on the IM’s part that those sorts of emotions can come about from players on either team. The wording above is a little vague because to some extent we use the emotions others are expressing to read them. I think a bit of a tell for (past?)elim!me is ranting about people voting on me for the wrong reasons; me expressing frustration in a certain manner. It’s valid for someone else to use that as a reason to vote for me, but there is more substance behind it than just the emotion. I think the big problem is deliberately weaponizing other people’s perception of your emotions to guilt them into acting differently. That’s the sort of thing that leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. And this is probably rambly and doesn’t address your concerns exactly, but maybe it’s a start on the discussion you wanted at least.

and

1 hour ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

It is a good idea to have a discussion about this because I believe the idea behind this ruling is for players to PM the IM before judgements start being made based on another player's emotional state. Someone who worries that a post or PM they're writing veers into emotionally manipulative territory can send the draft to the IM to look at. A player who feels that another player is unfairly using emotion to drive an argument should also talk to the IM about it, which may lead to a conversation between the IM and that other player. Approximately how much leeway should be allowed for emotional arguments before the possibility of intervention should be discussed here, but the IM will listen to any concerns that pop up in game.

Because apparently I forgot how to multi-quote so RIP. This is just to set out that I'm engaging in discussion with these two points/paragraphs specifically, before I zoom in on specific chunks I want to - IDK, gadfly I suppose.

4 hours ago, Araris Valerian said:

Something worth adding would be emphasis on the IM’s part that those sorts of emotions can come about from players on either team. [...] I think the big problem is deliberately weaponizing other people’s perception of your emotions to guilt them into acting differently. That’s the sort of thing that leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths.

I agree with this, but I also think that's what makes it so pernicious. 

Let's go back to LG79 because I think it's the easiest case study. Suppose I really was Evil; suppose that Archer happened to be right to suspect me, but wrong that my playstyle oddities were AI (it's just oddities from prior SE experiences.) Plausibly, Evil Kas would still self-vote, because Village Kas does that, and I have to do what Village Kas does. Suppose further - ex hypothesi - that I do end up voicing my frustration, and that it is genuine frustration. Suppose that this - just as it did in the actual game - causes Archer to move off of me and begins a case for IM intervention. (Let's bracket the IM issue; it's relevant but not extremely relevant here since we're looking at the player side actions for now.)

I would agree with you that in this scenario, perhaps Evil Kas isn't deliberately weaponising Archer's perceptions of his emotions. He's just frustrated and reacting out of that frustration, and playing into a known part of his Village meta. But the raw frustration is very real, and Evil Kas just isn't controlling it very well. Archer senses that, and reacts accordingly.

Does that make the situation any better? Does Evil Kas bear any culpability - or responsibility - for failing to manage his emotions properly? Because in my view, it would absolutely make sense for Archer to feel frustrated or manipulated - even if Evil Kas insists he genuinely felt upset and just didn't control himself well - in such a scenario. Even if the emotions were genuine and there was no manipulative attempt, it was predictable or at least partly predictable that the loss of control would result in such and such a reaction from Villagers. And there's an additional layer, where even if Evil Kas swears hand over heart that the emotions were genuine, I think it would be reasonable to point out other players may still perceive him to be engaging in emotional manipulation, because they don't have access to his emotional state, or his mental states. I think there's still very deep potential for high temperature drama after the game as a direct result of player behaviour, and that seems to still generate a problem.

In the long term, whether or not Evil Kas genuinely slipped up, I think we still reach the situation where players may feel unduly punished for basic, normal human sympathy and pulling off of a struggling player. In a single game, that's fine. In more than one game, that's a problem. (So yes, there's a 'pattern of behaviour' question here as well, but the point I also want to make is it doesn't have to be a consistent pattern of behaviour from one specific player; this happening from several players over several games already can poison the well!)

To return to your original point, the fact that such emotions can come from players on either team is precisely what makes such altercations so sensitive: because players aren't certain if they're being manipulated, or if that's really just how the other player is feeling. The fact that the possibility of manipulation is a live one is what creates this hesitancy to begin with. I also share Orlok's hesitancy to become a player who immediately and reflexively is forced to question whether emotion is genuine or utilised as I feel this creates a very bad set of meta-expectations, though I admit it's probably too late for me for RL reasons that don't have anything to do with forum stuff.

1 hour ago, Devotary of Spontaneity said:

Someone who worries that a post or PM they're writing veers into emotionally manipulative territory can send the draft to the IM to look at. A player who feels that another player is unfairly using emotion to drive an argument should also talk to the IM about it, which may lead to a conversation between the IM and that other player. Approximately how much leeway should be allowed for emotional arguments before the possibility of intervention should be discussed here, but the IM will listen to any concerns that pop up in game.

I would agree with this, but that's partly why the model case I'm currently looking at is a bit tricky: in theory, players are adults (hopefully?) and should be able to regulate well, but this does not always come about. Under pressure or in extremis, these emotions can leak, and I think part of the conversation worth having is to say how we should respond/react to such cases. These too wouldn't be emotion-driven arguments: this would be players reacting to the raw emotion radiating off the player and choosing to behave in particular ways in response.

More along the lines of: Player X is no longer having fun, I don't want to do this, I should stop.

I agree with El (I do not remember whether in the AG thread or here) that we don't want emotion to be a clear sign that the player is Village because that's counterproductive, and as Araris pointed out, and I agree with, players will feel emotion, whether Village or Evil. But I think there's a bigger question of how we should handle those emotions (wow look at me, so very much one to talk) and if there is a responsible way to handle them. Because I think in the scenario I outlined, a series of perfectly normal and understandable emotional responses from both players can lead to a cascade of consequences, drama, and potentially poison the goodwill the community relies on.

This is where I think part of this does kick the can up to the IM, but also part of this has to be discussed or expectations set/people resolve this prior to needing IM engagement. (Cf. part of the issue is, perhaps, not ending up in the mire to begin with and needing the IM to haul both of you out and yell at you.)

In the other interactions I reference, there has been a similar dynamic at play, though again, fortunately it was a V/V brawl anyway. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Kasimir

[|TJ|]

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to mention this or if I should post this in QF59 Aftermath thread or just mention it on Discord and I didn't mention it earlier, because it's sorta game-related but this is in reference to the first time @Amanuensis lost parts of the content of his post in the QF and the likely reason behind it. I think it's because while multi-quoting specifically inside a spoiler box, if we try to undo using Ctrl + Z, I've noticed it doesn't just remove the last letter or word. It removes everything we've typed since quoting something last (including that particular quote box) and redoing using Ctrl + Y doesn't work here. I'm not sure if it happens every time or the frequency of this occurring, but I've personally noticed this while typing up the sign-ups for MR49. So this is just a 'be careful' kinda thing from me when undoing stuff inside a spoiler box with quotes in them.

[Archer]

I've got a proposal for a new rule/best practice.
-To improve accessibility for the colourblind, all vote retractions are put in brackets.
-To make votes easier to find, all votes are put at the end of posts. Ideally on a separate line from other text.
I know we already (are supposed to) bold votes to improve their visibility, but I think we're less likely to miss votes if they're always in the same spot. For GMs, it means the difference between having to scan entire posts versus just checking the end of them. It might not be a huge time savings, but it'd probably improve their peace of mind once full implementation is achieved.
I actually think putting votes at the start of posts would make them easier to locate, but it's less intuitive for people who decide who they're voting for as they write. This also allows you to continue embedding your votes organically in a paragraph, since precedent says the last vote listed counts, so so long as you repeat the votes at the end of the post, there won't be any confusion.
Thoughts on a more efficient strategy or whether this is worth the effort?
Example (Retraction)

[The Unknown Ajah]

22 minutes ago, Archer said:

I've got a proposal for a new rule/best practice.
-To improve accessibility for the colourblind, all vote retractions are put in brackets.
-To make votes easier to find, all votes are put at the end of posts. Ideally on a separate line from other text.
I know we already (are supposed to) bold votes to improve their visibility, but I think we're less likely to miss votes if they're always in the same spot. For GMs, it means the difference between having to scan entire posts versus just checking the end of them. It might not be a huge time savings, but it'd probably improve their peace of mind once full implementation is achieved.
I actually think putting votes at the start of posts would make them easier to locate, but it's less intuitive for people who decide who they're voting for as they write. This also allows you to continue embedding your votes organically in a paragraph, since precedent says the last vote listed counts, so so long as you repeat the votes at the end of the post, there won't be any confusion.
Thoughts on a more efficient strategy or whether this is worth the effort?
Example (Retraction)

I like this, although the bold being necessary at the bottom would be annoying, as bold is at the top of the post editor. You could use [ b ], but that is also time consuming, especially with color already being needed to be put in on mobile.

[StrikerEZ]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:19 PM, The Unknown Novel said:

I like this, although the bold being necessary at the bottom would be annoying, as bold is at the top of the post editor. You could use [ b ], but that is also time consuming, especially with color already being needed to be put in on mobile.

A quick fix to this is using ctrl + b to change to bold. At least on computer. It is a little annoying on mobile, but a little annoyance would be better for everyone if it saves the GMs headaches.

[The Unknown Ajah]

51 minutes ago, StrikerEZ said:

A quick fix to this is using ctrl + b to change to bold. At least on computer. It is a little annoying on mobile, but a little annoyance would be better for everyone if it saves the GMs headaches.

I agree. My main argument is that it already has better visibility at the bottom, and doing something else is slightly unnecessary. For my own games I would ask that you vote at the bottom, but bold is unnecessary in my opinion. If other GMs think differently, that's fine for them.

[StrikerEZ]

On 5/2/2022 at 7:12 PM, The Unknown Novel said:

I agree. My main argument is that it already has better visibility at the bottom, and doing something else is slightly unnecessary. For my own games I would ask that you vote at the bottom, but bold is unnecessary in my opinion. If other GMs think differently, that's fine for them.

I find it really difficult to find votes if I'm running behind and trying to skim through the thread to look for them if they're not bolded. I don't really care where in the post they are, because if they're bold they stand out anywhere in the post.

[Mat]

In light of the recent slowness of SE, in player counts and game threads alike, I think a good step to take would be to design and plan to run rulesets that can work with a smaller player count. Something like 6-8, but also games that work with a more traditional group of around 15. I'm not about to let SE die as we wait for more people to sign up for games, and I'd much prefer an extended period of small-scale games to waiting for large scale ones that may never happen.

But really, I've only been around here for two years. What do the rest of you think? Have low-activity periods such as this plagued the subforum in the past? Will this resolve itself naturally? I don't want to force anyone to play when they feel they don't have the time or desire to, but I do want to allow those who do have the time and desire to play (such as myself) to do so.

[Araris Valerian]

54 minutes ago, Matrim's Dice said:

In light of the recent slowness of SE, in player counts and game threads alike, I think a good step to take would be to design and plan to run rulesets that can work with a smaller player count. Something like 6-8, but also games that work with a more traditional group of around 15. I'm not about to let SE die as we wait for more people to sign up for games, and I'd much prefer an extended period of small-scale games to waiting for large scale ones that may never happen.

But really, I've only been around here for two years. What do the rest of you think? Have low-activity periods such as this plagued the subforum in the past? Will this resolve itself naturally? I don't want to force anyone to play when they feel they don't have the time or desire to, but I do want to allow those who do have the time and desire to play (such as myself) to do so.

We've had lower activity in the past, and I think at least a part of what's going on now is end-of-semester stuff, which might pick up once we get more into the summer.

But I'd agree that we probably should have a protocol for when a GM can't get enough players for their ruleset, and for just in general with lower player counts.

One complicating issue is how long the waitlist is for LGs, so it would feel bad to force someone to give up their slot they've waited a year or more to run. Perhaps another signup list for GMs willing to run a smallish game somewhat on the spot when a pending GM can't get the players they want. This also might be a good place for games with a bit more of an RP focus to happen, if that's something people are interested in.

[Straw]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:55 PM, Archer said:

I've got a proposal for a new rule/best practice.
-To improve accessibility for the colourblind, all vote retractions are put in brackets.
-To make votes easier to find, all votes are put at the end of posts. Ideally on a separate line from other text.
I know we already (are supposed to) bold votes to improve their visibility, but I think we're less likely to miss votes if they're always in the same spot. For GMs, it means the difference between having to scan entire posts versus just checking the end of them. It might not be a huge time savings, but it'd probably improve their peace of mind once full implementation is achieved.
I actually think putting votes at the start of posts would make them easier to locate, but it's less intuitive for people who decide who they're voting for as they write. This also allows you to continue embedding your votes organically in a paragraph, since precedent says the last vote listed counts, so so long as you repeat the votes at the end of the post, there won't be any confusion.
Thoughts on a more efficient strategy or whether this is worth the effort?
Example (Retraction)

I don't think putting votes at the bottom is necessary as a rule, but I think that it's a decent idea if people want to do it as a visibility thing. Personally, I haven't had any issues spotting votes as long as they're bolded, since bold text is pretty easy to pick out.

On 5/10/2022 at 3:44 PM, Araris Valerian said:

We've had lower activity in the past, and I think at least a part of what's going on now is end-of-semester stuff, which might pick up once we get more into the summer.

Yeah, agreed that most of the inactivity drop has been due to end-of-semester stuff. I know that I've been pretty busy with my final exams.

[StrikerEZ]

Yeah, I know that my drop off the face of the earth has been because of just being really strung out from the past couple weeks. I'm done with school right now, but I still don't know if I could manage a game. Either running or playing.

[Kasimir]

I could ask this in a non-specific dead doc, but I kind of want to get input from more people than this.

RPers of SE unite! We only have our lives to lose!

Okay, but seriously: what determines whether you RP or not? Do you find yourself returning to a few persistent characters or do you go the permadeath route and retire a character for good if they die in a game? 

Am curious about your style as I know in the single-digit LG days, permadeath seemed more the rule than exception, but now it's all over the place.

I try to stick to permadeath where possible. I feel it makes me more invested in the characters, and getting to kill Duncan Kerr for good in LG73 was a great part of my SE experience, though admittedly I have no idea what to really do with Koren and Araris gave him a fantastic send-off anyway. I do have a couple of ascended/recurring characters that are very closely associated with me in the heads of long-term SE-ers (IDK, I'm guessing here!) that I probably wouldn't permadeath but I don't put them out in games anyway.

I guess I would also say it feels satisfying, almost as much as finding Elims, when you get to close out the arc of your character just so and finish it the way it should be done.

For that matter, which RP run are you proudest of?

Edited November 6, 2022 by Kasimir

[Alvron]

4 hours ago, Kasimir said:

what determines whether you RP or not?

Time.  Do I have the time to invest into this character? is my first question after signing up for a game.  How much time can I invest into this character? How often can I get online? Questions like that.  If the stars align then I like to try and RP.
Other times it's what mood I'm in, what head space am I in?  Do I want to invest the time and effort to RP? Am I feeling inspired at the moment?  For Zunn the Mad, I had been playing Shadow of Mordor and was feeling like being a troll for a bit so I brought one of my favorite characters from that game into SE to see how long he would live.
If I'm lucky the game's setting is similar to another or a rerun/prequel to one I've RPed in before, in which case I might have a predetermined character ready to go.
Very rarely I might have a character in the back of my mind I hadn't had the chance to use before and the timing felt right so I have a jumpstart with them.
 

4 hours ago, Kasimir said:

Do you find yourself returning to a few persistent characters or do you go the permadeath route and retire a character for good if they die in a game? 

Am curious about your style as I know in the single-digit LG days, permadeath seemed more the rule than exception, but now it's all over the place.

This depends greatly on the character.  Almost all my characters are created for one game but if I feel a real connection with them then they might survive. Ratel and Alv survive because of such a connection.  Ratel was my first time being evil and Alv was one of my most fun times being evil so they tend to have a soft spot in my heart/mind so they will never permanently die.
A couple, like Izzy Dedyet, are created to be in several games regardless of if they survive or not.  In Izzy's case, the more often she dies, the better she can 'live' up to her name.
Early in my SE career I sat down and plotted out several characters that I wanted to play at some point and created backstories for them.  Most have been played while others were scrapped due to various reasons.  I do have a couple waiting in the wings for their time to shine so hopefully I can find the right time/game to bring them into the light.
 

4 hours ago, Kasimir said:

I do have a couple of ascended/recurring characters that are very closely associated with me in the heads of long-term SE-ers (IDK, I'm guessing here!) that I probably wouldn't permadeath but I don't put them out in games anyway.

Khas will always live on in Alv's mind.
 

4 hours ago, Kasimir said:

I guess I would also say it feels satisfying, almost as much as finding Elims, when you get to close out the arc of your character just so and finish it the way it should be done.

Asterion is one such character for me.  I had intended for them to join the Collective but his character arc and death felt perfect so I decided that he needed to remain dead even though it kinda hurt to part with a character I had invested so much into.
Edaan is another.  Probably my most well-known character from my mid SE career.  His character arc lasted several games and interlinked with several other characters from other players before eventually be given a fitting send off.
 

4 hours ago, Kasimir said:

For that matter, which RP run are you proudest of?

Easy. Rolav in MR1. I'm not entirely sure how it happened but Rolav ended up in a RP story/duel with Lyla played by FeatherWriter. Almost my entire waking hours were spent scribbling down RP ideas.  While working I was writing RP fragments, I dreamed RP storylines. I wanted to keep up the amazing RP that Feather was doing that I paid almost no attention to what was happening in the game itself and just worked on my RP. It was both scary and exhilarating to be RPing against Feather so I poured everything I had into my RP. It's nowhere near my best work but it was the most fun I ever had RPing.

[Kasimir]

10 hours ago, Alvron said:

Time.  Do I have the time to invest into this character? is my first question after signing up for a game.  How much time can I invest into this character? How often can I get online? Questions like that.  If the stars align then I like to try and RP.
Other times it's what mood I'm in, what head space am I in?  Do I want to invest the time and effort to RP? Am I feeling inspired at the moment? 

Similar to me, though for me it's the other way around - mood and inspiration are my primary drivers. Getting too engaged with solving a game as Village can negatively affect my ability to RP, which is unfortunate. But if inspiration is strong, then I usually still do some RP/keep it up anyway. Time definitely plays a role as well.

10 hours ago, Alvron said:

Alv was one of my most fun times being evil so they tend to have a soft spot in my heart/mind so they will never permanently die.

10 hours ago, Alvron said:

Khas will always live on in Alv's mind.

Spoiler

Khas is my iconic (probably more so than Kaddar) character for this reason. I don't know if I would say most fun, because my memories of the game are badly swamped by the turning point on N4, but I really enjoyed the amount of scheming and plotting we were doing. And it's still my first SE game and my first Evil game, so the memory is strong. Partly as well because of his ties to Wurum, Wyrm's own iconic, I suppose.

10 hours ago, Alvron said:

Edaan is another.  Probably my most well-known character from my mid SE career.  His character arc lasted several games and interlinked with several other characters from other players before eventually be given a fitting send off.

I remember Edaan, yeah. Didn't know he died, but I definitely knew you didn't play him anymore.

10 hours ago, Alvron said:

Almost all my characters are created for one game but if I feel a real connection with them then they might survive.

I'd agree with this. Kaddar became an ascended secondary iconic for me because of how many kills he tanked in MR4 and still kept on living. I kind of respected that and felt as though that needed acknowledgement. Sometimes I bring back characters I feel I didn't really do sufficient justice to, like LG20 Karnan. But I've very seldom recycled unless it's a GM character I will be using to GM a few more games, like Karsten Heron.

10 hours ago, Alvron said:

Easy. Rolav in MR1. I'm not entirely sure how it happened but Rolav ended up in a RP story/duel with Lyla played by FeatherWriter. Almost my entire waking hours were spent scribbling down RP ideas.  While working I was writing RP fragments, I dreamed RP storylines. I wanted to keep up the amazing RP that Feather was doing that I paid almost no attention to what was happening in the game itself and just worked on my RP. It was both scary and exhilarating to be RPing against Feather so I poured everything I had into my RP. It's nowhere near my best work but it was the most fun I ever had RPing.

I remember this RP off! Jain and Wyrm and I were messing around too

Probably a tie between AG2's Kassien and LG73's Duncan Kerr. Duncan tied up quite a few loose ends from MR3 for me, and was a nice reference to that game, which was probably one of my slightly less disastrous Elim runs, but one I got to work on a team with Wyrm. I liked the way I got to explore what it must've been like, on that doomed platoon, led into greater disaster by Wyrm, with Kas backing him to the hilt. Duncan's ending felt right. It felt like catharsis and I loved it for that.

With Kassien, it was just getting to do standard Tyrian RP and to bounce off El. She decided to sign up as my apprentice and we spent a decent chunk of the game while I was alive collaborating on our RPs in order to make things work. At points, it was more interesting to me than solving!  

My permanent regret is I never ran Kamsil. In AG3, Wyrm and I agreed to do 'paired RP' as well. This wasn't just collaboration, or rather, it was going to be more difficult. He would run Wyl Sharpe, a noir private eye. I was going to run Kamsil, a blind swordsman. Our characters would be good friends, but Wyrm was going to be writing everything noir-style, and I would take that and translate that into wuxia-style. We'd synched up and prepared our introduction posts, with Wyl talking about how Kamsil was an old friend of his from his days in Luthadel (I think?) and Kamsil talking about how Wyl was the only man to beat him in a brawl which was why they'd become friends in the first place. The two genres are quite different so we expected it to be wild, good fun, and also a challenge.

I backed out of AG3 for life reasons and SE stuff I don't wanna talk too much about. But in all fairness, I don't expect to have lived long in that game. Wyrm would've had to kill me sooner or later, so I guess nothing much was lost.

Edited November 7, 2022 by Kasimir

[Alvron]

20 hours ago, Kasimir said:

Khas is my iconic (probably more so than Kaddar) character for this reason. I don't know if I would say most fun, because my memories of the game are badly swamped by the turning point on N4, but I really enjoyed the amount of scheming and plotting we were doing. And it's still my first SE game and my first Evil game, so the memory is strong. Partly as well because of his ties to Wurum, Wyrm's own iconic, I suppose.

I remember Edaan, yeah. Didn't know he died, but I definitely knew you didn't play him anymore.

We may have been butchered but before then we had a blast scheming, plotting and conspiring.  Infinite Shardplate, The Vanishing Spanreed and The Spanreed Incident were all fantastic to discuss.  Plus that game did lead to a wonderful friendship that is Kasyrm. Dying sucks but it never removes any enjoyment I get from these games.

Edaan didn't die.  He retired and is living out his life with Kiireon safely away from any drama.

[Kasimir]

15 minutes ago, Alvron said:

Edaan didn't die.  He retired and is living out his life with Kiireon safely away from any drama.

Ah, good  Earned a happy ending.

Tbf, that's more or less Khas right now. Just followed Wurum out of the game and retired for good. Probably badgers Wurum every once in a while when he gets restless  

15 minutes ago, Alvron said:

We may have been butchered but before then we had a blast scheming, plotting and conspiring.  Infinite Shardplate, The Vanishing Spanreed and The Spanreed Incident were all fantastic to discuss.  Plus that game did lead to a wonderful friendship that is Kasyrm. Dying sucks but it never removes any enjoyment I get from these games.

Less the dying. The sudden pivot of an entire game that had been called for us within a single cycle. Still haunts me, I suppose. But that's not really RP-related, but yeah I'll agree we did have a blast scheming, plotting, and conspiring and Vanishing Spanreed was a stroke of genius

...For contractual reasons, I am required to note Village is still best alignment. You and Araris may be steeped in Evil but my soul is still Village and I will die a Villager >>

Kasyrm was more a product of MR1 IMO. Wyrm and I barely interacted in LG5. You could make the case that we wouldn't have talked so much in the darkeyes doc if not for LG5, but a lot of it was independent of that. Team Kasyrm though...

[Araris Valerian]

On 11/6/2022 at 0:26 PM, Kasimir said:

I could ask this in a non-specific dead doc, but I kind of want to get input from more people than this.

RPers of SE unite! We only have our lives to lose!

Okay, but seriously: what determines whether you RP or not? Do you find yourself returning to a few persistent characters or do you go the permadeath route and retire a character for good if they die in a game? 

Am curious about your style as I know in the single-digit LG days, permadeath seemed more the rule than exception, but now it's all over the place.

I try to stick to permadeath where possible. I feel it makes me more invested in the characters, and getting to kill Duncan Kerr for good in LG73 was a great part of my SE experience, though admittedly I have no idea what to really do with Koren and Araris gave him a fantastic send-off anyway. I do have a couple of ascended/recurring characters that are very closely associated with me in the heads of long-term SE-ers (IDK, I'm guessing here!) that I probably wouldn't permadeath but I don't put them out in games anyway.

I guess I would also say it feels satisfying, almost as much as finding Elims, when you get to close out the arc of your character just so and finish it the way it should be done.

For that matter, which RP run are you proudest of?

I’d say the largest factors in whether I RP are the establishment of the setting by the GM and how much time I have. I think another factor is how much other people are doing it.

To elaborate, for example, the Shard LG games are somewhat abstract, and since they happen on multiple planets, doing RP requires a lot more effort to create a setting for my character to do stuff in. In contrast, games set in towns or villages provide a concrete environment to interact with, and one in which it’s easy to create an occupation or role for my character to fill.

When I started playing SE, I tended to reuse characters regardless of whether they died. I’ve made a few characters that I like the personality of and it doesn’t take much to have them show up again. I feel like it’s built into Tyrian that it’s caught in some kind of time loop, where the Koloss attack again and again, so it’s fun to run the same character multiple times there.

Nowadays, I think as a combination of my own confidence in my writing being a bit higher, and the community being a bit different, I tend to write new characters whenever I RP.

Aralis (specifically in AG 1) is easily my favorite character, and he’ll continue to pop up now and then whenever a game needs some grouchiness. But I feel like players being strongly associated with certain characters is a bit of a relic from the early days of SE and the prevalence of RP.

[Kasimir]

8 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

Aralis (specifically in AG 1) is easily my favorite character, and he’ll continue to pop up now and then whenever a game needs some grouchiness. But I feel like players being strongly associated with certain characters is a bit of a relic from the early days of SE and the prevalence of RP.

I feel there's some LG7 and Heirs bleedthrough for you: you tend to use Hadrian Penrod a lot for Scadrial settings, or a Penrod. But in all fairness, I use the Herons a lot because after RPing so much lore for them in Heirs, and with the powerful SE/Heirs demographic overlap, it feels very natural to cross the streams.

9 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

I’d say the largest factors in whether I RP are the establishment of the setting by the GM and how much time I have. I think another factor is how much other people are doing it.

To elaborate, for example, the Shard LG games are somewhat abstract, and since they happen on multiple planets, doing RP requires a lot more effort to create a setting for my character to do stuff in. In contrast, games set in towns or villages provide a concrete environment to interact with, and one in which it’s easy to create an occupation or role for my character to fill.

Huh, surprising, but makes sense. Guess the more setting-heavy (as opposed to minimalistic) games would encourage this as well.

Feels like the implication here is a Shard game that spent time in establishing each world setting might make RP a bit easier. Maybe run it like a spy movie sort of different locale thing.

10 minutes ago, Araris Valerian said:

that I like the personality of

Grouchy Old Porch Dudes?  

[Araris Valerian]

1 hour ago, Kasimir said:

I feel there's some LG7 and Heirs bleedthrough for you: you tend to use Hadrian Penrod a lot for Scadrial settings, or a Penrod.

Yeah, I’ve claimed House Penrod as my own largely due to those choices. They aren’t one of the great houses, which gives me some leeway with them, and makes it less likely to overlap with another person’s chosen house.

Of course, I am the heir to House Heron in at least one alternate reality as well .

[Kasimir]

Just now, Araris Valerian said:

Of course, I am the heir to House Heron in at least one alternate reality as well .

Hello, brother.

I suppose I should stab you in the back sometime in good ol' Heron tradition then 

[Kasimir]

Posted on the SE Discord in response to a question from @Shqueeves and a response from @Fifth Scholar but figured it was worth sharing in meta.

The disclaimer: I did this sleep-deprived, grouchy, and fighting a cold while waiting for my DL epochs to finish running. So this isn't as clean/good as I'd like it to be. Shqueeves asked about current Village win rates, but it's really difficult to offer an assessment of Village win rates without - as always - putting the data into context. So here we go.

Methodology

This dataset was culled from the SE dataset here. This is a crowd-sourced dataset maintained by the community, though I believe earlier years were primarily captured by @little wilson and @Elbereth, with the original ur-dataset having come from an off-the-cuff project by @Wyrmhero somewhere between the LG5/MR1/LG6 boundary.

Now, clearly to address Shqueeve's question, we need several things:

• A sense of how many games are run each year. If a year has fewer games, then even if the Village wins all the games that year (yeah, no, and that indicates something has gone very badly wrong!), we'll get the wrong impression that the Village is doing more poorly. This is not a good confusion to have.
   
• How many relevant (e.g. V/E, CON) games there are a year. Simply put, FFA and Faction* games are unlikely to have Village or Evil victories. As such, we should discard such data points as irrelevant to our question.
   
• % of Village wins: As suggested by the foregoing, having a % of Village wins makes a bit more sense. Raw numbers aren't helpful: we want them to be contextualised as a fraction/proportion of all relevant games. Making it a % makes it easier to display the results graphically.
   
• % of Evil wins: Sometimes, a game ends in a draw, or with a third party win. It is good to therefore also track % of Evil wins as a comparator, just for the sake of completeness.

While the number of relevant/eligible games fluctuates each year, it is well within range. As such, a % is not so likely to be wildly misleading.

Then, the SE dataset doesn't count years. As a result, I stipulated that a SE year is defined (with the reasonable exception of LG1) as the duration from the AG (or LG1) to the penultimate game of the year, i.e. the one right before the AG. Although the AG traditionally has sign-ups go up in late December, the bulk of AGs are typically played in January. As a result, I feel alright about taking the AG-pre-AG gap to be a SE year by definition.

Challenges

There are several problems when attempting to enrich this dataset:

• Inconsistency: While Wilson and El are probably the most consistent with applying the criteria for classifying a game as V/E, FAC, CON, EE, etcetera, it becomes very tricky when the criteria is being used by separate community members filling in the game. Simply put, it's important to note this is typical of a dataset that is being populated by multiple analysts at once. Having played some of the games in question personally, I have noticed V/E games misclassified as FAC games. In those cases, I have rectified the classification schema in my own enriched dataset. However:
   
• Size: The most number of games ever held in an SE year is 33. More often than not, there are at least 20 games. This isn't an especially small number, but it's not big either. This means inconsistencies in classification, i.e. dirty data, can really mess with the conclusions you want to draw.
   
• Missing Data: The years between AG5 to AG7 were particularly egregious in this regard, but AG4 also suffered from a number of incomplete classifications. As I was not very active in SE in this period and have been short on time, I brute-force imputed missing values in those years by assuming V or E wins indicated a game that is relevant to our interests. However, it is very possible that such games might (for structural reasons) be properly disregarded. 2019 was especially egregious with nearly 50% of classifications missing!
   
• Inactivity: As several SE players, including myself, have alluded to, SE has had periods of high inactivity alluded to as inactivity blights. During the Blights, some games have been declared a win or loss purely on the basis of the players who remained active. It is possible that inactivity blights might significantly skew the data within that period.

Data Visualisations

aka the actual stuff you're here for. Note that the 2022 data excludes QF64. I don't regard this to be a significant challenge as it is unlikely to significantly alter the overall %s for 2022.

Percentage of Village Wins:

In general, keeping in mind the caveat about 2017 to 2019 data, we can see that there has been minor fluctuations between 2014 and 2016. 2020 represents a very significant drop in Village win %s, which may as @Ashbringer and @Ooklil' the Wei suggest, be attributable to the COVID-driven influx of new SE players. If I have time subsequently, I can do a turnover visualisation on win proportions, but I have an exam tomorrow and this is a bit too much data preparation work for me now. I'll bring this up again later.

This matches with anecdotal perceptions: between 2020 to 2021, @Araris Valerian commented on the need for a mechanic that might help the Village out by offering them a single Elim flip. This was later implemented as the Dragon's Fang mechanic of MR57.

By 2022, the perception was that the Village was sufficiently holding its own, and Elim-side advantages may be required. It is worth noting that while we are currently on an upwards trend, the Village win % at the moment is 40.9% which is still not that great. The perception of the Village now being overly advantaged may be slightly inaccurate: in context, the Village is still underperforming.

Percentage of Elim Wins:

The perception that the Village is underperforming is confirmed here. In 2022, the Elims still outperform the Village. It is possible that this could be due to the prevalence of broken games (another factor to look at eventually) but by and large, it is clear there doesn't seem to be an especial 'Village advantage', but rather, Elim advantage is shrinking over time. Suggestions that games should be Village-skewed instead therefore seem premature.

Interestingly, Elim win %s remain generally stable between 2014 to 2017, with a somewhat dip in 2018, which is dwarfed on this chart by the immense jump between 2019 and 2020. The picture is beginning to stabilise by this point and we are arguably seeing a return to normal.

Comparing Elim Win % to Village Win %:

Part of the point is to do a comparative picture, and on a comparative, we can see something very interesting: between 2014-2016, Elim win % and Village win % were exactly equal. That is to say, the Village and the Elims performed equally well. I think we can consider that an overall positive: ideally, we want there to be such a community state as the Village and the Elims performing equally well, or having equal win %s. This suggests that there is, on the whole, some form of meta-balance state prevailing.

From 2017 onwards, we see divergence, with Elim performance remaining stable in 2017, but the Village vastly underperforming. This might be due to some corrupted data in that year, or the Village losing ground to third parties and other factions. Worth looking at, one way or another.

Overall semi-parity is achieved in 2018 (Village skew) and 2019, but the situation is not great either.

We have a significant divergence in 2020, with 2021 and 2022 representing slow/eventual convergence again, potentially as the community having absorbed new players begins to stabilise and develop a level of skill again.

That being said, I don't think it is possible to make a strong comment here: recall that nearly 50% of 2019 data was unlabelled! I do expect that even with that uncertainty resolved, we will see Elims outperforming the Village in 2020, but it might not be as drastic.

Avenues for Further Exploration:

• As indicated, we could try to look at the % of balanced V/E or CON games won. The difficulty with that is that we need a common enriched understanding of brokenness and overall balance. It is probably less problematic than I'm suggesting, but it will be an asterisk on any such analysis performed.
   
• We could superimpose the Elim/Village win % charts on new player influx per year. I do suspect we will see a spike in 2020 to match the Elim win spike, but it's good to actually refer back to the data to validate hypotheses.
   
• We could do something about player turnover: beyond new player influx, we have older players going inactive (e.g. on mission.) A turnover rate might better represent the changing community demographics and the impact on win rates.
   
• Inactivity can be compared to win rates, to see if there is any overall effect, particularly keeping in mind the inactivity blights. This would need further data enrichment.
   
• A problem with the theory that inexperience was a major factor in the 75-25 skew is that 2014 is a case study of a period in SE where by definition, everyone was a new player! A naive response or expectation is that an influx of new players distributes evenly: they may struggle with Village play but should also struggle with Evil play and thus be more catchable. While the opposite theory might be that it is easier for a new player to be Evil than Village, it's worth comparing 2014 and 2020 more closely to see what's going on, because 2014 defies this theory.

Enjoy data  

Edited December 15, 2022 by Kasimir

[Szeth_Pancakes]

4 hours ago, Kasimir said:

A problem with the theory that inexperience was a major factor in the 75-25 skew is that 2014 is a case study of a period in SE where by definition, everyone was a new player! A naive response or expectation is that an influx of new players distributes evenly: they may struggle with Village play but should also struggle with Evil play and thus be more catchable. While the opposite theory might be that it is easier for a new player to be Evil than Village, it's worth comparing 2014 and 2020 more closely to see what's going on, because 2014 defies this theory.

New players in 2014 were probably more active than new players in 2020. Inactivity favors elims.

[Kasimir]

4 minutes ago, Ookla the Omniscient said:

New players in 2014 were probably more active than new players in 2020. Inactivity favors elims.

That's something that has to be checked, IMO. We did have inactivity in 2014 - made worse with fewer pinch-hitters and the fact games didn't always have filters. There's also the question of inactive new player Elims. There's a reason inactive Elim play used to be more rewarding too, strictly in terms of incentives. Arguably, though this is closer to 2015, AGs have been lost on inactivity, even.

Not saying this is wrong out of hand but that I think it's worth doing a deeper dive into those two years as a comparator anyway!  Sort of just see what the data says.