Jump to content

little wilson

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2831

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Everything posted by little wilson

  1. little wilson
    2-3 makes sense to me. The rules for this cycle don't say how many they started with, but I think the rule proposal was 3, so 2-3 conversions (probably not counting any marriages), would allow for a team of 5-6, which is a good-sized team, especially adding in marriages. Though Drake is now dead, as is Len, so that's 4-5 + marriages. So a max of....8-10? I think. Assuming the converts don't marry the initial members post-conversion. I think 2 conversions would be best since a max of 8 players is far more reasonable than 10. And I would concur with Jon about the end game condition/win con not being everyone winning. I can see why that would appeal, but right now, there are at least faction win cons (including the village "faction") that have win cons that cannot work together. The "village" has to get rid of all the factions. The Brotherhood has to get rid of all items and kill roles (which means they have to somehow remove all the WorldSmiths, who all have access to their faction kill). Saying that "everyone wins" feels.....cheap....to me. We really just need to get a game-ending-condition in place, whether that's a "the game ends on this cycle" or "once this thing happens".
  2. little wilson
    We can vote to repeal rules. We already did that with the kill-conversion rule. So I'd say more stuff like that. We'll want to plan for the most pressing issues though so we don't get 8 rules we really want all in one turn and then two the following turn. I definitely agree the Brotherhood conversion needs to be capped, but I also think a couple more factions would be a good idea as well. Just one or two more factions. Nothing too crazy. And a better end-game solution than a giant meteor.... We just created the Cosmere. Why are we trying to destroy it now?
  3. little wilson
    Wilson. I shall also stop being boring.
  4. little wilson
    What's the pancake madness rule?
  5. little wilson
    Sounds like Friday is it then. And next time, we'll get a day Slowswift can make it since he hasn't been able to come for a while.
  6. little wilson
    No. That was in part of the original rule and I know Sheep is still going off that. One and done.
  7. little wilson
    We might want to make sure Sheep is following the same definition before we throw all our eggs in that one basket, so to speak.
  8. little wilson
    Pancakes are counted differently than items.
  9. little wilson
    Passing rule 1 will only fix the item issue, not the pancakes. No pancakes will create a fair bit more problems, collectively, than no items. I would think people in biggest support of 1 would be the WorldSmiths since they want items. Everyone needs pancakes.
  10. little wilson
    I've got plans Wednesday night but any other night should work.
  11. little wilson
    Alrighty. Do we want to do this this week or next?
  12. little wilson
    Len said he was roleblocked, so I imagine you can thank the roleblocker, though that is a good point about a rule showing if people are attacked and the attack is blocked or something. Even if the person doesn't take a hit.
  13. little wilson
    Ish. Yes, you suggested one rule instead of three, but nothing about it having the majority of the player vote which is the critical part of my suggestion. Let's say there are 5 ridiculous rules proposed one cycle and nothing else. There are 25 people in the game. 10 use their veto votes split among the rules, and the other 15 vote. The max number of votes one of the rules gets is 4. That rule goes into play, despite less than a sixth of the player base wanting it. Combining your proposition with my suggestion, it guarantees that the only rules that will take effect will be ones that majority (half + 1 or half rounded up) can agree on. This should make it so no ridiculous rules come into effect and it will heavily restrict how frequently rules come into play since I seriously doubt many rules will have the majority opinion. It's actually not 24. Like Aonar said, the DM role specifically says "two of the following" which is pretty obviously saying that you can't double up. It's two. Not one twice. There's a huge difference. Therefore, the max votes they can garner between the two of them, assuming they put in orders last night to do so, is 12 - 6 each. Oh, and Arin, I have it on good authority that Len tried to kill you last night. Keep that in mind.
  14. little wilson
    I think restricting new rules to only rules that pass with the majority of players individual votes would fix that. So at most a single rule passing every turn, and only ones that have a majority, so therefore most people are in agreement on that being a good rule. EDIT: by the way, I've proposed a rule for the bunny problem. Bunnies can still eat items, but they cannot eat pancakes. It keeps the bunnies around for people who want them, but it fixes the problem with the bunnies eating the pancakes and eventually roleblocking everyone.
  15. little wilson
    I have virtually no desire to get pedantic with you, and that's what you're asking. This is something that could only be clarified by @AliasSheep Can a person cast a successful vote on a person who is currently boring? My personal interpretation of the boring rule is that this is not possible. Len insists that it is. Which one of us is correct?
  16. little wilson
    Ahem. Kind of hard to vote on someone you don't pay attention to.
  17. little wilson
    So...basically this is your confession of what I accused you of before: Taking advantage of the game and breaking it and then complaining that the game is broken because you broke it. Also, re-read the rules for boring and interesting again. I think you'll find them rather illuminating. EDIT: Here, I'll help you out. So yeah. Voting on any of the currently boring players does literally nothing to them.
  18. little wilson
    That is a very good point, Aonar. Len, you and Drake might be able to win together, but that doesn't mean that the WorldSmiths and the Brotherhood can win together. That just means that your win con doesn't conflict with Drake's win con. But Drake's teammates' win con still conflicts with yours. As does your teammates' with Drake's. This doesn't magically disappear just because you two up and decided to get hitched. EDIT: And to all of Drake and Len's teammates: unless you all are planning to marry each other, none of you can win with the other team. One of you will lose. Do not just follow them because they're telling you you can win together. They can win together. You cannot. Not without getting married as well. The rules very clearly state this. Drake and Len are in this together and if they can fool their team into helping them win and their team lose, you can bet they will. Len in particular. I hear he enjoys stabbing teammates in the back. Don't be the next back he stabs.
  19. little wilson
    So let me ask this: Whose fault is it that you're in this predicament? Might it not be the rules that you guys put in place and forced into play so you could get into this position? You can't complain about the game being broken when you broke it in the first place.
  20. little wilson
    The rules already state that there is no world where the Brotherhood and the WorldSmiths can win together so pray tell, why exactly are you two working together, hm?
  21. little wilson
    More to the point though. Calling all factionless (and apparently the Agents of Chaos too). Drake has just confessed to being either a WorldSmith or part of the Brotherhood of Peace. And that both of those factions (which are supposed to be at odds with one another) are working together. He then goes on to say that the game can't be fun for anyone because he and those on his faction are working against the spirit of the game because they're working with an enemy faction. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't really like dictators and I sure as hell don't want to follow whatever Drake and Len (who is also clearly part of either the Worldsmiths or the Brotherhood) have in store for the rest of us. Even if it's a so-called "balanced" game. I didn't sign up for Drake and Len's game. I signed up for Sheep and Stink's game. I also didn't sign up for someone to tell me what is and isn't fun, especially when that person is the one causing most of what they say is "unfun". I think it's safe to say that Drake is an enemy to most of the players in this game. So let's kill him. kthxbai
  22. little wilson
    Drake Drake Drake
  23. little wilson
    So....basically a way to play a game that you've created while skirting the committee meant to make sure games are balanced. Alrighty then. You'll def need to run your rules by Alv first, since he's the IM.
  24. little wilson
    I'm not a fan of any of the complete game-wipe options, particularly the option about running a game based on rules you and Drake came up with, when we don't know what those rules are. I do like the 7th option though. A lot. There are some valid rules in this game that are making the game more interesting. There are also some ridiculous rules that are creating serious problems. Being able to vote on which ones are in place and which ones aren't will help cull the ridiculousness and make the game actually playable. As for the Agents, Sheep talked to me when the game started about their win con. It's subjective - purely Sheep's decision at the end of the game, about if they created "enough" chaos. The amusing thing is that they don't really have much practical ability to do so. I'd thought when I'd suggested the faction that the single-use faction ability would be more powerful and give them a chance of fulfilling that win con, but I think the only real abilities in the game that count as such are the Elementalists. That's a little unfortunate. No wonder we haven't really seen much evidence of them beyond some of the more ridiculous rule proposals. >>
  25. little wilson
    So...why is the platypi rule so popular? You realize whoever has that item will die before they can achieve their win con, right? Bunnies eat your own items and pancakes. If you have no items, they will eat your pancakes. Unless you're RPing an absurd amount and doing the 2 pancakes collection every night, the bunnies you have will eat through any stock you may build up and then there won't be anything left for you, and any actions you make to get more pancakes will be eaten by your bunnies, which are fed every cycle. Let me repeat that because it's important: Every bunny feeds every cycle if you have anything in your inventory they can eat. You don't control where your bunnies go to feed. They eat your own inventory. Everyone who voted on that rule just basically condemned everyone, including themselves, to a long, slow death by starvation. Congratulations.
×
×
  • Create New...