Elbereth
-
Posts
3030 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
News
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Everything posted by Elbereth
-
Patience, patience. Araris, Orlok.
-
Oops.
-
Clanky. Budgie. Drought.
-
Hm. Point. I think the reason I don't like this is that.... it feels wrong for the elims to be immune when there's a 20% chance of anyone being converted. I don't think it should happen to the eliminator team, certainly, since betrayal by elims is always tricky (or even mostly elims *looks at past two Shardish games* >>), but if it were an inherent ability of eliminator teams I think that should be specified in the rules, since that's rather different balancewise. My personal suggestion would be more like a role which is immune to conversion, because that kind of secret seems perfectly normal to put in a game. I just feel like a conversion mechanic that only affects one side is a little much to not include, if that makes any sense?
-
@Drake Marshall, I might point out that Orlok was never in the Zeta Dimension. That would be Lopen. Who is dead. As for me, if my win condition were impossible, I would be very happy to claim. I'm happy to say that it is not. Also, I'm not totally convinced that eliminators would be immune to conversion. If Drought is telling the truth about his win condition, the obvious break problem (an eliminator outing the other elims to the thread) wouldn't be an issue, since you need to survive long enough to actually survive with the Zeta. @Aonar Faileas, does it change to the Medium's normal win condition?
-
Gah. I don't like lynching new players, but in this case it seems necessary. >> I know Budgie is a wiser choice, since I'm not evil, nor has my alignment changed due to Zeta. While I wasn't affected by the Zeta dimension beyond being hit with a kill, it seems likely that someone was, and Budgie is the only candidate in this thread left. I'll write up a fuller defence of why Budgie is better to lynch than I am, later, but am currently packing for college and don't want to spend too much time on that right now.
-
Ah, right. I can't remember the last time there was such a mechanic before this game, honestly, which is why I was confused. Sure. But, again, inactives don't tend be be counted for endgame majority, and eliminator teams can hunt inactives should they choose regardless. It does help them to some extent, in that the village gains no information, but even then hitting total inactives rather than semi-actives isn't a halpful strategy because they pose absolutely no threat.
-
That one's been brought up before, though it'd be hard to implement - I believe the form in whcih it was suggested was a kill role that can only kill the bottom half of the player list when sorted most to least active, or something similar. It's a possibility, though potentially a difficult one. It'd certainly create activity, though. Straight inactivity filters aren't meant to encourage inactivity, generally. Sometimes they do - PMing people the cycle before they're likely to die, for instance, can often get them to post if they've simply forgot. But the true point of them is so they're not irritating to other players, so that no player in the game has to bother with trying to deal with someone about whom you have no information. This tends to be the case unofficially anyway, if you're referring to ending the game, which is the usual case in which the majority of players is important. AG2 ended with more villagers than elims because most of the villagers were inactive. I like this, and can't remember having seen it before. I doubt that'd be used, honestly. Depending on how you define 'inactive', killing an active is far more useful to any evil team.
-
Highly unlikely. People tend to be very careful about not killing new players before they have a chance to experience the game. So you're almost certainly fine.
-
Right. So, the thing is, the Contribution Crusade doesn't inspire people to be active. Usually, the people lynched through it aren't paying enough attention to even become active again in the first place. I'd also distinguish between a lynch and a pokevote. If you're going to get someone to be active, a single vote and a mention should be enough for them to notice. Alternatively, PMing them. Both of those are far more effective ways than lynching a player. Yes, it means we lynch an active player instead. Which isn't fun. But it's the only way to derive enough information from the game to actually solve it. If you have another proposal as to alternative ways of doing that which are as effective as a lynch discussion, I'm all ears.
-
Mm. >> While it doesn't seem relevant at moment - since Flash has done plenty of other things since then far more indicative of alignment - I just wanted to point out is that this is actually really very good reasoning, and I approve of it. (It's analogous to wanting to lynch experienced players because they're experienced rather jsdkljfkdlsafjdkalsfjkdlsafjdkal;sjfkdlsa Other people already pointed this out, but bah. Why is a contribution crusade a good idea? At all? >> Orlok just pointed out the WGG thing, which is good, because it doesn't make sense. I would also point out that if you want to catch people by analysis, why are you proposing a Contribution Crusade? That isn't the way to get information so that you can analyse enough to catch someone... That's kind of hard to defend against... >> Also, are we back to the beginning again? With the you-can't-read-me? So, I get the impression that the thing you don't agree with about my opinion is the CC thing. Could you explain why you disagree, please? Not much of actual use was discussed in the doc, except who each person was (since it was anonymous). The hints were essentially my asking Aonar whether it was possible to communicate outside the dimension (or a similar question, since I can't remember what I actually asked), and he said that it could be theoretically possible depending on what roles were there with me. (No roleclaims were exchanged, which made that particular hint rather useless.) No, my alignment hasn't changed, and the attack was by a robot claiming that I was the reason "she" was dead. People who read the comics? Help? This reminded me of a thing I was going to comment for several of the long analysis-posts: all of them felt lacking in synthesis and conclusion, personally. My suggestion would be to take out the NAI posts, since I feel like that would make it far clearer what you actually think of the person in question, but something other than "this person has said some elim things and some villager things", as happened with most of those posts, would be welcome. Orlok's entirely correct on this. I have several strong meta-views, like that on the Contribution Crusade, and I'm going to point those out when I see an issue with any of them regardless of my alignment. They're a useful way of contributing to the meta, and occasionally to the game as well, but I would say them if I were village, if I were evil and my teammates were all inactive, and also if I were evil and my teammates were all active. Because I think it's important to say. May vote before the end of the cycle and may not, but I'm unsure for the moment who I would vote for - I don't particularly like Lopen's reasons for voting me (for the same reasons that Orlok pointed out), but I've read him as village other than that. Rand and Orlok both feel like they've been flying a little bit under the radar by driving discussion, but I value it enough that I wouldn't be interested in lynching either yet. BR's posts (particularly the analyses) have struck me as very neutral and uncontroversial, so possibly her. We'll see.
-
So much for my extra life... Also, for those wondering, the Zeta dimension is a doc in which you can talk with others (since a group PM would've been unwieldy. I think we got to 6,500 words or so by the end of the night?). I presume alignment switching happened (I don't have my PM yet so I don't actually know), and obviously killing did unless someone else used a kill role while in the realm, since I certainly didn't use mine. Nothing interesting other than that, though there were hints that there could be interesting potentials with roles. How was everyone else's night?
-
See the countdown clock in the OP:
-
I don't have a problem with a tie, really - I've mentioned why Ecth's reasoning doesn't quite make sense in my last long post, but I don't really mind lynching Drake either. I think the reasons for lynching him are valid, and it would give me a fair bit of information (since several people expressed suspicion of him in PMs to me). Also, a last minute vote without much particular reasoning (since I don't have a strong opinion either way) isn't exactly a good idea for me, in my opinion. EDIT: Sigh. >> Ninja'd.
-
Interesting. Fair point, and I don't have an issue with that - because the point of it is to generate discussion, unlike usually, which it would. I'd prefer the Wood to proffer an actual candidate rather than a CC lynch, but it's still a fair possibility.
-
I was going to make this a short multiquote. I really was... >> ...did you miss the part where there are actual plausible lynch targets today, and we've already discussed at length why lynching inactives this early and/or ever is not a good idea? Why would you propose a Crusade in light of that, exactly? *twitches* DA... One, elim/neutral is kind of a broad category. Two, why? As a few other people noted, this reasoning doesn't make sense. The vote swings comment has been dealt with - last minute doing so would be very suspicious and could not really give the elims any net positive. A vote minimum could also just be asked about, which is far less dangerous. Not killing an active player is fine, but killing active players is how we figure anything out about the game. I don't think the no-lynch disagreement because of vote swings applies here, and the reason for no information also applies in this lynch. If you actually wanted information or discussion, why not vote on an active player? That's how it usually happens, at least. I'm going to put the rest of my thoughts down at the bottom because I think they're important. *sigh* This is why I switched to actually looking at a player list very shortly afterwards. I personally can't think of an instance in which this happened or why it would be alignment-indicative, but I'm also not the person you're asking. ...you are forgiven for using 'light year' as a unit of time. Note that you're not counting the Mediums there - there are 18 players in our thread counting Doc, but two of those are neutral. Note that while I commend you for trying to get Burnt to be active, it is very much not unusual for her to try to go under the radar. If you want a read on her, I suggest PMs. The difference is that you are at least somewhat active. Poking a semi-active to be more active is valid. Poking with the potential intent to lynch a complete inactive is different, and far less useful because it doesn't actually get a response. I really truly have absolutely no idea why Stick having been chosen by villagers makes her not evil. (See: MR13, a confirmed good player choosing an eliminator to trust and give all their information to. (Note: it wasn't quite that simple, but that is essentially the effect of what happened.)) Contribution Crusade Thoughts The thing about the Contribution Crusade isn't that it's effective. It's not, really. Semi-inactives can pay attention if a vote is dropped on them, but most inactives don't. It's a lynch that gives the village no information, either through alignment reveal or lynch discussion, and it isn't realy effective in bringing inactives back (particularly if they do have good reasons and just end up feeling annoyed, or if it's so early (for instance, in the first 48 hours of the game) that they feel they shouldn't have been lynched so soon. PMing players is far more useful and effective. What's nice about it is that it's easy. It's very, very easy to just drop a vote on an inactive player. You're contributing, you're voting, and the best thing is that they can't fight back. You won't get into a drawn-out argument. You won't get lynched yourself for it. It's an easy, non-alignment indicative reason to vote on someone. The Contribution Crusade means that you don't have to go to the trouble of actually thinking about the game, of actually finding something suspicious and fighting for a lynch because of it. The Contribution Crusade makes your life easier, because you don't have to think about the game if you use it as a crutch. That, I think, is why it's a bad thing, more than anything else. It's no-information and not very much engagement from anyone who participates, either. So please don't use it.
-
Hey! Seonid. No reason to go after me like that. I haven't done anything!
-
They do, yes - the reason they're being voted on again is because if we don't, it's entirely possible to change the medium at :59 before the cycle ends, by adding one vote to a new one (since you don't have to unvote an old one, just put in a new one). We'd really rather avoid that, so... voting again. I'm certain that you remain evil. Mediums do, so why not protector/dragonslayers? I'm just not certain whether the protect-the-medium win con actually gets added or not. @Aonar Faileas, do protector/dragonslayer eliminators get the win con of protecting the Medium?
-
I'm aware of that. I was addressing Stick, who is not a Medium, and whose alignment if she were village is publicly known.
-
Whee! Multiquotes! Note: It's currently 5:20 AM, I've been up for two hours, and I got less than 5 hours sleep. This may or may not be coherent. Also, I'll be far more active starting tomorrow, I should think, since that's when I get back from my trip. I mean... sigh. Two minutes. >> I think that this post needs to be linked again, since it's been a while. Essentially, the important thing there is that in order for discussion to make any difference, there needs to be threat of a lynch. At that point, yes, there were only six hours left, but I would venture that the discussion that could be gained from those six hours is worth creating an actual threat of the lynch. Ah, right. Stink. Orlok pointed out most of the issues with this, but I'd like to also note that I really do not like this reasoning. >> Yes, no-vote situations aren't helpful. Crusading on D1 is even less so, particularly for someone who's played two games before this one. 48 hours is plenty early enough for inactivity to be excusable, and also the CC is almost as bad as a no vote in terms of generating discussion. Actual suspicion is far better. To be honest, this reminds me of Len suggesting CC D1 in MR23, Why does not revealing their win cons equate to being evil? It's possible, but... I don't see the correlation. I wouldn't say 'often'. I can think of... two examples? (LG12 and LG35, though if anyone can remember more I could be forgetting something.) It's certainly possible there's such a role in this game, but I don't think it's necessary. I believe Stink was referring to the discrepancy between what you thought of his win con and what Doc thinks. I'm... not sure I agree. It's possible, certainly, that there will be people we all want to lynch. I don't see where that necessarily follows, though. Meetings are useful for a number of other reasons: contact with the other side's eliminators, and being able to point out things in the different threads. Taking actions on either side. It's a pure faction game at that point. I'm more of the opinion that those factors/the interest of having a single thread is enough to have a single thread and lynch, without needing any particular group that we need to lynch. Uh. How does that imply you can't be evil? If you were an elim, I believe (though I'd need to check with Aonar that it's the same as the Medium) that your win con doesn't actually change. You could still very well be the Protector while simultaneously being evil, and I'm not totally certain why you think otherwise.
-
1. It's a compliment for a while - just like early deaths are something of a compliment. Eventually, however, they also just get irritating. And also, a difference between being voted for because of past game fear, and voted for because you're experienced and thus one of those players 'must' be evil. 2. The important thing to note here is that there's a difference between lynching someone only because they're experienced, and lynching them using that as one factor in your suspicion of them. As far as I recall (and correct me if I'm recalling it incorrectly), you didn't have any other reasons for suspecting Orlok than that one of he and Lopen must be evil. While I don't think it's good to use that argument in any circumstance, it would be better had you had other points which can actually be argued against. Because there's no response or defence to that. So I don't have an issue at picking which players to analyse based on experience, but I do have an issue with that being the only basis with which to lynch them. 3. A couple things here - one, you're implying that analysis makes someone a good tactician. Lopen and Orlok are both good at analysis, yes. Definitely. That's one of the main things that makes them feared players. But analysis and strategy are separate skills, and one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Orlok is also a very good strategist, yes. Lopen is decent. As far as I can recall, I've never seen Lopen do any particularly brilliant strategising (though correct me if I'm wrong, Lopen, since I'm doing this off the top of my head). He's not bad at it, certainly, but I wouldn't rank him higher than someone like you, for instance. Lopen has a wonderful skillset, which makes him feared, but being a 'tactician' isn't part of that for him, at least to me. So I'm not certain how them both being tacticians is any better an argument than their experience. (Also, I don't think the elims necessarily need a good tactician. And even if you do argue that, there's a number of people I'd put into that category - Orlok and Lopen, yes, but I'd also put in you, Jondesu, Drake, Yitzi, and more that I don't want to go back and check in the player list. There are a few very good strategisers - Wilson and Orlok, for instance - but I don't think an elim team needs more than a decent one if any, which is most mid-level players.) 4. The issue isn't really surviving games. Most experienced players tend not to care anymore, because they can't. They always die. The point is that either they die because they're experienced rather than because they're actually suspected. Which is really irritating reasoning, because there's nothing they can do about it. Why would they join if they know that it's certain that even if they manage to survive to C3-4, they'll then get lynched simply because they're not dead yet and they're experienced? We've had players nearly leave the games multiple times because of the string of deaths they were experiencing and the knowledge that there wasn't any likelihood of that changing. A six-game streak is slightly different than spending two whole years without surviving a single game, for instance. 1. She did, yes - Cessie/firstRainbowRose helped Meta come up with the game, and I think even came up with the Inquisitor role. 2. Sure. I know Meta's fond of the square root rule, but I hadn't ever heard of an actual proof before and was wondering if there actually was one. 4. Which is fair of you, and entirely within your rights. 6. I'm not saying they're always imbalanced, only that they have a higher potential to be. And I'm not just talking about the eliminator team, here: I'm also talking about roles like Devotion in LG29, which was an important village role that Seonid and I considered important enough to select from a shorter list of players that wouldn't go inactive.
-
I have a few responses to this. I agree about the game being difficult lynch-wise. I hadn't considered that aspect, and apologise that it makes the game less fun. (I disagree that eliminators are disadvantaged in voting for villagers - they want villagers dead, after all. Using the lynch to do so is a perfectly valid eliminator strategy.) Voting was one of my main worries about this game, though for a different reason - the Truthless discourages it. I don't like that, but accepted it as the cost for the other things I wanted out of the game. These are the particular things I disagree with: 1. As I've already explained, I gave the role to Orlok because he knew the twist. As I recall, he came up with the twist, or at least a good part of the twists in this game. (There were initially more - I was playing with a Lover role that didn't end up working at all.) He's the one who pointed out that my current QF that I was planning on running was horrendously broken, and helped me come up with a new one. And he wanted to play. I didn't give it to him because he's my boyfriend, and am frankly offended that you would accuse me of doing so - I did it for the same reason Meta made Cessie the eliminator in LG2. Orlok knew, and he wanted to play, and he's the one who helped me make the game interesting and not horribly broken in the first place. I don't think it would be fair to ban him from playing a game which he helped to create when he wants to, and there is a way to allow him to play. 2. I disagree about the square root rule - could you link me to Meta's proof, since I don't think I've ever actually seen it? It works, but only in non-extreme cases. A game of 9 players shouldn't have 3 eliminators. That's too many. They should have two. (Or even more extreme, 2 players out of 4 obviously makes no sense.) On the other end, 36 players should have more eliminators than 6. I think something like a 15-25% ratio makes more sense, personally. 3. Smaller number of eliminators have an advantage in less connections, yes. At the same time, it's just them. They can't afford to lose anything - a single mislynch could be devastating. In this game that's particularly so - even one lynch on Orlok would've essentially ended the game for him, leaving it up to Stink. And to win, Stink would've had to survive to endgame and get all but one player to vote on him (because he could kill them). That's why a couple extra cycles for the eliminators to get closer to a win seemed important to include. 4. Could you please clarify what you mean by "you made this game broken on purpose"? I feel that I have made it very clear that I did my absolute best to make this game as balanced as I could. I didn't succeed in a few ways, as I've set out, but I did not set out to make a broken game, and I feel that you're disrespecting the work I've put into this game by saying that. 5. The difference between a Serial Killer in a normal game, I'll note, and in this one, is that in this one the Serial Killer has to have a decent chance to win. Most don't have much chance at all - the only one I recall ever succeeding was Aman in QF14, and he gained the role late in the game. So comparing this game to a normal Serial Killer who can hide because the eliminators are the main threat isn't quite accurate, in my opinion. Lastly, regarding distributions. I agree in a standard game that roles shouldn't be chosen for player-specific reasons. It only becomes necessary in games in which certain roles enormously impact the outcome of the game, like this one. I would argue that that's an argument for more standard games, though, rather than no choosing players whatsoever. Even had Orlok not played, I would not have given Nale to Jebus, for instance. He notified me halfway through the game that he was going inactive, so he wouldn't have ever died to the filter, but the game would essentially never have ended until the village tore itself apart after who-knows-how-many cycles. That does not sound fun, to me. So it had to be someone who I felt reasonably sure would be active. In such a case (similar to LG21, which I referenced in Game Creation), I would not be comfortable with a game being completely random. Semi-random, yes - I'd probably pick a shortlist of players I thought would do and pick from that, rather than handpick. But I'm firmly of the opinion that totally name-blind games will lead to an increase in broken or less balanced games. I don't think that's a sacrifice I could support in order for games to be entirely random.
-
The next MR will be up today or in the next few days. -
I... guess? Clarify that? What might we not be taking into account, and why is it bad that I'm making a prediction based on what we to know? Yes, I think it's a technically viable strategy for every eliminator and 60% of the village who transfers to win. I don't think it's a strategy I like, for the reasons I outlined. It would either turn the thread into one thread or end the game, and neither of those are interesting outcomes. I'd like to see this game actually play out, thank you very much, and I don't think that's a way to go about it.
-
Why would it be much more interesting that way? Either the eliminators all win (very likely) and most of us who switch win (and if you don't, it's down to pure random luck, which is no fun at all), or in the unlikely event that everyone actually switches, no one wins in this thread, and it turns into a single-thread game. That's less interesting than this, because it completely removes the point of the game's structure.
