EPT
On April 23 2012 17:01 Incognito wrote:
In any case, if we are discussing what is a normal game, we might as well discuss what is a themed game. The key difference between normal and themed games is expectation. In normal games, you may be thrown a curve ball, but that curve ball is defined in an otherwise familiar environment. You know the interactions between the traditional roles, and you are trying to figure out how a new role integrates into that environment (even in a closed setup, you generally have an idea that the roles revolve around the traditional aspects of killing, information, protection, etc.). However, in the themed game, you expect that the game is going to be crazy. There are many new elements to consider, and you have no idea if the usual methods actually hold true. And since these games are more wild, you don't take the game as seriously. And that is the essential difference between normal and themed games. As long as we can ensure that normal games retain the traditional context, we can include a twist for variety.
In any case, if we are discussing what is a normal game, we might as well discuss what is a themed game. The key difference between normal and themed games is expectation. In normal games, you may be thrown a curve ball, but that curve ball is defined in an otherwise familiar environment. You know the interactions between the traditional roles, and you are trying to figure out how a new role integrates into that environment (even in a closed setup, you generally have an idea that the roles revolve around the traditional aspects of killing, information, protection, etc.). However, in the themed game, you expect that the game is going to be crazy. There are many new elements to consider, and you have no idea if the usual methods actually hold true. And since these games are more wild, you don't take the game as seriously. And that is the essential difference between normal and themed games. As long as we can ensure that normal games retain the traditional context, we can include a twist for variety.
I'm going to say that this is close to 100% inaccurate. DrH's recent game is full proof that the expectation of "crazy" in themed games is not true (with the exception of Caller games I would imagine). DrH's game was a themed game, yet I had multiple players (both mafia and town) express concerns over the setup being unbalanced. At the end of the day it basically came down to me saying, "well it's a themed game it's too hard to guarantee anything about balance". Which I hated having to say everytime.
It shows that people are expecting the balance even in the themed games. Your definition of "You know the interactions between the traditional roles, and you are trying to figure out how a new role integrates into that environment" for a normal game is what a themed game should be. For example, most of the games you and Ver host are well balanced but may have everyone as a vigi or a very unique blend of roles. The themed games should be like those games. Maybe you can't get the balance perfectly, but it's close enough that an exciting game with possibilities for good play will result. The normal games should let players focus on hard analysis, not figuring out how setup elements can be used to gain an advantage or win.
On April 23 2012 17:01 Incognito wrote:
Yes, there is an element of arbitrariness to what is considered an acceptable twist, but that is a price that needs to be paid in order to have variety. My suggestion is just to use the system we have now, with more transparency. Although people do post ideas in the thread, it seems as if the actual discussions occur in PMs, which means of course nothing ever gets done. As long as we get away from a jumbled up network of private communications and establish a system that allows for open discussion and flexible decision making, we can still handle the current system. This discussion was initiated because Foolishness doesn't want to deal with arguing with hosts about if a setup is "normal" or not. But really, the solution isn't to make a separate rule structure to deal with that issue. It makes more sense just to open up the discussion and stop taking the burden for running this whole place.
Yes, there is an element of arbitrariness to what is considered an acceptable twist, but that is a price that needs to be paid in order to have variety. My suggestion is just to use the system we have now, with more transparency. Although people do post ideas in the thread, it seems as if the actual discussions occur in PMs, which means of course nothing ever gets done. As long as we get away from a jumbled up network of private communications and establish a system that allows for open discussion and flexible decision making, we can still handle the current system. This discussion was initiated because Foolishness doesn't want to deal with arguing with hosts about if a setup is "normal" or not. But really, the solution isn't to make a separate rule structure to deal with that issue. It makes more sense just to open up the discussion and stop taking the burden for running this whole place.
Let me be frank, and this is going to come out nasty. This discussion was not initiated because I don't want to deal with arguing with hosts. This dicussion was initiated because I don't want to deal arguing with YOU. And by YOU I mean almost anyone on the balance crew. I had discussions with you (Incognito), Ver, GM, and some other host where by the end I was incredibly angry at what I was hearing. Among other things, let me pull out a snipit from some of the chats:
Incognito: "tell iGrok to take it out or else he can't host"
Ver: "can't you just stop [iGrok] from ever hosting again?"
For two people who are claiming issues about transparency it is quite disturbing the amount of lip like this I have to deal with (you two are the biggest offenders). Hopefully the irony of your request is coming into fruition because I have a lot of other juicy things you two have said about other hosts here and I got no problem making it public.
The fact of the matter is, everyone who complained about iGrok's game complained about the fact that it was not "normal". This left our arguments in a very ambiguous area over what is considered normal and what isn't. When it came down to it, the reasonings I got from GM, Incognito, Ver, and one other unnamed host about why the game isn't normal is because "the role is stupid". No one provided ample evidence to me that the game was unbalanced in any way.
At the end of the day, iGrok did a much better job convincing me that his game was normal and should be allowed than any of you did at convincing me that his setup needed to be changed. The rest of you felt like whiny babies not getting what you wanted; iGrok handled my complaints in a mature fashion.
Thus I will still stand by my decision to let him host his game as it was. You must understand I was put in a difficult situation and ultimately somebody was going to end up unhappy. If you feel that I was overusing my authority by going against what everyone on the balance crew was saying then please be assured this was not the case. I made my decision by weighing both ends of the argument and considering what everyones' opinions were. As I said above, iGrok gave the better case on why his game should be allowed to run as the other arguments boiled down to "this role is stupid".
And personally I actually was considering playing in the game cause the setup meant the game was all about analysis, which has been one of the few recently.
While we're near the subject of authority, I will put some other things out here since you want them public. If you have a problem with the way I'm handling matters on the forum then you need to stop beating around the bush by calling me a bureaucrat. I think it's a hilarious joke but when issues like this come along and I have Ver making posts like the one on the second page not only is it disrespectful but it is childish.
May I remind you that it was not my choice (nor did I want to at the time) to become de facto head of the mafia forum. I was just the person making all the update posts when Qatol decided to pursue his ambition of world domination because I was the person with the most free time. Since then everything has just kinda evolved to the point where I basically tell people that I'm the head of the forum since it's easier than trying to explain how things are run here. If you have a problem with me not listening or taking your advice, or not having things go your way (which you make it seem to happen a lot) then you have only yourself to blame here for letting me be the one to get into this position. And that's especially true considering how vehement I'm against elitism compared to the rest of you. Do I need to remind you of the days when I first started playing here? I used to think all of you (Incognito, Ver, flamewheel, etc) were all a bunch of pompous pricks. Of course I don't feel that way anymore (and I was pretty immature myself at the time) but when Ver makes posts like that it just rekindles those old feelings.
Hope you're happy!
On April 23 2012 22:48 Ace wrote:
Also as an addendum I think many hosts have gotten away from Normals where there are very few power roles and a lot of Vanilla Town. With lots of Vanilla, few PRs and the chance of Mafia killing anyone they need to with 1 KP and few protective roles the skill of the players usually has to be high for the game to be enjoyable.
Also as an addendum I think many hosts have gotten away from Normals where there are very few power roles and a lot of Vanilla Town. With lots of Vanilla, few PRs and the chance of Mafia killing anyone they need to with 1 KP and few protective roles the skill of the players usually has to be high for the game to be enjoyable.
And I think most of us would like to go back in that direction. There have been many complaints about the level of play being abnormally low, perhaps forcing players into a situation where they need to start thinking on not relying on game setups will help bring the level of play up.
