EPTA Discourse on the Definition of Normal Games - Page 5
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
| ||
|
Erandorr
2283 Posts
.o/  | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
On April 25 2012 04:44 Dirkzor wrote: Question: Do people really want normal games? Or do they just think they want normal games? I never play in bigger games (my biggest was 20 people I think?) so i can't really comment there. But here is something from my own experience: The "I'm a cop you idiot" game was pretty standard - yes? It was small but very standard. A cop, a medic, 3 vts and 2 mafia goons. That setup was great. But would I play that kind of setup all the time (even with small tweaks to the roles)? Maybe the first 2 or 3 times but after that it would get kinda boring. My point being if we run games that are almost alike all the time it would get boring. I know there are some wiggleroom within the guidelines in this thread but smaller twists in setup might make them more interesting going forward. Besides that I'm against anything that put things in boxes. If people thought playing normal games was boring, we wouldn't have +50 games of them wouldn't we? >_> (assuming all TL Mafia I-LIII games were normal, or at least most of them). | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25559 Posts
On April 25 2012 09:42 gonzaw wrote: If people thought playing normal games was boring, we wouldn't have +50 games of them wouldn't we? >_> (assuming all TL Mafia I-LIII games were normal, or at least most of them). I was under the impression the roman numeral increase wasn't directly correlated with number of normal games, but number of games overall? Like there was LI, then Spaceship, then LIII-- no LII. Though I could be totes wrong. | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
But I never really understood those. What exactly makes a game "TL Mafia [roman number]" and not "Ace & Caller's Surprising Extravagant Mafia from Inside the Earth" or something? | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 25 2012 09:45 Blazinghand wrote: I was under the impression the roman numeral increase wasn't directly correlated with number of normal games, but number of games overall? Like there was LI, then Spaceship, then LIII-- no LII. Though I could be totes wrong. I think they're "supposed" to be normal. LII was jubjub. It was just hosted before LI for some weird reason | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
Someone already brought up the point that adding a semi-normal queue won't really solve the problem at hand but just push it to "what classifies a game as semi-normal". That and I don't really want to add another queue to the queue. The heavy flavor role PM is nice as it prevents players from trying to use the role PMs to deduce someone's role or fakeclaim. Also, I know that some hosts really enjoy writing out flavor like that; it seems silly to take away one of the things that hosts enjoy doing. GMarshal has always talked about enforcing stricter rules on behavior allowed in games. I am all for that, and I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who isn't. But that is a topic for another day. The roman numeral numbering is something that is just of tradition. If you look through the list of games you will notice some games don't have the roman numeral, and this is just because when the host put themself down on the queue they gave me a non-roman numeral name. If we do indeed standardize normal games I would probably make all the normal games have a roman numeral just so people know by the name and also because it makes them easier to reference. Let me reemphasize a few points about what is trying to be accomplished. Yes there is that whole drama of figuring out whether a game is normal that I have to deal with. But that is not the primary reason I want this to be enacted (even though it may have spurred this). I would like to restate what syllogism said: "A themed game just means to me that more attention has to be directed towards setup speculation, planning and forming strategies unrelated to actual analysis." That is the kind of thing I envision when I think about the difference between normal and themed. In a normal game, the players should not have to worry about the setup affecting the game, nor should the players have to alter their analysis because of the roles. With recent complaints about the quality of games being low (whether or not this is true is a different story), I see this as a way to promote play entirely based on analysis, hopefully raising the level of play. Players won't have to worry about an all powerful blue circle, or whether or not this player getting lynched is a death miller (sorry only example I could think up right away). Instead a player just has to worry about whether a player is mafia based on his posts and past behavior. A themed game should not be "crazy" like a few people label them as. DrH's game has shown that people expect those themed games to be just as balanced as a normal game. While that is obviously only possible in a perfect world, these themed games should not be crazy so that we are guessing and hoping that they will turn out okay. As syllogism said these games should have more attention directed towards setup speculation and planning and forming analysis based on the roles that might be in the game. This could mean anything from Qatol's number strategy from PYP1 to me inventing my own mafia team under the name House Chezinu. | ||
|
Erandorr
2283 Posts
| ||
|
Curu
Canada2817 Posts
On April 24 2012 16:30 Acrofales wrote: While I think a "semi-normal" category seems like a good middle road between the strict rules of the OP and the current normal, it solves none of the problems Foolishness mentioned at the start. It just shifts the debate to whether it can be considered "semi-normal" rather than whether it can be considered "normal". It might give more leeway to the balancing team, but given foolishness' last post, the problem isn't even so much the definition of normal, but rather drama in the balancing team itself. Not gonna comment on that stuff @Curu: I'm quite surprised to read your opinion. Would you not consider your GoT game normal? Well my game was normal except the inclusion of a new 3rd party that didn't have any direct outcome on the game itself (ie he had no powers or anything, just thread presence). But I would agree that that violates normal game standards, even with a 3rd party that could do absolutely nothing but talk look at how much people were guessing what his role did, how much not knowing the mechanics affected the game, etc. I think normal games should focus purely on analysis not on setup speculation. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 25 2012 13:58 Curu wrote: Well my game was normal except the inclusion of a new 3rd party that didn't have any direct outcome on the game itself (ie he had no powers or anything, just thread presence). But I would agree that that violates normal game standards, even with a 3rd party that could do absolutely nothing but talk look at how much people were guessing what his role did, how much not knowing the mechanics affected the game, etc. I think normal games should focus purely on analysis not on setup speculation. wtf Curu I had powers! Even the host doubts Littlefinger! I shall seek my revenge, just you wait. EDIT: On April 25 2012 14:23 syllogism wrote: A random observation regarding the death miller role; as long as it is made clear which role will not truly flip, I don't see why you couldn't have one in a normal game if no flip games are also considered normal. This doesn't mean I actually endorse the role. This is actually a pretty fair point. However I would say that if you are not interested in playing such a game then the inclusion of the role isn't so great. | ||
Ver
United States2186 Posts
On April 24 2012 12:34 EchelonTee wrote: we're all friends, and we're all BAMFs. No need to have so much tension. . Don't worry about it. We're best friends after all. He just had a bad day and blew up over something that would normally make him laugh ^_^ I guess you can only call a bureaucrat a bureaucrat so many times before they get annoyed! My thoughts more in depth: 1) This defined system will lessen the flow of interesting new ideas considerably for obvious reasons. For example, kurumi had a cool new idea of giving mafia several possible powers (godfather, roleblocker, medic, dt, etc) and letting them choose 2 of them or something. This would give them more options in planning and they could truly design their own team around their strengths (say they have a smooth liar who can lead the town astray, thus they choose to fakeclaim with a dt rather than grabbing a roleblocker) instead of getting handed whatever the hosts felt like. Whether its as good in practice as on paper will have to be seen, but in this rigid new system it couldn't ever happen. 2) The differences between roles allowed and roles banned in the OP is paper thin and arguments could easily be made for including or forbidding them. Frankly, in the actual discussion many decisions literally came down to "role x hasn't seen enough play for me to feel okay including it" which isn't even a reason, just an admission of inadequate basis for judgment. Why is pardoner allowed as an election prize but not actual role? Why so few mafia aligned roles which prevents you from punishing dumb play of thinking role=alignment? Why are so many different kinds of cops allowed but not sanities? Why no double lynch? No instant majority? Why no bodyguard? Why no kp cost abilities? Why no day vigis, especially for mafia? etc... I'm not defending all of these aspects as important or good; double lynches, instant majority, and BG's are kinda yucky in general, but if someone can figure out a way to make them promote good play, then why ban them? If they can't make them work out and the setup looks problematic, then it can be addressed individually. Creating an arbitrary system to allow or ban these borderline roles on a broad scale, no matter who does it (though a forum-wide decision would be ideal), is going to leave a lot of unanswerable questions because it's just too difficult to firmly decide in isolation one way or the other. 3) Some of the more interesting recent normal games have been ones with rulesets that wouldn't fly at all under this new system. Specifically, Closed Casket, Jubjub, XLVIII, and Some Mafia Game, though I'm sure others would apply too. All these games either promoted interesting play or brutally punished atrocious play. So far as I saw these games are some of the most 'normal' of normals yet they all contained many banned roles, most of which should be below though I imagine im forgetting some: Russian Vigi Janitor (Hides deaths while alive) Dreamflower Kingmaker Pardoner Double Voter Day Vigi (particularly mafia version) Jack KP cost abilities for mafia. 4) Other problem is that the theme queue is already the overstacked one. There are the staple, awesome, fan favorite setups like Pick your Power or Sleeper Cell, alongside a lot of unique ones like Personality, Insane/Aperture series, Caller games, World at War, Death Factory, or more dynamic/flavorful ones like Space Station or LOTR. Basically, there's a lot of competition here when as WBG said, normal games aren't being hosted enough relative to demand in the first place. If more innovative normal formats have to compete with the overcrowded theme slots, someone loses out and there'll be less innovation overall, while supply for generic normal games will still be low because frankly not many people seem to like to host games where you are extremely restricted in design. Gonzaw's idea might work but then I could see everyone just trying to host in the 'almost normal' category which kind of defeats the purpose. As for an idea what should be done, I'm just going to echo GM and add on a bit. 1) We figure out guidelines of what constitutes a normal game here. Rather than hard and fast rules, go with general principles like what layabout said. 2) Host goes through balance crew as normal, except they actually can't just force it past objections. If host isn't happy with a decision they can go to other balance people (so long as the original communication is given to them too). If they still aren't satisfied they bring it up to forum at large. If it's a contested thing then Foolishness or Gmarshal or both cast the deciding vote or whatever. That way the latter two don't have such an annoying burden, but also everyone is held accountable and there's more transparency as to what is going on. Balance crew also needs more people cause of a lot people on it are afk most of the time and it'd be good to get fresh insight too, especially from people who play more regularly as of late. I see it as a ship correcting its course over time. | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
Well, the point is that you can force people to not only host "semi-normal" games but also Normal games. If what you guys want (well, or what Foolishness wants) is having more Normal games to incentive people into making more analysis and improving the level of play in this forum, then just have more people host those and that's it. The problem isn't about "defining" and "categorizing" games, the problem is about creating setups that do the above (encourage good play rather than luck/mechanic manipulation/etc). If you don't make any "definitions" about Normal/Semi-Normal/Themed Games, then the above thing still won't happen, unless you guys incentive hosts into making those type of games. If you can just tell everybody "Yes Normal games are just a guideline and kind of vague, but you guys should start hosting more "Simple" games without weird mechanics" then it's the same thing and you don't have to make any rules or anything. Making these rules makes it easy to control that though. | ||
|
Mattchew
United States5684 Posts
I believe that you see the quality of good players games go extremely downhill when they know they are most likely going to die N1 because all their time and effort is barely worth it. This often leads to chaotic towns with no veteran leadership, so in all honesty I don't know if we should put the onus(is this the correct use of this word) of bad play on the setups but more on the players in games themselves. | ||
|
Foolishness
United States3044 Posts
On April 26 2012 03:55 Mattchew wrote: The other problem is getting veteran (read: good) players to sign up for normal games when they start getting picky and sign ups can fill up quickly. The unique games usually peak these players interest leading many of the normal games to end up being maybe 1 - 5 good players (getting them shot n1 if town) and a bunch of people who would rather yell, sheep and lurk rather then actually play a good solid analytical game. I believe that you see the quality of good players games go extremely downhill when they know they are most likely going to die N1 because all their time and effort is barely worth it. This often leads to chaotic towns with no veteran leadership, so in all honesty I don't know if we should put the onus(is this the correct use of this word) of bad play on the setups but more on the players in games themselves. I think that encompasses the other problem of we need stricter rules about what behavior is allowed in a game. Unless you mean something else? | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
Besides, I think that every setup which leaves people with only a couple of actions they can do (so things like "I'm a cop You idiot" in a bigger game would be a no-no) should have no place ever in a normal game. Leave this for minis. | ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
About behavior. People just have to stop thinking about this as the internet. I know thats hard because this is the internet, but really. Some of the things people write they would (i hope) never say in a skype call let alone real life. Just because its text based over the internet doesn't allow people to behave like dicks. And if you bring up "it's a game" or "I'm just playing my role", don't. | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On April 26 2012 04:29 Dirkzor wrote: I wasn't saying decreasing the amount of possible actions people can do i/was a good thing. It worked in that small setup but I agree it wouldn't work in a big game. I just mentioned it to explain my point. Doing the same type of setup over and over will kill the fun (for players but even more so for hosts). About behavior. People just have to stop thinking about this as the internet. I know thats hard because this is the internet, but really. Some of the things people write they would (i hope) never say in a skype call let alone real life. Just because its text based over the internet doesn't allow people to behave like dicks. And if you bring up "it's a game" or "I'm just playing my role", don't. If I call Your case stupid and bad am I being a dick or what? Come on. We're role playing at least a little bit. Just remember what Palmar said. It's like sports. We might get really deep into the match but everything done here is because of emotion and us trying the best. When we're done, we shake hands and thank everyone for a good match. | ||
|
Node
United States2159 Posts
On April 26 2012 04:34 Kurumi wrote: If I call Your case stupid and bad am I being a dick or what? Come on. We're role playing at least a little bit. Just remember what Palmar said. It's like sports. We might get really deep into the match but everything done here is because of emotion and us trying the best. When we're done, we shake hands and thank everyone for a good match. I feel that lately the "attack the play, not the player" guideline has been overstepped a bit. I also know that in more than a few cases the hosts have had to step in after the game is over and remind the players that the game is, in fact, over. What you describe is fine in my book, I just don't think that has been what's happening. | ||
|
Dirkzor
Denmark1944 Posts
I'm just saying you can write stuff differently. I'm not saying we should all be "You sir, wrote a case I truely dislike and I would like to say that I'm mildly annoyed you can't see the true logic here" but there are no reason to go "FFS RETARD! WHY DON'T YOU JUST STOP PLAYING. GOD DAMMIT!" Calling cases and logic stupid is not being a dick. | ||
| ||
