EPTSadly.
[T] MTG Mini Mafia II - Page 117
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
Sadly. | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12968 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:26 zebezt wrote: I didn't mind the hydra's at all. Imagine if grey and s&b had not had a partner to play with.. what a lurkfest this game would have been. Well, not just in lurking, but do you feel it helped a lot in the game and made it more interesting in general? | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
also when hydra heads disagree with each other it's kinda fun. adds another level to the analysis (see the oats/MG minds aglow shenannies) | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
Also: Oats: CH is scum kill him MG: Sorry about Oats, I don't think CH is scum *some hours pass* Oats: CH scum MG: >_> | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
Anyways I personally detirmined this: The more effort i put into games, the less fun I have. I put the most effort into this game than, like, ever before (I blame acro for making me feel bad whenever i was slacking off). Incidentially, it was also the least fun in many ways. Even though I was really hyped and excited about the setup. So henceforth, I shall aim to not put any effort whatsoever into my games. Maybe mafia will get fun again then. Worth a try. | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12968 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:30 marvellosity wrote: Hydras are by their nature harder to read. But it makes the game accessible to magic idiots like me, and for that i'm grateful. also when hydra heads disagree with each other it's kinda fun. adds another level to the analysis (see the oats/MG minds aglow shenannies) This is the main reason why I decided to implement hydras. I feel it might be a bit imbalanced to those that aren't in a hydra though. I might enforce everyone to be a hydra. Also, another thought: We could do a 9 player draft game. It'd need at least one player from each hydra to be at the same place at one time, but it could be very interesting I'd say. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
MidnightGladius
China1214 Posts
| ||
|
zebezt
185 Posts
http://www.quicktopic.com/50/H/NyxxDYe56WC | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18075 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:23 marvellosity wrote: right dandel, and all your arguments were wrong, that's why it was frustrating, and you absolutely refused to listen on why i was right about aperture. what's a dude supposed to do. acro's argument was 'town marv would 100% agree with me on this!' when town marv disagreed and was right to disagree. having made that pronouncement, suddenly being right is a mafia-tell. i've apologised for being an ass, but my frustration was at having 1000 bad/incorrect points levelled at me, while having my correct points on aperture ignored. You totally misunderstood that argument then. It all started with this: On February 05 2013 02:39 SuckMyTopdeck wrote: if he didn't bus crossfire, then people like you wouldn't post things like this What we read here was "yeah, that argument is bullshit and should not be taken into consideration", when it clearly should have been taken into consideration and dismissed against the larger body of evidence that AS was scum and offered to help on the slight chance that it would save him. Now maybe that's what you meant, but you expressed it as an outright rejection of the evidence, and in a way that insinuated we were bad for even bringing it up (people like you). This speaks of annoyance that someone would be bringing new evidence to the table. This basically read to us as hrmmm, our second highest scumread is annoyed that someone is bringing up a town tell on the clear lynch candidate of the day. If he were town, he would want to take all evidence into account (and maybe then dismiss it as something scum could do), but shouldn't be annoyed at someone bringing it up. And that's how it all started. You then basically OMGUS'd us for saying that it was scummy of you to offhandedly and annoyedly dismiss evidence (with the post where I said "dat scumslip") and that's how the whole ball got rolling. We weren't completely convinced about the Fork: of course the scenario you brought up was possible (and in fact the truth). However, the way you reacted said "your evidence is bunk and you are stupid for bringing it up", which we knew was not the case. After that it went from bad to worse, and we'll just agree that we both played badly and leave it at that. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
QT mainly used for proofreading big posts. Nothing important to see there imo | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
 gg. Please sign up for Fruity. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:48 syllogism wrote: Being right in the end doesn't necessarily validate your arguments or invalidate others. Perhaps both sets of arguments/interpretations of evidence were reasonable. Also as town antagonizing people who you think are town is always bad play. indeed. the "people like you" which apparently started it wasn't supposed to come across anywhere as near antagonistic as I can see it looks in hindsight. by "people like you" i just meant any person who would bring up the argument that dandel did. as in, him or anyone else making the wifom argument there | ||
|
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
And GreYGroK, I was telling Gonzaw for the past cycle that you had to die today. No way were we killing anybody else. Unless he listened to his silly, unfaithful, gut. Marv/acro you guys both played decently, you caught scum and were clearly townie (when I stopped being paranoid) but shit fests are shit fests and will never help. You were like old school bugs/VE this game and while it was amusing for a while it went way to far. Acro, I think you'd have done well to listen to me when I said Marv was town, you should have at least considered it and looked back at the game, Marv was very obviously town based on his meta. Although I did have some fear that SnB had simply told him they were town and fucked off to let Marv believe they were green the whole game. | ||
|
GreYMisT
United States6736 Posts
On February 07 2013 04:51 Promethelax wrote: GG guys. And GreYGroK, I was telling Gonzaw for the past cycle that you had to die today. No way were we killing anybody else. Unless he listened to his silly, unfaithful, gut. Marv/acro you guys both played decently, you caught scum and were clearly townie (when I stopped being paranoid) but shit fests are shit fests and will never help. You were like old school bugs/VE this game and while it was amusing for a while it went way to far. Acro, I think you'd have done well to listen to me when I said Marv was town, you should have at least considered it and looked back at the game, Marv was very obviously town based on his meta. Although I did have some fear that SnB had simply told him they were town and fucked off to let Marv believe they were green the whole game. Don't get me wrong, I personally believe that town very much deserved this win and I am amazed that we were able to deter even a few people in this game from killing us. I normally don't like hydraing, but it was the only way I could play in this game due to being gone. I like playing scum solo, haha. | ||
|
gonzaw
Uruguay4911 Posts
> : ( | ||
|
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
It just needs to learn to hold on to the scum it catches. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18075 Posts
On February 04 2013 08:19 Clockwork Hydra wrote: The board card didn't suck enough for town before. So make it worse by capping it at 10 damage. Pointless stalling of board development, because everybody has to tap a minimum of 5 permanents to ensure Xfire doesn't fuck us over. Artanis, why do you blatantly favour scum? On February 04 2013 08:21 Artanis[Xp] wrote: These kind of questions should be asked post-game, but you have a point regarding the balance. Discussed it and altered the text. This errata basically modconfirmed us town. We didn't use it and Dandel did his best to snow it under, but unless you unleash a giant bucket of wifom on both us and the host, this could only be read as a townie outraged about the board card being scum favoured, the mod realizing it was, and changing it in response. We should probably have been modkilled for this. I realized after I posted it that by making the very post (instead of a PM), I had ensured he was not able to change it without this saying something about our alignment. However, the board cards could use some work, lol. We were planning on burning all of Xfire's lands to the ground (and if we had to do that alone, we would have) so that he could not cast anything. Then the card was errata'd to make it so that Xfire was unkillable by town (and we really did realize that and would've killed off his 2 creatures if nobody else did). Also, the intention of the lack of a stack was twofold, if I understood it properly: 1. To simplify hosting 2. To make the game less dependent on time of casting (due to the lack of the priority mechanic). Introducing a card that could destroy any number of permanents at any time clearly goes against number 2: the fastest trigger wins. | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12968 Posts
On February 07 2013 05:03 Acrofales wrote: Oh, one other thing. This errata basically modconfirmed us town. We didn't use it and Dandel did his best to snow it under, but unless you unleash a giant bucket of wifom on both us and the host, this could only be read as a townie outraged about the board card being scum favoured, the mod realizing it was, and changing it in response. We should probably have been modkilled for this. I realized after I posted it that by making the very post (instead of a PM), I had ensured he was not able to change it without this saying something about our alignment. Lol oops. However, the board cards could use some work, lol. We were planning on burning all of Xfire's lands to the ground (and if we had to do that alone, we would have) so that he could not cast anything. Then the card was errata'd to make it so that Xfire was unkillable by town (and we really did realize that and would've killed off his 2 creatures if nobody else did). Also, the intention of the lack of a stack was twofold, if I understood it properly: 1. To simplify hosting 2. To make the game less dependent on time of casting (due to the lack of the priority mechanic). Introducing a card that could destroy any number of permanents at any time clearly goes against number 2: the fastest trigger wins. Yup, which is why: On February 07 2013 03:24 Artanis[Xp] wrote: Lessons Learned Log
2. Make Global cards pre-game. 3. Think of synergies and such between decks and make sure they don't create massive shitstorms. 4. Ban all cards that affect/are based on "all players" as they tend to be massively OP. | ||
| ||
