The Syndicate

novaselinenever wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 3:08 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:49 pm I thought NF was your home forum. What's you're home forum, @novaselinenever ?

OJ, but I branched out immediately thanks to DDL and another OJ-er.

Has Oro Jackson ever had either A) an OJ Simpson Trial themed game, or B) an Orange Juice themed game?

so uh hey, does anyone want to sub into my game now?

dunya wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:59 pm

Dragon D. Luffy wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:53 pm

dunya wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:49 pm I thought NF was your home forum. What's you're home forum, novaselinenever ?

Apparently he started playing in NF, OJ and Syndicate at the same time.

I first met him when a guy named Crugyr started inviting people to play my game and I was full in sign ups, so I basically redirected them all to TS. So nova joined it here. But he already came from somewhere else.

That moment when DDL quotes your typo of you're instead of your and you can no longer sneak an edit.

ha your such a goober

Hour 853 of Day 1 slips by with no end in sight.

dunya wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 1:42 pm

Sloonei wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 12:59 pm I think the discussion should be more than just about deadline times: the complaints in this game were about the flurry of activity around the deadline contributing to the feeling of being lost. I think this has more to do with the pacing of a game rather than its scheduling.

Perhaps trying a game with the hammer voting that speedchuck mentioned or implementing an x-number of times someone is allowed to change their vote type of rule could try to help us find balance so people don't always feel overwhelmed at end of day. Just a couple thoughts. The latter is harder to implement if it's a crazy number, but something like 2-3 vote changes a day phase could work.

I'm a bit hesitant to implement hammer voting just as a means to avoid this issue. Hammer voting is an entirely different format than deadline voting and changes a lot of things. That's not to say we can't implement it. The more variety we have in our games, the more fresh things will be.

Limiting the number of vote changes would also be an interesting tweak. My only concern would be enforcement of the rule (players don't always announce their votes, and so hosts/other players do not always see them), but I'm sure it could be managed. We'd just have to make sure it's emphasized.

dunya wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 11:55 am one rule i wish was implemented a lot, lot harder is "always ask questions to the host via PM"

twice i thought the game was at risk of being broken. that would have sucked a lot after all the effort everyone put into it, and it could easily be avoided if people just respected the "don't ask questions in the thread" rule tbh.

I agree with this. I forget what the question was, but I remember an instance in Mountains Mafia (this seems to be our go-to reference here) where a player asked the host a question in the thread and the host gave an answer. The simple fact that the host provided them with a direct and sincere answer told me that the player was town, because they would not have needed an answer to the question if they were mafia.

Mechanical questions can give other players clues about your alignment. Answers to those questions can give further clues. I always request private questions in my games.

I think the discussion should be more than just about deadline times: the complaints in this game were about the flurry of activity around the deadline contributing to the feeling of being lost. I think this has more to do with the pacing of a game rather than its scheduling.

However, I am reminded that there was a bit of a kerfuffle surrounding the EoD 1 action and the flurry of vote changes and activity close to the deadline. A few people expressed frustration over this, and their frustration is not limited to just this game. I wanted to talk about that, but not while the game was going on.

I think these are valid concerns. I have noticed myself that a lot of games can go stagnant in the middle of phases and then crank up to 11 near the deadline. This might just be a natural thing; deadlines tend to be scheduled at times when people are most likely to be available, and most of us have obligations during those other hours. And the pressure and urgency of those moments forces people to think more critically about their reads and votes, so more content spills out. But it can very easily detract from the experience of the game when too much of the action is all occurring at one time. Anyone who’s absent in that time frame can feel left out, and that’s not what anyone wants.

But at the same time I don’t think there’s a scenario in which I would want to ask people not to actively play the game when they’re able to do so. If you’re online and you have something to say, say it. I’m just wondering if there’s a way we can reach a more balanced environment where players don’t feel like they’re being left behind if they miss out on a particular window of action.

Spacedaisy wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 10:47 pm

JaggedJimmyJay wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 9:54 pm Indeed, in a game with legal claims -- just say "I watched dunya targeting nova". No need to conceal the juicy bits in a setup like this.

This is where the play difference comes in. That was considered unfair play in the tradition mata is coming from to straight forward say, I am this role and I know this information.

I suggested role claiming in my first game to Long Con in a civ BTSC and I will never forget him telling me that was poor form. I felt very silly. And I soon learned to play in that tradition of mafia and enjoy it. Then I had to unlearn it when we started mingling with the larger mafia community, lol.

I’ve come to prefer games with restricted or no role claiming since I arrived at the Syndicate. I love the strategy that is forced by a player having information that they’re unable to share. And I also like games that have to be solved primarily through good old fashioned scum hunting, rather than being pieced together like a puzzle through role claims.