-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
The achievements system: Not a fan. The forum here, at least, is more about the shared group experience than the accent on the individual.
I think that having some sort of thing for individual games is appropriate, but not done as often as it once was.
@ER: I don't approve of the word "scum," mostly because I know it doesn't sit well with others. I prefer "wolves" as the catch-all term. Although, I imagine anti-town would be appropriate in most situations as well.
Also, I don't really approve of the Simpsons, myself. From what little of Futurama I've seen (read: a couple episodes playing while I still had a roommate) it didn't seem nearly as bad as the others.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
I think wolves are sometimes called "scum" because a) they're against the majority of the players, and b) their role necessarily involves lying. I've never minded the term personally. I don't mind being called that when I'm a wolf. Besides, I like being the antagonist sometimes. I kind of like the term, personally, as I think it reflects how the role is deceptive and against the majority of the players, but we don't have to use it if it bothers some people.
@reaverb: Hence why I don't want achievements that conflict with win conditions. There are plenty of ideas that are completely synonymous with win conditions though. Regarding the AL thing, that is a potential problem, but keep in mind that the achievements don't require that. It's just that the achievements could be gotten with less effort that way. We can find ways of discouraging that behavior, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the acheivements that way.
Examples of acheivements synonymous with normal win conditions:
I caught one! - Be on a successful wolf lynch wagon. (10 points)
You shall not pass! - Successfully bane someone. (100 pts)
Mage killer - Have a town power role be NKed when playing as a wolf (alive or dead). (25 points)
I see you - Scry a wolf while playing as the seer. (25 points)
Networking - Scry a mason or two normal villagers as the seer. (25 points)
Role scry this! - Lynch the Devil while playing as a villager. (25 points)
- - - Updated - - -
I'd be down for a Simpsons or Futurama game. I loved those shows.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disc Lorde
Examples of acheivements synonymous with normal win conditions:
I caught one! - Be on a successful wolf lynch wagon. (10 points)
You shall not pass! - Successfully bane someone. (100 pts)
Mage killer - Have a town power role be NKed when playing as a wolf (alive or dead). (25 points)
I see you - Scry a wolf while playing as the seer. (25 points)
Networking - Scry a mason or two normal villagers as the seer. (25 points)
Role scry this! - Lynch the Devil while playing as a villager. (25 points)
Except these are only mostly synonymous: For example, as Baner, say that there's a vanillager with a 60% chance of being killed and a seer with a 40% chance of being killed. The best choice is obviously to protect the seer, but the choice that will get you the achievement most quickly is to protect the vanillager. As a seer, there may be a wolf who becomes obvious as the result of a lynch: Scrying them won't tell you anything useful, but it will get you the achievement. Etc... The best system (aside from just counting wins) is to have people award achievements to each other at the end of a game that they think they other person deserves; the problem with this is that people are lazy and won't think to do it. Perhaps if you made a program to easily make achievement trophies people would use it.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
I've never liked the term scum, either. It always left a bad taste in my mouth, and I certainly don't like being called scum. :smallmad:
I asked long ago that people not use it during my games, and for a while at least, it seemed to stop. But then I got lazy and stopped calling people on it. But yeah, in my games, I respectfully ask that no player or role be referred to as such.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Sorry, term is considered inoffensive many other places, and I am a foreigner around these parts.
The term scum means scumbag as in, mafia scumbag. Someone who is willing to shoot people in the face for money.
Since it applies exclusively to the team that is in the minority nightkilling the majority, and in settings where the majority is considered the good guys, it generally sits well elsewhere. After all, the point of the game is to bring the scumbags to justice by literally stringing up all up by the neck.
It's all in good fun and not meant to be a serious pejorative.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disc Lorde
Ooooh, me like. I'm a bit of a huge achievement hunter! :smallsmile: Some ideas:
This is our town! - Win as a villager. (10 points)
Master scumhunter. - Win 5 games as a villager. (25 points)
Who let the dogs out? - Win as a wolf. (10 points)
Master of deception. - Win 2 games as a wolf. (25 points)
Hunter and hunted. - Win as both villager and wolf. (25 points)
Seasoned veteran. - Win 10 games. (50 points)
Non-standard win condition. - Win a game as a neutral role, or complete a secondary win condition. (25 points)
Just for starters. :smallsmile:
So far I have 170 points.
What's the achievement for being scried as guilty N0 and being the last one standing?
- - - Updated - - -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay, back to the Toy Story game.
I had been thinking of adding secondary goals for players to attempt to achieve, in addition to their usual quest to have their team win.
What those will be for, is fun, obviously, but it will go like this:
Win
Team Rank 1, Secondary goal achieved
Team Rank 1, no goal achieved (*)
Runners up / Draw
Team Rank 2, Secondary goal achieved
Team Rank 3, Secondary goal achieved
Loss
Team Rank 2, no goal achieved
Team Rank 3, no goal achieved
In other words, your team could rank dead last, and you'd still score moderately well if you achieve your goal.
Furthermore, some roles may have 2 secondary goals, and achieving both of them is an automatic win, equivalent to being on the team that won the game, with no goal achieved (see asterisk *)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another element I wish to add, strictly for balancing purposes:
You guys know about things like Naive detectives, or the Fool role, yes?
There may be equivalent roles for non-seer roles. So it will be more difficult for villagers to know with certainty if their powers had any effect.
Feedback always welcome on these ideas.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Secondary goals are often nice, if done in an interesting way.
Speaking of those achievements, I'd have every single one thus far proposed. What's the one for claiming to scry as guilty on day one and surviving to win with a perfect wolf victory? :P
Instead of achievements, I enjoy game-specific trophies. But it of course takes the narrators effort to get them made.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Murska
Secondary goals are often nice, if done in an interesting way.
Oh I feel you there. I've seen lousy ones. I've been given lousy ones. Often!
Since I've literally been a player in 150+ games, trust me to come up with some non-sucky secondary goals.
This is where all that experience playing games which did not necessarily always have well designed elements comes in handy! :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Duck999
I was thinking of a cross game achievement system. In it, people would earn WW related achievements. There would be a list of achievements thought lf by me and fellow playgrounders. I would like to have banners/trophies for each, though I can't do good art (or grammar, apparently). Maybe some bigger/better achievements have a banner or trophy. Each achievement would get you achievement points (AP). You could compete with friends to have more points. You could get a feeling of satisfaction. You. Could. Get. AFHIEVEMENTS!
I quite like the idea, but like others, I can see problems with it in terms of people getting competitive and implementation. It would also start getting crazy to keep track of, given that many of us old-timers are well towards the 150 game mark.
Am I right in remembering that we had the WW Awards once, where we voted for best game, best narrator, best wolf etc? That might be a slightly better, less adversarial way of celebrating some of the sneakier, most creative, and timely players/narrators playing the game.
Yeah, in essence I like the idea, but it has a lot of potential pitfalls.
*shrugs*
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EmeraldRose
Also. I really resent this new labeling of Wolves as scum. Why are they scum? In many of the Mafia games, there were multiple groups of Wolves, and even the Masons weren't necessarily the "Good Guys". I will admit that I feel this is a change I could do without. Frankly, it makes me angry. Regardless of my role in a WW game.
I don't like it either, but I don't feel insulted enough by it to call people on it. Whether it's a generally common term or not is moot in many ways, as the word itself is disrespectful. It's not used that way, I know, which is why I don't make a thing out of it, but I'll never use the term myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
EmeraldRose
Also...while I like watching Family Guy and Southpark as much as the next person, I think I'd be much more likely to play a Simpsons based game. I think the character opportunities are greater. Or maybe Futurama. I don't know if they've been done before...very likely.
Futurama's been run before, and seemed to work okay from what I remember. I don't think there's ever been a Simpsons game though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Helgraf
I did something similar to this in Vampire II with the residence halls the players slept in. It wasn't quite this involved, but it included roles that could watch a given location and see who did things there (but not what or to whom), or booby trap locations.
I remember that one, but I believe I either died quite early or had quite limited time to commit, and never really found out that the rooms had any purpose beyond specific event reactions. I think, having considered it overnight, that if I was to try a multi-location WW, I'd do so with that being the only major change to game mechanics. One, it's the best way to see how that change affects a game, and two, it seems like the best WW variants are the ones which only change a couple of things to twist the standard, rather than games that try and do everything at once (Catfight, Fatbelly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Askthepizzaguy
I had been thinking of adding secondary goals for players to attempt to achieve, in addition to their usual quest to have their team win.
What those will be for, is fun, obviously, but it will go like this:
*snip*
In other words, your team could rank dead last, and you'd still score moderately well if you achieve your goal.
Furthermore, some roles may have 2 secondary goals, and achieving both of them is an automatic win, equivalent to being on the team that won the game, with no goal achieved (see asterisk *)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another element I wish to add, strictly for balancing purposes:
You guys know about things like Naive detectives, or the Fool role, yes?
There may be equivalent roles for non-seer roles. So it will be more difficult for villagers to know with certainty if their powers had any effect.
Feedback always welcome on these ideas.
I like secondary win conditions, it's always nice to be able to try and get some small victory from a game, even if your team gets smashed early through no real fault of your own. As Murska said, they need to be creative and balanced, but I'm definitely all for them.
As for a Fool equivalent for non-seer roles, I guess we do already use something akin to that in some games, in the Careless Baner i.e. a baner that cannot protect themselves, and therefore can't play turtle and has to play proactively. It would be interesting to see some new concepts for fool type roles though.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
The main reason I'm doing this is because the Toy Story game is going to be like an 80 on a 1-100 scale where 1 is vanilla and 100 is not.
If village were to mass claim Day One, the wolves would literally have too many targets to shoot before their public networking efforts would be effective.
If village doesn't know for sure whose powers are effective, that stops such a strategy from breaking the game.
But the village still benefits from having actual powers, and several of them.
It's just when like 7 powers all out themselves publicly and go, okay, I'll bane player A, who scries player B, who roleblocks player C, who vigs player D....
and so on, and so on...
That's breaking. Which is why I typically stay away from all-power games. They're not werewolf anymore, they're fish-n-a-barrel.
The other way to compensate is to give the scums like 2 or 3 murders or insane immunities, where the village powers aren't even real powers anymore.
Neither of those options is appealing. It makes signing up to the game pointless if it's going to be over in just a few nights with all those murders or vigs, or having a role pointless because you'll never catch scum with it.
I went with another option- one that prevents mass formations of villagers with not just a size advantage, but powers advantage, from sweeping the wolf team with brute force solving.
I realize your site is laid back and not as competitive, but I've seen dozens of all-powers games broken simply by following one person's suggested actions. It is just too powerful and wolves have no counter except pure dumb luck.
So none of that this time. Village will have powers, they will be useful, they won't know for sure who has them.
Example of nonsense:
Quote:
It's just when like 7 powers all out themselves publicly and go, okay, I'll bane player A, who scries player B, who roleblocks player C, who vigs player D....
Baner might just bane himself. But now, the wolves can't really target the seer. The seer scries the roleblocker, who demonstrates their power is being used as directed by stopping the vigilante from killing player D.
This proves that all of these people are busy doing something and aren't murdering anyone.
At that point, you just created a mason chain of 4 with special powers.
At a certain point, it gets aggravating for the wolf team. They either surrender to this type of breaking strategy and participate within the network until they are scried and lynched, unable to murder anyone, or they openly defy the network and die faster.
I love village powers as much as the next guy, but it's gotta be reasonable. Everyone with a power is not reasonable or really, werewolf anymore.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
I suppose the solution would to give all the wolves powers as well, and make them indistinguishable from town powers. That way mass roleclaims would prove nothing.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disc Lorde
I suppose the solution would to give all the wolves powers as well, and make them indistinguishable from town powers. That way mass roleclaims would prove nothing.
But of course, but then you run into the hall of mirrors.
Spoiler
Show
Askthepizzaguy: Hi, my name is Askthepizzaguy, and I'm the town Baner!
Spoiler
Show
Disc Lorde: Hi, my name is Disc Lorde, and I'm the town Baner!
Spoiler
Show
Askthepizzaguy:
Disc Lorde
Spoiler
Show
Disc Lorde:
Askthepizzaguy
Spoiler
Show
Spoiler alert: One of them dies and is a wolf.
Rinse and repeat for every duplicate role.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Heh heh. But I wasn't saying give players duplicate roles. I was just saying give everyone a confirmable role that could be either town or wolf. (With the exception of roles like Baner which are obviously town.)
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disc Lorde
Heh heh. But I wasn't saying give players duplicate roles. I was just saying give everyone a confirmable role that could be either town or wolf. (With the exception of roles like Baner which are obviously town.)
Still tricky. Then things like night action stoppers (roleblockers) are more obviously wolf, it's not ambiguous.
Certain roles are inherently awesome for the wolf team. Examples-
Roleblockers- can target seers, baners, etc, rendering them useless.
Watchers- can target outed seers to identify the baner, while someone murders the seer, so the end result is: Dead seer, or dead baner, followed by dead seer.
Seers- can identify village powers with accuracy.
In most of the games I've observed, you guys give the wolves a seer. Powers like watchers and roleblockers are almost always wolf powers elsewhere, too, just because they're much more useful in stopping the village from doing their jobs than stopping wolves from doing theirs.
If I give the wolf team a bunch of obvious wolf powers, claiming them isn't particularly useful. It will even arouse suspicion.
Spoiler
Show
:smallsigh: Making challenging games is challenging :smallsigh:
So then you might go for the option of giving the wolves a bunch of roles that the villagers usually have, thus denying them to the villager team, unless you don't mind having a bunch of mirrored roles which are obviously overpowered for the villager team. Then you run into the same problem again.
Ah yes..... two baners. Thaaaaaat's not broken.... :smallbiggrin: j'accuse, "BANER"!
It's not easy to find simple solutions to all that.
If it's fairly random, then that makes it a lot harder to guess the setup.
An assortment of single roles, doubled roles, and tripled roles, might go far in making things confusing.
If you assume a single role is a wolf, then it's easy to guess which one of those particular roles is the wolf. Ah, but which singled role? If there's plenty of those, you gain nothing by guessing a wolf is a singled role.
If you assume a doubled role is a wolf, fair enough, but you might lynch your village power first, and then, you might just lynch a second village power after that, if you've assumed the game host is avoiding designing a game where the wolves are mirror images of the village roles. Especially if there are many village roles which are doubled. That's a huge loss of time and power for the village to make such a guess based on meta-analysis of the game design. Which is a fair trade, because trying to guess the wolves based on "where would the game host put the wolves" is kind of gaming the host rather than playing with your fellow players.
Tripled roles, you'd almost assume there's a wolf in there. Right?
....Right? :smalleek:
*crickets*
No comment there, but I will say, I go out of my way to make the game setup hard to guess.
Duplicate roles, roles which may or may not even be real roles (Fool thinks he's a seer, after all) singled roles, tripled roles, and so on and so forth, just makes analyzing the setup that much more difficult.
Then, instead of analyzing the setup, you look at what the players themselves have done, or are doing, or how they're voting, or how they're participating.
That feels more genuine to me.
You can probably read everything I've posted so far about the game design and still have no idea where I'm going to put the wolf team.
And that's precisely what I'm going for. That is the ultimate goal of the design itself.
It's almost a game of Battleship. You can't line up your ships end to end and expect for them to be difficult to find.
Spoiler
Show
...or do you? :smallsmile:
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
banjo1985
Am I right in remembering that we had the WW Awards once, where we voted for best game, best narrator, best wolf etc? That might be a slightly better, less adversarial way of celebrating some of the sneakier, most creative, and timely players/narrators playing the game.
Certainly sounds familiar. Must've been way back when, though. Or maybe it's something that we once planned on doing but never got off the ground...
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cristo Meyers
Certainly sounds familiar. Must've been way back when, though. Or maybe it's something that we once planned on doing but never got off the ground...
We did in fact do it, and I found the thread!
A bit better planned and laid out, it could be fun to do one of those again, especially if we get some shinies made.
*is not volunteering to make shinies*
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
banjo1985
We did in fact do it, and I found the
thread!
A bit better planned and laid out, it could be fun to do one of those again, especially if we get some shinies made.
*is not volunteering to make shinies*
I...damn...that was quite a while ago.
And how in the hell did I get nominated for Best Narrator with only one game under my belt? :smalleek:
It wouldn't be difficult to just copy the format and do it again, really. All the bones are there.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Yeah, when I saw 2008 I nearly fell over. I do that regularly, as my balance is shot, but still, it was a surprise. :smalltongue:
I could, and would, be happy to administrate something like that over the summer, if time allows, and enough people would give a monkeys to make it worthwhile doing.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Disc Lorde
Heh heh. But I wasn't saying give players duplicate roles. I was just saying give everyone a confirmable role that could be either town or wolf. (With the exception of roles like Baner which are obviously town.)
If you don't already know about it, Witchhunt accomplishes this with an open setup.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
banjo1985
I quite like the idea, but like others, I can see problems with it in terms of people getting competitive and implementation. It would also start getting crazy to keep track of, given that many of us old-timers are well towards the 150 game mark.
Last time I was counting (April 2012, 2 years ago) I was at 108 games, won 49 games and survived 15 games till the end.
Oh, and in one game I got outed as Alien queen on day 5 and survived all lynchings till I won the game on night 10. I started roleplaying as Alien queen day 6. It was an epic unbalanced game but still... most fun I had for ages.
And this is my award:
http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s...psdeb52aa8.png
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
I have now read this thread. (Ok more like skimmed.) I'm sure that this information is of great importance to you all.
So... as far as achievements go... yeah, I can see them causing problems with people going out of the way to achieve them and messing with the intended play of a game or largely being ignored by the more long time members here (afterall, any reasonable achievement for a new person is something everyone else has probably done a few times if not so many times they wish it had happened less). Of course I'm biased as the things I can claim as personal achievements are awesome/hilarious and end up making me sound like a way more impressive player than I actually am most of the time and any generic achievement anyone made up that "anyone could accomplish" just wouldn't feel like it measured up.
Witchhunt.... always so much drama. I don't even know why. But yeah.
I too really like it when a narrator (or I guess a third party?) makes little awards for their games. Sadly I have possibly negative skills when it comes to anything art related so this never occurs in anything I run. (Of course the things I run are so complicated that this would involve about twice as many trophies as players some how I'm sure.)
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saposhiente
Except these are only mostly synonymous: For example, as Baner, say that there's a vanillager with a 60% chance of being killed and a seer with a 40% chance of being killed. The best choice is obviously to protect the seer, but the choice that will get you the achievement most quickly is to protect the vanillager. As a seer, there may be a wolf who becomes obvious as the result of a lynch: Scrying them won't tell you anything useful, but it will get you the achievement. Etc... The best system (aside from just counting wins) is to have people award achievements to each other at the end of a game that they think they other person deserves; the problem with this is that people are lazy and won't think to do it. Perhaps if you made a program to easily make achievement trophies people would use it.
I doubt people will screw their teammates to gain achievements. Mostly because most people are decent and good team players, but also because the forum won't have any sort of automatic achievement showcase thing like Steam. People will have to keep up with them themselves, or link to an Achievement thread, and I don't think the psychology is the same.
Anyway, I found this. :smallsmile::smallsmile:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/achgenwow/t/a_CDaM9Mn5.png
https://s3.amazonaws.com/achgenwow/t/a_JfOhjhoC.png
https://s3.amazonaws.com/achgenwow/t/a_O0b85W0n.png
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
I was thinking an achievement thread. It is true that people wouldn't ruin a victory for achievements... probably. I don't think it is worth the risk.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Duck999
I was thinking an achievement thread. It is true that people wouldn't ruin a victory for achievements... probably. I don't think it is worth the risk.
While I'm not...keen...on the idea of achievements, I honestly don't think something like this would happen more than once. The first time someone screws their team over for an Achievement will most likely be the last time as all hell descends upon them.
Okay, something of an exaggeration, but I honestly do think the community would keep that sort of thing in check.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
I am taking a 48 hour vote. If enough people vote yes, and not enouh people vote no, I will get to work on making an achievement thread. I would (probably) be a sort of owner of the achievement system, because I can edit the first post. Other people would be allowed to make achievements, and tell others if their achievement is not valid for any reason.
Maybe I could, make it so people's achievements are not counted if they ruined their own team to get it. I feel like it would be obvious enough if they threw away victory for an achievement. And would it be starting when he thread was created, or even if you have done it in the past?
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
This isn't a democracy. Votes don't matter. Whether people care enough to participate in and maintain the system is what matters.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Saposhiente
This isn't a democracy. Votes don't matter. Whether people care enough to participate in and maintain the system is what matters.
Exactly: If people care enouh, and would participate, they would most likely vote yes.
If people think it would be a bad idea and/or wouldn't care for it or participate, they might vote no, or not vote.
The point is, I don't want to start it if not many people care enough to participate, or if too many people think it is a bad idea or wouldn't work well.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
Actually, I think a better voting method would be
Would Participate
or
Think it is a bad idea (and why)
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
One question: would everyone start with a clean slate when the achievements start or would games you've already completed count? Because I'm sure that there are people here who have already gotten most of them.
-
Re: The Pub: Off topic chat for forum gamers
I think if you go back and look, you'll find plenty of "I think it's a bad idea and why" already.