• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

GAF Mafia/Werewolf |OT| A forum game of secrets and treachery - sign up to play!

  • Thread starter Deleted member 231381
  • Start date

Sorian

Banned
Playing two games at once sounds terrifying to me.

image.php
 

Terrabyte20xx

Junior Wrestlemania XXX Champion
Seriously though, I think we should wait until at least next time before we start experimenting with doubling up. But that's just me.
 

Karkador

Banned
In the case of dead players filling in for drop-outs: I don't think the hit to the community (splitting the dead thread) is worth a short list of people getting to play twice in one round.


In the case of players actually participating in two games at the same time: I think that might cause a bit of a confusing nightmare for the joint moderator setup we've got going (since moderators can step in for each other)


Just focus on your game, and play it to the best of your ability. One game alone can be quite a time sink. If you're slouching, you're potentially a detriment to the rest of the players.
 

The most obvious reason is that we have a list that's overflowing already. Granted, if we're being realistic, there will be a few people who drop out for whatever reason; still, at the quantity we're at now and however many additional people we enlist in the coming days, it's likely we're just not going to have enough open slots for people to play into two games.

Even if we had a shortage of players, it's just not realistic to expect a single person to participate in two games - assuming people have lives outside of these message boards and actually have to sleep. I'm not saying a person couldn't participate reasonably well in two games the majority of the time, but there are a myriad of scenarios where having to provide activity in the two games would be nigh impossible. For example, if a player in two games is the target of suspicion in both games on the same day phase, both day phases end around the same time on the same day; it's a pretty demanding task for that player to actively defend themselves in both games within the same period of time, not even taking into account any extenuating real-life circumstances. Even more alarming, other players may take advantage of the split attention to mount up arguments or attack players based on differences in behavior between two games; in general terms, it invites more metagame analysis.

And as Kark mentioned above, the split attention could be a detriment to both games. Squidy is a pretty great example of why this is a bad thing, because he's very active and writes well-researched/reasoned posts about nearly every player; imagine him having to do it for 40+ players, while having to fight off counter-arguments. Even if it's possible, it would affect the quality of the gameplay a player employs. I'm pretty sure Squidy or anyone can attest that even though there's a bit thumb-twiddling at times, there are periods where games can get very intense and require loads of activity; I would not want to imagine having two games coming down to that at the same time and my having to monitor the two at the same time.

From the perspective of having everyone play to the best of their abilities, and leave the moderators with less of a headache, I really don't think this is something we should do.
 

squidyj

Member
The most obvious reason is that we have a list that's overflowing already. Granted, if we're being realistic, there will be a few people who drop out for whatever reason; still, at the quantity we're at now and however many additional people we enlist in the coming days, it's likely we're just not going to have enough open slots for people to play into two games.

Even if we had a shortage of players, it's just not realistic to expect a single person to participate in two games - assuming people have lives outside of these message boards and actually have to sleep. I'm not saying a person couldn't participate reasonably well in two games the majority of the time, but there are a myriad of scenarios where having to provide activity in the two games would be nigh impossible. For example, if a player in two games is the target of suspicion in both games on the same day phase, both day phases end around the same time on the same day; it's a pretty demanding task for that player to actively defend themselves in both games within the same period of time, not even taking into account any extenuating real-life circumstances. Even more alarming, other players may take advantage of the split attention to mount up arguments or attack players based on differences in behavior between two games; in general terms, it invites more metagame analysis.

And as Kark mentioned above, the split attention could be a detriment to both games. Squidy is a pretty great example of why this is a bad thing, because he's very active and writes well-researched/reasoned posts about nearly every player; imagine him having to do it for 40+ players, while having to fight off counter-arguments. Even if it's possible, it would affect the quality of the gameplay a player employs. I'm pretty sure Squidy or anyone can attest that even though there's a bit thumb-twiddling at times, there are periods where games can get very intense and require loads of activity; I would not want to imagine having two games coming down to that at the same time and my having to monitor the two at the same time.

From the perspective of having everyone play to the best of their abilities, and leave the moderators with less of a headache, I really don't think this is something we should do.

oh my posts are well reasoned now? ;P
 

CzarTim

Member
The only reason this came up is because traube said he wanted to run a 30 player game which means we're short. If we're really overflowing, then obviously no one should play two games until everyone gets a turn.

However if we are short on people, I don't see the problem. Anyone who has played a game knows how time consuming it is and can make up their own minds on how much / little they'd like to participate. We're all grown ups here, we know how to schedule our time.
 
The only reason this came up is because traube said he wanted to run a 30 player game which means we're short. If we're really overflowing, then obviously no one should play two games until everyone gets a turn.

However if we are short on people, I don't see the problem. Anyone who has played a game knows how time consuming it is and can make up their own minds on how much / little they'd like to participate. We're all grown ups here, we know how to schedule our time.

I'm just saying that even if it looks manageable now, there's a bunch of things that could crop up and affect a person's ability to play effectively - grown up or no. There are things you can't plan for.
 

roytheone

Member
If I had to play two games at once, I know for a fact I'd get confused which is which, fuck up some analysis and, then die.

Alright, I never played a mafia game in my life so I am probably completely wrong, but wouldn't a town player that is confused and fucks up his/her analysis have a higher chance to survive longer? That would create some chaos on the town side, which would benefit the mafia players. So it would be in their interest to keep you as long in the game as possible.
 

Darryl

Banned
you run into weird scenarios, like opinions about you from one game extend over to the next from the active players. you get an early evict in one game then a few people pity you and it is influencing their judgement, letting you escape from the axe longer in the second game. it wouldn't matter if the games existed in a bubble but there's obviously gonna be people who are at least overlooking the other thread
 

CzarTim

Member
if people don't vote for a scummy player out of pity because of something that happened in a completely different game, they are dumb and deserve to lose.
 
Neogaffen: Idolized
Everyone in this area would like to be you. You're the toast-of-the-town and are held up as a shining example of all that a person can be.
 

Karkador

Banned
Alright, I never played a mafia game in my life so I am probably completely wrong, but wouldn't a town player that is confused and fucks up his/her analysis have a higher chance to survive longer? That would create some chaos on the town side, which would benefit the mafia players. So it would be in their interest to keep you as long in the game as possible.

It will be the town players who will send you off, either because they accuse you of being a mafia playing dumb, or just a huge liability anyway :p
 
I had said that I didn't think I'd have time to play (I've been moving city, hunting for a job, brother was getting married) but it's looking like things will be calm by the time the games kick off. I might not have quite as much free time as I did in previous games but I'll still be able to read and post most days (and I'll be jealous if the games kick off and I'm not involved!)

Archer would be my number 1 choice.
 
Regardless of how either side would react to such a player in that scenario, the fact remains that it's an additional piece of information that shouldn't exist to be analyzed or reacted to.
 

Hobohodo

Member
I feel the moderators for next round should also have some say over the taking part in two games idea as they also have the ability to cock up in regards to a players roll, seeing as they are privy to all games running.

I mean after Karks big blunder could any of us us trust him with this scenario? =P
 

Ourobolus

Banned
I feel the moderators for next round should also have some say over the taking part in two games idea as they also have the ability to cock up in regards to a players roll, seeing as they are privy to all games running.

I mean after Karks big blunder could any of us us trust him with this scenario? =P

I think for simplicity's sake it would be best to keep everyone restricted to one game. If we're gonna do it down the line, make it so that whoever does it has a few games under their belt and the moderators do as well.
 

Karkador

Banned
I feel the moderators for next round should also have some say over the taking part in two games idea as they also have the ability to cock up in regards to a players roll, seeing as they are privy to all games running.

I mean after Karks big blunder could any of us us trust him with this scenario? =P

:C
 

Palmer_v1

Member
Player's being in two games should be a last resort after we've exhausted normal recruitment.

Even then, I think I'd prefer to play 2 larger games instead of 3 with dupes.
 

Zatoth

Member
Player's being in two games should be a last resort after we've exhausted normal recruitment.

Even then, I think I'd prefer to play 2 larger games instead of 3 with dupes.

I agree. I don't think that playing in two games at once will work well. It was hard enough for me to keep track of one game. Can't imagine how confusing it gets with two games. Especially if you have some player who are in both games.

As for my game. Planing is almost done. Hope Kark and MattyG can take a look at it for some final feedback.

Oh and btw. The Thing would probably be a great theme for a game.
 
I agree. I don't think that playing in two games at once will work well. It was hard enough for me to keep track of one game. Can't imagine how confusing it gets with two games. Especially if you have some player who are in both games.

As for my game. Planing is almost done. Hope Kark and MattyG can take a look at it for some final feedback.

Oh and btw. The Thing would probably be a great theme for a game.

...this game literally is The Thing. How has noone thought of that up until now.
 

Hagi

Member
If there is still room for new players I'd really like to have a go. I played a few games on an old forum a few years ago and it was a great time. Would be nice to interact with the community here a bit more.
 

Palmer_v1

Member
If there is still room for new players I'd really like to have a go. I played a few games on an old forum a few years ago and it was a great time. Would be nice to interact with the community here a bit more.

Should still be time to get you added. Crab will need to know what pronoun you prefer, i.e. male/female/other.
 

Palmer_v1

Member
They should. But they may not know who else is infected.

One of the House on Haunted Hill scenarios is basically The Thing. One player is infected, and every time they share a room with someone, they randomly trade 1 of 2 tokens with the other player. Meanwhile, the good players are scrambling to create tests and antidotes before everyone turns.

This makes me realize a House on Haunted Hill game would be fun. Time to brainstorm!
 
While we wait, might as well share how we all discovered Mafia (if you haven't already)? :eek:

My first Mafia-like experience was playing dozens of online custom games of Parasite in Warcraft III, then actual Mafia in Starcraft 2 Custom.
 

Kevyt

Member
The most obvious reason is that we have a list that's overflowing already. Granted, if we're being realistic, there will be a few people who drop out for whatever reason; still, at the quantity we're at now and however many additional people we enlist in the coming days, it's likely we're just not going to have enough open slots for people to play into two games.

Even if we had a shortage of players, it's just not realistic to expect a single person to participate in two games - assuming people have lives outside of these message boards and actually have to sleep. I'm not saying a person couldn't participate reasonably well in two games the majority of the time, but there are a myriad of scenarios where having to provide activity in the two games would be nigh impossible. For example, if a player in two games is the target of suspicion in both games on the same day phase, both day phases end around the same time on the same day; it's a pretty demanding task for that player to actively defend themselves in both games within the same period of time, not even taking into account any extenuating real-life circumstances. Even more alarming, other players may take advantage of the split attention to mount up arguments or attack players based on differences in behavior between two games; in general terms, it invites more metagame analysis.

And as Kark mentioned above, the split attention could be a detriment to both games. Squidy is a pretty great example of why this is a bad thing, because he's very active and writes well-researched/reasoned posts about nearly every player; imagine him having to do it for 40+ players, while having to fight off counter-arguments. Even if it's possible, it would affect the quality of the gameplay a player employs. I'm pretty sure Squidy or anyone can attest that even though there's a bit thumb-twiddling at times, there are periods where games can get very intense and require loads of activity; I would not want to imagine having two games coming down to that at the same time and my having to monitor the two at the same time.

From the perspective of having everyone play to the best of their abilities, and leave the moderators with less of a headache, I really don't think this is something we should do.

Too long didn't read. :p
 

nin1000

Banned
While we wait, might as well share how we all discovered Mafia (if you haven't already)? :eek:

My first Mafia-like experience was playing dozens of online custom games of Parasite in Warcraft III, then actual Mafia in Starcraft 2 Custom.

I can remember mafia games in sc2. Was the best damn thing in that terrible custom scene. :D
 

Palmer_v1

Member
While we wait, might as well share how we all discovered Mafia (if you haven't already)? :eek:

My first Mafia-like experience was playing dozens of online custom games of Parasite in Warcraft III, then actual Mafia in Starcraft 2 Custom.

A miniatures wargame convention(Warmachine Weekend) a few years ago. After the tournaments wind down, it turns into a bunch of nerds sitting around, drinking, and playing games. Someone decided to start Werewolf around 11pm. I ended up playing until like 6am and completely slept through my next tournament.

When I described it to my wife, she said it was called mafia and they played it at a church camp every summer when she was a little girl.
 

Timeaisis

Member
While we wait, might as well share how we all discovered Mafia (if you haven't already)? :eek:

My first Mafia-like experience was playing dozens of online custom games of Parasite in Warcraft III, then actual Mafia in Starcraft 2 Custom.

Starcraft Mafia for me lol
 
I had said that I didn't think I'd have time to play (I've been moving city, hunting for a job, brother was getting married) but it's looking like things will be calm by the time the games kick off. I might not have quite as much free time as I did in previous games but I'll still be able to read and post most days (and I'll be jealous if the games kick off and I'm not involved!)

Archer would be my number 1 choice.


also I'm male.
 

squidyj

Member
I think I first played mafia live like 8 years ago as part of a computer science society icebreaker. Eventually I found it and played it again over video on twitch through streamers like Ellohime and CohhCarnage (back when they still played), and then with some other people I got to know from doing that. At the same time I found and played some forum mafia, and when Town of Salem came out I sunk countless hours into raging at every idiot troll and leaver in that game.

Then I came here.

Edit: I may have also played a few of the SC2 map.
 
Top Bottom