Reading through red's proboard, I can't count the number of times someone said something like "I think we're getting screwed over by the other players." It was just that they were too apathetic to do anything about it.
Yeah, but that doesn't really garner my sympathy. If you didn't have time to play the game properly, then don't expect to contribute much or make a difference. Or, for that matter, win.
I think that it says a lot about the game that I was most keyed-in outside of the actual mafia and I thought there were 2 mafias and MrT was a serial killer.
0
SmasherStarting to get dizzyRegistered Userregular
For an actual vanilla game, as advertised, one could adequately play the game in roughly 15, maybe 30 minutes a day, I think. More if there's a lot of thread posting happening.
Yeah I gotta say, if you want people to put in a bunch of time, don't initially advertise it as a vanilla game
Like, say "oh you should have time to play the game PROPERLY" all you want, but part of what attracts people to forum games is the ability to do things quickly, in five minutes at work on their break, check back 6 hours later when they're home. If you're going to shut out people who play like that, be honest about it.
and really, more than unreliable, since rather than obfuscating things we were simply told the exact opposite of the truth
When did I do this other than claiming a vanilla game with a twist?
Er.
1) "You are the mafia"!
2) All village kills will show up as Mafia/Serial Killers.
3) There was no hitman/SK.
4) The unblockable kill wasn't.
1) Not technically a lie.
2) That was a lie. We could make it any color we wanted.
3) There was a hitman. Actually there were 2.
4) What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
My philosophy is: if you want to encourage a particular type of behavior from the mafia (or anyone, really), is to give them incentive to pursue that behavior, rather than penalize them for not pursuing that behavior.
Give players obvious and apparent strategy through either their own abilities or the core mechanics of the game. Making soft networking core to balancing the game is placing game balance on the RNG of role distribution.
I really agree with this. I think all my favorite soft networking roles ive seen were the neutral roles.
Reading through red's proboard, I can't count the number of times someone said something like "I think we're getting screwed over by the other players." It was just that they were too apathetic to do anything about it.
Yeah, but that doesn't really garner my sympathy. If you didn't have time to play the game properly, then don't expect to contribute much or make a difference. Or, for that matter, win.
Players usually don't, as an entire group, just happen to all grow apathetic. It usually takes an environment to encourage apathy.
Edit: What i mean is that a single person can grow apathetic at any time, sure. But for a whole group of mafia to just shrug and say "fuck it" is either a rare coincidence or caused by factors.
1 - Experimental, it was just a test - learned a lot, interesting game.
2 - You guys don't play correctly, if you behaved as a mafia how I personally behave you would have had a chance.
There were plenty of "phalla vets" this game who never fully caught on. I think it's a lot easier to have all the pieces of the puzzle and claim - hey this should have been obvious.
There have been so many games where I thought I had the pieces and felt like I was making good decisions only in the end to have it all wrong. Take the confusion from those games and multiply it by 4 and that was this game.
Switch Animal Crossing Friend Code: SW-5107-9276-1030
Island Name: Felinefine
0
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
and really, more than unreliable, since rather than obfuscating things we were simply told the exact opposite of the truth
When did I do this other than claiming a vanilla game with a twist?
Er.
1) "You are the mafia"!
2) All village kills will show up as Mafia/Serial Killers.
3) There was no hitman/SK.
4) The unblockable kill wasn't.
1) You were the mafia, just an uninformed majority faction named mafia.
2) Depends on what you are considering the village. I was talking mechanically. And the other faction's power overwrote this one. leaving the one faction's kills colored green like I said.
3) I never said SK. I just said the boss had sent his big guns in. they just happened to be the mafia village on this game.
4) It was unblockable, but there was also a true guard. I've read hosts using both before and I resolved it exactly how previous more experienced hosts have done it in the past
My philosophy is: if you want to encourage a particular type of behavior from the mafia (or anyone, really), is to give them incentive to pursue that behavior, rather than penalize them for not pursuing that behavior.
Give players obvious and apparent strategy through either their own abilities or the core mechanics of the game. Making soft networking core to balancing the game is placing game balance on the RNG of role distribution.
Given the current meta, if you aren't balancing or planning for softnetworking when designing then I think you are doing it wrong
Reading through red's proboard, I can't count the number of times someone said something like "I think we're getting screwed over by the other players." It was just that they were too apathetic to do anything about it.
Yeah, but that doesn't really garner my sympathy. If you didn't have time to play the game properly, then don't expect to contribute much or make a difference. Or, for that matter, win.
Players usually don't, as an entire group, just happen to all grow apathetic. It usually takes an environment to encourage apathy.
Edit: What i mean is that a single person can grow apathetic at any time, sure. But for a whole group of mafia to just shrug and say "fuck it" is either a rare coincidence or caused by factors.
Lets get this straight. No where am I claiming that this was or should have been a fun game for everyone. When designing it I thought there would be many aha moments for players and chances to lie and manipulate.
it didn't play out that way and it fell flat. I think the reason for it is on both because of the percieved standard way of playing mafia and on the mechanics and way the game was setup.
and really, more than unreliable, since rather than obfuscating things we were simply told the exact opposite of the truth
When did I do this other than claiming a vanilla game with a twist?
Er.
1) "You are the mafia"!
2) All village kills will show up as Mafia/Serial Killers.
3) There was no hitman/SK.
4) The unblockable kill wasn't.
1) Not technically a lie.
2) That was a lie. We could make it any color we wanted.
3) There was a hitman. Actually there were 2.
4) What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
1) Knowingly using words in a way that completely contradicts their conventional meaning without telling anybody is a lie.
3) There were government agents but no hitman/SK. The informed minority PM even says "They think that there is a hitman that can choose their own color for their kills".
4) Nothing because it's impossible for both things to exist, so the force is stoppable and/or the object is movable. We were told we had an unblockable kill.
0
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
Reading through red's proboard, I can't count the number of times someone said something like "I think we're getting screwed over by the other players." It was just that they were too apathetic to do anything about it.
Yeah, but that doesn't really garner my sympathy. If you didn't have time to play the game properly, then don't expect to contribute much or make a difference. Or, for that matter, win.
Players usually don't, as an entire group, just happen to all grow apathetic. It usually takes an environment to encourage apathy.
Edit: What i mean is that a single person can grow apathetic at any time, sure. But for a whole group of mafia to just shrug and say "fuck it" is either a rare coincidence or caused by factors.
Lets get this straight. No where am I claiming that this was or should have been a fun game for everyone. When designing it I thought there would be many aha moments for players and chances to lie and manipulate.
it didn't play out that way and it fell flat. I think the reason for it is on both because of the percieved standard way of playing mafia and on the mechanics and way the game was setup.
Yeah I gotta say, if you want people to put in a bunch of time, don't initially advertise it as a vanilla game
Like, say "oh you should have time to play the game PROPERLY" all you want, but part of what attracts people to forum games is the ability to do things quickly, in five minutes at work on their break, check back 6 hours later when they're home. If you're going to shut out people who play like that, be honest about it.
I've already admitted that was a mistake in hindsight. There were better ways to setup the mafia factions than to lie about the vanillaness of the game.
1 - Experimental, it was just a test - learned a lot, interesting game.
2 - You guys don't play correctly, if you behaved as a mafia how I personally behave you would have had a chance.
There were plenty of "phalla vets" this game who never fully caught on. I think it's a lot easier to have all the pieces of the puzzle and claim - hey this should have been obvious.
There have been so many games where I thought I had the pieces and felt like I was making good decisions only in the end to have it all wrong. Take the confusion from those games and multiply it by 4 and that was this game.
Reading through red's proboard, I can't count the number of times someone said something like "I think we're getting screwed over by the other players." It was just that they were too apathetic to do anything about it.
Yeah, but that doesn't really garner my sympathy. If you didn't have time to play the game properly, then don't expect to contribute much or make a difference. Or, for that matter, win.
Players usually don't, as an entire group, just happen to all grow apathetic. It usually takes an environment to encourage apathy.
Edit: What i mean is that a single person can grow apathetic at any time, sure. But for a whole group of mafia to just shrug and say "fuck it" is either a rare coincidence or caused by factors.
Lets get this straight. No where am I claiming that this was or should have been a fun game for everyone. When designing it I thought there would be many aha moments for players and chances to lie and manipulate.
it didn't play out that way and it fell flat. I think the reason for it is on both because of the percieved standard way of playing mafia and on the mechanics and way the game was setup.
That's the problem.
I planned it thinking it would be fun.
it wasn't because of different factors and I understand peoples complaints.
Reading through red's proboard, I can't count the number of times someone said something like "I think we're getting screwed over by the other players." It was just that they were too apathetic to do anything about it.
Yeah, but that doesn't really garner my sympathy. If you didn't have time to play the game properly, then don't expect to contribute much or make a difference. Or, for that matter, win.
Players usually don't, as an entire group, just happen to all grow apathetic. It usually takes an environment to encourage apathy.
Edit: What i mean is that a single person can grow apathetic at any time, sure. But for a whole group of mafia to just shrug and say "fuck it" is either a rare coincidence or caused by factors.
Lets get this straight. No where am I claiming that this was or should have been a fun game for everyone. When designing it I thought there would be many aha moments for players and chances to lie and manipulate.
it didn't play out that way and it fell flat. I think the reason for it is on both because of the percieved standard way of playing mafia and on the mechanics and way the game was setup.
I think we are on the same page on that. This game was informative(and useful) as an experiment/innovation, but as a game it did not turn out the best. Sometimes it goes that way when you try something new but as long as you learn something for use in future games, overall it is a success.
I didn't even play this game, but I am interested in what affects activity(or lack thereof) in games, because I think that the most important thing in a game is whether people have fun, and high activity is a good (if imperfect) indicator of that.
and really, more than unreliable, since rather than obfuscating things we were simply told the exact opposite of the truth
When did I do this other than claiming a vanilla game with a twist?
Er.
1) "You are the mafia"!
2) All village kills will show up as Mafia/Serial Killers.
3) There was no hitman/SK.
4) The unblockable kill wasn't.
1) Not technically a lie.
2) That was a lie. We could make it any color we wanted.
3) There was a hitman. Actually there were 2.
4) What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
1) Knowingly using words in a way that completely contradicts their conventional meaning without telling anybody is a lie.
3) There were government agents but no hitman/SK. The informed minority PM even says "They think that there is a hitman that can choose their own color for their kills".
4) Nothing because it's impossible for both things to exist, so the force is stoppable and/or the object is movable. We were told we had an unblockable kill.
1) read my previous post about assumptions v misinformation
3) I told them what I thought people would read from it.
4) its happened before and it was handled the same way I did this game. however, in my intial post game thoughts I said it was a mistake for the village to have a true guard. that being said, it wasn't a lie it was an assumption about how ub kills interact with true guards on your part.
I guess my thinking is this: Usually the side games in mafia seem like they're slanted in the village's favour. Usually, if nothing else, they force the mafia to take (often concerted) actions beyond the vote, and mafia taking action is what gets the mafia caught.
This time, the side game was tilted a bit in the mafia's favour. We, as the village, were caught off-guard by the introduction of a novel mechanic (and of course by some flat-out lying on the part of our host) and were unable to respond.
It was fun to watch -- even though I had no idea what was going on for most of the game.
Encouraging a specific kind of behavoir is a major part of the game design. Phalla is a game about information. When you deliberately mislead players about the nature of the game, you've forced them to go on the defensive until they figure out what's happening. In phalla, that means rather than share information your going to guard it, re: cut-off communication.
Your stated intent for this game and the actual behavoir it encouraged don't mesh. You wanted the "mafia" to do something other than lay-low but your design directly encouraged that kind of behavoir.
Encouraging a specific kind of behavoir is a major part of the game design. Phalla is a game about information. When you deliberately mislead players about the nature of the game, you've forced them to go on the defensive until they figure out what's happening. In phalla, that means rather than share information your going to guard it, re: cut-off communication.
Your stated intent for this game and the actual behavoir it encouraged don't mesh. You wanted the "mafia" to do something other than lay-low but your design directly encouraged that kind of behavoir.
I don't think the design encouraged or discouraged activity from the mafia factions. it let them do what they were gonna do. agents were supposed to help a little.
why do you think it encouraged inactivity from mafia factions?
and really, more than unreliable, since rather than obfuscating things we were simply told the exact opposite of the truth
When did I do this other than claiming a vanilla game with a twist?
Er.
1) "You are the mafia"!
2) All village kills will show up as Mafia/Serial Killers.
3) There was no hitman/SK.
4) The unblockable kill wasn't.
1) Not technically a lie.
2) That was a lie. We could make it any color we wanted.
3) There was a hitman. Actually there were 2.
4) What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
1) Knowingly using words in a way that completely contradicts their conventional meaning without telling anybody is a lie.
3) There were government agents but no hitman/SK. The informed minority PM even says "They think that there is a hitman that can choose their own color for their kills".
4) Nothing because it's impossible for both things to exist, so the force is stoppable and/or the object is movable. We were told we had an unblockable kill.
1) read my previous post about assumptions v misinformation
3) I told them what I thought people would read from it.
4) its happened before and it was handled the same way I did this game. however, in my intial post game thoughts I said it was a mistake for the village to have a true guard. that being said, it wasn't a lie it was an assumption about how ub kills interact with true guards on your part.
3) You thought we would read that from it because that's what the words you used mean. "You know about the hitman your bosses hired and you also know he can pick the color of his kills."
4) "Unblockable" means it cannot be blocked. A game can't have both unblockable kills and a true guard. You're trying to redefine words without telling anybody. Other people having done the same thing doesn't change the fact that it was a lie.
I mean, if a player goes into a vanilla game and their assumption is that there will be one vig, one guard, and one seer, and the mafia will just have two kills with a guard. Is it misinformation if the game doesn't meet their exact assumptions and therefore not what they think a proper makeup of vanilla games is?
Take it a step further and apply that to kill colors, or naming conventions.
Take it a step further and apply that to masoning and assuming you are the informed just because you make up ~20% of the player base.
This game was still informed minority v uninformed majority. The uniformation was just non-traditional, imo.
Take it a step further and apply that to assuming meeting your victory condition means you win instead of lose.
0
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
and really, more than unreliable, since rather than obfuscating things we were simply told the exact opposite of the truth
When did I do this other than claiming a vanilla game with a twist?
Er.
1) "You are the mafia"!
2) All village kills will show up as Mafia/Serial Killers.
3) There was no hitman/SK.
4) The unblockable kill wasn't.
1) Not technically a lie.
2) That was a lie. We could make it any color we wanted.
3) There was a hitman. Actually there were 2.
4) What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
1) Knowingly using words in a way that completely contradicts their conventional meaning without telling anybody is a lie.
3) There were government agents but no hitman/SK. The informed minority PM even says "They think that there is a hitman that can choose their own color for their kills".
4) Nothing because it's impossible for both things to exist, so the force is stoppable and/or the object is movable. We were told we had an unblockable kill.
1) read my previous post about assumptions v misinformation
3) I told them what I thought people would read from it.
4) its happened before and it was handled the same way I did this game. however, in my intial post game thoughts I said it was a mistake for the village to have a true guard. that being said, it wasn't a lie it was an assumption about how ub kills interact with true guards on your part.
3) You thought we would read that from it because that's what the words you used mean. "You know about the hitman your bosses hired and you also know he can pick the color of his kills."
4) "Unblockable" means it cannot be blocked. A game can't have both unblockable kills and a true guard. You're trying to redefine words without telling anybody. Other people having done the same thing doesn't change the fact that it was a lie.
I mean, if a player goes into a vanilla game and their assumption is that there will be one vig, one guard, and one seer, and the mafia will just have two kills with a guard. Is it misinformation if the game doesn't meet their exact assumptions and therefore not what they think a proper makeup of vanilla games is?
Take it a step further and apply that to kill colors, or naming conventions.
Take it a step further and apply that to masoning and assuming you are the informed just because you make up ~20% of the player base.
This game was still informed minority v uninformed majority. The uniformation was just non-traditional, imo.
Take it a step further and apply that to assuming meeting your victory condition means you win instead of lose.
if it doesn't say wincon or victory goal, then sure.
An aggressive mafia, confident they have the game in hand, may attempt reach out and try to attempt to manipulate the village. A defensive mafia will do everything they can to avoid notice, which usually means posting a little as possible and avoiding the soft network. Soft networking as a mafia carries the risk of being caught in a lie or even just a minor slip. Posting in thread carries the same risks, only publicly and thus undeniable. When you suddenly learn what you thought you knew isn't actually true in a game that is all about information, then you've been put on the defensive.
INANTP makes a great point, too. With everyone thinking they're mafia, there's noone to initiate a soft network.
Mikey CTS on
// PSN: wyrd_warrior // MHW Name: Josei //
0
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
I think mafia should always be active. I think that's what I'm getting at. The best mafia wins i have seen are when they work the village and hide in plain sight of activity.
the boring games are when the village has to pick through the inactives with the seer and vig and still lose because the guessed wrong.
this game taught me that mafia will hide and lay low as the default action. and will stick to that default action even if everything is going horribly for fear of it going worse.
that will inform my future phalla design as I feel like I understand the motivations of mafia better and how to spur them to action through mechanics.
Posts
Yeah, but that doesn't really garner my sympathy. If you didn't have time to play the game properly, then don't expect to contribute much or make a difference. Or, for that matter, win.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
1) "You are the mafia"!
2) All village kills will show up as Mafia/Serial Killers.
3) There was no hitman/SK.
4) The unblockable kill wasn't.
That is not at all true here.
Like, say "oh you should have time to play the game PROPERLY" all you want, but part of what attracts people to forum games is the ability to do things quickly, in five minutes at work on their break, check back 6 hours later when they're home. If you're going to shut out people who play like that, be honest about it.
1) Not technically a lie.
2) That was a lie. We could make it any color we wanted.
3) There was a hitman. Actually there were 2.
4) What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
an explosion of kinetic force
I really agree with this. I think all my favorite soft networking roles ive seen were the neutral roles.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
Players usually don't, as an entire group, just happen to all grow apathetic. It usually takes an environment to encourage apathy.
Edit: What i mean is that a single person can grow apathetic at any time, sure. But for a whole group of mafia to just shrug and say "fuck it" is either a rare coincidence or caused by factors.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
I'll agree that the unblockable kill should have, by definition, made it through my guard.
But no complaints from meeeee :P
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
1 - Experimental, it was just a test - learned a lot, interesting game.
2 - You guys don't play correctly, if you behaved as a mafia how I personally behave you would have had a chance.
There were plenty of "phalla vets" this game who never fully caught on. I think it's a lot easier to have all the pieces of the puzzle and claim - hey this should have been obvious.
There have been so many games where I thought I had the pieces and felt like I was making good decisions only in the end to have it all wrong. Take the confusion from those games and multiply it by 4 and that was this game.
Island Name: Felinefine
Oh man, the unblockable killing being blockable is pretty funny.
1) You were the mafia, just an uninformed majority faction named mafia.
2) Depends on what you are considering the village. I was talking mechanically. And the other faction's power overwrote this one. leaving the one faction's kills colored green like I said.
3) I never said SK. I just said the boss had sent his big guns in. they just happened to be the mafia village on this game.
4) It was unblockable, but there was also a true guard. I've read hosts using both before and I resolved it exactly how previous more experienced hosts have done it in the past
Like, calling it a superior kill and explaining that it can only be blocked by a superior guard.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
Given the current meta, if you aren't balancing or planning for softnetworking when designing then I think you are doing it wrong
Lets get this straight. No where am I claiming that this was or should have been a fun game for everyone. When designing it I thought there would be many aha moments for players and chances to lie and manipulate.
it didn't play out that way and it fell flat. I think the reason for it is on both because of the percieved standard way of playing mafia and on the mechanics and way the game was setup.
3) There were government agents but no hitman/SK. The informed minority PM even says "They think that there is a hitman that can choose their own color for their kills".
4) Nothing because it's impossible for both things to exist, so the force is stoppable and/or the object is movable. We were told we had an unblockable kill.
That's the problem.
I've already admitted that was a mistake in hindsight. There were better ways to setup the mafia factions than to lie about the vanillaness of the game.
I repeat, lesson learned
No one is claiming that :whistle:
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
I planned it thinking it would be fun.
it wasn't because of different factors and I understand peoples complaints.
I think we are on the same page on that. This game was informative(and useful) as an experiment/innovation, but as a game it did not turn out the best. Sometimes it goes that way when you try something new but as long as you learn something for use in future games, overall it is a success.
I didn't even play this game, but I am interested in what affects activity(or lack thereof) in games, because I think that the most important thing in a game is whether people have fun, and high activity is a good (if imperfect) indicator of that.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
1) read my previous post about assumptions v misinformation
3) I told them what I thought people would read from it.
4) its happened before and it was handled the same way I did this game. however, in my intial post game thoughts I said it was a mistake for the village to have a true guard. that being said, it wasn't a lie it was an assumption about how ub kills interact with true guards on your part.
I am serious about running a real vanilla game as penance.
This time, the side game was tilted a bit in the mafia's favour. We, as the village, were caught off-guard by the introduction of a novel mechanic (and of course by some flat-out lying on the part of our host) and were unable to respond.
It was fun to watch -- even though I had no idea what was going on for most of the game.
Oh, by the way, who killed me?
What happend to running your fringe game as penance?
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
(Just curious. If so I'd imagine it was a long unfun game)
Island Name: Felinefine
Your stated intent for this game and the actual behavoir it encouraged don't mesh. You wanted the "mafia" to do something other than lay-low but your design directly encouraged that kind of behavoir.
My Survivor Mini had no specials. There were a couple weird mechanics but everyone was the same.
I don't think the design encouraged or discouraged activity from the mafia factions. it let them do what they were gonna do. agents were supposed to help a little.
why do you think it encouraged inactivity from mafia factions?
4) "Unblockable" means it cannot be blocked. A game can't have both unblockable kills and a true guard. You're trying to redefine words without telling anybody. Other people having done the same thing doesn't change the fact that it was a lie. Take it a step further and apply that to assuming meeting your victory condition means you win instead of lose.
if it doesn't say wincon or victory goal, then sure.
because win and victory are hard constants, imo.
good point
INANTP makes a great point, too. With everyone thinking they're mafia, there's noone to initiate a soft network.
the boring games are when the village has to pick through the inactives with the seer and vig and still lose because the guessed wrong.
this game taught me that mafia will hide and lay low as the default action. and will stick to that default action even if everything is going horribly for fear of it going worse.
that will inform my future phalla design as I feel like I understand the motivations of mafia better and how to spur them to action through mechanics.
if I can get anyone to sign up for my next game