the point of a survival neutral is that they are on the team of whoever can win the game the fastest, not that they ignore everything that's going on and try not to contribute
example: in a world where there are two mafia left and 15 village, the survival neutral should sell out the mafia as soon as they contact them so that the game will end
when i say true neutral i'm not saying "dude who is not playing the game", i am saying "dude who does not have a horse in the mafia/village race"
and no matter who they are, as long as they have some way to be useful to the mafia/village, the mafia/village will attempt to negotiate or strongarm them into helping out
like as long as you have an objective you're not going to be "true neutral" by how it seems like you're trying to describe one
Spoit commenting on complaints against neutrals playing with the village.
The complaint is that neutrals are almost never neutral. A neutral wants to survive and tends to side with the village since that appeases the greatest number of people. They do this partly because they still count as one vote, which means their vote could be the difference between a village special dying, a vanillager or a mafia member. They can use their reputation or arguments to persuade people to vote in a certain fashion. Unless I'm missing something, doesn't the mafia have to have greater voting power than the non-mafia elements of the village?
In short, a neutral is never going to be neutral, hell not even SKs, because both the village and the mafia will figure out that they can use the threat of death to coax a neutral into voting and pushing specific votes. In the event that the neutral has powers, both sides will have greater incentive to push the neutral to play ball with them. Actual wincons outside of surviving also gives both sides another means to coax neutrals to help their side. If a neutral doesn't reveal, they still have to play for a side to minimize the likelihood of being murdered.
I was pointing out the only way to hit a truly neutral role would be to make them a non-factor in both the vote and number game. At that point, they wouldn't have much point because they are just there. Even then, depending on the players involved, they might not be allowed to stay neutral because their worthless vote and arguments could be used to persuade people. God help you if there is a busdriver, neither the village or mafia has a huge incentive to no use you as the target because getting the non-factor killed won't hurt them.
I guess what I'm saying is that if people don't like how the neutral meta game has gone. Then they need to push for more village idiots, no neutrals and/or neutral roles that don't have a vested interest in things getting too one sided. Or the mafia needs to find a way to get neutrals to play ball with them.
i feel like everyone is just talking about different things so instead i'll just say that i think survival neutral is the easiest role in phalla and is dumb
i feel like everyone is just talking about different things so instead i'll just say that i think survival neutral is the easiest role in phalla and is dumb
Which is why when people act like they should have extra powers on top of the victory condition, I'm all :shock:
i feel like everyone is just talking about different things so instead i'll just say that i think survival neutral is the easiest role in phalla and is dumb
a lot of games use to have it, or at least it seemed that way, where another dude was hunting you down. So y'know there was a reason you were trying to "survive". But yeah...doesn't seem like that happens too much anymore.
i feel like everyone is just talking about different things so instead i'll just say that i think survival neutral is the easiest role in phalla and is dumb
Which is why when people act like they should have extra powers on top of the victory condition, I'm all :shock:
It's basically like being the bizarro SK. Just think of it that way.
Sir Fab's last game had such a role, Obi had it and he needed to kill zombiehero. It really should be included in any game that has survival neutrals, either as another neutral that can kill people, but wants to eliminate a specific person or it could be repackaged as a mafia role where you could also win if all the survival neutrals are removed in addition to be able to win with the rest of the mafia.
If you accept it, even if you think you will lose, you are paying against your win condition.the choice itself is anti village, which you are supposed to help win above all else
This grabbed my attention a few days ago, and @Capfalcon best summed up my feelings on it.
The requirement is not "you have to play to your win condition," that's just how it's usually phrased since it typically is the same as "you have to play to win."
But in reality, only the second is valid. And it IS super-important
I'm sad that Malkavians were so scary to the mafia. We were most harmless! :P
Thanks for running this, Assuran. It was lots of fun
If you accept it, even if you think you will lose, you are paying against your win condition.the choice itself is anti village, which you are supposed to help win above all else
This grabbed my attention a few days ago, and @Capfalcon best summed up my feelings on it.
The requirement is not "you have to play to your win condition," that's just how it's usually phrased since it typically is the same as "you have to play to win."
But in reality, only the second is valid. And it IS super-important
I'm sad that Malkavians were so scary to the mafia. We were most harmless! :P
Thanks for running this, Assuran. It was lots of fun
The Malkavans were scary because our win condition could be done with any village faction, we were almost as true village as the clanless.
Funny that the mad were the ones above all the inter-clan violence.
Sorry I stayed away from the rest of you, but when I heard kime was our primogen...
I kinda wish I had bus drivered myself before I died.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
0
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
I don't get neutral roles often, but I go with whatever seems more viable. Or in this case, whoever's more trustworthy. Which in this game meant pretty much no one.
If you accept it, even if you think you will lose, you are paying against your win condition.the choice itself is anti village, which you are supposed to help win above all else
This grabbed my attention a few days ago, and @Capfalcon best summed up my feelings on it.
The requirement is not "you have to play to your win condition," that's just how it's usually phrased since it typically is the same as "you have to play to win."
But in reality, only the second is valid. And it IS super-important
I'm sad that Malkavians were so scary to the mafia. We were most harmless! :P
Thanks for running this, Assuran. It was lots of fun
I don't really agree. Phalla is a team game, and playing to your team's win condition is the goal. You're not in it for just you, out that were the case the game wouldn't work the way it does.
By voluntarily switching teams, you are doing the same thing as crashing your team's ships together. You hurt your original win condition and make it more difficult for your original team to win.
Phalla isn't a game about personal interest, it's about working as a group to meet a goal.otherwise, villagers would lose if they died, because they personally didn't make it to the end.
Yeah but why do you care about your original team's wincon
you get a new wincon, you want your old team to lose
voluntarily switching teams isn't an auto-bad thing, it's weighing up the risks. Is this new wincon better than my old one? I am doing okay with this current group?
I am pretty sure, in fact, entirely sure, that there are a number of Sabbat who would have jumped ship to the Anarchs joyfully were they able to do so
we tried a couple of times, in fact, but they couldn't be converted (which was annoying, to say the least! Willing conversion targets who can't convert!)
Like, you have to consider if you are part of a network and you are approached for conversion then even if you say no the people around you could have already converted
and if you do say no, then you are then priority a for being removed, since you will not be a friend, thus you become an enemy to be destroyed
if you say yes, then the cult is on your side, as is your previous group, who don't know a thing, thus meaning that conversion not only gets you a new wincon it puts you in a group who have infiltrated their opponent's networks. That's part of the reason we wanted to convert a Sabbat, so we could get access to the Sabbat network.
If you accept it, even if you think you will lose, you are paying against your win condition.the choice itself is anti village, which you are supposed to help win above all else
This grabbed my attention a few days ago, and @Capfalcon best summed up my feelings on it.
The requirement is not "you have to play to your win condition," that's just how it's usually phrased since it typically is the same as "you have to play to win."
But in reality, only the second is valid. And it IS super-important
I'm sad that Malkavians were so scary to the mafia. We were most harmless! :P
Thanks for running this, Assuran. It was lots of fun
I don't really agree. Phalla is a team game, and playing to your team's win condition is the goal. You're not in it for just you, out that were the case the game wouldn't work the way it does.
By voluntarily switching teams, you are doing the same thing as crashing your team's ships together. You hurt your original win condition and make it more difficult for your original team to win.
Phalla isn't a game about personal interest, it's about working as a group to meet a goal.otherwise, villagers would lose if they died, because they personally didn't make it to the end.
But as you pointed out on the final night, this wasn't really a team game. It was a faction game, and most of the factions had conflicting win conditions.
If you accept it, even if you think you will lose, you are paying against your win condition.the choice itself is anti village, which you are supposed to help win above all else
This grabbed my attention a few days ago, and @Capfalcon best summed up my feelings on it.
The requirement is not "you have to play to your win condition," that's just how it's usually phrased since it typically is the same as "you have to play to win."
But in reality, only the second is valid. And it IS super-important
I'm sad that Malkavians were so scary to the mafia. We were most harmless! :P
Thanks for running this, Assuran. It was lots of fun
I don't really agree. Phalla is a team game, and playing to your team's win condition is the goal. You're not in it for just you, out that were the case the game wouldn't work the way it does.
By voluntarily switching teams, you are doing the same thing as crashing your team's ships together. You hurt your original win condition and make it more difficult for your original team to win.
Phalla isn't a game about personal interest, it's about working as a group to meet a goal.otherwise, villagers would lose if they died, because they personally didn't make it to the end.
But as you pointed out on the final night, this wasn't really a team game. It was a faction game, and most of the factions had conflicting win conditions.
But taking the conversion then makes it even harder for your specific team.
It makes sense for late game, when the win condition is impossible, but at first all you're doing is making it harder for them to win.
Yeah but why do you care about your original team's wincon
you get a new wincon, you want your old team to lose
voluntarily switching teams isn't an auto-bad thing, it's weighing up the risks. Is this new wincon better than my old one? I am doing okay with this current group?
I am pretty sure, in fact, entirely sure, that there are a number of Sabbat who would have jumped ship to the Anarchs joyfully were they able to do so
we tried a couple of times, in fact, but they couldn't be converted (which was annoying, to say the least! Willing conversion targets who can't convert!)
You care about the original win condition because the act of conversion harms that condition. You've made yourself the enemy to your team. The act itself is against your goal for the game.
An involuntary conversion removes that problem. It's the same as being killed by the mafia, you don't have any control of it.
Like, in a game like that, if I reached out to the cult and asked then to convert me, I'd be playing against my win condition, but not if they just target me for conversion and I wake up on another team
Langly, you don't have your old team when you convert.
That's what conversion means.
That's what I'm saying! The act of conversion is against the team's win condition. You're supposed to be helping the team win. By removing yourself you hinder that.
Obviously once you are on a different team you have new conditions.
0
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
My thoughts/opinions on wincons and conversions:
You always need to play to win. The only time you will break the game or be out of order is if you voluntarily do something that will make you lose the game in order to do something else- spite someone, fulfill a grudge etc.
This includes fighting against an involuntary conversion or taking a voluntary conversion and playing to your original wincon (assuming it no longer exists). There is nothing immoral about taking a voluntary conversion- it's a game mechanic that is calculated into game balance! But, if you don't like converting because you feel like you're screwing people over, that's fine- even if you'll end up losing because of the decision, there's nothing wrong with that. But to me that is firmly in the realm of personal preference and outside the realm of ethical playing.
0
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
If you accept it, even if you think you will lose, you are paying against your win condition.the choice itself is anti village, which you are supposed to help win above all else
This grabbed my attention a few days ago, and @Capfalcon best summed up my feelings on it.
The requirement is not "you have to play to your win condition," that's just how it's usually phrased since it typically is the same as "you have to play to win."
But in reality, only the second is valid. And it IS super-important
I'm sad that Malkavians were so scary to the mafia. We were most harmless! :P
Thanks for running this, Assuran. It was lots of fun
I don't really agree. Phalla is a team game, and playing to your team's win condition is the goal. You're not in it for just you, out that were the case the game wouldn't work the way it does.
By voluntarily switching teams, you are doing the same thing as crashing your team's ships together. You hurt your original win condition and make it more difficult for your original team to win.
Phalla isn't a game about personal interest, it's about working as a group to meet a goal.otherwise, villagers would lose if they died, because they personally didn't make it to the end.
This game was balanced around people converting when given the opportunity. I don't think that's the same thing.
the mafia bregrudged me for killing gumpy in that one phallakinetic
but to this day Im not sure if I had to do it or not! my VC was just to transcend n survive, and I did it, but I linked with rend and still dont know if he, the guy who transcended me, had to be alive too at the end of the game
of course it was all moot cos he had a time travel power that delayed his death long enough to win (literally)
The act of agreeing to a conversion goes against the current wincon, because until you convert you are still under the first condition.
So between the time you agree and the conversion actually goes through you are actively playing against your own team and wincon
...I cannot agree with this statement.
If you were to talk to someone about converting and then start acting in a way that goes against your current wincon (as a vig kill the seer on the night before you convert because you know the conversion is coming), that is absolutely horrible.
But saying that a built in mechanic to the game goes against the intended game mechanics... yeah.
Well, what is to stop a vig from killing the seer on the way out, other than being obvious and probably bad strategy. If you think it helps you win personally, which is the assumption we are working under with voluntary conversions, you aren't crossing any additional lines.
Well, what is to stop a vig from killing the seer on the way out, other than being obvious and probably bad strategy. If you think it helps you win personally, which is the assumption we are working under with voluntary conversions, you aren't crossing any additional lines.
The most obvious thing about the vig killing the seer is that they are assuming someone will actually convert them (as opposed to the vig dying before conversion, or the person lying about converting them, or the converter being roleblocked).
Correct:
Behave as you normally do before being converted, even if someone tells you it's coming beforehand.
At the time the host PMs you with the voluntary conversion, you have to decide yes or no as per the game mechanics. At that time you are free to choose yes or no without moral quandry (it's a game element! It's okay!), and if you choose that yes you want to be converted, all actions and communication afterwards is with the new wincon in mind.
I don't think you'll ever have a host that designs the mechanics to say "you have one whole day to respond to the voluntary conversion, and in the meantime you still have your old wincon", because that is dumb. So the way it works is you get the PM, and you convert or not, then you continue playing. There is no time of "I have my old wincon and therefore it would be unethical to convert".
0
38thDoelets never be stupid againwait lets always be stupid foreverRegistered Userregular
Well, what is to stop a vig from killing the seer on the way out, other than being obvious and probably bad strategy. If you think it helps you win personally, which is the assumption we are working under with voluntary conversions, you aren't crossing any additional lines.
The possibility that there is no conversion and the mafia got you to kill the seer.
If you accept it, even if you think you will lose, you are paying against your win condition.the choice itself is anti village, which you are supposed to help win above all else
This grabbed my attention a few days ago, and @Capfalcon best summed up my feelings on it.
The requirement is not "you have to play to your win condition," that's just how it's usually phrased since it typically is the same as "you have to play to win."
But in reality, only the second is valid. And it IS super-important
I'm sad that Malkavians were so scary to the mafia. We were most harmless! :P
Thanks for running this, Assuran. It was lots of fun
I don't really agree. Phalla is a team game, and playing to your team's win condition is the goal. You're not in it for just you, out that were the case the game wouldn't work the way it does.
By voluntarily switching teams, you are doing the same thing as crashing your team's ships together. You hurt your original win condition and make it more difficult for your original team to win.
Phalla isn't a game about personal interest, it's about working as a group to meet a goal.otherwise, villagers would lose if they died, because they personally didn't make it to the end.
Yeah, we just disagree then. Phalla is normally a team game, but some roles change that to where you have to look out for number one. I mean, if you are a villager who has an alt win condition that will make you leave the game, should you go after it?
KayWhat we need...Is a little bit of PANIC.Registered Userregular
edited November 2012
If I had legitimately been Ventrue, and in that situation, you bet I would have converted as soon as I had the opportunity in order to win. I'd INSIST that the other Ventrue also be given the opportunity, though. It's only fair to choose them as targets for your win condition after working with them previously.
Balance issues aside, this was a lot of fun! More games need to include mechanics that punish role-calls, though. (Or in this case, faction calls if you want to be fussy.) There was an element of needing to protect your identity given some opposing clan win conditions, but it wasn't quite as much of a deterrent as it could be.
The Discipline system was really cool and well thought out, apart from the two problems that Assuran identified. You could have either had Obfuscate 3 only usable on alternate days, or had a strong downside linked to effectively being out of the game - no vote, no actions, etc. Actually being not part of the game for that evening. Passive blood gain, vote and vote manipulation abilities, the Prince kill, any of those would have made Obfuscate 3 a little more balanced, I feel.
There was only ONE theme related VC query I had - the Setite one. Was there any downside to taking this blood? If the Setite's giving it out to corrupt the flock, and all. Given how Setites operated.
Thanks for running the game, Assuran! I look forward to a sequel if you feel like running one!
The game started out really cool with being able to pick your powers and I got cool powers so no complaints there.
Im generally against putting all your faith in a network head especially since there was a clan game that was supposed to be going on as well so boo village and double boo langly for always killing me. (stop always killing me @langly it is rude)
Wish I would have had more time to get into the networking aspect of things. I pretty much let the mafia lead me around wich is uncaricteristic for me in phalla but im not compalining.
Anyway thanks assuran for running! I think jdark hits the nail on the head for mafia shortfalls so I wont bitch about it. Live and learn I suppose.
Langly, you don't have your old team when you convert.
That's what conversion means.
That's what I'm saying! The act of conversion is against the team's win condition. You're supposed to be helping the team win. By removing yourself you hinder that.
Obviously once you are on a different team you have new conditions.
yeah so if you convert, then you aren't supposed to be helping your old team win anymore
you are supposed to help your new team
it's not inherently a hindrance towards winning since now you actively want to hinder your old team
His position seems to be primarily rooted in the issue of VOLUNTARY conversions, which I agree, are weird since at the time of being made the offer you are playing against your wincon if you accept.
I've honestly never even heard of voluntary conversions before this game.
Posts
example: in a world where there are two mafia left and 15 village, the survival neutral should sell out the mafia as soon as they contact them so that the game will end
when i say true neutral i'm not saying "dude who is not playing the game", i am saying "dude who does not have a horse in the mafia/village race"
and no matter who they are, as long as they have some way to be useful to the mafia/village, the mafia/village will attempt to negotiate or strongarm them into helping out
like as long as you have an objective you're not going to be "true neutral" by how it seems like you're trying to describe one
I don't have to answer that.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
The complaint is that neutrals are almost never neutral. A neutral wants to survive and tends to side with the village since that appeases the greatest number of people. They do this partly because they still count as one vote, which means their vote could be the difference between a village special dying, a vanillager or a mafia member. They can use their reputation or arguments to persuade people to vote in a certain fashion. Unless I'm missing something, doesn't the mafia have to have greater voting power than the non-mafia elements of the village?
In short, a neutral is never going to be neutral, hell not even SKs, because both the village and the mafia will figure out that they can use the threat of death to coax a neutral into voting and pushing specific votes. In the event that the neutral has powers, both sides will have greater incentive to push the neutral to play ball with them. Actual wincons outside of surviving also gives both sides another means to coax neutrals to help their side. If a neutral doesn't reveal, they still have to play for a side to minimize the likelihood of being murdered.
I was pointing out the only way to hit a truly neutral role would be to make them a non-factor in both the vote and number game. At that point, they wouldn't have much point because they are just there. Even then, depending on the players involved, they might not be allowed to stay neutral because their worthless vote and arguments could be used to persuade people. God help you if there is a busdriver, neither the village or mafia has a huge incentive to no use you as the target because getting the non-factor killed won't hurt them.
I guess what I'm saying is that if people don't like how the neutral meta game has gone. Then they need to push for more village idiots, no neutrals and/or neutral roles that don't have a vested interest in things getting too one sided. Or the mafia needs to find a way to get neutrals to play ball with them.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Which is why when people act like they should have extra powers on top of the victory condition, I'm all :shock:
a lot of games use to have it, or at least it seemed that way, where another dude was hunting you down. So y'know there was a reason you were trying to "survive". But yeah...doesn't seem like that happens too much anymore.
It's basically like being the bizarro SK. Just think of it that way.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
This grabbed my attention a few days ago, and @Capfalcon best summed up my feelings on it.
The requirement is not "you have to play to your win condition," that's just how it's usually phrased since it typically is the same as "you have to play to win."
But in reality, only the second is valid. And it IS super-important
I'm sad that Malkavians were so scary to the mafia. We were most harmless! :P
Thanks for running this, Assuran. It was lots of fun
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
The Malkavans were scary because our win condition could be done with any village faction, we were almost as true village as the clanless.
Funny that the mad were the ones above all the inter-clan violence.
Sorry I stayed away from the rest of you, but when I heard kime was our primogen...
I kinda wish I had bus drivered myself before I died.
I don't get neutral roles often, but I go with whatever seems more viable. Or in this case, whoever's more trustworthy. Which in this game meant pretty much no one.
I don't really agree. Phalla is a team game, and playing to your team's win condition is the goal. You're not in it for just you, out that were the case the game wouldn't work the way it does.
By voluntarily switching teams, you are doing the same thing as crashing your team's ships together. You hurt your original win condition and make it more difficult for your original team to win.
Phalla isn't a game about personal interest, it's about working as a group to meet a goal.otherwise, villagers would lose if they died, because they personally didn't make it to the end.
you get a new wincon, you want your old team to lose
voluntarily switching teams isn't an auto-bad thing, it's weighing up the risks. Is this new wincon better than my old one? I am doing okay with this current group?
I am pretty sure, in fact, entirely sure, that there are a number of Sabbat who would have jumped ship to the Anarchs joyfully were they able to do so
we tried a couple of times, in fact, but they couldn't be converted (which was annoying, to say the least! Willing conversion targets who can't convert!)
and if you do say no, then you are then priority a for being removed, since you will not be a friend, thus you become an enemy to be destroyed
if you say yes, then the cult is on your side, as is your previous group, who don't know a thing, thus meaning that conversion not only gets you a new wincon it puts you in a group who have infiltrated their opponent's networks. That's part of the reason we wanted to convert a Sabbat, so we could get access to the Sabbat network.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
But taking the conversion then makes it even harder for your specific team.
It makes sense for late game, when the win condition is impossible, but at first all you're doing is making it harder for them to win.
You care about the original win condition because the act of conversion harms that condition. You've made yourself the enemy to your team. The act itself is against your goal for the game.
An involuntary conversion removes that problem. It's the same as being killed by the mafia, you don't have any control of it.
Like, in a game like that, if I reached out to the cult and asked then to convert me, I'd be playing against my win condition, but not if they just target me for conversion and I wake up on another team
That's what conversion means.
That's what I'm saying! The act of conversion is against the team's win condition. You're supposed to be helping the team win. By removing yourself you hinder that.
Obviously once you are on a different team you have new conditions.
You always need to play to win. The only time you will break the game or be out of order is if you voluntarily do something that will make you lose the game in order to do something else- spite someone, fulfill a grudge etc.
This includes fighting against an involuntary conversion or taking a voluntary conversion and playing to your original wincon (assuming it no longer exists). There is nothing immoral about taking a voluntary conversion- it's a game mechanic that is calculated into game balance! But, if you don't like converting because you feel like you're screwing people over, that's fine- even if you'll end up losing because of the decision, there's nothing wrong with that. But to me that is firmly in the realm of personal preference and outside the realm of ethical playing.
This game was balanced around people converting when given the opportunity. I don't think that's the same thing.
but to this day Im not sure if I had to do it or not! my VC was just to transcend n survive, and I did it, but I linked with rend and still dont know if he, the guy who transcended me, had to be alive too at the end of the game
of course it was all moot cos he had a time travel power that delayed his death long enough to win (literally)
Conversions are weird.
So between the time you agree and the conversion actually goes through you are actively playing against your own team and wincon
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
...I cannot agree with this statement.
If you were to talk to someone about converting and then start acting in a way that goes against your current wincon (as a vig kill the seer on the night before you convert because you know the conversion is coming), that is absolutely horrible.
But saying that a built in mechanic to the game goes against the intended game mechanics... yeah.
Nintendo ID: Pastalonius
Smite\LoL:Gremlidin \ WoW & Overwatch & Hots: Gremlidin#1734
3ds: 3282-2248-0453
Play to win.
If you die in the game, you die for real.
The most obvious thing about the vig killing the seer is that they are assuming someone will actually convert them (as opposed to the vig dying before conversion, or the person lying about converting them, or the converter being roleblocked).
Correct:
Behave as you normally do before being converted, even if someone tells you it's coming beforehand.
At the time the host PMs you with the voluntary conversion, you have to decide yes or no as per the game mechanics. At that time you are free to choose yes or no without moral quandry (it's a game element! It's okay!), and if you choose that yes you want to be converted, all actions and communication afterwards is with the new wincon in mind.
I don't think you'll ever have a host that designs the mechanics to say "you have one whole day to respond to the voluntary conversion, and in the meantime you still have your old wincon", because that is dumb. So the way it works is you get the PM, and you convert or not, then you continue playing. There is no time of "I have my old wincon and therefore it would be unethical to convert".
Island Name: Felinefine
Yeah, we just disagree then. Phalla is normally a team game, but some roles change that to where you have to look out for number one. I mean, if you are a villager who has an alt win condition that will make you leave the game, should you go after it?
Twitch Stream
Balance issues aside, this was a lot of fun! More games need to include mechanics that punish role-calls, though. (Or in this case, faction calls if you want to be fussy.) There was an element of needing to protect your identity given some opposing clan win conditions, but it wasn't quite as much of a deterrent as it could be.
The Discipline system was really cool and well thought out, apart from the two problems that Assuran identified. You could have either had Obfuscate 3 only usable on alternate days, or had a strong downside linked to effectively being out of the game - no vote, no actions, etc. Actually being not part of the game for that evening. Passive blood gain, vote and vote manipulation abilities, the Prince kill, any of those would have made Obfuscate 3 a little more balanced, I feel.
There was only ONE theme related VC query I had - the Setite one. Was there any downside to taking this blood? If the Setite's giving it out to corrupt the flock, and all. Given how Setites operated.
Thanks for running the game, Assuran! I look forward to a sequel if you feel like running one!
3DS FCode: 1993-7512-8991
The game started out really cool with being able to pick your powers and I got cool powers so no complaints there.
Im generally against putting all your faith in a network head especially since there was a clan game that was supposed to be going on as well so boo village and double boo langly for always killing me. (stop always killing me @langly it is rude)
Wish I would have had more time to get into the networking aspect of things. I pretty much let the mafia lead me around wich is uncaricteristic for me in phalla but im not compalining.
Anyway thanks assuran for running! I think jdark hits the nail on the head for mafia shortfalls so I wont bitch about it. Live and learn I suppose.
yeah so if you convert, then you aren't supposed to be helping your old team win anymore
you are supposed to help your new team
it's not inherently a hindrance towards winning since now you actively want to hinder your old team
since it not only gets you a new wincon it also advances that wincon and damages someone else's (your old team, amongst others)
But really, conversions aren't this hard to understand.
to be honest I am not entirely sure where Langly is coming from here
but I like Langly well enough that I assume he must be coming from somewhere
I've honestly never even heard of voluntary conversions before this game.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
just one day ahead
and consider that it won't be your new wincon
if your current situation doesn't look good then you might indeed change over
because by the very act of doing so you may have improved your odds of winning greatly