Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
[Mini-Phalla] of Brass: The Philosopher Kings (God Save The Queen: Cultist/Templar Win)
Posts
You actually need to do this and have more bonuses to your stuff than they do; if you attack their defense to begin they'll just produce another, since they have nothing to attack.
Skyrim
GT/Twitter: Tanith 6227
Phyphor and Invictus debating amused me.
Why did you limit the dialectic to one exchange, a defense and an attack? Just purely pragmatic judging reasons? That decision made me pack as much into my defenses as I could, since attacking attacks wasn't in the structure, any responses to attacks must be in the original defense.
Two reasons:
One of the inspirations for the phalla was the aesthetic of a handheld RPG. While this was lost in many ways as the game was further designed, I wanted to keep it in the mini-game of debating. Thus debating got abstracted down to standard RPG actions of Attack, Defend, and Limit Break (Epiphany).
The second reason was that I hoped abstracting it down to a very simple give and take would make it easier for villagers to know both how well they were doing and how they should play the game. I wanted to avoid situations where people went "Oh I'm not good at debating, I don't want to play" by making the game debating have very little in common with actual debating. I don't feel this was communicated well though, as many people were very conservative about what they said in debates. You could have talked about moon people disapproving of the rule change if you wanted to.
I also definitely didn't want it to be a situation where every rule change just passed. I think the only way to "balance" a rule change game is to make it difficult to change the rules. Rule changes were meant to be a reward for the village playing the mini-game well and potentially co-ordinating with specials to help. Unfortunately day 2 the people arguing for change had no bonuses to receive, day 3 only one argument was village v village, and day 4, well. Extraordinarily favourable circumstances arose for a neutral.
This mini had 10 player conversations (that I was invited to).
My last mini had 56, and I know that some took place that I was not involved in.
WE HAVE FINALLY KILLED THE SOFT NETWORK META
I fully planned on doing this ... Ahhhh why did I have to dieeee
Because my philosophy had to do with taking things back to the basics and resisting change I was going to come up with all these arguments about the evils of electricity and walking miles in the snow !
At some point things may calm down for me and I'll make a triumphant return. When that happens, your inbox should be afraid.
VERY afraid...
I had just come off getting murdered early in assurans main after busting my ass soft networking and it was a busy couple of days at work.
Consider your inbox spared.
What the fuck kind of person makes a forum where you can't go to the next page without scrolling all the way up to the top?
Skyrim
GT/Twitter: Tanith 6227
Yeah, they were pretty mobile-friendly except for the giant login screen for Assuran's, and I assume it's still running the same way.
I was assuming I'd be able to spectate this one a little longer, but what I did get to read through was pretty entertaining!
World's Largest Dungeon 4E as Torbera
BSG Exodus Game 17 as Tom Zarek
Twilight Imperium Game 7 as Muaat
Because INANTP posted in the OP that if you wait 10+ hours to post a defense, you forfeit first argument.
At least 2 out of my 3 dunalist was mafia.
I love the theme, loved the mechanics, and thought it was balanced. That said, I had hardly any time to be active and I was really sad about it. I had fun during the debate with TRV.
I did find the debate that went missing on day 3 a bit odd, but with GG dying and me being a guard, I didn't want to call too much attention to it else put a target on my back. I had no idea who was mafia this game. But considering the all-star mafia we were up against, its not too surprising.
I spent all of my time during my debate day writing arguments, so it kept me from actually analyzing the game's players' behavoir. I think the debate was fun idea but definitely hurt any village players for that reason.
The main problem with this game for me was that it took place after Invictus's games. I was kind of burnt out with rule change stuff, so I put the idea that we needed rule changes out of my mind and tried to win the traditional way. ( I should have actually analyzed stuff more, though). Turns out the traditional way is a little rusty for me because my mafiadar was really off this game. I had fun and will always remember the Invictus/Phyphor debate. That was insane.
I am coming to realize that anything that occupies attention is pro-mafia. I actually think, for example, the power that made people post cat pictures in my game would actually be a really powerful mafia ability, as the thread devolves into 'awwwww'.
Yeah; I haven't been at this long, but I got the same impression from the cat images in that one and the Dungeon / Possessed one I lurked. Pretty much anything going on in the main thread that distracts works ultimately to the mafia's advantage, or someone with a proboard's.
World's Largest Dungeon 4E as Torbera
BSG Exodus Game 17 as Tom Zarek
Twilight Imperium Game 7 as Muaat