TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

[nickadeemus]

RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

I know that the split sign-up times are a pretty fair way to decide who gets to play, but what about something that isn't based on being able to be at your computer at certain times of the day.

For example (taken from a different TWG sign up):
The host asks "Give me a five letter word. Whichever words come first alphabeticaly, those players will win first spots in the game. However, if you give the same word as another player, you will be moved to the bottom of the list."
Basically, the host asks for everyone who wants to play to PM them something to fit his/her request, and there is a 24 hour window to do so. Then the top X amount of players are in the game. This also allows the host for extra creativity in choosing a fashion for players to sign up.

I know the current way to sign up is very quick and efficient, but it may not be fair to everyone. Signing up the aforementioned way may take half a day longer or so, but a slightly extended pause between games seems almost necessary at this point anyway.

My thoughts.

[stretchypanda]

RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Two things:

First, the trouble with the points system is undeserved value can be placed on people who play, and live up to posting standards that have been set, but still don't contribute. I think, rather than points, the MVP award should be reinstated, and given to anyone who contributed to a victory. I.E: if any number wolves survive to win a game, all three are listed on a sticky or something for that game, with a brief description of how awesome those people are. Or if a blue picks correctly, leading to an eventual human victory, s/he is given credit.

This will serve two purposes. One: it will give well-deserved credit to hard-working players. Two: it will encourage players to be active, thoughtful, creative, and respectful.

Second: I know how annoying it is when someone only posts to say s/he will be inactive, but I think four well-developed posts is asking a little much. I know some of you always seem to have a million things to say, but posting a chat log and then not really saying much about it is not a well-developed post. The minimum should be low enough that busy people (Hi, Kilga) or people who like to watch the proceedings and make one big post once they feel they have enough information (Guido) do not feel excessive pressure to make their presence known. Requiring any more than one or two posts is going to lead to a lot of people scraping for things to say, especially wolves. We want quality here, not quantity.

[talisman]

RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

honestly I think four is a very reasonable number... it's not hard to do, except maybe in the early stages of day one. And getting wolves to scrape for things to say is a good thing... it makes them have to play the game that much more carefully. And they don't have to be well-developed. It could just be a paragraph saying you agree with someone and adding another reason or observation why. Or maybe quoting someone and asking a question about a specific point they raised, or pointing out a logical fallacy. It doesn't have to be four posts of brilliant analysis, just four posts expressing your ideas.

Guido, by the way, made well more than four posts per day in the last game he was in, and didn't wait for the deadline at all or watch and then make big posts. He was pretty much posting the whole way through. Not sure what you're getting at there...

And if people think they're going to be too busy during the game, perhaps they should reevaluate their decision to sign up. It doesn't take that much effort to make a nice small quality post four times a game day, though, maybe only ten to fifteen minutes, and I know you people are online long enough for to manage that.

[stretchypanda]

RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Talisman, the point is not to make this game impossible to win for the wolves.

And posts SHOULD be meaningful. Quoting and agreeing is not a meaningful post, and you know that. Posts like that are met with derision every time. Like I said, if you're going to impose such a high minimum, you're going to be faced with a lot of empty posts, and that will provoke people to criticize their fellow players.

And, from what I've seen of my boyfriend's style, he likes to take his time and compose well-thought out posts. This may have changed, but I was scraping for an example of a player who is still active (I like to wait a while before posting one big post, then adding to it later, but I'm going back into "retirement", so I'm not a good example). I also wasn't talking about anyone who waits until just before deadline. No one who composes good posts waits until just before the deadline to make a single post per day.

EDIT: I think there have been incredible improvements in activity as it is. Just because a thread goes several hours without an update does not mean people have lost interest.

[Afrobean]

RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

I think there have been incredible improvements in activity as it is.

Not when you have people like LD and Kilga playing the "I must be green because I never post" card.

A posting mininum is NOT to make the game impossible to win for the wolves. It just makes sure that the wolves won't be able to go "oh i'm gonna be innactive because i'm green. haha you won't lynch me, stupid humans" Also, it will force all players (reguardless of their role) to help out their side. If a person can't make the deadline, then they deserve to be criticized. I was grounded one game and still managed about 2-3 posts per TWG day. The only time I had for TWG was my 40 minute lunch period which I spent reading the thread, then posting. This is a testament to the fact that if people are innactive, they are that way by choice, and that is not a choice that we want people to be able to make.

[lightdarkness]

RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Guys, stop making things so complicated. We want them to be easier.

[evilbutterfly]

RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Post requirement = lame. Like Panda said, anybody can just make 4 BS posts, while somebody else could make 1 really awesome post that leads to the lynching of a wolf. The person that posts 10 times saying "Oh yes, I agree" or "I dunno who the wolves are " should get in trouble while the guy who posts 1 huge post that reveals ______ as a wolf should be greatly rewarded.

As for the points system, didn't Chardish or somebody post an overall point system for TWG? I remember seeing a point system and liking it. Something that gives points for number of teammates alive, whether your team won (regardless of if you survived), how many blues/reds were left on your team, etc etc.

Also, I just thought of something for the point system that would help out the people who try their damnedest but just don't have any sense of intuition at all (me). Over at Gamespot when they review games, there's a tilt factor that they throw in, just to skew the rating however they want. Perhaps the host (and other players, if there was an easy way to do it) could just pay attention to the content of people's posts. The host could just keep a tally of how often people post really good stuff (or at least, stuff that's on the right track, like me looking for people that say "anyways" which didn't really solve anything) and at the end make a subjective decision. Tilt would only have to be like, a 0-5 point range for people to care, and maybe the VIP could get even more extra just for being super awesome.

It's just an idea, though. I mean, anybody can get points for shear number of posts or size of posts. Hell, I've seen huge ass posts in TWG that say basically nothing, and I've seen small posts that say a whole lot. I mean, somebody posting "I am the seer" can be HUGE, and that's 4 words. Another person could post 4 paragraphs saying how they don't know who the wolves are, and they don't know if the person that said they're the seer is real or not, but whatever we do we should be cautious because it could be a trap. We all know that, so those 4 paragraphs are crap. *shrug* I just think some subjectivity in the points (but not much!) would do us good.

and quitting a game gets you a 2 game ban.

Somebody explain this. Does this mean quitting within the game, or before? If it's before (like if somebody pulls out of signups because they suddenly realize they have something important), I have to complain. If it's banning for mid-game quits/wanting replacements, I'm all for throwing out bans.

Only thing is, if we're too quick to ban people we'll run out of people able to play pretty quick. I still think TWG should be advertised in a sticky in CHIT CHAT. And don't even say we'll be flooded with newbs. Newbs don't read stickies, so the people who would join would at least be somewhat competent.

[Afrobean]

Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Post requirement = lame. Like Panda said, anybody can just make 4 BS posts, while somebody else could make 1 really awesome post that leads to the lynching of a wolf. The person that posts 10 times saying "Oh yes, I agree" or "I dunno who the wolves are " should get in trouble while the guy who posts 1 huge post that reveals ______ as a wolf should be greatly rewarded.

That's EXACTLY why it would be up to the host to decide if a player is making the quota of "quality posts." If the host feels that 4 paragraphs that say nothing aren't quality, then it wouldn't count toward the total. In the same respect, if someone says something huge in few words, like you said "I am the seer", then that would most likely be seen as quality.

Basically, it'd all be at the host's discretion, but with a set number as a starting point.

[blahblah18]

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Ok to clarify recent posts:

A scoring system is in the middle of being worked out.

These laws will NOT be created retroactively, and there will be no punishments for this previous game.

We discussed the 4 post minimum for a long time, and decided that for now we are not going to have one. A) It becomes hard to claim what is a meaningful post and what isn't/ B) We don't want to make any aspect of the game too discretionary, which this would allow. The hope is that activity will come on its own, but we are still open to post minimums in the future if we feel they are needed

We are keeping the signup method the way it is right now. Its worked great so far, no one has really complained, and it doesn't create unnecessary "paperwork"

The 2 game ban for quitting midgame is if you have an awful reason and have no replacement. If you actually have a pressing reason why you can't play, then of course that is not punished.

[evilbutterfly]

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Oh, if there is a scoring system implemented, will we all start with a clean slate from right now, or will points be tallied for games up to this point?

[QreepyBORIS]

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

I would imagine that it is not retroactive. Too much to dispute, and also too much work.

[Tasselfoot]

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

If a point system is eventually implimented, it will not be retroactive. Everyone will start with a clean slate.

The problem we are facing is that any system we come up with, it leaves too much unknown. There are too many scenarios that would be worthy of points, arbitrarily... and we REALLY don't want to impliment anything that wouldn't be cut and dry, black and white. So, until we can come up with something (hint: you guys are more than welcome to help), we'll stick with just team wins as the push to succeed. That and host's discretion for an MVP, should they want to doll the award out.

The same goes for a post minimum. What signifies 4 posts a day? Are 4 crappy posts ok? Is 1 really long excellent post and 2 decent ones good enough even though they are only 3? Again, it can become very arbitrary, and we don't want that. The same goes for a words/day system. We don't want to impliment anything that is arbitrary or subjective.

With that said, we ask for all of your help with ideas and suggestions to remedy this situation, as we all see how we need SOME form of push for inactivity.


What we have come up with, we're not so sure you guys will like, so we pose it to you now: TWC will ban players who are inactive. Players qualify to be discussed for an inactivity ONLY if 3 different TWG players contact members of TWC to inform said member that they wish said player to be put up for discussion for an inactivity ban.

Example:
Player X makes 2 posts on day 1, then 1 post on days 2 and 3. He gets lynched on day 4 and is found out to be human. Player A complained to TWC member R, Player B complains to member S, and Player C complains to member R. TWC then meets to discuss whether Player X should be banned and for how long.

Should 3 players not inform TWC members, then no discussion will happen and Player X will be allowed to continue playing.

Basically, the power is in the hands of the players and not TWC. We want your input on whether or not you like this system and if you would actually report anyone for inactivity. It doesn't work unless people are willing to report other players.

Also, it is not guarenteed that if 3 players report someone they will be banned. Should 3 players convene to report 1 player just because they don't like them, clearly TWC will not ban them. There must be some basis for the reporting... but, if 3 players do report someone, TWC will take it very seriously.

So, let us know what your feelings are to this idea. If you guys think it could work, we'll impliment it.

[User6773]

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Personally I think that you should be able to have inactivity charges levied against you regardless of what your role is.

Inactivity should never be viewed as an acceptable strategy because it encourages further inactivity. If I see that X, Y, and Z aren't posting anything, that doesn't encourage me to post anything either.

[Tps222]

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Regarding the points system:

Implement a basic points system, I'm sure you already have one :Guarded human=whatever. Then, if a host has a different role or situation in his game (ex: My football game), then the host could, in his host signup campaign, dish out a proper point system for the additional special situations/roles ontop of the basic system. If the players think the point system is unfair, then they don't vote for them. (ex: DE sacks QB=4points).

[Afrobean]

RE: Re: RE: Re: TWC, Everyone Else... Everyone Else, TWC

Tass, I like your idea completely on the banning. That would definitely keep people active, or at least active enough to not get banned.

It seems that the points system being implemented would do so to give others a bigger e-penis. Becuase of this, I thought of something while talking to Tps:

(09:37:24) Afrobean: maybe have a MVP counter for each person
09:37
(09:37:41) Afrobean: it would encourage people to play more because if they get MVP more it'll mkae their e-penis bigger
(09:38:14) Tps222: Haha.
(09:38:41) Afrobean: we could have a pip system like before, except you'd only get anything if you were MVP
(09:40:01) Tps222: Wouldn't work. Say you played an awesome game, lynched a wolf, survived to the end. Then, Tass got the other two wolves lynched, and was the seer with you as the head of the alliance. Most likely, Tass would get MVP, and people would forget your contributions.
(09:40:50) Afrobean: well thats the point of MVP
(09:40:58) Afrobean: if Tass deserved it more than you did, then he'd get it
(09:41:09) Afrobean: and you would have nothing to show for it, because you didn't do all you could have
(09:42:36) Tps222: See, people like to remember the bad more than the good.
09:42
(09:42:49) Afrobean: I wouldn't know
(09:42:50) Tps222: Say you messed up next game, and got your fellow wolf killed.
(09:42:55) Afrobean: I tend to remember everything
(09:43:09) Afrobean: my previous MVPs would be remmembered in my signature
(09:43:22) Tps222: Then it isn't team oriented.
(09:43:31) Tps222: Tass would be stacking bodies left and right.
(09:43:36) Afrobean: the idea of points PERIOD isn't team oriented
(09:43:49) Afrobean: that's why pips were dropped in the first place
(09:43:59) Tps222: If the way of getting points is doing tasks that helps your team.
(09:44:06) Afrobean: you won't be getting MVP unless you play for your team well though
(09:44:12) Tps222: No.
(09:44:14) Tps222: Not at all.
(09:44:32) Tps222: I could have got MVP in the one where you guarded me, and I got my fellow wolves killed.
(09:44:46) Afrobean: yea, well that's your fault for messing up so bad

Realistically, you can only get MVP if your team wins and you play well for your team. Because of this, I feel it would be a great way to increase e-penis and interest in the game.