04-13-2016, 09:22 PM | #41 |
Fractals!
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
bahahaha about time I got some new sig material
|
04-13-2016, 09:57 PM | #42 | |
~ お ま ん こ ~
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
Quote:
|
|
04-13-2016, 10:02 PM | #43 | |
~ お ま ん こ ~
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
Quote:
the only reason I was able to win as serial killer once was to claim my role and side with humans (even though I was planning on backstabbing them in the penultimate phase) and force the game into a final four in any game with multiple (more than two) factions, siding with another faction (including town) can be a strategic move and should not automatically constitute modkilling imo at worst, the game setup's balance should be considered on a game-to-game basis --- one of the last games, the serial killer wasn't allowed to claim because it would screw up the game balance, but games like C9++ often are balanced in cases where SK claims happen tl;dr I think it should be up to the host's discretion based on the game setup |
|
04-13-2016, 10:02 PM | #44 |
new hand moves = dab
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: he/they
Age: 33
Posts: 10,095
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
god I love you dbp
|
04-13-2016, 10:02 PM | #45 |
new hand moves = dab
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: he/they
Age: 33
Posts: 10,095
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
@spongebob script
|
04-13-2016, 10:08 PM | #46 | |
new hand moves = dab
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: he/they
Age: 33
Posts: 10,095
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
Quote:
that's a good point though, and I think it should be less about modkilling and more about potential after-game repercussions if malicious intent was obvious. Last edited by dAnceguy117; 04-13-2016 at 10:09 PM.. |
|
04-13-2016, 10:16 PM | #47 | |
~ お ま ん こ ~
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
Quote:
I agree with the malicious intent part --- but there's a difference between making a risky gambit and having it fail vs conceding the game. |
|
04-13-2016, 10:33 PM | #48 |
Snivy! Dohoho!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Age: 33
Posts: 6,161
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
I think plays like that make the game hell-a refreshing
That's just me though, hahaha |
04-13-2016, 10:41 PM | #49 |
new hand moves = dab
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: he/they
Age: 33
Posts: 10,095
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
it's very possible (especially early game) for it to not be a play whatsoever though and just be a turning the role into something it was never intended to be and shifting the balance of the game and making it far less interesting because deep SK runs are interesting as shit
|
04-13-2016, 10:41 PM | #50 |
new hand moves = dab
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: he/they
Age: 33
Posts: 10,095
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
dbp got them good points though.
|
04-13-2016, 10:43 PM | #51 | |
~ お ま ん こ ~
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
Quote:
I guess my point is that it shouldn't be a blanket statement and should be taken case by case? idk |
|
04-13-2016, 10:45 PM | #52 | |
new hand moves = dab
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: he/they
Age: 33
Posts: 10,095
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
Quote:
claiming a role that is anti-town and needs to not die in order to win is far less often a reasonable play. |
|
04-13-2016, 10:46 PM | #53 |
new hand moves = dab
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: he/they
Age: 33
Posts: 10,095
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
but yeah blanket statement not work here
|
04-14-2016, 07:49 PM | #54 |
RIP Storn D0-D0
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,454
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
this rule feels a lot clunkier than it needs to be and is honestly quite confusing. it feels like the only reason this rule is here is because the old rule thread stated that you needed to play a jTWG. i think just stating that jTWGs exist and are good to beginners to play, but not required might be good enough.
|
04-14-2016, 08:43 PM | #55 | |
[Nobody liked that.]
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,359
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
I want to see a rule added where all game hosts must place the day / night lengths in all game OP's, especially when being voted on.
It's gotten a lot better recently, but I am of the "just in case" mentality. On that note. Should elaborate somewhere about "constructive posting" constraints and how they're to be handled in case some host actually thinks it's a good idea to use this. Would like also a note in the rule set about language and fellow player treatment. I think the current stance is fine, but I don't think you touched on it anywhere. I dig that all ban reasons should be public. 100% love that rule. Quote:
I'm still mad about it. I haven't forgotten Yoshl. You little shit. There should be zero rules pertaining to how SK claims / if they do, because it CAN 100% be used to obtain victory when played correctly by a skilled player. Possibly consider adding a rule about how votes are done for the hosts who use the auto vote counter. Last edited by XelNya; 04-14-2016 at 08:44 PM.. |
|
04-15-2016, 02:36 PM | #56 | ||
Role Tide
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
Quote:
Quote:
By constructive posts I think you mean contentful? I think that this also falls under mod discretion. A rule about language and fellow player treatment is probably necessary, that's a good point. The reasoning for bans being public is because its the way its always been and its a good tradition. Trying to keep everything public rather than behind the scenes is the way to go, I think.
__________________
|
||
04-15-2016, 02:39 PM | #57 | |
Role Tide
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
Quote:
Case-by-case basis should make it so that it allows for strategically claiming your role, but not saying "Fuck my win condition"
__________________
|
|
04-15-2016, 02:47 PM | #58 |
Celestial Harbor
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
I think the cult really showcased that, because I wasn't sure what to do when hosting the bastard++ and people were openly threatening "If the cultist targets me i'm fucking outing them because fuck i have a good role" etc. etc.
case by case should be fine for this i think? |
04-15-2016, 02:59 PM | #59 | |
[Nobody liked that.]
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,359
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
Quote:
I mean sure, I'm all for hosts choosing the rules for their games. However, I do think once the game has been voted for you should be shit out of luck on changing / adding rules. Sorry if I seem a bit clingy to this. Anyways on the ban thing: I agree aside from the tradition standpoint. It's great. It really is. You don't have to wait till the time's up to know the reason, you can defend yourself if you feel you should, and if others have a disagreement they can voice it. It just makes more sense. Also damn dbp on sk claims and stuff. Last edited by XelNya; 04-15-2016 at 03:01 PM.. |
|
04-15-2016, 03:03 PM | #60 | |
Role Tide
|
Re: New TWG Rules Proposal & Discussion
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|