I kinda wish we were allowed to talk more about the other games as they progressed. It became a major focus of my game and an angle I wish I could have continued to push particularly when Az was like "kpaca and I didn't discuss anything".
Game 3 specific: Jey, Iso, and I had discussed doing exactly what kpaca did and I said it was a bad idea because it was anti-town and would get us lynched. Then kpaca did it.
If kpaca had actually voted me for a reason and not just "coin flip lul" I probably would have imploded.
I took a screenshot of a brief exchange in my very first mafia game on this forum, which was also my one and only game on the scum team here.
I don't know how to post it atm but the gist was I have years of role playing experience, and all I have to do is step into the shoes of someone who isn't scum and do my thing
(if anyone wants to look for the quote, look for Famous Historical Figures mafia on the last page)
Edit:
"Jey's last post has me in fits. She says "Cantrip ;_; you're making this harder than it needs to be x_x". I almost feel like she's saying, tongue-in-cheek, that it would be easier if I just voted Killjoy so she could vote him and win. :/"
Holy ***** I'm dying because that's exactly what it was I was like 'dude one of you vote already cmon' but disguised as " I thought you were scum but I'm having a change of heart".
Man, that's good to know that you saw right through me. I'll have to take that into account
As for my post about adding flavor, I was putting myself in town shoes and going "how would I hunt scum?... I actually have no idea how to find scum". That was all real. The flavor was me putting it into perspective and logically feeling out the potential paths based on the scenario. You were right Cantrip, it didn't help, and I SAID THAT IN THE SAME POST. But I was trying.
And I post stream of consciousness so I wasn't going to delete it.
Speaking of deleting, I did delete my first draft of a post. I was going to ask fluff questions but quickly realized that they looked like I was merely pretending to figure things out rather than actually.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
to my teammates for a job well done. All three games had some very tense moments, but we managed to pull it off.
We really wanted to use the kpaca/Az angle in Wheat’s game but everything got drawn out to the last minute which was unfortunate but still ultimately worked out for us.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Rhand said: "Wheat is more active as town than as scum in general." I don't think this is true but I am tempted to not say anything more often when I'm scum so maybe I'm just wrong?
Rhand said: "Actually... shouldn’t town!Wheat freak out over that vote instead of having Omgus as reaction?
For all town!Wheat knows, Kpaca could be town here."
I thought about this myself and decided that both as town and scum my reaction is to snapvote back. The game is already over if Bur is scum if I'm town, and I didn't think I could convincingly go WTF ARE YOU DOING as scum. Mostly because I didn't think I would do it as town.
Bur said: "In worst case, we played kingmaker and let Wheat win (which I'm okay with). "
I'm okay with this too
KJ said: "I think iso knows kpaca well enough to know kpaca does not need permission to do things. "
I know this too which is why I seized upon it so hard. I don't understand why Az was brought up at all.
The purpose of the team game is (in my eyes) that they are independent games, but people operating within teams have extra eyes and help and advice, but they are still fundamentally playing one game each. When what happens in one game is treated as relevant to another then games bleed across, and life gets much more difficult as people are effectively making posts in one game to havea conversation to someone in another. It's just not logistically feasiable, not is it sporting for someone to get read (either alignment) based on actions outside their control.
In this case, despite appearing to be super relevant, the Kpaca vote "gambit" wasn't really. Kpaca did float the idea in a QT but it wasn't discussed and Az passed no opinion. As far as I can tell Kpaca voted Wheat on a hunch and a penchant for aggressive play (and Az suggested WG looked scummy in the QT). Az never "signed off" on a gambit, and Kpaca's reference to disucssion it was (I think) intended to be rhetorical rather than factual. Should kpaca have been more clear (or just not mentioned private disucssions)? Yes. But as soon as Iso started using it as a point against Az ("You signed off Kpaca doing it in his game as a good idea so to call me scummy for doing it here is a contradiction") immediately crossed the lines: now both Az and Kpaca are in a position where they have to clarify the discussions or lack thereof to clear things up - Az saying in his game "I didn't ok it as a gambit" affects Kpaca's game, which I think is just not ok.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
It was a hard game for me because both of you are very eloquent and I am not native English.
It takes me a lot of effort to parse your posts.
I probably should’ve ended it way earlier. I was right all along and started doubting somewhere midgame.
About the setup: I don’t think I would play 3 player games again. It’s too much of a crapshoot, especially in the Wheat/Kpaca/Bur game.
JeyK played masterfully. She seemed extremely innocent in her posting. That game was a clear win.
The idea works tho, but I think larger games is the way to go.
yeah ideally I'd want to see larger games. But I think the next hard support is like 7 players per team for three games, and I think you 100% need 3 games at that point. Supporting 21 players is hard.
KoolKoal: Feel free to take this with a grain of salt since self meta isn't particularly helpful, but I think I get scumread mostly for style over substance, but also for a certain lack of substance over style. It's not so much what I AM posting most of the time (though sometimes that can seem bad) but what I'm NOT posting. I've been told I come to non-obvious conclusions a lot, so when I post, quite a bit of the time there's jumps in logic that people can't follow and they think that's scummy. I get that accusation about a lot of questions I ask specifically. People call them "busy work" when the questions are legit etc.
As far as things to ignore, I can't think of anything. I would suggest you focus less on what I'm doing and more on how I'm doing it. That's probably more likely to be accurate. Like I've just said, what I do tends to come off a little weird, but if you look for how I do it, mindset comes into play and maybe you figure out something useful.
yeah ideally I'd want to see larger games. But I think the next hard support is like 7 players per team for three games, and I think you 100% need 3 games at that point. Supporting 21 players is hard.
In my mind, this is the primary target for a bigger event. If we can't hit 21 players then I think the best we can do is run a bunch of 3-mans if we run anything at all. I don't think 5-player games are workable.
yeah ideally I'd want to see larger games. But I think the next hard support is like 7 players per team for three games, and I think you 100% need 3 games at that point. Supporting 21 players is hard.
In my mind, this is the primary target for a bigger event. If we can't hit 21 players then I think the best we can do is run a bunch of 3-mans if we run anything at all. I don't think 5-player games are workable.
We could always go for 5-man micros!
(I think there are few good open 5-man set-ups that work to some degree)
But yeah, if we run this ever again, I'd really suggest bigger games.
I reread my own game several times, but thanks to kpaca's gambit early on, the whole turned into a coinflip for me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Prophylaxis »
Also modgaming Bur setups is kind of treading down a dark path
I have been thinkinng about what happened with the whole Kpaca/Azrael teamchat situation.
Either you have to forbid talking about what was said in teamchat or allow it.
Making it forbidden is tough, because teammates can change your mind on things, and if you can’t say that in thread, you seem like a liar.
Allowing it can automatically create situations like the one we had now, because what Kpaca said would be allowed, but it created a situation in another game. And even if a mod rules that you have to ignore that, you cannot unsee what you saw.
I think allowing it is the only way.
And because of that, I think the games don’t need to run simultaneously.
In spec chat Vezok said that mafiascum offers different games with different sizes and teams just choose wether they join or not.
I think that is the way to go. Have teams of max 3, maybe max 4 players, let them sign up as a team with 1 player posting, and have games no bigger than the amount of teams we have registered.
And have a team league with a simple scoring system as incentive to play the games. (something like 2 points for win, -1 for a loss and 1 for being randomed out when too many signed up)
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
You've made it clear you're competent enough to catch scum and fake out townies, I'd say.
Anyway, I don't speak for Jey and Wheat, but provided they're on board, I'd be willing to do the 21-man challenge with them as my teammates again.
-
Now that I'm at a computer:
Rhand, it was extremely frustrating to lay out my points solidly and plainly for you and then a day later have you say something in the thread like you just suddenly noticed what I was saying.
I agree with Rhand that by that merit there probably just shouldn't be any reference to what your teammates are saying in the QT, because otherwise, it creates potential situations like we saw in my game and the kpaca game.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I think you misread what he wrote if you think you agree with him.
He was saying that it should be allowed, because it's a team event and your teammates can change your mind/give you reads and you should be able to say that and talk about it.
But also that the event should feature nonsimultaneous games so that talking about a read in one game doesn't influence the others.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I'll say that asynchrous games are probably healthier but are more logistically difficult because some players would likely be signing up some months in advance -- unless we just, form teams and then make team set ups that a team just /ins to or whatever and congratulate the team with the most wins at the end of the year? I think that's what Rhand was talking about with the league thing but that has its own problems; namely, players would be stuck on the same team for the whole year. I guess we could just run it as a six monthish event and fire the team games back to back but that's probably only time for exactly the three required games which defeats the purpose of the league.
Could do some kind of thing similar to an MTGO league where players can be on multiple teams and you just play three games as a member of each team you're on or something but that's also... probably problematic.
@Iso: it was really difficult for me to follow all your points because of eloquence of both of you. And I know how as scum you are good at making someone look like scum, so I had to find my own reasons to decide who is scum.
Right, I understand you mentioned there was a bit of a language barrier. I was just like, "Oh, Rhand posted! ...and said exactly what I said like 8 posts ago."
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Someone would have to tell me how async games would work with teams - would it be like just a normal game except you have X number of mentors who have extra motivation to help you win?
I have been thinkinng about what happened with the whole Kpaca/Azrael teamchat situation.
Either you have to forbid talking about what was said in teamchat or allow it.
Making it forbidden is tough, because teammates can change your mind on things, and if you can’t say that in thread, you seem like a liar.
Allowing it can automatically create situations like the one we had now, because what Kpaca said would be allowed, but it created a situation in another game. And even if a mod rules that you have to ignore that, you cannot unsee what you saw.
I think allowing it is the only way.
And because of that, I think the games don’t need to run simultaneously.
In spec chat Vezok said that mafiascum offers different games with different sizes and teams just choose wether they join or not.
I think that is the way to go. Have teams of max 3, maybe max 4 players, let them sign up as a team with 1 player posting, and have games no bigger than the amount of teams we have registered.
And have a team league with a simple scoring system as incentive to play the games. (something like 2 points for win, -1 for a loss and 1 for being randomed out when too many signed up)
In 2015, Mafiascum ran 6 games of which each team played 4 (with a semi-random allocation) - and I think one game had all teams in it. This was not entirely successful, as some games were less balanced than others, which meant the luck the draw had an undesireable effect. Some people also felt that all teams playing all games was better. In 2018, they ran as many games as the team size and all teams played in all five games, and I couldn't see anyone asking to bring back the 2015 version. In both cases, all games were played simultaneously.
While I get that sequential games would solve the issue of games affecting other games, I really think that it would have a big impact on engagement: with only one member of a team playing at once and with the whole thing spread out over a much longer period, I think it would be very difficult to keep everyone on a team actively involved - especially when you can easily reach a point where when the third game starts half the game is out of contention for winning and therefore has no reason to play. If we played it even more asycnhronously with team games happening ad-hoc over 6 months to a year, I think it would suffer similar problems the League did around apathy and motivation, and fall apart.
I would rather keep it as a single, marquee event with games running simultaneously for maximum hype and engagement, rather than stretch it out and risk collapse. If this means we have to explicilty prohibit referencing any private conversation then I think that's a reasonable trade off, even if it might be challenging to enforce.
I'm going to save alignment reveals for when all games have finished for maximum tension.
DO NOT post in this thread any more, this game is over.
Players may still communicate privately with their team members and discuss the still active game
Points
TTT: +1
Cassandra: 0
Feral Octegenarians: 0
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Final Scores
Team Team Team: 3
Team Cassandra: 1
Feral Ocetenarians: 0
Congratulations to Iso, Wheat_Grinder, and JeyK winning the event with a full sweep!
Team QTs
Team Team Team
Team Cassandra
Feral Ocetenarians
Spectator QT: https://quicktopic.com/52/H/DZmecunFdbtZW
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feedback
We would like as much discussion as possible from everyone (players, spectators, literally anyone else). Specifically:
I kinda wish we were allowed to talk more about the other games as they progressed. It became a major focus of my game and an angle I wish I could have continued to push particularly when Az was like "kpaca and I didn't discuss anything".
Game 3 specific: Jey, Iso, and I had discussed doing exactly what kpaca did and I said it was a bad idea because it was anti-town and would get us lynched. Then kpaca did it.
If kpaca had actually voted me for a reason and not just "coin flip lul" I probably would have imploded.
I don't know how to post it atm but the gist was I have years of role playing experience, and all I have to do is step into the shoes of someone who isn't scum and do my thing
(if anyone wants to look for the quote, look for Famous Historical Figures mafia on the last page)
Edit:
"Jey's last post has me in fits. She says "Cantrip ;_; you're making this harder than it needs to be x_x". I almost feel like she's saying, tongue-in-cheek, that it would be easier if I just voted Killjoy so she could vote him and win. :/"
Holy ***** I'm dying because that's exactly what it was I was like 'dude one of you vote already cmon' but disguised as " I thought you were scum but I'm having a change of heart".
Man, that's good to know that you saw right through me. I'll have to take that into account
As for my post about adding flavor, I was putting myself in town shoes and going "how would I hunt scum?... I actually have no idea how to find scum". That was all real. The flavor was me putting it into perspective and logically feeling out the potential paths based on the scenario. You were right Cantrip, it didn't help, and I SAID THAT IN THE SAME POST. But I was trying.
And I post stream of consciousness so I wasn't going to delete it.
Speaking of deleting, I did delete my first draft of a post. I was going to ask fluff questions but quickly realized that they looked like I was merely pretending to figure things out rather than actually.
¤.†.¤ The OceanLink ¤.†.¤
We really wanted to use the kpaca/Az angle in Wheat’s game but everything got drawn out to the last minute which was unfortunate but still ultimately worked out for us.
I’ll read the other QTs when I get a chance.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Rhand said: "Actually... shouldn’t town!Wheat freak out over that vote instead of having Omgus as reaction?
For all town!Wheat knows, Kpaca could be town here."
I thought about this myself and decided that both as town and scum my reaction is to snapvote back. The game is already over if Bur is scum if I'm town, and I didn't think I could convincingly go WTF ARE YOU DOING as scum. Mostly because I didn't think I would do it as town.
Bur said: "In worst case, we played kingmaker and let Wheat win (which I'm okay with). "
I'm okay with this too
KJ said: "I think iso knows kpaca well enough to know kpaca does not need permission to do things. "
I know this too which is why I seized upon it so hard. I don't understand why Az was brought up at all.
The purpose of the team game is (in my eyes) that they are independent games, but people operating within teams have extra eyes and help and advice, but they are still fundamentally playing one game each. When what happens in one game is treated as relevant to another then games bleed across, and life gets much more difficult as people are effectively making posts in one game to havea conversation to someone in another. It's just not logistically feasiable, not is it sporting for someone to get read (either alignment) based on actions outside their control.
In this case, despite appearing to be super relevant, the Kpaca vote "gambit" wasn't really. Kpaca did float the idea in a QT but it wasn't discussed and Az passed no opinion. As far as I can tell Kpaca voted Wheat on a hunch and a penchant for aggressive play (and Az suggested WG looked scummy in the QT). Az never "signed off" on a gambit, and Kpaca's reference to disucssion it was (I think) intended to be rhetorical rather than factual. Should kpaca have been more clear (or just not mentioned private disucssions)? Yes. But as soon as Iso started using it as a point against Az ("You signed off Kpaca doing it in his game as a good idea so to call me scummy for doing it here is a contradiction") immediately crossed the lines: now both Az and Kpaca are in a position where they have to clarify the discussions or lack thereof to clear things up - Az saying in his game "I didn't ok it as a gambit" affects Kpaca's game, which I think is just not ok.
More later
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I enjoyed the format, it was a pretty manageable commitment level, nice to be able to bounce ideas off of one another.
I'd play it again.
It takes me a lot of effort to parse your posts.
I probably should’ve ended it way earlier. I was right all along and started doubting somewhere midgame.
About the setup: I don’t think I would play 3 player games again. It’s too much of a crapshoot, especially in the Wheat/Kpaca/Bur game.
JeyK played masterfully. She seemed extremely innocent in her posting. That game was a clear win.
The idea works tho, but I think larger games is the way to go.
In my mind, this is the primary target for a bigger event. If we can't hit 21 players then I think the best we can do is run a bunch of 3-mans if we run anything at all. I don't think 5-player games are workable.
We could always go for 5-man micros!
(I think there are few good open 5-man set-ups that work to some degree)
But yeah, if we run this ever again, I'd really suggest bigger games.
I reread my own game several times, but thanks to kpaca's gambit early on, the whole turned into a coinflip for me.
Either you have to forbid talking about what was said in teamchat or allow it.
Making it forbidden is tough, because teammates can change your mind on things, and if you can’t say that in thread, you seem like a liar.
Allowing it can automatically create situations like the one we had now, because what Kpaca said would be allowed, but it created a situation in another game. And even if a mod rules that you have to ignore that, you cannot unsee what you saw.
I think allowing it is the only way.
And because of that, I think the games don’t need to run simultaneously.
In spec chat Vezok said that mafiascum offers different games with different sizes and teams just choose wether they join or not.
I think that is the way to go. Have teams of max 3, maybe max 4 players, let them sign up as a team with 1 player posting, and have games no bigger than the amount of teams we have registered.
And have a team league with a simple scoring system as incentive to play the games. (something like 2 points for win, -1 for a loss and 1 for being randomed out when too many signed up)
I really don’t understand what your problem with me is, but okay.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
¤.†.¤ The OceanLink ¤.†.¤
Anyway, I don't speak for Jey and Wheat, but provided they're on board, I'd be willing to do the 21-man challenge with them as my teammates again.
-
Now that I'm at a computer:
Rhand, it was extremely frustrating to lay out my points solidly and plainly for you and then a day later have you say something in the thread like you just suddenly noticed what I was saying.
I agree with Rhand that by that merit there probably just shouldn't be any reference to what your teammates are saying in the QT, because otherwise, it creates potential situations like we saw in my game and the kpaca game.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
He was saying that it should be allowed, because it's a team event and your teammates can change your mind/give you reads and you should be able to say that and talk about it.
But also that the event should feature nonsimultaneous games so that talking about a read in one game doesn't influence the others.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
I'll say that asynchrous games are probably healthier but are more logistically difficult because some players would likely be signing up some months in advance -- unless we just, form teams and then make team set ups that a team just /ins to or whatever and congratulate the team with the most wins at the end of the year? I think that's what Rhand was talking about with the league thing but that has its own problems; namely, players would be stuck on the same team for the whole year. I guess we could just run it as a six monthish event and fire the team games back to back but that's probably only time for exactly the three required games which defeats the purpose of the league.
Could do some kind of thing similar to an MTGO league where players can be on multiple teams and you just play three games as a member of each team you're on or something but that's also... probably problematic.
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
¤.†.¤ The OceanLink ¤.†.¤
Or like a Hydra except only one of you actually posts.
In 2015, Mafiascum ran 6 games of which each team played 4 (with a semi-random allocation) - and I think one game had all teams in it. This was not entirely successful, as some games were less balanced than others, which meant the luck the draw had an undesireable effect. Some people also felt that all teams playing all games was better. In 2018, they ran as many games as the team size and all teams played in all five games, and I couldn't see anyone asking to bring back the 2015 version. In both cases, all games were played simultaneously.
While I get that sequential games would solve the issue of games affecting other games, I really think that it would have a big impact on engagement: with only one member of a team playing at once and with the whole thing spread out over a much longer period, I think it would be very difficult to keep everyone on a team actively involved - especially when you can easily reach a point where when the third game starts half the game is out of contention for winning and therefore has no reason to play. If we played it even more asycnhronously with team games happening ad-hoc over 6 months to a year, I think it would suffer similar problems the League did around apathy and motivation, and fall apart.
I would rather keep it as a single, marquee event with games running simultaneously for maximum hype and engagement, rather than stretch it out and risk collapse. If this means we have to explicilty prohibit referencing any private conversation then I think that's a reasonable trade off, even if it might be challenging to enforce.