How do you even badges on Steam? I can only seem to get like half the cards ever.
That's because you do only get half the cards as drops. The rest you either have to trade for (using cards from other games, or other in game items) or buy with monies. You get some perks like larger friends lists, boxes on your profile for stuff, but it's not particularly exciting.
I've finally managed to get around to writing out some of the process that I go through when I review games. Although I don't actually follow such a rigid checklist, I thought it would be useful for me to try and formalise the sort of questions I ask as I look at a setup. You can find the document here, and I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions, either on the prose and presentation itself, or any concepts you disagree with, I have insufficiently explained, or that you think I may have overlooked.
I think that article does a great job, and will definitely would like to see it added to one of the stickied pages in the mafia forum.
The one thing I would add on top of you Individual role idea is looking at scenarios that come up: How massclaim breakable could this game be, or how unlynchable is this role, regardless of the player holding the role? I like how you included the section on making sure you analyze how each target could influence the game. I always consider how bad is the worst/best case scenario for town and scum.
I think that article does a great job, and will definitely would like to see it added to one of the stickied pages in the mafia forum.
The one thing I would add on top of you Individual role idea is looking at scenarios that come up: How massclaim breakable could this game be, or how unlynchable is this role, regardless of the player holding the role? I like how you included the section on making sure you analyze how each target could influence the game. I always consider how bad is the worst/best case scenario for town and scum.
The plan is to get it added to the official list of articles once I've got it reviewed (ha!)
I did sort of mention those scenarios, but in the overall game balance section. I agree it makes sense to add it to the individual role area as well. Thanks!
I'm not a fan of the word "compromise" in the second paragraph of the introduction. Compromises are reached by making sacrifices, so in this context it sounds as if the designer should be ready to sacrifice some of his/her vision for the sake of balance, while the reviewer should sacrifice balance to some extent to please the designer.
In my opinion, reviewing games is not about compromising. It's about both maximising the game's balance and making the best of the designer's vision.
I agree, but I think that we both have the same intention expressed in different ways. I would argue that maximising both balance and designer's vision will almost always require some sacrifices, for example highly cool and flavourful roles that are totally busted. Perhaps it is more correct to say both: parties should work together to ensure balance while adhering to the designer's vision, but some compromise may be necessary in order to optimise the combination.
Past the introduction, the article mostly focuses on game balance. While balance is the keystone aspect that will make or break a set-up, there are at least two other things reviewers need to make sure of: that the game is fun (you mention fun with regards to individual roles, what about eg how these roles interact, or overarching mechanics, etc?), and that the game is fair;. A game can be very well balanced, have very little swing, yet be unfair in the sense that there is no guarantee the team who played best would win most of the time. For example, if the game can be "solved" through abilities, I would call it unfair though not necessarily unbalanced.
Interesting point. "Fun" is obviously much more subjective than "balance". Personally, I would never bother reviewing a game classed as a "bastard game" since I think the basic premise of a bastard game is totally flawed, but some people find them fun (I assume). I mention fun specifically in relation to individual roles because opening a rubbish role PM just sucks, but I'm not so sure how to gauge a setup as a whole as being "fun". I can (and should) mention it as a goal - particularly for the game to be fun for the players and not just the mod (see:bastard games), but can you (or anyone else) think of guidelines for a game being fun (that don't essentially boil down to "the game is well balanced and has flavour").
RE: Fair, I would say my definition of "balance" incorporates the game being fair, since in a balanced game each side starts off with a roughly equal chance of winning, and as one side plays better, their chance increases (as they kill off the other side's tools etc.). As with funness, it would probably be worth explicitly stating "fairness" as a goal, but I feel like fairness and balance overlap pretty heavily.
Third and last point, you call Serial Killers a "balancing factor". In my experience, neutrals and extra killing roles are a "chaos factor". There is absolutely no way to predict if your SK will "balance things out" by killing some members of each team, or if s/he will end up slaughtering one team in particular. Survivors will count as extra mafia members in some specific contexts, but not in others. Hitmen can be designed to be a bigger threat to the mafia than to the town, yet if you don't count them as scum when balancing your game you run the risk of making the same error Xyre did in MTGS Redux 2 (where the town had no way to know the hitman was more or less an ally). And so on and so forth.
I certainly agree with you that most neutrals are the opposite of balancing factors (i.e. swing factors): survivors only help the winning team for example. However, referring to an SK as a balancing factor is gleaned from some old article (possibly Axelrod's?), and I broadly agree with the theory that the SK will try to kill the winning side, thus evening out the game. I do agree that might not succeed and actually unbalance things further. Hitmen (I presume you mean a sort of hitlist SK?) is kind of different: because their targets are predetermined (and should usually include a mix of town and scum), they can be inherently balanced, but can't really affect the current state of the game in the way a normal SK can: whether a hitlist balances or unbalances the game is entirely down how the game is going versus what targets he has left.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was just using SKs as an example to consider what happens if a role the game assumes will survive dies early. The specific reference to SKs can certainly be removed if it's not a commonly help opinion.
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
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.
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.
I assume so. It looks fast though. Nice short games.
Kinda like McDonalds.
EpicMafia is the McDonalds of Mafia.
If you want super fast games that are determined largely by chance you might as well play on Town Of Salem. There's more skill involved in the players and it's prettier.
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.
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
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.
The company I'll be working for preps and stores legal documents on a database. My job will be searching for and sending out these documents to our clients.
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've finally added a section to my Game Review article about Balance, Fairness, and Fun. If no-one has any more ideas about it, I'll tidy it up (i.e. put in links to other articles) and go about getting it posted.
• When you say a well-designed game mechanic must be "engaged with, but in an organic way", it reminds me that some players/hosts consider it completely normal and healthy to spend half a game Day planning out how to make the best use of the special game mechanics — the opposite of what I would call "organic". Perhaps a more concrete definition would help here.
What I'm trying to say is the mechanic shouldn't be the focal point of the game, but also shouldn't be irrelevant. I can make it a bit more clear
• I don't think you mention randomness at all. There should be a short reminder somewhere that random abilities suck, and a less short reminder it is impossible to predict in advance how the game will play out. Meaning if you notice a major flow in the set-up, you can't ignore it simply because odds are it won't matter.
I was going to be all snarky and quote the bit I put in about random abilities being terrible, but apparently I have failed to transfer the idea from my notes to the article. I agree with you completely. Oops. Your second point is also very true: no game survives contact with its players.
- I really like your point about splitting up a role into multiple parts - reminds me of the time in Hobbit Mafia where you wished that you changed one of Seppel's abilities to put on Caex or someone else.
- As a reviewer and moderator, I'm a fan of one/two shot abilities. Decreases swinginess while rewarding player skill. I feel that it really works best in the case of info roles - roles that hard-clear a player, like a cop, should almost always be limited in some fashion.
- I like to introduce "anchors" in a setup. This was something Megiddo said in the Deathspeaker Mafia Spectator Chat and I really like the idea of it:
Quote from Megiddo »
The second major problem with the structure of the game is that you've given players a bunch of toys that they can't play with. The main feature of a mountainous game is that there's no "anchors" for the town work with. An anchor is something that gives the town definitive directions to go in. This could be a cop or other investigative role (literally saying whether or not it's ok to lynch a player) or something like a vig or mason that is confirmable town. The importance of these anchors is twofold. First, the town gets some idea of where to go. "Don't lynch the vig." Easy. "The cop says this guy is scum." Great. When the town has some freebies it gets momentum going for them and they aren't left swimming around at the mercy of the scum.
Speaking of the scum, the second important piece of anchors is that it forces the scum to play around them. In a mountainous game the scum literally get to kill the smartest player in the game each Night. That makes the mid/lategame town the worst players in the game and makes it even harder to pull out a win. When you have must-kill roles like a cop or roles that force the scum to strategize (like a doc), it forces the scum to strategize and make kills that may not be the best possible for what they are trying to accomplish.
- It's really important, IMO, for the scum to not immediately die to a D1 massclaim. "Do my scum die to a massclaim" is a question that should be on the list, and required answering for any game moderator.
- For complex games (Specialties, Minis with lots of roles) I find it extremely helpful to go through a IPOU analysis (Investigative, protective, offensive, utility). This is something I stole from Megiddo who stole it from Iso. The idea is to group up all of your roles into one of these four categories:
Investigative/Information roles - stuff like cops, trackers, watchers
Protective roles - doctor, bodyguard, bulletproof
Offensive - Vig, roleblocker
Utility - anything that interacts with the game mechanics, or doesn't fit cleanly into one slot
If you have a JoaT or something then you just list them in the category where they fit best, or in the utility slot. I feel like performing this type of analysis allows you to look at your game from a different point of view, and it lets you view deficiencies (are there too many investigative roles? Too many killing roles?)
- I also think it's important to determine what kind of game you want to run. For example, I value simplicity and elegance in my games, so in most every game I design I try to figure out a central design "hook" and revolve the game around it. Any game that is just a mishmash of roles without much to tie them together isn't really my forte. However, some other reviewers might delight in balancing role madness games. What I'm trying to say here is - figure out your specialties as a reviewer, and play to your strengths.
- I like to introduce "anchors" in a setup. This was something Megiddo said in the Deathspeaker Mafia Spectator Chat and I really like the idea of it:
Quote from Megiddo »
The second major problem with the structure of the game is that you've given players a bunch of toys that they can't play with. The main feature of a mountainous game is that there's no "anchors" for the town work with. An anchor is something that gives the town definitive directions to go in. This could be a cop or other investigative role (literally saying whether or not it's ok to lynch a player) or something like a vig or mason that is confirmable town. The importance of these anchors is twofold. First, the town gets some idea of where to go. "Don't lynch the vig." Easy. "The cop says this guy is scum." Great. When the town has some freebies it gets momentum going for them and they aren't left swimming around at the mercy of the scum.
Speaking of the scum, the second important piece of anchors is that it forces the scum to play around them. In a mountainous game the scum literally get to kill the smartest player in the game each Night. That makes the mid/lategame town the worst players in the game and makes it even harder to pull out a win. When you have must-kill roles like a cop or roles that force the scum to strategize (like a doc), it forces the scum to strategize and make kills that may not be the best possible for what they are trying to accomplish.
The full version in the QT was very interesting (and completely correct about the game), but I feel that basically any power role provides an anchor, especially since inevitably some power roles will be very unlikely to be on scum. As a result, the scum can't just kill the best town player, since they have to think about confirmed townies and power to kill as well. So, I agree anchors are important, but I think basically any power provides anchors, and the problem only comes up in mountainous games which are really rare.
- It's really important, IMO, for the scum to not immediately die to a D1 massclaim. "Do my scum die to a massclaim" is a question that should be on the list, and required answering for any game moderator.
Agree, which is why it's already in there
- For complex games (Specialties, Minis with lots of roles) I find it extremely helpful to go through a IPOU analysis (Investigative, protective, offensive, utility). This is something I stole from Megiddo who stole it from Iso. The idea is to group up all of your roles into one of these four categories:
Investigative/Information roles - stuff like cops, trackers, watchers
Protective roles - doctor, bodyguard, bulletproof
Offensive - Vig, roleblocker
Utility - anything that interacts with the game mechanics, or doesn't fit cleanly into one slot
If you have a JoaT or something then you just list them in the category where they fit best, or in the utility slot. I feel like performing this type of analysis allows you to look at your game from a different point of view, and it lets you view deficiencies (are there too many investigative roles? Too many killing roles?)
This is actually something I do when I'm designing a game (and can even be something deliberately interfered with, like using more protective but fewer investigative). I think it is a good idea for me to put something about it explcitly, since it helps get a sense of the capabilities of a team.
Added.
That's because you do only get half the cards as drops. The rest you either have to trade for (using cards from other games, or other in game items) or buy with monies. You get some perks like larger friends lists, boxes on your profile for stuff, but it's not particularly exciting.
I've finally managed to get around to writing out some of the process that I go through when I review games. Although I don't actually follow such a rigid checklist, I thought it would be useful for me to try and formalise the sort of questions I ask as I look at a setup. You can find the document here, and I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions, either on the prose and presentation itself, or any concepts you disagree with, I have insufficiently explained, or that you think I may have overlooked.
Hopefully it'll be useful at least.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
The one thing I would add on top of you Individual role idea is looking at scenarios that come up: How massclaim breakable could this game be, or how unlynchable is this role, regardless of the player holding the role? I like how you included the section on making sure you analyze how each target could influence the game. I always consider how bad is the worst/best case scenario for town and scum.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
The plan is to get it added to the official list of articles once I've got it reviewed (ha!)
I did sort of mention those scenarios, but in the overall game balance section. I agree it makes sense to add it to the individual role area as well. Thanks!
I agree, but I think that we both have the same intention expressed in different ways. I would argue that maximising both balance and designer's vision will almost always require some sacrifices, for example highly cool and flavourful roles that are totally busted. Perhaps it is more correct to say both: parties should work together to ensure balance while adhering to the designer's vision, but some compromise may be necessary in order to optimise the combination.
Interesting point. "Fun" is obviously much more subjective than "balance". Personally, I would never bother reviewing a game classed as a "bastard game" since I think the basic premise of a bastard game is totally flawed, but some people find them fun (I assume). I mention fun specifically in relation to individual roles because opening a rubbish role PM just sucks, but I'm not so sure how to gauge a setup as a whole as being "fun". I can (and should) mention it as a goal - particularly for the game to be fun for the players and not just the mod (see:bastard games), but can you (or anyone else) think of guidelines for a game being fun (that don't essentially boil down to "the game is well balanced and has flavour").
RE: Fair, I would say my definition of "balance" incorporates the game being fair, since in a balanced game each side starts off with a roughly equal chance of winning, and as one side plays better, their chance increases (as they kill off the other side's tools etc.). As with funness, it would probably be worth explicitly stating "fairness" as a goal, but I feel like fairness and balance overlap pretty heavily.
I certainly agree with you that most neutrals are the opposite of balancing factors (i.e. swing factors): survivors only help the winning team for example. However, referring to an SK as a balancing factor is gleaned from some old article (possibly Axelrod's?), and I broadly agree with the theory that the SK will try to kill the winning side, thus evening out the game. I do agree that might not succeed and actually unbalance things further. Hitmen (I presume you mean a sort of hitlist SK?) is kind of different: because their targets are predetermined (and should usually include a mix of town and scum), they can be inherently balanced, but can't really affect the current state of the game in the way a normal SK can: whether a hitlist balances or unbalances the game is entirely down how the game is going versus what targets he has left.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was just using SKs as an example to consider what happens if a role the game assumes will survive dies early. The specific reference to SKs can certainly be removed if it's not a commonly help opinion.
Anyone know anyone hiring in Rochester, NY or Bradenton, FL?
{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 Family
When did you go down to Texas? Weren't you in the NY area when last we spoke?
{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 Family
Edit: Ok I figured that part out. But now I wanna see ended games, and can't.
Epicmafia is confusing.
Kinda like McDonalds.
EpicMafia is the McDonalds of Mafia.
If you want super fast games that are determined largely by chance you might as well play on Town Of Salem. There's more skill involved in the players and it's prettier.
Holy crap this is awesome.
Also, I got a job!
{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
What job?
The Family
The company I'll be working for preps and stores legal documents on a database. My job will be searching for and sending out these documents to our clients.
{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 forgot how glacially slow the pace of forum Mafia is
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rs2OxvAJ8Lhs7bwxX2bUBD9EU_FvzgcE-uenbfmNRq8/edit?usp=sharing
What I'm trying to say is the mechanic shouldn't be the focal point of the game, but also shouldn't be irrelevant. I can make it a bit more clear
I was going to be all snarky and quote the bit I put in about random abilities being terrible, but apparently I have failed to transfer the idea from my notes to the article. I agree with you completely. Oops. Your second point is also very true: no game survives contact with its players.
- I really like your point about splitting up a role into multiple parts - reminds me of the time in Hobbit Mafia where you wished that you changed one of Seppel's abilities to put on Caex or someone else.
- As a reviewer and moderator, I'm a fan of one/two shot abilities. Decreases swinginess while rewarding player skill. I feel that it really works best in the case of info roles - roles that hard-clear a player, like a cop, should almost always be limited in some fashion.
- I like to introduce "anchors" in a setup. This was something Megiddo said in the Deathspeaker Mafia Spectator Chat and I really like the idea of it:
- It's really important, IMO, for the scum to not immediately die to a D1 massclaim. "Do my scum die to a massclaim" is a question that should be on the list, and required answering for any game moderator.
- For complex games (Specialties, Minis with lots of roles) I find it extremely helpful to go through a IPOU analysis (Investigative, protective, offensive, utility). This is something I stole from Megiddo who stole it from Iso. The idea is to group up all of your roles into one of these four categories:
Investigative/Information roles - stuff like cops, trackers, watchers
Protective roles - doctor, bodyguard, bulletproof
Offensive - Vig, roleblocker
Utility - anything that interacts with the game mechanics, or doesn't fit cleanly into one slot
If you have a JoaT or something then you just list them in the category where they fit best, or in the utility slot. I feel like performing this type of analysis allows you to look at your game from a different point of view, and it lets you view deficiencies (are there too many investigative roles? Too many killing roles?)
- I also think it's important to determine what kind of game you want to run. For example, I value simplicity and elegance in my games, so in most every game I design I try to figure out a central design "hook" and revolve the game around it. Any game that is just a mishmash of roles without much to tie them together isn't really my forte. However, some other reviewers might delight in balancing role madness games. What I'm trying to say here is - figure out your specialties as a reviewer, and play to your strengths.
The full version in the QT was very interesting (and completely correct about the game), but I feel that basically any power role provides an anchor, especially since inevitably some power roles will be very unlikely to be on scum. As a result, the scum can't just kill the best town player, since they have to think about confirmed townies and power to kill as well. So, I agree anchors are important, but I think basically any power provides anchors, and the problem only comes up in mountainous games which are really rare.
Agree, which is why it's already in there
This is actually something I do when I'm designing a game (and can even be something deliberately interfered with, like using more protective but fewer investigative). I think it is a good idea for me to put something about it explcitly, since it helps get a sense of the capabilities of a team.