webdiplomacy.net

yavuzovic wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:22 am

Also I promise a final vote for who votes me in Democracy Coalition. (I will only join this Democracy coalition if 2+ people show interest.

I'll vote for you even though I wont win

Game ends in just over 12 hours.

Coalitions you can join:

Gamble - damo666
Double gamble - thisisntme
Democracy - must be accompanied with a valid vote

Yavuzovic - I'll vote for you if you publicly gift me a point.

##gift Jamie 1 point
VOTE ME PEOPLE

HNY people. I think this game suffererd from when it was run and also the 'winner' concept. I think a survivalist mode would be better. say after each phase after n ,(3?) bottom place is eliminated and finish at day top 3 and have a series of games to determine ranking

Thanks Yav. I have voted for you.

I like big points and I cannot lie.

damo666 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:35 pm

HNY people. I think this game suffererd from when it was run and also the 'winner' concept. I think a survivalist mode would be better. say after each phase after n ,(3?) bottom place is eliminated and finish at day top 3 and have a series of games to determine ranking

Yeah, I misjudged free time over the holidays. I thought people would be more available over the holidays, but I myself found it hard to find time. After the game is over (8 minutes), I definitely want to go over what went well and what didn't, but ultimately I'm not sure that this game works out on a forum.

People have run survivor on the forum I have been told (the old forum), so if there is interest in that, someone could try to start up another game in between some mafia. I would definitely be interested in playing that.

Squigs44 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:52 pm

damo666 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:35 pm

HNY people. I think this game suffererd from when it was run and also the 'winner' concept. I think a survivalist mode would be better. say after each phase after n ,(3?) bottom place is eliminated and finish at day top 3 and have a series of games to determine ranking

Yeah, I misjudged free time over the holidays. I thought people would be more available over the holidays, but I myself found it hard to find time. After the game is over (8 minutes), I definitely want to go over what went well and what didn't, but ultimately I'm not sure that this game works out on a forum.

People have run survivor on the forum I have been told (the old forum), so if there is interest in that, someone could try to start up another game in between some mafia. I would definitely be interested in playing that.

I thought the game was great, but.. (to be posted after the game ends).

Phase 8 Results:

Coalitions:

Gamble: damo666, Claesar
Double Gamble: thisisntme, jamiet99uk, Tom Bombadil,
Democracy: yavuzovic voted for damo666

Gifting: Yavuzovic publicly gifted Jamie 1 point

Points Leaderboard:
Tom Bombadil : 59 (47 + 12)
Claesar : 58 (50 + 8)
Jamiet99uk : 57 (44 + 12 + 1)
thisisntme : 50 (38 + 12)
damo666 : 48 (40 + 8)
yavuzovic : 44 (43 + 2 - 1)
RagingIke297 : 38 (38 + 0)
Doshy II : 27 (27 + 0)
michaelf77 : 22 (22 + 0)
foodcoats : 21 (21 + 0)

Tom Bombadil wins by a single point!
Second place goes to Claesar.
Just a point behind is Jamiet99uk for third.

Thanks everyone for playtesting. I had no clue what to expect going into this, I just wanted to try out an intriguing idea I had. I thought the first couple phases went pretty well, and then interest died out in the end. Part of that was probably the holidays, but also part of it was probably that it seemed repetitive at the end.

Let me know what worked well and what didn't, ideas for new coalitions, rules, etc.

Claesar wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 01, 2019 9:54 pm

I thought the game was great, but..

I didn't like most of the players. Or how they played. And I'm not talking about the lack of interest towards the end. Even in the first few phases people were not playing the game in any way that made sense. Just like in a game of Werewolves of Mafia, it needs good and enthusiastic players to thrive.

Tom is a deserved winner here, congrats! I wasn't privy to the many private message he must've sent, but he was clearly making things work for him that way. Very well played. I wasn't sure enough towards the end that he'd be in the Double Gamble, so I couldn't sabotage it by going in myself. Plus, that could've allowed others to overtake me.

It was very interesting for me to GM without seeing any of your private press. I agreed with Claesar on many of the mathematics, but seeing the various messages with orders and gifting confused me to no end. It would be very interesting to see the motives behind some of the actions taken.

Another big point of the game is to introduce enough mistrust that some players feel uncomfortable doing the "smart" thing. A bit of a prisoners dilemma situation. It didn't quite turn out how I expected though. Jamiet's cult round was probably my favorite, although part of that round was tainted over some rule confusion which was partly my fault. I think a bigger base of players (maybe 15-20) who are all consistently active would introduce some different aspects to the game.

Well done Tom, and thank you Squigs.

This was a very interesting game and I would certainly play again.

One point of feedback was that having only three choices most phases was somewhat limiting -maybe consider more than three possible coalitions, in more phases. Obviously in part this will be easier if more coalition types have been designed - which may come over time.

Jamiet99uk wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:09 pm

Well done Tom, and thank you Squigs.

This was a very interesting game and I would certainly play again.

One point of feedback was that having only three choices most phases was somewhat limiting -maybe consider more than three possible coalitions, in more phases. Obviously in part this will be easier if more coalition types have been designed - which may come over time.

Yeah, more coalition ideas would certainly help the game. It is difficult to try to make coalitions that are balanced, especially with the number of players we had.

Do you guys have ideas for coalitions?

Also, how did you guys feel about only being able to create a coalition in the first half of the phase? That was a rule I went back and forth on as I was designing the game. Mostly I did it this way because I didn't want a mad flurry of activity right at the deadline. I am not sure I avoided that though, it just made it so that there were two different flurries of activity.

Hey all.

I'm going to organize some thoughts on this later when I've got some free time.

But wanted to chime in because I thought it was very fun - would definitely play again. Really cool stuff Squigs. I think with some more variety and not battling the holidays, interest would not have waned - but overall a really first game.

I'll get into some more specific feedback later!

I liked the fact that you could only create a coalition in the first half.

Squigs44 wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 01, 2019 11:52 pm

Also, how did you guys feel about only being able to create a coalition in the first half of the phase?

This was fine, I wouldn't change that specific element.

Good game, I'm happy Tom won and not Jamie.