The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Nearco on Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:56 pm

So, like last time, we want your feedback. We want to know what was wrong. As stands, I know of 3 errors.

1) There was some confusion in the rules on ties. We actually had a player ragequit because of this. (Also, if anyone can get in contact with masquerade, please tell him that Leronira was incorrect in his ruling, abstaining will not be taken into account when determining tax evaders for a round.)

2) The removal of inactives should have been announced in advance. This was an element that compromised how the game worked, but it also affected people's strategies.

3) The rule regarding abstaining was poor. A better choice was supplied by a player after the game started, but, well, the game had started. I went through a fair few options when making the rule, and the alternatives that the dealers and I came up with all had their own problems.

So, if there are other errors, state them here.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Stop playing Checkers...!!!

Post  NastyMan on Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:27 pm

My latest post was this.

Why couldn't you drag it to the round that lesper has been paid, and Maica paid 20Millions? In this case you can go a round back without telling that Maica paid nothing since she were a collector so it doesn't count. A round before, both I and maica paid.

It is pretty unfair and misleading that she been told to pay less then me as she paid nothing, and in this case I would have go one round earlier

Every game might have a little crack in it, like Tic-Tac-Toe and Checkers... Even Chess may have this.

Get people into full brain potential and many "tricky" games in the style I mention will decide by default who lose in them or who win. We count on our mind making a mistake.

In Tic-Tac-Toe for example the second player must do an actual mistake to lose... Therefore, you should hire a very stupid player or an undirected greenhorn to play against you.

This why I think liar game may be rubbish, but hey. It can be said about democracy as well.
avatar
NastyMan
Not a Player

Liar Game Skill : Wrath
Posts : 47
Join date : 2010-07-26
Age : 35
Location : Burdam

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Cryselda on Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:49 pm

well i just know of it cuz im now in the rr with ignis but.... spaceman wasnt even playing and got to become a collector and the money went to an inactive...
avatar
Cryselda
Final Round Player

Liar Game Skill : ...
Posts : 594
Join date : 2010-06-25
Age : 26
Location : U.S.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Furer Kip on Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:36 pm

Aside from the fact the game was more team oriented? Nah, not really. It got really boring once u become an Evader, because u can't do anything. Overall, it wasn't very fulfilling if u won, mainly cause there was no strategy besides "pay medium, vote random" or "get friends to make a contract with me/ trust them to help me".

Furer Kip
Banned

Liar Game Skill : Being the most awesome
Posts : 240
Join date : 2010-07-04
Age : 1018
Location : Wherever Rome is

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Guest on Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:17 pm

It can get very slow, depending on the actions of the players. I would have combined some of the actions (Selection of the tax evader, tax paid, etc.)
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Nearco on Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:28 pm

NastyMan: In future, when we use the "look at the previous round" option, we will most likely start extending it back if there were ties in previous rounds. As mentioned in the round 1 criticism thread, we don't want too many tiebreaker votes, and the "look at the previous round" option was a way around it.

Cryselda: The inactive situation was worse than we expected. You should have already noticed that from the fact that 12 players got cut down to 5.

Furer Kip: A valid concern. The key part I wish to draw attention to is "trust them to help me". At least one game went differently to how it was expected because a player didn't trust another player, so took the viewpoint that s/he should backstab first. It was also why we set the contract price to 50 mill. If you wanted to make a profit by contract use, you would have to use up the initial profit you were given.

Verrazzano: It had been considered, but there was concern that your choice of payment would be dependent on the tax collector. Similarly, your choice of tax collector may be based on the balances after the last tax payment. I will admit my biggest problem with the structure of the game was the time taken, which was the main reason we eliminated a fair few options in terms of what to do on abstaining payments.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Kiria on Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:19 pm

Imho, the game didn't leave you that much room in terms of strategy. It seems that everyone just abstained until the enemies were all evaders, then sacrificed allies to drag them down. Almost EVERYONE abstained right away. Technically, the game could have ended in one round had a 2-member alliance chosen to sacrifice one of their members and put in all their yen, dragging everyone else with them. I also agree that the issue with inactive players is quite annoying. I don't mean to bash you guys or anything, I think it's great that you guys put the effort into making a tournament, and I'm really thankful for that. However, I feel that the rules could be a bit clearer... my dear friend Masquerade suddenly left after a misunderstanding. :'(
avatar
Kiria
Not a Player

Liar Game Skill : I can sing horribly. Bad enough to rip your soul out of your chest, scoring me a win. This skill is dedicated to Xanatos.
Posts : 275
Join date : 2010-06-21
Age : 25
Location : USA

View user profile http://lolho.com

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Morte on Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:00 pm

Are you sure, Kiria?
There's a lot of ways of using any kind of strategy in this game. And i found a few ones in every part of it.

Yes, Monday, i did found them. <3
avatar
Morte
Not a Player

Liar Game Skill : Fap
Posts : 113
Join date : 2010-06-23
Age : 25
Location : Uruguay (U r gay)

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Nearco on Tue Aug 17, 2010 9:20 pm

The corner-case rules were finalized during the playtest, as the winners can confirm for you. Abstaining was... weird. We wanted to make them tax evaders, but then we'd end up with votes for a lot of rounds, just cause of revotes. Terra would still be going, for starters. What to do in the event of a tie, we figured out mid-playtest too.

We are implementing a new system for rules management next round, to help in consistency between groups. It will also help with contracts, transfers, and several other things.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Kurifuji on Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:46 pm

NastyMan wrote:In Tic-Tac-Toe for example the second player must do an actual mistake to lose... Therefore, you should hire a very stupid player or an undirected greenhorn to play against you.

Actually TTToe has one tactic that works 90% of the time, even on smarter players.
..just a side note.
avatar
Kurifuji
Ex-Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Observation
Posts : 96
Join date : 2010-06-21
Age : 24
Location : Finland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Nearco on Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:14 am

Actually... if both players know what they are doing, it will always be a tie. But, yeah. This is heading off topic.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Masquerade on Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:48 am

Hi, I was notified.

The reason I ragequit was because--though this may or may not have been the case--I felt that I was an outsider and would be sacrificed quickly. My strategy was, if I abstained, I couldn't become an evader on the first round and that would buy me the time I needed to make threats with high payments, rather than be at the mercy of the people I believed would gladly boot me.

There was a lot of talk about everyone just paying the minimum 2000 yen on the first round, which sounded too easy for my tastes considering a major power play I noticed could work against me in the very first round. I figured if they were all working together to sucker me into paying 2000 yen, they could pay 4000 yen and make me the evader. But if I tried to outpay, I would have less cash than the others, meaning I'd be (in the circumstances of this game) at yet another big disadvantage.

The only loophole I could take advantage of to protect myself as an outsider was to abstain until I saw what their actual intentions were. If they were true to their word (which they actually were), I would pay 2000 yen just like them but I would definitely not be an evader due to the rule that says "if you abstain payment, you are treated as an evader but do not become an evader". That would mean I'd force someone else to become the evader, thus getting me more leverage against that player, instead of it becoming a popularity contest of players who band together and vote themselves into power consistently leaving whoever they wanted out of the loop (and since I felt I was the only outsider, I was easy pickings).

Popularity runs this game, which is fine. But I had to get a chance to ensure I could make allies through deals and threats if I was truly predetermined to be an outsider at the outset. Since they truly all paid 2000 yen and it went to a tie, the rules stated that we'd all have to vote for who amongst them would become the evader. The most unpopular becomes the evader. I figured that if I had paid 2000 yen and it was left to a vote, I would become the evader, so abstaining was the only trick I could pull to ensure I'd be safe for a round and set myself up for upcoming rounds.

Instead, Leronira suddenly pulled a rule out of nowhere claiming that abstainers were also eligible for the tiebreaker vote. That meant that the only good strategy to keep myself safe as an outsider was thrown out the window, because if I truly was the outsider, no matter what I'd do there would be no way to keep myself out of a major disadvantage; I'd be voted immediately.

But what really bothered me was that Leronira specifically told me that the Lux group's situation had been discussed with all the dealers the night prior, and they decided that "it'd be a shame for those who had the courage to pay to become doomed to lose the game so early". The rule was implemented last minute because they realized the strategies our group had concocted undermined all of the monkey wrenches thrown into the rules already.

The new rule was also contradictory: if an abstainer cannot be an evader, why would a tie suddenly alter that? True, it wasn't clearly distinct in the rules, but that fact alone implies they are exempt from a tiebreaker vote... especially since it's to break the tie for the LOWEST amount paid. They all paid 2000 yen, so I paid 2000 yen. We all tied, but I technically paid the HIGHEST amount.

By that same token, the same rule also means that, if one of those players paid 1 million yen instead, even though I'd pay 1 million yen also for abstaining, because there's a tie for 2000 yen as the lowest amount paid, the tiebreaker would also have to include me, because even though I just paid the highest amount, I'm not exempt from being the evader also.

This rule was made due to the fact that everyone tied for the same amount and the one abstainer was getting away with not becoming an evader, and it seemed unfair on paper. Big deal, I'm still paying 2000 yen just like everyone else. I could've ended up paying 50 million yen if someone decided to throw that down. I took a risk and it would have paid off, but then suddenly it was moot with this contradictory last-minute rule.

An outsider has no chance whatsoever to set themselves up to fight a majority because all options are now closed to them. All they can do is outpay, but in my game's situation having less money than the other players was the death bell (Kiria lost the game by a 2000 yen difference, I could tell she would lose fairly early on).

I was very much aware that the beta test of the game did not include rules to abstaining, so I knew that this new rule could not have been playtested. When Glass discovered the major abstaining loophole and how to take advantage of it, I knew that the game would be incredibly different from the beta, and certain considerations hadn't been taken by the dealers when that rule was implemented. To suddenly toss in rules during the actual game just because they needed to cover up loopholes they hadn't playtested was poor hosting, and I left.

Also, I did not care for the fact that different dealers had different rules due to their own preferences, such as how inactives were removed after one round in certain groups, whereas Lux inexplicably had to wait for two rounds instead.

I believe Nearco's point #3 is referencing the rule I had suggested to him, which was the penalty for tax abstainers should be for all of their money to go the LGT. That would be a major deterrent to abstaining payment as a strategy, and would render several inactives useless right away. My rule of thumb is that whenever there can be abstaining that undermines the game, to make the penalty insanely detrimental. Inactives are punished right away and actives can't use those strategies as easy loopholes.

I'm glad that the dealers have set up a Rules Management section for themselves. Uniformity is the only fair way to conduct multiple games, the rules have to stay the same regardless of whether you end up liking them or not; once they're out there, they're out there. The players are going to be shrewd and find ways to undermine the rules and play perfectly. There are perfect strategies, and there is a certain beauty to finding foolproof ways to win before your opponent can figure it out, if they ever do. Just because the game doesn't turn out the way you'd like to see it, doesn't mean the rules have to be altered. You didn't catch the loophole to your game in playtest (which was supposed to iron those out), so let it play out and reward the players that did. Then learn from your mistakes and fix similar loopholes in future games.

Sorry for the tl;dr.
avatar
Masquerade
Not a Player

Liar Game Skill : that certain je ne sais quoi
Posts : 160
Join date : 2010-06-23
Age : 30
Location : Miami, FL

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Nearco on Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:20 am

Masquerade: Before anything else, if you wish to be a spectator to the rest of the game, please PM Forli. Now. For the rest of this mess.

Effectively, we had a similar problem to group B's initial prelims. As you may remember, at the time, Adam was the dealer for group B, and the prelims for that group were poorly organized, even in comparison to the other groups. Adam didn't know how the game worked, so he couldn't explain it properly.

The rules for tie-breaking were added during the playtest. The rule used for the playtest was merely one of randomization. It was a temporary solution, and we recognized that. The tie-breaking rules as used in the proper games were never actually playtested. This, in itself, wasn't the problem. The problem occurs in that Leronira didn't know how it worked.

The rulings for abstaining was unclear, admittedly. When we originally made it in the playtest, it never got used in the method you have noted. Although this may have been related to the fact that a player paid 70 mill in the first round. The original wording was something like "If a player abstains, that player will pay the highest amount of yen, that player will be a tax evader for that round, and pay the highest amount paid." This led to confusion, players didn't realize that "for that round" wasn't permanent.

Considering that you quit for similar reasons to why we are changing how the rules management works, I may as well inform you now. As stands, there are 6 groups. We are looking at making it such that a dealer deals 2 groups, except for one moderating dealer, who just looks over each group and steps in when something goes wrong. The moderating dealer will also be responsible for contracts, revival tickets and other similar things. If you have rules questions, it will go to the moderating dealer, any response from the other dealers will not be official. This means that, if there is a misunderstanding, it will be uniformly applied, or enough players will get up the moderating dealer such that it gets fixed.

Also, since every reference to the word Solar.io have been converted to Adam, I just figured I'd clarify what I meant here.

Oh. And yes, the recommended change to abstaining that a player suggested is the one that Masquerade mentioned in his above post.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Stavros XIII on Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:13 am

What's the total player count? I think that more than one person should be able to be revived as this "bidding competition" is a stupid idea since this game will end very quickly if only one person can be revived. If anything, none of the actives should've been eliminated and instead just the inactives were eliminated. Really, instead of it being just two people eliminated per group, in some cases there were 6 (due to inactives being eliminated as well as people who played and lost). So I propose that NO ONE ACTIVE is eliminated this RR, and that this RR serve as a means to find out who the inactives are and eliminate them instead.
avatar
Stavros XIII
Not a Player

Liar Game Skill : Psychological Warfare experience.
Posts : 341
Join date : 2010-06-26
Age : 27
Location : Australia.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Vankazen on Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:21 am

What I disliked of my game was that nothing was said previously. It was like:

6 Playing, making a certain planning and then 2 inactives out.

Said that 2 were going to be eliminated. Planning again all that and a new rule appears from nowhere "Only one player will be eliminated"

I think it wasn't serious

Vankazen
Not a Player

Liar Game Skill : Suspicious...Very suspicious...
Posts : 107
Join date : 2010-06-21
Age : 24
Location : You could not swaaaallow it! ♫♬

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Nearco on Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:26 am

Stavros: A valid concern. Player eliminations are kind of a touchy area. We understand the concern, but, on the other hand, if we aren't afraid to eliminate anyone, then we won't ever get a winner. (Not a bad situation by your viewpoint, since the game goes longer.) There is a reasonable chance that someone might make another game, and we are looking at implementing a loser's bracket. The loser's bracket may become popular enough that the "game" continues without any actual game. Alternatively, another tourney can be made. I would love to see another one appear. (But wait for this one to be over first, we don't need that much distraction)

For reference, there are 35 players, 9 eliminated, and 2 revival tickets. So, 28 all up after eliminations and tickets. Next elimination should be a bit smaller.

Vankazen: Yeah... This is a weird one. As I've already said, there was a group that went from 12 players to 5, due to the inactivity. That got us rather worried, and the main problem was that the game's basic premise would fail if we had too many inactives. There was an obvious strategy that involved no lying or convincing other players of your motives if there were inactives around. So, that one was a case of no choice. I believe we removed them quickly enough not to hinder the active players, but there is obviously some hard feelings.

Your other point is a much more significant one. As you are already aware, some groups dropped in number greatly. There ended up being a few groups with 4 or 5 players. We knew at this point that 2 losers would be a bad thing. But the idea was thrown out that if we say there was only one loser, people won't try as hard. Good intentions were there, but once again, hard feelings were generated.

A general note to everyone: Just for reference, the caterpillar game was designed by Leronira, I wasn't informed of it until it actually started (yeah... that was fun) and Adam was just plain useless in figuring out what was going on. Forli designed the Doubt game, but didn't realize we wanted it to be zero-sum until after the game had started. That was where a lot of problems came from. The Tax game was mostly my work, with input from the other dealers in fine-tuning. Liar Chess is prominently Forli's creation, although the other dealers have helped fine-tune bits of it.

Also, a note for Masquerade, and any players eliminated who don't get a revival ticket: We are more than happy to have you stay around as spectators. We are also happy to have you around in the "loser's bracket".
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Xanatos on Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:33 am

for the record i didnt mind the RR at all. As far as people being angry about eliminations, there already have been, and there will be many more liar game tournaments. When i chatted with Forli, he said the last one had no eliminations and was based on points. This is a new format clearly for LGTs so i say run with it, dont pull to many punches and do ur best.
avatar
Xanatos
Final Round Player

Liar Game Skill : I'm good at Basketball :)
Posts : 644
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 26
Location : Western Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Furer Kip on Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:36 am

So inactive eliminations/suicides counted nothing in the overall game?

Furer Kip
Banned

Liar Game Skill : Being the most awesome
Posts : 240
Join date : 2010-07-04
Age : 1018
Location : Wherever Rome is

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Nearco on Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:52 pm

Inactive players were treated as if they hadn't shown up.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Dysania on Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:12 pm

OK, so here's my $0.02 from the perspective of someone who was present in both the Pilot game and the Aqua game.

The Taxpayer game, as an entity, was absolutely fine. The Pilot game worked like a charm, if you ask me. I think it might have simply been because there were no.... no firm alliances constituting some 60% of the group (or more). People banded together and helped each other, but that was about all; betrayals and mixed strategies happened, too.

The Aqua game was blighted by inactivity, and frankly, i commend the mod team for doing their best to remedy this: there weren't many ways to forsee how many people would be active, inactive or somewhere in between. Some indications maybe, but they're not reliable.

So I really think the problem here lay with the people who disappeared. It would be arrogant to blame the inactives, but why not? Wink

Perhaps an activity roster could have remedied this; get people to write their name before the game occurs (like ahead of the Sheep one) and run from that. Maybe this could have gone up during the final few rounds of the Pilot? It wouldn't have needed checking until the game was set to begin. If a group merger needed to happen there and then, then fine.

Could it also have been possible to pre-determine the number of eliminations per group, with respect to the number of players? I think I heard/read somewhere that in the Sheep game, the number of wolves was designed to be one wolf per 8 players or whatever. Could a similar thing have been done here?


As for the Lux group's thing... Masquerade, I don't know the entire situation of your group (everyone paid minimum except you, who abstained?) If this is the case, I see the ambiguity, but I must confess I agree with you; I would been hella rageful that I showed my preparation to pay whatever the biggest payer did, but instead being treated like a cheapskate. It's hard to say too much without knowing the precise details (plus this is too long already, wtf self this $0.02 is lasting a hell of a long time). Of course, one could equally argue that if you doubted the words of your opponents, you should have just paid a real 1M and be done with it. Sure you would have lost some money, but it forces someone else to become evader and then you can pull people out of this minimal cash malarkey one by one, and broken things down. But I dunno, your irriation seemed fully justified, and you appear to have said your piece now anyway.

Dealers, I get this scenario was almost impossible to have envisioned, but it did happen. One could say "Uh, well you should have prepared for all scenarios", but I would actually be more conservative and be more like "Well, if the Pilot game worked fine, why bring in a last-minute alteration at all?" It seemed to cause nothing but confusion, whilst the beauty of the game was, in my opinion, its general simplicity. Less is more, or so they say. And what if some players *had* received a tip-off from allies or whatever? (which i assume was another reason for the switch). It wasn't that hard, most people here seem bright enough to try out various plans of action under their own volition. The modification changed the game totally (as has been said), but i fear this might also have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Maybe.

In summary, though, this game has been the sort of thing I personally would have expected from a Liar Game forum competition such as this. The freedoms of strategy, lying-vs-honesty, and tactical betrayal were all present... just as long as the players were ready to try them. The Centipede game had this potential but was lost in the yawning chasm of Adam!dramas, and people choosing to play out a placid sterotyped game (possibly because they knew there was no substantial reward other than this advantage, so chose not to bring out an A-game? Or... their B-, C- or D-games for that matter)

The Sheep game was a Mafia variant, and though it fitted in with the Lying theme, the money payout system was all borked; only a wolf would be penalised. I personally would have given everyone a 100M sum, and said something like "every time a sheep is killed by a wolf, the wolf takes the sheep's 100M (hidden until after the game ends) // Every time a sheep kills a wolf, that sheeps gets ALL the wolf's earned money (including kills) // Every time a doubt is wrongly called, the wrongful sheep pays an indemnity, etc etc, idk". That sort of thing might have been a better format. Also, more wolves per head, and allowing 48 or 72 hours a round instead of the 24. Would have balanced the game out, and given more room for negotations, when you factor in timezone issues. Oh, and it would have made it less probable to have an instant win via guesswork, educated or otherwise. Rolling Eyes

There's one other grievance I have with certain elements of the games as a whole, but this-- in the advent of a forthcoming round-- isn't the time to bring it up. I'll wait until another day.

I like the tournament, y'all. None of this was an attack on anyone, because I dont think the game requires moral outrage to the extent it did... i think ANY game you could dream up would have collapsed under some 40% of the group evaporating.

This two cents of mine, I got my money's worth. rabbit
avatar
Dysania
Final Round Player

Liar Game Skill : I can put my entire fist in my mouth! =D
Posts : 226
Join date : 2010-06-26
Age : 32
Location : Scotland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Nearco on Wed Aug 18, 2010 7:33 pm

Another lengthy one. Just to point it out, I don't know about the other dealers, but I will read all criticisms, concerns, etc... that you guys post. This is our chance for feedback, and I actually want to make sure everyone has fun.

So, Dysania. A fair few things you mentioned.

First of all, I'm happy with the core of this game, and very few people would disagree with this, I think. Verra raised the point that the game is kinda slow, but other than that, not too much of a problem.

Second, yes. Inactivity caused a lot of problems, and some players weren't happy about how we fixed it. To them, I say that while I understand your concern, the essence of the game was threatened by the inactives. It was pointless to play a game with that many inactives. A signup sheet is probably a good idea, and we will try to use it in future. No promises, we have enough stuff on our plate.

Third, we did initially say that there would be 1 elimination/some number of players, but then we realized that there were 2 per group, so it wasn't really a problem.

Fourth, the problem that Masquerade had was actually different to what we thought it was, originally. While I don't change my stance on what we ruled, Leronira made an additional ruling that was incorrect, and I think this is what caused the grief. Leronira said that abstainers would be treated as paying the lowest, and there would be a vote for who would go: the person who paid the lowest, or a player who abstained. I don't know about Kurifuji, but Forli and I were not consulted on this issue. Assuming this was the true problem, then it is fixed by our new system.

OK. Issues with individual past games:
1) Centipede game, in my opinion, wasn't that great. I believe Forli agrees. I actually find it odd that the complaints about luck came up about the doubt game instead of this one. You got a free bucketload of money if you got put up against an ally. Sounds like luck to me.
2) The doubt game was originally used in the tourney that Xanatos indicated about a few posts before yours. It was point-based, so concerns about money weren't involved. And Forli came along and said "Hey I've got a great game." And we agreed it was great. We just forgot to check the money system until too late...

And, really... I'd rather hear your grievance now. If you prefer, you can PM it to me instead. I'm about to be ambushed by PMs from tenebre for their last vote, but a blue name should stand out.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Furer Kip on Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:36 pm

Yeah, doubt was guesswork. No one would get ballsy enough to say, "hey, let's go kill someone so we can get lucky". That includes me, 'cause I had to team up with someone, and still was frightened of dying. My other partner killed himself, just to scratch out people from the list, which was extremely ballsy (congrats). No one was active is the main problem though. I think future LGT rounds should be held on the xat or on the main chat.

If Round 2 is being held on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday (CDT), I won't be able to make it cause of anniversary for aunt and uncle, plus some lame-ass exam. I go to school after next week, so I suppose all the Rounds should be held on weekends for everyone in America.

Furer Kip
Banned

Liar Game Skill : Being the most awesome
Posts : 240
Join date : 2010-07-04
Age : 1018
Location : Wherever Rome is

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Nearco on Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:02 pm

And you've started to tap into why we don't use the xat/chat as our main game platform, and why we give 24 hours. People have lives, and generally speaking, we can guarantee that people will view the forums at least once within a 24 hour period. We can't guarantee that everyone in a group is going to be on at a specific time, due to school commitments, etc...

Also, the revival round finishes, we hold the auction for the Revival Tickets, which takes a week, and then we'll announce round 2. We need to wait for the revival round to finish first.
avatar
Nearco
LGT Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Game Design Miracle Worker
Posts : 944
Join date : 2010-06-22
Age : 33
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Solarium King on Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:20 am

Nearco wrote:And you've started to tap into why we don't use the xat/chat as our main game platform, and why we give 24 hours. People have lives, and generally speaking, we can guarantee that people will view the forums at least once within a 24 hour period. We can't guarantee that everyone in a group is going to be on at a specific time, due to school commitments, etc...

Also, the revival round finishes, we hold the auction for the Revival Tickets, which takes a week, and then we'll announce round 2. We need to wait for the revival round to finish first.

lives can be planned with. going on weekends is easy to do; u can host it the next week if not available that week. it doesn't have to be the entire round, but just a part. u can even host a round for a week, while people who can't make it can be inactive or post on the forums. posting on the forums for a round sux with all the inactives.

Solarium King
Not a Player

Liar Game Skill : Losing bets, even if they are a 50% either way.
Posts : 343
Join date : 2010-06-30
Age : 22
Location : Houston, Texas

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Forli on Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:49 am

I wouldn't use xat for something more important than a minigame.
I myself can't get online on weekends, because I always go out with my gf. But on the other side, I can manage to get online for a few minutes to PM users or something, if requiered. And it's likely that many have similar problems...

And the inactives issue should be pretty much fixed by now.
avatar
Forli
Ex-Dealer

Liar Game Skill : Chessboard thinking
Posts : 331
Join date : 2010-06-23
Age : 27
Location : Argentina

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Official Revival Round Criticism Thread

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum