Proposed changes to phantom rules

[ddrdanc3r55]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I don't see why you can't just have replacements for people who have multiple phantoms instead of punishing their whole team...

[JurseyRider734]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Yeah. Punishing the whole team for something they can't control is unnecessary. We don't know if the person will post or not--we can't IM them if they're not online.

Guido -- in my situation I was a 10 minute drive away from home with no car, and there was no parent in his house to drive me and my parents were out as well...so it wasn't really in my control. I wasn't going to stay home just to vote.

[talisman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

because replacements are hard to find and that's lame. If they weren't posting, then there's no harm done by their simply being officially banned from posting. Doesn't hurt the team at all unless you remove them from the game.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Guido -- in my situation I was a 10 minute drive away from home with no car, and there was no parent in his house to drive me and my parents were out as well...so it wasn't really in my control. I wasn't going to stay home just to vote.

Well, you could have voted before you left, but I realize what you're saying. Believe me, I've gotten phantoms for being somewhere after forgetting to vote before, too.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[talisman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

actually guido I don't think she could have as it was night...

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Oh. Well, in any case, it doesn't really matter.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[nforcer06164]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

"Hey guys, there was a thunderstorm and my cable went out, which is why I haven't been around. I've only had enough time to reread the thread to know what's going on before day's end. I'm going to place a vote on [insert name here] because s/he is my biggest suspect at this point."

52 words. Phantom. No forgiveness. A word requirement is uncalled for in certain situations. If we try to adjust and suggest we'll be "flexible" in certain cases, game-ending fights can break out, so that won't work. Also, as previously mentioned, silence can be a strategy (flying under the radar and such). You're messing with the strategical fabric of the game by requiring a word minimum.

How about keeping it simple, eh?

- Phantoms carry the same weight as usual.
- Two consecutive phantoms is a game kick, kill, and ban. A win cannot be gained for that person.
- Three phantoms overall carries the same penalty as two consecutive phantoms.
- First instance is a two-game ban. Second instance is also a two-game ban. Three strikes, you're out... of the usergroup.

I think that's fair, and is good enough to get the job done. Chardish, I know you're thinking of workable solutions, but to be honest, you're overthinking. Word count requirements, team revealing, role switches... it's all overkill. How about we find a solution that has little impact on the game, okay?

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

"Hey guys, there was a thunderstorm and my cable went out, which is why I haven't been around. I've only had enough time to reread the thread to know what's going on before day's end. I'm going to place a vote on [insert name here] because s/he is my biggest suspect at this point."

52 words. Phantom. No forgiveness. A word requirement is uncalled for in certain situations. If we try to adjust and suggest we'll be "flexible" in certain cases, game-ending fights can break out, so that won't work. Also, as previously mentioned, silence can be a strategy (flying under the radar and such). You're messing with the strategical fabric of the game by requiring a word minimum.

How about keeping it simple, eh?

- Phantoms carry the same weight as usual.
- Two consecutive phantoms is a game kick, kill, and ban. A win cannot be gained for that person.
- Three phantoms overall carries the same penalty as two consecutive phantoms.
- First instance is a two-game ban. Second instance is also a two-game ban. Three strikes, you're out... of the usergroup.

I think that's fair, and is good enough to get the job done. Chardish, I know you're thinking of workable solutions, but to be honest, you're overthinking. Word count requirements, team revealing, role switches... it's all overkill. How about we find a solution that has little impact on the game, okay?

Amen lol, Didn't I just post that like 2 pages ago?

But I agree 100% with nforcer. I mean, I do like the ideas chardish put up, but they are seriously overkill. Two game bans plus ejection is good enough for someone with two phantoms IMO. No more no less.

AND I don't think it was kilga's and ddr's fault for winning the game chardish. You have this concept of how a game should be played and when anyone goes outside of that concept you think that they are crazy or are a poor player. What kilga and ddr did was awesome and it worked beautifully. So if winning a game makes someone a bad player, maybe you should reanalyze your twg philosophy.

[talisman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

nforcer your suggestion has more impact on the game than chardish's. If phantoms have the same impact as they do now, then they're still hurting the team by changing the end of day. The change makes sense so that the person who ****ed up gets punished not everyone else.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Phantoms affecting the game were already talked about. 2 phantoms = 1.001 votes and 3 phantoms = 1.002 votes. This way if two people are tied but one has 3 phantoms and the other has 2 then the player with 3 phantoms is lynched.

This way it doesn't absolutely kill the humans when someone gets 2+phantoms.

[sertman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I hope the TWC looks at nforcer's idea :/

[Afrobean]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

look the silencing makes sense. You guys are just missing the big picture. Right now phantoms are hurting the team more than the player being inactive. If we just kicked out an inactive player, then that would still be hurting their team, as it would move end of game up a day or back a day (depending on if the player was human or wolf). That's why they're just silenced instead of kicked out, it keeps the numbers the same. This is what chardish said, as well, I don't know why everyone missed it in the first place.

If you silence but don't remove the player from the game, they could be the centerpiece of a human alliance by working over AIM, which would be terribly unfair. If you're worried about the numbers, you could eject from game, but count the numbers as if they were still in the game.

What kilga and ddr did was awesome and it worked beautifully.

Yeah, the problem isn't in how the wolves played. The problem is that it shouldn't have even been possible if the humans were playing at their best.

An idea I just had that would cancel endgames like we just had: For an insta to go through there would have to be at least one human voting in favor of the person to be instalynched. This would make it so the wolves would still have to try in an endgame situation like we seem to keep having.

[talisman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

they could be the centerpiece of a human alliance by working over AIM

no.

you could eject from game, but count the numbers as if they were still in the game.

this is the exact same thing as silencing.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

For an insta to go through there would have to be at least one human voting in favor of the person to be instalynched. This would make it so the wolves would still have to try in an endgame situation like we seem to keep having.

Or count phantoms like I've been repeating. Because really last game was lost ONLY because tokzic had three phantoms. If he would have had 1.002 votes instead of 2.001 votes then the humans wouldn't have had to play a speed game and therefore would have won.

But even though it's good to talk about, I do not foresee anyone getting 3 phantoms again if you get ejected for getting 2 and then replaced.

[talisman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

if you're going to change the numbers make it .001 .002 .003 etc not .001 1.001 1.002. chardish is right, phantoms should only come into play in tie breaking situations.