Proposed changes to phantom rules

[talisman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

chances are if they got two phantoms they weren't really helping the team in the first place ergo replacing them might be overcompensating.

[ddrdanc3r55]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Well, it could just mean they are incapable of posting at the time, so that player should just be made up.

[Tokzic]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Silencing + Role Revealing - What is this crap. How is silencing a punishment to someone who is not posting in the first place? The only case it would be is if the person had a long absence without notice then returned, which pretty much seals the fate. It has far too much of an effect on the gameplay. Punishments should make the player pay, not screw the results up. I'm pretty sure I read that role revealing was taken out, but a lot has changed since the start of the thread.

Phantom Bans - I really think it comes down to the situation. If someone is put in a position where they can't access the computer for days at a time or even if they just forget twice (unlikely, but we're all wolves - er, human), it can be forgiveable. I say the current system of phantom/game bans works fine, and can be modified at the discretion of TWC for special cases. Nforcer, something like getting kicked from TWG should not be a set in stone rule, but if every game you play you're pulling phantoms, then a warning/TWG ban system should work fine.

Phantoms and Tiebreaking - This is a tough call. It really comes down to whether you want the person with phantoms to be punished in the game itself, and as we saw this game, it can really hit the team hard. If I had to choose one I'd say the current system works well as long as inactivity isn't ridiculous.

[talisman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

it's more like silencing + role revealing + being banned.

as long as inactivity isn't ridiculous.

it is.

[User6773]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Silencing + Role Revealing - What is this crap. How is silencing a punishment to someone who is not posting in the first place?

It's not meant to be a punishment, it's meant to get the inactive person out of the game so the rest of the players don't have to worry about that one. The 2-game ban is meant to be the punishment.

Punishments should make the player pay, not screw the results up.

People like you screwed the results up in the last game, dearie. The humans had it but lost because of phantoms. It seems like most intelligent people by now have realized that silencing doesn't screw the results up.

If someone is put in a position where they can't access the computer for days at a time or even if they just forget twice (unlikely, but we're all wolves - er, human), it can be forgiveable.

No, it's not. If you can't access the computer for days at a time you have no business being in TWG. If something life-shaking comes up (haysup DBP), that's one thing - but people find the stupidest excuses to be inactive. Besides, if something life-shaking does come up, you probably won't mind the 2-game ban.

I say the current system of phantom/game bans works fine

Most people have agreed that it doesn't. Most people came to this conclusion partially as a result of your actions last game.

It really comes down to whether you want the person with phantoms to be punished in the game itself, and as we saw this game, it can really hit the team hard.

Again, the silencing rule is first and foremost meant to help the team.

If I had to choose one I'd say the current system works well as long as inactivity isn't ridiculous.

You are enormously arrogant, and I honestly can't believe you had the gall to post here and claim that everything is fine. Get the hell out.

[nforcer06164]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

READ IT ALL. IT'S IMPORTANT.

Chardish, you still fail to realize how your ideas MESS WITH THE FABRIC OF THE GAME. I don't know what I have to say to make you realize this. Yes, I know you put a lot of thought into your idea. Yes, I know you think it will work. Yes, I know that you'd like to see your plan more than anything else because it looks best to YOU. But there are some problems. First off...

The silencing thing is much more confusing and much less practical than a kick, kill, and ban, as I suggested. Plus, it doesn't cause any more of a punishment to the individual than my idea does. Also, when you look at things from the outside, you're on the verge of ruining the game itself. In TWG here, we've never had cardflipping (except in one game). Having one cardflip can ruin the entire game for one team, in case you don't see that. When players make certain connections to other players and then a role is revealed, one team could simply be ruined to loss, simply because of someone's stupidity. Do you really want that to happen? And a final thing... what good does silencing do over a kick, kill, and ban? If someone isn't posting in the first place, do you think they'll really care about being silenced? All you'll do is hurt their team. And I know you disagree with that, but seriously think about what I said about connections.

Reassigning roles is as bad for strategy as replacing players. You have to make note that people act differently sometimes with different roles. Blah from last game is an excellent example. Once again, it's downplaying the game's strategy element in reference to behavior.

Also, to those who disagree with my phantom idea, I say that phantoms carry the same weight as usual, because under the plan I suggested, anything beyond two is a game ejection. Phantoms have and always have been a wake-up call to someone who didn't get in to vote in time. The second phantom is more severe to make them realize, "Hey, you have to pay attention." It's always been like that here. Why change it now? The phantoms can be a part of strategy, too. Notice how in some games we've steered away from voting people with one or two phantoms to keep from accidentally killing them, and instead lynch someone else? I do agree that phantoms shouldn't be accumulated beyond one at the most, but some rewards must come with risks. I think a maximum of two phantoms with a 1.00001 vote, counting directly to the total, should be allowed for the sake of the game itself.

Charidsh, I want you to seriously rethink some of your propositions. Then, I want you to forget about your plan for a moment, look mine over again, and realize how level-headed, easy, and fair it is. Then we can discuss it more.

- 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 don't want the game to lost its flavor from some amazingly complex plan that will work. And I know it will work. But you're changing the game entirely. That's what I'm trying to avoid. Remember that we came in here to rework the punishments for inactivity, not restructure the game.

[Necamus]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

- 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 like this better than all that silencing stuff. Only thing I don't like is the killing, because if this happens late in the game, it could royally screw over a team.

And out of curiosity (Seeing as this whole thing applies to me), will these rules come into effect next game, or is this thread also discussing what is going to happen to the people who had multiple phantoms last game?

[JurseyRider734]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Maybe we should all give our cellphone numbers to someone who's online all the time and they can try to contact the person about their absence or something.

I already have a lot of phone numbers and i'm on a lot so I could do it, or maybe chardish/Guido/someone who's online a lot can.

[Tps222]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

I support nForcer's idea. It seems to solve the problem, without changing the original gameplay of TWG.

[Afrobean]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

Nforcer's plan is good in my opinion. One thing though: ANY 2 phantoms should have the penalty of 2 consecutive ones. If you allow them to get two phantoms without a kick, etc. how would it count? 1.01 votes? Then we come back to the whole "oops u got a phantom now u just made the humans lose gg moron" thing we're trying to keep away from. If you don't count the 2 phantoms as more than 1 phantom, it's useless, anyway. I say just kick, etc. from any two phantoms.

Jurs also brought up a good idea. Maybe not giving out our numbers openly (pranks much?) but there should be someone trustworthy who has the means to get the number, if not the number themselves.

[StoicRoivaS]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

READ IT ALL. IT'S IMPORTANT.
- 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'm entirely for this as well, but with one alteration. I think getting two phantoms in any one game is pretty much inexcusable except for the rare situations that life can throw at us (and does throw at DPB and I). So I'd be far happier seeing the changes look a litte more like this:

- Phantoms carry the same weight as usual. (1=.00001; 2=1.00001 & kick/kill/ban)
- Two phantoms is a game kick, kill, and ban. A win cannot be gained for that person.
- First instance is a two-game ban. Second instance is also a two-game ban. Three strikes, you're out... of the usergroup.

I would prefer to see a replacement player come in so that the team isn't punished so much, but I would support anyone arguing for either solution. Take care.

EDIT: @ Afro, I think you're trying to suggest what I did.

2nd EDIT: @ Everyone, It seems most people are adamantly against team/role revealing, which is good, but what do you all think of replacing the kicked player? Yes, it does throw a bit of strategy off and forces everyone to readjust to a new player’s style, potentially in mid or late game, but it does save the team from having an instant kill working against them for one individual's mistake. I would like to see a replacement come in for anyone receiving two phantoms in one game, and see their replacement come in with zero phantoms against them. This would avoid the late game vote rushes, like I think we're all attempting to do, as well as be a little more fair to the replacement player that is volunteering their services. Let me know what you think.

3rd EDIT: Iggy and myself, for having this idea alredy btw. This is pretty much exactly what Iggy and I worked out way back on page 2 but no one really took notice, but as long as it gets changed I'm happy.

[sertman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

How about having phantoms carry over, kind of like in soccer? If you get a phantom in 2 consecutive games, you're banned from the next one.

[iggymatrixcounter]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

3rd EDIT: Iggy and myself, for having this idea alredy btw. This is pretty much exactly what Iggy and I worked out way back on page 2 but no one really took notice, but as long as it gets changed I'm happy.

Our plan was perfect but everyone wants what they want.

But as of now I could really care less. That's probably why there's a TWC because no one can come to an agreement.

I just want the next game to start, there's obviously no middle ground because people keep repeating themselves over and over like we didn't hear it the first time....

If it was me, just give the two game ban for two phantoms from now on so the next game can start. Let the TWC decide exactly what happens and stop these redundancies.

[talisman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

look you're all retarded. silencing is the exact same thing as kicking and banning. EXCEPT the numbers don't change. nforcer the idea here IS to change the fabric of the game, as there's currently a huge problem of phantoms dicking over team members and not the person. If you kick someone from the game, you've hurt their team immensely as you've changed when end of game is. THAT's the whole issue here and everyone needs to stop being dense about it.

for the same reason, phantoms only being counted in tiebreakers is also a good idea. phantoms should never be more than a fraction of a vote, as anything more and the team is getting punished, not the player.

the only thing really debatable that I see is whether or not the role of the player is revealed (I think it should NOT be) and whether special roles would be reassigned (I think they should NOT be, although that's a tough call).

[sertman]

Re: Proposed changes to phantom rules

the idea here IS to change the fabric of the game,

I spent about 10 minutes deciding how to reply to this quote. The ideas ranged from just calling you an idiot to a long, drawn out post about how absolutely, terribly awful an idea it would be to change the fabric of a game because of people's inactivity.

I'm just going to end it at that, because really i have no words to describe how stupid that idea is.