Mafia Large: GAME OF THRONES game thread: Cersei Lannister Win . - Page 230

Mafia Large: GAME OF THRONES game thread: Cersei Lannister Win .

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 230 of 230 FirstFirst ... 130 180 220 228 229 230
Results 2,291 to 2,300 of 2300

This is a discussion on Mafia Large: GAME OF THRONES game thread: Cersei Lannister Win . within the Past Games forums, part of the Mafia category; Originally Posted by Because_why_not It's also a bit of an insult to the competency of your team to say to ...

  1. #2291

    Quote Originally Posted by Because_why_not View Post

    It's also a bit of an insult to the competency of your team to say to say that it was the most skillful who went together @Ghastly Ghoul Starr (I know you didn't mean it like this though) because this is far from true. And wanna know what to when people underestimate you because you're newer than them? Laugh at the idea and take advantage of it lol. By that it's not play up the newbie card, but if people don't see you as a threat you actually have an advantage in this setup because they much less likely to focus on attacking you. In this setup, there is no difference for experience in forming strategies (or a lot less than in a standard game) imo.

    You may have read the QT between me and darc, which I was concerned yself about coming across as too harsh, but you have to remember that I was pushing my own agenda for her to ally Des. I wouldn't say that I was chatting total bs (before darc gets back to me lol) but I really believe that you should never underestimate new players because you don't know what they're capable of.

    This was my first time in this setup and I think a total misunderstanding of the wincon and mechanics for about half the game shows lol. And the players that had been in this set up before, only really used that to not trust Des (so could've actually been an other team's advantage )
    Ooops, no, that was not my intention. I am so happy with my team for including me and I think the world of all of them. @Wisteria and @Tripped on Reality were amazing teammates, who helped to guide me in figuring my night actions. @knife would have done more but he was silenced and then he got murdered. @stiletto was also a great teammate and good to converse with. All in all, I was totally happy with my team.

  2. #2292

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    I think Isolate and Preventative action should have cost more gold, and alliance size should be limited to around 4-6 players. Imo

    those are the only improvements I can think of. Maybe not making the same player king of westeros more than one or two times, or in a row at least, which makes the game more fair for the rightful heirs.
    I'm not sure whether Isolate should be more expensive. It sucks so much when it's used against you obviously, but you do get to keep all your gold. There are also ways to get around it, by giving your gold to allies so they can use it for the good of the alliance or simply by buying Preventive Action. Which is a reason not to make Preventive Action more expensive, as it would make it harder to defend against Isolate.

    A possible problem is when a Neutral player gets Isolated, as they don't have the ability to give their gold to their allies. A possible solution would be making Preventive Action one gold cheaper for Neutral players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghastly Ghoul Starr View Post
    I agree with both. There is no winning against a monster alliance, especially when the most experienced and skillful players band together. Also, there should definitely be term limitations for the king and a limit to how many votes people can buy. The election was so amazingly corrupt that there was actually little point to standing for election. I did it mostly for fun, but I knew that I would be attacked instead of elected.
    I disagree. In my opinion, it should not be possible for a smaller group of players to win against a bigger group of players if both have comparable resources and are working together equally well. Quite the opposite, the larger group of players should be able to destroy the smaller group of players in a relatively short amount of time, to not let the game drag on while the winners are already known. For this reason, I don't think there should be a limit on the amount of times someone can be chosen king (which would also seriously nerf the Righteous Heir perk).

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    Glad you agree! The alliance set up really did favour the more experienced players as they knew who they wanted to ally with, while the newbies had to figure out who their best allies were.

    I don't mean to sound salty here though. The faction with all those players did well and there's nothing wrong with working together like that. and I enjoyed the game mechanics ofc, but for some players the odds of winning with an alliance simply weren't in their favour because of being new. and when a huge alliance forms it's pretty hard to win.
    I agree that there should be a newbie guide if this game is ever ran again. The beginning of the game is pretty important and if you need a couple of days to figure out what strategies work best, you're already at a disadvantage that might be hard to overcome.

  3. #2293

    Quote Originally Posted by Because_why_not View Post
    I disagree with the alliance size point. It's part of the wincon to be allied with all surviving players, so you'd not only be forcing people against the wincon (which doesn't make sense) or strengthen the cliquey mentality which you don't really want either.

    Also there's no way you can really enforce this. What would happen with Master diplomat for example?

    In this game, you guys had 2 opportunities to remove 2 players from our faction and for some reason chose not to take it and that was when Ducky and Pain were weak.
    I wanted to attack Pain after the res but my team were trying to ally with her. can't remember why we didn't finish off ducky

    The wincon to me seemed more like eliminating other alliances before they eliminate yours.

    Having alliances around the same size would be more fair imo, because then the teams can actually use skill/strategies to win instead of taking advantage of their numbers. MD would become pointless maybe, but at least a player can't win the way desthro did xD

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #2294

    Quote Originally Posted by Wisteria View Post
    The wincon to me seemed more like eliminating other alliances before they eliminate yours.
    I think this is a mistake a lot of players make, me included when I played the first time. The wincon isn't to eliminate other alliances so you can win with yours. The wincon is for you to win. However, another mistake I think a lot of players make is thinking that the best way to go about this is to gather as many resources and allies as soon as possible, hoping that they will win the 'race' towards victory before someone else does. I think that, instead of trying to go as fast as possible, you should just make sure no other player goes as fast as you. Meaning there should be a bigger focus on sabotaging others instead of helping yourself.

    Having alliances around the same size would be more fair imo, because then the teams can actually use skill/strategies to win instead of taking advantage of their numbers. MD would become pointless maybe, but at least a player can't win the way desthro did xD
    I think equal sized alliances would be a natural occurrence once players understand the game well enough. You've seen now what happens when there is a giant alliance: one player snatches the win, because they get the opportunity to do so. I would expect that if the game was run again with the same players, there would be more smaller alliances to prevent the same thing from happening.

  6. #2295

    I do wonder what would've happened if in an alternate timeline, Des was killed off by the other team but everything else lead up to the same scenario, just minus him (I know that's unlikely just because of the butterfly effect, but still for thought). That's because I had, and the others showed, no intention of wanting a solo win at the cost of the others. I think we would've won as a big group (I guess in this alternate timeline, we couldn't bring back Des though).

    I think if the game was run again, I wouldn't play it, not because there's anything wrong with it, but more that it isn't for me (the classic "it's not you, it's me" spiel lol). I'm just not someone who can backstab or want a solo win at the cost of my team. I don't know reading the QTs from earlier in the game people were on the fence with trusting me, and I even joked about purposely allying someone, only to backstab them, then bring them back just to backstab them again, but like I said, that's actually the opposite of the real me.

    I think it's a lot worse to lose because of one member of your team taking the win for themselves, then simply losing to another team for whatever reason (even including dodgy game balance and mechanics).

    But yeah don't get me wrong because I did enjoy the game, I just don't think I'll go for this setup again.

  7. #2296

    Agreed, i can't do this set up

    I wasn't going to sign up for pretty much this reason, but I'm never ok with backstabbing

  8. #2297

    I admit that I was pretty shocked at the backstabbing option. I never considered using it. I did have a great team and no reason to backstab any of them. Even if I didn't, I would express disagreement, but I would never backstab. I'm always super loyal to my team and guess that's just a personality trait that I cannot override, no matter what the reward may be. If it stays, I would make it extremely expensive to use.

  9. #2298

    I'm against limiting the size of the alliances. The thing is, sure, the bigger the alliance the stronger they are in terms of gold and such, but also the more fragile they are. The more people you have to factor in the more loyalty you have to be assured of. I was super surprised how much everyone in my group was trusting of each other (minus Desthro :P) because I didn't expect that trust to be maintained for such a large group of people.

  10. #2299

    I don't know if I would limit the size of the alliance but I think that I would make large alliances more expensive to form because, if you're going to crush the smaller alliance, you should have to pay something for that opportunity.

  11. #2300

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghastly Ghoul Starr View Post
    I don't know if I would limit the size of the alliance but I think that I would make large alliances more expensive to form because, if you're going to crush the smaller alliance, you should have to pay something for that opportunity.
    If you look at the amount of money actually spent though, those in large alliances have to spend way more gold.



    (p = players, a = alliances) Basically, the amount of gold you have to pay to close the loop in each case still increases by 3n each time you add another player. So a 3 player alliance would have to spend 9 gold to fully ally but an 8 player alliance would have to spend 84G just to close the loop and have them all connected. Even accounting for gifting money, that is a *lot* and extremely difficult without help from stuff like rez 5 and the loan shark perk.

    (Excuse the probably bad maths but it shouldn't be too wrong)


     
Page 230 of 230 FirstFirst ... 130 180 220 228 229 230

Similar Threads

  1. Mafia Large: Of the Jungle (Game Thread) - Chiefs Win!
    By Actvscenei in forum Past Games
    Replies: 4494
    Last Post: 01-18-2017, 07:18 AM
  2. Raleigh Ritchie (Game of Thrones/Game Grumps/Singer)
    By Chompy in forum Guess the type
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-18-2016, 02:29 AM
  3. Mafia Large #90 - 01011001 - Game Thread - Town wins!
    By hawkataine in forum Past Games
    Replies: 3026
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 10:21 AM
  4. Replies: 3732
    Last Post: 08-24-2016, 05:52 PM
  5. Replies: 901
    Last Post: 06-26-2016, 06:46 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:09 AM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0