Make America Goo Again [Game Thread]
- Thread starter D2DC
- Start date
Over all, i think it was a good game.
Though, i think the rules could have been done a bit better. I won't repeat what I said in the mafia/goo chat thread, all I will add @D2DC is, in the future, check through the rules that you will have in the first post and edit or delete whatever does not apply to the game, rather than leave it in and possibly cause a conflict later. This is especially true where you have a rule in particular in the main rule set and specific wincons for factions that clash with the initial rules, making the game less enjoyable for those that have specific wincons in role PM's that go against what is already laid out in the rules. Can't have it both ways. Best solution is to adjust the rules you put into post 1, so that they take into account wincons issued to specific players or factions. Also, don;t just blanket and copy/paste rules from older games for your games without proofreading them and/or editing them to fit the current game. I you don't problems like this will continue to arise in future games, and also you may have rules that only applied to the game you copied from and not the current one, which will cause problems and confuse players.
That said I had fun.
I think @HuckIt and @d2lover did ok with a first game, I commented on what i thought about them in the goo chat thread, which I will copy here:
That brings me to Pyro and Noodle.
@Pyrotechnician , well played as usual. Not much more that i can say other than i got lucky by recruiting you early on. If I had not, the game might not have turned out the way it did?
@Noodle Honestly, buddy, i know you like to play the way you play, but i wish we could get just a bit more out of you, all around, you know? Not saying you have to be a part of mass claiming if people say everyone should or that you should claim when you're close to being lynched, Maybe randomly threaten to tear apart a player with your teeth? Imagine that they are Bad Ash and that person must be lynched no matter what? I dunno.
In closing, i will add that this is our first game without a certain former player who did nothing and then insulted everyone for voting him. I feel it ran much smoother.
Next game?
Though, i think the rules could have been done a bit better. I won't repeat what I said in the mafia/goo chat thread, all I will add @D2DC is, in the future, check through the rules that you will have in the first post and edit or delete whatever does not apply to the game, rather than leave it in and possibly cause a conflict later. This is especially true where you have a rule in particular in the main rule set and specific wincons for factions that clash with the initial rules, making the game less enjoyable for those that have specific wincons in role PM's that go against what is already laid out in the rules. Can't have it both ways. Best solution is to adjust the rules you put into post 1, so that they take into account wincons issued to specific players or factions. Also, don;t just blanket and copy/paste rules from older games for your games without proofreading them and/or editing them to fit the current game. I you don't problems like this will continue to arise in future games, and also you may have rules that only applied to the game you copied from and not the current one, which will cause problems and confuse players.
That said I had fun.
I think @HuckIt and @d2lover did ok with a first game, I commented on what i thought about them in the goo chat thread, which I will copy here:
That brings me to Pyro and Noodle.
@Pyrotechnician , well played as usual. Not much more that i can say other than i got lucky by recruiting you early on. If I had not, the game might not have turned out the way it did?
@Noodle Honestly, buddy, i know you like to play the way you play, but i wish we could get just a bit more out of you, all around, you know? Not saying you have to be a part of mass claiming if people say everyone should or that you should claim when you're close to being lynched, Maybe randomly threaten to tear apart a player with your teeth? Imagine that they are Bad Ash and that person must be lynched no matter what? I dunno.
In closing, i will add that this is our first game without a certain former player who did nothing and then insulted everyone for voting him. I feel it ran much smoother.
Next game?
Last edited:
Yup next game, I would be very happy if it's again with Goo mechanics.
But let's try to get 7-8 players
I have atleast 2 people interested, they are currently watching us play until they are comfortable enough with the game to jump in.
Your wincon was clearly stated in your role PM. There was nothing specifically in the rules to counter it. I apologize if it was unclear, but you cant use "typical" mafia rules, or make inferences from MS pages that I havent linked.
I also dont appreciate the lecture when you made the exact same mistake last game.
Like I said, I am a newbie modder. Cut me some slack. I just wanted us to try out a game with the goo mechanics. It seems pretty interesting, and like @d2lover said it would be fun to try again.
You're still missing the point, that conflicts with the 50% rule, it should be one or the other, not both. My wincon was clearly stated in my role PM, but the 50% rule does not work with it. It should have been one or the other in play, not both. I stood on what i said before and I stand on what I am saying now. Im cutting you some slack as a newbie moderator by telling you how to avoid the same situation but I'm also going at you full force because you did nothing to address it other than simply saying that my wincon was my win con as in my role PM but would not address the fact that both rules were in effect in your game. You can't have it both ways. If you have a win con in a role PM, your publicly stated game rules need to account for it, not go against it or create conflicts.
Im trying to help you not have the same situation arise in future games, imagin what might have happened in a 20 player game and you had a rule set stated publicly in game and then gave different wincons to different players and factions...aside from a single player wincon like an SK, you will end up having people pissed off because they were forced to play out a game that could have been a win had it been called a day phase or two before.
You had two conflicting rules and wouldn't do a thing about it, hence the lecture, and if you really want to get technical, while I certainly did make a mistake with the rules last game, it was not the exact same mistake you made here.
If you go back and look, my mistake was, as you pointed out here, was an issue with the numbers required to secure a lynch, not the 50%rule and a wincon in a PM. Further more, in Rule 7a of the previous game, a lock wasn't required to cause a lynch, only to secure it the only true mistake there was that at one point, I had the number of players wrong but fixed it publicly in the rules listed in the game. So when you lost players, you still could have lynched without locking. I should have left that rule in place as it's used in every mafia game. Rule 78a never really needed to be stricken and re -written.
So no, i did not make the exact mistake last game as you did this game, also the mistake I did honestly make, I corrected. Not so for you this game, actually you pretty much refused to do anyting about it other than state my wincon was what my role PM said it was,even when I stated almost word for word what the 50% rule is (meaning that the town can no longer control enough of the vote to eliminate whatever sscum faction there is against it, be it mafia, pizza guys, goo boys, and what not, the game should be called with a scum (goo ) win. We were in that situation and refused to do anything about it, and forced the game to go on and reach the same conclusion that it would have if it had been called,
Sorry man, but I'm sticking to my guns on this one.
If you want help working out rules to a game or want feedback, feel free to ask.
To be brutally honest, I was not happy having to play the rest of the game out to the same conclusion that would have resulted from the game being called on account of the 50% rule, and if that's going to be the case down the road, let me know ahead of time and I'll sit out.
First you say you dont want to go over all this but then do so anyway. Ok, thats fine:
I understand your point, but it is based on Mafia convention and info from MS, both of which I was unaware of. Here is what was explicitly stated:
Even though this rule was written for conventional mafia setup (which this game obviously wasnt), it came into effect in the game. Goo outnumbered Town 3 to 1, and the game was called early. Goo wins because Goo has the ability to fulfill their wincon, and because of the 50% rule, there is nothing town can do to prevent it.
However, in a deadlock situation neither faction has the ability to fulfill their wincon. So, the game would have been called early, in a draw.
"Copy/Paste" the rules. That was my mistake, which is the exact same mistake you made. You can argue that the details, consequences, or the addressing of the mistake were different. But, the actual mistake was the same. You cant have it both ways.
If your GF admits to cheating on you, and you are also guilty of infidelity, you cant really protest your innocence because yours happened in a different zip code. There may very well be mitigating factors, but the act/choice/mistake is still the same.
I understand your point, but it is based on Mafia convention and info from MS, both of which I was unaware of. Here is what was explicitly stated:
This doesnt say anything about Mafia winning, just that the game will end early. And it actually doesnt say anything about a deadlock/tie. I understand this typically means a Mafia win because they have an NK ability to end the standoff.
Even though this rule was written for conventional mafia setup (which this game obviously wasnt), it came into effect in the game. Goo outnumbered Town 3 to 1, and the game was called early. Goo wins because Goo has the ability to fulfill their wincon, and because of the 50% rule, there is nothing town can do to prevent it.
However, in a deadlock situation neither faction has the ability to fulfill their wincon. So, the game would have been called early, in a draw.
"Copy/Paste" the rules. That was my mistake, which is the exact same mistake you made. You can argue that the details, consequences, or the addressing of the mistake were different. But, the actual mistake was the same. You cant have it both ways.
If your GF admits to cheating on you, and you are also guilty of infidelity, you cant really protest your innocence because yours happened in a different zip code. There may very well be mitigating factors, but the act/choice/mistake is still the same.
Last edited:
edit: I forgot to ask, because I honestly dont know..
What happens in a deadlock situation in regular mafia games?
What happens in a deadlock situation in regular mafia games?
- 2 known town docs (can protect each other every night)
- 2 standard mafia goons (no way to vanilla ice etc..)
- 1 town roleblocker (blocks NKs)
- 1 standard mafia goon
Last edited:
Not the greatest of ideas in my opinion.
Mafia games for the most part have a standard set of rules that governs them.
Eliminating the player with the highest vote is pretty much what the rules do anyway when you get to the majority stage, even if it's day 1:
(Lynching requires the majority of the players alive to vote for the same player. That is, half of the remaining number of players + 1 rounded down. A lock occurs when someone with enough votes to be lynched receives an additional vote, and will be lynched at the end of the day and cannot be unvoted. (Add language here for the number that is the majority and the number that would cause a lock.)
Thing I don't like is where a player might have the highest number of votes, but not enough to cause a lynch or a lock. By your idea, that player still gets eliminated. I'm against the idea of eliminating the one with the highest votes in that sense.
Two people with the same number of votes? I don's like this one really and here's why:
While it's totally possible to have a double elimination in a game, and it's happened before, I don't think that would be fair at certain points. Maybe in a large game with 20+ players it could work. But what about a small game? The game would end too fast. The rules state majority vote on a player. So if that isn't the case and you eliminate two people with the same number of votes where neither have a majority, I think it alters the outcome of the game in either possibly causing a draw where there could have been a win had the day ended in a no lynch which happens or giving one faction an unfair advantage where there wasn't one before (eliminating more than one opposing player where it normally shouldn't have happened)
Random elimination?
I seriously hate this one and will never play a game where elimination is completely random. Been there, done that, quit the game, never will do it again.. I don't like the idea of an elimination on a player being random in any way at any time because it isn't fair to those that are playing, as it takes the ability to win the game out of the control of all players and the mod pretty much throws a dart and says, you're dead. Sorry, no thanks.
Best way to replay is to put it like this:
1. I realize you're newer to modding games, I've been there and have mistakes too. I've learned, we all do.
2. What you did (and I've done it too) is copy paste rules from a previous game and used them in your game.
3. You however (as far as I can tell) did not check those rules for your game and adjust them in any way to fit your game, specifically for discrepancies or problems that might arise. (I've done this in the past too)
4. You had a rule listed where everyone could see it that was specific to the game being called. (the 50% rule) or or when/how to call the game
5. You had specific wincons in role PM's.
6. When presented with a conflict in those rules, more to the point when the 50% rule was pointed out, you would not do anything about it, except for repeatedly stating the wincon of a Role PM
7. You also added in a rule about dead people being able to cast votes and affect who may be lynched. (Changing the rules and game mechanics after the game started, not disclosing this in signup)
The thing that really got under my skin was you not doing about it and forcing the game to go to a conclusion that was inevitable.
In my opinion, what you should have done rule wise was one of the following:
A: Strike the 50%rule from the first page, with an explanation of why, maybe not word for word what the goo faction had to do, but note that there was a conflict in the rules, or added in something to try make it work
B: Amend the 50%rule to account for the conditions in your role PM's, you may have had to remove the 50% part here, I don't know.
c: Honor the 50%rule and call the game when/where applicable. TBH, the moment huck was lynched, the goo faction won because the town could no longer muster up enough of a vote to manage to stop the goo faction. It really made no difference that d2lover also was recruited that night or what Noodle did thereafter. If were running the game, I would have called the game and declared goo the winner because they already outnumbered the town and there was nothing the town could do about it.
Having to play another day to a the same out come as would have happened the moment huckit was lynched dragged it on, it wasn't fun.
I also get what you say about the 50% rule saying call the game but not specifically saying who the winner is. Though, with the mafia (or goo in this case) outnumbering the town, logic would make me call the goo as the winner still.
Deadlock situation: I guess it's tricky and more or less up to the mod. Though I might decide in favor of the scum (regardless of if either faction could or could not vote or NK the other), I would rule in favor of scum if town could not muster enough votes to lynch. However in rare cases where there might be other factors (NK protections, town abilities where an NK attempt can be avoided, I.E. Deathproof, Commuter, etc,. for example, I think I would call it a draw
If it were a situation where neither side could fulfill a wincon or win by any means, ofc, I'd call it a draw.
About copying the rules, yeah I admit it, I've made mistakes there.
On the GF cheating part, I'll skip that as it has nothing to do with mafia!
In closing, I'll admit I've gotten into it before with older rules that I had and situations that arose, you may even remember one or two, and we're not perfect.
all in all it was a fun game, I just wanted to take a bite out of @Noodle but that did not happen.
I've said my bit, if you feel you need help in a future game, feel free to ask.
Last edited:
Yea, I actually considered striking rhe 50% rule when you brought it up. But, I figured we would still need it if the situation arose as it did. 3 goo vs 1 town, the game can just be called at that point.
Also, since we vetoed the Survivor style voting, we still needed a way to end/resolve a deadlock. Thats what I was trying to say with my "alright, we'll call it a draw" post. I should have probably amended/made clear in the rules at this point..
Also, since we vetoed the Survivor style voting, we still needed a way to end/resolve a deadlock. Thats what I was trying to say with my "alright, we'll call it a draw" post. I should have probably amended/made clear in the rules at this point..
