Hydra Discussion Thread

[VashtaNeurotic]

Okay there are a couple subjects at play.

Subject 1: Do Hydras Inherently Advantage the players?

I'm not sure that the theory on this is as clear cut as people think. Sure having a partner you can bounce ideas off of is a major bonus. However, if you have 2 people who very much are not on the same page you can have anti synergy that makes the hydra work a lot worse that the sum of its parts, especially if they disagree on literally anything. And while maybe if one head messes up people will still be fine with the other, it can equally be the case that one of the heads (*cough* Malkon *cough*) turns people off more than the other could. Also with challenges being split between heads, you can't just end up with a social and challenge superplayers.

Subject 2: What purpose should Hydras serve?

I really think that Hydras are a really good way to let newer players be able to engage in more Advanced games. I don't think anyone likes the idea of someone new coming in, not knowing what to do, and immediately getting booted learning very little. It isn't fun for the person that got booted and it doesn't help grow the community. I also like them helping out players who are busy but still have a mind for the game as we saw with T&H. Like are people seriously going to argue game without Radja is better for everyone than game with Radja? Lastly, while those other two are pragmatic, hydras kind of sound like a fun time for two people who get along, but that would probably be best saved for a Big Brother all hydra game, since honestly that idea sounds amazing to me.

Subject 3: Are there better ways of handling the problems set up in 2?

On activity, there really isn't, the only question is whether you just prefer that someone who wants to play but is busy not sign up at all. On helping newbies, well Hydras are a lot more flexible than teams/partner twists. Teams and partner twists require you to build an entire game around a mechanic and frankly, that's just not going to happen very often. We can get those occasionally, but yeah no. Meanwhile Hydras can be implemented in most Advanced/Complex games, and since we only get a handful of new players/people with V/LA issues every game it can just cater to that group without having to overhaul an entire game. Not to mention that even with like partners/coaches twists, typically the partner can't see your PMs, and learning how to PM is both a very major aspect of the game and one that is hard to teach without some PMs right in front of you.

Overall I think Hydras are a smart tool to be used in specific situations. Also someone make an all hydra Big Brother game.

[VashtaNeurotic]

I'm not sure that the theory on this is as clear cut as people think. Sure having a partner you can bounce ideas off of is a major bonus. However, if you have 2 people who very much are not on the same page you can have anti synergy that makes the hydra work a lot worse that the sum of its parts, especially if they disagree on literally anything. And while maybe if one head messes up people will still be fine with the other, it can equally be the case that one of the heads (*cough* Malkon *cough*) turns people off more than the other could. Also with challenges being split between heads, you can't just end up with a social and challenge superplayers.

I really don't think you should evaluate this in this way. "Well yeah SURE it can be a huge advantage but sometimes if the partners don't get along it's not a huge advantage!" That's not, mechanically, something you can balance for. Similarly, you can't balance a game around "well sure, someone COULD use this item as it's intended to be used... or, the person who gets the item could wind up being a big dumbass and not use it at all!" You cannot balance for the scenarios where things won't be used to their fullest advantage. You have to work under the assumption that they will be utilized.

This is kind of the whole problem.

The sheer advantage of having someone who you know has your best interests/goals in mind and won't lie to you or mislead you... that's

fucking enormous

. It's huge. It gives hydra that one singular advantage over every other player in the game and therefore throws off the balance entirely. There are plenty of other advantages I think hydras get, such as limiting burnout or allowing people to tag out when they need a break whereas solo players can't do it, but they're irrelevant. This one advantage (which isn't even debatable, it's objective fact that it's an advantage) unfairly advantages the game towards hydras vs. solo players.

I am kinda like flabbergasted we're even having this discussion. It's why hydras should've been banned in mafia a long time ago too but nobody took it seriously.
Literally the winner of the game is called the SOLE Survivor? Not really "sole" survivor if multiple people are winning together, is it?

I guess it's fair to say that we need to evaluate the best scenario in terms of hydras, and when they work, they can end up being stronger than either player is capable individually. Even in that case, I'm still fine with it. Firstly, I don't think it advantages them so much that it just makes the game unfair. Like Flim Flam was made up of two winners and yet it didn't break the game, T&H might have won but they literally almost went out mid merge. Also, lots of inherent advantages exist in survivor, experience, activity, challenge ability that advantage certain players, but none of them end up breaking the game. In fact, I think it's best for these to be used in cases where people have significant disadvantages in those areas (well maybe not challenge ability, but the point is still there). After all, Survivor isn't a sport, so I'm more than fine with giving some people a better chance at success if, on balance, it makes the game higher quality and allows more people to play.

I really don't think the sole survivor point really weighs much. Survivor also takes place on an island live over 39 days where people don't have any other concerns. Forum survivor is inherently different from "normal" survivor and allows us to do very different things. Not to mention the game evolves over time, like final 3s, idols and redemption are all changes that have occurred that went against the original "thesis" of the game and yet, are mainstays.

[VashtaNeurotic]

Even in that case, I'm still fine with it.

That's buck wild to me that you can openly say "It is inherently unfair and advantages one slot over another but I don't care".

I dunno why striving for equality across slots isn't high on the priority list.

lol~ a first timer has very low chances of winning. Pairing them up with someone as opposed to having them play alone increases equality across player slots.

Yes, a first-timer has a low chance of winning. That's because learning how to play these types of games takes time and experience to learn, so when you do get better and play well and get far. A first-timer should almost always lose to experienced players in every game that isn't Mario Party. LSGs aren't Mario Party.

I assume this is meant to say "so when you do get better and play well and get far it will be more rewarding" and will respond assuming as such.

First, big oof to the worst or really anyone who does well in their first game. Second, Reck you realize how long games are, and how few there are in year, right? And how hard it can be for someone to improve in a community foreign to them that they aren't already excelling at? Like sure you can be like "it'll be more rewarding when you get better, just wait another 3 months to hopefully not go out early" and leave people to their own devices, OR you can, actually give people a connection to the community and meaningful feedback in one of their first games while also not having a bunch of autoboots at the start of games.

[VashtaNeurotic]

I mean...your point there was about first timers, so I responded about first timers. I'm equally fine arguing that I like to see Radja be able to play games when he's busy and not telling him he just shouldn't apply, but I get that not everyone will agree with that.

I'm also fine if the conclusion is that Flim-Flam can't happen again (barring a game designed to only be hydras), which I think is regrettable, but understandable.

Also, like, spectating a game might give you a sense of how the game works, but frankly it's not going to make up for lack of experience in a meaningful way, the only real way to get better at survivor is to actually play survivor. Also, yes there have been additions to the community, that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for more or ease the process of joining the community? I think this is good for that.

Also, like, you do have to consent into being a hydra, so if someone thinks they're fine on their own and they would be robbed of the grind, they can just...not, or choose to spectate.

[VashtaNeurotic]

That was more me going off on a tangent in my head. Basically, you are saying new players in a hydra are being robbed of some reward by not getting better the old fashioned way (highly debatable imo). My response is more, shouldn't they get a choice? After all it's not like we'd be forcing any into a hydra.

[VashtaNeurotic]

I mean, I don't think me or anyone is arguing that Hydras should be in standard games? I think it's more that they should be an allowable thing in Advanced/Complex games where there's already a lot of stuff going on?

Also, like, yes, the way the game is played is by learning and growing. Theoretically hydras should learn and grow more effectively and faster? Though I guess verifying that would be difficult.

[VashtaNeurotic]

Seconding all of Malkon's points. Yes let's please have an all-hydra game of some sort. But also letting two active players pick each other was in my opinion, an incredibly bad decision - I don't hate the way Barely Survivor implemented it (you could "pick" your partner as long as you or they are new to LSGs, as I believe MURDERCAT did), but giving them carte blanche is really bad. And I'm not saying that from the perspective of competitive balance, since presumably that's already being accounted for.

Okay so if the issue isn't competitive balance, then what is the issue here? Like I feel like the main issue with carte blanche is just creating an OP hydra combination (which I'd expect any modteam to be cognizant of and try to avoid). So is it instead that people might have to spend 2 months with someone they know they'll get along with? Like I've always felt that was the lowest bar a hydra should clear, being trapped in a chat with a person making each other miserable sounds like a world to avoid at all costs.

Also nthing the idea of an all hydra game, since at the very least any game that has a hydra produces this conversation again with few people shifting in opinion, but that pretty much goes away in an all hydra game.

Oh another thing: if there are hydras, there should be no flexibility with challenges. They should be forced to alternate challenges. Already the challenge aspect is a benefit for hydras since it allows players who lack challenge ability to play with someone who doesn't, but if they have any flexibility, that is a huge advantage over non-hydra players. Shouldn't be a problem if we have all hydra games though.

I mean I feel this point of view is a bit austere. Hydras shouldn't get to just pick and choose who gets to do each challenge, but the only situations where we violated the must alternate position was when there was a known availability issue that would similarly require a substitute to be used (which is expected when hydras are in part made because of lack of availability), and any time it did happen we made sure that the total number of challenges done by each half evened out. The situation with P&D was a bit nuanced as we didn't want to softlock a hydra because of time zone issues (and would not happen if we didn't decide that to alternate a hydra head must actually participate in a challenge first, but I stand by that view) and it was definitely a better solution than any other one available at the time.

Also you do realize if someone without challenge ability is hydraing with someone who does, then someone who does have challenge ability is hydraing with one who doesn't? So if it helps one person it hurts the other person the same amount.

[VashtaNeurotic]

I mean, there are a lot of potential issues but they can be highlighted pretty clearly by the fact that immediately upon realizing that Noraa was one half of M+H I was seriously considering Mist to be the other half of it despite having absolutely no evidence that that playerslot was Mist

I mean that feels like more of an issue with people and letting IDs affect their decisions, which is a very different discussion. I don't see that as a significant hydra issue as if someone IDs half a hydra, they MIGHT ID the full player slot, whereas if you ID a player...you just ID'd the full player slot. If it was like a partners twist I could see that as in issue as you might ID two players, but re: a hydra, not sure that is a significant issue.

[VashtaNeurotic]

Oh in case my statement was unclear. Yeah, IDs shouldn't factor into decision making whatsoever, I don't think anyone here does believe that. I think the underlying point was that the more IDing that happens the more likely it is to occur that someone allows it to affect their decision making, which is bad and I do agree with. I think the other point was that hydras can cause this to happen more in a significant fashion, which I dispute.