Policy Discussion: Invitationals

[AniX]

I have no opinion on invitationals so long as its understood that I be allowed to issue the following statement:

"I will not take part in any "best player" invitationals, so don't nominate or invite me."

This is due to the fact I doubt the "best" player criteria will take into account certain preternatural abilities that some individuals on this forum possess.

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

There is no "best" player... The only thing that exists is "best player in the game", and even that is questionable.

[AniX]

Well, certainly Point B of Mith's statement refers to a game of the best player, which is something I am almost sure does not include intangibles like the 11th Hour.

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

"Best player" is flawed. There are people who put more effort into the game then others, people who helped the 'scum community the last couple of years and people who are just sorta "common names". I think these kind of categories are better then just "best player".

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

I agree with Kscope, if only because I don't stand a chance to play in one otherwise.

(Although I think I'd make the cut if it was based solely on scum play.)

[MrBuddyLee]

One good way to choose a solid line-up would be to have trusted mods pick the rosters. I think long-time mods know better than anyone who actually plays mafia and who's just here to screw around.

[Glork]

One good way to choose a solid line-up would be to have trusted mods pick the rosters. I think long-time mods know better than anyone who actually plays mafia and who's just here to screw around.

I just screw around.


Trying sucks.

[Yosarian2]

Or one other thought; if we're going to have 3 mini-invitationals this year, we could just invite the 36 most active and serious players on mafiascum to be in them, 12 per game, I think that should include most of the really active players on the site; and then the big invitational can be drawn based on which players do best in those games.

[petroleumjelly]

Or one other thought; if we're going to have 3 mini-invitationals this year, we could just invite the 36 most active and serious players on mafiascum to be in them, 12 per game, I think that should include most of the really active players on the site; and then the big invitational can be drawn based on which players do best in those games.

The 3 seperate games with 36 players is intriguing (probably the best way to keep a diverse mix), but I wouldn't necessarily try to choose the "best players" from those for a larger game. What about people who die Night One and therefore can't make a large impact on the game? Etc, etc...

[BrianMcQueso]

1. Do you think we should have invitationals at all?
2. About how many invitationals per year is a good number?

I'd like to answer these questions together. I would like the idea of having invitationals on this site, so long as they remain "special". Major league sports have their "All-Star" events, but they happen rarely enough for them to be significant. If we had too many invitationals, it would defeat the point of having them. The MafiaScum/GreyLabyrinth crossover is an excellent example. The MafiaScum Five Year Anniversary coming up would be another good one.

3. What type of game should invitationals be (basic normal, themed)?

This is only personal opinion, but I have been gravitating more towards "normal" Mafia games. While wacky roles are interesting and have their place, I've found myself yearning to just have a game determined by the skill of the players. "Mountainous" games can still be interesting, and I would refer you to the Kingmaker games to back my claim.

4. How should the "best" players be chosen?

I would prefer a nomination system, similar to the one used for the Scummies. Quite often I have played in games with other scummers who have played exceptionally, and yet they do not receive recognition for doing so. The Scummies' specialized categories are not appropriate for just rewarding excellent play. I think an Invitational is the way to do this.

[IH]

We should have a yearly mod game. = )

Regular moderators (like the newbie mods, and those who mod more than they play) have a game.

[KaleiÐoscøpe]

Why not make a game where everyone who wants to play in it can sign up... just basic roles but nobody left out (thus no "omg, i'm not in, I hate you"). Yes, it will be a big game then, but I think i'd be fun.

[Mr. Flay]

If our population was more invested in each of their games, I'd support the idea of an open-sized game. Problem is, I fear that it would do one of two things:
a) the game would be so large and unwieldy that it would suck the life out of many other games on the site;
b) no one would want to get in a game so large and unwieldy, and it would lose the specialness you're looking for because only 12-15 people would sign up.

Either way, I don't think it falls under the category of "Invitational".

[AniX]

Or one other thought; if we're going to have 3 mini-invitationals this year, we could just invite the 36 most active and

serious

players on mafiascum to be in them, 12 per game, I think that should include most of the really active players on the site; and then the big invitational can be drawn based on which players do best in those games.

Why do people always confuse being serious with being good?

[Zindaras]

Err, yeah, I've been wondering about this, but we could attempt to set up a cross-site Invitational. Not just GL and this site, but also from other sites with good Mafia players.

[Thestatusquo]

Or one other thought; if we're going to have 3 mini-invitationals this year, we could just invite the 36 most active and serious players on mafiascum to be in them, 12 per game, I think that should include most of the really active players on the site; and then the big invitational can be drawn based on which players do best in those games.

I am against this idea. Although it would include people like me in the invitationals, who would otherwise not get a chance to be near them, it would also give people such as twito, and masterchief, who are also ver active currently a chance to play, and no offense, but putting players of that caliber in the invitational games makes them...Well, not the kind of games that PJ described, where you don't have to think to yourself "I hope I am not reliant on XX to win."

Just a thought.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

most active and serious

Read it properly, Thestatusquo, you needn't worry.

[AniX]

Serious =/= Good. Thats a rookie mistake people make that doesn't translate.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Serious =/= Masterchief, that's all I'm saying.

[Rainbow Brite]

Serious =/= Good. Thats a rookie mistake people make that doesn't translate.

the question here is - what's the purpose of an invitational? is it to have nothing but the

best

, or to come up with a group of players whose playstyles gel and complement each other?

although i will say for the record that every game needs at least two good trolls.

[AniX]

I would say both are purposes of an invitational, just two different types. But I would bitch and moan, for example, if the "best player" invitational was based off of your latter definition, for sure, because thats not the best players, thats the people who have the most cliche play styles.

[Glork]

although i will say for the record that every game needs at least two good trolls.

...except

POSSIBLY

Newbie games.

[Mr Stoofer]

I think in fact that there we need to distinguish between 3 types of "invtitational":

1. There are games where, at the sign-up stage, the mod sets certain criteria for players he will accept (e.g. Gambits II: must be a regular contributor; Mini 283: must be IC). Nothing wrong with this at all as far as I am concerned (provided the criteria is objective, as in those two examples).
   
   
2. Games where the Mod, entirely off his own bat, sends out invitations inviting people to join. He picks the criteria -- usualy just players he thinks would like his game and would contriute to it (e.g. various "Minvitationals"; Mini 263; and no doubt many others that are not publicised). People may be offended at the mod by not being invited, but this is a risk the mod chooses to run. Again, I have no problem with this myself.
   
   
3. Finally, there are the big deal, "official" invitationals, such as the 5 year anniversary game. Since these are official, there has to be an official means of selecting players. I think that this is the sort of invitational mith is talking about in this thread. Now, unless the criteria are purely objective, some people are bound to be offended. And because it is an "official" game, they'll be offended at the whole site. It's completely different to being annoyed at an individual for not being asked. If these games are going to be run in the future, this has to be borne in mind.

[mikehart]

1. Yes. IMHO invitationals are great reads and I'm sure they'd be fun to play in.

2. I think one good sized game(about 20-30) and two or three minvitationals.

3. I think normal games but with maybe one or two kinda odd roles. Possibly even a "themed" invitational using roles from theme games run throughout the year. It would be alot of fun and wouldn't allow too much information to be construed.

4. The "best" players should be nominated and voted upon similar to the scummies. IMHO if you don't like being "snubbed" by not being nominated you need to suck it up, get over it and yourself, and try to play more and better so you

will

be nominated the next time an invitational is run.

But these are just opinions and I could be wrong.

[Thestatusquo]

I sorta like an open application process, followed by voting...with check boxes, for 3-5 people. Tope 25 vote getters or so get in. Is anyone in opposition to this method? And if so, why?