|
Post by Popebenedict on Feb 21, 2007 15:48:03 GMT -5
Here's where we should post all suggestions for Mafia III, and then argue about them, until we reach a decision. Have at it.
I think that we should abolish resurrections from the next Mafia's. They cause to many problems and provide to many handicaps in the game, for both the mafia and the innocents.
Case and point.
|
|
|
Post by Loogs on Feb 21, 2007 16:49:38 GMT -5
No double-postings, Pope. ^^
Well, maybe resurrections could be a vote thing. I dunno, just sayin'.
|
|
|
Post by ch00beh on Feb 21, 2007 16:50:50 GMT -5
Need a couple necromancers chanting in a circle all night long?
|
|
|
Post by Popebenedict on Feb 21, 2007 16:52:04 GMT -5
I think they are a bad idea in general. People should not be able to come back from the dead when they were used as christmas tree decorations. It just doesn't work like that.
|
|
|
Post by ch00beh on Feb 21, 2007 16:54:19 GMT -5
Well, I think that limiting resurrections is a fine enough solution.
|
|
|
Post by kazkame on Feb 21, 2007 16:55:57 GMT -5
i agree with Andurin
|
|
|
Post by Popebenedict on Feb 21, 2007 16:58:34 GMT -5
Limiting the problem and fixing it are two different things. Limiting it really doesnt even solve anything. I think we should just try it out on the next Mafia and if we dont like it we should change it back.
|
|
|
Post by prime on Feb 21, 2007 18:20:01 GMT -5
Its all opinion, and at the moment, our opinion outweighs yours. Limited resses or necro's are cool, I can go with that. However, abolishing them completely doesn't sit well with me. I think they add an interesting aspect to the game.
|
|
|
Post by Prof. Cinders on Feb 21, 2007 18:24:06 GMT -5
I agree with what Prime said, and think the necromancer idea could be tried out. Seems a nice little idea, and of course, when they're killed, no more rezzes. It could also be completely unknown whether they're mafia or innocent, like the lovers etc, which could be fun.
|
|
|
Post by prime on Feb 21, 2007 18:35:17 GMT -5
Nah, the necro would have to be innocent, otherwise it'd be a one sided advantage.
|
|
|
Post by Prof. Cinders on Feb 21, 2007 18:39:22 GMT -5
Yeah, but you could also limit how many times throughout the game they could rezz. If they were indeed mafia, then they wouldn't be able to do it forever. Having them with an anon. alliance would also heat up the game a lot. Are they rezzing innocents, or mafia? EDIT: Just thought, if they were one of the Lovers as well, they could be rezzing both. So their alliance wouldn't prove much in the game.
|
|
|
Post by Ocelot on Feb 21, 2007 18:49:37 GMT -5
The thing about rezzes is the fact that they give an advantage to the innocents no matter what. Now correct me if I am but the whole point of the Mafia game is too deduce who is the mafia and if you are wrong the whole village will suffer because of the decision. Now the addition of rezzez take that aspect away even if put under restrictions. Now the only way I think that would work is if the necro became an enhanced miller. The necromancer would only get two rezzes for the entire game and not be aware of anyone else's alliance and wouldn't be able to have a lover. Since the necro would be aalot like the miller(a social outcast) when checked by the detective he will turn up as mafia. Also alliances of the dead should only be revealed after the death of the necro so he/she will have more pressure.
|
|
|
Post by Prof. Cinders on Feb 21, 2007 18:52:30 GMT -5
Yet another idea expanding on my previous: What if there were two necros. Double the fun! And mayhaps only 1 rezz each.
|
|
|
Post by Loogs on Feb 21, 2007 19:00:35 GMT -5
And BTW: I'd like to again take up the offer of hosting(or co-hosting if need be) Mafia III. And yes, I will set it in Haiti. W00t Voudoun and zombays! ^.^ Actually no. Not really.
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebibble on Feb 21, 2007 19:06:10 GMT -5
I support both Ocelot and Cinders on this one. Two Necromancers, with the attributes Ocelot described, could be interesting. Would they know each others' identities?
|
|
|
Post by Ocelot on Feb 21, 2007 19:09:55 GMT -5
If there are 2 of them then I guess that would be okay but both would only get one or two rez each and they should still carry the detective seeing them as mafia attribute.
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebibble on Feb 21, 2007 19:10:58 GMT -5
Another subject I think the next Host should consider is the conflict of replacement voting vs. resurrections. In Mafia I, every time someone died, the person for whom that player had served as a replacement voter received that person's choice of replacement voter. Wow. Let me make that more clear. Player A picks Player B as replacement voter. Player C picks Player A as replacement voter. Player A dies. Player C now has Player B as replacement voter.
Resurrections have screwed that up somewhat. I'm not entirely sure how to treat replacement voting now. My current strategy is simply that if Player A dies, Player C just doesn't have a replacement voter any more, thus putting more pressure on Player C to vote. That system works well enough, but I suspect the next Host will be able to come up with something smarter.
|
|
|
Post by Popebenedict on Feb 21, 2007 19:16:11 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with the current subject, but I would like to address the issue of Loogs taking over Mafia III. This is not a good idea, your not able to be here consistantly, and this job requires you to be on every day, and a lot of the day. Only a few members meet the criteria. I think Prime, Lee or Phuh should do it.
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebibble on Feb 21, 2007 19:18:30 GMT -5
That's true, actually. This game is taking up a really unhealthy portion of my time.
...But it's so right.
|
|
|
Post by Loogs on Feb 21, 2007 20:13:10 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with the current subject, but I would like to address the issue of Loogs taking over Mafia III. This is not a good idea, your not able to be here consistantly, and this job requires you to be on every day, and a lot of the day. Only a few members meet the criteria. I think Prime, Lee or Phuh should do it. ....*sigh* why do you think I offered to co-host it? Besides, I think my internet access has become possibly more stable. Even then, I'd have a co-host like possibly Babs to cover for me.
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebibble on Feb 21, 2007 20:17:39 GMT -5
I'll admit I'm not sure how the mechanics of co-hosting would work.
|
|
|
Post by prime on Feb 21, 2007 20:24:10 GMT -5
The co host sits on his ass and whines when he doesn't get to do anything, adding an edge to the game because everyone wants to end it quickly, just so said co-host will shut up.
|
|
|
Post by Loogs on Feb 21, 2007 20:25:24 GMT -5
The co host sits on his ass and whines when he doesn't get to do anything, adding an edge to the game because everyone wants to end it quickly, just so said co-host will shut up. *sigh* It merely means that two minds are at the creative wheel and not just one. It also means that we'll have a substitute in case one host goes AWOL.
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebibble on Feb 21, 2007 20:36:07 GMT -5
There's so much to keep track of. It's one thing to know everyone's roles, but to maintain their inventories, and run a schedule that dictates when item uses go into and out of effect... And who would players turn to for PMs?
|
|
|
Post by Loogs on Feb 21, 2007 20:37:34 GMT -5
There's so much to keep track of. It's one thing to know everyone's roles, but to maintain their inventories, and run a schedule that dictates when item uses go into and out of effect... And who would players turn to for PMs? Such a big job? Why not divide it among two people? PMs may be tricky. We can either a) have specific subjects be PMed to specific people or b) PM either host for anything.
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebibble on Feb 21, 2007 21:18:07 GMT -5
That's what I mean. It's such a big job that trying to keep another person informed of everything that goes on would only complicate matters further.
|
|