CtFwS: Call for discussion

Oct 27, 2004 16:43

[x-posted to assocs.kgb ( Read more... )

ctfws

Leave a comment

Comments 20

styger October 27 2004, 20:52:00 UTC
From what I remember of the third game, the many-flagged version of the game worked incredibly well, but I also believe a large part of this had to do with the fact that the number of players had dropped by that point in the night. I'd be curious to see how it would work with a full onslaught of players. I don't remember exactly how many people were playing at that point last year, but perhaps some reasonable ratio can be figured out if we play a few rounds of this variant over this and next semester.

Also, perhaps it might be wise to make this a memory or somesuch in the cmukgb journal. It is likely to scroll of most people's friends pages rather quickly, and it would be nice to have a way to sticky it somehow.

Reply


jgrafton October 27 2004, 20:58:54 UTC
Slightly off topic, but are non-CMUers allowed to play CtFwS? I have a friend who stumbled onto KGB's website and was really excited about the game, assuming he could figure out some way to get here.

Reply

etotheipi October 27 2004, 21:00:25 UTC
Yes.

Reply

jgrafton October 27 2004, 21:02:38 UTC
I pretty much figured that was the case, but I just wanted to be sure. Thanks.

Reply

styger October 27 2004, 21:01:05 UTC
Everyone and their mother is welcome to play, and if he's coming from out of state, he certainly wouldn't be the only one.

Reply


jcipa October 27 2004, 20:58:56 UTC
I think that the third game was immense fun, but I think that a large part of that was due to the dramatically reduced number of individuals playing. It was an effective way to revive flagging interest (and ward off sheer exhaustion by that point).

Reply


etotheipi October 27 2004, 21:04:11 UTC
I remember there was an issue last year with a team having a player with a stun wand right next to the recharge glyph, which made it pretty much impossible to stop them from stunning everyone who passed. It was suggested that there be a minimum amount of time (~5 seconds) between using an item and recharging it. I like that idea.

Reply

redglasses October 28 2004, 02:08:52 UTC
There are a great many issues like that which all fall under the general heading of "people need to stop being overcompetitive fuckclowns and remember that we play the game to have fun". The flags-in-different corridors rule sprung up out of the same sort of behaviour.

Unfortunately, no amount of twisty ruleadge nor Reason has been shown to stop the assmonkies from their assmonkying.

Reply

gwillen October 28 2004, 06:06:04 UTC
But if we simply gave up on stopping the assmonkeying, there would be no need for rules at all.... the whole point of rules is so that some people can't ruin other people's fun. I agree with rlambert that a max-recharge-rate rule would be a good idea.

Reply

drquuxum October 28 2004, 11:15:30 UTC
Note that I don't have the ability to read assocs.kgb.ctwfs -- so I will agree and suggest an n-minute downtime after recharging. Stopwatches handy?

Reply


platypuslord October 28 2004, 07:04:42 UTC
It amuses me that the Wand of Dispel is described as "Concealable".
"Is that a Wand of Dispel in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?"

Is stunning an effective counter to the Belt of Chastity?
(That is, can they still operate the Belt by singing even when stunned?)

Can the jailor ask every incoming prisoner for the potion of lubrication?
Maybe the mechanic that prevents this should be formalized.

Reply

quindarprime October 28 2004, 19:40:17 UTC
1. Behind your back.
2. Stunned players may sing. See the definition of stunning.
3. Yes, but they don't have to give it up unless the jailer knows they have it. See the definition of concealment. Enforcement of this rule often falls under the assmonkey clause.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up