Sooky Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Probably a rubbish idea but I'll throw it out there anyway. I Propose having 5 grand slams/ppv's a year: 1 x survivor game 1 x Apprentice game 1 x TRS Mafia game 1 x Forehead Powers mafia game 1 x GTG old school mafia game Outside of these 5 grand slams, people can have as many mafia games as they want. Personally I would only sign up for the grand slams . What this would mean: People who want fewer games can only sign up for the grand slams thus improving the quality of these games. People who want to play more games/ host games can do so as they please in and around these games. But who says that you'll host a better classic mafia game than let's say Kyle? Or that Forehead's powers game would be as good as GingerSaint's? I don't really see how you can call them grand slams when it's perfectly plausible that they might end up completely flopping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 You're going to break your streak? What about hosts like Kyle and Turbo? He wouldn't really though, as the other games would be like wrestling on Heat or Burnout or Afterburn. Regarding the hosts, that'd be my one flaw of the plan. That should/could be negotiated upon. Other than that - it solves every problem, the old guard wanting to keep it fresh and the new school wanting games thick and fast. No sneakiness, no lack of structure either. It all fits into place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Taranbino Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 You're going to break your streak? What about hosts like Kyle and Turbo? They can host as many games they want outwith the grandslams. Tbh, what the grandslams were and who runs them was just what came to mind, but you get the general jist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I don't really see how you can call them grand slams when it's perfectly plausible that they might end up completely flopping. There's been shite Wrestlemania's/WC Finals/whatever but they're still the grand slam events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quentin Taranbino Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Yeah those hosts were just what first came to mind and obv not set in stone etc, was just so people got general idea of having 5 main events then everything else can go on outwith these Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Parstastic Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 This is an absolute joke the last 5 pages from ideas of a 5 person PM to Grand Slam events. I am in the minority with Turbo Dee I fear, the reason the last game was rubbish was half the people that signed up could not be bothered and just jumped on who had the most votes, instead of looking for clues or patterns or in Ludo's case pick a player that is dead, all of these points made the game stale. The only logical and way forward is if you want to play in a game then play if you don't miss the game and pick the games you want to play. Parscelona is a great example he picks and chooses his games but does not make a fuss about the schedule or make 5 pages of ideas. The only way to improve the quality is by having players that want to play and are motivated to play properly. The correct answer is leave the schedule how it is, if you want to play then great if you want a break then great but at the end of the day it is an "Internet Game" not a matter of life and death ffs. In summary Deal With It! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooky Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 There's been shite Wrestlemania's/WC Finals/whatever but they're still the grand slam events. But to be perfectly honest I don't see what justifies them games/hosts as being 'the best'. Sure, GTG, Forehead & TRS are all very good players, and are usually very good hosts. But at any point one of their games might end up like Scotty's did. I don't see what makes them so special that their hosted game should be considered a 'grand slam'. No offence guys, I enjoy playing your games and like you all but I'm just not liking this idea. EDIT: I just saw your latest post GTG and that's fair enough, but I'm still not liking the idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forehead7 Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 Am I still on for hosting a game in early October? You're supposed to go on the 8th of April, but we're currently revamping the schedule so f**k knows what's going on. But who says that you'll host a better classic mafia game than let's say Kyle? Or that Forehead's powers game would be as good as GingerSaint's? I don't really see how you can call them grand slams when it's perfectly plausible that they might end up completely flopping. Well, why games are always the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I left work with this at 120 pages. I come back to this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number one wasp Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I vote leave it how it is and if you don't want to play don't sign up simples. No oneis holding a gun to your head and saying "Sign up or i'll pull the trigger" and ludo i'm not buying your excuse of the temptation eventually being too much that just makes me think of the mentality of a kid who gets told not to do something and does it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizlopi Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 People should host a game when they want - f**k the schedule People will play if they want and not play if they don't Why does everything have to be so organised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I vote leave it how it is and if you don't want to play don't sign up simples. No oneis holding a gun to your head and saying "Sign up or i'll pull the trigger" and ludo i'm not buying your excuse of the temptation eventually being too much that just makes me think of the mentality of a kid who gets told not to do something and does it anyway. I already said this, can't you read? We should definitely have grand slams though as our ranking tournaments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number one wasp Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 People should host a game when they want - f**k the schedule People will play if they want and not play if they don't Why does everything have to be so organised? Because ludo and his arselickers clique would still complan if there was regular games with no schedule so i assume that's why we started a schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parscelona Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Since we all seem to be throwing our tuppence worth, i’ll throw mines in as well. Firstly, i think it’s clear that some people on here take these games far too seriously and it’s obvious that there are certain individuals who seem to have rather hilariously used these games to boost their own egos. Whether that’s to cover up shortcomings in their real lives I don’t know, nevertheless it’s pretty embarrassing to read. At the end of the day these are just internet games, if you want to host a game, host a game. If you want to take part, take part. What’s difficult to understand? The only thing i would say is that if you’re going to sign up for a game, ensure that you’re able to make a good contribution to the game, otherwise it affects the experience of the other players. Personally, i like to take breaks between games in order to keep it fresh for me, although there’s been too many times where I’ve read a Mafia/Survivor game and there are people taking part who bring up the same old excuses of essay work or working late this week etc. If you’ve got too much work to do during the time that the game is running, don’t sign up. Should there be breaks between games? No, that's an individual choice as i've alluded to. Stop trying to organise these games into some kind of yearly Wrestling PPV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number one wasp Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I already said this, can't you read? That's what i was alluding to that you had that sort of mentality if you can't stop yourself from signing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Right guys; here's the current games in the current format; Future Games April 8th - Cold War - ThatBoyRonaldo April 29th - Only Paedophile in the Village - The Real Saints May 20th - Harry Potter - Turbo_Dee June 10th - The deadly combination of SLJ and Jambo Rocker July 1st - Mr Parstastic July 22nd - Gordon the Gopher - Apprentice 2012 August 12th - Resident Evil - Forehead7 October - Parscelona Proposed Games Dave_Binos - TMNT Ludo - Casino Mafia (completed) Kyle - The Game of Thrones Shelldon - as yet unspecified game There's been a few others taking about wanting to host too, so apologies if I've missed you out. Being totally honest, I think we should just try and establish an order of some kind for all of the above games, remove the specific dates and just try and be as flexible as humanly possible. The idea of the '5 slams' is a good one I think, but there also needs to be flexibility regarding that. Just using my own example, I think the 'Game of Thrones' idea has real potential, and would hopefully be considered up there with some of the other original concept games. It can't be the same hosts every single time either for these as that's just elitist nonsense. We're all here to have a bit of a laugh and fun, although i do agree there does need to be some kind of discussion regarding the games being played and when they are played, and no one should have any higher rank than the other. I'm probably sounding a bit like one of them pigs from Animal Farm here, but there's no reason why ANYONE's (be they experienced, new or unpopular) opinion isn't taken seriously I agree with a lot of what Forehead says (although i do feel the way he expresses his opinion draws arguments sometimes - just an opinion though) in that if people don't want to play any given game then they just shouldn't sign up. A lot of people are saying they signed up for the last game out of 'habit' but I know that's not the case for me. I was quite looking forward to the game, but couldn't get into it at all. It's a reflection of me, not anyone else, and it's disappointing that my exit post in the game has stemmed into such a massive debate and, arguably, a power struggle. I think we should have a look at the above games, establish some kind of 'order' (without putting a specific time table on anything, and that can also be switched about at late notice) and just get back to enjoying the games without all these pseudo political debates that seem to kick off occasionally. I really enjoy the games on here, whether I'm hosting, playing or just watching. Let's not make things personal and take away from the games, all it will achieve is that these games stop all together, which isn't what any of us want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 That's what i was alluding to that you had that sort of mentality if you can't stop yourself from signing up. Then evidently you can't read as I have stopped myself from signing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Since we all seem to be throwing our tuppence worth, i'll throw mines in as well. Firstly, i think it's clear that some people on here take these games far too seriously and it's obvious that there are certain individuals who seem to have rather hilariously used these games to boost their own egos. Whether that's to cover up shortcomings in their real lives I don't know, nevertheless it's pretty embarrassing to read. At the end of the day these are just internet games, if you want to host a game, host a game. If you want to take part, take part. What's difficult to understand? The only thing i would say is that if you're going to sign up for a game, ensure that you're able to make a good contribution to the game, otherwise it affects the experience of the other players. Personally, i like to take breaks between games in order to keep it fresh for me, although there's been too many times where I've read a Mafia/Survivor game and there are people taking part who bring up the same old excuses of essay work or working late this week etc. If you've got too much work to do during the time that the game is running, don't sign up. Should there be breaks between games? No, that's an individual choice as i've alluded to. Stop trying to organise these games into some kind of yearly Wrestling PPV. I tried to greenie this, but I've run out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number one wasp Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Then evidently you can't read as I have stopped myself from signing up. Then do it again and we can stop this stupid arguement since you and gy have dropped out before surely wouldn't be any different doing it now like it was back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forehead7 Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 Because ludo and his arselickers clique would still complan if there was regular games with no schedule so i assume that's why we started a schedule. I think the schedule was actually my idea. I still think it works though. Being totally honest, I think we should just try and establish an order of some kind for all of the above games, remove the specific dates and just try and be as flexible as humanly possible. The idea of the '5 slams' is a good one I think, but there also needs to be flexibility regarding that. Just using my own example, I think the 'Game of Thrones' idea has real potential, and would hopefully be considered up there with some of the other original concept games. It can't be the same hosts every single time either for these as that's just elitist nonsense. We're all here to have a bit of a laugh and fun, although i do agree there does need to be some kind of discussion regarding the games being played and when they are played, and no one should have any higher rank than the other. I'm probably sounding a bit like one of them pigs from Animal Farm here, but there's no reason why ANYONE's (be they experienced, new or unpopular) opinion isn't taken seriously I agree with a lot of what Forehead says (although i do feel the way he expresses his opinion draws arguments sometimes - just an opinion though) in that if people don't want to play any given game then they just shouldn't sign up. A lot of people are saying they signed up for the last game out of 'habit' but I know that's not the case for me. I was quite looking forward to the game, but couldn't get into it at all. It's a reflection of me, not anyone else, and it's disappointing that my exit post in the game has stemmed into such a massive debate and, arguably, a power struggle. I think we should have a look at the above games, establish some kind of 'order' (without putting a specific time table on anything, and that can also be switched about at late notice) and just get back to enjoying the games without all these pseudo political debates that seem to kick off occasionally. I really enjoy the games on here, whether I'm hosting, playing or just watching. Let's not make things personal and take away from the games, all it will achieve is that these games stop all together, which isn't what any of us want. I'm not gonna delete the irrelevant parts but I'll just address them. What's wrong with the order being first come, first served? I'd take away the dates and just have it as an queue but if you sign up then you need to have a specific theme ready, sometimes I feel people just put their name down to host without an idea in mind. I'm not saying you have to give away the whole thing but a theme (or name in TRS's case) shows that you've actually thought about it. edit: and yeah, Parscelona's post is pretty much spot on. And there's not many advocating the long breaks that have been suggested. I think it's only Ludo, GTG and GY who are actually saying that the games should stop, rather than players just stopping. Seems like taking the times out of the schedule would suit most people and just running it as an order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.