Okami: WW Sign Ups

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
That moment when you wonder if subconsciously you just forced various friends and family to play, not so much to share the joy as much as so when you ranted about it they wouldn't just look at you vacantly.
I miss you playing.

I’m flattered that you named your baby mayo, but you should come back.
 
I have no doubt we'll hit the minimum for this, but I am curious: what's the smallest game any of you have played in? I assume the smallest possible game would need to be 5; 1 v 4, with a maximum of two days and a single allowed misyeet.
Smallest I've ever played was 6. I have ran one for 3 before though. It wasn't your reasonable WW mechanics though because why would I do that?
 
We need at least two more people to sign up. If anyone from tots wants to join...?
I know school is starting (has started?) Soon though.
 
We need at least two more people to sign up. If anyone from tots wants to join...?
I know school is starting (has started?) Soon though.
This is a TERRIBLE idea for my schedule lol but the game looks so compelling

I'm in unless two more join. Then I'm tot
 
God this game is gonna be toughhhh wanting to play Okami the whole time
Wolf Nap GIF
 
Sounds like a bad idea :thinking: Today was the first day of classes and for the first time in my life, my organizational system is working and I'd like to keep it that way

But if you struggle to find the last person you need to fill the roster later on... Ping again, who knows, maybe bad ideas will sound more appealing by then
 
this is a really bad idea

Players
1. Fluff
2. WO2
3. AM
4. genny
5. Cray
6. Zenge142
7. Dubz
8. @Viscernable ?
9. Zuri
10. Stoat
11. Truenamer
12. Samac
13.
14.
15.
Tots
1. Lawpy
2. Stooot
3. mayo
13. Barks
utc. shorty
 
Sign ups might close tonight and game start tomorrow. Maybe? #freeshrugs

Players
1. Fluff
2. WO2
3. AM
4. genny
5. Cray
6. Zenge142
7. Dubz
8. @Viscernable ?
9. Zuri
10.
11. Truenamer
12. Samac

Tots
1. Lawpy
2. Stooot
3. mayo
13. Barks
utc. shorty

If I throw off the numbers I’ll go to tot
 
Sign ups might close tonight and game start tomorrow. Maybe? #freeshrugs

Players
1. Fluff
2. WO2
3. AM
4. genny
5. Cray
6. Zenge142
7. Dubz
8. @Viscernable ?
9. Zuri
10.
11. Truenamer
12. Samac

Tots
1. Lawpy
2. Stooot
3. mayo
13. Barks
utc. shorty
Is stoat not playing? We re 11.. can’t wait!
 
Is stoat not playing? We re 11.. can’t wait!
PSV is working on getting one more. I don’t want people to feel pressured to play if they truly don’t have the time for it.

Likely we start tomorrow, roles out tonight if timing allows.

GET HYPED
 
Players
1. Fluff
2. WO2
3. AM
4. genny
5. Cray
6. Zenge142
7. Dubz
8. @Viscernable ?
9. Zuri
10.
11. Truenamer
12. Samac
13.
14. @SportPonies

Tots
1. Lawpy
2. Stooot
3. mayo
13. Barks
utc. shorty
 
Final Roster

Players
1. Fluff
2. WO2
3. AM
4. genny
5. Cray
6. Zenge142
7. Dubz
8. Viscernable
9. Zuri
11. Truenamer
12. Samac
14. SportPonies

Tots
1. Lawpy
2. Stooot
3. mayo
13. Barks
4. alissa

Subs
utc. supershorty
 
Game thread is rocking and rolling. Let me or KD know if you didn't get a role PM or if the tags aren't working, as it means I screwed up somewhere.
 
********************
No, the foundation of a marriage is tunneling each other in popcorn mafia and screaming at whomever has the gun to either shoot your significant other, or shoot you so that you can then shoot your significant other.
********************
For the record, if Zenge is yelling for someone to shoot me, he is almost 100% wrong and you should definitely shoot him instead.

😛

I tunnel Zenge in popcorn as all affs, so sorry but you can't use it as a way to read me, and you should probably shoot him just to be safe.
 
Everyone go sign up for Sporty's game because her tag list may not have worked???

 
I just want everyone to know that Zenge just incorrectly shot me.

AGAIN.
To further this point, Zenge has literally ONLY shot me when I was village.

Sounds like a

skill issue
 
Moving this here so as not to clog game thread:
Also, as an FYI for tallies, I try to reflect the order of voting when possible. Didn’t know if that affects how people analyze tallies.
I’ve been considering moving a player who gets voted to when they’re voted:

Example:
X votes Y, then unvotes Y, votes S
A votes Y much later:
Tally: (current)
Y ()
S (1) - X

To be considered:
S (1) - X
Y(1) - A

I really appreciate the effort and the order does matter to me. Thank you, KD.
Good to know
***************
As a player, I do use the former a lot in analyzing, but my opinion doesn't matter in this game.
***************
?? The current way?

Order definitely matters to me. It provides a psuedo-tracker if sorts.
I figured as much
Sadly I didn't follow this. I'm not good with change. The current status quo works for me.
Noted
This sounds super helpful to me if a lot of work for you!
I don’t mind the work necessarily cause I recognize it is helpful to some.
 
?? The current way?
Yes. Seeing the votes in the order they happened is much more useful to me.

Since I keep my own vote tracker, it doesn't really matter for my individual purposes, but for the game state, I think it's more beneficial that way than the other way you mentioned.
 
To expand/elaborate:
X ()
Y (1) - Z
Z (3)
Z voted for X initially, switch to Y; A now votes for X
X (1) - A
Y (1) - Z
Z (3)

I suggest either:
X()
Y(1) - Z
Z (3)-
X (1) - A
Or:
Y(1) - Z
Z (3)-
X (1) - A

Not sure if would cause more confusion and I should just leave it alone.
 
Yes. Seeing the votes in the order they happened is much more useful to me.

Since I keep my own vote tracker, it doesn't really matter for my individual purposes, but for the game state, I think it's more beneficial that way than the other way you mentioned.
Thank you. I just like the idea of the tally being as helpful as possible/not confusing. Always looking for ways to increase efficiency.

Naturally this would only apply to games I’m tallying in.
 
To expand/elaborate:
X ()
Y (1) - Z
Z (3)
Z voted for X initially, switch to Y; A now votes for X
X (1) - A
Y (1) - Z
Z (3)

I suggest either:
X()
Y(1) - Z
Z (3)-
X (1) - A
Or:
Y(1) - Z
Z (3)-
X (1) - A

Not sure if would cause more confusion and I should just leave it alone.
Yeah, I see what you're saying ... but to me, personally, it's more confusing the second way since you have the X split, and the 3rd way is a touch misleading since you won't know that X was on the board before Y.
 
Yeah, I see what you're saying ... but to me, personally, it's more confusing the second way since you have the X split, and the 3rd way is a touch misleading since you won't know that X was on the board before Y.
Wholly understandable. Hence why I am using you all as a sounding board.

Happy to keep as is customary. Just wondered if there was a different way
 
Top Bottom