-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Social DGames Social | V/LA |
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
Overswarm
is laughing at you
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 21,181
I have that in my trunk! And yes, I'll play.
Nicholas1024
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,075
I hate breadcrumbs. In a three man mafia, don't you think one of them will see them? It's totally likely at least half the town wouldn't. So, mafia knows, and a lot of town doesn't.
In Scum wars, Macman breadcrumbed mason and Marshy-mafia caught it right away. However, me-town-cop never saw it, and wasted a crucial late-game investigation confirming Macman was town. If he claimed, I would have investigated someone else (probably Marshy), and we have a chance of winning instead of mislynching and losing.
In Scum wars, Macman breadcrumbed mason and Marshy-mafia caught it right away. However, me-town-cop never saw it, and wasted a crucial late-game investigation confirming Macman was town. If he claimed, I would have investigated someone else (probably Marshy), and we have a chance of winning instead of mislynching and losing.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Just want to say thanks. That will make ISO a lot easier.Cello Marl said:
I think I understand the benefit of claiming now.
#HBC | ZoZo
Shocodoro Blagshidect
Eh, Nick, Marshy made himself investigate-town-result every night.
Townies should just play better
Townies should just play better
Nicholas1024
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,075
Did he? I wasn't looking at the postgame night action results. But regardless, it would have definitely helped town's cause. Besides, "people should just play better" (or in this case, townies) is some of the most generic worthless advice possible.
Agreed with Hando that ISO is the worst acronym ever. In Search Of? Like what does that even mean pertinent to mafia?
As for why claiming is beneficial think of it this way:
I'm a power role and I'm about to get lynched. I can claim in order to try to save myself. If I do, the following will likely happen:
1.) I don't hey CC (Counter claimed) and I can give the town whatever info I might have. I also prevent a mislynch for the moment. I also increase in propensity to be NK'd depending on my role. This means that the mafia NK can be more predicatable. This is beneficial because it now allow the doc a more informed decision of who to protect at night. This increase the chance of getting a successful doc save, minimize damage to the town from the mafia.
2.) I get CC'd. If I get lynched, the town is more or less guaranteed a scum lynch the next day. 1 town for 1 scum tradeoff is almost always beneficial to the town in non lylo situations.
As you can see, both of these situations have distinct town benefits. Though they both end in likely eventual death of the claiming player, that doesn't in any way shape or form necessitate that it is a bad move for the town AT ALL.
If I don't claim, I will likely just end up being lynched, which carries ALL OF THE SAME NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF DYING THAT JUST GETTING NIGHTKILLED WOULD HAVE, but ON TOP OF THAT, the scum don't even have to waste a nightkill (or potentially multiple nights worth of kills if the doctor out guesses them) to kill me.
Breadcrumbing will just increases the town's ability to make the right choice in a CC situation, or in validating a "tough to validate" claim situation even without a CC. So yeah, breadcrumbing is good if done right.
Hopefully this addresses what people are discussing.
As for why claiming is beneficial think of it this way:
I'm a power role and I'm about to get lynched. I can claim in order to try to save myself. If I do, the following will likely happen:
1.) I don't hey CC (Counter claimed) and I can give the town whatever info I might have. I also prevent a mislynch for the moment. I also increase in propensity to be NK'd depending on my role. This means that the mafia NK can be more predicatable. This is beneficial because it now allow the doc a more informed decision of who to protect at night. This increase the chance of getting a successful doc save, minimize damage to the town from the mafia.
2.) I get CC'd. If I get lynched, the town is more or less guaranteed a scum lynch the next day. 1 town for 1 scum tradeoff is almost always beneficial to the town in non lylo situations.
As you can see, both of these situations have distinct town benefits. Though they both end in likely eventual death of the claiming player, that doesn't in any way shape or form necessitate that it is a bad move for the town AT ALL.
If I don't claim, I will likely just end up being lynched, which carries ALL OF THE SAME NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF DYING THAT JUST GETTING NIGHTKILLED WOULD HAVE, but ON TOP OF THAT, the scum don't even have to waste a nightkill (or potentially multiple nights worth of kills if the doctor out guesses them) to kill me.
Breadcrumbing will just increases the town's ability to make the right choice in a CC situation, or in validating a "tough to validate" claim situation even without a CC. So yeah, breadcrumbing is good if done right.
Hopefully this addresses what people are discussing.
On a side note I almost NEVER claim doctor.
I just battle and battle away until I can get the lynch off me.
If I claim doctor I basically make myself useless anyways.
I just battle and battle away until I can get the lynch off me.
If I claim doctor I basically make myself useless anyways.
Nicholas1024
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,075
Not if there's a watcher. 
Besides, you save a mislynch.
Besides, you save a mislynch.
I think you literally missed this entire paragraph if thats what you think:
The most important part is bolded. You don't need to have 2 week deadlines again, or abolish activity rules for that matter. What I'm saying is, at the moment the rules are TOO strict and there are negative externalities because of that. We just saw Pokemafia quite literally ravaged by modkills. You think that's a high quality game? I'd be quite surprised if you did. You're literally prioritizing your personal expectation for how quickly a game should go over the fundamental tenets of the game itself if you think that was a "high quality game". We've established inactivity and the resultant modkills as being a problem. Gee I wonder why people who have rarely if ever been modkilled due to activity before are getting modkilled now? Maybe(here's a shock) its overly restrictive and unnecessary rules being established by the mods!FrozenFlame751 said:
Maybe you should get off your high horse and recognize what type of rulesets are better for the actual game of mafia and not just your personal expectations of how mafia should be played. You say stricter activity rules make for games that better suit YOUR TASTES AS A MOD. That's all fine and dandy, until your preference ends up causing **** like modkills in lylo which fundamentally are abhorrent to mafia from a player standpoint (and SHOULD be to any respectable mod). Like I said, a loosening of the activity rules offers DISTINCT benefits to the quality of mafia games, yet you try to strawman it to seem like its me just harping on personal preference. News flash, when all I'm asking for is slightly looser activity rules for the betterment of mafia games here, and you're telling me that it better suits YOU to have strict activity rules, it's not MY personal preference we're trying to deal with here, its YOURS.
Again appealing to the majority. Really dude? You're basically saying that any ruleset is free from criticism because people still sign up to play with it. People who want to play mafia here are going to sign up for games here even if the rules don't 100% match their desires. It's called dealing with what is available because you don't have other options. Why don't we have other options? Because we have a gated hosting system. Why do we have that? Because if we didn't, we'd have a huge flood of games all being hosted at the same time and ALL games would suffer as a result. Thus, I as a player only have so many options available to me when I want to play mafia here. This system has IMPERFECT COMPETITION. Thus, you CANNOT use mere acceptance of a rule set to justify it's validity in its entirety. Just because people DO play by a given ruleset does NOT mean it doesn't have problems, and pokemafia is completely indicative of an underlying problem of an imperfect ruleset that people simply agreed to play with anyway because there AREN'T OTHER OPTIONS. Why wouldn't I call for criticism and change if I recognize such a situation?
There is no contradiction there. I claimed provisionally that from my observation games here can seem comparatively slower than else where. Someone else claimed the contrary, saying that we actually move faster than elsewhere, citing MS as the comparison. I PROVISIONALLY AGREED TO THAT STATEMENT, because it in fact SUPPORTS my stance. If we do play faster here than elsewhere, then why do we need such strict activity rules? I should go play elsewhere? Oh really? Why should I be the one to take my standards elsewhere when I've played in far more games than you here and been a part of the mafia community longer, when you've what, hosted a few games in the Broom and chimed into the social thread a few times? Not that any of this should be relevant anyway, but I don't think you have any standing to suggest that I should just leave if I don't like what I see here considering how much a spit in the bucket your presence is. Why don't you try NOT saying stupid **** like that next time, or things like "no matter how many capital letters you use" and actually try to maybe, I don't know, have some strong lines of argument as opposed to petty AtEs and personal quips.
If we're gonna disagree about whether loosening activity rules in games actually hurts the gameplay, then how about instead of you just saying "oh well we disagree, guess this can't go anywhere" you actually try to back up your claim that having these strict rules is necessary for quality mafia gameplay. I've already told you that they have distinct negative externalities (some people can't play in as many games as they used to, and modkills absolutely ruin games as seen in pokemafia), so how about we hear something from your end that isn't just "I like it when games move faster and that's important because I'm so special".
D
Deleted member
Guest
A cheaper solution is to pin them in a Mafia game here. That'll be fun.Frozen and KiKi playing mafia IRL ... what a thought
I don't see how anything you said in that paragraph isn't addressed by what I said. You said they were benefits for "little or no loss," I explained why I think there's a moderate to significant loss.
I don't think the modkill at the end of Pokemafia helped anything, but the games I've seen have been, in my judgment, better on average than games that had lax activity rules. I think they've forced players to adopt a mentality that's less tolerant of inactivity and results in more activity in the long run. Unfortunately, as in Pokemafia, there are some games where players sign up even when they can't make the commitments the game demands. In those cases (the minority, I believe), it is the fault of the players who do not live up to the commitments they chose to make when they confirmed their roles. In other games (where they wouldn't be modkilled) they would simply be coasting, provide little to no information to the town, and contribute to 95% of the frustrations I've had as a player.
You haven't even explained what exactly you would change regarding inactivity modkills so it's sort of difficult for me to respond to this. I think the current rules give you a better game than you'd have with looser rules (we're talking someone going totally silent for a week before they're considered for a modkill--I don't see how keeping someone like that around helps the game at all). The only catch is the players actually need to follow the rules; if they don't want to, then I'd simply rather not have them play my games in the first place. You are welcome to run your games differently, and I've never said otherwise--you're the only one telling other people how to run their games. So if we are dealing with anyone's personal preference, it had better be the mod's.
This is probably your most reasonable point, but it doesn't really challenge my underlying argument that you shouldn't sign up for a game and expect it to be run by the rules that you'd like it to be run by rather than the rules you agreed to play by. Your criticisms have been aimed at least as much at how Pokemafia enforced the rules its players agreed to as it has been at criticizing the ruleset it used more generally (and since you haven't yet provided any concrete suggestions for changes, well, you arguably haven't provided any constructive criticism in this regard at all).
Since you bring up standing within the community only to immediately declare it irrelevant, I'm not sure why you mentioned it in the first place, other than to claim a point against me and preemptively shut down the discussion before I can make the obvious counterpoint. I will point out that this argument isn't really "you vs. me" anyway, so if Kevin walks in and starts talking about how he handled modkills and activity in the last game he ran, good luck trying that approach with him. But to answer the question you asked directly, you (if anyone) should play elsewhere because you're (by your own admission) in the minority, since otherwise you're demanding the majority use an inferior (though currently ill-defined) set of rules, as I've explained. That you originally implied that people (anyone, older or newer than you) who wanted to play at a different pace than you should leave but maintain that everyone else should slow their games to match your personal preference is just hypocritical.
Ironic way of putting my position, coming from the one who's criticizing everyone else of strawman arguments.
Everyone loves Ghebbycakes' avi. <3
Although the rest of you are going to have to stop calling him Ghebbycakes, cause he's mine.
Alright so basically, since debating abstracts is getting us nowhere and you asked for my actual constructive stance, we'll just move on to that.
1.) I'd like to never see a modkill in an objectively deducible MYLO or LYLO situation.
2.) Redesign inactivity modkilling to be based on LONG term inactivity, not a multitude of short periods of inactivity. You said that under the current rules, people will only be modkilled if they don't post for a week straight. Not the case at all. The current most common design is if you don't post for roughly 3 individual periods of 3 days each, you get modkilled. I'd suggest making it something that actually matches YOUR description of blatant disinterest in the game, which is something like, 7 straight days of not posting. I'd even be sympathetic to modkilling after 5 straight days of not posting without declaration of V/LA. Point is, 3 day periods are just too short. **** can come up and you just don't get a chance to post, and even if you do, oftentimes its people just posting to avoid prods. The fact that people HAVE to post to avoid prods is PROOF that the time period required between posts is TOO short. What's the point of being strict about activity when people are forced to post so often that they don't have anything of substance to post when they're forced to? The fact that people have had to post to avoid prods (and thus avoid accumulating points that will eventually get them modkilled) is proof that the pace the mods are demanding the games be played at is INCOMPATIBLE with the community's ability and desire.
We've established that people who show NO INTEREST in playing are a problem and SHOULD be removed from the game. That's completely true. However, going inactive for 3 day periods independent of one another is NOT indicative of disinterest in the game. 5-7 days of no post and no V/LA declaration is a much better indication of that.
This is basically what I've been trying to say all along. People have been getting modkilled. People have been posting literally with the ONLY reason being to avoid prods and subsequent modkills. Yes, the mod has the ultimate say in what the rules are and yes, the players tacitly agree to the rules when they join but again, this goes back to imperfect competition. As much as the players are held responsible to follow the rules they agree to, it is also the role of ANY RESPONSIBLE MOD to establish a ruleset in this imperfect system of competition (hosting wise) that best fits the ability and desire of the players, such that gameplay is facilitated that best meets the needs and desires of BOTH the players AND the mod. It's a two way street. You can't just blame the players no matter how few of them there may be. If all it takes is a slight change in the activity rules to make the games THAT much more playable by even a few players here (which will ultimate prevent fiascos like Pokemafia) then why would you refuse to budge and just insist that it's all on the player's end to fix it?
I'm not asking for radical change here. I'm asking for recognition of a problem that pokemafia showcases and a reasonable and responsible reaction to it.
1.) I'd like to never see a modkill in an objectively deducible MYLO or LYLO situation.
2.) Redesign inactivity modkilling to be based on LONG term inactivity, not a multitude of short periods of inactivity. You said that under the current rules, people will only be modkilled if they don't post for a week straight. Not the case at all. The current most common design is if you don't post for roughly 3 individual periods of 3 days each, you get modkilled. I'd suggest making it something that actually matches YOUR description of blatant disinterest in the game, which is something like, 7 straight days of not posting. I'd even be sympathetic to modkilling after 5 straight days of not posting without declaration of V/LA. Point is, 3 day periods are just too short. **** can come up and you just don't get a chance to post, and even if you do, oftentimes its people just posting to avoid prods. The fact that people HAVE to post to avoid prods is PROOF that the time period required between posts is TOO short. What's the point of being strict about activity when people are forced to post so often that they don't have anything of substance to post when they're forced to? The fact that people have had to post to avoid prods (and thus avoid accumulating points that will eventually get them modkilled) is proof that the pace the mods are demanding the games be played at is INCOMPATIBLE with the community's ability and desire.
We've established that people who show NO INTEREST in playing are a problem and SHOULD be removed from the game. That's completely true. However, going inactive for 3 day periods independent of one another is NOT indicative of disinterest in the game. 5-7 days of no post and no V/LA declaration is a much better indication of that.
This is basically what I've been trying to say all along. People have been getting modkilled. People have been posting literally with the ONLY reason being to avoid prods and subsequent modkills. Yes, the mod has the ultimate say in what the rules are and yes, the players tacitly agree to the rules when they join but again, this goes back to imperfect competition. As much as the players are held responsible to follow the rules they agree to, it is also the role of ANY RESPONSIBLE MOD to establish a ruleset in this imperfect system of competition (hosting wise) that best fits the ability and desire of the players, such that gameplay is facilitated that best meets the needs and desires of BOTH the players AND the mod. It's a two way street. You can't just blame the players no matter how few of them there may be. If all it takes is a slight change in the activity rules to make the games THAT much more playable by even a few players here (which will ultimate prevent fiascos like Pokemafia) then why would you refuse to budge and just insist that it's all on the player's end to fix it?
I'm not asking for radical change here. I'm asking for recognition of a problem that pokemafia showcases and a reasonable and responsible reaction to it.
Just going to say now that that post is orders of magnitude more reasonable than the others you've made on the subject. More thoughts later.
Omis
my friends were skinny
How about more thoughts on how I destroyed town in Treestump?
D
Deleted member
Guest
Actually, you were town in Tree Stump. You still won, thought.
Omis
my friends were skinny
I was town in tree stump?!?! I must have received the wrong PM because I could have sworn I was actually playing scum. Explain please SSBF!?!?
gheb made my favorite pokemon of all time his signature thingy
iono how i ever tried to push a lynch on you
iono how i ever tried to push a lynch on you
got 3rd at a tournament yesterday =D
SwordsRbroken
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 104
I think Evil eye's avatar is awesome. Half life full life consequences is epic.
Z ombie goast s lea ve this place!
SwordsRbroken
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 104
i have to kill fast...and bullets too slow!
Agreed, mainly cause he never texts me anymore
he still texts me are you jealousAgreed, mainly cause he never texts me anymore
Handorin
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,013
Scum can push for someone that is seemingly scummy.
This is not bs logic.
Nor is this antitown.
Lynching is a protown attitude 99% of the time.
Why do I see people say "I would have never guess ___ was mafia. He was pretty protown."?
I like texting :D
i dont even have your number kevin
Handorin
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 6,013
Yes, and I will try and get other people to do it too. >_>
Omis
my friends were skinny
Hell yes I will
Vult Redux
Smash Lord
Hi I'm new.
I'm young and innocent don't hurt me
I'm young and innocent don't hurt me