|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
On March 26 2010 07:14 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2010 03:55 Bill Murray wrote:
flamewheel you make a very good point. If Ace got 3 strikes, or if Abenson got 3 strikes, it is completely different. That's what you're saying, right? Substitute any great player for Ace here... Incog, Ver, whoever. Agreed. The circumstances should play a role. However, people like that tend to be more responsible about playing. For instance, Ver is super busy right now, which is why he hasn't played recently. He sits out the game rather than just joining and going inactive with no explanation at all. But yes, it isn't going to be a straight up "3 strikes and you're gone." More like a "3 strikes and unless you have something VERY VERY good going for you, you're gone."
Yeah, treating this like the teamliquid main site commandments is a good idea to me.
In practice, this policy means a user who has thousands of posts may be able to get away with a few minor transgressions in etiquette with just a warning. If you're at 50 posts and you try the same kind of stunt, then we may just ban you. Harsh? Yes. Unfair? Most definitely. But that's the way life is. Learn to live with it.
|
On March 28 2010 09:52 flamewheel91 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2010 07:14 Qatol wrote:On March 26 2010 03:55 Bill Murray wrote:
flamewheel you make a very good point. If Ace got 3 strikes, or if Abenson got 3 strikes, it is completely different. That's what you're saying, right? Substitute any great player for Ace here... Incog, Ver, whoever. Agreed. The circumstances should play a role. However, people like that tend to be more responsible about playing. For instance, Ver is super busy right now, which is why he hasn't played recently. He sits out the game rather than just joining and going inactive with no explanation at all. But yes, it isn't going to be a straight up "3 strikes and you're gone." More like a "3 strikes and unless you have something VERY VERY good going for you, you're gone." Yeah, treating this like the teamliquid main site commandments is a good idea to me. Show nested quote +In practice, this policy means a user who has thousands of posts may be able to get away with a few minor transgressions in etiquette with just a warning. If you're at 50 posts and you try the same kind of stunt, then we may just ban you. Harsh? Yes. Unfair? Most definitely. But that's the way life is. Learn to live with it.
Wow I totally forgot it said that stuff. It has been a while since I've read them. Either way, good stuff.
|
On March 28 2010 09:11 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2010 05:20 Ace wrote:
You can't outright ban someone for that. It's up to the players of the game to get rid of them in that instance. What exactly are they supposed to do? From what I can tell, Opz was trying pretty hard to get Abenson to talk in WAW and nothing came out of it really. I'm grateful that he told everyone that he was going to be gone, but he really wasn't contributing before that. It seems a bit harsh for the town to have to lynch people acting like that. I agree we shouldn't ban him out of the blue, but what do you think about a warning? Also, I'd like other people to give their thoughts on this. It is starting to feel like I'm just talking to Ace in this thread.
Suppose we have a player "sleepy" who is very inactive - no matter what role he gets. Suppose a game starts where the rest of the players are aware that "sleepy" is inactive and he shows no sign of improvement. What are the players' choices?
1 - Lynch right away. But that just introduces a random element at the beginning of the game that might benefit town or mafia. Introducing him only to have him lynched day 1 is introducing a random advantage for one side.
2 - Ignore the player like a piece of useless luggage until some undetermined time later in the game. Once again - why bother having this player? This is a benefit to the mafia side as an ignored mafia member helps them, while a non-participating town member also helps the mafia.
As a host, I want my players to have fun. But sometimes there are issues that make the game more fun for some players and less fun for others: Who will I favor?
I will favor players who invest more effort into the game - they respect the game, and the host, and their existence makes the game playable. So if I ever have the choice between including a more active player in a game I host or someone who's known to be inactive, it's obvious who I will choose.
|
On March 28 2010 09:11 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2010 05:20 Ace wrote:
You can't outright ban someone for that. It's up to the players of the game to get rid of them in that instance. What exactly are they supposed to do? From what I can tell, Opz was trying pretty hard to get Abenson to talk in WAW and nothing came out of it really. I'm grateful that he told everyone that he was going to be gone, but he really wasn't contributing before that. It seems a bit harsh for the town to have to lynch people acting like that. I agree we shouldn't ban him out of the blue, but what do you think about a warning? Also, I'd like other people to give their thoughts on this. It is starting to feel like I'm just talking to Ace in this thread.
1 - Lynch right away. But that just introduces a random element at the beginning of the game that might benefit town or mafia. Introducing him only to have him lynched day 1 is introducing a random advantage for one side.
2 - Ignore the player like a piece of useless luggage until some undetermined time later in the game. Once again - why bother having this player? This is a benefit to the mafia side as an ignored mafia member helps them, while a non-participating town member also helps the mafia.
sorry I missed this post earlier ^_^
If we introduce a policy like this no matter what it is players will post just enough to avoid being mod killed. We can't exactly say we require players to post 5 times per day or risk mod kills because they will just post 6 times per day and be considered lurking based on the new rules. If mods want to ban specific players from their games I'm all for it. Forum wide bans on lurking is just asking for trouble because lurking isn't always easy to define.
Secondly even though I myself don't exactly favor it lurking is a part of the game. In fact lurking is a major part of the game I wish more skilled players would address. Lurking itself is actually not a scum or town tell. Yes it's anti-town in most game setups to lurk. Reasons being that town and even Mafia do benefit from more posting. Problem is lurking will eventually result in a town loss, a ticked off mod and even observers who will policy lynch lurkers the next time they play with them. Yes the guy not posting isn't giving you information to work with - then players can tell mods if so and so plays they won't be playing leading that player to either clean up their act or just not be invited/banned from future games. Letting the players deal with it in this way can be even harsher than a forum wide ban.
Thirdly as a meta tactic it's just good to lynch lurkers when you don't have better options. Imo lurkers are usually either pretty bad players, or people trying to "hide" which if the game is filled with talkative players means death. Town should always punish lurkers either through lynch or Vigi kills if need be. Some guy lurking through the game isn't going to show up in a LYLO situation and save you. They don't help you and are in essence a loss. Kill them now or rely on them later and pay the price when they get rolled.
Now as for random elements to the game - that's bound to happen. If the town has to lynch a lurker that very discussion can and often does generate some decent information about where players stand on the issue. It also forces that player to play the game or get rolled. Yea we know Abenson isn't exactly the most active player on the forum and that's part of the reason he was brought up early as a lynch candidate in several games. Players know he isn't reliable and relatively useless on the grand scheme of things - good. Now the town has something to discuss on Day 1. People will random vote, roll dice, always Day 1 vote for a certain player in the game, not take things seriously - and I say let it be. As a player in the game whether you are town or Mafia you can and should use these things to advance your win condition. People want to play stupid and you're Mafia? Good. Obliterate them and show them how they need to get better or risk people treating them like shit in games. It's the major difference imo between someone like L and someone like Chezinu. Both of them are wrong a lot of the time and will cause the town to lose. L takes things somewhat seriously and is trying to win no matter how destructive he is. Chezinu will clown around, post nonsense, do nonsense in PMs and no one takes him seriously because he acts dumb. L is regarded as decent to good by some players while Chezinu is universally looked at as a scrub.The player base can and will deal with it over time as people start waking up to how deep this game is.
|
It's all a matter of margin in a particular game, not a universal anti-lurking policy. Lurking is part of the game as Ace says, and more active players can deal with it themselves to some extent. If there are too many lurkers however, the game flat out dies. So I don't see an easy solution - in the end it's probably up to the host to decide what player mix makes for the best games.
|
L takes things somewhat seriously and is trying to win no matter how destructive he is. You have clearly not been on a mafia team with me.
|
On March 29 2010 15:21 L wrote:Show nested quote + L takes things somewhat seriously and is trying to win no matter how destructive he is. You have clearly not been on a mafia team with me.
"You walk a fine line between brilliance and absolute idiocy. I salute you!"
|
On March 30 2010 02:08 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2010 15:21 L wrote: L takes things somewhat seriously and is trying to win no matter how destructive he is. You have clearly not been on a mafia team with me. "You walk a fine line between brilliance and absolute idiocy. I salute you!"
My impression exactly. It helps him personally in a repeated game setting, but it's frustrating at many points in time for those playing with him. At least now I know not to take it THAT seriously :-)
|
I'd actually afk out on a Mafia team with L. I'm not down to argue on who should be killed at night ^_^
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
On March 30 2010 02:15 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2010 02:08 Qatol wrote:On March 29 2010 15:21 L wrote: L takes things somewhat seriously and is trying to win no matter how destructive he is. You have clearly not been on a mafia team with me. "You walk a fine line between brilliance and absolute idiocy. I salute you!" My impression exactly. It helps him personally in a repeated game setting, but it's frustrating at many points in time for those playing with him. At least now I know not to take it THAT seriously :-)
A game is a game. You'll predominantly be trolled if you're 100% stone-faced.
Oh, a bit off-topic but it might help us deal with modkills... I just posted this in Zona's Micro-mafia 2 page:
One thing people could do about the "long day/night cycles" would be to hold the "marathon mafia" games like they do on mafiascum.net, where each cycle lasts X minutes and players are required to stay for the duration of the game, and the whole game wouldn't last longer than two hours or so.
Small number of people who are at least semi-serious, would make the game go a lot faster and would not be able to promote inactivity. Thoughts?
|
On one of the other sites I used to mod/play at those were our normal games. Two hours (usually less) games. Of course those games don't tend to promote too much skill or analysis until it's all over because the town generally doesn't think through everything.
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
That's true, shortcomings to playing like that as well...
I mean, it doesn't have to be two hours, per se, but then you run into the problem of people having to be in front of their computer for hours just to play a mafia game...
Skill, I feel, should be brought in before the game starts? It's hard to develop skill through playing rapid-paced mafia anyway, and given the format of the game I'd assume it'd be the more serious/skilled players that would play the Marathon Mafia games anyway.
Analysis... well, on one hand, it's nice to have a lot of time to go through arguments and analyze them, but on the other hand this would help to develop quicker analysis, da?
|
I meant the town (even with skilled players) at times, just doesn't have enough time to go through everything. It can take time and even multiple posts of looking at things in a different angle to convince people on who to vote for or why such and such happened. In rapid games there just isn't always that much time. Really takes a couple of speed games to get it right.
Also like you said it can develop quicker analysis. Imo the real strength of speed games is that when you play (no matter what side) multiple times you get the hang of flows of conversation, see how vote swing occur and why, and overall just understanding the sense or mood of the town. I think speed games are good for this kind of intangible teaching in a ways.
Then after the game is over as mod I'd usually give an overall lecture on Mafia, decisions people made, why some people are useless and stuff like that ^_^
|
On March 30 2010 02:15 citi.zen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2010 02:08 Qatol wrote:On March 29 2010 15:21 L wrote: L takes things somewhat seriously and is trying to win no matter how destructive he is. You have clearly not been on a mafia team with me. "You walk a fine line between brilliance and absolute idiocy. I salute you!" My impression exactly. It helps him personally in a repeated game setting, but it's frustrating at many points in time for those playing with him. At least now I know not to take it THAT seriously :-)
Actually, that is just a quote of something L told me when we were mafia together. Just a little example of how he likes to act as mafia.
|
On March 30 2010 03:45 Ace wrote:
I meant the town (even with skilled players) at times, just doesn't have enough time to go through everything. It can take time and even multiple posts of looking at things in a different angle to convince people on who to vote for or why such and such happened. In rapid games there just isn't always that much time. Really takes a couple of speed games to get it right.
Also like you said it can develop quicker analysis. Imo the real strength of speed games is that when you play (no matter what side) multiple times you get the hang of flows of conversation, see how vote swing occur and why, and overall just understanding the sense or mood of the town. I think speed games are good for this kind of intangible teaching in a ways.
Then after the game is over as mod I'd usually give an overall lecture on Mafia, decisions people made, why some people are useless and stuff like that ^_^
This is exactly true. We had a speed game on TL once (mini mafia 1 I believe?). I remember it driving me absolutely insane because I didn't have enough time to read the new posts and reread the old posts during the day/night cycles. It just takes some practice.
Why don't you give lectures after the games here, Ace? It would be fun to see a SD rant on people whose playing style I'm actually familiar with.
|
Well, I kind of stopped because no one asked me any questions on why I did such and such in any games recently. Also since I'm the only one giving lectures it's like I'm pushing my play style and insights on to people when it's not the only good way to play Mafia.
Of course I have no problem going back and telling people why they suck and cursing them out for extremely retarded shit. In the current WaW game I've had brief discussions with dead players and others that I hope gives them insight on what they can do to improve in other games.
|
Was looking through the other site's old Mafia posts and there was an argument about exploiting people through outside means of the game. MBH had this little gem (he actually bet someone in a game like $100 they were Mafia and they didn't take the bet):
lol. i think it DOES matter if its unorthodox.
i can think of several radical ways to ensure a town victory without breaking the rules.
One idea i just came up with is this:
-------------------
Every INNOCENT player puts $100 in a pot.
At the end of the game, they get $100 back.
It is explained that if a member of the MAFIA puts $100 in the pot, they dont get it back, and their money is split among the innocents.
So its possible for the innocent people to get MORE than the $100 they put in. And there's absolutely no risk of them losing their money.
If anybody doesnt put money in the pot, then they are obviously mafia (who else wouldnt want a chance for free money?)
And it would cost members of the MAFIA $100 a piece to be in the "circle of trust".
Unorthodox? Yes. Convincing? Yes.
My point is that there are lots of ways to "convince" people of stuff. Some simply go against the spirit of the game.
The funny thing is this example is analogous to policy lynching but even Townies will argue that putting $100 in the pot is useless.
|
ahahahahha.
MBH was HEATED in that game because we totally raped the town, lmao.
the mafia member he bet ended up getting vigi'd, but we still won.
he came up with all types of graphs and posting analysis and he actually nailed 6 of the 7 of us.
....but he just couldn't convince the town. partly because he altered a graph he posted and then lied about it. and then he was lynched.
|
and a note: the mafia member who got vigi'd was our MVP even though he died. it's not about living people. it's about winning.
|
On March 30 2010 04:54 Ace wrote:Was looking through the other site's old Mafia posts and there was an argument about exploiting people through outside means of the game. MBH had this little gem (he actually bet someone in a game like $100 they were Mafia and they didn't take the bet): Show nested quote +
lol. i think it DOES matter if its unorthodox.
i can think of several radical ways to ensure a town victory without breaking the rules.
One idea i just came up with is this:
-------------------
Every INNOCENT player puts $100 in a pot.
At the end of the game, they get $100 back.
It is explained that if a member of the MAFIA puts $100 in the pot, they dont get it back, and their money is split among the innocents.
So its possible for the innocent people to get MORE than the $100 they put in. And there's absolutely no risk of them losing their money.
If anybody doesnt put money in the pot, then they are obviously mafia (who else wouldnt want a chance for free money?)
And it would cost members of the MAFIA $100 a piece to be in the "circle of trust".
Unorthodox? Yes. Convincing? Yes.
My point is that there are lots of ways to "convince" people of stuff. Some simply go against the spirit of the game.
The funny thing is this example is analogous to policy lynching but even Townies will argue that putting $100 in the pot is useless.
The game is based on some people lying and others trying to figure it out. If you place a real-world monetary cost to lying then yes, I'd say that is against the spirit of the game.
Impressive if he figured out 6 of 7 players though!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
