|
On March 30 2010 04:16 Ace wrote:
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.
Hmph! What was that behavioral analysis post after mini mafia 2 then? Chopped liver?
I AM glad to hear that you're giving people tips behind the scenes though. You have a lot more experience than pretty much anyone else. A lot of it just comes down to reading objectively, thinking things through, and posting convincingly, but the little tips are still helpful.
|
In my humble opinion, the problem is how lurkers effect the game as a whole; they allow the mafia to be lazy and lurker as well. If there weren't any townie lurkers, then the mafia would run into big problems if any of their members were lazy.
It has been said that there really can't be a specific number of posts/time set, because people who want to lurker will either meet that and live, or even with a required amount of posting, I don't know how well it can be enforced during the game, in my mind it is more likely that lurkers will just be ignored/raged at even with rules in place. I think that it should be the moderators discretion who they allow to play in their games and decide to modkill, and if they disallow people for inactivity, they should be supported for that, not flamed or anything.
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
On March 30 2010 09:05 Iaaan wrote:
In my humble opinion, the problem is how lurkers effect the game as a whole; they allow the mafia to be lazy and lurker as well. If there weren't any townie lurkers, then the mafia would run into big problems if any of their members were lazy.
It has been said that there really can't be a specific number of posts/time set, because people who want to lurker will either meet that and live, or even with a required amount of posting, I don't know how well it can be enforced during the game, in my mind it is more likely that lurkers will just be ignored/raged at even with rules in place. I think that it should be the moderators discretion who they allow to play in their games and decide to modkill, and if they disallow people for inactivity, they should be supported for that, not flamed or anything.
This is another idea... it assumes the righteousness of the moderator. Here we are assuming that the moderators will not let any personal feelings in the way when they are swaying over modkilling anybody. (See: L versus BM?) Of course, this would also put a lot more work on the mod's shoulders as they would have to read every post made and keep a tally on who has/has not posted. Perhaps if this were used in addition to the currently established modkilling rule?
|
While I will not modkill them in the game in progress, anyone town-aligned in a game I host who lurks excessively and does not show any appreciable expenditure of effort will simply be automatically prioritized lower in player selection for future games. (In most cases, I consider lurking successfully as scum an application of the "play to win" mantra.)
|
@citizen: yea that clearly is. It was an argument MBH made because he was Mafia and I had to stop the game. The town was doing things kind of like that where they were swearing on stuff and it got out of hand. Town had a circle off of people swearing on kids and stuff so the game wasn't even Mafia anymore.
@Qatol: I gave advice after MM 2? That seems so long ago :/
|
On March 30 2010 14:47 Ace wrote:
@citizen: yea that clearly is. It was an argument MBH made because he was Mafia and I had to stop the game. The town was doing things kind of like that where they were swearing on stuff and it got out of hand. Town had a circle off of people swearing on kids and stuff so the game wasn't even Mafia anymore.
@Qatol: I gave advice after MM 2? That seems so long ago :/
No, I did here. You were saying that nobody else does anything after games.
|
If there's one thing more annoying than playing in a game where everyone is inactive, it's watching one. Or three!
+ Show Spoiler +For some reason the busier I am, the more I tend to check the forum - it's compulsive. When I have lax days it's the opposite: I'm not near the computer and time flies doing other things. Dance for me mafia players, dance I say!@!!
|
On March 30 2010 13:18 Zona wrote:
While I will not modkill them in the game in progress, anyone town-aligned in a game I host who lurks excessively and does not show any appreciable expenditure of effort will simply be automatically prioritized lower in player selection for future games. (In most cases, I consider lurking successfully as scum an application of the "play to win" mantra.)
I assume that doesn't apply to blue roles either? While it is becoming a less viable strategy these days, it can still be viable at times and thus part of the "play to win" mantra.
|
On March 31 2010 07:18 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2010 13:18 Zona wrote:
While I will not modkill them in the game in progress, anyone town-aligned in a game I host who lurks excessively and does not show any appreciable expenditure of effort will simply be automatically prioritized lower in player selection for future games. (In most cases, I consider lurking successfully as scum an application of the "play to win" mantra.) I assume that doesn't apply to blue roles either? While it is becoming a less viable strategy these days, it can still be viable at times and thus part of the "play to win" mantra. Then it becomes a viable green strategy to fuck up red bluesniping.
|
On March 31 2010 07:37 L wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2010 07:18 Qatol wrote:On March 30 2010 13:18 Zona wrote:
While I will not modkill them in the game in progress, anyone town-aligned in a game I host who lurks excessively and does not show any appreciable expenditure of effort will simply be automatically prioritized lower in player selection for future games. (In most cases, I consider lurking successfully as scum an application of the "play to win" mantra.) I assume that doesn't apply to blue roles either? While it is becoming a less viable strategy these days, it can still be viable at times and thus part of the "play to win" mantra. Then it becomes a viable green strategy to fuck up red bluesniping.
Ugh. Point. I really hate lurking all around.
|
If blues are trying to lurk then they deserve to be sniped.
|
On March 31 2010 07:53 Ace wrote:
If blues are trying to lurk then they deserve to be sniped.
Hey! That was how I survived BC1! As I recall, you TOLD me to lurk! (I just feel like arguing. Activity levels are so different now that game doesn't really apply.)
|
You could get away with lurking because you had 2 mouths, player skill was lower (well, it still is) and iirc many people were lurking which always sucks for the town 
|
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
There are two types of lurkers.
One type is the type that ruins mafia games.
And then there are + Show Spoiler +
If life were great, everybody would contribute and then lurking would not exist.
|
On March 31 2010 07:53 Ace wrote:
If blues are trying to lurk then they deserve to be sniped.
you know how many greens chump block hits for blues on day one purely because their lack of activity makes them both unlikely to be medic protted AND more likely to be a chronic blue role?
Its pretty common, dawg.
|
Ok? Blues shouldn't lurk just for the fact that when they do find something and try to prove it to the town they can easily be discredited. Some guy showing up on Day 4 with OMG HAI I FOUND A MAFIA! isn't going to be getting a lot of support.
Greens that lurk and block hits for blues that lurk don't really matter if the blues aren't contributing anyway. With respect to the game they are both useless regardless of roles.
|
On March 30 2010 11:32 flamewheel91 wrote:
Of course, this would also put a lot more work on the mod's shoulders as they would have to read every post made and keep a tally on who has/has not posted. Perhaps if this were used in addition to the currently established modkilling rule?
If we as game hosts do want to have a rule based on # of posts/time period, I could provide a tool to track that. I'm not sure that's the way to go, though. The last thing we want more of is content-free posts that some players are rather infamous for.
|
On March 31 2010 09:49 Zona wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2010 11:32 flamewheel91 wrote:
Of course, this would also put a lot more work on the mod's shoulders as they would have to read every post made and keep a tally on who has/has not posted. Perhaps if this were used in addition to the currently established modkilling rule? If we as game hosts do want to have a rule based on # of posts/time period, I could provide a tool to track that. I'm not sure that's the way to go, though. The last thing we want more of is content-free posts that some players are rather infamous for.
I would hope game hosts watch the thread as much as anyone else. I don't think it should really be a mathematical formula. I guess it should really come down to a judgment call about warning people about this.
|
so aye son. what's up bredgin. what it do star? y'all got some kinda bootcamp for mods, yo? i'd like to stick around, but i don't think i can handle being in another game. i have previous experience, homie. taught by ace and MBH. *wiggles eyebrows*
|
i'd also like to try modding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://homepage.mac.com/cheethorne/Starcraft/images/lurker.jpg)
