|
On July 04 2011 02:50 Kurumi wrote:
I think in setups which have a Framer present,You can add additional Paranoid DT,that way You have around 1-2 Sane DTs and one DT who always gets Mafia - That way Town will need to think A LOT more before letting blues win the game for them. A DT said someone is Mafia and he turned to be green? Is he Paranoid or a Framer picked good target? The more Town needs to think,the better it is going to become in future games and probably will stop relying only on what confirmed blues say.
EDIT: I contradicted myself,but when players know that the setup is semi-open (so they KNOW what roles are in-game) the game isn't ridiculously wrong. If we will play with sanity DTs,we probably should introduce only ONE "insanity". Like,we have normal DTs and Naive one,we have normal DTs and Paranoid one and so on,so the game does not become a chaos bowl or discussion about sanities like Palmar said.
This is kind of the point i was trying to make earlier. There is no magic setup to make town not rely on blues other than pure VT.
Instead, we have to find ways to discourage blind trust of blues over multiple games.
|
On July 04 2011 02:24 iGrok wrote:
Easiest way to TRAIN players not to rely on DTs (blue roles, but specifically DTs) is to start fucking with sanities.
We've done this before. It doesn't help as much as you think.
On July 04 2011 02:43 Kurumi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2011 02:24 iGrok wrote:
Easiest way to TRAIN players not to rely on DTs (blue roles, but specifically DTs) is to start fucking with sanities. Well,I'd like to see reverted DT then.. DTs whose checks return always town/always mafia are as good as vanilla townies(they have no real power besides vote) - they just make players angry that they were trolled by host.
Roles that make players angry are a no-no. If the players don't know this can happen, don't use it. Otherwise, they won't join your games any more.
On July 04 2011 02:50 Kurumi wrote:
I think in setups which have a Framer present,You can add additional Paranoid DT,that way You have around 1-2 Sane DTs and one DT who always gets Mafia - That way Town will need to think A LOT more before letting blues win the game for them. A DT said someone is Mafia and he turned to be green? Is he Paranoid or a Framer picked good target? The more Town needs to think,the better it is going to become in future games and probably will stop relying only on what confirmed blues say.
EDIT: I contradicted myself,but when players know that the setup is semi-open (so they KNOW what roles are in-game) the game isn't ridiculously wrong. If we will play with sanity DTs,we probably should introduce only ONE "insanity". Like,we have normal DTs and Naive one,we have normal DTs and Paranoid one and so on,so the game does not become a chaos bowl or discussion about sanities like Palmar said.
The problem with a setup like this is the focus is on the DTs and not on scumhunting. Once again, read the game I linked above for an example.
On July 04 2011 04:15 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2011 02:50 Kurumi wrote:
I think in setups which have a Framer present,You can add additional Paranoid DT,that way You have around 1-2 Sane DTs and one DT who always gets Mafia - That way Town will need to think A LOT more before letting blues win the game for them. A DT said someone is Mafia and he turned to be green? Is he Paranoid or a Framer picked good target? The more Town needs to think,the better it is going to become in future games and probably will stop relying only on what confirmed blues say.
EDIT: I contradicted myself,but when players know that the setup is semi-open (so they KNOW what roles are in-game) the game isn't ridiculously wrong. If we will play with sanity DTs,we probably should introduce only ONE "insanity". Like,we have normal DTs and Naive one,we have normal DTs and Paranoid one and so on,so the game does not become a chaos bowl or discussion about sanities like Palmar said. This is kind of the point i was trying to make earlier. There is no magic setup to make town not rely on blues other than pure VT.Instead, we have to find ways to discourage blind trust of blues over multiple games.
I disagree that roles like insane DTs are the way to do it. I think a far better alternative is just to have a list of roles that may or may not be in the game. We have had 1-2 games without roles like detectives, but they were spread out. Give people a few games of no DTs in a row and I think it is more likely that they will get the message.
|
Well honestly I think part of the problem is that DTs or no DTs majority of the players are just terrible and don't understand what the hell is going on most of the time.
|
A closed game with DTs that aren't sane maybe?
|
On July 04 2011 07:47 Ace wrote:
Well honestly I think part of the problem is that DTs or no DTs majority of the players are just terrible and don't understand what the hell is going on most of the time.
This.
Not saying i'm great, but his is the real problem.
|
On July 04 2011 07:47 Ace wrote:
Well honestly I think part of the problem is that DTs or no DTs majority of the players are just terrible and don't understand what the hell is going on most of the time.
Needs more games with coaches.
Like games that have good players, both playing and coaches. Newbie only games with coaches don't help much, because you're coaching them for minor league, when they'll be playing in pro league.
And that's another reason there's like 3-4 invite only games coming up. How on earth are us new players supposed to catch up with your meta and skill level if we're excluded from playing with you guys. Then we end up together in a game and the pros ragequit or troll because the newbies are bad anyway.
I have nothing against the occasional invite only game, I can completely dig you guys sometimes not wanting to deal with bads, but the way to un-bad us is to play with us.
|
Well I don't think Mafia is a game where playing longer necessarily means you'll get more skilled. It certainly should be that way but as we know some people refuse to use their heads.
Meta is overrated anyway. To this day I can't really tell you anyone's actual playing style since I usually ignore it unless I seriously need to look back at old games to get a read.
You aren't even being excluded from playing with "us". I'm not sure who that group specifically refers to but most of the older players just don't play anymore because of boredom, no time, or in my case people just being stupid in games and the general population not using their head.
As for rage quitting pros (there are none) who did that recently?
In terms of coaching I'm a little iffy with that as I don't know how much it's going to help. In light of a recent conversation I had I'm starting to believe if people don't see Mafia is just a big puzzle game and don't want to think and instead do random shit then no amount of coaching is going to help them get better.
|
So how do you propose to increase the general skill level around here?
Remember, I have been really lucky and feel extremely welcome here on these forums, so I'm more trying to speak for the hand of people who are new to this, as a group. For one, I got into the invitational game going at the moment, which I greatly appreciate.
Didn't Kenpachi ragequit in ptp? and Pandain too? or something like that.
I have no idea who is a pro and not, I can't judge people who are better than me, and I've been on this forum for less than two months, so defining this group of "Vets" is something I can't do.
All I'm saying is that in order to raise the skill level in normal games, so the standard "TL Mafia XXXXXXXXX" games become better and more interesting, is to a) get coaches and b) get more good people playing.
RoL's RTM mafia is the current "normal" game (as per foolishness's categorizing of games) and it isn't exactly swarming in vets playing the game.
Taking a quick look at the player list, we've got: Kenpachi, GMarshal, GGQ, Jackal58, Chaos13, LSB, youngminii, Mr. Wiggles and OpZ.
I have been here for two months, so I'm probably overestimating some and underestimating others, but really, I don't think any of those go into "pro level" category, maybe GMarshal?
Again, I'm not angry, I love this forum, and I'm writing this in hopes that insight from a newer player might help get it better.
|
LOL KENPACHI THE RAGE QUITTING PRO
|
I think the skill level is actually pretty good. We have some players who are charismatic and good leaders, some who are good analysts, and some who are really clever and can deceive everyone with no problem. The biggest problem town faces is inactivity and not working together. A lot of people seem to think they make great lone wolves and can solve everything on their own, and this is a natural tendency as a townie when you don't know who you can trust. What really needs to be focused on is teamwork. If you think of it logically, mafia will be just as likely to get inexperienced players as town is. Why do they tend to do so much better then? Because they have a group of people that they know they can trust and work with. When town works together, they do very well.
I wouldn't consider myself a vet here by any means. I've only played in a few games here, and done some others on different sites.
|
My guess is that one way to raise the general skill level is for people to accept that there are some things you just don't do as Town, and some things you just don't do as Scum except in special cases.
Townies still blatantly lie, throw around tons of suspicion therefore killing any chance of getting people to vote with them later, and of course Scum just throwing teammates under the bus just because they can and end up losing quickly.
I'm still of the opinion that none of this matters if the player doesn't use his or her head though. There was a point in time (over a year ago I think) where the base skill level was pretty decent, and then it just dropped down again for some reason I can't explain.
|
On July 04 2011 07:47 Ace wrote:
Well honestly I think part of the problem is that DTs or no DTs majority of the players are just terrible and don't understand what the hell is going on most of the time.
It's worse than just this. Not only do they not understand what is going on, they don't feel like making an effort to understand. If it was just that they don't understand what is going on, but they cared enough to work at it, the games would be getting progressively better. However, most players don't want to work at their game enough to get good, so the games are staying at the same level.
|
Yea that's an even better point. Not reading back over their past games to see why/how they screwed up. Kind of amazing you can look at a person play the same way over 5-6 games and not notice improvement. Oh well 
|
On July 04 2011 08:30 Ace wrote:Yea that's an even better point. Not reading back over their past games to see why/how they screwed up. Kind of amazing you can look at a person play the same way over 5-6 games and not notice improvement. Oh well
I think it's actually rarer to find a player who DOES improve over 3-4 games these days 
|
Maybe that has to do with people who think they want to play, but really just want to read games? That seems to happen a lot with some new people, who sign up, and read everything and are online (you can tell because they always show up right away when accused), but never actually seem like they're making any attempt to actually play the game (Not making posts, not contributing to discussion, just lurking and showing up only to defend themselves weakly).
|
On July 04 2011 08:40 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Maybe that has to do with people who think they want to play, but really just want to read games? That seems to happen a lot with some new people, who sign up, and read everything and are online (you can tell because they always show up right away when accused), but never actually seem like they're making any attempt to actually play the game (Not making posts, not contributing to discussion, just lurking and showing up only to defend themselves weakly).
Often that is because they lack the self confidence to make an accusation or plan for the town to follow. Playing can be intimidating. I don't think you can infer that they only wanted to read the game from that reaction.
|
I think its more that people underestimate how much time it takes to actually play this game. You can kind of get by with having little time, but you have to know what you're doing. They get all caught up into the current game they're playing, and never get around to reading/studying past games, and in general figuring stuff out. Its easy to make rules about everything and overgeneralizing behavior, when the truth is that this is quite a complex game. If you're going to make shortcuts to help you play the game, you better know when they apply and if they truly work.
|
On July 04 2011 08:44 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2011 08:40 Mr. Wiggles wrote:
Maybe that has to do with people who think they want to play, but really just want to read games? That seems to happen a lot with some new people, who sign up, and read everything and are online (you can tell because they always show up right away when accused), but never actually seem like they're making any attempt to actually play the game (Not making posts, not contributing to discussion, just lurking and showing up only to defend themselves weakly). Often that is because they lack the self confidence to make an accusation or plan for the town to follow. Playing can be intimidating. I don't think you can infer that they only wanted to read the game from that reaction.
Hence why I am suggesting coaches
I really think that's one of the big problems. Some of the newer players just find it really intimidating to post and contribute in those games, and aggressive players abuse that.
Sometimes all it takes is a push "You're not any more stupid than the rest of these guys, just get your thoughts out there".
|
Before we add more coaching, people need to read the guides in this forum and try to figure out stuff from those. There are a LOT of things you can learn by reading over, commenting on, and discussing the guides. The best way to learn is actually not by playing. Its by reading over games where you aren't playing, and trying to figure things out while discussing with someone who is also out of the game. Old games work well for this too. Then when you get back to playing, it is to apply what you learned from reading past games. Learning the principles of analysis is a lot easier when you aren't emotionally invested in a game.
|
On July 04 2011 09:05 Incognito wrote:
Before we add more coaching, people need to read the guides in this forum and try to figure out stuff from those. There are a LOT of things you can learn by reading over, commenting on, and discussing the guides. The best way to learn is actually not by playing. Its by reading over games where you aren't playing, and trying to figure things out while discussing with someone who is also out of the game. Old games work well for this too. Then when you get back to playing, it is to apply what you learned from reading past games. Learning the principles of analysis is a lot easier when you aren't emotionally invested in a game.
That's actually a really good point.
When I've improved a bit and played like 10 more games, I might actually try to do this. Set up a place for discussion for 3-4 newbies and myself, none of us knowing anything about the game, and calmly try to analyse and break the game down as it goes on.
Mafia as spectator sport? Fuck yeah!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
