|
On February 21 2013 10:19 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2013 08:33 Mocsta wrote:
Town losing so badly (I.e. flawless victory to scum) had nothing to do with bad town however, and that is the point u r missing.
Oh, I see the point you're making and I disagree. You had such an easy time of it (town basically gave up) that I don't see how you can imply you actually played all that well. I give you much more credit for your loss in '35, when you actually played well against serious opponents. I wanted to try to lynch you so bad D3, but who would have gone with me? You and sevryn? Sylencia and Corazon thought I was scum. Everyone else was inactive until the last minute. You literally had a free ride.
This is the last I will say, because, I can not help you see, what you can not see (yet; perhaps due to pride or experience, not sure).
The irony of the well-executed con is that only the instigator can see the beauty that unfolds.
I can forgive you for not getting it, because the strings were pulled very smoothly.
Yes - I agree - many things fell in my favour (i.e. lurking); but to suggest it was a free ride is very naive.
The lurking simply allowed me to become more forceful in achieving flawless victory; I had the intention to bus Sev/Man by leading their vote if required.
If you want to pretend you had the goods to get me lynched; then you need to re-evaluate your D3 filter where I was constantly referenced among the "active town" and thus, was considered as "town" - this is undeniable. To suggest that was achieved by a free ride due to lurkers is just silly: because Sn0_Man was still considered "confirmed town" even after he commenced lurking.
===================
If you want some *hints* of the con; many ideas taking off in the thread *I believe* stemmed from ideas I introduced.
If you want an early example; corazon case on warbaby all originated from a post I made prior highlighting your deficiencies. corazon simply fleshed it out for me. (The points he raised were almost all mine to a tee)
If you want a late example; you guys were all over Sevryn; many calling him scum directly, and Sylencia 50/50.
It is not chance that you suddenly went 180', stood up for Sevyrn, and aided town to unanimously voted Sylencia. (And by unanimous I do not suggest sheeping: zarepath/Sn0 suggested they read the content leading up to the Sylencia vote, and thus made a conscious decision to lynch Sylencia, not a sheep vote... they understood it would lead to MYLO if wrong)
As I said before, Sylencia defense wasn't the best; but it was still quite townie in nature/mindset.
There is are several reasons his lynch fell into place so smoothly; lurking is one of them; but not the sole or most critical one. His lynch was certainly not a free ride.
=============
As I said before, I am not asking for praise. I am actually trying to help, because you seem keen to improve. (and it is also helping me with my town game)
In my opinion, an important takeaway from this game is: How did I establish sufficient innocence to then push my agenda.
Was I considered town for reasons that are actually "NULL"; or did I actually replicate genuine town tells?
In my opinion, Mandalor should NEVER have been considered town; all his posts were "NULL" at best, and with the lurking, should have been insta-lynched based on contribution quality and quantity.
Another example; Sevryn abused the lurker situation by "standing up in the crowds" and voicing his opinion on Glurio.. twice. I constantly suggested in the thread, this was a townie tell, and I believe nobody questioned it. However.. is it really a townie tell? (Obviously not..) It is simply just something you do not expect from a scum lurker.
The crux: we need to constantly update/adapt our heuristics with placing 'value' on tells to decide town or scum.
====================
This is why I said in earlier posts, next town game I play, my main scum hunt emphasis is going to be on breaking down others case logic. I have a much better understanding now of worse-case logic generated by scum; and worse-case logic generated by tunneled townie.
===================
Sorry for the wall of text. This is really the last I will say  Peace Out
|
On February 21 2013 10:55 warbaby wrote:
I read the scum QT and I was honestly not that impressed, especially compared to scum QT's I've read where the scumteam did not get a complete free ride from >50% of town.
But that's the point, Mocsta went for a cheesy scum style that relied on most of town failing to do anything for extended periods of time. It didn't work the first time he did it, but it worked this time, probably because this time half of the town decided not to play for nearly half of the game.
It's a valid strategy, and he shows some skill executing it against such incredibly meek opposition.
But to extend the metaphor, I'm still in the position of having been cannon rushed, and when I went to pull my probes and defend (eg, attack Mocsta) the probes just sat around doing nothing or attacking my nexus instead. But hey, at least I tried.
If you think NMM37 was a cheesy scum style; I am excited to know what you think is not cheesy.
My scum game is quite in-ya-face; so if that is cheese... what is the scum style of NMM36?
And you are seriously misguided when it comes to my scum game in NMM35.
Out of three people, two were modkilled within 24hrs.. and I had no knowledge of whether a replacement would come in.
I had to make decisions that ultimately compromised me for the remainder of the game.
The case I made that got me lynched, was created again, when there was uncertainty over a replacement.
Additionally compounding this, was that in NMM34 i was hammered majorly by everyone for casting the hammer vote on town, to seal a scum victory (for Sylencia). I came into NMM35 with a defensive mindset - regardless of alignment.
This game:NMM37 is the first scum game I have been able to express my true intentions of playing scum.
If thats cheesy to you; ohhh well, I am not going to argue with you any further.
Peace Out.
|
On February 21 2013 11:00 Mocsta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2013 10:19 warbaby wrote:On February 21 2013 08:33 Mocsta wrote:
Town losing so badly (I.e. flawless victory to scum) had nothing to do with bad town however, and that is the point u r missing.
Oh, I see the point you're making and I disagree. You had such an easy time of it (town basically gave up) that I don't see how you can imply you actually played all that well. I give you much more credit for your loss in '35, when you actually played well against serious opponents. I wanted to try to lynch you so bad D3, but who would have gone with me? You and sevryn? Sylencia and Corazon thought I was scum. Everyone else was inactive until the last minute. You literally had a free ride. This is the last I will say, because, I can not help you see, what you can not see (yet; perhaps due to pride or experience, not sure). The irony of the well-executed con is that only the instigator can see the beauty that unfolds. I can forgive you for not getting it, because the strings were pulled very smoothly. Yes - I agree - many things fell in my favour (i.e. lurking); but to suggest it was a free ride is very naive. The lurking simply allowed me to become more forceful in achieving flawless victory; I had the intention to bus Sev/Man by leading their vote if required. If you want to pretend you had the goods to get me lynched; then you need to re-evaluate your D3 filter where I was constantly referenced among the "active town" and thus, was considered as "town" - this is undeniable. To suggest that was achieved by a free ride due to lurkers is just silly: because Sn0_Man was still considered "confirmed town" even after he commenced lurking. =================== If you want some *hints* of the con; many ideas taking off in the thread *I believe* stemmed from ideas I introduced. If you want an early example; corazon case on warbaby all originated from a post I made prior highlighting your deficiencies. corazon simply fleshed it out for me. (The points he raised were almost all mine to a tee) If you want a late example; you guys were all over Sevryn; many calling him scum directly, and Sylencia 50/50. It is not chance that you suddenly went 180', stood up for Sevyrn, and aided town to unanimously voted Sylencia. (And by unanimous I do not suggest sheeping: zarepath/Sn0 suggested they read the content leading up to the Sylencia vote, and thus made a conscious decision to lynch Sylencia, not a sheep vote... they understood it would lead to MYLO if wrong) As I said before, Sylencia defense wasn't the best; but it was still quite townie in nature/mindset. There is are several reasons his lynch fell into place so smoothly; lurking is one of them; but not the sole or most critical one. His lynch was certainly not a free ride. ============= As I said before, I am not asking for praise. I am actually trying to help, because you seem keen to improve. (and it is also helping me with my town game) In my opinion, an important takeaway from this game is: How did I establish sufficient innocence to then push my agenda. Was I considered town for reasons that are actually "NULL"; or did I actually replicate genuine town tells? In my opinion, Mandalor should NEVER have been considered town; all his posts were "NULL" at best, and with the lurking, should have been insta-lynched based on contribution quality and quantity. Another example; Sevryn abused the lurker situation by "standing up in the crowds" and voicing his opinion on Glurio.. twice. I constantly suggested in the thread, this was a townie tell, and I believe nobody questioned it. However.. is it really a townie tell? (Obviously not..) It is simply just something you do not expect from a scum lurker. The crux: we need to constantly update/adapt our heuristics with placing 'value' on tells to decide town or scum. ==================== This is why I said in earlier posts, next town game I play, my main scum hunt emphasis is going to be on breaking down others case logic. I have a much better understanding now of worse-case logic generated by scum; and worse-case logic generated by tunneled townie. =================== Sorry for the wall of text. This is really the last I will say Peace Out
I guess you don't believe that I gave up at the start of D3. I literally had no interest in putting effort into playing the game at that point, and you can see this in the deterioration of the quality of my posts.
You think you were tricking people, but you were simply abusing your number and volume advantage to push the game in the direction you wanted. You even said it yourself -- the fact that nobody was doing anything D3 means scum was happy with the turn of events. But the turn of events themselves were directed by the scum. You literally had equal day votes to the town. You had already won on D3.
You succeeded, but not because of your own efforts, only a lack of effort by others. I don't mean to cheapen your effort, because you did make a lot, but I honestly don't think you'll ever win a game as scum against a decent town if you don't change your tactics (just like a good cheeser will get demolished by calm, coordinated opposition).
On February 21 2013 01:41 Promethelax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2013 00:38 zarepath wrote:
No, we lost because I was lazy. Sorry. +10 points for the correct (post-game) attitude.
Zarepath was not the only lazy one in this game. I tried making effort at the end of D2, and on N2, and just gave up, because nobody did fucking anything at all. So I'm also guilty of just being lazy and let the game slide.
Sorry Mocsta, you are mostly right, but there are a few points I think your ego won't let you understand. If you're ever scum and I have a capable town to work with, you will lose with these tactics.
|
I consider your play style from 35 to basically be louder than the active towns, and push the agenda in whatever direction you want because nobody is doing anything to stop you. This worked in '35 until the town woke up and started actually playing. It worked even better in '37 because the town hardly did anything constructive the entire game (TestSubject being the big exception to this).
I'm not saying you're bad, or that your tactics are invalid, but they lack finesse, and assume you can continue to control the town agenda for the whole game. I think you even improved on this during 37, and your comments in the scum QT show that you have much more advanced ideas.
I'm not even trying to argue with you, I'm trying to say that you didn't even get a chance to show serious skill in this game because town rolled over. I'm only upset with town over this, not you, Mocsta.
|
On February 21 2013 11:14 warbaby wrote:
I guess you don't believe that I gave up at the start of D3. I literally had no interest in putting effort into playing the game at that point, and you can see this in the deterioration of the quality of my posts.
As Acrofales pointed out in his post-game analysis & zarepath pointed out in his N3 analysis, the facts were all there to point you in the right direction. (Before Day 3)
You saying you gave up is a complete cop out; you considered me town, blatantly - way before D3 started. Even Sn0_Man had a towny read on me before he lurked.
The filter does not lie and all the evidence to pin me, Sevryn, Mandalor existed between D1 -> N2. (Before you apparently gave up)
If we play along with your sob-story: D2, there was all the time in the world to scum hunt, I don't recall your contributions. What I do recall is shutting down corazon from building a case on zarepath.. again, my motive was never questioned. Why, because you and others felt it came from a townie... yet this is apparently cheese lol?
You think you were tricking people, but you were simply abusing your number and volume advantage to push the game in the direction you wanted. If you recall; I was started to be perceived as town once I stated to "active lurk" 1/4 through Day1. So no, it had nothing to do with abusing number advantage. I adapted to the complaints people made of me and RNG.
As for high post volume.. lol.. for a majority of Day3/Night3, I did as you/corazon directly requested of me.. shut up shop and wait for Sn0_Man/zarepath to comment.
P.S. Im confident I could have got you and zarepath lynched at any point in the game - both of you had worse filters than Sylencia in my opinion - and we know how Sylencia went down.
I made a conscious decision to leave zarepath for later as my lynchpin; and you came unstuck when the SK was tracker; forcing me to take an alternative path.
Again, didnt realise scum play in your games has been of such a high standard, that they constantly adapt;thus rendering my play as cheesy lol.
& P.P.S
If you think that scum QT sucked.. thats ironic..
(1) The coach consciously decided he did not need to input anything, other than saying some plans were not worth the risk/reward
&
(2) Who did I have to talk to, in the first place. The QT formed a place to confirm the NK, and to post cases for Sevryn.
That you ignore this (and in particular (1) ) clearly expresses how tunneled you are right now.
& P.P.P.S
you can interpret this as ego or whatever, but when you take a step back. Look at the things I am writing. In the past posts I actually provide analysis on why some reads and actions were outright wrong. As I said before, I couldnt give two shits on your praise; I am trying to help you, which in the processes improves my understanding and helps me.
& P.P.P.P.S
The praise I do give a shit about, is VE nominating me for a 2013 mafia best play newbie game award.
Obviously it doesnt qualify due to XP limits; but, you need to ask yourself why a respected player in the community would nominate in the first place, when you simply think it is cheese...
Peace Out.
|
On February 21 2013 11:22 warbaby wrote:
I consider your play style from 35 to basically be louder than the active towns, and push the agenda in whatever direction you want because nobody is doing anything to stop you. This worked in '35 until the town woke up and started actually playing. It worked even better in '37 because the town hardly did anything constructive the entire game (TestSubject being the big exception to this).
For your reference,
NMM35 no one officially woke up till I released my dud case. Which was due to me refusing to adapt to a changing climate.
Having said that, I am only responding because you raise a flawed heuristic I want to highlight.
I consider your play style from 35 to basically be louder than the active towns, and push the agenda in whatever direction you want because nobody is doing anything to stop you.
I think this is a terrible heuristic; however, i think you may have written the statement poorly.
TestSubject893 was important not because of the logic he was spewing; but because he was confirmed town, which meant he had "established innocence". This in turn gave him trust; and allowed him to follow reads with more force; whether right or wrong.
If you think nobody is doing anything to stop me; its not because they think I am scum and waiting for me to slip.
Its because I have established sufficient innocence to fall down the threat priority list.
corazon had no problem constant issues in your play D1, because your innocence was NOT established. My "free ride" had nothing to do with being unintentionally ignored. I was ignored, because I was considered innocent enough.
You need to re-read Incogntio mafia guide and the scum QT.
What was the first thing I was saying to the team.
D1.. Townies/Scum doing the same thing.. establish innocence. Town looking for scum; scum looking for bad townies to call scum.
|
On February 21 2013 07:43 Acrofales wrote:
You cannot just modkill people who don't play the way you want them to play, lol. Finding replacements is not easy, and we were lucky we could even find 2 this game. That leaves modkilling, which, in a mini, is a very draconic measure.
That leaves changing the rules, which can be thought of. However, in the end, lurkers will lurk and it is up to town to pressure them into contributing.
First of all, you are ignoring the option to warn a player, which was effective in remedying Acid~'s non-playing in '36.
Second, we tried consistently pressuring them and it only worked in very a limited fashion. How were I and Cora to know that fellow towns Zare and Sn0 planned to AFK for most of D3?
You're right that replacement is the most appropriate choice. My take: when someone fails to post in 48 hours you PM them and ask for an explanation. If you get no reply in 12 hours, for ask for a replacement in the replacement thread, and announce that the player is being replaced. If you can't get a replacement soon enough, you might have to modkill the player.
At the same time, it's just a newbie game, so maybe I'm expecting way too much.
|
On February 21 2013 11:52 Mocsta wrote:
If you think nobody is doing anything to stop me; its not because they think I am scum and waiting for me to slip.
Its because I have established sufficient innocence to fall down the threat priority list.
corazon had no problem constant issues in your play D1, because your innocence was NOT established. My "free ride" had nothing to do with being unintentionally ignored. I was ignored, because I was considered innocent enough.
You did not establish your innocence, you established your dominance over the only other active town (Corazon). There's a big difference between appearing innocent (which you did not, at one point 66% of the active towns were after you as scum) and dominating the game because you have 1 actual opponent (after TS died).
e: well, more like zero opponents, since I had given up on trying to hunt you after TS died, which I already admitted was the biggest mistake I think I made in this game. I didn't have a town read on you, I just didn't think there was any point in pursuing you when Cora and your lurker buddy would just burn me down for trying to do so (again, my fault for just giving up).
|
On February 21 2013 12:02 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2013 11:52 Mocsta wrote:
If you think nobody is doing anything to stop me; its not because they think I am scum and waiting for me to slip.
Its because I have established sufficient innocence to fall down the threat priority list.
corazon had no problem constant issues in your play D1, because your innocence was NOT established. My "free ride" had nothing to do with being unintentionally ignored. I was ignored, because I was considered innocent enough.
You did not establish your innocence, you established your dominance over the only other active town (Corazon). There's a big difference between appearing innocent (which you did not, at one point 66% of the active towns were after you as scum) and dominating the game because you have 1 actual opponent (after TS died).
You are again missing the point. Since when do you accept the shit babbling out of a scum read. You only accept the shit babbling if he has established innocence; and will put under consideration if null.
Even you should be aware of this common sense. Dominance can only come afterwards.
I don't think I dominated this game anyways, so the conversation is moot.
I think corazon tried to lead this game, and constantly consulted me for cues. If you think this happened by chance; again, you are misreading the game.
I knew I could work with corazon actively throughout the game; when I asked him to drop his case on you D1 and he reciprocated... Again, you miss all the fine actions in the game, which is the sole reason I am discussing them.
This is a newbie game and it is meant to be a learning platform for everyone to develop from.
I don't recall a point in this game, where I was voted (as a joke or intent to lynch). So no, no one was ever after me as you claim.
And by 'onto me' if are referring to someone doubting me early game... do we not doubt everyone at the start?
Surely, you have enough intelligence to realise the above is meaningless; in particular to use as a basis for stating I could have been caught.
I am going to be blunt here; this discussion is a waste of time. You are obviously sour grapes.
I suggest when you have had a mental break from this specific game, you at a minimum re-read the post-game comments. There are a lot of things said by multiple people that can help improve your town scum hunting perceptions.
Ciao.
|
I read the comments by Acrofales, and I agree with them. I don't agree with your comments, sorry.
e: although I will take your suggestion and revisit the post-game in a few days, maybe I will understand your point then.
|
No offense to either side, I though Mocsta was scum off and on. Sure he got most of a free ride in that almost nobody questioned him or his motives. But that's not his fault. Part of the problem in the game IMO was that nobody questioned the direction of the town at almost any point and Mocsta abused that all to hell.
Part of becoming a better player in every game is learning when to question game state. When the most active/loudest voices persist, you really need to ask yourself why they're persisting. Are these people who are being manipulated? Are these people who are actively leading the town to bad decisions? What's the purpose for scum leaving them around? Sure you might argue that's all a circumstantial case, but the cumulative effects of being wrong and loud add up to something. Personally I was very surprised when neither Cora nor Mocsta wanted to discuss cases day 2 as that seemed very anti-town. I was surprised when nobody put them on blast for it.
I was actually kinda mad dying night 1 as I felt like I was going to be building momentum to steal the shared mayor position from Mocsta/Cora and get the town headed in a more effective direction. I was also mad at myself for not sharing my suspicions of Mocsta even if I couldn't find the case I wanted to make on him.
|
On February 21 2013 12:02 warbaby wrote:
e: well, more like zero opponents, since I had given up on trying to hunt you after TS died, which I already admitted was the biggest mistake I think I made in this game. I didn't have a town read on you, I just didn't think there was any point in pursuing you when Cora and your lurker buddy would just burn me down for trying to do so (again, my fault for just giving up).
Even though you spell it out; you can't see it.
Establishing innocence does not need to infer "probably town" read.
As i stated, just means you not on the threat meter; i.e. not worth pursuing. That is all it takes for someone to start pushing an agenda.
And you love talking about hindsight; you never knew Sevryn and I were working together @ all. If Sevryn was such a scum read to you; you would have chosen him over Sylencia.. but you didnt.
=================
For posterity
To prove the point:
On February 19 2013 05:38 warbaby wrote:
I think you missed my point. I'm not saying sevryn is town, but he responded better to our requests for his scumreads (by actually listing a few) than sylencia. Its not about being confirmed town as scum. If anything that makes everything harder; because there is more responsibility when you lead a mislynch.
On February 18 2013 06:19 warbaby wrote:
I want to highlight this post by mocsta:
<spoiler>
I agree with Mocsta. Because we always choose to agree with our scum reads.<insert sarcasm>... The only time you had a "scum read" was N1, and that was founded on OMGUS. If your suspicion was as strong as you suggest post-game, D3 and D2 you would not be actively agreeing with me.(regardless of giving up apparently; even though you would respond to posts within 5-10min, suggesting you were constantly F5'n the thread)
On February 17 2013 09:45 warbaby wrote:
Mislynches happen D1. There is no way I'm willing to lynch Corazon over that and some crazy association case with Mocsta.
I'm glad TS made some effort to hunt scum among the active players, but I've yet to see anything that makes me sure I want to lynch Mocsta or Corazon. Yes, that doesnt infer you thought I was town; but it doesnt matter. I was not on the table, and that is the objective. And the point you seem to be missing, even though you spelt it out at the start.
|
Also fwiw, Mocsta I was going to make the second case N1 versus you, I just couldn't find a real solid case I liked and was planning on gathering more information.
|
On February 21 2013 12:33 geript wrote:
No offense to either side, I though Mocsta was scum off and on. Sure he got most of a free ride in that almost nobody questioned him or his motives. But that's not his fault. Part of the problem in the game IMO was that nobody questioned the direction of the town at almost any point and Mocsta abused that all to hell.
Part of becoming a better player in every game is learning when to question game state. When the most active/loudest voices persist, you really need to ask yourself why they're persisting. Are these people who are being manipulated? Are these people who are actively leading the town to bad decisions? What's the purpose for scum leaving them around? Sure you might argue that's all a circumstantial case, but the cumulative effects of being wrong and loud add up to something. Personally I was very surprised when neither Cora nor Mocsta wanted to discuss cases day 2 as that seemed very anti-town. I was surprised when nobody put them on blast for it.
I was actually kinda mad dying night 1 as I felt like I was going to be building momentum to steal the shared mayor position from Mocsta/Cora and get the town headed in a more effective direction. I was also mad at myself for not sharing my suspicions of Mocsta even if I couldn't find the case I wanted to make on him.
Agree fully, and this makes me proud I made a decision to kill you.
Definitely would have made the game more challenging with this type of game insight.
Good luck in Mafia LX.
|
I swear I made like a half dozen posts questioning Mocsta's motives, and linking to his other meta with my own read that he is playing the same scum style from '35, and in the only will I posted he was my top scum read.
Oh wait -- I did! 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9...
On February 15 2013 03:20 warbaby wrote:
So based on purely this meta analysis, I believe Mocsta could be scum. Maybe he realized he was giving himself away too much, so now he's cooled his jets a bit, to blend back in with the less aggressive towns?
I'm really sorry that I never bothered to make a real case on Mocsta, I gave up and decided making cases on active players was pointless because the game was obviously being controlled heavily by scum based on early D3 posting, so even if I tried to make a case on an active scum, it would be shot down (because there was only 1 other active town player at that point, and he had been tunneling me most of the game).
|
One last point I would like to make is that it's perfectly fine to play as a 'backseat' or passive player. You don't need to be in the driver's seat; I actually hate leading the town as it makes me post more and think less which in general leads to worse results (at least for me). But there are times when it's necessary to change town direction. I forget who it was, but Iirc Sylencia changing to topic to glurio was very important (if town) or (if sevryn) to look town as the town was beating a dead horse. Better to move on and move forward. Even Sno's posts re:Cora v Warbaby I quoted were very important IMO as it changed the town atmosphere drastically to be more civil and less hostile (while still allowing aggressive play).
|
On February 21 2013 12:34 Mocsta wrote:I was not on the table, and that is the objective. And the point you seem to be missing, even though you spelt it out at the start.
You were not on the table because no active player was on the table, because for the first half of d3 there were 3 active players and a half dozen lurkers. You're giving yourself too much credit for the lurking behavior of town. You do deserve credit for taking advantage of the situation, but you did not create the situation yourself.
|
The only thing I can say to that WB is if that's your read, then all you can do is push it. If other people oppose, it's on them. If you're wrong, it's on you. If you don't move your reads further, it's on you. Part of my fault was in not trying to change the towns direction in case I got killed N1.
|
On February 21 2013 12:51 geript wrote:
One last point I would like to make is that it's perfectly fine to play as a 'backseat' or passive player. You don't need to be in the driver's seat; I actually hate leading the town as it makes me post more and think less which in general leads to worse results (at least for me). But there are times when it's necessary to change town direction. I forget who it was, but Iirc Sylencia changing to topic to glurio was very important (if town) or (if sevryn) to look town as the town was beating a dead horse. Better to move on and move forward. Even Sno's posts re:Cora v Warbaby I quoted were very important IMO as it changed the town atmosphere drastically to be more civil and less hostile (while still allowing aggressive play).
I agree.
I feel my best game(s) contribution wise have been the ones with vets, where I have been able to take a back seat and concentrate more on scum hunting; than trying to do that + lead conversation.
The games as town, where I have taken the lead, either out of want (newbies) or because no one else stepped up and someone has to do it.. my play suffered majorly.
Geript, I cant wait to lead a lynch on you (and succeed ); will be an entertaining battle of wits.
|
On February 21 2013 11:58 warbaby wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2013 07:43 Acrofales wrote:
You cannot just modkill people who don't play the way you want them to play, lol. Finding replacements is not easy, and we were lucky we could even find 2 this game. That leaves modkilling, which, in a mini, is a very draconic measure.
That leaves changing the rules, which can be thought of. However, in the end, lurkers will lurk and it is up to town to pressure them into contributing. First of all, you are ignoring the option to warn a player, which was effective in remedying Acid~'s non-playing in '36. Second, we tried consistently pressuring them and it only worked in very a limited fashion. How were I and Cora to know that fellow towns Zare and Sn0 planned to AFK for most of D3? You're right that replacement is the most appropriate choice. My take: when someone fails to post in 48 hours you PM them and ask for an explanation. If you get no reply in 12 hours, for ask for a replacement in the replacement thread, and announce that the player is being replaced. If you can't get a replacement soon enough, you might have to modkill the player. At the same time, it's just a newbie game, so maybe I'm expecting way too much.
I did warn players. Both 9-bit and Macheji got a warning before the end of D1, which they ignored. I similarly warned Mandalor at the end of D3. That I choose not to do so in the thread, but in PM is because it is not good hosting practice to use the thread for personal announcements. The scum team was similarly warned with a message from Dandel about the pending modkill on Mandalor.
Everybody else showed they were reading the thread. Were townies in D3 putting in enough effort to win the game? No. But that's not my job to police.
Honestly, I'm getting a bit tired of your self-entitlement. You are acting as if you had absolutely no part in the town loss and it is the host's fault for not spurring on townies to make more effort, and all townies except yourself for not playing better.
It is really time you realized that your play this game was not great, and generally speaking, every member of town who is alive at endgame has blame in a loss. There is a reason you weren't killed D1: it was easy for scum to draw you along in pointless discussions and a potential mislynch. If you want to improve your play, which is what newbie games are for, THAT is what you should be looking at, and not whinging about mods not winning the game for town.
None of Sylencia, sevryn, sn0_man or zarepath ever came anywhere near modkillable levels of inactivity and you suggesting otherwise is pathetic blame-seeking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
