Mafia General Discussion

[JerichoDeath]

And SOME people have the time but don't post anyway. Which are the ones I really hate and the ones who should be dealt with. Hence why one of the mechanics had "voting", to ensure that players like Lopez won't receive punishment for mere lack of time.

Any better ideas?

Why should I have any? I think that you're going overboard with it, to be honest. There's no reason for me to respond in kind here, and a lack of a response doesn't lend any credence to your theory that such players need these drastic measures to keep them in line. We don't need a bigger punishment system; The game is all about having fun! It's not a punishment game, or something.

If I have time, and I don't want to come onto a game because it's being annoying, then I won't post, dammit.

You can do what you want with your game, obviously, but I won't be using these. I see them as unfair to the players of both sides, most of the time.

[darkclaymore]

And SOME people have the time but don't post anyway. Which are the ones I really hate and the ones who should be dealt with. Hence why one of the mechanics had "voting", to ensure that players like Lopez won't receive punishment for mere lack of time.

Any better ideas?

Why should I have any? I think that you're going overboard with it, to be honest. There's no reason for me to respond in kind here, and a lack of a response doesn't lend any credence to your theory that such players need these drastic measures to keep them in line. We don't need a bigger punishment system; The game is all about having fun! It's not a punishment game, or something.

If I have time, and I don't want to come onto a game because it's being annoying, then I won't post, dammit.

You can do what you want with your game, obviously, but I won't be using these. I see them as unfair to the players of both sides, most of the time.

The real unfair thing is that lurkers don't do shit and survive until endgame, while the rest are getting killed off while trying to actually do something. As things are now, it's as if the active players are being punished (early death) for their activity, whereas lurkers are getting a prize (long life) for their lurking.

I think it's only natural to attempt balance this, as it doesn't make sense. Of course, the easiest solution is to not let lurkers play at all, but that might be seen as a form of dictatorship on the mod's side.

[Luke Triton]

You can do what you want with your game, obviously, but I won't be using these. I see them as unfair to the players of both sides, most of the time.

Pretty sure he's just asking what you guys think of his idea and whether you have any. Not whether you want to use it yourself....

@Claymore:
I think if people don't have time to play, then they shouldn't sign up to play. I mean, why say you will play if you either don't care enough to post/try or you will not be here? It just doesn't make sense.
The hated idea sounds solid to me, it's a motivator to do something without actually going and modkilling the person.
I really think the best thing to do is switch out, though. Like those other ideas kill players off, and that hurts the team they were on. When people have no time or get bored with the game, they should switch with someone and just not play. It holds everyone up when they say they'll play and then don't.

edit, ninja'd

The real unfair thing is that lurkers don't do shit and survive until endgame, while the rest are getting killed off while trying to actually do something. As things are now, it's as if the active players are being punished (early death) for their activity, whereas lurkers are getting a prize (long life) for their lurking.

THIS. IT IS SO UNFAIR. IT IS EVEN HAPPENING WITH MIZU'S GAME TO AN EXTENT, AND IT SUCKS.
People who actually wanna play get killed off first, strategically, and not many people left actually do anything.
So who should we punish here? Players or lurkers? Because so far, it's players and that ain't right, dudes.

You know what's also bad? When people don't read the thread and then randomly vote. YOU HAVE TO READ THE THREAD TO PLAY THE GAME, DUH!

[darkclaymore]

I think if people don't have time to play, then they shouldn't sign up to play. I mean, why say you will play if you either don't care enough to post/try or you will not be here? It just doesn't make sense.

That's obviously the best. But... how many lurkers out there actually agree to do that? Seen maybe one or two in my life so far. They just keep signing up for god knows what reason.

The real unfair thing is that lurkers don't do shit and survive until endgame, while the rest are getting killed off while trying to actually do something. As things are now, it's as if the active players are being punished (early death) for their activity, whereas lurkers are getting a prize (long life) for their lurking.

THIS. IT IS SO UNFAIR. IT IS EVEN HAPPENING WITH MIZU'S GAME TO AN EXTENT, AND IT SUCKS.

It.. HAPPENS EVERY GAME.

EDIT:

You know what's also bad? When people don't read the thread and then randomly vote. YOU HAVE TO READ THE THREAD TO PLAY THE GAME, DUH!

It's usually those same lurkers that do this tbh.

[JerichoDeath]

I think if people don't have time to play, then they shouldn't sign up to play. I mean, why say you will play if you either don't care enough to post/try or you will not be here? It just doesn't make sense.

That's obviously the best. But... how many lurkers out there actually agree to do that? Seen maybe one or two in my life so far. They just keep signing up for god knows what reason.

That wasn't a realistic question. Who can predict the future?

The real unfair thing is that lurkers don't do shit and survive until endgame, while the rest are getting killed off while trying to actually do something. As things are now, it's as if the active players are being punished (early death) for their activity, whereas lurkers are getting a prize (long life) for their lurking.

The strategy of greater idiocy is the "Policy Lynch" BS that is mostly used against "lurkers", even in the beginning.

[kotakoni]

It's not a punishment game, or something.

Welp, time to start replanning.

[kotakoni]

I-I don't always have time. I'm pretty busy sometimes...

[darkclaymore]

The real unfair thing is that lurkers don't do shit and survive until endgame, while the rest are getting killed off while trying to actually do something. As things are now, it's as if the active players are being punished (early death) for their activity, whereas lurkers are getting a prize (long life) for their lurking.

The strategy of greater idiocy is the "Policy Lynch" BS that is mostly used against "lurkers", even in the beginning.

Policy lynch is pretty much the sole way to lynch lurkers. Otherwise they are practically Lynchproof. And they are also Bulletproof against scum kills too for the most part, as scum will want those lurkers at endgame.

So yeah, depending on the game's setup - policy lynch might be the sole way to kill a lurking player. That or modkill, which harms balance by default and should only be the LAST last resort IMO.

[lopez]

Mechanics

To be honest, I don't like any of those. Some people simply don't have any time in their days, and the way you do your phases, they'll have even less time to post.

And SOME people have the time but don't post anyway. Which are the ones I really hate and the ones who should be dealt with. Hence why one of the mechanics had "voting", to ensure that players like Lopez won't receive punishment for mere lack of time.

Any better ideas?

The way I see it, it's your game, you do whatever you want. Personally, I'll work around each GM's changes, just so long as I can join the game and I don't get auto-lynched at the start of the game...

[JerichoDeath]

Policy lynch is pretty much the sole way to lynch lurkers. Otherwise they are practically Lynchproof. And they are also Bulletproof against scum kills too for the most part, as scum will want those lurkers at endgame.

Do you want to force people to vote, like the insipid crap that was going on in the current game? It's a player's choice whether they want to vote or not.

If that's just about posting in general, you still haven't addressed that glaring flaw of not being able to see the future. ("oh my god, my internet bills were late, and now I'm not able to go online much because the service cut my connection!, etc etc")
-or maybe someone in the game pissed someone else off, and now, they don't want to look at the thread for a while. Are they suddenly policy lynch targets?

There are way too many stupid things wrong with the idea of policy lynching to even think about including it. Hell, I might even "pull a Mizu-san" and ban it altogether for my games. (although, probably, I wouldn't anyway)

---

Also, I'd like to pitch an unrelated topic.
In this case, I want to add a new rule to the general application of games here.
Mostly, this has been an unspoken rule already (so, this may seem like an obvious move here), but I want to institute a rule stating that the Host states, in the first post, whether or not their game will be normal/"vanilla".

To reference a normal game, I looked here: http://wiki.mafiascum.net/index.php?title=Normal_Game
Although, it should be fairly self explanatory anyway.

This rule would let players know the deal so they can decide if they want to play or not. Of course, this is mostly for veteran players, who know the terms.

I also have more reasons that I listed on the QT. So, when the town is finished suiciding, you can read those reasons there, assuming the QT will be revealed to public eyes.

[vampko]

I read it and....I don't get it

I'll just do it how I do it.

[JerichoDeath]

To be direct, in the first post, the Host would just say somewhere near the beginning of the post:
"This is a Vanilla Game."
or
"This is an Experimental Game."
or
"This is not a Vanilla Game."

Something that doesn't say anything about mechanics that he/she doesn't want known, but does say that the players can, or cannot as the case my be, expect HILARIOUS hijinks during the course of play.

[vampko]

To be direct, in the first post, the Host would just say somewhere near the beginning of the post:
"This is a Vanilla Game."
or
"This is an Experimental Game."
or
"This is not a Vanilla Game."

Something that doesn't say anything about mechanics that he/she doesn't want known, but does say that the players can, or cannot as the case my be, expect HILARIOUS hijinks during the course of play.

But then what's the fun?

What fun would my game have been if everyone knew it was going to be full of surprises?

[JerichoDeath]

But then what's the fun?

What fun would my game have been if everyone knew it was going to be full of surprises?

I said it before, but you wouldn't have to say anything about what the surprises are~!
I, personally, don't like it when I feel lied to by the Host, for instance.

[MizuMikomi]

But then what's the fun?

What fun would my game have been if everyone knew it was going to be full of surprises?

I said it before, but you wouldn't have to say anything about what the surprises are~!
I, personally, don't like it when I feel lied to by the Host, for instance.

But if the host doesn't say anything, then you can't be lied to, or even feel you've been lied to. Because nothing has been said to cause such a reaction.

Plus I prefer to guess the amount of vanilla in a game, it's something I find fun, oddly enough.