August 16th, 2014, 12:30 PM
Fair enough. Thanks.
Fair enough. Thanks.
July 30th, 2014, 02:25 PM
Does the Stump get a unique win?
Does the Stump get a unique win?
July 28th, 2014, 12:27 PM
Ouch I didn't expect to be off by 3000. I did play a lot in June but I didn't expect it to be like that. I guess I did get a few achievements though but still. I suppose I was on a rampage for -prefer. But I suppose accurate point restorations come to those who report often. I might've played a few games with oops_ur_dead after that late May game, and he doesn't play much, so he might still have our replays in his recent files. I'll PM him.
Ouch I didn't expect to be off by 3000. I did play a lot in June but I didn't expect it to be like that. I guess I did get a few achievements though but still. I suppose I was on a rampage for -prefer. But I suppose accurate point restorations come to those who report often. I might've played a few games with oops_ur_dead after that late May game, and he doesn't play much, so he might still have our replays in his recent files. I'll PM him.
July 25th, 2014, 07:08 PM
Account Name: EagleMan
Account ID: 1-S2-1-505317
Your Realm: North America
Approximate Points: I actually remember it pretty well, I was about 300 points from approaching the 20k point which I was watching so I could prefer roles. My account is very old, only 6 digits, so that should help believability some. I'm not sure how close the replay is to where I remember being.
[URL="https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/27264-Pacifist-1-S2-1-3328741"]This replay[/URL] I submitted in May may be the latest replay I have. My hard drive completely fried itself and all attempts at recovery failed. My mod powers and ability to choose high level models/hats are still in effect though, but not all of them. My top access is currently Vizier Hat and Ugly Dog, but before I was able to access the Dark Lord model, the purple woman, as well as the Halo hat. Not sure why it's wonky like that. Hopefully I don't get set back too much... I was looking forward to prefering.
Account Name: EagleMan
Account ID: 1-S2-1-505317
Your Realm: North America
Approximate Points: I actually remember it pretty well, I was about 300 points from approaching the 20k point which I was watching so I could prefer roles. My account is very old, only 6 digits, so that should help believability some. I'm not sure how close the replay is to where I remember being.
This replay I submitted in May may be the latest replay I have. My hard drive completely fried itself and all attempts at recovery failed. My mod powers and ability to choose high level models/hats are still in effect though, but not all of them. My top access is currently Vizier Hat and Ugly Dog, but before I was able to access the Dark Lord model, the purple woman, as well as the Halo hat. Not sure why it's wonky like that. Hopefully I don't get set back too much... I was looking forward to prefering.
June 19th, 2014, 03:24 PM
Yep, it is the point. In fact having a Kidnapper is great. The most powerful Mafia roles to have besides GF are Janitor, Disguiser and Kidnapper. I rarely ever see the Agent or Beguiler be useful. BMer is kind of a joke, but sometimes townies will lynch a silenced person.
Yep, it is the point. In fact having a Kidnapper is great. The most powerful Mafia roles to have besides GF are Janitor, Disguiser and Kidnapper. I rarely ever see the Agent or Beguiler be useful. BMer is kind of a joke, but sometimes townies will lynch a silenced person.
June 17th, 2014, 09:22 PM
Mafia/Triad definitely have enough I think. Too many of the roles are inferior to a few other faction roles, they rarely have their moment of glory compared to a more straightforward Janitor, Disguiser or Kidnapper. I'd rather they be more useful before going on to add more roles.
Mafia/Triad definitely have enough I think. Too many of the roles are inferior to a few other faction roles, they rarely have their moment of glory compared to a more straightforward Janitor, Disguiser or Kidnapper. I'd rather they be more useful before going on to add more roles.
June 15th, 2014, 03:07 PM
I saw a variant of this bug today. Marshall activated. 4 people were lynched. In order: 11 (Jester), 10, 1 and 8.
14, who voted up 11, was killed the next day for lynching 11. At the end of the game 10 and 8 received the Zombie Suicide achievement. 1 did not receive the achievement, and he did not have the achievement either, despite appearing to be in the same position as 10 and 8.
I saw a variant of this bug today. Marshall activated. 4 people were lynched. In order: 11 (Jester), 10, 1 and 8.
14, who voted up 11, was killed the next day for lynching 11. At the end of the game 10 and 8 received the Zombie Suicide achievement. 1 did not receive the achievement, and he did not have the achievement either, despite appearing to be in the same position as 10 and 8.
June 12th, 2014, 12:02 AM
[QUOTE=AppleyNO;448863]What I want to know is this:
"If the mayor keeps his votes when converted, can you end up with a Mason Leader with extra votes?"[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that's what the Grand Master achievement is, being both a Mayor and Mason Leader simultaneously. I double checked achievements with Rev, and I doubt it's saying "Having been Mayor once upon a time, become Mason Leader".
Originally Posted by
AppleyNO
What I want to know is this:
"If the mayor keeps his votes when converted, can you end up with a Mason Leader with extra votes?"
I'm pretty sure that's what the Grand Master achievement is, being both a Mayor and Mason Leader simultaneously. I double checked achievements with Rev, and I doubt it's saying "Having been Mayor once upon a time, become Mason Leader".
February 21st, 2014, 07:44 PM
So nearly all of them use an outdated version?
So nearly all of them use an outdated version?
February 17th, 2014, 08:13 PM
Seems like it would mess up existing night chat, like if a Mafia, Cult, Triad or Mason were targeted, or a Jailor jailing a target, or a Crier or Judge (because would they speak privately? Or the Crier would have to speak to everyone while talking with his connection?).
Seems like it would mess up existing night chat, like if a Mafia, Cult, Triad or Mason were targeted, or a Jailor jailing a target, or a Crier or Judge (because would they speak privately? Or the Crier would have to speak to everyone while talking with his connection?).
February 14th, 2014, 06:25 PM
too late
I asked Bruno in his visitor messages and he said yes to me
too late
I asked Bruno in his visitor messages and he said yes to me
February 13th, 2014, 10:58 PM
[QUOTE=AppleyNO;423560]Fixing a mistake:
[9:05:05 PM] Dark Revenant: "Gamethrowing is when you actively work against your victory condition."
This includes every Neutral role. All new games fall under this rule.
Please voice your questions and comments about this new rule change.[/QUOTE]
How is this to be objectively assessed? Part of the allure of Neutral roles is that you're free to play with the meta, to play with people's minds. Sometimes this can backfire. From a third person perspective you can either look like an idiot, a gamethrower, or a genius depending on how all it works out. Sometimes I play to "lose" as a Neutral for the ultimate goal of winning, because I'm betting no one will want to waste their time/abilities on me.
Say as Exec, I'll randomly call out a person different from my target in the hopes of establishing credibility. If they think I'm Exec, that means they think my target is y, when it's really x, so they think x will be safe to lynch. If they lynch y, and he happens to be evil, I have credibility now. If he's town they think I've won as Exec and they no longer have any reason to bother me, and now I can try to encourage people to lynch x. But how is a keeper supposed to know my intent, the strategy I'm trying to do? Especially if I die before I get a chance to push the lynch on my true target. It's impossible.
It'd be hard to have many clear cut cases, short of a player deciding to commit suicide to avoid winning. It's pretty easy to judge when a person has teammates, because it's gamethrowing to involve your allies against their will in some meta plan, and it can possibly be skyping if you already have it arranged (with town, or if you arrange it with your evil faction outside of SC2 where Spy can't hear you). But both those are moot for neutrals so they're free to experiment with mind games that can on the surface look like game throwing, but those manipulations have won me many games before. And by god they're the most satisfying wins. And sometimes they don't work out and I just look like a failed gamethrower who didn't even try to win.
Say the SK at the top of the page who vows only to kill whoever Town says. What if that's just a feint to stay alive long enough to win? I've done something of the sort before and won, and it was my gamble paying off.
I was actually a bit bewildered to read your post Appley that you basically admit you'll only want to punish the failures. Does that really sound right? It fits into my point about intent: how can you truly know someone is working against their victory condition outside of very rare circumstances? The whole point of Mafia is the duplicitousness, the WIFOM, of betting that you're on the right side of the mind game table. Often the best way to victory as a neutral (mostly as a nonkilling) can be trying to lose. Depending on how strictly you enforce the rule, you'll be encouraging stagnant gameplay. Which makes it easier for a smart Town to win as the behavior of neutral players will be more predictable because they know they can't act too crazy without having it count as gamethrowing.
But if DR's golden rule is incorporated into it, I won't mind, but of course anyone can feel like their game is ruined for any reason. And maybe you will only be enforcing it for the most clear cut cases, when again I wouldn't mind then. I apologize for this post if you're already going to do it that way, I just don't want to have to assume.
Originally Posted by
AppleyNO
Fixing a mistake:
[9:05:05 PM] Dark Revenant: "Gamethrowing is when you actively work against your victory condition."
This includes every Neutral role. All new games fall under this rule.
Please voice your questions and comments about this new rule change.
How is this to be objectively assessed? Part of the allure of Neutral roles is that you're free to play with the meta, to play with people's minds. Sometimes this can backfire. From a third person perspective you can either look like an idiot, a gamethrower, or a genius depending on how all it works out. Sometimes I play to "lose" as a Neutral for the ultimate goal of winning, because I'm betting no one will want to waste their time/abilities on me.
Say as Exec, I'll randomly call out a person different from my target in the hopes of establishing credibility. If they think I'm Exec, that means they think my target is y, when it's really x, so they think x will be safe to lynch. If they lynch y, and he happens to be evil, I have credibility now. If he's town they think I've won as Exec and they no longer have any reason to bother me, and now I can try to encourage people to lynch x. But how is a keeper supposed to know my intent, the strategy I'm trying to do? Especially if I die before I get a chance to push the lynch on my true target. It's impossible.
It'd be hard to have many clear cut cases, short of a player deciding to commit suicide to avoid winning. It's pretty easy to judge when a person has teammates, because it's gamethrowing to involve your allies against their will in some meta plan, and it can possibly be skyping if you already have it arranged (with town, or if you arrange it with your evil faction outside of SC2 where Spy can't hear you). But both those are moot for neutrals so they're free to experiment with mind games that can on the surface look like game throwing, but those manipulations have won me many games before. And by god they're the most satisfying wins. And sometimes they don't work out and I just look like a failed gamethrower who didn't even try to win.
Say the SK at the top of the page who vows only to kill whoever Town says. What if that's just a feint to stay alive long enough to win? I've done something of the sort before and won, and it was my gamble paying off.
I was actually a bit bewildered to read your post Appley that you basically admit you'll only want to punish the failures. Does that really sound right? It fits into my point about intent: how can you truly know someone is working against their victory condition outside of very rare circumstances? The whole point of Mafia is the duplicitousness, the WIFOM, of betting that you're on the right side of the mind game table. Often the best way to victory as a neutral (mostly as a nonkilling) can be trying to lose. Depending on how strictly you enforce the rule, you'll be encouraging stagnant gameplay. Which makes it easier for a smart Town to win as the behavior of neutral players will be more predictable because they know they can't act too crazy without having it count as gamethrowing.
But if DR's golden rule is incorporated into it, I won't mind, but of course anyone can feel like their game is ruined for any reason. And maybe you will only be enforcing it for the most clear cut cases, when again I wouldn't mind then. I apologize for this post if you're already going to do it that way, I just don't want to have to assume.
February 9th, 2014, 05:34 PM
I would be gay for Bruno
I would be gay for Bruno
April 24th, 2013, 08:12 PM
I think that's what he means. That'd be pretty useful if you're just trying to find a dead invest's words or something, or if you need to tune out some idiot that's been spamming up the log.
I think that's what he means. That'd be pretty useful if you're just trying to find a dead invest's words or something, or if you need to tune out some idiot that's been spamming up the log.
April 24th, 2013, 06:56 PM
Crier is one of those roles that's very powerful with a smart person and practically useless with a dumb person. Like Citizen.
Crier is one of those roles that's very powerful with a smart person and practically useless with a dumb person. Like Citizen.
December 2nd, 2012, 12:29 AM
SC2 editor is kind of retarded
some triggers that WC3 had are just gone in SC2, also it's very buggy, so it's difficult to just straight up copy something over
Also doing the data work for a unit heavy game is a massive pain.
SC2 editor is kind of retarded
some triggers that WC3 had are just gone in SC2, also it's very buggy, so it's difficult to just straight up copy something over
Also doing the data work for a unit heavy game is a massive pain.
December 1st, 2012, 06:26 PM
Coding is like learning an entirely new language, except in that language if you make even the slightest grammatical mistake no one can understand what you're saying at all.
"Your" when you meant "You're"? OH JESUS WHAT IS HE SAYING HE'S SPEAKING IN TONGUES (the map crashes).
Coding is like learning an entirely new language, except in that language if you make even the slightest grammatical mistake no one can understand what you're saying at all.
"Your" when you meant "You're"? OH JESUS WHAT IS HE SAYING HE'S SPEAKING IN TONGUES (the map crashes).
December 1st, 2012, 01:11 AM
I think you should look at the technical complexity of Mafia and then think about the reasons why DR would not have done such an apparently simple thing.
I think you should look at the technical complexity of Mafia and then think about the reasons why DR would not have done such an apparently simple thing.
November 30th, 2012, 03:16 PM
Yeah the development schedule pretty much aligns with university break schedule. So he'll have like 3 or 4 weeks for winter break between semesters, then summer break which is like 2-3 months. There's also spring break iirc that's only like a week, I get the same schedule as Rev since I go in the same college system as him and am in a nearby school, I just haven't really double checked what my own schedule is is.
Yeah the development schedule pretty much aligns with university break schedule. So he'll have like 3 or 4 weeks for winter break between semesters, then summer break which is like 2-3 months. There's also spring break iirc that's only like a week, I get the same schedule as Rev since I go in the same college system as him and am in a nearby school, I just haven't really double checked what my own schedule is is.
November 19th, 2012, 11:46 PM
i am eagle man man of the people
speak your piece and i shall shake the heavens in relaying your demands
i am eagle man man of the people
speak your piece and i shall shake the heavens in relaying your demands
November 15th, 2012, 02:44 PM
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;239446]GIEF PLIS.[/QUOTE]
Oops how could you let this place have auto playing videos?
How?
You don't deserve the key.
Originally Posted by
oops_ur_dead
GIEF PLIS.
Oops how could you let this place have auto playing videos?
How?
You don't deserve the key.
November 15th, 2012, 12:58 PM
RLVG, trading? Donating!~
RLVG, trading? Donating!~
November 14th, 2012, 05:13 AM
[QUOTE=Archangel;238732]I thought AFKing wasn't against the rules.[/QUOTE]
My rationale is that if you're AFK then you don't get the points, so I will kick AFKers right before the game ends.
Either way, if the person's been afk the entire game, I don't consider it punishable by watch/kick/banlist, it's just something that sometimes happens and I accept it, but they still don't get points for it.
I would consider it punishable if a person suddenly went AFK right at a critical time, perhaps swaying the game to a friend on another faction or something, but normal AFK I wouldn't really consider reportable. Unless it happened in a Ranked game.
Originally Posted by
Archangel
I thought AFKing wasn't against the rules.
My rationale is that if you're AFK then you don't get the points, so I will kick AFKers right before the game ends.
Either way, if the person's been afk the entire game, I don't consider it punishable by watch/kick/banlist, it's just something that sometimes happens and I accept it, but they still don't get points for it.
I would consider it punishable if a person suddenly went AFK right at a critical time, perhaps swaying the game to a friend on another faction or something, but normal AFK I wouldn't really consider reportable. Unless it happened in a Ranked game.
November 11th, 2012, 12:30 AM
Shae, the prostitute who's with Tyrion, the actress actually used to be in porn and there's several videos online of her.
Shae, the prostitute who's with Tyrion, the actress actually used to be in porn and there's several videos online of her.
November 10th, 2012, 11:11 PM
[QUOTE=Necroplant;236999]Since you used a bad word, I'm going to issue an equal retort, you faggot.
...that was it.[/QUOTE]
Seems like you're shaping up and ready to be unbanned. Your crocodile tears are just spam.
Originally Posted by
Necroplant
Since you used a bad word, I'm going to issue an equal retort, you faggot.
...that was it.
Seems like you're shaping up and ready to be unbanned. Your crocodile tears are just spam.
November 9th, 2012, 05:54 PM
Sounds like Necro just wants a way to be in the game again. If a person's on the banlist, they already know how to play, they just didn't care for the rules. We don't ban people for being stupid. No newb is going to be on the banlist.
As said, there are potential cheating/trolling issues, and to take the measures necessary to compensate for that (as much as is possible - it's an issue that couldn't be solved) is a waste of Rev's time as the changes would only benefit those who have demonstrated a huge lack of respect towards the community.
There's also the fact that it encourages banlisted people to keep playing games, which means they take away a slot from another player and it forces hosts to 100% of the time have to adjust their save down one person - in addition to the fact that there's usually a person who drops, this now makes for regular 13 person games when most people calibrate their saves to 14-15.
As I said, newbs/dumb people don't get on the banlist. There is no reason to give benefits to those who have proved they do not care about the gaming experience of others.
Sounds like Necro just wants a way to be in the game again. If a person's on the banlist, they already know how to play, they just didn't care for the rules. We don't ban people for being stupid. No newb is going to be on the banlist.
As said, there are potential cheating/trolling issues, and to take the measures necessary to compensate for that (as much as is possible - it's an issue that couldn't be solved) is a waste of Rev's time as the changes would only benefit those who have demonstrated a huge lack of respect towards the community.
There's also the fact that it encourages banlisted people to keep playing games, which means they take away a slot from another player and it forces hosts to 100% of the time have to adjust their save down one person - in addition to the fact that there's usually a person who drops, this now makes for regular 13 person games when most people calibrate their saves to 14-15.
As I said, newbs/dumb people don't get on the banlist. There is no reason to give benefits to those who have proved they do not care about the gaming experience of others.