M-FM XXVIII Heaven Descends Upon Thee Gamethread

[Numbertwo]

Paladin claiming god was a valid move. It makes Jesus/god reveal which is the target for the majority of Scum.

I would have preferred to have him alive. God would have revealed himself eventually becouse of beeing a investigative role.

i just finished moving from Umeå to Jokkmokk

[Numbertwo]

What job did you originally have?

I'm studying it in school, which is pretty straight-forward. What are you considering so far?

I worked in a grocery store. Making sure people don't starve to death and stuff.

Most of my friends are Depressed/Psychopaths so i think that would be my focus if i entered a program.

[deathworlds]

My analysis:

I have mixed feelings about the game, I was impressed by William Reeds play throughout the game, even though he had the hardest win condition (for a witch), he performed the best out of all of the scum in the game. This game was a final attempt of a near omnipotent role, and it did not work out the way I wanted. I reminded that the sinners had a death note that they could use to forge an alliance with the cult or the antichrist, however they didn't really abuse the "scum leadership" role I was hoping they would go for. Overall I was disappointed with the teamwork within and without the scum teams, and the town won because of a flawed mechanic that shouldn't have been implemented in the first place. But I would definitely say that this was an experience that was positive for pretty much everyone involved. I've learned a lot about what not to implement into my setups, and new hosting tactics (thank you MattZed you're the best co-host a person could have), plus we got the highest post count in an M-FM on the site!

Scum MVP: William Reed (Frozen Angel)
He remained a top town read by nearly all players until god did his stupid prayer thing and caught William Reed as the antichrist. His night actions were decent (Being able to perform an action every night with the exception of night 2), and his team was the most coordinated out of all the scum teams.

Citizen MVP: M-FM Fred Robinson (ThePaladin)
He may have gotten converted night 2, he may of constructed a plan which I personally hated. But he did practically give the town the win with his plan.

Town MVP: M-FM Thomas King (Superjack)
Although he was emergency evac'd out on day 5, he performed his function as god very effectively: leading town, made very few mistakes with the prayer chart, and was overall a positive influence on day chat.

Miscellaneous awards:

The Unluckiest Bastard Alive Award: M-FM Bertha Anderson (Firebringer)
This poor, poor doctor practically re-experienced the series of unfortunate events. He was roleblocked night 1 by Gertrude Banks (which was his only action), roleblocked night 2 by Clara Wilson, roleblocked by Clara Wilson AND converted to the atheist faction on the same night, then possessed by the antichrist to target Thomas King, (which was his original target) and then killed on the same night. Firebringer was targeted by a negative action by a member of each faction, people just didn't like him; but it was pretty fucking hilarious watching him from our PoV.

Random.org Award: M-FM Thomas King (Superjack and Calix), M-FM Walter Livingston (Timetrx)
I random.org'd the role assignments to the accounts and found out that the role God was assigned to Thomas King, and that the role Jesus was assigned to Walter Livingston (Living Son). I swear this was an act of the god of RNG, but who am I to argue to with what I should of done in the first place.

Replacing the Replacement Award: M-FM Thomas Grant (AIVION), M-FM Edward O' Connor (Ika), M-FM Joseph Johnson (Apocist), M-FM Thomas King (Calix)
Did you know that there were 16 replacements that occurred during the game? I know it seems ridiculous, however some people simply would not adhere to the activity standards that we have set for the game. As a result, we now hold the record for the most posts in a M-FM on the site. It simply could not have happened if our valuable replacements weren't there when we needed them, you guys are the real MVPs.


Full rolelist, night chats, and actions

[Klingoncelt]

Anyways, no offense to host or anything but I really wanted to Play SuperJacks Fringe

I really thought that would have been an excellent game.

MVP goes to Frozen for best scum play! Seriously who outright scum read her at all?

I did, after a time.

She does deserve the Scum MVP, though, she stuck it out and fought as hard as she could.

[Klingoncelt]

Im still wondering why Margaret lied about roy beeing a Believer. she should have recieved feedback of him beeing a non-believer since he was a hypocrite.

I would have converted Margaret if she didn't lie about her feedback and then this game would probably have turned out differently.

I didn't lie at all.

I got feedback saying that Roy was a Believer. Then, a god bit later I got a PM from Ra with a correction saying that Roy was actually a NON-Believer.

I thought I posted the correction?

[Klingoncelt]

My analysis:


Full rolelist, night chats, and actions

No working link to Night Chat, please fix!

[ThePaladin]

Game was way too dependent on who got god role imo.

As host stated, the prayer list mechanic made it almost set for town win from the start.

Atheist Leader, I really don't understand your conversations, and really do not appreciate converting me for what I assume out of spite.


To explain my reveal as god.
Lilian Bradley(the atheist leader) was going to be lynched if I did not and since I was the only other atheist, It would've been basically impossible for me to win since I was only a cit. I would have to get game down to 1v1 to win, so I decided to do a gamble which would've gotten the thought process of of lilian. It worked for a solid 4 or so days, so I'm content with that.

I sorta threw my hands up in the air at the point I was converted, since I knew that it was basically impossible unless god was stupidly inept, and any point which I went against the plan I brought up would've just made it extremely obvious that I was evil.

[deathworlds]

No working link to Night Chat, please fix!

Sinner Chat
Antichrist Chat
Atheist Chat
Priest N2 chat

[Sen]

Did you know that there were 16 replacements that occurred during the game? I know it seems ridiculous, however some people simply would not adhere to the activity standards that we have set for the game.

Sorry, but your lack of activity standards is one of the reasons why this game resulted this way.
I literally asked publicly to get modkileld or replaced. That was D5. You sent me a pm on D7... was it 7 or 8? Whatever the case, you sent me a pm over half a week after, and only as a warning.

Had you replaced all inactive players instantly and without warnings, this would've been different, even if the whole IIoA part was still there.

[ika]

i find it funny how people bitch about inactivity an dlurking when town seems to win a lot of the games where that happens

[ThePaladin]

i find it funny how people bitch about inactivity an dlurking when town seems to win a lot of the games where that happens

Because people lurking is boring and for most part isn't really how mafia is meant to be played irl.
More importantly there is a difference between lurking as a tactic vs lurking because you don't care

"Also My role should be pretty obvious at this point considering all my actions today."

This sentense of Fred means he is god? or he is just wifoming? ...? or he is the jesus?!

Yay someone caught on.

[ika]

Because people lurking is boring and for most part isn't really how mafia is meant to be played irl.
More importantly there is a difference between lurking as a tactic vs lurking because you don't care

doesnt change my point. town plays and wins. its not broken so why fix it?

[ThePaladin]

I want the Senior Atheist to please explain his reasoning on all conversions. I am not pleased with being robbed as a win based on Senior Atheist converting me when I would literally have to go against everything I said to win.

[ThePaladin]

doesnt change my point. town plays and wins. its not broken so why fix it?

Think about it this way.
What If you were playing a game of chess and the other guy took 1 hour for each move and then just moved it randomly.
Would you be pleased?

You'd still end up winning, but you don't feel much of an accomplishment and think the whole game was really pointless cause no mindgames or anything, the point of psychological games like mafia.

[Sen]

i find it funny how people bitch about inactivity an dlurking when town seems to win a lot of the games where that happens

If you sign up for a game, then fucking play it. Simple as that.

Sure, there are special circumstances sometimes, but we're not talking about those cases.

As for lurking as a strategy, I already said my part in the game; if you're so bad that your only way to victory consists in being so irrelevant than noone cares to ever mention you, then try washing dishes or a similar, more suitable activity. Mafia is a game about discussing and analyzing shit.

Lurking is the equivalent of being the last man standing in a free-for-all fight because you just sat in the corner and the others thought you were a hobo.

[Sen]

Also, ignore Ika. he literally said something along the lines of "I'm not reading this, someone write a summary" after not doing shit since the start of the game a couple of months ago. Cancer will always try to excuse their shitty attitudes.

[Helz]

doesnt change my point. town plays and wins. its not broken so why fix it?

The players that lurk win on the backs of the players that put in a lot of effort. If your opinion is that lurk to win should be a thing you should find a group of like minded players to do that with. It ruins the experience for others when they are trying to read a slot that is not participating in day chat. I would love to see a game full of players who do not participate in day chat play together.

I have always held the opinion that day chat is the only real part of the game. Its a game of analysis and deception. When you cut that out what you are left with is something nobody wants to play. The point of playing a game is the enjoyment you get from it.

[ika]

Also, ignore Ika. he literally said something along the lines of "I'm not reading this, someone write a summary" after not doing shit since the start of the game a couple of months ago. Cancer will always try to excuse their shitty attitudes.

I never was trying to excuse myself, i was simply stating a fact that commonly is here. town complains about lurkers but wins. it seems to be dumb to complain IMO. if you said "ya we won but its stupid we did cus lurkers" that's another thing

[ika]

The players that lurk win on the backs of the players that put in a lot of effort. If your opinion is that lurk to win should be a thing you should find a group of like minded players to do that with. It ruins the experience for others when they are trying to read a slot that is not participating in day chat. I would love to see a game full of players who do not participate in day chat play together.

I have always held the opinion that day chat is the only real part of the game. Its a game of analysis and deception. When you cut that out what you are left with is something nobody wants to play. The point of playing a game is the enjoyment you get from it.

I never said it was valid, i jsut find it amusing people who want to win (and do win) complain about it afterwards. If everyone complains about lurkers its up to the active ones to either

A) not let them join
B) policy lynch them

when people jsut bitch about it and never do anything about it, it seems to be pointless to say anything

[DarknessB]

The players that lurk win on the backs of the players that put in a lot of effort. If your opinion is that lurk to win should be a thing you should find a group of like minded players to do that with. It ruins the experience for others when they are trying to read a slot that is not participating in day chat. I would love to see a game full of players who do not participate in day chat play together.

I have always held the opinion that day chat is the only real part of the game. Its a game of analysis and deception. When you cut that out what you are left with is something nobody wants to play. The point of playing a game is the enjoyment you get from it.

Essentially, it's the free rider problem. Lurkers want to be part of an interesting game, but don't want to contribute anything to that themselves. A game full of lurkers would probably be abandoned because no one cared to take any action. Alternatively, the scum would eventually win through no lynches due to AFK and then night kills.

It just doesn't work and is unfair to those contributing to the game. It's essentially someone making a comittment to do something (signing to play a game) and then standing you up for no particular reason (just not playing and worsening the experience for everyone else). You wouldn't tolerate in the real world, and you shouldn't here either.

[SilverWolf]

ika you know how I hate lurkers in most games and try to lynch them.

I don't think it's all that fun. I like an active game where everyone participates and if they don't, they die.

I try to be active but even I can get into lurk zone if the game is not interesting enough for me. It's no one's fault if that happens. And sometimes real life just gets in the way.

[DarknessB]

I never was trying to excuse myself, i was simply stating a fact that commonly is here. town complains about lurkers but wins. it seems to be dumb to complain IMO. if you said "ya we won but its stupid we did cus lurkers" that's another thing

Honestly, I think most players would rather lose an high activity game with everyone trying their hardest and being active versus win a game full of lurkers and other noncontributors. The former is the heat of the battle and a legitimate challenge. The latter is frustrating and often luck based (given there is no way to read a player who does not contribute).

Winning vs. losing can often be luck based anyway. Lots of terribly performing players win games by virtue of being on the right faction and lots of solidly performing players lose due to circumstances out of their control. Far better to have fun losing in a good game than win a poorly played game with lurkers and inactive players.

[Sen]

I never was trying to excuse myself, i was simply stating a fact that commonly is here. town complains about lurkers but wins. it seems to be dumb to complain IMO. if you said "ya we won but its stupid we did cus lurkers" that's another thing

I don't see how those things should be mutually exclusive. What's the fun in a victory because the other team were a bunch of useless lurkers?
That's like saying that you shouldn't complain if a game is bugged and the AI doesn't attack you, since you were able to beat the game anyway.

Personally, I play for fun. Winning is secondary, and I'd take a lose in a fun game anytime before a million wins streak in games full of lurkers.

[DarknessB]

I never said it was valid, i jsut find it amusing people who want to win (and do win) complain about it afterwards. If everyone complains about lurkers its up to the active ones to either

A) not let them join
B) policy lynch them

when people jsut bitch about it and never do anything about it, it seems to be pointless to say anything

Site rules don't typically allow preventing people from joining games short of very exigent circumstances. Invite only games were tried and of very mixed success. They also lead to the exclusivity problem which isn't something we necessarily want as a community. In other words, contributing is a baseline minimum expectation of signing up for a game. Moreover, being a high volume poster does not necessarily make you a good player. Our site often conflates volume posting with skill level, which is unfortunate.

Having to policy lynch slots for non-participation often messes up the balance of a game, especially to the extent the inactive player has a very important role. It's also a waste of everyone's time needing to policy lynch inactive players. We should be striving for a level of play beyond needing to devote the first 1-2 days of every game purging lurkers. That is not generally beneficial to the Town, which needs to be doing real scumhunting then.

[ika]

I don't see how those things should be mutually exclusive. What's the fun in a victory because the other team were a bunch of useless lurkers?
That's like saying that you shouldn't complain if a game is bugged and the AI doesn't attack you, since you were able to beat the game anyway.

Personally, I play for fun. Winning is secondary, and I'd take a lose in a fun game anytime before a million wins streak in games full of lurkers.

the satifaction you won? some people play for the sole purporse of winning. some people dont care as long as they win dont they?

[Helz]

I never said it was valid, i jsut find it amusing people who want to win (and do win) complain about it afterwards. If everyone complains about lurkers its up to the active ones to either

A) not let them join
B) policy lynch them

when people jsut bitch about it and never do anything about it, it seems to be pointless to say anything

To be blunt in most games I do not care if I win. Firebringers bag of goodies was one of the most entertaining games I have played and I did non stop sub-optimal plays as scum because I knew it would make the game more entertaining and challenging. I bitch about it all the time because I feel that when a player lurks through a game they are being disrespectful to myself as well as the rest of the players in that game.

I do things about it. I make it a point that it is a problem that takes away from my enjoyment of this game to the people that do it. This is an effort to get them to either change their behavior or stop signing up for games they will not dedicate time to. I also avoid playing games with some players and flat out refuse to sign up for games hosted by some people because I know I will not have a good experience.

A hosts obligation is to facilitate an entertaining game for the players. A players responsibility is just to play. That is it. In this game that means deceiving and analyzing. People are expected to do what they say they will do. When a players signs for a game its expressing intent to play. Its more silly that people sign up for games and do not play/lurk than it is that people 'bitch' about it happening. It should not need to be said at all.

[ika]

Site rules don't typically allow preventing people from joining games short of very exigent circumstances. Invite only games were tried and of very mixed success. They also lead to the exclusivity problem which isn't something we necessarily want as a community. In other words, contributing is a baseline minimum expectation of signing up for a game. Moreover, being a high volume poster does not necessarily make you a good player. Our site often conflates volume posting with skill level, which is unfortunate.

Good thing i never said high post count=more skilled. i mean, me thing here is people complaina botu an issue so i offer the soultion that is the only way that its going to happen, the thign you said is that we dont have the player base. if thats the case then maybe the mods or players should be getting new people?

Having to policy lynch slots for non-participation often messes up the balance of a game, especially to the extent the inactive player has a very important role. It's also a waste of everyone's time needing to policy lynch inactive players. We should be striving for a level of play beyond needing to devote the first 1-2 days of every game purging lurkers. That is not generally beneficial to the Town, which needs to be doing real scumhunting then.

Well again, thats how the game sometimes unfolds, i mean if you want to imporve the site meta you have to force something to happen. just bitching about it jsut makes the issue know over and over. offer a soultiont o it then

[ika]

To be blunt in most games I do not care if I win. Firebringers bag of goodies was one of the most entertaining games I have played and I did non stop sub-optimal plays as scum because I knew it would make the game more entertaining and challenging. I bitch about it all the time because I feel that when a player lurks through a game they are being disrespectful to myself as well as the rest of the players in that game.

I knwo, i get some people play for fun and not winning (me too, i love watching town eat itself and i dislike town more). But i feel like there are a set of players that care more about winning then the fun. hence why i gave a soultion to the lurking problem. i think it was said a long time ago most players look more for what is called "the shiny button" to press like in the mod

I do things about it. I make it a point that it is a problem that takes away from my enjoyment of this game to the people that do it. This is an effort to get them to either change their behavior or stop signing up for games they will not dedicate time to. I also avoid playing games with some players and flat out refuse to sign up for games hosted by some people because I know I will not have a good experience.

fair enough, i think maybe you should voice it a little more?

A hosts obligation is to facilitate an entertaining game for the players. A players responsibility is just to play. That is it. In this game that means deceiving and analyzing. People are expected to do what they say they will do. When a players signs for a game its expressing intent to play. Its more silly that people sign up for games and do not play/lurk than it is that people 'bitch' about it happening. It should not need to be said at all.

mayeb so, but again it goes to the poitn where i think some of the players here are more in it for "the shiny button" then the actual thinking

[DarknessB]

the satifaction you won? some people play for the sole purporse of winning. some people dont care as long as they win dont they?

With something like FM, I honestly don't think so. You play Hearthstone, ika. Are you satisfied with wins where the other player just randomly leaves handing you the win? I would hope not because that isn't a test of skill or representation of having accomplishing anything. What good is a win that required literally zero effort? To most of us, I would think very little or nothing.

Aside from ladder points, this isn't sports where wins lead to other opportunities like the playoffs. All we're competing for here is bragging rights / the sense that we've accomplished something. Winning without doing anything should almost be a bad feeling given the lost opportunity to improve one's skills by trying.

[Helz]

the satifaction you won? some people play for the sole purporse of winning. some people dont care as long as they win dont they?

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with those people. Because they actually play. Its an action. Its pointing to someone doing something which is the opposite of what people are 'bitching' about (as you put it)

[ika]

With something like FM, I honestly don't think so. You play Hearthstone, ika. Are you satisfied with wins where the other player just randomly leaves handing you the win? I would hope not because that isn't a test of skill or representation of having accomplishing anything. What good is a win that required literally zero effort? To most of us, I would think very little or nothing.

Well, i have jsut picked it up again, but i feel like comparing heartstone to FM is a little apple to organges in the sense that winning FM takes convictions and teamwrok where hearthstone can litarly be won by a luck of the draw. i do get what your getting at overall though and i think it gain draws back to the part i made earlier where some people jsut want a button.

Like i said, the meta when i came here was acutaly enjoyable, but it has been taken over by lurkers and that it needs to be taken care of then jsut going "OMG I HATE LURKERS"

Aside from ladder points, this isn't sports where wins lead to other opportunities like the playoffs. All we're competing for here is bragging rights / the sense that we've accomplished something. Winning without doing anything should almost be a bad feeling given the lost opportunity to improve one's skills by trying.

Well, like i said, some people jsut want to be part of the "winning side" im not disagreeing to the points, im jsut saying when people complain about something they should be doign something about it

[DarknessB]

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with those people. Because they actually play. Its an action. Its pointing to someone doing something which is the opposite of what people are 'bitching' about (as you put it)

They might be unpleasant sometimes when things don't go their way, but as long as they are contributing to games, their philosophy is perfectly fine with me. I would hope they would exert effort toward their goal of winning of course vs. depending on other people to make that happen. That seems to be Helz's point, as least as I read it. It's only a problem to me when people are focused on winning through having others carry them and not contributing themselves, which goes back to lurking.

[ika]

Yes. And there is nothing wrong with those people. Because they actually play. Its an action. Its pointing to someone doing something which is the opposite of what people are 'bitching' about (as you put it)

I think you misunderstand my "play" it was to imply that anyone can sign and make minimum posting and still win. or even have a night action to catch scum. to em and i bet you as well, thats not playing now is it?

[Sen]

the satifaction you won? some people play for the sole purporse of winning. some people dont care as long as they win dont they?

Not according to the replies you are getting.
But then again, if you think beating a game in god mode is the same as winning, then this discussion is moot.

---

Anyway, regarding some points that have been brought up; the invite-only games were pretty successful in that aspect, but it is true that they are bad when it comes to allowing new players to participate.

I think something should be done about this. There's a couple of things I'd like to propose, and see what others think:

A) All new players should hydra with someone else on their first game. That way there's no risk if the new player is inactive, and if they aren't, that's a great way to get to know them.

B) Just like there is a FM ladder, there should be an inactivity one, where players who ignore games they sign up for get a strike anytime they do so, and after a couple strikes they are blacklisted from medium and large games, as well as from hosting, and can only play S-FMs if someone takes them into their hydra.
Actively participating in multiple hydras would eventually clear them from the shitlist.

Alternativelly, there could be lurkers-only games where they can play. Let's see how they like it when everyone acts like them.


I don't see why people who disrespect both hosts and players by not giving a fuck about the games they sign up for and stealing a spot that others could've used should be rewarded by being allowed to continue doing this.

Hosts wait for months until their games finally get to start, and only to see the game become a lurkfest due to some idiot who spammed a "/sign" everywhere they could and then disappeared.

Players want fun and to win. As this game displayed, there's nothing fun about playing with lurkers, and as half of the games show us, having to policy lynch one or more lurkers, or simply not being able to lynch someone because of the idle votes of inactive players is in many cases the deciding factor in a game.

[BananaCucho]

With something like FM, I honestly don't think so. You play Hearthstone, ika. Are you satisfied with wins where the other player just randomly leaves handing you the win? I would hope not because that isn't a test of skill or representation of having accomplishing anything. What good is a win that required literally zero effort? To most of us, I would think very little or nothing.

Aside from ladder points, this isn't sports where wins lead to other opportunities like the playoffs. All we're competing for here is bragging rights / the sense that we've accomplished something. Winning without doing anything should almost be a bad feeling given the lost opportunity to improve one's skills by trying.

2 stars and a completed quest without having to play the whole match? Yeah, leave plz I was watching this from the sidebar. Bad hearthstone example lol. You don't get gold (so you don't have to spend $$$) or gain extra stars while on a win streak while playing mafia.

[DarknessB]

I think you misunderstand my "play" it was to imply that anyone can sign and make minimum posting and still win. or even have a night action to catch scum. to em and i bet you as well, thats not playing now is it?

Technically, that's following the explicit rules of the game, but violating its spirit. I suppose you could make five amazing posts each day, but odds are, you will not be contributing much with that number of posts. The tension is between coming up with a number that will allow for replacements if needed, but that won't be onerous for players trying to play the game.

At the very least, players should not be shooting for the minimum required contribution. To me, that sounds like shooting for a D- in your classes. Sure, you technically passed, but still did a terrible job in doing so.

[DarknessB]

2 stars and a completed quest without having to play the whole match? Yeah, leave plz I was watching this from the sidebar. Bad hearthstone example lol. You don't get gold (so you don't have to spend $$$) or gain extra stars while on a win streak while playing mafia.

Way to be pedantic on me re: Hearthstone, Banana. Let's pretend we're talking about playing a friend mode then where there are no stars, quests, or gold involved, lol.

[BananaCucho]

Way to be pedantic on me re: Hearthstone, Banana. Let's pretend we're talking about playing a friend mode then where there are no stars, quests, or gold involved, lol.

If I piss off a friend enough to make them rage quit I am very happy

[Sen]

I think a better example would be not a player who quits, but one who idles for N minutes until the server kicks them and gives you a win. This can be online chess, battle cards or whatever.

This is so frustrating, that people actually AFK when they are losing, in an attempt to get the winning player to quit and give them a win.

[ika]

Technically, that's following the explicit rules of the game, but violating its spirit. I suppose you could make five amazing posts each day, but odds are, you will not be contributing much with that number of posts. The tension is between coming up with a number that will allow for replacements if needed, but that won't be onerous for players trying to play the game.

At the very least, players should not be shooting for the minimum required contribution. To me, that sounds like shooting for a D- in your classes. Sure, you technically passed, but still did a terrible job in doing so.

That kinda my point, we can set these "do x things" in rules but then the lurkers jsut do the bare minimum. what needs to happen (as sen kinda alread adressed) is that thing need to be mroe "if you just do X it will count against you" type things.

[DarknessB]

That kinda my point, we can set these "do x things" in rules but then the lurkers jsut do the bare minimum. what needs to happen (as sen kinda alread adressed) is that thing need to be mroe "if you just do X it will count against you" type things.

I mean, there's no way to solve the problem other than community self-policing then. Unfortunately, that comes in the form of making lurkers feel very uncomfortable lurking in terms of expressing annoyance, aggravation, anger, etc. to them for their making the game worse for the rest of us. Peer pressure seems like a strong weapon for most. It may not be nice, but most people respond to a little bit of tough love. Most will either shape up or ship out because it's not pleasant to be criticized for one's play.

I know that the ironic part of this statement is that you have faced a lot of that type of pressure yourself and are fairly unapologetic about your playstyle, which has often been toward the lurker side of the spectrum. That having been said, I feel like most people will either respond to critique / criticism or find something else to do with their time, since no one likes being assailed constantly for their play (or lack thereof).

[Empathy17]

Lurking seems to be an issue no matter where mafia is played. There's always a few players that do that in every game and it really sucks. We've come up with ways to fix it. Have the host modkill inactives or force replace or penalize in someway. But it never fixes it. I agree, I'd rather see an active game. Those are a lot more interesting and fun.

[SilverWolf]

Anywhere mafia is played, there will be lurkers. We've discussed what to do about them many times. Policy lynching, modkill, force replace. It never works. I totally agree, a more active game where everyone participates is more interesting and fun. But I've never seen a game where there are no lurkers or no lurking. Shorter games are better for that but it still happens.

[DarknessB]

Anywhere mafia is played, there will be lurkers. We've discussed what to do about them many times. Policy lynching, modkill, force replace. It never works. I totally agree, a more active game where everyone participates is more interesting and fun. But I've never seen a game where there are no lurkers or no lurking. Shorter games are better for that but it still happens.

Lately, hydras have seemed to be of some help. Having multiple players per account reduces the chance of no one posting whatsoever on a given account. Acknowledged there are some downsides including the fact that reads are more complicated with multiple heads / posting styles per account. On balance though, they seem to have been a shot in the arm to S-FMs and have helped to reduce the lurker problem in recent games.

[Numbertwo]

Game was way too dependent on who got god role imo.

As host stated, the prayer list mechanic made it almost set for town win from the start.

Atheist Leader, I really don't understand your conversations, and really do not appreciate converting me for what I assume out of spite.


To explain my reveal as god.
Lilian Bradley(the atheist leader) was going to be lynched if I did not and since I was the only other atheist, It would've been basically impossible for me to win since I was only a cit. I would have to get game down to 1v1 to win, so I decided to do a gamble which would've gotten the thought process of of lilian. It worked for a solid 4 or so days, so I'm content with that.

I sorta threw my hands up in the air at the point I was converted, since I knew that it was basically impossible unless god was stupidly inept, and any point which I went against the plan I brought up would've just made it extremely obvious that I was evil.

I converted you becouse you were a strong town player and needed to be dealt with, Simple as that.

I dont think i would hace been lynched that day for the same reason i wasnt lynched the following days. Nobody believed margaret.

I also think you could have claimed any other role then god and gotten a better result. You could have claimed to be a detective or anything else in order to draw away attention from me if you thought i was going to be lynched.

[Helz]

Just to close some of these points..

If host say "Players are required to participate and 'participation' is qualified by my judgment" or something then players could not do the check in the box bullshit. Its something that should go without saying but somehow is used as justification

I still maintain that Not playing is not a strategy. It is just not playing.

I also push that "I am busy" should never be accepted as an excuse. Players manage their own lives and if they sign up for a game they do not have time to play they are just being an asshole. If something crazy comes up thats what hosts are for to replace the player.

Everyone agrees that it is an issue that hurts games.

[Helz]

I converted you becouse you were a strong town player and needed to be dealt with, Simple as that.

Lol. Brutal. I love it.

[SuperJack]

The Paladin made the right choice.
And the paladin now understands my hate for cult games.
Paladin got best citizen based on only 1 day of play.

Paladin. Why do you ignore me now a days?

[Klingoncelt]

Sinner Chat
Antichrist Chat
Atheist Chat
Priest N2 chat

Thank you

[Firebringer]

I just want to note, however much I hate the lurking strategy. I see the strong incentive to do so.

Last FM I was a lurker after day 1. When I didn't lurk, I got targeted by town and they found out my role (when I was scum), then I lurked went into background (it wasn't intentional but I didn't feel like playing the game anymore I don't remember the reason). Again when I played actively in the FM before that I was fairly active day 1 but FM Batman was making the game annoying, was inactive kind of day 2, then poisoned and killed by prince on day 3, when I started to get back in the game and tried to help the players sort it. I also was a neutral honestly trying to sort the game and help the town. One of the worst comments I hated was someone saying in that "I knew FM Garfield was scum" it was such a fricking insult since nothing I did was done in malicious of the town. Just trying to actually sort the game.

Everytime I am active, I am marked for death. Part of that is, everyone else is just so fricking inactive its just easier to take out the active players.

I hate lurking, but I hate this cycle of me playing the game and getting fucked over compared to the lurkers for doing it.