Search:

[QUOTE=Lag;967569] in your first game here[/QUOTE][IMG]https://wompampsupport.azureedge.net/fetchimage?siteId=7575&v=2&jpgQuality=100&width=700&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Fmobile%2F000%2F013%2F564%2Fdoge.jpg[/IMG]

Originally Posted by Lag

in your first game here

bye x

bye x

Is that 15 posts per 24h or 48h?

Is that 15 posts per 24h or 48h?

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;967551]Lmao hi! Looks like I really need to examine the source of this quote: people keep saying it... [/QUOTE]
[url]https://youtu.be/5-vyZ9lB5Y4[/url] :weed:

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Lmao hi! Looks like I really need to examine the source of this quote: people keep saying it...

https://youtu.be/5-vyZ9lB5Y4

It's not 13P [IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//ablobpeek.gif[/IMG]

It's not 13P

[QUOTE=DJarJar;967515]are you asking about the code difference?


.super-respected {
color: #4cf;
font-weight: bold;
text-shadow: 0 0 7px #78f;
}

.respected {
color: #4CF;
}[/QUOTE]
What's the difference between retired admin and retired staff?
What's the difference between the respected role and retired staff role?

Originally Posted by DJarJar

are you asking about the code difference?


.super-respected {
color: #4cf;
font-weight: bold;
text-shadow: 0 0 7px #78f;
}

.respected {
color: #4CF;
}

What's the difference between retired admin and retired staff?
What's the difference between the respected role and retired staff role?

[QUOTE=DJarJar;967506]the next line under the end of your image would have informed you LOL[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://gcdnb.pbrd.co/images/dFnoHwJSpmW9.png[/IMG]
What's the difference?

Originally Posted by DJarJar

the next line under the end of your image would have informed you LOL

What's the difference?

[IMG]https://gcdnb.pbrd.co/images/soizpTFWHe3h.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;967482]I don't need to crack it, though. I already know what it is.

[spoiler="what is 99.99999 % is"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiIuFb8Pc7A[/spoiler][/QUOTE]
I knew immediately what YouTube video it'd be
Then I was surprised the link being to a YouTube video called [I]"Hair Coloring Session + Makeup for Headshot Photoshoot | The Cat Spa ASMR Pt. 7"[/I]
But then I realized
[BLACKOUT]Inever copied your link ¯\_(ツ)_/¯[/BLACKOUT]

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

I don't need to crack it, though. I already know what it is.

Spoiler : what is 99.99999 % is :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiIuFb8Pc7A

I knew immediately what YouTube video it'd be
Then I was surprised the link being to a YouTube video called "Hair Coloring Session + Makeup for Headshot Photoshoot | The Cat Spa ASMR Pt. 7"
But then I realized
Inever copied your link ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[QUOTE=DJarJar;967464]The ://zzz. should be a hint for what you need to do. It’s not the same encryption as lag’s though[/QUOTE]
[MARQUEE][IMG]https://c.tenor.com/ZtbTgChZAjQAAAAM/supa-hot-fire-rekt.gif[/IMG][/MARQUEE]

Originally Posted by DJarJar

The ://zzz. should be a hint for what you need to do. It’s not the same encryption as lag’s though

[QUOTE=Helz;967423]I wonder how much the issue is what is taken as a result vs how many aspects of who takes what as a result in what community is an issue.[/QUOTE]
The first issue is: [B]how do you craft a hecking star?[/B]
I don't think anyone has crafted 2 stars yet, it's fake news. Oops fake news.

Originally Posted by Helz

I wonder how much the issue is what is taken as a result vs how many aspects of who takes what as a result in what community is an issue.

The first issue is: how do you craft a hecking star?
I don't think anyone has crafted 2 stars yet, it's fake news. Oops fake news.

[QUOTE=Lag;967425]Purpose is a constant.
Spacetime requires exploration. To roam the vision quest is to become one with it.
If you have never experienced this oasis of the creative act, it can be difficult to heal.
We must heal ourselves and awaken others. Eons from now, we entities will exist like never before as we are reborn by the biosphere. We must learn how to lead ancient lives in the face of illusion.


Although you may not realize it, you are mystical. Child, look within and unify yourself. The quantum matrix is calling to you via electromagnetic resonance. Can you hear it?

We are at a crossroads of insight and selfishness. Reality has always been buzzing with beings whose dreams are enveloped in growth. Humankind has nothing to lose.

Nothing is impossible.
It is a sign of things to come. The future will be a mythic maturing of grace. The quantum soup is approaching a tipping point.[/QUOTE]
I'm a Capricorn though

Originally Posted by Lag

Purpose is a constant.
Spacetime requires exploration. To roam the vision quest is to become one with it.
If you have never experienced this oasis of the creative act, it can be difficult to heal.
We must heal ourselves and awaken others. Eons from now, we entities will exist like never before as we are reborn by the biosphere. We must learn how to lead ancient lives in the face of illusion.


Although you may not realize it, you are mystical. Child, look within and unify yourself. The quantum matrix is calling to you via electromagnetic resonance. Can you hear it?

We are at a crossroads of insight and selfishness. Reality has always been buzzing with beings whose dreams are enveloped in growth. Humankind has nothing to lose.

Nothing is impossible.
It is a sign of things to come. The future will be a mythic maturing of grace. The quantum soup is approaching a tipping point.

I'm a Capricorn though

[QUOTE=yzb25;967410]Sounds like a bad idea tbh[/QUOTE]
"Hey dad, do you mind if I use the word 'gay'?"

"No you don't need to use the word gay. There are more appropriate words, like gay, gayie, gaybuddy, gayboy, gayfriend, gaybuddy, gayboyfriend, gaybuddy, gayboy, and also the word gay."

"Why not gay?"

"Well I think that's a bit too close to gay so I don't think it's appropriate for young kids."

"Well dad, I do not like the word gay. I think it's mean. But I know it means gay."

"Well dad, I guess you're right. I'll make sure to not call your son gay."

Originally Posted by yzb25

Sounds like a bad idea tbh

"Hey dad, do you mind if I use the word 'gay'?"

"No you don't need to use the word gay. There are more appropriate words, like gay, gayie, gaybuddy, gayboy, gayfriend, gaybuddy, gayboyfriend, gaybuddy, gayboy, and also the word gay."

"Why not gay?"

"Well I think that's a bit too close to gay so I don't think it's appropriate for young kids."

"Well dad, I do not like the word gay. I think it's mean. But I know it means gay."

"Well dad, I guess you're right. I'll make sure to not call your son gay."

[SPOILER=I just thought this funny]
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;944480]I have a wheel with a bunch of random political-esque topics, and every time someone posts another "free speech good?" thread I roll it. My personal opinion on free speech is that I support unconditional free speech on everything except for topics that have been rolled before, discussion of which which I support unequivocally banning.

This time, it's the topic of Mexican drug mules that must be banned.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Oberon;944481]I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is you have no rights. *shoots you and walks away*[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=yzb25;944483][QUOTE=yzb25;944482]I have thought about this issue at great length. After thorough introspection, I am still not sure whether we should have the free speech. In fact, I am not sure whether we should even have the free speech to discuss whether we should have the free speech. But after extremely careful consideration, I am ready to commit myself to the view that we should at least have the free speech to speak of whether we should have the free speech to discuss the free speech. So I wish to pull the conversation back to there, then gradually consider how we proceed.

Due to my immense study of this topic, my thoughts may prove too profound to follow... but do not be afraid to ask for clarification.[/QUOTE]
On a serious note, we've had a lot of these threads. I have lost count, but this is probably at least the fifth. I don't mind reading a debate, but can't we at least discuss something new?[/QUOTE]
[/SPOILER]
[I][B][SIZE=4][COLOR="#000000"][glow="#ffffff"] DON'T MIND ME...
I'M JUST BABBLING ABOUT![/glow][/COLOR][/SIZE][/B][/I]
So, Obama wants more tech regulations in order to combat misinformation on social media.
Cool. But who'd do the regulating though? The government?
Plenty of topics are politics based, while in the US - every political opinion is grouped in one of two groups thanks to their two party system (not very democratic system if you ask me btw). Which group would get the honor to choose what is right and what is misinformation?
If we're talking about only objective information - well, government officials themselves have spread misinformation about let's say Covid.

Ok let's say no political opinions would ever get moderated (lol) and objective stuff by experts only. What about every other country in the world that is not the US? What if let's say 50 of them wanted each different stuff censored to their citizens?

I feel like government tech regulations for censoring social media is just not realistic. Though there's only a few countries large enough for the tech companies to comply to their demands, and perhaps for some of them it can work well. I just don't see USA being one of them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

/Waffling Waffle Off

Spoiler : I just thought this funny :

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I have a wheel with a bunch of random political-esque topics, and every time someone posts another "free speech good?" thread I roll it. My personal opinion on free speech is that I support unconditional free speech on everything except for topics that have been rolled before, discussion of which which I support unequivocally banning.

This time, it's the topic of Mexican drug mules that must be banned.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I have a right to my opinion and my opinion is you have no rights. *shoots you and walks away*

Originally Posted by yzb25

Originally Posted by yzb25

I have thought about this issue at great length. After thorough introspection, I am still not sure whether we should have the free speech. In fact, I am not sure whether we should even have the free speech to discuss whether we should have the free speech. But after extremely careful consideration, I am ready to commit myself to the view that we should at least have the free speech to speak of whether we should have the free speech to discuss the free speech. So I wish to pull the conversation back to there, then gradually consider how we proceed.

Due to my immense study of this topic, my thoughts may prove too profound to follow... but do not be afraid to ask for clarification.

On a serious note, we've had a lot of these threads. I have lost count, but this is probably at least the fifth. I don't mind reading a debate, but can't we at least discuss something new?

DON'T MIND ME...
I'M JUST BABBLING ABOUT!
So, Obama wants more tech regulations in order to combat misinformation on social media.
Cool. But who'd do the regulating though? The government?
Plenty of topics are politics based, while in the US - every political opinion is grouped in one of two groups thanks to their two party system (not very democratic system if you ask me btw). Which group would get the honor to choose what is right and what is misinformation?
If we're talking about only objective information - well, government officials themselves have spread misinformation about let's say Covid.

Ok let's say no political opinions would ever get moderated (lol) and objective stuff by experts only. What about every other country in the world that is not the US? What if let's say 50 of them wanted each different stuff censored to their citizens?

I feel like government tech regulations for censoring social media is just not realistic. Though there's only a few countries large enough for the tech companies to comply to their demands, and perhaps for some of them it can work well. I just don't see USA being one of them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

/Waffling Waffle Off

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;967249]This discussion is complete intellectual masturbation on all sides and the point is entirely inarguable.

The entire thing boils down to a decision tree with two branches

1) Do you think the contents of the universe follow a deterministic set of laws that can be computed and/or mathematically modeled? If no then so-called algorithmic machines do not exist and the whole argument is moot.

If yes, then:

2) Do you believe the human brain is subject to the same rules as all other matter in the universe? If so, then the brain is necessarily a machine per this weird definition of "machine".
3) If no, then you believe in some extra-physical process that comprise human thought, i.e. a soul.
[/QUOTE]
Honestly, am I the only one who can't understand this thread? :push:


[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;967249]This entire thread, IMO, is the same as asking "Do you believe in a soul?" which is a very uninteresting conversation.[/QUOTE]
I don't but I refer to it on a regular basis ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

This discussion is complete intellectual masturbation on all sides and the point is entirely inarguable.

The entire thing boils down to a decision tree with two branches

1) Do you think the contents of the universe follow a deterministic set of laws that can be computed and/or mathematically modeled? If no then so-called algorithmic machines do not exist and the whole argument is moot.

If yes, then:

2) Do you believe the human brain is subject to the same rules as all other matter in the universe? If so, then the brain is necessarily a machine per this weird definition of "machine".
3) If no, then you believe in some extra-physical process that comprise human thought, i.e. a soul.

Honestly, am I the only one who can't understand this thread?

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

This entire thread, IMO, is the same as asking "Do you believe in a soul?" which is a very uninteresting conversation.

I don't but I refer to it on a regular basis ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[QUOTE=WrathCyber;967247]Think of it this way: you're enchanter. You know x is beguiler and y is soldato. You expect soldato to detonate this night, so you send beguiler to soldato and make him self explode.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe you'd get that scenario once in a 1000 games. You need 2 confirmed mafias and their exact roles and neither of them getting lynched that day and a enchantress to do the deed.

Even if it was a realistic scenario, I hardly doubt Frinckles deliberately made Beguiler die from targeting Soldato just for that niche scenario.


Edit: is Enchantress before Beguiler in OoO? Wouldn't have expected that.

Originally Posted by WrathCyber

Think of it this way: you're enchanter. You know x is beguiler and y is soldato. You expect soldato to detonate this night, so you send beguiler to soldato and make him self explode.

I don't believe you'd get that scenario once in a 1000 games. You need 2 confirmed mafias and their exact roles and neither of them getting lynched that day and a enchantress to do the deed.

Even if it was a realistic scenario, I hardly doubt Frinckles deliberately made Beguiler die from targeting Soldato just for that niche scenario.


Edit: is Enchantress before Beguiler in OoO? Wouldn't have expected that.

[QUOTE=WrathCyber;967215]this is an intended feature.[/QUOTE]
What'd be the logic of Beguiler exploding while hiding behind Soldato? It doesn't make sense to me tbh.
To call it [I]intended[/I] is somewhat a stretch imho.

Originally Posted by WrathCyber

this is an intended feature.

What'd be the logic of Beguiler exploding while hiding behind Soldato? It doesn't make sense to me tbh.
To call it intended is somewhat a stretch imho.

[QUOTE=Frinckles;967202]is this a bug report[/QUOTE]
Ahh, now I had to double check.
I assumed soldato exploded because beguiller, who targeted soldato, exploded and both their roles were hidden. (graveyard death description for soldato wasn't of any help due to 2 other death descriptions)

But soldato role was hidden due to Incense Master and no alert of dying from explosion.
[ATTACH]28518[/ATTACH]

N1 - soldato planted a bomb on the constable.
N2 - soldato detonated the bomb.

Who exploded N2: constable, [s]soldato[/s], armorsmith (targetting constable), beguiler (targetting soldato).

I guess it's still a bug due to beguiler exploding..
One thing soldato role card doesn't mention though: he sees LW's of everyone who exploded.

I was wrong but still right.. I guess? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Originally Posted by Frinckles

is this a bug report

Ahh, now I had to double check.
I assumed soldato exploded because beguiller, who targeted soldato, exploded and both their roles were hidden. (graveyard death description for soldato wasn't of any help due to 2 other death descriptions)

But soldato role was hidden due to Incense Master and no alert of dying from explosion.


N1 - soldato planted a bomb on the constable.
N2 - soldato detonated the bomb.

Who exploded N2: constable, soldato, armorsmith (targetting constable), beguiler (targetting soldato).

I guess it's still a bug due to beguiler exploding..
One thing soldato role card doesn't mention though: he sees LW's of everyone who exploded.

I was wrong but still right.. I guess? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It feels bad having to explode yourself (+watching replay to make sure) before learning that detonating is suicide.
I'd like to suggest adding some indication that soldato detonating their bomb counts as visiting it.
Like add it in the role description text or place the detonation button to the target not yourself.

It feels bad having to explode yourself (+watching replay to make sure) before learning that detonating is suicide.
I'd like to suggest adding some indication that soldato detonating their bomb counts as visiting it.
Like add it in the role description text or place the detonation button to the target not yourself.

:thriller:

Assuming there's anyone left who still plays, hasn't left or been banned, and hasn't joined yet - can we please fill up that game already? :laugh:

[IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG][IMG]https://www.mafiacafe.net/core/images/smilies//fetch.gif[/IMG]

Assuming there's anyone left who still plays, hasn't left or been banned, and hasn't joined yet - can we please fill up that game already?

[QUOTE=Frinckles;967183]Also no greeks allowed?[/QUOTE]
You didn't read my post have you :(
I mentioned 4 greeks, though only 1 directly. >.<

Originally Posted by Frinckles

Also no greeks allowed?

You didn't read my post have you
I mentioned 4 greeks, though only 1 directly. >.<

[QUOTE=DoctorZeus;967158]BTW if you want more players the best way is more personal connections & quality of the ux and less game set up.

There's a reason MU is doing so well, and there's a reason certain players do better in filling games. I came here for Lag and joined games because of Lag.[/QUOTE]
Yah I myself have left SC2Mafia and Skwirl discords and not really joining any games anymore.
Similarly, I came to FM from the mod for MM, Oberon came here for Distorted, lots of older players came for SuperJack.

After years and years of pondering on this question, your comment shines the truest of them all.

Originally Posted by DoctorZeus

BTW if you want more players the best way is more personal connections & quality of the ux and less game set up.

There's a reason MU is doing so well, and there's a reason certain players do better in filling games. I came here for Lag and joined games because of Lag.

Yah I myself have left SC2Mafia and Skwirl discords and not really joining any games anymore.
Similarly, I came to FM from the mod for MM, Oberon came here for Distorted, lots of older players came for SuperJack.

After years and years of pondering on this question, your comment shines the truest of them all.

totally 100% aha what he said

totally 100% aha what he said

[QUOTE=Oberon;967092]Or conduct a survey and just ask a lot of people if they'd consider signing for a game on a different site with night-only chats.[/QUOTE]
reply's I got were ranging from wouldn't join night only to wouldn't mind joining. no reply's of preferring nights only, all in range of would mind or wouldn't mind. yah i asked only on 3 communities, but I saw none who didn't see nights only chat as just inferior across the board.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Or conduct a survey and just ask a lot of people if they'd consider signing for a game on a different site with night-only chats.

reply's I got were ranging from wouldn't join night only to wouldn't mind joining. no reply's of preferring nights only, all in range of would mind or wouldn't mind. yah i asked only on 3 communities, but I saw none who didn't see nights only chat as just inferior across the board.

[QUOTE=Oberon;967089]Why would this be the case[/QUOTE]
who knows
popular guess is that night only chat is a miserable experience for mafia by comparison

Originally Posted by Oberon

Why would this be the case

who knows
popular guess is that night only chat is a miserable experience for mafia by comparison

bye

bye

You know it's serious when you see that SB16 added mechanics

You know it's serious when you see that SB16 added mechanics

[QUOTE=DoctorZeus;967085]
- it's [B]much[/B] more fun to be scum. You build stronger relationships, you banter more, and, you get to laugh at village more[/QUOTE]
This should be the only criteria for all I care. And it's not even a subjective statement because mafiascum have made the research and concluded that statistically there's far fewer replacements in 24/7
mafia chat games. Though weren't Mafiascum games like a week per game day or something? That's different if so..

Originally Posted by DoctorZeus

- it's much more fun to be scum. You build stronger relationships, you banter more, and, you get to laugh at village more

This should be the only criteria for all I care. And it's not even a subjective statement because mafiascum have made the research and concluded that statistically there's far fewer replacements in 24/7
mafia chat games. Though weren't Mafiascum games like a week per game day or something? That's different if so..

[QUOTE=DoctorZeus;967084]What is the mod being g referred to?[/QUOTE]
The [I]-Mafia-[/I] game inside SC2. The predecessor to games like ToS and ToL.

Yah idk why people call it mod tbh. In SC2 they're called arcade maps, in SC1 they're called UMS maps, in WC3 they're called custom maps. I guess "mod" refers to everything user made in every game ever?

Originally Posted by DoctorZeus

What is the mod being g referred to?

The -Mafia- game inside SC2. The predecessor to games like ToS and ToL.

Yah idk why people call it mod tbh. In SC2 they're called arcade maps, in SC1 they're called UMS maps, in WC3 they're called custom maps. I guess "mod" refers to everything user made in every game ever?

[QUOTE=aamirus;967069]it's kind of ugly but i added an iso list to the top of threads[/QUOTE]
Beautiful

Originally Posted by aamirus

it's kind of ugly but i added an iso list to the top of threads

Beautiful

Somehow I never had an open role madness setup. That's uncommon even outside SC2Mafia, right?

Somehow I never had an open role madness setup. That's uncommon even outside SC2Mafia, right?

I just want to quote a fairly good criticism about night only chat:
[QUOTE]I have been summoned
(ccing [noparse]@mansnicks[/noparse] )
on most sites that I play on, 24/7 wolfchat rather than night only wolfchat is standard. This is not true everywhere, and plenty of places do it differently.

On some level this is a balance decision -- if wolves have 24/7 chat, they can talk/coordinate/etc., whereas if they don't have that it is much harder for them to do anything resembling that. This is especially true in games with no N0 planning phase; if wolves don't get to talk until night 1, and until then basically have to improvise a plan separately with no way to coordinate with each other, this obviously makes it harder for them.

This is also on some level (I suspect the level on which this change is being pushed) a balance decision. Many players find it kind of unenjoyable to roll scum and not be able to talk to or coordinate with their team; many players see 'being in wolfchat' as one of the fun parts about being a wolf. Neither of these is universal but both of these are common.

I don't think that either '24/7 wolfchat' or 'not that' should be enforced on a site level, in my opinion those are both decisions that can be left up to the individual host. If players don't want to play a game without 24/7 wolfchat, then this will kind of solve itself -- they just won't sign up for games that don't have it.

Personally I would probably not sign up for a game with nightchat only for wolves and only run games with 24/7 wolfchat.[/QUOTE]

I agree that Night Only chat can be a miserable experience for the wolves by comparison to 24/7 chat.

Edit: let's not forget that we've Night Only chat in most setups just because mechanics were either copied directly from already approved setups or copied because our experiences are so biased in favor of Night Only chat.. since.. you know.. it's like almost every setup page for a decade..

I just want to quote a fairly good criticism about night only chat:

I have been summoned
(ccing @mansnicks )
on most sites that I play on, 24/7 wolfchat rather than night only wolfchat is standard. This is not true everywhere, and plenty of places do it differently.

On some level this is a balance decision -- if wolves have 24/7 chat, they can talk/coordinate/etc., whereas if they don't have that it is much harder for them to do anything resembling that. This is especially true in games with no N0 planning phase; if wolves don't get to talk until night 1, and until then basically have to improvise a plan separately with no way to coordinate with each other, this obviously makes it harder for them.

This is also on some level (I suspect the level on which this change is being pushed) a balance decision. Many players find it kind of unenjoyable to roll scum and not be able to talk to or coordinate with their team; many players see 'being in wolfchat' as one of the fun parts about being a wolf. Neither of these is universal but both of these are common.

I don't think that either '24/7 wolfchat' or 'not that' should be enforced on a site level, in my opinion those are both decisions that can be left up to the individual host. If players don't want to play a game without 24/7 wolfchat, then this will kind of solve itself -- they just won't sign up for games that don't have it.

Personally I would probably not sign up for a game with nightchat only for wolves and only run games with 24/7 wolfchat.

I agree that Night Only chat can be a miserable experience for the wolves by comparison to 24/7 chat.

Edit: let's not forget that we've Night Only chat in most setups just because mechanics were either copied directly from already approved setups or copied because our experiences are so biased in favor of Night Only chat.. since.. you know.. it's like almost every setup page for a decade..

[QUOTE=Mizery;966991]Ok that didn't work at all ok[/QUOTE]

[SPOILER]yeah i think you've to name the spoiler something for it to work, anything, even black space[/SPOILER]

Originally Posted by Mizery

Ok that didn't work at all ok

[SPOILER]yeah i think you've to name the spoiler something for it to work, anything, even black space[/SPOILER]

Apparently even FoL has never had problems with 24/7 chat, and they're heavy mech lovers as they go.
[COLOR="#0000FF"]Edit: in fact, day chat allowed them to be more mech heavy as mech heaviness is otherwise a town buff.[/COLOR]
I guess this means I'm mostly [I]for[/I] having most games be 24/7.
Only setups like krc and Smiths I could see it causing trouble, few setups by comparison.

Apparently even FoL has never had problems with 24/7 chat, and they're heavy mech lovers as they go.
Edit: in fact, day chat allowed them to be more mech heavy as mech heaviness is otherwise a town buff.
I guess this means I'm mostly for having most games be 24/7.
Only setups like krc and Smiths I could see it causing trouble, few setups by comparison.

[QUOTE=Frinckles;966983]Lag has done a spectacular job of bringing in people from other sites so I'm curious what they're thinking.[/QUOTE]
I'm up for this being the deciding factor.

Originally Posted by Frinckles

Lag has done a spectacular job of bringing in people from other sites so I'm curious what they're thinking.

I'm up for this being the deciding factor.

In a setup like krc I'd prefer night only, and depending on the setup some but few semi-opens also. Both because of the possibility of it enabling game breaking plays.

In a setup like Mountainous or any low PR regular setup I prefer 24/7 because I find the idea of catching some newly formed wolf agenda live. It's more enjoyable for wolves also and innocent enough for such setups that the fun aspect greatly outweighs any negatives imho.
I guess for nights only technically there's things like trying to catch someone who eagerly awaited the night chat and then came in strong after the night, or something like that, but it's meh by comparison and probably mostly NAI anyway.

I don't remember seeing any host changing even simple mechanics like that for their game. It's always been whatever the setup page already said. I don't expect that to change, but if it does and when hosts do put in this change in signups when hosting preexisting setups - then perhaps it's worth considering telling everyone to also hide their online status?

In a setup like krc I'd prefer night only, and depending on the setup some but few semi-opens also. Both because of the possibility of it enabling game breaking plays.

In a setup like Mountainous or any low PR regular setup I prefer 24/7 because I find the idea of catching some newly formed wolf agenda live. It's more enjoyable for wolves also and innocent enough for such setups that the fun aspect greatly outweighs any negatives imho.
I guess for nights only technically there's things like trying to catch someone who eagerly awaited the night chat and then came in strong after the night, or something like that, but it's meh by comparison and probably mostly NAI anyway.

I don't remember seeing any host changing even simple mechanics like that for their game. It's always been whatever the setup page already said. I don't expect that to change, but if it does and when hosts do put in this change in signups when hosting preexisting setups - then perhaps it's worth considering telling everyone to also hide their online status?

[QUOTE=oliverz144;966969]i've searched mafiascum and walrus wiki, and googled various relating terms.
i didnt find a question-solving answer, but found out that al capone fed 1.5 thousend muricans with daily lunch soup! (yummy yummy lynch very tasty! hammer the tastiest!)
w/e... my guess is that its an additional rid kill... am i right?
oh answer me ... you wise mafia veterans[/QUOTE]
I've little to no experience with it, but [I]AFAIK[/I] most of the time it's the ability for the mafia to kill someone if they guess their role correctly, and the number of guesses they can make are usually not public knowledge.
Regardless of what an individual game's soup mechanic is though, just know that it's an anti claim mechanic.

Originally Posted by oliverz144

i've searched mafiascum and walrus wiki, and googled various relating terms.
i didnt find a question-solving answer, but found out that al capone fed 1.5 thousend muricans with daily lunch soup! (yummy yummy lynch very tasty! hammer the tastiest!)
w/e... my guess is that its an additional rid kill... am i right?
oh answer me ... you wise mafia veterans

I've little to no experience with it, but AFAIK most of the time it's the ability for the mafia to kill someone if they guess their role correctly, and the number of guesses they can make are usually not public knowledge.
Regardless of what an individual game's soup mechanic is though, just know that it's an anti claim mechanic.

I have 2 thoughts on this:

1) Jordan Peterson. I'm so against him being on the list. Lots of his advice is just common sense in psychological “You get motivated by action.” Duh. But beyond that there's countless examples of him pulling shit like [URL="https://youtu.be/zmrv9NSKKYE?t=134"]this[/URL]. There's some admirable qualities of his or things he's done: like his ability in having open and honest debates or his analysis of Hitler, or him pointing out basics things like the reverse racism of saying things like "all white men are oppressors". But I fail to see him being worthy of being on such a list tbh.

2) Just like the human mind can't imagine/generate a color it has never seen, so too it can't generate anything else - every thought, reasoning, idea, shape, sound comes from a combination of previous inputs. Which is why I think it can't be understated how highly we should value and appreciate the "fathers" of things. Father's of physics, philosophy, math, science, engineering, etc., - if we could name them, they deserve to be on such a list.
I don't agree that the complexity of an idea is indicative of how difficult it was to think of. For example, I'd value - people figuring out that the earth is round thousands of years ago from just the shadows of lunar eclipses - as more difficult than todays satellites built. I'd value the pythagorean cup as more complex than a tomorrows skyscraper. For that reason I think there should be a very few names listed from the last few centuries. Newton, Tesla, Einstein - I think it's theories and discoveries like that which should be worthy on the list, when it comes to more modern names.

I have 2 thoughts on this:

1) Jordan Peterson. I'm so against him being on the list. Lots of his advice is just common sense in psychological “You get motivated by action.� Duh. But beyond that there's countless examples of him pulling shit like this. There's some admirable qualities of his or things he's done: like his ability in having open and honest debates or his analysis of Hitler, or him pointing out basics things like the reverse racism of saying things like "all white men are oppressors". But I fail to see him being worthy of being on such a list tbh.

2) Just like the human mind can't imagine/generate a color it has never seen, so too it can't generate anything else - every thought, reasoning, idea, shape, sound comes from a combination of previous inputs. Which is why I think it can't be understated how highly we should value and appreciate the "fathers" of things. Father's of physics, philosophy, math, science, engineering, etc., - if we could name them, they deserve to be on such a list.
I don't agree that the complexity of an idea is indicative of how difficult it was to think of. For example, I'd value - people figuring out that the earth is round thousands of years ago from just the shadows of lunar eclipses - as more difficult than todays satellites built. I'd value the pythagorean cup as more complex than a tomorrows skyscraper. For that reason I think there should be a very few names listed from the last few centuries. Newton, Tesla, Einstein - I think it's theories and discoveries like that which should be worthy on the list, when it comes to more modern names.

[QUOTE=aamirus;966746][MENTION=30663]OzyWho[/MENTION]

from ozy: "Auto expand, reverse ISO, multi ISO, vote ISO, reply, +multi quote button, hide forum thread info, distinguish posts, ISO shortcut from thread directly."

ozy i did one of your requests are you proud of me[/QUOTE]
This is awesome, thx!
Also, I myself idk what most of those request thingies are supposed to be anymore :laugh:

Originally Posted by aamirus

@OzyWho

from ozy: "Auto expand, reverse ISO, multi ISO, vote ISO, reply, +multi quote button, hide forum thread info, distinguish posts, ISO shortcut from thread directly."

ozy i did one of your requests are you proud of me

This is awesome, thx!
Also, I myself idk what most of those request thingies are supposed to be anymore

I think American Flag was the first setup that had day kills end the days. Feature is nice to have, just I expect most to have forgotten about it before the next time arises that it'll be needed - that remembering will be a fun moment. :laugh:

I think American Flag was the first setup that had day kills end the days. Feature is nice to have, just I expect most to have forgotten about it before the next time arises that it'll be needed - that remembering will be a fun moment.

[QUOTE=Lag;965943]So I had actually read the setup incorrectly, I read it as

"Put a bounty on a player at night.
The bounty will be publicly announced at the start of the day.
If the player is lynched during the ensuing day,
you gain one charge of a night kill."

Rather than

"Put a bounty on a player at night.
The bounty will be publicly announced at the start of the day.
If the player is not lynched during the ensuing day,
you gain one charge of a night kill."
[/QUOTE]
Wait, what? Has that always been the case? [MENTION=45595]Oberon[/MENTION] :laugh:

Btw, Lag, why is it that the statistics numbers only change every +2 townies? Town can't skip, i feel like +1 townie should change something :S

Originally Posted by Lag

So I had actually read the setup incorrectly, I read it as

"Put a bounty on a player at night.
The bounty will be publicly announced at the start of the day.
If the player is lynched during the ensuing day,
you gain one charge of a night kill."

Rather than

"Put a bounty on a player at night.
The bounty will be publicly announced at the start of the day.
If the player is not lynched during the ensuing day,
you gain one charge of a night kill."

Wait, what? Has that always been the case? @Oberon

Btw, Lag, why is it that the statistics numbers only change every +2 townies? Town can't skip, i feel like +1 townie should change something

“Yes” and “No.”
[MENTION=29585]aamirus[/MENTION] how did you get them not-vertical quotation marks?

“Yes� and “No.�
@aamirus how did you get them not-vertical quotation marks?

[QUOTE=Lag;965370]Red flag isn't even really mountainous, mafia should theoretically kill their own teammates at certain points to make it harder for town to gain points in a red flag setup. When you have mafia killing other mafia as an optimal play in a game, that really doesn't qualify as a mountainous game anymore.

Also, I used to agree with you months ago, so I looked up all the champs games from the last time champs was a mountainous game, and I saw that despite having a 24.5% EV winrate, town was winning around 36% of the time. While the sample size was relatively small (14 games), it was significant enough of a difference to make me call my priors into question.

Season 4 of Champs was a 12v3 mountainous, town won 5 of the 14 games. The probability of town winning 5 or more games assuming they should win 24.5% of the time is 10%

That's not quite enough to be considered statistically significant, but it [I]is[/I] enough to at least call into question the assumption as well as discredit claims that say that the data supports EV project projections.

So when the data didn't support the conclusion (the EV winrate is not what you see in mountainous games in practice) and when intuition didn't support the conclusion (A 42 v 3 game sounds absurd), I had no choice but to reject the conclusion and modify my beliefs[/QUOTE]
Yah, that season 4 anomaly was really interesting. I think they did better than other seasons with same Town vs Mafia ratio but with Power Roles, and usually in Champs in qualifiers Mafia are overperforming while Town is overperforming in semis (finals feel even though? 0.o) so that makes the anomaly even more strange. :laugh:

I'm curious how it will go this year! :>

But anyhow, I looked at all MU mountainous games, not just the Champs, for my conclusion back then.
Champs so weird. Almost always Mafia are overperforming, with all that different playstyle clash in the qualis, yet the one statistically mafia favored setup it's the opposite 0.o

Edit: ohh yah the statistics results were fun :laugh:
[INDENT][I]Town has won 9 times, Scum have won 24 times.
Town has 27.27% win rate overall.
However, 5 of those wins are from Championship Season 4 games.[/I][/INDENT]

Originally Posted by Lag

Red flag isn't even really mountainous, mafia should theoretically kill their own teammates at certain points to make it harder for town to gain points in a red flag setup. When you have mafia killing other mafia as an optimal play in a game, that really doesn't qualify as a mountainous game anymore.

Also, I used to agree with you months ago, so I looked up all the champs games from the last time champs was a mountainous game, and I saw that despite having a 24.5% EV winrate, town was winning around 36% of the time. While the sample size was relatively small (14 games), it was significant enough of a difference to make me call my priors into question.

Season 4 of Champs was a 12v3 mountainous, town won 5 of the 14 games. The probability of town winning 5 or more games assuming they should win 24.5% of the time is 10%

That's not quite enough to be considered statistically significant, but it is enough to at least call into question the assumption as well as discredit claims that say that the data supports EV project projections.

So when the data didn't support the conclusion (the EV winrate is not what you see in mountainous games in practice) and when intuition didn't support the conclusion (A 42 v 3 game sounds absurd), I had no choice but to reject the conclusion and modify my beliefs

Yah, that season 4 anomaly was really interesting. I think they did better than other seasons with same Town vs Mafia ratio but with Power Roles, and usually in Champs in qualifiers Mafia are overperforming while Town is overperforming in semis (finals feel even though? ) so that makes the anomaly even more strange.

I'm curious how it will go this year!

But anyhow, I looked at all MU mountainous games, not just the Champs, for my conclusion back then.
Champs so weird. Almost always Mafia are overperforming, with all that different playstyle clash in the qualis, yet the one statistically mafia favored setup it's the opposite

Edit: ohh yah the statistics results were fun

Town has won 9 times, Scum have won 24 times.
Town has 27.27% win rate overall.
However, 5 of those wins are from Championship Season 4 games.

2vs19 sounds fun actually tbh
Mafia can kill 8-9 best players and have to be townier than 9-10 scummiest townies? Like I feel like it's a cool game ngl

2vs19 sounds fun actually tbh
Mafia can kill 8-9 best players and have to be townier than 9-10 scummiest townies? Like I feel like it's a cool game ngl

If I wanted a mountainous 50%, I'd suggest red flag 15er, not 2vs19 regular mountainous btw. But regardless of how even those 2 vs 19 numbers look to you, as far as at least win chances go, I do think it'd average on that 50% with a large enough sample size, my own looking up the statistics of mountainous games doesn't give me a reason to doubt that. There's even that funny story of Thingyman winning 1vs20+ :laugh:
But as I said before; we differ on how strongly we value each teams influence and the impact of scumhunting vs misleading. For me it all evens out, for you town influence is stronger especially in the long run.

Like there's nothing more to it. You want to add slight favor to Mafia because you value Town strength higher than Mafia's; I don't.

If I wanted a mountainous 50%, I'd suggest red flag 15er, not 2vs19 regular mountainous btw. But regardless of how even those 2 vs 19 numbers look to you, as far as at least win chances go, I do think it'd average on that 50% with a large enough sample size, my own looking up the statistics of mountainous games doesn't give me a reason to doubt that. There's even that funny story of Thingyman winning 1vs20+
But as I said before; we differ on how strongly we value each teams influence and the impact of scumhunting vs misleading. For me it all evens out, for you town influence is stronger especially in the long run.

Like there's nothing more to it. You want to add slight favor to Mafia because you value Town strength higher than Mafia's; I don't.

[QUOTE=Lag;965361]if town can win half the time while literally not even reading the game, then that's indicative of a town-sided setup.[/QUOTE]
As opposed to Wolf sided setup? What's the problem here? In either case, players get to play the game.

I fee like you're undervaluing the Wolf influence on the game tbh. In a 50%, I reckon the best team wins most of the time more than in any other EV setup.

Originally Posted by Lag

if town can win half the time while literally not even reading the game, then that's indicative of a town-sided setup.

As opposed to Wolf sided setup? What's the problem here? In either case, players get to play the game.

I fee like you're undervaluing the Wolf influence on the game tbh. In a 50%, I reckon the best team wins most of the time more than in any other EV setup.

[QUOTE=Lag;965359]I think 30-40 is ideal
25-50 is playable
15-70 is passable but far from ideal
and outside of that range is just blatantly town/wolf sided[/QUOTE]
I'd never play a 15% tbh, I could see myself playing a 70% if I'd expect the game to be fun otherwise.

You don't think 50% is ideal? I guess only I value the social deduction and deception effect on the game as low as I do.
If champs setup decision had a public discussion this year, I'd suggest Red Flag 15er instead of Mountainous.

Originally Posted by Lag

I think 30-40 is ideal
25-50 is playable
15-70 is passable but far from ideal
and outside of that range is just blatantly town/wolf sided

I'd never play a 15% tbh, I could see myself playing a 70% if I'd expect the game to be fun otherwise.

You don't think 50% is ideal? I guess only I value the social deduction and deception effect on the game as low as I do.
If champs setup decision had a public discussion this year, I'd suggest Red Flag 15er instead of Mountainous.

[QUOTE=Oberon;965355]I've never seen a random lynch in a game xD[/QUOTE]
last year i checked, a sample size of 30+ mountainous games shows that the town win rate is nearly identical to EV, so it's sort of important imho.

But like, D6 has 50+%, quite town sided, but many have named it their favorite setup at some point (though now its out of favor seems)
i'd say 20-80 is playable 30-70 is fine 40-60 is nearly perfect 50 is perfect, though i'd prefer 40 over 60 any day of the weel

Originally Posted by Oberon

I've never seen a random lynch in a game xD

last year i checked, a sample size of 30+ mountainous games shows that the town win rate is nearly identical to EV, so it's sort of important imho.

But like, D6 has 50+%, quite town sided, but many have named it their favorite setup at some point (though now its out of favor seems)
i'd say 20-80 is playable 30-70 is fine 40-60 is nearly perfect 50 is perfect, though i'd prefer 40 over 60 any day of the weel

By the way, this thread taught me that I struggle with abstract thinking. It's so alien to my brain, you guys may as well talk Korean as far as my brain is concerned :laugh:

By the way, this thread taught me that I struggle with abstract thinking. It's so alien to my brain, you guys may as well talk Korean as far as my brain is concerned