Search:

I went to review the "additional records" matches that killy quoted in his report.

Since he did not attach replays for those, please find attached in this post.

You will notice that out of the 3 "additional records" he quoted, 2 of them involve Hotrian abusing the instant start exploit to launch Chaos mode.
In total, out of the 5 matches quoted in this report, 4 involve the host abusing the instant start exploit.

I hope you see a pattern here.
Generally, I leave the game when (1) I do not wish to play the setup being loaded, [B]and more importantly [COLOR="#FF0000"](2) when the lobby is not given a chance to repick[/COLOR][/B].

When playing with others, it is inevitable that we will sometimes play setups that we do not wish to.
Most of the time, I respect that.
What I cannot stand are hosts who abuse exploits to force their setups onto others with no respect for others' wishes, and then throw a tantrum when people leave.

Once you fix the instant launch exploit, hosts will no longer be able to force their setups on unwitting lobbies.
This is similar to the hacked setup issue, which was resolved by removing incomplete roles from the map entirely, preventing bankhackers from adding invalid roles to their setups.

I have no doubt at all in my mind that if the lobbies had been aware and given time to react, they would've repicked Cult and Chaos.
I reiterate my belief that the hosts know this, that is why they abuse the exploit to push their setups through.

[QUOTE=Exeter350;967765]
Considering how unpopular Cult is (to the point where they are removed from default setups), it is likely that the Cult setup would've been repicked if the setup had been launched normally.
That people left en masse afterwards could be a reflection of this, and not the fact that 1 player left.
In other words, "If I had time to repick, I would have".
[/QUOTE]

Please fix the instant launch exploit and take away these hosts' ability to force their choice of setups onto others.

Thank you.


[QUOTE=Killy;967591]
[B][COLOR="#FFFFFF"](II) additional records:[/COLOR][/B]

[SPOILER="it was 'dolus eventualis'"]

(3) another different game, 05/25/22 same date with replay(2),
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28601[/ATTACH]
(4) another different game, 05/09/22
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28602[/ATTACH]
(5) another different game, 05/09/22
[ATTACH=CONFIG]28603[/ATTACH]

replay(1) is from 05/15/22
replay(2) is from 05/25/22

All of those events took place in May.
The player is quitting at the beginning of the name selections or in the first 10 seconds of the D1.

[B] ---Hey. It might even be that his toaster made the circuit breaker trip, right? [/B]
In that case, there should be a "waiting for player" window pop-up.
But no window popup. It was due to F10 Alt-QQ (surreNder command), more than by accidents.

This player quits games at 00:27~00:29 timing.
"00:28" corresponds to "at the beginning of the name selection" when hosts use the quick setup technic (with Chaos mode).
(I confirmed Hotrian was using Chaos mode with quick setup)

Hotrian is a good player. His hosting is also legit.
Is this player not a big fan of Hotrian hosting games? (or Chaos setup)

There was willful negligence for those leave trains result of his quitting.
[/spoiler]
[/QUOTE]

I went to review the "additional records" matches that killy quoted in his report.

Since he did not attach replays for those, please find attached in this post.

You will notice that out of the 3 "additional records" he quoted, 2 of them involve Hotrian abusing the instant start exploit to launch Chaos mode.
In total, out of the 5 matches quoted in this report, 4 involve the host abusing the instant start exploit.

I hope you see a pattern here.
Generally, I leave the game when (1) I do not wish to play the setup being loaded, and more importantly (2) when the lobby is not given a chance to repick.

When playing with others, it is inevitable that we will sometimes play setups that we do not wish to.
Most of the time, I respect that.
What I cannot stand are hosts who abuse exploits to force their setups onto others with no respect for others' wishes, and then throw a tantrum when people leave.

Once you fix the instant launch exploit, hosts will no longer be able to force their setups on unwitting lobbies.
This is similar to the hacked setup issue, which was resolved by removing incomplete roles from the map entirely, preventing bankhackers from adding invalid roles to their setups.

I have no doubt at all in my mind that if the lobbies had been aware and given time to react, they would've repicked Cult and Chaos.
I reiterate my belief that the hosts know this, that is why they abuse the exploit to push their setups through.

Originally Posted by Exeter350

Considering how unpopular Cult is (to the point where they are removed from default setups), it is likely that the Cult setup would've been repicked if the setup had been launched normally.
That people left en masse afterwards could be a reflection of this, and not the fact that 1 player left.
In other words, "If I had time to repick, I would have".

Please fix the instant launch exploit and take away these hosts' ability to force their choice of setups onto others.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Killy

(II) additional records:

Spoiler : it was 'dolus eventualis' :

(3) another different game, 05/25/22 same date with replay(2),

(4) another different game, 05/09/22

(5) another different game, 05/09/22


replay(1) is from 05/15/22
replay(2) is from 05/25/22

All of those events took place in May.
The player is quitting at the beginning of the name selections or in the first 10 seconds of the D1.

---Hey. It might even be that his toaster made the circuit breaker trip, right?
In that case, there should be a "waiting for player" window pop-up.
But no window popup. It was due to F10 Alt-QQ (surreNder command), more than by accidents.

This player quits games at 00:27~00:29 timing.
"00:28" corresponds to "at the beginning of the name selection" when hosts use the quick setup technic (with Chaos mode).
(I confirmed Hotrian was using Chaos mode with quick setup)

Hotrian is a good player. His hosting is also legit.
Is this player not a big fan of Hotrian hosting games? (or Chaos setup)

There was willful negligence for those leave trains result of his quitting.

[QUOTE=DJarJar;967786]If we allowed people to leave every time they dislike the save with impunity then we could go hours and hours without a single game of mafia actually starting. In the precedent we've allowed it when the save is clearly awful. However it appears that you are trying to stretch that limit and leave anything you dislike at all.
With 5 instances shown and you basically saying you're going to keep doing it, I don't think I can grant an appeal.

So, i mean yes, we do expect you to play even if you don't love the setup. You can leave if the setup is like griefing levels of bad.

Now, you do have a good point about the instant start exploit making it difficult to repick. This is something on frinckles' todo list. Since that exploit is involved and you otherwise had a clean history, I think we can decrease the punishment to On Hold if you can agree to stop constantly leaving games.

Also, I would point out that you can always start your own lobbies to ensure that the setup you like is at least the first one considered.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your consideration.

I agree.

Also thank you for acknowledging and working on the instant start exploit.

I believe hosts of Cult and Chaos setups know their unpopularity, that is why they rely on instant launches to push their setup through before they can be repicked.

I firmly believe that if lobbies had the chance to repick, they would have. However, they were not given a fair chance to do so.

In the meantime, while the instant start exploit is being fixed, I agree to stay for such games as a compromise.

But let's be clear that this exploit cannot continue to be left unfixed indefinitely. It is not fair for players to be held hostage to setups that did not have a proper chance to be repicked.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by DJarJar

If we allowed people to leave every time they dislike the save with impunity then we could go hours and hours without a single game of mafia actually starting. In the precedent we've allowed it when the save is clearly awful. However it appears that you are trying to stretch that limit and leave anything you dislike at all.
With 5 instances shown and you basically saying you're going to keep doing it, I don't think I can grant an appeal.

So, i mean yes, we do expect you to play even if you don't love the setup. You can leave if the setup is like griefing levels of bad.

Now, you do have a good point about the instant start exploit making it difficult to repick. This is something on frinckles' todo list. Since that exploit is involved and you otherwise had a clean history, I think we can decrease the punishment to On Hold if you can agree to stop constantly leaving games.

Also, I would point out that you can always start your own lobbies to ensure that the setup you like is at least the first one considered.

Thank you for your consideration.

I agree.

Also thank you for acknowledging and working on the instant start exploit.

I believe hosts of Cult and Chaos setups know their unpopularity, that is why they rely on instant launches to push their setup through before they can be repicked.

I firmly believe that if lobbies had the chance to repick, they would have. However, they were not given a fair chance to do so.

In the meantime, while the instant start exploit is being fixed, I agree to stay for such games as a compromise.

But let's be clear that this exploit cannot continue to be left unfixed indefinitely. It is not fair for players to be held hostage to setups that did not have a proper chance to be repicked.

Thank you.

I would like to appeal this report.

It is established that players have the right to choose what setup they wish to play, as long as they don't incite others to leave with them.

I didn't want to play a Chaos or Cult setup, so I voted to repick.
Failing that, I chose to leave, as I do not want to invest 45 mins into a game I do not enjoy.
However, I respect that others wished to go ahead, so I did not attempt to convince others to leave with me.

Based on my knowledge, I am not breaking any rules in doing so.


[QUOTE=MrMostache;967725]While it's true that Exeter hasn't encouraged people to leave the game directly, the amount of games he have done this recently is very large.
And while we don't fault people for leaving "troll" saves, none of the shown saves here is considered trolly. It seems that Exeter has set his standard of what a good save is really high. We don't want everyone to leave games just because they are not happy about the chosen setup.[/QUOTE]

I would like to ask:
(1) Do players have the right to choose what setup they wish to spend 45 mins on?

(2) What is your proposed alternative to the established ruling on this issue (that it is OK to leave a setup as long as we do not incite others to do so)?
Am I expected to invest 45 mins into a setup that I am strongly opposed to?
Am I forced to play a match I have no interest in playing, otherwise I will be penalized?

I understand your concern that you do not wish to encourage people to leave games just because they are not happy about the setup.
But I believe penalizing leavers (before the setup is launched) is not a realistic solution.
Also, it goes against the established ruling on this issue.

Please clarify. Thank you.

*

Kindly also note:
[COLOR="#FF0000"][B]In both replays, the setups had a speeded up launch.[/B][/COLOR]
It is possible to quickly launch a setup by first launching Chaos, then loading a Custom save.
With this method, lobbies often do not have time to react and repick.

Considering how unpopular Cult is (to the point where they are removed from default setups), it is likely that the Cult setup would've been repicked if the setup had been launched normally.
That people left en masse afterwards could be a reflection of this, and not the fact that 1 player left.
In other words, "If I had time to repick, I would have".

[COLOR="#FF0000"]The ability to quickly launch setups is a huge problem that clouds issues such as this report.[/COLOR]

I would like to appeal this report.

It is established that players have the right to choose what setup they wish to play, as long as they don't incite others to leave with them.

I didn't want to play a Chaos or Cult setup, so I voted to repick.
Failing that, I chose to leave, as I do not want to invest 45 mins into a game I do not enjoy.
However, I respect that others wished to go ahead, so I did not attempt to convince others to leave with me.

Based on my knowledge, I am not breaking any rules in doing so.

Originally Posted by MrMostache

While it's true that Exeter hasn't encouraged people to leave the game directly, the amount of games he have done this recently is very large.
And while we don't fault people for leaving "troll" saves, none of the shown saves here is considered trolly. It seems that Exeter has set his standard of what a good save is really high. We don't want everyone to leave games just because they are not happy about the chosen setup.

I would like to ask:
(1) Do players have the right to choose what setup they wish to spend 45 mins on?

(2) What is your proposed alternative to the established ruling on this issue (that it is OK to leave a setup as long as we do not incite others to do so)?
Am I expected to invest 45 mins into a setup that I am strongly opposed to?
Am I forced to play a match I have no interest in playing, otherwise I will be penalized?

I understand your concern that you do not wish to encourage people to leave games just because they are not happy about the setup.
But I believe penalizing leavers (before the setup is launched) is not a realistic solution.
Also, it goes against the established ruling on this issue.

Please clarify. Thank you.

*

Kindly also note:
In both replays, the setups had a speeded up launch.
It is possible to quickly launch a setup by first launching Chaos, then loading a Custom save.
With this method, lobbies often do not have time to react and repick.

Considering how unpopular Cult is (to the point where they are removed from default setups), it is likely that the Cult setup would've been repicked if the setup had been launched normally.
That people left en masse afterwards could be a reflection of this, and not the fact that 1 player left.
In other words, "If I had time to repick, I would have".

The ability to quickly launch setups is a huge problem that clouds issues such as this report.

[QUOTE=Marshmallow Marshall;967601]Sounds about right. Which leads me to my next question...

WHY DOES THIS REALITY HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT WORDS TO EXPRESS IT :([/QUOTE]

If you're not into DP, but you're into pp, you can just say "u have a beautiful pp".

Originally Posted by Marshmallow Marshall

Sounds about right. Which leads me to my next question...

WHY DOES THIS REALITY HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT WORDS TO EXPRESS IT

If you're not into DP, but you're into pp, you can just say "u have a beautiful pp".

[QUOTE=DJarJar;967590]Damn that is one ridiculously powerful role. Might even be more powerful than a hacker that gets all roles[/QUOTE]

It's not hacking, it's a [I]legitimate [/I]role.

[B][I]-prefer stalker[/I][/B]

Originally Posted by DJarJar

Damn that is one ridiculously powerful role. Might even be more powerful than a hacker that gets all roles

It's not hacking, it's a legitimate role.

-prefer stalker

Hi Killy,

My viewpoint is same as Auwt's, who succinctly summarized the points I wanted to say.

On top of that, I just wanted to clarify some things:

(1) This report is nothing personal.
I reported other players for other hacked setups too.
I saw a problem in the community and wanted to correct it.

* * * * *

(2) You described my report as "malicious".
I disagree. I added my personal evaluation of the situation because there is room for subjectivity, and I didn't want it to cloud the judgement of this report.

For instance, you might've appealed by saying running this setup was unintentional (which you did).
Channel already presented this defense in Discord, so it was necessary for me to debunk it in my report.

I believe that my evaluation (sequence of events) was largely factual and objective.

* * * * *

(3) You said that I was wrong in saying you bankhacked to create your setups.
I concede that your setups were saved from others (Frinckles, Tsarthus).
However, I stand by my point that the original setup from Tsarthus is bankhacked (whether by him or another).

And I would not accuse Frinckles the developer of bankhacking.
Nonetheless, I recall that during Mafia 2.0 Beta when Caroler was first introduced, players were originally able to -save Caroler.
Frinckles quickly implemented a system to prevent players from doing that.
In other words, he did not intend or want players to be able to -save Caroler setups.

That, and the fact that Caroler is excluded from selectable roles in setup creation, makes it clear to me that Caroler is [B][U]not intended[/U][/B] to be part of regular setups.

However, the ruling for this issue is that Caroler / Easter Bunny is "tolerated" since they are stable roles and in Chaos Mode circulation, and I respect that decision.

* * * * *

(4) You said that I played other setups with hacked roles in the past, e.g. Elector, Justice, etc.
I assume you are pointing out my inconsistency that I did not report those occasions.

However, I stated in my report that my intention is to curb the influx of hacked setups.
In other words, I am referring to those same occasions where you saw me play setups with Elector, Justice, etc.
Therefore, there is no inconsistency.
I noticed this problem early on, and over time was frustrated to the point where I was finally motivated to take action.

* * * * *

[B]Closing Note:[/B]
I heard that the map has been modified to prevent setups with invalid roles from starting.
In other words, this problem of invalid roles is mechanically impossible to occur in the future.

Perhaps this is the staff / developer's long-term solution to the hacked setups problem.

If so, I hope you will understand the necessity and importance of this report.
Because of such reports and the resulting discussions, the staff & developer implemented a solution to a problem plaguing the community.

Hi Killy,

My viewpoint is same as Auwt's, who succinctly summarized the points I wanted to say.

On top of that, I just wanted to clarify some things:

(1) This report is nothing personal.
I reported other players for other hacked setups too.
I saw a problem in the community and wanted to correct it.

* * * * *

(2) You described my report as "malicious".
I disagree. I added my personal evaluation of the situation because there is room for subjectivity, and I didn't want it to cloud the judgement of this report.

For instance, you might've appealed by saying running this setup was unintentional (which you did).
Channel already presented this defense in Discord, so it was necessary for me to debunk it in my report.

I believe that my evaluation (sequence of events) was largely factual and objective.

* * * * *

(3) You said that I was wrong in saying you bankhacked to create your setups.
I concede that your setups were saved from others (Frinckles, Tsarthus).
However, I stand by my point that the original setup from Tsarthus is bankhacked (whether by him or another).

And I would not accuse Frinckles the developer of bankhacking.
Nonetheless, I recall that during Mafia 2.0 Beta when Caroler was first introduced, players were originally able to -save Caroler.
Frinckles quickly implemented a system to prevent players from doing that.
In other words, he did not intend or want players to be able to -save Caroler setups.

That, and the fact that Caroler is excluded from selectable roles in setup creation, makes it clear to me that Caroler is not intended to be part of regular setups.

However, the ruling for this issue is that Caroler / Easter Bunny is "tolerated" since they are stable roles and in Chaos Mode circulation, and I respect that decision.

* * * * *

(4) You said that I played other setups with hacked roles in the past, e.g. Elector, Justice, etc.
I assume you are pointing out my inconsistency that I did not report those occasions.

However, I stated in my report that my intention is to curb the influx of hacked setups.
In other words, I am referring to those same occasions where you saw me play setups with Elector, Justice, etc.
Therefore, there is no inconsistency.
I noticed this problem early on, and over time was frustrated to the point where I was finally motivated to take action.

* * * * *

Closing Note:
I heard that the map has been modified to prevent setups with invalid roles from starting.
In other words, this problem of invalid roles is mechanically impossible to occur in the future.

Perhaps this is the staff / developer's long-term solution to the hacked setups problem.

If so, I hope you will understand the necessity and importance of this report.
Because of such reports and the resulting discussions, the staff & developer implemented a solution to a problem plaguing the community.

Next week's episode: "How I crafted a balanced Stump-Scumbag save, and how you can host it with -save!"

[QUOTE=lawson;967397]So there was a period of a couple weeks where some magical person released Elector back into the community[/QUOTE]

Why so modest? We know you hacked your bank to create these setups.

Frink's command only lets you export your bank data. To the average Joe, the output would just be gibberish strings of numbers.

You claim that you got Elector in your setup after your bank got "messed up" during an update, but lol, you sure know how to interpret the bank file.


Why we're not penalizing you for (1) bank hacking, (2) circulating hacked setups and (3) being blatantly unrepentant is beyond me.

Next week's episode: "How I crafted a balanced Stump-Scumbag save, and how you can host it with -save!"

Originally Posted by lawson

So there was a period of a couple weeks where some magical person released Elector back into the community

Why so modest? We know you hacked your bank to create these setups.

Frink's command only lets you export your bank data. To the average Joe, the output would just be gibberish strings of numbers.

You claim that you got Elector in your setup after your bank got "messed up" during an update, but lol, you sure know how to interpret the bank file.


Why we're not penalizing you for (1) bank hacking, (2) circulating hacked setups and (3) being blatantly unrepentant is beyond me.

[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]Account Name:[/B][/COLOR] killy
[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]Account ID:[/B][/COLOR] 1-S2-1-5387491
[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]In-Game Name:[/B][/COLOR] Nico the Weak

[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]Crimes Committed:[/B][/COLOR] Bank Hacking / Griefing (hosting a hacked setup)

[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]Your Account Name:[/B][/COLOR] Exeter

[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]Summary:[/B][/COLOR]
killy is lobby host.

Upon game start, killy loads a standard 8331 Triad setup.
He then prefers a number of invalid roles ("Justice", "townnull", "townnulltwo", "Elector") which would not normally be in the game unless the host illegally hacks their bank.

Still with the 8331 Triad setup loaded, killy then asks the lobby "Role request please".
After adjusting some sliders for the requested roles, killy switches to his Save Slot 2, which has the following role list:

1. Easter Bunny*
2. Townnull*
3. Townnull*
4. Townnulltwo*
5. Townnulltwo*
6. Justice*
7. Justice*
8. Arsonist
9. Jester
10. Jester
11. Citizen
12. Any Random
13. Neutral Killing
14. Neutral Random
15. Elector*

* Roles marked with asterisks are roles that cannot normally be added to a setup without bankhacking.

The replay owner quits the game on D1 and the replay ends here.

Based on second hand accounts, the rest of the lobby soon followed, resulting in a "A veritable Armageddon decimated the town last night" message on D2.

Additionally, as seen on Blizzard Match History, the match duration is 11:08 minutes, which is far shorter than the average Mafia game.

* * * * *

[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]Additional Information:[/B][/COLOR]
I believe this incident is a premediated act, for the following reasons:

A hacked setup cannot be created on the spot, it requires external tools. That killy has the hacked setup ready in Save Slot 2 indicates prior preparation and intention to host it.

Additionally, killy prefers the invalid roles [B][I]before[/I][/B] he loads the hacked setup. Even though he asks for role requests for his 8331 Triad setup and makes a show of adjusting weight sliders, I believe that that is only a charade meant to throw off any potential reports and reviewers. The sequence of events tells us that killy had the intention to host his hacked setup from the beginning.

Second hand accounts tell that killy (1) later claims that he had no intention of hosting it and that it was an accident, and (2) killy did not hack his bank but copied it from a bankhacker.

(1) As explained above, I believe the sequence of events clearly showcase killy's premediated intention to host the hacked save. For that reason I believe that his claim that it was an accident is a lie.

(2) Regardless of where the hacked setup originated from, I believe hosting a hacked setup is grounds for punishment by itself, such as in the case of Stumpbag setups. However, if killy truly got it from a bankhacker, he should have the social decency to provide the report so that appropriate action can be taken against the original bankhacker as well.

* * * * *

[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]Closing Note:[/B][/COLOR]
I have noticed a recent influx of hacked setups, with roles that are not usually possible to add to setups such as Elector, Justice, Caroler, Easter Bunny, townnull, townnulltwo.

These setups usually cause great dissatisfaction amongst the player base, often causing players to quit en masse. I believe this is a massive waste of people's time and energy. I received this replay from one such disgruntled member of the community, and am currently awaiting another replay from another frustrated community member, both of whom do not wish to encounter such setups again.

I am filing this report in the hopes that such behaviour will be penalized, thus deterring further occurrences.

Account Name: killy
Account ID: 1-S2-1-5387491
In-Game Name: Nico the Weak

Crimes Committed: Bank Hacking / Griefing (hosting a hacked setup)

Your Account Name: Exeter

Summary:
killy is lobby host.

Upon game start, killy loads a standard 8331 Triad setup.
He then prefers a number of invalid roles ("Justice", "townnull", "townnulltwo", "Elector") which would not normally be in the game unless the host illegally hacks their bank.

Still with the 8331 Triad setup loaded, killy then asks the lobby "Role request please".
After adjusting some sliders for the requested roles, killy switches to his Save Slot 2, which has the following role list:

1. Easter Bunny*
2. Townnull*
3. Townnull*
4. Townnulltwo*
5. Townnulltwo*
6. Justice*
7. Justice*
8. Arsonist
9. Jester
10. Jester
11. Citizen
12. Any Random
13. Neutral Killing
14. Neutral Random
15. Elector*

* Roles marked with asterisks are roles that cannot normally be added to a setup without bankhacking.

The replay owner quits the game on D1 and the replay ends here.

Based on second hand accounts, the rest of the lobby soon followed, resulting in a "A veritable Armageddon decimated the town last night" message on D2.

Additionally, as seen on Blizzard Match History, the match duration is 11:08 minutes, which is far shorter than the average Mafia game.

* * * * *

Additional Information:
I believe this incident is a premediated act, for the following reasons:

A hacked setup cannot be created on the spot, it requires external tools. That killy has the hacked setup ready in Save Slot 2 indicates prior preparation and intention to host it.

Additionally, killy prefers the invalid roles before he loads the hacked setup. Even though he asks for role requests for his 8331 Triad setup and makes a show of adjusting weight sliders, I believe that that is only a charade meant to throw off any potential reports and reviewers. The sequence of events tells us that killy had the intention to host his hacked setup from the beginning.

Second hand accounts tell that killy (1) later claims that he had no intention of hosting it and that it was an accident, and (2) killy did not hack his bank but copied it from a bankhacker.

(1) As explained above, I believe the sequence of events clearly showcase killy's premediated intention to host the hacked save. For that reason I believe that his claim that it was an accident is a lie.

(2) Regardless of where the hacked setup originated from, I believe hosting a hacked setup is grounds for punishment by itself, such as in the case of Stumpbag setups. However, if killy truly got it from a bankhacker, he should have the social decency to provide the report so that appropriate action can be taken against the original bankhacker as well.

* * * * *

Closing Note:
I have noticed a recent influx of hacked setups, with roles that are not usually possible to add to setups such as Elector, Justice, Caroler, Easter Bunny, townnull, townnulltwo.

These setups usually cause great dissatisfaction amongst the player base, often causing players to quit en masse. I believe this is a massive waste of people's time and energy. I received this replay from one such disgruntled member of the community, and am currently awaiting another replay from another frustrated community member, both of whom do not wish to encounter such setups again.

I am filing this report in the hopes that such behaviour will be penalized, thus deterring further occurrences.

Different but similar problem:

The game came down to two Towns, one Judge and one Electromaniac.

Town decided to stall to force secret ballot and win the tie.

However, the secret ballot froze on Day 9, preventing the game from concluding.

Different but similar problem:

The game came down to two Towns, one Judge and one Electromaniac.

Town decided to stall to force secret ballot and win the tie.

However, the secret ballot froze on Day 9, preventing the game from concluding.

[QUOTE=Eragonball;967040]You don't see the threat because you look at NKs without the whole game itself.
As I state in my first post, if NK die, the game lose its most important comeback mechanic and get slower.

Poisonner and electromaniac don't need NI because they're hard, they need it because the game need them.
It's not even a big deal, most of the time they'll get lynched the following day. UNLESS mafia/town is loosing and know they need them to kill, which is why they need NI.
[/QUOTE]

Man's speaking sense. I would say NKs having NI is integral to ensuring the game flows smoothly. Even before Poisoner and Electro, we can already see this effect when NKs get lynched early game. The game slows to a crawl and becomes much harder for the remaining evils.

[QUOTE=Eragonball;967040]
It would be better for the game if they wouldn't kill NI and be NI if you rly wish so.
They need NI.[/QUOTE]

[MENTION=34329]Frinckles[/MENTION] These can be implemented as role settings, and would be a great middle ground.

NI - ON/OFF
Ignores immunity - ON/OFF

With the wide variety of setups possible, you can leave it to individual hosts to balance their saves.

Originally Posted by Eragonball

You don't see the threat because you look at NKs without the whole game itself.
As I state in my first post, if NK die, the game lose its most important comeback mechanic and get slower.

Poisonner and electromaniac don't need NI because they're hard, they need it because the game need them.
It's not even a big deal, most of the time they'll get lynched the following day. UNLESS mafia/town is loosing and know they need them to kill, which is why they need NI.

Man's speaking sense. I would say NKs having NI is integral to ensuring the game flows smoothly. Even before Poisoner and Electro, we can already see this effect when NKs get lynched early game. The game slows to a crawl and becomes much harder for the remaining evils.

Originally Posted by Eragonball

It would be better for the game if they wouldn't kill NI and be NI if you rly wish so.
They need NI.

@Frinckles These can be implemented as role settings, and would be a great middle ground.

NI - ON/OFF
Ignores immunity - ON/OFF

With the wide variety of setups possible, you can leave it to individual hosts to balance their saves.

[QUOTE=aamirus;962407]you'd have to be insane to do all of that which pretty much explains everything[/QUOTE]

+1

Didn't he try to get SC2 Mafia taken down years ago by quoting Blizzard's ToS on Blizzard forums, and a bunch of SC2Maf staff went to answer him there?

What a crazy weirdo.

Originally Posted by aamirus

you'd have to be insane to do all of that which pretty much explains everything

+1

Didn't he try to get SC2 Mafia taken down years ago by quoting Blizzard's ToS on Blizzard forums, and a bunch of SC2Maf staff went to answer him there?

What a crazy weirdo.

I noticed some issues with the setup system that are still present as of 16 Feb 2022:

(1) Actress, Heartbreaker, Caporegime does not spawn from Mafia Random

(2) Constable spawn chance much higher than other Town Gov roles despite setting spawn weight much lower than the others.

(3) -chance and -max commands not working properly (shows 0 regardless of settings, even if confirmed slot is added to role list)

(4) Switching between save slots messes up settings on Slot 1 (afaik only Mafia roles are affected. See attached replay, Mafia spawn % sliders get messed up whenever I cycle through the save slots)

(5) -emulate can be used in lobbies with other players, and is visible to all playes. Not sure if this has always been a thing, and I don't see this as an issue (gives an idea of setup spawn settings), but some players find it jarring and it can be spammed.

(6) Mafioso spawns as Any Random even if "Any Random - Exclude Mafia" is ON. (See attached replay)

I noticed some issues with the setup system that are still present as of 16 Feb 2022:

(1) Actress, Heartbreaker, Caporegime does not spawn from Mafia Random

(2) Constable spawn chance much higher than other Town Gov roles despite setting spawn weight much lower than the others.

(3) -chance and -max commands not working properly (shows 0 regardless of settings, even if confirmed slot is added to role list)

(4) Switching between save slots messes up settings on Slot 1 (afaik only Mafia roles are affected. See attached replay, Mafia spawn % sliders get messed up whenever I cycle through the save slots)

(5) -emulate can be used in lobbies with other players, and is visible to all playes. Not sure if this has always been a thing, and I don't see this as an issue (gives an idea of setup spawn settings), but some players find it jarring and it can be spammed.

(6) Mafioso spawns as Any Random even if "Any Random - Exclude Mafia" is ON. (See attached replay)

Awesome, so that's flavour settled.

After giving it some thought, I'm wondering how gameplay would be like for both Debtor and Creditor.

Debtor has no info to go on besides randomly pressing buttons at night.
Creditor has no "tell" for Debtor to catch on to, and no counterplay possible.

Once Debtor finds his target, he just has to press another button at night to eliminate his target and win.
Unlike Executioner, he does not need to manipulate Town into lynching his target.

There's no deduction or deception involved here.

Seems like it's mostly RNG with no player interactivity.

Awesome, so that's flavour settled.

After giving it some thought, I'm wondering how gameplay would be like for both Debtor and Creditor.

Debtor has no info to go on besides randomly pressing buttons at night.
Creditor has no "tell" for Debtor to catch on to, and no counterplay possible.

Once Debtor finds his target, he just has to press another button at night to eliminate his target and win.
Unlike Executioner, he does not need to manipulate Town into lynching his target.

There's no deduction or deception involved here.

Seems like it's mostly RNG with no player interactivity.

I noticed recently that if a lobby repicks through all 15 player, it goes back to the original host and cannot be repicked.

Not sure if this was always a thing but this means that the current limit is 15 repicks before the host is "locked".

Still seems a bit too much, I'm not sure lobbies would stay long enough for all 15 players to be repicked. I've only seen it happen once, all other occasions people leavetrain before it gets to that point.

I noticed recently that if a lobby repicks through all 15 player, it goes back to the original host and cannot be repicked.

Not sure if this was always a thing but this means that the current limit is 15 repicks before the host is "locked".

Still seems a bit too much, I'm not sure lobbies would stay long enough for all 15 players to be repicked. I've only seen it happen once, all other occasions people leavetrain before it gets to that point.

Fascinating idea, kind of like a reverse Executioner.

Time travel's not thematically appropriate but the idea could work if renamed to something else.
E.g. Bounty Hunter hunting a Fugitive. Not sure why the Bounty Hunter dies if the fugitive dies tho.
Alternatively Creditor hunting a Debtor. He needs the Debtor to pay his debts or the Creditor will go bankrupt. Upon the Debtor's death, the Creditor hangs himself.

The target would receive a message like "Your past is catching up to you" or something.

Fascinating idea, kind of like a reverse Executioner.

Time travel's not thematically appropriate but the idea could work if renamed to something else.
E.g. Bounty Hunter hunting a Fugitive. Not sure why the Bounty Hunter dies if the fugitive dies tho.
Alternatively Creditor hunting a Debtor. He needs the Debtor to pay his debts or the Creditor will go bankrupt. Upon the Debtor's death, the Creditor hangs himself.

The target would receive a message like "Your past is catching up to you" or something.

Making non-visiting roles visit is not a hidden mechanic. Witching revealed Town Gov into confirmed Vet is a common strategy.

Witch has sufficient feedback as it is, there is no need to buff it.
Receiving the target's feedback basically makes Witch an exact role Investigator, that's ridiculously OP.
Witches can already tell if their targets visit or not (if you witch someone who's jailed / RB'd, it will just say You controlled X to visit [blank]).
Receiving feedback about whether or not the target USUALLY visits is again, an unnecessary buff.

Making non-visiting roles visit is not a hidden mechanic. Witching revealed Town Gov into confirmed Vet is a common strategy.

Witch has sufficient feedback as it is, there is no need to buff it.
Receiving the target's feedback basically makes Witch an exact role Investigator, that's ridiculously OP.
Witches can already tell if their targets visit or not (if you witch someone who's jailed / RB'd, it will just say You controlled X to visit [blank]).
Receiving feedback about whether or not the target USUALLY visits is again, an unnecessary buff.

[QUOTE=Space Milk;958398]What do you mean exactly? I'm not able to parse this.

IMO the more interesting mechanic is a conversion that still maintains original roles. I have seen this idea floated in various forms in past posts, like in the Zombie role suggestion thread. This could allow cult to be balanced through means outside of numbers, as relying on numbers for balancing is what causes cult to either be extremely weak or ridiculously overpowered, with little way in between.[/QUOTE]

By "douse-convert" he means the 2-stage process like Arsonist's douse and ignite mechanic.

Retaining original abilities on top of a shared night chat is too OP. Been proposed before.

Originally Posted by Space Milk

What do you mean exactly? I'm not able to parse this.

IMO the more interesting mechanic is a conversion that still maintains original roles. I have seen this idea floated in various forms in past posts, like in the Zombie role suggestion thread. This could allow cult to be balanced through means outside of numbers, as relying on numbers for balancing is what causes cult to either be extremely weak or ridiculously overpowered, with little way in between.

By "douse-convert" he means the 2-stage process like Arsonist's douse and ignite mechanic.

Retaining original abilities on top of a shared night chat is too OP. Been proposed before.

Interesting idea. COULD work as its own faction, or as a Cult re-work.

The flag-convert mechanic is interesting. Does the Demagogue get his flags back if his flagged targets die?

Converted members retaining their original abilities is too OP.
However, if converted members share a suicide bomb ability, that could work. As you said, the only guaranteed kill is the player himself, so it is possible for a bomb to detonate and kill no one other than suiciding the player if no one visited the house, and the owner of that house visited someone else that night.

Unblockable kill is unnecessary.

Interesting idea. COULD work as its own faction, or as a Cult re-work.

The flag-convert mechanic is interesting. Does the Demagogue get his flags back if his flagged targets die?

Converted members retaining their original abilities is too OP.
However, if converted members share a suicide bomb ability, that could work. As you said, the only guaranteed kill is the player himself, so it is possible for a bomb to detonate and kill no one other than suiciding the player if no one visited the house, and the owner of that house visited someone else that night.

Unblockable kill is unnecessary.

I think he mentioned 0.75 -> 0.65, implemented on 28th Jan.

He was originally going to reduce it further in 2nd Feb patch.

I have no idea what those values mean.

I think he mentioned 0.75 -> 0.65, implemented on 28th Jan.

He was originally going to reduce it further in 2nd Feb patch.

I have no idea what those values mean.

[QUOTE=MrMostache;958242]I don't think they reduced it. What happened, is that Frinckles inflated the points gain during beta testing. A lot of people managed to reached 20k points for double repick power.[/QUOTE]

I checked with Frink. He DID reduce the repick requirement, and originally had a 2nd round of reduction planned for the Feb patch. But after I informed him about the endless repick and leave trains, he withheld the 2nd round of reduction.

But you're also right, the point inflation from beta testing & holiday season has given many players extra repick strength.


[QUOTE=Grakylan;958248]With lower repick requirements, bad saves will be repicked, we will eventually and assuredly end up on a host with a good save or who is willing to just calm the lobby down and compromise on a standard save. Lobbies continue as normal. No chaos, no leavetrains, no grudges developed further as disputes regarding saves were handled quickly and in civil manner.[/QUOTE]

As seen in my replays, this is not always the case.

Lower repick requirement means host has less power. Even if he is willing to compromise, he can still be repicked as long as there are some dissatisfied players.
In a lobby with different opinions of equal strength (let's say 3 groups: Standard lovers, Cult lovers, Lawless lovers), you can pretty much go around in a circle forever.

Tbh I haven't seen this issue much after that day, so possibly it was a trolly lobby.
But the fact remains that it is now easier for such things to happen compared to previous, due to lower repick requirement.


[QUOTE=Grakylan;958248]
2. A repick counter. Everytime someone types -repick or -default, a message should play in the chat, saying "[COLOR="#FFD700"][B]#[/B][/COLOR][COLOR="#FF0000"] more votes needed to pick a new/default save.[/COLOR]". This lets people know that their repick votes are [B]ACTUALLY[/B] fucking working, and further encourages repick trains.

3. Allow all players to be able to click through the rolelist during the setup. What this means is that they can click through the alignment, roles, and categories sections to the left of the Roleslist, and click on roles/categories to see the Weight and Role Options of any role they wish. Hopefully this can be clientside allowing 15 people to seperately see through the roleslist and come to their own conclusions quickly, but more realistically its likely that were this feature be added, it might actually hijack the Host's ability to adjust stuff during the Lobby (which is on him, he's expected to work and tinker his save on his own time.). Irregardless, checkboxes and sliders are greyed out, so the roles and other settings can be viewed but not edited. This will make for more informed lobbies who can easily expose any tomfoolery the host might try pulling, and -repick in due time.[/QUOTE]

I like these ideas. Good QOL and lets the lobby make more informed decisions.

Originally Posted by MrMostache

I don't think they reduced it. What happened, is that Frinckles inflated the points gain during beta testing. A lot of people managed to reached 20k points for double repick power.

I checked with Frink. He DID reduce the repick requirement, and originally had a 2nd round of reduction planned for the Feb patch. But after I informed him about the endless repick and leave trains, he withheld the 2nd round of reduction.

But you're also right, the point inflation from beta testing & holiday season has given many players extra repick strength.

Originally Posted by Grakylan

With lower repick requirements, bad saves will be repicked, we will eventually and assuredly end up on a host with a good save or who is willing to just calm the lobby down and compromise on a standard save. Lobbies continue as normal. No chaos, no leavetrains, no grudges developed further as disputes regarding saves were handled quickly and in civil manner.

As seen in my replays, this is not always the case.

Lower repick requirement means host has less power. Even if he is willing to compromise, he can still be repicked as long as there are some dissatisfied players.
In a lobby with different opinions of equal strength (let's say 3 groups: Standard lovers, Cult lovers, Lawless lovers), you can pretty much go around in a circle forever.

Tbh I haven't seen this issue much after that day, so possibly it was a trolly lobby.
But the fact remains that it is now easier for such things to happen compared to previous, due to lower repick requirement.

Originally Posted by Grakylan

2. A repick counter. Everytime someone types -repick or -default, a message should play in the chat, saying "# more votes needed to pick a new/default save.". This lets people know that their repick votes are ACTUALLY fucking working, and further encourages repick trains.

3. Allow all players to be able to click through the rolelist during the setup. What this means is that they can click through the alignment, roles, and categories sections to the left of the Roleslist, and click on roles/categories to see the Weight and Role Options of any role they wish. Hopefully this can be clientside allowing 15 people to seperately see through the roleslist and come to their own conclusions quickly, but more realistically its likely that were this feature be added, it might actually hijack the Host's ability to adjust stuff during the Lobby (which is on him, he's expected to work and tinker his save on his own time.). Irregardless, checkboxes and sliders are greyed out, so the roles and other settings can be viewed but not edited. This will make for more informed lobbies who can easily expose any tomfoolery the host might try pulling, and -repick in due time.

I like these ideas. Good QOL and lets the lobby make more informed decisions.

[B][U][COLOR="#FFFFFF"]Background[/COLOR][/U][/B]

The lowered repick requirement implemented recently has led to an issue of endless repicking, which often leads to players leaving en masse as no consensus can be built.
See attached replays for example.

In any given lobby, there is a mix of setup preferences:
* Those who like Cult saves
* Those who like Chaos mode
* Those who like Standard setups (933, 8331)
* Those who like semi-Standard setups (82221)
* Those who like certain roles and have those as confirmed slots in the game (e.g. Constable vs DF, Judge vs Crier)
* Those with setups that were haphazardly put together without any consideration / knowledge of balance or game mechanics (i.e. "shit saves")

This is not counting individual role settings like exact role Investigator, unlimited execution Jailor, 99% Judge, etc, which cannot be seen from the setup screen.

Previously, due to higher repick requirement, usually a handful of players in every round will have to compromise.
E.g. Cult lovers who don't get to play a cult save, or Standard lovers who don't get a standard save

Now, due to lower repick requirement, even a minority of players have the power to repick the setup.
E.g. A minority of cult + A minority of non-standard lovers have the ability to repick a 933 save

This leads to endless repicking, which in turn often leads to a complete lobby meltdown. Leave training ensues.

*****

[B][U][COLOR="#FFFFFF"]Solution[/COLOR][/U][/B]

In any given group of people, it is rare to achieve 100% consensus on anything.
While it is important that different voices are heard, at the end of the day, only 1 path of action can be taken.
And in this case, the outcome is mutually exclusive (e.g. a lobby cannot play BOTH a Cult save AND a standard 933 at the same time).

Currently I see two possible solutions to this:

[COLOR="#00FF00"][B]#1[/B]: Revert repick requirement back to original[/COLOR]
Majority wins, minorities conform.

[COLOR="#00FF00"][B]#2:[/B] After X number of repicks, lock-in to Standard 933 / 8331 with no further repicks possible[/COLOR]
Everyone has enough decision-making power to influence the setup, but if no consensus is reached, default to standard.


Does anyone else see the repick-leavetrains as a problem, and/or have any other solutions?

Background

The lowered repick requirement implemented recently has led to an issue of endless repicking, which often leads to players leaving en masse as no consensus can be built.
See attached replays for example.

In any given lobby, there is a mix of setup preferences:
* Those who like Cult saves
* Those who like Chaos mode
* Those who like Standard setups (933, 8331)
* Those who like semi-Standard setups (82221)
* Those who like certain roles and have those as confirmed slots in the game (e.g. Constable vs DF, Judge vs Crier)
* Those with setups that were haphazardly put together without any consideration / knowledge of balance or game mechanics (i.e. "shit saves")

This is not counting individual role settings like exact role Investigator, unlimited execution Jailor, 99% Judge, etc, which cannot be seen from the setup screen.

Previously, due to higher repick requirement, usually a handful of players in every round will have to compromise.
E.g. Cult lovers who don't get to play a cult save, or Standard lovers who don't get a standard save

Now, due to lower repick requirement, even a minority of players have the power to repick the setup.
E.g. A minority of cult + A minority of non-standard lovers have the ability to repick a 933 save

This leads to endless repicking, which in turn often leads to a complete lobby meltdown. Leave training ensues.

*****

Solution

In any given group of people, it is rare to achieve 100% consensus on anything.
While it is important that different voices are heard, at the end of the day, only 1 path of action can be taken.
And in this case, the outcome is mutually exclusive (e.g. a lobby cannot play BOTH a Cult save AND a standard 933 at the same time).

Currently I see two possible solutions to this:

#1: Revert repick requirement back to original
Majority wins, minorities conform.

#2: After X number of repicks, lock-in to Standard 933 / 8331 with no further repicks possible
Everyone has enough decision-making power to influence the setup, but if no consensus is reached, default to standard.


Does anyone else see the repick-leavetrains as a problem, and/or have any other solutions?

As discussed on Discord, currently the Standard 8331 setups are using Ballot Vote, which is unintended. This applies to both Mafia and Triad setups.

Please find attached 3 replays of the bugged setting.

As discussed on Discord, currently the Standard 8331 setups are using Ballot Vote, which is unintended. This applies to both Mafia and Triad setups.

Please find attached 3 replays of the bugged setting.

[QUOTE=Renegade;957999]This would turn kidnapper/interro into a confirmed town kill role. Gov reveals, jail and exe. Too powerful?[/QUOTE]

Ren is right. The ability to secure a guaranteed town kill is OP.

Originally, only the Judge had the ability to force Gov into hiding.
With the addition of Double Flower, that increased to 2 roles.

At this rate, Gov / confirmed Town can forget about revealing or they'll instantly be courted, shot or executed.


[QUOTE=RufusPL;957988]I don't like it. It just forces Jailor to randomly execute more and will basically turn it into a Vigilante that goes through immunities because not executing all ur jails just wastes it. Not to mention Kidnapper/Interrogator who will just be able to execute any confirmed town role through protective roles without any counterplay really.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely agreed. Encourages Jailor to use their executes. Bypasses immunity. No counterplay possible by either side.


[QUOTE=RufusPL;957988]
[B][COLOR="#FF0000"]In my opinion more roles should benefit from slower gameplay and not lynching instead of getting more and more ways to end the game by d3[/COLOR][/B], current Jailor is completely fine and Kidnapper/Interro are already strong roles.[/QUOTE]

There's been a rising trend in OP suggestions recently. Those players need to read and understand this line.

OP roles that can play God / kingmaker and carry the game by themselves are anti-fun. It's fun for whoever holds the role, and boring for everyone else.
Might as well suggest a role that instantly lets you win as soon as you start the game.

Please keep in mind:
* Mafia is a game of [B][COLOR="#FFFFFF"]deduction [/COLOR][/B]- Self-confirmable roles (e.g. Gov, Killing), confirmed feedback (e.g. Investigator exact role) go against this principle
* Mafia is a game of [B][COLOR="#FFFFFF"]deception [/COLOR][/B]- Any role that can bypass the need to talk, convince others, deceive others (e.g. Gov, Killing) go against this principle
* Mafia is a [B][COLOR="#FFFFFF"]team-based[/COLOR][/B] game - God characters that waive the need for teammates and can win the game on their own go against this principle

Originally Posted by Renegade

This would turn kidnapper/interro into a confirmed town kill role. Gov reveals, jail and exe. Too powerful?

Ren is right. The ability to secure a guaranteed town kill is OP.

Originally, only the Judge had the ability to force Gov into hiding.
With the addition of Double Flower, that increased to 2 roles.

At this rate, Gov / confirmed Town can forget about revealing or they'll instantly be courted, shot or executed.

Originally Posted by RufusPL

I don't like it. It just forces Jailor to randomly execute more and will basically turn it into a Vigilante that goes through immunities because not executing all ur jails just wastes it. Not to mention Kidnapper/Interrogator who will just be able to execute any confirmed town role through protective roles without any counterplay really.

Absolutely agreed. Encourages Jailor to use their executes. Bypasses immunity. No counterplay possible by either side.

Originally Posted by RufusPL

In my opinion more roles should benefit from slower gameplay and not lynching instead of getting more and more ways to end the game by d3, current Jailor is completely fine and Kidnapper/Interro are already strong roles.

There's been a rising trend in OP suggestions recently. Those players need to read and understand this line.

OP roles that can play God / kingmaker and carry the game by themselves are anti-fun. It's fun for whoever holds the role, and boring for everyone else.
Might as well suggest a role that instantly lets you win as soon as you start the game.

Please keep in mind:
* Mafia is a game of deduction - Self-confirmable roles (e.g. Gov, Killing), confirmed feedback (e.g. Investigator exact role) go against this principle
* Mafia is a game of deception - Any role that can bypass the need to talk, convince others, deceive others (e.g. Gov, Killing) go against this principle
* Mafia is a team-based game - God characters that waive the need for teammates and can win the game on their own go against this principle

[QUOTE=Grakylan;957932]
It would make the rare 8331 save with the lone rival gang (3 triad save with a lone mafia possibility, or 3 maf save with a lone triad possibility) a bit more bearable for the lone rival, since people can make Sheriff detect the dominant gang but not the lone rival.[/QUOTE]

Seconded.

I've seen some interesting setups that play with this concept. Effectively they turn the lone Triad into a Neutral Evil role, e.g. NE Escort (Liaison), NE Jailor (Interro), Forger, etc.
The concept is promising, but the game settings hinder its execution.

They tend to get a lot of flak because the lone Triad (usually with "Convert to Enforcer if alone" OFF) isn't detect-immune.

I can't remember if Spy settings are similarly separated into Mafia and Triad, but separating them would help in the execution of such saves too, e.g. Spies can see Disguisers but not solo Informants.

Originally Posted by Grakylan

It would make the rare 8331 save with the lone rival gang (3 triad save with a lone mafia possibility, or 3 maf save with a lone triad possibility) a bit more bearable for the lone rival, since people can make Sheriff detect the dominant gang but not the lone rival.

Seconded.

I've seen some interesting setups that play with this concept. Effectively they turn the lone Triad into a Neutral Evil role, e.g. NE Escort (Liaison), NE Jailor (Interro), Forger, etc.
The concept is promising, but the game settings hinder its execution.

They tend to get a lot of flak because the lone Triad (usually with "Convert to Enforcer if alone" OFF) isn't detect-immune.

I can't remember if Spy settings are similarly separated into Mafia and Triad, but separating them would help in the execution of such saves too, e.g. Spies can see Disguisers but not solo Informants.

[QUOTE=RufusPL;957819]How would it work with votes though? Let's say u try to accuse someone through a confirmed invest role but the actual invest won't vote with u and he will probably even try to spam vote other people to communicate. Would be pretty easy to spot that the invest is not voting on his own lead.[/QUOTE]

Silenced votes similar to Silencer? Would prevent the target from instantly signalling he's being controlled.

There will be some limitations to Ventriloquist strategy since the target's votes are not controlled. Controlling a confirmed invest to push a lynch doesn't seem viable to me. Some use cases I imagined include:
* Controlling a player to say sus shit to get him lynched
* Controlling a player to defend or divert suspicion from an evil player
* Controlling a player to give false feedback (e.g. "I was audited" when there's no auditor)
* Causing general confusion and mayhem in day chat - This is a neutral role afterall

Originally Posted by RufusPL

How would it work with votes though? Let's say u try to accuse someone through a confirmed invest role but the actual invest won't vote with u and he will probably even try to spam vote other people to communicate. Would be pretty easy to spot that the invest is not voting on his own lead.

Silenced votes similar to Silencer? Would prevent the target from instantly signalling he's being controlled.

There will be some limitations to Ventriloquist strategy since the target's votes are not controlled. Controlling a confirmed invest to push a lynch doesn't seem viable to me. Some use cases I imagined include:
* Controlling a player to say sus shit to get him lynched
* Controlling a player to defend or divert suspicion from an evil player
* Controlling a player to give false feedback (e.g. "I was audited" when there's no auditor)
* Causing general confusion and mayhem in day chat - This is a neutral role afterall

iirc Frinck said on Discord he has an idea in mind about prefer and will implement it in Feb patch.

He is aware of the feedback and is working on it.

We should wait until Feb patch before commenting further. I don't think there's much constructive conversation to be had now.

Also heckling him is DEFINITELY counter-productive and not very nice to a volunteer developer. He has done and is doing a lot for the community without asking for reward. The least we can all do is show him some respect.

iirc Frinck said on Discord he has an idea in mind about prefer and will implement it in Feb patch.

He is aware of the feedback and is working on it.

We should wait until Feb patch before commenting further. I don't think there's much constructive conversation to be had now.

Also heckling him is DEFINITELY counter-productive and not very nice to a volunteer developer. He has done and is doing a lot for the community without asking for reward. The least we can all do is show him some respect.

There were multiple "veterans" including me who supported nerfing the feature to make it more inclusive for new players without utterly screwing old players over.

There were multiple "veterans" including me who supported nerfing the feature to make it more inclusive for new players without utterly screwing old players over.

The DH sounds like an idiot with no sense of personal responsibliity.

Gives instructions, pats you on the back for a job well done, then when shit hits the fan, blames you for everything. What a loser.

Will need to see the replay to be sure tho.

The DH sounds like an idiot with no sense of personal responsibliity.

Gives instructions, pats you on the back for a job well done, then when shit hits the fan, blames you for everything. What a loser.

Will need to see the replay to be sure tho.

Imagine living life like it's a popularity contest... Unfortunately this does not always equate to the best outcome.

Imagine living life like it's a popularity contest... Unfortunately this does not always equate to the best outcome.

The role in KR Mafia works on one person at a time.

Basically a Neutral Evil Silencer with the added ability to speak through their mouth in day chat using the prefix command "-cr", e.g. "-cr Lynch mayor now, he's culted"

Chat without -cr will come from the Ventriloquist, allowing him to speak both as himself and as his controlled target.

The limitation in KR Mafia is that you cannot PM as your controlled target because there is no such command. As a result it can be obvious when someone is being controlled, e.g. during a Mayor reveal and no pm.

I think this design shortfall this can be easily rectified with a joint command (-crpm or -pmcr).

Imo the role can be pretty strong by confusing day chat. E.g. Controlling a confirmed Town to lead a lynch, making a player give a flimsy defense so that he gets lynched, controlling an Investigative role with a lead to retract his lead, etc.

The role in KR Mafia works on one person at a time.

Basically a Neutral Evil Silencer with the added ability to speak through their mouth in day chat using the prefix command "-cr", e.g. "-cr Lynch mayor now, he's culted"

Chat without -cr will come from the Ventriloquist, allowing him to speak both as himself and as his controlled target.

The limitation in KR Mafia is that you cannot PM as your controlled target because there is no such command. As a result it can be obvious when someone is being controlled, e.g. during a Mayor reveal and no pm.

I think this design shortfall this can be easily rectified with a joint command (-crpm or -pmcr).

Imo the role can be pretty strong by confusing day chat. E.g. Controlling a confirmed Town to lead a lynch, making a player give a flimsy defense so that he gets lynched, controlling an Investigative role with a lead to retract his lead, etc.

[QUOTE=Skrundead;952511]Personally I like the idea of not having to play roles that I truly dont enjoy playing, and I enjoy preferring roles like jester where I actually have fun thats not the same old same old.

I am in favor of a limit restriction on both, as I think that the reward for higher points is an incentive to keep both veterans and new players playing either to enjoy what they worked and played for or to work towards the rewards. The only real problem is when its so many blacklists and prefers that it clogs it up and forces certain boring roles on players, I would suggest 3 blacklists and 3 prefers, I believe this is both balanced and a middleground.[/QUOTE]

A simple blacklist/prefer size reduction will not change the result if there are enough veteran players in the lobby. They will still hog the preferred roles.

Lag's solution to make prefers/blacklists not work 50% of the time is a better solution.

Originally Posted by Skrundead

Personally I like the idea of not having to play roles that I truly dont enjoy playing, and I enjoy preferring roles like jester where I actually have fun thats not the same old same old.

I am in favor of a limit restriction on both, as I think that the reward for higher points is an incentive to keep both veterans and new players playing either to enjoy what they worked and played for or to work towards the rewards. The only real problem is when its so many blacklists and prefers that it clogs it up and forces certain boring roles on players, I would suggest 3 blacklists and 3 prefers, I believe this is both balanced and a middleground.

A simple blacklist/prefer size reduction will not change the result if there are enough veteran players in the lobby. They will still hog the preferred roles.

Lag's solution to make prefers/blacklists not work 50% of the time is a better solution.

I made my point on Discord before this thread was made but I'll reiterate my points here:

(1) It doesn't make sense for Executioner to have night immunity
Executioner's wincon is to see his target lynched during the day.
He does not need night immunity for his wincon anymore than other roles do theirs

Exceptions are:
[LIST]
[*]GF/DH and NK - Essential to game balance and KPN
[*]Survivor - Entire shtick is to survive to the end of the game
[/LIST]

(2) Executioner already has a safety net - Turn into Jester if target is killed
No other role has this safety net

This made 1.0 Executioner ridiculously strong compared to other roles: Can't be killed at night, high risk of people refusing to lynch during the day, and getting new wincon after failing original wincon

As aamirus correctly says:

[QUOTE=aamirus;954193]Executioner is by far the easiest role to win as. It arguably should have “needs to survive til end on” along with this change to make it have a normal win rate. I get people like being the invulnerable gets to pick who wins person but it’s objectively dumb lol[/QUOTE]

As someone who prefers Executioner every match and enjoys goofing around without repercussions, I support the removal of NI.
Let's not pretend 1.0 Executioner wasn't crazy broken.


* * * * *


As for the point brought up in this thread about interaction with other roles:

[QUOTE=Renegade;953958]As NK you can claim or feign exe to survive, it has worked well for me in the past, in case you survive a night shot from a vigi or a spy outs that you were attacked.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Varcron;954209]You didn't read what Ren's point was

As an NK you can no longer fake claim exec (get shot by vigi) then feign that you are exec and that it confirms you. I used that strategy in 1.0 as well and it works fairly well. Without it it basically removes an element of GF/Arso/SK/MM's gameplay as well as Execs own gameplay.

I think if survive until the end were implemented and exec were given night immunity it would balance out the role, as it would potentially force town to lynch them.[/QUOTE]

As Rufus says, players can still claim Survivor:

[QUOTE=RufusPL;954183]Well u can still claim Survivor, in most saves it will be the same slot and same chance.[/QUOTE]


* * * * *


My view on meeting halfway rather than removing the option entirely:

[QUOTE=SuperJack;954262]Night Immunity. But only available if Survive to end is also on.[/QUOTE]

This "compromise" is no compromise.

The role was ridiculously OP to begin with.

There is no need for arbitrary conditions to be implemented.

What's next? NI for Amnesiac until he picks his role? NI for Disguiser until he uses his disguise? NI for Sheriff until he successfully finds a lead?


* * * * *


With regards to existing OP options:

[QUOTE=RufusPL;954365]I mean Judge with 4 votes, 2 courts; Marshall with 4 executions, 2 lynches; Investigator with exact role detection on are also OP roles yet those options are there.[/QUOTE]

This is unfortunately true and I hope the more extreme options will be removed in future.
E.g. Unlimited alert Veterans, unlimited shot Vigilantes, unlimited execute Jailors.

Maybe these OP options can be implemented in some sort of Chaos mode (e.g. "Failors Galore for Dummies" or "Big Shiny Roles for the Easily Amused"), but removed from custom and default setups.


* * * * *


Lastly, with regards to giving people more flexibility in their setups:

[QUOTE=Veliaire;953955]Taking away options to suit how a minority of people believe a role should be played isn't the best direction this mod should be taken. Options should not be taken away. Night Immune Executioner should be a choice.

I think a fine compromise would be leave the role as it is currently in the presets, but give the option for NI in custom saves. Give people their choice back![/QUOTE]

By this logic ALL roles should have the option for NI (and detect immunity, block immunity, unblockable kills, whatever else you can think of, etc), and leave it for hosts to balance their setup.

This is a terrible idea.

The setup system should be flexible - and it is - but it shouldn't throw balance completely out of the window.

I reiterate again that there is no reason for Executioner specifically to have NI.

I made my point on Discord before this thread was made but I'll reiterate my points here:

(1) It doesn't make sense for Executioner to have night immunity
Executioner's wincon is to see his target lynched during the day.
He does not need night immunity for his wincon anymore than other roles do theirs

Exceptions are:

• GF/DH and NK - Essential to game balance and KPN
• Survivor - Entire shtick is to survive to the end of the game

(2) Executioner already has a safety net - Turn into Jester if target is killed
No other role has this safety net

This made 1.0 Executioner ridiculously strong compared to other roles: Can't be killed at night, high risk of people refusing to lynch during the day, and getting new wincon after failing original wincon

As aamirus correctly says:

Originally Posted by aamirus

Executioner is by far the easiest role to win as. It arguably should have “needs to survive til end on� along with this change to make it have a normal win rate. I get people like being the invulnerable gets to pick who wins person but it’s objectively dumb lol

As someone who prefers Executioner every match and enjoys goofing around without repercussions, I support the removal of NI.
Let's not pretend 1.0 Executioner wasn't crazy broken.


* * * * *


As for the point brought up in this thread about interaction with other roles:

Originally Posted by Renegade

As NK you can claim or feign exe to survive, it has worked well for me in the past, in case you survive a night shot from a vigi or a spy outs that you were attacked.

Originally Posted by Varcron

You didn't read what Ren's point was

As an NK you can no longer fake claim exec (get shot by vigi) then feign that you are exec and that it confirms you. I used that strategy in 1.0 as well and it works fairly well. Without it it basically removes an element of GF/Arso/SK/MM's gameplay as well as Execs own gameplay.

I think if survive until the end were implemented and exec were given night immunity it would balance out the role, as it would potentially force town to lynch them.

As Rufus says, players can still claim Survivor:

Originally Posted by RufusPL

Well u can still claim Survivor, in most saves it will be the same slot and same chance.

* * * * *


My view on meeting halfway rather than removing the option entirely:

Originally Posted by SuperJack

Night Immunity. But only available if Survive to end is also on.

This "compromise" is no compromise.

The role was ridiculously OP to begin with.

There is no need for arbitrary conditions to be implemented.

What's next? NI for Amnesiac until he picks his role? NI for Disguiser until he uses his disguise? NI for Sheriff until he successfully finds a lead?


* * * * *


With regards to existing OP options:

Originally Posted by RufusPL

I mean Judge with 4 votes, 2 courts; Marshall with 4 executions, 2 lynches; Investigator with exact role detection on are also OP roles yet those options are there.

This is unfortunately true and I hope the more extreme options will be removed in future.
E.g. Unlimited alert Veterans, unlimited shot Vigilantes, unlimited execute Jailors.

Maybe these OP options can be implemented in some sort of Chaos mode (e.g. "Failors Galore for Dummies" or "Big Shiny Roles for the Easily Amused"), but removed from custom and default setups.


* * * * *


Lastly, with regards to giving people more flexibility in their setups:

Originally Posted by Veliaire

Taking away options to suit how a minority of people believe a role should be played isn't the best direction this mod should be taken. Options should not be taken away. Night Immune Executioner should be a choice.

I think a fine compromise would be leave the role as it is currently in the presets, but give the option for NI in custom saves. Give people their choice back!

By this logic ALL roles should have the option for NI (and detect immunity, block immunity, unblockable kills, whatever else you can think of, etc), and leave it for hosts to balance their setup.

This is a terrible idea.

The setup system should be flexible - and it is - but it shouldn't throw balance completely out of the window.

I reiterate again that there is no reason for Executioner specifically to have NI.

[QUOTE=aamirus;954267]I wanted to smack Exeter for putting his bug question in a thank you thread but then decided to leave it be[/QUOTE]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to aamirus again.

I was replying to Ozy's remark about Silencer (he would be able to indicate he's silenced through votes if it was a Blackmailer) but yeah, oops. :D

Originally Posted by aamirus

I wanted to smack Exeter for putting his bug question in a thank you thread but then decided to leave it be

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to aamirus again.

I was replying to Ozy's remark about Silencer (he would be able to indicate he's silenced through votes if it was a Blackmailer) but yeah, oops.

And thanks Frinckles for your hard work!

And thanks Frinckles for your hard work!

Has the Blackmailer / Silencer bug been fixed in 2.0? I haven't noticed.

Blackmailers silence players but not their votes (votes show in the chatbox with sound notification).
Silencers silence players AND their votes (votes do not show in the chatbox and no sound notification).

Has the Blackmailer / Silencer bug been fixed in 2.0? I haven't noticed.

Blackmailers silence players but not their votes (votes show in the chatbox with sound notification).
Silencers silence players AND their votes (votes do not show in the chatbox and no sound notification).

Is this a re-run? I swear I've seen this episode before.

Is this a re-run? I swear I've seen this episode before.

[QUOTE=MrMostache;952784]Vacron and Exeter presented some good points.

Then how about this simple solution: Label Crier as "Crier" and Judge as "Judge" in night chat.

Exeter says that It is easy to identify the difference between a crier and a judge chat (which I personally don't agree with), which means that there is no point in making them both "Cirer".[/QUOTE]

This is also an OK solution to me.

Ties in with Arrow's idea to distinguish Crier during Court, too.

Originally Posted by MrMostache

Vacron and Exeter presented some good points.

Then how about this simple solution: Label Crier as "Crier" and Judge as "Judge" in night chat.

Exeter says that It is easy to identify the difference between a crier and a judge chat (which I personally don't agree with), which means that there is no point in making them both "Cirer".

This is also an OK solution to me.

Ties in with Arrow's idea to distinguish Crier during Court, too.

I agree with Varcron.

Currently Judge has flexibility in the way they play:
* Stay quiet, risk getting killed by evils, bait Gov to reveal
* Reveal n1, risk getting killed by Town Killing, prevent Gov from revealing

Night chat also allows Judge to coordinate evils, e.g. "Mafia hit odds between 1-7, SK hit odds between 8-15" "Don't target 5, he is Veteran"

This ability is NOT harmful to Judge, on the contrary it is very strong. Judges can lurk or reveal at their own preference and judgement call.

So I do not agree that the proposed change is a BUFF to Judge, nor is the ability to chat at night hurtful to the role.

*****

Moving on to Crier:

Crier is also capable of night chat coordination. Depending on the content of what they say, it should be obvious whether they're Town or Judge.
Like Judge, Crier's night chat ability can be very strong if properly used to coordinate.
"8 is Jailor, Doc on him. 9 is Vigi, BG and LO on him. 4 quietly lurking all game, let's trial him tomorrow. 10's LW doesn't add up, Vigi on him tonight"

Just because the playerbase doesn't use the role to its fullest extent, does not mean the role itself is bad.
While not as dramatic or mechanically powerful as Mayor, Marshall or Constable, being able to talk at night is still a pretty strong ability.

Removing Judge's night chat is a NERF to Judge and a BUFF to Crier.

However, I do not see a need to nerf Judge to make Crier more viable.
Players who are lazy to coordinate at night as Crier will continue to not do so, regardless of Judge's ability to talk.

The problem is not with the role itself, but with the way players use it.
I strongly feel that it's because players need something flashy in order to lend the role any credibility.

In which case, how about a -reveal for Crier that does nothing except confirming the Crier in day-chat or even [B]night-chat[/B]?

I agree with Varcron.

Currently Judge has flexibility in the way they play:
* Stay quiet, risk getting killed by evils, bait Gov to reveal
* Reveal n1, risk getting killed by Town Killing, prevent Gov from revealing

Night chat also allows Judge to coordinate evils, e.g. "Mafia hit odds between 1-7, SK hit odds between 8-15" "Don't target 5, he is Veteran"

This ability is NOT harmful to Judge, on the contrary it is very strong. Judges can lurk or reveal at their own preference and judgement call.

So I do not agree that the proposed change is a BUFF to Judge, nor is the ability to chat at night hurtful to the role.

*****

Moving on to Crier:

Crier is also capable of night chat coordination. Depending on the content of what they say, it should be obvious whether they're Town or Judge.
Like Judge, Crier's night chat ability can be very strong if properly used to coordinate.
"8 is Jailor, Doc on him. 9 is Vigi, BG and LO on him. 4 quietly lurking all game, let's trial him tomorrow. 10's LW doesn't add up, Vigi on him tonight"

Just because the playerbase doesn't use the role to its fullest extent, does not mean the role itself is bad.
While not as dramatic or mechanically powerful as Mayor, Marshall or Constable, being able to talk at night is still a pretty strong ability.

Removing Judge's night chat is a NERF to Judge and a BUFF to Crier.

However, I do not see a need to nerf Judge to make Crier more viable.
Players who are lazy to coordinate at night as Crier will continue to not do so, regardless of Judge's ability to talk.

The problem is not with the role itself, but with the way players use it.
I strongly feel that it's because players need something flashy in order to lend the role any credibility.

In which case, how about a -reveal for Crier that does nothing except confirming the Crier in day-chat or even night-chat?

[QUOTE=Lag;952428]One possible solution:

[COLOR="#FFFFFF"]Each game has a 50% chance to just ignore [B]everyones [/B]blacklists and prefer lists. [/COLOR]

So that way half the games the people with these features get their full 100% benefits, but the other half of the time the game is just true random and new players can have the chance to play some of the more in-demand roles.

[B]Why do this over just weakening the priority of blacklist/prefer?[/B]
If 6 players all -prefer Judge, and the strength of prefer is weakened so each player only has as low as a 20% chance of getting a role they prefer, then there is still over a 70% chance that judge goes to one of these slots because there are still just so many players preferring the role.


Compare this to the solution I proposed where you can leave blacklist/prefer at 100% strength but only half the time. It would in effect be like making the strength of the prefer/blacklist 50% the strength of what it currently is. But because all the rolls are dependent, correlated rolls, new players get a shot at rolling the in-demand rolls 50% of the time. Whereas leaving the rolls uncorrelated could see the strength of blacklist/prefer weakened all the way to [I]just 20%[/I] and in-demand rolls like Judge might still only be available for new players 30% of the time - much lower than the 50% with my solution.[/QUOTE]

I like this solution.

A nerf rather than outright removal is a middle ground between empowering new players and disenfranchising old players. It also retains the incentive for players to earn points.

Also agreed on the method of nerfing. Simply reducing Prefer weight will not solve anything if there are many Prefer / Blacklist-capable players in a game; old players are still highly likely to get preferred roles than new players. Instead, ignoring blacklists / prefer lists 50% of the time gives new players a fair chance of getting desirable roles even when there are many old players in a match.

Originally Posted by Lag

One possible solution:

Each game has a 50% chance to just ignore everyones blacklists and prefer lists.

So that way half the games the people with these features get their full 100% benefits, but the other half of the time the game is just true random and new players can have the chance to play some of the more in-demand roles.

Why do this over just weakening the priority of blacklist/prefer?
If 6 players all -prefer Judge, and the strength of prefer is weakened so each player only has as low as a 20% chance of getting a role they prefer, then there is still over a 70% chance that judge goes to one of these slots because there are still just so many players preferring the role.


Compare this to the solution I proposed where you can leave blacklist/prefer at 100% strength but only half the time. It would in effect be like making the strength of the prefer/blacklist 50% the strength of what it currently is. But because all the rolls are dependent, correlated rolls, new players get a shot at rolling the in-demand rolls 50% of the time. Whereas leaving the rolls uncorrelated could see the strength of blacklist/prefer weakened all the way to just 20% and in-demand rolls like Judge might still only be available for new players 30% of the time - much lower than the 50% with my solution.

I like this solution.

A nerf rather than outright removal is a middle ground between empowering new players and disenfranchising old players. It also retains the incentive for players to earn points.

Also agreed on the method of nerfing. Simply reducing Prefer weight will not solve anything if there are many Prefer / Blacklist-capable players in a game; old players are still highly likely to get preferred roles than new players. Instead, ignoring blacklists / prefer lists 50% of the time gives new players a fair chance of getting desirable roles even when there are many old players in a match.

Some recent suggestions on the Discord:

[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]Anti-Repick[/B][/COLOR]:
* In case of 3 repicks, automatically switch to Default (933 / 8331) and lock in
* Prevents repick-trains that wastes everyone's time and often leads to the entire lobby quitting
* If the lobby cannot decide what it wants to play, the game will default to a "proper" setup (as opposed to Chaos, which is intended for casual fun with little regard for balance)

[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]-default[/B][/COLOR]:
* Currently doesn't work, no setup is loaded when -default runs. If a setup is already loaded, the game will just continue with that setup
* -default should be locked in once it gains sufficient votes. In 1.0, when -default loads a SOTD save, the host can just override it by loading another setup
* Additional commands should be added for Chaos mode and SOTD (if you do reinstate it)

[COLOR="#FFFFFF"][B]Anti-Spam[/B][/COLOR]:
* Block consecutive identical messages
* Prevents CTRL+C CTRL+V spam
* Can be bypassed by adding a character to the end of the copy-pasted message, but it helps mitigate the spam

Some recent suggestions on the Discord:

Anti-Repick:
* In case of 3 repicks, automatically switch to Default (933 / 8331) and lock in
* Prevents repick-trains that wastes everyone's time and often leads to the entire lobby quitting
* If the lobby cannot decide what it wants to play, the game will default to a "proper" setup (as opposed to Chaos, which is intended for casual fun with little regard for balance)

-default:
* Currently doesn't work, no setup is loaded when -default runs. If a setup is already loaded, the game will just continue with that setup
* -default should be locked in once it gains sufficient votes. In 1.0, when -default loads a SOTD save, the host can just override it by loading another setup
* Additional commands should be added for Chaos mode and SOTD (if you do reinstate it)

Anti-Spam:
* Block consecutive identical messages
* Prevents CTRL+C CTRL+V spam
* Can be bypassed by adding a character to the end of the copy-pasted message, but it helps mitigate the spam

Pretty sure this is the achievement Zombie Suicide. It's a known thing.

Pretty sure this is the achievement Zombie Suicide. It's a known thing.

Isn't this an OP Sheriff?

Checks two people instead of one.
Clearly sorts out most roles into "Good" or "Evil" including Neutrals, which Sheriff can't do.

Even though it doesn't specifically state whether "evils" are Mafia, Triad or Neutral Evil, it doesn't matter, it's a safe lynch for Town.

Isn't this an OP Sheriff?

Checks two people instead of one.
Clearly sorts out most roles into "Good" or "Evil" including Neutrals, which Sheriff can't do.

Even though it doesn't specifically state whether "evils" are Mafia, Triad or Neutral Evil, it doesn't matter, it's a safe lynch for Town.

Compilation of all of my feedback on Discord and more, in a single thread.

[B][COLOR="#FFA500"]Feedback:[/COLOR][/B]

[COLOR="#FFA500"]Lover[/COLOR]
* Mid-game AFK Lover issue -- If Lover dies from AFK heart attack mid-game, their Love dies too even if they were actively participating
* Jailed / Roleblocked Lover issue -- If Lover is jailed / rb'd N1, he is unable to pick a Love and automatically dies by suicide
* Potential Lover settings:
[LIST]
[*] Falls in love with roleblockers -- ON/OFF -- May help to address N1 Jail / Roleblock issue
[*] Target is notified -- ON/OFF -- Toggles whether ability is confirmable or not, similar to Witch, Amnesiac, Arsonist
[*] Must survive to the end to win -- ON/OFF -- If OFF, as long as the Love wins, the Lover will also win. Similar concept to Amnesiac picking a side
[*] Heartbreak can be healed by Doctor -- ON/OFF
[*] Target dies if Lover dies -- ON/OFF -- If OFF, becomes one-sided love[/LIST]

[COLOR="#FFA500"]Party Host[/COLOR]
* Consider categorizing under Town Government instead
* Party Host's ability to self-confirm and lead Town discussion is in-line with other Government roles:
[LIST]
[*] Mayor : Self-confirm, additional votes
[*] Marshall : Self-confirm, additional lynches
[*] Crier : Self-confirm, ability to coordinate Town at night
[*] Party Host : Self-confirm, additional discussion time by extending day chat to night[/LIST]* To enhance the Town Gov aspect, consider giving Party Host special text in party chat -- Similar to Crier / Judge in courts


[COLOR="#FFA500"]Godfather / Dragon Head[/COLOR]
* Option to make RBI should be reinstated
* Current meta (933, 8331, other variants) has 1 Godfather and 2 surbordinates which usually exclude Mafioso
* Blockable Godfather can result in Escort continuously blocking Mafia kills until Godfather suicides, since Mafia usually do not have Mafioso
* In 1.0, only Jailor can do this, and it can be counterplayed by successfully manipulating day chat into a lynch OR Godfather suicide
* In 2.0, there is almost no counterplay to Escort endless roleblock beyond Godfather suicide


[COLOR="#FFA500"]Spy[/COLOR]
* 1-shot immunity should be toggleable as Option / removed entirely
* Being able to see Mafia & Triad targets is a sufficiently useful ability:
[LIST]
[*] Gives a hint on what Mafia roles are present in-game (visiting / non-visiting)
[*] Gives a hint on which players are less likely to be Mafia based on targets (unless Beguiler, Actress, etc)
[*] Shows Mafia targets which allows players to cross reference against LW (assuming Mafia keeps LW claim in-line with actual night actions; deviating from night actions can lead to their lie being caught by LO / Det)[/LIST]* Spy is powerful and unique as it is, and it is not exceptionally vulnerable to night attacks -- There is no reason for it to have 1-shot immunity


[COLOR="#FFA500"]Witch[/COLOR]
* 1-shot immunity should be toggleable as Option / removed entirely
* No other Neutral role excluding Survivor has this ability even though they are all equally vulnerable to night attack
* In the same way that it made no sense for Executioner to be night immune, there is no reason for Witch to have 1-shot immunity


[COLOR="#FFA500"]New Town Roles[/COLOR]
* New Town roles generally not as useful as other existing roles
* Oracle needs to die in order to use their ability ONCE in the entire match -- While revealing identity is a powerful ability, the use conditions are niche and the impact highly variable (can be somewhat useful or completely useless)
* Street Racer is like nerfed Bus Driver or buffed Citizen
* Fruit Vendor's ability to self-confirm is useful, but not as useful as other roles
* Enchantress is OK - Self-confirm & ability to lure and repel is similar to Bus Driver
* Armorsmith is strong - Self-confirmable in addition to Protection ability


[COLOR="#FFA500"]New Town Categories[/COLOR]
* Newly-added Town Support category mainly contains weaker roles (as of writing: Citizen, Escort, Party Host, Oracle, Street Racer, Mason, Coroner)
* Current meta is 933 / 8331 where Town usually contains:
[LIST]
[*]1 Gov
[*]2 Invest
[*]2 Prot
[*]1 Killing
[*]1 Power
[*]2 (or 1) Random[/LIST]* This results in fairly balanced Town with higher numbers of integral basic roles, and low numbers of powerful Killing / Power roles
* Replacing a Town Random slot with Town Support reduces open-endedness, which makes role counting much easier & reduces possible claims for Evils to use
* Invest and Prot roles are generally harder to prove, whereas Killing and Power roles are much easier
* In that same vein, I propose the following categories:
* Investigative
[LIST]
[*]Sheriff
[*]Investigator
[*]Detective
[*]Lookout
[*]Coroner (no longer under Support)
[/LIST]* Killing (what it says on the tin):
[LIST]
[*]Vigilante
[*]Jailor (no longer under Power)
[*]Veteran (no longer under Power)
[*]Bodyguard
[/LIST]* Power (easily confirmable roles):
[LIST]
[*]Bus Driver
[*]Spy
[*]Enchantress
[*]Escort (no longer under Support)
[/LIST]* Support (passive, non-visiting, Citizen-like roles):
[LIST]
[*]Citizen
[*]Street Racer
[*]Oracle
[*]Mason
[/LIST]


[COLOR="#FFA500"]Elector[/COLOR]
* Concept sounds useful and interesting
* If ability is too strong, consider nerfing number of possible uses of vote rigging? E.g. 2 uses max instead of 4 / unlimited (if all boxes unchecked), similar to Judge


[B][COLOR="#FFFFFF"]*************************[/COLOR][/B]

[B][COLOR="#FF0000"]Bugs:[/COLOR][/B]

[COLOR="#FF0000"]Expanded Save System[/COLOR]
* Pressing Save button always saves on Slot 1, regardless of which slot you are editing -- [COLOR="#FF0000"]12/12/21 Bug:[/COLOR] Was editing Slot 3, pressed Save button, saved on Slot 2 instead
* -emulate, -max and -chance commands not giving accurate feedback -- E.g. Emulate can roll Escort in Town Prot slot despite Escort being shifted into Town Support
* -max and -chance does not work for Mafia, Triad and Neutral roles
* Elector role setting error prevents some setups from starting, after Elector was disabled


[COLOR="#FF0000"]Spy[/COLOR]
* [COLOR="#FF0000"]13/12/21 Bug:[/COLOR] [S]Spy is still able to see Mafia and Triad night chat, and can see their ACTUAL NAMES, not just "Mafia" and "Triad"[/S] Spy day-chat echo bug


[COLOR="#FF0000"]Veteran[/COLOR]
* [COLOR="#FF0000"]13/12/21 Bug:[/COLOR] Veteran dies to his own alert when alerting


[B][COLOR="#FFFFFF"]*************************[/COLOR][/B]

[B][COLOR="#00FF00"]Commendations:[/COLOR][/B]

[COLOR="#00FF00"]UI / QOL:[/COLOR]
* Additional save slots and save names much appreciated
* Handy shortcuts -- Tab for Log, Ctrl for Chatbox size
* Useful Player number in front of Player name helps identify players easily when many coloured names are present
* Ability to scroll Log with mousewheel

[COLOR="#00FF00"]Actress / Diva[/COLOR]
* Niche but strong ability that requires death to activate, but can throw off Town / rolecounting completely
* Adds depth to the game in terms of deduction
* Thematically aligned name

Compilation of all of my feedback on Discord and more, in a single thread.

Feedback:

Lover
* Mid-game AFK Lover issue -- If Lover dies from AFK heart attack mid-game, their Love dies too even if they were actively participating
* Jailed / Roleblocked Lover issue -- If Lover is jailed / rb'd N1, he is unable to pick a Love and automatically dies by suicide
* Potential Lover settings:

• Falls in love with roleblockers -- ON/OFF -- May help to address N1 Jail / Roleblock issue
• Target is notified -- ON/OFF -- Toggles whether ability is confirmable or not, similar to Witch, Amnesiac, Arsonist
• Must survive to the end to win -- ON/OFF -- If OFF, as long as the Love wins, the Lover will also win. Similar concept to Amnesiac picking a side
• Heartbreak can be healed by Doctor -- ON/OFF
• Target dies if Lover dies -- ON/OFF -- If OFF, becomes one-sided love

Party Host
* Consider categorizing under Town Government instead
* Party Host's ability to self-confirm and lead Town discussion is in-line with other Government roles:

• Mayor : Self-confirm, additional votes
• Marshall : Self-confirm, additional lynches
• Crier : Self-confirm, ability to coordinate Town at night
• Party Host : Self-confirm, additional discussion time by extending day chat to night

* To enhance the Town Gov aspect, consider giving Party Host special text in party chat -- Similar to Crier / Judge in courts


Godfather / Dragon Head
* Option to make RBI should be reinstated
* Current meta (933, 8331, other variants) has 1 Godfather and 2 surbordinates which usually exclude Mafioso
* Blockable Godfather can result in Escort continuously blocking Mafia kills until Godfather suicides, since Mafia usually do not have Mafioso
* In 1.0, only Jailor can do this, and it can be counterplayed by successfully manipulating day chat into a lynch OR Godfather suicide
* In 2.0, there is almost no counterplay to Escort endless roleblock beyond Godfather suicide


Spy
* 1-shot immunity should be toggleable as Option / removed entirely
* Being able to see Mafia & Triad targets is a sufficiently useful ability:

• Gives a hint on what Mafia roles are present in-game (visiting / non-visiting)
• Gives a hint on which players are less likely to be Mafia based on targets (unless Beguiler, Actress, etc)
• Shows Mafia targets which allows players to cross reference against LW (assuming Mafia keeps LW claim in-line with actual night actions; deviating from night actions can lead to their lie being caught by LO / Det)

* Spy is powerful and unique as it is, and it is not exceptionally vulnerable to night attacks -- There is no reason for it to have 1-shot immunity


Witch
* 1-shot immunity should be toggleable as Option / removed entirely
* No other Neutral role excluding Survivor has this ability even though they are all equally vulnerable to night attack
* In the same way that it made no sense for Executioner to be night immune, there is no reason for Witch to have 1-shot immunity


New Town Roles
* New Town roles generally not as useful as other existing roles
* Oracle needs to die in order to use their ability ONCE in the entire match -- While revealing identity is a powerful ability, the use conditions are niche and the impact highly variable (can be somewhat useful or completely useless)
* Street Racer is like nerfed Bus Driver or buffed Citizen
* Fruit Vendor's ability to self-confirm is useful, but not as useful as other roles
* Enchantress is OK - Self-confirm & ability to lure and repel is similar to Bus Driver
* Armorsmith is strong - Self-confirmable in addition to Protection ability


New Town Categories
* Newly-added Town Support category mainly contains weaker roles (as of writing: Citizen, Escort, Party Host, Oracle, Street Racer, Mason, Coroner)
* Current meta is 933 / 8331 where Town usually contains:

• 1 Gov
• 2 Invest
• 2 Prot
• 1 Killing
• 1 Power
• 2 (or 1) Random

* This results in fairly balanced Town with higher numbers of integral basic roles, and low numbers of powerful Killing / Power roles
* Replacing a Town Random slot with Town Support reduces open-endedness, which makes role counting much easier & reduces possible claims for Evils to use
* Invest and Prot roles are generally harder to prove, whereas Killing and Power roles are much easier
* In that same vein, I propose the following categories:
* Investigative

• Sheriff
• Investigator
• Detective
• Lookout
• Coroner (no longer under Support)

* Killing (what it says on the tin):

• Vigilante
• Jailor (no longer under Power)
• Veteran (no longer under Power)
• Bodyguard

* Power (easily confirmable roles):

• Bus Driver
• Spy
• Enchantress
• Escort (no longer under Support)

* Support (passive, non-visiting, Citizen-like roles):

• Citizen
• Street Racer
• Oracle
• Mason

Elector
* Concept sounds useful and interesting
* If ability is too strong, consider nerfing number of possible uses of vote rigging? E.g. 2 uses max instead of 4 / unlimited (if all boxes unchecked), similar to Judge


*************************

Bugs:

Expanded Save System
* Pressing Save button always saves on Slot 1, regardless of which slot you are editing -- 12/12/21 Bug: Was editing Slot 3, pressed Save button, saved on Slot 2 instead
* -emulate, -max and -chance commands not giving accurate feedback -- E.g. Emulate can roll Escort in Town Prot slot despite Escort being shifted into Town Support
* -max and -chance does not work for Mafia, Triad and Neutral roles
* Elector role setting error prevents some setups from starting, after Elector was disabled


Spy
* 13/12/21 Bug: Spy is still able to see Mafia and Triad night chat, and can see their ACTUAL NAMES, not just "Mafia" and "Triad" Spy day-chat echo bug


Veteran
* 13/12/21 Bug: Veteran dies to his own alert when alerting


*************************

Commendations:

UI / QOL:
* Additional save slots and save names much appreciated
* Handy shortcuts -- Tab for Log, Ctrl for Chatbox size
* Useful Player number in front of Player name helps identify players easily when many coloured names are present
* Ability to scroll Log with mousewheel

Actress / Diva
* Niche but strong ability that requires death to activate, but can throw off Town / rolecounting completely
* Adds depth to the game in terms of deduction
* Thematically aligned name

[QUOTE=HentaiManOfPeacesGhost;950072]BRUH y u talking to urself?

Honestly, I think this pronoun stuff is overblown. Trans people deserve to be treated equally as everyone else (to prevent them from mental illnesses and putting them at risk of substance addiction in the future), but this pronoun culture being adopted everywhere is over-represented and creates a superficial environment. I don't see why 80% of society has to adapt to the vocal minorities of the < 1%; same mentaliy applies to all social issues.

I don't remember trans people asking everyone to set pronouns on their internet handles and white knighting these minorities that aren't even asking for this kind of help. No different from Kony2012, the Paris flag filters during the Paris attacks, or local landmarks changing their RGB lighting in some foreign countries whenever tragedy happens. It's all pointless virtue signalling. There are better ways to help these people like volunteer counseling and monetary donations to grassroots organizations and research that specifically aid these people.[/QUOTE]

I agree, I think what's most important is to treat them equally like everyone else, and that there are better ways to help them other than the pronoun issue.

Funding research, grassroots support and voluntary counseling are all good measures.

At the forefront, I think activities to raise awareness and help the public understand them better would be helpful in building inclusive societies. But they need to be hype-beast events to attract people to learn more, instead of snoozefest lectures.

Combating discrimination (proper pronouns, quotas for employment / education opportunities, suppressing hatespeech, etc) is good but imo it's a slippery slope. The public must WANT to be inclusive. Strong-arming them into "cooperation" will only lead to surface-level harmony, but the xenophobia will always be there underneath and express itself through other means.

As I mentioned in Discord the other day, I think the real issue is in the way that people THINK, and not necessarily and solely determined by the words they use.

Penalties can be a stopgap measure in the short-term (discriminatory violence, hate speech, etc should not be allowed), but awareness & understanding is key to combating discrimination in the long-term.

Originally Posted by HentaiManOfPeacesGhost

BRUH y u talking to urself?

Honestly, I think this pronoun stuff is overblown. Trans people deserve to be treated equally as everyone else (to prevent them from mental illnesses and putting them at risk of substance addiction in the future), but this pronoun culture being adopted everywhere is over-represented and creates a superficial environment. I don't see why 80% of society has to adapt to the vocal minorities of the < 1%; same mentaliy applies to all social issues.

I don't remember trans people asking everyone to set pronouns on their internet handles and white knighting these minorities that aren't even asking for this kind of help. No different from Kony2012, the Paris flag filters during the Paris attacks, or local landmarks changing their RGB lighting in some foreign countries whenever tragedy happens. It's all pointless virtue signalling. There are better ways to help these people like volunteer counseling and monetary donations to grassroots organizations and research that specifically aid these people.

I agree, I think what's most important is to treat them equally like everyone else, and that there are better ways to help them other than the pronoun issue.

Funding research, grassroots support and voluntary counseling are all good measures.

At the forefront, I think activities to raise awareness and help the public understand them better would be helpful in building inclusive societies. But they need to be hype-beast events to attract people to learn more, instead of snoozefest lectures.

Combating discrimination (proper pronouns, quotas for employment / education opportunities, suppressing hatespeech, etc) is good but imo it's a slippery slope. The public must WANT to be inclusive. Strong-arming them into "cooperation" will only lead to surface-level harmony, but the xenophobia will always be there underneath and express itself through other means.

As I mentioned in Discord the other day, I think the real issue is in the way that people THINK, and not necessarily and solely determined by the words they use.

Penalties can be a stopgap measure in the short-term (discriminatory violence, hate speech, etc should not be allowed), but awareness & understanding is key to combating discrimination in the long-term.

[QUOTE=Veliaire;950096]What of people who join a lobby hosted by someone with a save they know they don't like, only to leave and start a new lobby as soon as the game starts? Is that a reportable griefing offense?[/QUOTE]

People choosing not to play your save and leaving before the game starts is NOT reportable.

Joining the lobby does not mean they want to play the host's save, they can repick the host in-game.
Even if they fail to repick, they are free to choose whether they want to play or not.

What IS reportable:
* Leave training - Encouraging others to leave together with them
* Role quitting - Quitting right after getting an undesired role

[QUOTE=ikarusdk;950084]What is the rule, if there is any, on hosting a rigged save? When I say rigged, it is when a host clearly gives the most overpowered settings to certain roles then prefers them while blacklisting others.

Do you just avoid them? Do you just leave them?[/QUOTE]

You can leave before the game starts, but you cannot encourage others to leave, e.g. "Shit save I'm leaving, everybody join me to remake"

[QUOTE=ikarusdk;950084]The most recent such save I can recount, without naming any specific player, had given veteran unlimited alerts, and while this may sound like nothing, but when the veteran (host) goes into play, he will most certainly be guaranteed to be confirmed by day 2, and with no evils being able to kill him during nights, it feels extremely overpowered and unfair to others because how do you get others to lynch a confirmed veteran from day 2? It gives the host unrivalled advantage over the outcome of the game and unless evils play extremely smart, you can not win against the veteran.

Sure, it is within the host's power to modify saves and use his point privilege to prefer and blacklist roles, but it almost feels like it is cheating, not to mention unfun[/QUOTE]

100% valid concerns.

Originally Posted by Veliaire

What of people who join a lobby hosted by someone with a save they know they don't like, only to leave and start a new lobby as soon as the game starts? Is that a reportable griefing offense?

People choosing not to play your save and leaving before the game starts is NOT reportable.

Joining the lobby does not mean they want to play the host's save, they can repick the host in-game.
Even if they fail to repick, they are free to choose whether they want to play or not.

What IS reportable:
* Leave training - Encouraging others to leave together with them
* Role quitting - Quitting right after getting an undesired role

Originally Posted by ikarusdk

What is the rule, if there is any, on hosting a rigged save? When I say rigged, it is when a host clearly gives the most overpowered settings to certain roles then prefers them while blacklisting others.

Do you just avoid them? Do you just leave them?

You can leave before the game starts, but you cannot encourage others to leave, e.g. "Shit save I'm leaving, everybody join me to remake"

Originally Posted by ikarusdk

The most recent such save I can recount, without naming any specific player, had given veteran unlimited alerts, and while this may sound like nothing, but when the veteran (host) goes into play, he will most certainly be guaranteed to be confirmed by day 2, and with no evils being able to kill him during nights, it feels extremely overpowered and unfair to others because how do you get others to lynch a confirmed veteran from day 2? It gives the host unrivalled advantage over the outcome of the game and unless evils play extremely smart, you can not win against the veteran.

Sure, it is within the host's power to modify saves and use his point privilege to prefer and blacklist roles, but it almost feels like it is cheating, not to mention unfun

100% valid concerns.

[QUOTE=ikarusdk;950112]I believe it should be removed, as there is no counter play to this. We only won that game because evils were lucky and towns weren't very responsive. But I can just imagine how one sided it would be otherwise.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Veliaire;950113]It's called not targeting the veteran. That's how you win. Mafia wins ties. Mafia can have an interro kill him. Mafia can have a Judge kill him. And if I'm not mistaken, the veteran killed more towns than evils did in that game.[/QUOTE]

Kidnapper and Judge are not guaranteed to be in the game.
Assuming there's no Kidnapper & Judge, Mafia has no counterplay to unlimited alert Veteran.

Mafia can try to kill enough Town in order to have sufficient votes to lynch the Veteran during the day.
However this seems to be an unlikely outcome to me.

If the Veteran is confirmed early in the game, he can collect roles and LWs and suss out the evils fairly quick.
Like a Town Gov except unkillable at night.
That is a ridiculous amount of power to give to any one player.

Your counterargument that the Veteran killed more Town in a particular match doesn't mean anything.
Incompetent players can goof up even the strongest of roles.
When discussing balance, we should consider the role in the hands of competent players.

See my previous reply about Mafia being a team game, deduction is only half of the game, and glory hogs.

Originally Posted by ikarusdk

I believe it should be removed, as there is no counter play to this. We only won that game because evils were lucky and towns weren't very responsive. But I can just imagine how one sided it would be otherwise.

Originally Posted by Veliaire

It's called not targeting the veteran. That's how you win. Mafia wins ties. Mafia can have an interro kill him. Mafia can have a Judge kill him. And if I'm not mistaken, the veteran killed more towns than evils did in that game.

Kidnapper and Judge are not guaranteed to be in the game.
Assuming there's no Kidnapper & Judge, Mafia has no counterplay to unlimited alert Veteran.

Mafia can try to kill enough Town in order to have sufficient votes to lynch the Veteran during the day.
However this seems to be an unlikely outcome to me.

If the Veteran is confirmed early in the game, he can collect roles and LWs and suss out the evils fairly quick.
Like a Town Gov except unkillable at night.
That is a ridiculous amount of power to give to any one player.

Your counterargument that the Veteran killed more Town in a particular match doesn't mean anything.
Incompetent players can goof up even the strongest of roles.
When discussing balance, we should consider the role in the hands of competent players.

See my previous reply about Mafia being a team game, deduction is only half of the game, and glory hogs.

Not surprised that Velly wants to make Town Killing roles OP.

LOL @ unlimited alerts Veteran & 100% Jailor with unlimited executions. I'm surprised he didn't give Vigilante unlimited shots.

I think Velly doesn't understand the core concepts of Mafia: Deduction and social interaction.

Making an easily-confirmed OP Town role completely goes against the spirit of the game.
In the past, there were criticisms about other OP Town roles for the same reason (Marshall with 2x4 lynches, Mayor with 4 votes, Investigators that detect exact role, etc).

Firstly, there's no social interaction needed for an OP Town Killing role.
You don't need to convince Town to vote with you, you can just execute / shoot at night.

Secondly, there's no deduction involved with an easily-confirmed Town role.
Once you showcase your unlimited executions, vigi shot, alert, you are confirmed Town without a doubt.

Under usual settings, you CAN'T solo carry the Town as a Jailor / Vigilante no matter how good you are, because you have a limited number of attacks.
Even though being a confirmed role gives you a huge advantage, you STILL need to be a team player and work with the rest of Town to flush out the evils.
In saves where Jailor only gets 1 execution, the added uncertainty whether they're Jailor or Kidnapper further balances out their strong night ability.

I think Velly has explained before that OP Jailors / Vigilantes / Veterans still need to know what they're doing, or they will just misuse their power and harm Town instead.
That's true - But deduction is only half of the game.
Even if a Jailor / Vigilante is good at deducing the evils, he SHOULDN'T be able to carry the game on his own, that's not what Mafia is about.

Velly fails to grasp the fundamentals of Mafia.
He has said before that there were many occasions when he sussed out the evils, but was let down by a lousy Town.
Maybe he should work on his social skills instead of making Town roles OP in order to rely solely on his deduction skills.

Mafia is a team game.
Anyone who tweaks settings to make a lone wolf viable is a glory hog.

Not surprised that Velly wants to make Town Killing roles OP.

LOL @ unlimited alerts Veteran & 100% Jailor with unlimited executions. I'm surprised he didn't give Vigilante unlimited shots.

I think Velly doesn't understand the core concepts of Mafia: Deduction and social interaction.

Making an easily-confirmed OP Town role completely goes against the spirit of the game.
In the past, there were criticisms about other OP Town roles for the same reason (Marshall with 2x4 lynches, Mayor with 4 votes, Investigators that detect exact role, etc).

Firstly, there's no social interaction needed for an OP Town Killing role.
You don't need to convince Town to vote with you, you can just execute / shoot at night.

Secondly, there's no deduction involved with an easily-confirmed Town role.
Once you showcase your unlimited executions, vigi shot, alert, you are confirmed Town without a doubt.

Under usual settings, you CAN'T solo carry the Town as a Jailor / Vigilante no matter how good you are, because you have a limited number of attacks.
Even though being a confirmed role gives you a huge advantage, you STILL need to be a team player and work with the rest of Town to flush out the evils.
In saves where Jailor only gets 1 execution, the added uncertainty whether they're Jailor or Kidnapper further balances out their strong night ability.

I think Velly has explained before that OP Jailors / Vigilantes / Veterans still need to know what they're doing, or they will just misuse their power and harm Town instead.
That's true - But deduction is only half of the game.
Even if a Jailor / Vigilante is good at deducing the evils, he SHOULDN'T be able to carry the game on his own, that's not what Mafia is about.

Velly fails to grasp the fundamentals of Mafia.
He has said before that there were many occasions when he sussed out the evils, but was let down by a lousy Town.
Maybe he should work on his social skills instead of making Town roles OP in order to rely solely on his deduction skills.

Mafia is a team game.
Anyone who tweaks settings to make a lone wolf viable is a glory hog.

[QUOTE=Veliaire;948931]What is the protocol for adding people to reports? [/QUOTE]

Going back to your OG question, I don't think there's a fixed protocol, I believe it's really up to the reviewing staff whether they notice, and whether they choose to enforce.
Many of my replays have rolequitters and racists in them, who are not punished because my report is for other players and other offenses.
And I don't see an issue with that.
It's just not practical to go after everyone.

If you file a report directly, it will be acted on.

Not sure why Velly is raising such a ruckus about this lol.

It's only "selective punishment" if some people are given preferential punishment after being reported directly and are clearly guilty.

Originally Posted by Veliaire

What is the protocol for adding people to reports?

Going back to your OG question, I don't think there's a fixed protocol, I believe it's really up to the reviewing staff whether they notice, and whether they choose to enforce.
Many of my replays have rolequitters and racists in them, who are not punished because my report is for other players and other offenses.
And I don't see an issue with that.
It's just not practical to go after everyone.

If you file a report directly, it will be acted on.

Not sure why Velly is raising such a ruckus about this lol.

It's only "selective punishment" if some people are given preferential punishment after being reported directly and are clearly guilty.

[QUOTE=JagdPanther;948989]Because the mod that banned me stated "He is clearly bankhacking, and host a save with 2 minutes long night, prompting people to leave." The reason for the ban is bankhacking [B][U]and [/U][/B]2 minute night save. If 2 minute night save isn't bannable, why even mention it? I'm just trying to clear that up before I appeal.[/QUOTE]

I think in such situations you should ask yourself, does it even make a difference?

The primary concern here is the smurfing (permaban) and bank hacking (point ban).
Hosting a save with 2 mins long night causing people to leave COULD be considered griefing (WL / BL) if done with the intention to frustrate other players, but that's pretty difficult to prove.

If I were you, I would focus on the bigger issues, which is your smurfing and bank hacking.
What is the point of nitpicking over the griefing accusation? Even if you're not griefing, you'll still be permabanned for smurfing.
Whether or not it is an unfounded accusation, it has no bearing on the final outcome.

Please realise the position you are in.
You are a rule-breaker making an appeal to reduce / remove your punishment.

When you are begging for forgiveness, it is best to make the other party as receptive as possible, yes?
Being nitpicky instead of focusing on the key issue is counterproductive to your goal.

That's not to say that unfounded accusations should be allowed to slide.
I just think you should challenge that AFTER you clear the bigger issues.
Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time.

Originally Posted by JagdPanther

Because the mod that banned me stated "He is clearly bankhacking, and host a save with 2 minutes long night, prompting people to leave." The reason for the ban is bankhacking and 2 minute night save. If 2 minute night save isn't bannable, why even mention it? I'm just trying to clear that up before I appeal.

I think in such situations you should ask yourself, does it even make a difference?

The primary concern here is the smurfing (permaban) and bank hacking (point ban).
Hosting a save with 2 mins long night causing people to leave COULD be considered griefing (WL / BL) if done with the intention to frustrate other players, but that's pretty difficult to prove.

If I were you, I would focus on the bigger issues, which is your smurfing and bank hacking.
What is the point of nitpicking over the griefing accusation? Even if you're not griefing, you'll still be permabanned for smurfing.
Whether or not it is an unfounded accusation, it has no bearing on the final outcome.

Please realise the position you are in.
You are a rule-breaker making an appeal to reduce / remove your punishment.

When you are begging for forgiveness, it is best to make the other party as receptive as possible, yes?
Being nitpicky instead of focusing on the key issue is counterproductive to your goal.

That's not to say that unfounded accusations should be allowed to slide.
I just think you should challenge that AFTER you clear the bigger issues.
Otherwise you're just wasting everybody's time.

This is such an unproductive discussion, along with the one on Discord.

[QUOTE=Veliaire;948957]This is not a personal attack against you, or even against the mod in question. I noticed what I saw to be unfair treatment and I am voicing my concerns. We all appreciate the work you unpaid volunteers do to keep this community going, but that doesn't mean that you are all infallible in every situation. What really prompted me to make this thread is when the mod in question admitted he disliked JagdPanther and then suggested to me that I should report people I dislike. That didn't sit right with me, and given my own personality I felt that I should speak up. Please don't take my criticism of one mod's actions as a critique of the SC2 Arcade staff as a whole.[/QUOTE]

As I understand it, you have 2 issues:
(1) WEWUZKANGZ's offense was not caught and punished
(2) Mr. Mostache's response to your concerns

[B](1) WEWUZKANGZ's Offense[/B]

The original report was about KuBrofKuSKoC's hacking.
In that replay, there was another player WEWUZKANGZ being racist.

In past reports, additional players have been added for punishment if their offense is noticed by the reviewing staff.
In this case, CheeseJuice was added for smurfing & bankhacking, but WEWUZKANGZ's racism was not caught and punished.

First, please understand the report is about hacking.
The reviewer's attention would be focused on KuBrofKuSKoC's hacking, not other players' offenses.

Second, as you say, the staff is not infallible.
They cannot be expected to catch all periphery offenses, especially if it's not the focus of the report.

You saw a concern with the staff's (lack of) verdict on WEWUZKANGZ, you were told to file a report, you did, it was reviewed and approved.
Due punishment will be meted out.

I don't see an issue here except for your unrealistic expectations of staff to catch and punish ALL offenses in ALL replays.
However, is it better for staff to turn a blind eye to periphery offenses that they DO notice? No.

[table="width: 500"]
[tr]
[td][B]Option[/B][/td]
[td][B]Periphery Offenses[/B][/td]
[td][B]Remarks[/B][/td]
[td][B]Evaluation[/B][/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]#1[/td]
[td]Catch and punish ALL offenses in ALL replays[/td]
[td]Unrealistic, staff is not infallible[/td]
[td]Bad[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]#2[/td]
[td]Punish offenses when noticed[/td]
[td]Will not catch ALL periphery offenses, but action can be taken when necessary[/td]
[td]Good[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]#3[/td]
[td]Do not punish periphery offenses at all unless directly reported[/td]
[td]Cripples staff with bureaucracy[/td]
[td]Bad[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]


[B](2) Mr. Mostache's Response[/B]

You started the conversation on Discord by accusing Mr. Mostache of ignoring WEWUZKANG's obvious smurf and going after JagdPanther for having a 2 minute night sequence.

You and Watershark (JagdPanther) rile yourselves up for a bit based on your own assumptions of the situation.

Mr. Mostache tells you to report WEWUZKANGZ if he bothers you.
When you asked him why he didn't do anything about WEWUZKANGZ, he explains he only noticed JagdPanther in the replay.

He told you what to do if you wanted action to be taken against WEWUZKANGZ - File a report - which you did, which was approved and will result in a punishment.
He explained that he didn't add WEWUZKANG because he didn't notice him.

I'm not sure what else you're expecting from further discussion.

The only problems I see here are:
1. Your insinuation that Mr. M has a personal vendetta against JagdPanther
2. Your assumption that WEWUZKANG's smurf is as obvious to everyone else as it is to you
3. Your misdirection to JagdPanther's "2 minute night sequence" when the actual issue is smurfing and bank hacking
4. Your continued belligerence towards Mr. M after he explains that he didn't notice WEWUZKANGZ's racism


[QUOTE=Ryttun;948986]Jagd, why are you suddenly so interested in following the rules? You haven't seemed to care about them all this time, at least not in any of the games we played together. When someone asked you to follow the rules, you basically told them to fuck off, right? That's at least the evident attitude from your consistent bankhacking. But now all of a sudden you want to sit there and try to sharpshoot the mods and "appeal" over minutia when you know full well you deserve the ban. Just own it, man. This isn't a court of law, it's regular people trying to protect the integrity of a community-driven game. Integrity that you clearly don't care about.

Veliaire, you have a history of instigating unnecessary issues, at least with me. I wonder what your motivations truly are here? You have already been told to join the staff if you feel there are issues that need to be addressed, or make a specific, actionable report on the item. What's your end goal here?

You are both fortunate to have Mr Mostache protecting the game from people that would otherwise consistently ruin lobby after lobby while getting endless amounts of amusement from frustrating well-intentioned mafia players.
You know why I stopped being a mod almost instantly? Because I immediately understood all the grief these guys get from people who just want to sit behind their computers at home and get a laugh out of making them stumble, or are interested in trying to do some kind of "Gotcha!" moment. It's ridiculous, and you're only adding to the problem, Veliaire. The amount of effort mods have to put in to run a fair game is atrocious. And if you really, actually gave a shit about mafia itself, the community, or just trying to have fun in a 'party' game, you would recognize the pettiness of what you're trying to do here.

[...]

edit: also why is anyone pretending that Jagd is being banned for a 2min night save? this is what classic misdirection looks like. You were told you were being permabanned for ban evasion, amongst all the other issues. is your 2min night save annoying? absolutely. bannable? of course not. lets not kid ourselves here. that is not what is going on here and you know it, and it's been spelled out for you already.[/QUOTE]

This man's telling it like it is.

100% agreed on everything.

This is such an unproductive discussion, along with the one on Discord.

Originally Posted by Veliaire

This is not a personal attack against you, or even against the mod in question. I noticed what I saw to be unfair treatment and I am voicing my concerns. We all appreciate the work you unpaid volunteers do to keep this community going, but that doesn't mean that you are all infallible in every situation. What really prompted me to make this thread is when the mod in question admitted he disliked JagdPanther and then suggested to me that I should report people I dislike. That didn't sit right with me, and given my own personality I felt that I should speak up. Please don't take my criticism of one mod's actions as a critique of the SC2 Arcade staff as a whole.

As I understand it, you have 2 issues:
(1) WEWUZKANGZ's offense was not caught and punished
(2) Mr. Mostache's response to your concerns

(1) WEWUZKANGZ's Offense

The original report was about KuBrofKuSKoC's hacking.
In that replay, there was another player WEWUZKANGZ being racist.

In past reports, additional players have been added for punishment if their offense is noticed by the reviewing staff.
In this case, CheeseJuice was added for smurfing & bankhacking, but WEWUZKANGZ's racism was not caught and punished.

First, please understand the report is about hacking.
The reviewer's attention would be focused on KuBrofKuSKoC's hacking, not other players' offenses.

Second, as you say, the staff is not infallible.
They cannot be expected to catch all periphery offenses, especially if it's not the focus of the report.

You saw a concern with the staff's (lack of) verdict on WEWUZKANGZ, you were told to file a report, you did, it was reviewed and approved.
Due punishment will be meted out.

I don't see an issue here except for your unrealistic expectations of staff to catch and punish ALL offenses in ALL replays.
However, is it better for staff to turn a blind eye to periphery offenses that they DO notice? No.

Option	Periphery Offenses	Remarks	Evaluation
#1	Catch and punish ALL offenses in ALL replays	Unrealistic, staff is not infallible	Bad
#2	Punish offenses when noticed	Will not catch ALL periphery offenses, but action can be taken when necessary	Good
#3	Do not punish periphery offenses at all unless directly reported	Cripples staff with bureaucracy	Bad

(2) Mr. Mostache's Response

You started the conversation on Discord by accusing Mr. Mostache of ignoring WEWUZKANG's obvious smurf and going after JagdPanther for having a 2 minute night sequence.

You and Watershark (JagdPanther) rile yourselves up for a bit based on your own assumptions of the situation.

Mr. Mostache tells you to report WEWUZKANGZ if he bothers you.
When you asked him why he didn't do anything about WEWUZKANGZ, he explains he only noticed JagdPanther in the replay.

He told you what to do if you wanted action to be taken against WEWUZKANGZ - File a report - which you did, which was approved and will result in a punishment.
He explained that he didn't add WEWUZKANG because he didn't notice him.

I'm not sure what else you're expecting from further discussion.

The only problems I see here are:
1. Your insinuation that Mr. M has a personal vendetta against JagdPanther
2. Your assumption that WEWUZKANG's smurf is as obvious to everyone else as it is to you
3. Your misdirection to JagdPanther's "2 minute night sequence" when the actual issue is smurfing and bank hacking
4. Your continued belligerence towards Mr. M after he explains that he didn't notice WEWUZKANGZ's racism

Originally Posted by Ryttun

Jagd, why are you suddenly so interested in following the rules? You haven't seemed to care about them all this time, at least not in any of the games we played together. When someone asked you to follow the rules, you basically told them to fuck off, right? That's at least the evident attitude from your consistent bankhacking. But now all of a sudden you want to sit there and try to sharpshoot the mods and "appeal" over minutia when you know full well you deserve the ban. Just own it, man. This isn't a court of law, it's regular people trying to protect the integrity of a community-driven game. Integrity that you clearly don't care about.

Veliaire, you have a history of instigating unnecessary issues, at least with me. I wonder what your motivations truly are here? You have already been told to join the staff if you feel there are issues that need to be addressed, or make a specific, actionable report on the item. What's your end goal here?

You are both fortunate to have Mr Mostache protecting the game from people that would otherwise consistently ruin lobby after lobby while getting endless amounts of amusement from frustrating well-intentioned mafia players.
You know why I stopped being a mod almost instantly? Because I immediately understood all the grief these guys get from people who just want to sit behind their computers at home and get a laugh out of making them stumble, or are interested in trying to do some kind of "Gotcha!" moment. It's ridiculous, and you're only adding to the problem, Veliaire. The amount of effort mods have to put in to run a fair game is atrocious. And if you really, actually gave a shit about mafia itself, the community, or just trying to have fun in a 'party' game, you would recognize the pettiness of what you're trying to do here.

[...]

edit: also why is anyone pretending that Jagd is being banned for a 2min night save? this is what classic misdirection looks like. You were told you were being permabanned for ban evasion, amongst all the other issues. is your 2min night save annoying? absolutely. bannable? of course not. lets not kid ourselves here. that is not what is going on here and you know it, and it's been spelled out for you already.

This man's telling it like it is.

100% agreed on everything.