April 17th, 2022, 07:54 PM
[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.
February 26th, 2022, 01:20 AM
[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.
February 15th, 2022, 10:05 PM
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)
February 9th, 2022, 10:58 PM
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.
February 9th, 2022, 06:47 AM
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.
February 9th, 2022, 12:50 AM
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.
February 9th, 2022, 12:37 AM
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.
February 9th, 2022, 12:29 AM
[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.
February 9th, 2022, 12:26 AM
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.
February 2nd, 2022, 12:30 AM
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.
February 2nd, 2022, 12:10 AM
[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.
January 31st, 2022, 08:57 PM
[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?
January 31st, 2022, 08:12 PM
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.
January 29th, 2022, 08:40 PM
[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
January 28th, 2022, 10:54 PM
[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.
January 28th, 2022, 06:29 AM
[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
January 27th, 2022, 10:20 PM
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.
January 25th, 2022, 08:27 PM
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.
January 20th, 2022, 08:59 PM
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.
January 15th, 2022, 01:34 AM
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.
January 13th, 2022, 10:36 PM
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.
January 12th, 2022, 07:38 PM
[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.
January 12th, 2022, 01:26 AM
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.
January 11th, 2022, 07:03 PM
[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. 
January 10th, 2022, 05:10 AM
And thanks Frinckles for your hard work!
And thanks Frinckles for your hard work!
January 10th, 2022, 05:10 AM
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).
January 9th, 2022, 07:49 PM
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.
January 6th, 2022, 03:14 AM
[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.
January 5th, 2022, 09:12 PM
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?
January 1st, 2022, 08:07 AM
[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.
December 31st, 2021, 05:07 AM
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
December 20th, 2021, 07:17 AM
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.
December 20th, 2021, 07:16 AM
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.
December 12th, 2021, 11:23 AM
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
November 27th, 2021, 10:09 PM
[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.
November 22nd, 2021, 07:49 PM
[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.
November 22nd, 2021, 07:40 PM
[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.
November 22nd, 2021, 07:25 PM
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.
November 11th, 2021, 11:19 AM
[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.
November 11th, 2021, 11:06 AM
[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.
November 11th, 2021, 10:33 AM
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.
November 4th, 2021, 09:52 PM
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y6Z8rkMfUk[/url] - Paopan Theme Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y6Z8rkMfUk - Paopan Theme Song
November 4th, 2021, 09:37 PM
[B]Account Name:[/B] Lack
[B]Account ID:[/B] 1-S2-1-7710771
[B]In-Game Name:[/B] Vincentio the Tall (#9)
[B]Crimes Committed:[/B] Gamethrowing
[B]Your Account Name:[/B] Exeter
[B]Summary:[/B]
Lack rolls Godfather in slot 9.
[COLOR="#00FF00"]D1:[/COLOR] Reveals his teammates (#12 Mafioso & #5 Consigliere) and leaves the game, claiming having 2 SC2Maf members in the match is grounds for throwing the game.
[COLOR="#FFA500"]N1:[/COLOR] Jailor executes #1 SK. Godfather dies.
[COLOR="#00FF00"]D2:[/COLOR] Town focuses on #5 Consigliere. #12 Mafioso requests to remake and leaves the game. #5 quits.
SK and Mafia gone by D2.
Account Name: Lack
Account ID: 1-S2-1-7710771
In-Game Name: Vincentio the Tall (#9)
Crimes Committed: Gamethrowing
Your Account Name: Exeter
Summary:
Lack rolls Godfather in slot 9.
D1: Reveals his teammates (#12 Mafioso & #5 Consigliere) and leaves the game, claiming having 2 SC2Maf members in the match is grounds for throwing the game.
N1: Jailor executes #1 SK. Godfather dies.
D2: Town focuses on #5 Consigliere. #12 Mafioso requests to remake and leaves the game. #5 quits.
SK and Mafia gone by D2.
November 4th, 2021, 12:30 PM
[QUOTE=HentaiManOfPeacesGhost;948807]C'mon man. If you use intention (i.e., context), you can clearly classify what is evil and what isn't.
Slavery = paying African warlords for free human labour to work farms and [sexual] servants to people? EVIL!
Treatment of women as property with no rights or education = treating another human being unequally? EVIL!
Religious persecution = persecuting peaceful religious people? EVIL!
Racial discrimination = discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin? EVIL!
Blackface in entertainment = mocking people of an underprivileged group in offensive ways? EVIL!
Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to black people inoffensively? NOT EVIL!
Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to cigarettes and not homosexuals? NOT EVIL!
Pre-marital sex = OK as long as it's monogamous - NOT EVIL!
Revealing clothing = varies depending on the occasion - NOT NECESSARILY EVIL!
Nudity in media / Porn = is used as a way to express vulnerability - NOT EVIL!
Divorce = THESE ARE NOT EVIL! Divorces mean the end of an UNHAPPY marriage, not a HAPPY one!
Saying the n-word is fine if it's used in a quoting or academic context. Again, it's all about intention.
The majority deciding what is and isn't evil is simply foolish because then the whole world would be subject to the majority's tyranny. If 60% of the world was male and they all support the objectification of women, does that make it ethical to do just because it's the majority?
Tribes who kill on sight - varies! Again as you said, they're doing it for self-preservation, but if they kill an innocent person then they are in fact evil based on consequence severity.
Cannibals - evil! Eating people is NOT OK and not only that those uncivilized peoples should've known by now the concept of kuru and how it spreads by eating human brains, plain and simple.
Y'all need to take a ethics class.[/QUOTE]
Your evaluation is based on modern ethics. However, the morality and thought process at the time may have been different.
Slavery - Slave rebellions were a problem for Ancient Rome and other civilizations, and slavery-related issues continues to be a concern up to this day, so I think we can safely say slavery is an evil act.
Treatment of women - This may have been a "fact of life" at the time, rather than any intentional ill-will. How about husbands who treat their wives well even though they see their wives as property (i.e. similar to a dog owner treating his dog well)? Keep in mind the norm at the time - the idea of gender equality probably never crossed their minds. These husbands were as good intentioned as the times allowed, are they still evil?
Religious persecution - The Crusaders and Jihadists believed they were fighting for righteous causes.
Pre-marital sex, Revealing clothing, Nudity, Divorce - We say that it is OK now, but in the past people were more conservative and uptight about it. Can we say they were objectively wrong?
Tribes who kill on sight - The tribe I linked lives in voluntary isolation and have a history of defending their isolation by force. They killed a trespassing Christian missionary in 2018 who meant no harm. However, I don't see this is necessarily evil. The tribe, living in isolation, do not subscribe to modern ethics as we do.
Cannibals - We find it repulsive, but they don't, and I don't think disease is a good metric for morality in this case. If they don't eat infected human brains, does that mean cannibalism's OK?
Originally Posted by
HentaiManOfPeacesGhost
C'mon man. If you use intention (i.e., context), you can clearly classify what is evil and what isn't.
Slavery = paying African warlords for free human labour to work farms and [sexual] servants to people? EVIL!
Treatment of women as property with no rights or education = treating another human being unequally? EVIL!
Religious persecution = persecuting peaceful religious people? EVIL!
Racial discrimination = discriminating against people based on the colour of their skin? EVIL!
Blackface in entertainment = mocking people of an underprivileged group in offensive ways? EVIL!
Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to black people inoffensively? NOT EVIL!
Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes = using a word that was commonly used at that time to refer to cigarettes and not homosexuals? NOT EVIL!
Pre-marital sex = OK as long as it's monogamous - NOT EVIL!
Revealing clothing = varies depending on the occasion - NOT NECESSARILY EVIL!
Nudity in media / Porn = is used as a way to express vulnerability - NOT EVIL!
Divorce = THESE ARE NOT EVIL! Divorces mean the end of an UNHAPPY marriage, not a HAPPY one!
Saying the n-word is fine if it's used in a quoting or academic context. Again, it's all about intention.
The majority deciding what is and isn't evil is simply foolish because then the whole world would be subject to the majority's tyranny. If 60% of the world was male and they all support the objectification of women, does that make it ethical to do just because it's the majority?
Tribes who kill on sight - varies! Again as you said, they're doing it for self-preservation, but if they kill an innocent person then they are in fact evil based on consequence severity.
Cannibals - evil! Eating people is NOT OK and not only that those uncivilized peoples should've known by now the concept of kuru and how it spreads by eating human brains, plain and simple.
Y'all need to take a ethics class.
Your evaluation is based on modern ethics. However, the morality and thought process at the time may have been different.
Slavery - Slave rebellions were a problem for Ancient Rome and other civilizations, and slavery-related issues continues to be a concern up to this day, so I think we can safely say slavery is an evil act.
Treatment of women - This may have been a "fact of life" at the time, rather than any intentional ill-will. How about husbands who treat their wives well even though they see their wives as property (i.e. similar to a dog owner treating his dog well)? Keep in mind the norm at the time - the idea of gender equality probably never crossed their minds. These husbands were as good intentioned as the times allowed, are they still evil?
Religious persecution - The Crusaders and Jihadists believed they were fighting for righteous causes.
Pre-marital sex, Revealing clothing, Nudity, Divorce - We say that it is OK now, but in the past people were more conservative and uptight about it. Can we say they were objectively wrong?
Tribes who kill on sight - The tribe I linked lives in voluntary isolation and have a history of defending their isolation by force. They killed a trespassing Christian missionary in 2018 who meant no harm. However, I don't see this is necessarily evil. The tribe, living in isolation, do not subscribe to modern ethics as we do.
Cannibals - We find it repulsive, but they don't, and I don't think disease is a good metric for morality in this case. If they don't eat infected human brains, does that mean cannibalism's OK?
November 4th, 2021, 09:47 AM
I think morality differs across cultures and time periods, and there's no absolute answer to what constitutes evil / immorality.
Things that were once accepted may no longer be accepted:
[LIST]
[*]Slavery
[*]Treatment of women as property with no rights or education
[*]Religious persecution
[*]Racial discrimination
[*]Blackface in entertainment
[*]Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None"
[*]Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes
[/LIST]
Things that weren't tolerated may now be tolerated:
[LIST]
[*]Pre-marital sex
[*]Revealing clothing
[*]Nudity in media / Porn
[*]Divorce
[/LIST]
I don't think there's much purpose to put a label on practices of the past, or practices done by different cultures.
People who do so usually just view things through their personal lens, and try to impose their personal beliefs on others.
But personal beliefs are subjective, and are not reflective of the absolute right and wrong of this world (a concept that I do not believe exists).
An example of time-based differences is Agatha Christie's novel "Ten Little N*****s", based on the nursery rhyme of the same name.
It was published in UK where the N word didn't have negative connotations at the time.
This title continued to be published in UK up until 1977.
After which I suppose the "N word is bad" spread across the globe, and the novel is published exclusively under its US title "And Then There Were None".
An example of culture-based differences in morality is the opposing values between Asian cultures and Western cultures.
As much as people on Western platforms criticize Chinese values, can we really say they're evil, immoral, etc?
In 2021, China's population comprises 18% of global population, whereas US + Europe comprises 14%.
If we use "majority wins" as basis, then China's morals are the "correct" one, and Western countries should start their own Operation Qinglang, mass surveillance and social credit system.
I think at the end of the day, our morals and "right and wrong" are what we deem it to be on an individual level, and largely influenced by our environment and upbringing.
In obscure communities, you will probably find wildly different norms.
For instance, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sentinel_Island"]tribes who kill on sight[/URL] - They might see it as rightfully defending their territory against trespassers, we may see it as unwarranted violence and straight up murder.
Same with [URL="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/sleeping-with-cannibals-128958913/"]cannibal tribes[/URL], they do not see cannibalism as immoral or repulsive.
Wouldn't be surprised if there are rape cults where rape is considered a norm too.
I think morality differs across cultures and time periods, and there's no absolute answer to what constitutes evil / immorality.
Things that were once accepted may no longer be accepted:
- Slavery
- Treatment of women as property with no rights or education
- Religious persecution
- Racial discrimination
- Blackface in entertainment
- Usage of the N word, see Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None"
- Usage of "fag" to refer to cigarettes
Things that weren't tolerated may now be tolerated:
- Pre-marital sex
- Revealing clothing
- Nudity in media / Porn
- Divorce
I don't think there's much purpose to put a label on practices of the past, or practices done by different cultures.
People who do so usually just view things through their personal lens, and try to impose their personal beliefs on others.
But personal beliefs are subjective, and are not reflective of the absolute right and wrong of this world (a concept that I do not believe exists).
An example of time-based differences is Agatha Christie's novel "Ten Little N*****s", based on the nursery rhyme of the same name.
It was published in UK where the N word didn't have negative connotations at the time.
This title continued to be published in UK up until 1977.
After which I suppose the "N word is bad" spread across the globe, and the novel is published exclusively under its US title "And Then There Were None".
An example of culture-based differences in morality is the opposing values between Asian cultures and Western cultures.
As much as people on Western platforms criticize Chinese values, can we really say they're evil, immoral, etc?
In 2021, China's population comprises 18% of global population, whereas US + Europe comprises 14%.
If we use "majority wins" as basis, then China's morals are the "correct" one, and Western countries should start their own Operation Qinglang, mass surveillance and social credit system.
I think at the end of the day, our morals and "right and wrong" are what we deem it to be on an individual level, and largely influenced by our environment and upbringing.
In obscure communities, you will probably find wildly different norms.
For instance, tribes who kill on sight - They might see it as rightfully defending their territory against trespassers, we may see it as unwarranted violence and straight up murder.
Same with cannibal tribes, they do not see cannibalism as immoral or repulsive.
Wouldn't be surprised if there are rape cults where rape is considered a norm too.
Reply With Quote