Suggestion for new donor bonus

[SPazZTiK]

Yep, I know, this is in my own self interest but I think it would be potentially valuable to all players in a game that has a donor in it.

Give donors extra weight in the repick process. Just one or maybe even two extra votes worth of weight. I can't tell you how many games I've played in lately where the host has been AFK and we can't get them repicked because other players don't understand how or are also AFK. Inevitably everyone has to leave and start a new game, which during the slow parts of the day can take quite a bit of time. Doing this would also help combat troll hosts.

[Xife]

I think -repick only takes 3 people right? Having two votes for a repick seems a bit OP so me. Not sure though. Does anyone know?

[Admiral]

Repick takes more than 3.

[Raptorblaze]

I think it takes something like two thirds majority. They should also let donors void the repick immunity of other donors

[Lysergic]

Disagree with both suggestions. Too prone to abuse through troll Donors or leaked codes. Donor =/= mod. Donor =/= purchasing power. Donor =/= reward. Donor = donating.

Definition of DONATION

: the act or an instance of donating: as
a : the making of a gift especially to a charity or public institution
b : a free contribution : gift

[Raptorblaze]

Disagree with both suggestions. Too prone to abuse through troll Donors or leaked codes. Donor =/= mod. Donor =/= purchasing power. Donor =/= reward. Donor = donating.

I actually made my suggestion as a way of offsetting the abuse of other donors. I hate when donors create a game (forcing themselves to be host) activate repick immunity, and then creating a setup they KNOW people hate to play. I went through five games the other day because one guy kept doing it. The moment the game started the entire player group would QQ.

[Lysergic]

Yeah, but it kind of negates the point of repick immunity, since there are almost always two donors in every game I play (and they often disagree).

If repick immunity is a problem, I would rather see it removed than some sort of anti-repick-immunity bonus implemented. Plus, repick immunity has relatively small amounts of trolling potential since you could have just hosted your own game and done whatever setup you wanted (using your own repick immunity). I mean, what's the point of repick immunity if we add in new features to get around it simply because it is being used to prevent hosts with unpopular settings from being repicked? If your setup was popular and universally loved, you wouldn't want repick immunity. xD

[Lazers]

i have a better idea

rave party command

[SPazZTiK]

Yes, it's 2/3rds. For a game of 16 people it would require at least 6 repick votes.

Disagree with both suggestions. Too prone to abuse through troll Donors or leaked codes. Donor =/= mod. Donor =/= purchasing power. Donor =/= reward. Donor = donating.

This isn't about controlling the game like a mod would be capable of, but actually about preventing games from falling apart. If you think about it it's actually the opposite of abuse, which would ruin a game, whereas this would save games from being ruined. The argument about troll donors potentially abusing it doesn't hold water because troll donors can already force their own setups on people just by creating their own game and then activating repick immunity. There would be no real benefit that they don't already have.

[Archangel69]

I've got a great idea, make it so it takes twice the amount of kicks to kick a donor, then I would be able to play mafia for once! Seriously, I get kicked from EVERY single game!

[SPazZTiK]

Aaaand my thread has officially been overrun and hijacked.

[Apocist]

I've got a great idea, make it so it takes twice the amount of kicks to kick a donor, then I would be able to play mafia for once! Seriously, I get kicked from EVERY single game!

Kickvote is for a reason.

[Raptorblaze]

I've got a great idea, make it so it takes twice the amount of kicks to kick a donor, then I would be able to play mafia for once! Seriously, I get kicked from EVERY single game!

I've never voted to kick you arch <3

[Sookie]

Disagree with both suggestions. Too prone to abuse through troll Donors or leaked codes. Donor =/= mod. Donor =/= purchasing power. Donor =/= reward. Donor = donating.

^ This

[Lysergic]

This isn't about controlling the game like a mod would be capable of, but actually about preventing games from falling apart. If you think about it it's actually the opposite of abuse, which would ruin a game, whereas this would save games from being ruined.

Until two trolls get Donor codes and start hijacking otherwise legitimate games with fail setups. Going from 6 votes to repick to 2 means that any two trolls can get together and ruin pubs before the game even starts.

I wasn't using the "mod" thing to imply that this is some form of control; I was using it to illustrate that Donor shouldn't be about buying power (or BUYING anything. It's a donation). If someone has a fail setup, you leave. That's the POINT of being able to leave. Having a group of users running around with the ability to take over games and impose their own setup (with only 1 other person who agrees) seems to run counter to the spirit of Mafia, given that just about everything else in the game requires a majority or super majority.

If the problem is AFK hosts, why not institute a new form of AFK protection? If the host doesn't change an option or select anything within 5ish seconds, auto-repick to the next person in line. Problem solved WITHOUT having to add some special Donor repick power.

[cookies4you]

Better idea: If the host hasn't moved the mouse for at least 30 seconds, they'll be considered AFK.

Mouse Moved is an event in the triggers. There's a difference between trololol and AFK hosts.

[Admiral]

i have a better idea

rave party command

Buy chemlights