Super Mario Bros. X Forums

Yeah, me neither, it just decreased the activity of both games and in fact ultimately prevented krazykat's game from ever finishing. I wouldn't want to do that again, probably.

PaperPlayerX wrote:Also, I'd like to ask, are we doing two games when M20 rolls around? Like how we did M10?

We're not going to be trying that again unless there is a significant increase in the amount of people playing. We were around 30 active people in M8 and M9, but that fell with M10 and caused issues. If we ever end up near 35/40 people looking to play, we'll reconsider it. That's likely far off, though.

So to answer the question, probably not.

the fuck is everyone's problem with the "dota crew" shit

i havent seen a single mafia game where me, igno, qig, snow, khon, etc are playing and dota isn't mentioned.

we're literally just friends who play dota, its not some special organization or something

it's like saying nickname and gmarinax are the layton crew or something

Nien wrote:the fuck is everyone's problem with the "dota crew" shit

i havent seen a single mafia game where me, igno, qig, snow, khon, etc are playing and dota isn't mentioned.

we're literally just friends who play dota, its not some special organization or something

it's like saying nickname and gmarinax are the layton crew or something

I was going to speak out about that in M15 but I chose not to as I didn't want to interfere with whatever they were doing.

I was going to post this in the M15 thread but decided it would be better if I said it here.

The probability of getting Mafia twice in a row is incredibly low.

This is not true. While the probability of you being a Mafia coincidentally in both games is low, the probability of you being a Mafia given that you were previously is the same as the probability of you being a Mafia given that you weren't previously. All players have the same likelihood of getting a certain role, assuming that the host didn't purposefully lower the chances of receiving the same role.

So, a statement like "I was Mafia last time, so I probably won't get it again this time" is false, while a statement like "Over the course of the next two games, the probability of me being Mafia both times is low because there are less Mafia than there are townspeople" is true.

Joey wrote:I was going to post this in the M15 thread but decided it would be better if I said it here.

The probability of getting Mafia twice in a row is incredibly low.

This is not true. While the probability of you being a Mafia coincidentally in both games is low, the probability of you being a Mafia given that you were previously is the same as the probability of you being a Mafia given that you weren't previously. All players have the same likelihood of getting a certain role, assuming that the host didn't purposefully lower the chances of receiving the same role.

So, a statement like "I was Mafia last time, so I probably won't get it again this time" is false, while a statement like "Over the course of the next two games, the probability of me being Mafia both times is low because there are less Mafia than there are townspeople" is true.

This is true. I've seen Marina and Bloodedge attain a mafia role many times.

Just letting everyone know that finding subs for a Mafia game should take place in this thread. I've probably never specified that before, so now is a good time. If a host needs a sub, they should post in this thread requesting one - having "sub signups" in a signup thread is unnecessary.

Joey wrote:Just letting everyone know that finding subs for a Mafia game should take place in this thread. I've probably never specified that before, so now is a good time. If a host needs a sub, they should post in this thread requesting one - having "sub signups" in a signup thread is unnecessary.

I don't quite think this is a good idea, if a host needs a sub, they'll have to find someone who signs up before the game can reconvene. What exactly is the deal with just using the normal Sign-Ups as a Sub-Sign-Ups after all players are chosen?

Yeah, to be honest, I don't understand this at all either. Doing it the old way is much easier and simpler for the host I think.

Pseudo-dino wrote:Yeah, to be honest, I don't understand this at all either. Doing it the old way is much easier and simpler for the host I think.

Besides, I wouldn't want this thread to be full of "I'll join as a sub"s, it would drift away from the thread's original purpose. Having it in the game thread is way more organised.

"Sub signups" are rarely used, let alone in their entirety.

The thread wouldn't devolve into "I'll join as a sub" because the host can just take whoever replies first. Players can request subs for themselves as well; if a player has to leave because of something like a lack of time to participate, they can (and should, to not make more work for the host) feel free to request a sub.

If for whatever reason we encounter problems, we can switch back to the other system.

Joey wrote:"Sub signups" are rarely used, let alone in their entirety.

The thread wouldn't devolve into "I'll join as a sub" because the host can just take whoever replies first. Players can request subs for themselves as well; if a player has to leave because of something like a lack of time to participate, they can (and should, to not make more work for the host) feel free to request a sub.

If for whatever reason we encounter problems, we can switch back to the other system.

But how exactly is this superior to the previous way? Evwn if they rarely happen, I'd rather have them ordered in the specific Sign-Up threads then all of them just going here, which also would destract from them ain topic at hand here. What problems does the old way of handling Sign-Ups have that this one fixes? I can't think of any, but quite a few disadvantages (like, as I already mentioned, this thread getting posts irrelevant to the main point of this that could just as well be in their own thread).

^
Yes, I agree with everything Nickname just said.

Why not just have the host ask for subs in-game as they're needed, and have the potential subs PM the host?
That's how it works in a few places I'm at.

Because not many people read the game thread who aren't playing the game, so nobody would see it.

This is a thread about Mafia discussion. Discussion about subs in the current game is definitely an appropriate topic.

i see no reason not to keep the original system

this sudden change is like dumb as fuck no offense

i'd rather just keep it in the same signup thread because it's easier for the hosts, and i know that by experience since like 3 people ragequit my game once kappa

Ragequitting is against the rules.

We're going to try this system because it's what we should've (and probably would've, had I specified) done in the first place. If something goes wrong then we can reconsider.

Joey wrote:Because not many people read the game thread who aren't playing the game, so nobody would see it.

This is a thread about Mafia discussion. Discussion about subs in the current game is definitely an appropriate topic.

This wouldn't be used for discussing about subs (well, technically it would, but I wouldn't think it's a good discussion), since it'd just be "I look for subs" - "k ill join" all the time, and that'd unnecessarily bloat up the thread. And if someone is evem remotely interested in getting subbed in a game, they'll sirely check out the game's thread. And I don't think there's ever been an issue bc of that.

Joey wrote:Ragequitting is against the rules.

We're going to try this system because it's what we should've (and probably would've, had I specified) done in the first place. If something goes wrong then we can reconsider.

"we're doing this because i forgot to say this about 4 months ago and i suddenly feel like enforcing this rule"

This is literally the worst rule i've seen in the mafia forum, it'll just clutter up the mafia discussion thread, and it'll confuse future hosts because they might think the people who wanted to sub in for the previous mafia game will be able to sub in for the current mafia game.

There's /no/ valid reason to place this rule, "we should've done this because we should've" is not a valid reason.

Yes, I agree with what both Nickname and Nien have said.