Super Mario Bros. X Forums

If you know beforehand that you're going to be temporarily inactive, let the host know (and your teammates as well, in case).

I hope I actually get to host this time

I actually have a mystery game for this next sign up.

I think Sanct will win.

HeroOfRhyme wrote:I think Sanct will win.

Honestly, if I lose the Host sign ups for the 10th time, I will hope he wins. (I won them once, and it got locked becuase of not enough people [9/16])

It wouldn't hurt if we had some harsher penalties for people who aren't active. Something like game bans or as Epicmafia does, "vegging out" where if a person doesn't do anything for a single phase, they die.

Quite honestly, the amount of inactivity that goes on by particular users is downright unacceptable and the only reason they get away with it is because they're part of the few people that sign up for the games. If we can hardly muster up enough people for games every time and then we have chronic issues of inactive players after that, we should start seriously considering putting mafia on a hiatus or shutting it down for good.

Games aren't being played properly because of so many inactive players and they're ruining it for everyone. We honestly need to start choosing options soon, and more likely than not most/all of our options are not ones we like.

TNTtimelord wrote:It wouldn't hurt if we had some harsher penalties for people who aren't active. Something like game bans or as Epicmafia does, "vegging out" where if a person doesn't do anything for a single phase, they die.

Haven't we had this discussion many times in the past and nothing has come of it?

I'd be pretty down for requiring people to post at least one per phase or risk punishment (or just death). That could be potentially successful, or at worst show that we need to put the game on hiatus.

Pseudo-dino wrote:I'd be pretty down for requiring people to post at least one per phase or risk punishment (or just death). That could be potentially successful, or at worst show that we need to put the game on hiatus.

I agree with this.

Whoa ... okay, I'm obviously down with kicking people from the game who are unheraldedly inactive for long (2 days +), but I nowhere see that we might need to put the game on hiatus ...

I believe if a person is inactive unless a reason is given beforehand for more than a single cycle they should die for inactivity. Its basically like any other game that boots you for being inactive ingame online.

But I can see mafia being put on hold for now seeing the obvious lack of activity. It is great that users like ShadowStar and Lukas joined but they didnt play right and were mostly inactive. (I saw ShadowStar edit a post for example)

Apparently there's sometimes not much to talk on nights or even days if we're lacking leads and it would be the reverse of the medal if we get many posts that just say "I'm still here", "obligate message to show activity" etc.

Supershroom wrote:Apparently there's sometimes not much to talk on nights or even days if we're lacking leads and it would be the reverse of the medal if we get many posts that just say "I'm still here", "obligate message to show activity" etc.

Only post I tend to make on night one is

"Obligatory I am <Insert color> message."

So yeah, it helps and does not at the same time.

What's actually the precise meaning of the rule "Role PM must not be directly discussed but you can discuss your role itself"?

It means you're not supposed to use your role PM as potential proof of who you are (because of knowing the specific wording of the role PMs or similar, you could confirm your identity as a townsperson among other townspeople or whatever). It usually doesn't matter anyways since most hosts list the role PMs in the game's first post to prevent this kind of abuse (and the rule is disabled in mystery games where discussing role PMs is actually paramount).

Pseudo-dino wrote:It means you're not supposed to use your role PM as potential proof of who you are (because of knowing the specific wording of the role PMs or similar, you could confirm your identity as a townsperson among other townspeople or whatever). It usually doesn't matter anyways since most hosts list the role PMs in the game's first post to prevent this kind of abuse (and the rule is disabled in mystery games where discussing role PMs is actually paramount).

What do you mean by "paramount"?

^
extremely important, one of the main things you have to do in a mystery game

Here's something I'd like to make abundantly clear about games that involve players with votes not counting.

To have an insta happening, you need >50% of all available votes, not voters. So, if you have 14 players remaining and one of them doesn't have his votes counted, there's only 13 votes avaiable, so with 7 votes you already get an insta. However, it was often handled like you would need 8 votes for an insta just because 14 players are alive, and thus an insta was delayed and one of the 8 people voting would have to be the one with votes not counting. That's mathematically incorrect and it can sometimes indeed make an essential difference on the course of the game.

However, those calculations would also give information about Mafia roles having been used (assuming there's a role that nullifies a player's vote). If there's 14 players but you get an insta w/ 7 votes, the town knows that this Mafia role is still alive. I feel like there's no definitive way to do that since both have their problems.

Yeah ... true. As a possible solution, maybe have the zerovoter's vote still counted if an insta happens? That way the moment of the insta happening won't reveal if the zerovoter voted or not.