[FNZ] Super Role Madness Waifu Wars: Requiem of Eternity
- Thread starter Mashiro Blue
- Start date
- Tags get those waifus miku best girl miku>nino nino>miku no love for itsuki no waifu no laifu noi is the only waifu for me shalltear ftw witches are best
- Status
.
J
After reading what happened I have to say from my viewer perspective I have to agree with Ratchet and AL. Why do players always have to break a game at all costs? No matter in what position I had been had I participated in this round I would not be happy about this either. Even when I´d have been one of those town players that got dragged out of the game as winners together with Prof I would not have liked this very much as it would feel unfinished to just leave the game without me having done anything to reach this by myself and someone else decided this for me imo. Guess, Blue wanted to be too nice to deny it although the removal of 6 players shortened his round very much and this was surely not what he was hoping for (I think). Lack of activity from a lot of mafia and town players were another issue again I´d say.
And not to beat the horse here, but even if Prof turns around and says "it's okay, you can give me strikes for this", I can't, because I also have to worry about precedent.
For example, if a player isn't following the thread closely, and submits a kill on a vocal and important townie, causing the town to lose... does that deserve a strike? What about if a player disagrees with the thread than another is town, shoots them and is wrong? You'd surely say, absolutely not a strike, they're just playing the game, right? But then I can't stop the players like Prof from doing something like they did in this game, and then invoking one of the above two scenarios as a defence. So the fairest line to draw is that the moment the host has given something the OK, whether that be a post, an action, or whatever, that action is no longer something that can be struck against.
So how do I avoid the next pro town indie who wants to change their role into a scum one? Not give them the tools is the most obvious answer. Given that this scenario could only have been brought about by something as silly as a wish, the best option I see is to take those away, that we may at least remove the most egregious of examples from repeating. But I don't want to having to start to say "well you can't include this role and this ability in games hosted here", because I personally hate the idea of players being stripped of choice. But that obviously then relies on trust, trust which has repeatedly been abused and disgarded.
I will have to think on it, and I suspect no answer I come to will be universally popular.
For example, if a player isn't following the thread closely, and submits a kill on a vocal and important townie, causing the town to lose... does that deserve a strike? What about if a player disagrees with the thread than another is town, shoots them and is wrong? You'd surely say, absolutely not a strike, they're just playing the game, right? But then I can't stop the players like Prof from doing something like they did in this game, and then invoking one of the above two scenarios as a defence. So the fairest line to draw is that the moment the host has given something the OK, whether that be a post, an action, or whatever, that action is no longer something that can be struck against.
So how do I avoid the next pro town indie who wants to change their role into a scum one? Not give them the tools is the most obvious answer. Given that this scenario could only have been brought about by something as silly as a wish, the best option I see is to take those away, that we may at least remove the most egregious of examples from repeating. But I don't want to having to start to say "well you can't include this role and this ability in games hosted here", because I personally hate the idea of players being stripped of choice. But that obviously then relies on trust, trust which has repeatedly been abused and disgarded.
I will have to think on it, and I suspect no answer I come to will be universally popular.
.
I think this is all that needs to be said and understood
I don't think or read malicious intent on you, it's just there's always unintended consequences to more competitive plays, but you understand the danger to it here
I don't like when games cause legitimate gripes, Mafia should be relaxing and every player should be considered to ensure there's not alot of sour feelings over things when playing just as bros
I don't think or read malicious intent on you, it's just there's always unintended consequences to more competitive plays, but you understand the danger to it here
I don't like when games cause legitimate gripes, Mafia should be relaxing and every player should be considered to ensure there's not alot of sour feelings over things when playing just as bros
Just keep alignments and wincons to how they were intended in the beginning, or how abilities are tuned to it. Any midgame change/alternation/escalation is a bastardization and leads to unethic swings. Like in this game it lead to a huge chunk of townies leaving due to an indie and causing a hole. And there was a single townie left who was acting as a type of sacrifice to allow a third party faction escape for a win. Also there should be restrictions to the size that a third party faction should have, even when other abilities try to influence this, there should be a limit. If a Cultafia is enabled to have 4 members then a third party faction should also not exceed the size of that.
- Status