[FNZ] Role Madness Jojo's Bizzare Adventure Mafia

[Reborn]

That was some wonderful display of mafia by Mafia team

Never seen town getting bodied so badly before

 

[Zemmi]

But too much pressure may also deter.

Only 1 out of 5 songs are good.

Indeed, that is what I was pointing out. I sometimes persaude too strongly for people to play my games. I was just saying I'm not innocent in that aspect.

 

[EkkoLoJinx]

I don't know if this is also directed towards me, but while I agree with what you're saying in general, you don't know what people have told Fuji beforehand. For my part, Fuji was aware of my availability before I even agreed to join the game. I went as far as I could go, but when it became clear that my availability was going to be sporadic, and it wasn't a game I could just afford to float by for 5 minutes every other day, I felt like I had to step aside. That said, there have been cases in the past where players have subbed out because of friction with players or for being suspected and so on. It's kind of hard to rule on things like that - for example a hard rule is pretty difficult to put into play because if someone for example is having a triggering episode, forcing them to stay in might be the worst thing for them and the community, so the cost of replacing them vs keeping them in might be worth it.

I also think with games of this size and format people just have to be realistic. Like as not, a fair few players sign up for the roles, to chat with friends a bit, and generally leave it at that. They're not signing up for the long deductive game that requires them to spend hours reading posts, thinking about them, and presenting their analysis in a compelling way. As frustrating as this can be for people, and believe me I could myself amongst the frustrated, the playerbase dictates the market as it were. If we had 20+ dedicated players who could provide good activity then it would be different. The only real solution is some smaller games, but naturally people don't want to host them, they want to include roles and characters they like.

At the end of the day we're talking about a thread that has had upwards of 7000 posts made in it. It feels a little off to be talking about inactivity there.

yeah you'd probably qualify too.

what im saying isn't against you or the other players, it's more so to aid resource management from host perspective. hosts have finite amount of subs that they gotta allocate somewhere to keep the game doing. you did the host a good favor by playing as much as you can before the period your activity drops. from game health perspective subbing me, AL and saber into slots with near 0 content like (insert names here) is healthier than us subbing for you, muugen and ali who already have some content. if then there happens to be extra subs we can allocate those to you, muugen, and ali in case you guys didn't come back yet after your busy period.

 

[Ratchet]

yeah you'd probably qualify too.

what im saying isn't against you or the other players, it's more so to aid resource management from host perspective. hosts have finite amount of subs that they gotta allocate somewhere to keep the game doing. you did the host a good favor by playing as much as you can before the period your activity drops. from game health perspective subbing me, AL and saber into slots with near 0 content like (insert names here) is healthier than us subbing for you, muugen and ali who already have some content. if then there happens to be extra subs we can allocate those to you, muugen, and ali in case you guys didn't come back yet after your busy period.

Yeah I know what you mean. Prioritising subs based on need for the game vs player need. I kind of disagree though, if anything I think active players who need subs, give the host fair warning and communicate properly are the ones who should be prioritised. It might not technically be the beat for the game, but it encourages the right behaviour, and long term is better than not. Obviously there's a balance to it. Also if someone needs a replacement, but they can't get one because they were active beforehand, it might affect what they were doing to need the replacement. Let's say someone needs to crunch exams. They were active before but need to lock in now. If they don't get a replacement, they might be inclined to check on the site, which just distracts them. I'd rather that player be accommodated, than an inactive who just can't really be bothered.

What I do think though is there should be room to try and keep people in the game. Some subs were made in anger from the player I feel and it has happened this way in the past too, and for those I think room could have been had to explore keeping them in the game while giving them some time to cool off. But that's going to be a host decision at the end of the day.

 

[EkkoLoJinx]

Yeah I know what you mean. Prioritising subs based on need for the game vs player need. I kind of disagree though, if anything I think active players who need subs, give the host fair warning and communicate properly are the ones who should be prioritised. It might not technically be the beat for the game, but it encourages the right behaviour, and long term is better than not. Obviously there's a balance to it. Also if someone needs a replacement, but they can't get one because they were active beforehand, it might affect what they were doing to need the replacement. Let's say someone needs to crunch exams. They were active before but need to lock in now. If they don't get a replacement, they might be inclined to check on the site, which just distracts them. I'd rather that player be accommodated, than an inactive who just can't really be bothered.

What I do think though is there should be room to try and keep people in the game. Some subs were made in anger from the player I feel and it has happened this way in the past too, and for those I think room could have been had to explore keeping them in the game while giving them some time to cool off. But that's going to be a host decision at the end of the day.

fair, i get that it'll be harsh for the player like i mentioned to ali. i think case to case basis judgement can apply here. a "not going to have consistent internet" is probably not too urgent to be priority on the sub list because they can still post here and there without irl harm, but a "have to ace this exam" could maybe qualify cuz them remaining to play can hurt them irl as you mentioned (tho id always say if u know u have something coming up just dont sign up from the start).

can maybe employ something like this as priority system for who gets a sub. the second and third can be interchangeable.

1. highest priority: the inactives that request a sub with a reason that makes sense and is pressing
2. second highest: the actives that request a sub with a reason that makes sense and is pressing
3. third: the inactives that dont post a lot but also dont request subs. they get a warning and then force replaced if below certain activity threshhold. these slots are unsolvable and are emergency subbed to keep the game going, and should be penalized somehow post game. third highest priority can also include extremely toxic active players that require an emergency sub too. essentially this priority level is for emergency subs.
4. fourth: the inactives that request a sub but with a reason that isn't urgent/pressing, can also include those that say say "hey i pref being subbed but i'll try my best until then"
5. fifth: the actives that request a sub but with a reason that isn't urgent/pressing

This somewhat balances rewarding good sub-requesting behavior and maintaining game health

 

[Ratchet]

fair, i get that it'll be harsh for the player like i mentioned to ali. i think case to case basis judgement can apply here. a "not going to have consistent internet" is probably not too urgent to be priority on the sub list because they can still post here and there without irl harm, but a "have to ace this exam" could maybe qualify cuz them remaining to play can hurt them irl as you mentioned (tho id always say if u know u have something coming up just dont sign up from the start).

can maybe employ something like this as priority system for who gets a sub. the second and third can be interchangeable.

1. highest priority: the inactives that request a sub with a reason that makes sense and is pressing
2. second highest: the actives that request a sub with a reason that makes sense and is pressing
3. third: the inactives that dont post a lot but also dont request subs. they get a warning and then force replaced if below certain activity threshhold. these slots are unsolvable and are emergency subbed to keep the game going, and should be penalized somehow post game. third highest priority can also include extremely toxic active players that require an emergency sub too. essentially this priority level is for emergency subs.
4. fourth: the inactives that request a sub but with a reason that isn't urgent/pressing, can also include those that say say "hey i pref being subbed but i'll try my best until then"
5. fifth: the actives that request a sub but with a reason that isn't urgent/pressing

Well like I said as well, we also want to encourage the right behaviour. What we ideally want is, when a player needs a replacement, they let the host know when they know, and then the host can go looking for one. With hard inactives, they aren't telling the host anything, they're just ghosting. I would say those slots are worth getting replaced as a priority, but I don't think it's right either to turn down a request from a player who has done the right thing, and effectively, to punish them for not just going inactive. So I think we have to be very careful as to how we apply that. I don't think there is any perfect answer to be honest.

 

[EkkoLoJinx]

Well like I said as well, we also want to encourage the right behaviour. What we ideally want is, when a player needs a replacement, they let the host know when they know, and then the host can go looking for one. With hard inactives, they aren't telling the host anything, they're just ghosting. I would say those slots are worth getting replaced as a priority, but I don't think it's right either to turn down a request from a player who has done the right thing, and effectively, to punish them for not just going inactive. So I think we have to be very careful as to how we apply that. I don't think there is any perfect answer to be honest.

the emergency subs do get punished post game, and we're not turning down requests, we're placing them on a priority list as opposed to first come first serve bases. basically each host can compile all their sub requests for the cycle and then at the end of the cycle issue subs according to the priority order, not necessarily who requested first.

as for the player who does the right thing - i want to be more strict on this. i don't treat all sub requests as the right thing. as a host you can kinda tell if someone is just subbing because of what they randed or out of boredom or they just don't wanna continue caring about the game for whatever insignificant reason. those should be placed bottom of the priority. this isn't outright punishing them but it is at least not rewarding them for their lazy behavior to sign up then sub out when it isn't convenient for them. we gotta get people to treat these games as serious commitments.

 

[Ratchet]

the emergency subs do get punished post game, and we're not turning down requests, we're placing them on a priority list as opposed to first come first serve bases. basically each host can compile all their sub requests for the cycle and then at the end of the cycle issue subs according to the priority order, not necessarily who requested first.

as for the player who does the right thing - i want to be more strict on this. i don't treat all sub requests as the right thing. as a host you can kinda tell if someone is just subbing because of what they randed or out of boredom or they just don't wanna continue caring about the game for whatever insignificant reason. those should be placed bottom of the priority. this isn't outright punishing them but it is at least not rewarding them for their lazy behavior to sign up then sub out when it isn't convenient for them. we gotta get people to treat these games as serious commitments.

Yeah I don't disagree there, I don't mean to say just asking for a sub should be rewarded or anything. I just think there is a bit too much nuance to set a hard priority system - a case by case judgement call is generally the best route I think.

 

[Yo Tan Wa]

Apologies at @LANJI CUCKSMOKE , had i known it'd feel you with so much guilt wouldn't have subbed out. Inactives stayed in the game till end anyway.

But i was town read and sufficiently active till D3 first half, when i had asked to be subbed out. All the active townies got killed and then it was indies or scums that dominated the thread i assume.

I didn't sub out as scum read/lynchable candidate.​

 

[Yo Tan Wa]

Indies have no rights ahead in the games I'm playing. You claim Indie and you die!!​

 

[Lord Melkor]

Indies have no rights ahead in the games I'm playing. You claim Indie and you die!!​

Why?

At the endgame Naomi was scumhunting more than town.

 

[Naomi]

Indies have no rights ahead in the games I'm playing. You claim Indie and you die!!​

 

[Saber]

i got whacked for speaking out against these so called "pro town" indies i hope worstgen remembers this betrayal for future games

 

[Yo Tan Wa]

Why?

At the endgame Naomi was scumhunting more than town.

Get your head outta ur ass.

Town let her be all game, and she rewards it with 3 town deaths. Lanji fed him initial character name and she dueled him, knowing well in the game state town was - she wouldn't win against scum and therefore -was intentionally killing a town.

She clearly misused town trust.

 

[Naomi]

Why?

At the endgame Naomi was scumhunting more than town.

town would have won if they where active and yeeted ekko when I called out the trails of dead towny After he sub in.

was more obvious when he said I was flipping town like burgers that he was scum lol.

I tried killing him on night 2, shame he was not my target lol.

 

[Naomi]

Get your head outta ur ass.

Town let her be all game, and she rewards it with 3 town deaths. Lanji fed him initial character name and she dueled him, knowing well in the game state town was - she wouldn't win against scum and therefore -was intentionally killing a town.

you mean I should loose while actually playing while afk town got steamed rolled into the ground. Sad for the active town dealing with the inactive towns who didn’t play or just sub out because real life or just not wanting to play. Then active town dieing thx to ekko.


we had gianfi never using action entire game with a lie detector, among other town sub, or just quit.

 

[Naomi]

people wanting me to game throw, I did try to help Town but to many active town died plus misslynches and sub out screwing town further.

 

[Yoho]

people wanting me to game throw, I did try to help Town but to many active town died plus misslynches and sub out screwing town further.

you didn't game throw you just worked for the winning side

 

[Naomi]

First target
’ratchet, after he sweet talk everyone into keeping me alive, he was scum In my eyes lol. At least he helping me with my win con.

changed to rko

voted Jan, no one was interested in his lynch.

tried killing kekko

‘’yoho question to me about being in inactive team hinted he was in scum team with inactives. if he scum i am gonna live longer lol

he a good noodle to me,


tried killing Luka, then Jan next.


imagine if I rolled vig

 

[Naomi]

you didn't game throw you just worked for the winning side

ty yoho